Would you consider CRT technology superior to LCD or Plasma? - Page 3

Also have the 960 (i.e., HQ100) and love it. Of course the set you have offers a beautiful picture as well but few can afford the best of the Kuros and the minimal difference in picture quality for most would not justify such cost. The reason I say the difference would be minimal is not to put down the great top of the line Kuros but rather to reiterate that the 960 is still reference grade as well.

The advantage of the Kuros, of course, is the larger screen as long as that blends into the contour of one's viewing space.

Of course a high-end crt for almost nothing beats paying several $$$$, a high-end LED will give you quality PQ but they still lack that special something imo.




Yeah I really liked the HQ100 but 36inch gets a bit too small after awhile but I totally get what your saying......everytime I fire the 101FD with BD its like a big CRT but somehow even better, but yeah quality costs and even then most tv's cant fully compete with the HQ100.

I'd say CRT is much better than lcd. I have yet to see a LCD that has a better quality image than my Nec Multisync XP37+ at 36" viewable. This CRT is a monster. It syncs up to QXGA(2048x1536) and syncs easily to the XBOX360.
It does 720p120 easily.

Wow that sounds amazing. Making me drool here haha.

CRT has a film like quality that all digital displays lack, as they tend to look digital..LCD/LED more so..

And live transmissions seen on CRT appear more like looking through a window due to the more natural effect that LCD lacks plus a sense of dimension that cannot be reproduced on any type of flat screen.

CRt's do have a special look to them, especially them highend ones. But with high quality sources its possible to achieve as good or better imagery imo....but as mentioned I have only witnessed it on the best of Kuro's, cuz they really do have enormous contrast and dynamic range along with blacks. I saw Baraka on BD last night and man what a PQ to behold. But when it comes to gaming 2D games like on the Neo-Geo, Atomiswave etc I use a quality CRT, looks so good.

I just consider myself fortunate that I purchased my Sony KD34XBR960 when I did because it came out at the time that the industry began touting how "obsolete" and "inferior" CRT technology was compared to flat screens. I kind of thought so seeing how much more expensive LCDs and Plasmas were at the time compared to the Sony and figured they had to be better for that reason alone.

Glad I was looking to save a few bucks. Purchasing a cheaper CRT got me reference grade quality that today only the most expensive Plasmas come close to matching and I still don't know if they produce the same sense of depth that CRTs are able to - do they (from what I've seen they still appear flat like a photograph but I haven't seen the Kuros).

Geese, the HQ100 is a cut down version of the XBR series and doesn't support a HD signal so it isn't really apples with apples.

Now that makes a BIG DIFFERENCE. Geese, how could you compare any standard definition set to a KURO? We're talking about high definition CRTS and to imply what you had was the equivalent to the reference grade 960 was misleading

Don't think any of us are interested in standard defintion performance, although in that sense, there is no way anything would beat a CRT.

No No im not misleading anyone, yes it lacks Hd inputs etc but any source given to it especially dvd's will be upconverted......there is a clear difference when compared to other high quality CRT's in that regard. I had a big chat with a Sony engineer about this.

I was watching Aliens & Aliens 3 on my 960.. & just shook my head how anyone would consider CRT technology obsolete.. The PQ destroyed my fathers 61inch 1080p DLP.. Even with a bigger screen & 1080p, the 960 was more resolving & detailed.. People who feel CRTs are obsolete have no clue, especially if you get it calibrated.. I'd put the 960 against any display regardless of cost, & the 960 wouldn't be embarrassed at all.

Inferior my ass.. That's just greed talking..

Perhaps there are some misunderstandings here.

By HD input, do you mean just lacking a DVI/HDMI while still having component or no HD inputs at all?

Now, if it lacks all types of HD inputs, then it certainly would not up-convert to 1080 since that doesn't make sense. In that case, perhaps the engineer meant upconverting from 480i to 480p? If it does have component inputs for HD, remember that while very good, most prefer HDMI for top performance.

KBI,

The problem with screens as big as your father's 61 inch DLP is that they could not possibly present as sharp a picture as a smaller screen regardless the technology because the picture is more stretched out without any additional resolution and thus, like Silly Putty, the more it is stretched the more it has to appear of lesser quality.

That's another thing many consumers don't realize -- they are giving up more in picture quality as the size gets larger even within Plasma, LCD or DLP, something the industry doesn't want people to understand when they talk about being blown away by those big sized sets.., let alone CRT!

