[Zorander]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nocturnal310 /img/forum/go_quote.gif i was about to say the same. CRT is antique.

So is vinyl.

 

[Nocturnal310]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zorander /img/forum/go_quote.gif So is vinyl.

No, Vinyl is classic.

CRT is not classic.. its obsolete.

 

[Zorander]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nocturnal310 /img/forum/go_quote.gif No, Vinyl is classic. CRT is not classic.. its obsolete.

If only that was the case. CRTs have not been gone long enough for them to gain the classic status of vinyl. I also dare you to argue that vinyl is not obsolete outside this board and any other audio forums.

No, there are still advantages to CRTs including multi-resolutions (LCDs only look good at one nominal resolution) and rich colour gamut (have you actually seen a Sony Trinitron in person?). It's a pity the mass market has gone on to LCDs for many of advantages including size and power consumption. My next monitor upgrade will likely be a Dell Ultrasharp LCD but really it's because I will not be able to find a Sony Trinitron anymore.

 

[Quaddy]

my sony GDM-FW900 24" widescreen CRT trinitron just gave up the ghost on me, washed out screen and red and green flashes across it, shame, it was a TFT beater for what i was using it for, gaming, graphics and video

a beautiful bit of kit, now i am back to a mere mortal of a TFT screen, which is better for web browsing, but the CRT's colour and contrast was amazing

 

[obobskivich]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zorander /img/forum/go_quote.gif No, there are still advantages to CRTs including multi-resolutions (LCDs only look good at one nominal resolution) and rich colour gamut (have you actually seen a Sony Trinitron in person?). It's a pity the mass market has gone on to LCDs for many of advantages including size and power consumption. My next monitor upgrade will likely be a Dell Ultrasharp LCD but really it's because I will not be able to find a Sony Trinitron anymore.

i agree 100% with you, but lemme play devil's advocate here (and poke a little fun at myself in the process), recently I upgraded computers, big time, since I couldn't find a CRT I wanted, I decided to get an LCD, after a lot of looking, I settled on the Gateway XHD3000, which is probably the first LCD i've ever actually liked (you have no idea how much I feared hating this monitor, after spending $1500 on it)

now, it will handle any resolution I feed into it, from 480i to 2560x1600, why? because its got a teranex HQV processor onboard that just scales everything that isn't 1600p, to 1600p, as well as color correction, aspect ratio conversion, and so on

now, this doesn't mean that 480i looks "flawless" like 1600p does, but it works very nicely, and looks very clean from a few feet back

my point is, this LCD actually impresses me, a die hard CRT defender, here's where I get to poke fun a little:

this LCD cost $1500, uses some of the most advanced real-time video post-processing available to consumers, consumes an inordinate amount of electricity, has more menu options than some receivers, and puts off enough heat to keep my face toasty warm, sitting a good 2' back from it

my point is, this thing is over the top in terms of how much resources and money it took, just to get something relatively comparable to what CRTs were doing in the late 1990's and early 2000's....with much less R&D hours into them, and much less other issues

would I trade this thing for FW900's? sure, if they were brand new, and I got two of them...I'd also need a new desk, and probably a bigger A/C unit

on one hand, I realize I did lose things going to LCD, but I did gain things as well, its kind of like tubes and solidstate, more than vinyl and SACD, tubes have a lot of supporters, so do solidstate, one hand you've got purists who scream that tubes are natural, on the other, you've got tecchies saying that "oh no, its unwanted distortion, burn it all"

as far as imaging professionals going to LCD, mostly because they have no other choice, only recently did a few LCDs start being produced that have "CRT-like" qualities (Barco makes one, iirc it costs about $8k), I'm waiting on SED to come out of the courts and go into production, but I'm happily satisfied with my LCD for now

 

[montell]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nocturnal310 /img/forum/go_quote.gif No, Vinyl is classic. CRT is not classic.. its obsolete.

CRT will become obsolete only when SEDs, OLEDs, AMOLEDs are going to be mass produced for consumers. That is not the case right now. Though you cant get one anyway since the big companies are strictly supporting LCD screens now.

 

[obobskivich]

Quote:

Originally Posted by montell /img/forum/go_quote.gif CRT will become obsolete only when SEDs, OLEDs, AMOLEDs are going to be mass produced for consumers. That is not the case right now. Though you cant get one anyway since the big companies are strictly supporting LCD screens now.

why do you say OLED? every OLED i've seen has horrible contrast and refresh, even compared to LCD, at many times the price, they're nice for watches and keyboards, but not for full panels as displays

i'm just curious as to your reasons here, I've seen SED and its very promising, but not much on OLED aside from portables and some really overpriced 20" TVs from Sony

 

[baneat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nocturnal310 /img/forum/go_quote.gif No, Vinyl is classic. CRT is not classic.. its obsolete.

Nooo.. You're taking the same stance that the average person would take. People think vinyl is obsolete because it's bigger, when actually it is of higher quality... Oh, look, a CRT is bigger, and yes, the picture is of a higher quality!

