Nobody Needs a New TV Anymore

[ZLoth]

From New York Magazine:

Nobody Needs a New TV Anymore

The TV, like the computer mouse or the inkjet printer, has run up against a kind of creative asymptote. There was once a period when it made sense to upgrade your TV every few years, because the technology was improving by leaps and bounds. New models had HD, or USB ports, or just obviously better screen quality. But now, they've become something close to a commodity. You can get a 50-inch, high-def LED flat screen from a major manufacturer for well under $1,000. That's more than enough for most people. And unless you're a real screen geek, you probably won't notice all that much difference in a new model that costs six or eight times as much.

FULL ARTICLE HERE

I'm running into that with my mother. We have one remaining television that is a 32" Toshiba Tube SDTV that was purchased in 1998. I have been wanting to replace it for two years now with a HDTV, but my mother is stuck on "if it ain't broke, we won't replace it" even though I have the money to replace it.... cash. Oh, I can cite the better screen and the energy savings, but no, no replace until broken.

I suspect, with many households, the main living room television was replaced with a HDTV (because of "the game"), but the television that the HDTV replaced got relegated to a bedroom or side room. And, a good television can last about 10-20 years. This also reminds me of the Y2K.... many companies replaced computers to be Y2K compliant. After Y2K, computer sales slowed down.

[briantroutman]

From New York Magazine:

Nobody Needs a New TV Anymore

The TV, like the computer mouse or the inkjet printer, has run up against a kind of creative asymptote. There was once a period when it made sense to upgrade your TV every few years, because the technology was improving by leaps and bounds. New models had HD, or USB ports, or just obviously better screen quality. But now, they've become something close to a commodity. You can get a 50-inch, high-def LED flat screen from a major manufacturer for well under $1,000. That's more than enough for most people. And unless you're a real screen geek, you probably won't notice all that much difference in a new model that costs six or eight times as much.

FULL ARTICLE HERE

I'm running into that with my mother. We have one remaining television that is a 32" Toshiba Tube SDTV that was purchased in 1998. I have been wanting to replace it for two years now with a HDTV, but my mother is stuck on "if it ain't broke, we won't replace it" even though I have the money to replace it.... cash. Oh, I can cite the better screen and the energy savings, but no, no replace until broken.

I suspect, with many households, the main living room television was replaced with a HDTV (because of "the game"), but the television that the HDTV replaced got relegated to a bedroom or side room. And, a good television can last about 10-20 years. This also reminds me of the Y2K.... many companies replaced computers to be Y2K compliant. After Y2K, computer sales slowed down.

Not to mention the fact that–based my non-scientific observations–most middle-American types who have HDTVs are still watching ridiculously crappy and heavily compressed 4x3 SD signals stretched to 16x9. Don't get me started on that one–all of the idiots who say "but I paid for that big TV...I want a picture covering every square inch".

But anyway, you could probably say the same thing about TVs from the '80s through about 2000. Once you had color, cable inputs, fully electronic tuning, and a remote control, your 27" tube TV from 1982 worked just about as well as a new 30" model from 1995.

[agentsteel53]

(because of "the game")

?

the rapper?
"you just lost ..."?

I don't get it.

[hotdogPi]

(because of "the game")

"you just lost ..."?

Everyone here just did.

[formulanone]

I'm running into that with my mother. We have one remaining television that is a 32" Toshiba Tube SDTV that was purchased in 1998. I have been wanting to replace it for two years now with a HDTV, but my mother is stuck on "if it ain't broke, we won't replace it" even though I have the money to replace it.... cash. Oh, I can cite the better screen and the energy savings, but no, no replace until broken.

Have kids, one of them will eventually damage the TV by pressing the power button 60-70 times in a row. It all ended when a blue spark raged forth from the lower front of the screen. Fortunately, it scared the crap out of my son, and he hasn't touched our new set. Secretly, the long-hoped-for destruction of our 60 lb, 1995 35" JVC set paved the way for us to finally take the leap into something more modern. Well, just a basic 720p 35" Vizio, because we don't watch much TV; but the picture does look nicer, I must admit. It also doesn't have an on/off switch on the front panel nor sides of it.

I guess holiday sales were disappointing, despite the barrage of cellphone, tablet, and TV ads. Maybe people just have much of what they needed and wanted already. Maybe they didn't need more crap, or can just buy whatever they want any part of the year. Maybe they just wanted my household to catch up to the year 2002.

