![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
LCD Marketing BS we are fed.
- Thread starter Snowdog
- Start date
Well Dogmapog is obsessed. We could be talking about cars and he would jump in and shout Large LCD FTW! I never started this with any intention to compare with CRT, I just want it better LCDs and for it to be easier to find better LCDs.
So yes you have my intentions correct. The false marketing tactics, pumping stats that are irrelevant makes differentiating between products more difficult.
Even worse they end up competing on irrelevant stats so they don't progress on actual important stats.
Brightness. Who the heck needs a brighter LCD, they are way too bright. 100cd/m2 is actually a good level. Most can't even be set that low and boast of 400-500cd/m2.
Viewing angles is another peeve of mine. I bought a PVA monitor as my first LCD and expected perfect viewing angles because of the 178 degree stat. Instead I got something more like this:
So I would like to see some real stats. If manufacturers won't give them to us, reviewers should and ignore the BS manufacturer stats until they give is real ones:
Bright/dark/contrast:
Black level@ min and max brightness
White level@ min and max brightness.
Contrast at 100cd/m2.
Viewing angles
Create a standard test, because there is no way they are testing this. They are just making up numbers.
Maybe do the test at 100 or 200 CR or specify what angle you can go to and still have 80% contrast. Currently this is a bogus stat.
Panel Type
As a consumer I should have the right to know what goods I am being sold.
Wide and Normal Gamut
The latest counterproductive Hype is the wide gamut pane. Which 99% of the time will end up causing innacurate colors.
Fine have wide gamut, but include an sRGB mode that has proper mapping to the panel gamut for the majority of users who have no need for wide Gamut. Expect this mode to be tested.
Basically we are being sold, and panel makers are mainly competing on, features we don't need, which ignore what we do need and hiding what we should know (panel type).
In this vein, I'd truly like to see the LCD manufacturers step up, choose ONE PANEL, and start developing based on that exclusively, and divvy it up into economical, budget, midrange, and performance. Instead of jumping around all over the place with PVA, IPS, TN, MVA, etc. etc., I think it'd be better to choose one and develop around it. Enough with the panel lottery crap. It's bad enough making one LCD model and then trashing it with 15 billion different types of panels. I could have 15 of the same screen model and have EACH ONE look radically different. That's a shame.
TheBluePill
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2005
- Messages
- 3,773
As informed consumers, what is the best way to really research a couple of target panels first without the benefit of seeing them in action? AVSForums seems to have a lot of info, but they dont really have reviews of everything.
Luthorcrow
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2002
- Messages
- 1,241
Great post SnowDog. Almost sticky worthy.
The only time wide gamut is good, is in a color aware program, for color critical print work.
Some day, when scRGB or some other standard replaces sRGB, there will be a need for wide gamut but none of today's panels are even close to being able to display scRGB (it exceeeds the human range of color perception).
The problem is it's not more. If were talking about the difference between an 8 Bit 72% panel and a 10 bit 110% panel then yes, it would be the difference between less and more. But we are not. We are talking about two 8 bit panels spreading the same number 16.7 million colors over a different pallette. What are getting is not more colors. Which of course is the lie that it used to sell these panels. You are getting every color mapped to the wrong shade of a color. Keep in mind there is nothing PC content or HDTV content that is out of the sRGB gamut, so there are no additonal colors to display with a wide gamut monitor. Just the same colors in the wrong shade.
The only time wide gamut is good, is in a color aware program, for color critical print work.
Some day, when scRGB or some other standard replaces sRGB, there will be a need for wide gamut but none of today's panels are even close to being able to display scRGB (it exceeeds the human range of color perception).
I love the way you put that. Still 16.7 Million colors just in the wrong shade.
While the manufacturers are the main culprits here, the reviewers share the blame. Parroting back specs and lauding them: A: 178 degree viewing angles: Yay, B: 500cd/m2 brightness, more is better. C: 102% of aRGB, even better than the 92% aRGB panels from last year.
When in reality:
A: complete and total BS. At the limit quoted number you are looking directly at the SIDE of the monitor. Does anyone know what a degree is anymore?
B: 500cd/m2? WTF? Handy for blinding Ninjas if you are attacked? Call them on this insanity. Where is my monitor that will go to 80cd/m2 for 10 hour coding stretch?
C; 102%, yay even more innacurate for 99% of users than it was last year.
