[Paul Cooksley]

Hi all

Well, I keep toying with the idea of updating my Sony KV32CS70 32" CRT widescreen wega television for a larger, 37" plasma. I've had this Sony since November 2004 (so only just over 3 and a half years actually) and it cost me a whopping £900 back then! Ouch!!! I think this was one of the last 32" CRT's that Sony ever made actually....

Anyway, as I was saying, I keep thinking I would like a larger screen. So, i've looked at flat panels - LCD and Plasma in order to replace it.

I've discounted LCD straight away - SD looks awful - and sorry to anyone that wants to defend SD on LCD - but it does! Plasma to me, seems more "CRT" like - so I was looking at getting the new Panasonic PX80 37" Plasma.

Now, I've looked at loads of these particular plasma's set up in various shops (and played around with the settings etc) and try as I might, although "from a distance" the freeview SD picture is "reasonable" - to me, it is a step backwards in quality. Does anyone else feel like this?

Obviously, I am not talking about HD material here - just purely SD - and mainly freeview at that - but - looking at my Sony CRT I cannot get over how great the picture looks compared to even a decent plasma! It's made me really feel that until I have to (when the set dies or HD becomes far more mainstream) that I will not now replace it.

I really do want a larger screen and I am itching to get a plasma - but - my mind is telling me that SD freeview is going to look poorer - ie more pixellated and "soft" - than my present CRT. Hence why I have now made the decision to stick with my CRT.

I thought I would post this here in the CRT section as I have a sneaky feeling I would get hung drawn and quartered if I put this sort of thing in the Plasma/LCD sections!!!!!!!!

Anyone else feel the same?

[Jonstone]

Originally Posted by Paul Cooksley

Hi all

Well, I keep toying with the idea of updating my Sony KV32CS70 32" CRT widescreen wega television for a larger, 37" plasma. I've had this Sony since November 2004 (so only just over 3 and a half years actually) and it cost me a whopping £900 back then! Ouch!!! I think this was one of the last 32" CRT's that Sony ever made actually....

Anyway, as I was saying, I keep thinking I would like a larger screen. So, i've looked at flat panels - LCD and Plasma in order to replace it.

I've discounted LCD straight away - SD looks awful - and sorry to anyone that wants to defend SD on LCD - but it does! Plasma to me, seems more "CRT" like - so I was looking at getting the new Panasonic PX80 37" Plasma.

Now, I've looked at loads of these particular plasma's set up in various shops (and played around with the settings etc) and try as I might, although "from a distance" the freeview SD picture is "reasonable" - to me, it is a step backwards in quality. Does anyone else feel like this?

Obviously, I am not talking about HD material here - just purely SD - and mainly freeview at that - but - looking at my Sony CRT I cannot get over how great the picture looks compared to even a decent plasma! It's made me really feel that until I have to (when the set dies or HD becomes far more mainstream) that I will not now replace it.

I really do want a larger screen and I am itching to get a plasma - but - my mind is telling me that SD freeview is going to look poorer - ie more pixellated and "soft" - than my present CRT. Hence why I have now made the decision to stick with my CRT.

I thought I would post this here in the CRT section as I have a sneaky feeling I would get hung drawn and quartered if I put this sort of thing in the Plasma/LCD sections!!!!!!!!

Anyone else feel the same?

Personally I think the picture on my 37" sd plasma is much better than my old crt but I do understand why some people would think otherwise. They both have their plusses and minuses and which you prefer is largely based on what aspect of picture quality is more important to you.

The question of size does also have to be addressed, a 37" lcd/plasma is considerably bigger than a 32" crt, if you could get a crt with a true 37" diagonal I am sure a lot of the picture problems you see with the flat screen tv's would be evident on the crt especially with the poor sd channels.

A lot also comes down to whichever tv you are accustomed to watching.

The answer though is they are all flawed in some way its just a case of which flaws bother you the most

[Paul Cooksley]

Originally Posted by Jonstone

Personally I think the picture on my 37" sd plasma is much better than my old crt but I do understand why some people would think otherwise. They both have their plusses and minuses and which you prefer is largely based on what aspect of picture quality is more important to you.

The question of size does also have to be addressed, a 37" lcd/plasma is considerably bigger than a 32" crt, if you could get a crt with a true 37" diagonal I am sure a lot of the picture problems you see with the flat screen tv's would be evident on the crt especially with the poor sd channels.

