[kadajawi]

Inspired by a 21" CRT TV I found at the roadside recently I have just rediscovered how awesome tubes were. It's a Samsung, one of the final ones I reckon, with a relatively short back and a flat surface. With the film setting the colors are just BEAUTIFUL. Balanced, natural, there's lots of contrast, movements look great without any trails, all things that LCD/LED screens don't have. Glare is also better than on many Yes, it is relatively big, the resolution isn't good, and it flickers a bit, ... but the actual image is gorgeous. Am I the only one?

LCD/LED screens usually drive up the colors to ridiculous levels, and they have an unnatural look. The glossy ones have better contrast, but they are VERY glossy. Motion can look quite bad, and usually there is a noise filter to hide that which makes the image even worse.

OLED screens (at least LG ones) are like LED screens done better... the overall characteristics seems to be that of LCD/LED, but with more contrast (real black), nicer colors. Problem is the distance between pixels (at the same distance and same resolution and screen size those LG OLEDs have clearly visible pixels, while plasma and LCD screens don't.

Plasmas are very much like CRTs IMHO, with lush blacks, beautiful and natural colors, ... but they, like CRTs, are dead. The best plasmas easily beat OLED screens IMHO, but at a MUCH lower price point.

Why? Why isn't the best technology still there? CRT? CRT was probably too big and heavy, and people didn't like flickering and resolution? Plasma? Power consumption and the inability to get it to 4K without driving up cost and power consumption to ridiculous levels (I'd rather do without 4K...). What is wrong with people? Why did everyone only buy LCD/LED screens? FED never made it to market, citing cost reasons (FED was a way to make CRTs flat and flicker free, basically for a 1080p screen there's be 6220800 electron guns (?)... one (or more) per subpixel. It would have looked great).

[Auzzie-Phoenix]

CRT monitors/tv's have several drawbacks. Weight is the first one, being rather heavy. Electricity usage is pretty high as well. I don't know if you've ever taken one apart, but doing any maintenance on them is a bit dangerous as well due to the flyback transformer pumping out around 1,000v per diagonal inch of the screen size (ex: 21" tv, 21k volts at pretty high amperage). Then there's the raster lines (what you call flicker). CRT's cause added stress on the human eye as well which can lead to headaches and if you spend enough time in front of one, worse vision. As for the issue of color quality... that is entirely dependent on the manufacturer. I've seen some really horrible color/contrast on crt's from various makers in the past. CRT's are also prone to image burn on the phosphor coating of the tube, hence why computers used to run screensavers. This was to prevent image burn of the desktop onto the screen.

Plasma is the best display option, but they're not light either (albeit better than the weight of a crt), they are massively expensive, and they don't have the energy savings of LED LCD or a lifespan that competes with them in most cases. I would have loved to have seen plasma prices drop to what you see LED LCD going for, but the prohibitive cost was the real killer of mass adoption in that case, especially when you had several other options that were lighter, more energy efficient, and cheaper.

[kadajawi]

Plasmas were frequently sold at prices lower than similarly sized (but utterly crappy) LCD screens.

Plasma also had burn in, more so perhaps than CRTs (at least CRTs could be run as monitors, with parts displaying the same thing all the time, with plasmas that was a bad idea). OLED has some pretty bad burn in IMHO.

With flickering I was talking about a 50 Hz refresh rate (and really it was 25, wasn't it, just that lines were alternating).

The thing is CRTs and plasmas could have great colors. I have seen only one LCD that does too, sort of, and that was a very expensive Sony with quantum dot technology. So I doubt LCDs can actually give such a look. OLED I haven't seen anything good yet, but that may be because in showrooms they go for flash and eye popping.

Actually I had an old (2006?) 32" LCD that was stolen last year, and a cheap LG plasma with 42" (1024x768). The LG actually consumed less power than the LCD. Not to mention the better image quality. Now there was also the top of the line Samsung plasma with something like 600W, but that was only during 3D.

The Panasonic ST60 was IIRC priced as a mid level LCD screen, but the image quality left even the most expensive LCDs in the dust. Anti reflective coating that was actually pretty good (much better than what LCDs get, unless they are matte), great black levels (black = black) and wonderful colors. And there were plasmas that could compete with cheap screens, though their resolution might have been lower. The S60 was just dropped the anti reflective coating I believe. X60 dropped the resolution. VT added better processors, and ZT also better coating? Something like that.

[clackers]

The Sony Trinitron CRTs and Panasonic plasmas were superb ... but gone the way of the dodo, unfortunately.

[reeftool]

The CRT's were nice monitors but they consumed huge amounts of desktop space and huge amounts of power. Screen sizes were limited and the larger ones weren't very good at a desktop viewing distance. Add the other issues Auzzie-Phoenix mentioned. I don't really miss them because my computer use is much more reading and not much video viewing or game playing. I'm quite happy with my current LG monitor. My HDTV in the living room is superior to any CRT television I ever viewed.

The biggest issue with LCD monitors is that there are a lot of cheap, low quality monitors on the market these days. You have to be viewing at just the right distance and angle or they look like crap. Spend a little more and get a good one and a calibration tool like the Spyder or X-Rite.

[kadajawi]

The CRT's were nice monitors but they consumed huge amounts of desktop space and huge amounts of power. Screen sizes were limited and the larger ones weren't very good at a desktop viewing distance. Add the other issues Auzzie-Phoenix mentioned. I don't really miss them because my computer use is much more reading and not much video viewing or game playing. I'm quite happy with my current LG monitor. My HDTV in the living room is superior to any CRT television I ever viewed.

