my sony tube looks so much better. Why cant it be a 50" though? Arrgh!

And... flat panel people probably think the same about you watching "HD" on a little CRT display that is heavy and takes up too much space. ;)

CRT is not only dead, but no longer available. I can't be 50 inches like a plasma because it would weigh about 600 pounds, have tons of convergence and geometry issues, and be just plain huge. There would be no TV stand on the market to hold that kind of weight nor size. There are many flat panels that have caught up with tube technology in terms of picture quality and some that have surpassed tube both plasma and even LCD. Quit crying about your fossil tube and admit that flat panels have improved and will continue to improve way beyond whatever tube could ever be. Who sounds dumb now?

P.S. I own a XBR970 as my HT display and happy with it and don't own a single flat panel.

my sony tube looks so much better. Why cant it be a 50" though? Arrgh!

Somebody's looking for attention! :rolleyes:

CRT is not only dead, but no longer available. I can't be 50 inches like a plasma because it would weigh about 600 pounds, have tons of convergence and geometry issues, and be just plain huge.

On the positive side, I could disconnect my heat pump.

"Why is the TV on?"

"I was cold."

CRT is not only dead, but no longer available. I can't be 50 inches like a plasma because it would weigh about 600 pounds, have tons of convergence and geometry issues, and be just plain huge. There would be no TV stand on the market to hold that kind of weight nor size. There are many flat panels that have caught up with tube technology in terms of picture quality and some that have surpassed tube both plasma and even LCD. Quit crying about your fossil tube and admit that flat panels have improved and will continue to improve way beyond whatever tube could ever be. Who sounds dumb now?

P.S. I own a XBR970 as my HT display and happy with it and don't own a single flat panel.

I just spent the last two days looking at every plasma and LCD TV at the local BB and CC. I checked every brand in every size. It's a subjective thing of course, but I could not find one that compares to the PQ I have on my 5 year old Sony 34" 16:9 CRT. Every time something in the picture moves on a plasma or an LCD, you can see a very grainy/pixelated image for a fraction of second. It reminded me of watching DVDs on a cheap Dell laptop. I came home and watched some OTA broadcasts on my old Sony and the movements were smooth, images very sharp, etc.

I'm not trying to quarrel with you, but which plasma or LCD sets do you consider to have a better picture than a CRT?

I just spent the last two days looking at every plasma and LCD TV at the local BB and CC.

Were you looking at any of the calibrated models or just the regular floor models? Typically TVs in B&M stores have the color temp far too cool, the contrast cranked and brightness too low (crushing whites and blacks), the sharpness maxed out, and any picture processing controls activated and turned up rather high, which completely destroys the picture.

What Hog says is completely true. You can't go by what you see in the store. I saw my friend's plasma in the store many times and thought the same thing. We got it to his place and adjusted the picture properly and it was gorgeous. Plus most of the time when your at CC and BB you are viewing the TVs way closer than you actually would in your place. I'm not saying that all affordable flat panels are of the same quality of the 970. The XBR series was Sony's best and the best in the industry. So it was the high end of yesterday. You can't really compare the high end of yesterday to the low end of today yet. The flat panels have all made significant improvements since the death of CRT especially LCD. I will totally agree that the 970 is capable of breathtaking images because even the U-verse tech that hooked my HD up looked at my picture and his jaw dropped and he just said "Wow." He hooks HD up all the time to TVs much more elaborate than mine and thinks my TV looks amazing. I'm saying give it time. It took 50 years for the tube to become what it was, flat panels will catch up and be greater than tube was I'm sure.

Any flat panal that can match a CRT aka a Kuro is to expensive.

LCD's will never match CRT, they just don't have it in them. Plasma on the other hand has a better chance, or even oled or sed/fed if it ever materializes. But next person that says LCD is getting i-slapped in the nuts.

If the problem hasn't yet been solved, what could it possibly take to fix what plasmas do to motion?

I give odds of zero. LEDs that flash on and off millions of times per second have a much better chance.

I have one of Sonys Last 32" Wega Trinitron SDTVS, i baught it brand new at BestBuy in 2005. And let me tell you, it offers the best image I've ever seen period on a display regarding Color and Motion...Blacks on the other hand while near perfect you have to mess with a bit to get it the way you want.

Anyways, somebody please tell me a display that is out there right now that can match a high end CRTs Color and Motion?....that's right NONE. Black levels is a different story however. Pioneer Plasmas have nailed it, even the new Samsung and Sony LED LCDs have pretty much, and the high Panasonic Plasma are great as well....But again, COLOR and MOTION they're not there yet.

If you want to talk about a technology(that has been seen) that will surpass CRT is OLED. But for now, i just cant see myself upgrading to an HDTV that will have inferior color and motion....agh, i might just wait for a 46" OLED in 2011 when the Wii2 hits hehe. Perfect timing to go HD if you ask me;):cool::D

But if I had to go HD, i'd get one of JVCs newest and last LCOS 1080p Displays....or if i had the dough, a 46" Panasonic 800u plasma....but eh.

Any flat panal that can match a CRT aka a Kuro is to expensive.

It can match black level performance....but definitly not motion, and Color. But pretty damn good regardless....But i hear LaserVue has the best color on the market when compared to any other HDTV

You guys are crying over a technology that is no longer produced. The masses have spoken. They wanted TVs that could adapt better in living situations and that are bigger than 40 inches. I never hear anyone crying about rear projection CRT which was the only CRT technology that could go over 40 inches because it used three SMALL CRTs that because they were small they were not nearly as susceptible to serious geometry problems. The biggest drawback about RPCRT is that contrast really sucked and so did the viewing angles. Not to mention the nice soft picture. CRT was limited. Plasma and LCD need more time to develop. I'm sure the first CRTs didn't look as clear as the movie theaters did.

Typically TVs in B&M stores have the color temp far too cool, the contrast cranked and brightness too low (crushing whites and blacks), the sharpness maxed out, and any picture processing controls activated and turned up rather high, which completely destroys the picture.

I know enough to look past the overly contrasty, ultra-saturated images at the local store. My comment was related to the PQ when there is motion in the scene.

LCDs and Plasmas are a long way from creating a realistic looking motion on the screen, compared to my Sony CRT with essentially the same source material. You could say that the phosphor's in the CRT are covering up the real issue with HDTV: Perhaps the phosphor's limited response time is hiding the issue in the source signal. Perhaps it's really the source signal, with all it's image processing, that is producing the unrealistic looking motion. And the LCD's and Plasmas simply expose the limitations of the source signals better than a CRT. Whatever the case, the combination of today's source signals, and a top-end CRT at the output, still smokes the best LCD or Plasma today when it comes to realistic looking motion.

Of course the large size (and thinness) of Plasmas and LCDs are what makes them so sexy. CRTs can't compete at that size. For me however, I have very limited space in both my viewing areas. A roughly 40" diagonal is all I can have in my largest area. I only have 10' of viewing distance maximum between me and the image. In this case, a 3 year old, 34", XBR CRT off of craigslist for $300 makes a lot more sense to me than a $1500 LCD that doesn't produce as good of a picture.