A lot also comes down to whichever tv you are accustomed to watching.

The answer though is they are all flawed in some way its just a case of which flaws bother you the most

It's nice to get an answer, like yours, from someone that owns a plasma and can still be objective about the plusses and minuses, without resorting to "of course Plasma is tonnes better than CRT" !!!

You are spot on of course, regarding various flaws. CRT's, especially widescreen ones, don't usually have perfect geometery of course - I know my doesn't at the sides of the screen - it's a tad slanting for example at the very extreme of the left side (but only fraction!). It's only noticeable on very straight lines, otherwise you don't see it - so not a problem to me.

I know as well, that of course, HD ready screens will show up the imperfections of SD (expecially freeview and lower bitrate channels as well) because of the way the picture is displayed.... I guess CRT screens just "cover" these 'imperfections' a little better, making the picture seem better sometimes?

[KyoDash]

My 29" Sony CRT shows up more imperfections than my 21" Sony set, so size is a part of the issue. The other is the fact that all flat panels have to deinterlace 480i braodcasts which creates lots of artefacts which weren't there to begin with.

A 29" 4:3 CRT 240p/480i native will always look better than a 37" panel displaying 480i.

I know as well, that of course, HD ready screens will show up the imperfections of SD (expecially freeview and lower bitrate channels as well) because of the way the picture is displayed.... I guess CRT screens just "cover" these 'imperfections' a little better, making the picture seem better sometimes?

They cover some, like lower bitrate stuff, but also have no processing induced ones either, which is why on a good CRT 480i can look better than 480p on a LCD or Plasma. Upscalng on panels also enlarges out the pixels so any imperfections present in the original source become more noticeable, though more so than just going up a few CRT screen sizes. Case in point a 26" LCD has a worse 480p picture than a 28" CRT doing 480i.

[simon11]

My son has just bought a 42" lcd but hasn't got hd yet. I went to look at it thinking that I would probably have to dash out and buy one. But after seeing the performance on normal sky pictures I won't bother. When you see them in the shops running video off a blue ray dvd they are superb but put a normal picture through and it is a disgrace. He says the picture looks allright if you sit in the hall.
My 32" crt can be viewed from a few feet and looks fabulous compared to this. I also have a 26" Sharp Aquos in the bedroom and at a few feet it looks terrible. 9ft away it looks good.
I will stick to my crt until it breaks down. Until HD is transmitted free and is standard it is not worth getting an lcd or plasma. They just don't work with normal television transmissions unless you buy a small screen or sit at the other end of the room.

[juLZ007]

basically, the moral of the story is... dont go for lcd because its the biggest waste of money, overrated POS technology out there

WHY anyone would chose to 'upgrade' their crt for an lcd is beyond me.. especially considering the plasma is a VASTLY superior technology to it right now (although even then i advise my customers to stick with their crts for a little while longer if watching sd was the only factor)

i just feel sorry for all the people who come to me asking me to sell them an lcd... all i do is flick on the panny px80s and compare it to the V or W sony series, and the X series to the pioneer 42"............ they make up their own minds

LCD POS!

[badbob]

LCD are not "POS" they're just suitable if your uses are different.

[juLZ007]

let me know if you think of any uses (or benefits over plasma) other than using them as computer screens (which they should have stayed as)

[badbob]

Gaming, and channels with bright dogs/bars. ie News 24. Seen screenburn on a Pioneer plasma where the white News 24 bottom bar is, and still there now after a few months.

[bonzobanana]

My mum got a Sony 28" widescreen CRT of ebay. I collected it for her. Quite a posh house and in the living room they had a new samsung LCD. The picture was rubbish, the sound was tinny but it looked fantastic as a piece of furniture which I think was the important thing for them. My mother now has a sony tv which was dirt cheap and gives a terrific picture and fantastic sound thanks to a built in subwoofer. I watched the extended version of fellowship of the ring yesterday on it. Her dvd player is something I gave her which cost me nothing as it was free for renting dvds for 3 months which I was doing anyway. The picture was stunning. She loves the set and its super stylish even though very bulky.

[aekostas]

Originally Posted by juLZ007

let me know if you think of any uses (or benefits over plasma) other than using them as computer screens (which they should have stayed as)

Size under 37" and price to match.

Edit: Sorry, I forgot to say: and power consumption.

