Are CRT TV's still worth it?

Forums › Home Theatre › Are CRT TV's still worth it?

James Bond

821 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 25

Subscriber

Topic # 10073 3-Nov-2006 11:32

How many here think CRT TV's are still worth buying?

1 | 2

1420 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Reply # 50892 3-Nov-2006 11:50

It comes down to budget, at $299 a 29" CRT is good value. I think I can recall that Sony have stopped making CRT's. About 6 years ago I purchased a Triniton Wega (one of the first Sony flat screens) a nice TV that I still have because it cost me $2500!

Twitter - GaryRo

steve98

1087 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 106

Trusted

Reply # 50893 3-Nov-2006 11:57

I agree with Jama. The answer to this question depends purely on your reason for buying a TV. If you have the same budget for what you would have had to spend on a CRT TV three or four years ago then there is no way I would buy a CRT as you can purchase a good size LCD TV for the same price - if not cheaper. Only consider a CRT if you're on a low budget or are wanting to get a portable for the kids or something like that.

Try Wrike: fast, easy, and efficient project collaboration software

tonyhughes

Hawkes Bay
8477 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4

Mod Emeritus

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 50894 3-Nov-2006 12:00

CRTs are good for public areas, if you are concerned about theft (villains would be less likely to take off with a 40KG monster CRT than a lightweight flat panel...) :-)

$300 for 29" is a great deal if you are on a budget.

We have a 33" CRT in the garage / playroom / geekroom. Its great because it can get bumped and knocked, and it stands up for itself.

Visit http://www.thecloud.net.nz for New Zealand based Hosted Exchange, Virtual Servers, Web Hosting, FTP Backup & more.
(1GB free FTP storage, or larger plans from $5.75)

- Setup your own mailserver at home on Ubuntu Server - full step by step howto here.
- Have you seen this: Nathan "KFC4LIFE" Dunn.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
60009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 11111

Administrator

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 50895 3-Nov-2006 12:01

It depends on personal preferences and budget, as stated before. I have a 7 year old JVC 32" widescreen, the first of its kind in New Zealand. It costed me $3000 back then. But it's enormous, gigantic, at 80Kg.

Because of space requirements, our next TV will be a LCD. The approximate cost is going to be the same as my first widescreen, but the technology will be much different. Of course if we wanted just to replace a CRT with another CRT then we'd be talking about only a fraction of that cost. But cost is not everything to factor.

Geekzone broadband switch | Amazon (Geekzone aff) | MightyApe (Geekzone aff) | Backblaze cloud backup (personal and business) | My technology disclosure

You can support content creators (and Geekzone) by using the Brave browser.

richms

20891 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4100

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 50982 4-Nov-2006 02:30

I cant stand watching on LCDs with the light leakage from them, and plasmas are only available in large sizes so I still find a CRT perfectly viable.

On one of mine there were several things in the menu I had to turn off before it gave even remotely acceptable viewing, and there are still deinterlace artifacts on horizontal panning even on film sourced stuff so it clearly has a crap processor in it.

I havent being able to see any benifit with the digital noise reduction on noisy images, and it added a weird motion blur effect, the 3d digital comb filter just made the edges of moving things lose their colours, and weird effects on scene changes, so that went off.

Once all this was done it gives ok blacks, nice colours and give a much nicer pic then all the small lcd tvs I have seen. Also good luck getting an lcd bigger then 17" that isnt a widescreen.

Richard rich.ms

sbiddle

26201 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5797

Moderator

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 50984 4-Nov-2006 06:24

richms:
Once all this was done it gives ok blacks, nice colours and give a much nicer pic then all the small lcd tvs I have seen. Also good luck getting an lcd bigger then 17" that isnt a widescreen.

I don't know whether having a widescreen is such a bad option now. There is now plenty of WS material available and both TVNZ and TV3 have said they will be transmitting more stuff in native WS over the next year once FreeView launches.

alasta

3871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 634

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 50992 4-Nov-2006 09:18

I have a 21" Sony Trinitron Vega which I bought about 2.5 years ago. I've always been a bit disappointed with the picture quality, but it doesn't get a lot of use so it's sufficient for my purposes.

Having said that, I do have limited space, so I will probably look at replacing it with a 21" LCD model once the prices drop another $200 or so.

Mattnzl

235 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 7

Reply # 51042 4-Nov-2006 19:47

If you have kids - stick with CRT!!

