Discussion:
Large screen TV
Add Reply
Dave Plowman (News)
2021-05-30 10:43:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Was idly looking at some 65" TV reviews, and the 'best buy' at 3000 quid
only came with a wall mount bracket. For table top or freestanding, you
had to find and aftermarket stand - they didn't even list one as an
accessory.

Seemed odd to me - despite having a largish living room there is nowhere
convenient I could wall mount a TV.
--
*'ome is where you 'ang your @ *

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
T i m
2021-05-30 11:32:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 30 May 2021 11:43:21 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Was idly looking at some 65" TV reviews, and the 'best buy' at 3000 quid
only came with a wall mount bracket. For table top or freestanding, you
had to find and aftermarket stand - they didn't even list one as an
accessory.
Seemed odd to me - despite having a largish living room there is nowhere
convenient I could wall mount a TV.
I wonder if it's down to the risk of it falling over onto someone
(less likely when fixed to the wall)?

Cheers, T i m
Andy Bennet
2021-05-30 12:36:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Was idly looking at some 65" TV reviews, and the 'best buy' at 3000 quid
only came with a wall mount bracket. For table top or freestanding, you
had to find and aftermarket stand - they didn't even list one as an
accessory.
Seemed odd to me - despite having a largish living room there is nowhere
convenient I could wall mount a TV.
Wall mounted TV's give me neck ache after a short time of use. Can't see
what the attraction is. Always put our (admittedly tiny) 55 incher on a
proper TV table. Much more comfortable!
Andy Burns
2021-05-30 13:10:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andy Bennet
Wall mounted TV's give me neck ache after a short time of use. Can't see
what the attraction is.
Wall-mounted doesn't have to mean above mantelpiece height ...
JNugent
2021-05-30 13:24:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andy Burns
Post by Andy Bennet
Wall mounted TV's give me neck ache after a short time of use. Can't
see what the attraction is.
Wall-mounted doesn't have to mean above mantelpiece height ...
... but it usually is.
williamwright
2021-05-30 15:56:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Andy Burns
Post by Andy Bennet
Wall mounted TV's give me neck ache after a short time of use. Can't
see what the attraction is.
Wall-mounted doesn't have to mean above mantelpiece height ...
... but it usually is.
The problem is they visualise it as decor so want it at the height you'd
hang a picture. But you watch the telly sitting down. It's a waste of
time trying to tell people. Just mount is as they ask and take the money.

Bill
Rod Speed
2021-05-30 17:03:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Andy Burns
Post by Andy Bennet
Wall mounted TV's give me neck ache after a short time of use. Can't see
what the attraction is.
Wall-mounted doesn't have to mean above mantelpiece height ...
... but it usually is.
Irrelevant if that gives you neck ache.
Paul
2021-05-30 17:27:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
Post by JNugent
Post by Andy Burns
Post by Andy Bennet
Wall mounted TV's give me neck ache after a short time of use. Can't
see what the attraction is.
Wall-mounted doesn't have to mean above mantelpiece height ...
... but it usually is.
Irrelevant if that gives you neck ache.
The secret is the right chairs. And popcorn.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/3293

Paul
Rod Speed
2021-05-30 17:54:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul
Post by Rod Speed
Post by JNugent
Post by Andy Burns
Post by Andy Bennet
Wall mounted TV's give me neck ache after a short time of use. Can't
see what the attraction is.
Wall-mounted doesn't have to mean above mantelpiece height ...
... but it usually is.
Irrelevant if that gives you neck ache.
The secret is the right chairs.
And the right TV height for the most comfortable chairs.
Post by Paul
And popcorn.
Nope, that must makes you even more morbidly obese than you already are.
Post by Paul
https://www.anandtech.com/show/3293
Fuck that. The chances of that many all wanting to watch the same
thing at the same time and all agreeing about when to back track
and watch a bit again etc is zero. One chair is much more viable
and one room per person.
Peeler
2021-05-30 19:20:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 31 May 2021 03:54:20 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the trolling senile pest's latest trollshit unread>
--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 86-year-old senile Australian
cretin's pathological trolling:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/rod-speed-faq.2973853/
Peeler
2021-05-30 18:13:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 31 May 2021 03:03:33 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest trollshit unread>

03:03??? LOL Is your unbearable LONELINESS not letting you sleep in again,
you abnormal senile cretin?
--
"Who or What is Rod Speed?

Rod Speed is an entirely modern phenomenon. Essentially, Rod Speed
is an insecure and worthless individual who has discovered he can
enhance his own self-esteem in his own eyes by playing "the big, hard
man" on the InterNet."
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/rod-speed-faq.2973853/
JNugent
2021-05-31 11:56:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
Post by JNugent
Post by Andy Burns
Post by Andy Bennet
Wall mounted TV's give me neck ache after a short time of use. Can't
see what the attraction is.
Wall-mounted doesn't have to mean above mantelpiece height ...
... but it usually is.
Irrelevant if that gives you neck ache.
No need to tell me. I wouldn't dream of fixing a TV to the wall.
JNugent
2021-05-31 12:00:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
Post by JNugent
Post by Andy Burns
Post by Andy Bennet
Wall mounted TV's give me neck ache after a short time of use. Can't
see what the attraction is.
Wall-mounted doesn't have to mean above mantelpiece height ...
... but it usually is.
Irrelevant if that gives you neck ache.
In any case (mounting height notwithstanding), there aren't going to be
very many places in an average size room where the set could be attached
flat to a wall and be seen from the various likely positions of seating.

I don't remember any house I've ever lived in where the TV set wasn't
placed diagonally in or near a corner so that its viewing angle took in
either the whole room or pretty close to that.
Tricky Dicky
2021-05-31 12:24:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Rod Speed
Post by JNugent
Post by Andy Burns
Post by Andy Bennet
Wall mounted TV's give me neck ache after a short time of use. Can't
see what the attraction is.
Wall-mounted doesn't have to mean above mantelpiece height ...
... but it usually is.
Irrelevant if that gives you neck ache.
In any case (mounting height notwithstanding), there aren't going to be
very many places in an average size room where the set could be attached
flat to a wall and be seen from the various likely positions of seating.
I don't remember any house I've ever lived in where the TV set wasn't
placed diagonally in or near a corner so that its viewing angle took in
either the whole room or pretty close to that.
Plenty of wall mounts that will allow you to swing the screen to any angle. The photo shows a 44” screen almost swung out at 90deg.

Loading Image...

