AVS Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 58 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,780 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
There are a lot of educated people here. Can someone help me get my arms around this tube issue, please?


There's an original G90 tube (don't know model #). These are apparently hard or $$ to get. There's also another tube that have the same pin configuration that are easy to get. What's the diference?


One thing that's always impressed me about the G90 was the fact that they started the design from scratch. They were not obligated to incorporate X% of the previous version's design. Given that, it seems that Sony would have put the best tubes possible in the unit.


Before someone says "if Sony were so smart, how come they have the wrong C-element in there?" know that this was a choice Sony made for greater overall light output. Most of us don't need it, and I for one would love to do as Terry suggests and replace the bastard.


But what of the tubes??


Ted
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,299 Posts
Ted:


Original tube is P19LQF very hard to find so a Large premium charged (price gouge) by those that have them, P19LUG easy to find = no price gouge, I am not knowledgeable enough to comment on the differences.


Lon
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,871 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by LJG
Ted:


Original tube is P19LQF very hard to find so a Large premium charged (price gouge) by those that have them, P19LUG easy to find = no price gouge, I am not knowledgeable enough to comment on the differences.


Lon
Lon,


They are the same.


Cliff
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,503 Posts
I am guessing that these tubes were still made my Panasonic? If so, they did a production run change sometime in 1999-2000 I'm guessing. Late model AmPRo 3600's and Barco 1209s's had different tube numbers as well in the P19 and P16 series, they got changed to the PT series. THEy apparently did have better focusing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,801 Posts
Guys!


LUG's were supposed to be for flight simulators; better spot size but low on lumens, I will try to research this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,780 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Thanks for the replies. I used to march around preaching from the Sony marketing bible that the G90 had smaller beam spot size due to the "micro-fine" or "micro-ground" phosphors. At one point someone or several people came back with the assessment that it was the G90 electronics that were responsible, not the phosphors.


Now I hear that the LUG allows a smaller spot size than the LQF. So I now question what the heck is going on. Also, with all of the effort that Sony put into the G90, why would they cheap out on the tube? Why not use the LUG if it was actually better? I don't believe it was to save a few nickels. Maybe the LUG wasn't available at that time?


So what proof is there that the LUG performs better than the LQF? I would observe that those that have access to the LUG claim it's superiority, while the peddlers of the LQF insist the LUG is a cheaper way to go. What's a guy to believe?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,871 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted White
Thanks for the replies. I used to march around preaching from the Sony marketing bible that the G90 had smaller beam spot size due to the "micro-fine" or "micro-ground" phosphors. At one point someone or several people came back with the assessment that it was the G90 electronics that were responsible, not the phosphors.


Now I hear that the LUG allows a smaller spot size than the LQF. So I now question what the heck is going on. Also, with all of the effort that Sony put into the G90, why would they cheap out on the tube? Why not use the LUG if it was actually better? I don't believe it was to save a few nickels. Maybe the LUG wasn't available at that time?


So what proof is there that the LUG performs better than the LQF? I would observe that those that have access to the LUG claim it's superiority, while the peddlers of the LQF insist the LUG is a cheaper way to go. What's a guy to believe?
Post edited for personal reasons.


Cliff
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,780 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
So this assessment is based on Terry's recent G90 setup?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,780 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
I spoke with Tim and he feels there may be some quantified testing available. He's looking into it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,801 Posts
Guys!


Charles at VDC is a walking encyclopedia on this stuff! He believes that P19LCP09s were used in Marquees and not G90s even though the tubes may look identical, the guns and pinouts vary. P19LQF and P19LUGs were used in G90s, the LUG has a slightly smaller gun aperture for smaller spot size at the cost of some light ouput. The LUG may have been installed as an option in 9500 Ultras for simulators, I am still researching that. Use of a tube not intended for a certain chassis could be catastrophic to the tube if G2s and G1s and grounds are not correct.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,780 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Really??! So there's an actual structural difference between the two! Thanks for that Tim!


This makes sense since Sony was quite "focused" on light output. Again their reason for the Green c-element choice was greater light output. Maybe the choice of LQF was light motivated at the small sacrifice of the beam spot the LUG provides.