It lacks any HD inputs but uses RGB, the tube still has 1440x900 if im not mistaken and they will all be utilized. I also owned the last of Panny high-end set named PD50 and that one too had the SR ( super resolution ) tube with the acuity system which once activated say with a DVD, kicked started the whole TV to deliver and utilize to its full potential. But I prefered the HQ100 as it showed more crispness and looked sharper with huge contrast abilities.........make no mistake about it cuz with a high quality source the Sony looks more defined and overall better than many sets available today showing HD material, atleast thats how I see it. The only reason people say CRT's are obsolete is because they have been around for ages and look bulky with small screen sizes, they much rather have a flat tv with a good design than quality imagery. Lets not kid ourselves cuz crt's do have issues too but for overall PQ they are still a force imo.

right on target!

I would consider any CRT Tv that upconverts to HD(does not go back down to SD)(ex. horrible KV-32XBR400 as bad) since there's so much loss. A CRT needs to have multisync. Not some grainy 480i to 1080i.
When your TV can go down to 320x240 or display 720p at 120hz perfectly, now you have a real TV. RGB and VGA are HD inputs. My Nec has RGB H\\V, VGA and component. Geese, your TV only has a scart input, well, that can be modified if you have the willpower to make a VGA input out of it.
http://www.mythtv.org/wiki/RGB_Scart
The XBR960 has HDMI, which solves this problem.
By the way, at what vertical frequency does the kd34xbr960 max out and what is it's maximum horizontal frequency?
Mine is 95.1 khz Horizontal at 2048x1536 and 120hz vertical at 720p (obviously higher is possible at lower resolutions.

The CE industry uses so much false information to make consumers think the picture quality of the new HD monitors (especially those with 3D) are dramatically better than those made just a few years ago. One of the points they cite, as we all know, is the increased "dynamic contrast" ratio.

I have the dynamic contrast setting at it's lowest point on my one-year old LCD. Well, last night I was curious if increasing the dynamic contrast in the "advanced" settings would improve picture quality so I got out my THX Optimizer and gave it a shot. Know what happened? All that appeared was one large bright box instead of the eight that must be made distinguishable from each other to obtain the precise contrast balance recommended by THX.

This advanced feature makes the picture better? All it did was create a too vivid one that was both artificial and harsh, no matter how one then adjusted the regular contrast and brightness controls. So what the CE industry touts as an improvement is nothing of the sort - just another "trick" to get consumers to replace what they already have. Yes, consumers will see a difference in picture but it won't be an improved one - just an inaccurate representation of the source material.

Those who tout all these features that flat screens have which are supposed to make them superior to that of CRT technology should take this example into consideration. Again, those more "dynamic" numbers are meaningless specifications that only apply to measurements on lab equipment.

I think a HD receiver with a SD CRT still gives pretty good quality so long as you don't use RF or composite. I'd prefer that over most flat panels for sure.


CRTs sold outside North America seldom had DVI or HDMI. Hey, many flat panels sold outside NA didn't have DVI/HDMI until 2006


HD was very slow to take off outside the USA and many countries still don't have broadcasts or HD camera workflows. When CRT TVs were still being sold there were few HD broadcasts in Europe and a general ignorance of HD so television companies usually sold their HD TVs without the electronics to support a HD signal even if the tube does 1080i. Sets like the HQ100 scale SD to 1080i or progressive.

480i is rare outside North America. Standard definition means 576i in most countries. 576i has 1/3rd more resolution than 480i but only 5/6th of the fields per second.


Pixel pitch is important and 1080 isn't as much as people think it is.

It looks like soon no high quality plasmas will be available below 55". I think plasma televisions are viewed as a sunset technology with the emphasis on larger, cheaper to produce panels over improvements in display quality.

The lack of quality 42" panels is a pain for buyers outside the USA where most television viewing will not be in HD until next decade.


It has the same 1080x1440 superfine pitch tube as the HRs and XBR9x0s. I don't think RGBS supports HD. RGBHV aka VGA supports HD and was found in the HR series sold in the East.
Reportedly some PD50s slipped through with support for a HD signal.

The CRT technology was mature enough to produce a 2400 lpi resolution way back in the early 90's. The electron beam technology that is used to write the smallest semiconductor chips and master images is as small a 20 nanometers, and an equivalent of 80,000 lpi and scan at a rate of 100Mhz.

