24" Widescreen CRT (FW900) From Ebay arrived,Comments.

Strat_84

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 16, 2016
Messages
353
I think circular was the one that has a visible seam. Didn't appear to be an option. Tried the linear one.

Even if one has to come up with their own way to mount it, this one might be interesting -- http://www.kantek.com/p-LCD24W/c-10...y-Filter---Fits-121-Widescreen-Notebooks.html
Nope, not interesting at all, especially at such price. This is sold as an ANTIGLARE protection filter meaning the optical properties are most certainly crap. This is even more likely because there is absolutely not a single accurate reference to the said optical properties (haze, transmission, reflection levels ...), only vague promises.
 

Derupter

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 25, 2016
Messages
180
Some fresh informations about Delock 62967 ... I bought 4 of them for my CRTs from Reichelt.de, unpacked one and tried it:
- With a HD5850 / Catalysts 14.12 I only get up to 1280*1024@85hz resolution and can't set anything higher with CRU
- With a R9 380X / Adrenalin 18.12.3 I get resolutions up to 1600x1200@60hz, and when I try setting standard resolutions for the FW900 (like 1920*1200@85hz), the screen keeps clicking, and display remains black most of the time with some sporadic images. On the top of that the system is more or less hanging, I have to unplug the adapter for this to stop.
I'll try a few more things but digging back in the thread, I guess I've fallen victim of their shit connector and I'll have to add some cable soldering job to my long list of things to do ... :dead:
AMD 5850 does not support HBR2 so even if the adapter was perfect it couldn't go over 180 MHz.
With 380X is another story and if it isn't stable with HBR2 the only solution is replace the cable or at least the connector.
About AMD cards and 62967 i tested 8 different samples, some with cable and connector different from the model on sale and only the first prototype works perfect, the other samples have problems with HBR2.
I have an additional adapter between the card and the 62967 because i have only mini displayport output, this degrades the signal even more, i never tested the new modified samples with direct displayport connection but pr0ton did it and the results were not good, he replaced the cable and it worked.
I also replaced the cable on one sample and it worked, even with a shitty solder job.
With Nvidia GTX 1070 all the samples work perfectly, i can also touch and move the connector while it is running without problems on the image.
 
Last edited:

Meeho

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
4,896
I've changed my AMD GPU for a 980Ti and now some resolutions output too small on the screen, even if I stretch the picture to max on the OSD menu. Any tips?
 

3dfan

Weaksauce
Joined
Jun 2, 2016
Messages
114
that happened to me sometimes, fixed by creating those resolutions with custom resolution utility with timing CRT standard, or in nvidia control panel creating the custom resolution with the GFT standard timing and leaving the scaling metod as "aspect ratio" from the "adjust dektop size and position" section.


for those interested on polarized films to add to a fw900 which original one was removed, as a summary i added a car film one to my fw900 because i did not like how the screen looked without any on a non dark room, which mas too grayish even with monitor turned off no blacks at all, but were restored when added the mentoned film without blocking peak luminance dramatically, if interested on more info, search my user name with subject "polarizer"
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meeho
like this

Meeho

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
4,896
that happened to me sometimes, fixed by creating those resolutions with custom resolution utility with timing CRT standard, or in nvidia control panel creating the custom resolution with the GFT standard timing and leaving the scaling metod as "aspect ratio" from the "adjust dektop size and position" section.


for those interested on polarized films to add to a fw900 which original one was removed, as a summary i added a car film one to my fw900 because i did not like how the screen looked without any on a non dark room, which mas too grayish even with monitor turned off no blacks at all, but were restored when added the mentoned film without blocking peak luminance dramatically, if interested on more info, search my user name with subject "polarizer"
Thank you, I've tried the custom resolution before but the GFT standard was the key!

You've used a 50% car film, right? Are you still happy with it? I think I will go with that option as the greyish blacks are a bit annoying. Maybe a bit lighter, though. What do you believe would be the closest to the original? 30, 40%?
 

Strat_84

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 16, 2016
Messages
353
Thank you, I've tried the custom resolution before but the GFT standard was the key!