[oscar]

I'm running into that with my mother. We have one remaining television that is a 32" Toshiba Tube SDTV that was purchased in 1998. I have been wanting to replace it for two years now with a HDTV, but my mother is stuck on "if it ain't broke, we won't replace it" even though I have the money to replace it.... cash. Oh, I can cite the better screen and the energy savings, but no, no replace until broken.

A 32" CRT (tube) TV would probably be really heavy, and disposing of it might also involve a non-trivial hazardous waste disposal fee.  I had a 27" CRT TV taking up space in my living room for many years after it broke, and was replaced with a 26" then a 42" flat-screen HDTV.  When I was finally motivated to dispose of the old TV, I got some serious back strain just getting the sucker onto a dolly and down a few stairs, then lifting it into my pickup truck.  Thankfully, the crew at my county's Household Hazardous Waste Disposal service took care of getting it out of my truck, so I got that return on my $20 disposal fee. 

If you can get some friends to help with the heavy lifting, or get the store where you buy the replacement TV to take care of the disposal, that might help. 

[hbelkins]

When we moved into my dad's house, we inherited his Sony Wega tube TV. It is heavy as crap, to be certain, and I'm not sure of the screen size, but it works just fine and I see no need to spend good money to replace it until it dies.

When it does die, we will (struggle to) load it up in the back of a pickup truck and take it up in the woods behind the house and leave it beside other old, dead TVs (many of them black and white models from the 1960s and 1970s). Someone will probably use it for target practice.

I don't feel the need to replace it just for the sake of having a new one. I don't have a burning desire to watch HDTV or 16x9 format or any of this newfangled stuff. We have a disposable society these days.

Speaking of which, it might be a good entry for the "you might be too old if you remember..." thread that you're too old if you remember when TVs and VCRs were repaired when they quit working, instead of throwing them out and buying replacements. Many times we loaded up the old black-and-white TV and took it to a repair shop. If we were lucky, we got a smaller loaner TV to use from the repair shop. If not, we did without TV until our one set was fixed. We thought it was a big deal when we got a second TV for the house.

[hotdogPi]

I seem to remember that my house's TV (I almost never use it, but I'm not the only one in the house) is from 1991. The colors are slightly off, but it still works fine.

[Jardine]

Living room TV went from 27" CRT to a 50" LCD RPTV. When that one was new, it was really nice.  As technology advanced (and the bulb dimmed) my enthusiasm for that set waned.  Just before the 5 year service plan expired, it had a major problem and the insurance paid to fix it. Unfortunately that took 5 weeks, and we were back to the previous 27" CRT for the duration.

It was hell.

TV finally came back from shop and it was fine.  Not too much later, sis's TV took a dump and I told she could have the rebuilt 50" and I would go get a new 52" LCD panel. Loved that TV, just fantastic picture.  Couple years later sis called and said 50" went 'bang' and shut down.  Well, I had read some reviews on the Panasonic 65" plasma panel, ad they were on sale, so sis got the 52" and I jumped to 65".

Also got the 50" back and realized from the blinking indicator light the set just needed a new light bulb. Fixed it up and passed it on to neice, and she loved it.

Plasma was a mixed blessing.  At night, the picture is very very good, and even the 3D (which I rarely watch) was great.  Only problem was the living room has south and west sun exposure and drapes have to be closed to see TV picture. 

I really would like to send plasma set to sis, her living room is dark and she would like a bigger screen.  Not sure were 52" goes, but I'm sure once it is available, somebody will pop up.

I want an 80" LCD panel.

Badly.

TV technology may be mature, but people, like e, will always want a bigger set.  My living room is scaled for an 80", it's just a cost thing, and buying too many TV sets in not very many years.  I would like a small remodel for the 80", maybe some shelves, faux stone, and a wall mount.  Have to move an air vent but not a major deal.

I noticed when going from the 50" to the 52" the new one did not look bigger.  The 65" did.  I already know a 70" would not be much of a bump, but the 80" would be.  80" is big enough, and then going to more of a new one every 10 years instead of 2 or 3 would be good.

In my work, I am in many homes, I have never seen a TV in a living room that was too big (unless they only had SD sources).  I have seen a TV in an office that was too big, LOL, but that guy didn't care.

