[kingpage]

In many home theaters, people care much more about their projector/screen than their audio setup, and hence spend only a fraction of the cost of their video equipment for the listening experience. Therefore, many videophiles often suggest spending at least as much on audio as on video or at least not ignore audio as part of the experience.
 
I have the opposite side of the problem. I'd call myself a half videophile, but my FA-006 headphone costs $100, whereas I recently bought a used 22 inch LCD for $30. It is, of course, as good as many brand new ones that cost over $120.
 
Now, the question is, perhaps I should buy $30 headphones like the HTF600 and be happy with it. I don't know. I can't justify buying a $300 3D 24/27in LED-lit monitor since I'm still using a 6 year old laptop, waiting to be upgraded in the forseeable future.
 
Do you guys have the same issue as well? For music, this may not be important. But for movies and games, as audiophiles, shouldn't we be like the videophiles? It would only be reasonble to follow a similar principle.
 
On a related note, I'm sure you have seen videos of people who have simulation cockpits at home, home-made or otherwise, for car race or flight sim games, yet there's a 15 inch 4:3 screen in front of them. Really? Come on...

 

[NamelessPFG]

I have a similar issue due to wallet limitations.
 
With my desktop, I have an old FD Trinitron G1-based 21" CRT monitor that I found locally for a mere $10, and that's to supplement a similar monitor I got for just $6. They could use some proper recalibration, but I'd rather have those over the vast majority of LCDs, especially for gaming. (Ideally, I'd have a Sony GDM-FW900, or if I had the room for a front projector, a Sony G90 or Barco Cine 9, but those (especially the projectors) are hard to find and extremely cost-prohibitive. Failing that, a 2560x1600 IPS LCD would be nice, albeit at a slight cost to viewing angles and lack of refresh rates higher than 60 Hz.)
 
Connected to that same desktop is a vintage Stax Lambda system that cost me a mere $250, not factoring in the old receiver I'm using to feed the transformer box it came with. Part of it is due to wanting to know what electrostatics sound like, but now that I do, I really don't want to go back. It's sort of like playing old consoles with composite video once you've seen them with RGB or component. (Yes, I actually go through the trouble of getting an RGB signal from my retro consoles to another CRT monitor that will sync with 15 KHz RGB.)
 
Deep down, I'm more of a videophile, but I simply can't afford a nice colorimeter to calibrate everything, nor can I afford the really nice displays and nice graphics cards to make PC games look their very best on those displays.
 
What also doesn't help is that my needs are very particular when it comes to video, and wanting to run games from old consoles in 240p RGB with as minimal input lag as possible in addition to wanting to play PC games at 2560x1600 with as minimal input lag as possible complicates things immensely. I'd basically need to have two different monitors, each specializing on one end of the scale. People who just want to watch movies probably don't care about input lag or proper 240p handling.

 

[kingpage]

Don't worry too much about LCD, they're pretty good already. The LCD screen I've got is at least 3 years old, but supports 75hz at native resolution (tested with FPS Compare myself). Very soon, the newer technology will replace LCD without the disadvantages. OLED and so on. For now, LCD for all intents and purposes is as good as CRT, except the input lag. LCD can have accurate colour and 120hz refresh rate, albeit more costly). Even the competitive gaming community has moved on in the last few years.
 
Does input lag really bother you that much? After a week or two of psychological burn-in, you will be a happy camper with the new 27 inch extremely thin 3D full-array LED back-lit LCD screen.

 

[NamelessPFG]

Depends on the LCD in question. IPS and AFFS+ panels are respectable, and while 60 Hz refresh rate certainly isn't the limit of my perception, it's acceptable. TN panels can hit 120 Hz, but I cannot stand the limited viewing angles, especially along the vertical. (Note that I use a TrackIR head-tracking device on occasion while gaming, thus I'd prefer it if the colors weren't shifting around in my process of scanning the skies for potential threats and looking through virtual cockpits for that switch I need to flip.)
 
The only thing is, IPS LCDs are more expensive, especially if I want one with a resolution of 1920x1200 or better. (I will not accept one pixel less in either direction; in fact, the trend of 1920x1080 monitors irritates me quite a lot. 2560x1600 should be standard by now.)
 
It would be nice if OLED and/or laser DLP would become more common in the PC monitor space, but I just don't see that happening for another 5 years at the minimum.

 

[cifani090]

Im going with both, i cant seem to watch TV for long periods, especially if its a show i enjoy, if its not in good HD format.

 

[kingpage]

Quote:

 
The only thing is, IPS LCDs are more expensive, especially if I want one with a resolution of 1920x1200 or better. (I will not accept one pixel less in either direction; in fact, the trend of 1920x1080 monitors irritates me quite a lot. 2560x1600 should be standard by now.)

