Myreader.co.uk  
uk news, chat and community
   home   |   control panel login   |   archive   |  
 
media
animation.anime
books.sf
broadband
broadcast.commercials
dvd
films
films.carry-on
home-cinema
media
newspapers
postproduction
radio.archers
radio.bbc-r1
radio.bbc-r2
radio.bbc-r3
radio.bbc-r4
radio.bbc-r5
radio.bbc-world-service
radio.hospital
radio.misc
radio.radcliffe
  
 
date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 15:16:23 -0000,    group: uk.media.home-cinema        back       
Monitor or TV?   
I don't need to replace it yet but if one wanted to replace a CRT TV that is 
currently getting input from a media PC, a separate Freeview box, a VCR and 
a DVD. Should I be looking at monitors or TVs? I don't need MASSIVE as I 
have a projector for that.
I find the current (28"ish) TV to have too low a resolution (600x800) for 
the PC but otherwise it's OK - (like to view the media).

Slatts
date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 15:16:23 -0000   author:   Sla#s

Re: Monitor or TV?   
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 15:16:23 -0000, "Sla#s" 
wrote:

>I don't need to replace it yet but if one wanted to replace a CRT TV that is 
>currently getting input from a media PC, a separate Freeview box, a VCR and 
>a DVD. Should I be looking at monitors or TVs? I don't need MASSIVE as I 
>have a projector for that.
>I find the current (28"ish) TV to have too low a resolution (600x800) for 
>the PC but otherwise it's OK - (like to view the media).

An interesting question, and one that recently exercised me. I use my
home cinema amp as a video switchbox. My TV is only ever used as a
monitor for the one output video signal. Its tuner, amplifier and
speakers are never used. Thus, when the CRT died a few weeks ago,
buying a monitor seemed like a possibility worthy of consideration.

But I ended up buying a TV (albeit with redundant features) because it
offered features that I wanted but are, AFAIK, not available on
monitors (well, none that I've seen):
- remote control
- aspect ratio switching
- multiple inputs (I only use component input now, but I can see that
HDMI will be preferable in a year or two, and I *might* want to plug
something in directly by SCART at some stage).

The remote control includes a pile of things that can be pretty
awkward on a monitor without r/c.

I also think you'll find that economies of scale might well mean that
you can get a better TV than monitor for the price - absurd as that
sounds initially! (As a guide, I've just paid £1000 for a 37"
Panasonic LCD - and know that I could have bought it more cheaply.)

Peter.
date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:13:15 +0000   author:   Peter

Re: Monitor or TV?   
Peter wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 15:16:23 -0000, "Sla#s" 
> wrote:
>
>> I don't need to replace it yet but if one wanted to replace a CRT TV
>> that is currently getting input from a media PC, a separate Freeview
>> box, a VCR and a DVD. Should I be looking at monitors or TVs? I
>> don't need MASSIVE as I have a projector for that.
>> I find the current (28"ish) TV to have too low a resolution
>> (600x800) for the PC but otherwise it's OK - (like to view the
>> media).
>
> An interesting question, and one that recently exercised me. I use my
> home cinema amp as a video switchbox. My TV is only ever used as a
> monitor for the one output video signal. Its tuner, amplifier and
> speakers are never used. Thus, when the CRT died a few weeks ago,
> buying a monitor seemed like a possibility worthy of consideration.
>
> But I ended up buying a TV (albeit with redundant features) because it
> offered features that I wanted but are, AFAIK, not available on
> monitors (well, none that I've seen):
> - remote control
> - aspect ratio switching
> - multiple inputs (I only use component input now, but I can see that
> HDMI will be preferable in a year or two, and I *might* want to plug
> something in directly by SCART at some stage).
>
> The remote control includes a pile of things that can be pretty
> awkward on a monitor without r/c.
>
> I also think you'll find that economies of scale might well mean that
> you can get a better TV than monitor for the price - absurd as that
> sounds initially! (As a guide, I've just paid £1000 for a 37"
> Panasonic LCD - and know that I could have bought it more cheaply.)
>
Thanks  - that's the direction I was heading :-)
Seen any advice (URLs) about this sort of stuff?

Ta
Saltts
date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 17:36:31 -0000   author:   Sla#s

Re: Monitor or TV?   
On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 17:36:31 -0000, "Sla#s" 
wrote:


>Thanks  - that's the direction I was heading :-)
>Seen any advice (URLs) about this sort of stuff?

Sorry, no offers.

But I remembered that the subject was discussed here a year or two
ago. You might find it interesting/helpful to see that old thread. See
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.comp.sys.mac/browse_thread/thread/c82cda26259dade2/ffb1bb3c0b926483?q=lcd+tv&lnk=ol&
if you're interested.

Peter.
date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 22:38:11 +0000   author:   Peter

Re: Monitor or TV?   
In article <fl343h$1c7q$1@energise.enta.net>,
   Sla#s  wrote:
> I don't need to replace it yet but if one wanted to replace a CRT TV
> that is currently getting input from a media PC, a separate Freeview
> box, a VCR and a DVD. Should I be looking at monitors or TVs? I don't
> need MASSIVE as I have a projector for that. I find the current
> (28"ish) TV to have too low a resolution (600x800) for the PC but
> otherwise it's OK - (like to view the media).

If by a monitor you mean a computer one, they need an add on box to accept
'broadcast' signals - and a decent one is expensive. Widescreen switching
is likely to be a problem too.

If anyone knows of a good quality add on box that does this too I'd like
to hear of it.

-- 
*Where do forest rangers go to "get away from it all?"

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.
date: Tue, 01 Jan 2008 10:20:25 +0000 (GMT)   author:   Dave Plowman (News)

Google
 
Web myreader.co.uk


    COPYRIGHT 2007, YARDI TECHNOLOGY LIMITED, ALL RIGHT RESERVE  |   contact us