Jump to content

Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

- - - - -

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

  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

#1 of 11 OFFLINE   Scott Lang

Scott Lang


  • 26 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 01 2001

Posted November 21 2006 - 08:57 AM

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 of 11 OFFLINE   Mort Corey

Mort Corey

    Supporting Actor

  • 981 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 21 2003

Posted November 21 2006 - 09:41 AM

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 of 11 OFFLINE   Rick89114



  • 24 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 17 2006

Posted November 21 2006 - 04:51 PM

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 of 11 OFFLINE   CoreyAC


    Stunt Coordinator

  • 68 posts
  • Join Date: May 18 2006

Posted November 22 2006 - 03:21 AM

go with the 46" and if it doesn't work then get a new armoire!!!

#5 of 11 OFFLINE   snash22



  • 30 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 23 2006

Posted November 23 2006 - 07:26 AM

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 of 11 OFFLINE   David Norman

David Norman


  • 2,409 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 12 2001
  • LocationCharlotte, NC

Posted November 23 2006 - 08:05 AM

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 of 11 OFFLINE   Alex/d


    Stunt Coordinator

  • 95 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 22 2006

Posted November 24 2006 - 10:49 PM

Try to find a few old cardboard boxes and mock them up. If you want to simulate TV, tape family photos to the boxes Posted Image

Seriously, though. Mockups do work well for some people Posted Image
Onkyo TX-DS787/ RCA Dimensia MPA 200 Preamp/ Pioneer Elite PD 65/ Sony SCD-CE595 SA-CD layer/ Technics M224 Tape Deck/ Sony DVP-NS501P DVD Player/ Superscope TD-48 Quadraphonic 8-Track Player/ Technics SL-5 Turntable/ Pioneer TX-6500II Tuner/ PSB Century 600i / Paradigm PS-1000/ Pioneer CS-C280K...

#8 of 11 OFFLINE   Ricky c

Ricky c

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 159 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 28 2001

Posted November 27 2006 - 03:40 PM

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 of 11 OFFLINE   Hanson



  • 4,611 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 01 1998
  • Real Name:Hanson

Posted November 28 2006 - 05:49 AM

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 (<6'). For 10', I'd go with 56" minimum. However, considering your circumstance, I would still try the 46". Try finding one and taking very accurate measurements so there aren't any real world issues. It might be a pain getting inputs hooked up in the back if you can't swivel the set inside the armoire. I don't want to sound obnoxious (I'm sure you're set on the armoire and the make model of TV), but if I were you, I'd move the armoire to another room and get a stand since, for the price of the 46" Sony you're looking at you could get a 61" DLP. BTW, a 40" 16:9 is slightly taller than a 32" 4:3 screen (32.6") and a 46" 16:9 is taller than a 36" screen (37.6"). The 56" 16:9 is bit taller than a 45" 4:3 set (45.75"). And if anyone is wondering, a 50" 16:9 is slightly taller than a 40" 4:3 set (40.8"). Upgrading a 36" 4:3 to a 40" 16:9 means you're losing a full 2" of screen height. That's not a diagonal measurement -- that's vertical screen height. In a sense, that's not really an upgrade.

#10 of 11 OFFLINE   Marty M

Marty M


  • 2,920 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 06 1998

Posted November 28 2006 - 08:33 AM

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.
Lawn Ranger Motto: You're only young once, but you can be always be immature.

#11 of 11 OFFLINE   Steve Schaffer

Steve Schaffer


  • 3,759 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 15 1999

Posted November 28 2006 - 02:33 PM

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.
Steve S.
I prefer not to push the subwoofers until they're properly run in.

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users