Size and aspect aside, do those who have switched to Plasma or LCD miss the performance of CRT's?

Buy a 60" kuro and answer that for yourself

No way in any way. I have one of the best and last CRTs made which was a Sony XBR 34" wide HD and no mater what you do size matters. And CRT RPTVs had its issues also. So for me its time for the first generation to die in peace it served us well for 60+ years RIP.......Steve

Nope, I can't think of anything my CRTs did better than my Panasonic plasmas.

No I don't miss interlaced video, geometric distortions and small screens

Size and aspect aside, do those who have switched to Plasma or LCD miss the performance of CRT's?

Absolutely not. For a few things they might have done better there are to many things that they don't do as well. Plus having to move a 32" CRT took the best of two men to be able to do.

It is still too soon but one day your 5-year old will be too embarrased to bring his friends home if you still have a 27-inch tube entombed in grandma's armoire, blacks and other specs notwithstanding.

I just traded my 46xbr4 for a 35 inch Toshiba Cinema series. I bought a Kuro to replace the XBR, and gave the Sony to the parents. They didn't know what to do with the Toshiba I had bought them about 5 years ago, so I took it and stuck it in the bedroom.

First off, I don't think anyone does critical viewing with an SD set. That being said, the black levels are fantastic, and the set actually displays SD material better than my Kuro. I have a 10 ft viewing distance, so the scan lines are not an issue. There are some slight geometry issues, but the color and contrast completely make up for it. Absolutely no motion blur whatsoever.

Granted, the game has moved on in the video world, however, I have not found a better set to display SD TV, than a high quality CRT. DVDs are a different story. Moral of the story is that I was pleasantly surprised with the performance of this set. Anything that I need to record that is not in HD gets watched on the Toshiba. Everything else is Kuro or 100" FP. God it's heavy though!!

That's because SD is a crappy source. Garbage in, garbage out. It's the equivalent of taking a $100K sports vehicle and filling it with unleaded and saying it's a nice car but it knocks around when I put the wrong fuel in it.

I HATE CRTs! I refuse to acknowledge that was ever even considered reference! They are crap! And this is coming from a high end Sony CRT owner!

I don't miss the interlacing, geometry distortions, rainbow patterns due to improper phosphor decay, magnetic interference (can't have speakers close to them), small screens, weight and the list goes on...

I'm very grateful that technology is no longer available. It needed to die and the current technologies are light years ahead. I'll take a flat panel image over a CRT image ANY day of the week.

i hate crts! I refuse to acknowledge that was ever even considered reference! They are crap! And this is coming from a high end sony crt owner!

I don't miss the interlacing, geometry distortions, rainbow patterns due to improper phosphor decay, magnetic interference (can't have speakers close to them), small screens, weight and the list goes on...

I'm very grateful that technology is no longer available. It needed to die and the current technologies are light years ahead. I'll take a flat panel image over a crt image any day of the week.

+1

Had a plasma for a couple of days, have an lcd for general usage and crt monitor for critical viewing. Currently only OLED is real alternative for CRT, plasma and lcd might get there one day.

I still have my Mitsubishi WS-55511 RPTV since 2003 (fantastic picture).
The few things that I don't like about it is that it doesn't have any HDMI inputs and it takes up some good floor space.

I would one day replace this set with something with an equal screen size, or bigger. Looking at both LCDs and plasmas, but leaning more on LCDs.



Danny

After watching CRTs for over 55 years, I find that my plasma has much better picture quality.

For HD, not so much but for SD, definitely. I haven't seen an HD set yet that can display 480i material - and I'd include DVDs in that - as well as a CRT.

I also prefer to watch blu-ray movies on my rear-projection HD CRT set - it looks more film-like than either plasma or LCD.

I HATE CRTs! I refuse to acknowledge that was ever even considered reference! They are crap! And this is coming from a high end Sony CRT owner!

I don't miss the interlacing, geometry distortions, rainbow patterns due to improper phosphor decay, magnetic interference (can't have speakers close to them), small screens, weight and the list goes on...

I'm very grateful that technology is no longer available. It needed to die and the current technologies are light years ahead. I'll take a flat panel image over a CRT image ANY day of the week.

LOL... you must be joking! All plasmas released to date have issues with phosphor decay (drastically worse than CRTs in general)! Perhaps you're thinking of the chroma/luma rainbow noise... this is a decoding/comb-filter issue, not a phosphor issue. The CRT remains a great display tech for old school video games and arcade games (via RGBS connection).

Though I find the 15.75kHz squeel from the flyback transformer on CRTs especially annoying after not hearing it for a while. :D

I have a 36" Cinema Series Toshiba and have not seen a better display to date. I value black levels and high brightness tremendously. Any newer technology has its benefits and drawbacks so it’s all a mater of opinion. Watching (small) letterbox movies puts the image in the sweet spot of the tube which avoids some of the curvature issues.

Heck – my CRT has a subwoofer and the sound is actually not all that bad if I choose not to turn on the AVR.

I have recently started to look into plasmas like the V10 but will wait to see what next year brings.

So to answer the OP question - NO, not in the least as my CRT is still in heavy (300lbs :-) rotation!!!!!

I have a 36" Cinema Series Toshiba and have not seen a better display to date. I value black levels and high brightness tremendously. Any newer technology has its benefits and drawbacks so it’s all a mater of opinion. Watching (small) letterbox movies puts the image in the sweet spot of the tube which avoids some of the curvature issues.

I have the 34" Toshiba CRT HDTV which replaced a 32" LCD 4 or 5 years ago. It consistently produces an outstanding image. Other family members have top of the line Panasonic plasmas but the image on the Toshiba easily holds it's own.

