Am I missing something? Aren't CRTs better?

[Vlad_Dracul]

Hi all,

I drove by the local council waste station the other day and was amzed to see how many CRT televisions and computer monitors were piled up there. I seem to recall reading that my local Council has had to build in an extra amount to council tax due to the massive increase in the numbers of CRT devices arriving at its waste disposal sites.

The sad thing is that i suspect that most of these devices are perfectly functional and have simply been thrown away becuase of the growing fashion for slimmer, lower profile flat schreen TVs of various descriptions.

Now I will admit that I am not fully up to speed with the more recent developments in TV technology. This isnt becuase I'm a technophobe or luddite. Its simply that I have a loathing for television which has slowly gotten worse,driven by the rise in the mindless rubbish that is broadcast these days.

In my hoem I have a very nice Sony 28" widescreen TV. Its probably about 6 years old now and has performed faultlessly since I bought it. When it is fed with a decent signal, I consider that the picture quality is excellent. Of course it is a traditional 625 line CRT set. The 625 line standard has been with us an awefull long time as has the CRT. It follows then that there has to be getting on for 50 years of development and product improvement in CRT production and design to get us to where we are today. Presumably todays CRT TVs are pretty much state of the art (as long as you dont buy cheap junk).

IMHO, the CRT is currently the best medium on which to view television pictures and indeed, computer generated images.

The only possible upgrade path for better quality would be the HDTV route. Presumably there are CRT devices which can dispaly HDTV ?

Why then move to what I think is an inferior medium, i.e the current crop of slim displays? I have seen many of them in stores and the pictures are dire. I have assumed that this is probably due to co-interference with other tv's and electrical devices within a crowded dispaly area?

I'm fairly open about this and I am open to being educated. Can anyone with good knowledge of the subject tell me if i am right/nearly right and also,be kind enough to update me on what the technology is behind the current on sale slim type displays i.e lcd etc etc.

[altis]

Indeed, CRTs offer a better picture. And analogue TV is much better than digital too - provided you don't move on to High Definition.

So why do people keep buying all this inferior new technology? Beats me - but I bet it's something to do with advertising.

They're all taking control of our lives. Resist! Resist!

[MovedGoalPosts]

A prime driver for me is space - I want a bigger screen, but not at the expense of the depth of room it takes up. I want my desktop back so I cna have a far more ergonomic viewing position.

So yes I've disposed of my old CRT unit. I'd sell it, but nobody wants them.

Arguably CRT's can produce a better picture, especially in terms of refresh rates, and contrast. Flat screen technology is catching up fast though, and if you spend on a bit of quality, I doubt the average user would notice a significant difference between CRT and flat screen.

[Xaccers]

We've got a Philips 21" 4:3 CRT in the bedroom, it's got fantastic picture quality and only cost £150ish, maybe less.
Downstairs we've got a widescreen Beko, I think £230, and again has a great picture. Only downside is that the Sky remote code for it doesn't seem to work so we have to use 2 remotes.
Until recently I've been reticent to get widescreen because most of the shows were in 4:3, so there was little point, but now it's gone the other way, so widescreen is fine by me.
Most rooms seem set up to have the TV in the corner, so the extra depth of a CRT is still there if you get a similar sized flatscreen, it's just empty behind it.
Maybe in a few years time, when flat screens have come down in price and my CRTs die, then I'll probably get a flat screen, but at the moment, I've had no reason to justify the cost.
625 is a great picture, I'm happy with it, so the extra £120 a year on top of the cost of HDTV really isn't worth it.

[altis]

We've got a 4" Bush in the bedroom.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by altis

We've got a 4" Bush in the bedroom.

Are you sure she'd be happy with you discussing that on a public forum?

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by dooper786

In my hoem I have a very nice Sony 28" widescreen TV. Its probably about 6 years old now and has performed faultlessly since I bought it. When it is fed with a decent signal, I consider that the picture quality is excellent. Of course it is a traditional 625 line CRT set. The 625 line standard has been with us an awefull long time as has the CRT. It follows then that there has to be getting on for 50 years of development and product improvement in CRT production and design to get us to where we are today. Presumably todays CRT TVs are pretty much state of the art (as long as you dont buy cheap junk).

I've got a similar spec Sony to you. I bought it about 8 years ago, and, TBH, in terms of colour reproduction, it beats most of the LCDs and Plasmas I've seen. Obviously, it isn't HD, so can't match the resolution of HD stuff, but, TBH, I don't find the difference that great.

[Xaccers]

Is HDTV a marketting con? Like Super CD's where the sound quality is better, honest, you just can't tell the difference being a mear human.
Sky had a display in MK of HDTV and to be honest, it didn't look any different to my Philips picture.

[Halcyon]

I have a Samsung 19" CRT and it is one of the brightest, sharpest screens I've ever used.
I find that a lot of the slimmer flat screens appear washed out and until I can truly find one that can be as good as a CRT, I'll stick with my CRT, even if it does take up a lot of space.

[Jon M]

Aside from the ergonomics, there is vastly less heat generated by a TFT, much less power consumed and it is inherently better for your eyes as it doesn't refresh.

[Xaccers]

Except plasma (do people still buy those?) as they can use 4 times the power of a CRT

[Jon M]

Agreed, I'd never contemplate plasma, of the ones I've seen the quality isn't great and the lifetime is appauling for the cost involved.

I am an crt advocate however with prices dropping and resolutions rising the flat panel is not the cost effective choice. My 32 inch crt is awesome it cost a grand a few years ago and is worth every penny for big screen movies i use my projector imo its much much much better to watch normal tosh in small screen sd and watch movies in cinema im well chuffed with my set up

[altis]

Originally Posted by Jon M

Aside from the ergonomics, there is vastly less heat generated by a TFT, much less power consumed...

Not what I excpected but, a little on-line research suggests that this is not true. For the same size of screen, LCDs consume about the same as CRTs. In fact, a CRT is often a little better. Of course the plasma screens eat loads of power.

For example:
http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partner...esentation.pdf

[Vlad_Dracul]

Originally Posted by altis

We've got a 4" Bush in the bedroom.

Four inches you say...? Perhaps i can refer you to my depilatory advice in the Lifestyle section?