The biggest issue with LCD monitors is that there are a lot of cheap, low quality monitors on the market these days. You have to be viewing at just the right distance and angle or they look like crap. Spend a little more and get a good one and a calibration tool like the Spyder or X-Rite.

There is only one LCD TV I kind of liked in a shop, and I looked at plenty of > 3000 € TVs. The Sony X900B or so... the one with the big speakers at the side. All others would loose to a cheap Panasonic plasma, and in some areas to an old 21" CRT. Maybe it is the factory settings, but with the LCDs I am not too satisfied either. The only decent one is my HP 24" monitor, but that thing is heavier than the CRT, and costs an obscene amount for 24". It also has problems with motion.

[Rupert]

I'm no high tech guy....by miles...but I do love my 46"' Vizio Razor TV and Vizio sound bar.
I also love my ASUS 24" color perfect desktop monitor.

There may be better stuff out there, no doubt, but I doubt I would ever recognize any difference?

Regards!

[kadajawi]

I'm no high tech guy....by miles...but I do love my 46"' Vizio Razor TV and Vizio sound bar.
I also love my ASUS 24" color perfect desktop monitor.

There may be better stuff out there, no doubt, but I doubt I would ever recognize any difference?

Regards!

I haven't been able to see Vizio TVs, but I think if you have any LCD next to a good plasma the difference becomes quite apparent. I certainty tried when plasmas were still on sale, and saw the latest, greatest 4K screen next to last years mid range plasma. Next to a LG OLED. The plasma looks... pleasant. Natural. More like looking into reality. It doesn't hurt with extreme colors. CRTs too, if they are good.

[Stavri]

On laptops the RGB Led screens on some dell precisions with %98+ Adobe rgb coverage are hard to beat. As far as monitors go I like the NEC LCD 26990WUXI2, %97.2 Adobe rgb coverage and real workhorses, (mine is 6yrs old and still going strong)

[Adam]

As with everything, the more you pay for your LCD display, the better of a product you're likely to get.

[kadajawi]

As with everything, the more you pay for your LCD display, the better of a product you're likely to get.

Sort of... sometimes (well, often) you pay for stuff like smart TV etc., which doesn't help image quality. My girlfriend needed a 32" Full HD TV (PC and TV usage), the TV of choice was one of the cheaper ones, but image quality is better than with most more expensive ones we saw.

Anyway I have seen TVs that cost say $3000 vs a same size $1000 or so plasma, and the plasma is just much, much better. Maybe after calibration the LCD is more acceptable, but it won't ever be as good as the plasma right out of the box.

[bdery]

Plasmas were frequently sold at prices lower than similarly sized (but utterly crappy) LCD screens.

Plasmas have such rich colours. They're almost gone now, but I'm holding on dearly to my fine Samsung slab.

[waterfall]

The Sony Trinitron CRTs and Panasonic plasmas were superb ... but gone the way of the dodo, unfortunately.

I still have a working Panasonic plasma and the colors are indeed superb. A techie columnist authored an opinion that plasma sets can go 10,000 hours of use before having detectable brightness loss. My Panasonic is about twelve years old and no change detected. Sad that plasma went out of fashion, economically.

[grhazelton]

I built two HeathKit color TVs, both were CRTs of course. Excellent sets, with good diagnostics and repair manuals. Excellent color rendition, but of course the resolution was far lower than we've come to expect.

They were extremely reliable, BTW. The first was all tube, the second transistor. Both worked perfectly after assembly. Admittedly setting convergence of the three guns is a pain, but rarely needs to be redone.

But, as Auzzie-Phoenix mentioned, the tubes themselves present danger.

Physically they are large and heavy, and fragile; the neck is relatively thin glass and if broken there is risk of an implosion, scattering glass fragments everywhere. Electrically they need high voltage at considerable amperage. The design of the tube allows it to function as a capacitor, which must be discharged CAREFULLY through a dropping resistor.

The HeathKit instruction manual was very through in all areas, and did not minimize the precautions needed when installing the CRT. I wore safety goggles, discharged the tube - Heath emphasized that it might have a residual charge from testing during manufacture - and was very careful to avoid scratching any part of the tube.

IIRC HeathKit didn't make any kits larger than 27", a 32" tube would be a real bear to handle. They did make a projection TV kit which tempted me sorely. Those were the days....

We now have a 52" Samsung Plasma 3D set. Very satisfactory, excellent color rendition, wonderful blacks, no ghosting. Very forgiving of viewing angle. In the store it "blew away" the other non-plasma sets. A slightly darkened room is best, since it won't run as brightly as will those "inferior" types. We did follow set-up parameters as published in one of the review journals, as delivered the set was pretty close to their recommendations. Kinda wish I'd bought one somewhat bigger which would have fit the space available....

[wombat2go]

I recently replaced the huge Toshiba crt TV with a 40" LED HDTV ( GPX brand) .
I had maintained the old Toshiba for many years, its main problem was dry joints in the tube heater regulated power supply circuit, I suppose heating/cooling fatigue.

I have set up a Winegard omni active antenna on the roof and we are getting reasonable results with the HDTV subject to the weather, we can get channels up to about 40 miles away.

The stations here mostly are 720p or 1080 on the main, and 480p on the sub channels.

The issue I have is that the TV knows the format, but does not automatically set it.
So each time we change channels we have to manually click through all the display options to select either "normal" for 480 or "wide" for 720.

Does anybody know if that manual selection is normal?
Thanks