Regarding your question of the 7-55s picture quality over the 10-46, i would say there is quite an improvement from the 10-46 MKI to 7-55 MKII. Especially the black-level the panels produce, this is of course do to the 10-46 having Edge LED and the 7-55 having local dimming in sections of the screen. The 7-55 MKII panel can also produce more light. Side by side on full tilt, the BV10 almost seems a bit grey when you compare them with a white test picture. The overall picture quality is also quite a bit better in my opinion, but if it is worth the cost to you is hard to answar, because the BV10 still got a great picture quality.

Regarding the BV12-65 i will just add, that STB Brackets makes a floorstand for it, in case you should decide that 65" is actually i nice size (i think it is 😕 )

Personally, I think that i would keep the 10-46 unless it's because you want the extra inches (and doesn't need the built in blu-ray). It is a great looking TV with great picture quality. Sound wise though, it's a great step up to go with the BL10 compared to the built ind speakers in BV10. 

I have seen them side by side and the bv7-55 blows the 10-46 away. Its picture is simply stunning.

KMA wrote:

Upgrading my BeoVision 10 is an option for me, if it makes enough sense in terms of PQ improvement.

I honestly don't think it will. BV10-46 is a fairly recent TV and there won't be much of a PQ improvement between MKI and MKII. My MKII BV10-46 is only very slightly better than my old BV7-40 MKIV and that was a few years old. And I mean very slightly improved. I didn't get the BV10-46 for the improvement in PQ.

You'd be paying a lot of money to move from a MKI to MKII. Money that could be better spent elsewhere (perhaps on other B&O kit).

I do agree that the BV7-55 blows the BV10-46 PQ to one side. The BV7-55 is as good as it gets. Always very surprised by the BV7-55's PQ when I visit my dealer.

However, it's a big price jump from a second hand BV10-46 to a BV7-55. It's also a big, clunky heavy-looking TV. I prefer the design of the BV10-46 and have no issues with the sound, even after living with a BV7-40 + BL7.2 for many years. Sure, the audio quality isn't as deep or round, but for most regular TV, it's fine.

I beg to differ that the BV7-55 is a heavy and clunky-looking TV. It looks weightless on the tall floor stand. I faced a similar dilemma between the 10-46 and the 7-55 for almost six months. In the end, it came down to what looked better in my living room aesthetically, and not picture quality. In my opinion, the 10-46 is too close to the ground on the floor stand and looks heavier from straight on because the panel has physically larger dimensions due to the integrated flat speaker beneath the screen. The 7-55 appears to float in mid air and the BeoLab 7.6 has a smaller profile.

On the other hand, if you're going to use BeoLab 9 speakers next to your TV, the 10-46 might look more proportional to the height of those speakers. Take a digital photo of your room and copy & paste a stock photo of both televisions in the room photo to get a preview for how either could look there. That's what I did, and both look dramatically different for different settings. It's all a matter of personal taste.

Hungedu wrote:

I beg to differ that the BV7-55 is a heavy and clunky-looking TV. It looks weightless on the tall floor stand. 

It's just an opinion :) It also depends on the angle etc. As my BV10-46 is on a angle in the corner of the room, you look at it a lot from the side, when coming in to the room.

The BV10-46 on the easel stand looks much less "in your face" than the BV7, iMHO. Looks more like a piece of art than a TV. This also goes back to another thread where people said it was "chavvy" to have a huge TV. The advantage of the BV10-46 on the easel, particularly with a coloured fret, is that it does look like cool furniture than just a TV in a room.

But there again, I've had BV7's since 2004 - 8 years of BV7s. Maybe I just got a little fed up looking at the same TV for so many years. I absolutely love the BV10-46 with the red fret.

BV7-55 is huge! And v.heavy. Superb screen though, but it is a monster.

Thanks for your opinions! :)

The size of BV7-55 is indeed huge, and I'd definitely like it with the triangular BeoLab 10 as the center speaker. This kind of reminds me of AV9000, a design that I always liked. 7-55 is a bit over 25 cm wider (140 cm) than 10-46 (113 cm), and it's not slim by any means. But on a floor stand, I don't think slimness is the key form & design factor. I do like however how the 10-46 kind of "floats" on the motorized floor stand, and its profile is very slim and light.

I did contemplate BV7-40 with BeoLab 10 -- even closer resemblance to the classic AV9000 with its smaller screen dimensions. But going back from 46" to 40" -- not so sure. 7-40 MKV probably has better PQ due to BeoSystem 3 and the new panel, plus it's 3D. 3D would be a "fun" factor, but I doubt I would be using the feature that much.

It might be wise to wait for whatever B&O comes up with in the next couple of years, something with the rumored new picture engine, and as you pointed out, spend the money on other B&O products.

I'll need to keep considering the points: size, PQ, design, price.

My previous  TV was  Pioneer LX608 Plasma,which was an extremely good TV in terms of Picture Quality.

For nearly 2 weeks,I have been living with a BV7-55 3D,and I am amazed at the PQ,even with Standard Definition material.

Even though the Beosystem 3 is a contributing factor,I attribute the stunning PQ to the full LED backlighting,with local dimming,and in particular,the 512 zones of LEDs.

As far as I am aware,no other TV has so many backlighting zones,and the panel in the BV7-55 3D must account for a considerable element of the TV's overall cost.

Personally,I cannot see any haloing which is supposed to be a weakness with local dimming

On a tall stand with the BL7-4 centre speaker it is far from heavy,and clunky,looking.

One can be forever waiting for "the next best thing",and in the meantime one will miss out on the pleasure provided by a BV 7-55 3D.

 

 

TerryM wrote:

Even though the Beosystem 3 is a contributing factor

I think people love to assume the "powerful" Beosystem 3 is responsible for the PQ, but then why was BS3-powered BV7-40 MKIII so poor and my BV10-46 is slightly improved on my previous BS3-powered BV7-40 MKIV?

I think it's a misnomer that the Beosystem 3 really improves the PQ. It's there to drive the surround system, projector and other devices. Beosystem 3 is old now, it's not the reason why the BV7-55 is so much better than the equally powered BV7-40 MKIII. It's simply to do with the quality of the panels and lighting (of the panel).

moxxey wrote:

TerryM wrote:

Even though the Beosystem 3 is a contributing factor

I think people love to assume the "powerful" Beosystem 3 is responsible for the PQ, but then why was BS3-powered BV7-40 MKIII so poor and my BV10-46 is slightly improved on my previous BS3-powered BV7-40 MKIV?

I think it's a misnomer that the Beosystem 3 really improves the PQ. It's there to drive the surround system, projector and other devices. Beosystem 3 is old now, it's not the reason why the BV7-55 is so much better than the equally powered BV7-40 MKIII. It's simply to do with the quality of the panels and lighting (of the panel).

An inferior panel will inhibit the Picture Quality produced by the TV's processor.

If the Beosystem 3 was poor the superior panel on a 7-55 3D would accentuate defects in the PQ.

The fact that it's PQ,even on Freeview,is stunning,demonstrates,to my mind,that the Beosystem 3 is doing something right.

True,the Beosystem 3 dates from 2006,but do we know for sure that there have been no upgrades/improvements 'under the hood'?