Would you consider CRT technology superior to LCD or Plasma? - Page 4

I have the 30in Sony WEGA Trinitron 910 or 960XBR cant recall exactly. It listed for $2000 in 2004 and still beats the pants of my 58in Panasonic Plasma, 46in Pana Plasma, 40in LG LCD and my Sony VPL100 Projector.
I dont care if its motion, black level, skin tones.....you name it the CRT simply has a richness and rightness no other technology can trump at this time. Its a shame that we stepped backwards giving up quality for size. Reminds me of MP3 music.

Certainly, the technology to achieve such picture quality can't be a big industry secret so I wonder if the cost to produce that in itself makes it prohibitive to mass produce by other manufacturers.

CRT lost popularity when most all of the early HD demonstrations in stores was either on a plasma or LCD set. Having only experienced standard definition on their CRTs, consumers had no way of knowing that even better picture quality could be achieved on CRT as well (the few that were on display were not alongside the new flat screens up against the wall for comparison). My guess is CRT would have retained a small but healthy following had the industry given consumers a choice instead of intentionally phasing it out forcing them to buy the more expensive flat screens.

But manufacturers were not going to pass up the opportunity to make more profit by still producing less expensive CRTs. This is an example of the unethical abuse of power when businesses, looking out only for maximum profit, purposely denied consumers the opportunity to choose between less costly alternatives which gave advantages in picture quality compared to more expensive ones that gave them bigger screen size and less space to take up.

I agree. People make rash decisions without thinking things through: how often are you going to be MOVING the TV set, and how often are you going to be WATCHING it? I don't know about most people, but I watch my TV far more often than I move it around. In fact one of my CRT TVs has not been moved out of its entertainment unit since 1994.

It is a shame the industry and atmosphere pushed CRT out so quickly, especially when you see so many with a ultra budget crap LCD on some stand or wall, wires exposed looking like crap in the room............and crap on the screen. Some are very easy to swindle into the latest fashion.

I just think the appeal of not having a 150lb tv was just too much to overcome.

For most, it was still the industry not giving consumers a choice between those 150lb CRTs (mine is actually 230) and the new flat screens. Even worse, it was due to the deceptive advertising blitz from the industry itself. When I still had my 4x3 set, manufactueres and retailers alike implied these new technologies were better than CRT by comparing standard definition CRT to high definition LCDs and Plasmas. My guess is most consumers didn't recognize this was comparing 480i to 1080i, not CRT to flat screen, let alone even realizing that high definition was also compatible with CRT and actually appeared better.

My friends and relatives are always shocked when I tell them the HD CRTs are superior. I talked my sister and brother-in-law into getting a close out 970. (I know it's no 960!) but they're happy.

And larger screensize, once you get a decent 50+ inch theres no going back.

In 05 a BB salesmen told a guy you can't get HD on a 4:3 CRT.. I just rolled my eyes...

S&V has stated Sharps 12,000 LCD LED has deeper & better blacks then the most current flagship Kuro.. I doubt any display has a deeper & more detailed blacks then a good HD CRT.. Common sense really.. 73 yrs against 15-20 yrs for plasma..

I gave my parents my 2002 Sony 36" 4:3 HDTV. We were watching the 2009 Star Trek movie on a lowly DVD player through S-Video. (Only 1 of the component inputs still work) The advantages of S-Video on that set is that it automatically squeezed anamorphic DVDs to 16:9 so the raster would just scan the 16:9 area. (If you're reading this, I'm probably preaching to the choir.)

Anyway, that whole setup was for this... I paused the video during the opening credits when all you see is a star field. For the enthusiast, it was beautiful! The blackness of space was deep enough to match the border. "That's what this this does that no flat tv can."

BTW, they have an old Directv HD Tivo connected to it in their living room. CRT actually makes SD look ok.

