Would you consider CRT technology superior to LCD or Plasma? - Page 2

I do think the consumer is being smarter this time around. With nearly 70 percent of the country now owning HD sets, sales are starting to go down (stock in Best Buy dropped due to the lack of television sets they anticipated would be sold) and so the industry is trying to convince consumers that they need to buy new LCDs because they are way better than those purchased just a few years ago due to "advancements" like LED lighting, higher contrast ratios, black levels, refresh rates and more primary colors. LED still does not create a brighter picture at off-angle and those higher rates create differences which can only be measured on laboratory equipment. So it's still the same old lack of truth in advertising.

It's also sad to read the comments about CRT posted in the attached. Another example of today's consumer knowing so little about CRT technology, providing compliments only in relationship to standard definition material. Only the last post does one praise CRT, correctly citing that there are just no more HD CRTs in production today and that's why the resolution of those 4x3 sets still sold today don't look as good as LCDs.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...8045051AAXkoJb

CRT technology is nice - I still have a 30" HD set in my bedroom. Because of the way it scans an image it it basically impossible for it to that true 1080i resolution and it would be impossible of a reasonably priced CRT to do 1080p. In terms of picture quality I would say the CRT has one of the best pictures. CRT phosphors will decay after time and the brightness will be reduced but it does have a long lifespan. Can a good plasma replicate the quality of a CRT - I would say yes. If OLED technology finally comes out in a large screen format at a reasonable price it would be superior to a CRT.

The point is CRT just like vacuum tubes a not current technology and because of the bulk and weight a large screen CRT TV they are no longer produced.

I still think the best CRT would better the best plasma.. CRT technology has been around much longer & pretty much has been perfected to some degree. Plasma still has a way to go, & I don't see plasma technology lasting much longer. pioneer is getting out of the plasma business, & they made the best plasma ever. To get close to CRT blacks you need to spend between 5-12 grand..

What really opened my eyes to the reality of LCD displays was when I "upgraded" my CRT monitor to a LCD. I was genuinely stunned at how poor the LCD display was in detail and over all picture quality. I had to take it back to Best Buy, I couldn't live with it.

It was a few years ago but it was the best LCD in the store in that size, a Sammy. I would shift in my chair and the display would fade out, even vanish. It looked grainy and games that I was familiar with on CRT looked awful. It was made of plastic and very light, like a cheap toy. I gave myself two weeks with it to make sure I wasn't tripping, and the monitor really was as bad as it seemed.

The flaws seemed so intrinsic to the whole LCD design that I never have considered giving them another chance. I have no doubt they have improved since then, but I don't believe they are good enough yet to best my GDM FW900.

What does a great 24 inch LCD monitor cost? $800 or $1000? Would they be any better than my $250 craigslist special FW900? Then many LCDs are in the $300 to $500 range. That is cheap for cutting edge technology, how would one of those in that price range compare? The FW900 was over $2000 when it came out. It was a top of the line product of perfected technology, if these current LCDs were anything comparable, how can they be sold for under $1000? You get what you pay for, that is my point.

Paul,

I'm confused about how for the way your CRT scans it is "basically impossible for it do that true 1080i resolution". What is the resolution you believe your set actually displays?

Yes, vinyl sounds better because they're not affected by the loudness war

Most LCD computer monitors are poor quality, using the cheapest panel technologies. The best LCD monitors are much better all round and you shouldn't accept anything less when buying an LCD.

Most people are very undiscerning. They listen to low bitrate MP3s, buy surround sound systems that are all subwoofer, buy large LCD televisions and plug them in via composite cables and say "ooh it's so clear". Many retailers hardly stock Blu-rays nearly five years after introduction.

In buying a television improving the picture quality experience comes below wanting to feel they've got something substantial in size, buzz-words and modernty to feel like they've kept up socially.Having a CRT is seen to be like driving an old rust bucket car. It is a foolish way of thinking but very common.

Though off topic, vinyl did have a unique, pleasing mellow sound to it, especially in vocals, however, the problem was limited dynamic range between low and loud passages which IMHO couldn't provide the fuller sound we get on CD. I know in the early eighties Telarc came out with LPs that expanded the dynamics which included use of an actual cannon in the late Eric Kunzel's recording of the 1812 overture which was a gimmick, just like cranking up the volume of the subwoofer is today.

