AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Direct View (single tube) CRT Displays › CRT vs DLP, RP HDTV, Plasma? Which is best?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

CRT vs DLP, RP HDTV, Plasma? Which is best?  

post #1 of 189
3/5/04 at 9:13pm
Thread Starter 
Hello,

Refering to this post on the Polk Audio forum (please add an http there. I was not able to put links since this is my 1st post here):
clubpolk.polkaudio.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=16281
(the 2nd and 3rd last posts there).

I am also weighing the options between a CRT and the newer technologies out there. My set up includes:

Yamaha HTR 5590 6.1 ch receiver
Denon DVD900 progressive scan DVD player
Polk Audio R50 floorstanding speakers
Monster Cables - component and optical

When I get a new TV, I plan on hooking up either Dish Network satellite cable or Time Warner digital cable for channel reception. I have been going through forums quite extensively and have read some issues with all sorts of TVs. The above Polk Audio forum thread pretty much lists the pros and cons of different displays.

I am more inclined toward getting a CRT, most likely one of the Sony 36" FD Trinitron® WEGA® TV: KV-36FV310/210/100 models.

With my above mentioned set up, is this a good idea? I read somewhere (I think in a Circuit City review for the 310) that the above Sony TVs do not support progressive scan DVD players. And then in these forums, I was reading a lot of discussion about vertical black bars during dark scenes in 1080i mode on the 34XBR TVs.

I am not going to get in to HDTV yet. My viewing will be mostly DVDs and satellite or digital cable.

Please do guide me on what's the best option. I have researched heavily on DLPs, RP HDTVs, LCD TVs and Plasmas, and as mentioned in that list of pros and cons, the cons just seem to outweigh the pros, unless you really have a lot of money (which I don't) and are a true audiophile (which I am trying to get to, but lack of money currently prevents me).

Thanks in advance for the guidance.

AVS Top Picks

post #2 of 189
3/5/04 at 9:55pm
I'll make this easy.

Even the experts agree, for total picture quality, CRTs are still leaps and bounds ahead of the competition. The only time a CRT becomes an issue is if you have a space restriction. Even then, make it fit.
post #3 of 189
3/5/04 at 11:12pm
Thread Starter 
thats my opinion too right now. nothing really beats them. the only drawbacks being bulk and smaller screen size compared to the new stuff thats out there.

i plan on getting a tv for my living room, so space is certainly not an issue here. as far as bulk goes, i am sure no one would want to risk lifting a 70lb $5000 plus dlp tv by themselves. you'd need more than one person for either technologies. and i have a huge sturdy wooden tv stand that can fit a 70" tv easily.

though, of course it would be interesting to look at the 2nd generation dlps coming out in july/august this year. nevertheless, the expensive maintenance factor over the years still stands against the new technologies.

thanks. looking forward to more opinions.
post #4 of 189
3/6/04 at 12:39pm
The only thing that would have a chance against CRT is a 50-inch Fujitsu plasma, but I don't think it will have the longevity of CRT. The same goes for a Mitsubishi 73713 with 9-inch guns. At the end of the year there may be a 1080DLP set by Samsung--it might stack up with or surpass CRT, but that remains to be seen. The one advantage DLP has is that the buLb is replaceable. If it can ever solve the problems of dithering and rainbows, inprove color fidelity and black level it might one daY BE THE TICKET, BUT NOT NOW.
post #5 of 189
3/6/04 at 2:36pm
CRT > *

And that won't change for a couple of more years, probably...especially when you talk about maximum value and performance for your dollar. No contest.
post #6 of 189
3/6/04 at 4:26pm
Amen!
post #7 of 189
3/6/04 at 5:48pm
I watch mostly DVDs and am very happy I got a direct view widescreen 34" TV. If you want widescreen 34", go direct view. If you want 42" or larger widescreen, you really should at least look at plasma if it is in the budget. The screen size decision is often driven by viewing distance. Good luck. :)
post #8 of 189
3/6/04 at 7:58pm
I couldn't endorse plasma to anyone even remotely serious about home theater for any size, any price, any situation. Just my $0.02 ;)
post #9 of 189
3/6/04 at 10:15pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Q of BanditZ
I couldn't endorse plasma to anyone even remotely serious about home theater for any size, any price, any situation. Just my $0.02 ;)
Why not? And if not, what then?
post #10 of 189
3/7/04 at 9:30am
Plasma is still too fragile, too flawed, and damnably expensive to buy and to make repairs on.