You've used a 50% car film, right? Are you still happy with it? I think I will go with that option as the greyish blacks are a bit annoying. Maybe a bit lighter, though. What do you believe would be the closest to the original? 30, 40%?
As I told many times previously, the original film has a transmittance of about 66%. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meeho
like this

3dfan

Weaksauce
Joined
Jun 2, 2016
Messages
114
i used the less dark film i was able to find, a bit darker than the original as can be noted in the picture:
https://hardforum.com/threads/24-wi...ived-comments.952788/page-356#post-1042412271

yes i am happy with it instead of using the screen without anything, but if it were posible to get and install the original, would be happier. i removed the original because of sensationalism i read about removing it and the monitor becoming even brighter, but did not like the fact that blacks were only perceivable in a dark environment, and when i like to use the monitor in dark room for dark games, also like to use it in a natural moderated light for other uses and not dark games.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Meeho
like this

SH1

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 30, 2006
Messages
1,420
Nope, not interesting at all, especially at such price. This is sold as an ANTIGLARE protection filter meaning the optical properties are most certainly crap. This is even more likely because there is absolutely not a single accurate reference to the said optical properties (haze, transmission, reflection levels ...), only vague promises.
That's not the actual retail price.

Amazon listing is a bit scattered, but appears to have more detail: "Antireflective coating reduces glare by 95%, improves image and enhances contrast to help prevent eyestrain and thereby reduce fatigue. (Not designed to filter out high direct glare from a light source shining directly on the monitor, such as a direct window or overhead lighting)...Optical-quality acrylic is made with a neutral light tint for true color fidelity"

Personal finding is that the tint is darker than the original, but lighter than the film from 3DLens. One side of the filter is mildly reflective. The other side is very reflective.

CONCLUSION: Fail probably. Nice tint and AR coating, but they appear to be on only one side. And the other side is like a mirror. I have the coated side facing the monitor to minimize reflection back from that. Now that it's during the day, the user side facing mirror finish is more obvious. A shame, because it's good otherwise I think.

There used to be nice AR filters for CRT coated on both sides, but I've not seen any suitable for the FW900's size and shape.

I will probably remount it coated side facing user and keep it for now. Not as good as it could have been, but still having seen it, I'm liking it significantly more than the raw glass I think.
 
Last edited:

3dfan

Weaksauce
Joined
Jun 2, 2016
Messages
114
Just confirmed that 2304x1440 @ 80 hz works on it. He can't do 10 bit test yet as he doesn't have a colorimeter yet.
if i am not wrong you were referring to this adapter, didn't you? https://www.amazon.com/Vention-Adap...dp/B07C4TP4BJ?language=en_US&tag=hardfocom-20

if so, 2304x1440 @ 80 hz is about 383 mhz pixel clock which is very promising and i guess it should handle 1920 x 1200 96hz (323 mhz pixel clock) as well.

are there anymore news about it? if posible can you please ask how stable and issue free have it been so far and what video card its being used with?
 
Last edited:

Strat_84

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 16, 2016
Messages
353
AMD 5850 does not support HBR2 so even if the adapter was perfect it couldn't go over 180 MHz.
With 380X is another story and if it isn't stable with HBR2 the only solution is replace the cable or at least the connector.
About AMD cards and 62967 i tested 8 different samples, some with cable and connector different from the model on sale and only the first prototype works perfect, the other samples have problems with HBR2.
I have an additional adapter between the card and the 62967 because i have only mini displayport output, this degrades the signal even more, i never tested the new modified samples with direct displayport connection but pr0ton did it and the results were not good, he replaced the cable and it worked.
I also replaced the cable on one sample and it worked, even with a shitty solder job.
With Nvidia GTX 1070 all the samples work perfectly, i can also touch and move the connector while it is running without problems on the image.
I've been digging back in the thread about these samples you received, apparently replacing the cable itself isn't really useful ? Then I'll just replace the connector, that should allow a cleaner result. I've found what should be a decent replacement on Farnell: https://fr.farnell.com/multicomp/62s020p-301n-e1-b2p/fiche-male-port-display-type-cable/dp/1686456
I was hoping it was just the cover of the adapter's DP plug messing things up, but after removing it carefully the problem is still the same. So definitively it's the connector itself having a problem with dimensions, and probably not only length.
 