Nope.

In fact I just junked all my LPs..... gotta move on at some time.

Some people still consider their grand-grandpa's 19th century phonographs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonograph) as the one and only true audio tech...

I have the 34" Toshiba CRT HDTV which replaced a 32" LCD 4 or 5 years ago. It consistently produces an outstanding image. Other family members have top of the line Panasonic plasmas but the image on the Toshiba easily holds it's own.

That's good to hear. I was an early adopter of HDTV, Progressive Scanning DVD and 7.1 audio and I don’t regret it at all. I can’t count the times that people have said “Wow, I never seen HD on a CRT before”.

It makes lugging that heavy beast around a little easier. :-)

Maybe I will get lucky again if I choose to be an early adopter of 3D HDTV?

I miss CRT projector performance. Direct view, no, they hurt my eyes, and the geometric distortion at the corners drives me insane. RIP CRT:p

Size and aspect aside, do those who have switched to Plasma or LCD miss the performance of CRT's?

I miss the contrast and black detail of a good tube. I miss not having so much dependent on processing the image to fit a fixed-pixel display. I especially miss CRT motion, which is where none of the newer technologies shine (plasma is the best, LCD is the worst here).

I do miss the overall picture quality of CRTs, my in-laws still have a CRT RPTV, and it holds up remarkably well as long as the lights are off. My Panny plasma is nice, I liked my SXRD, the Kuros are really close, but it's hard to beat a CRT. I do recognize their weaknesses, of course, but with a CRT you could tweak a lot of those out and be left with a reference image.

I finally switched from a CRT 2 weeks ago. I don't necessarily miss it because I was informed enough to buy a plasma set and plasma is the right choice for those of us who have a fondness for the look of CRTs (black levels, color accuracy, viewing angles).

If I could go back in time I would still buy the plasma and retire the CRT.

I desperately miss CRT's PQ. Plasma is the closest "real" technology to me; sorry, I know some LCD's look good but since they aren't pixel emissive I just find them lacking in many ways, and just don't look "real" to me. Anyway, plasma still has some way to come w/ black levels, whites are limited either by peak white limiting circuits or power supply limitations, so, again, yes, I miss CRT's.

I've got CRT's in all my bedrooms, the only way I'll switch to flat panels is if they come out with a decent 32" Plasma or my CRT dies and I can't find a replacement. Yeah, I've got a plasma in the living room and it is good, but pretty far from CRT good. Someday I hope I'll have a flat panel that's CRT good, but I have a feeling 4D HDTV, which will allow you too "see" time, will happen before black levels approach that of CRT. Apparently black levels aren't cool enough yet; seems companies have to go after the iPod market segment first, you know, the people that like "shiny" things despite how limited the feature set. Maybe Panasonic and the remaining Plasma manufacturers could hire Apple's marketing team to get the ball rolling.

Sorry, I know that's a lot of generalization and blanket statements. I'm not a fan of Apple's ANYTHING but I understand that some people like their stuff (as hard as that is to admit).

Well it's too bad Sony canned their FED technology...
http://www.sonyinsider.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/nws12269149538904192.jpg

If Sony had actually put these into production, the question posed by this thread wouldn't have even been asked! :) I wonder what happened to the various prototypes that have been shown in the past... too bad, so sad! ;)

I know some LCD's look good but since they aren't pixel emissive I just find them lacking in many waysI thought I was the only one who felt this way :) I'm really not that bothered by any one of the LCD drawbacks but it is the combination of several of them (as they are all related). Viewing angle, black level, mura/uniformity are all seperate issues that are intrinsically related and significantly affect one another. The combination of them produces what my eyes see as a back-lit billboard type look.

I sincerely hope that pixel emissive tech is our future (OLED,SED,FED....whatever) and the entire idea of a light valve display is shelved.

I just read about about a new LCD display that has edge-lit LED in combination with local dimming and I couldn't help asking myself when is this insanity going to come to an end??

All the above is IMO of course as the masses have absolutely no problem with LCD :)

People are in denial if you think your plasma is much better than a crt monitor. Crt still have better black levels even compared to a kuro. No false contouring, dithering, or rainbow effects. Resolution, geometry, convergance, is the only aspect digitals do better than crt. Color accuracy, black levels, shadow detail, gamma, grayscale, least noise, crt is still the king and reference.

After watching CRTs for over 55 years, I find that my plasma has much better picture quality.

lol. You probably find the size is much better if you where used to watching a small tube. In that case rear projection is better than a small tube tv. But picture quality? No.

Resolution, geometry, convergance, is the only aspect digitals do better than crt.

even these things are absent on a decent flat screen crt monitor.

I can only think of a few things to complain about with my CRT:

-Light bleeding from a bright object on a black screen due to the glass.
-Less resolution on the edges than in the center (small text on the edge can be hard to read).
-Blurriness on a fast moving picture due to the interlaced format (though in practice, I assume it's better than LCD ghosting).
-I know bigger screen size would always be better.

But to me black levels are essential. I remember playing Uncharted 2 last week, in a dark cave with a blue torch, and feeling completely immersed because the image was just as dark and black as it should be.

I understand the Kuro might be on balance as good or a little better than CRT, and that's encouraging, but unfortunately the Kuro is an expensive model and going out of production, which isn't encouraging.

I finally switched from a CRT 2 weeks ago. I don't necessarily miss it because I was informed enough to buy a plasma set and plasma is the right choice for those of us who have a fondness for the look of CRTs (black levels, color accuracy, viewing angles).

If I could go back in time I would still buy the plasma and retire the CRT.

