Why don't people buy CRT TV's

[audiodude]

I am in the market for a new TV and want a TV with the best picture quality. I went to two seperate stores telling them so, and one salesman pointed me towards the Toshiba 34hfx83 and the other one pointed me towards the Sony kv34xbr910. Both of these are CRT TV's. If these provide the best picture quality, then why do people buy RPTV's, plasma screen TV's etc? Is there something wrong with CRT's that the salesmen aren't telling me about?

[markw]

They don't make as much money on CRT's as they do the newer, more expensive stuff. CRT's still provide an excellent picture at a lower price.

[Geoffcin]

A CRT is still the best value in a picture under 40" diagonal. Even with all the hype about plasma & LCD tech, 90% of all TV's sold are still CRT. The CRT tech is mature, and reliablity is very good, with some set's lasting decades. The real problem with CRT's is that they are limited by size and weight to under 40". My 36" Panasonic weighs in at nearly 120lbs, and is about 28" deep. That's about the maximum weight and size you can use. Any larger and it won't fit through a standard door.

[Debbi]

From Palm Beach Post yesterday...crts still have best picture and lowest cost and most reliable...unless you want a bigger picture which is my problem. At this point, the best value is probably a 32 or 36( 450-800 in good brands now) inch 4:3 hd ready set simply because of the dearth of programming available on 16:9.I doubt if half the 16:9 programming most people can get will exceed 50% in 3 years and you will have your money out of the unit by that time and pro-scan ability until then which is very good.
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/accent/content/auto/epaper/editions/saturday/accent_f30dce12b14d61da008c.html

[Debbi]

We are three weeks from 2004 and only 5% of Americans have HD sets and even less have 16:9 HD....if history is a judge, there is no way we will have mandated 16:9 HD broadcasts only in 2006.Its very difficult to believe 50% or better of Americans will make a 1k+ investment within the next 4 or 5 years.Political correctness will surely delay this thing for a long time without the need to buy analog converters...

[yakkosmurf]

A CRT is still the best value in a picture under 40" diagonal. Even with all the hype about plasma & LCD tech, 90% of all TV's sold are still CRT. The CRT tech is mature, and reliablity is very good, with some set's lasting decades. The real problem with CRT's is that they are limited by size and weight to under 40". My 36" Panasonic weighs in at nearly 120lbs, and is about 28" deep. That's about the maximum weight and size you can use. Any larger and it won't fit through a standard door.
I own the 40" Sony CRT, and it's a wonderful set. I go looking at Plasma and LCD displays all the time at stores and demo shows, and I'm never impressed with the picture. It's noticable worse than my CRT. Sure, the plasma screens are thinner, but they start to dim after 3 years and cost so much more. Besides, I've got a good size room, so the TV depth of 29" isn't that big of deal. The 305 lb weight was a challenge to move into the new house, but it was worth it.

CRT is still the best way to go with picture and value. They are cheaper than plasma (with a better picture) and still blow away anything you'll find from RPTVs (even HD ones). I never regret having bought mine.

[yakkosmurf]

At this point, the best value is probably a 32 or 36( 450-800 in good brands now) inch 4:3 hd ready set simply because of the dearth of programming available on 16:9.I doubt if half the 16:9 programming most people can get will exceed 50% in 3 years and you will have your money out of the unit by that time and pro-scan ability until then which is very good.

I agree. However, I would recommend getting a TV that does both 4:3 and 16:9. The Sony's have a 4:3 ratio, but have the capability of squeezing the resolution to a 16:9 screen for those programs. It means I get a good picture when watching regular programing and a great picture on HD material and DVDs. Btw, did you know that most shows on the ABC, NBC, and CBS are broadcast in HD during prime time? Most of the TV I watch during that time is in HD.

[Worf101]

CRT's are great. Less expensive, mature technology, reliable as all hell. The only drawbacks are their size and weight. You can't get a CRT bigger than 35-inches (that I know of) if you could it would be prohibitively heavy and large. Even with plastics and polymers CRT's are heavy. My brand new 32-inch Samsung almost broke my back and I'm not skinny minnie either.

Da Worfster

[Keith from Canada]

For the same price that you can get a 34" widescreen CRT set, you could get yourself a good 47"-50" RPTV set that, when properly calibrated, will perform at or near the same level as the CRT display. When I watch a movie on a 34" widescreen set, I think it looks good and kinda 'cute'...I NEVER get the feeling that I'm watching a BIG screen like I do when I watch my 47" RPTV (or my buddy's 53" RPTV).

