how large a flat panel tv do you need ?

[renovation]

Mitsubishi WD92840
92" 120Hz 1080p DLP 3D HDTV -Sale Price:$5,499.00


New 92" Screen Size
16 Speaker Immersive Sound
Center Channel Mode
Surround Preouts
Variable Subwoofer Output
Bluetooth® Audio Streaming
ISFccc® Advanced Adjustments
4 HDMI Inputs

https://www.paulstv.com/DLP-Televisi...hi-WD92840.asp
my 42 inch works just fine for my needs thank you. it was like 10 % of what this monster sells for .for the bedroom i be looking for a 24 -26 inch when the old tube unit die's.
__________________

[Napoleon54]

Jeebus, that's gigantic. The link crapped out but this one is working: http://www.paulstv.com/DLP-Televisions/Mitsubishi-WD92840.asp

[Thesifer]

That would be awesome. I currently have a 65" but it always seems small. Could always upgrade! But not at that price and would never buy a DLP no matter how big it might be. Yuck.

[cruelpupet]

Depends on the purpose and the size of the room.

Currently Im back on my 26" screen, which is a smidge too small from the opposite side of the room. GF has a 37" which I find to be the largest Id want to deal with in the living room size I have.

[attgig]

DLP's are cheaper to go big. they have 70some inches for under 2k.

if a 92" dlp's 5.5k, i don't want to know how much a plasma or lcd would be...


and how big do you really need?
http://www.gotapex.com/home-theater-equipment/46982-suggested-minimum-viewing-widths-for-your-home.html

http://www.gotapex.com/home-theater-equipment/46982-suggested-minimum-viewing-widths-for-your-home.html

[Thesifer]

I put my Couch about 8 feet back from the TV, and it's 65" and I love it. Although it seems small at times.

[DarkFury]

I'd love a ginormous screen like that, however DLP kills the deal for me.

I just can't deal with the bulb issues... bad experience with my last DLP will keep me from ever owning another one.

Now if they ever make a 92 inch LCD... for a reasonable price. I will find a way to hang it on my wall. :D

[gwilks98]

Now if they ever make a 92 inch LCD... for a reasonable price. I will find a way to hang it on my wall. :D


:stupid:

After my last theater experience, if I can fit a screen to simulate going to the movies in my house, I'm game.

[cruelpupet]

Just moved up from a 26" to a 37", and the difference is massive.

[DarkFury]

Just moved up from a 26" to a 37", and the difference is massive.
Wow... well just wait until you get over 50" on a TV. LOL

[Napoleon54]

I still have no interest in owning a TV. The trend over the past 5-6yrs or so of spending thousands of dollars on gigantic screens is a great symbol of our gluttony and excess. It represents all the reasons why American culture, with all its consumerism and arrogance, is failing fast.

10-20yrs ago the average household would think it absurd to spend that kind of money (in terms of % of income to account for inflation) on TVs and monthly cable/ satellite service. Nowadays it's the norm, and IMHO it is obscene. We've got a government that spends nearly twice what it takes in. Health care system in shambles. Double-dip recession, high unemployment, rampant inflation. Yet the majority of households are paying, what... $60? $80? $100+ per month (or $720, $960, $1200/yr?) to have mindless, cult of ego, pop culture streamed directly to these monsterous screens?

Cell phones, new cars, big houses... same story, spend spend spend. We've definitely earned what we're getting: the rapid downward trajectory of our society.

I mean, seriously... arguing the virtues of DLP vs LCD, 65" vs 90", etc, is like debating soylent green vs soylent yellow, or soma granules versus soma tablets.

[cruelpupet]

Wow... well just wait until you get over 50" on a TV. LOL

I dont think I'll ever get to that point. The 37" is a nice size and its almost too big for the wall its on (64" wide). I dont think i'd ever go much beyond 42", and I only say 42 as its a common size and probably cheaper than 34-37"

In the near future the defunct airshaft that's in that wall will be removed and a wooden window between the two rooms will be put in (for light/airflow) and then the 37" will be too big. A 32" would fit perfect there though.

[cruelpupet]

I still have no interest in owning a TV. The trend over the past 5-6yrs or so of spending thousands of dollars on gigantic screens is a great symbol of our gluttony and excess. It represents all the reasons why American culture, with all its consumerism and arrogance, is failing fast.