Last edited:

Derupter

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 25, 2016
Messages
180
I've been digging back in the thread about these samples you received, apparently replacing the cable itself isn't really useful ? Then I'll just replace the connector, that should allow a cleaner result. I've found what should be a decent replacement on Farnell: https://fr.farnell.com/multicomp/62s020p-301n-e1-b2p/fiche-male-port-display-type-cable/dp/1686456
I was hoping it was just the cover of the adapter's DP plug messing things up, but after removing it carefully the problem is still the same. So definitively it's the connector itself having a problem with dimensions, and probably not only length.
About those samples:
Cables aren't much different exept for the last sample with AWG30, they are not bad like those usually used on most adapters but obviously not good enough for the ANX9847 chipset with most video cards.
Connectors are at least mechanically much better with a proper lock system and very solid on connection, but i have no idea about electrical performance.
The housing of the adapter is better and allows a correct connection of the VGA cable.
These samples have never entered production.
What is certain is that all those who replaced the cable have solved the problem, so the only explanation is that the materials used by the manufacturer are of poor quality or not good enough for this adapter.
Delock told them to use better stuff but the results were not different.
With a design like this all the problems would probably be solved, but they never did it.
That connector on Farnell is exactly what i wanted to try but i never did it, if it works it is definitely a better solution than replacing the entire cable.
 
Last edited:

Strat_84

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 16, 2016
Messages
353
So the only prototype which worked properly on every card was supposed to use the same cable/same gauge than the ones which didn't work right ? 32AWG ?
 

Derupter

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 25, 2016
Messages
180
So the only prototype which worked properly on every card was supposed to use the same cable/same gauge than the ones which didn't work right ? 32AWG ?
Yes 32AWG, aesthetically identical to the others and the connector is different from all the others, 8 samples and 4 different connectors.
Maybe that day the guy who assembled the adapter used a good cable or the connector made the difference.
 

spacediver

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 14, 2013
Messages
2,594
if i am not wrong you were referring to this adapter, didn't you? https://www.amazon.com/Vention-Adap...dp/B07C4TP4BJ?language=en_US&tag=hardfocom-20

if so, 2304x1440 @ 80 hz is about 383 mhz pixel clock which is very promising and i guess it should handle 1920 x 1200 96hz (323 mhz pixel clock) as well.

are there anymore news about it? if posible can you please ask how stable and issue free have it been so far and what video card its being used with?
Yep, I believe that's the one. I'll send him an email in a couple weeks and see if I can get more info. I have a feeling he's using an RTX card but not certain. But I'll definitely ask if it's been stable, and whether he's been able to do the colorimeter bit depth test yet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3dfan
like this

jbltecnicspro

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
5,736
Happy Thanksgiving to you guys! The other day I used my PVM to do some color calibration of my projector (I basically made primaries and secondaries match the PVM displaying a SMTPE bar using RGB). Projector looks a lot better now. I know it's not fully Rec 709, but it's a whole lot better than the oversaturated mess it was before. Woot.
 

Strat_84

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 16, 2016
Messages
353
I received the Multicomp displayport plug and well ... It seems it's a fail. :dead:

DSC05896_light.jpg

It has a lock, dimensions seem better than the one on the Delock adapter, it has a plastic cover that can be clipped BUT it is apparently intended to use with some molding around the cables and a copper foil on the top of it, instead of a solid shielding cover. On the top of that I also need a molded part around the cable end to secure it inside the plastic cover, and I couldn't find anything fitting. Probably something molded during the assembly process and not for sale as a spare part.
For reference here is the displayport plug of the cable provided with the Sunix adapter:

DSC05897_light.jpg

Unless someone has a genius spark, I suppose connecting a displayport cable cut in half to the box of the adapter is the only practicable way to fix it.
 