Let me get this out of the way first: I love CRT, it was a great technology and in many areas still produces the best PQ of any available technology. I've seriously contemplated picking up a GDM-FW900 in the recent weeks for use as my primary display despite the fact that it would mean I'd have to sit 2 feet away from it in my computer chair just to watch a movie.

That being said would you mind explaining what the point of creating a thread for the express purpose of saying "I have a hard-on for a dead technology. Anyone who doesn't think like I think is an idiot. Now who would care to partake in a giant circle jerk about it with me?" CRT was fantastic. Unfortunately for everything they do great they have their limitations. They're limited in size for one. Direct-view maxes out at 36" 4:3 and 34" 16:9. Rear projection may go beyond 50" but they didn't produce an image on par with the direct-views and the viewing angles were worse than most DLPs I've seen; and DLP viewing angle's suck. They're also big and heavy, for people who move frequently, myself included, that immediately makes them problematic. They also take up a lot of space, my parents are planning on removing the 32" CRT and the entertainment center housing it in their living room and hanging an LCD or a plasma on the wall and it's going to really open the room up.

So again I ask: What was the point of this thread? You just sound like an old codger complaining all this new fangled technology that you don't understand and is thus somehow inferior to your good old CRT.

Ok then so who wants my 32 in Sony XBR? Top of the Line 1993...its in the garage under a sheet right now...

1800 new...still looks and works great, dual comb filter...heh..

Ok then so who wants my 32 in Sony XBR? Top of the Line 1993...its in the garage under a sheet right now...

1800 new...still looks and works great, dual comb filter...heh..

Throw in a magnifying glass and you've got a deal! :D

CRT Lovers, our only true fix will be OLEDs which we'll be seeing in 2010 in the 40-42" from Samsung. Until then i highly doubt in 2009 or so that the next Plasmas or LED LCDs will improve regarding Motion and Color....Maybe barely if we're lucky, and even then there's no way it will match CRT Standards, OLED on the otherhand will....Until then, I'll be sticking with my 32" Sony Wega Trinitron CRT.

PS: The Wii2 will be hitting in 2011 in HD...And I must say, they're going HD at the perfect time because by then OLEDs will be flooded in stores everywhere and they will be the perfect TV period...Unlike all of the current HDTVs we get with annoying motion and inferior colors, and 'not-so Black' blacks most of the time. But as far as blacks are concerned, the new LED LCDs and some of the new high end plasmas(Pioneer comes to mind) have nailed it, so no worries there. Anyways, Plain and simple the 360 and PS3 went HD at wonky time(especially in the beginning)considering the technologies(LCD,Plasma,DLP ect) arent there yet compared to CRT. As for me, i dont mind waiting over a year or close to 2 to get a Samsung OLED.

Besides, most of the gaming i do is on the Wii and DS, and a bit on the PS3. and the TV i have is fantastic when using component cables for both systems....but ah...no 1080HD, Progressive, HDMI, Widescreen and larger screen for me yet. But, i'll gladly take a 480i image using component cables with flawless color, motion and blacks over a 1080p display with annoying motion and inferior color

I know enough to look past the overly contrasty, ultra-saturated images at the local store.

If you're good enough to see through the sharpness, DNR, and sometimes poor de-interlacing that are turned way too high on top of an often overly compressed source (thus exacerbating motion-related artifacts), then you have better eyes than my 20/15 pair. Using uncalibrated B&M floor models as a justification for the superiority of one technology over another is absurd.

No display technology is perfect, and each technology comes with a set of compromises that may or may not be found in the others. On top of that, everyone has their list of things that they need to have or can't stand in a display, and you can hopefully see how different people can arrive at different display technologies fitting them best. The premise of this thread is just as flawed as any of the "Plasma vs LCD" threads in the FP forums that ultimately devolves into a pissing contest over the inherent weaknesses over each technology.

You guys are crying over a technology that is no longer produced. The masses have spoken. They wanted TVs that could adapt better in living situations and that are bigger than 40 inches. I never hear anyone crying about rear projection CRT which was the only CRT technology that could go over 40 inches because it used three SMALL CRTs that because they were small they were not nearly as susceptible to serious geometry problems. The biggest drawback about RPCRT is that contrast really sucked and so did the viewing angles. Not to mention the nice soft picture. CRT was limited. Plasma and LCD need more time to develop. I'm sure the first CRTs didn't look as clear as the movie theaters did.

Obvious troll is obvious.

Obvious troll is obvious.
If anyone is the troll here it is you and the OP who posted this.
my sony tube looks so much better. Why cant it be a 50" though? Arrgh!
Everything in my posts are true and unbiased since I OWN TWO tube televisions and ZERO flat TVs. It's obvious you wanna start a fight by calling me a troll when I'm clearly not. Way to go troll.

Ok then so who wants my 32 in Sony XBR? Top of the Line 1993...its in the garage under a sheet right now...

1800 new...still looks and works great, dual comb filter...heh..

If you were local I'd take it!

Face it... no matter how "good" CRT may be, it's buying the farm.
Display size is limited and weight/footprint is an major drawback with todays consumer(s).

LCD and plasma have both made major advancements in the last year or two and can/will probably get better.

As for OLED and SED becoming available in the desired size and an affordable price to the general consumer, don't hold your breath. They have been dangling that carrot for years. If it were "that" good and cost effective at a consumer level and manufacturing level, they'd be on the shelves. And... if/when they are introduced, as with every other "new" technology, you should expect to have issues/problems. Early adopters tend to be the "beta testers" with patience and excess budget.

I love my 38" direct view CRT (F38310), but when it dies, I would not even consider another CRT due to the size limitation(s). So, LCD, LCoS, DLP, and plasma are the only options today for a TV larger than ~34". It is what it is... ;)

If you're good enough to see through the sharpness, DNR, and sometimes poor de-interlacing that are turned way too high on top of an often overly compressed source (thus exacerbating motion-related artifacts), then you have better eyes than my 20/15 pair. Using uncalibrated B&M floor models as a justification for the superiority of one technology over another is absurd.


Hardly. A few years ago when the uncalibrated and juiced-up/overly vivid CRTs were still in the B&M store, they still didn't show motion artifacts compared to the LCDs and Plasmas right next to them. You keep bringing up calibration as if that's some kind of holy grail. Calibrating for the offset and gain parameters which affect brightness, color, contrast, etc., doesn't make a lot of difference in the motion related artifacts. The other day I looked at several TVs that had 60 Hz, no motion flow/de-juddering; against the high-end 120 Hz motion this and that, and there wasn't much difference. They all suck, compared to even the cheapest CRTs I've ever seen. Color-wise and contrast-wise, the best LCDs and Plasmas are pretty damn good compared to many CRTs.

I agree with most of your points anyway. Why do you come out swinging by bragging about your eyesight and saying it's an absurd way to compare televisions regarding motion artifacts?

If anyone is the troll here it is you and the OP who posted this.

Everything in my posts are true and unbiased since I OWN TWO tube televisions and ZERO flat TVs. It's obvious you wanna start a fight by calling me a troll when I'm clearly not. Way to go troll.