LCD has gotten much better. I have a 2008 50" 720p Samsung plasma in the living room. On the new Bravia I've been able to get the picture suprisingly close even blacks (going off review memory black on the new set is 0.09fl). I'd assume things are even better on LED but have no first hand experience. The Plasma is very good for video but I baby it with static images and do see temporary IR if on a screen too long (goes away in less than 10 seconds).

Having a PC source 90% of the time for the new TV plasma would have been a bad decision. Its also hard to tell which ones have really good picture if you don't do good research because most companies fudge the specs with dynamic ratios. IMO its only been the last year they have focused on improving PQ where it matters. Huge improvement from 2008 to 2009. Though the best black levels I've ever seen are on my ZuneHD but thats OLED ;)

Lol accuracy on a CRT. My god insane amounts of time for connecting a PC and for computers geometry issues all over the place and having to mess with settings all over again any time the resolution was changed. While SD (and even DVD using good inputs and the right display) content may appear better than on LCD/Plasma switch over to any decent HD content and the CRT looks like crap.

even these things are absent on a decent flat screen crt monitor.

umm.. no. They all need to be calibrated regularly for Grayscale AND Geometry. I don't know what you mean by "decent" but even the fabled XBR 960 needs this. Not ONE commercial CRT will do 1080p let alone 1080i. Highest I ever saw was 900 some odd lines or resolution. Most did more like 700 or 800.

Not ONE commercial CRT will do 1080p let alone 1080i.

i refer to a "flat screen monitor" not a crt tv. my pc monitor does 2048x1356, allows multiple resolutions and multiple refresh rates up to 170hz and has a completely flat screen. i've never noticed convergence issues and most importantly, have many times lamented the superior motion resolution, input lag and black detail that simply can not be had with any digital tv today - at any cost. every display needs to be calibrated fwiw. crts like these are still the reference in many areas i believe which is why those post production sets are so ungodly expensive.

My 36" Cinema Series Toshiba can show 1080i in addition to 480p for DVD. It's the best that I have ever seen. Which is probably one of the reasons that it has such staying power over the various flat panels that are available now a days. Its a rare performing TV by many standards. There was no 1080p content when I got my CRT back in 1999.

This model can pass 1080i and 480p signals without any type of modifications (upsampling, scaling etc...) which seems to be one of its strong points. A lot of current HDTV will upscale everything to 1080p and therefore isn't as "pure" unless you are viewing BD at its native 1080p resolution.

I am looking forward to more direct comparisions with a Plasma set if I pull the trigger in 2010.

People are in denial if you think your plasma is much better than a crt monitor. Crt still have better black levels even compared to a kuro. No false contouring, dithering, or rainbow effects. Resolution, geometry, convergance, is the only aspect digitals do better than crt. Color accuracy, black levels, shadow detail, gamma, grayscale, least noise, crt is still the king and reference.

The real argument is CRT vs. LCD and plasma, if we're being honest. CRT had zero black levels like forever, and leads in many more fundamentally important categories. If money (or any other factor) was no object, then a properly developed CRT would have far fewer tradeoffs than either plasma or LCD.

I like LCD most for its convenience; CRTs were hefty and heavy. But I do miss my old Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 22" monitor. Sony also made a beautiful 24" widescreen computer monitor the FW900, which retailed for 2.5K. Either of these properly calibrated would best either LCD or plasma in a similar size. Unfortunately, time and manufacturing and development marched forward and left CRT behind.

Nope....gave my brother my 34xbr960 and haven't once wished to have it back.
Great tv, but not as good overall as my pdp.
Now, if this was a consumer world with only lcd's, then I would still have the xbr960 crt as my main display.

I really miss my 32" CRT for cable TV.
Living in a third-world country, we have only 3 HD channels here, all the others (more than 50) are 4:3 SD.
With HD I love my Pio 500M.

Everyone comparing to top of the line last generation CRT. None of the CRT TV sets I had had this "holy grail" black levels people are describing. The last CRT I had was a used 27" Panasonic I paid $100 for. It didn't even have S-Video. Nor did any of the monitors I ever had for the PC (which were all under $400).

Everyone comparing to top of the line last generation CRT. None of the CRT TV sets I had had this "holy grail" black levels people are describing. The last CRT I had was a used 27" Panasonic I paid $100 for. It didn't even have S-Video. Nor did any of the monitors I ever had for the PC (which were all under $400).

I have NEVER seen a CRT that had poor black levels. The only time I've seen a CRT with poor black levels was when the user didn't know that there was a brightness adjustment. I've still got my Fisher 26" from 1988, my Sony EXR-27" from 91-92, and my Sony 27" TS21 from 1989; they all have full input's and S-Video (which was pretty high end for the time) and all have vastly superior black levels than my old Kuro or any flat panel TV I've owned or seen since.

To me, this argument parallels the tube vs. transistor argument between musicians and audiophiles. While I know that for larger screen sizes I have no choice but to buy a Plasma (I have my reasons for not choosing LCD; and have given LCD a fair chance) but CRT's, which are electron tubes, are sort of like "electrical engineering" pieces of art to me. They are clumsy, heavy, and do have some issues of their own (convergence, geometry, etc..), they they are amazingly complex when you think about how difficult it must have been to engineer a way to "steer" three electron beams across the screen at 15.7khz and higher (horizontally) and 60hz+ (vertically) accurately, and at the same time, still provide the reference point that all flat panels are measured by.

My 36" Cinema Series Toshiba can show 1080i in addition to 480p for DVD. It's the best that I have ever seen. Which is probably one of the reasons that it has such staying power over the various flat panels that are available now a days. Its a rare performing TV by many standards. There was no 1080p content when I got my CRT back in 1999.

