CRT

Got 3 computers at home, all with CRT monitors. About to switch two of them to LCDs.
 
Still using my 24" Sony FW900 Trinitron, works as good as new. Beautiful 1080p video, beats any LCD i've seen in a beauty contest. I will keep it until it dies, maybe by then I'll have found a suitable LCD replacement.
 
I'm stil using an FW900, but looking for an LCD replacement. My FW900 is currently dying... randomly, the screen will go blurry, like looking through frosted glass. Sometimes only for a few seconds, other times all day long. Then for weeks it won't have an issue.

I wish I didn't have to get an LCD. I've been looking at them daily for the past couple years, and they have hardly made any progress IMO. PC monitors are especially bad. They all still have the same fatal flaws.
 
I still use my crt quite often but its too small plus I like my Dell widescreen for games. Im still not impressed with any LCD I have used though.
 
I've got a 21" CRT next to my 24" LCD. I usually use LCD for everything, but I love having the option of using the CRT when I want or need to.

I've been using both of them (dual monitors) quite a few times for work recently too.

In other words, the CRT ain't going anywhere (as long as it lasts).

Edit: Some games are completely unplayable on the LCD compared to CRT after having tried both. Games like Counter-Strike or Unreal Tournament, mostly. Anything with fast paced action and competitive online gameplay. The 60 Hz cap on LCD and its 20~ms input lag are just too much to deal with when you could have none of that crap.

My setup (the keyboard is moved to the side in the pic).

 
Last edited:
25thofmay said:
i am curious as to why people say they would go back to crts? why?
Click to expand...
well if you have to ask then I doubt you will understand. CRTs still have some advantages that are hard to let go of. Im sure this will turn into a debate again so I will sit the rest of this one out. ;)
 
cannondale06 said:
CRTs still have some advantages that are hard to let go of.
Click to expand...
That's exactly it.

Namely:
-usually higher refresh rate than 60 hz, especially at lower res
-no ghosting
-zero input lag
-image tearing less noticable with vsync off
-more than just one "native" resolution that looks good

Those are all features that are good for fast-paced action gaming and are pretty severely lacking in LCDs. It has some other benefits like viewing angles/colours, but the differences there are less profound IMO.
 
I use two 20" CRTs (both Iiyama) with my main system. Primarily for programming, graphics and CAD/3DS work with some occasional video editing thrown in. The total price for those two CRTs? 5 Euro and they're both in great condition. One I got from a friend who switched to LCDs, the other from a local seller (for those 5 Euro).

I use 17" CRTs for managing servers and such (two Philips units). I guess that I could use an LCD for those tasks, but I wouldn't want to use LCDs to swap out my main displays, if only for the 1,200 Euro price tag (if not more) I would incur for the 'upgrade' if I want to get a similar image quality.
 
I'm still using my FW900. I have added an LCD to my setup though (and of course the laptop has one too). The NEC 20WMGX2 I bought is pretty nice. Too bad the bezel on the FW900 is so large that it doesn't exactly look good when you have multiple monitors. Still works pretty well in the end though: http://stfcc.org/bluefox/DSC00803.JPG
 
Cause CRT is superior in all situations except bright light

031.jpg


I liked this one so much I bought another. The new one is flawless, it has even better color, it's brighter, and not a single scratch on it.

*Here's a pic of the new one*

006-1.jpg
 
Last edited:
Skakruk said:
My specific reasons.
Click to expand...
I've noticed the LCD flickering too. It is definitely due to the backlight. I found that turning my LCD's (backlight) brightness to 100% eliminates all flicker. Yet at 20% it's pretty noticable if you wave your hand in front of the monitor.

UnclePauly09 said:
I liked this one so much I bought another. The new one is flawless, it has even better color, it's brighter, and not a single scratch on it.
Click to expand...
Which monitor is that?
 
Reason #1 illustrated:

necdp2070sb.jpg


I gotta admit that's a pretty top-end of the line 22" CRT (NEC DiamondPro 2070SB), so those high refresh rates are pretty rare.
 
shurcooL said:
I've noticed the LCD flickering too. It is definitely due to the backlight. I found that turning my LCD's (backlight) brightness to 100% eliminates all flicker. Yet at 20% it's pretty noticable if you wave your hand in front of the monitor.


Which monitor is that?
Click to expand...

FW900 of course
 
Right, I should've figured from the widescreen AR.

I'm not so sure I'm keen on having a widescreen CRT though. Ignoring that aspect of it, is there anything else really good about the FW900? People here seem to regard it very highly, and I wonder if it's just because of its size/widescreen combination. From what I heard, it's max refresh rates are medium-ish (i.e. only 85 hz at 1920x1200), and there are better CRTs in that regard. What about its colour/image, is it that much better than the rest, or pretty much equal to any other decent Sony Trinitron (i.e. not widescreen).

