I hate LCD monitors (it seems like I have no options)

PimpUigi

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 4, 2008
Messages
309
I loved the Soyo Topaz S, but if I get another one, it will probably die fast.

I hate the TN viewing angles, so they're out.
I need 1920 x 1200 / 24 inch models - they're becoming unpopular
I game, so the Soyo's 3.5 ms of lag was amazing...

I can't stand the color shift of todays IPS monitors, left hand pink, right hand green, or whatever.

I don't want to have to be in a gaming mode, that locks out all my color changes, or locks out my brightness changes/makes my monitor look screwed up. (Dell U2410 does this)

I hate glossiness, and I hate the extra dust they pack into todays matte screens (again looking at the U2410)


What monitor is right for me???
 

Vega

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 12, 2004
Messages
6,874
300px-5151_monochrome_monitor.jpg
 

NCX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
6,224
Do you have 800$ to spend?

If so check out the Eizo SX226W, unfortunately it's only 22" but it's 1920x1200. It's still bigger then the U2311h

Review:
http://www.digitalversus.com/eizo-flexscan-sx2262w-p357_9125_119.html

PRAD also gives it their highest rating (subsciription required to view review so no link). Unfortunately input lag is 30ms which can be the borderline in terms of lag acceptable to most gamers, the trade off is very good responsiveness.

Most of the 24" IPS displays are inferior in almost every way except size and res to the Dell U2311H, but it suffers from the same QC issues and isn't the size you want.

The only other quality 24" 1200p gaming display I can think of is the Dell 2408 Rev02

Review;
http://www.digitalversus.com/dell-2408wfp-rev02-2009-p358_6590_88.html

You can get refurbs for around 250$ from the Dell Outlet store, however it's a gamble as to to which version you get. Getting the Rev02 for 250$ would be an offensively good deal.
 
Last edited:

munkle

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 16, 2005
Messages
11,800
I hear the 2407 is better, and you can get it anywhere.

Meh, I had the 2407 colors were nice but it had lots of color shifting on the edges and there was a weird black ghosting issue, I don't know if that ever got fixed but a black trail would follow certain colors across the screen.
 

SD45

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
164
Oh yeah, the big SONY. I had one of those. 93 lbs. Had to build a special bench for it. After I sold it on Ebay, UPS destroyed it, and I got most my money back that way. They smashed it up pretty good--must have dropped it off the end of the truck. My guess is that the delivery guy grabbed it and then realized, Holy S**t, what have I got ahold of here! Yeah, 93 lbs.
 

BeavermanA

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 27, 2006
Messages
2,770
I've pretty much resorted to playing pc games on my 58" plasma only, just use the 30" IPS for desktop/internet browsing. Also miss my 22" diamondtron, but screen area became its downfall. Size and weight mattered not, at 85lbs I took it to LANs frequently.
 

daveswantek

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 30, 2007
Messages
1,231
Meh, I had the 2407 colors were nice but it had lots of color shifting on the edges and there was a weird black ghosting issue, I don't know if that ever got fixed but a black trail would follow certain colors across the screen.

I thought the invers ghosting issue was on the 2408? I had a 2407 and it was a good display for it's time. It did have a good bit of gamma shift and black crush, you could not distinguish dark grey from black. It had the least display lag of any S-PVA ever made though. My brother still has it and it is fine for most things.

Dave
 

lodingi

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 24, 2003
Messages
2,199
Also miss my 22" diamondtron, but screen area became its downfall. Size and weight mattered not, at 85lbs I took it to LANs frequently.

Lol. I just replaced my Diamondtron 2060u with an LG E2350V. The LG is a Christmas gift. Having a larger screen at less than an inch thick is quite nice. The 2060u was a whopping 19" deep and required extra bracing to handle the weight. Good times.
 

SJetski71

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Sep 6, 2002
Messages
15,930
Lol. I just replaced my Diamondtron 2060u with an LG E2350V. The LG is a Christmas gift. Having a larger screen at less than an inch thick is quite nice. The 2060u was a whopping 19" deep and required extra bracing to handle the weight. Good times.
The 2060U was one of my favorite CRT's, if not my favorite. And i owned multiples of almost all of the popular 21" and 22" CRT's (cherry picked some refurbs, winning auction multiples, office clear-outs etc) :p

A friend of mine is a photography nut, he owns some of my best ones now.

