Discussion:
Where on earth can I buy an LCD TV WITHOUT a TV Tuner
(too old to reply)
Chris
2006-03-25 02:07:36 UTC
Permalink
For the reasons outlined here:

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70349-0.html

What all this means in the marketplace is that it's no longer necessary
(or even all that desirable) to have a built-in analog tuner on your
TV. Since most people get their TV signal from a set-top box anyway,
almost all built-in tuners are a waste of space -- and money. And if
you buy a TV with no tuner at all (just a monitor), you can sometimes
save a couple hundred bucks without sacrificing any of the features
you've grown accustomed to from your cable or satellite company."


I have a Sony HDD recorder (RDR HX 510) - which can output scart,
s-video, component etc.

I have been thinking - there *must* be a company that sells a really
nice lcd screen with no tv tuner and no speakers (since speakers on
these things are rubbish anyway.. and I have my own speakers)


Right now my monitor takes VGA and DVI. If only there was some magical
way of converting scart to DVI
Stan The Man
2006-03-25 02:21:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70349-0.html
What all this means in the marketplace is that it's no longer necessary
(or even all that desirable) to have a built-in analog tuner on your
TV. Since most people get their TV signal from a set-top box anyway,
almost all built-in tuners are a waste of space -- and money. And if
you buy a TV with no tuner at all (just a monitor), you can sometimes
save a couple hundred bucks without sacrificing any of the features
you've grown accustomed to from your cable or satellite company."
I have a Sony HDD recorder (RDR HX 510) - which can output scart,
s-video, component etc.
I have been thinking - there *must* be a company that sells a really
nice lcd screen with no tv tuner and no speakers (since speakers on
these things are rubbish anyway.. and I have my own speakers)
Right now my monitor takes VGA and DVI. If only there was some magical
way of converting scart to DVI
When I was hunting for a plasma screen without a built-in tuner, I
discovered that http://www.krishav.co.uk were selling continental
flavours of the Panny Viera for a few hundred quid less than the UK
models with built-in tuners. Ask if they can do the same for a good LCD
screen. Zero difference by the way apart from the lack of tuner.

Stan
Chris
2006-03-25 03:01:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan The Man
Post by Chris
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70349-0.html
What all this means in the marketplace is that it's no longer necessary
(or even all that desirable) to have a built-in analog tuner on your
TV. Since most people get their TV signal from a set-top box anyway,
almost all built-in tuners are a waste of space -- and money. And if
you buy a TV with no tuner at all (just a monitor), you can sometimes
save a couple hundred bucks without sacrificing any of the features
you've grown accustomed to from your cable or satellite company."
I have a Sony HDD recorder (RDR HX 510) - which can output scart,
s-video, component etc.
I have been thinking - there *must* be a company that sells a really
nice lcd screen with no tv tuner and no speakers (since speakers on
these things are rubbish anyway.. and I have my own speakers)
Right now my monitor takes VGA and DVI. If only there was some magical
way of converting scart to DVI
When I was hunting for a plasma screen without a built-in tuner, I
discovered that http://www.krishav.co.uk were selling continental
flavours of the Panny Viera for a few hundred quid less than the UK
models with built-in tuners. Ask if they can do the same for a good LCD
screen. Zero difference by the way apart from the lack of tuner.
Stan
Let me get this right - they did have tv tuners (but for say, France so
wouldn't work in this country) so they reduced the prices?

Interesting.. will ring them up

Thanks for the tip
Chris
2006-03-25 03:25:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan The Man
Post by Chris
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70349-0.html
What all this means in the marketplace is that it's no longer necessary
(or even all that desirable) to have a built-in analog tuner on your
TV. Since most people get their TV signal from a set-top box anyway,
almost all built-in tuners are a waste of space -- and money. And if
you buy a TV with no tuner at all (just a monitor), you can sometimes
save a couple hundred bucks without sacrificing any of the features
you've grown accustomed to from your cable or satellite company."
I have a Sony HDD recorder (RDR HX 510) - which can output scart,
s-video, component etc.
I have been thinking - there *must* be a company that sells a really
nice lcd screen with no tv tuner and no speakers (since speakers on
these things are rubbish anyway.. and I have my own speakers)
Right now my monitor takes VGA and DVI. If only there was some magical
way of converting scart to DVI
When I was hunting for a plasma screen without a built-in tuner, I
discovered that http://www.krishav.co.uk were selling continental
flavours of the Panny Viera for a few hundred quid less than the UK
models with built-in tuners. Ask if they can do the same for a good LCD
screen. Zero difference by the way apart from the lack of tuner.
Stan
Oh yeah, another idea: maybe I could order them from europe (outside
'rip-off britain')

Hmm... needs to be 240V though

But i'm curious... I bet the LCD screens are much cheaper
Colin Forrester
2006-03-25 07:21:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris
Oh yeah, another idea: maybe I could order them from europe (outside
'rip-off britain')
Hmm... needs to be 240V though
Shouldn't be a problem buying a product destined for other EU Countries.
In fact some of my equipment accepts input in the range 110 - 240v.
Adrian A
2006-03-25 09:32:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Colin Forrester
Post by Chris
Oh yeah, another idea: maybe I could order them from europe (outside
'rip-off britain')
Hmm... needs to be 240V though
Shouldn't be a problem buying a product destined for other EU
Countries. In fact some of my equipment accepts input in the range
110 - 240v.
That's the range equipment is guaranteed to work at, in reality it's often a
lot more. I have an old JVC VCR which works happily down to 80v.
--
Adrian A
Mark Carver
2006-03-25 17:18:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adrian A
Post by Colin Forrester
Post by Chris
Oh yeah, another idea: maybe I could order them from europe (outside
'rip-off britain')
Hmm... needs to be 240V though
Shouldn't be a problem buying a product destined for other EU
Countries. In fact some of my equipment accepts input in the range
110 - 240v.
That's the range equipment is guaranteed to work at, in reality it's often a
lot more. I have an old JVC VCR which works happily down to 80v.
Yes, I discovered that my Sony TV set works OK at about 75 volts,
after a local mains supply fault reduced the voltage to that. I didn't
realise there was a problem, until a neighbour alerted me, and I put a
lamp on !