Do you even realize what forum section you are in? Lol! GTFO out if you don't wanna listen to people who love their CRT's. I've got a samsung LCD, a sony SXRD, a sony rear-pro CRT, and a 34" direct view sony CRT(XBR960). The two CRT's produce the best picture but the SXRD and LCD are the sharpest. That is the only advantage they hold.

I agree with most of your points anyway. Why do you come out swinging by bragging about your eyesight and saying it's an absurd way to compare televisions regarding motion artifacts?

I'm by no means bragging, I'm making a factual statement about my visual acuity to maybe lend a little less of a subjective tone to my post. My main point is that B&M stores often don't use the best demo material, and then they show it on displays with all the digital processing turned on or far too high, which results in so many artifacts that the picture simply falls apart and becomes useless for even subjective comparisons. I would consider setting those controls part of any good calibrator's job - if one came over and left all that crap on or cranked up I'd certainly be concerned.

Again, I'm not arguing the superiority of one display technology over the other, but if you're going to give examples of why CRTs are better, at least make them apples to apples comparisons. Over in the $3K+ projector forum, there's an excellent thread (link here (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1074013)) that illustrates motion blur on various display technologies. Not a huge surprise, CRT comes out on top by quite a margin.

C'mon... stop the bickering/barbs. In all fairness (and my opinion), the OP was asking for trouble when stating "Flat panel people are so dumb".

CRT had it's time and place. It now has the limitations which has been discussed (pro and con). IMO, it's up to the consumer to decide.

IMO, it's up to the consumer to decide.

We are doomed.

Do you even realize what forum section you are in?Do you? Check out the OPs post, I don't think you read it. The Direct View CRT forum was not necessarily meant for bashing people who don't have one which is what the OP did. Since I own CRTs and only CRTs I am in fact in the right place. Saying that we are all doomed because manufacturers only sell products that the majority people wanna buy is completely absurd. I know for a fact that you're in the wrong place. You don't belong on this forum, you need to run for congress. There are a whole mess of people you could meet just like you that know nothing about economics. Go write a bailout bill to save CRT and watch the stock market numbers plunge even more.

I too am a xbr970 owner, and the only reason i even picked up the set was cause when CRT was going out it was only 600 bucks. NO WAY IN HELL i would have paid it's original price years ago for this set. IMO this set is nothing more then a "enhanced" standard def set that can't match the sharpness, geometry, resolution of most LCD/Plasma sets( whats the max res lines on this again? 853/1080i? i forget) I don't care if it has better color/black levels than the flat panels, i'd rather have a TV with a much sharper picture and no geometry/convergence errors. This is the HIGH DEF era, my old standard crt has better color than flat panels, but i'm not about to bust it out just cause it has a better black level/color than a flat panel set. This new technology is pressing forward and us CRT lovers must embrace it. Once these sets go a few years from now, due to damage or something else, do you think you will find anyone/place to fix them or have a replacement part, and that it will be cheap to repair? I doubt it.

I do love love this set though as it's my first HD TV , can't go wrong for the price at the time ( although now most LCDs are in that same price range, although older models) but i'm not one of those types of people to praise it just cause i own one. I don't know what sets you looked at at best buy and even if they were set on torch mode, you didn't notice how much sharper and crisper the image was? Thing is for your argument, any flat panel owner can bring up drawbacks to our CRT sets the same.

Do you? Check out the OPs post, I don't think you read it. The Direct View CRT forum was not necessarily meant for bashing people who don't have one which is what the OP did. Since I own CRTs and only CRTs I am in fact in the right place. Saying that we are all doomed because manufacturers only sell products that the majority people wanna buy is completely absurd. I know for a fact that you're in the wrong place. You don't belong on this forum, you need to run for congress. There are a whole mess of people you could meet just like you that know nothing about economics. Go write a bailout bill to save CRT and watch the stock market numbers plunge even more.
Oh, snap! :D

I know you belong in this thread, you and the OP have similar agendas just different sides of the fence. Bailout bill for a dead tech? WTF are you on about? You pulled all that from my "we are doomed"? Just because they are not making any more of these mofos doesn't mean I gotta just toss mine in the garbage and forget about it. I'll never follow the majority as I like to make my own opinion. I don't like neon saturday morning cartoon specials and that's why I'm not a huge LCD supporter. I actually like plasma, and some of the newer LCD's have impressed me a little. Just not enough to supplant CRT for overall quality. You are the one that came in here guns blazing calling everyone dinosaur ranchers and whatnot, I just defended my opinion. It still stands though, obvious troll is obvious, op too.

btw, the economy is not the gov't fault, it's the lenders and the lendees.

I know you belong in this thread, you and the OP have similar agendas just different sides of the fence. Bailout bill for a dead tech? WTF are you on about? You pulled all that from my "we are doomed"? Just because they are not making any more of these mofos doesn't mean I gotta just toss mine in the garbage and forget about it. I'll never follow the majority as I like to make my own opinion. I don't like neon saturday morning cartoon specials and that's why I'm not a huge LCD supporter. I actually like plasma, and some of the newer LCD's have impressed me a little. Just not enough to supplant CRT for overall quality. You are the one that came in here guns blazing calling everyone dinosaur ranchers and whatnot, I just defended my opinion. It still stands though, obvious troll is obvious, op too.

btw, the economy is not the gov't fault, it's the lenders and the lendees.

Learn to read pauly seriously, you totally missed the point and now you really are in the wrong place because this is not a political forum to argue politics. You should seriously consider that congress thing though. They can't read or listen either. :D

Please spell it out for your illiterate poster then plz.

Dinosaur Ranchers?lol:D hilarious.

Anyways.....Why in the hell cant somebody design a flat panel crt? and it's a shame SED is dead in the water.

Anyhoo...There's no way i'm replacing my CRT with an HDTV just yet(probably in 2010, when Samsung rolls out their 40 - 42" OLED HDTVS, if that even happens) BUT, i was thinking of buying a smaller sized HDTV for on the side. And i was thinking of going with the Samsung 32" LN32A550 1080p LCD as i've been hearing they're one of the best LCDs on the market and not to mention a bang for the buck... and they're going for $849.99

But In no way do i expect it to come close to CRT regarding Color, Motion and Blacks(there's no way obviously) but it would be cool to have, for the 1080HD, progressive, HDMI, widescreen and awesomeness that it is in design. But most of all just to play around with. Overall, i'd like to use it for the PS3 and Wii once in a while, and as a computer monitor...But then there's plasma which will pump out better color, motion and blacks....but the smallest sizes are in th 42" range and i really dont want to spend much on a 1080p display thats just for on the side...Considering Panasonic's cheapest 42" 1080p Plasma is $1499, No thanks...

Please spell it out for your illiterate poster then plz.

Sorry I don't have enough space to post all the pictures I would need to illustrate it all to you. :(

http://www.pressstarttocontinue.net/images/notamused.jpg

It's quite simple...
Those that can "live" with a ~34" display, enjoy CRT for it's potentially great picture quality.