Richard
T i m
2021-05-31 18:04:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 31 May 2021 05:24:19 -0700 (PDT), Tricky Dicky
<***@sky.com> wrote:
<snip>
Plenty of wall mounts that will allow you to swing the screen to any angle. The photo shows a 44” screen almost swung out at 90deg.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/2hh2kjvebovmb3e/2021-05-31%2013.20.06.jpg?dl=0
That's very much like the one I used to mount a 40" TV I bought off a
mate when he upgraded. I fitted it as low as possible on the chimney
breast (over the cast iron fire place) in our bedroom and when flat
against the wall is at 90 degrees to our bed, however, pulled out and
angled to over 45 degrees (and is set angled down slightly) it's
prefect when watching TV sat up or propped up on the pillows.

Cheers, T i m
Steve Walker
2021-05-31 12:46:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Rod Speed
Post by JNugent
Post by Andy Burns
Post by Andy Bennet
Wall mounted TV's give me neck ache after a short time of use.
Can't see what the attraction is.
Wall-mounted doesn't have to mean above mantelpiece height ...
... but it usually is.
Irrelevant if that gives you neck ache.
In any case (mounting height notwithstanding), there aren't going to be
very many places in an average size room where the set could be attached
flat to a wall and be seen from the various likely positions of seating.
Many homes have redundant chimney breast on one side of the room and a
settee directly opposite on the other side.
Post by JNugent
I don't remember any house I've ever lived in where the TV set wasn't
placed diagonally in or near a corner so that its viewing angle took in
either the whole room or pretty close to that.
If we did not still have a fire in the living room, we might have moved
ours from the corner to the chimney breast by now.

That would actually allow it to be viewed from more of the room, as the
corner is the old end of the room and there is an archway through to an
extension adding another 50% to the room, but behind the TV.
charles
2021-05-31 12:41:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Rod Speed
Post by JNugent
Post by Andy Burns
Post by Andy Bennet
Wall mounted TV's give me neck ache after a short time of use. Can't
see what the attraction is.
Wall-mounted doesn't have to mean above mantelpiece height ...
... but it usually is.
Irrelevant if that gives you neck ache.
In any case (mounting height notwithstanding), there aren't going to be
very many places in an average size room where the set could be attached
flat to a wall and be seen from the various likely positions of seating.
I don't remember any house I've ever lived in where the TV set wasn't
placed diagonally in or near a corner so that its viewing angle took in
either the whole room or pretty close to that.
Plenty of wall brackets allow angled positioning
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
JNugent
2021-05-31 14:50:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by charles
Post by JNugent
Post by Rod Speed
Post by JNugent
Post by Andy Burns
Post by Andy Bennet
Wall mounted TV's give me neck ache after a short time of use. Can't
see what the attraction is.
Wall-mounted doesn't have to mean above mantelpiece height ...
... but it usually is.
Irrelevant if that gives you neck ache.
In any case (mounting height notwithstanding), there aren't going to be
very many places in an average size room where the set could be attached
flat to a wall and be seen from the various likely positions of seating.
I don't remember any house I've ever lived in where the TV set wasn't
placed diagonally in or near a corner so that its viewing angle took in
either the whole room or pretty close to that.
Plenty of wall brackets allow angled positioning
Er... yes... I've... er... seen them.
John Rumm
2021-05-31 18:05:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by charles
Post by JNugent
Post by Rod Speed
Post by JNugent
Post by Andy Burns
Post by Andy Bennet
Wall mounted TV's give me neck ache after a short time of use. Can't
see what the attraction is.
Wall-mounted doesn't have to mean above mantelpiece height ...
... but it usually is.
Irrelevant if that gives you neck ache.
In any case (mounting height notwithstanding), there aren't going to be
very many places in an average size room where the set could be attached
flat to a wall and be seen from the various likely positions of seating.
I don't remember any house I've ever lived in where the TV set wasn't
placed diagonally in or near a corner so that its viewing angle took in
either the whole room or pretty close to that.
Plenty of wall brackets allow angled positioning
I used one of those:

Loading Image...

Even though ultimately it was going ot be parallel to the wall -
although spaced about 12" from it:

Loading Image...

(nicely out of the close up region of varifocal glasses :-)
--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/
Dave Plowman (News)
2021-05-31 12:34:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
In any case (mounting height notwithstanding), there aren't going to be
very many places in an average size room where the set could be attached
flat to a wall and be seen from the various likely positions of seating.
Quite. Except if you have a purpose built cinema room. In which case makes
no difference if it is wall mounted or free standing.
--
*Speak softly and carry a cellular phone *

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Rod Speed
2021-05-31 20:24:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Rod Speed
Post by JNugent
Post by Andy Burns
Post by Andy Bennet
Wall mounted TV's give me neck ache after a short time of use. Can't
see what the attraction is.
Wall-mounted doesn't have to mean above mantelpiece height ...
... but it usually is.
Irrelevant if that gives you neck ache.
In any case (mounting height notwithstanding), there aren't going to be
very many places in an average size room where the set could be attached
flat to a wall and be seen from the various likely positions of seating.
I don't remember any house I've ever lived in where the TV set wasn't
placed diagonally in or near a corner so that its viewing angle took in
either the whole room or pretty close to that.
I'm the reverse, cant think of anyone with the TV in a corner like that.

We do however generally have much bigger houses than you lot do.
Peeler
2021-05-31 20:39:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 06:24:46 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Post by Rod Speed
Post by JNugent
I don't remember any house I've ever lived in where the TV set wasn't
placed diagonally in or near a corner so that its viewing angle took in
either the whole room or pretty close to that.
I'm the reverse, cant think of anyone with the TV in a corner like that.
We do however generally have much bigger houses than you lot do.
Oh, yeah? Post PROOF, you endlessly bullshitting senile asshole from Oz!

The place for a modern TV (with short aerial cables) depends of course
mainly on where the antenna output is located in the room, senile bullshit
artist!
--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 86-year-old senile Australian
cretin's pathological trolling:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/rod-speed-faq.2973853/
Andy Bennet
2021-06-01 09:06:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rod Speed
Post by JNugent
Post by Rod Speed
Post by JNugent
Post by Andy Burns
Post by Andy Bennet
Wall mounted TV's give me neck ache after a short time of use.
Can't see what the attraction is.
Wall-mounted doesn't have to mean above mantelpiece height ...
... but it usually is.
Irrelevant if that gives you neck ache.
In any case (mounting height notwithstanding), there aren't going to
be very many places in an average size room where the set could be
attached flat to a wall and be seen from the various likely positions
of seating.
I don't remember any house I've ever lived in where the TV set wasn't
placed diagonally in or near a corner so that its viewing angle took
in either the whole room or pretty close to that.
I'm the reverse, cant think of anyone with the TV in a corner like that.
We do however generally have much bigger houses than you lot do.
... and much smaller willys
Dave Plowman (News)
2021-05-30 13:52:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andy Burns
Post by Andy Bennet
Wall mounted TV's give me neck ache after a short time of use. Can't see
what the attraction is.
Wall-mounted doesn't have to mean above mantelpiece height ...
Look around the average living room. How many have a place for a wall
mounted TV if not above the fireplace? (assuming you have one)
--
*If at first you don't succeed, avoid skydiving.*