[Sonic67]

Originally Posted by juLZ007

basically, the moral of the story is... dont go for lcd because its the biggest waste of money, overrated POS technology out there

I'm reminded of someone on these forums who vigourously defended plasma over LCD so I looked back at his post history. His previous post was in the plasma forums detailing all the problems he was having with his set and could anyone help?

LCD is far more reliable and has no problems. It's also easily dominant and the most flexible. If you want plasma you have a limited range. If you want LCD you can choose from every size, price point, quality, style and option.

My LCD is connected to a Shuttle PC, PS3, and cable box. I'm happy that my LCD can handle anything going with no worries. Plasma is ok if you are only ever going to use the screen as a TV only. These days I think that's limited thinking.

Sony don't bother with plasma and other manufacturers are steadily abandoning it. The investment is all going into LCD development.

[Sonic67]

Originally Posted by aekostas

Size under 37" and price to match.

Edit: Sorry, I forgot to say: and power consumption.

LCD can also be thinner and lighter too. I also think they handle bright natural colours better. Plasmas tend to have a thick dark glass on the screen.

[Uridium]

I recently replaced my 28" Philips PW6518 (a pretty well rated CRT) with a TH42PX80 Plasma and am happy to say the 42" Plasma SD picture quality via Sky+ RGB feed blows the CRT out of the water.

Yes if you are going to use your TV for majority HD or PC/console source then an LCD may be a better choice but if your primary source is going to be SD then a quality plasma will take a lot of beating

The 37" and 42" PX80's are fine TV's I'm 99% sure that you wouldn't be dissapointed compared to your CRT

If you have the space then take a look at the 42" PX80, many people by a 37" and regret not going for the 42" as you soon get used to the size. it can be picked up for sub £700 with a 5yr warranty via JL price matching sound & vision.

[Paul Cooksley]

Originally Posted by Uridium

I recently replaced my 28" Philips PW6518 (a pretty well rated CRT) with a TH42PX80 Plasma and am happy to say the 42" Plasma SD picture quality via Sky+ RGB feed blows the CRT out of the water.

Yes if you are going to use your TV for majority HD or PC/console source then an LCD may be a better choice but if your primary source is going to be SD then a quality plasma will take a lot of beating

The 37" and 42" PX80's are fine TV's I'm 99% sure that you wouldn't be dissapointed compared to your CRT

If you have the space then take a look at the 42" PX80, many people by a 37" and regret not going for the 42" as you soon get used to the size. it can be picked up for sub £700 with a 5yr warranty via JL price matching sound & vision.

I must confess, the very set you mention from Panasonic was one I was looking at, when I was toying with the idea of replacing my CRT (nothing wrong with my CRT - just wanted a bigger screen that's all!)

So, I do agree with you that SD images (freeview in particular) looked very good on this model - certainly far, far superior than any LCD screen I have seen.

Does anyone know why Sony abandoned Plasma sets at all? I know LCD enthusiasts will say that's because LCD is the way forward and Plasma isn't - but I certainly, personally don't beleive this - most people I know who have taken the plunge and got a flatscreen - have indeed all gone for Plasma.

Even a Pansonic shop, the guy in there told me that ALL the staff he knew went for Plasma over LCD.

[Uridium]

Originally Posted by Paul Cooksley

I must confess, the very set you mention from Panasonic was one I was looking at, when I was toying with the idea of replacing my CRT (nothing wrong with my CRT - just wanted a bigger screen that's all!)

So, I do agree with you that SD images (freeview in particular) looked very good on this model - certainly far, far superior than any LCD screen I have seen.

Does anyone know why Sony abandoned Plasma sets at all? I know LCD enthusiasts will say that's because LCD is the way forward and Plasma isn't - but I certainly, personally don't beleive this - most people I know who have taken the plunge and got a flatscreen - have indeed all gone for Plasma.

Even a Pansonic shop, the guy in there told me that ALL the staff he knew went for Plasma over LCD.

I'm only speculating but it could be because Plasma production is very expensive compared to LCD i believe. I think this is exactly the reason Pioneer will be stopping production of their own panel and sopurcing panels from Panasonic.

I'll just add that when i looked at the PX80 in store they were feeding SD via a standard coax and the picture was probably not as good as a standard CRT although it's difficult to know for sure as obviously there was no CRT to compare against at the time. The picture was watchable though and the poorish quality image was good enough to make me think that if that's the worst the picture could possibly be i was sold!