Come on reviewers, turn a critical eye on this BS.
While the manufacturers are the main culprits here, the reviewers share the blame. Parroting back specs and lauding them: A: 178 degree viewing angles: Yay, B: 500cd/m2 brightness, more is better. C: 102% of aRGB, even better than the 92% aRGB panels from last year.
When in reality:
A: complete and total BS. At the limit quoted number you are looking directly at the SIDE of the monitor. Does anyone know what a degree is anymore?
B: 500cd/m2? WTF? Handy for blinding Ninjas if you are attacked? Call them on this insanity. Where is my monitor that will go to 80cd/m2 for 10 hour coding stretch?
C; 102%, yay even more innacurate for 99% of users than it was last year.
Come on reviewers, turn a critical eye on this BS.
Great points,
102% of poorly calibrated colors, when in reality, color gamut is simply the ability to display more brightness and saturation at the expense of accuracy and causes banding. Whoopdeedoo.
Viewing angles that may not change contrast, but cause huge hue shifts.
Brightness from the factory set at 100 to hide other issues.
Additional AV connectors that simply don't work, or work incorrectly.
I tell you, it's just a very murky shade above legalized theft.
I've gone through 10 24" monitors the past year to find even two that fulfilled my needs, and I've had to question my sanity every step of the way.
10e
102% of poorly calibrated colors, when in reality, color gamut is simply the ability to display more brightness and saturation at the expense of accuracy and causes banding. Whoopdeedoo.
Viewing angles that may not change contrast, but cause huge hue shifts.
Brightness from the factory set at 100 to hide other issues.
Additional AV connectors that simply don't work, or work incorrectly.
I tell you, it's just a very murky shade above legalized theft.
I've gone through 10 24" monitors the past year to find even two that fulfilled my needs, and I've had to question my sanity every step of the way.
10e
daveswantek
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,231
Here is another one for you. Why is it that almost all LCD are delivered WITHOUT BEING COLOR CALIBRATED AT THE FACTORY!!!?.
Sonys CRTs were calibrated; why the hell is it that DELL can get away with selling a 30" S-IPS LCD for almost $2k and not only is it no where close to being calibrated, but the pannel is mounted so sloppy that the backlight is very uneven.
I would love to see someone bring back the words "Made in America".
Best of luck
Dave
Sonys CRTs were calibrated; why the hell is it that DELL can get away with selling a 30" S-IPS LCD for almost $2k and not only is it no where close to being calibrated, but the pannel is mounted so sloppy that the backlight is very uneven.
I would love to see someone bring back the words "Made in America".
Best of luck
Dave
Great post SnowDog. Almost sticky worthy.
The problem is it's not more. If were talking about the difference between an 8 Bit 72% panel and a 10 bit 110% panel then yes, it would be the difference between less and more. But we are not. We are talking about two 8 bit panels spreading the same number 16.7 million colors over a different pallette. What are getting is not more colors. Which of course is the lie that it used to sell these panels. You are getting every color mapped to the wrong shade of a color. Keep in mind there is nothing PC content or HDTV content that is out of the sRGB gamut, so there are no additonal colors to display with a wide gamut monitor. Just the same colors in the wrong shade.
The only time wide gamut is good, is in a color aware program, for color critical print work.
Some day, when scRGB or some other standard replaces sRGB, there will be a need for wide gamut but none of today's panels are even close to being able to display scRGB (it exceeeds the human range of color perception).
I don't disagree with the overall point, but I believe 8 or 10 bit panel refers to how many colors the panel itself can display at one time.
Don't a few brands, such as NEC, offer the supporting logic behind the scenes to map the expanded color space correctly?
Synful Serenity
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2004
- Messages
- 1,256
Problem I keep seeing regarding brightness and vibrance is that the overly bright screens and "digital vibrance" wash out the colors. That, along with lag, are the biggest drawbacks to me. That was the biggest selling point of Trinitrons to me over shadow masks years ago, and still true today. You can have "vibrance", but without proper black levels, you don't get as deep, bold colors as you're used to. And manufacturers of LCDs would have you believe that it's a good thing!
I also think we were misled about LCD build quality. Ten, fifteen years ago we didn't have problems buying monitors with stuck pixels, backlight bleed, unevenness, panel lotteries, or the host of other QC issues I keep reading about here. You would buy the monitor, it would either work or completely crap out, no repeated exchanges unless it was mail-order and got banged up or scratched by UPS.
