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.

[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.

[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

[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/...d61da008c.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]

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

[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.

[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!!!

[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.