Those that want a larger display, CRT is not an option any longer. The king is dead.

http://www.pressstarttocontinue.net/images/notamused.jpg

Now that's funny!:D

Either you guys get back on the topic of WWII lighters, or I'm reporting this thread for closure.

Either you guys get back on the topic of WWII lighters, or I'm reporting this thread for closure.

Hey man, I think you got the wrong thread.

Either you guys get back on the topic of WWII lighters, or I'm reporting this thread for closure.
Either you read where you're posting and stay on topic within this thread or I"m reporting your post for deletion. :rolleyes:

It's quite simple...
Those that can "live" with a ~34" display, enjoy CRT for it's potentially great picture quality.

Those that want a larger display, CRT is not an option any longer. The king is dead.

The King is Dead and the measily little Ants are taking over, but gradually getting stronger muhaha

I hear tubes are making a come back. My neighbor told me.:rolleyes:

I love my 960 dearly but I'm not married to it. Once I get the living room the way I want it in a couple of years, I'll eventually be installing a high end flat panel on the wall. That will give me more space, and allow me to better position my speakers as well. Hopefully the quality I desire will be within striking distance of my wallet. In the meantime I have superb quality for an affordable $350.00 investment. People always comment how "good your set is for an old tube TV." I like the flat panels for a lot of reasons and would love a Kuro but right now I still have a perfectly good TV that is bought and paid for. Too bad I can't move it it without renting a construction crane. :)

"But then there's plasma which will pump out better color, motion and blacks....but the smallest sizes are in th 42" range and i really dont want to spend much on a 1080p display thats just for on the side...Considering Panasonic's cheapest 42" 1080p Plasma is $1499, No thanks...

I love my Sony HD CRT but I would get that 42'" Panny Plasma over that Samsung LCD any day. And Panny's cheapest 42" 1080p plasma (PZ80u in the US) is around the same price as that 32" Samsung A550 you quoted.

I love my Sony HD CRT but I would get that 42'" Panny Plasma over that Samsung LCD any day. And Panny's cheapest 42" 1080p plasma (PZ80u in the US) is around the same price as that 32" Samsung A550 you quoted.

The cheapest Panasonic 1080p 42" Plasma(the PZ80u) is actually $1499 Canadian, while the Samsung 32" 550 1080p LCD is $849.99. So there's a difference, and if they were around the same price range i'd for sure go for the Plasma, but it's obviously not the case.

The Panasonic PX80 on the other hand is going for $999....but it's 720p...and has a typical 'fixed' 720p resolution at 1024x768.... resulting in alot of pixel loss and stretching...damnit, why couldn't they of made normal 1280x720(besides DLP) displays?:mad:

I found this post curious as I am just now determined to invest in a new display technology.
I have a Toshiba CX34990 IDTV (purchased in 1990) that my friends with new LCDs and plasmas drool over when watching movies.
Yes, they snicker at the screen size (and when playing 2.35;1 or larger movies it's almost criminal) but they are awe struck by the resolution, clarity and colour quality ( I keep it calibrated using The Perfect Vision's "A Video Standard" laserdisc).
Would they trade me? Not on their life, but they certainly respect what I have.
One thing we have discussed, when I make the jump, why in hell would I settle for a 40", 50" or even 60" display? It's still a damn box that gives me the impression of peering through a window at a movie playing in someone else's theatre.
I've elected to purchase a projector and screen in order to view film the way it was meant to be viewed.
The technical specifications on the variety of models available make selecting a direct view display similiar to choosing a dish soap, so I'm taking a bit of time choosing.
My point is, it is imprudent to gainsay one individuals preference to promote your own as others can most assuredly do the same to yours.
Buy what ya can afford.
Watch what ya like.

Take it from a die-hard CRT fan who, after many trial and error sessions, ended up with a 50" Pioneer Kuro Plasma .. if you're looking for something worthy to replace that CRT (in my case a Sony 34XBR960, which I still own) you wont be disappointed with a Kuro, its like having a 50" XBR960 except the plasma is noticeably brighter and no worries of any geometry / convergence / focus issues, It also shares the CRT's amazing black levels, Even at night in a dark room.

But I still use a CRT for my PC, I haven't seen any PC LCD come close to what this Sony GDM-FW900 CRT is capable of.

Egad!(!) I just bought a 960 and am purchasing an fw900 soon. People think I'm moving backwards but imo I'm moving up! lol I'll keep the samsung LCD for text/web browsing and use the fw900 for games/movies. I need to get this 960 calibrated cause it's got overscan and convergence issues but the quality is A+ I love it. Now all I've got to do is replace my A3000 sxrd with a 60" Kuro and I'll be set.

You guys are crying over a technology that is no longer produced. The masses have spoken. They wanted TVs that could adapt better in living situations and that are bigger than 40 inches. I never hear anyone crying about rear projection CRT which was the only CRT technology that could go over 40 inches because it used three SMALL CRTs that because they were small they were not nearly as susceptible to serious geometry problems. The biggest drawback about RPCRT is that contrast really sucked and so did the viewing angles. Not to mention the nice soft picture. CRT was limited. Plasma and LCD need more time to develop. I'm sure the first CRTs didn't look as clear as the movie theaters did.

The masses are RETARDS who think Iraq had WMDs in the 21st century and that the tooth fairy was behind 9/11. LCDs will never match the picture quality of CRTs. Plasmas won't match CRT quality either, but they come close enough that it may still be worth it just because of the lack of bulk of the display.

LCDs will never match the picture quality of CRTs. Plasmas won't match CRT quality either...

Yes, science has come to a complete stand still and there will never be any further enhancements to these technologies despite the billions of dollars that are spent attempting to do so. If only they'd listen to us, the people who can see the future, instead, and not waste all that money!:rolleyes:

This thread is insane. I just bought my first LCD TV a couple of weeks ago and the picture blew me away. I have no idea why people would think CRTs look better.

You're just gonna have to accept that some things will never happen my friend. As much as you would like it to LCD will never get as good as CRT(as far as color and shadow detail). It's just physically impossible. They can pull all the stops though to try to trick your eyes into believing it. But it's the reality, a liquid crystal cell just can't twist it's ass far enough. Not gonna happen.

This thread is insane. I just bought my first LCD TV a couple of weeks ago and the picture blew me away. I have no idea why people would think CRTs look better.

Watch Batman TDK on your LCD then watch it on a prime CRT. You will wonder why you just posted that response.

Watch Batman TDK on your LCD then watch it on a prime CRT. You will wonder why you just posted that response.
I've watched many things on LCD and then when I tried watching on the CRT, I couldn't take it. I watch movies on an LCD, I get clear picture. Then I watch on a CRT, I get blur. I should've given my old CRT to you since you love that technology so much. You probably would've had a fun time carrying that home.

You're just gonna have to accept that some things will never happen my friend. As much as you would like it to LCD will never get as good as CRT(as far as color and shadow detail). It's just physically impossible. They can pull all the stops though to try to trick your eyes into believing it. But it's the reality, a liquid crystal cell just can't twist it's ass far enough. Not gonna happen.

