OLED TV experience.

Yep - not quite double but 38W/70W for a 43" HD/4K for example:

formatting link
(not sure if the comparison sticks, but it's a good site to check TV specs)

Yes, larger screen is a key determinant.

As mentioned elsewhere, a computer monitor and a smart stick of some sort

Reply to
RJH
Loading thread data ...

Yup, its on an articulating arm style of mount, so once it all wired up you just push it into its frame, where it basically just "floats".

You can see the mount here:

formatting link
I did put a 3/4" MDF back on that particular cabinet so that I could mount stuff directly to it. However I only had enough to make it about three quarter length. As it turned out, the mounting position on the TV is relatively low, and the required mounting position just missed the bottom of the panel. So I just notched the bottom of it to allow the bracket to go flush to the wall, and fixed directly to the masonry wall instead.

Reply to
John Rumm

According to :

formatting link
It claims to be 160W nominal, and up to 230W maximum.

(seems to be about middle of the pack looking at the tables)

On the bright side its less than the two previous CRT sets that it replaced though...

I don't think there is that much difference these days between 4K and

2K. ISTR reading an announcement about a year ago that some of the screen panel manufacturers were stopping 2K screen production altogether, since they can produce 4K ones for the same money, and makers wanting to produce a 2K TV can still use a 4K panel, but just not run it at full resolution.

That's probably a fair assessment...

I noticed last year when I needed to get a replacement 26" screen for a customer's window display, there was a choice of about 2 screens... So probably harder still now. 32" TVs still seem relatively easy to get. I get the impression that there is a reasonably significant demographic where that is the maximum size they would consider. i.e. a replacement for the old CRT TV that sits in the corner of the room, and they don't want it to dominate or be a focal point.

Reply to
John Rumm

All current HDMI cables (?1.1) are adequate, the latest HDMI cable spec is not needed for any available. consumer equipment. It certainly does

4k/HDR - indeed it and the BluRay player complained when I used a switch that did not pass HDPLC (or whatever the latest DRM is). It is only a year old and specified to work with HDR and 4k with whatever the latest BluRay standard is called. I am not in a position to test it with 4k streaming.
Reply to
Roger Hayter

As I said in my later post I use a Humax satellite receiver and BluRay player with it. I don't intend to give any of my money to Sky.

I suspect you're right, but the Blue Planet UHD BluRay is quite impressive!

Reply to
Roger Hayter

If the tv is on a mount then did it need to be inside the cabinet?

Reply to
pamela

Its not intended to be "inside" so much as just have its face is co-planer with the surround. So you have dark neutral background adjacent to the screen,with no visual distractions or reflections. The cabinet depth was then set to be deep enough to "lose" the front centre speakers behind the facia cloth. That also meant there was enough depth of shelving on the left for magazines, larger books and LPs.

Reply to
John Rumm

Still plenty of demand for smaller TV in kitchens and the like.

SteveW

Reply to
Steve Walker

Current HDMI cables *should* be OK with 4k 30p over distance up to 2m. Anything further is just luck.

4k 60p you will need higher spec. cable. Data transmitted over the HDMI cable is decompressed so 4k streaming is no different to any other 4k video.
Reply to
Andy Bennet

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.