[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]

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.

[DolbyDan]

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

[acave]

I been in a lucky position over the last week where I can compare the Sony Pearl to my Barco 1209.

In terms of detail (do not confuse this with sharpness here) the Sony Pearl wins easily. One one particular scence in King Kong the difference was huge.

The noise level of the Sony Pearl is also a big plus for me as its make my audio better. Nothing worse than hearing the fans of the Barco whirling away once the heat builds up. What also surprised me was the Sony Pearl was quiter than my PS3.

My room is light controlled and I could live with the black level of the Sony Pearl. I'm quite surprised at how good it is. I had expected a film like V for Vendetta to look quite bad but it did not.

I'm always looking to upgrade my setup maybe out of addiction so in that sense the Sony Pearl gives me the option to try different size images to see what suits me taste. The Barco is new install job each time as I prefer to get the best out of my 1209. That again adds to the cost.

Colour wise I'll not made a judgement. My 1209 has been ISF calibrated and that would be unfair.

I would say if you have a dedicated room and plan only to install the PJ once them the CRT is still the best option. There is just something I like about the more natural image.

One test I did do was invite two friends over to listen to the new speakers I had. I was bluffing. All that was different was I had changed the projector.
None of them noticed the image was from the hidden Sony Pearl.

The Sony is a lot easier to setup. You buy it, you get a great image right away.

There are plenty of opinions that the new champ is the JVC HD-1, for me the fan noise being higher would put me off buying that one. I watch most of my material after 11am and I can't run my system too loud. With the Sony Pearl I can run my system 10db less and hear more than if I used the Barco.

Take the fan noise away from the Barco and I'd not think about the Sony Pearl.

If I was buying a PJ as a first timer. It would be the Pearl only because I no longer have the time to spare tweaking.

Ooops, just saw this was in the TV section. Oh, well. Simple Answer. I love CRT televisions over LCD. I might buy the Samsung HD CRT. It may have problems but I'm use to those with my CRT PJ.

[Mofoman]

Well the pearl is a top of the line LCD projectore, and LCD projector's are great, they do not suffer from the problem of the screen, as the image is being projected , so you can view it at multiple angles, and the image doesn't have the delay problem's of a cheap lcd screen eiother, plus the fact that the pearl is a three lcd, which is much different from an lcd tv. Comparing an LCD projector to a LCD tv, isn't worthwhile.

Now the best CRT projector, would make the pearl look like a peice of [inappropriate use of astrix removed-moderator].

[Sonic67]

Something to bear in mind but when you take an image at a certain resolution and blow it up larger it will look worse unless you increase the resolution as well. Think of a digital photo. Keep blowing it up larger and it will pixelatte and look worse.

A 42" LCD (or anything else) is already going to look poor showing standard definition in comparison to a 26" for example. As screens get bigger and bigger HD becomes more important.

[js474]

There will always be two camps: pro-LCD and pro-CRT - it simply comes down to personal choice & needs.

Personally I will always have CRT. I recently moved house and purely for size reasons & before the move was finalised went to buy a 37" LCD to replace my Toshiba 36ZP18Q which would have been a reluctant purchase... After reading countless reviews I narrowed the choice to an LG and a Samsung, and was fortunate enough to find the exact models on display next to eachother both displaying TV programmes (not DVD etc).

I stood there for a ridiculous length of time comparing the two and couldn't believe how dreadful the quality of both pictures was!! I decided there & then to keep my Tosh which has always been my aim to own when it was introduced a few years ago, but out of my price bracket.

I have only this morning replaced the scart lead running to my Sky+ box with a QED2110, and not thinking that the picture could get any better I stood with a big grin on my face when I saw that it was!

CRT + decent connections = pretty darn flawless!

To echo an earlier post, why pay top-dollar for a pretty TV with a lousy picture?

[Stephen Neal]

Isn't the Sony Pearl an SXRD (aka Reflective LCD aka LCOS) type projector rather than a transmissive LCD device? If so, like DLP and DILA reflective devices, the black levels should be much better.

[Mofoman]

Yep it is, Stevo, I had sony cineza's on the brain when I wrote that, lol.

It is indeed, an SXRD projector, hence the reason it's image quality is so good, but it's good black's and excellent contrast are definetly much better when the iris is switched on.

[CJROSS]

To me its simple these days for out and out picture quality :

If you watch Freeview or Sky from a RGB Scart and watch normal DVD from component PAL PS you should be a CRT with component inputs.

If you have Sky HD, Blue-Ray or HD-DVD then you should invest in a LCS/Plasma with HDMIs preferably 2.

I will remain very happy with RGB Scart from my Humax 8000T & Component from my SD-9500 into my 36" Toshiba CRT.