This model can pass 1080i and 480p signals without any type of modifications (upsampling, scaling etc...) which seems to be one of its strong points. A lot of current HDTV will upscale everything to 1080p and therefore isn't as "pure" unless you are viewing BD at its native 1080p resolution.

I am looking forward to more direct comparisions with a Plasma set if I pull the trigger in 2010.

Not sure how close our Toshiba sets were as mine was purchased during the summer of 1998, 36" Cinema Series rated at 1080i/480p.

I purchased a Panasonic 42" plasma in 2006 (42-px60u) and compared the two sets side by side for several weeks with SD, HD and DVD content. Since this was three years ago, I have to trust what I think I can remember, but other than some SD content, the px60 was simply night and day better than the Toshiba. Neither set was professionally calibrated but both were adjusted visually using DVE to get the picture as close to their standard as my eyes could see. The blacks appeared better on the plasma from day one.

The Toshiba was a fine set that saw an additional two years of service at my son's home and is now at his father-in-laws home while he is enjoying the 42" Panasonic at his home.

I know the Toshiba was not a dedicated monitor as some of the other posters have referenced their units. I adjusted settings at least once or twice a year to try to keep things as close to a reference standard as possible.

Maybe it is simply digital content looks better to my eyes on the plasma, but since everything today is digital content, that is the more important criteria for me anyway.

I have also sworn that I will never help move that 300 lb. beast again as long as I live. And that I will never go hungry again. But I'l think about that tomorrow.

It sounds like we are talking two different designs or series of the Toshiba CRT. Mine is like a computer monitor in the sense that it has pixels instead of lines that produce the image.

I tried to Google the part number once some time ago and nothing came up on the search. I will have to try it again just out of curiosity. HD was an emerging tech around the millennium so there was probably a lot of odd ball electronics out there.

i refer to a "flat screen monitor" not a crt tv. my pc monitor does 2048x1356, allows multiple resolutions and multiple refresh rates up to 170hz and has a completely flat screen. i've never noticed convergence issues and most importantly, have many times lamented the superior motion resolution, input lag and black detail that simply can not be had with any digital tv today - at any cost. every display needs to be calibrated fwiw. crts like these are still the reference in many areas i believe which is why those post production sets are so ungodly expensive.

Let me guess, 24" FW900? I don't really see how they fit into the discussion they were never used for anything close to home theater use. Nice monitors but they could never make TVs so big and so accurate similar to that monitor or other high end CRT monitors.

Everyone comparing to top of the line last generation CRT. None of the CRT TV sets I had had this "holy grail" black levels people are describing. The last CRT I had was a used 27" Panasonic I paid $100 for. It didn't even have S-Video. Nor did any of the monitors I ever had for the PC (which were all under $400).

Last CRT I had was a 2005 34" Panasonic model. It was one of the better ones, no XBR 960, but damn good. Had HDMI/HDCP 1080i and very deep blacks, it makes a 9g Kuro look gray in comparison. Ended up giving it away since it had absolutely no resale value and was basically a 170lbs paperweight.

I would never go back to it, 34" is too small for HD and sitting closer to a CRT just gets you a blurry picture.

There were quite a number of larger professional flatscreen computer monitors, for instance the 37" and 42" Mitsubishi Megaview Pro. I cannot comment on something I've never seen. At the time, around 1998, 37"+ CRT computer monitors cost over ten thousand dollars and weighed a ton. They can sometimes be found on eBay and Craigslist for under $500, if anyone's curious.

Just like the first commercially available 42" 852x480 plasma displays in 1997 cost over fifteen thousand dollars and weighed a ton. While the Mitsubishi Megaview 42" was capable of running at 1280 x 1024 120Hz.

Of course, CRT development stagnated and plasma and LCD have made tremendous advancements since 1998. It still doesn't change the fact that a similarly sized CRT vs. plasma or LCD would be considered closer to reference... and it's not even close.

i would rather watch tv on my flat screen but...

if we leave size and weight out of it, and talk about the "performance" of cathode ray tube technology as posted in the title,
i sadly can't name one area where crt (as a technology) has been equaled.
some ips lcds have expanded the color gamut - but they come with other problems.

the knee-jerk reactions to crt are not indicative of crt technology imo.
its the antiquated size, weight, and pre-hd resolutions that people remember.
(and i may be wrong but don't think flat screen crts had geometry distortion)
then there's the "my tv is newer and better than yours" syndrome.

previously i mentioned some things crts excel at which are present.
to try and list the flat panel drawbacks that are absent would make this a very long post.
the complaints mentioned so far do not affect my crt monitor which is a gamer's dream.
so i still use it for pc work/play and my flat panel for tv/movies.

Let me guess, 24" FW900? I don't really see how they fit into the discussion they were never used for anything close to home theater use. Nice monitors but they could never make TVs so big and so accurate similar to that monitor or other high end CRT monitors.

Aside from resolution you could get really great CRT quality from direct-view CRTs or RPTVs, too, not just from the FW900. I did have one however, and I want to point out the obvious- there's no plasma or LCD, not the Kuro Elite or the new 8500 LED from Samsung, that can match a tweaked FW900 in pure image quality.

That's your opinion, I'd take a 60" Kuro elite over a 24" anything. With all the processing in Elites, all the controls they are not just displays. I'd like to see a FW900 do 3:3 pulldown and display 24p content at 72hz.

You guys are the minority here. This is not HardForum where people gush over minuscule displays. Small CRTs may have been the pinnacle of performance in their time but they are no longer produced and their bigger cousins were never even close to as good.