Also: You're paying the big money for the novelty of being able to hang something on the wall, not necessarily for performance or quality.

Maybe it'll be different in a couple of years, maybe not.

I actually favor LCOS and LCD's future considerably more than Plasma. I also favor DLP's future over plasma. Simply put: Plasma is at the bottom of the barrel overall, imho, for my personal use.
post #11 of 189
3/7/04 at 1:11pm
You might want to ask this question in other forums, like the plasma forum - you might get completely different opinions there.
post #12 of 189
3/7/04 at 1:45pm
Thread Starter 
I am more inclined toward getting a CRT, most likely one of the Sony 36" FD Trinitron® WEGA® TV: KV-36FV310/210/100 models.

With my above mentioned set up, is this a good idea? I read somewhere (I think in a Circuit City review for the 310) that the above Sony TVs do not support progressive scan DVD players.

Does anyone know about or has experienced this Sony CRT TV issue of incompatibility with progressive scan DVD players? The review on the Circuit City site can be found at:
circuitcity.com/display_review.jsp?c=1&b=g&OID=74904&catoid=-8043 (the 2nd review titled Incredible TV). It just sounds awkward that a higher end CRT TV like that would not support a progressive scan DVD player.

Also, I have a question regarding viewing regular channels on a widescreen TV.

Consider regular channels such as CNN, MSNBC, AMC, TNT, Spike, Superstation, ESPN, Fox, etc. Are these channels (through digital or satellite cable) broadcast in 4:3 or 16:9 aspect ratio? Widescreen is great for DVDs, but is it as good for regular channels also? I am guessing there would be black bars on the sides. You can stretch the image to fill in the screen, but that makes it look wierd and distorted.

Thanks.
post #13 of 189
3/7/04 at 3:20pm
Quote:
Originally posted by mortenharket
I am more inclined toward getting a CRT, most likely one of the Sony 36" FD Trinitron® WEGA® TV: KV-36FV310/210/100 models.

With my above mentioned set up, is this a good idea? I read somewhere (I think in a Circuit City review for the 310) that the above Sony TVs do not support progressive scan DVD players.

Does anyone know about or has experienced this Sony CRT TV issue of incompatibility with progressive scan DVD players? The review on the Circuit City site can be found at:
circuitcity.com/display_review.jsp?c=1&b=g&OID=74904&catoid=-8043 (the 2nd review titled Incredible TV). It just sounds awkward that a higher end CRT TV like that would not support a progressive scan DVD player.


Unless I'm really crazy, isnt' the FV310 and those others analog TV's? I'd strongly say skip that altogether and look to getting an HD Monitor at least. Good ones can be had for reasonable prices. Zenith, Toshiba, Phillips...you know the drill. ;) Eliminate the suspense.

Progressive scan means 480p. Top of the line Sony analogs are 480i out of the component video. Period. That's where the problem could be.
Quote:
Also, I have a question regarding viewing regular channels on a widescreen TV.

Consider regular channels such as CNN, MSNBC, AMC, TNT, Spike, Superstation, ESPN, Fox, etc. Are these channels (through digital or satellite cable) broadcast in 4:3 or 16:9 aspect ratio? Widescreen is great for DVDs, but is it as good for regular channels also? I am guessing there would be black bars on the sides. You can stretch the image to fill in the screen, but that makes it look wierd and distorted.

Thanks.
You answered your own question. Yes, you will be seeing bars on the side with those channels on a WS.

In my case, choosing between the two top Zenith HD's, the 32 inch 4:3 c32v37 and the 34 inch 16:9 c34w37, I saw that I had a bigger 4:3 picture overall on the 32 inch, so I went with that.

Letterbox bars don't bother me and it was a negligible size differnce really. And buying a WS TV is not a guranteed banishment of all letterbox bars anyways. So.. both TV's had the exact same specs, but I saved a lot of money and went with the 32 inch 4:3 instead.