Compared to CRT, flat screens remind me of how baseball has been set up since 1994. Fans find it exciting but in actuality it water downs the season by enabling mediocre teams to compete in races for post-season berths thanks to three small divisions and a wild card. What was once a battle between two champions surviving a grueling 162 game winner take all division race followed by the world series is now an elimination tournament more than anything else. In the old two-division set-up, both this year's world series representatives would have gone home after game 162.

As you implied, people are settling for less thinking they are getting more.

Because of the way a CRT uses scan lines to "paint the screen" you have an electronic beam painting one scan line at a time and doing 540 lines then the next 540 lines - you see the 1080i because of phosphor retention on the screen. My Toshiba is a 1080i set - however in real world test reviews it was stated the maximum resolution it could display is is about 800 lines of resolution. It doesn't bother me because at the distance I view the 30" set I wouldn't see any more detail on a 1080p set.

The the way I understand it is the mask on the TV has to large enough to allow a sufficient number of electrons to pass through to get a satisfactory brightness. If you make a finer mask you get a higher resolution but you cut down the brightness. So TV manufacturers made a trade off to get a satisfactory brightness level. Some sets can get a higher resolution but usually not enough to get to 1080i at a reasonable price. Broadcast CRT monitors could achieve 1080i but at a very high cost which the general public was not prepared to spend.

yeah, 800-900 lines.. The SFP does 1,401 lines.. I believe there are some high end CRT monitors that display 1080p, but are very costly & strictly for pro use.. CRT is still the technology being used for those applications cause they are more accurate.. I just know of the Sony 24inch monster monitor that weights 200lbs..

I see, so it depended upon the set itself and how much work the manufacturer wanted to put into it to make it cost-effective. I have a Sony KD34XBR960, a 34 inch CRT which originally sold for $2,500 back in 2004 and was reduced to $2,000 a year later, one of the most expensive HD CRTs at that time (and my only piece of reference-grade equipment ) so the situation might be different.

Since your Toshiba is only 30 inches, the 800 lines of resolution would be more than sufficient since today's LCDs (except for the high end models) only utilize 720p and, to be honest, 1080p has been found to be unnecessary for that size a screen.

If you mean the 34 inch KD34XBR960, then it weighs more like 230 pounds and is 26 inches deep. Though it cost me extra to have the stand shipped beforehand, it was worth the expense since the delivery guys were able to lift it up onto the stand - if it came the same time as the set, am sure they would not have waited around till I put the stand together which means I'd either have had my third hernia operation or be forced to watch it on the floor.

& don't forget the wife factor, who wants a nice, slim, light TV that fits in small places & doesn't stick out..

The stigma is, CRT is just old & not as good as newer tech.. My favorite closed headphone is the NAGRA DT48 from the 50's & betters a lot of high end headphones today IMO.

Yes, so true. Over the weekend my son's girlfriend (age 23?) stuck her head in while I was watching my 34" CRT. With a condescending voice and a facial expression to match she said "We used to have a big TV like that." I just smiled and chuckled to myself. If ignorance is really bliss, she must have been really happy at that moment.

The insatiable need to have a flat TV has never really resonated with me; how hard is it to find space for a deep TV? Mine is in the corner - what was I going to put there - a house plant? Its not like I was going to spend any time standing in that corner anyway. The set is not in the way and is viewable from any angle and any spot in the room without picture degradation.

At this point I'll just keep tooling along in my old rust bucket car as long as the wheels keep rolling. The hip kids will think I'm uncool, but I'm past the age of caring.

I believe you're misunderstanding the specs. Given a standard 1920x1080i video signal, your set will achieve a full 1080 lines of vertical resolution (the number of horizontal scan lines) but the equivalent of only about 800 lines of horizontal resolution (the number of vertical scan lines). Although specifying lines of horizontal resolution in the crt analog world is inappropriate.

The most a consumer market CRT can do is 1,401X1080i.. Oddly enough, it's more revealing then my fathers 61inch 1080p display.. In theory my fathers tv should look sharper & more detailed, but it's not.

My Samsung HD CRT has 800 lines & looks muddy compared to my SFP 910.. Not night & day.. But very noticeable.. I have a new appreciation for BR cause of my 910..

I read this forum and though it needed a dissenting opinion. As a side note, I do not think it is fair to compare CRTs to DLP or rear projection sets. Those sets tend to be plagued with angle viewing and brightness issues. The current standard is LED or plasma sets.

