GreenMonkey
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2006
- Messages
- 2,159
Um....no, it hasn't. Nowhere close.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
24" Widescreen CRT (FW900) From Ebay arrived,Comments.
- Thread starter mathesar
- Start date
Um....no, it hasn't. Nowhere close.
So, you have the brightness issue, which means it looks like ass and mitigates the biggest CRT advantages. . . you were unwilling to use Windas (which means you've also never service-mode converged it). . . and yet you're saying that LCDs have "finally surpassed the FW900?"
Perhaps in some criteria. But not in the criteria for which most value a CRT. Color, contrast, true black, and response time.
Had you been able/willing to adjust the G2 brightness, we might be able to take your opinion more seriously. But looking at a CRT that has the G2 brightness issue and then basing judgements on that. . . sorry. Not really a valid frame of reference. Nor is it really possible to base such judgements off of memories of the monitor when it was functioning properly. I can't tell you how many times I've been playing a game or watching media on an LCD for a long period of time and think: "This doesn't actually look all that bad. Maybe I'm being too much of a CRT snob.". . . but then I have a chance to enjoy my CRT monitor or HD TV and realize. . . no, the CRT really is just better.
Best,
H
I also own a Sony SGI G520 Grade A. I know what true blacks and response time is.
However in response to your troll comment.
I now own a NEC LCD 2690WUXI spectra view calibrated and it is way better than any CRT i have seen or used. 25.5" viewable 4 year warrenty.
My black levels are not as good as a trinitron 100LB tube but it sits pretty close.
It was cool back in the day to play at 85FPS or more but why even bother now? You might get a slight advantage when playing online FPS thats it. I am comfortable at 60FPS using a NEC 2690. CRT help in benchmarks/overclocking/ and FPS games that is it. No deskspace / more electricity/ is what the FW900 offers.
Clarity is way better on LCDs and is alot more enjoyable to look at.
CRTs are good for MAME emulation accuracy/ First person shooters running at 85+FPS/ or watching fast action flick movies. I would not even consider black levels to be superior anymore to high grade NEC IPS monitors. Are you some poor college student with no job? Because obviously you do not know what a good high grade NEC monitor has to offer.
Have a nice day.
However in response to your troll comment.
I now own a NEC LCD 2690WUXI spectra view calibrated and it is way better than any CRT i have seen or used. 25.5" viewable 4 year warrenty.
My black levels are not as good as a trinitron 100LB tube but it sits pretty close.
It was cool back in the day to play at 85FPS or more but why even bother now? You might get a slight advantage when playing online FPS thats it. I am comfortable at 60FPS using a NEC 2690. CRT help in benchmarks/overclocking/ and FPS games that is it. No deskspace / more electricity/ is what the FW900 offers.
Clarity is way better on LCDs and is alot more enjoyable to look at.
CRTs are good for MAME emulation accuracy/ First person shooters running at 85+FPS/ or watching fast action flick movies. I would not even consider black levels to be superior anymore to high grade NEC IPS monitors. Are you some poor college student with no job? Because obviously you do not know what a good high grade NEC monitor has to offer.
Have a nice day.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes i would agree CRT is better for HD or movie watching. Plasma tech has finally caught up though. I own a Panasonic Plasma 58" V10 series.
I would say that the FW900 or Sony G520 contrast and black levels are slightly better or just as good as my NEC LCD 2690 spectraview calibrated but i would not say that the contrast or black levels are superior.
I would take the 2690 over the Fw900 due to deskspace savings, energy savings, viewable size, warrenty and text clarity. It is also more enjoyable looking at high res pictures on the 2690 . If you read my comment about to the guy who called me a troll , i have owned the Sony SGI G520 Grade A tube and know what it means to play games at 100 FPS or see deep blacks. The NEC gets pretty close to having great black levels or true black look. The FW900 Grade A would beat most LCDs that are sold at best buy or your standard consumer local store. It is too bad the local consumer can not find parts to fix these monitors cheaply or easily. I would say it is way too risky buying one online now since they are beyond their lifespan. I am not a internal monitor expert but i know for a fact that when you start losing contrast or your monitor starts to pop or get blurry its time to throw it away. I would say over 90 percent of FW900 monitors are doing that now. When you move on though take a look at the NEC2690 and buy a spectraview you will be very satisfied over the FW900
later
Last edited:
I'll take your 6.3 years and raise you...uh, oh shit, only 5 years. What? Like that makes any damn difference in this conversation. Or perhaps you'd really rather bring stupid sideline things like registration date into a discussion about the values of different monitor types just to deflect attention from the strength of your argument? Jeez.