The 16:9 letterbox picture in it looks drop dead gorgeous, so I feel really good about it. :)
post #14 of 189
3/7/04 at 7:35pm
Ok, let's say you've decided on a Tube TV, and that you've also decided on a 4:3 HDTV ( you originally mentioned the 36"er). At this late date in March 2004, I'd wait for the all new Sony 36XBR960 to be released in a few months. This 36"er will have second generation Super Fine Pitch Tube, HDTV Tuner, and a few other TV high tech goodies thrown in for good measure. You'll be future proofed, and have a TV that will display both aspect ratios well and last well through this broadcast transition period.
post #15 of 189
3/7/04 at 7:57pm
CRT is the best overall, but it is without it's limitations especially when it comes to geometry.
post #16 of 189
3/8/04 at 11:16am
The only so called con to the XBR960 will, of course, be cost.

Being that it's Sony, yes, you will have the good quality...but you are sure going to feel it when you pass that kidney stone to pay for it.

Just something to ponder...
post #17 of 189
3/8/04 at 5:57pm
If you really want "Home Theater" don't discount front projection. It isn''t $50,000 anymore and you can get a decent HD image for $1500 or a spectacular experience for under $3000.
post #18 of 189
3/9/04 at 2:44am
you say that a great front projector can be had for 3K.

which one?

yoyo:cool:
post #19 of 189
3/9/04 at 12:29pm
Direct View and HD plasma are the best, all others will pale by comparison. The guys at the plasma forum will swear by the Plasmas, the guys here will swear by the Direct Views. Forget anything that's rear projection.

I have both at home, and even then I can't honestly do a comparison, because of the difference in size. My RCAF38310 and my Panny 50PHD6uy both look very good with HD. I'll have to say the RCA is slightly sharper, may be because of 1080 lines versus the 768 lines of the larger plasma. At 9' viewing distance, the 50 will always be more impressive, the RCA will always be too small. The only valid comparison will be the RCA38 vs a 37" plasma HD, which I've never seen together in one room.

My advice: HD is the future, go HD widescreen, never never never buy a 4x3. Go for largest size HD you can afford, i.e. a 50" plasma.
Do not buy ED plasmas, watching HD at DVD resolution is downright dumb. (But if you ONLY watch DVD or below, a 42" ED plasma will probably give you the best picture for the price.)
post #20 of 189
3/9/04 at 2:07pm
Thread Starter 
I guess I am going to go for a tube Tv after all. I will wait a few more months till the next gen CRTs are out as mentioned by cajieboy. I live quite a spartan life currently and can certainly wait a little longer for a nicer CRT TV.

True, the 36XBR960 will be expensive when it comes out. As mentioned before, I would normally be watching DVDs and channels through satellite or digital cable. I am not very interested in or investing in HD channel broadcasts currently as I am more in to watching movies on DVD.

I only hope that the newer Sony CRT TVs display 480p (i.e support progressive scan DVD players - as alluded to in a previous post in this topic). Widescreen is something I have still not made up my mind on. They are great to look at. DVDs look great on it. Since I will not go for HD channels, the digital channels will be mostly full screen instead of widescreen - means black bars on the side.

And regarding DLPs, LCDs and RPTVs, the maintenance costs are high - bulb replacements every 5 years or so, depending on the amount spent in front of the TV. Trust me, if I get one of those TVs, I would spend most of my free time in front of it :) , just like I do with my Yammy. At an average of 4 hrs of TV viewing, per day, that amounts to 1460hrs a year, and with Samsung's 8000hr bulbs, thats a little over 5 years. My logic is those bulbs may cost dirt cheap after 5 years, but their availablility will decrease after 7-8 years eventually making them more expensive. My 1.5 year old HP laptop's slower 512MB RAM costs a lot more than a newer HP laptop's faster 512MB RAM.
post #21 of 189
3/9/04 at 8:08pm
Quote:
Originally posted by mortenharket


I am more inclined toward getting a CRT, most likely one of the Sony 36" FD Trinitron® WEGA® TV: KV-36FV310/210/100 models.

With my above mentioned set up, is this a good idea? I read somewhere (I think in a Circuit City review for the 310) that the above Sony TVs do not support progressive scan DVD players.

I guess I am going to go for a tube Tv after all. I will wait a few more months till the next gen CRTs are out as mentioned by cajieboy. I live quite a spartan life currently and can certainly wait a little longer for a nicer CRT TV.

