Sign in   |  Join   |  Help
Untitled Page

ARCHIVED FORUM -- March 2012 to February 2022
READ ONLY FORUM

This is the second Archived Forum which was active between 1st March 2012 and 23rd February 2022

 

Move Over Oled.....Welcome Quantum-Dot Illumination

rated by 0 users
This post has 20 Replies | 1 Follower

Millemissen
Top 10 Contributor
Flensborg, Denmark
Posts 14,680
OFFLINE
Gold Member

Thanks for that link - interesting stuff, indeed.

MM

There is a tv - and there is a BV

Bv7Mk3
Top 150 Contributor
uk
Posts 781
OFFLINE
Bronze Member
Bv7Mk3 replied on Sun, Apr 13 2014 4:17 PM

Your Welcome and that could be a cheaper way to get afforable big screens with geat perfomance that most can afford :-)

So much new stuff is coming and 4k is driving it.....

tournedos
Top 10 Contributor
Finland
Posts 7,357
OFFLINE
Bronze Member
Moderator
tournedos replied on Sun, Apr 13 2014 4:33 PM

Move over "When does B&O introduce OLED TVs?" threads... welcome "When does B&O introduce Quantum-dot TVs?" threads Big Smile

--mika

Bv7Mk3
Top 150 Contributor
uk
Posts 781
OFFLINE
Bronze Member
Bv7Mk3 replied on Sun, Apr 13 2014 5:06 PM

When something over takes that ...lol

bayerische
Top 25 Contributor
Ekenäs, Finland
Posts 4,770
OFFLINE
Bronze Member

TV is sort of doomed... What's next after this? Big Smile

Too long to list.... 

beaker
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 761
OFFLINE
Bronze Member
beaker replied on Sun, Apr 13 2014 5:26 PM

I find it all a bit of a joke really. The picture on my Avant is good enough for me.

Hereford
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 87
OFFLINE
Bronze Member
Hereford replied on Sun, Apr 13 2014 8:58 PM

QD is cool, but it is not comparable to OLED. QD as it is today is just an enhancement to existing LCD TVs that allow them a wider color space.

OLED is much more fundamental in that it is a different way to control and illuminate every single subpixel.

moxxey
Top 25 Contributor
South West, UK
Posts 5,359
OFFLINE
Bronze Member
moxxey replied on Mon, Apr 14 2014 3:31 PM

beaker:

I find it all a bit of a joke really. The picture on my Avant is good enough for me.

A lot of people want a larger TV than a 32", which means that the "good enough" picture doesn't scale up. I have a 32" BV10 in the kitchen and, frankly, compared to my BV11-46, it's extremely tricky watching football on it. There are huge advantages watching certain TV programmes on a larger screen - sport being one. Some movies really do the larger screen justice, too.

I'm not saying people should be demanding a 55" or higher, but a 32" is tiny these days. Fine for watching the news, perhaps.

So, it's not really a joke for this reason. CRT has had it's day.

vikinger
Top 25 Contributor
Vestri Kirkjubyr, UK
Posts 5,422
OFFLINE
Gold Member
vikinger replied on Mon, Apr 14 2014 10:45 PM

moxxey:

beaker:

I find it all a bit of a joke really. The picture on my Avant is good enough for me.

A lot of people want a larger TV than a 32", which means that the "good enough" picture doesn't scale up. I have a 32" BV10 in the kitchen and, frankly, compared to my BV11-46, it's extremely tricky watching football on it. There are huge advantages watching certain TV programmes on a larger screen - sport being one. Some movies really do the larger screen justice, too.

I'm not saying people should be demanding a 55" or higher, but a 32" is tiny these days. Fine for watching the news, perhaps.

So, it's not really a joke for this reason. CRT has had it's day.

I don't remember anyone being dissatisfied with a 32 inch TV when that was the biggest size you could get. How difficult will it be to watch a 55" once 110" is available for £5K?

Graham

tournedos
Top 10 Contributor
Finland
Posts 7,357
OFFLINE
Bronze Member
Moderator
tournedos replied on Mon, Apr 14 2014 11:05 PM

vikinger:
I don't remember anyone being dissatisfied with a 32 inch TV when that was the biggest size you could get.

How could they have been? They didn't know of anything else.

I'm now sitting with a laptop in my lap, watching the space that was still occupied by my MX6000 less than six months ago. The field of view of the 17" laptop in my lap is about the same that is offered by my new 42" flat screen, located in the same spot where the MX was. I haven't missed it a second once I moved it to the bedroom (apart from the remote control, of course).

Never mind the ever so soft RGB picture of the MX that barely let you tell which way the hockey puck was going despite of the 28" size, nor the 4:3 aspect ratio that meant a lot of the already limited screen estate was just blank. Also, our national broadcasting company recently moved its main channels into HD. Although at first I was quite happy with the way this TV showed SD material, nowadays it is painfully obvious when you are watching HD and when you are not, and all I'm regretting is that I didn't put in the extra 100 euros for a 50" screen when I bought this one.

--mika

vikinger
Top 25 Contributor
Vestri Kirkjubyr, UK
Posts 5,422
OFFLINE
Gold Member
vikinger replied on Tue, Apr 15 2014 7:26 AM

tournedos:

vikinger:
I don't remember anyone being dissatisfied with a 32 inch TV when that was the biggest size you could get.

How could they have been? They didn't know of anything else.

That was my point!

Graham

moxxey
Top 25 Contributor
South West, UK
Posts 5,359
OFFLINE
Bronze Member
moxxey replied on Tue, Apr 15 2014 7:30 AM

vikinger:

I don't remember anyone being dissatisfied with a 32 inch TV when that was the biggest size you could get. How difficult will it be to watch a 55" once 110" is available for £5K?