I can see you enjoy your LCD's strong points more than a CRT's, but that doesn't mean that other people's priorities won't mean that they enjoy the crt's strong points over the lcd's. You've got to be pretty blind to declare that LCD's have surpassed CRT's when i'm gaming here at 130hz and you're sitting pretty on less than half of that, plus pixel refresh times. There is no comparison between your LCD and the FW900 when you look at gaming performance. Though if you don't game, then that wouldn't count towards an advantage. The argument is old and it's always the same; some people simply use their monitors for different things.
You do have very good points about the age of these monitors now. You really do have to be careful about what you buy. I managed to find one in excellent condition, no fuzzyness, popping, brightness issues, discoloration, or convergance problems. It is an outstanding monitor. A very nice LCD from a color standpoint could be quite acceptable in relation to this monitor, but NOT while providing the same response times - and that's very important to any truly dedicated gamers. There are still some FW900's out there in excellent condition... and those are worth way WAY more than the paltry sum they are being sold for. I mean, i got mine for 150$! I could not find an LCD that would come within a mile of matching an FW900 for 150$. There's just no comparison.
I can see you enjoy your LCD's strong points more than a CRT's, but that doesn't mean that other people's priorities won't mean that they enjoy the crt's strong points over the lcd's. You've got to be pretty blind to declare that LCD's have surpassed CRT's when i'm gaming here at 130hz and you're sitting pretty on less than half of that, plus pixel refresh times. There is no comparison between your LCD and the FW900 when you look at gaming performance. Though if you don't game, then that wouldn't count towards an advantage. The argument is old and it's always the same; some people simply use their monitors for different things.
You do have very good points about the age of these monitors now. You really do have to be careful about what you buy. I managed to find one in excellent condition, no fuzzyness, popping, brightness issues, discoloration, or convergance problems. It is an outstanding monitor. A very nice LCD from a color standpoint could be quite acceptable in relation to this monitor, but NOT while providing the same response times - and that's very important to any truly dedicated gamers. There are still some FW900's out there in excellent condition... and those are worth way WAY more than the paltry sum they are being sold for. I mean, i got mine for 150$! I could not find an LCD that would come within a mile of matching an FW900 for 150$. There's just no comparison.
Last edited:
So you are gaming at 130 HZ? What resolution did you manage that at? Gaming on CRTs are of course slightly better but i would not say superior to a NEC 2490 or 2690. I would gladly take a 24" or 26" viewable vs 22.5" 100LB FW900. LCDs have alot of advantages over the FW900 like being able to transport my monitor with one hand anywhere i want too. The color reproduction is just as good if not better for clarity or playing games. The only thing the FW900 has on high grade LCDs is black levels and refresh rates. Setting the option with Vsync enabled you will give you 60 FPS which is what all games run on anyways. FW900 can run at 120FPS+ running FPS shooter which will actually give you the upper hand online thats it. I would rather play a game the way its meant to be played at 60FPS. I was too into CRTs as i owned the SGI G520 and finally realized everything just looks better on a good LCD i.e 2690 nec which i own now. Yes the LCDs they sell at best buy are junk and yes a FW900 GRADE A+++ would be a preferred choice if i wanted something around 22" viewable. I like gaming on monitors 24"+ viewable and surfing the net. To me FW900 is not that great anymore and users like yourself should look else were. Are you still gaming at 800x600? so you play games at 130HZ? lol , I would watch out because running that high might break your monitor. How would you get it fixed then?
I forgot to mention i own the Panasonic 58" V10 series. So when it comes to movie watching/playing games/black levels/response times that is what i own in my living room. Not the samsung LED bull crap. Yes plasmas are built off CRT technology not LCDs.
Last edited:
GreenMonkey
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2006
- Messages
- 2,159
Black levels and black level detail are still not acceptable on an LCD. LED LCDs are somewhat better in this regard but they aren't exactly mainstream pricing as a PC monitor at this point.