True, the 36XBR960 will be expensive when it comes out. As mentioned before, I would normally be watching DVDs and channels through satellite or digital cable. I am not very interested in or investing in HD channel broadcasts currently as I am more in to watching movies on DVD.

I only hope that the newer Sony CRT TVs display 480p (i.e support progressive scan DVD players - as alluded to in a previous post in this topic). Widescreen is something I have still not made up my mind on. They are great to look at. DVDs look great on it. Since I will not go for HD channels, the digital channels will be mostly full screen instead of widescreen - means black bars on the side.
The models you listed in your original post are all analog sets, but now it sounds like you're considering a digital set? In my case, although i don't get or particularly want HD-TV i still got an HD-ready set because i was assured that the line doubler would make cable look good and it did - digital cable looks WAY better than it ever did on the 27" analog Sony it replaced. The line doubler alone was worth the extra cost over an analog set. DVDs (on my Panny RP62K progressive scan player) look spectacular compared to the old Sony where they looked grainy. It seems that a digital set makes better use of a 480p input than an analog set does (maybe because it's a digital signal in the first place?)

Another good thing is the widescreen portion of a 36" TV is equal to that of a 33" widescreen (if such a size existed) so you're only giving up one inch diagonal to the more expensive 34" widescreen set. I think no matter if you get a 4:3 set or a widescreen set you'll always have black bars sometime because there will always be a mix of both formats. A 36" is a good compromise but a digital set future proofs it.
post #22 of 189
3/9/04 at 8:17pm
morten, yeah I think the 36XBR960's will be well worth waiting, and if they hold up to the hype given last years 34XBR910's w/their Super Fine Pitch Tubes, then this should be one mamma jamma 4:3 HDTV. Can't wait to see it this summer. If the price and/or performance doesn't pan out for you, then you should be able to get great deals on last year's models. You win both ways you cut it.
post #23 of 189
3/10/04 at 8:39am
I can't believe people are still buying 4x3 HDTV's. I thought this argument had been settled at least 2 years ago.
post #24 of 189
3/10/04 at 9:07am
Here's my personal account on the 4:3 vs. 16:9 debate: Price.

Example: I was originally going to get the Zenith c34w37 right? Awesome TV. It's stats and capabilities are a clone of the c32v37 up and down except, obviously, one is WS and the other is not.

As fortune would have it, for the 32 inch TV, I had furniture that would fit it already. There's $300 saved on a stand immediately. Then you add the price difference between the two TV's. Then you add tax. Suddenly, I was at almost double the price to get the WS vs. the c32v37.

The other thing that got me was this: The 4:3 picture, which is still the bulk of programming anyways for probably a while, is LARGER on this 32 inch TV than the 34 inch WS.

Secondly, the 16:9 letterbox picture in the 32 inch vs. on the WS was negligible in size for me to double m costs.

Letterbox doesn't bother me, especially when you find out about buying a WS TV and it still is going to have the black bars on a lot of things anyways. (2:35:1 aspect ratios, etc.)

