I read in a recent “Inc” mag that as a design trend, built-in flatscreens are over the hill.
The reason is evident if you go and see the new models at a good electronics showroom. They really look good, pedestal and all.
The author of the mag piece says they are considered by interior designers today, because of their good looks, as display pieces to be placed on shelves, counters, or furniture.
Being built-in, the total cost of the TV goes up dramatically, and when it is time to replace the unit (you now how fast technology gets dated) it is big payout time all over again. I can envision framing, wiring, drywall, finish, including all materials and labor, as often exceeding the cost of a TV unit, if it is built in.
It is something to consider when looking for ways to take cost out of a job that has a built-in specified.
Replies
A big 10-4 on that. You NEVER want to "build in" a plasma screen due to the heat generated and trapped around the unit. Hide the cables, and hang it on the wall. I don't think the pedistals are stable enough to have around kids.
How about over a mantle? you think the heat from the chimney would be too great?
How about over a mantle? you think the heat from the chimney would be too great?
Shouldn't be. If the heat over the fireplace is too much then I would be surprised the carpet leading up to the mantle doesn't melt. Also, I have a 375-pound rear-projection TV (65" widescreen) that get's direct forced hot air in the Winter because of the damn floor registers.
Of course, one could always buy a thermometer and find out exact how hot it get's and see if it exceeds the operating temps of the unit. The wife wants one over our fireplace, and honestly it would help in removing the monolithic domination the RPTV has on the room. But, the prices just do not justify the result compared to other technologies. More time needs to pass.
Along with built-in screens, I think mounting a TV over a fireplace is about the stupidest idea I've seen foisted on people.Do you really want to be looking up at a screen thats going to be a yard or more over your line-of-sight while sitting? Do you really want a big gray blotch on the wall over your fireplace while the TV is off? The only thing nice about flat screen TV's is that you no longer need those 3 foot deep cabinets.
Roakman, if you haven't checked out the Chief bracket systems, you should... when i'm lying on my couch, it's harder to look straight at any screen not raised without some interference.. can't see wasting any amount of space on anything over 50".. including a viewing room.. but the DLP doesn't compare to the LCD models now available.. give it another couple years and they'll be able to produce LCS screens close to 92"
I guess that depends on how tiny your room is and what purpose of the flat-screen above the fireplace serves. BTW, I've been in several where it was setup in this manner, and I've also been in public theaters looking at those funny people in the front third of the room staring up in a much stronger angle.
Its all about personal tastes, budgets, and reasoning. What you and I may disagree with in common sense is not necessarily someone else's form of common sense. Some think my 65" RPTV is a 'statement' and too much of one. Of course, that's before I take them upstairs.
>>>>If the heat over the fireplace is too much then I would be surprised the carpet leading up to the mantle doesn't melt.You're actually serious ?Here, let's try something. Lets build a nice roaring fire.Now let's hang a chicken drumstick above the fire, and sit one on the ground next to the fire.In an hour, you can eat the one sitting on the ground, and I'll have the one hung above the fire.I hope you bought stock in pepto-bismol...;o)
Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength. ~~ Eric Hoffer
Don't really know. Put a thermometer where you plant to put it and check it out with a fire going. The biggest problem I see would be hiding the coax and AC cables in a brick facia. Might find some answers here:
http://www.plasmatvbuyingguide.com/plasmatv-questions/plasmainstallation_1.html
I think the set would be too high if placed over a mantle. At least for my taste.
I find the current crop of LCD and Plasma based flat-panel products to be terrible, even though some of their culture's technology pieces have been on display at CES (Consumer Electronics Show) with up to 103" diagonal screens.
I'll stick with my media room (temp home theater) while focusing on the real deal, which is using front projection in a dedicated space. I spent $2500 on a used, but great condition, CRT projector, screen, and calibration and watch football in HD (high definition) at 92". The money was spent two years ago and in-use ever since.
I just can't wait for my batcave home theater to be completed in the basement as I'm planning on a 120" screen. Trying installing a plasma or LCD flat-panel of that dimension and you'll need a couple of forklifts and a crane.