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Rod Speed
2021-05-30 17:06:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Andy Burns
Post by Andy Bennet
Wall mounted TV's give me neck ache after a short time of use. Can't see
what the attraction is.
Wall-mounted doesn't have to mean above mantelpiece height ...
Look around the average living room. How many have a place for a wall
mounted TV if not above the fireplace? (assuming you have one)
I don’t and it can obviously go where the TV table is anyway.
Peeler
2021-05-30 18:14:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 31 May 2021 03:06:19 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest trollshit unread>
--
Richard addressing senile Rodent Speed:
"Shit you're thick/pathetic excuse for a troll."
MID: <ogoa38$pul$***@news.mixmin.net>
Dave Plowman (News)
2021-05-30 13:49:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andy Bennet
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Was idly looking at some 65" TV reviews, and the 'best buy' at 3000 quid
only came with a wall mount bracket. For table top or freestanding, you
had to find and aftermarket stand - they didn't even list one as an
accessory.
Seemed odd to me - despite having a largish living room there is nowhere
convenient I could wall mount a TV.
Wall mounted TV's give me neck ache after a short time of use. Can't see
what the attraction is. Always put our (admittedly tiny) 55 incher on a
proper TV table. Much more comfortable!
Many yonks ago at BBC training college, we were taught that a monitor for
long term viewing (and most TV use fits this) should be below the eyeline.

Mush more recently I had physio for a bad back. One of their leaflets also
said to make sure your computer monitor was below your eye level too.
--
*42.7% of statistics are made up. Sorry, that should read 47.2% *

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Paul
2021-05-30 15:44:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Andy Bennet
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Was idly looking at some 65" TV reviews, and the 'best buy' at 3000 quid
only came with a wall mount bracket. For table top or freestanding, you
had to find and aftermarket stand - they didn't even list one as an
accessory.
Seemed odd to me - despite having a largish living room there is nowhere
convenient I could wall mount a TV.
Wall mounted TV's give me neck ache after a short time of use. Can't see
what the attraction is. Always put our (admittedly tiny) 55 incher on a
proper TV table. Much more comfortable!
Many yonks ago at BBC training college, we were taught that a monitor for
long term viewing (and most TV use fits this) should be below the eyeline.
Mush more recently I had physio for a bad back. One of their leaflets also
said to make sure your computer monitor was below your eye level too.
In the example here, the woman can watch TV without a neck issue...
as long as she is standing. The stand happens not to adjust.
Strike 1.

https://www.displays2go.ca/P-33906/TV-Stand-Mount-70-Inch-TV-Integrated-Cable-Management

Then, a customer puts the item behind a desk, so if the TV
falls forward, the desk blocks the stand from falling all
the way forward. So this is a customer inspired "stability solution".
Customers recognize that the law of gravity has not been repealed.
Some ordinary low boy furniture, with bags of sand in the bottom
where you can't see them, might suffice as a cover story. At one
time, I would have heartily recommended filling the bottom of the
furniture with steel plates, but those days of cheap steel are over.

Loading Image...
Loading Image...

Anyway, the purpose of showing this, is not to encourage
you to buy one, because it fails on just about every
stability metric. But, to use the idea of "furniture
in front", as a means to prevent "rubbies" from leaning
right on the screen. And with suitable carpentry and a
VESA plate, you can have it all... with no connection
to the wall surface whatsoever.

You'll need to crank it down a bit, to make it
comfortable from the sofa. There is going to be a
tradeoff between furniture height, and ideal viewing
height. A 65" set will have "zero clearance" to the
top of the furniture. There will be no room to be
elevating it further. Not if viewing from the sofa.

You'll need to adjust the position of the sofa,
for viewing the set (maybe 10 foot distance).

Now, if you need a VESA plate, VESA plates are
just too expensive for the DIY mindset. That's
why VESA plates are a licensing test for being
a DIY. Notice the nice job the gentleman has
done, to adapt a monitor for hanging. There are
all sorts of variants, done with steel strapping
or corner braces. I made one out of corner
braces, so I could "hang a terminal" from shelving.

Loading Image...

So your tasks are first looking up the correct
ergonomics, then cobble some furniture to
function as the "base" for your ghetto upright
2x4 with some sort of VESA plate interface near top.
The furniture can't be too lightweight, or even
with sand bags added to it, it might not be able
to keep a 2x4 upright. Maybe making some home
furniture out of solid pine is in the books.