Thanks. :)
 
I never used a CRT that could compare to a LCD in the (lack of) eye strain department. That's far more important to me than some input lag, IQ, ghosting, you name it. Even with high refresh rates, it was still horrible on my eyes.
 
I use an FW900 CRT as my main monitor, It's now 7 years old but the picture is still excellent, I recently installed Windows 7 RC and it defaulted at 2304x1440 (Screenshot)which looked surpisingly good but I stepped it down to 1920x1200 because Im so used to running that res.

I still use a CRT because it looks great and I can run multiple resolutions (gaming) without worrying about scaling / intrepolation. and no input lag / motion blur worries.

I used to run an LCD next to the CRT but ended up selling it (NEC 20WMGX2).

If anything the LCD was rougher on my eyes due to the extra brightness, I never had eye strain problems using CRT's (just have to avoid 60hz which is easy).
 
I have the "best" CRT ever sold to the public which is the Sony GDM-F520 21 inch CRT. The GDM-W900 comes very close to it with slightly worse dot pitch and geomitry due to the wide screen. The reason everybody wants the wide screen is because at this point in time they are better for gaming. The Sony GDM series targeted highend CAD and graphics designers, they sold for as much as $1,800.00. Why, because the specs and factory calibration were so dam good. I do not remember the model number of the 21 inch unit that came with a hood and colorometer, but I do remember the specs were not quite as good as the model I have. I actually have 2; one sitting brand new in the box, which shows what I thought of LCDs back then. I had one of the orignal GDM-F500s and used it constantly until it died after six years of use. The refresh rate on these things is usually limited by the graphics cards. I do not rember the actual limit, but it tops out lower at max resolution.

A good Sony CRT beats any LCD in all areas, except geometric accuracy and the 24 inch limitation of the tube size. They weigh about 60 lbs too.

I have had many LCDs over the years, because they improve over time. I keep my trusty Sony CRT arround so I can see what things actually look like.

We just had a flame ware over LCD verses CRT in another thread last week, so PLEASE don't start another one here.

Dave
 
The geometry is incredibley straight on my FW900 in fact its straighter than any 4:3 CRT ive owned, I know I got lucky because the widescreen nature of a CRT usually causes distortion, I also have a 34"16:9 Sony HDTV CRT and the geometry is far from straight on it.
 
I finally got rid of all my 17" crts, gave them to my sisters.
I still have 2 19' in the basement, One is NEC and the other is a Dell.
Great condition for both.
 
The main reasons I still use my CRT most of the time are as follows:

1) The ability to scan at any resolution or refresh rate up to the maximum scan rate of the monitor. I watch alot of video on my PC, ranging from 640x480 up to 1920x1080 and frame rates of 24, 25, and 30 FPS. The CRT allows me to refresh at a multiple of the actual frame rate of the source (60, 72, 75, 90, 96, 100, 120hz) and at it's native resolution, no matter what the source. And LCD simply cannot do this, and the scaling and frame interpolation looks awful next to the CRT.

2) Contrast ratio and color definition. A properly functioning Trinitron will outperform any LCD in these terms, simply based on the LCD needing a backlight and therefore being incapable of running the full color gamut or producing a true black. Again this is mainly an issue during video playback.

And that's really it. An LCD has sharper pixel definition being a fixed pixel display, here the LCD will always win, no CRT will be able to produce pixel definition like an LCD, it's just not possible. However, I've spent many hours a day looking at this FW900 for the last 5 years or so, and I've never suffered any kind of eyestrain as a result. I run it at 1440x960x96hz most of the time for general work, browsing and such, and I cannot see anything I would call flicker. In my experience, visible flicker on a CRT running at high refresh rates is indicative of some sort of malfunction (bad power usually). I'm not a diehard CRT fanboy by any stretch, I recommend a quality LCD for most anyone, they're lighter, smaller, more efficient, less troublesome, better text quality, and at this point the only game in town if you want a new display. Some of the new LCDs are very very nice.

But for me it comes down to one thing, picture quality. A display's job is to render a visible image on the screen for the user to view, everything else (convenience, efficiency, etc) is secondary. The last generation of CRT Trinitron monitors were in my opinion the best consumer displays ever produced, period. I look constantly for an LCD replacement for the FW900, because this thing will die eventually. Thus far I've been lucky, it's performed very well for me, I hardly ever turn it off (only to move it or open the case to vacuum it out), and I think this has been helpful in keeping it working top notch. And watching some Bluray (or any 1080p video) on this thing is all I need to remind me why I keep it around. It's only 24" yes, but NOTHING can touch it for picture quality, no LCD, no Plasma, though there may be other CRTs which can match it, I haven't seen those either. LCD continues to get better, as does plasma, but they're still what they are, fixed pixel displays, and in the case of LCD, backlit as well. Those factors alone will always mean compromise, and I don't need to compromise just yet.