If we're taking about subjective opinion, then I find almost all plasmas too dim.... almost like a sheet or veil placed over the screen. And arguing against the brightness of LCD is like arguing against the light of the sun. Again that's my opinion. If we're taking objective fact, modern CRT are measurably better than either LCD or plasma in almost every imaginable category. And it isn't even debatable.

CRTs weren't exactly eye scorchers either, they use the same kind of ABL system plasmas do. They were also prone to blooming which made for low ANSI contrast. All the HD CRTs I'd ever encountered were interlaced which made them unusable for PCs and made for poor motion watching movies.

I still don't understand what you guys miss other than those still going on about PC monitors.

Years ago computers were the vanguard of display tech. Every display advance was introduced first on the PC. Nowadays computers are sometimes the last to get display tech.

Although the HP LP2480zx is an example of what truly amazing LCD can look like... IPS with RGB-LED backlighting. It will bring even the biggest LCD detractor to his/her knees, it will also cost you though. Just like some of these aforementioned older computer monitors are examples of the best CRT had to offer... and have yet to be surpassed.

If we're taking about subjective opinion, then I find almost all plasmas too dim.... almost like a sheet or veil placed over the screen. And arguing against the brightness of LCD is like arguing against the light of the sun. Again that's my opinion. If we're taking objective fact, modern CRT are measurably better than either LCD or plasma in almost every imaginable category. And it isn't even debatable.

I don't want to beat a dead horse but the extra brightness of LCDs makes absolutely no difference to me. I do my critical viewing in low light/no light... like any sensible person should. CRTs weren't bright either.

I still don't understand what you guys miss other than those still going on about PC monitors.

Plasmas and LCDs both have issues which CRT did not.

Plasma- noticeable phosphor lag, dithering
LCD- motion blur, off-angle viewing sucks, uneven backlighting on some

That's a good start if you're asking what do I miss about CRTs.

BTW, CRT RPTVs offered similar (better!) sizes compared to flat panels, and didn't suffer from these serious picture quality issues. They didn't have the absolute black levels that directview had but they did have the same incredible black detail.

...

BTW, CRT RPTVs offered similar (better!) sizes compared to flat panels, and didn't suffer from these serious picture quality issues. They didn't have the absolute black levels that directview had but they did have the same incredible black detail.


I lived with a 57" RPTV CRT set and I don't miss maintaining convergence and geometry, internal reflections, readjusting convergence and geometry, non-uniform grey scale across the screen, varying brightness for off-axis view positions, and re-readjusting convergence and geometry :) Fortunately I don't have any sensitivity to phosphor lag or dithering and find my Kuro plasma much nicer than dealing with the above CRT RPTV issues.

That said, I'm also am one of those that miss my large (21") CRT for computer gaming (low lag, high refresh rate)

Still have and often use a Panasonic Tau CT-36HL42 and still amazed at the HD PQ.

I don't want to beat a dead horse but the extra brightness of LCDs makes absolutely no difference to me. I do my critical viewing in low light/no light... like any sensible person should. CRTs weren't bright either.

In other words, the average LCD has adequate brightness vs. plasma, which was the main point. The extra consideration is there for those viewing LCD in a bright room. Meanwhile some might use any additional brightness as a knock against LCD, hence my comment about the sun.

Again, I find plasma to be dim and eye-fatiguing at times. Early LCD used to make me dizzy. It all depends on our own particular needs and sensitivities.

However a properly calibrated professional computer CRT contained very few compromises to the human eye. And certainly there must be some reason why some production houses have since migrated to RGB-LED IPS LCD screens. Unfortunately not enough people have been exposed to these types of reference quality CRT (and LCD) monitors, due to either price or availability.... which might further explain their poor impression of the tech. Just like some plasma and LCD give each tech a truly bad name. If screen size is your main concern, then yeah, CRT isn't as good a fit. But you still don't know what you are missing.

Plasmas are more than bright enough as long as you aren't really watching anything bright :p

My last CRT was a 36" Hitachi 36SDX01S that I still have in my basement. I consider it one of the best 4:3 tubes made. It also does 480p and 1080i. I'll keep it until it dies, although I do love my Sony SXRD RPTV upstairs more.

Don't miss CRT at all...Mainly because that's just about all I have. Main room Mits WS-65815 RPTV with 9 in CRT tubes. My son has the Sony 34XBR960 in his room and I'm typing on HP version of the Sony GD-FW900.

Only LCD is the Dell 22WFPS that's actually a pretty good LCD monitor in it's own right. Once the Mits dies I'm going Front Projection. FP has really come a long way and they are producing light cannons that can deal with ambient light. Why pay 2500 for high quality 60 in Plasma/LCD when for 1600 you can have 120 in pic?

I think I kind of understand the economics of it, but I still think it's a real shame for enthusiasts that CRT development and production was halted in favor of LCD. One gets an expectation, especially in tech, that the fundamentals will advance. But with display picture quality, and as others have mentioned, the digital music phenomena, this decade was kind of depressing. Even today, local dimming, which attempts to bridge some of the gap, is still not widely implemented...

I do like how flat panels can be much bigger and comforted myself with that....

I'm still using a 65" RPTV, I can't go to LCD/plasma and keep the screen size at an affordable price. Picture is excellent on video, not as crisp as a flat screen when used as a computer monitor. CRT RPTV's are subject to phosphor burn which also makes them a poor choice for computer monitor use.

An important thing the CRT does well is SD material, SD looks terrible on most flat screen TV's. Sure I'd love to see everything in HD, but most material is STILL in SD...

All that being said I too will make the switch to flat screen once prices drop some more on the larger screen sizes.