But I assume you still watch movies on something. Perhaps an LCD monitor which is the same thing. The thread is about TV sizes not TV content and Im sure others here besides me have ditched the cable and have it connected to their PC.

On the content side of things, its what you choose to watch and concentrate on. You can choose to tune into
- the Jersey Shore and watch Mike give himself a concussion before a fight starts
- an interesting hour long show on what we've recently learned about Stone Henge on PBS.org
- a 3 part series on the history of Chemistry from the BBC which was absolutely amazing.

Or you can do all three!




10-20yrs ago the average household would think it absurd to spend that kind of money (in terms of % of income to account for inflation) on TVs and monthly cable/ satellite service. Nowadays it's the norm, and IMHO it is obscene.

I would say that it's still seen as somewhat absurd, although not nearly as much since these "luxury" goods are now affordable to the average household.

Ignoring inflation 55"-65" projection TVs back when i was in HS were $9000+ Which makes these "luxury" items very cheap which is how technology tends to trend.



I wont comment on the rest it belongs in either financial or politics

[DarkFury]

<ranting>

10-20yrs ago the average household would think it absurd to spend that kind of money (in terms of % of income to account for inflation) on TVs and monthly cable/ satellite service. Nowadays it's the norm, and IMHO it is obscene.

<more political/social ranting...>

Geez... lighten up some there Nap. This is not the Political forum you know.

BTW... 20 years ago, I paid about $900 for a Mitsubishi 32" TV. Honestly, technology today I can get a similar sized TV for less than 1/3 of that. For some of us, just watching TV at home versus going out and spending a lot more on other entertainment things is just the choice we make... or should everyone just go to work till sundown then go to bed waking up the next morning and going back to work (so that we can eek out a meager existence...) You might as well be arguing why decent cars today cost over $30K+ whereas 20 years ago you could buy a decent car for under $20K.... and some folks spend in excess of $50K for a vehicle these days. It just depends... still the size of your TV is not always that indicative of how much is spent to acquire it.

Seriously... but if you wanna wallow in your darkness, then go right on ahead. Just don't try to drag everyone else down with you on that (especially in a NON POLITICAL forum. Here is not the place for that. Feel free to start a thread over in the Political forum if you feel so inclined.)

[DarkFury]

I dont think I'll ever get to that point. The 37" is a nice size and its almost too big for the wall its on (64" wide). I dont think i'd ever go much beyond 42", and I only say 42 as its a common size and probably cheaper than 34-37"

In the near future the defunct airshaft that's in that wall will be removed and a wooden window between the two rooms will be put in (for light/airflow) and then the 37" will be too big. A 32" would fit perfect there though.
Unless your room size is less than 10' x 10'... well a 37" is barely cutting it (just my opinion...) But hey, as long as you are happy with it, that's all that matters. Right? :D

[cruelpupet]

Unless your room size is less than 10' x 10'... well a 37" is barely cutting it (just my opinion...) But hey, as long as you are happy with it, that's all that matters. Right? :D


The largest room is 15x12 (bedroom) and the living room which is where the TV is, is 12x9. So I'm not too far off from what you said.

[DarkFury]

Honestly, I have a 60" TV in a room that is 12 x 15 and it doesn't look out of place at all. But then again, I like to have the "movie theater" feel in my primary viewing room. I wouldn't do that big of a TV in a bedroom however. 40" would do nicely up there. :D

[cruelpupet]

I wouldn't do that big of a TV in a bedroom however. 40" would do nicely up there. :D


I'm 100% against having a TV in the bedroom. I kinda feel like it kills the purpose of the room.

[Napoleon54]

I'm 100% against having a TV in the bedroom. I kinda feel like it kills the purpose of the room.

I'm 100% against having a TV anywhere. I kinda feel like it kills the purpose of LIFE.

[Napoleon54]

For some of us, just watching TV at home versus going out and spending a lot more on other entertainment things is just the choice we make... Do you assume I spend all my time in bars, clubs, movie theaters, sports arenas or something? I don't spend that kind of money on any sort of entertainment.


or should everyone just go to work till sundown then go to bed waking up the next morning and going back to work (so that we can eek out a meager existence...) No. Apparently you think it is rational to do this for the sake of feeding your entertainment habit? "Eek out a meager existence" doesn't apply to someone who was able to pay $900 for a TV 20yrs ago. I dunno why you think you can get off with playing the "poor me, woe is me, pity my hardship" card all the time when obviously you're not living in the gutter... not with the car, truck, motorcycle, house full of TVs that you're always posting about. Seriously, how can you not see the disconnect between the two images you switch between so easily? One being the "look at all my toys" and the other being "I'm poor and oppressed, The Man's always keepin' me down". It just doesn't jive, you can't have your cake and eat it too, dude. Which one are you?