I use a darkchip2 DLP projector for my HT and that's not nearly as bad as your average TN panel LCD...but also not up to snuff.
The only, only digital display tech that is close enough to a CRT as far as black level detail, contrast ratio, accurate colors, response time/ghosting and the like is plasma. Period. LCD still can't match even the plasma's performance.
I use a darkchip2 DLP projector for my HT and that's not nearly as bad as your average TN panel LCD...but also not up to snuff.
The only, only digital display tech that is close enough to a CRT as far as black level detail, contrast ratio, accurate colors, response time/ghosting and the like is plasma. Period. LCD still can't match even the plasma's performance.
I agree on the black levels and response times on LCDs in the living room. Plasma is the way to go. Some people still prefer that ultra slim look though and are fooled when they finally setup the samsung led in their living room and wonder why it looks like crap i.e. response time.
They get sold on that ULTRA bright picture and that slim look at the store. I will never own a LCD for living room use.
I do think though LCDs for desktops i.e. the NECs with spectraview is what i would rather have than the FW900 sitting on my desk.
OK, now you're starting to sound like a troll, but i'll respond once more anyway.
Yes, i play at 1280x800x130hz, or at 1680x1200 @ 100hz in the slower paced games that don't benefit as much from the extra refresh rate. In some games (like batman: AA) where no twitching is neeeded, i play @ 1920x1200@85hz. If you think that gaming on a 2490 is equal to playing on an FW900 @ 130hz, then you obviously have no idea what you are talking about. 130hz is not equal to 60hz, and no matter what you tell yourself, it never will be.
1. The larger viewable area doesn't really help me from a computer monitor standpoint since the fw900 is capable of considerably higher resolutions than the panels you mentioned. Useable desktop space will actually be higher on the fw900.
2. The color reproduction IS very good on those panels; i'd be perfectly happy with one of them for uses other than gaming; that's not the point.
3. You see, like I said, the benefits you are listing might mean a lot to you, and you may thus be happy with a lesser monitor, but for many people the ability to move a monitor around is not important. I never move my monitor. I haven't gone to a LAN party in 5 years. With broadband EVERYWHERE, I just don't need to go to a LAN for good performance. If you travel around with your monitor alot, then - sure, get an LCD, because carrying CRT's is no fun. This just goes back to your priorities being different than other peoples.
If you enable vsync, you will be adding input lag to your game. I understand based on your previous comments about 130hz not being superior to 60hz that you must be basically refresh rate blind, but making statements like this really drives the point home. Vsync has no place in competitive gaming - ESPECIALLY at 60hz. I can feel the different between vsync on and off at 130hz. At 60hz the difference is huge. And yes, getting 130hz+ does give you an upper hand online, which is my point, and games don't all run at 60fps'. ONLY YOUR GAMES DO, because you have VSYNC ON and your LCD is limited to 60hz. You see? You just told me that you like to play games 'the way they are meant to be', and used your inferior hardware to try and say that games 'all run at 60fps because that's how they should be'. That is ridiculous.
I understand your NEC LCD looks good, but 'looks good' is subjective and totally discards the real benefits of CRT tech. An LCD can look 'great' but still not match the fw900's black levels and not come CLOSE to it's responsiveness. And that's exactly what LCD's do. Unless you've got one of the newest 120hz lcd's. Which you don't.
Fair enough, you prefer a larger screen, and are willing to make the tradeoffs that you have to get it. That's your priority, and that's fine. Just don't try and tell other people that it's the 'right' way to be thinking.
I have looked elsewhere. I tried 5 LCD's just last month, including the 24" NEC you listed, and I was unimpressed by the response time and input lag on ALL of them. You may not find this to be a big deal, or you may not even percieve it - many people can't - but for some people it is a big deal.
I game at either 1280x800 or 1680x1080 in twitch games. I game at 1920x1200 in non twitch games, still at 85hz which is noticeably improved over the 60hz you are experiencing. I'd prefer a smooth, fluid gameplay experience over a super high resolution any day. Your remarks about 'running that high might break your monitor' just show your ignorance again; 1280x800@130hz is well within specs; only ~111khz horizontal scan rate if i recall correctly.