Now, we have a tech that near totally replaced a mostly superior tech on false pretenses. People bought LCDs over CRTs because they thought they were better, because they were TOLD they were better. But they were not told about the drawbacks, and in fact, they were misrepresented as "benefits". Because so many buyers were not in a position to accurately grasp the differences, they believed the drawbacks did not exist to justify buying something sleeker and sexier. LCDs were better in some respects, but not in the way they got credit for. Especially considering how terrible many LCDs were years ago when they were first gaining popularity, and you can see that such a downgrade in successive technology came with a bombardment of hype and marketing exaggerations to manipulate the marketplace, and would not have been tolerated in most other industries.
You'll likely overlook issues with something you bought out of pride too, and that's fine, it's a normal thing. And I want LCD lovers to enjoy their LCDs and use them happily, they have their place and benefits. I only wish it did not come at the expense of those who do not feel that way.
I also think we were misled about LCD build quality. Ten, fifteen years ago we didn't have problems buying monitors with stuck pixels, backlight bleed, unevenness, panel lotteries, or the host of other QC issues I keep reading about here. You would buy the monitor, it would either work or completely crap out, no repeated exchanges unless it was mail-order and got banged up or scratched by UPS.
Now, we have a tech that near totally replaced a mostly superior tech on false pretenses. People bought LCDs over CRTs because they thought they were better, because they were TOLD they were better. But they were not told about the drawbacks, and in fact, they were misrepresented as "benefits". Because so many buyers were not in a position to accurately grasp the differences, they believed the drawbacks did not exist to justify buying something sleeker and sexier. LCDs were better in some respects, but not in the way they got credit for. Especially considering how terrible many LCDs were years ago when they were first gaining popularity, and you can see that such a downgrade in successive technology came with a bombardment of hype and marketing exaggerations to manipulate the marketplace, and would not have been tolerated in most other industries.
You'll likely overlook issues with something you bought out of pride too, and that's fine, it's a normal thing. And I want LCD lovers to enjoy their LCDs and use them happily, they have their place and benefits. I only wish it did not come at the expense of those who do not feel that way.
HyperTension
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2002
- Messages
- 1,218
One of many reasons why I still game / work on a 22" SGI, and have not transitioned to an LCD to date. I have bought and returned 7 of them due to poor color, poor refresh, incandescent backlighting, lag / latency, and general unhappiness compared to a CRT.
I will go to a higher end LCD when I purchase a Blue-Ray for my PC for HD, but until then, I personally see no reason why I should continue waste time / money on something that my CRT continues to handle quite nicely.
Don't get me wrong, things have improved over the past 2 years, but one would think that we should have developed a level of maturity vs 6+ Panels (I've given up on trying to figure them out for the time being), "Viewing angle", blah, blah, blah.
I know many have transitioned on to LCD's and are quite happy with the change. I tip my hat to you; however, I have not seen the benefit (minus weight and footprint) to traditional high end CRT's.
I will go to a higher end LCD when I purchase a Blue-Ray for my PC for HD, but until then, I personally see no reason why I should continue waste time / money on something that my CRT continues to handle quite nicely.
Don't get me wrong, things have improved over the past 2 years, but one would think that we should have developed a level of maturity vs 6+ Panels (I've given up on trying to figure them out for the time being), "Viewing angle", blah, blah, blah.
I know many have transitioned on to LCD's and are quite happy with the change. I tip my hat to you; however, I have not seen the benefit (minus weight and footprint) to traditional high end CRT's.
Most people dont own high end CRTs, and these CRTs cant be bought new anymore, on top of that, older and smaller LCDs also sucked, especially TNs, but on the proviso one isnt an image professional or a pro-gamer, the transition to large LCD{in particular} is incredible compared to either old and small CRT or LCD.
Whilst I agree that stuck/dead pixels{in clusters or in the wrong place} should warrant a refund or swap until satisfied, I scored 2 stuck pixels on my LCD, but neither are in my field of view, so I havent panicked and returned my otherwise superb LCD, ie, everything works, PQ is awesome and build quality appears very sturdy.