Thanks again Tim!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,299 Posts
Interesting stuff, I was told similar at least about light output, so what would be the benefits of a smaller spot size in home theater, and would it outweigh the loss of some light output??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,398 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by tim
Guys!


Charles at VDC is a walking encyclopedia on this stuff! He believes that P19LCP09s were used in Marquees and not G90s even though the tubes may look identical, the guns and pinouts vary. P19LQF and P19LUGs were used in G90s, the LUG has a slightly smaller gun aperture for smaller spot size at the cost of some light ouput. The LUG may have been installed as an option in 9500 Ultras for simulators, I am still researching that. Use of a tube not intended for a certain chassis could be catastrophic to the tube if G2s and G1s and grounds are not correct.
You're correct, the P19 LUGs are available on the VDC manufactured 95xx Ultra and have a higher resolution spec. The lumen output is the same as the standard P19LCP on the 9500. HOWEVER, BE AWARE THAT THE PINOUT ON THE LCP AND LUG ARE DIFFERENT and the neck board of the 95xx Ultras that get the LUGs are different than the standard LCP. A Green LUG tube has a P43 phosphor, so must be used with a 60Hz or higher refresh rate, otherwise, it's BETTER (no image retension or lag) in EVERY way than a P22 phosphor, which isn't available on a P19LUG.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,660 Posts
I was emailed by someone with that question. I told him that it was the simulator tube..and it gave greater beam focus over ligut output. Particle size and density of layer also play a part as differences between the two go.


Being the kind of guy who has seen the great benifit of running at 48hz, I'd go for the slower phosphor, myself. Overall, in my opinion, it is the better choice. Just an an opinion, based on observation of facts. I've not spent any time in front of the simulator phosphor, but I've spent plenty of time in front of a under driven, tightly focused 1080P PJ, running at 47.5xxhz (?) can't remember what the last part of the frequency is. It'll come back to me.


I could be wrong, but settling time of phosphors and electronics plays a big part..and the difference between sharpness and spot size, detail,etc (subjectively) 48 and then 60hz.. gets to be --huge-- at 1080P. When the PJ is underdriven, on reasonable sized screens, the image gets to be fantastic. Some have issue with the 48hz, but they sometimes are the people who refuse to deal with a reasonable compromise. ;) I noticed the flicker initially..but it certianly went away over time..and the image fidelity was breathtaking. Just those few more percentage points....makes it worth the effort, cuz they ain't coming from many other places. Not without great expense...and this one is relatively free.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
350 Posts
I also spoke to Charlie from VDC today. He told me that the LQF tubes also use the same phosphor as the LUGs ie p43 ?


Confused ? I certainly am.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,398 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by 008
I also spoke to Charlie from VDC today. He told me that the LQF tubes also use the same phosphor as the LUGs ie p43 ?


Confused ? I certainly am.
That's news to me. :confused:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
50 Posts
Hi


As almost every green Tube you get a green LUG with P43 or with normal Phosphor.


Or do you think the Cine 9 is fitted with P43.........


regards


Thomas
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,398 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by fetz
Hi


As almost every green Tube you get a green LUG with P43 or with normal Phosphor.


Or do you think the Cine 9 is fitted with P43.........


regards


Thomas
If it's fitted with all P19LUGs then it's a P43. Having used many P43 phosphor tubes, I think they're better than p22 phosphor tubes. Flicker isn't a problem in the US at 60Hz or higher refresh rates. For countries with PAL, a refresh of 75Hz is perfect with no flicker. Action scenes have no lag or image retension. They also seem to last longer before wear becomes a problem.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
50 Posts
Hi


Off course a Cine 9 is fitted with 3 LUG Tubes, and i am almost sure that the green one is not a P43.


Believe me, i know the dissadvantages from P43 for Home Theater use cause my own Marquee has a green P43.

Its not the flickering, i look at 50Hz thats not the Problem


If you are able to get a proper color balance ( which is only possible with the new Software) than you have lost a big amount off lightoutput.


The green Lightoutput is less, so that you have to dicrease also red and Blue...


If i ever have the chance to "upgrade" cheap to a normal green i will do it.


regards


Thomas
 
1 - 20 of 58 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top