[texaskdog]

From New York Magazine:

Nobody Needs a New TV Anymore

The TV, like the computer mouse or the inkjet printer, has run up against a kind of creative asymptote. There was once a period when it made sense to upgrade your TV every few years, because the technology was improving by leaps and bounds. New models had HD, or USB ports, or just obviously better screen quality. But now, they've become something close to a commodity. You can get a 50-inch, high-def LED flat screen from a major manufacturer for well under $1,000. That's more than enough for most people. And unless you're a real screen geek, you probably won't notice all that much difference in a new model that costs six or eight times as much.

FULL ARTICLE HERE

I'm running into that with my mother. We have one remaining television that is a 32" Toshiba Tube SDTV that was purchased in 1998. I have been wanting to replace it for two years now with a HDTV, but my mother is stuck on "if it ain't broke, we won't replace it" even though I have the money to replace it.... cash. Oh, I can cite the better screen and the energy savings, but no, no replace until broken.

I suspect, with many households, the main living room television was replaced with a HDTV (because of "the game"), but the television that the HDTV replaced got relegated to a bedroom or side room. And, a good television can last about 10-20 years. This also reminds me of the Y2K.... many companies replaced computers to be Y2K compliant. After Y2K, computer sales slowed down.

Just move out of mom's house.  Problem solved.

[andy]

In the '70's, my dad fixed TV's, so we were always a generation behind.  usually with bad color 

Now I'm pretty much like Jardine and can find a family member willing to take an old set.  With a 60 inch LED and no desire for 3D (poor depth perception to start with), I may stick with this one for a while.

[Jardine]

I have a 50" plasma in my bedroom. Love the TV and it is dark enough in there all the time it looks great.

Have an HDDVR on it, 2 HDD DVD recorders, and a Blu-ray.  Does everything I want, and the picture, color accuracy, contrast, are fantastic.  Black is black, something the 50" LCD RPTV could not do, I think it's contrast ratio was about 80.

[Brian556]

Nobody needs a new TV anymore?

Guess what, I do. Or at least a new power supply.

I have a 2009 Sharp 42". About 5 months ago, it started taking a long time to turn on. The LED goes from red to off, the about 5-10 minutes later, it turns on. Or not. Sometimes the LED flikers to green for a second, and then back to red, and the TV is still off and you have to try again. Total f-ing piece od s***.

[NJRoadfan]

But anyway, you could probably say the same thing about TVs from the '80s through about 2000. Once you had color, cable inputs, fully electronic tuning, and a remote control, your 27" tube TV from 1982 worked just about as well as a new 30" model from 1995.

TV technology stagnated from the mid-50s to the early-80s in terms of picture quality.

A short timeline.

1953: NTSC color became available but was very expensive
1964: UHF tuners were required as standard equipment
1970s: Solid state electronics were all the rage, but the improvements were mostly in reliability, not picture quality. The only area that saw huge improvement was the actual TV tuner. Transistors don't suffer from drifting like tubes do. Most households had purchased 70s era console TVs and kept them well into the 90s without a single repair!
late-1970s: Some high end sets had RCA jacks for VCRs.
1984: Stereo TV audio broadcasting becomes available. High end sets received stereo and usually features like cable ready tuner and full color decoding circuitry. Digital comb filters became available improving picture quality as well.
1988: The "S-Video" connector is standardized allowing for high quality connection to high resolution sources like SVHS VCRs.

After the 80s, TV tech stagnated again. Many people upgraded in the 90s when their old consoles finally broke and the new tech got cheaper. It wasn't until HDTV and affordable flat panel tech that people had a compelling reason to upgrade.

[Duke87]

My parents still have a CRT TV in their living room upstairs that dates back to when they bought their current living room furniture (so, ca. 2000). My father is definitely also in the club of "I'm not spending money to replace something that isn't broken", although they did splurge and by a decent-sized but not huge HDTV for the downstairs family room when they refurnished it a couple years ago.

Me, I have a small flatscreen TV (18") that mostly just sits there. I lack any cable or satellite service in my apartment and I as close to literally as is possible without being a hermit in the woods never watch TV (another reason not to need a new one!). My TV itself is only hooked up to my game consoles, and by extension, DVD, Blu-Ray, and Netflix.

[Scott5114]

I am somewhat tempted to replace one of my current CRT sets with a flat-panel, mostly because dragging the damn things around is always one of the most arduous parts of any move, and also because neither of them support digital TV and require a converter box. However, I'm like Duke, and pretty much only use the TV for Netflix and DVDs, so I feel like the purchase would be somewhat unjustified.

