# For Those of You Running a TV as Your Primary HT Screen...



## Osage_Winter

I realize there's no comparison when viewing Blu-rays/DVDs on a projector with a 100-inch-plus size screen, but for those of us with limited budgets and room restrictions and such, do you find watching films -- in serious, light-controlled room -- on your televisions (specifically 50 inches or slightly bigger/smaller) a satisfactory experience? Are you okay with watching film on a TV screen? Do you get just as "engrossed" in the story/film when watching on your primary TV for HT?

Let's hear from some TV owners who are using their living rooms as their HTs (I'm assuming if you're using a TV as a main display, you don't have a dedicated room -- but perhaps some do, and that's uber-cool as well!) and who are running TVs instead of a massive projector/screen setup...how do you feel about a TV being your HT's "main screen"?

Of course we'd all like to step up to a projection/massive screen setup, but for those who can't right now, or who actually prefer a TV setup, let's hear from you! :T


----------



## mechman

I have a 52" Sony that I find just as enjoyable as my theater room. :T


----------



## eugovector

50" plasma, the trick is just to sit close enough to give you the perspective of a larger screen. I like the rule of thumb of sitting 1.5x the screen diagonal. On a 50", that's about 6'.

Now, we've started hosting some movie nights, and while 6' is fine with 2 of us, with 4 or more, it gets a little cramped, so we scoot back to about 8'. We're toying around with the projection idea, but it's a room with a lot of light during the day, so we'd need some serious window treatments, or a dropdown screen with the plasma behind.


----------



## hgoed

What he said ^^^

I've been using a 37" monitor on my computer to watch movies over the past 6 years. It's really quite good for one or two people, but we can't sit far enough back to watch with more (we could but it wouldn't really be the same experience in my opinion). The sound is also pretty good because it ends up being nearfield, so it took a lot less setup to avoid interactions.

That said, I'm moving to a much larger screen for more of a theater like arrangement, but the viewing quality will actually be similar considering the seating distance.


----------



## Hunter4u

We have a 55 inch lcd-led Samsung, the 8000 series non 3d. It works well. 
But with that being said , I am not sure whether or not having a pretty good surround sound makes the viewing that much better or not. I do find it hard to watch tv at others houses that do not have a good surround sound.

Overall I am satisfied with just using my tv as my movie room (plus poor ole country boys can't afford a seperate room)


----------



## Osage_Winter

mechman said:


> I have a 52" Sony that I find just as enjoyable as my theater room. :T


Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Mench!

Do you honestly find your 52 inch Sony as enjoyable as watching on a dedicated projection system? Do you find that you get just as engrossed in films on the TV?


----------



## Osage_Winter

eugovector said:


> 50" plasma, the trick is just to sit close enough to give you the perspective of a larger screen. I like the rule of thumb of sitting 1.5x the screen diagonal. On a 50", that's about 6'.
> 
> Now, we've started hosting some movie nights, and while 6' is fine with 2 of us, with 4 or more, it gets a little cramped, so we scoot back to about 8'. We're toying around with the projection idea, but it's a room with a lot of light during the day, so we'd need some serious window treatments, or a dropdown screen with the plasma behind.


Thanks for your thoughts, Marshall.

Indeed, I do realize that the key is to sit as close as possible for that "immersive" cinematic experience -- but as much as I wish I could sit closer to my 50" (we both have the same size display) the room we're in just can't accomodate it, nor could the entertainment center/wall unit it sits in or our budget (at least right now or in the near future). We sit around 12 feet from our screen -- so according to your calculations, we're a good six feet too far. :gulp::gulp::unbelievable::crying::crying::crying:

And I too wanted to do the dropdown screen with the TV behind it, just for dedicated film watching -- but the way I would want to go would be with a motorized screen and everything hidden during the day, and there's just no way we could afford that. :spend::spend::spend::rant:

I wish there was a way -- aside from pulling up a separate chair right to the screen -- to make our 50 at least appear to _feel_ bigger because of our seating distance, but the whole thing is just horribly ironic: We bought this SXRD rear projection set when we were living in an apartment and the screen there seemed too big for our seating distance, giving both my wife and I headaches from it. We moved into our new house, and had to keep this TV as the main HT display, and now we're _too far_ from it...:unbelievable::rant::coocoo:


----------



## Osage_Winter

hgoed said:


> What he said ^^^
> 
> I've been using a 37" monitor on my computer to watch movies over the past 6 years. It's really quite good for one or two people, but we can't sit far enough back to watch with more (we could but it wouldn't really be the same experience in my opinion). The sound is also pretty good because it ends up being nearfield, so it took a lot less setup to avoid interactions.
> 
> That said, I'm moving to a much larger screen for more of a theater like arrangement, but the viewing quality will actually be similar considering the seating distance.


Thanks for your thoughts and input, HG...

You have been watching films for six years on your computer's 37 inch monitor? Do you have a living room space to put a bigger TV?


