[ianradioian]

Why do the flatscreen tvs have to be so thin? You can still hang one on the wall if it was, say, 3 1/2" thick.....then it would have proper speakers in it for a good bass response.This is what lets them down.
I dont want seperate speakers,wires etc..
On reflection,I will keep my old Crt set for a bit longer,s I'm not bothered about watching rubbish like coronation st. in hd!
There is a Philips set with great sound,but its costly,perhaps you really have to spend a fortune to get a good sounding flatscreen..

[c4rv]

cheap TV + cheap AV amp and speakers will probably still be cheaper then get a screen with decent speakers build in.

[turbo]

If you are happy watching rubbish like Coranation Street in SD on a CRT, then any flat screen is probably wasted on you.
I am not sure great sound is required for Coranation Street anyway, so I dont understand the purpose of your post.

[Orbitalzone]

People wanted flat screens for decades and so when we get them the manufacturers have to think of new and exciting ways to keep selling more TV's so they keep supposedly improving things such as making them slimmer. They do arguably look even better when hung on a wall but you're totally right, the sound quality just can't be that good due to the tiny little speakers they're squeezing in there.

With a bulky old CRT they could fit in some decent sized speakers and often a little sub woofter for good measure... on a modern LED TV they're lucky to fit in anything much bigger than a headphone sized speaker!

Roll on wireless speakers with wireless power!

[ProDave]

Do as I do, and get an older, dare I say, second hand LCD set.

Mine is large enough to have barely acceptable speakers built in, and above all (compared to modern sets) it has a non reflective matt black screen surround.

I'm in no hurry to replace it for one without even barely acceptable speakers, and with a horrible shiny screen surround to show reflections of windows and other bright objects in a room.

Currently "form" and "function" are out of step on present generation tv's.

[ironjade]

You can't rest your cuppa on top of a flat screen tv, clearly a major design fault.

[Caxton]

Well my TV is not on a wall. The speakers are quite adequate for everyday use but if I want to listen to a concert of decent music like something on Sky Arts, I have the TV linked to my sound system and speakers either side of the screen that I can switch on at a touch of a button

[ianradioian]

Originally Posted by turbo

If you are happy watching rubbish like Coranation Street in SD on a CRT, then any flat screen is probably wasted on you.
I am not sure great sound is required for Coranation Street anyway, so I dont understand the purpose of your post.

?? what are you talking about? I said I didnt want to watch rubbish like coronation st, why would I want to watch it in hd, as if that is a lure?
The point of my post IS the sound quality on a flatscreen tv. They dont need to be a thin as they are, and if they werent, the sound could be better quality.

[turbo]

Why do you keep talking about watching Coronation Street. People will think you are a closet fan.

Your main argument about sound quality is a bit like asking why aren’t iPhones made big enough to take a couple of large flash light batteries to make its battery life longer. It’s an industry wide compromise, with alternatives available for those who want to buck the trend, such as sound bars, or look at the 2012 Sony 850 range, that has further speakers built into the base. I appreciate the state of affairs does not suit everyone.
I dont follow your other argument about not wanting to watch Corrie in HD. Is that even related to the sound quality question?

[Nigel Goodwin]

Originally Posted by turbo

or look at the 2012 Sony 850 range, that has further speakers built into the base.

I took one out the other day, along with a combined BD Player/2.1 system - I wasn't impressed with the speakers in the base, but to be fair I didn't try them until AFTER listening to the 2.1 system.

If you wire a couple of book shelve speakers to inside a modern TV though, they sound great anyway - it's a pity they don't have external speaker sockets.

[Nefrati]

because even a 3inch tv doesn't have proper speakers. seems kinda silly to make the entire tv thick for a single component for sound. say a good set of speakers juts out 4 inches, the rest of the tv cabinet now has 3-4" of dead space for the rest of its height, a total waste!

price/cost concerns aren't actually taking into account historical reality.
look at the historic cost of crt, adjust for inflation, and you will find a good set of separate speakers or sound bar + a nice flat panel is still less or similar in price at the very least.

[Peter the Great]

Originally Posted by turbo

Why do you keep talking about watching Coronation Street. People will think you are a closet fan.

Your main argument about sound quality is a bit like asking why aren’t iPhones made big enough to take a couple of large flash light batteries to make its battery life longer. It’s an industry wide compromise, with alternatives available for those who want to buck the trend, such as sound bars, or look at the 2012 Sony 850 range, that has further speakers built into the base. I appreciate the state of affairs does not suit everyone.
I dont follow your other argument about not wanting to watch Corrie in HD. Is that even related to the sound quality question?

I was never even happy about the sound quality on CRT's either so I have always used an A/V Dolby Digital reciever. They could bring out TV's without speakers at all as far as i'm concerned.

[polkadotpaper]

Originally Posted by ironjade

You can't rest your cuppa on top of a flat screen tv, clearly a major design fault.

Haha I loled at that one. I think thinner screens are better show offs for the TV making companies because it shows how well their technology developed through time.

Whatever the reason is, I love thinner screens because design matters to me a lot.The thinnest OLED TV will come out this year hopefully from LG and thinner and thinner one will follow afterwards. Who knows? Flexible TV will be on your wall in 5 years, maybe!!

[Inkblot]

Originally Posted by Nefrati

price/cost concerns aren't actually taking into account historical reality.
look at the historic cost of crt, adjust for inflation, and you will find a good set of separate speakers or sound bar + a nice flat panel is still less or similar in price at the very least.

Are you sure that's true? I reckon that to replace a CRT TV bought twenty years ago you'd have to spend four or five times the original price (if you include a flat screen TV and speakers or a sound bar) so is that consistent with inflation?