Yes, i play at 1280x800x130hz, or at 1680x1200 @ 100hz in the slower paced games that don't benefit as much from the extra refresh rate. In some games (like batman: AA) where no twitching is neeeded, i play @ 1920x1200@85hz. If you think that gaming on a 2490 is equal to playing on an FW900 @ 130hz, then you obviously have no idea what you are talking about. 130hz is not equal to 60hz, and no matter what you tell yourself, it never will be.
1. The larger viewable area doesn't really help me from a computer monitor standpoint since the fw900 is capable of considerably higher resolutions than the panels you mentioned. Useable desktop space will actually be higher on the fw900.
2. The color reproduction IS very good on those panels; i'd be perfectly happy with one of them for uses other than gaming; that's not the point.
3. You see, like I said, the benefits you are listing might mean a lot to you, and you may thus be happy with a lesser monitor, but for many people the ability to move a monitor around is not important. I never move my monitor. I haven't gone to a LAN party in 5 years. With broadband EVERYWHERE, I just don't need to go to a LAN for good performance. If you travel around with your monitor alot, then - sure, get an LCD, because carrying CRT's is no fun. This just goes back to your priorities being different than other peoples.
If you enable vsync, you will be adding input lag to your game. I understand based on your previous comments about 130hz not being superior to 60hz that you must be basically refresh rate blind, but making statements like this really drives the point home. Vsync has no place in competitive gaming - ESPECIALLY at 60hz. I can feel the different between vsync on and off at 130hz. At 60hz the difference is huge. And yes, getting 130hz+ does give you an upper hand online, which is my point, and games don't all run at 60fps'. ONLY YOUR GAMES DO, because you have VSYNC ON and your LCD is limited to 60hz. You see? You just told me that you like to play games 'the way they are meant to be', and used your inferior hardware to try and say that games 'all run at 60fps because that's how they should be'. That is ridiculous.
I understand your NEC LCD looks good, but 'looks good' is subjective and totally discards the real benefits of CRT tech. An LCD can look 'great' but still not match the fw900's black levels and not come CLOSE to it's responsiveness. And that's exactly what LCD's do. Unless you've got one of the newest 120hz lcd's. Which you don't.
Fair enough, you prefer a larger screen, and are willing to make the tradeoffs that you have to get it. That's your priority, and that's fine. Just don't try and tell other people that it's the 'right' way to be thinking.
I have looked elsewhere. I tried 5 LCD's just last month, including the 24" NEC you listed, and I was unimpressed by the response time and input lag on ALL of them. You may not find this to be a big deal, or you may not even percieve it - many people can't - but for some people it is a big deal.
I game at either 1280x800 or 1680x1080 in twitch games. I game at 1920x1200 in non twitch games, still at 85hz which is noticeably improved over the 60hz you are experiencing. I'd prefer a smooth, fluid gameplay experience over a super high resolution any day. Your remarks about 'running that high might break your monitor' just show your ignorance again; 1280x800@130hz is well within specs; only ~111khz horizontal scan rate if i recall correctly.
Last edited:
BrianEsser
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2009
- Messages
- 2,651
Dude, you make fucking 75k a year. Stop bragging about it like that's something special in every fucking thread. I promise, no one is impressed.
haste
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2005
- Messages
- 8,005
Dude, you make fucking 75k a year. Stop bragging about it like that's something special in every fucking thread. I promise, no one is impressed.
lol, so true.
i like my fw900 because i have yet to use an LCD monitor that feels like my crt. once i can get that feeling reproduced in a LCD panel...im all for it.
Dude, you make fucking 75k a year. Stop bragging about it like that's something special in every fucking thread. I promise, no one is impressed.
Why you have to swear? You cant have a forum debate like a normal person?
That's like telling a guy using an steel axe to chop down an oak tree that he should be using a plastic axe instead - because - hey, plastic's newer! CRT's are better at some things than LCD's. That's just how it is. LCD's are better than CRT's at other things. You get whichever you want based on what you find to be the most important aspects of the 2 technologies. Once LCD's can match CRT's in black levels and response times, THEN you'll have a comparison re: stone age vs. new age tech.
This discussion is quite pointless.
CRT's have things they do well, and they have their flaws.
The same can be said for LCD's.