----------



## Osage_Winter

Hunter4u said:


> We have a 55 inch lcd-led Samsung, the 8000 series non 3d. It works well.
> But with that being said , I am not sure whether or not having a pretty good surround sound makes the viewing that much better or not. I do find it hard to watch tv at others houses that do not have a good surround sound.


Thanks Hunter!

I totally hear you on the sound thing -- indeed, I think it's my surround system that makes up for the seating distance mishap in my HT! 



> Overall I am satisfied with just using my tv as my movie room (plus poor ole country boys can't afford a seperate room)


I hear ya...:T


----------



## Theresa

I use my 40" Sony as my screen. I would like it to be 46" but just can't do it right now. My living room is quite small so 46" would be the max as far as I'm concerned. I believe the Sony is failing so I may end up upgrading long before I thought I would. Any suggestions about the lowest priced 46" LCD-LED with local dimming?


----------



## swingin

Bally makes a good black out blind, and walmart sells cheap theater curtains, dont laugh they work well. I use a 55" Vizio, the new 240hz model with smart dimming. My daughter came home one day as we were watching Avatar on blu-ray, she had watched it in the theater and said "" that looks SO much better than the theater, not to mention the sound difference...


----------



## Dale Rasco

Love my Panny plasma in the living room, but prefer the BenQ W6000 in the theater room.


----------



## Osage_Winter

Theresa said:


> I use my 40" Sony as my screen. I would like it to be 46" but just can't do it right now. My living room is quite small so 46" would be the max as far as I'm concerned. I believe the Sony is failing so I may end up upgrading long before I thought I would. Any suggestions about the lowest priced 46" LCD-LED with local dimming?


Thank you for your input here, Theresa! 

I wish I could help with your LED question, but I just don't know what's available in today's market as I haven't been looking or shopping for a new set...:crying:


----------



## Osage_Winter

swingin said:


> Bally makes a good black out blind, and walmart sells cheap theater curtains, dont laugh they work well. I use a 55" Vizio, the new 240hz model with smart dimming. My daughter came home one day as we were watching Avatar on blu-ray, she had watched it in the theater and said "" that looks SO much better than the theater, not to mention the sound difference...


Hey Swingin...

Wow -- that's amazing that she felt Avatar looked better on your 55 than in the theater! And that at home there was better audio! Why do you think she felt this way? The difference with the Blu-ray presentation?


----------



## Osage_Winter

Dale Rasco said:


> Love my Panny plasma in the living room, *but prefer the BenQ W6000 in the theater room.*


I'm sure, Dale...I would too! :spend:


----------



## hgoed

I don't think most people are really that honest with themselves regarding screen size/resolution and what they perceive as their needs. I've never really owned a TV, so I never got trained to think a huge 480i screen was any good. On the other hand, I don't have the best near vision, so I also never really appreciated super-small pixel resolution.

Until about 2003, everything I watched was on a 19" monitor. It was awesome...so much better than others' plasmas, because it had no problem displaying 1080p as well as using it for my computer. Then, I moved to a 37 inch monitor, once I had steady company (now my wife...had to make room for two). Still, the ideal resolution was 1080p, and in my opinion still is for a computer as well (for general use). Now, I've moved out of the city and have quite a bit more room, and I have a 73" screen. It's still 1080p, and the extra size is for if we have guests. The viewing experience hasn't changed at all, only the viewing distance and the number of viewers. I'd be perfectly happy going back to the 19" screen...I just might have to do it alone.


----------



## Osage_Winter

Very interesting analysis; thanks for your viewpoint. :T


----------



## Theresa

I couldn't live with 480i or even 480p as my only television. Some things I watch such as Hulu are in such low res and to me it looks quite lousy. I still watch House on it but do find the low def to be distracting. I can live with 720p though. As I said before, I find my 40" 1080p set quite adequate in my small living room/home theatre.


----------



## eugovector

Theresa said:


> I couldn't live with 480i or even 480p as my only television. Some things I watch such as Hulu are in such low res and to me it looks quite lousy. I still watch House on it but do find the low def to be distracting. I can live with 720p though. As I said before, I find my 40" 1080p set quite adequate in my small living room/home theatre.


Agreed, I'll take pixels over size any day (something along the adage "no replacement for displacement"). Of course, those pixels are only good if you're sitting close enough to enjoy them:
http://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter


----------



## koyaan

Question guys:
When you sit only 5 or 6' from your display, aren't you compromising you audio configuration? With my sound setup, I need to sit about 7.5':scratch: from the center channel. What screen size would you suggest from there to get an emersive experience?


----------



## eugovector

Your listening angles are the same whether you're sitting 8' from a 50" screen or 16' from a 100" screen, and you position your speakers accordingly (usually just to the left, right, and bottom of your screen. Now, your position relative to the room walls can place you in different areas of reinforcement for certain frequencies, but that isn't directly affected by your screen size, per se.


----------



## Osage_Winter

eugovector said:


> Your listening angles are the same whether you're sitting 8' from a 50" screen or 16' from a 100" screen, and you position your speakers accordingly (usually just to the left, right, and bottom of your screen.