Dustin
 
Still using my Sony G400 19" CRT at 1280x960@100Hz until at least some better 120Hz LCDs are released, 100Hz+ refresh rate is most important for me, I can find benefits and disadvantages with both CRTs and LCDs but I don't wanna use a monitor with less than 100Hz. The current 120Hz LCD monitors are too expensive to make me switch especially for the issues they have, you can find a CRT almost for free that does the job better. I'd even use a cheap 17" CRT rather than a highend 60Hz LCD, not a fan of using 2 monitors, so having to choose between CRT and LCD, CRT is the choice atm. Hopefully the ViewSonic VX2268wm or upcoming ASUS 120Hz LCD are better.

I also prefer good CRT TVs rather than LCD yet as the picture is more natural and not pixelized, I've got such a good eyesight I have to sit very far from them to not see the pixels or "artifacts". We got 2 great CRT TVs here at my parents place (32" wide and 28 or 30" non-wide, not sure), I told them to stick to the CRTs for a couple of years still colors are amazing on one of them and sharpness is amazing on the other. :p
 
Last edited:
mathesar said:
The geometry is incredibley straight on my FW900 in fact its straighter than any 4:3 CRT ive owned, I know I got lucky because the widescreen nature of a CRT usually causes distortion, I also have a 34"16:9 Sony HDTV CRT and the geometry is far from straight on it.
Click to expand...

xbr 960? I've got that one and the geometry is off like hell. I'm going to have an isf calibrator(Chad B, the best check him out) come straighten it with magnets and reduce the overscan too along with all the other things a calibrator does(color point/greyscale etc). It's gonna cost $375 but considering I just bought it for $400 and it looks like brand new it'll be well worth it. It's arguably considered the best HDTV ever created along with the latest KURO plasma. It's awesome.
 
RPGWiZaRD said:
Still using my Sony G400 19" CRT at 1280x960@100Hz until at least some better 120Hz LCDs are released, 100Hz+ refresh rate is most important for me, I can find benefits and disadvantages with both CRTs and LCDs but I don't wanna use a monitor with less than 100Hz. The current 120Hz LCD monitors are too expensive to make me switch especially for the issues they have, you can find a CRT almost for free that does the job better. I'd even use a cheap 17" CRT rather than a highend 60Hz LCD, not a fan of using 2 monitors, so having to choose between CRT and LCD, CRT is the choice atm. Hopefully the ViewSonic VX2268wm or upcoming ASUS 120Hz LCD are better.
Click to expand...

Since you haven't jumped yet, I'll give you something else to wait for. LED backlighting, LCD's with this type of backlight are WAY better than the ones with CCFL tubes. They still have some issues but shitty black levels are not one anymore with these.
 
UnclePauly09 said:
Since you haven't jumped yet, I'll give you something else to wait for. LED backlighting, LCD's with this type of backlight are WAY better than the ones with CCFL tubes. They still have some issues but shitty black levels are not one anymore with these.
Click to expand...
Aren't there already a few LED-backlit LCDs out there? My understanding is that they haven't had any appreciable effect on black levels. Though I could be wrong. It's still back-lit after all and LCD technology remains inherently incapable of "true blacks" regardless of backlight type. Of course, attempts at "dynamic contrast" (selectively turning off or dimming the backlight given overall screen brightness) has attempted to overcome this inherent deficit for LCDs, but even many LCD afficianados find the side-effects (if not the primary effect) unappealing and ineffective.

LCDs have their place. I'm tempted to get one for certain usage scenarios. But I sure do still love my FW900 CRT for gaming and media. Every time I'm in Moria (LotRO), the shadows and darkness are so rich compared to my (albeit cheap) LCDs that I actually feel remorseful that my kinmates and friends can't see the depth and overall effect that I'm enjoying while I play.

Yet, my eyes aren't as young as they used to be. And a 30" LCD for the purposes of sheer size and textual clarity is starting to sound more and more appealing. If only I wouldnt' have to sacrifice shadow detail, contrast, and "deep blacks." :(

Best,

H
 
UnclePauly09 said:
Since you haven't jumped yet, I'll give you something else to wait for. LED backlighting, LCD's with this type of backlight are WAY better than the ones with CCFL tubes. They still have some issues but shitty black levels are not one anymore with these.
Click to expand...

I'm not looking for better image quality, I'd be happy with a good working 120Hz TN panel even.
 