Needless to say as soon as I realised what was going on, I hit all the
breakers on the consumer unit !
--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.
Pyriform
2006-03-26 21:50:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Carver
Yes, I discovered that my Sony TV set works OK at about 75 volts,
after a local mains supply fault reduced the voltage to that. I didn't
realise there was a problem, until a neighbour alerted me, and I put a
lamp on !
Needless to say as soon as I realised what was going on, I hit all the
breakers on the consumer unit !
Did you actually have time to measure it, or was that an estimate?

I have noticed that my TV (also a Sony) seems to sail on regardless,
even if there's a brownout of sufficient depth to dim the lights and
make the PC reboot.
Johnny B Good
2006-03-27 01:19:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pyriform
Post by Mark Carver
Yes, I discovered that my Sony TV set works OK at about 75 volts,
after a local mains supply fault reduced the voltage to that. I didn't
realise there was a problem, until a neighbour alerted me, and I put a
lamp on !
Needless to say as soon as I realised what was going on, I hit all the
breakers on the consumer unit !
Did you actually have time to measure it, or was that an estimate?
I have noticed that my TV (also a Sony) seems to sail on regardless,
even if there's a brownout of sufficient depth to dim the lights and
make the PC reboot.
Almost every deskbound PC uses a PSU designed to work in one of two
preset mains supply voltage ranges, 192 to 264v or 90 to 130v.

Some years back, a PC mag did a mains voltage dropout test with a whole
bunch of PCs and they almost universally went into reset due to the PSU
negating the PG line at 186V +/- 1v and booted up when the voltage rose
up to 188v +/- 1v. What struck the testers (and me!) was the remarkable
consistency of these drop out and cut in voltages.

The TV, otoh, may (like a notebook charger brick) use a 'universal psu'
which works over the whole range, 90 to 264 v without the need for
manual selection of voltage range and so would be oblivious to a deep
brownout on a 230v supply which dipped below the 186v lower limit
typical of most PCs.

Using a circuit in a desktop PC that relies on a manually operated
switch to adjust between the two common mains voltage ranges used
throughout the world is no big deal.

A notebook power brick, otoh, is at far higher risk of being blown to
bits by operator forgetfulness (and jetlag) upon returning from a low
voltage country to a high voltage country. And, of course, there's
always the risk of a voltage selector switch being accidently set to the
low voltage range (plus, where could you find room to actually fit such
a switch in the confines of the typical power brick?).

I guess the world wide market for universal standards TV sets more or
less mandated mains voltage agnostic PSUs as a matter of economics in
large scale production runs (and one less critical user option to worry
about).
--
Regards, John.

Please remove the "ohggcyht" before replying.
The address has been munged to reject Spam-bots.
Pyriform
2006-03-27 09:25:21 UTC
Permalink
Johnny B Good wrote:
<stuff about PSUs>

Interesting. Thanks.
Mark Carver
2006-03-27 10:15:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pyriform
Post by Mark Carver
Yes, I discovered that my Sony TV set works OK at about 75 volts,
after a local mains supply fault reduced the voltage to that. I didn't
realise there was a problem, until a neighbour alerted me, and I put a
lamp on !
Needless to say as soon as I realised what was going on, I hit all the
breakers on the consumer unit !
Did you actually have time to measure it, or was that an estimate?
That was a measurement, once I'd shut everything off except the
lighting circuit, leaving just one lamp on to monitor what was going
on.
Post by Pyriform
I have noticed that my TV (also a Sony) seems to sail on regardless,
even if there's a brownout of sufficient depth to dim the lights and
make the PC reboot.
At the point the mains must have dropped down to its low value, I did
notice (though I wasn't sure at the time) the picture glitch 'inwards',
but that was the only symptom.

I was alerted because my neighbour came round about 20 mins later, to
say 'her lights were very dim', and nothing else in her house was
working. I then switched on my hall light and the rest is history.
Chris Howells
2006-03-25 11:06:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris
Oh yeah, another idea: maybe I could order them from europe (outside
'rip-off britain')
If you order from outside the EU you will have to pay VAT. After you've
paid VAT and the shipping cost most of the saving has disappeared. Added
to the fact that the manufacturer may refuse to honor an overseas
warranty and it's slightly hard to haul someone on the other side of the
world into your local county court and it's certainly not worth the
hassle. IMO.
Nigel Barker
2006-03-25 14:26:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Howells
Post by Chris
Oh yeah, another idea: maybe I could order them from europe (outside
'rip-off britain')
If you order from outside the EU you will have to pay VAT. After you've
paid VAT and the shipping cost most of the saving has disappeared. Added
to the fact that the manufacturer may refuse to honor an overseas
warranty and it's slightly hard to haul someone on the other side of the
world into your local county court and it's certainly not worth the
hassle. IMO.
He said Rip-of Britain not Rip-off Europe. He didn't say he was going to order
from outside the EU. Historically Germany has always had great bargains on Hi Fi
& other electrical goods.