Paul
Rod Speed
2021-05-30 17:05:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Andy Bennet
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Was idly looking at some 65" TV reviews, and the 'best buy' at 3000 quid
only came with a wall mount bracket. For table top or freestanding, you
had to find and aftermarket stand - they didn't even list one as an
accessory.
Seemed odd to me - despite having a largish living room there is nowhere
convenient I could wall mount a TV.
Wall mounted TV's give me neck ache after a short time of use. Can't see
what the attraction is. Always put our (admittedly tiny) 55 incher on a
proper TV table. Much more comfortable!
Many yonks ago at BBC training college, we were taught that a monitor for
long term viewing (and most TV use fits this) should be below the eyeline.
Mush more recently I had physio for a bad back. One of their leaflets also
said to make sure your computer monitor was below your eye level too.
Mine isnt and I don’t get neck ache or back ache either.
Peeler
2021-05-30 18:14:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 31 May 2021 03:05:14 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Post by Rod Speed
Mine isnt and I don’t get neck ache or back ache either.
Of COURSE not, you auto-contradicting senile pest!
--
Hawk addressing the obnoxious senile Australian pest:
"I'm willing to bet you scream your own name when jacking off."
MID: <s78tjv$14d$***@dont-email.me>
John Rumm
2021-05-31 18:09:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Andy Bennet
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Was idly looking at some 65" TV reviews, and the 'best buy' at 3000 quid
only came with a wall mount bracket. For table top or freestanding, you
had to find and aftermarket stand - they didn't even list one as an
accessory.
Seemed odd to me - despite having a largish living room there is nowhere
convenient I could wall mount a TV.
Wall mounted TV's give me neck ache after a short time of use. Can't see
what the attraction is. Always put our (admittedly tiny) 55 incher on a
proper TV table. Much more comfortable!
Many yonks ago at BBC training college, we were taught that a monitor for
long term viewing (and most TV use fits this) should be below the eyeline.
Mush more recently I had physio for a bad back. One of their leaflets also
said to make sure your computer monitor was below your eye level too.
Lots of notes on monitor ergonomics suggest top of the screen level with
eyeline. For me, with my screens, that works out at bottom of the screen
about 7" off the desk.
--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/
Andrew
2021-05-31 18:46:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Rumm
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Andy Bennet
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Was idly looking at some 65" TV reviews, and the 'best buy' at 3000 quid
only came with a wall mount bracket. For table top or freestanding, you
had to find and aftermarket stand - they didn't even list one as an
accessory.
Seemed odd to me - despite having a largish living room there is nowhere
convenient I could wall mount a TV.
Wall mounted TV's give me neck ache after a short time of use. Can't see
what the attraction is. Always put our (admittedly tiny) 55 incher on a
proper TV table. Much more comfortable!
Many yonks ago at BBC training college, we were taught that a monitor for
long term viewing (and most TV use fits this) should be below the eyeline.
Mush more recently I had physio for a bad back. One of their leaflets also
said to make sure your computer monitor was below your eye level too.
Lots of notes on monitor ergonomics suggest top of the screen level with
eyeline. For me, with my screens, that works out at bottom of the screen
about 7" off the desk.
https://historydaily.org/what-you-didnt-know-about-the-practice-of-neck-elongation
newshound
2021-06-06 22:44:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Rumm
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Andy Bennet
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Was idly looking at some 65" TV reviews, and the 'best buy' at 3000 quid
only came with a wall mount bracket. For table top or freestanding, you
had to find and aftermarket stand - they didn't even list one as an
accessory.
Seemed odd to me - despite having a largish living room there is nowhere
convenient I could wall mount a TV.
Wall mounted TV's give me neck ache after a short time of use. Can't see
what the attraction is. Always put our (admittedly tiny) 55 incher on a
proper TV table. Much more comfortable!
Many yonks ago at BBC training college, we were taught that a monitor for
long term viewing (and most TV use fits this) should be below the eyeline.
Mush more recently I had physio for a bad back. One of their leaflets also
said to make sure your computer monitor was below your eye level too.
Lots of notes on monitor ergonomics suggest top of the screen level with
eyeline. For me, with my screens, that works out at bottom of the screen
about 7" off the desk.
I have the bottom of mine about 12 inches above the desk, so the tops
are about level with the top of my head. But although I use varifocals
elsewhere, I have dedicated single focus "computer" glasses, IIRC +1.5
on my infinity prescription.
Dave Plowman (News)
2021-06-06 23:48:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by newshound
I have the bottom of mine about 12 inches above the desk, so the tops
are about level with the top of my head. But although I use varifocals
elsewhere, I have dedicated single focus "computer" glasses, IIRC +1.5
on my infinity prescription.
Same here. Need more powerful ones for reading, though.
--
*Why is the man who invests all your money called a broker? *

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Jeff Layman
2021-06-07 09:57:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by newshound
I have the bottom of mine about 12 inches above the desk, so the tops
are about level with the top of my head. But although I use varifocals
elsewhere, I have dedicated single focus "computer" glasses, IIRC +1.5
on my infinity prescription.
Same here. Need more powerful ones for reading, though.
I also require glasses for reading small print (moderate
long-sightedness - +2.5D glasses). I really dislike wearing them because
apart from making the print clearer, they also magnify it. I can't get
my head round whether or not this is solely a consequence of the lenses
correcting the long-sightedness being convex, or it's something else.
Why is it not possible to correct the focal deficiency without
magnification?

As an aside, does anyone else feel that an eye-test where you are asked
if different lenses are clearer or not isn't very scientific? It
represents one "measurement" at one point in time. I often wonder that,
if the test was repeated at different times on different days, it would
give the same result.
--
Jeff
newshound
2021-06-07 10:22:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jeff Layman
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by newshound
I have the bottom of mine about 12 inches above the desk, so the tops
are about level with the top of my head. But although I use varifocals
elsewhere, I have dedicated single focus "computer" glasses, IIRC +1.5
on my infinity prescription.
Same here. Need more powerful ones for reading, though.
I also require glasses for reading small print (moderate
long-sightedness - +2.5D glasses). I really dislike wearing them because
apart from making the print clearer, they also magnify it. I can't get
my head round whether or not this is solely a consequence of the lenses
correcting the long-sightedness being convex, or it's something else.
Why is it not possible to correct the focal deficiency without
magnification?
I keep +1.5 clip-ons in my office, these combined with the computer
glasses are good for reading fairly small print. And another pair of +3
clip-ons for close-up work. For the very fine print (such as laser
etching of serial numbers on small electronic devices) I often find it
as easy to take a photo and view that instead.
Post by Jeff Layman
As an aside, does anyone else feel that an eye-test where you are asked
if different lenses are clearer or not isn't very scientific? It
represents one "measurement" at one point in time. I often wonder that,
if the test was repeated at different times on different days, it would
give the same result.
At my more advanced age (70 +) I certainly feel that my "prescription"
can sometimes vary through the day. I'm not sure whether this is because
it actually does, or whether it is an effect of continually reducing
accomodation (so that I notice the effect more).

Multiple eye tests would be a PITA, though.
Dave Plowman (News)
2021-06-07 12:24:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by newshound
At my more advanced age (70 +) I certainly feel that my "prescription"
can sometimes vary through the day. I'm not sure whether this is because
it actually does, or whether it is an effect of continually reducing
accomodation (so that I notice the effect more).
Think at 70, your eyes are likely pretty well fixed focus.

My optician, a couple of years ago, initially gave me slightly more plus
than needed for infinity. Not something you'd notice in the consulting
room. But did when driving. His answer was it was a compromise most liked.
I didn't.
--
*Never put off until tomorrow what you can avoid altogether *