I was once a proud owner of a Sony 36 inch HDTV CRT circa 2002. The picture quality was very good. One problem I did have with it was a green tinged color distortion on the top left corner. I had a service rep come out and he could not fix it. I had that TV for close to 4 years through. I moved it from my apartment to my first house. When it came time to move again, I could not deal with the prospect of moving it again. Two of use moved that 250 lbs. tv and it nearly killed me. I actually sold it to the people that bought my house.

Were the black levels better than my 50" plasma or 92" projector screen? Yes they were. The sharpness of smaller screens always appears better, especially for standard def content. I do not watch much SD anymore however. My front projector which again does not match the old Sony in terms of black level offers a better movie watching experience. The giant screen recreates an eveloping theater experience. My plasma which is mounted above my fireplace is ideal for my living room. The CRT would be simply too small for my seating which is about 12-15 feet away.

For purists who want a 300 lbs set, these crts are readily and cheaply available. 40 inch XBRs are available for $300. The new technologies have led to larger cheaper HDTV screens for the masses. While not performing as well technically, size does matter and I think greatly contributes to the movie watching experience.

I think we can all agree that it comes down to preference and there is no right or wrong in the matter. Obviously one gets a beautiful picture with a large screen LCD or Plasma too. Those who are aware of the advantages of CRT picture quality but are happy with larger screens find it worth the trade off. The same applies to those of us who are aware of the advantages of larger screens but are happier retaining the picture quality found in a good CRT.

The reason I tout CRT so much is not so much to belittle flat screen technology but to respond to the many who ridicule CRT as old and outdated and unable to match the picture quality of today's LCDs/LEDs and Plasmas. Call it a defensive reaction.

I get SOOO tired of companies advertising "the worlds first ___ LED TV" When they really mean backlit LCD. Knowing the consumer has been told about LED tech and the brilliant colors like the two small Sony units. False advertising.

Exageration has always been the game of the advertising industry.

The consumer electronics industry in particular is guilty of misleading the public by telling consumers they need to replace the flat screen sets they purchased just a few years ago, emphasizing how much better picture quality they could now experience thanks to the "advantages" of LED lighting, higher refresh rates, contrast ratios, etc. Those "improvements" have no effect on picture quality since what can be measured on laboratory equipment cannot be seen by the human eye.

And to prove their points, they provide visual demonstrations which are exaggerated so much that they are outright deceptive. For example, I've seen demos for motion lag on 60 compared to 120 hz refresh rates with a bouncing basketball appearing more oval than round - with a legal disclaimer underneath stating exaggerated for demonstration purposes. I've never seen such distortion on the LCD we also have of which the refresh rate is only 60 hz -- in fact, I've never seen any problem with motion in the year we've owned it.

Same held true with a side by side bluray comparision. Our DVDs never appear as blurry with the color as pale as the demo suggested. I suspect that the DVD portion showed how a DVD appears at 480i via component cables without any up-conversion.

Came across the attached article which details how much exaggeration and misleading information is put out by television manufacturers with the author presenting evidence, both technical and physiological, proving these claims are nothing more than hype to make consumers think they need to buy newer sets (something most of us here already knew). While most of the article was over my head, the points made were quite clear indeed.


http://www.maximumpc.com/article/fea...ok_their_specs

Joe

Just like the Paramount Blu ray animation, where the pic starts dark and dingy, and the "curtain" opens to the bright, clear world of blu ray.

Totally agree. Not really a dissenting opinion but bringing some balance to the gushing outpourings of the CRT fanboys, LOL.


Couldn't agree more. I wager most of us use plasma or lcd technologies along with CRT. I love my plasma and lcd sets for what they can bring and they are certainly superior to CRT in many aspects as noted by PDXscreen. This thread is the venting area for those of us like me and Joseph Dubin who feel slighted when all the cool kids laugh at us for having "old, outdated, and inferior" tech.

Regarding the above comments on "improvements", I also have to agree. In the 80s and 90s, families rarely bought a new television set. HDTV then came along and gave many of us a reason to upgrade. The flat screen market became a revenue problem for many companies. These manufacturers went to war with each other and prices were slashed resulting in decreasing profit margins. The only way to keep both prices and sales up was to try to rev up demand with marginal improvements. The first thing we saw was 1080p sets and associated blu ray hardware. Next we had about a year where 120 hz sets were introduced. The next piece is 3D.