--
Nigel Barker
Live from the sunny Cote d'Azur
Steve Firth
2006-03-25 02:32:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris
I have a Sony HDD recorder (RDR HX 510) - which can output scart,
s-video, component etc.
I have been thinking - there *must* be a company that sells a really
nice lcd screen with no tv tuner and no speakers (since speakers on
these things are rubbish anyway.. and I have my own speakers)
Hyundai do a range of SCART input monitors without speakers, but I have
a suspicion that they have 2xDVB tuners as standard. Acer do a well
reviewed 21" LCD with SCART, no tuner but it does have speakers.
Chris
2006-03-25 02:57:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Firth
Post by Chris
I have a Sony HDD recorder (RDR HX 510) - which can output scart,
s-video, component etc.
I have been thinking - there *must* be a company that sells a really
nice lcd screen with no tv tuner and no speakers (since speakers on
these things are rubbish anyway.. and I have my own speakers)
Hyundai do a range of SCART input monitors without speakers, but I have
a suspicion that they have 2xDVB tuners as standard. Acer do a well
reviewed 21" LCD with SCART, no tuner but it does have speakers.
I did a quick search on google

They do have a built in tv tuner though -
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/acatalog/lcdtv19.html

I'm hoping to buy a tv minus tv tuner to save money
Steve Firth
2006-03-25 11:34:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris
Post by Steve Firth
Post by Chris
I have a Sony HDD recorder (RDR HX 510) - which can output scart,
s-video, component etc.
I have been thinking - there *must* be a company that sells a really
nice lcd screen with no tv tuner and no speakers (since speakers on
these things are rubbish anyway.. and I have my own speakers)
Hyundai do a range of SCART input monitors without speakers, but I have
a suspicion that they have 2xDVB tuners as standard. Acer do a well
reviewed 21" LCD with SCART, no tuner but it does have speakers.
I did a quick search on google
They do have a built in tv tuner though -
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/acatalog/lcdtv19.html
I'm hoping to buy a tv minus tv tuner to save money
I'd say like for like you don't save any money by missing out the TV
tuner. There are some analogue input, S-VHS, Composite, component RGB
LCD monitors on this page:

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/acatalog/lcd20.html

I don't know what size you are after but the Belinea at £250ish seems a
reasonable buy. When you get up to 26"+ sizes then the LCD TVs seem to
be a better buy than the monitors.

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/acatalog/lcdtv26p.html

The Hyundai HQL320WR 32" in particular seems a good price. A Dell
widescreen monitors with composite/analogue input is priced at about 2x
the price of the Hyundai. The Dell probably offers higher resolution but
if your main use is watching video then you probably wont notice the
missing megapixels.
Emperor's New Widescreen
2006-03-26 21:15:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris
Post by Steve Firth
Post by Chris
I have a Sony HDD recorder (RDR HX 510) - which can output scart,
s-video, component etc.
I have been thinking - there *must* be a company that sells a really
nice lcd screen with no tv tuner and no speakers (since speakers on
these things are rubbish anyway.. and I have my own speakers)
Hyundai do a range of SCART input monitors without speakers, but I have
a suspicion that they have 2xDVB tuners as standard. Acer do a well
reviewed 21" LCD with SCART, no tuner but it does have speakers.
I did a quick search on google
They do have a built in tv tuner though -
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/acatalog/lcdtv19.html
I'm hoping to buy a tv minus tv tuner to save money
What makes you think you will save money?
Do you think they will remove the tuner from the rest of the
circuitary? Or do you think that having a new TV designed
(with all the associated costs) to suit your needs will be cheaper?
Chris
2006-03-27 00:25:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Emperor's New Widescreen
Post by Chris
Post by Steve Firth
Post by Chris
I have a Sony HDD recorder (RDR HX 510) - which can output scart,
s-video, component etc.
I have been thinking - there *must* be a company that sells a really
nice lcd screen with no tv tuner and no speakers (since speakers on
these things are rubbish anyway.. and I have my own speakers)
Hyundai do a range of SCART input monitors without speakers, but I have
a suspicion that they have 2xDVB tuners as standard. Acer do a well
reviewed 21" LCD with SCART, no tuner but it does have speakers.
I did a quick search on google
They do have a built in tv tuner though -
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/acatalog/lcdtv19.html
I'm hoping to buy a tv minus tv tuner to save money
What makes you think you will save money?
Do you think they will remove the tuner from the rest of the
circuitary? Or do you think that having a new TV designed
(with all the associated costs) to suit your needs will be cheaper?
It' s certainly what this journalist seems to think:



http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70349-0.html
Emperor's New Widescreen
2006-03-27 01:23:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris
Post by Emperor's New Widescreen
Post by Chris
Post by Steve Firth
Post by Chris
I have a Sony HDD recorder (RDR HX 510) - which can output scart,
s-video, component etc.
I have been thinking - there *must* be a company that sells a really
nice lcd screen with no tv tuner and no speakers (since speakers on
these things are rubbish anyway.. and I have my own speakers)
Hyundai do a range of SCART input monitors without speakers, but I have
a suspicion that they have 2xDVB tuners as standard. Acer do a well
reviewed 21" LCD with SCART, no tuner but it does have speakers.
I did a quick search on google
They do have a built in tv tuner though -
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/acatalog/lcdtv19.html
I'm hoping to buy a tv minus tv tuner to save money
What makes you think you will save money?
Do you think they will remove the tuner from the rest of the
circuitary? Or do you think that having a new TV designed
(with all the associated costs) to suit your needs will be cheaper?
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70349-0.html
To quote the hack:
"And if you buy a TV with no tuner at all (just a monitor), you can
sometimes
save a couple hundred bucks without sacrificing any of the features you've
grown
accustomed to from your cable or satellite company"

Now $200=£150 approx, however since I recently bought a portable TV
with a built in tuner for less than £50 one wonders where he dream't up his
$200 figure from. I don't no precisely how much a tuner costs but when you
consider that you can buy a portable radio or radio alarm clock for less
than
£4 you can get some sort of idea. Indeed I actually bought a portable
radio WITH BUILT IN TORCH :O) for the princely sum of £1!!!!!!!!!!
(one pound). The price included headphones (ear pieces IIRC).
So his figure is about 100 times over inflated assuming no other costs.
So when you weigh up the negligible cost of the tuner against cost of
designing
from scratch a new tunerless TV and a new production line, marketing
(bribing
journalist) it is pretty clear to me the 'tunerless' TV will be considerable
more
expensive.