While that did become somewhat true as most late model CRT units went to widesceen, who would really want a 4.3 HD unit anyway? They did have some close out Sony 4.3 CRT HD units when I bought my XBR WEGA CRT widescreen but they were just clearing house on them in late 2003 early 2004. I love CRT but wouldnt want to give up widescreen for it.

I see your point(I made the post before yours) but back in '02, I had my theater room, but in our family room, 95% of our viewing was SD. I know the argument that why would you want an SD picture bigger than your HD. If I were a bachelor it would have been 16:9 all the way! It served our family needs, and my parents still love it. However, it was an oddball and can be confusing at first for the novice.

Remember this 4x3 HD monster? The 16x9 portion of the screen measured out at 37 inches. Gather there was some sort of zoom or video expand so older 4x3 films on broadcast HD could be seen full screen (obviously DVD versions would have no problem).


http://reviews.cnet.com/direct-view-...sageID=2604697

I also remember seeing the 37 inch Thompson (RCA) HD CRT about nine years ago and was really quite impressed with the picture quality, more so than any plasma at the time. Like other HD sets from a decade ago, it did not as yet have a DVI connection. From what I read it also had problems with breaking down often along with there being a constant running fan which could be heard with the set off and even at low volume. In addition, the screen was not flat which probably caused a lot more distortion in geometry.

Though I regard my five and a half year old Sony KD34XBR960 as one of the best HD monitors ever made, I bet that RCA could still also hold it's own against any flat screen set today.

Any owners out there who can confirm that?

Some of you will disagree, I'm sure, but I'd proudly display my 36" 4:3 next to any (non super-fine pitch) 34" widescreen Sony.

Yes well as Joseph Dubin already stated earlier there becomes a point when measurements found on laboratory equipment becomes meaningless when it surpasses what could be seen by the human eye..

Which makes a lot of sense because even when I had my XBR960 & Kuro side by side the black levels on the Kuro were absolutely good enough and im extremely picky in this area, especially shadow detail which from my comparisons was actually a little better on the Kuro. (although the plasma has a slight unfair advantage in this area due to having gamma adjustments in the user menu).

The thing that stood out most when comparing was how much brighter & vibrant the Plasma was vs. CRT, But it's my understanding the lack of overall brightness output is a known downside to the Superfine pitch CRT models.

I have two KD-36XS955 sets, which are 4:3 HDTVs. I like this model better than the KD-34XS955/KD-34XBR960, because the entire 36" screen is used for 4:3 SD content. The KD-34XS955/KD-34XBR960 pillarboxes 4:3 SD content, and the result is a much smaller picture size. The 16:9 frame for the KD-36XS955 is 33", which is not much different than the KD-34XS955/KD-34XBR960's 34" frame.

TLK

Even though with the super-fine pitch tube the finer (smaller) pixels do reduce brightness, if properly callibrated shouldn't there not be any major difference between the Kuro and the 960 to affect the vibrancy of the otherall picture? Also, would the viewing conditions affect the vibrancy of the CRT where it would not the Kuro and vice versa?

Found the attached interesting considering the Kuro and CRTs in general.


http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...5105030AArWs0V

This is the best info I could find online in regard to the differences in brightness im seeing, I believe the Kuro's extremely high ANSI contrast ratio is the main factor here.

There's an ISF calibration website that lists a number of TV's they've reviewed and break down each one into varies categories, one of these categories is "POP"


"pop" and impact: 1 to 10 points

Main contributing factor: modified ANSI contrast

Lesser contributing factor: light output, ABL

The modified ANSI contrast ratio is a measurement of the difference between the darkest blacks and the brightest images when both are displayed at the same time. High ANSI contrast is essential to providing a punchy image with a high "wow" factor. A set with poor performance in this regard may look washed out and bland with regular program material, even if it does well with MLL."

They review 2 Kuro models and one scored a 9 for Pop and the other a 10, The XBR960 is also listed with a score of 6.