[Napoleon54]

BTW, I'm just replying to the title of the thread.

Q: How large a flat panel TV do you need?

A: I don't need or want any sort of thing, and here's why [insert rant].

Sorry to disappoint you, but the world doesn't always fall into neat little buckets with titles such as "Home Theater Equipment Forum" or "Political Forum".

[gwilks98]

BTW, I'm just replying to the title of the thread.

Q: How large a flat panel TV do you need?

A: I don't need or want any sort of thing, and here's why [insert rant].

Sorry to disappoint you, but the world doesn't always fall into neat little buckets with titles such as "Home Theater Equipment Forum" or "Political Forum".


You're following the letter of the thread, but not the spirit of it. Besides, I could take your logic and follow it until you're shoeing horses and living with the Amish if you want to break down the semantics of overspending and luxury.

[DarkFury]

Do you assume I spend all my time in bars, clubs, movie theaters, sports arenas or something? I don't spend that kind of money on any sort of entertainment.

No. Apparently you think it is rational to do this for the sake of feeding your entertainment habit? "Eek out a meager existence" doesn't apply to someone who was able to pay $900 for a TV 20yrs ago. I dunno why you think you can get off with playing the "poor me, woe is me, pity my hardship" card all the time when obviously you're not living in the gutter... not with the car, truck, motorcycle, house full of TVs that you're always posting about. Seriously, how can you not see the disconnect between the two images you switch between so easily? One being the "look at all my toys" and the other being "I'm poor and oppressed, The Man's always keepin' me down". It just doesn't jive, you can't have your cake and eat it too, dude. Which one are you?
Seriously...

You cry moar... seriously. Go back to the Politics forum. That's the place for your ranting. Not Home Theater Entertainment.

It's like you just want someone to play with you or something... sheesh.

[DarkFury]

BTW, I'm just replying to the title of the thread.

Q: How large a flat panel TV do you need?

A: I don't need or want any sort of thing, and here's why [insert rant].

Sorry to disappoint you, but the world doesn't always fall into neat little buckets with titles such as "Home Theater Equipment Forum" or "Political Forum".
If that was ALL you had to say, then nobody would be commenting on your moody @ss rants...

Seriously, smell yourself, your sh@t stinks like everyone else's. At least we know the proper places where to drop our loads.

Apex made the rules here and that's why the Politics forum was put there for a reason so you could vent your frustrations. Now with that said, you've already crapped on this thread enough. If you can't realize that, then none of us can help you see it.

It would be nice for a MOD to come in here and tell you the same, but honestly I haven't seen many of them around in a bit.

[cruelpupet]

But then again, I like to have the "movie theater" feel in my primary viewing room.

:points: DF said it himself people.

Lets all pile into his living room, talk loudly, spill soda on his seats/floors, and miss the toilet when we use his bathroom.

[DarkFury]

Hee hee... c'mon over! First come, first served! LOL

But yeah... in my "dream home" (probably just a fantasy home), I'd have a basement where I could have a projection screen/wall to shoot movies just like they do in the theaters.

Honestly, I would just love something like that. I remember way back when... when Apex was setting up his home theater setup. So much to drool over.

Unfortunately, I don't have that kind of space in my house, so pretty much I replicate it within my means with the 60" TV. It works nicely... especially when I dim the lights (theater style). My only issue is that during the day my family room gets just way too much ambient light from the sliding patio door. Even with darkened blinds too much light still seeps in... but alas, we do what we can. :D

[Napoleon54]

You're following the letter of the thread, but not the spirit of it. Besides, I could take your logic and follow it until you're shoeing horses and living with the Amish if you want to break down the semantics of overspending and luxury.

The Amish don't have ANY sort of TV and I'd bet dollars to donuts that on average they're much happier than the sorry lot of rotten-brain pop culture zombies that you and I keep company with. Look at all the kids they got, they gotta be gettin' laid ALL THE TIME.


your premise: QED. that was too easy.