There may be some drawbacks but, as in other areas of life...bigger is better!!!

[audiodude]

I agree. However, I would recommend getting a TV that does both 4:3 and 16:9. The Sony's have a 4:3 ratio, but have the capability of squeezing the resolution to a 16:9 screen for those programs. It means I get a good picture when watching regular programing and a great picture on HD material and DVDs. Btw, did you know that most shows on the ABC, NBC, and CBS are broadcast in HD during prime time? Most of the TV I watch during that time is in HD.
I think that this is what I am going to do as well. I watch a lot of cable TV which only comes through in 4:3. I am not sure that I like the thought of having bars on either side of a 16:9 screen when watching 4:3 programs. Isn't this why widescreen TV's were developed in the first place? To get rid of the bars on the top and bottom of the screen? Another option that I am considering is buying a widescreen CRT and having the 4:3 programs stretched out to fit the 16:9 screen. The salesman didn't seem to think that it was such a good idea. Has anyone done this? Can you really tell that the image has been stretched?
As for the other types of TV's, I think I'll wait two or three years until the technology has been refined enough to be as sharp and crisp as the current CRT's (hopefully)
By the way, thanks for the link to that article Debbi, it was very informative.

[Solsys]

I think that this is what I am going to do as well. I watch a lot of cable TV which only comes through in 4:3. I am not sure that I like the thought of having bars on either side of a 16:9 screen when watching 4:3 programs. Isn't this why widescreen TV's were developed in the first place? To get rid of the bars on the top and bottom of the screen? Another option that I am considering is buying a widescreen CRT and having the 4:3 programs stretched out to fit the 16:9 screen. The salesman didn't seem to think that it was such a good idea. Has anyone done this? Can you really tell that the image has been stretched?


My HDTV offers several options for stretching and zooming the picture, and most of them noticably distort the picture. 14x9 Zoom is nice for shows on normal stations that are presented in "Widescreen" but you can really notice the lower resolution and noise of NTSC signal vs a pure HDTV broadcast. One stretching feature that seems to be the default on the sets I looked at is one that takes the image and only stretches parts of the image while leaving others in-tact, this can work in certain circumstances(shows which have alot of dialog and little movement) but is really noticeable when you have alot of horizontal movement on the screen(you can see the object stretch as it is moving).

I would ask your cable or local satelite provider when they are planning to offer High-Def service before investing in an HDTV. They wont offer every station in HD, but you should at least get your local channels and a few specialty networks like ESPN and HBO. If they offer it, or plan to soon then go ahead and get an HDTV, Otherwise I would just look at getting a better 4:3 TV until you have an option to get content that will actually use the higher resolution.

[yakkosmurf]

For the same price that you can get a 34" widescreen CRT set, you could get yourself a good 47"-50" RPTV set that, when properly calibrated, will perform at or near the same level as the CRT display. When I watch a movie on a 34" widescreen set, I think it looks good and kinda 'cute'...I NEVER get the feeling that I'm watching a BIG screen like I do when I watch my 47" RPTV (or my buddy's 53" RPTV).

There may be some drawbacks but, as in other areas of life...bigger is better!!!
I completely disagree with the bigger is better. What's the point of big when it's not clear? My friend has a Hitachi 57" HD RPTV. We calibrated it with the same disc that we calibrated my 40" CRT. The difference is night and day. I just can't get past the graininess of the RPTV. Even our wives asked why the one was fuzzy compared to the other. If you look at them side by side, there is no comparison.

[yakkosmurf]

I've never liked the look of the stretched programs. Personally, I don't see what the big deal is with the bars. On my TV, they are totally black, just like the trim around the screen. They just seem like part of the TV. Any set you buy should have a perfectly black picture (non broadcast section) when it's calibrated correctly.

[Keith from Canada]

I completely disagree with the bigger is better. What's the point of big when it's not clear? My friend has a Hitachi 57" HD RPTV. We calibrated it with the same disc that we calibrated my 40" CRT. The difference is night and day. I just can't get past the graininess of the RPTV. Even our wives asked why the one was fuzzy compared to the other. If you look at them side by side, there is no comparison.

Given that the vast majority of my viewing is either televised HD content or DVD based material, I don't have that particular problem. Everything that I watch is crystal clear with almost no grain to speak of (with the exception of poorly mastered DVDs which add grain to any display...it's just more noticable on a bigger set).

Given that the majority of primetime television is already available in HD, I cannot understand for the life of me why people would even consider not going a) widescreen or b) with a larger display (unless room is an issue). This is even more true given that there is more HD content rolling out all the time.