Truth is, if they made a *affordable* LCD monitor that reproduced a real 120HZ, I would have little need to buy an FW900. Since they dont, I will stick with the FW900. That's my personal choice. If someone values deskspace and newness more than me, they might choose an LCD.
That's all it comes down to. Personal preference. There is no use in trying to make someone feel stupid for using one or the other.
CRT's have things they do well, and they have their flaws.
The same can be said for LCD's.
Truth is, if they made a *affordable* LCD monitor that reproduced a real 120HZ, I would have little need to buy an FW900. Since they dont, I will stick with the FW900. That's my personal choice. If someone values deskspace and newness more than me, they might choose an LCD.
That's all it comes down to. Personal preference. There is no use in trying to make someone feel stupid for using one or the other.
Next time please recycle.
I guess its time for me to talk on your level.
. You need to get off your high horse on the FW900 . It is now a piece of ShiT. Your monitor is probably on its way out by now. Go get yourself an LCD i.e NEC 2690 and calibrate it with the spectra view. I bet you will thank me in the end since that 100lb piece of junk is taking up way too much space on your desk anyway. That crap need to go to the recycle yard so we can move on and use your scrap metal to make something else. I can not believe you think your monitor is the shiznet; Maybe like 4 years ago when this thread first started ,but it is not anymore!
I know that I stop thinking LCDs are that bad if I use them for some time without directly comparing them to CRTs. But if I ever see a CRT and an LCD side-by-side in a properly lit (dark!) environment. . . there's simply no contest. LCDs can't do black. Not even the best ones. It's an inherent limitation of the technology (until full-array backlights reach consumers that can do true selective dimming. . . though by then, we'll be approaching OLED time!).
Now, if you're the type of person who can get used to LCDs and forget about the superiority of CRTs, great! But personally, in my case, I've seen my CRT directly next to four or five LCDs. Each time, I've been astounded by how much better my CRT looks. Were they $2000 LCDs that were hardware calibrated? No. But then again, no amount of calibration will allow LCD tech to approach CRT black levels.
So. . . if more easy-going people can enjoy their LCDs and ignore their shortcomings, especially if they never have the chance to compare a properly adjusted CRT to a properly adjusted LCD, well, great! More power to them. But there's certainly no need for anyone to come in here and act like an ass (on either side) just because we've decided to emphasize one side of the spectrum over the other.
Now, if you're the type of person who can get used to LCDs and forget about the superiority of CRTs, great! But personally, in my case, I've seen my CRT directly next to four or five LCDs. Each time, I've been astounded by how much better my CRT looks. Were they $2000 LCDs that were hardware calibrated? No. But then again, no amount of calibration will allow LCD tech to approach CRT black levels.
So. . . if more easy-going people can enjoy their LCDs and ignore their shortcomings, especially if they never have the chance to compare a properly adjusted CRT to a properly adjusted LCD, well, great! More power to them. But there's certainly no need for anyone to come in here and act like an ass (on either side) just because we've decided to emphasize one side of the spectrum over the other.
GDM- F520 and FW900 are magnificant displays. However, I believe existing LCDs with local dimming can do black. (If we include TV panels anyway...)
I could be wrong, but to my knowledge (which may not be as up-to-date as it should be), there still aren't full-array LED backlit displays that will do selective dimming. There are many that make use of "dynamic contrast" which dims the entire screen when algorithms detect that a "dark scene" is being displayed. But full-array LED-backlit displays w/ selective dimming will actually only dim small portions of the display where most appropriate. This is made possible by there being many different LED backlights behind the panel rather than being "edge lit" as most are today (even most LED-lit displays). Supposedly the effect is quite nice according to reviews of prototypes (etc.). Whereas, existing attempts at "dynamic contrast" generally just lead to an annoying flicker effect.
zoobaby
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 6,179
Remember rule #1 of this forum:
(1) Absolutely NO FLAMING, NAME CALLING OR PERSONAL ATTACKS. Mutual respect and civilized conversation is the required norm.
You guys keep the shit up, and we'll ship you out.
(1) Absolutely NO FLAMING, NAME CALLING OR PERSONAL ATTACKS. Mutual respect and civilized conversation is the required norm.
You guys keep the shit up, and we'll ship you out.