Incidentally you can pretty much ignore the Plasma scaremongering about panels being worn out in a couple of years and screen burn.

All Panasonic panels have 100,000 hours lifespan now (so over 10years on average) and with a little care in bedding in for 200hrs or so from new and not leaving a static image on 24/7 you'll be fine.

the PX80 really is a beautiful "natural" image. Have a look at the owners thread in the Plasma section

[Mr Creosote]

Paul, I'm in exactly the same situation. I have a 2004 Panasonic 32' 100Hz with a very decent picture but want something bigger. My main source of media will be SD for at least 2-3 years but will of course gradually be shifting towards more and more HD. So, I'd like something that can handle both SD TV and my rather big stock of DVDs in an acceptable manner and also be good for HD.

I have taken a look at many LCDs and plasma TVs, with SD/HD TV and DVD/BR. Conclusion: I will get a Pioneer plasma. When it comes to both HD media (which many panels manages rather well) and SD Pioneer excels! I understand Pioneer has excellent hardware to deal with SD and it's e.g. better to let the panel do the scaling than the DVD player. I have not seen any LCD that manages SD in a decent way...

With the 9G of Pioneer, to be released soon and with a significant price drop compared to 8G, this will probably be my choice - pending wife approval

[rooo]

We currently have a 25" Sony, and only use it for SD Sky (films are on the HD PJ) and I've finally decided not to move to LCD or Plasma for now. I've been undecided for about 2 years whether to make the move but have decided to hold off for a few years and shop around for a decent second hand 32" CRT.

I spoke to 2 people on Saturday who have expensive LCDs, and both said, that their old CRT's were better, and these were enthusiasts like us.

I think many people who highly rate LCDS (like by parents and the in laws) had poor CRT's before hand. My Dad loves his LCD, and although not as good as my CRT, is heaps better than his old set.

[badbob]

I spoke to 2 people on Saturday who have expensive LCDs, and both said, that their old CRT's were better, and these were enthusiasts like us.

Probably on stock dynamic settings? Once setup I would say my LCD is pretty close for picture quality- very filmic, and considering the size and upscaling I would say damn good. Just tried 983 and a DVD-Video- looks fantastic, with minimal noise/compression.

And of course the LCD is no longer interlaced, so I have better detail, no judders, scan lines or jaggies. No flicker either. Though the Samsung has 24/50hz hum bars.

[Sonic67]

Originally Posted by badbob

Probably on stock dynamic settings? Once setup I would say my LCD is pretty close for picture quality- very filmic, and considering the size and upscaling I would say damn good. Just tried 983 and a DVD-Video- looks fantastic, with minimal noise/compression.

And of course the LCD is no longer interlaced, so I have better detail, no judders, scan lines or jaggies. No flicker either. Though the Samsung has 24/50hz hum bars.

Similar thing. Even if my CRT is somehow lacking, it's still being used in the kitchen, the LCD has too many advantages.

The widescreen CRT (an LG) had some convergence errors. Also the individual dots/pixels etc are finer on the LCD. Get up close to a CRT and you can see the three different colours. On an LCD you just get the correct colour displayed. Then there's how I no longer have to worry about shielded speakers. I have a pair of hifi speakers next to the TV and are unshielded.

Also SD is great but HD is out now. Would you still want to listen to medium wave when others had VHF?

Then there's how I can use my LCD as a giant PC monitor. I tried with my CRT but the best connection was S-video and the resolution was too low. Now I get in and watch TV, then look on the Internet, then play a game. I have a PC in an upstairs room but it's never used now.

Also the screen size. I wouldn't be able to get a 37" CRT through the door and if I could it would be encrouching far into the room.

Then there's wall mounting. An option for a flat panel not for my 28" CRT.

I suppose if you only watch SD, and only ever will watch SD then CRT is an option but a flat panel offers lots of other things as well.

Note that with a larger screen Freeview etc will look worse anyway as the image is being blown up larger. I think this is why many prefer their small CRT over a large flat panel. Freeview blown up larger and larger looks poor down to it's resolution.

[SteveAWOL]

Whilst I agree that LCD is the most practical jack of all trades I still prefer good old CRT for watching SD TV and DVDs.