[yakkosmurf]

Given that the vast majority of my viewing is either televised HD content or DVD based material, I don't have that particular problem. Everything that I watch is crystal clear with almost no grain to speak of (with the exception of poorly mastered DVDs which add grain to any display...it's just more noticable on a bigger set).


The comparison I was referring to was made watching the widescreen version of Shrek. I don't consider that one poorly mastered. If you find the picture on the RPTVs to be good, then you'd be blown away by the clarity of a properly calibrated CRT.

[Keith from Canada]

The comparison I was referring to was made watching the widescreen version of Shrek. I don't consider that one poorly mastered. If you find the picture on the RPTVs to be good, then you'd be blown away by the clarity of a properly calibrated CRT.

What RPTV were you looking at? I can assure you that there was and is absolutely no sign of grain on my RPTV either before or after my calibration with a movie as well done as Shrek. I would suggest that there is a problem with your friends display or perhaps their DVD player.

As I attempted to state previously, graininess is only an issue on an RPTV with poor source material such as a poor analog cable signal. With DVD and HDTV, an RPTV should not display any grain that is not directly related to the source material. If the DVD or HD film-stock has 'grain' in the shot, you will get 'grain' on your screen (just as you would with a CRT display). An RPTV WILL NOT produce 'grain' into an image. If it does, you have an RPTV in need of service.

[magictooth]

Hi!

I've got agree with Keith on this one. A properly calibrated RPTV should look as good as a CRT. The difference may be the size. A 60" TV has nearly twice the surface area of a 40" TV. From the same viewing distance, you see a bit more of the fuzzy details. Also consider that if the RPTV is an older model, maybe it isn't a HD ready or progressive scanning type monitor.

If you want the best of the best, go try a front projector in a light controlled environment. If you want "blow the pants off" amazing picture quality, this will give you that effect. I guarantee that you'll be wondering why you took so long to get a front projector set up.

Dave

[GTF]

" My 36" Panasonic weighs in at nearly 120lbs, and is about 28" deep. That's about the maximum weight and size you can use. Any larger and it won't fit through a standard door."

My KV34XBR 910 weighs 199 lbs and fits through a regular door.
I looked at Plasma's, LCD's and DLP's, wanting a Samsung DLP badly until I started to notice the rainbow effect and other annoying video abnormalities. Besides the noise of the fans in those units and when
I had them disconnected from the VERY high quality feeds and hooked to the same feed as the crt based TV's. I ran away from them to what I didn't want. A 199 lbs television!
Oh, I did come across a LCD with a stunning picture but with one little problem. One stuck pivel. That's not covered under warranty. Stuck right in the middle of the screen was a purple dot. Talk about annoying.
CRT, CRT. CRT
Don't forget about the heat and noise from those Plasma's.

GTF

[woodman]

Hi!

A 60" TV has nearly twice the surface area of a 40" TV.
Dave

Minor correction here, Dave. A 60" screen has MORE than twice the screen area as a 40" ... 2.22 times to be precise. The screen area of a 40" is 690sq.in. The area of a 60" is 1535sq.in. These numbers are for 16:9 aspect ratio screens. For 4:3 ratio screens, the numbers are 782 vs. 1753 ... a difference of 2.24 times as large.

Your point about the larger screen showing any defects more clearly is right on the ol' button however. This is the primary reason why people continually claim that direct-view CRT sets are "clearer" and "sharper" than RPTVs. This is total bunk as many have already found out for themselves.

Also, your point about front projectors is right on the button as well. Today, I'd buy for myself (and recommend to others as well) a front projector over an above any other type of video display. I would NOT risk my hard-earned on any direct-view CRT set ... period.

woodman

I plan to live forever ..... so far, so good!
Steven Wright

[magictooth]

Minor correction here, Dave. A 60" screen has MORE than twice the screen area as a 40"[/i]

Sorry, my bad. This question came up when my brother was complaining about the lines on my 61" TV. I told him that if he watched his 27" TV from 3 feet away, that he'd see the same lines that he sees on my TV at 12 feet away. That shut him up about that issue.

I'm glad that some of the respected posters on this site are coming around to the idea of front projectors. In a light controlled environment, there is absolutely no equal, and with the prices falling like celebratory bullets from the sky in Iraq, the price:value ratio is WAY better than any other video monitor. I would not trade away my NEC HT-1000 on 96" 16:9 screen for anything (well I'd go for a better projector, I suppose).