[1995hoo]

Funny, we were at HH Gregg last month to buy a new dryer and my wife saw the 4K TVs on the back wall. I have to admit the things sell themselves. She instantly noticed how incredibly sharp the picture was (it helped that the demo programming showed a place we know well, that being the downtown Pittsburgh skyline) and she immediately wanted one to replace our 2001-era 51-inch rear-projection 4:3 TV downstairs (which is 1080i-capable, but not 720p nor 1080p, and which has no HDMI connections so I use component cables instead). Problem is, they were using a special demo program. There is no 4K content being broadcast yet, and when there is it will be so seriously compressed that it's hard to imagine it will look that sharp. I can't justify that amount of money for that kind of device when not even Blu-ray supports that resolution.

I've resisted upgrading that TV downstairs for the same reason others have said about it working fine so it would feel like a waste to replace it, but at the same time, upstairs in the family room we have a 2008-era Sony LCD and in the bedroom we have a 32-inch Samsung purchased about a year ago and they're both definitely sharper pictures than the rear-projection unit. Upgrading would let me rearrange things, move the Apple TV downstairs where the surround-sound setup is, and reconnect the Blu-ray player (which we would use with the Sony except it doesn't really fit the space correctly–the TV is in an alcove over the fireplace).

Some of the comments in this thread about how in the old days any TV was much the same as another remind me of when I went off to law school in 1995 and got a 25-inch Magnavox. My parents came to visit and my father liked it so much that he went out and got a 27-inch version of the same TV (they had a 19-inch Sony purchased around 1980). Then my mother complained the screen was too big! She also called me one day asking why the remote control was beeping. I said, "You must have turned on the TV using the button on the TV" and she said yes. So I told her it was locating the remote for her and she said, "I know where the remote is! I don't need it located!" So I responded, "Well then why the hell would you use the button on the TV? It assumes you can't find the remote because if you know where it is, nobody ever uses the button on the TV!" She didn't seem to find it funny. 

Regarding the comment about how in the old days you repaired a TV, a few years ago the Sunday comics featured the Bumstead family's TV breaking. Dagwood went to call a repairman and the son was appalled–"Aren't you going to get a new one?" Dagwood looked at the reader and said, "For a minute there I forgot which century we're in."

[texaskdog]

We're happy with non-flat screens so we keep getting those from friends who upgrade, though I guess those days are coming to an end.

[jeffandnicole]

About 9 - 10 years ago I got a 46" wide screen rear projection TV, which sits nicely in a section of my living room.  I want to think of it as an HDTV set, although it's really not.  Lately the picture is a bit dim, so the bulbs are starting to go a little bit.  We'd like to get a much bigger TV out there, but the spot for this TV only allows for a 46" or so screen. 

About 2 years ago, I got a 47" LED 3-D TV, which I put in my family/dining room. It's a much better picture than the rear projection TV, but due to the layout of the room it's not extremely comfortable to sit in there and watch it.  There aren't too many shows/movies to watch in 3-D, but the few programs we have seen are enjoyable.  It's an LG, so the glasses are the cheaper, lighter variety.  It's a smart TV as well, but the controls/remote for that are a bit annoying.

We still have a 22" or so 4:3 TV in the bedroom.  Works good, but takes up some room.

And I have a 19" flat panel "tailgating TV" that I used to watch in the parking lot of Eagles games.  Since it would sit around for a good portion of the year, I figured out a good place to put that...in the bathroom!  I have the cable going thru the walls to the living room TV, so whatever is on out there is what is on in the bathroom (when the TV is on, of course!).

[1995hoo]

....

And I have a 19" flat panel "tailgating TV" that I used to watch in the parking lot of Eagles games.  Since it would sit around for a good portion of the year, I figured out a good place to put that...in the bathroom!  I have the cable going thru the walls to the living room TV, so whatever is on out there is what is on in the bathroom (when the TV is on, of course!).

The old ESPN Zone restaurants had TV screens above every urinal and suspended above every booth (I assume the ladies' room booths had the same, but I have no way of verifying that). Definite step up from the "newspaper in a frame" you see at many restaurants, especially if you get stuck at the urinal where they put the financial section!

Regarding your 3D viewing, you mention the glasses are lighter. Do you wear prescription glasses? If so, how does it feel wearing two pairs at once? I've gone to some 3D movies at the theatre and I find that by the end of a long movie (such as the second Hobbit film a few weeks ago) my ears feel pinched due to wearing two pairs of glasses at the same time (3D glasses over my prescription set).

