I have just been looking at the new Samsung screens and interestingly the gent i was talking to said the new range of TV's will have a picture engine that could be easily removed and replaced, so as to keep the processing software as up to date as possibe. Quite literaly unboxing the say "Beosystem 3" and replacing it at a reasoanble cost.🤔

moxxey wrote:

When I bought my BV7-40 and it broke (twice!), the dealer lent me an old BV7-32. It was incredible how small it seemed in the room. Just couldn't get used it it - but there again, perhaps I'm uneducated and need to get out jogging with Tod.

I lived in a similar property in Sheffield a few years ago. The living room was >30'x20' and I had a 28" Avant a few feet away from the sofa. I suppose I could have hung a 70" screen at one end and still be able to view teletex at the other, but I simply didn't see the point. The same room was filled with mid-century furniture and various ecclectic design pieces and I was very proud of how it looked. In this case the TV complemented the decor, but it wasn't the focal point. There's a subtlety to that distinction that, in my mind at least, is generally lost on purchasers of enormous screens.

Can everybody who posts please include a picture of there wallpaper so they can be evaluated , size of room and TV size would also be valuable information to assess there class .😮

tournedos wrote:

Puncher wrote:

IIRC the vertical dimension of a 28" 4:3 screen is greater than that of a 32" 16:9 screen - if so, watching on an Avant would make only make Daniel's problem worse!

Yes, but if the material is 16:9 as the vast majority nowadays is, the problem is the other way round. The horizontal physical size of the display is what decides the size of the visible picture. This, however, doesn't change the fundamental problem: if you want a bigger picture, you ultimately need a bigger screen! Simple as that!

As my "main" TVs still haven't agreed to carry themselves up to my new apartment, I've been watching a couple of smaller MXs. Something like ice hockey can be a bit like guesswork on them, what it wasn't in the 4:3 days.

Of course, there are some silly people who want to watch wrong aspect ratio material either zoomed or cropped, because they like to lose parts of the picture instead of having some dark glass surface 😕

This may look a bit different in the UK, where at least the Beeb apparently likes to use some odd aspect ratios like 14:9 as a compromise (worse for everybody).

Neil.

moxxey wrote:

When I bought my BV7-40 and it broke (twice!), the dealer lent me an old BV7-32. It was incredible how small it seemed in the room. Just couldn't get used it it

So true! It's hard to watch a smaller screen if you're used to a bigger one.

Besides that, imo an AVANT 32 is a lot bigger/bulky than a BV10-40 hanging on the wall. 

I stopped trying to keep up and buy the latest many years ago while I was still young. I saw my friends spend a fortune on electronics. They too realised that it was a waste in the end. There will always be something newer around the corner.

How does it work if you use Sony PS3 games on an 32" Avant today? Lets say Gran Tourismo 5 as an example. Technology force us to upgrade in the end. That is the sad truth. I don´t really need a flatscreen. There is no wall behind my tv to hang it on. I don´t want my home centered around a tv. The manufactures seems to think so.

j0hnbarker wrote:

moxxey wrote:

When I bought my BV7-40 and it broke (twice!), the dealer lent me an old BV7-32. It was incredible how small it seemed in the room. Just couldn't get used it it - but there again, perhaps I'm uneducated and need to get out jogging with Tod.

I lived in a similar property in Sheffield a few years ago. The living room was >30'x20' and I had a 28" Avant a few feet away from the sofa. I suppose I could have hung a 70" screen at one end and still be able to view teletex at the other, but I simply didn't see the point. The same room was filled with mid-century furniture and various ecclectic design pieces and I was very proud of how it looked. In this case the TV complemented the decor, but it wasn't the focal point. There's a subtlety to that distinction that, in my mind at least, is generally lost on purchasers of enormous screens.

"-and why couldn't we just stay with the old B/W tv's -and why do we need mobile phones when the old wired ones worked well...and, and, and..."

Maybe it's hard for you living in the modern world -but stop judging other people for their choice of screen-size. I've never heard anything as ridiculous...Get a life.

I'd agree that the rapidly changing world of technology as regards TV's makes the potential B&O purchase a contentious one - take for instance the just discontinued Beovision 8-40 at A$8,000.00 when one can get the likes of a HX929 Sony Bravia, or Panasonic VT30 for around the A$3k mark or less depending upon screen size and retail discounts.

I would far prefer to buy a B&O TV as an all round AV solution in the context of active B&O speakers, than an competing TV for which I will need to place a large centre channel box either underneath or above the TV, as well as left and right matching passive main speakers and the AV processor amplifier/receiver to drive them, and it's attendant 'rack' to hold it, from both a performance and especially aesthetic point of view.

However, when LG and Samsung are to introduce OLED sets on to the market later this year, which technology will obviate the various shortfalls of both LCD and plasma on a picture performance basis, one really does need something special in the B&O appeal beyond just design and aesthetics, to justify the price.

Simply put, the days when one kept a TV for a decade or more are gone, and with the advances in technology, my concern is that the expensive and lovely looking B&O TV will be outclassed in short order in sheer performance terms by the advances in screen technology from the mainstream manufactureres.

I accept there is no simple answer to this, as B&O are a small specialist company and cannot adapt to the changes in technology as fast as other manufacturers, and due production volumes and economies of scale, not to their pricing structures either.

As to the size of the screen, surely one would use the resource that B&O themselves provide as regards a chart for working out the optimum viewing distance, as regards resolution, or the similar chart found on FlatpanelsHD, or other home theatre sites.  

The optimum in picture viewing is after all, a result of the viewer to screen distance, and the eyes effective field of view, and not the size of the screen per se.  

If the picture appears small, then sit closer to the set....conversly sitting to close to a large LCD screen showing SD resolution will reveal the pixel structure, giving a less sharp, grainy result to the eyes, with commensurate eye strain and discomfort....

I dare not comment upon wallpaper... or chavs, having no experience of either....

Best Regards

John... 🙂

a2bur wrote:

Can everybody who posts please include a picture of there wallpaper so they can be evaluated , size of room and TV size would also be valuable information to assess there class .😮

No thank you 😂 I once posted a picture of my BV8 against a messy bookcase with its cables on display and was criticised - valid criticism I will admit, but still !! that's why I so admire other Beoworlders who managed to keep their environments so neat and tidy !!