Dave

[audiodude]

Could you elaborate on why you think that CRT TV's are terrible investments. As I understand things, CRT's have been around for decades and are proven as a reliable and refined technology. I have owned several CRT TV's without any tube malfunctions. Why are you so opposed to them when they provide the clearest,sharpest picture possible so far. I think that the other types of TV displays are relatively new and will need some improvements before they can match CRT's in picture quality. I don't dispute that front projectors are superior for movie viewing but I am really only interested in regular TV whether it be HDTV or otherwise.

[woodman]

Could you elaborate on why you think that CRT TV's are terrible investments. As I understand things, CRT's have been around for decades and are proven as a reliable and refined technology. I have owned several CRT TV's without any tube malfunctions. Why are you so opposed to them when they provide the clearest,sharpest picture possible so far. I think that the other types of TV displays are relatively new and will need some improvements before they can match CRT's in picture quality. I don't dispute that front projectors are superior for movie viewing but I am really only interested in regular TV whether it be HDTV or otherwise.

OK - I'll elaborate. I've worked with TV sets since the very beginning (1948) and I've seen the whole gamut of problems. Granted that CRT failures are rare ... they can and they do happen. IF the tube that does fail is a common, garden-variety 20" or 27" a replacement is a possibility, although the cost would probably come close to equalling the price of a new set. Close enough to call for a lot of thought as to whether or not a replacement is a good idea or not. Since such sets now cost so little - $125 - $300, it's not the end of the world if one dies.

However, if a "widescreen" CRT should fail, the cost to replace it will be prohibitive ... probably MORE than the cost of a brand new set! Since such sets go for $1500 - $3000 they're a RISKY proposition in my view. And in spite of what you believe, direct-view CRT sets do not produce "clearer" and "sharper" pictures than other displays do. The major difference in perceived picture quality is due to the smaller size of the screen - NOT to any superiority of the direct-view display over others. A properly setup and adjusted CRT-based RPTV is capable of image quality every bit as good as a direct-view ... period.

Since the prices for RPTVs and especially for front projectors have dropped so much in the past year or two, I would NOT consider for even a second risking MY money on a widescreen direct-view CRT set ... end of conversation!

woodman

I plan to live forever ..... so far, so good!
Steven Wright

[audiodude]

OK - I'll elaborate. I've worked with TV sets since the very beginning (1948) and I've seen the whole gamut of problems. Granted that CRT failures are rare ... they can and they do happen. IF the tube that does fail is a common, garden-variety 20" or 27" a replacement is a possibility, although the cost would probably come close to equalling the price of a new set. Close enough to call for a lot of thought as to whether or not a replacement is a good idea or not. Since such sets now cost so little - $125 - $300, it's not the end of the world if one dies.

However, if a "widescreen" CRT should fail, the cost to replace it will be prohibitive ... probably MORE than the cost of a brand new set! Since such sets go for $1500 - $3000 they're a RISKY proposition in my view. And in spite of what you believe, direct-view CRT sets do not produce "clearer" and "sharper" pictures than other displays do. The major difference in perceived picture quality is due to the smaller size of the screen - NOT to any superiority of the direct-view display over others. A properly setup and adjusted CRT-based RPTV is capable of image quality every bit as good as a direct-view ... period.

Since the prices for RPTVs and especially for front projectors have dropped so much in the past year or two, I would NOT consider for even a second risking MY money on a widescreen direct-view CRT set ... end of conversation!

woodman

I plan to live forever ..... so far, so good!
Steven Wright
Maybe I haven't seen a properly set up RPTV but the absolute best picture that I have seen a TV produce was the Sony kv34xbr910 CRT TV. It was so much clearer than the other TV's near it and I could see much more detail in the movie Shrek that was playing. Shrek actually looked almost real. I was amazed at how much better it was. It was even better than the other CRT's. It might be worth checking out.

[Keith from Canada]

Maybe I haven't seen a properly set up RPTV but the absolute best picture that I have seen a TV produce was the Sony kv34xbr910 CRT TV. It was so much clearer than the other TV's near it and I could see much more detail in the movie Shrek that was playing. Shrek actually looked almost real. I was amazed at how much better it was. It was even better than the other CRT's. It might be worth checking out.

I think that it must be the case that a) you have not seen a properly calibrated RPTV or b) that the TVs around the Sony were poorly set-up. Fact of the matter is, once a TV is calibrated properly it will have close to perfect grey-scale and black level which allows for perfect colour rendition. Also, a calibration will defeat various features that 'muddy' the picture like scan velocity modulation. Add to that a good lens striping and you will have an image that is perfectly sharp and detailed.