So you can take what journalists say with a pinch of salt.
The will be saying Widescreen is better than 4:3 next.............
Stan The Man
2006-03-27 07:52:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Emperor's New Widescreen
So when you weigh up the negligible cost of the tuner against cost of
designing from scratch a new tunerless TV and a new production line,
marketing (bribing journalist) it is pretty clear to me the 'tunerless'
TV will be considerable more expensive.
The flaw in your logic is that tuner-less TVs don't need to be made to
order. They are a standard production item and throught all the world
markets may even outnumber TVs with tuners. They certainly outnumber by
many orders of magnitude the number of TVs with UK-compatible tuners.
Now they DO have to be made to order for our little market here. Hence,
buying a bog standard tuner-less model costs less.

Stan
Emperor's New Widescreen
2006-03-27 15:06:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan The Man
Post by Emperor's New Widescreen
So when you weigh up the negligible cost of the tuner against cost of
designing from scratch a new tunerless TV and a new production line,
marketing (bribing journalist) it is pretty clear to me the 'tunerless'
TV will be considerable more expensive.
The flaw in your logic is that tuner-less TVs don't need to be made to
order. They are a standard production item and throught all the world
markets may even outnumber TVs with tuners. They certainly outnumber by
many orders of magnitude the number of TVs with UK-compatible tuners.
Now they DO have to be made to order for our little market here. Hence,
buying a bog standard tuner-less model costs less.
"tunerless TV" returns 700 results on google, none on froggle, "tv tuner"
returns 52 million. I think your are obviously wrong.


http://thomashawk.com/2005/05/joe-wilcox-on-tv-tunerless-media.html
Dell charges an extra $38 for a TV tunerless Media Center.
Post by Stan The Man
Stan
Graeme Wall
2006-03-27 16:59:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Emperor's New Widescreen
Post by Stan The Man
Post by Emperor's New Widescreen
So when you weigh up the negligible cost of the tuner against cost of
designing from scratch a new tunerless TV and a new production line,
marketing (bribing journalist) it is pretty clear to me the 'tunerless'
TV will be considerable more expensive.
The flaw in your logic is that tuner-less TVs don't need to be made to
order. They are a standard production item and throught all the world
markets may even outnumber TVs with tuners. They certainly outnumber by
many orders of magnitude the number of TVs with UK-compatible tuners.
Now they DO have to be made to order for our little market here. Hence,
buying a bog standard tuner-less model costs less.
"tunerless TV" returns 700 results on google, none on froggle, "tv tuner"
returns 52 million. I think your are obviously wrong.
On the other hand 'TV monitor', which is the correct term for a 'tunerless
tv' returns 122 million hits. Not so obvious?
--
Graeme Wall

My genealogy website:
<http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/genealogy/index.html>
Emperor's New Widescreen
2006-03-27 19:06:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Emperor's New Widescreen
Post by Stan The Man
Post by Emperor's New Widescreen
So when you weigh up the negligible cost of the tuner against cost of
designing from scratch a new tunerless TV and a new production line,
marketing (bribing journalist) it is pretty clear to me the 'tunerless'
TV will be considerable more expensive.
The flaw in your logic is that tuner-less TVs don't need to be made to
order. They are a standard production item and throught all the world
markets may even outnumber TVs with tuners. They certainly outnumber by
many orders of magnitude the number of TVs with UK-compatible tuners.
Now they DO have to be made to order for our little market here. Hence,
buying a bog standard tuner-less model costs less.
"tunerless TV" returns 700 results on google, none on froggle, "tv tuner"
returns 52 million. I think your are obviously wrong.
On the other hand 'TV monitor', which is the correct term for a 'tunerless
tv' returns 122 million hits. Not so obvious?
Wrong "tv monitor" gives 2 million "tv" 2 billion.
Post by Graeme Wall
--
Graeme Wall
<http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/genealogy/index.html>
Graeme Wall
2006-03-27 19:30:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Emperor's New Widescreen
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Emperor's New Widescreen
Post by Stan The Man
Post by Emperor's New Widescreen
So when you weigh up the negligible cost of the tuner against cost of
designing from scratch a new tunerless TV and a new production line,
marketing (bribing journalist) it is pretty clear to me the
'tunerless'
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Emperor's New Widescreen
Post by Stan The Man
Post by Emperor's New Widescreen
TV will be considerable more expensive.
The flaw in your logic is that tuner-less TVs don't need to be made to
order. They are a standard production item and throught all the world
markets may even outnumber TVs with tuners. They certainly outnumber
by
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Emperor's New Widescreen
Post by Stan The Man
many orders of magnitude the number of TVs with UK-compatible tuners.
Now they DO have to be made to order for our little market here.
Hence,
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Emperor's New Widescreen
Post by Stan The Man
buying a bog standard tuner-less model costs less.
"tunerless TV" returns 700 results on google, none on froggle, "tv
tuner"
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Emperor's New Widescreen
returns 52 million. I think your are obviously wrong.
On the other hand 'TV monitor', which is the correct term for a 'tunerless
tv' returns 122 million hits. Not so obvious?
Wrong "tv monitor" gives 2 million "tv" 2 billion.
Please note single quotes, double quotes gives 3,410,000, rather more than 2
million. But a TV tuner is not a TV with a tuner.
--
Graeme Wall