Couldn't agree with you more. My Sony 50" XD Plasma has great color and contrast, but for what I spent, I could have gone for a DLP projection unit and hidden the speakers behind the perfed screen. Heard some bad things about calibrating the DLP projectors, and the life of the bulbs etc. You heard any buzz?
Oh BTW, bats carry rabies.... ;-)
I did a LOT of research into this when I was shopping a few years ago.Check out the Panasonic AE-700. Since been replaced by the newer generation AE-900. Pretty similar with a couple of bumped up specs.It's LCD instead of DLP. No screendoor or rainbow. I had the Sony Z-series and the AE-700 in side-by-side in my house for about a month. In my setting the Panasonic took top prize.I waited and waited for first LCOS, then DLP, to get to the point where I could drop my money down on it, but the single wheel DLP systems just aren't up to par with LCD, as least to my eye. And I didn't want to plunk down the cash required for a 3-wheel system. While I enjoy the theater setting, I'm not THAT ($$$) into TV or movies.Quiet. Great pic. Great flexibility with the lens. Summertime nights we sometimes take it outside and show movies out by the pool at night on a "screen" made from a couple of sewn together bedsheets.First lens is still going strong. Don't know how mny hours are on it, but it's been a few years.Old AE700 vs Z3 comparison: http://www.projectorcentral.com/panasonic_ae700_sanyo_z3.htm
>> watch football in HD (high definition) at 92". << and >> I just can't wait for my batcave home theater to be completed in the basement as I'm planning on a 120" screen. << WOW!! - that gives new meaning to the words "wardrobe malfunction" ;-) especially if you have that freeze frame thingie...
PS: I'm not following you around or anything - maybe I just notice your posts more now that one some time ago pi$$ed me off - can't even remember what it was about anymore though :-)
Interesting point.
In my mind it may be a matter of technological maturity. When TVs were first introduced owning one was a status symbol. The early TVs were designed as furniture intended to be at the center of a room and admired. The screen may have been a huge 6" CRT and too small to actually identify who the weatherman was but just owning the set was the point.
The TV was progress and a novelty. It became the center of attention. At least one writer called it 'the modern hearth' a 'hearth' around which the family could gather and eat they 'TV dinner' off of 'TV trays'. The medium, and the modernism and wealth it implied, was the message.
TV was an idol. One which demanded considerable sacrifice to placate. TVs were expensive. Often a week or more wage for the cheapest. Reception was also an issue. To reliably get the luxury of both channels you needed an antenna which you had to risk life and limb to mount one on the roof. No house in the early 50s was complete without a proper bit of mangled aluminum perched on top.
Also the behavioral aspects were not inexpensive. Even turning on the set was a process worthy of the royal status of TV set. You rotate or pull out the knob and wait. Then, if the tubes were still functioning and everything in order, a tiny dot of light would appear like a blessing from on high. Then, over something over a minute, the set would warm up and the dot would bloom into a hazy picture.
Then the antenna, or the even more common 'rabbit ears, demanded constant adjustment. Something as simple as tuning in the other channel involved getting up to turn the knob and then an extensive series of adjustments to the aerial and fine tuning ring. If the TV Gods were happy you might actually get useful information or entertainment out of you alter to modernism.
Over time TVs got better, more convenient. The focus moved away from owning a set and spoon feeding it to get the thin gruel it gave in return toward the information and entertainment it gave in return. Over a few decades the idol became a utility. Used to be everyone knew the brand of set they had and many could ague the relative merits of one brand over another. Now few could tell you what brand CRT based TV they own.
The focus is not on the set but what comes out of the set.
Similarly I think that flat panel units will go through a similar process. Today it is about the sets themselves. Look at me, I can afford a 72" plasma display. In a few years it won't make any difference. What is now a stylish point of focus will be seen as a utility outlet that is best covered, disguised or otherwise played down when not in use.
Stinger, think how many ARMwares (spelling? I hate teh French LOL!!!) will go to the back room now that flat screens are teh thing.
Gene
I'm going to have to print this thread out and take it to the designer on the job that I'm currently doing!
I am building an entertainment center where the flat screen TV sits on a pivotal shelf. Now I have to mount it in a cabinet over the fireplace where it will be framed in!!! I tried to tell them all the downfalls of this but they thought I was out of my element trying to do the design work.
Doug