My guess would be that the Sony that you saw in the store was closer to the calibration specs for all or many of the variables that I've listed above and the other sets in the store were not. As I've mentioned before, the image on a properly calibrated RPTV will be no better or no worse than the picture on a properly calibrated CRT.

[audiodude]

I think that it must be the case that a) you have not seen a properly calibrated RPTV or b) that the TVs around the Sony were poorly set-up. Fact of the matter is, once a TV is calibrated properly it will have close to perfect grey-scale and black level which allows for perfect colour rendition. Also, a calibration will defeat various features that 'muddy' the picture like scan velocity modulation. Add to that a good lens striping and you will have an image that is perfectly sharp and detailed.

My guess would be that the Sony that you saw in the store was closer to the calibration specs for all or many of the variables that I've listed above and the other sets in the store were not. As I've mentioned before, the image on a properly calibrated RPTV will be no better or no worse than the picture on a properly calibrated CRT.
You may be right. The dealer kept of saying "check out this TV beside the Sony. It sucks compared to the Sony" Of course the Sony cost twice as much as the other TV so I suspect that they set things up to sell the more expensive TV. . So, how do I tell if a TV is good if the dealers don't calibrate their TV's properly?

[Keith from Canada]

You may be right. The dealer kept of saying "check out this TV beside the Sony. It sucks compared to the Sony" Of course the Sony cost twice as much as the other TV so I suspect that they set things up to sell the more expensive TV. . So, how do I tell if a TV is good if the dealers don't calibrate their TV's properly?

One thing that I forgot to mention was that not all sets on the market are created equal. When my set was being calibrated, I spoke with the specialist and was told that there are many sets on the market that can't be properly calibrated. He gave the example of a Philips CRT widescreen set which he said could not come close to reaching a proper 6500k grey scale. This means that the colours on this set will never be what they could be. He also mentioned that some sets do not give the user enough controls even in the Service menu to allow them to fully adjust the set.

In regards to what makes for a good set, my personal observation has been that the only way to find out is to do some research. Here you have people like woodman telling you that a widescreen CRT may not be the best investment for your $'s. Given his experience, I would bank on his opinion and avoid those sets. Also, I personally found it important to keep an open mind. When I bought my RPTV, I read that it was horrible out of the box, that it had red-push problems, that there was no way to deselect the SVM in the user menu etc... I also read that all of these problems were defeatable and that the Service menu allowed virtually total access to any possible feature needed to do a thorough overhaul of the set. I then reat that when properly set-up, that this TV rivaled sets at twice the cost.

To answer your next possible question (why don't dealers calibrate their sets?)...the answer is that a calibrated set a) doesn't attract as much attention (browsers tend to notice overblown colours like red...hence the red-push on most TVs) b) would not sell as well on a typical showroom floor (bright lights tend to wash out colours which would make a calibrated set look more 'drab').

[yakkosmurf]

I agree that dealers and manufacturers have no need to properly calibrate their TVs and could even reduce their sales by doing so. Why are concept cars so often brought out in colors they never offer when they sell them 5 years later?

I do understand the point about the screen being bigger on an RPTV and that leading to some graniness. That's part of my point. I would prefer a smaller screen that is clear, rather than a large screen that isn't. It's a matter of preference. I have compared TVs showing the same source material, on the same DVD player, using the same cable, that were calibrated by the same person. The CRT was noticeably clearer to both observers.

As for the cost issue, you do make a good point. It doesn't concern me, however. I guess different people see different things as important. My TV came with a 5 year warranty for a ridiculously small extra cost. My home owners insurance comes with a pretty good deductible and similarly covers items. If my $3k CRT is dead in 6 years, I probably won't be too upset. Rarely in the past have I ever kept anything that long. Typically, I'd rather upgrade to something that's better (which there will be in that price range by then). Would you really care about long life out of a Dolby Pro Logic Receiver you dropped $1000 on 8 years ago? If you're like me, you upgraded to something with digital surround 4 years later, and now you're looking to upgrade to something that handles dts ES and DD EX.

Just my thoughts.

[dax]

Today, I'd buy for myself (and recommend to others as well) a front projector over an above any other type of video display. I would NOT risk my hard-earned on any direct-view CRT set ... period.[/i]

I would love a front projector. Unfortunately, I do not have the room layout for something like that. I only have enough space for something like a 42" screen. I was seriously considering the Mitsubishi RPTV, but have fallen in love with the Samsung hln467w, which is a 46" dlp which would fit in about the same space. What are your thoughts on these dlp sets, Woodman? Or anyone else?