- Joined
- May 18, 1997
- Messages
- 55,634
You guys have some very good points to make, but call each other names again or paint "troll" labels on people, or use profanity where it simply is not needed and you will be banned forever from this forum. You WILL communicate in a respectful fashion in our forums.
This is your last warning. Stop wasting our time. We have better things to do besides baby sit.
This is your last warning. Stop wasting our time. We have better things to do besides baby sit.
helmutcheese
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2008
- Messages
- 75
Correct but you have removed most of our posts against this Intentional Troll and left some of his like his demand the thread should be closed.
Why not remove all his posts of past 2 days as he is obv just Trolling.
I personally hate Consoles and think they are crap (IMO) but I do not visit 360/PS3 Forums and Troll.
Follow my lead ?
Why not remove all his posts of past 2 days as he is obv just Trolling.
I personally hate Consoles and think they are crap (IMO) but I do not visit 360/PS3 Forums and Troll.
Follow my lead ?
- Joined
- May 18, 1997
- Messages
- 55,634
Thanks for pointing out how you think our boards should be moderated. You are permanently banned from our boards. You simply require too much attention for the input you provide.
LAGRUNAUER
Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2006
- Messages
- 745
A while back, I quit posting on this board because of unwarranted comments and attacks made by this individual and some others against me and other members. I am very glad to see that the Editor-In-Chief has step up and curved this type of behavior, and I praise him for banning this individual and others from this board.
Sincerely,
Unkle Vito!
Sincerely,
Unkle Vito!
sadbuttrue
Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2008
- Messages
- 519
Now that we're back on topic...
1. Are the ATI drivers for Windows 7 calculating the CRT timings differently (porch, sync etc)? My monitor is buzzing more than it does in both XP and Vista.
2. Has anyone got powerstrip to work in Windows 7 with an ATI card? Every attempt results in an out of range signal from the monitor.
1. Are the ATI drivers for Windows 7 calculating the CRT timings differently (porch, sync etc)? My monitor is buzzing more than it does in both XP and Vista.
2. Has anyone got powerstrip to work in Windows 7 with an ATI card? Every attempt results in an out of range signal from the monitor.
Kind of curious myself. Finishing up my new build and picking up my FW900 in about an hour (scored for $50 off Craigslist) and I have a XFX5750 that will be pushing this brute in win7. I will have it all together in a week or so likely and will let you knwo how things turn out for me.
Shiranui Gen-An
n00b
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2007
- Messages
- 44
A seller on eBay US has some NIB Dell P1130 21" Trinitrons up for sale, I'm not sure if it's okay to link directly.
I just won a bid on the SGI rebadge of this monitor (unfortunately a bit uglier than the Sony/HP) $610 AUD, price is pretty steep but it's the only one i've seen on ebay australia so far.
Going to inspect it on the weekend, am thoroughly reading the thread so I'm aware of all the possible issues/able to get it working perfectly
Going to inspect it on the weekend, am thoroughly reading the thread so I'm aware of all the possible issues/able to get it working perfectly
haste
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2005
- Messages
- 8,005
awesome! good luck with it
Just a heads up, there are some nV 195.39 beta drivers making the rounds on the internets. I grabbed a set for Win 7 x64. The new drivers seem to have resolved the resolution scaling issue that was present since 182.50. This is pretty good news for us FW900 users.
Hello,
I finally was able to get myself one one those beasts. Unfortunately, my sample is not in a mint condition. :/ Light cosmetic damage put aside, it's main problem is the stability of the image.
As some of the posts in this thread were quite well technically informed, I would like to ask you some advice to fix this problem.
Let me try to explain the symptoms :
The image "shakes", "wobbles" or "pulsate" vertically. The speed and amplitude of the phenomenon is affected by the refresh frequency.
Let's say I use a resolution of 1900x1280.
- If I set the refresh rate at 90Hz, the variation in vertical size is almost only slightly noticeable but fast. Something like 1/4 mm every 0.3-0.5 seconds. The amplitude is identical at the top and the bottom of the screen. Thus it looks like it is "shaking" slightly. Quite nauseating.
- If I set it at 70Hz, the variation is slower and has a wider amplitude. Something like 2-3mm every second. The behavior of the top edge is the same as it is at 90hz. The difference in amplitude is located at the bottom edge, which acts like the screen is pulsating like a heart. Boum-boum-boum.
