HT Report and Pics - Axiom Message Boards

A report on my new HT. I owe you all one because this board had so much influence on my choices. Thanks everyone! Pic links at the end.

Actuals, including shipping and taxes
TV+warranty+stand - CircuitCity - 3450
Receiver - MagnoliaHiFi - 0900
Speakers+stands - Axiom+RacksandStands - 1250
Sub - SVS - 0650
Cables+wire+power strip - BestBuy+HomeDepot - 0250
total - 6500

TV
The Samsung HD3 chip HLP4663W is simply amazing. Side by side, it is clearly inferior to the HD2+ chip Tantus, but in my living room it's plenty bright, plenty contrasty, and a lot more practical than the Captain Kirk. It is also a lot bigger than it appears in the showroom. Thanks to Alan, who steered me from the 50" to the 46". It may have helped that my wife put her foot down in favor of the 46" too. Nobody sees the rainbow, nobody sees the dimple.

Excellent picture, even in SD. I can't overemphasize the impact of the picture. Lots of inputs. Good speakers for a TV. Spend 3K on a TV and get phone support that's prompt and helpful. Samsung support walked me through the cable box setup, but see frown below.

Component1 takes only 480i/p. Component2 takes everything but 720p. 720p apparently accepted only from DVI or HDMI inputs (not from component1/2.) Ultimately, both the cable guy and I could not get any hi-res to work while he was here, because we had the DBS plugged into Component 1. This is unfathomable to me.

Can't deselect connected inputs or antenna. It drives me to the menu just to change sources!

Cable box
I received a Motorola 6200 HD cable receiver. It works fine and has a good set of outputs.

Installing it caused the cable guy to replace a bad splitter, which really improved the signal for all the TVs in the house. He also set up the cable remote as the wife remote, which allows her to just watch TV using just the cable remote. That was nice of him.

Cable guy had no clue about box setup and no instruction manual for the box with him. When he left, I was receiving all channels in 480i (see TV frown above.) Also, apparently Comcast box programming does not support RF bypass, which means you either have to watch the channel you record, or split the cable signal, instead of the more proper daisy chain.

HD
It's all true! HD is stupendous and there's not much of it. I watched the Olympics in 1080i and noticed a problem. In situations where the camera panned in front of a complex background there was noticeable pixelation around the foreground focus object. I saw this strongly in high diving, where the camera would follow the divers as they moved in front of the stands. In situations where the background was simpler, like track and field, it didn't happen.

My wife remarked that HD is like looking through a window. Everyone who sees it is stunned by the clarity and sense of depth. 480p is a very welcome evolution, but true HD is a revolution. It reminds me of when I was a boy and we got our first color TV. For a while, I watched programming I didn't even like just because it was in color. I'm doing that again with HD. We are amused.

Not counting premium channels (free for 2 months, remember to cancel) I have 3 full time HD channels: INHD, INHD2, and Discovery HD, and also the local affiliates (which each have just a few shows in HD) ABC, NBC, PBS, WB, and Fox. No CBS affiliate HD, but the ABC and NBC affiliates both broadcast their local news shows in HD and the NBC affiliate even produces some of their other shows in HD as well. But is all so new. I watched the premier of "Father of the Pride" in HD. NBC had audio problems with the HD feed and they had to substitute the SD feed. Another audio glitch occurred when ABC showed Dinosaur a few nights later. So right now I think the dedicated HD cablecasters are doing better technically than the networks.

Receiver
The Denon 2805 was a satisfactory choice, although I think now that any one of a dozen receivers would have worked just as well for me. It's thoroughly unremarkable, which is a compliment in this context, I guess. I have not performed any serious setup yet. No avia/spl meter. No sub crawl. Auto-equalization run through once. My differences of opinion with the auto-eq: Highs wrong. Center volume low and surround volume too high. Just tweaks. Lows and mids came out very well, I thought. Still, I find myself listening in no eq mode, and probably will until I can take the time to do it right.

My standout feature seems to be the OSD. With the remote and good OSD, who needs a front panel? I know I'm not getting off my ass any more. Also, I've decided I like optical cables. I now use two: cable box to receiver, and DVD to receiver. Supposedly they're less flexible than regular cable, but they took my turns. Fewer analog conversion steps = less distortion. Also, I am warming up to PLIIx.

