Ah, fair enough. i just not seen one yet. i just hope my plasma lasts for a few more years then, otherwise I think i will go back to my old JMB CRT set.
At least I could not be accused of watching Tv on that.

I have been thinking about things video wise over the last few months. I thought about getting a projector, but realised it was more hassle than it was worth. then thought about maybe replacing my plasma with a newer larger set, while my plasma is nice, it does take a bit of power.
But have come to the conclusion that it is not worth it for the amount of time I use it, so will keep the plasma going for as long as I can and then decide what to do then. I am serious about going back tot he CRT set when the plasma dies.

but technology changes and if the plasma keeps going for another 3 years or so I will see what is around at that time.

Bizarre idea? - why go back to a vastly inferior picture (and a tiny one at that), particularly with such a low quality set?.

28 inch is not tiny, it used to be the norm not that many years back. It may not have been a expensive set but to be honest the picture was pretty good. I only changed to the plasma because it was given to me as a gift by a friend. I am not sure if I would have bothered to buy a new TV.

As for going going back, it depends on if I really want to pay out for another TV when the plasma go belly up. I have a TV which is standing idol in my bedroom, so it makes sense to use that. It could be worse, I could use the 14 inch philips one I got.

I can't understand that statement because as far as I'm aware, every television you can buy has controls for altering that. The most startlingly lifelike picture I've ever seen is on my parents' old LCD/LED set.


Too bloody right. I remember buying an ex-rental CRT 28", which friends thought was so big they were worried about getting radiation burns from it. The old screen ratio made it bigger than a current 28"; it was almost as deep as it was wide and you needed a forklift truck to move it.

A 28 inch set IS tiny

Or at least the picture on it is

Tiny round B&W screens used to be the norm, and weren't considered 'tiny' at the time but were by the time they were obsolete, just like your CRT set

User controls only adjust the basics, they can't control how the image is made up - LCD to me looks unnatural compared to plasma.

I have three LCD's, they are OK for casual viewing, I would never have one as my main TV, I certainly couldn't watch one with the lights off like I have done with my plasma.

All down to personal choice at the end of the day, but that looks if that's going to change in the near future.

LCD looks 'different' to Plasma, which in turn looks 'different' to CRT - none are correct, all have pretty poor colour gamuts, with Plasma considerably worse than CRT. I can't comment on LCD, as I've never seen a colour gamut for them - but I would say, purely on a visual basis, that LED is poorer (or at least 'different' ) to CCFL sets.

27 inch the picture is, the only problem is the screen not being flat, but it did the job.


Maybe, but I know a fair few people who are still using them, also not everyone got the space for a large 40 inch Tv set. My next door neighbour got a 46 inch Tv in their living room and it looks flipping stupid as their living room is not larger enough to have it.
Now it would fit in mine as my house is slightly different, but it is s Samsung which I do not want.

My Dad have a 20inch LED set in his living room, we did get a larger one at one point but he did not like it and it went back to the shop.

The one problem I do have with my JMB is that the remote don't work, but I can always use my old sky box remote which I still have ( remote not box) i would only need the audio and input switching.

If I had to get a new TV, if my plasma went belly up and the CRT decided it did not want to work, I would love to get a screen without a tuner, just like a large monitor. But the prices are far too high, if you can get them.
I did see one 42 inch monitor, but it was almost a grand, the largest ones around in good supply are around 29 inch, but you are looking at around £300 to £400 for a decent one.

Easy solution – simply buy a 42" TV and use the input device of your choice to bypass the tuner. I don't think I've hardly ever used my TV's built-in tuner since I bought the set at least five years ago.

Goes to show, thin isn't always the best - even with your bumpy bits for bigger speakers.

I believe OLED has a better colour gamut than all the above, I've seen references of 99% of the sRGB/Rec.709 Standard for some makes, I'm assuming that's good.

I would presume so, neither Plasma or CRT come close to the standard gamut - although I've only seen graphs, not percentages.