Some people might be wondering why I keep sticking up for HQ LCD, well the answer is fairly simple .despite all the criticism, some valid and some inapplicable, my ACER26 has transformed my tired old PC into a multimedia boombox, and Ive yet to get around to playing the latest and greatest games, so imagine how much happier Ill be when Ive gawked at Crysis and COD4 for hrs on end.
Ill be buying a very powerful PC once all the 9800GTX/x2 details are known.
Hi res photos look uncanny compared to my old and small 19in CRT.
Games are chalk and cheese, even antiquated games like Doom3.
Needless to say HDTV looks great, hi bitrate DVDs like Solaris look awesome, and SDTV from 6 ft also looks very tight and detailed.
Im about to watch T2 in 1080i, and tomorrow, Ill be watching the Australian Grand Prix in 1080i .of course, I can record these shows whilst Im out or asleep onto my internal or external HDD, I can also scale them down if I wish to keep them and save space and burn to DVD.
Web surfing is a treat, as all the graphics and banners look very detailed at 1920x1200 text is no problem either, but it did take me a week to get used to it, but it now seems just as normal as viewing it on my CRT at 10x7.
I think the moral of the story is that whilst manufactures ought to be ashamed of some the junk theyre producing{but is a Samsung 226bw junk?...my web page designer buddy doesnt think so}, and ideally specs should reflect real world performance, HQ LCDs do exist, and theyre an awesome upgrade, especially if you go the 24-27 route.
These type of threads seem very popular, and some people must be thinking that sticking with their old CRT/LCD is still necessary, well not in my opinion but obviously, it will be important to consider buying an 8 bit panel, but then again, some of the latest 22-24in TNs sound like theyre heaps better than old and small LCDs, so maybe thats an option for you .me, I removed the problem of TNs and bought an affordable 26inch 8bit Acer and Im loving it each time I turn my PC on.
Whilst I agree that stuck/dead pixels{in clusters or in the wrong place} should warrant a refund or swap until satisfied, I scored 2 stuck pixels on my LCD, but neither are in my field of view, so I havent panicked and returned my otherwise superb LCD, ie, everything works, PQ is awesome and build quality appears very sturdy.
Some people might be wondering why I keep sticking up for HQ LCD, well the answer is fairly simple .despite all the criticism, some valid and some inapplicable, my ACER26 has transformed my tired old PC into a multimedia boombox, and Ive yet to get around to playing the latest and greatest games, so imagine how much happier Ill be when Ive gawked at Crysis and COD4 for hrs on end.
Ill be buying a very powerful PC once all the 9800GTX/x2 details are known.
Hi res photos look uncanny compared to my old and small 19in CRT.
Games are chalk and cheese, even antiquated games like Doom3.
Needless to say HDTV looks great, hi bitrate DVDs like Solaris look awesome, and SDTV from 6 ft also looks very tight and detailed.
Im about to watch T2 in 1080i, and tomorrow, Ill be watching the Australian Grand Prix in 1080i .of course, I can record these shows whilst Im out or asleep onto my internal or external HDD, I can also scale them down if I wish to keep them and save space and burn to DVD.
Web surfing is a treat, as all the graphics and banners look very detailed at 1920x1200 text is no problem either, but it did take me a week to get used to it, but it now seems just as normal as viewing it on my CRT at 10x7.
I think the moral of the story is that whilst manufactures ought to be ashamed of some the junk theyre producing{but is a Samsung 226bw junk?...my web page designer buddy doesnt think so}, and ideally specs should reflect real world performance, HQ LCDs do exist, and theyre an awesome upgrade, especially if you go the 24-27 route.
These type of threads seem very popular, and some people must be thinking that sticking with their old CRT/LCD is still necessary, well not in my opinion but obviously, it will be important to consider buying an 8 bit panel, but then again, some of the latest 22-24in TNs sound like theyre heaps better than old and small LCDs, so maybe thats an option for you .me, I removed the problem of TNs and bought an affordable 26inch 8bit Acer and Im loving it each time I turn my PC on.
Geez Dogma (good name for someone who preaches without thinking or listening BTW) why don't you share your mental disability in a different thread. I think you need to look up the definition of "Non Sequitur"
The rest of us want better LCDs and less lies, glad you are happy to stagnate with your perfect one. Now Shoo!
The rest of us want better LCDs and less lies, glad you are happy to stagnate with your perfect one. Now Shoo!