My other question about the 3D at home is how it does with various seating positions. I've always wondered how they manage to make it work with the huge variety of seating positions people will have in their rooms. How do they make the 3D effects work properly if you're at a weird angle? In other words–a movie theatre auditorium is designed around a screen and the only two major variables are screen size and auditorium size. That's not the case in the home. There are a lot of people who position the TV based on the furniture (designing the screen around the room, so to speak) and you can have some very sharp viewing angles depending on seat position. It seems like it should be harder to engineer the 3D to work correctly for such a wide variety of seating positions. How does it work if you're viewing at, say, a 45-degree angle to the screen?

[J N Winkler]

In my sitting room I have two TVs, both of which have CRTs and are standard-definition.  The older of the two (19" screen) has not been plugged in, let alone turned on, since 1998.  The newer of the two (13" screen) is plugged in and hooked up to a VCR, but neither has been turned on since 2009.

Should I junk either?  I am genuinely not sure.  In regard to TVs and video displays more generally, I take the view that it isn't the diagonal measurement that matters--it is the solid angle subtended.  From that perspective, I am better off with a 15.4" laptop sitting in a tray on my lap, or with a touchscreen smartphone held right in front of my eyes, than I am with either TV right in front of my chair with just barely enough room for the footrest to come up when I recline.  It would be more comfortable for me to have a display sitting on its own stand rather than in my lap or hand, but I find it hard to justify the relatively modest expense of, say, a TV in the 30" range when obsolescence is an issue.  I am already unable to play 720p material on my seven-year-old 15.4" laptop (not enough CPU capacity), and there is already a flat-panel TV upstairs (35"?) that is less than five years old but cannot play video over the household LAN without a set-top box or an Ethernet cable connection since it is not wifi-enabled.

I should also add that I am not a committed TV watcher.  In my life I have had extended periods (the longest lasting for about 10 years) when I didn't watch TV at all.  I am in the middle of another such period and have been for about three to four months.  When I do watch TV, it is scripted dramas only--no games, no news, no reality shows--and I am a completist (series premiere to series finale, in order, preferably with no gaps due to missing subtitles etc.).

[jeffandnicole]

Regarding your 3D viewing, you mention the glasses are lighter. Do you wear prescription glasses?

No, I don't.  (I do wear glasses at work mostly due to lighting and glare issues, but they stay there.  I don't wear them home, and I can see and read perfectly fine. 

My other question about the 3D at home is how it does with various seating positions. I've always wondered how they manage to make it work with the huge variety of seating positions people will have in their rooms. How do they make the 3D effects work properly if you're at a weird angle? In other words—a movie theatre auditorium is designed around a screen and the only two major variables are screen size and auditorium size. That's not the case in the home. There are a lot of people who position the TV based on the furniture (designing the screen around the room, so to speak) and you can have some very sharp viewing angles depending on seat position. It seems like it should be harder to engineer the 3D to work correctly for such a wide variety of seating positions. How does it work if you're viewing at, say, a 45-degree angle to the screen?

If you're looking at the screen straight on, or slightly to the left or right, up or down (such as in a movie theatre), the effects are fine. But I can't, say, lay on the floor and watch a 3D show, which in this room is about a 30 degree angle...the angle is just too great at that point for the effects to really come thru cleanly.  That includes adjusting the angle of the TV itself downward a bit.

[1995hoo]

My other question about the 3D at home is how it does with various seating positions. I've always wondered how they manage to make it work with the huge variety of seating positions people will have in their rooms. How do they make the 3D effects work properly if you're at a weird angle? In other words–—a movie theatre auditorium is designed around a screen and the only two major variables are screen size and auditorium size. That's not the case in the home. There are a lot of people who position the TV based on the furniture (designing the screen around the room, so to speak) and you can have some very sharp viewing angles depending on seat position. It seems like it should be harder to engineer the 3D to work correctly for such a wide variety of seating positions. How does it work if you're viewing at, say, a 45-degree angle to the screen?

If you're looking at the screen straight on, or slightly to the left or right, up or down (such as in a movie theatre), the effects are fine. But I can't, say, lay on the floor and watch a 3D show, which in this room is about a 30 degree angle...the angle is just too great at that point for the effects to really come thru cleanly.  That includes adjusting the angle of the TV itself downward a bit.