The industry has shifted from 16:10 to 16:9 as the standard aspect ratio. They will not be going back, that's for sure. But there should always be some 16:10 for professional/office use. Things can change, just like the 4:3. There aren't new 4:3 models anymore.

 

[Jon L]

Plasma and Tubes.  Enough said..

 

[logwed]

Quote:

 
Do you guys have the same issue as well? For music, this may not be important. But for movies and games, as audiophiles, shouldn't we be like the videophiles? It would only be reasonble to follow a similar principle.
 
On a related note, I'm sure you have seen videos of people who have simulation cockpits at home, home-made or otherwise, for car race or flight sim games, yet there's a 15 inch 4:3 screen in front of them. Really? Come on...

I don't really care about video quality all too much, I can appreciate a sports event or movie in HD or a really stunningly beautiful game, but the video quality is ALWAYS secondary to program/game quality. I don't watch a lot of TV, so I have no need to buy an expensive set or pay for HD cable options.

 

[RexAeterna]

if person was real videophile they would drop LCD and go back to CRT. no monitor i used before never matched my 24'' Sony GDM-FW900 16:10 CRT professional monitor. S-IPS panels are probably closest you'll get nowadays and LCD's don't last more then a few years either which really sucks while i have CRT's over 15-25 years old and still going very strong.

 

[kingpage]

The screen in my 6yo laptop says otherwise. It's not as bright as it used to be, but the loss of brightness occurs naturally in any monitor. And, many professionals have changed to using LCD screens now.
 
 

 

[Blue Boat]

I prefer the old CRT teevees.
 
 

 

[RexAeterna]

The screen in my 6yo laptop says otherwise. It's not as bright as it used to be, but the loss of brightness occurs naturally in any monitor. And, many professionals have changed to using LCD screens now.

 

my monitors are well over 10 years old and still have precise clarity and brightness. only low quality consumer tubes end up dimming over time cause lot of people like jacking the brightness to max and leaving the monitor running 24/7. most professionals use LCD now cause the companies ditch CRT when LCD became mainstream. some individual hardcore photo users and art designers always pick CRT over anything else due to contrast details and color gamut accuracy. gamers love CRTs cause ultra fast unmatched refresh rates allowing faster precise frame-rates above 60fps cause gpus and monitors are always bottlenecked by the refresh rate of the panel. most professional CRTs are 160hz and up while LCD is capped at 120hz(240hz is all marketing sorry to say).

reason why LCDs don't last long is cause the light they use inside dims over couple of years but most people don't know that cause it happens slowly over time so your eyes end up automatically adjusted to the screen.

only other tech bring you closest and on CRT level is Plasma in color accuracy and contrast details. Pansonic hit it's pinnacle with the Kuro series and they were like heaven for most people and hit the same levels and some ways surpassed CRT standards but sadly they're discontinued models nowadays and you be lucky finding used panel for 2000-5000 cause they're very rare to get. the sony monitor i have even being so old still sells on the used market well over 900 bucks but i'm never selling it.....ever.

 

[NamelessPFG]

*checks eBay for FW900 listings* Holy crap, the only one left is at $900, and it's ONLY local pickup...on the entire other side of the US. I could've sworn I saw one closer to $400 a while back.
 
I'd almost kill for one of those, but I haven't been lucky enough to find one locally and on the cheap, unlike its 4:3 21" brethren. If there are any around here in Georgia, they're probably all owned by fellow CRT enthusiasts now who have absolutely no intention of parting with them (or only doing so at a price that makes 2560x1600 IPS LCDs become seriously tempting).

 

[RexAeterna]

i got mine for free actually. some guy locally was just giving it away. he knew about it's praise and hype but he just wanted to get rid of it cause he only used it for his laptop. only downside it had crack stand and crack back from fedex being stupid during shipment he told me. i just hated the anti-glare plastic coating stuff. i took a box cutter and went along the corners to get it loose and ripped it off. much better but any type of light glare will make the monitor seem much brighter and the static attracts dust and hair easily but i don't get much of that anyways.

yea they still are pricey. the trinitron tube itself is worth about 600-900 bucks alone. there are some of other good CRTs up to the FW900 level but non of them are 16:10 which made the FW900 special cause it's the only flat-screen 16:10 CRT display ever made.

 

[kingpage]

Quote:

only other tech bring you closest and on CRT level is Plasma in color accuracy and contrast details.

As good as plasmas are, they can't be used as computer monitors precisely because of their burn-in problems. (Burn-in in screens means something bad, rather than good like burn-in in headphones.)