RESTfulADI
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2005
- Messages
- 2,218
Dogmapog, the FW900 thread is almost 200 pages long and people are still buying them.
2nd hand, also, what's the display area?
I also want less lies, but I also think it's important for people to know that HQ LCD does exist, cause many threads contain negative comments, some are meaningless to most people and some don't really apply to anyone, ie, 2 dead/stuck pixels that are "out the way"
Btw, when someone fails to tell the whole truth and focus strictly on negatives, negatives that may be irrelevant or over-rated, how do we define them for the general publics sake?
Imagine if I listened to these type of threads and no-one like me came along to assure people that they do have upgrade options
RESTfulADI
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2005
- Messages
- 2,218
2nd hand is still buying, yes the retail market for CRT is dead but many many people still don't like LCD.
Display area is 22.something inches, but that doesn't really matter to me, I didn't buy the FW900 to run high resolutions, I bought it to run NATIVE LOW resolutions at 120hz or better. I run v-sync OFF so I require high refresh rates so I won't see tearing, 960x600@160hz is just godly for CS:S. If I had to endure 1680x1050 or 1920x1200 @ 60hz and less than 100fps I might have to break something, the lag and the awful tearing on the 60hz refresh are just terrible. Therefore, LCD can go to hell.
I think that a 22inch LCD would have a larger display area, and whilst it may not matter to you for your exact purposes{sounds like gaming only}, large LCD's really do kickass, ie, games, pics, web surfing etc.
I didn't like D3 on my CRT, but think it's fine on my 26.
RESTfulADI
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2005
- Messages
- 2,218
Crap you quoted me before my edit, I need to stop doing that. Anyway, how can a 22in LCD have more viewable area than at 24'' CRT with 22.5'' of viewable area? Btw, I'll be the first to say that LCD owns for text based stuff like browser, office, etc.. But for gaming and video, forget about it.
As others have said, most people never got a chance to see a properly set up CRT, especially in the huge market of the corporate environment. For many users, LCDs have been an escape from a flickery, 60 Hz, hell...
Many seemed to have no idea that with a few keystrokes they could get a solid, 85Hz, CRT picture. And without all of this wonderful stuff about motion lag, inability to display black, limited true full screen contrast, etc...and the BS specs that manufacturers release to try and cover up or minimize these issues...
Oh...and whereas I bought my GDM-FW900 from Fry's...good luck finding a high end monitor in retail these days...which is especially bad considering you may have to go through several before you find one without clouding, bad pixels, etc...
Like music formats, this decade has been more about convenience than quality...
I tried hard to keep my GDM-F520 working for me...except for its latest text flickering issue, the picture is still fantastic and kills almost anything else, but I'm at the end of my rope there...
A bright spot might be one of the new Kuro or Panasonic plasmas, but I don't think I could feel comfortable buying a product, which the manufacturer is effectively saying not to use as computer display...
Sound and Vision magazine mentioned that Sony hopes to release a 27" OLED panel this year, and maybe that will be high end CRT's proper successor, even if it is 4 years belated...though I hate to think of how much they will charge for it...
Oh well...this 4065F Samsung LCD still looks like the one to me...it does hit a better black level than many LCDs and of course it does serve up LCD's one big advantage -- size. I've got a week to make a final decision...
Many seemed to have no idea that with a few keystrokes they could get a solid, 85Hz, CRT picture. And without all of this wonderful stuff about motion lag, inability to display black, limited true full screen contrast, etc...and the BS specs that manufacturers release to try and cover up or minimize these issues...
Oh...and whereas I bought my GDM-FW900 from Fry's...good luck finding a high end monitor in retail these days...which is especially bad considering you may have to go through several before you find one without clouding, bad pixels, etc...
Like music formats, this decade has been more about convenience than quality...
I tried hard to keep my GDM-F520 working for me...except for its latest text flickering issue, the picture is still fantastic and kills almost anything else, but I'm at the end of my rope there...
A bright spot might be one of the new Kuro or Panasonic plasmas, but I don't think I could feel comfortable buying a product, which the manufacturer is effectively saying not to use as computer display...
Sound and Vision magazine mentioned that Sony hopes to release a 27" OLED panel this year, and maybe that will be high end CRT's proper successor, even if it is 4 years belated...though I hate to think of how much they will charge for it...
