Large screen TV

[Dave Plowman (News]

Quite. Except if you have a purpose built cinema room. In which case makes no difference if it is wall mounted or free standing.

[charles]

Plenty of wall brackets allow angled positioning

[Steve Walker]

Many homes have redundant chimney breast on one side of the room and a settee directly opposite on the other side.

If we did not still have a fire in the living room, we might have moved ours from the corner to the chimney breast by now.

That would actually allow it to be viewed from more of the room, as the corner is the old end of the room and there is an archway through to an extension adding another 50% to the room, but behind the TV.

[JNugent]

Er... yes... I've... er... seen them.

[Brian Gaff (Sofa]

Well maybe they think if you can afford 3 grand on a tv you can afford to live in a property with big walls or employ a joiner to make a nice stand for it. I'm not sure I'd want to stand mount something so big and top heavy, asking for trouble if you ask me. Brian

[Brian Gaff (Sofa]

Tiny?? Mine is43 inch and to be honest most people find it a bit large. Its on the mantle piece, I hasten to add there is no fire, only a storage heater and the shelf its on deflects the heat out into the room. Brian

[T i m]

On Mon, 31 May 2021 05:24:19 -0700 (PDT), Tricky Dicky [e-mail] wrote: <snip>

That's very much like the one I used to mount a 40" TV I bought off a mate when he upgraded. I fitted it as low as possible on the chimney breast (over the cast iron fire place) in our bedroom and when flat against the wall is at 90 degrees to our bed, however, pulled out and angled to over 45 degrees (and is set angled down slightly) it's prefect when watching TV sat up or propped up on the pillows.

Cheers, T i m

[John Rumm]

I used one of those:

Even though ultimately it was going ot be parallel to the wall - although spaced about 12" from it:

(nicely out of the close up region of varifocal glasses :-)

[John Rumm]

Lots of notes on monitor ergonomics suggest top of the screen level with eyeline. For me, with my screens, that works out at bottom of the screen about 7" off the desk.

[Andrew]

[Andrew]

According to sales droid in local John Lewis, most of their sales of 43 inch TV's are for the bedroom while the the most common size for living room is 55 inches.

The selection of 24, 28 and 32 inch tv's in the corner just look incredibly tiny now.

Andrew

[Steve Walker]

24" works well for a kitchen TV and 32" doubles up nicely as a TV and second monitor in a kid's bedroom.

[Andy Bennet]

... and much smaller willys

[John Rumm]

Yup I can believe that... I replaced our 32" bedroom TV with a 42" set that was physically smaller than the 32" (far less bezel and no side mounted speakers).

Last time I needed a smaller screen for a customer's windows display, there was a grand choice of about two models of 20 something inch sets!

As you say even 32" which used to be a very popular size in now quite scarce.

[Fredxx]

There is nothing compelling you to mount a wall mounted TV above the recommended height.

There are numerous links saying essentially the same thing.

[critcher]

and me

[newshound]

I have the bottom of mine about 12 inches above the desk, so the tops are about level with the top of my head. But although I use varifocals elsewhere, I have dedicated single focus "computer" glasses, IIRC +1.5 on my infinity prescription.

[Dave Plowman (News]

Same here. Need more powerful ones for reading, though.

[Jeff Layman]

I also require glasses for reading small print (moderate long-sightedness - +2.5D glasses). I really dislike wearing them because apart from making the print clearer, they also magnify it. I can't get my head round whether or not this is solely a consequence of the lenses correcting the long-sightedness being convex, or it's something else. Why is it not possible to correct the focal deficiency without magnification?

As an aside, does anyone else feel that an eye-test where you are asked if different lenses are clearer or not isn't very scientific? It represents one "measurement" at one point in time. I often wonder that, if the test was repeated at different times on different days, it would give the same result.

[newshound]

I keep +1.5 clip-ons in my office, these combined with the computer glasses are good for reading fairly small print. And another pair of +3 clip-ons for close-up work. For the very fine print (such as laser etching of serial numbers on small electronic devices) I often find it as easy to take a photo and view that instead.

At my more advanced age (70 +) I certainly feel that my "prescription" can sometimes vary through the day. I'm not sure whether this is because it actually does, or whether it is an effect of continually reducing accomodation (so that I notice the effect more).

Multiple eye tests would be a PITA, though.