I don't miss CRT because I still watch only on CRT. And that is because 95 percent of what I watch is 4:3 programming from the 60's and 70's. Having said that... the TV I have now, which has a 3 line digital comb filter does a WAY better job at sharpness than previous displays I've had. It's 27"...I don't believe in huge screen displays, I want my living room to look like a living room... I have a glorious sponge rock stone wall in my living room with crusted quartz crystals and such mixed in, huge floor to ceiling windows, and custom made furnishings.... so needless to say, I don't want a piece of electronics to dominate the room. But if one had a dedicated room for entertainment, then I could see going really big. It mainly depends on your individual needs and viewing habits. I also like high quality direct view CRT with a good source signal because I like good, realistic clarity... but not so MUCH clarity that the ambience and illusion of the show is lost. Somehow being able to see the pores in a actor's face and their nose hairs, or the small nick they did with the razor that morning kind of ruins the mood for me.

The argument seems based upon source material. Anyone who thinks the new FPTV's will outperform crt's with SD content is mistaken. However, almost everything i watch is in HD. Sports, movies, sitcoms, all available in HD. The PQ kills crt's with SD source content-no question about it. Throw in a BD and BOOM! another leap forward! If you buy a FP to watch SD content, you are going to be disappointed. Upgrade to HD source material and watch BD for movies and you will be extremely happy.

This thread doesn't need another opinion, but...

I just got a new 46" LCD/LED (OK, guess which one) to replace my 36" tube set which still works flawlessly.

Guess what? The flat panel set is better at everything. I know the variables, and all-told, even before calibration (and the direct view set was semi-professionally calibrated) the flat panel wins.

As a comparison, my 32" tube widescreen digital set in the bedroom doesn't look as good with any source compared to the 46". IMO this is a great 10-year leap in TV technology, as great as the leap in TV technology from 1955 to 1965.

And no, this isn't LP v. CD!

Don't know how you can compare a 34-inch CRT with a 50-inch anything. Size matters.

I've had a 56-inch Toshiba HD Cinema RP CRT for eight years now. No problems with convergence, color balance, etc. Not to mention Image Retention, Burn-In, motion blurring, screen-door effect or grayscale tracking. Plus, the built-in sound is nearly audiophile, by modern flatscreen standards.

My biggest gripe is the overall fridge-size bulk of the thing. Thought about getting a 50-inch plasma two years ago when they came down around $1200 (half what I paid in 2001). But then I took the front off, dusted off the lenses and it was like buying a new TV.

So....waited another year, 50" plasmas down to $1K. Now that they're down below seven hundred, it might finally be time to park this one at a relative's house and free up some space around here.

I use to have an old Sony WEGA 36" and im glad i got rid of that behemoth. Upgraded to a Vizio 37" VX37... loving it ever since.

I kinda miss not being able to use my tv as a shelf.

I kinda miss not being able to use my tv as a shelf.

+1 :)

Though if you don't wall mount your flat panel, you could always attach a shelf to the mounting holes on the back! :p

I just got a new 46" LCD/LED (OK, guess which one) to replace my 36" tube set which still works flawlessly.

Guess what? The flat panel set is better at everything.

No it's not. Well, I guess it's better at being bigger and higher resolution. But no, an LED LCD doesn't beat a CRT otherwise.

Of course when something is shiny and new, we want to think that it does :cool:

I'm about to replace my old CRT with a ... (second hand) newer one! Sorry but I just can't get used to the LCD image; I almost bought a Panasonic Plasma but still the SD sources have a lot of weaknesses.

...Anyone who thinks the new FPTV's will outperform crt's with SD content is mistaken. However, almost everything i watch is in HD...The PQ kills crt's with SD source content-no question about it...If you buy a FP to watch SD content, you are going to be disappointed...There is a very good reason that CRTs outperform FPs for SD content, which is that CRTs have a natural "ringing" in the video. This acts as a form of natural and very-effective edge enhancement, and is why SD is perceived to have better resolution than it really does on CRTs.

It is also probably the reason we all were not so concerned with resolution back in the day when SD was all we had. Good SD on a good CRT is very watchable. This is the flip side of why SD looks so bad on FPs. It's not just the fact that the larger size makes SD images look fuzzy, and it is not just because we now have an HD standard that we are used to which can act as a point of comparison. It is because CRTs are kind to SD and make it look sharper than it really is, while FPs are more accurate and unforgiving, and DO NOT act to improve perceived resolution of SD.

As for HD, the natural "ringing" capability of CRTs is not an improvement, as the range of frequencies it represents is already represented better by the increased resolution of the FP display itself.

Good CRTs such as the high-end Sony XBRs almost had a 3-D quality to them. I had a 60" Sony RP HDTV (still have it) that had the light bulb burn out in it. For a few days, while I waited for delivery on a new bulb, I pulled my chair up in front of my old 36" XBR and watched DVR content both SD and HD on that. There were definite positive qualities of the CRT that outshined the HDTV, but the other virtues of the HDTV (size and resolution, chiefly) made it no match, especially for HD. Still, there are certain positive qualities in CRT PQ that are missing in FPs.

CRT's seem to have trouble keeping the screen evenly lit. It's much easier to get and keep a sharp, punchy corner-to-corner picture on a flat panel.

Since I never had the money to buy a really good CRT and alway had just so-so CRTs I would say no.

The 52" LCD that I have as my main viewing set now has ~42" SD size and the HD is really good. I realize that the 52" that I bought over 3 years ago is now severly out of date in comparison to a 37" LCD that I bought for my bedroom this year, better scaler, color, black level, controls and adjustments etc...

I will say that I remember SD looking better on my old CRT, but I am not sure if that is because it really was or the screen was so small that the resolution issues were not apparent at the time.