I'm assuming the configuration layout you cited (left, right and bottom) refers to the two mains and center channel -- if so, isn't it okay for the center to also be _above_ the screen?


----------



## Theresa

I have mine above the screen. Works well. I sit about seven feet from my 40" and I wish the screen were 47".


----------



## eugovector

Your center should be closet to ear/eye-level, space and aestetics permitting. As most people have the center of their displays above eye/ear level for viewing comfort, below the display is usually the best choice. Now if the line of sight is blocked, say by the first room of seating when listening from a second row, obviously, a clear line if transmission is preferable and you would want the center above your display.


----------



## Theresa

eugovector said:


> Your center should be closet to ear/eye-level, space and aestetics permitting. As most people have the center of their displays above eye/ear level for viewing comfort, below the display is usually the best choice. Now if the line of sight is blocked, say by the first room of seating when listening from a second row, obviously, a clear line if transmission is preferable and you would want the center above your display.


Given that space often dictates, which mine does, it is a matter of doing the best with it, some ideals go out the window.


----------



## Osage_Winter

eugovector said:


> As most people have the center of their displays above eye/ear level for viewing comfort, *below the display is usually the best choice.*


I never heard this before; is this true, and why?


----------



## eugovector

Osage_Winter said:


> I never heard this before; is this true, and why?


As I said: because in most setups, it's the closest to earlevel.


----------



## hgoed

To me, that makes no real sense. It may be nit-picky, but most TV's are best centered at eye-level. Also, most TV's have a 5-7" stand. Thus, the top is usually about 5-7" closer to eye/ear level. I'm pretty sure that the main reason the center channel is most often placed below the screen is because of gravity.


----------



## Osage_Winter

Because of _gravity?_ :scratch:


----------



## hgoed

Something's got to hold the speaker up. Simply, it's easier to put the speaker on a stand on the floor than to drill something into your wall or build a support that goes all the way to the top of the TV. 

In the CRT days, most people I saw actually had their centers on top of the TV. Now they're too thin for that and many have gotten rid of their entertainment centers/shelves.


----------



## spartanstew

I have a 65" display in the living room, a 60" display in the game room and a 126" display in the theater.

The 65" is fine for TV shows, but I do all of my movie watching in the theater. Doesn't even compare.



eugovector said:


> As most people have the center of their displays above eye/ear level for viewing comfort, below the display is usually the best choice.


Couldn't disagree more. I've had it both ways in my theater and in my living room and above is the preferred choice in both situations - as long as the center is angled down toward the listener.

As I mentioned in another thread, the brain has a harder time locating sounds from above. When I've had my center below the display (even angled up), it always sounded like the dialogue was coming from under the display. When above, it sounds like it's coming directly from the screen. I've had 2 different people in my theater ask me if the center was behind the screen somehow, even though it's above it (it's not readily seen, especially in the dark).

I'll also add that in my theater the center speaker is 9' off the ground (~5.5' above the "ears") and when I had it below the screen it was about 18" off the ground (1.5' - 2' below the "ears"). Even with that distance disparity when compared with the "ears", above is much better.


----------



## doublejroc

I have a 46" Sony LCD rear projection for standard tv watching, and that does great for seinfeld and family guy. My HT/game screen is a 50" plasma and it works great for my standards of the visual aspect of entertainment. Go big or go home is a saying I hear now and then but I truly believe you need the space to accommodate. My head rests at 11' from the 50" screen and that's close enough. I tried sitting closer....about 7-8'.... but it a chore to watch movies or play games. Way too hard on the eyes. Hmmm, or perhaps my screen is too bright? That's a possibility.
I haven't watched anything on a projector... Do they a comparable contrast and resolution qualities to say, LCD or LED? I'm not up on the projector tech nowadays.... Maybe in the future, but for my tastes, monitors all the way!


----------



## eugovector

spartanstew said:


> As I mentioned in another thread, the brain has a harder time locating sounds from above.


Can you link a reference on that? Not that I doubt you, just trying to learn more.


----------



## Osage_Winter

spartanstew said:


> I have a 65" display in the living room, a 60" display in the game room and a 126" display in the theater.
> 
> The 65" is fine for TV shows, but I do all of my movie watching in the theater. *Doesn't even compare.*




Well, I am sure, Stew, that if most of us had the budget and the room, this wouldn't be disputed at all; I was more curious to hear from other TV owners who absolutely have to use their display as the main theater screen for either space constraints or budget constraints...

Some of us simply _cannot_ have a dedicated theater room with massive screens and tiers of theater style seats, etc. 



> Couldn't disagree more. I've had it both ways in my theater and in my living room and above is the preferred choice in both situations - as long as the center is angled down toward the listener.
> 
> As I mentioned in another thread, the brain has a harder time locating sounds from above. When I've had my center below the display (even angled up), it always sounded like the dialogue was coming from under the display. When above, it sounds like it's coming directly from the screen. I've had 2 different people in my theater ask me if the center was behind the screen somehow, even though it's above it (it's not readily seen, especially in the dark).
> 
> I'll also add that in my theater the center speaker is 9' off the ground (~5.5' above the "ears") and when I had it below the screen it was about 18" off the ground (1.5' - 2' below the "ears"). Even with that distance disparity when compared with the "ears", above is much better.