Oh well...this 4065F Samsung LCD still looks like the one to me...it does hit a better black level than many LCDs and of course it does serve up LCD's one big advantage -- size. I've got a week to make a final decision...
RESTfulADI
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2005
- Messages
- 2,218
SED looked like a proper upgrade from CRT but due to some legal bullshit Toshiba apparently pulled the plug . I also fully agree with the previous poster about most people thinking that LCD is soooo good ONLY because they have never seen a properly set up CRT, Windows as long as I can remember defaulted to a migrane-inducing 60hz and it gave CRT a bad rep, in literally 10 seconds you can change all that but most people were never told, I bet if they saw my 1600x1000@110hz desktop they wouldn't think so badly of CRT (or so highly of LDC). My friends who play games on my FW900 using 960x600@160hz, 1280x800@140hz, or 1440x900@120hz now hate playing on their LCDs.
Btw, there is a very good reason why ILM, Pixar, and others use FW900s, the color reproduction is unmatched.
. I also fully agree with the previous poster about most people thinking that LCD is soooo good ONLY because they have never seen a properly set up CRT, Windows as long as I can remember defaulted to a migrane-inducing 60hz and it gave CRT a bad rep, in literally 10 seconds you can change all that but most people were never told, I bet if they saw my 1600x1000@110hz desktop they wouldn't think so badly of CRT (or so highly of LDC). My friends who play games on my FW900 using 960x600@160hz, 1280x800@140hz, or 1440x900@120hz now hate playing on their LCDs.Btw, there is a very good reason why ILM, Pixar, and others use FW900s, the color reproduction is unmatched.
Gorankar
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2000
- Messages
- 11,109
I also want less lies, but I also think it's important for people to know that HQ LCD does exist, cause many threads contain negative comments, some are meaningless to most people and some don't really apply to anyone, ie, 2 dead/stuck pixels that are "out the way"
Btw, when someone fails to tell the whole truth and focus strictly on negatives, negatives that may be irrelevant or over-rated, how do we define them for the general publics sake?
Imagine if I listened to these type of threads and no-one like me came along to assure people that they do have upgrade options
Everyone knows that there are some good lcds, you don't have to tell us. The problem is that finding the good lcd's has been made extremely difficult, to damn near impossible by the marketing bull shit and outright lies. And what is worse, is that lcds seem to be making a backward slide due to some of these useless specs getting pumped to high hell instead of actually improving the tech where it matters. Never let the marketers get in the way of the engineers if you actually want to produce something good. Why this turned into a lcd vs crt thread is beyond me. LCD is a tech that is already scheduled to be obsolete. Hopefully the next "big thing", in display tech is not a lateral step or back step as much of the lcd tech has turned out to be.
Basically almost all the stuff you guys added already will increase input lag, like dynamic contrast, overdrive (response time), the motion thing for 120hz and all that so I hate them all. The one mode that i would love to see on ALL LCD/LCD TVs is the "Game mode" that sony and samsung use which shuts most of that crap off.
RESTfulADI
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2005
- Messages
- 2,218
One of the worst lies is when a LCD monitor has a big shiny 1080p compatible sticker on it, but there is no 1:1 mode and and 1080p gets stretched to 1920x1200. This should be criminal.
We have so much crap in our society, especially lately..
I don't know what the heck happened with Sony, they used to make quality/pro CRT TVs/Monitors. I still have 8 years old Sony CRT TV that beats my 32S3000 LCD hell out of the water. Not to mentioned that I need to go through the hassle and send it for replacement because it has flaws. My old Toshiba TV that was bought 18 years ago in Europe died last year. It had good picture quality for the past 15 yrs. I still have Aiwa VHS player that I bought ~16 years ago in Germany. Works great. I have so much respect to this kind of technology.
I also have a good experience with IIyama/CTX/Belinea CRT monitors. Quality products.
I don't know what the heck happened with Sony, they used to make quality/pro CRT TVs/Monitors. I still have 8 years old Sony CRT TV that beats my 32S3000 LCD hell out of the water. Not to mentioned that I need to go through the hassle and send it for replacement because it has flaws. My old Toshiba TV that was bought 18 years ago in Europe died last year. It had good picture quality for the past 15 yrs. I still have Aiwa VHS player that I bought ~16 years ago in Germany. Works great. I have so much respect to this kind of technology.
I also have a good experience with IIyama/CTX/Belinea CRT monitors. Quality products.