Response time and contrast ratio is pretty bad. only 1000:1 and 8ms response time!
If I were you...3000:1 contrast ratio should be your target and 2ms response time if you are to spend that kind of money!
Seriously...check the samsung Pebble 22"...fantastic monitor!
Your post is full of misinformation.
The 3000:1 contrast ratios you see advertised on today's LCD monitors are dynamic contrast ratios. This means the monitor can 'shift' the contrast ratio up and down depending on what colours are being displayed at any given time, should you leave it in the dynamic mode.
Most monitors that claim 3000:1 dynamic contrast ratio, actually have a TRUE contrast ratio of 1000:1, such as the Samsung 226BW (of which I own one).
--
I bought
this last year (sceptre 37" 1080p).
Fricken love it. BF2, WoW, COD4, AMAZING in widescreen from about 24" away.
In addition to response times and contrast ratio, if you get an HDTV, MAKE SURE ITS 1080P (1920x1080)
1366x768 SUCKS @ 37". It's OK for gaming, but I can't stand when the start bar is 2" wide...
HDTV tuners (inside) and Picture in picture is friggen awesome as well. I'd say dump the westinghouse LCD, and grab a 1080p HDTV
I have myself a little HTPC with an 8800GTS inside it, hooked up to a front projector being displayed on a 92" screen at a resolution of 1280x720.
1280x720 at a distance of 15 feet isn't bad, in fact it looks great!
The closer you are to your monitor, the higher the resolution you should choose, simply because these factors;
(1) viewing a lower resolution
(2) on a bigger screen
(3) at a closer viewing distance
will result in being able to detect pixelisation.
At one point I played around with a 32" TV with 1366x768 resolution on my desk connected with VGA, and I agree at that short of a viewing distance, the resolution is a big drawback.
Having said that, my next projector upgrade will be to a 1080p model (1920x1080) on a 120" screen
--
Actually, if you havent purchased anything yet. The ATI HD 2000 and 3000 series cards come with a HDMI adapter for the DVI port. The sweet thing about it, it HAS SOUND through the HDMI. check it out.
http://ati.amd.com/products/Radeonhd2900/index.html
5.1 surround through your HDMI. not to mention the 2900 series is dirt cheap if you can find them becasue ATI just launched the new 3000's.
Consider this, what is the point?
So lets say you manage to get the audio running through your HDMI-out on your PC, what do you do with it then? Hook it up straight to the TV?
TV's don't have 5.1 speaker systems integrated into them, so that 5.1 audio becomes pointless.
If you have a 5.1 setup, you need your video output to go to the TV (sometimes via your receiver as a pass-through or upscaling etc), and your audio output to go to your receiver. Given that the vast majority of people who have an HTPC will have it located next to or very close to their receiver and other home video/audio equipment almost negates the need for video and audio to be transmitted via a single cable instead of two different ones, as the likelihood of those cables being visible anyway is low.
Another point to consider, is that most games that support 5.1 audio will NOT support their surround sound over a digital audio connection. I learnt this the hard way. I have to use several 3.5mm to RCA cables from my soundcard to the 'multi channel' analogue inputs on the back of my receiver to get surround sound to work properly for everything on the PC.
When I used the digital optical out on my sound card to my receiver, the only time I could possibly get surround sound was when I was playing a Dolby Digital or DTS source (ie a DVD movie), and even then I had difficulty getting that to work properly. The games, along with everything else, would only play in stereo sound, which puts my audio setup to waste, so analogue it has to be.
Eventually games will start using Dolby or DTS for their audio like their console brethren, instead of Creative's EAX and others. When this becomes the trend, gaming with digital audio connections will become a possibility