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Jeff Layman
2021-06-07 15:54:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by newshound
At my more advanced age (70 +) I certainly feel that my "prescription"
can sometimes vary through the day. I'm not sure whether this is because
it actually does, or whether it is an effect of continually reducing
accomodation (so that I notice the effect more).
Think at 70, your eyes are likely pretty well fixed focus.
I'm sure you're right. Mine have been +2.75 (not 2.5) for at least 4
years, perhaps 6.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
My optician, a couple of years ago, initially gave me slightly more plus
than needed for infinity. Not something you'd notice in the consulting
room. But did when driving. His answer was it was a compromise most liked.
I didn't.
That is most interesting. It suggests there is an undivulged "agenda"
that opticians apply to a patient's prescription, if the use of "most"
is taken at face value. Well, if I am not keen and you are not keen,
either we are outliers or the premise is wrong. There are many here who
wear glasses and are probably long-sighted, I wonder if they have found
their new glasses to be unsatisfactory because of that correction?
--
Jeff
Rod Speed
2021-06-07 20:53:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by newshound
At my more advanced age (70 +) I certainly feel that my "prescription"
can sometimes vary through the day. I'm not sure whether this is because
it actually does, or whether it is an effect of continually reducing
accomodation (so that I notice the effect more).
Think at 70, your eyes are likely pretty well fixed focus.
Mine are nothing like that and I am older than that.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
My optician, a couple of years ago, initially gave me slightly more plus
than needed for infinity. Not something you'd notice in the consulting
room. But did when driving. His answer was it was a compromise most liked.
Likely for the better focus on finer stuff like labels in the supermarket
etc.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
I didn't.
newshound
2021-06-09 17:02:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by newshound
At my more advanced age (70 +) I certainly feel that my "prescription"
can sometimes vary through the day. I'm not sure whether this is because
it actually does, or whether it is an effect of continually reducing
accomodation (so that I notice the effect more).
Think at 70, your eyes are likely pretty well fixed focus.
My optician, a couple of years ago, initially gave me slightly more plus
than needed for infinity. Not something you'd notice in the consulting
room. But did when driving. His answer was it was a compromise most liked.
I didn't.
Certainly when I was a short sighted kid they used to under-correct for
infinity, I suspect based on the theory that your eyes would "try
harder" and otherwise deteriorate more rapidly. I always found that
slightly irritating. For my "bike" test (silver numberplate days of
course) I could not completely read the plate at the requested distance
(which was more like 35 yards than 25), but fortunately a couple of
paces was all I needed.

Rod Speed
2021-06-07 20:08:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by newshound
Post by Jeff Layman
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by newshound
I have the bottom of mine about 12 inches above the desk, so the tops
are about level with the top of my head. But although I use varifocals
elsewhere, I have dedicated single focus "computer" glasses, IIRC +1.5
on my infinity prescription.
Same here. Need more powerful ones for reading, though.
I also require glasses for reading small print (moderate
long-sightedness - +2.5D glasses). I really dislike wearing them because
apart from making the print clearer, they also magnify it. I can't get my
head round whether or not this is solely a consequence of the lenses
correcting the long-sightedness being convex, or it's something else. Why
is it not possible to correct the focal deficiency without magnification?
I keep +1.5 clip-ons in my office, these combined with the computer
glasses are good for reading fairly small print. And another pair of +3
clip-ons for close-up work. For the very fine print (such as laser etching
of serial numbers on small electronic devices) I often find it as easy to
take a photo and view that instead.
And the photo fixes the often very poor contrast
ratio too that’s very common with some items, likely
so it looks better without a very visible number.
Post by newshound
Post by Jeff Layman
As an aside, does anyone else feel that an eye-test where you are asked
if different lenses are clearer or not isn't very scientific? It
represents one "measurement" at one point in time. I often wonder that,
if the test was repeated at different times on different days, it would
give the same result.
At my more advanced age (70 +) I certainly feel that my "prescription" can
sometimes vary through the day. I'm not sure whether this is because it
actually does, or whether it is an effect of continually reducing
accomodation (so that I notice the effect more).
Multiple eye tests would be a PITA, though.
Peeler
2021-06-07 20:35:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 8 Jun 2021 06:08:27 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest trollshit unread>
--
Bill Wright addressing senile Ozzie cretin Rodent Speed:
"Well you make up a lot of stuff and it's total bollocks most of it."
MID: <pj2b07$1rvs$***@gioia.aioe.org>
Joey
2021-06-07 20:02:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jeff Layman
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by newshound
I have the bottom of mine about 12 inches above the desk, so the tops
are about level with the top of my head. But although I use varifocals
elsewhere, I have dedicated single focus "computer" glasses, IIRC +1.5
on my infinity prescription.
Same here. Need more powerful ones for reading, though.
I also require glasses for reading small print (moderate
long-sightedness - +2.5D glasses). I really dislike wearing them because
apart from making the print clearer, they also magnify it. I can't get my
head round whether or not this is solely a consequence of the lenses
correcting the long-sightedness being convex, or it's something else. Why
is it not possible to correct the focal deficiency without magnification?
As an aside, does anyone else feel that an eye-test where you are asked if
different lenses are clearer or not isn't very scientific?
There isnt any other way to do it.
Post by Jeff Layman
It represents one "measurement" at one point in time.
Yes.
Post by Jeff Layman
I often wonder that, if the test was repeated at different times on
different days, it would give the same result.
Yes it does.
Peeler
2021-06-07 20:36:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 8 Jun 2021 06:02:53 +1000, Joey, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

<FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest trollshit unread>
--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 86-year-old senile Australian
cretin's pathological trolling:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/rod-speed-faq.2973853/
Steve Walker
2021-06-07 23:33:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joey
Post by Jeff Layman
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by newshound
I have the bottom of mine about 12 inches above the desk, so the tops
are about level with the top of my head. But although I use varifocals
elsewhere, I have dedicated single focus "computer" glasses, IIRC +1.5
on my infinity prescription.
Same here. Need more powerful ones for reading, though.
I also require glasses for reading small print (moderate
long-sightedness - +2.5D glasses). I really dislike wearing them
because apart from making the print clearer, they also magnify it. I
can't get my head round whether or not this is solely a consequence of
the lenses correcting the long-sightedness being convex, or it's
something else. Why is it not possible to correct the focal deficiency
without magnification?
As an aside, does anyone else feel that an eye-test where you are
asked if different lenses are clearer or not isn't very scientific?
There isnt any other way to do it.
There is - an Autorefractor.
Joey
2021-06-08 02:58:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Steve Walker
Post by Joey
Post by Jeff Layman
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by newshound
I have the bottom of mine about 12 inches above the desk, so the tops
are about level with the top of my head. But although I use varifocals
elsewhere, I have dedicated single focus "computer" glasses, IIRC +1.5
on my infinity prescription.
Same here. Need more powerful ones for reading, though.
I also require glasses for reading small print (moderate
long-sightedness - +2.5D glasses). I really dislike wearing them because
apart from making the print clearer, they also magnify it. I can't get
my head round whether or not this is solely a consequence of the lenses
correcting the long-sightedness being convex, or it's something else.
Why is it not possible to correct the focal deficiency without
magnification?
As an aside, does anyone else feel that an eye-test where you are asked
if different lenses are clearer or not isn't very scientific?
There isnt any other way to do it.
There is - an Autorefractor.
It doesn’t replace what he doesn’t like.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autorefractor#Uses
Steve Walker
2021-06-08 08:17:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joey
Post by Steve Walker
Post by Joey
Post by Jeff Layman
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by newshound
I have the bottom of mine about 12 inches above the desk, so the tops
are about level with the top of my head. But although I use varifocals
elsewhere, I have dedicated single focus "computer" glasses, IIRC +1.5
on my infinity prescription.
Same here. Need more powerful ones for reading, though.
I also require glasses for reading small print (moderate
long-sightedness - +2.5D glasses). I really dislike wearing them
because apart from making the print clearer, they also magnify it. I
can't get my head round whether or not this is solely a consequence
of the lenses correcting the long-sightedness being convex, or it's
something else. Why is it not possible to correct the focal
deficiency without magnification?
As an aside, does anyone else feel that an eye-test where you are
asked if different lenses are clearer or not isn't very scientific?
There isnt any other way to do it.
There is - an Autorefractor.
It doesn’t replace what he doesn’t like.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autorefractor#Uses
Fair enough.
Peeler
2021-06-08 08:41:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 8 Jun 2021 12:58:43 +1000, Joey, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

<FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest trollshit unread>
--
***@down.the.farm about senile Rot Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID: <ps10v9$uo2$***@gioia.aioe.org>
Jeff Layman
2021-06-08 12:31:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joey
Post by Steve Walker
Post by Joey
Post by Jeff Layman
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by newshound
I have the bottom of mine about 12 inches above the desk, so the tops
are about level with the top of my head. But although I use varifocals
elsewhere, I have dedicated single focus "computer" glasses, IIRC +1.5
on my infinity prescription.
Same here. Need more powerful ones for reading, though.
I also require glasses for reading small print (moderate
long-sightedness - +2.5D glasses). I really dislike wearing them because
apart from making the print clearer, they also magnify it. I can't get
my head round whether or not this is solely a consequence of the lenses
correcting the long-sightedness being convex, or it's something else.
Why is it not possible to correct the focal deficiency without
magnification?
As an aside, does anyone else feel that an eye-test where you are asked
if different lenses are clearer or not isn't very scientific?
There isnt any other way to do it.
There is - an Autorefractor.
I hadn't heard of that. Thanks for pointing it out.
Post by Joey
It doesn’t replace what he doesn’t like.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autorefractor#Uses
The conclusions stated under "Retinoscopy" in that Wiki are based on old
papers from about 15 years ago. Even the stated "recent studies..."
references papers from 2006 and 2007.

If you look at ref 2, which is from 2005
(<https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15630406/>), at the bottom of the
paper is a list headed "Similar articles". The second paper is from
2019. and if you also look at the "Cited by" heading you will find
papers from 2018 - 2021. I had a look at all the conclusions in these
recent papers, and it seems to me the general view was that modern
automatic methods give a satisfactory result, acceptably similar to
clinical retinoscopy in most cases.

If I do a self-test for reading strength (eg at
<https://www.readingglassesetc.com/pages/reading-lens-guide/reading-glasses-strength-and-reading-test.html>),
I can read down to the smallest line (+1.25D) without problem. Why then
does my optician prescribe +2.75D glasses for me? I assume it's because
of the responses I gave during the eye test, which is entirely
subjective. I don't have an issue with corrective lenses for astigmatic
issues, but I find the "solution" for long-sightedness less than
satisfactory. Do those with short-sightedness have the same problem with
their prescribed glasses?
--
Jeff
Joey
2021-06-08 19:26:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jeff Layman
Post by Joey
Post by Steve Walker
Post by Joey
Post by Jeff Layman
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by newshound
I have the bottom of mine about 12 inches above the desk, so the tops
are about level with the top of my head. But although I use varifocals
elsewhere, I have dedicated single focus "computer" glasses, IIRC +1.5
on my infinity prescription.
Same here. Need more powerful ones for reading, though.
I also require glasses for reading small print (moderate
long-sightedness - +2.5D glasses). I really dislike wearing them because
apart from making the print clearer, they also magnify it. I can't get
my head round whether or not this is solely a consequence of the lenses
correcting the long-sightedness being convex, or it's something else.
Why is it not possible to correct the focal deficiency without
magnification?
As an aside, does anyone else feel that an eye-test where you are asked
if different lenses are clearer or not isn't very scientific?
There isnt any other way to do it.
There is - an Autorefractor.
I hadn't heard of that. Thanks for pointing it out.
Post by Joey
It doesn’t replace what he doesn’t like.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autorefractor#Uses
The conclusions stated under "Retinoscopy" in that Wiki are based on old
papers from about 15 years ago. Even the stated "recent studies..."
references papers from 2006 and 2007.
If you look at ref 2, which is from 2005
(<https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15630406/>), at the bottom of the paper
is a list headed "Similar articles". The second paper is from 2019. and if
you also look at the "Cited by" heading you will find papers from 2018 -
2021. I had a look at all the conclusions in these recent papers, and it
seems to me the general view was that modern automatic methods give a
satisfactory result, acceptably similar to clinical retinoscopy in most
cases.
If I do a self-test for reading strength (eg at
<https://www.readingglassesetc.com/pages/reading-lens-guide/reading-glasses-strength-and-reading-test.html>),
I can read down to the smallest line (+1.25D) without problem. Why then
does my optician prescribe +2.75D glasses for me? I assume it's because of
the responses I gave during the eye test, which is entirely subjective. I
don't have an issue with corrective lenses for astigmatic issues, but I
find the "solution" for long-sightedness less than satisfactory. Do those
with short-sightedness have the same problem with their prescribed
glasses?
I am very short sighted and have never had a problem with my prescribed
glasses.

My optician did the autorefractor followed by the test with various lenses
the last time just recently.

For decades I chose to wear the glasses that work best for the computer
screen at about full arms length from my face even when out and about.
The main downside with that approach is that you can fail to recognise
people at a distance when out and about.

I now find a real problem with reading the labels on stuff when
buying stuff in a supermarket and should really have a second
pair to use in that situation so I don’t have to pick up the item
to be able to read the label.

But I am about to have the cataracts done so havent bothered
until I see what things are like with cataracts done.
Dave Plowman (News)
2021-06-08 21:14:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joey
I am very short sighted and have never had a problem with my prescribed
glasses.
My optician did the autorefractor followed by the test with various
lenses the last time just recently.
For decades I chose to wear the glasses that work best for the computer
screen at about full arms length from my face even when out and about.
The main downside with that approach is that you can fail to recognise
people at a distance when out and about.
I take it you don't drive?
--
*A person who smiles in the face of adversity probably has a scapegoat *

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Joey
2021-06-09 00:52:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Joey
I am very short sighted and have never had a problem with my prescribed
glasses.
My optician did the autorefractor followed by the test with various
lenses the last time just recently.
For decades I chose to wear the glasses that work best for the computer
screen at about full arms length from my face even when out and about.
The main downside with that approach is that you can fail to recognise
people at a distance when out and about.
I take it you don't drive?
Yes I do and can read the small street signs with the
street name on them and the car number plates fine.

