Beoplay V1 as a computer screen

Given the lack of upgrades with the iMac from Apple, I really wanted a new big screen desktop. 

I am toying with the idea of using a mac mini connected to a V1 but I'm not sure how the resolution will compare to using a dedicated computer display?

Oasis:

Given the lack of upgrades with the iMac from Apple, I really wanted a new big screen desktop. 

I am toying with the idea of using a mac mini connected to a V1 but I'm not sure how the resolution will compare to using a dedicated computer display?

Others will answer the V1 question, but I have often used my BV8-32 as a display (and you used to see them being used this way in B&O stores) however not as a desktop close to my nose, but at a bit more than an arms length simply because of the size of the screen.  Resolution was good not retina display level unless you stepped back or sat on a nearby couch 

I suspect the V1's level of black will be much better - the acid test is how crisp fonts will be.

[

Oasis:

I am toying with the idea of using a mac mini connected to a V1 but I'm not sure how the resolution will compare to using a dedicated computer display?

Oasis:

I am toying with the idea of using a mac mini connected to a V1 but I'm not sure how the resolution will compare to using a dedicated computer display?

Personally, I think it's a bad idea. We use Mac Mini's in the office and there's no way I'd be using a TV for a monitor, for numerous reasons.

To start with, the V1 isn't geared to deal with the native resolution (which are detailed above). Secondly, it's an expensive monitor. You can pick up a 27" Cinema Display for £7xx if you look around, which will work with your Mac Mini, will enable you to connect a Mac laptop and charge it. Lastly, back to the resolution, screen size doesn't reflect the number of pixels you'll get - you'll get a more detailed screen on the Cineman Display than you will on a 40" V1.

However, there's an exception! If you're planning on using this in your bedroom or a room where you want a TV, of course the V1 can double up as a TV, which is a big bonus. You can watch TV and movies via the Cinema Display, of course, but's it's a lot easier via the V1.

There is little reason not to choose a 30” panel 2560x1600 or a 27” 2560x1440 Apple panel, instead of a TV used as monitor. 

The extra resolution is a huge advantage for editing photos and video as well.

Vienna:

The V1 comes closer to the retina resolution level (2560 x 1440) of the 26" iMac -  native resolution of the V1 panel is
1920x1080 - you can reduce the viewing distance - a bit less than one arms lenght for a V1-32, a bit more than an arms length
for the V1-40.

Retina? The iMac is neither retina, nor is that resolution. To achieve retina on the iMac, you'd have to almost double the number of pixels, hence 2880 x 1800 on this 15" MBP (ie. for the size of the screen, 15", that's doubled over the previous resolution and the same thing would have to happen on a 27" iMac).

Please don't start telling people they'll get a "retina" screen.....using a TV. You should work for B&O's PR department!

moxxey:

Vienna:

The V1 comes closer to the retina resolution level (2560 x 1440) of the 26" iMac -  native resolution of the V1 panel is
1920x1080 - you can reduce the viewing distance - a bit less than one arms lenght for a V1-32, a bit more than an arms length
for the V1-40.

Retina? The iMac is neither retina, nor is that resolution. To achieve retina on the iMac, you'd have to almost double the number of pixels, hence 2880 x 1800 on this 15" MBP (ie. for the size of the screen, 15", that's doubled over the previous resolution and the same thing would have to happen on a 27" iMac).

Please don't start telling people they'll get a "retina" screen.....using a TV. You should work for B&O's PR department!

I think Vienna was making the point that different retina display resolutions provide quality experiences at arms length ... where as you move further out you need a less dense pixels but still get a pleasurable experience .... this distance debate is something we have discussed previously, e.g.

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/06/4k-tvs-are-coming-but-they-face-an-uphill-battle-in-the-home/ 

I think you should wait for a bit unless you desperately need a new computer.

An iMac is an all in one solution. A V1 with mac mini is a two box solution.