My genealogy website:
<http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/genealogy/index.html>
Stan The Man
2006-03-27 17:31:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Emperor's New Widescreen
Post by Stan The Man
Post by Emperor's New Widescreen
So when you weigh up the negligible cost of the tuner against cost of
designing from scratch a new tunerless TV and a new production line,
marketing (bribing journalist) it is pretty clear to me the 'tunerless'
TV will be considerable more expensive.
The flaw in your logic is that tuner-less TVs don't need to be made to
order. They are a standard production item and throught all the world
markets may even outnumber TVs with tuners. They certainly outnumber by
many orders of magnitude the number of TVs with UK-compatible tuners.
Now they DO have to be made to order for our little market here. Hence,
buying a bog standard tuner-less model costs less.
"tunerless TV" returns 700 results on google, none on froggle, "tv tuner"
returns 52 million. I think your are obviously wrong.
I think you're being serious but there's no such word as 'tunerless' so
700 results is way too many imho. There are many world markets where it
is the norm to sell a TV without a tuner so it wouldn't even be
mentioned as a 'feature'. To get the true picture you would have to
look at TV manufacturers'/resellers' websites in different languages.
What's Chinese for 'tunerless'?
Post by Emperor's New Widescreen
http://thomashawk.com/2005/05/joe-wilcox-on-tv-tunerless-media.html
Dell charges an extra $38 for a TV tunerless Media Center.
As I said way back when, I bought a tunerless Viera Plasma from KrisAV
a year ago and they were charging £200 less for it than for the
tuner-inside version of an otherwise identical TV. That's the kind of
research I trust.

Stan
Emperor's New Widescreen
2006-03-27 19:04:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan The Man
Post by Emperor's New Widescreen
Post by Stan The Man
Post by Emperor's New Widescreen
So when you weigh up the negligible cost of the tuner against cost of
designing from scratch a new tunerless TV and a new production line,
marketing (bribing journalist) it is pretty clear to me the 'tunerless'
TV will be considerable more expensive.
The flaw in your logic is that tuner-less TVs don't need to be made to
order. They are a standard production item and throught all the world
markets may even outnumber TVs with tuners. They certainly outnumber by
many orders of magnitude the number of TVs with UK-compatible tuners.
Now they DO have to be made to order for our little market here. Hence,
buying a bog standard tuner-less model costs less.
"tunerless TV" returns 700 results on google, none on froggle, "tv tuner"
returns 52 million. I think your are obviously wrong.
I think you're being serious but there's no such word as 'tunerless' so
700 results is way too many imho. There are many world markets where it
is the norm to sell a TV without a tuner so it wouldn't even be
mentioned as a 'feature'. To get the true picture you would have to
look at TV manufacturers'/resellers' websites in different languages.
What's Chinese for 'tunerless'?
Post by Emperor's New Widescreen
http://thomashawk.com/2005/05/joe-wilcox-on-tv-tunerless-media.html
Dell charges an extra $38 for a TV tunerless Media Center.
As I said way back when, I bought a tunerless Viera Plasma from KrisAV
a year ago and they were charging £200 less for it than for the
tuner-inside version of an otherwise identical TV. That's the kind of
research I trust.
Marketing, it is immaterial what they charged you for it as I have
no doubt it was vastly overpriced in the first place.
As soon as you mentioned tunerles I expect £ notes were registering in
their eyes.

But don't wory you can buy a TV tuner for your plasma for
a mere £400

http://www.shopzilla.co.uk/8N--TUPTA600B_Panasonic_TV_Tuner_for_Panasonic_Plasma_Nicam_Stereo_-_nwylf--__oid--349204998

LOL
I would not believe it had I not seen it with my own eyes!!!


WHAT A JOKE.

THEY OBVIOUSLY REALISE 99.9% OF THEIR CUSTOMERS
ARE MUGS!!!!
Post by Stan The Man
Stan
Peter Hayes
2006-03-27 12:39:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Emperor's New Widescreen
The will be saying Widescreen is better than 4:3 next.............
We see the world in widescreen so why shouldn't it be better than 4:3?
--
Peter
Emperor's New Widescreen
2006-03-27 15:09:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Hayes
Post by Emperor's New Widescreen
The will be saying Widescreen is better than 4:3 next.............
We see the world in widescreen so why shouldn't it be better than 4:3?
Only if you live in a cinema, our vision is round, our field of
view 4:3. Ask any optician, as opposed to TV salesman or 'film buff'
(couch potato).
Post by Peter Hayes
--
Peter
the dog from that film you saw
2006-03-27 15:34:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Emperor's New Widescreen
Post by Peter Hayes
Post by Emperor's New Widescreen
The will be saying Widescreen is better than 4:3 next.............
We see the world in widescreen so why shouldn't it be better than 4:3?
Only if you live in a cinema, our vision is round, our field of
view 4:3. Ask any optician, as opposed to TV salesman or 'film buff'
(couch potato).
dont be daft - i can see thing all around me, but not something 2 foot above
me.
your vision is far wider than tall - a whole lot wider than 2.35:1 that's
for sure.
--
Gareth.
A french man who wanted a castle threw his cat into a pond.
http://www.audioscrobbler.com/user/dsbmusic/
+tacos+
2006-03-27 15:44:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by the dog from that film you saw
Post by Emperor's New Widescreen
Only if you live in a cinema, our vision is round, our field of
view 4:3. Ask any optician, as opposed to TV salesman or 'film buff'
(couch potato).
dont be daft - i can see thing all around me, but not something 2 foot
above me.
This has been explained to him 100 times but he'll repeat his round
vision thing endlessly. It looks like a disorder in the autistic
spectrum. Changes in his environment - in this case the change from 4:3
to 16:9 - traumatise him. He has actually said that 16:9 has damaged a
part of his LIFE. He really said that. It's astonishing, but that's the
way he is.
Emperor's New Widescreen
2006-03-27 16:00:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by the dog from that film you saw
Post by Emperor's New Widescreen
Post by Peter Hayes
Post by Emperor's New Widescreen
The will be saying Widescreen is better than 4:3 next.............
We see the world in widescreen so why shouldn't it be better than 4:3?
Only if you live in a cinema, our vision is round, our field of
view 4:3. Ask any optician, as opposed to TV salesman or 'film buff'
(couch potato).
dont be daft - i can see thing all around me, but not something 2 foot above
me.
your vision is far wider than tall - a whole lot wider than 2.35:1 that's
for sure.
Sure it is, I am saving up for one of the new 2:35:1 TV's right now
(the next big ting apparently), I love a good laugh.
Post by the dog from that film you saw
--
Gareth.
A french man who wanted a castle threw his cat into a pond.
http://www.audioscrobbler.com/user/dsbmusic/
the dog from that film you saw
2006-03-27 16:44:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Emperor's New Widescreen
Post by the dog from that film you saw
dont be daft - i can see thing all around me, but not something 2 foot
above
Post by the dog from that film you saw
me.
your vision is far wider than tall - a whole lot wider than 2.35:1 that's
for sure.
Sure it is, I am saving up for one of the new 2:35:1 TV's right now
(the next big ting apparently), I love a good laugh.
so you're not saying i'm wrong then?
--
Gareth.
A french man who wanted a castle threw his cat into a pond.
http://www.audioscrobbler.com/user/dsbmusic/
Emperor's New Widescreen
2006-03-27 19:16:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by the dog from that film you saw
Post by Emperor's New Widescreen
Post by the dog from that film you saw
dont be daft - i can see thing all around me, but not something 2 foot
above
Post by the dog from that film you saw
me.
your vision is far wider than tall - a whole lot wider than 2.35:1 that's
for sure.
Sure it is, I am saving up for one of the new 2:35:1 TV's right now
(the next big ting apparently), I love a good laugh.
so you're not saying i'm wrong then?
I think you knew that ;O)
Post by the dog from that film you saw
--
Gareth.
A french man who wanted a castle threw his cat into a pond.
http://www.audioscrobbler.com/user/dsbmusic/
Luke Bosman
2006-03-27 16:01:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Emperor's New Widescreen
Post by Peter Hayes
Post by Emperor's New Widescreen
The will be saying Widescreen is better than 4:3 next.............
We see the world in widescreen so why shouldn't it be better than 4:3?
Only if you live in a cinema, our vision is round, our field of
view 4:3.
Your field of view may be 4:3. Mine isn't. It sounds like you need to
seen an optician.