In my last system, the center channel was below our TV. In this current system, it sits above the TV on a shelf in our wall unit that seems to be perfect for the speaker placement. Not sure if I really noticed a massive difference either way.


----------



## Osage_Winter

doublejroc said:


> I have a 46" Sony LCD rear projection for standard tv watching, and that does great for seinfeld and family guy. My HT/game screen is a 50" plasma and it works great for my standards of the visual aspect of entertainment. Go big or go home is a saying I hear now and then but I truly believe you need the space to accommodate. My head rests at 11' from the 50" screen and that's close enough. I tried sitting closer....about 7-8'.... but it a chore to watch movies or play games. Way too hard on the eyes. Hmmm, or perhaps my screen is too bright? That's a possibility.
> I haven't watched anything on a projector... Do they a comparable contrast and resolution qualities to say, LCD or LED? I'm not up on the projector tech nowadays.... Maybe in the future, but for my tastes, monitors all the way!


Hey, jrock! Thanks for your thoughts!

Was off celebrating my birthday this weekend (it was actually on the 16th) so I apologize for the delay in getting back to this thread...

It sounds like you and I have similar opinions about this matter and similar setups -- we are sitting about 12 feet from our 50" rear projection screen, so that's like your 11 feet distance from your 50" plasma...

As for the projector/LCD/LED dispute, I've only heard that most projection setups aren't as punchy as a TV is (plasma/LED LCD/even rear projection sets) and that most are dim and soft in comparison -- but I only _heard_ and _read_ that and do not have personal proof or experience to back that up. I never saw a correctly set up projection system demo'ed before, so I cannot say if that's true or not.

BTW -- you mentioned you have a Sony "LCD rear projection"...but isn't that a contradiction in technologies? You either have an LCD or rear projection set; perhaps you mean LCoS or SXRD rear projection?


----------



## Osage_Winter

eugovector said:


> As I said: because in most setups, it's the closest to earlevel.


But that's not necessarily so -- in both of my last setups in different homes, below the screen was nowhere near ear level...

Then again, neither was above the screen -- perhaps there's some truth to "in _most_ setups" and that the "bottom position _may_ be _closer than above the screen_" with regard to ear level...


----------



## Osage_Winter

hgoed said:


> Something's got to hold the speaker up. Simply, it's easier to put the speaker on a stand on the floor than to drill something into your wall or build a support that goes all the way to the top of the TV.
> 
> In the CRT days, most people I saw actually had their centers on top of the TV. Now they're too thin for that and many have gotten rid of their entertainment centers/shelves.


Well, most folks, I would think, place their TV sets on some kind of stand which has the shelving below it for center channels, equipment, etc.; in my last setup, we placed our 50" rear projection set on a Bell'O stand which had the shelves below it but I only used the shelf below the TV for the center speaker and my gear went onto a separate open-air glass Bell'O "audio tower" (now being used in my 2-channel system) so there wasn't anything that gravity could get in the way with. Now, with many people wall mounting their sets nowadays, the center channel issue becomes different, as they have to find a way to hang it on the wall with the TV, or get a stand or cabinet to sit below the TV on the floor, etc. 

In our new setup, the same RPTV is now residing in a wood wall unit-style entertainment center in which the center channel speaker sits on a shelf already in place for knick-knacks/speaker...


----------



## doublejroc

Winter - I wish I could remember the model of Sony I have... KD something something something... But it was classified as LCD rear projection. Weird when you first hear it, I know. 
When they first came out I thought they were phenomenal. Extremely light for their size (60lbs for a 46") and the color reproduction was eye grabbing after using a CRT for umpteen years... And a lot easier on the eyes. I'm on my second bulb now, and hoping to get another handful of years out of this one. I don't plan on pitching this tv for a while.
As for other comments posted, I wish I could test out having my centre channel above my screen. Just wouldn't work out aesthetically, or means of support.


----------



## doublejroc

I got it! A Sony KDF-46E2000. Can't remember what I paid for it.....$1000?? That was.....5-6 years ago? Geez, coulda been longer, I don't remember.


----------



## Osage_Winter

Wow -- I never heard of an "LCD rear projection"...

Can anyone else confirm if Sony ever sold something like this?


----------



## doublejroc

http://www.crutchfield.ca/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=158KD46E2K


----------



## gorb

I'm not sure what my viewing distance is, but I'm happy with my 46" screen. Of course, a larger one wouldn't hurt 

I would love to have a dedicated room with a screen though.


----------



## Osage_Winter

doublejroc said:


> http://www.crutchfield.ca/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=158KD46E2K


This may have actually been a special model available only in Canada then -- I never heard, prior to this, of an "LCD rear projection" as the technologies were always independent of each other...