So...that's my personal argument about why going 4:3 was the right choice for me. ;)
post #25 of 189
3/10/04 at 10:32am
Geez...not another Widescreamer! I suppose you'd like ALL of us to view our TV's w/zoomed/cropped screens for over 90% of our programming experience only to view 16:9 in its "true" widescreen format for a few scant hours a week? Besides, I get a fantastic 37" HD 16:9 screen on my 40XBR that rivals even the best 34" Tubes @ 10' distance. Go scratch your head some more, as I'm sure you'll figure it all out eventually.
post #26 of 189
3/10/04 at 10:51am
People will quit settling for 4:3 CRTs when the industry wakes up and quits building 34-inch widescreen sets that are and forever will be too SMALL! When you've already owned a 36-inch set as even alot of people who've bought one at Wal-Mart will tell you--you're simply not going to significantly go down in size as regards vertical height. If the industry would produce more 38-inch widescreen sets like Loewe does then I guarantee you people would quickly switch to 16:9! If they will build them, people will purchase them. With the recent drops in CRT prices the argument that larger CRTs will cost too much or are technologically unfeasible simply doesn't wash. Are they technologically unfeasible for German producer Loewe? What's wrong Sony, Toshiba, Panasonic? Are you inferior to Loewe? Remember how the RCA cost much less than Loewe? That was years ago! How much cheaper could a 38-inch widescreen be built for today? The industry wants people to do one of two things: Upgrade to rear projection LCD with terrible picture quality or to plasma which is much more expensive and is very profitable to the industry. It is outrageous that the millions of TV buyers who have always supported the industry are forced to make this choice. The best stepping stone and compromise if you're tired of TINY CRT is the Sony 40XBR800--37inches of widescreen and 40inches of 4:3. What else can you ask for? If the small size of CRTs upsets you then contact every producer you can and tell them about it. Tell them that you want to purchase CRTs in a larger size. Join the International Crusade for more and bigger Widescreen Direct-view CRTs!!!
post #27 of 189
3/10/04 at 11:31am
Quote:
Originally posted by HDTV888
I can't believe people are still buying 4x3 HDTV's. I thought this argument had been settled at least 2 years ago.
I can't believe people are still advocating getting a widescreen TV when the vast majority of programming is 4:3 and will still be 4:3 even when everything goes full digital in the future. There are still downsides of a widescreen CRT for most people: much higher cost, 4:3 area equal to that of a little 27" TV, black side bars on the majority of programming, and you even get black bars top and bottom while watching DVDs which further reduces the already tiny screen height. People typically have their TVs across the room, not 5 feet in front of their face and most people primarily watch 4:3 programming. True, more shows will be in widescreen HD in the future but i doubt it'll ever be more than a small percent of all programming being broadcast.

The original poster plans to watch satellite or digital cable and is NOT going to get into HDTV. Like most of us, he has little or no use for a little widescreen CRT. By going with a 36" 4:3 he'll still have a widescreen size equal to that of a 33" widescreen in the few instances that he needs it, while having a much larger viewing area for the majority of what he watches. Widescreen is not for everybody.
post #28 of 189
3/10/04 at 12:40pm
This is not scientific (approx screen measurements) but just my opinion.
my 40xbr = 33.5w x 24.75h (approx $2500)
34xbrws = 30w x 16.75w (approx $2500)
that means a 38ws would be 33w x 18.5h (approx $2500+500)
I don't think a 38"ws makes any sense over a 34ws or the 40 for the small gain in size or the price difference. For me, anything over $2500 for a crt would push me to a plasma.
post #29 of 189
3/10/04 at 1:26pm
The original post asked for opinions of CRT vs DLP, Plasma etc. He seems to have a limited budget, and not serious about HD nor even ready for HD (which is too bad). For him, he should buy a cheapo 4x3 analog direct view TV. Almost no one makes a widescreen analog TV anyway, to my knowledge.

One day he'll wake up to the glory of HD, then he should buy a widescreen HDTV, and at that time 4x3 HDTV's will have pretty much disappeared.

Besides, I think the 4x3 shape is a shape of the past, and is downright UGLY !
post #30 of 189
3/10/04 at 2:48pm
Quote:
Originally posted by bbg280
This is not scientific (approx screen measurements) but just my opinion.
my 40xbr = 33.5w x 24.75h (approx $2500)
34xbrws = 30w x 16.75w (approx $2500)
that means a 38ws would be 33w x 18.5h (approx $2500+500)
I don't think a 38"ws makes any sense over a 34ws or the 40 for the small gain in size or the price difference. For me, anything over $2500 for a crt would push me to a plasma.
You numbers are a bit off, but I agree- the 40 XBR is actually a pretty damn good deal IMO (super fine pitch aside) if you have the space for it. I don't think a 38" WS would really buy you any advantage over the 40" 4:3- certainly smaller in 4:3 content and only a tiny bit larger in 16:9 content. To really have a 'no compromise' option you'd need a 49" WS set- the same size as a 40" 4:3 and much, much wider for 16:9 content. So if you are going to trade up and don't want to loose anything, go with a 50" 16:9 or larger screen.

And for Jet... I don't think they are going to make a 50" WS CRT, let alone a 38" (which really isn't much of an improvement over the 40" 4:3). Now if they would throw the new CRT tech on the 40" ala 36" 960, then you might have something. :p
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
This thread is locked  

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Direct View (single tube) CRT Displays › CRT vs DLP, RP HDTV, Plasma? Which is best?