Which just illustrates how you are arguing for the sake of argument. As you KNOW from your googling about this you know that 1.5x the diagonal width of the screen is the low 'sweet' spot.
There you go, continually twisting out information into misapplication after misapplication. It's not a sweet spot, it's an absolute minimum viewing distance. The
horizontal, not diagonal, dimension is the width figure in
this calculator. Let's go back to that calculator:
" Based on data from Electrohome, which suggests a viewing distance of three to six screen widths for video. This corresponds to the point at which most people will begin having trouble picking out details and reading the screen. Probably too far away to be effective for home theater, OK for everyday TV viewing. Most people are comfortable watching TV between this distance and half this distance."
Pretty straightforward. Starts with a conclusion--three to six widths. Then it explains how it got there--the maximum viewing distance (6 widths, as reported by the calculator directly below that) to half that distance (3 widths). "Three to six" isn't a
point, nor does your interpretation mesh with the math presented in the calculator.
And according to my receiver's diagnostics its perfectly set up.
Receiver "diagnostics" don't
tell you anything about your setup. Yet again, you're just relying on more numbers without really understanding what they mean or how to use them.
it was about someone calling someone else a technology moron and in doing so revealing they themselves were the one who didn't know what they were talking about.
Was that the discussion in which someone was called a moron for trying to say that 720p wasn't HD? Because that was an inaccurate statement, just like saying 1080p was the basic standard, and just like saying maximizing for THX guidelines gives you the best experience.
Your level of information is that dangerous "power user" zone. Your reliance on a calculator's raw output and maximizing for a single value based on a number of unfortunate assumptions is simply not good. The optimum THX distance isn't directly applicable to a home. The optimum ocular resolution point isn't directly applicable to placement, either, apart from establishing a
minimum practical distance.
Both of those figures are built on movie theaters and are relevant only to recreating the cinema. They do not directly translate to home viewing as you keep insisting. Your viewing distance of 6.5 feet is
too close even based on movie theater scales. That may well be your preference, but you've not made a case for why a 43˚ field should be pursued.
The best experience is a combination of a great many factors, and it is foolhardy to maximize to a single element of a single factor and call it "best" for anything but that one calculation. You get three different numbers for HDTV, SMPTE, and THX calculations--none of which has been optimized for the home environment.
Ok that's great - then what is so hard about saying your priorities are not about the best view and let it go at that?
I don't accept the premise. Maximizing for a single value of anything doesn't produce the best experience. Your blind fixation on a theater-derived figure is curious.
THX movie with the recommended THX view angle then the distance you should be viewing at is the distance you should be viewing at and that's it.
Again, a faulty assumption. The best you can do with these numbers is a scale replica of a THX experience. Why? Because THX films are meant to be seen in
theaters and you can't just scale linearly.
I hope you can some day get a TV big enough to view properly AND still accommodate all those non-TV related needs.
Oddly enough, THX and SMPTE theater guidelines aren't TV related, either. The best home theater setup is not the best television setup, nor is it the best HD television setup. Non-motion-picture, non-1080 content blows those calculations hopelessly out of the water.
A few numbers is a dangerous place to be. It creates remarkable boneheadedness and pedanticism without an appreciation to the flaws of those holy numbers of yours.