My Panny Prism A1 26" 4:3 CRT (1985 vintage) had pretty good sound from it's internal speakers, that was part of the reason for buying it.
Or analogue outs that follow the main volume so you could just hang a simple amp amp/speakers off them and the TV's remote still controls the volume.
On an LCD and Freeview? Plasma is good, really shows up the smearing and artifacts of broadcast transmisions(*) including the "high definition" ones. Feed it from Blu-ray on the other hand...
(*) Freeview is unwatchable to my eyes, Freesat is watchable but still suffers from some artifacts.
Yes, I thought about it before I posted. It won't go snowy like an analogue signal but nor will it instantly transition from a "perfect" picture to a garbled mess, before the blocky stage there is some degradation with bit error rates above zero - for instance with a drop from 25db to about 12dB SNR by nearly pulling out the aerial cable the effects are (I think!) noticeable on my PC, yes there is error correction but maybe similar to CD's the more it has to do the more it impacts on the output. But my eyes are really crap so it could just be me :)
A lot of it is probably down to particular chipsets and the screen quality, but when the source, before it ever hits the transmitter is by definition compromised by heavy compression and statistical multiplexing, anything you see is always going to be a bloody mess regardless of how much you pay for a telly.
There is nothing wrong with 1366x 768 screens when displaying broadcast 720p HD content.
A 24 pixel band at the top and bottom of the picture, and 43 pixels left and right of the picture leaves an active screen area of 1280 x
720 square pixels with no stretching required
However most people wouldn't do that and would leave it on fit to screen. Just as they set their 1366 x 768 pc screen at 800x600 to make the font bigger.
I can only assume you either sit on top of the screen - which isn't much use with several people watching it - or you simply have no experience of a larger one.
That it may be sharper than some 'big name TV brands' when being 'used to display HD video downloads' is neither here nor there. The discussion was about TV.
LOL, it is a good point, in fact I am typing it on my trusty Mac Pro. In fact... I have two screens on it! This is because I do a lot of video editing.
But the Mac Pro and its screens are in my study.
Well now that the iPlayer exists I find myself watching things with that. I never watch live stuff, but occasionally I look at some things that went out recently.
The funny thing is that it feels like TV has sort of followed me because I got rid of TV in the living room long before iPlayer came along and now that has become available to this screen in my study.
Specifically a 26" TV, the clue is in the Subject.
And as ever, you have focussed upon one part of a post and ignored the wider point that a computer makes a better TV than a TV because it is not limited as a TV is limited. The computer provides a TV, a PVR, DVD (including Blu-Ray) a streaming media player and of course a computer. The TV is a TV.
As I said "An iMac. Great TV and it does other stuff too. Also the screen is way better than any TV on the market."
You ignored the rest of the post to wibble about the "also".
In article , Dave Plowman (News) writes
I haven't been paying much attention, but isn't that part of the HDCP requirements, to enforce an encrypted digital path for the data (audio or video) from the source to the screen?
In article , Bill writes
You'd think so, but Sony and Daewoo refused to do anything when their TV sets and set top boxes broke when Freeview went to split NIT. They hadn't adhered to the spec but refused to face up to their responsibility to fix it.
In article , tony sayer writes
Indeed. But there's been some good movies on over Christmas. I bought a Topfield Freeview box in late November and stuck a 1TB disk in it, it now has 300 movies recorded and still has 47% disk space free.
For those rainy days when you can't be arsed to do anything and there's nothing on worth watching.
In article , Dave Liquorice writes
Noted yesterday that Which! has a free "consumer rights" iPad app which could be useful when approaching the muppets who sold the goods.
There are so many flaws in your argument it's hardly worth bothering with. Given most people know what a computer is and what it can do, just why do you think your idea even worth mentioning?
I'm sure it's an ideal solution for a single bloke living in a small bedsit - but for most would be so inconvenient as to be a joke. And an expensive one at that.
We haven't had a Mac Attack for a while now....
One wonders why you bother to comment then.
Because it was worth mentioning.
Aesthetically and functionally the iMac is a very good option for TV/home entertainment but people tend to overlook the choice.
Any particular reason why you were on a (mistaken) mission to devalue that option?
Again, you're ignoring the OP and the Subject which is specifically for a 26" TV. You're also requiring the demands of wimmin, which is, in my experience for a TV no larger than 26" (a size which gets described as "huge"). My experience is that single sad acts living in small bedsits tend to buy 50 inch plus plasma TVs, certainly that seems to be the first refuge of the just-divorced.
Nothing to do with being a Mac - or any other make.
Most people expect a TV to work when switched on and to control it via a simple remote control. Not have to use a keyboard and screen just to switch it off safely.
Perhaps you're just short sighted? Eyes too?
The iMac is controlled via a simple remote control. About the simplest that I've ever seen:
Hmm, any reason for the ad hominem?
I'd like to complain about the Consumers Association for providing advice that was not fit for purpose.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.