How big is the biggest TV in your house? (1 Viewer)

[Binky The Doormat]

46"

Don't feel the need to have a bigger TV and I think it would look a bit silly to have an enormous TV taking up the entire wall.

Your face is silly.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

46"

Don't feel the need to have a bigger TV and I think it would look a bit silly to have an enormous TV taking up the entire wall.

Your face is silly.

His wall is too small.

 

[Dickies]

46"

Don't feel the need to have a bigger TV and I think it would look a bit silly to have an enormous TV taking up the entire wall.

Your face is silly.

His wall is too small.

Some truth here

 

[D-Day]

220. 221. Whatever it takes

 

[Quez]

59"

 

[renesauz]

I've never understood the craze regarding getting bigger and bigger. There comes a point where the TV can be too large for where you typcially sit. I don't want to have to turn my head to watch TV, or miss parts of the action simply because there's no way my eyes can take in the entire picture at once.

The ideal size of a TV is a product of the room it is in and the distance from which you sit. Bigger is NOT better.

 

[Binky The Doormat]

I've never understood the craze regarding getting bigger and bigger. There comes a point where the TV can be too large for where you typcially sit. I don't want to have to turn my head to watch TV, or miss parts of the action simply because there's no way my eyes can take in the entire picture at once.

The ideal size of a TV is a product of the room it is in and the distance from which you sit. Bigger is NOT better.

wtf? At what point are current televisions requiring people to turn their head like a tennis match to catch the action?

ETA: Thinking about it a little more, your example would require that your head be the size of like ...a pea or something.

 

[NCCommish]

I've never understood the craze regarding getting bigger and bigger. There comes a point where the TV can be too large for where you typcially sit. I don't want to have to turn my head to watch TV, or miss parts of the action simply because there's no way my eyes can take in the entire picture at once.

The ideal size of a TV is a product of the room it is in and the distance from which you sit. Bigger is NOT better.

wtf? At what point are current televisions requiring people to turn their head like a tennis match to catch the action?

ETA: Thinking about it a little more, your example would require that your head be the size of like ...a pea or something.

But he is right about how you should size a TV. You should base the size on the distance you normally sit from the screen.

 

[renesauz]

I've never understood the craze regarding getting bigger and bigger. There comes a point where the TV can be too large for where you typcially sit. I don't want to have to turn my head to watch TV, or miss parts of the action simply because there's no way my eyes can take in the entire picture at once.

The ideal size of a TV is a product of the room it is in and the distance from which you sit. Bigger is NOT better.

wtf? At what point are current televisions requiring people to turn their head like a tennis match to catch the action?

ETA: Thinking about it a little more, your example would require that your head be the size of like ...a pea or something.

I had a buddy who put a giant TV in his den. I'm not sure of the size...something in the 65 inch area. The furthest seat in the room from the TV was only about 12 feet...from that seat, I felt like I was missing stuff on the TV all of the time. No, I wasn't turning my head...but my eyes DID constantly roam over the picture trying to take it in. Watching sports was awful. And picture quality absolutely starts to suffer the larger you get.

 

[NCCommish]

I've never understood the craze regarding getting bigger and bigger. There comes a point where the TV can be too large for where you typcially sit. I don't want to have to turn my head to watch TV, or miss parts of the action simply because there's no way my eyes can take in the entire picture at once.

The ideal size of a TV is a product of the room it is in and the distance from which you sit. Bigger is NOT better.

wtf? At what point are current televisions requiring people to turn their head like a tennis match to catch the action?

ETA: Thinking about it a little more, your example would require that your head be the size of like ...a pea or something.

I had a buddy who put a giant TV in his den. I'm not sure of the size...something in the 65 inch area. The furthest seat in the room from the TV was only about 12 feet...from that seat, I felt like I was missing stuff on the TV all of the time. No, I wasn't turning my head...but my eyes DID constantly roam over the picture trying to take it in. Watching sports was awful. And picture quality absolutely starts to suffer the larger you get.

If it was 1080p the recommended viewing range for 65 inch is 8-13 ft

 

[comfortably numb]

My TV is so big it starts in the living room and ends in the dinning room.

When a pass is thrown I have to run into the other room to see if it was a completion.

I feel like I am a part of the action!

 

[Wrigley]

My TV is so big it starts in the living room and ends in the dinning room.

When a pass is thrown I have to run into the other room to see if it was a completion.

I feel like I am a part of the action!

Keeps you in shape.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

125" projection.

 

[fantasycurse42]

Just ordered this for the living room.

You're joking, correct? You live in a condo, I can't imagine your ceilings being bigger than 9 or 10ft. I made a huge mistake like this 8 years ago - Samsung's first generation of thin LED/3D TVs - Cost $7k, 55" - I still have it, amazing TV (I like it better than the brand new 4k TV I just bought for my bedroom), however I decided the difference between a TV that costs $1k-$2k and > $10k is so inconsequential that it makes zero sense to buy. Plus I don't think anything on Earth depreciates faster than a $20k TV - I'll be able to buy that same TV for an 85% discount in about 18 months.