The biggest problem with LCDs is that most LCDs are not even High Def anymore when objects start moving or when the camera is panning.
Many LCDs have as low as 260 lines of MOTION RESOLUTION

Out of ALL the LCDs ever tested, only 1 had HD motion resolution, and that was the 950 series Samsung, and ONLY if you turn on the Motion Plus Control, and set the interpolation to low, then it had HD motion resolution.
The thing is that under that setting the 950 FAILED the 3:2 pulldown test.
In most other settings it has 330 lines of motion resolution.
All other LCDs EVER TESTED only have STANDARD DEF MOTION RESOLUTION

That's pretty pathetic since I have some old HP and Compaq 17" CRT computer monitors with 1024 lines of motion resolution collecting dust in the basement.
There are people who paid thousands for an LCD and are not even getting HD motion resolution, what a gip.
http://hdguru.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/2008-resolution-tests-125-hdtvs.pdf

My 38" Loewe Aconda still beats them all.

My 38" Loewe Aconda still beats them all.

In weight, for sure. Did curved screen, 210 lbs. CRT TV sets like yours still have to round off the corners of the display image? I can't remember back that far.

Look, I absolutely LOVE my Sony XBR970. The PQ of it is absolutely phoenominal UP TO a certain point. A poster earlier mentioned watching Batman TDK on a CRT vs LCD/Plasma. My Samsung LN-T4065f absolutely blows away my XBR970 when it come to that movie or any blu-ray movie. There's no matching a good LCD or Plasma tv once you get into 1080p material, it's just not going to happen. Now when it comes to watching Directv programming, I actually do prefer watching that on my XBR970. Though if I had the "wife clearance" to purchase a Pioneer Kuro, that might change too.

I'm with you on the PQ of CRT. I'm still using a Philips 27" HDTV monitor. I'm planning on adding a DirecTV DVR as soon as they re-introduce a TIVO branded model next year. Due to the size of my display, I haven't been bitten by the Blu-Ray bug yet. I must admit that the lossless PCM audio on Blu-Ray may get me to abandon my laserdiscs, but I still want load times as fast as my laserdisc!

Back to the display topic. I look at plasma as being a mature technology. I was in retail when plasma hit and still chuckle at customers asking about a crummy 42" first generation plasma with the worst black levels for $25,000. As much as I love my CRT the idea of a THX certified 58" plasma with excellent black levels for $2300 is amazing. I think it just might be time to consider the mature plasma flat panel.

Now putting on my flame proof suit,

I'm sure most people will admit that the latest top of the line plasmas are a suitable replacement for CRT. No flame suit needed.

But next person that says LCD is getting i-slapped in the nuts.

Normally I have to pay for that...

Anyways, Plain and simple the 360 and PS3 went HD at wonky time(especially in the beginning)considering the technologies(LCD,Plasma,DLP ect) arent there yet compared to CRT.
For your information, the original XBox and PS2 were already HD and had several 720p/1080i games. It was only a natural evolution for the 360 and PS3 to be full HD 1080p. It's your out-dated Wii that like your CRT is 4-5 years behind! And this is coming from a CRT owner (front and rear-projection) who has had it with cleaning and calibrating his RPCRT once a year and has moved on to plasma tech that produces better color and a more detailed image (Panasonic/Pioneer).

I have yet to see a flat panel HDTV that matches the PQ of my SONY WEGA 34XS955 that was calibrated via the service menu.

The KUROs come close in the black level. That is about it.

I have yet to see a flat panel HDTV that matches the PQ of my SONY WEGA 34XS955 that was calibrated via the service menu.

That's true, of all the 34" plasma/LCD TV's ever made, not a single one....uh...wait a minute.....was ever made!:p

Fail-u-re. He said flat panel in general.

It seems like all of you should try buying a Plasma.

Fail-u-re. He said flat panel in general.

Some people are of the mind that comparing two display images of dissimilar sizes is not a valid comparison. The smaller one is usually (but not always) perceived as *ahem* "better". I happen to be one of those people. For instance, this professional $13,655 20" monitor (http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/cat-monitors/cat-evaluationgrademonitors/product-BVMA20F1U/) (not including the necessary input card) blows his 34" set away, but anyone who claims it's a "valid" comparison, even using the same CRT technology, no less, has a weak understanding of the principals of image perception and display technology.

You still haven't discredited his statement.

And why should I? I never said his statement was incorrect, in fact I said it was true. Go re-read what I wrote. I was just pointing out that he's never seen a 34" flat panel design in his life; that size has never been commercially produced.

I'm sorry if you don't understand that comparing TV displays with different image sizes is invalid, even if they use the exact same technology for that matter. I thought that was common knowledge to everyone here. I guess I was wrong.

Then compare it to a 32" LCD, or a 42" Plasma. Game over CRT still wins.

This is all beside the point. My daddy can lift a bigger TV than any of your daddies.

Mandelbaum! Mandelbaum! Mandelbaum!

The funny thing is the biggest complaint about CRT is the "size and weight"...What I find amuzing about it is that while there are a few sets wall mounted...twice as many are on a cabinet/entertainment center type stand...Having the stand pretty much negates the whole size is an issue thing though noone will admit it...And those that have their audio system right there with the TV...That equipment still needs a place to be...The weight issue is still an issue to me...These plasmas weigh a helluva lot...Certainly alot more than you would think just looking at it...

As to the technology being dead...well for the most part it is true...These sets are still readily available for pennies on the dollar on craigslist and other internet sites from people that hav suddenly decided that these sets are "too big for our little living room"...But they were fine before the flat panels came out...

No question the new flat panels are nice...they really are...But then I get home and see my CRT RPTV and I wonder what the fuss is really all about...I constantly hear about problems with motion blur and artifacting with flat panels...And while I still hear about 'convergence' issues with CRT it is nowhere as frequent as flat panel complaints...

Someone said there are compromises that are made with having any of the different technologies and that is the best statement on this subject...Myself...I will take the twice yearly convergence and cleaning of my set to have what I consider to be the best picture available...over things that are extremely difficult if not downright impossible to correct with flat panel sets and be subjected to constant image flaws that are just in your face unlike CRT flaws which are much more subtle and less noticeable...

I fear the day my set goes FUBAR...But people that have flat panels are not "dumb"...The only "dumb" people are the ones that think so...

50"?

try 60"

now you're talking

Watch Batman TDK on your LCD then watch it on a prime CRT. You will wonder why you just posted that response.
Ok, I finally bought TDK and watched it on both my LCD and CRT. Both have their ups and downs. The CRT has slightly better blacks, but the LCD delivers a much sharper picture. Let's face it. Each technology (whether it's LCD, CRT, and Plasma) have their ups and downs. So, each person has their own preference. Let's just leave it at that. No need to name-call and say that flat panel people are "dumb." I like LCDs because they deliver sharper picture, they're lighter/thinner, they have perfect geometry, and they put a lot less strain on the eyes.

I've always found it ironic that some people who make a big deal out of the weight of CRTs drive SUVs!

And while not defending color of LCDs or Plasmas--Sonys put out some pretty orange like reds--if you don't believe me view the Alabama Crimson Tide on one and compare it to how they look at the stadium!

