OLED TV experience.

[John Rumm]

If find it seems about right in practice - and so far no one has complained or even commented.

I did a few experiments to see what felt comfortable, and found bottom of the TV at about or a little bit above eyeline worked well. Especially as I wear varifocals these days. I find I can also comfortably rest my head on the couch (which reclines) and still watch the TV out of the distance part of my glasses.

There are two centre speakers - a smaller Yamaha NS-C110 which gives very good voice clarity below the screen, then a larger Paradigm CC-350 above the screen which adds some extra "punch" and better matches the sonic quality of the TDL RTL3 main speakers, so sounds that pan side to side don't change timbre as they cress the centre. They are both hidden behind a light weight frame made from some strips of ply, pocket screwed together, with acoustic speaker cloth stretched and glued over it.

Probably makes more sense if you look toward the end of the full build article:

[RJH]

Ah, interesting, thanks, I'll give it a go.

I did get some varifocals but can't wear them - the field of vision is too narrow, and I have to move my head just to see a foot or so to the left of right. Back to the opticians when I get amoment . . .

Excellent, thanks very much. Time for a rethink :-)

[John Rumm]

That tends to be the higher end LCD models - many of the more basic ones still seem to use a grid of constant brightness LEDs (with much diffusion between them and the LCD panel).

OLED is quite energy efficient. They do generate some heat (enough I find that if you stand close the the screen you can feel a very slight radiated warmth from them on a bright image), but the screen is only slightly warm to the touch.

[John Rumm]

I find the extra resolution is not the "big" win with 4K stuff, but the much better colour and contrast you get with HDR.

(although note my comment elsewhere about setting the max HDR output level on the source device - most of them default that is not that much more dynamic than normal HD since that is all some screens can handle. I noticed a fairly substantial improvement with a setting change on the bluray player).

[John Rumm]

ISTR there are a few 37" LCD/LED sets about.

I just looked at the lineup of OLED screen on a specialist trade display equipment site. The smallest listed is 55" now!

I suppose TV has morphed from "TV" to home cinema these days - hence the march toward ever larger screens.

We used to have an *old" 32" LCD in the bedroom that a mate had thrown out because it was not digital! When that needed replacing, I replaced it with a 40" that is actually about the same physical size. The old set had quite wide bezels, and speakers on the outside edges. The newer one is basically just screen.

[charles]

I've been wearing varifocals for around 30 years without problems and then I bought some from S********. When I went to Boots Opticians, I was offered

3 different grades (and prices) of lens. The cheapest one behaved like your description.

[John Rumm]

Might be worth seeing if there are some "premium" varifocal options. ISTR I was offered several options (with rising prices naturally!) - the more expensive ones main claim fame being a wider sweet spot. First time I had them I went with the cheap ones, just in case I could not get on with them at all (having heard the various horror stories). When I needed a new prescription I went for some more upmarket ones. I find they are wide enough to read a full page, watch TV, or see a screen without needing to move my head side to side.

[Max Demian]

Some have a T shaped area of clear vision, so you can see left and right in the distance part without moving your head. Then the only time you have to move your head is when copying things at your desk, when you are using the near vision part.

[polygonum_on_google]

On Amazon there are, I think two 37" LED TVs - both appear to be very old models. Wide bezels.

But absolutely the current smallest OLED is 55" but LG (I think) have said they will start (or have started) making 48" OLED screens.

Whilst I fully understand the home cinema morph, even if \i wanted that option, I wouldn't want to have 55" or larger dominating my room. Especially when just half-hartedly watching the news or some low importance program.

Perhaps we need TVs with electric curtains which adjust the display area. Do you remember when cineams would open out the screen size at the end of the adverts ready for the super-mega-ultra-scope feature film?

[Roger Hayter]

I have got a 4k HDR 32" computer monitor with one of the better LCD technologies (LG as it happens) which is very satisfactory. The only deficiency (apart from being a bit expensive) is that it has no tuners, but since we have no terrestrial signal that is no problem,

[John Rumm]

That is a good (and oft forgotten) point. Just because it was not sold as a TV, does not stop you using it as one!.

[polygonum_on_google]

What do you use to drive it?

[Andrew]

And the Q60 Samsung tellys seem to have a different way of working compared to the more expensive Qnn models.

[Roger Hayter]

It has (inter alia) an HDMI input which understands the output of our satellite box, laptop and BluRay player, including HDR from the latter. I am not sure (now I come to think of it) whether it does sound or not, but I use a separate sound bar. I am not sure about catch up/streaming services, but since our Internet connection won't sustain them I haven't checked if it has any included, but I'd use a dedicated computer of some kind if they were available.

[Andrew]

Which leads to the question, how much electricity do they use ?.

4K monitors use about twice as much as the 1920*1080 and 1440*? versions. 4K TV's must have a similar uplift. This will throw a big spanner in the EU's plans to reduce electricity consumption.

Also, everyone is going for the larger screens. I was in J-L yesterday and the sales guy said most people were now buying

55 inch tvs for the living rooms and 43 inches for the bedroom.

This must mean the days of being able to buy a 'small' 24 or

32 inch tv are numbered. Manufactures wont bother. I dont think Sony make them that size any more.

[Andrew]

On 01/12/2019 15:22, John Rumm wrote: <snip>

So, the TV is actually fixed to the wall, not the unit ?.

[Andrew]

That seems to concur with what the man in J-L said yesterday while I was drooling over a Panny OLED tv costing over £3K. Seriously good colours, contrast and viewing angles though.

[Andrew]

So buy a humax (or similar) freesat stb and connect up with hdmi. You still won't get 4k unless you pay extra for a sky stb though.

I still use a 2008 Hazro IPS 1920*1200 monitor and I really cannot see any advantage in 4K at that close distance. Even if you display more (and smaller) text on screen, after a certain age you will struggle to read it anyway, and resort to a big font !.

[John Rumm]

A chromecast of fire TV stick will plug into a spare HDMI and add all the normal smart TV streaming capabilities.

If you want broadcast TV, then a sat box or DTV tuner with HDMI out will do the trick. Alternatively go for a network based live TV/Recording system like the Silicon Dust HomeRunHD dual tuners. That sits on a network and can be used for recording or viewing. (and its not relying on the internet connection for shifting content about - only your local LAN)

[Andrew]

It's probably running in 1920*1080 mode then. Only later HDMI specs (and the correct cable) will allow the monitor to work in true 4K mode.

You could get the same 'experience' with a 32 inch (?IPS) non-4K monitor for much less and they use a lot less power too.

JL were selling the HP 32inch IPS monitor for £149 not long ago.