At my viewing distance on a 50 inch screen I think 1080p makes little noticeable difference. On my 92 inch projector, it is a clear difference. Personally, I have not been impressed with 3D in the theater or in store demos. I end up distracted from the movie and eventually get a headache. 3D is the current meal ticket for tv manufacturers. If they can get 3D to catch on, they are looking at upgrades for millions more. In the end, there is more marketing than technology at work.

In terms of PQ, not really, unless you want to buy a flagship plasma/LED. & you still have the contrast/black levels that no technology has caught up to or surpassed yet. I'm sure Sharps 12,000 LED will deliver a better picture. I know the blacks are stellar & betters the Kuro's according to one reviewer..

It's just funny that you have to pay extra to get close or equal contrast/blacks of an 'old' & 'obsolete' technology. Companies market flat panels as better cause they cost more & less shipping cost.. This goes as far back as 05.. When LCD was in it's ghosting & grey stage.

I have no doubt LED will surpass CRT in every area in another 10-20 yrs, but, by then a better technology will be introduced.

And yet there are those who replace their television monitors almost every year, swearing they see MAJOR improvements in picture quality (quoting those black levels, refresh rates, etc.) between their new set and more expensive "high end" model from even twelve months before. There was one from another forum who referred to himself as a real "videophile" and claimed his two year old high tier plasma paled in comparision to what he just replaced it with. This "expert" also berated CRT technology, saying it couldn't come close to the levels of black, contrast and picture quality produced by flat screens. He also professed seeing BIG differences between 720p and 1080p resolution on 32 inch sets and that up-converted DVD compared to bluray was garbage and unwatchable - even though he had already gone through countless numbers of bluray players too.

After a certain age, those going to such extremes probably feel better about the quality of their own life by transferring it to their audio/video equipment.

Agreed. The superior aspects of plasma and LCD for me are larger picture size, narrower depth (which I only care about when my wife does, LOL), and that somewhat amorphous quality I might call the "WOW factor" or "POP". The latter particularly applies to LCD, which can be painfully sharp to the point that everything looks unnatural, but which many people enjoy (as do I depending on the material, in other instances I don't like it). I prefer my 50" plasma for sports because motion blur is not an issue and the larger picture allows me to see more of the action details.

That last sentence is one of the most salient and funny lines I've read on the AVSforum. I can certainly see some truth to that in myself as well, and it probably applies to some extent to all of us who regularly patrol these hallowed caverns.

" After a certain age, those going to such extremes probably feel better about the quality of their own life by transferring it to their audio/video equipment."

"That last sentence is one of the most salient and funny lines I've read on the AVSforum. I can certainly see some truth to that in myself as well, and it probably applies to some extent to all of us who regularly patrol these hallowed caverns."

Good to know that after a lifetime of therapy I at least got something out of it!

People who spend a lot of money on stuff like this "need" to see an improvement to justify their expenditure. The human mind is a tricky thing and will convince them that their new toy is clearly better than the old one, even if it really isn't.

People like the one you mention, who have a revolving door of technology in their home, are the least reliable people for objective impressions.

QVC tonight has a Sharp Aquos as it's top value. They opened their presentation emphasizing how the addition of yellow as the fourth primary color brought in truer shades of yellow that could never be seen on HD monitors before.

No doubt the individual I spoke about would claim he could see it, however, as the article I recently posted explained, it is physically impossible to produce any additional colors that the human eye can see beyond those composed of the three primary colors of red, green and blue. All the fourth color does is oversaturate the yellow. There are those who responded to the article claiming that the expanded color gaumat offsets other technical shortcomings within the pixils, etc., however, the author pointed out, that expansion would only cause what the viewer sees not to resemble the original source. Instead, it would be artificial.

I used to be a CRT fanatic myself and have owned many many along the way. Eventhough im in EU we still have had some killer sets and my last one was a Sony HQ100 which is a XBR960 in the US.....the blacks, contrast, depth and overall PQ was first rate but since I got a Pio 101FD I havent missed the CRT one bit. If you CRT fans are after quality imagery, then the best of Kuro's are it. I still havent seen an LCD I can live with though, they seem so fake somehow......anyway all my needs have been fulfilled with the 101FD and havent looked back ever since.

I seen a 7,000 Samsung LED that IMO has better PQ then the 960.. No one is saying it's impossible.. You will just need to pay more for CRT type blacks & contrasts. I think getting a free high end CRT is a much better deal then a Kuro. Nothing under 40inches will best a good CTR in PQ IMO.