The Loewe sets were better when it came to color--course the Sonys were superior at nearly everything else.

Now I really do think that LCDs--the predominant technology--does suck! Their motion resolution stinks!

What's the point of buying any display with poor motion resolution and watching sports on it?

What's the point of buying any display that sucks when viewed from an angle if you have friends over that may be viewing it from an angle?

The real deal is that most flat panel sets do suck in many ways compared to direct-views of a few years ago and most all flat panels out now which include LCDs and many plasma DO SUCK--but let's get real!

if you had a perfect display but it was so small that you had to set 1 foot from it would that be home theater?

No!

You wouldn't have the slightest feeling that you were in a theater!

My mom has a Sony 40XBR800--it does SD better than any display because it is 4:3 and just doubles 480 lines to the perfect multiple of 960.

It gives you 37-inches of 16:9--not a bad TV at all--course the 960 and the 970s from Sony are better than it is when it comes to resolution.

RP CRT was great at 1080i because it didn't have to SCALE it.

I believe Panasonic once actually made a RP CRT that could do BOTH 720 and 1080 NATIVE with no scaling!

When set up perfectly in a CAVE they did a great job with movies--course for most people what is really needed is a display that will double as a home theater and a TV.

Plasmas aren't as bright as LCDs but they beat them in so many other ways that it really isn't a contest.

And I get so tired of people making the lame argument that the market has decided--who cares?!

Was the 1974 Mustang II the epitome of Mustang performance? No! How many years did we have to wait after the death of Quad for multi-channel sound?

The point is that the technology we buy does sometimes go backwards--what the market place buys is not the BEST technology and at an ENTHUSIAST place like this--who cares about sales figures?

If sales figures are all that matters go post at an AV FINANCIAL forum!

I used to have a 35-inch Toshiba--then a 36-inch Hitachi and in April 2006 I bought a 50-inch Panasonic plasma.

At the time it was better than any other plasma out there except maybe a Pioneer.

I don't regret the purchase at all. Do I miss the better blacks of CRT--of course.

Do I miss 36-inches? Of course not!

Would I like a set larger than 50-inches? Yes! Buy as big as you can--rinky dink sized TV is for the birds!

Now I don't know who the dumbest people are in the world--I love Sony Direct-views--at the Rear projection forum and at the Plasma forum I have posted many times saying how those technologies suck in some parameters compared to direct-view but I don't regret buying the plasma set I have.

What are my plans? What do I think a SMART person should do?

Well I don't think a person should wait for pie in the sky tiny trillion dollar always prototype only OLED or that they should wait forever for a technology that will best direct-view in all parameters.

But if they do appreciate direct-view they need something that will come close.

It won't come cheap--especially if you really want to go up in size.

I say wait until November 2009 and then buy the NEXT generation Kuro--buy a 60-inch!--get the thing calibrated--make it an Elite--and also buy a back light.

I will GUARANTEE you that if you do that you will not be sitting around crying every day over Direct-view CRT!

The next generation Kuro blacks will achieve PERFECTION--yes they will BEST direct-view--the MOTION RESOLUTION will improve to 1000 lines--now they might not be quite as good as Direct-view but that will be close enough so you shouldn't have any heart burn.

They also be BRIGHTER than the current 9th generation that was brighter than the preceeding 8th generation.

I GUARANTEE you that no one will view that set and say that it sucks and they won't cry themselves to sleep because they can't watch a Sony direct-view--keep the direct-view--run both at the same time during the Super Bowl and let your friends decide which set they would rather watch!

Now if you don't want to spend a bozillion dollars then you can either compromise--buy the 2009 Panasonic Plasma--COMPROMISE to the extreme and buy and LCD?--or be down right cheap and watch whatever direct-view you have until the end of time!

People who COMPROMISE and know that they are COMPROMISING while still being able to acknowledge other technologies' superiority in various picture quality parameters aren't dumb!

They're REAL people--you can be an enthusiast and not own the GREATEST TV on the planet--

just like you can be a car enthusiast and not own the greatest car on the planet!

And for whatever cheap skates there are out there--if you like a cheap TV--more power to you--I'm happy for you--if you're an Insignia lover or Apex lover--more power to you--if you like rabbit ears--more power to you!

And if you're an LCD lover--I think you're blind but more power to you too!

Even LCDs are better this year than last--I think a Sony 55-inch XBR 8 with the motion enhancers turned off is HALF DECENT--even though for me it costs too much.

Just don't cry for me watching my Panasonic plasma or my mom's Sony 40XBR800.

I never will claim they are the greatest--I do know for me that I do have at least an idea what the greatest sets are even if I don't own them--I keep up with the state of the art here--I view those sets
everytime I get a chance--I love hearing people argue about them and one last thing--

I really do love watching TV!

Now am I dumb, too?

Probably, considering you put so much work into a worthless thread that should die a lonely death.

I've always found it ironic that some people who make a big deal out of the weight of CRTs drive SUVs!What's wrong with driving an SUV, other than what the hypocrites in Washington & Hollywood have to say?

Do you really believe that Brangelina denies themselves any creature comforts this Hollywood couple can afford?

While I don't own an SUV myself, I certainly would like to.

Now that oil prices have returned to their "true market value," Americans can afford to fill them up again.

It is scary to "know" how "manipulated" individuals are by the Media, Hollywood & Washington; which forms much of the popular opinions/perceptions through their own "personal" agendas.

Al Gore & Carbon Offsets? Yeah, like I'm really down with that. :rolleyes:

And if you're an LCD lover--I think you're blind but more power to you too!

Again, I must repeat: EACH TYPE OF TV HAS THEIR OWN PROS AND CONS.

Plasma
Pros:
Better blacks
No motion blur
Can display below its native resolution

Cons:
It's heavy
Use more electricity
Not available in small sizes

LCDs
Pros:
Thinner and Lighter
Uses less electricity
Available in a variety of sizes

Cons:
Motion blur
Blacks aren't as detailed
Can't display below its native resolution

Now, these are just a handful of things I remember spare of the moment. So, I'm sure I left a lot of stuff out. But my point is: each has their own disadvantage and advantage. It all comes down to personal preference.

Look--I have no problem with anyone wanting an SUV--what it weighs doesn't negate its use.

Anymore than the weight of a direct-view CRT negates its use.

And for the LCD lovers out there--I have no problem with anyone preferring to buy them.

I'll always maintain that it can be quantifiably proven that the image that they produce is further from perfectly representing the image sent to them than than the difference is between the image sent to plasmas and how well they reproduce it.

But look--even if you do scientifically prove it the true believers will say that "It all comes down to personal preference" or the familiar drivel about how well it looks "in each person's eyes."

I'm not wedded to plasma being the best--if LCD looked better tomorrow I'd say it!

i'd say it about any other technology, too.

And I'd say it even if I was personally going to buy another technology.

I'd say it regardless of all the other things besides picture quality that might indeed make LCD a good purchase decision.

Look if pressed would I say that the greatest direct-view professional monitor on Earth develops an image that is closer to reality than any other display out there--I would say yes.