SH1

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 30, 2006
Messages
1,420
If anyone with a debezeled FW900 is interested in mounting the Kantek Filter (https://www.amazon.com/Kantek-Anti-Glare-Monitors-Diagonally-LCD19/dp/B00P85FWG4?th=1), I did so with these:

1.jpeg 2.jpeg


Brackets assembled from:
1) 6 mm metric extruded U Nuts. (Long ones for top, regular for bottom)
2) M4 .7 50mm screws
3) Corresponding nuts and rubber bumpers

(Was all available at a local hardware store.)

I used the top most mounting hole in each corner for the brackets. (The screw in the other mounting hole in each corner continuing to hold the CRT in place.)

I removed the silver layer on top, which was just tape. Drilled out the original hangers. (Carefully to avoid damaging the filter.)

The product description is a bit of a mess and all over the place. In there, beyond the generic "antiglare" designation, it says it's an antireflective coating, which appears to be true. And has FWIW a "neutral light tint".

As you are looking through a relatively thick piece of acrylic as opposed to a thin film, stuff you are looking down at through the filter, e.g., text on the bottom part of a page, has a slight distortion or echo. I mitigated this by raising the angle of the monitor up a bit. Subjectively, overall, in my use of the screen for gaming, other media, and as a secondary screen for productivity (office apps, coding, etc.) it seems kind of great actually. To me.


(Sorry, I did not try it against the bezel with the original hangers. I suspect it might ride a little high as it barely covered the visible area without the bezel with those hangers. I like the look, but I'm not advocating debezeling. Especially if safety concerns, e.g., kids or cats have access to the room.)
 
Last edited:

Derupter

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 25, 2016
Messages
180
I received the Multicomp displayport plug and well ... It seems it's a fail. :dead:

View attachment 203929

It has a lock, dimensions seem better than the one on the Delock adapter, it has a plastic cover that can be clipped BUT it is apparently intended to use with some molding around the cables and a copper foil on the top of it, instead of a solid shielding cover. On the top of that I also need a molded part around the cable end to secure it inside the plastic cover, and I couldn't find anything fitting. Probably something molded during the assembly process and not for sale as a spare part.
For reference here is the displayport plug of the cable provided with the Sunix adapter:

View attachment 203931

Unless someone has a genius spark, I suppose connecting a displayport cable cut in half to the box of the adapter is the only practicable way to fix it.
You can use some hot glue to block everything and adhesive copper foil to shield, or use the shielding cover (if it fits) and the molded part around the cable end of the original connector.


Digital Foundry is back with more CRT coverage:

(Starting around 22:55 John Linneman mentions using the Vention USB C to VGA adapter with success.)
He has probably read about it here, but the model shown in the video can't do more than 360 MHz.
Some information about Vention adapters:

USB-C to VGA (Model code CGMHA) with Lontium LT8711X-B
This is the model we talked before with performance comparable to Sunix DPU3000

USB-C to HDMI(1.4) and VGA (Model code CGKHA) with ITE IT6562 + VIA VL100
This is the old version of the HDMI+VGA and can't do more than 360 MHz, DAC should be 10 bit
This is the model shown in that video

USB-C to HDMI(2.0) and VGA (Model code CMFHB) with Lontium LT8712X
This is the new version of the HDMI+VGA, the new Lontium chipset should have the same performance as the LT8711X-B
I didn't mention it before because it was almost unavailable out of china
 

spacediver

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 14, 2013
Messages
2,594
He has probably read about it here, but the model shown in the video can't do more than 360 MHz.
Strange, he did tell me he was able to get 2304x1440 @ 80 hz. It's possible he's using CGMHA and posted a link to a different one not knowing that they were indeed different.
 

Derupter

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 25, 2016
Messages
180
Strange, he did tell me he was able to get 2304x1440 @ 80 hz. It's possible he's using CGMHA and posted a link to a different one not knowing that they were indeed different.
Can be that Amazon web page description is for the old model,but they actually sell the new model (CMFHB) which is aesthetically the same.
Or maybe they have both models and you don't know what is shipped.
 