Cheers,
Luke
--
No-one reads signatures these days.
Chris Ridd
2006-03-27 16:18:50 UTC
Permalink
On 27/3/06 5:01, in article
1hcvakz.1f36vzz1dfacsfN%southend.areNinePointsClearMuchToMySurprise.5.lukebo
Post by Luke Bosman
Post by Emperor's New Widescreen
Post by Peter Hayes
Post by Emperor's New Widescreen
The will be saying Widescreen is better than 4:3 next.............
We see the world in widescreen so why shouldn't it be better than 4:3?
Only if you live in a cinema, our vision is round, our field of
view 4:3.
Your field of view may be 4:3. Mine isn't. It sounds like you need to
seen an optician.
Perhaps the lenses in his specs are 4:3 shape.

Cheers,

Chris
Emperor's New Widescreen
2006-03-27 19:23:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Ridd
On 27/3/06 5:01, in article
1hcvakz.1f36vzz1dfacsfN%southend.areNinePointsClearMuchToMySurprise.5.lukebo
Post by Chris Ridd
Post by Luke Bosman
Post by Emperor's New Widescreen
Post by Peter Hayes
Post by Emperor's New Widescreen
The will be saying Widescreen is better than 4:3 next.............
We see the world in widescreen so why shouldn't it be better than 4:3?
Only if you live in a cinema, our vision is round, our field of
view 4:3.
Your field of view may be 4:3. Mine isn't. It sounds like you need to
seen an optician.
Perhaps the lenses in his specs are 4:3 shape.
They are round to match the ones in my eyes, I expect your
glasses are 2:35:1 to match the widescreen lens in your eye?
Post by Chris Ridd
Cheers,
Chris
Luke Bosman
2006-03-27 21:18:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Ridd
Post by Chris Ridd
On 27/3/06 5:01, in article
1hcvakz.1f36vzz1dfacsfN%southend.areNinePointsClearMuchToMySurprise.5.lukebo
Post by Chris Ridd
Post by Luke Bosman
Post by Emperor's New Widescreen
Only if you live in a cinema, our vision is round, our field of
view 4:3.
Your field of view may be 4:3. Mine isn't. It sounds like you need to
seen an optician.
Perhaps the lenses in his specs are 4:3 shape.
They are round to match the ones in my eyes, I expect your
glasses are 2:35:1 to match the widescreen lens in your eye?
There's the difference. You have one eye. I have two. Mine are arranged
side by side and, strangely enough, the field of view is distinctly
wider than it is high.

Luke
--
No-one reads signatures these days.
Emperor's New Widescreen
2006-03-27 21:52:21 UTC
Permalink
"Luke Bosman"
Post by Luke Bosman
Post by Emperor's New Widescreen
Post by Chris Ridd
On 27/3/06 5:01, in article
1hcvakz.1f36vzz1dfacsfN%southend.areNinePointsClearMuchToMySurprise.5.lukebo
Post by Luke Bosman
Post by Emperor's New Widescreen
Post by Chris Ridd
Post by Luke Bosman
Post by Emperor's New Widescreen
Only if you live in a cinema, our vision is round, our field of
view 4:3.
Your field of view may be 4:3. Mine isn't. It sounds like you need to
seen an optician.
Perhaps the lenses in his specs are 4:3 shape.
They are round to match the ones in my eyes, I expect your
glasses are 2:35:1 to match the widescreen lens in your eye?
There's the difference. You have one eye. I have two. Mine are arranged
side by side and, strangely enough, the field of view is distinctly
wider than it is high.
I have two eyes which correctly focus on the same point giving a
round image. I am not sure how yours are working, do you see two
of everything by any chance?
Post by Luke Bosman
Luke
--
No-one reads signatures these days.
+tacos+
2006-03-28 10:16:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Emperor's New Widescreen
"Luke Bosman"
Post by Luke Bosman
There's the difference. You have one eye. I have two. Mine are
arranged side by side and, strangely enough, the field of view is
distinctly wider than it is high.
I have two eyes which correctly focus on the same point giving a
round image. I am not sure how yours are working, do you see two
of everything by any chance?
See. It was pointed out that this ENW guy is mentally ill. It's already
been well established that he's incapable of rational discourse.
Luke Bosman
2006-03-28 13:27:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Emperor's New Widescreen
Post by Luke Bosman
Post by Emperor's New Widescreen
They are round to match the ones in my eyes, I expect your
glasses are 2:35:1 to match the widescreen lens in your eye?
There's the difference. You have one eye. I have two. Mine are arranged
side by side and, strangely enough, the field of view is distinctly
wider than it is high.
I have two eyes which correctly focus on the same point giving a
round image. I am not sure how yours are working, do you see two
of everything by any chance?
No. Why did you suggest that I have only one eye? Your two eyes together
give a round image, so see an optician. They can do wonders these days.