 

[obobskivich]

Quote:

Originally Posted by baneat /img/forum/go_quote.gif Nooo.. You're taking the same stance that the average person would take. People think vinyl is obsolete because it's bigger, when actually it is of higher quality... Oh, look, a CRT is bigger, and yes, the picture is of a higher quality!

but you're trying to compare two things that don't compare, like I said, tubes vs SS, not vinyl vs SACD

vinyl's "higher quality" is a raging debate (I agree with the side that says vinyl rawks btw)

this is truly more of a tubes vs solidstate, tubes bring warmth and "naturality" [sic] to the presentation, in this case, visual presentation (CRTs are tubes too), solidstate is very rigid, strict, controlled etc

which really encompasses the CRT/LCD debate

saying one is of explicitly higher quality isn't quite accurate, as LCDs do have some edges over CRT, for example, sharpness, while CRTs have theoretically better contrast (depending on the tube), things like that, it goes either way you want it to...

 

[coredump]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zorander /img/forum/go_quote.gif No, there are still advantages to CRTs including multi-resolutions (LCDs only look good at one nominal resolution) and rich colour gamut (have you actually seen a Sony Trinitron in person?).

Multi-resolutions isn't that big of a deal any more. I was worried about it at first because back in the day it seemed like I was always changing my resolutions for games and other things. Since I got my LCD I've never once had the need to change the resolution. Windows has options to enlarge the font and icon if needed and most games support every resolution now. If you want widescreen an LCD is the only option.

 

[Zodduska]

Quote:

Originally Posted by coredump /img/forum/go_quote.gif If you want widescreen an LCD is the only option.

Actually, the FW900 is widescreen. I have a 21" IBM P275, trinitron tube, that I've been extremely happy with and I'm intent on skipping LCD completely until something better (IMHO) than the Trinitron is released.

The P275 I'm using even supports true 720 and 1080p which once adjusted correctly become a letterbox format on this 4:3 screen.. it's pretty cool, but I don't use it very often unless I'm viewing 1080p material, 720p fits just fine on the 1600x1200@100Hz desktop resolution which I prefer over widescreen in general for everything I do on my PC. The only thing I prefer widescreen for is movies which I watch on a large crt tv via xbmc

 

[Edwood]

Your FW900 is long overdue for a calibration. You'll have to buy a colorimeter like a Spyder, borrow one from someone, or hire someone to calibrate your monitor.

Even LCD's aren't perfect, far from it. I just bought a brand new Lenovo L220X LCD, and it was way too green. Didn't even need a colorimeter to see that. But I'm pretty sensitive to color shift.

Either way, you can at the least go into the FW900's menu and check the RGB settings, and adjust the color levels accordingly.

And yes, the FW900 is the last best computer monitor ever made. I've been looking for one for quite some time, but now I don't have room for it without getting an entire new desk arrangement. The FW900 is huuuuuuge.

-Ed

 

[Edwood]

Quote:

Originally Posted by coredump /img/forum/go_quote.gif Multi-resolutions isn't that big of a deal any more. I was worried about it at first because back in the day it seemed like I was always changing my resolutions for games and other things. Since I got my LCD I've never once had the need to change the resolution. Windows has options to enlarge the font and icon if needed and most games support every resolution now. If you want widescreen an LCD is the only option.

If you never watch videos on your LCD, that could be true.

But watching 720p footage on a 1920x1200 LCD is not nearly as sharp as on a native 1280x720 LCD. DVD's? Even worse. Unless you have a Faroudja upscaler built in, that is. There is a Gateway monitor that has one built in, and is supposed to look fantastic.

Otherwise, an LCD sacrifices image quality for convenience. Period.

Well, there is another issue for audiophiles with golden ears at least. I cannot stand the high pitched sound emitted by CRT's. It's really annoying. I don't know how loud it is with the FW900, but I was really happy when I got rid of my old 27" CRT TV way back when.

-Ed

 

[Zorander]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edwood /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well, there is another issue for audiophiles with golden ears at least. I cannot stand the high pitched sound emitted by CRT's. It's really annoying. I don't know how loud it is with the FW900, but I was really happy when I got rid of my old 27" CRT TV way back when.

It depends on the particular unit. I have had CRTs that emit this high-pitched sound that can be heard from a few metres away (bad!). My current CRT is relatively silent from my normal sitting position. It can only be heard if I put my ears right next to it and even then it is slight.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edwood /img/forum/go_quote.gif Otherwise, an LCD sacrifices image quality for convenience. Period.

So do you think getting a Dell Ultrasharp monitor is going to be a downgrade from my current Trinitron?

 

[Edwood]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zorander /img/forum/go_quote.gif So do you think getting a Dell Ultrasharp monitor is going to be a downgrade from my current Trinitron?

From an FW900, yes.

From a 20 year old Trinitron. Probably not.

To elaborate further, when it comes to color, LCD's are still inferior, when compared to CRT's and plasma. But yeah, plasma can't be made small enough for a desktop monitor.