Comments on: Sony KLV-40ZX1M Gets Reviewed http://www.sonyinsider.com/2009/02/28/sony-klv-40zx1m-gets-reviewed/ Mon, 06 Feb 2012 05:29:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: air jordan 2 http://www.sonyinsider.com/2009/02/28/sony-klv-40zx1m-gets-reviewed/comment-page-1/#comment-16795 air jordan 2 Mon, 31 May 2010 12:36:11 +0000 http://www.sonyinsider.com/?p=4805#comment-16795 It looks good,I have learn a recruit!<br>Recently,I found an excellent online store, the XX are completely various, good quality and cheap price,it’s worth buying! <a href="http://www.air-jordan-2.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.air-jordan-2.com/</a> It looks good,I have learn a recruit!
Recently,I found an excellent online store, the XX are completely various, good quality and cheap price,it’s worth buying! http://www.air-jordan-2.com/

]]> By: air jordan 2 http://www.sonyinsider.com/2009/02/28/sony-klv-40zx1m-gets-reviewed/comment-page-1/#comment-15680 air jordan 2 Mon, 31 May 2010 08:36:11 +0000 http://www.sonyinsider.com/?p=4805#comment-15680 It looks good,I have learn a recruit!<br>Recently,I found an excellent online store, the XX are completely various, good quality and cheap price,it’s worth buying! <a href="http://www.air-jordan-2.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.air-jordan-2.com/</a> It looks good,I have learn a recruit!
Recently,I found an excellent online store, the XX are completely various, good quality and cheap price,it’s worth buying! http://www.air-jordan-2.com/

]]> By: Xbot http://www.sonyinsider.com/2009/02/28/sony-klv-40zx1m-gets-reviewed/comment-page-1/#comment-5899 Xbot Thu, 05 Mar 2009 01:37:47 +0000 http://www.sonyinsider.com/?p=4805#comment-5899 OH MY GOD that looks so awesome it makes my Bravia look so outdated.. OH MY GOD that looks so awesome it makes my Bravia look so outdated..

]]> By: Xbot http://www.sonyinsider.com/2009/02/28/sony-klv-40zx1m-gets-reviewed/comment-page-1/#comment-20912 Xbot Thu, 05 Mar 2009 01:37:00 +0000 http://www.sonyinsider.com/?p=4805#comment-20912 OH MY GOD that looks so awesome it makes my Bravia look so outdated.. OH MY GOD that looks so awesome it makes my Bravia look so outdated..

]]> By: James http://www.sonyinsider.com/2009/02/28/sony-klv-40zx1m-gets-reviewed/comment-page-1/#comment-5883 James Mon, 02 Mar 2009 18:23:17 +0000 http://www.sonyinsider.com/?p=4805#comment-5883 I understand the appeal of "thin". When I went looking for a new cel phone the thinness of the device was one of the main factors. That's because I knew I was going to put it in my pocket. However, when most flat-panel TVs are already 'thin', when compared against a CRT TV, then striving for (ironically said) increasing levels of thinness Does Not Compute. It does not contribute to the TV's functionality. Sure, it's a fashion statement and I understand this as well, as looks were also important when I picked out my phone, but who sits in front --<strong>IN FRONT</strong>-- of a TV and muses that this TV would be a hell of a lot better if it were just a smidgen thinner on a dimension that has no bearing on its overall performance? I suppose it gives the engineers something else to do, as though the Holy Grail of perfect picture quality has already been attained (um, Not!). I have a KDS-50XBR1. It is 19 inches deep. It wouldn't matter if it was 10X skinnier as it sits on an entertainment center that is sized to house devices that are not and never will be skinny (receiver, DVR, DVD changer), so for me it is all academic. Even if this skinny LCD TV was mounted on a wall, only the most anal person would know the difference between a one-inch TV and a two-inch TV. I understand the appeal of “thin”. When I went looking for a new cel phone the thinness of the device was one of the main factors. That’s because I knew I was going to put it in my pocket. However, when most flat-panel TVs are already ‘thin’, when compared against a CRT TV, then striving for (ironically said) increasing levels of thinness Does Not Compute. It does not contribute to the TV’s functionality. Sure, it’s a fashion statement and I understand this as well, as looks were also important when I picked out my phone, but who sits in front –IN FRONT– of a TV and muses that this TV would be a hell of a lot better if it were just a smidgen thinner on a dimension that has no bearing on its overall performance?

I suppose it gives the engineers something else to do, as though the Holy Grail of perfect picture quality has already been attained (um, Not!).

I have a KDS-50XBR1. It is 19 inches deep. It wouldn’t matter if it was 10X skinnier as it sits on an entertainment center that is sized to house devices that are not and never will be skinny (receiver, DVR, DVD changer), so for me it is all academic. Even if this skinny LCD TV was mounted on a wall, only the most anal person would know the difference between a one-inch TV and a two-inch TV.

]]> By: James http://www.sonyinsider.com/2009/02/28/sony-klv-40zx1m-gets-reviewed/comment-page-1/#comment-20911 James Mon, 02 Mar 2009 18:23:00 +0000 http://www.sonyinsider.com/?p=4805#comment-20911 I understand the appeal of "thin". When I went looking for a new cel phone the thinness of the device was one of the main factors. That's because I knew I was going to put it in my pocket. However, when most flat-panel TVs are already 'thin', when compared against a CRT TV, then striving for (ironically said) increasing levels of thinness Does Not Compute. It does not contribute to the TV's functionality. Sure, it's a fashion statement and I understand this as well, as looks were also important when I picked out my phone, but who sits in front --<strong>IN FRONT</strong>-- of a TV and muses that this TV would be a hell of a lot better if it were just a smidgen thinner on a dimension that has no bearing on its overall performance? I suppose it gives the engineers something else to do, as though the Holy Grail of perfect picture quality has already been attained (um, Not!). I have a KDS-50XBR1. It is 19 inches deep. It wouldn't matter if it was 10X skinnier as it sits on an entertainment center that is sized to house devices that are not and never will be skinny (receiver, DVR, DVD changer), so for me it is all academic. Even if this skinny LCD TV was mounted on a wall, only the most anal person would know the difference between a one-inch TV and a two-inch TV. I understand the appeal of “thin”. When I went looking for a new cel phone the thinness of the device was one of the main factors. That’s because I knew I was going to put it in my pocket. However, when most flat-panel TVs are already ‘thin’, when compared against a CRT TV, then striving for (ironically said) increasing levels of thinness Does Not Compute. It does not contribute to the TV’s functionality. Sure, it’s a fashion statement and I understand this as well, as looks were also important when I picked out my phone, but who sits in front –IN FRONT– of a TV and muses that this TV would be a hell of a lot better if it were just a smidgen thinner on a dimension that has no bearing on its overall performance?

I suppose it gives the engineers something else to do, as though the Holy Grail of perfect picture quality has already been attained (um, Not!).

I have a KDS-50XBR1. It is 19 inches deep. It wouldn’t matter if it was 10X skinnier as it sits on an entertainment center that is sized to house devices that are not and never will be skinny (receiver, DVR, DVD changer), so for me it is all academic. Even if this skinny LCD TV was mounted on a wall, only the most anal person would know the difference between a one-inch TV and a two-inch TV.

]]>