Let's not confuse format with resolution. Interlaced or 1080i is a format that provides inter-pixels visual information that fills gaps between larger pixels on a 720 pixel display, and 1080p is a progressive scaned image that overlaps larger pixel arrayed screens. Each format is intended to produce better sharper, more fine detail imagery, and provides 'virtual' resolution with the use of software to extrapolate a lower resolution screen array that is fixed in pixel resolution. In an LCD, LED or plasma a screen, this formating is necessary because the pixel size is in most cases too large to have that many pixels.
Someday the semiconductor and photonics technology that exists today will catch up and be able to be used in todays consumer market, but we're a long way from that. In terms of scaling, it would be hard pressed to achieve 10,000 lpi absolute resolution from LED, LCD or Plasma, ever.

A CRT is flexible, with an ability to vary the beam size and scan rate, and in good high end commercial and labroatory CRT's the resolutions are far better than 5000 lpi today.
A modern consumer grade HD CRT that uses the interlaced or progressive HDTV formats are not bothered by the interlacing or progressive restraints on resolution that LCD, LED, and Plasma TV's have, they actually have the ability to tune the beam and display real 1080 x 1920 lpi resolution (or better!)

I own two CRT 16:9 HDTV's a 34" Zenith C34W37 (bought in Christmas 2004) and Samsung 30" Slim Line (bought in Sept 2008). Both sets have absolute 1080 resolution when using HDTV input signals, and can automatically adjust to any signal format, 480p, 720p, 1080i/p and have HDMI inputs like any modern flat panel TV. The Zentih has some beautiful picture resolution when using the DVI input and a PC with HD graphics card, gets stunning 2400 dpi resolution. Even sitting at 12' away the Zenith has more visulal imagery than the best Plasma HDTV twice the size.

CRT's are way ahead of the other technologies, and most people don't realize it is a manufacurer's ploy to get us to by flat panel TV's because if the CRT technology that exists today got into the consumer market the public would be amazed and feel they were dupped.

The CRT technology was mature enough to produce a 2400 lpi resolution way back in the early 90's. The electron beam technology that is used to write the smallest semisonductor chips and master images is as small a 20 nanometers, and an equivalent of 80,000 lpi.

Let's not confuse format with resolution. Interlaced or 1080i is a format that provides inter-pixels visual information that fills gaps between larger pixels on a 720 pixel display, and 1080p is a progressive scaned image that overlaps larger pixel arrayed screens. Each format is intended to produce better sharper, more fine detail imagery, and provides 'virtual' resolution with the use of software to extrapolate a lower resolution screen array that is fixed in pixel resolution. In an LCD, LED or plasma a screen, this formating is necessary because the pixel size is in most cases too large to have that many pixels.
Someday the semiconductor and photonics technology that exists today will catch up and be able to be used in todays consumer market, but we're a long way from that. In terms of scaling, it would be hard pressed to achieve 10,000 lpi absolute resolution from LED, LCD or Plasma, ever.

A CRT is flexible, with an ability to vary the beam size and scan rate, and in good high end commercial and labroatory CRT's the resolutions are far better than 5000 lpi today.
A modern consumer grade HD CRT that uses the interlaced or progressive HDTV formats are not bothered by the interlacing or progressive restraints on resolution that LCD, LED, and Plasma TV's have, they actually have the ability to tune the beam and display real 1080 x 1920 lpi resolution (or better!)

I own two CRT 16:9 HDTV's a 34" Zenith C34W37 (bougth in Christmas 2004) and Samsung 30" Slim Line (bougth in Sept 2008). Both sets have absolute 1080 resolution when using HDTV input signals, and can automatically adjust to any signal format, 480p, 720p, 1080i/p and have HDMI inputs like any modern flat panel TV. The Zentih has some beautiful picture resolution when using the DVI input and a PC with HD graphics card, gets stunning 2400 dpi resolution. Even sitting at 12' away the Zenith has more visulal imagery than the best Plasma HDTV twice the size.

CRT's are way ahead of the other technologies, and most people don't realize it is a manufacurer's ploy to get us to by flat panel TV's because if the CRT technology that exists today got into the consumer market the public would be amazed and feel they were dupped.

Hands down CRT technology is superior to LCD or plasma, when considering picture quality. LCD and plasma try to achieve CRT quality with each product iteration.

When considering picture quality only, plasma technology is the only one so far to get close to CRT. LCD shouldn't even be mentioned in the discussion. And true LED is just too expensive. I have a 60" Kuro Elite 141 monitor. It is the best picture I've ever seen amongst the flat screen technologies.

But its' no CRT.

I currently own a Sony 34XBR960, Sony GDM-FW900(PC) and a Pioneer Kuro 5080HD plasma.