Thanks. That's exactly the sort of thing I was wondering. I assume that also applies if you were seated at an ordinary height but the seat were just located farther off to one side of the screen? I doubt it would matter all that much for us because normally it's just the two of us and we'd sit directly across the room if we were watching something that way, but of course every once in a while you have visitors.

(I kind of doubt we'd buy a 3D TV to replace the rear-projection one, but I like to educate myself on what's out there in terms of options in case we were to see a particularly good deal.)

[PHLBOS]

When I first moved into my apartment 24-1/2 years ago; the only TV I had was a 12" B&W that I got as a Christmas gift during my college years (2-3 years previous).

In Christmas 1992; I got a 19" Magnavox as a gift and used it for many (18) years with no real problems with it until the infamous Digital conversion mandate too effect.  Note: since I do not have cable.  While I was able to get a converter box (w/the government coupon); it only lasted about a year.  In hindsight, I should've bought two of them; but since I only had one TV, I didn't think an additional box was needed.  Plus, I was under the impression that the boxes were supposed to last for at least 5 years. 

Since no place had any converter boxes remaining on sale; I had to break down and buy a new flat-screen TV.  I wound up buying a 26" RCA LCD w/a built-in DVD player.  My reasoning for not going larger (32" for example) was my needing a built-in DVD player (I have limited outlet space and few larger TVs offered a built-in DVD player) and the fact that it needed to fit into my existing shelves/entertainment center.  I had no plans on tearing down the entertainment center to accomodate a larger TV.

Since my old analogue TV still worked; I donated to the Salvation Army and wrote a note that the TV could still be used for video games and playing VHS' & DVDs.  Note: while the old cube-like TV fit in my Crown Vic's trunk; I could not close the lid (lid was strapped w/bungee cords).  In contrast, I was able to place the new flat screen in the trunk of my Mustang (which only has half the volume of my Crown Vic's trunk) and close the lid.

That said, unless I move to a larger place or my existing set (now 3-4 years old) blows up or whatever; I have no plans to buy another TV anytime soon.

My church just recently purchased two 55" flatscreen TVs that will be used as monitors in the sanctuary for powerpoint slides, videos, etc.  So IMHO there will still will be a demand for large TV screens but maybe not for conventional TV usage.

Personal take on the article: One reason why overall TV sales are down is because there's no mandated push for people to upgrade/upsize their TVs as there was just a few years ago.  The analogue phase-out/digital mandate was (thankfully) only a one-time event and, no doubt, caused a spike in TV sales.  The recent downturn in sales is due to the remaining remnants of the sales spike receding coupled with a still-dismal economy.

[jeffandnicole]

My other question about the 3D at home is how it does with various seating positions. I've always wondered how they manage to make it work with the huge variety of seating positions people will have in their rooms. How do they make the 3D effects work properly if you're at a weird angle? In other words——a movie theatre auditorium is designed around a screen and the only two major variables are screen size and auditorium size. That's not the case in the home. There are a lot of people who position the TV based on the furniture (designing the screen around the room, so to speak) and you can have some very sharp viewing angles depending on seat position. It seems like it should be harder to engineer the 3D to work correctly for such a wide variety of seating positions. How does it work if you're viewing at, say, a 45-degree angle to the screen?

If you're looking at the screen straight on, or slightly to the left or right, up or down (such as in a movie theatre), the effects are fine. But I can't, say, lay on the floor and watch a 3D show, which in this room is about a 30 degree angle...the angle is just too great at that point for the effects to really come thru cleanly.  That includes adjusting the angle of the TV itself downward a bit.

Thanks. That's exactly the sort of thing I was wondering. I assume that also applies if you were seated at an ordinary height but the seat were just located farther off to one side of the screen? I doubt it would matter all that much for us because normally it's just the two of us and we'd sit directly across the room if we were watching something that way, but of course every once in a while you have visitors.

(I kind of doubt we'd buy a 3D TV to replace the rear-projection one, but I like to educate myself on what's out there in terms of options in case we were to see a particularly good deal.)

I have noticed that if you sit far away from the screen, the effects are a bit dimished as well.  In this particular room, I'm talking about 20 feet away.  The room is relatively long and narrow. Even at the 17-18 foot range, the effects are much better.  For a group of people watching from a normal viewing position, you should be fine.

From what I read, in general, most 3D TVs have extremely good pictures for regular TV viewing, and many people that buy 3D TVs do so because of that.  The 3D option is a bonus that is nice, but many people don't expect to use the feature all that often.  We haven't viewed anything in 3D in months.