Last edited:

3dfan

Weaksauce
Joined
Jun 2, 2016
Messages
114
2304x1440 @ 80 hz is about 383 mhz, not far from 360, if possible, can you please ask him to try something like 2560x1600 72hz? its about 424 mhz and would be a good reference if that Vention model can support those pixel clocks the dpu3000 can, i know fw900 can support that with the dpu3000, because i have tested by myself, if he fails the 2560x1600 72hz test, can try 2560x1600 68hz which is 398hz, and if pass this test would mean that vention he used is 400mhz practically
 
Last edited:

Wirysage

n00b
Joined
Dec 10, 2019
Messages
11
You can use some hot glue to block everything and adhesive copper foil to shield, or use the shielding cover (if it fits) and the molded part around the cable end of the original connector.




He has probably read about it here, but the model shown in the video can't do more than 360 MHz.
Some information about Vention adapters:

USB-C to VGA (Model code CGMHA) with Lontium LT8711X-B
This is the model we talked before with performance comparable to Sunix DPU3000

USB-C to HDMI(1.4) and VGA (Model code CGKHA) with ITE IT6562 + VIA VL100
This is the old version of the HDMI+VGA and can't do more than 360 MHz, DAC should be 10 bit
This is the model shown in that video

USB-C to HDMI(2.0) and VGA (Model code CMFHB) with Lontium LT8712X
This is the new version of the HDMI+VGA, the new Lontium chipset should have the same performance as the LT8711X-B
I didn't mention it before because it was almost unavailable out of china
So do these usb-c to VGA adaptors work if a graphics card (like my r9 290) can output display port signals? The card doesn't have a usb-c port or the mobo. Does this mean that if I team this adaptor with a usb-c pci card it might allow the graphics card to output display port over usb-c?
 

Derupter

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 25, 2016
Messages
180
2304x1440 @ 80 hz is about 383 mhz, not far from 360, if possible, can you please ask him to try something like 2560x1600 72hz? its about 424 mhz and would be a good reference if that Vention model can support those pixel clocks the dpu3000 can, i know fw900 can support that with the dpu3000, because i have tested by myself, if he fails the 2560x1600 72hz test, can try 2560x1600 68hz which is 398hz, and if pass this test would mean that vention he used is 400mhz practically
The limit factor is always the digital receiver of these chipset.
If the CGKHA really has the IT6562 chipset it can't go over 360 MHz, the digital receiver can't do more than that.
If it goes over 360 MHz it means that the chipset is one of the Lontium and the Ventium specs are wrong.
Like Spacediver said, maybe that guy has simply confused his adapter with another and showed a wrong adapter in that video.
CGMHA and CMFHB with Lontium chipset can do up to 720 MHz with their digital receiver like DPU3000, how much can do the DAC only tests will tell.

Can the Delock 62967 do 1600 x 1200 at 95hz on a AMD R9 290 ?
Yes it can do more than that, but only if the adapter works properly with your graphic card.
If the displayport signal of your card is not strong enough, the adapter can't work properly over 180 MHz (no more than 1600x1200 66 Hz) and you need to replace the cable or return the adapter to the seller.
If the adapter works without problems you can go up to 340-350 MHz (example 1920x1200 100 Hz or 1920x1440 85 Hz)

So do these usb-c to VGA adaptors work if a graphics card (like my r9 290) can output display port signals? The card doesn't have a usb-c port or the mobo. Does this mean that if I team this adaptor with a usb-c pci card it might allow the graphics card to output display port over usb-c?
Yes you can connect any USB-C adapter to any displayport graphic card but only using special cards like Sunix UPD2018 or Delock 89582, you only need a free PCI Express x1 slot.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3dfan
like this

SH1

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 30, 2006
Messages
1,420
Joined
Mar 23, 2013
Messages
955
Have a little bit of good news from the big Radeon Adrenalin 2020 update.

The pixel clock cap for custom resolutions in Radeon Settings was lifted, for Sunix+5700 xt anyway. I was able to create some silly resolutions like 2560x1920@70hz.

But it still has the other issues I brought up a couple months ago:

It still ignores anything I put in CRU when using the Sunix, so all custom resolutions have to be added via Radeon Settings. CRU overrides still seems to be working on HDMI. Except for interlaced resolutions, which don't work no matter which program you create them with. Hopefully they still work on analog capable cards like the 380x, I'll be checking on that soon.

