CRT vs PLasma & LCD

admin_exported

New member
Aug 10, 2019
2,556
4
0
Visit site
I don't know if I'm missing the point, but I'm beginning to get the feeling that buying a new telly is a bit like the emperor's new clothes.

My current TV is a 10 year old widescreen Sony CRT - The picture's still great and from what I've seen, better than any LCD or Plasma.

It just takes up too much room in the new house depth wise and isn't big enough screen wise! My dilemma is - I watch mainly SD TV or DVD's - what TV can I get that's about 42" and no more than £900 that will be as good as my current TV for action movies and stuff like 24?

It's driving me nuts, cos I haven't seen anything that's any good...... Please help!!
 

ear

New member
Aug 24, 2008
118
0
0
Visit site
I am on the same dillema as you.Seems nothing on sale today is good enough. Watching dvd's for me isn't very usual. Sd tv is watched everyday. I have a crt philips widescreen but I still prefer to watch tv on a 21 inch 4:3 tv because of the aspect ratio of broadcasts....Be sure you buy something that is full hd anyway. Ijust think for me it would be stupid to buy a big big screen since they only look good when watching dvd or blu-ray, and that would happen very few times, and they use a lot of energy to be on at least 5 hours a day.But the big screen bug doesn't go away either.If I was to buy something now it would be a sony since I find the image on the sony's to be more natural looking than others, even aspect ratio correction seems better than others (at least for me).
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
The quality of my 28" Philips CRT helped me put off buying a new tele for a long time. It was the combination of the advent of HD on FreeSat and the expectation that exchange rates would force up prices of Japanese TVs that led me to make my new purchase.

Thanks to the WHF forums I was alerted to Sony's shameful attitude to the clouding problems reported by many readers, and despite a Sony LCD initially being at the top of my list I instead plumped for the relative 'safety' of a Panasonic Plasma 42PZ80B with a Panasonic Blu-Ray player thrown in (thanks John Lewis). I have not regretted my decision one iota. In fact it is ironic that the quality of my Freeview SD picture has led me to delay the purchase of FreeSat until more HD content is available.

I was sorry to see my faithful Philips go, but I got nearly £50 for it on eBay. My advice would be to go for it, but audition your candidate sets very carefully, and if going for a Sony choose a retailer who will accept it back if it exhibits the problems reported in detail on these forums.
 

ear

New member
Aug 24, 2008
118
0
0
Visit site
So smithdom in comparion to your old philips(mine is also a philips 28) what is your impression in freview?
 

professorhat

Well-known member
Dec 28, 2007
992
22
18,895
Visit site
The thing you have to remember is, new TVs are being designed with HD in mind, so displaying an HD signal, the picture is fantastic. Unfortunately, because SD signals (like standard TV and DVD) have to be upscaled, this has a detrimental effect on the picture quality so the picture will never look as good as on a TV which has been designed with SD signals in mind (a bit like taking an old digital photo from an old computer and displaying it full screen on a brand new PC / monitor - resolutions weren't as good as they are now, so the old photo will look pixellated and horrible when shown full screen on a new PC).

It's a result of the transition period we're in at the moment as we (slowly) move from SD signals to HD signals. If you're not interested in Sky HD / Blu-Ray / HD gaming, there's very little benefit to upgrading from your old set if it still works fine. Unless of course you're looking for a flat screen for space reasons, in which case I'm afraid it's unlikely that for SD TV signals at least, you're going to get a set which looks as good as your old Sony CRT. For DVDs, have a look at the upscaling capabilities of modern DVD / Blu-Ray players - you may find when you look at these, 24 still looks almost as good as it did before.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Would second professorhat's comments. I had similar dilemma last Oct when I wanted to get a spanking new 'BIG' TV but was held back by the thought that my 28" Loewe CRT set was actually still very good and looked a lot better than what I was seeing in the show rooms. 'Emperor's new clothes' and marketing hype to get us to part with our cash, came to my mind too. As said though, even a fairly poor picture can be made to look good when shrunk down to a small screen and likewise why some pin-sharp looking photos you view on a digital camera's LCD screen don't look so great when you view them on your PC.

I went for the Panasonic 42" PZ85 in the end and haven't regretted it for a second. Most SD broadcasts look pretty good (just don't sit right in front of the screen! - it just works differently from a CRT and was never designed for sitting with your nose to the screen) and DVDs are fine. Blu-ray is just stunning - much better than even my old Loewe. And the advantages of seeing a nice big 42" picture far outway the odd dodgy SD broadcast.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
dvds played on a decent upscaling player , and a 1080p plasma , lcd , look much better than on an old crt ... and sd tv looks good enough , ok its upscaled , so maybe its not as good on some low bitrate channels , but when all is said and done , would it be better having an old boxey crt just for a marginally better picture on the poorer channels ? i think not ...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
ear:So smithdom in comparion to your old philips(mine is also a philips 28) what is your impression in freview?

Much better than I was led to expect from showroom visits and from some postings on these forums. Some time ago when I invested in a Topfield Freeview PVR I also invested in an aerial upgrade. I'm sure that this is a substantial part of the reason why my SD picture is as good as it is. When my Panasonic is finding stations it shows a 'quality' value for each channel - for me this is 10 out of 10 for most of the channels (certainly all that I would want to watch).