The manual is poor. A great deal of ink is spent repeating basic instruction sequences leaving little room to explain what it's all for. A manual made only to fulfill the requirement for a manual. That matters because even the guyest guy has to read his receiver manual.

Subwoofer
SVS PB1-ISD. Best bass I ever had period. I have my volume set on 11 o'clock.

How low can it go? I still don't know. But I love using the first scene in LOTR1 where Sauron is defeated for showing it off. I have a sturdy house, and I can swing low without creating too many rattles so far. I have fun with it, and scare the dogs a little. I must hear cannons!

It's furniture. I've got mine kind of tucked out of the way but when my wife looks at it, I get exasperated sigh code number no64U (just joking - they all have that number.)

Speakers
Axiom M22/VP100/QS8 standard 5.1 system. Since I've only had them two weeks, my impressions are still evolving, but I'm liking them so far. It's a huge improvement simply because it's surround sound.

Every time I hear the Axioms play music, my opinion of them goes up. I personally have never heard better midrange. The M22s and SVS together make quite a speaker(100Hz xover.) Lows and mids sound very good. I love this part, where I get to play all my old CDs and hear new things on them.

The owner's manual could spare one line for cleaning instructions. Also, my placement leaves everything to be desired (I can't get the surrounds behind me) and I will continue to work on this (see as-is layout pic.) Maybe a 6th channel (3rd qs8) is needed for my room, just to throw some SPL behind the couches.

Finally, remote proliferation is an issue. I now have four to deal with. Maybe for Christmas Santa will bring me a MX-700 w/opt granny remote.

Once again, I'd like to thank everyone for all the good advice I received here. I learned a lot and I'm sure I made much better decisions with your help than I would have without.
Pics
As Is Layout (11K)
The Front (72K)
Right Surround and Sub (72K)

Larry - Great rundown of the setup. I too have the Samsung 46" (Tantus model) and I love that TV. The wife thinks it's great too and that is saying something as she doesn't get into the whole electronics thing.

"I get exasperated sigh code number no64U "
HAH!!!

I know that sigh code. If I could only program it into a macro button on the remote and have that sound play over the speakers I could save her the trouble!

Regarding your Comcast cable box, do you have the new one they are test marketing with the DVR capability? If so, curious as to your impressions. I received a call from Comcast about it but decided to hold off after they told me you could not view a different channel while recording.

Enjoy the system. It's the best toy you're gonna get for awhile.

great post.

can't you get the surrounds to that back wall? I might of missed something, but it looks possible from your pics.

I didn't see ESPNHD on your list... better look into, college basketball is REALLY good in highdef, and November is fast approaching... Go Terps. Final four this year.

I have really grown to appreciate INHD, and INHD2... there is some really good programming on those channels. some cool relaxing nature stuff...

Fantastic report/review of your HT!

Very nice setup!I like,I like

I do not have the DVR box. I'm glad to see somebody else has run into the RF bypass thing. Doesn't that just smell like a marketing decision?

You're right, I do get ESPNHD as well. How could I forget that? All outdoor sports are stunning on HD. And I saw a billboard around town that implied ABC's Monday Night Football will all be broadcast in HD this year.

I could get both the surrounds on the back, west wall. Do you think that would improve things?

Hello Les9596,

Hope you are well. Nice setup.

Don't worry about getting those surrounds to the rear wall. Recommended placement of the surrounds in a 5.1 setup is on the sides and slightly forward of the listening area. So, your placement looks perfect.

One suggestion for you, give 80Hz a try as your crossover frequency for the M22s and 100Hz as the crossover for the QS8s, will make a large improvement.

That is if the receiver can do channel specific crossovers, if not then you will have to stick with 100Hz since the QS8s don't go low enough for an 80Hz crossover.

Later,

TonyM

Oh I don't know, Tony. My QS8s seem to handle the 80hz crossover OK. They don't sound like subwoofers, but at 100hz I couldn't stand the thinness of my mains, and the bass localization, when playing music. I would suggest 80hz all around.

I'm forced to use a 100 Hz crossover with QS4s, and I use a 60 or 80 with the M50s (I don't remember which). I would use a 120 Hz cross with the Qs, but it would just be far too localizeable. I can already pick out where the sub is... With 8s, I'd probably use the 80 Hz cross.