I don't think Sony sold this in the U.S.; they may have sold it elsewhere in other world markets aside from Canada, but I do not think this was available in the States...


----------



## Osage_Winter

gorb said:


> I'm not sure what my viewing distance is, but I'm happy with my 46" screen. Of course, a larger one wouldn't hurt
> 
> I would love to have a dedicated room with a screen though.


Hey, Gorb!

Sorry for the delay in getting back to this thread; was celebrating my birthday this weekend!

Thanks for your input and thoughts; great to hear from another TV owner who uses the screen as the primary HT display!

I think your second statement wouldn't be argued by any of us, as I have said, given the budget and space!


----------



## Savjac

This is one of those questions that is impossible to come up with a universal answer. This will all be dependent on your finances and room and aesthetics etc.
I have had a big screen PJ and it was very good. Went through 2 of them in about 5 years and just got mad that they broke so easy. Both times it was my fault, not on purpose tho.

Now for the last 3 years I have had a 52" Sony and i am happy. Would I love a bigger image, YES. Does it hurt to watch a movie on the smaller screen, only if your a fan boy. And I dont mean that in a mean way. I can sit 10' from the screen and with a good sound system, get thoroughly engrossed in the movie. If, and thats a big if these days, the movie warrants it. Its like many things in America, Bigger is better, but smaller can work too. This is a hobby so we would like the biggest and the best, but again, reality sets in and one does what one can and one is happy. 
Watch the program and dont worry about what you could have. It is almost always better than the dim, small, cramped, expensive bad set up DLP theaters around anyway. So you can have a huge screen with an almost unwatchable image and horrific sound and atmosphere or a smaller screen, good sound and a perfect place to relax and enjoy. Which is best ??

I have decided, now you can as well and you can do it no matter what anyone else says.


----------



## Osage_Winter

Savjac said:


> This is one of those questions that is impossible to come up with a universal answer. This will all be dependent on your finances and room and aesthetics etc.
> I have had a big screen PJ and it was very good. Went through 2 of them in about 5 years and just got mad that they broke so easy. Both times it was my fault, not on purpose tho.
> 
> Now for the last 3 years I have had a 52" Sony and i am happy. Would I love a bigger image, YES. Does it hurt to watch a movie on the smaller screen, only if your a fan boy. And I dont mean that in a mean way. I can sit 10' from the screen and with a good sound system, get thoroughly engrossed in the movie. If, and thats a big if these days, the movie warrants it. Its like many things in America, Bigger is better, but smaller can work too. This is a hobby so we would like the biggest and the best, but again, reality sets in and one does what one can and one is happy.
> Watch the program and dont worry about what you could have. It is almost always better than the dim, small, cramped, expensive bad set up DLP theaters around anyway. So you can have a huge screen with an almost unwatchable image and horrific sound and atmosphere or a smaller screen, good sound and a perfect place to relax and enjoy. Which is best ??
> 
> I have decided, now you can as well and you can do it no matter what anyone else says.


This wasn't really a "question to be answered," but more of a topic for open discussion and opinion, as everyone has been sharing -- thanks for yours! :T


----------



## DocCasualty

Panny TH-58PX600U that I/we usually sit 10' from in our great room and I really couldn't be happier. If I want more immersion for a movie I can scoot the recliner a couple of feet forward. 5.1 sound system fits into the room nicely and sounds great. 

My CRT RPTV Hitachi 57SWX20b was relegated to the family room downstairs when I purchased the plasma a few years ago and is still kicking out an excellent pic. It is mostly the kids' TV these days. Poor kids! Might turn that room into a projection HT one of these days but it's difficult to feel motivated when everything is working for you.


----------



## Osage_Winter

Thanks for your input to the thread, Doc, and welcome to HTS.


----------



## Savjac

Osage_Winter said:


> This wasn't really a "question to be answered," but more of a topic for open discussion and opinion, as everyone has been sharing -- thanks for yours! :T



Agreed, and I apologize for sounding condescending. It was not meant that way. I keep forgetting that typing has no real idea of the emotion of the writer. I shall remember this lesson. Thank You.


----------



## Osage_Winter

Savjac said:


> Agreed, and I apologize for sounding condescending. It was not meant that way. I keep forgetting that typing has no real idea of the emotion of the writer. I shall remember this lesson. Thank You.


No worries, and I didn't think you were being condescending at all; just wanted to clear up my intentions! :T

Thanks for your reply. :bigsmile:


----------



## Osage_Winter

So, how about anyone else? Let's hear from some more of you TV owners using them as main HT displays! :wave:


----------



## dougc

I have a 42" Vizeo LCD that I love. It's pretty below average these days, but this is the biggest and best TV I have owned, so the clarity and size seems awesome. We sit about 12' away from it and the size feels perfect for us. I think I will get a 50" or bigger next time around since we have the space there and they are selling for the same price now as our 42" 2 years ago. I don't really follow the proper measurements for a "true HT" since I don't have the right space for it, so I make peace with it by making it as nice as I can with a limited budget. I don't have any complaints from the family on movie night, only from the neighbors when their windows rattle and they think they are taking fire from a helicopter.