Luke
--
No-one reads signatures these days.
Dave Fawthrop
2006-03-28 13:38:09 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 14:27:44 +0100,
***@spamgourmet.com
(Luke Bosman) wrote:

|
|Luke
|
|--
|No-one reads signatures these days.

What make you think that?
--
Dave Fawthrop <dave hyphenologist co uk> Google Groups is IME the *worst*
method of accessing usenet. GG subscribers would be well advised get a
newsreader, say Agent, and a newsserver, say news.individual.net. These
will allow them: to see only *new* posts, a killfile, and other goodies.
Roger Hunt
2006-03-28 16:42:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Luke Bosman
Post by Emperor's New Widescreen
Post by Luke Bosman
Post by Emperor's New Widescreen
They are round to match the ones in my eyes, I expect your
glasses are 2:35:1 to match the widescreen lens in your eye?
There's the difference. You have one eye. I have two. Mine are arranged
side by side and, strangely enough, the field of view is distinctly
wider than it is high.
I have two eyes which correctly focus on the same point giving a
round image. I am not sure how yours are working, do you see two
of everything by any chance?
No. Why did you suggest that I have only one eye? Your two eyes together
give a round image, so see an optician. They can do wonders these days.
It's only the eyebrows and cheekbones that obstruct the subjective field
of view, Shirley.
--
Roger Hunt
Peter Ceresole
2006-03-28 21:53:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Hunt
It's only the eyebrows and cheekbones that obstruct the subjective field
of view, Shirley.
Given the way the eye works, not by sending an 'image' back to the brain
but by analysing what falls on the retina into edges and movements and
colours, at varying definitions working from the centre, and scanning
the eye mechanically in small movements continually, then reconstructing
what's there into an awareness of the view, you have to be right. I
don't reckon that 'aspect ratio' makes much sense for human vision; more
a 'visual domain'. After all, sharp colour vision is only available over
a few degrees near the center whereas mono movement awareness extends
out to at least 90 degrees from the centre in an unobstructed direction.
With both eyes in action of course, that's 180 degree lateral vision, of
a kind. Looking at the result of visual field tests, it looks roughly
circular.
--
Peter
Roger Hunt
2006-03-28 23:24:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Ceresole
Post by Roger Hunt
It's only the eyebrows and cheekbones that obstruct the subjective field
of view, Shirley.
Given the way the eye works, not by sending an 'image' back to the brain
but by analysing what falls on the retina into edges and movements and
colours, at varying definitions working from the centre, and scanning
the eye mechanically in small movements continually, then reconstructing
what's there into an awareness of the view, you have to be right. I
don't reckon that 'aspect ratio' makes much sense for human vision; more
a 'visual domain'.
'Visual domain' - sort of rolls off the tongue and sums it up nicely!
Post by Peter Ceresole
After all, sharp colour vision is only available over
a few degrees near the center whereas mono movement awareness extends
out to at least 90 degrees from the centre in an unobstructed direction.
My bikini movement awareness extends to at least 270 degrees.
Post by Peter Ceresole
With both eyes in action of course, that's 180 degree lateral vision, of
a kind. Looking at the result of visual field tests, it looks roughly
circular.
I'm quite short-sighted and wear glasses but I'm still aware of how
sensitive peripheral vision is, even though it's blurred.
--
Roger Hunt
Peter Ceresole
2006-03-28 23:42:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Hunt
My bikini movement awareness extends to at least 270 degrees.
That'll be your swivelling Google eyes.
--
Peter
Emperor's New Widescreen
2006-03-28 23:02:14 UTC
Permalink
"Luke Bosman"
Post by Luke Bosman
Post by Emperor's New Widescreen
Post by Chris Ridd
On 27/3/06 5:01, in article
1hcvakz.1f36vzz1dfacsfN%southend.areNinePointsClearMuchToMySurprise.5.lukebo
Post by Luke Bosman
Post by Emperor's New Widescreen
Post by Chris Ridd
Post by Luke Bosman
Post by Emperor's New Widescreen
Only if you live in a cinema, our vision is round, our field of
view 4:3.
Your field of view may be 4:3. Mine isn't. It sounds like you need to
seen an optician.
Perhaps the lenses in his specs are 4:3 shape.
They are round to match the ones in my eyes, I expect your
glasses are 2:35:1 to match the widescreen lens in your eye?
There's the difference. You have one eye. I have two. Mine are arranged
side by side and, strangely enough, the field of view is distinctly
wider than it is high.
I think this link might be useful for you!!!

http://www.testvision.org/decide.html
Post by Luke Bosman
Luke
--
No-one reads signatures these days.
Adrian A
2006-03-27 16:30:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Luke Bosman
Post by Emperor's New Widescreen
Post by Peter Hayes
Post by Emperor's New Widescreen
The will be saying Widescreen is better than 4:3 next.............
We see the world in widescreen so why shouldn't it be better than 4:3?
Only if you live in a cinema, our vision is round, our field of
view 4:3.
Your field of view may be 4:3. Mine isn't. It sounds like you need to
seen an optician.
Cheers,
Luke
You do know he's a cyclops, don't you?
--
Adrian A
Pyriform
2006-03-27 15:30:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Hayes
Post by Emperor's New Widescreen
The will be saying Widescreen is better than 4:3 next.............
We see the world in widescreen so why shouldn't it be better than 4:3?
Please don't goad the resident piss-autist. It only upsets him.
Graeme Wall
2006-03-27 13:08:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Hayes
Post by Emperor's New Widescreen
The will be saying Widescreen is better than 4:3 next.............
We see the world in widescreen so why shouldn't it be better than 4:3?
It's not really widescreen it's been stretched to fill, which is why we have
an obesity problem.

