3 ms·

"The NEC's display must obviously be lighter. So it's all electronics." It's not always the "electronics", and besides, who says better electronics need to wei

"The NEC's display must obviously be lighter. So it's all electronics." It's not always the "electronics", and besides, who says better electronics need to weight more? A few years back, I interviewed with a company that makes high-end blu-ray players. They showed me how they put weights in the cases, so they were heavier, and felt "sturdier" and of higher quality.

brudgers 14y ago
There's an old saying that "Americans buy their cars by the pound." I suspect that it is a bit more universal.
- hastur 14y ago
  Americans buy their cars by cupholders. And monitors by input ports. ;)
jfb 14y ago
It could also be as simple as the glass on the smaller monitor being marginally thicker. Using weight as a metric for judging the quality of electronics seems … peculiar.
- hastur 14y ago
  Not electronics quality but amount. And from that I drew a (simplified, yes) conclusion that more electronics => more processing => better picture.
  - jfb 14y ago
    But amount tells you nothing, particularly when making comparisons across different generations of electronics. Besides, a lot of electronics can mean shit-ass deinterlacing hardware, or far too complicated OSD functionality, or pointless A/D conversion. None of which has anything to do with build quality or picture quality.
  - ori_b 14y ago
    I'd be very surprised if you could tell the difference between a high end GPU processor (for example) which could do all the processing you could imagine without raising a sweat and a DIP AVR package that would have trouble multiplying two floats by weight. Even with those, the majority of the weight is in the ceramic packaging, and not the silicon. Add in a massive amount of packaging in terms of LCD panel, plastic around it, wiring, screws, and any weight difference you could attribute to electronics horsepower (if there was one to begin with) will be lost in the noise. These aren't transformers or power supplies, where you want large capacitors and heavy lumps of iron to smooth out ripples in an AC to DC conversion.
- Dylan16807 14y ago
  It's a good metric for power supplies, and not much else.

brudgers 14y ago

There's an old saying that "Americans buy their cars by the pound." I suspect that it is a bit more universal.

hastur 14y ago
Americans buy their cars by cupholders. And monitors by input ports. ;)

jfb 14y ago

It could also be as simple as the glass on the smaller monitor being marginally thicker. Using weight as a metric for judging the quality of electronics seems … peculiar.

hastur 14y ago
Not electronics quality but amount. And from that I drew a (simplified, yes) conclusion that more electronics => more processing => better picture.
- jfb 14y ago
  But amount tells you nothing, particularly when making comparisons across different generations of electronics. Besides, a lot of electronics can mean shit-ass deinterlacing hardware, or far too complicated OSD functionality, or pointless A/D conversion. None of which has anything to do with build quality or picture quality.
- ori_b 14y ago
  I'd be very surprised if you could tell the difference between a high end GPU processor (for example) which could do all the processing you could imagine without raising a sweat and a DIP AVR package that would have trouble multiplying two floats by weight. Even with those, the majority of the weight is in the ceramic packaging, and not the silicon. Add in a massive amount of packaging in terms of LCD panel, plastic around it, wiring, screws, and any weight difference you could attribute to electronics horsepower (if there was one to begin with) will be lost in the noise. These aren't transformers or power supplies, where you want large capacitors and heavy lumps of iron to smooth out ripples in an AC to DC conversion.
Dylan16807 14y ago
It's a good metric for power supplies, and not much else.