I do think that plasma in the future will be able to outdo it.

I don't think that LCD could ever do it--but if LCD did I'd say so.

Now it may be my preference or subjective biased opinion to hyperbolically say that people who think that LCD looks great are blind--

but even if that is true and is my problem--I also said more power to those people. I think its' great if people PREFER all sorts of things and their preferences need not be my preferences and their values need not be my values.

I guess what I'm really getting at though is that much about picture quality itself can be scientifically and objectively defined.

And I think that a real video enthusiast wants that to be the case and is curious about those things.

I also think that it is possible to determine which particular parameters of picture quality have more weight than others in specifying exactly how close a display is to reproducing what has been sent.

Even if such conclusions can't be precisely quantified--it should be apparent that all parameters of picture quality are not equal--that some really are more important than others. Is that statement unfathomable?

The truth is that currently no other display technology does motion as well as CRT--that is a fact--but might not always be the case.

It is a fact that LCDs are brighter than plasmas.

It is a fact that most flat panels suffer from less geometry problems than direct-view sets do.

Those facts are not preferences--they are quantifiably provable.

If any technology in a larger percentage of picture quality parameters exceeds the others--and if those parameters that it succeeds in are greater factors in how well a display accurately reproduces what it is sent--

then that display technology--but more sepcifically that vey sepecific iteration of it--

IS BETTER!

It's not mysterious. It can be ascertained.

CRT's are great. Anyone that can live with one 34" (widescreen) or smaller... it's the best option.

See! Only one paragraph. ;)

I look forward to the day when any display technology can best CRTs in all areas.

Until that happens people should be reminded of the areas where that has not happened.

I think Artwood has won the thread. Congrats. A thousand internets to you sir. :)

I think Artwood has won the thread. Congrats. A thousand internets to you sir. :)
It would be great if he could make his point in 50 words or less.

I look forward to the day when any display technology can best CRTs in all areas.

Until that happens people should be reminded of the areas where that has not happened.

Hi Art, Great posts! Let me steer you over to the Theater Room & Accessories Forum on AVS. Look for the thread titled "Cruising the AVS Forum while intoxicated"...it's helped me on numerous occasions.:D

it would be like 700lbs!

I know right!!!

























(what is "it"?)

I too am a xbr970 owner, and the only reason i even picked up the set was cause when CRT was going out it was only 600 bucks. NO WAY IN HELL i would have paid it's original price years ago for this set. IMO this set is nothing more then a "enhanced" standard def set that can't match the sharpness, geometry, resolution of most LCD/Plasma sets( whats the max res lines on this again? 853/1080i? i forget) I don't care if it has better color/black levels than the flat panels, i'd rather have a TV with a much sharper picture and no geometry/convergence errors. This is the HIGH DEF era, my old standard crt has better color than flat panels, but i'm not about to bust it out just cause it has a better black level/color than a flat panel set. This new technology is pressing forward and us CRT lovers must embrace it. Once these sets go a few years from now, due to damage or something else, do you think you will find anyone/place to fix them or have a replacement part, and that it will be cheap to repair? I doubt it.

I do love love this set though as it's my first HD TV , can't go wrong for the price at the time ( although now most LCDs are in that same price range, although older models) but i'm not one of those types of people to praise it just cause i own one. I don't know what sets you looked at at best buy and even if they were set on torch mode, you didn't notice how much sharper and crisper the image was? Thing is for your argument, any flat panel owner can bring up drawbacks to our CRT sets the same.
Very well said, ClayPigeon!

I am reading this on a Sony Trinitron 21" CRT monitor that I have had for ages, I love the color and the picture, But I have seen a few LCD's that have made me consider finally making the switch.

I look forward to the day when any display technology can best CRTs in all areas.

Until that happens people should be reminded of the areas where that has not happened.


that day is here. the new 9th generation Pioneer Kuro.

skip the 50" and go for the 60". wish I could make that move.....:p

once again for the crowd "flat panel people are still really dumb":p

And once again for the kids...
CRTS... are gone due to size/weight/footprint/production cost limitations. IMO, only the dumb ones squint and hope for Lazarus to be raised from the dead.

that day is here. the new 9th generation Pioneer Kuro.


I said that to myself when I bought a 50" 8th gen Kuro, It was a very worthy replacement for my 34XBR960 CRT. I would never replace the CRT with an LCD (I tried to and they all failed miserably in comparison to the CRT) but Pioneer nailed it with the Kuro plasma's ;)

(what is "it"?)it's it!
this thread is now epic

I said that to myself when I bought a 50" 8th gen Kuro, It was a very worthy replacement for my 34XBR960 CRT. I would never replace the CRT with an LCD (I tried to and they all failed miserably in comparison to the CRT) but Pioneer nailed it with the Kuro plasma's ;)


last year my neighbor asked me what was the best plasma and I told him without hesitation to buy the 50" Kuro and he did. I'm always impressed how good SD looks on it even in stretch mode. man the colors just pop and the blacks are to die for. he's never made any adjustments to it from day one. the only down side is you want the 60" after living with the 50". you get spoiled and want more. if I had the bucks I would go for the 60" and they are 4k or less on Amazon.

People like a image to be bright, sharp, and colorful. In that case a name brand LCD wins hands down. The image is easy on the eyes you can easily see everything and the color is good compared to their cheapo SD tube tv's at home. This is why LCDs despite being expensive are still popular.

IMHO the current crop of name brand flat panels are superior to CRT in all respects except color contrast and image depth (very obvious when viewing in a dark room). I've noticed that black level is more than just displaying a pure black. Its the shades in between pure white and black that flat panels especially LCDs have trouble with. This is why if they could do what a CRT can they would look almost three dimensional.

For the record I own a calibrated Sammy 550 1080p LCD.

once again for the crowd "flat panel people are still really dumb":pDude... I "fixed" my dead CT-36HL42 HD ready CRT-TV by replacing a $2 fuse on the main power board.

The only downside was moving the 220 lb. monster up two-flights of stairs from the basement to the 2nd floor of my home.

Two 50(+/-) year-old men... it was not a pretty sight.

People like a image to be bright, sharp, and colorful. In that case a name brand LCD wins hands down. The image is easy on the eyes you can easily see everything and the color is good compared to their cheapo SD tube tv's at home. This is why LCDs despite being expensive are still popular.

IMHO the current crop of name brand flat panels are superior to CRT in all respects except color contrast and image depth (very obvious when viewing in a dark room). I've noticed that black level is more than just displaying a pure black. Its the shades in between pure white and black that flat panels especially LCDs have trouble with. This is why if they could do what a CRT can they would look almost three dimensional.

For the record I own a calibrated Sammy 550 1080p LCD.

:o You are saying LCD's do color better than CRT's?

Dude... I "fixed" my dead CT-36HL42 HD ready CRT-TV by replacing a $2 fuse on the main power board.

The only downside was moving the 220 lb. monster up two-flights of stairs from the basement to the 2nd floor of my home.

Two 50(+/-) year-old men... it was not a pretty sight.


yes you risked doing major damage to your back/body to save on a $2 part!

it's no wonder people are dumping these heavy bulky tv's. Sony's are the most heavy tv's ever built and the 36" models are killer heavy.