I'm about to replace my old CRT with a ... (second hand) newer one! Sorry but I just can't get used to the LCD image; I almost bought a Panasonic Plasma but still the SD sources have a lot of weaknesses.

And you are saving hundreds of dollars in the process. Used CRT based sets can be had for CHEAP these days.

And you are saving hundreds of dollars in the process. Used CRT based sets can be had for CHEAP these days.

Very true. Currently am emailing a few sellers who are trying to unload their 34" HDTV and 36" Wega Behemoths. With a budget cap of $200 i can get one of these to hold me over for a year or two and they do come with stands.

For those with Plasmas and LCD et al knocking CRT, just remember that the image you're watching was mastered on a high end CRT of some sort:cool:

Very true. Currently am emailing a few sellers who are trying to unload their 34" HDTV and 36" Wega Behemoths. With a budget cap of $200 i can get one of these to hold me over for a year or two and they do come with stands.

For those with Plasmas and LCD et al knocking CRT, just remember that the image you're watching was mastered on a high end CRT of some sort:cool:

Awesome – My neighbor gave my here old 34” HD WEGA when she bought a FP. I’ll have HD in my garage thanks to her. Just need some time and a friend to help mount it. :)

I have the 34" Toshiba CRT HDTV which replaced a 32" LCD 4 or 5 years ago. It consistently produces an outstanding image. Other family members have top of the line Panasonic plasmas but the image on the Toshiba easily holds it's own.

Same here. Absolutely love it.

I have a ten year old 55H70 RPTV and I can tell you I still watch all of my SD material on it. My Plasma still doesn't look as good IMO as my CRT RPTV when I watch SD material. Plus I had a convergence chip go out about two years ago fixed it my self for 70 dollars try that with a FP in regards to fixing anything your self. For a RPTV that is 10 years old it still stuns me how good it looks when I compare it to My Plasma or any current FP. I think one reason it still looks good is because I calibrated it the best it could be with a AVIA disk back in the day.

It seems that Mitsubishi has the answer, but it is still a steep price for most consumers. LaserVue TV (http://www.techfresh.net/mitsubishi-65-inch-laservue-rear-projection-1080p-tv/)

Well it's too bad Sony canned their FED technology...
http://www.sonyinsider.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/nws12269149538904192.jpg

If Sony had actually put these into production, the question posed by this thread wouldn't have even been asked! :) I wonder what happened to the various prototypes that have been shown in the past... too bad, so sad! ;)

Whats to miss in a CRT????

technology have given todays PDP & LCD PQ which is great. Remember CRTs most did not have HD, and those that did were ok.

Whats to miss in a CRT????

technology have given todays PDP & LCD PQ which is great. Remember CRTs most did not have HD, and those that did were ok.

Impluse Driving is one thing:

http://www.fe-tech.co.jp/en/features/img/fe_fig_03.gif
Impulse Drive System
(nano-Spindt FED and CRT)
Assures natural, continuous motion with no blur.

http://www.fe-tech.co.jp/en/features/img/fe_fig_04.gif
Hold-Type Drive System
(PDP and Active Matrix LCD and Organic EL)
Exhibits visible image lag when tracing fast motion.


:) Though I've you've never enjoyed a high quality CRT display, it'd probably be hard to appreciate! However, there are many benefits of a large flat panel...

Whats to miss in a CRT????

technology have given todays PDP & LCD PQ which is great. Remember CRTs most did not have HD, and those that did were ok.

Hmmm, I really don't agree with this. I bought my Toshiba 55H70 CRT HDTV in 1999 and it still looks good to this day for an ancient technology. Lets take a plasma or LCD and see how it looks at 10 years old and compare it with the newer technology of the day. I'm sure we will say the same thing about plasma and lcd it was ok.

The argument seems based upon source material. Anyone who thinks the new FPTV's will outperform crt's with SD content is mistaken.

Well, I don't have a "new" flat panel, I actually have an old one. The Panasonic 42" ED plasma. SD material is a better viewing experience on this plasma than any CRT I ever owned or saw (and that's a lot of them, including the best CRTs).

It looks virtually as smooth and sharp with a good SD signal as the CRTs, but with a bigger more precise, more immersive image. My enjoyment of SD content went way up upon replacing my Panasonic Tau CRT with my 42" plasma.


As to CRT in general: I found I preferred the Panasonic plasmas over CRT even way back in the 4th generation of plasmas (when I bought mine). That was after lots of comparison to the best CRTs available (best Sonys, Toshibas, Loewe, you name it). Yeah the CRTs had the plasma in ultimate black level, but everywhere else I found the plasma image more compelling: it was sharper, more precise, vivid, perfect geometry and flatness, and BIGGER by far. Any decent DVD or HD content was just more compelling and believable on the plasma.

Well, I don't have a "new" flat panel, I actually have an old one. The Panasonic 42" ED plasma. SD material is a better viewing experience on this plasma than any CRT I ever owned or saw (and that's a lot of them, including the best CRTs).

It looks virtually as smooth and sharp with a good SD signal as the CRTs, but with a bigger more precise, more immersive image. My enjoyment of SD content went way up upon replacing my Panasonic Tau CRT with my 42" plasma.


As to CRT in general: I found I preferred the Panasonic plasmas over CRT even way back in the 4th generation of plasmas (when I bought mine). That was after lots of comparison to the best CRTs available (best Sonys, Toshibas, Loewe, you name it). Yeah the CRTs had the plasma in ultimate black level, but everywhere else I found the plasma image more compelling: it was sharper, more precise, vivid, perfect geometry and flatness, and BIGGER by far. Any decent DVD or HD content was just more compelling and believable on the plasma.