HDMI gave some other problems, like for my Nano GX adapter, I strangely couldn't make resolutions over 1280x960, then with the Benefei adapter, I couldn't switch to YCbCr, which the adapter needs to display proper color.

All those problems I just mentioned don't exist on the new Nvidia GPU's, so you guys can figure out where you need to look if you're buying a new GPU for your CRT.
 

kohan69

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 7, 2005
Messages
2,524
My FW900 is having sideways motion/jitter at lower than 100Hz refresh rate, and at higher, it slowly fades in and out of focus on the corners a bit, speed depends on refresh. Before I do a full recap, does anyone know which area/board/component/caps are responsible for this?
 

strayan

n00b
Joined
Nov 13, 2014
Messages
49
So do these usb-c to VGA adaptors work if a graphics card (like my r9 290) can output display port signals? The card doesn't have a usb-c port or the mobo. Does this mean that if I team this adaptor with a usb-c pci card it might allow the graphics card to output display port over usb-c?
Graphics card output analog VGA if they have a displayport++ so you don’t necessarily need a usb c adapter just a passive dp to d-sub cable
 
Last edited:

Derupter

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 25, 2016
Messages
180
Graphics card output analog VGA if they have a displayport++ so you don’t necessarily need a usb c adapter just a passive dp to d-sub cable
Displayport++ has nothing to do with analog VGA output, it is only for output HDMI and DVI signals through passive cables, for digital to analog conversion a true active adapter is required.
 

Strat_84

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 16, 2016
Messages
353
My FW900 is having sideways motion/jitter at lower than 100Hz refresh rate, and at higher, it slowly fades in and out of focus on the corners a bit, speed depends on refresh. Before I do a full recap, does anyone know which area/board/component/caps are responsible for this?
It's hard to guess and it might not be a capacitor issue but the potential candidates are G board (power supply stability issues) then D board (dynamic focus & horizontal deflection), then N board (signal controling deflection come from there).

If you go with a full recap, my excel sheet should be helpful, I attached it to the post. Left column: the electrolytic capacitors on each board. Right column: the ones I used as a replacement.
Further comments:
- You may use any brand/series you like but I strongly advise to use Rubycon YXF series without increasing the operation voltage for capacitors located on a voltage line after a Low DropOut voltage regulator (unless well, the original voltage capacitor and the higher voltage one have the same ESR). These regulators need capacitors with a reasonable ESR to operate properly and this serie/brand seems to be the only quality one with both a long lifetime (4000-5000h @105°C) and not-so-low ESR.
- C569 is a specific case as even an YXF capacitor has an ESR somewhat too low (0.40 on the datasheet, real life value 0.3 ohm, to compare to about 0.8-0.9 ohm for the original old Rubycon YK on the board). I put it in series with a 1 ohm resistor. Result: voltage variations decreased from about 20mV to 10mV, I suppose you can still get away with the 20mV variations though. Your choice.
- I replaced many of the capacitors with higher voltage ones, for the sake of performance and durability, but this is not mandatory at all.
- Panasonic capacitors named FR-L are actually part of the FR series, it's just a tag I put there to differentiate longer 1000µF/25V models from the standard ones. Both are suitable, but there may not be enough room for the long model on every board if I remember correctly.
- C559 can actually be replaced by a polypropylene film capacitor, it will be much more durable and there's actually some room planned on the board for this. Not sure if this brings any display improvement, but it can only make it better.
- While you're at it I strongly recommand to replace C919 with a good quality ceramic capacitor (ceramic type B/X5R or type R/ X7R). I suspect this may fix the G2 drift issues. Suggestion: Kemet C331C472KGR5TA, there were also good single layer Murata capacitors but they must be discontinued by now and they were bulkier.
- Be careful when desoldering on the D board, it's a double layer board. You'll need a powerful solder iron and maybe to add some flux or some leaded solder to remove components without ruining the tracks with prolonged heating.
- Your issues might have something to do with some polyester film capacitors on the D board. They have some transparent plastic through which you can see an aluminium foil. I've seen some of these getting yellow (especially on the top) and maybe some sort of oily substance spreading under the plastic. Even though the ones I removed seemed to measure fine, this is pretty suspicious. There's one of these stabilizing the current input of the flyback (C921).
 