I should have said that its only a problem recognising people
when they are a long way away, hundreds of feet away.
Peeler
2021-06-09 08:05:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 9 Jun 2021 10:52:10 +1000, Joey, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

<FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest trollshit unread>
--
Bod addressing abnormal senile quarreller Rodent Speed:
"Do you practice arguing with yourself in an empty room?"
MID: <***@mid.individual.net>
Dave Plowman (News)
2021-06-08 10:26:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Steve Walker
Post by Joey
Post by Jeff Layman
As an aside, does anyone else feel that an eye-test where you are
asked if different lenses are clearer or not isn't very scientific?
There isnt any other way to do it.
There is - an Autorefractor.
Yup. You can correct eyesight in an animal unable to communicate.

You must have noticed that your optician starts with correction very
nearly there - even for a first prescription. Because he's measured the
power of your eye first.
--
*Why do psychics have to ask you for your name? *

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Jeff Layman
2021-06-08 12:38:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Steve Walker
Post by Joey
Post by Jeff Layman
As an aside, does anyone else feel that an eye-test where you are
asked if different lenses are clearer or not isn't very scientific?
There isnt any other way to do it.
There is - an Autorefractor.
Yup. You can correct eyesight in an animal unable to communicate.
Or, I assume, a human unable to read.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
You must have noticed that your optician starts with correction very
nearly there - even for a first prescription. Because he's measured the
power of your eye first.
Do all opticians use autorefractors now, at least to start the
diagnostic process?
--
Jeff
John Rumm
2021-05-30 14:09:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andy Bennet
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Was idly looking at some 65" TV reviews, and the 'best buy' at 3000 quid
only came with a wall mount bracket. For table top or freestanding, you
had to find and aftermarket stand - they didn't even list one as an
accessory.
Seemed odd to me - despite having a largish living room there is nowhere
convenient I could wall mount a TV.
Wall mounted TV's give me neck ache after a short time of use. Can't see
what the attraction is. Always put our (admittedly tiny) 55 incher on a
proper TV table. Much more comfortable!
That seems to be more a function of height than actual wall mounting!
(you could wall mount a set at floor level if you wanted!)
--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/
williamwright
2021-05-30 15:55:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andy Bennet
Wall mounted TV's give me neck ache after a short time of use.
People always want them mounting too high up, and you can't tell 'em.

Bill
Rod Speed
2021-05-30 17:02:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andy Bennet
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Was idly looking at some 65" TV reviews, and the 'best buy' at 3000 quid
only came with a wall mount bracket. For table top or freestanding, you
had to find and aftermarket stand - they didn't even list one as an
accessory.
Seemed odd to me - despite having a largish living room there is nowhere
convenient I could wall mount a TV.
Wall mounted TV's give me neck ache after a short time of use. Can't see
what the attraction is. Always put our (admittedly tiny) 55 incher on a
proper TV table. Much more comfortable!
No reason why you cant wall mount it at the same height that a TV table
would be.
Peeler
2021-05-30 18:16:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 31 May 2021 03:02:34 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Post by Rod Speed
Post by Andy Bennet
Wall mounted TV's give me neck ache after a short time of use. Can't see
what the attraction is. Always put our (admittedly tiny) 55 incher on a
proper TV table. Much more comfortable!
No reason why you cant wall mount it at the same height that a TV table
would be.
Lots of reasons, senile asshole!
--
Bill Wright to Rodent Speed:
"That confirms my opinion that you are a despicable little shit."
MID: <pjqpo3$1la0$***@gioia.aioe.org>
Brian Gaff (Sofa)
2021-05-31 15:13:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Tiny??
Mine is43 inch and to be honest most people find it a bit large. Its on the
mantle piece, I hasten to add there is no fire, only a storage heater and
the shelf its on deflects the heat out into the room.
Brian
--
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
***@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
Post by Andy Bennet
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Was idly looking at some 65" TV reviews, and the 'best buy' at 3000 quid
only came with a wall mount bracket. For table top or freestanding, you
had to find and aftermarket stand - they didn't even list one as an
accessory.
Seemed odd to me - despite having a largish living room there is nowhere
convenient I could wall mount a TV.
Wall mounted TV's give me neck ache after a short time of use. Can't see
what the attraction is. Always put our (admittedly tiny) 55 incher on a
proper TV table. Much more comfortable!
Andrew
2021-05-31 18:49:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
According to sales droid in local John Lewis, most of their
sales of 43 inch TV's are for the bedroom while the the most
common size for living room is 55 inches.

The selection of 24, 28 and 32 inch tv's in the corner
just look incredibly tiny now.

Andrew
Post by Brian Gaff (Sofa)
Tiny??
Mine is43 inch and to be honest most people find it a bit large. Its on the
mantle piece, I hasten to add there is no fire, only a storage heater and
the shelf its on deflects the heat out into the room.
Brian
Steve Walker
2021-05-31 20:16:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andrew
According to sales droid in local John Lewis, most of their
sales of 43 inch TV's are for the bedroom while the the most
common size for living room is 55 inches.
The selection of 24, 28 and 32 inch tv's in the corner
just look incredibly tiny now.
24" works well for a kitchen TV and 32" doubles up nicely as a TV and
second monitor in a kid's bedroom.
John Rumm
2021-06-01 19:05:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andrew
According to sales droid in local John Lewis, most of their
sales of 43 inch TV's are for the bedroom while the the most
common size for living room is 55 inches.
Yup I can believe that... I replaced our 32" bedroom TV with a 42" set
that was physically smaller than the 32" (far less bezel and no side
mounted speakers).
Post by Andrew
The selection of 24, 28 and 32 inch tv's in the corner
just look incredibly tiny now.
Last time I needed a smaller screen for a customer's windows display,
there was a grand choice of about two models of 20 something inch sets!