I've never actually seen an ED plasma, but I'd imagine it's SD performance would be superior to that of an HD set as there would be no upscaling required.

My first HD set, a Sony RP CRT, was capable of displaying 480p natively and DVDs looked much better on it than the Hitachi RP CRT that replaced it, which has to scale everything to 1080i.

If it were practical, I'd have two sets side-by-side - a 1080p HD set for high-def material and an SD/ED set for standard-def.

Hmmm, I really don't agree with this. I bought my Toshiba 55H70 CRT HDTV in 1999 and it still looks good to this day for an ancient technology. Lets take a plasma or LCD and see how it looks at 10 years old and compare it with the newer technology of the day. I'm sure we will say the same thing about plasma and lcd it was ok.

Most flat panels won't even be working in 10 years. Over 1/2 or our calls are on FP's built after 2006.

I miss everything but the weight of CRT's. I have tried SO many times with LCD's for the bedrooms (32-42" range) and I cannot get used to them. In addition to the problems that are obvious with LCD the one thing really gets to me, the polarized light output and (C)CFL output spectrum. Although they are super bright they look "dark" to me, it's almost indescribable. I kept watching the LCD TV's and no matter what I did with the settings (backlight, contrast, etc..) they always seemed to lack a vital component of light, I'm not sure if it's the directionality of polarized light or the spectral output of the CFL. In another way it's like comparing incandescent to CFL bulbs, CFL's have poor CRI's and bug the hell out of my eyes (like being in a damn grocery store), they are bright but at the same time they do not represent the visible spectrum all that well making them appear dim (well until a certain threshold, though my eyes give up handling the extreme brightness much b4 that happens.)

Well, anyway, moved into a new house and the room that I was going to put my 34" HD CRT in is too small. I thought about buying a moderately priced, decent, LCD display but concluded I'd be better off with my good old 27" Sony Trinitron from 1992 (not only is it a SUPER bright and clear CRT, it also has a very modern and attractive chassis).

I love my 2005 50" Philips plasma with Ambilight. It really helped me get over my old CRT TV. Every time I turn it on, I smile. It's only 720p, not 1080p, but I don't care about that all that much, it's still clear to me as a window on the world. I don't really miss the weight and mass of CRTs either. When it gets old, I'll replace it with a 65" Panasonic plasma with 1080p, or an LCD (if they fix the narrow field of view problem for the current crop of LCDs).

When it comes to black and white performance--other than a 9G Kuro--all other plasmas and LCDs just pain out suck compared to CRT.

That doesn't mean that CRT doesn't suck in a whole lot of other areas.

The one thing I do miss about CRT performance was how well it did black and white.

I miss everything but the weight of CRT's. I have tried SO many times with LCD's for the bedrooms (32-42" range) and I cannot get used to them. In addition to the problems that are obvious with LCD the one thing really gets to me, the polarized light output and (C)CFL output spectrum. Although they are super bright they look "dark" to me, it's almost indescribable. I kept watching the LCD TV's and no matter what I did with the settings (backlight, contrast, etc..) they always seemed to lack a vital component of light, I'm not sure if it's the directionality of polarized light or the spectral output of the CFL. In another way it's like comparing incandescent to CFL bulbs, CFL's have poor CRI's and bug the hell out of my eyes (like being in a damn grocery store), they are bright but at the same time they do not represent the visible spectrum all that well making them appear dim (well until a certain threshold, though my eyes give up handling the extreme brightness much b4 that happens.)

Well, anyway, moved into a new house and the room that I was going to put my 34" HD CRT in is too small. I thought about buying a moderately priced, decent, LCD display but concluded I'd be better off with my good old 27" Sony Trinitron from 1992 (not only is it a SUPER bright and clear CRT, it also has a very modern and attractive chassis).

You should check out a plasma. Pioneer and Panasonic have come very close to CRT image quality, IMO. My 500M gives up very little to the best CRTs. Slight loss of black detail and level compared to how I remember my FW900, that's it. Also, it was nice having to have 480p and 720p in their native resolutions ;)

One thing I love about the newer displays is the ability to display 1080p without overscan. Full pixel perfection! I buy everything on Blu-ray anymore.

One thing I love about the newer displays is the ability to display 1080p without overscan. Full pixel perfection!

Agreed :) Also, yes, I do have a plasma in the living room and it looks pretty fantastic. I dove into the whole 8G Pioneer's being vastly superior thing only to realize it was just a modest decrease in black level over the current gen Panasonic I'd had. I hear the KRP's are supposed to be quite amazing but unfortunately I've never seen one and I am not buying sight unseen with TV's anymore (still love to see one tho).

I had an ISF calibrated 1080i CRT RPTV and recently went to a little bigger 720p plasma. I think the CRT handled motion a little better, the plasma seems a bit jerky and it doesn't quite have the "pop" my CRT had with HD images. But I won't miss re-doing the convergence, cleaning the optics, or the bad viewing angles at all. Not to mention it's so much easier to see the plasma during the day.

For 6 years, I had one of the best CRT RPTVs you could buy, the Mitsubishi Diamond WS-55908. Professionally ISF'd to the nines.

Now I have a Pioneer Kuro 151FD 60" and I don't miss CRT one bit. Color, detail, geometry, there is nothing that (great) CRT did better than my plasma!

My 500M gives up very little to the best CRTs. Slight loss of black detail and level compared to how I remember my FW900, that's it.
Really?

I'm going to guess that your 500M isn't calibrated to bring out the absolute best picture it can possibly put out.

My 500M in ISF-Day (calibrated by D-NIce) shows every single bit of dark detail. It loses out on nothing.