Originally Posted by Sonic67

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

I have yet to see a HDTV transmission that has a better picture than my Philips Pixel Plus CRT TV receiving SD transmissions.

CRT is king.

LCD=0 CRT=1

The best LCD pictures I have seen are all Panasonic TV's.

[Keiron]

My non-techie brother in law recently got a B&O LCD (only 32") and Sky HD. When I first went round and he attempted to show it off to me, I thought he must have set it up wrong. The picture looked as though it was coming from a VCR through a composite cable. It was utterly crap, no other words to describe it.

I couldn't bring myself to tell him. I checked all the settings, all the cabling and it was all set up correct. I'd have been mortified. My other brother in-law was there too, and we gave each other a knowing "he's got more money than sense look"

I'm still holding on to my Sony 32" and would you believe, a 15 year old Sony 29" which produces the best image I have ever seen from any display ever. I talked about this set to a Sony man at an exhibition a couple of years ago and he said it was the best TV they ever made - they even reprised it a few years ago, despite it's good ol' 4:3 format!

I am however interested in the comment earlier up this thread that SD upscaled can give CRT a run for its money. Can anyone comment on this?

Meantime, I'm keeping my eye out for a 36" CRT bargain!

[Sonic67]

Originally Posted by mildred

I have yet to see a HDTV transmission that has a better picture than my Philips Pixel Plus CRT TV receiving SD transmissions.

CRT is king.

LCD=0 CRT=1

The best LCD pictures I have seen are all Panasonic TV's.

Try 'Happy Feet' or 'King Kong' on HD DVD.

[mw01908]

Originally Posted by FunkyMonkey

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.

CRT is superior. The problem you talk of with smearing, is down to MPEG2 compression artifects that we have on our digital pictures. This is down to the broadcasters using bitrates that are too low in order to fit in more channels for less cost, particularly, freeview.

I was holding off buying any of these terrible LCD's or plasmas. I'm waiting to see if SED technology is good enough to replace CRT. if not I think I'll either move to the states or import a nice CRT HD TV if they don't start selling them in Europe.

[earwax]

Thanks Guys! My question came from curiosity, but from your replesi it seems that the great british public are being led by their noses ) or any other aviailable anatomical part ) to buy the latest *must have* to line the sellers' pockets.

[mw01908]

I think its also the desire to mount the TV on the wall to look cool and usually to shut the wife up - she can have more space in the room for things. These desires seem to be totally overlooking the fact that the quality of pictures just aren't up to the thing that its replacing (CRT)

How many of these latest technology obessive people mount the screen so high up the wall that 15 mins of viewing cause them to have neck problems??!

[Sonic67]

Originally Posted by mw01908

How many of these latest technology obessive people mount the screen so high up the wall that 15 mins of viewing cause them to have neck problems??!

When you go to the cinema where do they put the screen?

Top tip. Before you put the screen on the wall stick a sheet from the Sunday Papers up there to see how it looks.

I can't understand this arguement. Don't buy an LCD you might stick it to high up the wall and get a bad neck? That's like saying don't buy a CRT you'll break your back lifting it.

With an LCD don't put it up near the ceiling or if you do why not get the drill back out and move it? In the same way if you are lifting a CRT get a friend to help. Both probems solved.

Why not ask these: http://www.avforums.com/forums/members-home-cinema-gallery/ if all the work was all down to their wife?

[Sonic67]

Originally Posted by earwax

Thanks Guys! My question came from curiosity, but from your replesi it seems that the great british public are being led by their noses ) or any other aviailable anatomical part ) to buy the latest *must have* to line the sellers' pockets.

LCD owners (or plasma owners) have had CRT in the past or still have them in other rooms of the house. I've had CRT for about 20 odd years on various sets. So I do have something to compare with. In the other room I have a 28" CRT widescreen iDTV.

Now I have High Def from my cable box and HD DVD player. (about 6 times the resolution), a large screen that would require a massive tube if I had CRT, no convergence errors and pin sharp resolution (If you get up close to CRT you have three different colours and black on the screen. With a pixel on LCD if you need the colour blue the pixel turns blue. If you need red the pixel turns red. Get up close to teletext on a CRT and see the fuzzyness round the letters.). It also means I sit in my living room to post messages on forums by switching the input to PC. I did have the PC connected to my CRT via S-Video and I wouldn't be able to see the text on screen like I can now.

Also there was the 50Hz flicker or having to get shielded speakers with the old set.

CRT can still be good sometimes but I wouldn't go back to it in the same way as I wouldn't go back to cassettes and LPs. A fan of LPs will go on about how wonderful they sound but I prefer the convenience of a CD.

Rather than rely on the LCDs usually poorly set up in the stores find someone with a copy of King Kong on HD DVD or something. Generally the response is that it looks 3-D.

Planet Earth is another you might want to have a look at.