As you say even 32" which used to be a very popular size in now quite
scarce.
--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/
Fredxx
2021-06-02 02:16:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andy Bennet
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Was idly looking at some 65" TV reviews, and the 'best buy' at 3000 quid
only came with a wall mount bracket. For table top or freestanding, you
had to find and aftermarket stand - they didn't even list one as an
accessory.
Seemed odd to me - despite having a largish living room there is nowhere
convenient I could wall mount a TV.
Wall mounted TV's give me neck ache after a short time of use. Can't see
what the attraction is. Always put our (admittedly tiny) 55 incher on a
proper TV table. Much more comfortable!
There is nothing compelling you to mount a wall mounted TV above the
recommended height.
https://www.hellotech.com/blog/how-high-should-a-tv-be-mounted

There are numerous links saying essentially the same thing.
critcher
2021-06-04 13:25:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andy Bennet
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Was idly looking at some 65" TV reviews, and the 'best buy' at 3000 quid
only came with a wall mount bracket. For table top or freestanding, you
had to find and aftermarket stand - they didn't even list one as an
accessory.
Seemed odd to me - despite having a largish living room there is nowhere
convenient I could wall mount a TV.
Wall mounted TV's give me neck ache after a short time of use. Can't see
what the attraction is. Always put our (admittedly tiny) 55 incher on a
proper TV table. Much more comfortable!
and me
John Rumm
2021-05-30 14:11:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Was idly looking at some 65" TV reviews, and the 'best buy' at 3000 quid
only came with a wall mount bracket. For table top or freestanding, you
had to find and aftermarket stand - they didn't even list one as an
accessory.
Seemed odd to me - despite having a largish living room there is nowhere
convenient I could wall mount a TV.
The frustrating thing is that there must be loads of spare TV surface
mounting stands about, but unlike rear mount options there does not seem
to be any agreed standard for fixing centres etc.
--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/
Theo
2021-05-30 14:30:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Rumm
The frustrating thing is that there must be loads of spare TV surface
mounting stands about, but unlike rear mount options there does not seem
to be any agreed standard for fixing centres etc.
I wonder if that's because they're designed to take the weight of the
specific set they were shipped with - if somebody mounts a heavier set or
one with a different CoG they could topple. Meanwhile wall mounts will only
topple if the wall does.

I think there are VESA mount surface stands, but they're fairly chunky and
need to be correctly sized for the panel you have (unless adjustable).

Theo
John Rumm
2021-05-30 17:41:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Theo
Post by John Rumm
The frustrating thing is that there must be loads of spare TV surface
mounting stands about, but unlike rear mount options there does not seem
to be any agreed standard for fixing centres etc.
I wonder if that's because they're designed to take the weight of the
specific set they were shipped with - if somebody mounts a heavier set or
one with a different CoG they could topple. Meanwhile wall mounts will only
topple if the wall does.
The weight is probably less of an issue these days when even large sets
are fairly light, but the CoG issue will be more pressing.
Post by Theo
I think there are VESA mount surface stands, but they're fairly chunky and
need to be correctly sized for the panel you have (unless adjustable).
Indeed - there are plenty of articulating arm style mounts for monitors
etc that work like that, with a base either clamped or screwed to a
surface. I use something similar heat to hold a pair of 28" monitors.
--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/
charles
2021-05-30 14:53:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Rumm
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Was idly looking at some 65" TV reviews, and the 'best buy' at 3000 quid
only came with a wall mount bracket. For table top or freestanding, you
had to find and aftermarket stand - they didn't even list one as an
accessory.
Seemed odd to me - despite having a largish living room there is nowhere
convenient I could wall mount a TV.
The frustrating thing is that there must be loads of spare TV surface
mounting stands about, but unlike rear mount options there does not seem
to be any agreed standard for fixing centres etc.
I had no difficulty in finding a table stand with VESA standard holes
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
Dave Plowman (News)
2021-05-30 16:02:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by charles
Post by John Rumm
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Was idly looking at some 65" TV reviews, and the 'best buy' at 3000 quid
only came with a wall mount bracket. For table top or freestanding, you
had to find and aftermarket stand - they didn't even list one as an
accessory.
Seemed odd to me - despite having a largish living room there is nowhere
convenient I could wall mount a TV.
The frustrating thing is that there must be loads of spare TV surface
mounting stands about, but unlike rear mount options there does not seem
to be any agreed standard for fixing centres etc.
I had no difficulty in finding a table stand with VESA standard holes
Yes - aftermarket ones are usually like that. But every other TV or
monitor I've ever bought comes with a table stand, and they're not
compatible.
--
*Welcome to Shit Creek - sorry, we're out of paddles*

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Rod Speed
2021-05-30 17:09:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by charles
Post by John Rumm
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Was idly looking at some 65" TV reviews, and the 'best buy' at 3000 quid
only came with a wall mount bracket. For table top or freestanding, you
had to find and aftermarket stand - they didn't even list one as an
accessory.
Seemed odd to me - despite having a largish living room there is nowhere
convenient I could wall mount a TV.
The frustrating thing is that there must be loads of spare TV surface
mounting stands about, but unlike rear mount options there does not seem
to be any agreed standard for fixing centres etc.
I had no difficulty in finding a table stand with VESA standard holes
But do you know that that TV has VESA standard holes.
Peeler
2021-05-30 18:22:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 31 May 2021 03:09:12 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Post by Rod Speed
Post by charles
Post by John Rumm
The frustrating thing is that there must be loads of spare TV surface
mounting stands about, but unlike rear mount options there does not seem
to be any agreed standard for fixing centres etc.
I had no difficulty in finding a table stand with VESA standard holes
But do you know that that TV has VESA standard holes.
He never said or hinted at anything like that, you abnormal,
auto-contradicting senile pest. He said that he had no difficulty in finding
a table stand with VESA standard holes!
--
John addressing the senile Australian pest:
"You are a complete idiot. But you make me larf. LOL"
MID: <f9056fe6-1479-40ff-8cc0-***@googlegroups.com>
Brian Gaff (Sofa)
2021-05-31 15:11:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Well maybe they think if you can afford 3 grand on a tv you can afford to
live in a property with big walls or employ a joiner to make a nice stand
for it. I'm not sure I'd want to stand mount something so big and top heavy,
asking for trouble if you ask me.
Brian
--
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
***@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Was idly looking at some 65" TV reviews, and the 'best buy' at 3000 quid
only came with a wall mount bracket. For table top or freestanding, you
had to find and aftermarket stand - they didn't even list one as an
accessory.
Seemed odd to me - despite having a largish living room there is nowhere
convenient I could wall mount a TV.
--
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Rod Speed
2021-05-31 20:41:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Brian Gaff (Sofa)
Well maybe they think if you can afford 3 grand on
a tv you can afford to live in a property with big walls
Yeah, it would have to be a pretty big room
for that size screen to be viable imo.
Post by Brian Gaff (Sofa)
or employ a joiner to make a nice stand for it.
I'm not sure I'd want to stand mount something so
big and top heavy, asking for trouble if you ask me.
Yeah, me too, specially with something so stupidly expensive.
Post by Brian Gaff (Sofa)
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Was idly looking at some 65" TV reviews, and the 'best buy' at 3000 quid
only came with a wall mount bracket. For table top or freestanding, you
had to find and aftermarket stand - they didn't even list one as an
accessory.
Seemed odd to me - despite having a largish living room there is nowhere
convenient I could wall mount a TV.
--
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Peeler
2021-05-31 21:09:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 06:41:44 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest trollshit unread>
--
Senile Rodent about himself:
"I was involved in the design of a computer OS"
MID: <***@mid.individual.net>

LOL!!!!!
Loading...