I used a mac mini with a 55 inch Sony as a media solution for a short while. Although it was the same resolution as the V1 and it was great for a media solution, however not as a computer screen.

I did see a beocentre 6 years ago as a computer monitor and it was lovely however ultimately it's a two box solution.

Wait and see what is around the corner. You may not want two screens in your room but what about a laptop that connects to s bigger screen when you may need it.

The only retina Mac is the MacBook pro retina that has about the same amount of pixels as a 27" apple screen, actually even more! The V1 has many fewer pixels making it bad to use as a computer screen at least close up.

moxxey:

Vienna:

The V1 comes closer to the retina resolution level (2560 x 1440) of the 26" iMac -  native resolution of the V1 panel is
1920x1080 - you can reduce the viewing distance - a bit less than one arms lenght for a V1-32, a bit more than an arms length
for the V1-40.

Retina? The iMac is neither retina, nor is that resolution. To achieve retina on the iMac, you'd have to almost double the number of pixels, hence 2880 x 1800 on this 15" MBP (ie. for the size of the screen, 15", that's doubled over the previous resolution and the same thing would have to happen on a 27" iMac).

Please don't start telling people they'll get a "retina" screen.....using a TV. You should work for B&O's PR department!

MY OWN iPad 3, or "new", as the fruit company calls the item, has a resolution of  2048x1536
At least the PR guys of the Fruit Company are calling this a "retina display"

An iPad 3, intended to be used at a distance of 30 to 50 cm, an iMac 27at a viewing distance of 50-70 cm and a full HD TV  of 32" or 40""
at a distance of 80-120 cm will give a SIMILAR viewing expirience at these DIFFERENT viewing distances. 

The resolution of your own retina is the limitig factor making ultra high pixel density / resolutions not distinguishable at larger viewing distances !   

And, if knowledge of physics qualifies for a PR job at B&O, fine ...

Vienna:

an iMac 27at a viewing distance of 50-70 cm and a full HD TV  of 32" or 40""

at a distance of 80-120 cm will give a SIMILAR viewing expirience at these DIFFERENT viewing distances. 

No it does not. My Cinema Display is nothing like this 15" MBP, however close or far I sit from the screen. In this office, right now, I'm using both devices - a Mac Mini quad-core connected to the 27" Cinema Display and my rMBP 15".

My eyes hurt when I move from the 15' rMBP to the Cinema Display. The display is no way near as clear and crisp as this rMBP. Granted, you sit further away from the Cinema Display, but it's definitely no "retina" display.

If you believe your Cinema Display is "retina", fair enough. I'm sitting here using both - and have used a Cinema Display for the last two years - and I can assure you that this 15" rMBP screen is a couple of levels above, in clarity and sharpness.

For a true "retina" 27", the screen would have a resolution of 5120×2880, with a PPI of approx 120.

The V1 has such appalling lag ( 167 ms ) I don't see why anyone would use it as a monitor , certainly not for gaming . 

Flappo:

The V1 has such appalling lag ( 167 ms ) I don't see why anyone would use it as a monitor , certainly not for gaming . 

 

Your absolutely right i had a recent demo of one and really wanted it to be good i brang my own games and the v1 was just sluggish, i couldn't reccomend it to anyone who is into gaming the response is really bad and it stuggles alot even with the game mode on...

 

 

I was contemplating getting one for my den , but this put me off completely.

There's obviously a massive amount of picture processing going on - which is impossible to turn off !

Flappo:

The V1 has such appalling lag ( 167 ms ) I don't see why anyone would use it as a monitor , certainly not for gaming . 

Hi, the tech specs show a grey to grey response time of 8ms.  Am I missing something here? 

Michael:

Hi, the tech specs show a grey to grey response time of 8ms.  Am I missing something here? 

Yes - that's the response time of the panel only.

The "lag" as quoted above includes the entire processing chain of the TV. Totally irrelevant when watching TV, but can be quite annoying if it's the time from your finger movement to until something actually happens on the screen.