Just googled for a few OLED gamuts, the graphs look good

We do have a room for it. The last year or so we've updated the old Farm House we live in; we've messed about with different 'configurations' and a barn/milking shed that's being done up would fit the bill, around 60' x 20'...we need to do something with it.

i already got a 42 inch with a tuner and the tuner have not been used for over 2 years, been detuned. But would still be nice not to have one then if the TVL came and felt in the mood to let them in, I could show them the Tv do not have a tuner.

TBH, I thought by now they would have been tunerless, and give people the choice, but I suppose not putting a tuner in do not save that much money

The vast, overwhelming majority of people want a tuner with their TV set so they can watch TV.

It would cost MORE money, the reasons have been explained here endlessly

What's your problem in paying less and just ignoring the tuner facilities?.

Why don't you try thinking outside the box for once, Nigel?
If you have screen only no tuner then man doesn't come knocking on door asking for licence money and takes you to court for heavy fine in this so called free country unlike USA where you don't have people asking for money to watch television - me? I would rather watch screen without and not rubbish tv programmes like coronation street and eastenders why do I have to pay for this rubbish why can't bush or alba or other big tv makers supply this wish?Surely these makers can sort this out

I realise that Neo, but just think if each Tv was built without a tuner and you could add a card that would give it a tuner of your choice, either freesat or Freeview or nothing.

i know the it would cost more and I know that these days the tuner part of TV sets are to integrated into the electronics.


Just a dream

But days of old we could disable the tuner, when TV sets was big bulky things they was easier to fix as well, if something went belly up then you just took the board out that controlled that function and replaced it. Ok it was not always that easy, but Tv sets was fixed more then than now.
What will you do with your TV sets when the go pop?

No 'thinking outside of the box' required - your entire post is complete nonsense

The presence of a tuner in a set in no way affects the licence requirement, that's NOT been a concern for a good many year snow (last century?).

So your entire premise and silly reason for not wanting a tuner is completely and utterly 100% wrong.

It's been done, on a number of occasions - and every single time it's been an absolute failure and a disaster for the manufacturers concerned. The most 'successful' was the Sony Profeel, who lost the least amount of money on their system

What you've described above pretty well matches a current TV and a PVR, just ignore the tuner if you don't want to use it - why pay more for it not to be there?.

i know it would cost more because of supply and demand. I think if I was going to get a smaller set, 28 inch or something then I would get a compute monitor and use that. I would get some little speakers for the sound.


More or less what Mr Quackers said.
While my Tv is detuned and don't have any aerial connected, having no tuner would be a easy way to show that my TV is not displaying live TV. another way would be to maybe have a tuner disable function.

Mind you I got to let them in first, which I refused the one and only time I seen them come here.

And as I said above - and YOU should know! - the presence of a tuner has no effect on licensing in any way shape or form, so it's a completely pointless point of view.

i do know this, but a lack of tuner makes it a lot easier to prove you don't watch live TV. Certainly when you got some from the DVL doctoring the photos they take.

Choice, that is what it is all about choice, but I do understand why it is not done.

PVR is more cables, that is why my DAD just got a Tv and that is it and also the fact that he only watches about 30 mins of Tv a day. He only got a Tv because he don't have to pay for the TV licence.

This is wrong people need licence when they have machine that is CAPABLE of receiving BBC whether thgey use tuner or not if tuner is there they have to pay even if they say they never watch BBC
I know you need licence when you have video recorder even if you have no screen because they told me in shop when I bought my video recorder silly but true!
I am surprised you have got this wrong - suggest you phone licence people and get up to date information which is what I done today
do you disagree with the LAW?

Best you research a little better.....http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/faqs/FAQ8
You don't need a TV licence unless you watch TV as it's broadcast. So, if you only use the Catch up services like iPlayer. you don't need a licence.
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-i...nd-online-top8
If I was you, I'd phone the licence people up again and tell them they made you look silly....