What size TV should I go for?
- Thread starter saitrix
- Start date
No. Maybe ten years ago but with the advent of flatscreens, improving definitions and the price of tvs nowadays as long as your viewing distance is sufficient 40" is fast becoming the norm for bedrooms.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 20,160
- Location
- Woburn Sand Dunes
i'd seriously question that ^^^ 40" might be becoming the norm in living rooms maybe but not bedrooms. Not that i have anything against that, back in 2006 i bought a sony kdl-40w2000 when i was living at home and that was in my bedroom.
Maybe not the norm as in a normal family but look on similar sites to this/avforums amongst that type of person it definitely seems to be the norm.
the 42'' is too small for downstairs, because our Panny definitely looks too small, and in my house i have a 55'' screen..
it's odd because once you get used to a large screen, anything smaller looks dreadful, i'll only ever go down to 50'' nowadays
it's odd because once you get used to a large screen, anything smaller looks dreadful, i'll only ever go down to 50'' nowadays
This. When it comes to tvs it's hard to get too big.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 20,160
- Location
- Woburn Sand Dunes
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 12,530
- Location
- London
Biggest you can afford
I'd rather go for a better quality 40" over a cheaper 50", especially at the OP's budget, if he had a £1000 to spend it'd be different.
Given the typical size of a bedroom a 40" looks big, a 50" is really going to start dominating:
That and despite most channels offering an HD service now, not all the content is great quality and even on a 40" with decent upscaling, SD can look pretty ropey and HD channels can vary greatly (as some of it is just upscaled stuff).
With £350 I'd be looking for the best picture quality over extra inches, as ultimately that's more important than how big it is. If you're using it for gaming then obviously one that is able to perform with low input lag is important too, in which case again you're better off spending on something smaller that's better spec'd than something bigger that's more basic..
the bigger the screen the worst the SD image will look, not that much is HD so this is worth considering. but a big screen is best for gaming 
if you're looking for PQ then get a Panny, because they're dead cheap right now, plus they're the best.
a 50'' screen you'll get used to
if you're looking for PQ then get a Panny, because they're dead cheap right now, plus they're the best.
a 50'' screen you'll get used to
To be honest thinking about it more I really don't need freeview hd, the only thing I have used my freeview for was top gear before my net speed increased (2mb to 38mb!) so now I just watch iplayer hd for that using my htpc.
Then about 80% of the things I watch on my tv are in 720p or 1080p with good bitrates. So thinking about it the SD image quality isn't the most important for me. So I am now 99% sure I will get a 40 or 42" screen, and the only other thing I need is 3 hdmi. So that just leaves me to get the tv with the best image quality.
On a side note, I use a harmony remote and it has caused me loads of hassle changing source on my current Samsung. Are the new Samsungs just as much of a pain to do with the harmony remotes?
Then about 80% of the things I watch on my tv are in 720p or 1080p with good bitrates. So thinking about it the SD image quality isn't the most important for me. So I am now 99% sure I will get a 40 or 42" screen, and the only other thing I need is 3 hdmi. So that just leaves me to get the tv with the best image quality.
On a side note, I use a harmony remote and it has caused me loads of hassle changing source on my current Samsung. Are the new Samsungs just as much of a pain to do with the harmony remotes?