My 28" Hitachi CRT in the bedroom was on its way out last summer so I decided that I might as well get a flat panel HD-Ready set to make best use of my Xbox 360 and free up some room. Spent weeks trawling retailers looking for something that could display comparable SD and be reasonably future proof but the only sets i saw that matched my CRT were the Panny and Pioneer plasmas, which were too big. Eventually went for the Sony 32D3000 as, to my eyes, it was the best 32" LCD available but I preferred SD on the 37/42" panels alongside it tbh.

I'm very happy with the performance of my new Bravia hooked up to my 360 but for SD, especially on some of the lower bitrate channels, the good old 32" Hitachi CRT in the living room still reigns supreme. Prob be getting V+ installed in not too distant future so maybe its upscaling abilities will sway my opinion towards the Bravia...

[badbob]

Just watched LOTR extended NTSC DVD on my Samsung M86, Oppo 983. Looks stunning, didn't notice any motion blur. Thanks to avia/vrs disc looks fantastic, as good as my 28" Pansonic, better because progressive no judders or scanlines

[jimmy900]

i got the panasonic tx32lxd70. freeview was horrible to watch. the odd football match ive seen on BBCHD is an improvement over SD but really, the quality on my Sony 29" CRT is great. i'll carry on watching tv on it and i just use the panasonic LCD screen for the PS3. DVD's look great on it too. i have looked into sky HD but the price of the box and the subscription and the few channels available put me off. i'd really not want to be paying money to sky if i can help it too.

[Syphonic]

No sites selling off old CRTs by any chance? All the people on eBay will do pickup only and there is nobody in my area. Stuck on an old 20" JVC at the moment (picture quality is stunning however) but don't have the finances to buy a plasma so I'm looking for something bigger. There is a 36"/37"? Sony on eBay for £50 but alas, not my area.

[Daytrader]

i still dream most nights about why they never went the crt 1080P route , i know it was because it was not practical, hopefully oled will give us crt hd quality.

[weyland-yutani]

Originally Posted by Sonic67

I'm reminded of someone on these forums who vigourously defended plasma over LCD so I looked back at his post history. His previous post was in the plasma forums detailing all the problems he was having with his set and could anyone help?

LCD is far more reliable and has no problems. It's also easily dominant and the most flexible. If you want plasma you have a limited range. If you want LCD you can choose from every size, price point, quality, style and option.

My LCD is connected to a Shuttle PC, PS3, and cable box. I'm happy that my LCD can handle anything going with no worries. Plasma is ok if you are only ever going to use the screen as a TV only. These days I think that's limited thinking.

Sony don't bother with plasma and other manufacturers are steadily abandoning it. The investment is all going into LCD development.

Yawn!

Not being either a Plasma or LCD owner (and no longer a CRT owner) I thought I would give my opinion.

Two years ago I purchased a Sagem 50 " DLP (HD Ready) TV set for use with my Sky HD Box. HD broadcasts (especially those from the BBC) were as fantastic as I had hoped, but the thing that really amazed me was the quality of SD pictures using the upscaling capabilities of teh new set. In some cases picture quality is so good that it could almost be mistaken for HD. Upscaling from my Pioneer DVD player also produces stunning results.

The quality of SD pictures on this box is hugely better than anything I have seen on any top-of-the-range CRT.

Now unfortunately my Sagem has developed a fault. I hope to resolve this with a replacement lamp, but if this does not work I will require a replacement. There are many choices to be made. LCD or Plasma? HD Ready of Full HD?

After a lot of research I have decided on a plasma Pioneer 508XD. Now this set is not full HD yet costs significantly more than full HD models fro Samsung and even Panasonic. The reason for my choosing this option is that it deals with SD upscaling better than the rest (even better than my Sagem). Blu-Ray (full HD) sources are handled equally well.

However, my main point is that I would not even consider CRT. The simple truth is that sets viewed playing SD sources in large stores are set up abysmally and probably not using HDMI connections to the source. I have seen plasma displays using (digital - ie Freeview or Sky) on Panasonic, Philips and Samsung that have displayed SD pictures better than any CRT. Until recently, I would have been less convinced by LCD screens. However, LCD technology has improved a lot, and I stll can't believe that any of the latest LCD sets with decent upscaling will not be better than a CRT. I have seen a recent 52" Samsung LCD that looks stunning with HD sources and very good with SD when set up properly using HDMI conenctions. I could certainly live with this set, although not quite on a par with the Pioneer Plasma.