----------



## Osage_Winter

dougc said:


> I have a 42" Vizeo LCD that I love. It's pretty below average these days, but this is the biggest and best TV I have owned, so the clarity and size seems awesome. We sit about 12' away from it and the size feels perfect for us. I think I will get a 50" or bigger next time around since we have the space there and they are selling for the same price now as our 42" 2 years ago. I don't really follow the proper measurements for a "true HT" since I don't have the right space for it, so I make peace with it by making it as nice as I can with a limited budget. I don't have any complaints from the family on movie night, only from the neighbors when their windows rattle and they think they are taking fire from a helicopter.


Hello, Doug!

Thank you very much for sharing your thoughts about your TV! Indeed, I can't believe I have run into someone on these forums who is sitting around the same distance from his display as I am from mine, and yet has a _smaller_ screen size -- and who is happy with it! That's great that you can enjoy your display from such a distance and get immersed in what you're watching -- it makes me feel like there's hope for us (me and my wife) yet and our 50"... :gulp::T

Tell me about the audio setup of your system a bit more -- what is driving those helicopter attack effects? :bigsmile: :hsd::hsd::hsd::unbelievable:


----------



## Integra8

I use my Sony (soon to be replaced!) :bigsmile: 55" as my main viewing TV. My viewing distance is appox. 12'. Would I want a projector? You bet! I visited a HT store in Scottsdale (a real one not BB) and they had Avatar on a 120" screen, just outstanding. Can I afford that? Nope! I'm happy with what I have, especially the new one coming as a replacement for my current "bad" TV.

Jeff


----------



## Osage_Winter

Integra8 said:


> I use my Sony (soon to be replaced!) :bigsmile: 55" as my main viewing TV. My viewing distance is appox. 12'. Would I want a projector? You bet! I visited a HT store in Scottsdale (a real one not BB) and they had Avatar on a 120" screen, just outstanding. Can I afford that? Nope! I'm happy with what I have, especially the new one coming as a replacement for my current "bad" TV.
> 
> Jeff


Hey, Jeff!

Thanks for your input, my man! I'm actually not _too_ far from you, so I'd be interested in knowing which retailer had a good projector setup (the only place to see or hear any kind of electronic displays near me are Best Buy and Frys, and I'm not kidding) for you to see -- and this was a real home theater outlet? That's downright awesome...

What is wrong with your 55" Sony? Why did you need to replace it, and what size are you replacing it with?

Do you feel fully immersed in films when watching on this set?


----------



## Integra8

The name escapes me, but I know where it is. Off the 101 East take Scottsdale Rd. and make your first right onto Mayo Hospital Blvd, it's in the shopping center on the left (across the street from Chick fil a, where Borders is/was, Paradise Bakery) it's on the west side of the shopping center. They sell a nice aray of EQ including Integra. A tall thin blonde lady helped me. She was awesome. I think one of the speaker brands they sold were Theil's.

My Sony's optical block went, and I have a green picture (for those of you that think Obama is not a legal resident even HE is green!! :rofl. So, Sony knows it has a problem and is replaceing all it's older tv's (2000 series and up) with LED's. I am getting a KDL-55NX810 2D/3D TV for under $500. An excellent deal to say the least. Not into 3D in any way shape or form! For me, I love my HT eq in a big way. I feel with the lights off and the sound pumping I can immerse myself in the movie. Would I like a bigger screen? You bet, especially after seeing Avatar on that 120" and I might be wrong on the size, it could have been 130"! And let's not forget that I control the movie, not some theater with soiled seats and sticky floors. Was Avatar awesome in the theater? Yes! But I had more fun watching it at home.

Jeff


----------



## Osage_Winter

Integra8 said:


> The name escapes me, but I know where it is. Off the 101 East take Scottsdale Rd. and make your first right onto Mayo Hospital Blvd, it's in the shopping center on the left (across the street from Chick fil a, where Borders is/was, Paradise Bakery) it's on the west side of the shopping center. They sell a nice aray of EQ including Integra. A tall thin blonde lady helped me. She was awesome. I think one of the speaker brands they sold were Theil's.


Oh, well, I didn't mean I was _that_ close -- LOL -- but just that I was on the West Coast in your vicinity of your state...

Wow -- if they sold Theils, they were no joke...



> My Sony's optical block went, and I have a green picture (for those of you that think Obama is not a legal resident even HE is green!! :rofl.


Hahahahahahahhahaaha.....



> So, Sony knows it has a problem and is replaceing all it's older tv's (2000 series and up) with LED's. I am getting a KDL-55NX810 2D/3D TV for under $500. An excellent deal to say the least.


Wow -- that is an AMAZING deal! There have been no issues with my KDS-A2020 SXRD as of yet (knock on wood) in terms of optical blocks or blobs, and we're on our second bulb...I wish I could swap out my set with a new larger one! I'd love to get an LCD LED...



> Not into 3D in any way shape or form!