 

[Ned]

64"

Me too...Samsung Plasma

Me three. PN64F8500.

I have the 59" 7000. Best TV I've ever owned.

 

[cstu]

I've never understood the craze regarding getting bigger and bigger. There comes a point where the TV can be too large for where you typcially sit. I don't want to have to turn my head to watch TV, or miss parts of the action simply because there's no way my eyes can take in the entire picture at once.

The ideal size of a TV is a product of the room it is in and the distance from which you sit. Bigger is NOT better.

wtf? At what point are current televisions requiring people to turn their head like a tennis match to catch the action?

ETA: Thinking about it a little more, your example would require that your head be the size of like ...a pea or something.

I had a buddy who put a giant TV in his den. I'm not sure of the size...something in the 65 inch area. The furthest seat in the room from the TV was only about 12 feet...from that seat, I felt like I was missing stuff on the TV all of the time. No, I wasn't turning my head...but my eyes DID constantly roam over the picture trying to take it in. Watching sports was awful. And picture quality absolutely starts to suffer the larger you get.

You guys must hate movie theaters.

 

[AnonymousBob]

Ok, who's the guy with no TV?

:raiseshand:

 

[Spin]

http://www.rtings.com/tv/learn/size-to-distance-relationship

I used this chart when getting a TV for my living room. Couch is 9ft away from TV, says optimal is a 65inch 1080p. So that's what I got, and was super cheap on black friday two years ago. Looks great.

 

[Da Guru]

52 in living room, 60 in basement 32 in bedroom.

Our basement is pretty big and wide open so the 60 looks smaller than the 52 when watching games. In the store it looked huge.

 

[jamny]

I've never understood the craze regarding getting bigger and bigger. There comes a point where the TV can be too large for where you typcially sit. I don't want to have to turn my head to watch TV, or miss parts of the action simply because there's no way my eyes can take in the entire picture at once.

The ideal size of a TV is a product of the room it is in and the distance from which you sit. Bigger is NOT better.

wtf? At what point are current televisions requiring people to turn their head like a tennis match to catch the action?

ETA: Thinking about it a little more, your example would require that your head be the size of like ...a pea or something.

But he is right about how you should size a TV. You should base the size on the distance you normally sit from the screen.

Exactly right.

My living room TV is a 50", I sit at around 8' away.

My basement home theater projector screen is 16' away. I wanted to go with a 100" but because of projector placement, I went with 80" screen. Still great but I'm hoping to bump it up to 100" some day.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Just ordered this for the living room.

You're joking, correct? You live in a condo, I can't imagine your ceilings being bigger than 9 or 10ft. I made a huge mistake like this 8 years ago - Samsung's first generation of thin LED/3D TVs - Cost $7k, 55" - I still have it, amazing TV (I like it better than the brand new 4k TV I just bought for my bedroom), however I decided the difference between a TV that costs $1k-$2k and > $10k is so inconsequential that it makes zero sense to buy. Plus I don't think anything on Earth depreciates faster than a $20k TV - I'll be able to buy that same TV for an 85% discount in about 18 months.

In the follow post AR ordered three more, so 80 yesterday.

How is it possible you have not been following the Loaning A Chick Money thread?

 

[fantasycurse42]

Just ordered this for the living room.

You're joking, correct? You live in a condo, I can't imagine your ceilings being bigger than 9 or 10ft. I made a huge mistake like this 8 years ago - Samsung's first generation of thin LED/3D TVs - Cost $7k, 55" - I still have it, amazing TV (I like it better than the brand new 4k TV I just bought for my bedroom), however I decided the difference between a TV that costs $1k-$2k and > $10k is so inconsequential that it makes zero sense to buy. Plus I don't think anything on Earth depreciates faster than a $20k TV - I'll be able to buy that same TV for an 85% discount in about 18 months.

In the follow post AR ordered three more, so 80 yesterday.

How is it possible you have not been following the Loaning A Chick Money thread?

The follow-up was obviously shtick, I think the original was too... Who would order a $20k TV - Even if you have Chet money, that is just foolish.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Just ordered this for the living room.

You're joking, correct? You live in a condo, I can't imagine your ceilings being bigger than 9 or 10ft. I made a huge mistake like this 8 years ago - Samsung's first generation of thin LED/3D TVs - Cost $7k, 55" - I still have it, amazing TV (I like it better than the brand new 4k TV I just bought for my bedroom), however I decided the difference between a TV that costs $1k-$2k and > $10k is so inconsequential that it makes zero sense to buy. Plus I don't think anything on Earth depreciates faster than a $20k TV - I'll be able to buy that same TV for an 85% discount in about 18 months.

In the follow post AR ordered three more, so 80 yesterday.How is it possible you have not been following the Loaning A Chick Money thread?

The follow-up was obviously shtick, I think the original was too... Who would order a $20k TV - Even if you have Chet money, that is just foolish.

FTR, Chet's Ferrari and (non-AMG) Benz are 9 and 8 years old, respectively.