Never owned any of the GDM series though, i'm sure they were better.
 

OldSchool

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
477
HP ZR24w

Lowest input lag of any in it's range, decent AG coating but not too strong, doesn't suffer from the pink/green tinting issue that the Dell does. The only thing you may have an issue with is if you get one with a dead pixel. It's the monitor I went to after my CRT died.
 

defaultluser

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 14, 2006
Messages
14,399
I'm still using my 19" Iiyama Visionmaster Pro 454, and I'm not going to jump ship until (1) this thing dies or (2) they make the perfect LCD or (3) OLED comes of-age in computer monitors. I bought this baby new right at the end of the era, so I expect to get a few more years out of it.

There are too many damn annoying concessions you have to make just to get a "good" LCD experience. With CRT all you had to concede to get a GREAT experience was size, weight and power consumption - and for most users, only one of those three matters.
 

quantum112

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 20, 2010
Messages
392
I'm still using my 19" Iiyama Visionmaster Pro 454, and I'm not going to jump ship until (1) this thing dies or (2) they make the perfect LCD or (3) OLED comes of-age in computer monitors. I bought this baby new right at the end of the era, so I expect to get a few more years out of it.

There are too many damn annoying concessions you have to make just to get a "good" LCD experience. With CRT all you had to concede to get a GREAT experience was size, weight and power consumption - and for most users, only one of those three matters.

There is a 21" Iiyama Visionmaster Pro 512 on sale in the ads here. 180 Hz @ 800x600; very impressive. Higher horizontal scan rate than an F520. Were the EIZO not already on the desk I'd take it for sure. As per your other points - I'm glad there are others that share my opinions.
Fear the day (1) happens, (2) never will and (3) will hopefully be a reality a few years down the road. That said, I'd much rather see a Laser monitor on my desk. Multisync is a huge plus for me - a display should not be limited to one resolution, but able to sync down to the source material to ensure optimal image quality for each resolution. This is why a CRT is great if you also appreciate old gems all the way from the 90's and like to give those a play every now and then too. Load up an old Lucas Arts adventure in DOSbox and sync down to 640x480 with no problem..

But, as it is, we're out of luck. People chose flat & lightweight vs. image quality, and the industry listened to them. I'm keeping my CRT's until a technology that actually offers improvements comes along. The SM226BW is the last LCD I've owned. It is the least I can do to show my protest against the uprise of inferior display technologies.

I still listen to 8-track tapes and watch Betamax movies. :)

Cool!

Wait...is that sarcasm? :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

lawless2142

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 22, 2008
Messages
253
HP ZR24w. Only flaws are white bloom from the lack of a polarizer and possibly QC issues in general; but I've had great luck with mine and so have many others on this forum. In general, I've found IPS response time characteristics to be the most tolerable. Outside plasma, it's the best you're going to get at the time.
 

rantanamo

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 9, 2006
Messages
220
Serious question. Do those who are bothered by LCD's have seriously accurate eyesight? I always had lots of eyestrain and fatigue on CRTs and the colors were flat. They seemed to be great for gaming but weird for anything else to me. And that was far before I had ever even seen an LCD monitor.
 

daveswantek

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 30, 2007
Messages
1,231
Serious question. Do those who are bothered by LCD's have seriously accurate eyesight? I always had lots of eyestrain and fatigue on CRTs and the colors were flat. They seemed to be great for gaming but weird for anything else to me. And that was far before I had ever even seen an LCD monitor.

I can say a lot of good things about CRTs, but for me at least; I get less eyestrain on my LCD. Of course my LCD is 27 inch 16x10 as compared to my CRT's 20 inches 4x3 aspect ratio. Still I find that text on a LCD has cleaner edges, and this is compared to a GDM-F520. There really is pluses and minuses to both.

As far as colors go my CRT is the best I have seen anywhere. Pics and video look much better on the CRT.

There are lots of factors involved. Brightness of the display, room lighting and yes issues, good or bad with a persons vision.