Also makes owls look bigger.
--
Graeme Wall

My genealogy website:
<http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/genealogy/index.html>
Sara Kirk
2006-03-27 17:10:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Peter Hayes
Post by Emperor's New Widescreen
The will be saying Widescreen is better than 4:3 next.............
We see the world in widescreen so why shouldn't it be better than 4:3?
It's not really widescreen it's been stretched to fill, which is why we have
an obesity problem.
Also makes owls look bigger.
I knew there was a reason.
--
Sara

I'm smaller than people think
Luke Bosman
2006-03-27 17:12:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Peter Hayes
Post by Emperor's New Widescreen
The will be saying Widescreen is better than 4:3 next.............
We see the world in widescreen so why shouldn't it be better than 4:3?
It's not really widescreen it's been stretched to fill, which is why we have
an obesity problem.
Yet most of the output on mainstream TV is in widescreen these days and
not stretched at all.

cheers,
Luke
--
No-one reads signatures these days.
Graeme Wall
2006-03-27 17:54:34 UTC
Permalink
In message <1hcveiv.x3lc5mxi4btvN%southend.areNinePointsClearMuchToMySurprise
Post by Luke Bosman
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Peter Hayes
Post by Emperor's New Widescreen
The will be saying Widescreen is better than 4:3 next.............
We see the world in widescreen so why shouldn't it be better than 4:3?
It's not really widescreen it's been stretched to fill, which is why we
have an obesity problem.
Yet most of the output on mainstream TV is in widescreen these days and
not stretched at all.
I meant the world, not the tv :-)
--
Graeme Wall

My genealogy website:
<http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/genealogy/index.html>
Luke Bosman
2006-03-27 21:18:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Luke Bosman
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Peter Hayes
We see the world in widescreen so why shouldn't it be better than 4:3?
It's not really widescreen it's been stretched to fill, which is why we
have an obesity problem.
Yet most of the output on mainstream TV is in widescreen these days and
not stretched at all.
I meant the world, not the tv :-)
Ah, with you.

Luke
--
No-one reads signatures these days.
the dog from that film you saw
2006-03-25 07:55:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70349-0.html
What all this means in the marketplace is that it's no longer necessary
(or even all that desirable) to have a built-in analog tuner on your
TV. Since most people get their TV signal from a set-top box anyway,
almost all built-in tuners are a waste of space -- and money. And if
you buy a TV with no tuner at all (just a monitor), you can sometimes
save a couple hundred bucks without sacrificing any of the features
you've grown accustomed to from your cable or satellite company."
#


how much do you suppose an analogue tuner on a chip costs? - given that a
freeview box can be had for under 50l, i'd say a couple of quid at most.

if you really want no tuner, just get one of the lcd monitors with s-video
and HDMI inputs.
--
Gareth.
A french man who wanted a castle threw his cat into a pond.
http://www.audioscrobbler.com/user/dsbmusic/
Stuart Bell
2006-03-25 10:46:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by the dog from that film you saw
how much do you suppose an analogue tuner on a chip costs? - given that a
freeview box can be had for under 50l, i'd say a couple of quid at most.
if you really want no tuner, just get one of the lcd monitors with s-video
and HDMI inputs.
There's also the issue that in some areas most channels can be received
on digital terrestrial, but not all. In such circumstances, an analogue
tuner is better than nothing.

STuart
--
Try stuartsmacs at dsl dot pipex dot com to email me.
Mike Redrobe
2006-03-25 11:46:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris
I have been thinking - there *must* be a company that sells a really
nice lcd screen with no tv tuner and no speakers (since speakers on
these things are rubbish anyway.. and I have my own speakers)
Look for monitors with video input, not for TVs without tuners...but
they are generally poor quality when displaing video..
Post by Chris
Right now my monitor takes VGA and DVI. If only there was some
magical way of converting scart to DVI
There is, but since it involves analogue to digital conversion, and
scaling, it isn't a simple lead.

Try searching on "scaler", or "Up converter" but they aren't cheap:

http://www.keene.co.uk/pages/cat/13con/13F.html (£199)
..and they get more expensive from there.

You'll often get better quality using something like that with the
TV's DVI input, rather than directly using the SCART input of
many LCD TVs.

A lot of LCD TVs have cheap low quality scaler circuits, so it makes
sense to use a dedicated scaler.
--
Mike
Emperor's New Widescreen
2006-03-25 16:39:07 UTC
Permalink
You don't have to use the analogue tuner you know.
It's like buying a car without a boot because you will never use it.
Chris
2006-03-25 22:22:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Emperor's New Widescreen
You don't have to use the analogue tuner you know.
It's like buying a car without a boot because you will never use it.
I kind of assumed TVs weren't as good as monitors

I suppose TV licensing might be a good reason for some.

But you guys have pointed out that the tv tuner (analogue) is probably
cheap as chips so oh well... there goes my idea for a bargain.

I'll keep my eyes peeled on richersounds.com and comet.com

please let me know of any others

I live in central London so can pick up from a london retailer
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...