Our kids give the TV heaps of abuse, but the thick glass means they are the ones likely to come of 2nd best (I can just imagine one of them pulling it off the cabinet onto themselves!).

Of course if you can mount an lcd high on the wall then it's not a problem

richms

20891 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4100

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 51070 5-Nov-2006 01:01

sbiddle:
I don't know whether having a widescreen is such a bad option now. There is now plenty of WS material available and both TVNZ and TV3 have said they will be transmitting more stuff in native WS over the next year once FreeView launches.

Still stuff all music vids being made in widescreen, and thats whats on my tv 80% of the time, the rest I'm playing PS2 which has stuff all widescreen support in games.

I prefer letterboxing on a 4:3 tv to pillarboxing on a 16:9 - far less space goes wasted.

Richard rich.ms

paradoxsm

3000 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Reply # 51095 5-Nov-2006 11:48

CRT's are still great, The picture quality and viewing angle can't be beat, the refresh rate is perfect and screen burn is almost non-existent however anything over 29", i wouldn't even consider a CRT due to the weight. The flat screen models are almost twice as heavy as the goldfish bowl ones. as for smaller sizes, or for the playstation and the kids they can't be beat.

My TV is a 1984 Philips 21" CRT Teletext (also released as PYE)
Supplied in a lovely fake veneer cabinet, Perfect picture quality in any reception which is a real problem almost anywhere in auckland, the cheap TV just go's this grainy fuzzyness. Awesome punchy bassy sound (delivered by a 8 dual-cone driver) and it does not need a stand due to being a floor standing model.... Servicing it is a matter of pluggin in cards, very innovative philips. I hardly watch TV so this is perfect.

Shin

267 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 4

Reply # 53444 23-Nov-2006 23:00

I agree CRT is still best for picture quality and especially for fast moving pictures.

My old Sony FD Trinitron is 93kg on specification, what a monster.

It's still showing good pictures but nowadays having high frequent hissing noise time to time.

I wonder whether Sony could fix the problem without expensive bill.

Shankly

26 posts

Geek

Reply # 53447 23-Nov-2006 23:27

As the others have mentioned it depends on the size of your wallet. I bought an LCD tv earlier this year and initially found the picture to be a bit dissapointing until I configured it properly. I have a Sony Bravia KLV-V32A10 and found that to get the best out of it you have to part with your hard earned to get some decent cables, I reluctantly paid $300.00 for Monster component video cables and they made all the difference, now I'm sure there is no better crt available. My tv is in for a softwrae upgrade at the moment and I have borrowed a crt tv from a mate, it's almost unwatchable, and I think I had a mild heart attack lifting it in to the house. If you can afford it go for a decent brand LCD. Hope this helps.

richms

20891 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4100

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 53456 24-Nov-2006 02:46

Even the decent LCD a mate has still cant do black, which is one of the most critical things as far as I am concerned with a TV.

What were you upgrading from that monster cables made a difference?

Richard rich.ms

TinyTim

891 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 46

Trusted

Reply # 53504 24-Nov-2006 14:34

paradoxsm: My TV is a 1984 Philips 21" CRT Teletext (also released as PYE)

Supplied in a lovely fake veneer cabinet, Perfect picture quality in any reception which is a real problem almost anywhere in auckland, the cheap TV just go's this grainy fuzzyness. Awesome punchy bassy sound (delivered by a 8 dual-cone driver) and it does not need a stand due to being a floor standing model.... Servicing it is a matter of pluggin in cards, very innovative philips. I hardly watch TV so this is perfect.

My '96 Philips 21" is just a baby then.

The only gripe I have with it is it only has an RF aerial input, no RCA a/v. I have to plug my DVD player and laptop in to my VCR which then upconverts onto channel 2 or 3.

Which is all the video's good for now that the toddler has started playing with it.

Polemic

3 posts

Wannabe Geek

Reply # 53530 24-Nov-2006 16:27

We had to choose recently too - on a limited budget we got a 29" Sony Wega - looks pretty damn good with the DVD player, came with a signal booster and it plays from the radio too (random!)

One other thing that it came down to was that we had to put it the corner of the room. LCD's and plasmas look a bit dumb sitting there with big gaps behind them so the chucky CRT actually looks better overall. And for the cost of a 29" Sony Wega you'd only get a dinky LCD - and the CRT will last longer.

1 | 2