http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/24/sharps-46-42-37-inch-aquos-x-series-grabs-worlds-thinnest-titl/ Engadget Comments for http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2009 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/24/sharps-46-42-37-inch-aquos-x-series-grabs-worlds-thinnest-titl/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/24/sharps-46-42-37-inch-aquos-x-series-grabs-worlds-thinnest-titl/
Pretty interesting set of specs there. Kind of wondering whats the weight on that...

at that thinness.. CG is definitely off unless for a sturdy stand.. which doesnt look like it.]]>Jan 24th 2008 6:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/24/sharps-46-42-37-inch-aquos-x-series-grabs-worlds-thinnest-titl/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/24/sharps-46-42-37-inch-aquos-x-series-grabs-worlds-thinnest-titl/Jan 24th 2008 6:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/24/sharps-46-42-37-inch-aquos-x-series-grabs-worlds-thinnest-titl/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/24/sharps-46-42-37-inch-aquos-x-series-grabs-worlds-thinnest-titl/Jan 24th 2008 6:09AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/24/sharps-46-42-37-inch-aquos-x-series-grabs-worlds-thinnest-titl/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/24/sharps-46-42-37-inch-aquos-x-series-grabs-worlds-thinnest-titl/
btw. If your looking for a flat screen TV, take a look at Plasma which has a superior picture to LCD largely because of better blacks & contrast and almost zero motion blur. Inch for inch they are generally less expensive than LCD and all the concerns of burn-in have long been solved.]]>Jan 24th 2008 7:31AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/24/sharps-46-42-37-inch-aquos-x-series-grabs-worlds-thinnest-titl/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/24/sharps-46-42-37-inch-aquos-x-series-grabs-worlds-thinnest-titl/Compared to an average panel that's about 1.000.000 times more. This is awesome!]]>Jan 24th 2008 7:34AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/24/sharps-46-42-37-inch-aquos-x-series-grabs-worlds-thinnest-titl/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/24/sharps-46-42-37-inch-aquos-x-series-grabs-worlds-thinnest-titl/Jan 24th 2008 8:46AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/24/sharps-46-42-37-inch-aquos-x-series-grabs-worlds-thinnest-titl/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/24/sharps-46-42-37-inch-aquos-x-series-grabs-worlds-thinnest-titl/Jan 24th 2008 10:55AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/24/sharps-46-42-37-inch-aquos-x-series-grabs-worlds-thinnest-titl/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/24/sharps-46-42-37-inch-aquos-x-series-grabs-worlds-thinnest-titl/Jan 24th 2008 11:15AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/24/sharps-46-42-37-inch-aquos-x-series-grabs-worlds-thinnest-titl/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/24/sharps-46-42-37-inch-aquos-x-series-grabs-worlds-thinnest-titl/
Nah, I was too occupied looking at the girl instead. Looks a bit old, but firm boops. :p]]>Jan 24th 2008 7:37AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/24/sharps-46-42-37-inch-aquos-x-series-grabs-worlds-thinnest-titl/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/24/sharps-46-42-37-inch-aquos-x-series-grabs-worlds-thinnest-titl/
The woman in question seems to be considerably deeper a point a few inches below her neck than your average asian lass. Could this be to make the "amazingly thin" television look even thinner in comparison.

I wonder how the call to the her agency read - "She's got to be 'busty' - no seriously, it's so our new television will look thinner."]]>Jan 24th 2008 8:17AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/24/sharps-46-42-37-inch-aquos-x-series-grabs-worlds-thinnest-titl/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/24/sharps-46-42-37-inch-aquos-x-series-grabs-worlds-thinnest-titl/Jan 24th 2008 8:39AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/24/sharps-46-42-37-inch-aquos-x-series-grabs-worlds-thinnest-titl/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/24/sharps-46-42-37-inch-aquos-x-series-grabs-worlds-thinnest-titl/Jan 24th 2008 9:47AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/24/sharps-46-42-37-inch-aquos-x-series-grabs-worlds-thinnest-titl/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/24/sharps-46-42-37-inch-aquos-x-series-grabs-worlds-thinnest-titl/Jan 24th 2008 11:29AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/24/sharps-46-42-37-inch-aquos-x-series-grabs-worlds-thinnest-titl/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/24/sharps-46-42-37-inch-aquos-x-series-grabs-worlds-thinnest-titl/
Arjan,


]]>Jan 24th 2008 10:01AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/24/sharps-46-42-37-inch-aquos-x-series-grabs-worlds-thinnest-titl/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/24/sharps-46-42-37-inch-aquos-x-series-grabs-worlds-thinnest-titl/Jan 25th 2008 3:15PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/24/sharps-46-42-37-inch-aquos-x-series-grabs-worlds-thinnest-titl/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/24/sharps-46-42-37-inch-aquos-x-series-grabs-worlds-thinnest-titl/http://www.3luxe.com/best_ofs/Flat_Panel_Televisions/Sony_OLED_Digital_TV

or Sony

http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&productId=8198552921665327724&langId=-1]]>Jan 24th 2008 10:33AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/24/sharps-46-42-37-inch-aquos-x-series-grabs-worlds-thinnest-titl/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/24/sharps-46-42-37-inch-aquos-x-series-grabs-worlds-thinnest-titl/Jan 24th 2008 10:56AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/24/sharps-46-42-37-inch-aquos-x-series-grabs-worlds-thinnest-titl/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/24/sharps-46-42-37-inch-aquos-x-series-grabs-worlds-thinnest-titl/Jan 24th 2008 11:15AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/24/sharps-46-42-37-inch-aquos-x-series-grabs-worlds-thinnest-titl/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/24/sharps-46-42-37-inch-aquos-x-series-grabs-worlds-thinnest-titl/Jan 24th 2008 11:30AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/01/24/sharps-46-42-37-inch-aquos-x-series-grabs-worlds-thinnest-titl/http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/24/sharps-46-42-37-inch-aquos-x-series-grabs-worlds-thinnest-titl/
Pro: Fairly thin. 1.35" is not Paris Hilton slim but it's somewhat sexy.

Pro: Separate media box reciever is back! this time cordless.

Pro: 8-3-way speakers, yowza!

Con: Black is NOT Gloss Black so I'll pass on these and any other brand that thinks Matte Black is "stylish".

Con: Oddly designed stand. Reminds me of the first ILO LCD TVs sold at Wal-Mart 2-years ago. They could had copy Panasonic and Hitachi's forklift design from 2005/2006.
]]>Jan 24th 2008 7:01PM