I agree with you on the forward placement thing being a bit difficult. I haven't watched anything originally mastered in DD or DTS yet (I know, I know) but I've been going through the first season of Bab5 on DVD which was remastered from Surround to DD 5.1, and nothing's flown through my head yet, or over my shoulder, or any of that. A 3rd QS8 could fix that for you.

Hello BigWill,

Hope you are well. Glad to hear that the QS8s sound OK with an 80Hz crossover. I have not heard them, and was just going by the specs. If the receiver can't do channels specific, then I agree with 80Hz all around.

Later,

TonyM

les- thanks for the post and pics.. i cant wait til i get into the HD market.. i am still a few years away.

bigjohn

I will try an 80Hz xover this evening and report back.

If a subwoofer cross is set at 80Hz and applies to the main speakers, setting QS8s at 100Hz cross individually will do nothing.
The sub will not play 'surround bass' up to the 100Hz mark in place of the QS8s as it conflicts with the cross for the mains at 80Hz. In a simultaneous passage with both notes, you would require 2 subs, one to fill in the low end of the mains and one to fill in the low end of the surrounds in order to accomodate such a setup.

However, think about how little bass, especially lower than 80Hz, is really being sent to the surround speakers. Audio engineers know that most surround speakers are not even remotely capable of hitting such notes and nor should they be. Such is the point of owning a subwoofer that recreates the low frequency non-directional sound. This is not the purpose of surround speakers.

I think too many people are concerned about this non-issue of having their surround speakers roll off before 80Hz or earlier (based on specs). Consumers will never get those 11 pound QS8s to make any reasonable SPL for low frequencies. Even if they did, they would not know whether the subwoofer or the QS8s were making them as low frequency notes are essentially NON-directional.

Hello Chesseroo,

Hope you are well.

If using a Harman/Kardon with channel specific bass control you disable the crossover in the subwoofer and use the bass management in the receiver, this allows you to have different crossovers for different channels, as long as you have your subwoofer amp's crossover disabled or dialed to its highest setting. AVR630 has front/center/surround/surround back specific crossover settings, instead of one universal setting.

So, you can have your large M80's set to 60Hz, your center at 80Hz, and your surrounds at 100Hz if you wish, and the receiver will send the signals below those settings for all channels to one subwoofer.

I am not familiar with the Denon's bass management, I can only comment on what the H/K is capable of.

Unfortunately 100Hz is the threshold for directionality, therefore the reason most people recommend 80Hz or lower for the crossover.

Later,

TonyM

Ken has mentioned the HK's crossover capabilities in a couple of other posts, and I've been envious ever since. Does anyone know whether Harmon Kardon is the only manufacturer that offers this feature at a reasonable (<$1300) price point?

Hello dmn23,

Hope you are well. I am not sure what other manufacturers have channel specific bass crossover settings. If anyone knows of some, please chime in here, I would also like to know.

Later,

TonyM

Tony, i understand what the receiver is doing with individual crossovers. What i'm saying is that it doesn't make any sense. The point of a crossover is integration with the whole system (either within a 5.1 setup or within individual speakers).

Having the same subwoofer perform duties with multiple crossovers defeats the point of setting a crossover. Incidentally the 80Hz mark is based on the recommendation as a standard set by THX guidelines (JohnK has posted previously links on this).

Think of it in a different perspective, what if the single bass driver on the M60 had 3 crossover points? How well do you think it would function with the midrange drivers?

Per my previous post example, if the QS8 had a 99Hz note to play at the same time as the M60 had a 79Hz note to play with the crossovers set at 2 different values (80Hz mains and 100Hz surrounds), the subwoofer will still play BOTH notes at the same time.
Since you would still hear the 99Hz note which is beyond the mains crossover of 80Hz, then what was the point of setting a crossover for 80Hz? The subwoofer is not being imited at all.
Hence this defeats the point of using an 80Hz cross for the mains as the subwoofer plays the 99Hz note at the same time regardless. You may as well have had a crossover of 100Hz for the mains because you will still hear that non-directional 99Hz sound.
One speaker cannot play dual roles in this regard.
It just doesn't make physical sense.