Here's the list & ratings, scroll down the page to view a chart: http://hdtvbychadb.com/reviews.htm

I was a long time CRT holdout (Sony 36HS3420) even returned two plasmas last year after not being all that impressed. But after seeing what good HD (FIOS) looks like on a large screen I finally bought an LCD (Samsung LN46C630). What did it for me was:

- 80% of what I watch is available in HD or on blu-ray
- Good quality HD just plain looks better on a large screen
- Newer TV's get much brighter than 5+ year old technology

No TV is perfect, they all require you to compromise on something including a CRT. For about half the price of what I paid for the CRT the LCD provides a better viewing experience. And I don't have to worry about moving that 230lbs. beast of a CRT anymore

Thanks for the list which, of course, confirms how great the Kuro must be, however, I cannot also believe that of all the 28 sets the Sony KD34XBR960 was at the near bottom with only two others having worse overall ratings. I'm sure my fellow members of the "Official Sony KD34XBR960 Forum" would strongly disagree for most (including myself) still find it's picture quality superior over anything seen to date in flat screen technology (the exception, of course, being the Kuro minus the smaller screen and geometry issue inherent with CRT).

If one goes by that list, then the Kuro is also only the second best set overall, beaten out by one point by a LG Plasma. Owning a Kuro, would you equate a LG as it's equal? And all ten LCDs being rated higher than the 960? No doubt each of those sets offer pleasant viewing experiences, but there's got to be something wrong there. We have the 55 inch LG LCD/LED in our conference room at work and while it too has a pleasing picture and the size of the picture really immerses one into it, the picture IMHO is quite dull compared to the 360.

I dont see any LG Plasma's that rate higher on that list? (PQ & Grand totals) However there is a couple LG LED local dimming models that scored higher although ive never viewed an LG LED to comment.

Ive read that local dimming models tend to have there own unique symptoms or artifacts associated with the local dimming process which aren't represented on lab results.

But going by his XBR960 scores vs. Kuro its really close to what Im seeing here with my own eyes, the brighter image (pop) + slightly better shadow detail scores on the plasma are both things I noted with them side by side.

He does deduct 7 points under the "issues" column on the XBR960 only because of geometry & convergence issues which I feel is a bit steep and probably should'nt of been deducted period, especially considering those issues can for the most part be corrected, If you add that number back into the 960's PQ & grand totals then it actually did pretty good overall.

Sorry, meant the LG 55 inch LCD. It got an overall rating of 50, one point higher than the Kuro. The picture quality was 39, two points higher than the Kuro.

Do you think a LG LCD can be a tad superior to a Kuro Plasma?

Even removing those seven points in the issues column, the 960 would still be 11 points behind that LCD. Even more telling was the 960's picture quality also being third from the bottom.

The author admits his rankings are completely subjective and open to dispute. A professional calibrator, it would indeed be difficult for a layman to debate him on his findings, however, in the case of LCD versus CRT, and especially with the 960, I would have to.

Ditto for me-I have an IBM P260 computor monitor-true-it's heavy, it uses more power than an lcd-but the picture is so much better than an lcd-you'll have to pry it out of my cold dead hands. I have an Insignia crt tv-27"-again I'll keep it until it dies.

Interestingly there are no Zenith CRT's in this survey. When I bought my 34" Zenith C34W37 in Dec '04 it was by far the best CRT (or any TV ) out there at that time, including the Sony, Panasonic and Pioneer Plasmas. I shopped carefully and found the contrast, image control and resolution of the Zenith was far superior, and IMHO, still is today. It has never exhibited corner fall-off, or gamma prob's a many 16:9 CRT's have reported, and never has need correction of any kind. At $2600 it was the most exepnsive CRT on the market, if I recall correctly.

I also was told by a salesman in 2004 (In a Tweeter store that is now out of business) that there were no flat screen 16:9 CRT TV's on the market, that there were no true HDT CRT's and none that had an HDTV tuner built in, and that there were no HDTV signals off-air that I could recieve if I were to get one, and he pushed the Pioneer Plasma for $12,000 on me. I had just come from looking at the Zenith, left the store, bought it and got 20 stations as soon as I plugged it in. And it looked better than the Pioneer by a long shot.