I love my CRTs but Plasma has come a long way, I bought the Plasma 3 years ago and its the TV everyone prefers to use in this house. The picture is brighter than either of the CRTs and also has amazing black levels, also no worries of geometry / convergence / corner to corner focus issues.

Motion isnt as smooth on the plasma but its still very good (better than LCD's typical motion blur symptoms) I have Xbox360/PS3/Wii hooked up and it has been an amazing performer.

Input lag was a concern but after doing some tests and taking several pics (example) I found the avg. input lag to be around 23ms vs the CRT which hasnt been an issue with gaming, It was worse with VGA but once I switched to HDMI it brought down the lag numbers quite a bit (VGA was around 45ms lag!).

Each technology has its own inherent flaws.

But for example watching a Bluray on the Plasma and then on the XBR960 it isnt the same experience on the CRT.. Bigger screen size goes a long way here but also the plasmas brighter picture + deep black levels combo just makes for a more impressive image.

Since this is a which technology is superior thread It's worth noting the Sony FW900 CRT is outstanding, I run it at 1920x1200@85hz and the picture is crisp(max res is 2304x1440) it also has the best geometry / convergence ive seen on a CRT, the only downside is the contrast output is slightly lacking (dim) but still brighter than a shadow mask based CRT. Overall the FW900 has more of a "reference" look to it vs the XBR & Plasma, It's very accurate without any colors looking overblown etc.

Some off screen pics ive taken over the years:

Sony FW900: (Men in Black HD)

Sony 34XBR960: (Bluray 1080i)

Pioneer 5080HD: [Bluray 1080p)

crt is king over any plasma ever produced (pioneer, panny, samsung) or lcd (sony, samsung, ) period!

Agreed.. No ther technology gives you a true film like experience.. Theres always a digitized look, albeit minor or not when it comes to flat panels.. As good as the Kuro is, it lacks the blacks & contrast ratio of a good CRT.. There's no way around it..Pixels shift which lets out light.. There are TV's that remedy this problem but cost at least 5-12 grand. Talking about LCD LED.. Not to sound like a total CRT fan boy, I actually thought Samsungs flagship LCD LED display out performed the 960 in over all PQ & crispness, but there are things that CRTs will always be better in.. 73 yrs of tube experience goes a long way to perfecting tube technology.. The Samsung was also 7,000.. Where I got my 960 plus stand for 200, & am getting it professionally calibrated by Bob this month..

I have been looking here in the Dallas area for a super high rez CRT but haven't found one yet. A couple of months ago, someone on craigslist was selling their GDM FW900, but it sold before I got over there. I recently got Samsung's largest pivoting LCD, the 245T, which brags about 8-bit color, and, I have to admit it has stunning color when watching TV on it. But I am still looking for one of the super CRT's and, if I find one and go see it, I might change my vote. Right now, this 24" Samsung 245T is as good as I have seen, and the geometry is exact (LCD, of course), AND, it will pivot to portrait when I want to switch to PC and read text.

Due to it's huge cabinet size, our 34 inch Sony KD34XBR960 is a little bit more than two feet closer to us than a flat screen would be against the wall. As we know, the further away from the screen the smaller the picture is going to appear. I'm not a mathematician but it's my guess that being 25% closer to our 34 inch screen (six feet instead of eight) is the approximate equivalent of watching a 15% bigger 40 inch set 25% further away.

So the bigger the screen gets the bigger the minimum further distance has to be in order for one to get the optimum picture enjoyment. That at least compensates a little bit for the smaller screen CRT although one will still sense the emotional impact of having the larger screen no matter the mathematical equation.

I dont wanna start any wars here all i'll say is you might want to research that comment. A Kuro's ANSI contrast ratio tests higher than any other display type.

One should remember there becomes a point when measurements found on laboratory equipment becomes meaningless when it surpasses what could be seen by the human eye. Thus the Kuro might have equaled the maximum contrast necessary already achieved by a quality CRT and anything beyond that is irrelevant.

Having only read about the Kuro, I gather it is an exceptional set but quite expensive. So if one of today's most expensive flat screen sets is it's only challenger, that says a lot about the old CRT technology and the best compliment it could ever get.

I agree, ive just always wanted something larger than my 34" XBR960 but with similar picture quality and thats what buying a Kuro did for me. I still own the 34XBR960 and is used daily.

Most probably know this but Pioneer stopped producing kuro plasma's in early 2009 mainly due to cost (they exited the HDTV market altogether) and current plasma brands are only beginning to catch up with what Pioneer had achieved.