Now if you had 2 distinct subwoofers, one specifically setup to run with the surround channels at a specific cross point and one for the mains at a specfiic cross point, then this system setup becomes more logical and possibly useful.
Again, very little heavy bass information should be encoded for surround speakers. Audio engineers know that is the point (and capability) of the subwoofer.

I disagree. Since surrounds have the bass less often than mains do, AND the surrounds (in my case at least) can't reproduce below 100 Hz well, it makes sense to cross them higher than the mains. That way, most of the time, the bass is non-directional, and occasionally, it's above 80 Hz and potentially directional.

Oh fine. Larry posts perfectly lovely pictures and an insightful report on his fabulous new HT and you guys hijack his thread into the ether of surround sound crossover theory. Jeesh.

Larry, very nice, indeed

Is your wife happy? Are you?

Thanks for sharing!

Hello Chesseroo,

Hope you are well.

With different crossovers the mains will go down to 80Hz and the sub will play the rest, so you are allowing the mains to go down to 80Hz, if you set them to 100Hz the mains would not get the information below 100Hz therefore not sounding as full. You are only thinking of the subwoofer with your statement. Must also think of what range of frequencies is sent to the mains/center/surrounds based on what the speakers can produce.

One driver is perfectly capable of producing multiple frequencies at the same time. Depending on what speaker has the anchoring bass note will depend on where one perceives the sound coming from. If the accompanying bass harmonic of the 99Hz tone is coming from the surround speaker, the bass will appear to be coming from the surrounds. Whereas the 79Hz bass harmonic coming from the mains will anchor that bass to the mains, it will not sound all jumbled together. This is how the illusion of bass coming from bookshelf speakers works, it is all about the bass harmonics.

Shoot, without a subwoofer, your mains would be set to large and your receiver would send all bass information for the small surrounds center etc...to the mains, and if the mains are big enough to do the job, it will sound just fine. Plus you will think you are hearing bass out of all channels. Pure illusion.

DTS encodes a full range to all channels if the speakers can handle it, whether sound engineers utilize it or not is up to them.

Later,

TonyM

I like the stands (and the whole setup, actually). Which model are they?

Hello dmn23,

Hope you are well. Checked the Yamaha, Pioneer, and Denon receivers out, none have the quad crossover of the H/K. That includes the Elites and the top of the line from Yamaha and Denon.

So, it appears that H/K has something unique.

Later,

TonyM

Hello TomTuttle,

Hope you are well. I did not mean to hijack this thread, blah....I was just suggesting an 80Hz crossover might be beneficial. Did not think it would cause such a controversy....I apologize and will shut up now.

Later,

TonyM

TonyM,

I hope YOU are well! I was just kidding around. I think your observations about varying the crossover points are very helpful. Thread-Hijacking is practically an Olympic event around here. I always enjoy your posts, and the articulate, civilized manner in which you convey yourself.

I did not mean to stifle discussion. No need to shut up from my perspective.

I just wanted to give our friend Larry his due, and I perhaps overstepped in my attempt to be clever. Mea Culpa.

Regards,

Tom

Tony, this line of thinking has alot more to it than what is being put forth here. It is not cut and dried and perhaps i'm not making my points as concise as i would like. This kind of topic needs to be discussed in greater detail than my fingers are capable of typing in short paragraphs and a demonstration of what i mean would make it alot easier to get the point across.
I will try one more time.

In reply to:
if you set them to 100Hz the mains would not get the information below 100Hz therefore not sounding as full.

This is incorrect as the crossover is not a finite point but rather creates a sloping roll off of the frequencies which only starts at the crossover. The fact that the subwoofer would play information primarily below the 100hz point KEEPS the sound full. Again, that is the point of the subwoofer and crossovers.
If this information below 100Hz is non-directional (as you had previously stated) and cannot be easily localized to one speaker set, then the 'fullness' of the main speakers is irrelevant.

In reply to:
You are only thinking of the subwoofer with your statement. Must also think of what range of frequencies is sent to the mains/center/surrounds based on what the speakers can produce.