[attgig]

20 years ago, i bet most of america would've thought it would be absurd to pay 50+ bucks EVERY MONTH on something called the internet. who would want or need to play that much money a month for my computer to talk to another computer? people should just dial into their local bbs and pay their phone company the few cents for the phone call.

stupid fat and glutinous future america...

[DarkFury]

20 years ago, i bet most of america would've thought it would be absurd to pay 50+ bucks EVERY MONTH on something called the internet. who would want or need to play that much money a month for my computer to talk to another computer? people should just dial into their local bbs and pay their phone company the few cents for the phone call.

stupid fat and glutinous future america...
20 years ago, people probably paid $300+ per month on long distance phone bills. However unlimited cell phone calling probably has eliminated most of that for all but the few who absolutely must talk for hours during daytime calling periods.

Things just change over time. BTW... as a funny story, I had a friend who about 30 years ago got his 300 baud modem thrown away because he ran up a $500+ phone bill for connecting to some long distance BBS bulletin boards from his Commodore 64 computer. Man, he was crying a river when his Mom did that. :heh:

[Napoleon54]

FWIW, if internet was gonna cost me $50 a month I wouldn't have it.

The most I've ever paid for internet was a $8/mo dial-up account that I terminated in 2007. From then until last month, I had a generous neighbor who let me use his wireless broadband. The apartment I moved into 3 weeks ago has the same included in the rent.

EDIT: btw, $50 today would be more like only $26 twenty years ago. Yay inflation!

[cruelpupet]

Im not sure how much I was off by as the largest in this ad was 50", but apparently in 1996 it was less than 2 grand


http://gregarious24.imgur.com/best_buy_flyer_september_1996

[cruelpupet]

FWIW, if internet was gonna cost me $50 a month I wouldn't have it.

The most I've ever paid for internet was a $8/mo dial-up account that I terminated in 2007. From then until last month, I had a generous neighbor who let me use his wireless broadband. The apartment I moved into 3 weeks ago has the same included in the rent.

EDIT: btw, $50 today would be more like only $26 twenty years ago. Yay inflation!

Internet at $50 a month is still a decent deal, especially since it can cut down on other costs like phone (mentioned above), comparison shopping, entertainment, etc.

[attgig]

FWIW, if internet was gonna cost me $50 a month I wouldn't have it.

The most I've ever paid for internet was a $8/mo dial-up account that I terminated in 2007. From then until last month, I had a generous neighbor who let me use his wireless broadband. The apartment I moved into 3 weeks ago has the same included in the rent.

EDIT: btw, $50 today would be more like only $26 twenty years ago. Yay inflation!

"only" $26 20 years ago doesn't mean "only" it means $50. $26 20 years ago could buy you a lot more than it does now...

and, your "borrowing" internet reminds me of my college friend who ran 200 feet of coax from their friend to get cable tv into their house.

it's nice that you had some generous neighbors, but if you couldn't get wireless included in your rent, would you go back to dialup?

[Napoleon54]

it's nice that you had some generous neighbors, but if you couldn't get wireless included in your rent, would you go back to dialup?
Dialup is useless nowadays because virtually every site is designed with broadband in mind. It'd take half an hour to load a fraking weather forecast.

I would consider low-end DSL but that would mean I'd have to have a landline phone (I just ditched that with the recent move). Figure $25/month for phone, $25 for DSL, and that's hitting the same cost as broadband.

*shrug*

[Napoleon54]

20 years ago, i bet most of america would've thought it would be absurd to pay 50+ bucks EVERY MONTH on something called the internet.
btw, $50 today would be more like only $26 twenty years ago. Yay inflation!

"only" $26 20 years ago doesn't mean "only" it means $50. $26 20 years ago could buy you a lot more than it does now...

My point was this... IF broadband existed 20yrs ago AND it had the same value as it does today, THEN that value would be $26/month (in 1991 dollars). Because of inflation that same value is now $50/month (in 2011 dollars). I think we clearly agree... $26 20yrs ago could buy a lot more than it does now... there's just some semantics in the way.

The product is the same because we've defined it as such in this hypothetical situation. It just illustrates how much the currency has lost value.

[cruelpupet]

Bringing the thread back to TVs...


I never thought I would see this, even in a costco. A two-pack of 47" LCD TVs!!!

http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product.aspx?Prodid=11624089&search=vizio&Mo=23&cm_re=1_en-_-Top_Left_Nav-_-Top_search&lang=en-US&Nr=

[Prngr44]

Not a bad tv for 650.

Grab a friend!