Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 
dafman

4054 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2652

Trusted

  #1687269 13-Dec-2016 19:01
Send private message

Masterpiece: Many architects also have an affinity with TV's above fireplaces.

In our new build we added dedicated room, which could double as a formal lounge...not.

 

So wrong. The TV's placed too high to begin with ...




sidefx
3775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1295

Trusted

  #1687709 14-Dec-2016 13:54
Send private message

dafman:

 

lNomNoml:

 

That's what she said?

 

 

Yep, she said it dominates the room.

 

 

Nearly fell off my chair, thanks for the laugh :p





"I was born not knowing and have had only a little time to change that here and there."         | Octopus Energy | Sharesies
              - Richard Feynman


ilovemusic
1469 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 307


  #1691160 16-Dec-2016 16:20
Send private message

Masterpiece: Many architects also have an affinity with TV's above fireplaces.

In our new build we added dedicated room, which could double as a formal lounge...not.

 

architects and the home decorating/designer folks are deaf, dumb and blind when it comes to av equipment.

 

yell

 

 




Behodar
11101 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6090

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #1691173 16-Dec-2016 17:15
Send private message

Not to mention the AV companies' marketing departments. I've seen an ad for a surround sound system with all the speakers clustered around the TV!

Dunnersfella
4100 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 887


  #1691220 16-Dec-2016 20:25
Send private message

Behodar: Not to mention the AV companies' marketing departments. I've seen an ad for a surround sound system with all the speakers clustered around the TV!

 

 

 

Front heights and front wides are both completely viable speaker arrangements in a surround sound setup...


tdgeek
30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #1691232 16-Dec-2016 20:46
Send private message

dafman:

 

Behodar:

 

Bah, 55" isn't tiny, just small. My 32" seemed huge when I got it but now it feels tiny in comparison to my 105" home theatre... tongue-out

 

 

I remember spending $3.5k on my 29" CRT Panasonic in the late 80's - it was HUGE, the first movie I watched was Lost Boys, it was just like being in the cinema!

 

Then Philips bought out a 32" 16:9 CRT, even better than my Panny, I so wanted one. It was HUGE!

 

My Panasonic TH 42PV500 at a mere $5.7k replaced my 29" CRT. When it was pulled out of the box, I could't comprehend how big it was. I watched the first entire season of Sopranos on the first night. It was just like being at the cinema!

 

Shortly after, I auditioned a 50" NEC plamsa, my ultimate dream - but at a mere $12k (reduced in price from $17k) it was just too rich in price, so I could only dream.

 

And yesterday I took possession of my new Sony 55".

 

And it's tiny!

 

How times change.

 

 

I remember my Sony $3500 34" Gorgeous. But for you, the percentage difference in real estate from a 55 to 65 is huge. 


 
 
 

Support Geekzone with one-off or recurring donations Donate via PressPatron.
tdgeek
30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #1691242 16-Dec-2016 20:50
Send private message

joker97:

 

Ah women. If I can do math: 65 = huge 55 = tiny ... get her a 60" 

 

 

In winter its smaller :-)


blakamin
4431 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1306
Inactive user


  #1691244 16-Dec-2016 20:52
Send private message

tdgeek:

 

dafman:

 

Behodar:

 

Bah, 55" isn't tiny, just small. My 32" seemed huge when I got it but now it feels tiny in comparison to my 105" home theatre... tongue-out

 

 

I remember spending $3.5k on my 29" CRT Panasonic in the late 80's - it was HUGE, the first movie I watched was Lost Boys, it was just like being in the cinema!

 

Then Philips bought out a 32" 16:9 CRT, even better than my Panny, I so wanted one. It was HUGE!

 

My Panasonic TH 42PV500 at a mere $5.7k replaced my 29" CRT. When it was pulled out of the box, I could't comprehend how big it was. I watched the first entire season of Sopranos on the first night. It was just like being at the cinema!

 

Shortly after, I auditioned a 50" NEC plamsa, my ultimate dream - but at a mere $12k (reduced in price from $17k) it was just too rich in price, so I could only dream.

 

And yesterday I took possession of my new Sony 55".

 

And it's tiny!

 

How times change.

 

 

I remember my Sony $3500 34" Gorgeous. But for you, the percentage difference in real estate from a 55 to 65 is huge. 

 

 

A guy I worked with had no Mrs... but a 40" Mitsubishi CRT....

 

I was blown away, especially after paying $1000 for my Samsung(IIRC?) 29" and my Yamaha amp, and a DVD player that cost me $800 (in Oz in the late 90's)


tdgeek
30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #1691245 16-Dec-2016 20:52
Send private message

MikeB4:

 

I have often though our 65" VT Panasonic is a bit big. Should it pass from this world we will probably down size the screen a little.

 

 

Bigger is better IF the res is a great experience. If it was and its too big, a curtain etc might normalise the living room. 


1 | 2 
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic








Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.