Attachments

kohan69

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 7, 2005
Messages
2,524
you're a god damn hero, Strat_84
I hope to find a post that someone fixed the horizontal shaking issue without redoing everything first, but either way your post will be really helpful. What was the issue on yours?
 

Strat_84

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 16, 2016
Messages
353
Thanks, I'm glad to share this. :)

My screen didn't have much of an issue except old age, and its previous owner being a retard calling himself "electronician" and messing with the inside. He desoldered perfectly working memory chips for weird reasons (maybe to try saving the data ?), and broke a few lines in the flat cables linking the boards in the dismantling process. That led to the display contracting itself vertically. The G2 voltage was also completely messed up but this is pretty common.
It took a long time before I found the cable issue and I had already made a full recap for electrolytics, and many film and ceramic capacitors. Some replacements weren't really necessary, but I intended to restore that screen as completely as possible anyway, and to investigate the boards to find if some limited improvements were possible while I was on it.

One obvious detail I forgot to mention about the replacement of C919, you'd be replacing a leaky crappy worn out capacitor with a quality new one, that means a white point balance procedure with Windas is mandatory after the replacement.

Also, you should check the boards for bad solders, there are often some. In your case, according to your description I'd rather think about some capacitor issue on a voltage line. Maybe noise related to horizontal deflection or vertical deflection, or both, is making its way back on these lines and reaching areas it shouldn't. But it's only a guess, you'd need an oscilloscope to check this. ;)
 
Last edited:

DooLocsta

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
1,626
This cheap one from Amazon. CableDeconn Active DVI-D Link 24+1 Male to VGA Female M/F Video Cable Adapter Converter https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01DW2BJWU/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apap_3ItFuSHXOmZHb
After reading the reviews on this I decided to try out this one https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07D3XZ9SD/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1 and I am pleasantly surprised. I have a P1110 and I was just shooting for 1280x1024@110Hz but this handles the max res 1800x1440@75Hz fine. Pretty nice for $8
 
Joined
Mar 23, 2013
Messages
955
After reading the reviews on this I decided to try out this one https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07D3XZ9SD/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1 and I am pleasantly surprised. I have a P1110 and I was just shooting for 1280x1024@110Hz but this handles the max res 1800x1440@75Hz fine. Pretty nice for $8
I know that one of their HDMI adapters required YCbCr instead of RGB to hit high clocks. Is yours the same way?

Anyway, just so you know, 1280x1024 is a 5:4 resolution. You want to use 1280x960 or 1366x1024 instead.
 

DooLocsta

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
1,626
This monitor seems to do really well with 5:4 but I have updated to 1366x1024@110Hz and all is good. I am not sure on the YCbCr, is there something I can test? I am running a 1080Ti
 

P1x3L

Weaksauce
Joined
Jul 31, 2012
Messages
81
The top Eizo & Iiyama CRTs seemed better than any Trinitrons I've seen. Anyone own both an FW900 & either and Eizo or Iiyama? The Iiyama visionm pro 514 is the best I've seen.
 

SH1

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 30, 2006
Messages
1,420
The top Eizo & Iiyama CRTs seemed better than any Trinitrons I've seen. Anyone own both an FW900 & either and Eizo or Iiyama? The Iiyama visionm pro 514 is the best I've seen.
Had Iiyamas before Sonys, because were less expensive. Fine displays. However, as far as absolute best computer CRT, as far as I know -- Sony F520 which features a unique, for aperture grill, 0.22 pitch. And the FW900 with a picture still close enough to its sibling and just strikingly bigger. (I remember reading that Sony showed off a 0.15 pitch 4:3 tube at a trade show, but unfortunately it never made it to market before the end.)

I do not believe the Diamondtron tubes were as refined as the Sonys. FWIW...I remember being able to make out a visible curvature on the inner aspect of their flat screen tubes, which I cannot make out on the Sonys.

I recall hearing some saying Shadow Mask tubes being sharper for text.
 
Top