I moved my 36XBR800 all 240 lbs of it (with a very strong friend) down FIVE flights of stairs into a minivan and back to the house. We had the advantage of the original box so we could slide it down, etc. Also it does have 'grab handles' right in front under the bottom and those handles were a life saver thank god Sony had the smarts to include them in the design of the back.

once you move one of these you never want to do it again.

:o You are saying LCD's do color better than CRT's?

No I'm saying that there are huge amount of people that have old bottom of the barrel CRT TVs with the tint and brightness at who knows what setting. So when they see a high definition LCD they will not notice anything wrong with the color.

I guess I left out motion being superior on CRT in addition to image depth and color. I prefer CRT myself but it has to be fine tuned and calibrated for its strengths to be shown. Where as flat panels are usually very good out of the box and the image is sharp with perfect focus.

yes you risked doing major damage to your back/body to save on a $2 part!Right, I guess this owner of (2) PDPs lived up to the "dumb" assertion by attempting to move a 36" CRT TV. :D

Flat panel people aren't stupid, but those that show up at Best Buy with their credit card already in their hand who let the Best Buy rep walk them over to the crappiest Insignia set and convince them to buy the installation, warranty and "calibration" service, are definitely stupid. That and those people who spent a mint seven years ago to buy those early LCDs that had terrible color, terrible blacks, terrible motion blur, 720p and were non-HDCP only to spend another mint four years ago when HD content finally started trickling out buying the latest LCD that still had terrible color, terrible blacks, terrible motion blur, was HDCP compliant and paid an extra premium for 1080p because the Best Buy rep told them it was a must despite the fact that 1080p is only now becoming an available standard.

LCD and plasma are emerging technologies that will someday meet or exceed everything about our CRTs. The Samsung 950 series LCDs are amazing. The Kuro Pioneers are everything and more, and I might be the only one but I love the idea of the new Mitsubishi LaserVue DLPs, it's a laser!!

And if any of you doubt my convictions on the above, give me $5000 grand and see which TV I buy. I assure you it won't be 30 craigslist FD Trinitrons.

tno

Think OLED. ;)

I'm still rooting for SED.

Either one represents a significant advancement for display technology. However, PDP & LCD continue to improve w/better black performance, increased luminance values and lower power consumption. These panels are becoming priced much like a commodity item, which may prevent the development of superior but highly expensive alternatives.

I am reading this on a Sony Trinitron 21" CRT monitor that I have had for ages, I love the color and the picture, But I have seen a few LCD's that have made me consider finally making the switch.

Hey, you must be my alter-ego. I could have typed the exact same thing (even the 21" Trinitron part). Last I checked the good computer LCDs worthy of photo editing are made by Eizo. And they are not cheap.

I'm still rooting for SED.

I remember feeling like I was shoulder to shoulder with Philo Farnsworth when I saw that first video on Engadget of an SED display in all it's grainy goodness. Looks like OLED will be the future king of TVs and I can't wait to see the full size second gen sets.

To each his own. I currently own a Panny 50TPZ80U 1080P, Plasma, and it gets great blacks, color temp and color balance. It replaced a Toshiba 61" HDTV 3 gun CRT, which was also great but less sharp, great blacks, good color. The best is an Electrohome 8500 Ultra, 8", crt Projector. 100" curved metal screen. The rest, even the Plasma at 50", is crap compared to that. The blacks and color are unbelievable. It was made to Military Spec for aircraft and tank simulators. These monsters weigh about 120 lbs and can be bought for 2 grand or less. Think a Kuro has good blacks??, Wait till you see one of these babies. Long live CRT in all its manifestations.

I'm still rooting for SED.

Check out the latest developments with
FED (http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=209903875) panels. End of 2009 production... really... we mean it. :)
A conventional Spindt device was structured by assigning one Spindt per pixel. Therefore, the size of each Spindt needed to be exactly identical. Otherwise, the brightness of each pixel became uneven, lowering image quality.
FE Technologies corrected this problem by placing multiple numbers of Spindts, called Nano-Spindt Structure, per pixel, thus evening Spindt differentials.
“Fourteen hundred Spindts are required to keep pixel brightness differentials within 2 percent,” said Hiroyuki Ikeda, general manager of marketing at FE Technologies. Using this structure, the electric current per Spindt decreased while Spindt operating lifetime was improved, the company said.

Isn't it common knowledge that CRT provides the best picture quality available, but the other factors that come into play when buying a TV and the desire for bigger and bigger screens has ended production and sales of those sets?

I am a plasma owner and will continue to love plasmas, but even compared to a low end SD CRT, the black levels can't compare. I don't understand why this is even debated, other than out of ignorance.

Think OLED. ;)

Agreed. but we're still 5 years away from that technology being affordable.

I too am a xbr970 owner, and the only reason i even picked up the set was cause when CRT was going out it was only 600 bucks. NO WAY IN HELL i would have paid it's original price years ago for this set. IMO this set is nothing more then a "enhanced" standard def set that can't match the sharpness, geometry, resolution of most LCD/Plasma sets( whats the max res lines on this again? 853/1080i? i forget) I don't care if it has better color/black levels than the flat panels, i'd rather have a TV with a much sharper picture and no geometry/convergence errors. This is the HIGH DEF era, my old standard crt has better color than flat panels, but i'm not about to bust it out just cause it has a better black level/color than a flat panel set. This new technology is pressing forward and us CRT lovers must embrace it. Once these sets go a few years from now, due to damage or something else, do you think you will find anyone/place to fix them or have a replacement part, and that it will be cheap to repair? I doubt it.
You are so on the money here ClayPigeon. That's ultimately what I concluded. Aside from the geometry issues (which I realized drove me crazier with distraction than any other flaw) with the 970 tube, it never felt like I was reaping the benefit's of HD. Sure the picture looked nice and the color perfect (especially after correcting the color decoder), but I never really got lost within an HD picture from the 34" size Sony screen. Watching a program on Discovery HD Theater is much more brilliant and majestic on a screen 42" or larger...especially with a decent quality HDTV.

There are definitely some great benefits from the Sony XBR970, but it just depends on what's more important when it comes to your viewing enjoyment.

Who keeps bringing this awful thread back to life? Let it die already.

For any of you guys that don't think you can "get lost" in a 34 inch XBR, I'll be happy to remove the paper weight from your house if you're anywhere near Baltimore.

If any of you guys that don't think you can "get lost" in a 34 inch XBR, I'll be happy to remove the paper weight from your house if you're anywhere near Baltimore.


Good grief you are the captain of the 34" XBR Titanic.
how can you watch SD? without stretch mode it's only 27.7"!
I thought 27" TVs went out in the 1970s?
what about all those commercials and programs not in full screen HD 16:9?

Personally I'm tired of moving my computer chair 4 feet in front of the tube every time I watch HD!

If any of you guys that don't think you can "get lost" in a 34 inch XBR, I'll be happy to remove the paper weight from your house if you're anywhere near Baltimore.
LOL. It's already been removed.