I agree. I think it's going to end up being a novelty of the gaming and animation/kid's features sector. 



> For me, I love my HT eq in a big way. I feel with the lights off and the sound pumping I can immerse myself in the movie. Would I like a bigger screen? You bet, especially after seeing Avatar on that 120" and I might be wrong on the size, it could have been 130"! And let's not forget that I control the movie, not some theater with soiled seats and sticky floors. Was Avatar awesome in the theater? Yes! But I had more fun watching it at home.
> 
> Jeff


I hear you; thanks for your thoughts.


----------



## Superior Audio

If you are looking for an emersive experience in movies, it won't be found in screen size or sound system (tho of course those definitely are assetts  ) but rathe the quality of the film itself. Is it a good story line, is it acted well, is it filmed correctly, is the soundtrack dynamic? All of these things (to me) play the largest part of becoming 'immersed' in a film.


----------



## donnymac

I have a Panasonic 50" V10 hooked up to a PanasonicDMP-BD55 Blu-Ray player and an HR24 Directv box. I sit approx. 8 ft away. I wish I could move about aq foot closer but the living room arrangement won't allow it. I get an awesome picture on BR with plenty of depth and realism. I have a 7.1 Onkyo HTIB system. The BR player has analog output so I can get the PCM lossless HD audio to my receiver. A Netflix subscription keeps those BR discs coming fast and furious. Although my system is far from top of the line it gives me and my gf a fantastic viewing experience. Matter of fact she commented once at the movie theater that our system was 10 times better than what she was seeing on the screen. I have to agree sometimes as I just don't see the depth, realism and deep blacks in the movie theater.


----------



## Osage_Winter

Superior Audio said:


> If you are looking for an emersive experience in movies, it won't be found in screen size or sound system (tho of course those definitely are assetts  ) but rathe the quality of the film itself. Is it a good story line, is it acted well, is it filmed correctly, is the soundtrack dynamic? All of these things (to me) play the largest part of becoming 'immersed' in a film.


Very well-put, Superior! :T


----------



## Osage_Winter

donnymac said:


> Although my system is far from top of the line it gives me and my gf a fantastic viewing experience. Matter of fact she commented once at the movie theater that our system was 10 times better than what she was seeing on the screen.


Interestingly enough, my wife says the same thing...she actually prefers the experience in our living room as she feels our SXRD display, with high definition material, trounces any images you see in a commercial theater in terms of color and detail. 



> I have to agree sometimes as I just don't see the depth, realism and deep blacks in the movie theater.


Indeed -- this is a complaint of mine and a common one amongst HT fanatics. The theaters around our area use Sony digital projectors and systems, and while for the most part they look good, Blu-rays at home are much sharper with a more vivid realism, albeit on a much, much smaller screen scale...

Of course,this all comes back to the way film is "supposed" to look and how projection systems tend to deliver these experiences with a bit of dim or "soft" character, etc, etc...


----------



## Integra8

Osage_Winter said:


> Oh, well, I didn't mean I was _that_ close -- LOL -- but just that I was on the West Coast in your vicinity of your state...
> 
> Oh! I thought you lived in the Phoenix area! Binghamton, NY right? Well, at least if you do visit Phoenix again you have directions!:rofl2:
> 
> Jeff


----------



## Theresa

I'm waiting for the 46" Panasonic Plasma, ST series, to go back on sale on NewEgg. They have Bill Me Later while Amazon does not and I need to pay for it over time without interest. Meanwhile my 40" LCD 1080P works quite well although its growing flaky. I find the experience, what with excellent sound, to be better than in the theater. I find theaters to have bad sound and I really dislike the flicker. Some are not sensitive to it but I am very sensitive to it. I sit within 7 feet of my TV so 46" will be about right.


----------



## tesseract

I use a Vizio E550VL in my 2 channel music/movies system and sit about 12' away. It's a decent budget televison that gives little up to the bigger names when properly set.


----------



## Osage_Winter

Integra8 said:


> Osage_Winter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, well, I didn't mean I was _that_ close -- LOL -- but just that I was on the West Coast in your vicinity of your state...
> 
> Oh! I thought you lived in the Phoenix area! Binghamton, NY right? Well, at least if you do visit Phoenix again you have directions!:rofl2:
> 
> Jeff
> 
> 
> 
> Binghamton New York? :huh:
Click to expand...


----------



## spartanstew

eugovector said:


> Can you link a reference on that? Not that I doubt you, just trying to learn more.


Well, that's a good question. I know I learned this in high school or college, but don't remember exactly where. Trying to find information on it is pretty futile, because I'm not sure what exactly to search for.

I did find this on answers.com, which doesn't prove anything.

I also found this on another forum, which also doesn't prove anything, but at least shows me that someone else is familiar with the phenomenon. The 6th paragraph of the 4th post, is this:

*The center channel speaker should be located right OVER the viewing device. A little-known fact about human hearing is that we are very good at locating sounds that come from below ear level, but not when it's above ear level. So if you want your center channel dialog to sound like it's coming from the actor's mouths, located the center channel above the screen instead of below it (the ultimate is directly behind a perforated screen, like theaters do, but if you have a TV that's not possible).*

It's a post from 2004 and I have no idea who that person is.