Steve Jobs once said "people don't know what they want, until we give it to them". Just because a 32" TV was the only one available at the time, this didn't necessarily mean people didn't want an improved visual experience. 

I remember owning a 32" Sony CRT back in about 1998 and specifically asking the Sony dealer when we'd see a larger screen, before larger screens even existed. When a 40" was released, I never looked back.

I don't really follow your theory that you'd necessarily want a 110" just because it exists. As I said above, there's a balance. I don't necessarily want a 55" - as it dominates the room - but my BV10-32 is too small to watch sport, in my opinion, from a few metres away. And I own a 32", so I can happily pass judgement on the panel.

moxxey
Top 25 Contributor
South West, UK
Posts 5,359
OFFLINE
Bronze Member
moxxey replied on Tue, Apr 15 2014 7:33 AM

vikinger:

That was my point!

Poor point. See above. I asked about larger screens (in those days we went from 26"->28"->32", so you'd have to have very poor foresight to think we'd be stuck on 32". Like I said, the theory about "wanting" a 110", just because it exists, is just daft. I own a 46" and 32" and I'd switch to the 46" every time, for the majority of movies and sport.

Besides, I was arguing that CRT has had it's day, hence the talk about future panels.

vikinger
Top 25 Contributor
Vestri Kirkjubyr, UK
Posts 5,422
OFFLINE
Gold Member
vikinger replied on Tue, Apr 15 2014 11:21 AM

At some point we will be able to have any size screen we want, so it will be a case of picking what suits a room and seating positions.

But we all did manage quite happily with 32", because we arranged our rooms and seating accordingly. As Mika implies, any size screen is OK depending on how far away it is. New bigger screens and flat televisions have opened up the design and layout  of living spaces. Tiny screens have opened up rear seat options in cars.

There is still one dilemma though in living rooms. In the majority of cases televisions are still viewable to the maximum number of seats by placing them in a corner, so you still see an amazing number of large flat screens across corners where a CRT or back projector would have done the same job in the same space. Eventually all room layouts will gradually change so that the TV, like a fireplace, becomes a focal point in the middle of a wall. Maybe fireplaces have to move to the corners first!

Graham

Manbearpig
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 908
OFFLINE
Bronze Member
Manbearpig replied on Tue, Apr 15 2014 12:43 PM

Flat TVs do nothing for me. Have an Avant, an AV 9000 and a Beocenter 1 all in different rooms. Perfectly satisifed. The ever changing flat screen technology shows how big a role marketing plays in selling to customers. The Steve Jobs quote mentioned above is further proof. And given that people don't know what they want you can start with the manipulation (i. e. crate needs). It's all a business and as long as you're able to sell that's fine. If you can sell people 3 TVs in 5 years with ever changing and fast evolving technologies - why not just do it? I'm convinced that the average turnover rate of TVs in households as increased by quite a margin. Whether that adds anything to the customers viewing enjoyment apart from emptying their pockets is to be doubted. Just my two 2 cents.

Flappo
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 850
OFFLINE
Bronze Member
Flappo replied on Tue, Apr 15 2014 1:39 PM

Biggest problem with old tv's is the rear interface. All modern gear comes with hdmi's. Try plugging those in your avant.

crossbytje
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 224
OFFLINE
Bronze Member

32" is too small. 

That this was not the case many years ago is partly because the content was not made for big screens then. More an more movies really need a larger screen, take any lord of the rings, with wide views and scenes where the people are soo tiny, they probably are not even visible on older tvs...

 

Beolit 12 - Beolab 4 pc (dead now) - Beoplay H5 - Beolab 9 - BeoRemote One BT - Beoplay M3

Manbearpig
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 908
OFFLINE
Bronze Member

Depends on the size of your living room. For anything smaller than 30 sqm 32 is more than enough. Also, one adjusts to the size of the picture. In direct comparison bigger may seem better but whether that also holds after getting used to the screensize is to be doubted.

However, I admit that bigger screen size is one of the few (and maybe the most convincing) valid arguments for the superiority of flat screen TVs from my point of view. Still not for me despite the analog signal quality becoming worse and 4:3 just not being supported any longer.

Greetings.

tournedos
Top 10 Contributor
Finland
Posts 7,357
OFFLINE
Bronze Member
Moderator
tournedos replied on Tue, Apr 15 2014 2:58 PM

Manbearpig:
Depends on the size of your living room. For anything smaller than 30 sqm 32 is more than enough.

For SD perhaps, because there simply is no detail to see!

I believe my viewing distance is typically 3-3.5 meters and I certainly couldn't live with a smaller screen than my current 42" for HD content.

--mika

DMacri
Top 100 Contributor
United States
Posts 881
OFFLINE
Gold Member
DMacri replied on Wed, Apr 16 2014 2:15 AM
It's really a matter of the viewing angle you want and the resolution capability of the display. This link provides some details:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimum_HDTV_viewing_distance

Dom

2x BeoSystem 3, BeoSystem 5000, BeoSystem 6500, 2x BeoMaster 7000, 2 pair of BeoLab Penta mk2, AV 7000, Beolab 4000, BeoSound 4000, Playmaker, BeoLab 2500, S-45, S-45.2, RL-140, CX-50, C-75, 3x CX-100, 3x MCL2 link rooms, 3x Beolab 2000, M3, P2, Earset, A8 earphones, A3, 2x 4001 relay, H3, H3 ANC, H6, 2014 Audi S5 with B&O sound, and ambio 

Page 1 of 1 (21 items) | RSS