Also, just want to make a point about "Flat Screens"
All my TV's, Sony 20" Trinitron 4:3 monitor, Zenith and Samsung 16:9 CRT's are "Flat Screens", using extremely high grade flat optical galss for the flat screens.

When you speak of Plasma, LCD, or LED technology, they are "Flat Panel" TV's, in addition to "Flat Screens". Some are so poorly constructed that the "Flat Screen" is made of plastic that distorts in a short time from simply aging, and the wavy screen is worse than a 1970's CRT.

I find it hard to believe the Kuro has better shadow detail then the 960.. Not saying it's impossible, just unlikely. I doubt any LG LCD would better a Kuro.. But one S&V review claims the Sharps 12,000 LCD LED best the Kuro in blackness & PQ.. He didn't think that was possible being a LCD LED display. But, again..12,000!!

The author is probably biased against CRT.. I know when my fathers DLP died, the repair man did nothing but bash plasma technology while fixing the TV. I didn't want to argue with him so I kept my mouth shut.. I feel plasma technology is 2nd behind CRT..

I don't get the lack of 'pop' in regards to the 960.. He should see Spiderman 3.. I never seen colors so vibrant this side of Avatar. The first Sandman, Spidy encounter is reference quality big time.. Even un calibrated it was stellar.. I just can't wait till it gets calibrated next week.

I agree but then (as most already know) I'm biased when it comes to the 960. The picture is stunning with as much "pop" one could get on the consumer level (can easily distinguish those minute details within dark blacks).

Know you're excited about getting the set calibrated next week. When finished, it will be like you just got a brand new set - I know that was my reaction after I did it myself for most service adjustments, even those recommended by Sony, were set way off by the factory technician (the over-scan was so bad that this in itself diminished picture quality by causing it to be stretched too much). Good thing there is a Sony Service Code forum so I was able to correct that and the other errors made in the factory. Even the geometry issues are minor despite not fooling around with those magnets. Of course, not all my adjustments were re-set to match the recommended ones by Sony. I referred to the consensus of others and used test patterns to help determine which ones were better.

Yeah.. I want a pro to do it..Bob has 27 yrs experience & is a CRT fanatic like us. He also said he would get the picture more crisp & detailed.. Overscan/geomtry/detail/resolution/focus are the main objective.. I'm doing this in 2 parts.. But most will get done during the first visit.. I paid 200.00 for the TV & stand.. Might as well go all out..

You got a used 960 with the stand for just $200? Yes, go all the way with the professional calibration. Your total investment for such a great set is almost scandalous.

Regarding the great amount of detail displayed on the 960 as opposed to LCD, many mistake grain for detail brought on by setting the edge enhancement and sharpness controls too high. It's the proper balance of black level and contrast with moderate sharpness and enhancement that brings out the real information and that's where CRT has the big advantage for LCD as of yet cannot reproduce the range that CRT perfected long ago.

You too will find even more clearer and abundant detail after the service calibration is completed and the user settings are properly adjusted. If you don't, it only means your set was already calibrated quite well already.

Don't get too excited.. I can't get the HDMI to work. The seller demoed the TV on HDMI so he wasn't trying to scam me.. Could be a handshake problem with my PS3.. Or maybe it was damaged during the move. Not sure.. Yes, sharpness & EE gives the illusion of false detail. I notice the 960 is very sensitive to sharpness, as with my samsung, I could turn the sharpness up to 100 & not really see a difference.. The 960 seems like a professional model. Garbage in garbage out.. My Samsung is much kinder.. I also seen a 34inch Phillips for 30.00.. Crazy.. I gave my LCD to my mother.. I'd still like a Kuro though.. But I have 3 CRTs in my living room...One is almost 30 yrs old, & is starting to die, then there is the 910.. & center stage is my 960.. All Sony. I love Sony CRTs.. Would like a 30inch 955 for my bedroom.