In terms of sound quality, I think my four year old Panasonic flat screen sounds better than the CRT set it replaced, but it also sounds better than the current generation of flat screen sets. So to replace that set without losing sound quality would still probably cost more than the original price of the TV adjusted for inflation.

[njp]

Originally Posted by Inkblot

Are you sure that's true? I reckon that to replace a CRT TV bought twenty years ago you'd have to spend four or five times the original price (if you include a flat screen TV and speakers or a sound bar) so is that consistent with inflation?

No way. £1000 in 1992 (which by an astonishing coincidence is what I paid for a 29" Sony CRT that year) would be worth about £1700 now. For that, you could get a pretty decent flat screen and a sound system to go with it that would blow the CRT out of the water, even though that had detachable speakers, and a subwoofer resting on its ample back.

[emptybox]

Although LCDs are lighter than CRTs, they are still quite a construction to mount on a wall, requiring secure mountings and substantial bolts etc.

The future will be screens light enough to mount on not much more than picture hooks.
Of course that'll be just the screens. All the gubbins will be in seperate units, with wireless connection to the screen (maybe even including the power).

[jjne]

Cheap soundbar, problem solved.

For those not pinning their TV to the wall, these are ideal:

http://www.richersounds.com/product/...100/tibo-pp100

I don't like Tibo as a brand, but surely this ticks the boxes? The sound from something dedicated like this is bound to be at least as good as a CRT, isn't it?

[Inkblot]

Originally Posted by njp

No way. £1000 in 1992 (which by an astonishing coincidence is what I paid for a 29" Sony CRT that year) would be worth about £1700 now.

Hmm... maybe I'm wrong about 20 years ago but it was around 1995-6 when I bought my last CRT set and it cost around £250 for a 21". So that's the sort of figure, adjusted for inflation, that I would say should be used to compare with modern mass-market TVs.

[Nigel Goodwin]

Originally Posted by emptybox

Although LCDs are lighter than CRTs, they are still quite a construction to mount on a wall, requiring secure mountings and substantial bolts etc.

Not really, modern sets are really VERY light - as long as they are flat mounting brackets three fairly minor fixings are all you need.

The older sets, and particularly the Plasmas needed much more support, as do mountings that swing out.

I've recently fitted a couple of swingout brackets complete with amplifier and speakers (which sound great), and the instructions specify a minimum of TEN mounting bolts. Bit of overkill I thought, but I complied with the instructions.

The future will be screens light enough to mount on not much more than picture hooks.
Of course that'll be just the screens. All the gubbins will be in seperate units, with wireless connection to the screen (maybe even including the power).

Certainly NOT the power, and not wireless connections anymore either. EU regulations regarding standby power useage means they no longer meet EU regs so they aren't made any more. They were VERY nice to wall mount though.

[jjne]

Originally Posted by Inkblot

Hmm... maybe I'm wrong about 20 years ago but it was around 1995-6 when I bought my last CRT set and it cost around £250 for a 21". So that's the sort of figure, adjusted for inflation, that I would say should be used to compare with modern mass-market TVs.

This is not a realistic comparison.

Modern tech is inherently different, and usually cheaper, than tech from the 1990s.

It is much cheaper to build a switching PSU than the large linear supplies of the past, cheaper to buy in the chipsets, cheaper to build due to the reduced component count, the panels are much cheaper than the equivalent tube (to the manufacturers at least), the casing is cheaper because of the reduced weight, shipping costs are cheaper because of the reduced weight, etc.

A modern 21" TV would have to be gold-plated to be worth anywhere near £350-400.

[Inkblot]

Originally Posted by jjne

This is not a realistic comparison.

Modern tech is inherently different, and usually cheaper, than tech from the 1990s.

It is much cheaper to build a switching PSU than the large linear supplies of the past, cheaper to buy in the chipsets, cheaper to build due to the reduced component count, the panels are much cheaper than the equivalent tube (to the manufacturers at least), the casing is cheaper because of the reduced weight, shipping costs are cheaper because of the reduced weight, etc.

A modern 21" TV would have to be gold-plated to be worth anywhere near £350-400.

Well, you'd presumably class something like a 32" as a mass-market TV now, rather than a 21" (or maybe 26") which was the norm back in the 90s.

[njp]

Originally Posted by Inkblot

Well, you'd presumably class something like a 32" as a mass-market TV now, rather than a 21" (or maybe 26") which was the norm back in the 90s.

Well, in that case your £250 from 1995 becomes about £390, which would comfortably get you a decent 26" or 32" set and even a cheap soundbar, as described in an earlier post.

[husted]

I have a CRT and a flattie cos I'm a show-off.

My pussycat luvs my CRT. Nice warm feeling.

But had to sellotape plastic bottles to top of flattie to prevent pussycat from always trying to jump onto flattie (gives off a lot of heat up there) and giving me heart failures. No idea whether this improves sounds quality but it looks stupid.

[jjne]

Originally Posted by njp

Well, in that case your £250 from 1995 becomes about £390, which would comfortably get you a decent 26" or 32" set and even a cheap soundbar, as described in an earlier post.

And you'd get a far, far superior product as a result.

Frankly, if you bought in the sales it'd probably be just about possible to buy a reasonable-brand 32-incher *and* a reasonable Blu-Ray surround-sound all-in-one for £400 give or take.

[jjne]

And to prove the point...

http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B004S9DY4...SIN=B004S9DY4I

http://www.gbrelectronics.co.uk/home...tem_P1321.html

Alright, you're going a smidge over budget, but I'm sure a bit more research would yield even better results. Can't complain about the brands either -- Sony and Panasonic, what more do you want?

Go with Samsung/LG, and knock £50-100 off that amount.