Thank you so much for all your comments and replies. I will try to get the
set repaired and, at least, have something to go on.

I know the newer sets are getting cheaper but my 4x3 52" set seems so nice
and large (screen-wise) and the 52" 16x9 LCDs look so tiny (almost like a
26" set) in comparison. The 16x9 ratio really sucks down on the viewing
size of the screen, doesn't it. The numbers may be the same but the visual
aspect is so different. It looks like I would need a 100" LCD to get a
similar size picture as my old set. I like the 4x3 aspect ratio better,
but I guess that shows my age (70+).

Thanks again, everyone. Ray

wrote in message ...
Thank you so much for all your comments and replies. I will try to get the
set repaired and, at least, have something to go on.

I know the newer sets are getting cheaper but my 4x3 52" set seems so nice
and large (screen-wise) and the 52" 16x9 LCDs look so tiny (almost like a
26" set) in comparison. The 16x9 ratio really sucks down on the viewing
size of the screen, doesn't it. The numbers may be the same but the visual
aspect is so different. It looks like I would need a 100" LCD to get a
similar size picture as my old set. I like the 4x3 aspect ratio better,
but I guess that shows my age (70+).

Thanks again, everyone. Ray

Heres part of a comparison chart I used. The left column is the "old" TVs,
right column
is 16:9...to get the same 4:3 picture size in the left column, you'll need
the screen size in the right column.
4:3 16:9
___________________
27 33
32.7 40
36 44
52.3 64

And you CAN move your chair closer if youre watching HDTV. I went from 16
feet away watching a 60" SD Pioneer, to 8 feet away watching my 42" HDTV.
I'm happy, altho the increase in picture quality of the HDTV did drive me to
get new glasses. LOL.

Deke