Two caveats to this. If you are still using analogue sources, picture quality on an HD set (whatever type you choose) will look awful. Secondly, if you want to limit yourself to something like a 28" or even 32" you may not notice such a difference.

Good luck with whatever you choose.

Not being either a Plasma or LCD owner (and no longer a CRT owner) I thought I would give my opinion.

Two years ago I purchased a Sagem 50 " DLP (HD Ready) TV set for use with my Sky HD Box. HD broadcasts (especially those from the BBC) were as fantastic as I had hoped, but the thing that really amazed me was the quality of SD pictures using the upscaling capabilities of teh new set. In some cases picture quality is so good that it could almost be mistaken for HD. Upscaling from my Pioneer DVD player also produces stunning results.

The quality of SD pictures on this box is hugely better than anything I have seen on any top-of-the-range CRT.

Now unfortunately my Sagem has developed a fault. I hope to resolve this with a replacement lamp, but if this does not work I will require a replacement. There are many choices to be made. LCD or Plasma? HD Ready of Full HD?

After a lot of research I have decided on a plasma Pioneer 508XD. Now this set is not full HD yet costs significantly more than full HD models fro Samsung and even Panasonic. The reason for my choosing this option is that it deals with SD upscaling better than the rest (even better than my Sagem). Blu-Ray (full HD) sources are handled equally well.

However, my main point is that I would not even consider CRT. The simple truth is that sets viewed playing SD sources in large stores are set up abysmally and probably not using HDMI connections to the source. I have seen plasma displays using (digital - ie Freeview or Sky) on Panasonic, Philips and Samsung that have displayed SD pictures better than any CRT. Until recently, I would have been less convinced by LCD screens. However, LCD technology has improved a lot, and I stll can't believe that any of the latest LCD sets with decent upscaling will not be better than a CRT. I have seen a recent 52" Samsung LCD that looks stunning with HD sources and very good with SD when set up properly using HDMI conenctions. I could certainly live with this set, although not quite on a par with the Pioneer Plasma.

Two caveats to this. If you are still using analogue sources, picture quality on an HD set (whatever type you choose) will look awful. Secondly, if you want to limit yourself to something like a 28" or even 32" you may not notice such a difference.

Good luck with whatever you choose.

[Honeysuckle]

Well I've been having issues with my 50" CRT..its like 3 yrs old?
We were debating whether to fix it or buy a huge LCD Plasma..
(The TV is in the Living Room and thats our "gaming so like room" :D) My friend told me that the Plasma TV lags bad when you play certain games on the console and that usually the CRT TVs are better in this case.

I was always like grr that CRT is getting old and it sucks and we should get a 50" LCD blah blah haha But then again~ I don't know..now reading some of your comments ..some of you said good things about the CRT and its making me think it over again ~

It would be nice to have an LCD in the Living Room because we have another 50" CRT in the Family Room ;P that one seems to be in good shape ^^

I know for sure the LCds Plasmas have better quality and the picture is sharp! I'm not sure about the sound quality~CRTs seem to die quicker? poor baby And our CRT was pretty expensive too ahhhh :O

[a.pell]

Nice thread!

Two years ago the old CRT having died on us I spent rather too much time researching flat screen TVs and decided that the SD picture quality of most flat screens was inferior to a decent CRT, particularly for watching sport. It seemed to me then that the popularity of flat screens could not be justified by the image quality and decided that the market was being driven by hype. Even then there weren't many decent CRTs available on the market, but we managed to pick up a bargain ex-demo Loewe Articos 32" and have been very happy with the quality.

Forward to May 2008 and revisited the same issues when our other old CRT started showing signs of age. SO was determined that the new TV would be a flat screen, so despite my misgivings we went for what seemed to be one of the best plasma screens available: Pioneer PDP428XD. Obviously HD quality is superb, but most of what we watch is SD and the image quality is excellent. True, the Lowe CRT probably has slightly better image quality, however the differences are marginal and the sheer enjoyment of watching a 42" screen more than makes up for a slightly sharper image on the 32".

The main drawback of the 428XD of course is cost (although I've probably saved close to £1000 by not buying in 2006 as prices seem to have crashed) and this model is becoming harder to find. There are cheaper flat screens that also perform reasonably compared to CRT, however I have also seen some fairly ropey LCDs which look distinctly inferior to an average CRT.