Not at all.
You haven't understood my previous posts in regards to the capabilities of the other speakers. People are assuming that if they have a speaker with a 95Hz 'limit' that this big hole will exist if they set an 80hz crossover for their main speakers. The futility of trying to use a single speaker to perform dual roles to fill in a whopping 15-20 individual LOW BASS frequencies for an 'effects' channel is way over-emphasized.
Just how often are notes between the small difference of 80Hz to 100Hz occurring in either music or movies? Keep in mind that within human hearing capabilities there is approximately 19, 980 individual frequencies. Do you really think that a cross difference of 20 individual frequencies in an effects channel will even go noticed by anyone with all the extra sound information being emitted by the rest of the setup at the same time?
Self proclaimed 'golden ears' can put their hands up now.

In reply to:
Depending on what speaker has the anchoring bass note will depend on where one perceives the sound coming from.

Not if the note is a low frequency, non-directional, cannot localize, sound. You cannot perceive where low bass comes from. Again the nature of low frequency sounds is being pushed aside with this reasoning.

In reply to:
If the accompanying bass harmonic of the 99Hz tone is coming from the surround speaker, the bass will appear to be coming from the surrounds. Whereas the 79Hz bass harmonic coming from the mains will anchor that bass to the mains, it will not sound all jumbled together.

Now this is exactly what i mean does not make sense.
How can these sounds be anchored to the mains and the surrounds when the SUB is the unit playing both notes?
It is only located in the same position within a room. Non-directional bass cannot be localized.

In reply to:
This is how the illusion of bass coming from bookshelf speakers works, it is all about the bass harmonics.

I've never had the illusion of bass coming directly from bookshelf speakers. The bass is simply present. Do not confuse low end frequency with ranges that are localizable by the human ear.

In reply to:
Shoot, without a subwoofer, your mains would be set to large and your receiver would send all bass information for the small surrounds center etc...to the mains, and if the mains are big enough to do the job, it will sound just fine.

If this is the case, that the mains w/o a sub will play all the bass, and you have your surround speakers set to 'small' in the receiver thereby giving them an 80Hz (or whatever) crossover, how can the bass notes below this cross be tied to the surrounds and not the main speakers? (using your previous statements made).

As a side note, i run my receiver w/o a crossover. I use the subwoofer crossed at 50hz for my M60s which are set as 'large' in the receiver.

In reply to:
Plus you will think you are hearing bass out of all channels.

Again, do not confuse the bass range in which a localized module can be detected. We are talking about frequencies at least 100Hz or less.

In reply to:
DTS encodes a full range to all channels if the speakers can handle it, whether sound engineers utilize it or not is up to them.

This is irrelevant. The point was, if engineers know that surround speakers are not designed for LFE, why would they encode a 25Hz explosion noise for the surround channels?
They wouldn't. Extra effort to put a signal into a channel that cannot play it is still extra work. The LFE would get encoded to the sub/mains depending on the setup. I don't have a single dvd in which my surround QS8s play a LFE note when set on 'large'.

In reply to:
Keep in mind that within human hearing capabilities there is approximately 19, 980 individual frequencies.

Chess, you should know better.

This statement is only true if you are referring to integer frequencies between 20Hz and 20kHz. There are, in fact, an infinite number of frequencies between 20Hz and 20kHz. There are even an infinite number between just 20Hz and 20.01Hz.

You catch my drift.

Hello Chesseroo,

Hope you are well. I agree with you that one sub is far inferior to two subs or five subs, it is a large compromise to put all 5 to 7 channels through one woofer. An ideal setup would be a sub for each independent channel for perfectly clean response.

Oh, by the way I am well aware of the non directional nature of frequencies 80Hz and below, please don't be insulting. I indicated that it was an illusion, not reality.

Listening to the "Boxer" by Simon and Garfunkel the bass does indeed "seem" anchored to the main M2i's, turn the sub off and you see that there is really no bass there at all, but it sounds very localized to the speaker, even though we know that it is omni-directional. It is an illusion, a trick played on our brains. You can't locate the sub, so the brain thinks all sound is coming from the little mains.

Yes I am well aware of the crossover slope of I believe 6db per octave in the H/K.

Lets agree to disagree on the rest of this.

Have a wonderful day,

TonyM

Peter you are ridiculously enjoyable when you're overly smart.
Rather funny too.
And as reports go, somewhat tall as well.