I also found THIS paper on sound localization. About halfway down (10th paragraph), I found this:

*In each trial a surface thatreflects sound was placed along a wall, the floor, or the ceiling. Itwas found that if the reflecting surface was on the ceiling, thesubjects could not locate the sound as effectively. While if it wereon the floor the subjects did significantly better at localizing.*


----------



## Theresa

I have my center mounted vertically above the screen. This places it more than 2 feet above the right and left speakers and I never have a problem with it being localized above.


----------



## Osage_Winter

spartanstew said:


> Well, that's a good question. I know I learned this in high school or college, but don't remember exactly where. Trying to find information on it is pretty futile, because I'm not sure what exactly to search for.
> 
> I did find this on answers.com, which doesn't prove anything.
> 
> I also found this on another forum, which also doesn't prove anything, but at least shows me that someone else is familiar with the phenomenon. The 6th paragraph of the 4th post, is this:
> 
> *The center channel speaker should be located right OVER the viewing device. A little-known fact about human hearing is that we are very good at locating sounds that come from below ear level, but not when it's above ear level. So if you want your center channel dialog to sound like it's coming from the actor's mouths, located the center channel above the screen instead of below it (the ultimate is directly behind a perforated screen, like theaters do, but if you have a TV that's not possible).*
> 
> It's a post from 2004 and I have no idea who that person is.
> 
> I also found THIS paper on sound localization. About halfway down (10th paragraph), I found this:
> 
> *In each trial a surface thatreflects sound was placed along a wall, the floor, or the ceiling. Itwas found that if the reflecting surface was on the ceiling, thesubjects could not locate the sound as effectively. While if it wereon the floor the subjects did significantly better at localizing.*


Very interesting post -- thank you for the info; I shall feel better about my center being above the screen for now. :T


----------



## Osage_Winter

Theresa said:


> I have my center mounted vertically above the screen. This places it more than 2 feet above the right and left speakers and I never have a problem with it being localized above.


I have my center horizontal, as a traditional center channel is orientated, on a shelf above my TV in our wall unit, and this also, like you, places it a foot or so above the right and left front channels, and it never has bothered me thus far...


----------



## BrianAbington

I have an Insignia 42" plasma that looks great with bluray and HD cable at the distance I sit from it. 

My living room space has the dining room and the hallway from the bedrooms at one end of it, and the closed off end has the baseboard heater that I didn't want directly behind the tv so I have it setup width wise which essentially makes the room 12x15 in this configuration. 

My tv sits on a stand that puts the direct centerline just above eye level. It looks alot more natural than a tv mounted eye level to someone whos standing. HA!

I've measured the distance from my face on the couch to the tv and it is exactly 7 ft. 

With my tax return I impulsed purchased a 50 insignia plasma and it still looked great at the same distance and the 8" diagonal increase was not overwhelming for the distance. 

However it had a dead pixle so I returned it and decided that money is better off in the savings acct. 

I hope to buy a small home in the near future and would like a living room that is considerably bigger and I may go with one of the mitsbishi DLP's for my movie/football watching and rig up an articulating arm or a stand with an actuator for my current plasma to keep hours off the DLP bulb.


----------



## Osage_Winter

BrianAbington said:


> I have an Insignia 42" plasma that looks great with bluray and HD cable at the distance I sit from it.
> 
> My living room space has the dining room and the hallway from the bedrooms at one end of it, and the closed off end has the baseboard heater that I didn't want directly behind the tv so I have it setup width wise which essentially makes the room 12x15 in this configuration.
> 
> My tv sits on a stand that puts the direct centerline just above eye level. It looks alot more natural than a tv mounted eye level to someone whos standing. HA!
> 
> I've measured the distance from my face on the couch to the tv and it is exactly 7 ft.
> 
> With my tax return I impulsed purchased a 50 insignia plasma and it still looked great at the same distance and the 8" diagonal increase was not overwhelming for the distance.
> 
> However it had a dead pixle so I returned it and decided that money is better off in the savings acct.
> 
> I hope to buy a small home in the near future and would like a living room that is considerably bigger and I may go with one of the mitsbishi DLP's for my movie/football watching and rig up an articulating arm or a stand with an actuator for my current plasma to keep hours off the DLP bulb.


Thanks for your input and welcome to HTS!

I wish I was sitting only seven feet from our 50.....:crying::crying::crying:


----------



## BrianAbington

I think this distance is perfect...any further away and I think it would look to small.

I've been on the forum for a while...I was formerly SQCherokee...I just had mikep change my name.


----------



## Osage_Winter

BrianAbington said:


> I think this distance is perfect...*any further away and I think it would look to small.*




This is what I'm experiencing now...jeez.....:rolleyesno::rant:



> I've been on the forum for a while...I was formerly SQCherokee...I just had mikep change my name.


Didn't know.


----------