Hurin said:
Aren't there already a few LED-backlit LCDs out there? My understanding is that they haven't had any appreciable effect on black levels. Though I could be wrong. It's still back-lit after all and LCD technology remains inherently incapable of "true blacks" regardless of backlight type. Of course, attempts at "dynamic contrast" (selectively turning off or dimming the backlight given overall screen brightness) has attempted to overcome this inherent deficit for LCDs, but even many LCD afficianados find the side-effects (if not the primary effect) unappealing and ineffective.

LCDs have their place. I'm tempted to get one for certain usage scenarios. But I sure do still love my FW900 CRT for gaming and media. Every time I'm in Moria (LotRO), the shadows and darkness are so rich compared to my (albeit cheap) LCDs that I actually feel remorseful that my kinmates and friends can't see the depth and overall effect that I'm enjoying while I play.

Yet, my eyes aren't as young as they used to be. And a 30" LCD for the purposes of sheer size and textual clarity is starting to sound more and more appealing. If only I wouldnt' have to sacrifice shadow detail, contrast, and "deep blacks." :(

Best,

H
Click to expand...

LED backlighting does in fact help black levels tremendously, it almost makes them look plasma like with the deeper blacks. Nothing can match our CRT's but they are closing the gap in some areas. Of course LCD tech can only get so far and that's where OLED will come in(supposedly in the next 5 yrs we'll have attainable consumer models). I'm gonna hold on to my FW900 until OLED or maybe even to it dies I can't deal with the drawbacks of the technology but I can admit they are improving it. btw I feel exactly the same as you when playing games/watching movies, I can't believe people are missing out on this on purpose.

RPGWiZaRD said:
I'm not looking for better image quality, I'd be happy with a good working 120Hz TN panel even.
Click to expand...

My condolences.


*I put a pic up of my new fw900... here's the link Old and new fw900
 
Last edited:
I own a Dell P1110 (21" Trinitron w/Color Return) which I use in the cooler months/once the AC is on, but I won't suffer the outrageous heat it produces in between those times just for the IQ. The IQ is unquestionably superior, and just a treat to look at. :D

I have a question for my fellow CRT circlejerkers: my CRT is looking a little blurrier than I recall, am I just seeing things as blurry vs my DVI LCD?

The CRT is attached to my GTX 260 which no longer has hardware desktop image sharpening, the option is greyed out. They can sharpen "video image" in windows media, kmplayer, vlc, etc, but not standard display image.

Is there anything I can do to increase the sharpness?
 
Blue Fox said:
I'm still using my FW900. I have added an LCD to my setup though (and of course the laptop has one too). The NEC 20WMGX2 I bought is pretty nice. Too bad the bezel on the FW900 is so large that it doesn't exactly look good when you have multiple monitors. Still works pretty well in the end though: http://stfcc.org/bluefox/DSC00803.JPG
Click to expand...

Nice desk. Do you know the make/model number off hand, or is that something you made yourself?
 
sixstringmonk said:
Nice desk. Do you know the make/model number off hand, or is that something you made yourself?
Click to expand...

It's an Ikea Jerker. They're not made anymore, but you'll probably be able to find one on craigslist eventually. I actually bought mine off another member on this forum.
 
UnclePauly09 said:
xbr 960? I've got that one and the geometry is off like hell. I'm going to have an isf calibrator(Chad B, the best check him out) come straighten it with magnets and reduce the overscan too along with all the other things a calibrator does(color point/greyscale etc). It's gonna cost $375 but considering I just bought it for $400 and it looks like brand new it'll be well worth it. It's arguably considered the best HDTV ever created along with the latest KURO plasma. It's awesome.
Click to expand...

Yep XBR960, It has an amazing picture but ever since I bought a 50" Kuro Plasma it hasn't been getting nearly as much usage. Pioneer really nailed it with the Kuro's and this is coming from an insanely picky person with picture quality :)
 
One correction on my post above

I run my FW900 at 1536x960 not at 1440x960 like I said before (normal desktop usage). When displaying video I run it at the resolution of the video and an even frame rate multiple. So for 1080p 24fps Bluray for example I would run at 1920x1080x96hz with VSize set to give the correct 16:9 aspect ratio.

Dustin
 
Volkum said:
I never used a CRT that could compare to a LCD in the (lack of) eye strain department. That's far more important to me than some input lag, IQ, ghosting, you name it. Even with high refresh rates, it was still horrible on my eyes.
Click to expand...

The ghosting a blurring effects of an LCD give me headaches. I can understand eye strain on a shitty CRT running at 60Hz, but not a chance running at 85Hz or higher like I run my P1230. I don't mind LCDs for general use, but when it comes time to play a game, fuck that.
 
Just smashed my last one today. Got tired of carrying around the house. What satisfaction...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top