If you bring up second, third and fourth order harmonics as influential parameters that alter the neurotransmitter levels in the hippocampus involved with making emotional judgements on audio, i may have to track you down and beat you with a banjo. Not a new one though, but some old one that has dried out and lost all of its sound.

Tony, there was no insult inferred from my post but i appreciate your politeness all the same. Your previous explanation of how the crossover system works in a receiver was rather 'low level' and i don't think you had any idea of the more complex idea i was trying to describe at the time. The nature of the LFE was a primary point of the post that needed reiteration. I will endeavor to improve my articulation via typed format.

In reply to:
I agree with you that one sub is far inferior to two subs or five subs, it is a large compromise to put all 5 to 7 channels through one woofer. An ideal setup would be a sub for each independent channel for perfectly clean response.

If you ever get the chance to demo multiple subs (for fronts and surrounds) on a single system i would love to hear your impressions.
Unfortunately at this point, the LFE signal is usually sent to only one unit. I don't believe there are any recordings that even utilize a 'stereo' subwoofer signal (specific LFE for front left and right OR for front vs. back) let alone a separate LFE signal for each of the 5, 6 or 7 channels. Someone correct me if i'm wrong b/c at the present time i have 2 subs in my posession and would love to try hearing this.

Hello Chesseroo,

Hope you are well. The only way I can see of hooking multiple subs to every channel, or even two subs, would be to set all speakers to large and use the high level inputs to the subs, and high level outputs to the speakers.

However this would not be optimal due to added distortion of the double amplification of the signal by the subs amplifier. Of course the question is, would the distortion be audible or objectionable, probably not. The benefit, most probably, would outweigh any downside of trying this.

Later,

TonyM

It would also make for one heck of a circus ring of cables around the room.
I'm not sure my large dog would appreciate the barrier to her favorite floor spot in front of the M60s.
You are right though. That many subs would likely create havoc with cancelling (or amplified) LFE sound waves all over the place. I doubt it would sound particularly pleasing or effective, but if the individual LFE signals and subwoofer gains were set right, it could work.
Another experiment to add to the growing list.

I think the way to do it would be with that ICBM that everyone's talking about. Ask Amie/Ian! They did it with the EP600 and EP500 according to that reviewer...

Well Tom, my thread's been hijacked to Cuba! But in answer to your question, both the wife and I are happy.

I just reread my post and funny, I never just said I was happy with it. Well I am, very happy and well pleased, and every second I can pry my wife off the TV I crank up those speakers and listen to another disc for the first time again!

More than my own happiness, though, is my suprise at people's reactions to the TV. Especially women's reactions. What follows is a conclusion produced from too few data points, but I'm going with it anyway until somebody slaps me down:

It's so big!

Obviously we've tried to corral all our friends over to check out the new HT. When they come, the guys generally say something like "We ought to get a big tv." And their wives always (4 data points) say something like "Yes."

Not what I was expecting. I was expecting something like "In your dreams, big boy.". Believe me, none of these women would be shy about saying that. But every one of them, I think, actually liked the big screen as much or more than the guys did. And by my reckoning, wanted one as much. Not one said "I don't like it" or "We can't afford it." I honestly think two of those four women would go out and buy one on the spot.

So the lesson I draw is this - go get that big tv. Your wife won't hate it.

Disclaimer - YMMV. This is not a solicitation to buy or sell. les9596 can not be held responsible for damage to your cranium.

In reply to:
It's so big!

WOW, what a surprise!!

i think that just goes to prove that, the bigger it is, the more women want it!! TV's, diamonds, closets, checking accounts, and....... well, you know.

i digress... i will not be responsible for another hijack!!

bigjohn

Same reaction from my wife when we had our 46" DLP delivered. First thing out of her mouth was "I don't know, it looks like it is too big to fit!" ..but her eyes were lit up all the same.

She loves that TV and is usually the first to show it off when friends or family come to visit.

Hilarious, Larry. So, to recap, women come to your house and exclaim "It's so big!". Good for you! I guess there's no need for that midlife convertible or Humvee. Another nail in the coffin for "size doesn't matter". And you even snuck the word "solicitation" in there too. Brilliant!

