CRT versus LCD?

[earwax]

I hope that the result of posting here will not lead to too biassed answers.

What are the plusses and minuses of each type of TV when watching from various sources, analogue, DTT, satellite? Assuming the TV manufacturer is the same one is CRT going to be superior or inferior over its LCD offering? In summary what are the qualities of both?

[YippeeKiYay]

[FONT="Comic Sans MS"]A lot of information at this site [/FONT]http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage....ryRep=cat01000


[FONT="Comic Sans MS"]
I think LCD looks really nice and saves a lot of space. CRT looks big and bulky but gives a better picture. It really depends on what the individual thinks. I was in a shop talking to a sales person and asked them what is the best picture LCD or Plasma and they said to my surprise CRT .

I’m going out to buy a CRT today. And I will let you know what it's like compared to my LCD.

taking from the website
LCDs
Pros
Compact, lightweight size
Good color and sharp image
Use less energy, generate less heat
Flicker-free, easy on the eyes


CRTs
Pros
Lower purchase price
Bright image, color clarity
Sharp picture, fluid video
Adjustable (multisynch) image

[/FONT]

[Bazzzz]

I bought a toshiba LCD for £1200 and was suprised at how poor the quality of the picture was compared to my 10 year old matsui. The skin tones were plastic and quality would disintegrate when watching sports. A complete waste of money. I rang Toshiba and spoke to a technical person there and he said he would never buy an LCD. The picture quality on LCDs are vastly inferior to CRTs. I asked why it was people were buying them and he replied people displayed an 'irrational obssession with owning the latest technology'. I returned it and still have the matsui. I'm going to buy a cheap digital widescreen CRT which will guarantee a decent picture.

What's the point in spending £1200 on a tv which has inferior picture quality to a tv worth £20? What's the point in having a sexy slim tv, with loads of gizmos when it can't provide a decent picture?

[Mofoman]

Yeah I agree, the picture quality on even the best of LCD's is awful in my opinion, especially when watching fast moving image's such as motorsport's or football, or any aport for that matter, and especially when the source is digital too.

Alway's go for CRT, CRT is the greatest technology at the moment, make no mistake.I still maintain Plasma is riddled with residual image problem's and to get decent black's and resolution, you have to pay silly money.

[DrugstoreCowboy]

I'd never ditch my CRTs (Toshiba 3387DB and Sony KV-32FX6OU) even though I did buy a large LCD.

For standard TV I reckon the Sony is still fantastic and the Toshiba is just the best bargain I've had in a long time, £50 - ebay) and makes the perfect MAME display, awesome at 240p.

[Sonic67]

I'm an LCD owner. Four things to think about regarding CRT.

1. HD. I watch High Def on cable and on HD DVD. Way better than standard definition on a CRT.

2. Size. I have a 37" screen. On a CRT it would have been so big I wouldn't have got it through the door. With a CRT you need to take into account the large tube pushing the screen forward.

3. Weight. Even if I could have got it through the door I can't imagine I'd have been able to mount it on the wall.

4. I have a Shuttle PC attached to a D-Sub socket. Again using a PC with a CRT isn't really an option compared to LCD.

CRTs can also suffer in other ways. My old CRT now in a back room wouldn't display lines perfectly vertical on one edge.

[pughypro]

In response to your post, Sonic 67, would you not agree that for the person who only watches standard definition (which I believe is the majority of the population) and has the space for a 32" or 36" CRT, this still offers the best picture quality.

I recently purchased a 36" Panasonic 36PL32 and the picture is stunning, particularly from DVD or Sky+. No sign of any of the "nasties" that come with LCD.

It is difficult to disagree with the comment regarding weight, it did take two of us to carry the TV, and get it onto the stand, but once the TV is in place how often is it going to be moved?

[Sonic67]

Yes if you are watching standard def, don't have a computer and have the room I'd still say CRT. Providing of course it's a good CRT and not a supermarket special. As regards the weight it's an issue if you want to put it up on the wall as LCD is possible, CRT a major worry if above 21".

In CRT's favour is several decades of development. For me LCD was necessary but CRT still has a lot going if the picture is the only priority.

[Sonic67]

Originally Posted by pughypro

I recently purchased a 36" Panasonic 36PL32 and the picture is stunning, particularly from DVD or Sky+. No sign of any of the "nasties" that come with LCD.

How much was it? It's had a few good reviews.

[aekostas]

Is that a new model?

[pughypro]

I paid £175 from the ever popular Ebay, about two months ago. The TV was in really good nick, and now have it hooked up to the Sky+ and surround sound etc.

Excellent picture, had a few gripes initially, but some tweaking of settings and now couldn't be happier.

Would recommend if you can find one, I think theres one on Ebay at the moment?

DVD and any decent feed from Sky are exceptional!!!

[FunkyMonkey]

If you have Sky HD, a PS3, and a decent LCD set that upscales SD images well into HD, like the current Sony Bravias then the argument is pretty much over in favour of LCD.

If, however, you have freeview or standard Sky, then my Sony 32inch widescreen of 7 years, with 100Hz technology is unbeatable. I defy anyone to show me a better picture from my Sky box!!

Cureiously though, there is still smearing of the image, with Sky or freeview Nokia Box, when a football or tennis ball flies through the air. So CRT is certainly no longer superior in that respect.

[mendd3]

I must say In my opinion LCD's are better than CRT's in every way.....

but picture

Pioneer or Panasonic Plasma's give on par with 'Flagship' CRT's SD picture quality though, with the added plus of superior HD picture quality than LCD.

[Mofoman]

I know most of you guys are speaking from Uk experience so I'll excuse your comment's on picture quality. A good HD CRT that was realeased in nearly everywhere on the planet, except most of europe will simply blow away even the best plasma screen. Now I know weight and size are an issue, but you don't see broadcaster's or film director's using lcd or plasma, cause the broadcast crt monitors are simply astounding, and the only way to get the real picture.

HD crt such as the XBR series in the USA, are simply blow away plasma or LCD and have the added benefit of displaying lower resolutions perfectly, and when scaling images with something like sony's DRC-MF, they are so much better than an LCD or plasma.

IF you want the best picture, CRT is the way to go, but in europe there is a complete dumping of the CRT technology, it's baffling.Now you can get a slimfit and imo, they are still better than LCD if you are watching alot of sport on standard def, and when the new models(slimfit) arrive, the geometry problems and dot pitch issues will be solved.

In the UK, HD broadcasting is stilll very rare too, so if you are a sports fan, you will be watching sports in standard def at some point.

[Sicoe]

Hi All

i was wondering if a thread like this would ever come along.

ive owned so many sets in my life including lcds, plasmas, dlp rear projection and crts and without a shadow of a doubt crts are the best picture quality that has been made for sd viewing, and im sorry but lcds cannot even get close.

i have 2 36 inch crts in my house, a panasonic and a toshiba and the picture is excellent.

i just came back from my friends who has just bought the 42 3030d toshiba new lcd and it was the worst thing i have ever seen the only thing that comes close to crts in my opinion is my sagem 45 inch dlp which handles standard def brilliantly.

these are only my opinions but i could not live with an lcd they are still very poor