1. Guest,
    If you need help getting to know Xenforo, please see our guide here. If you have feedback or questions, please post those here.
    Dismiss Notice

Is 40" 16:9 television "small" ??

Discussion in 'Displays' started by Scott Lang, Nov 21, 2006.

  1. Scott Lang

    Scott Lang Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2001
    Messages:
    26
    Likes Received:
    0
    After a lot of reading I have narrowed my search down to the Sony v2500 series tv. I really want the 46" version but it will BARLEY BARLEY fit into my armoire. I have less than 45" width to work with and this tv is 44.13" so its going to be CLOSE. I have cut some cardboard and measured 100 times and I think it will work, but I hate to buy it and go through all that hassel and it not fit and have to return, etc etc...

    so Im starting to think about the 40" version... Man I wish it was 42" and not 40"... but my question is, is 40" too small for a main living room television? Currently I have a 36" Wega box style tv and the size is just fine for me. But I kinda wanted to go bigger just because....

    but the thing is, the 40" widescreen is actually about 1" shorter (viewable screen size) than my tv now. It is about 7"-8" wider but less viewing space up and down than my current tv...

    so my question is, would a 40" compare to my 36" or would I immediately feel like its smaller? Id love a 46" but I really think its going to be too tight for comford (my armoire has doors and I think it might scrap if I attempt to close doors)...

    again, man I wish Sony did 42" and not 40".... wouldnt we all like another 2"... lol
     
  2. Mort Corey

    Mort Corey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2003
    Messages:
    981
    Likes Received:
    0
    Kinda depends on how far you sit from the screen. I sit about 7 -8 feet back and have a 42" screen. It's OK....but the next one will be 50".

    Mort
     
  3. Rick89114

    Rick89114 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2006
    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    0
    We were looing at the XBR2's either the 40 ot 46. I wanted the 40 but the wife talked me into the 46. I sure am glad we opted for the larger.
     
  4. CoreyAC

    CoreyAC Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2006
    Messages:
    68
    Likes Received:
    0
    go with the 46" and if it doesn't work then get a new armoire!!!
     
  5. snash22

    snash22 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2006
    Messages:
    30
    Likes Received:
    0
    Scott,

    FWIW, Since the geometry of the 40" is different, you will be viewing 16:9 content larger than you are now and 4:3 content smaller.

    I think to be able to see the 4:3 content at the same size on a 16:9, you'd need to get a 56" set.

    I think I got the math right, please correct me if I am wrong.
     
  6. David Norman

    David Norman Premium
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2001
    Messages:
    2,605
    Likes Received:
    219
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    snash, your math is definately off.

    40in 16:9 is equivalent of 32 inch 4:3 picture (a full 21% smaller viewing area than a 36 inch set).

    46 inch 16:9 set is 10% more viewing area than the 36 inch set on 4:3 material.

    My opinion is to go with the 46 inch set and hope it work (or make it work)
     
  7. Alex/d

    Alex/d Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2006
    Messages:
    95
    Likes Received:
    0
    Try to find a few old cardboard boxes and mock them up. If you want to simulate TV, tape family photos to the boxes [​IMG]

    Seriously, though. Mockups do work well for some people [​IMG]
     
  8. Ricky c

    Ricky c Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    159
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have a sony kdl-40s2000 bravia that replaced a 36 panny hdtv.It went right in where the panny used to be but with a tighter fit.I sit 8-9 feet away and dont feel it's too small.But bigger is better.If i had the room i would of gone to a 46.It's in my wall unit which consists of a tv stand inbetween 2 towers.I measured the tv standwidth before i got it just to make sure.If your measurements are correct i think you'll be fine with the 46".
     
  9. Hanson

    Hanson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 1998
    Messages:
    4,617
    Likes Received:
    116
    Real Name:
    Hanson
    That's why I never got one of those wall units -- you end up with the tail wagging the dog, and I never wanted furniture to dictate how big my TV is.

    40" 16:9 is definitely too small for my tastes unless you're sitting ridiculously close to the TV (
     
  10. Marty M

    Marty M Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 1998
    Messages:
    2,920
    Likes Received:
    11
    I completely agree with that. The furniture the TV will be setting on is generally cheaper than the TV. In Consumer's Reports one of the most common complaints TV buyers have is that they regret not getting a larger TV.

    In my case it was my wife who helped that situation. I was ready to buy a 50" Sony SXRD and she said the magic words - I'm not sure that is going to be big enough. It took no time at all to change my purchase to the 55".

    If you are like me, this is a purchase you hope to keep for several years. Be sure the set is a size you can live with for that time period. Good luck and happy shopping.
     
  11. Steve Schaffer

    Steve Schaffer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 1999
    Messages:
    3,759
    Likes Received:
    1
    I have a living room with no tv in it at all. In the "family room" I have free reign to get as big a set as I please. I'm now 13 feet back from a 57" rptv with will be replaced by a 60" sxrd this Thursday, purchased Black Friday for less than any decent 40" flatpanel.

    At a 10 foot distance anything under 50" is imho way too small for HD and dvd viewing.
     

Share This Page