Add another data point. Our TV is about 6 years old (and doesn't do all that fancy E/HDTV stuff), but my wife was an easily-convinced proponent. It is a 55" tabletop Mits 4:3 RPTV. It is enormous. We have always enjoyed watching TV together, including professional basketball, and easily adapted to the improvements afforded by the "big-ass TV". There is no going back.

Hijack warning: It occurs to me that the new, big screen HDTV sets are 16:9 aspect ratio. But many have commented on the dearth of HDTV programming. A couple of questions:

How much of your viewing is still displayed as 4:3 (with bars on the sides)?

Just how big a 4:3 image does, say a 46" 16:9 screen display (yes, I AM too lazy to figure this out)?

A LOT of my viewing is in 4x3 format.

I figured it out once a year ago, Tom, and I'm too lazy to go back and do it again. But, I remember that my 43" 16x9 shows me a 36" 4x3. That would be a shocking come down, coming from a 55" 4x3.

If you still want a 55" 4x3, you better not even CONSIDER anything less than a 61" 16x9, and I'm not even sure THAT would give you a 55" 4x3.

Many sets have very good stretch modes that don't make the picture look too weird, and you get to see your screen filled.

I seem to recall that my 27" 4x3 would be equivalent to a 33" 16x9 or vice versa. Still gonna be a long time before I get a new TV.

I think you're right Ken. One of the sets I was looking at was the Sony 34" CRT HDTV. And I remember figuring that it would show a 27" (give or take) 4x3 image.

Hmm. Good to know that such beasties exist. Unlike the rest of you (apparently) I don't think my wife is going to go for a 60" rear projection.

Their new model, the KD-34XBR960, is VERY highly rated, and reputed to have the best PQ available. Of course it weighs 195 pounds, so it has it's downside.

Plus it costs $2000!!! Jeez, get set sizes above 27" and manufacturers just go crazy with the price. Gah. (Yes, I'm cheap.) Nice looking set, though.

Tom,

I couldn't resist your challenge, especially since it doesn't involve calculus.

Since the height of the screen doesn't change when going between 16:9 and 4:3, we'll need to reduce the 16:9 ratio. For ease of calculating, we'll switch the order of the ratios to height:width, so we now have 3:4 and 9:16.

Reducing the second ratio by a factor of 3 (so the heights match), we get 3:5.333

Now we need to determine the diagonals. The 3:4 aspect ratio is easy, because it creates a classic 3:4:5 triangle. We'll need to actually use the Pythagorean Theorem to find the diagonal of the 3:5.333 aspect ratio:

3^2 + 5.333^2 = 37.444, the square root of which is approximately 6.12.

So we now have 5:6.12 as the ratio between the diagonals of the two aspect ratios. Evaluated, this ratio is 0.817.

To figure out the 4:3 diagonal from the 16:9 diagonal, just multiply the full diagonal by 0.817.

Oh, um... QED, and stuff.

I knew I could count on you, Peter!

I'm not in a quantitative phase at work right now, and I just lacked the gumption to do the math. You should give up your geekdom and teach!

Thank You.

In reply to:
Plus it costs $2000!!! Jeez, get set sizes above 27" and manufacturers just go crazy with the price. Gah. (Yes, I'm cheap.) Nice looking set, though.

Yeah but last year's model (the 910) cost $2500. And, the year before that it was $2800. So, only 10 more years and it'll be in your budget.

I'm kidding of course. You're young. Prices will continue to come down, and (theoretically) your income should go up, so your wait shouldn't be all that long.

If I were young I'd be waiting too. I get maybe 10 HD channels, and a lot of the programming is not my cup of tea. Some of it (sports, movies, concerts) IS my cup of tea. But, I'm old. I'll probably croak before prices get really reasonable, and programming becomes universal. So, I didn't wait.

Look at it this way. When you get your brand new HDTV with all the current technology, if alive, I'll be watching this antiquated piece of junk with the lousy picture. Be happy!

In reply to:
Oh, um... QED, and stuff.

As for you Peter. Oh buzz off!

In reply to:
As for you Peter. Oh buzz off!

Never tell a man to turn off his buzz. That's a waste of a good beer!

I prefer my buzz from a nice cold Crown & Coke with a twist of lime! :-)

How about a nice mint julep? Mmmm...