All the others refresh rates tested give something in-between those two extremes. Also, the brightness setting of the monitor and the brightness of the displayed image makes only a slight difference. (brighter = worse)
So, my first idea was a dried-up capacitor on the Power Supply "G" board. I have an ESR meter and I was going to check them as soon as I would have the time to take the monitor apart.
However, while browsing the Interweb looking for a solution, I found a website mentioning a Sony Monitors service bulletin addressing a problem with the GDM-FW900.
The problem is described as "VERTICAL SIZE PULSATING IC001 FAILURE (C_P0333)".
Unfortunately, those bulletins were confidential and I was not able to get a copy yet. Do any of you have any more information about the content of that paper ?
To my knowledge, the IC001 (CXD8744Q chip on the "N" board) is the main CPU of the monitor. If it is fried, that's bad : even if I manage to find a spare, I do not have the tools or the skills to replace those big chips. And I suspect finding an assembled replacement "N" board will be expensive and difficult. (Sony ServicePLUS is out of them)
By the way, wasn't that IC also the culprit for the brightness problem ? If the that problem can be fixed with WinDAS by lowering the G2, maybe altering another value could fix the "pulsation" one ?
Then again it could be another component fried or dying elsewhere (EL cap, resistor, etc.) or a cold solder point. Any advice on where to start looking ?
Thanks in advance for any help !
I finally was able to get myself one one those beasts. Unfortunately, my sample is not in a mint condition. :/ Light cosmetic damage put aside, it's main problem is the stability of the image.
As some of the posts in this thread were quite well technically informed, I would like to ask you some advice to fix this problem.
Let me try to explain the symptoms :
The image "shakes", "wobbles" or "pulsate" vertically. The speed and amplitude of the phenomenon is affected by the refresh frequency.
Let's say I use a resolution of 1900x1280.
- If I set the refresh rate at 90Hz, the variation in vertical size is almost only slightly noticeable but fast. Something like 1/4 mm every 0.3-0.5 seconds. The amplitude is identical at the top and the bottom of the screen. Thus it looks like it is "shaking" slightly. Quite nauseating.
- If I set it at 70Hz, the variation is slower and has a wider amplitude. Something like 2-3mm every second. The behavior of the top edge is the same as it is at 90hz. The difference in amplitude is located at the bottom edge, which acts like the screen is pulsating like a heart. Boum-boum-boum.
All the others refresh rates tested give something in-between those two extremes. Also, the brightness setting of the monitor and the brightness of the displayed image makes only a slight difference. (brighter = worse)
So, my first idea was a dried-up capacitor on the Power Supply "G" board. I have an ESR meter and I was going to check them as soon as I would have the time to take the monitor apart.
However, while browsing the Interweb looking for a solution, I found a website mentioning a Sony Monitors service bulletin addressing a problem with the GDM-FW900.
The problem is described as "VERTICAL SIZE PULSATING IC001 FAILURE (C_P0333)".
Unfortunately, those bulletins were confidential and I was not able to get a copy yet. Do any of you have any more information about the content of that paper ?
To my knowledge, the IC001 (CXD8744Q chip on the "N" board) is the main CPU of the monitor. If it is fried, that's bad : even if I manage to find a spare, I do not have the tools or the skills to replace those big chips. And I suspect finding an assembled replacement "N" board will be expensive and difficult. (Sony ServicePLUS is out of them)
By the way, wasn't that IC also the culprit for the brightness problem ? If the that problem can be fixed with WinDAS by lowering the G2, maybe altering another value could fix the "pulsation" one ?
Then again it could be another component fried or dying elsewhere (EL cap, resistor, etc.) or a cold solder point. Any advice on where to start looking ?
Thanks in advance for any help !
Your best bet might be to buy a cheapo FW-900 off of accurate IT and use it for parts. Scavenge the boards you need to get your monitor up and running.
Of course, if you do get another ot use for parts, you should do some testing ot see which one has the better tube. At this point, FW-900's that have seen a ton of hours of use will see declining image quality.
Of course, if you do get another ot use for parts, you should do some testing ot see which one has the better tube. At this point, FW-900's that have seen a ton of hours of use will see declining image quality.