Dave
 

SH1

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 30, 2006
Messages
1,515
I think the general consensus is that text on an LCD is superior. That my laptop's small 1900 by 1200 display is still crystal clear is remarkable. And I've seen similar on other LCD displays I've tried...

However, that the GDM-F520 still has very good text or clarity and CRT's other positive attributes (black level, dynamic range, etc.) make it a rather fantastic display...
 

munkle

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 16, 2005
Messages
11,800
Serious question. Do those who are bothered by LCD's have seriously accurate eyesight? I always had lots of eyestrain and fatigue on CRTs and the colors were flat. They seemed to be great for gaming but weird for anything else to me. And that was far before I had ever even seen an LCD monitor.

Actually I have had more eye strain from my 30" lcd, than from crt, I think it is because text is so small, I upped the text size and it hasn't bothered me in a while. My biggest complaint about crt is the refresh rate, even at 75hz I can still see the flicker, I have to go 85hz or more to have it not bother my eyes.
 

silent-circuit

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Sep 18, 2005
Messages
16,136

I still have one of those somewhere. Two actually. One is green, the other is amber.

Also, OP, I am dirt poor and willing to sell my current display for a reasonable price. Look up some reviews. It's exactly what you want. Planar PX2611w. (shameless plug -- but true)
 

daveswantek

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 30, 2007
Messages
1,231
Actually I have had more eye strain from my 30" lcd, than from crt, I think it is because text is so small, I upped the text size and it hasn't bothered me in a while. My biggest complaint about crt is the refresh rate, even at 75hz I can still see the flicker, I have to go 85hz or more to have it not bother my eyes.

Yeah; this is very true. I run mine at 100Hz.
 

silent-circuit

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Sep 18, 2005
Messages
16,136
I ran a HP P1110 (21" Sony Trinitron tube -- there were also Dell rebrands) for years and years at 1880x1440 @85Hz, then went to LCD when it suffered the infamous "gray screen" brightness issues. Fixed it a few years later, managed to get the convergence fixed, and I couldn't stand to look at it anymore. Gave me headaches within minutes, so I sold it. I'm super sensitive to CRT flicker now, don't know why.
 

defaultluser

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 14, 2006
Messages
14,399
I think the general consensus is that text on an LCD is superior. That my laptop's small 1900 by 1200 display is still crystal clear is remarkable. And I've seen similar on other LCD displays I've tried...

However, that the GDM-F520 still has very good text or clarity and CRT's other positive attributes (black level, dynamic range, etc.) make it a rather fantastic display...

I agree with everything stated here. On a good LCD, text is better, but a properly-configured CRT it's almost as good, and perfectly readable for hours.

Text only looks bad on a CRT if you push it beyond the dot pitch of the screen (or if the dot clock and filters are built cheap). A number of builders installed dot clocks that went WAY beyond what the screen could really display (Iiyama and Sony are both guilty of this), and so the specs looked more fantastic on paper. Unfortunately, when you run at those sky-high settings, you see analog blurring. This is why I use 1280x960@85 for text and gaming (incredibly sharp, because that resolution is slightly below the dot pitch), and switch to 1600x1200@85 for image manipulation (slightly finer than my real dot pitch, but not too blurry).

I use LCDs at work, but all I do is code, so the crappy colors and viewing angles don't bother me so much. But for my home machine, I refuse to compromise.
 

Corvette

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 12, 2002
Messages
1,269
The decline of the P-MVA panels :( I'm riding mine out until the next thing comes along.
 

SD45

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
164
Corvette wrote:

"The decline of the P-MVA panels I'm riding mine out until the next thing comes along"

Me, too. I use an NEC 2470WNX daily and have another one stashed away, plus a Samsung 244T and an NEC LCD2490WUXi reserved for photo use. The whole 16:9 thing is an mistake so far as I am concerned. Call me the survivalist with the canned goods in the bomb shelter. Nikon photos are 1:52 to 1 ratio, if you properly framed them when you took them. 16:9 equates to 1:78 to 1.
 

ASIA911

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 30, 2006
Messages
1,053
CRT is still the way to go. I still own a Viewsonic P95f+ and I use it for fast FPS games. The LCD with 2 or 1 ms are still pure sh!t especially for fast motion games that you really need the frags.
 
Top