If you stand up close to the screen on SD you can see granularity that clearly distinguishes it from Blue-Ray, but from my normal viewing position about 2m from the screen the picture looks every bit as good as the Philips did, despite being 50% larger. A definate "wow" factor that I was not expecting. Yes, 1080p is even more impressive, but SD is very satisfying too.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I have to disagree with this, I have seen V+ used on a Panasonic 32 inch CRT which did retail at around 1000.00. This has then be compared to V+ on the Panasonic PZ800 it would be an understatement to call it a night and day thing. However, when viewing freeview, yes I would agree, there isn't a lot to choose between them. However to be honest guys, pair a decent amp and speakers up to at least an HD Ready tv playing blu ray, then you will appreciate just how good a film experience can be
emotion-2.gif
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
IMO plasma pictures are much closer in appearance to a CRT compared to an LCD display, particularly with SD material.

As to which is best, it's all down to personal opinion. You only have to look through past threads on this forum to see the various gas vs. crystal debates.

Neither is better, they're just different to each other.

Take a DVD of a programme type or types you like to watch when auditioning sets and ask your dealer to play it so that you can see which works best for you.

Also, particularly with LCD, don't forget to check from the viewing angles likely to be used. It was this factor that made me decide on plasma as one of my armchairs is at quite a severe angle to the screen. (of course, personally, I like to sit in the optimum position which is also the "sweet spot" for the sound system.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Do you have a 42" CRT? It seems a bit mean comparing a 42" screen with a smaller one (the biggest CRT I ever saw in the UK was 36"). Obviously, given the same source image, the bigger screen is more likely to show up any flaws and limitations (like low resolution) of the picture.

Currently plasma is the best in terms of picture quality. Black level, colour and motion handling are all better. And the best of today's plasmas are (in my opinion) easily a match for the best CRTs. Plasma has its drawbacks though compared to LCD, most notably it uses more power and there's still a risk of screen burn (which was a problem for CRT too).
 

ear

New member
Aug 24, 2008
118
0
0
Visit site
I'd sure like to see how much power an old crt of 36 inch uses.I really have no idea, since I can't find specs on the internet
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
maxflinn:dvds played on a decent upscaling player , and a 1080p plasma , lcd , look much better than on an old crt ... and sd tv looks good enough , ok its upscaled , so maybe its not as good on some low bitrate channels , but when all is said and done , would it be better having an old boxey crt just for a marginally better picture on the poorer channels ? i think not ...
just to update , i watched a dvd today on my friends sony kdl46v4000 lcd , i had watched the same movie a few weeks ago on my tv , panasonic th46pz8b , and it looked much clearer ( to my eyes ) on the plasma , i think if somebody is worried about moving from a crt to plasma , lcd , then for me , the plasma is the best choice .. im not just plugging the plasma cos i have one , i honestly think they are better for sd material , for hd , its a 50 50 thing really , good cases for both , but again , i like the plasma ...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
beaverme:
Plasma has its drawbacks though compared to LCD, most notably it uses more power and there's still a risk of screen burn (which was a problem for CRT too).

Actually a plasma display will use more power the brighter the picture, whereas an LCD uses the same amount of power whatever the picture content.

Although the plasma will draw more power on a bright colourful picture, the figures I have seen quoted in a rivals magazine would suggest that for the same size screen the average power consumption is roughly the same for both types of display.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Bspks:beaverme:
Plasma has its drawbacks though compared to LCD, most notably it uses more power and there's still a risk of screen burn (which was a problem for CRT too).

Actually a plasma display will use more power the brighter the picture, whereas an LCD uses the same amount of power whatever the picture content.

Although the plasma will draw more power on a bright colourful picture, the figures I have seen quoted in a rivals magazine would suggest that for the same size screen the average power consumption is roughly the same for both types of display.

And I guess if you set the contrast correctly (most people tend to set it way too high), you save even more juice. Superior picture quality and a clean conscience. Great! ÿ
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
The majority of recent Panasonic models have an 'ECO mode' which uses a sensor to vary the picture settings and only use the power when needed.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
If you think your old CRT is no different than a new HD tv then perhaps you need new glasses not new clothes. There is a measurable physical difference unless your eyes cant perceive it.

Turn on digital tv at 720 and compare. I still have a 29inch 100Hz panasonic crt running through sky in the house as well as an HD ready 720 plasma and let me tell you that the CRT sucks! I cant watch it.
so consider the value of your optimetrist or you are just flaming the board. "i havent seen anything that is any good"
 

professorhat

Well-known member
Dec 28, 2007
992
22
18,895
Visit site
hi fi newbie:I have to disagree with this, I have seen V+ used on a Panasonic 32 inch CRT which did retail at around 1000.00. This has then be compared to V+ on the Panasonic PZ800 it would be an understatement to call it a night and day thing. However, when viewing freeview, yes I would agree, there isn't a lot to choose between them. However to be honest guys, pair a decent amp and speakers up to at least an HD Ready tv playing blu ray, then you will appreciate just how good a film experience can be
emotion-2.gif


That was my point - play a Blu-Ray on a new HDTV and it will look fantastic (assuming you have a good HDTV) because this is the resolution this TV was designed to show. However, standard definition broadcasts are at the mercy of the upscaling chip and there is absolutely no way an HDTV will beat the best of yesteryears CRTs designed to display standard def broadcasts. Yes, it's possible your new HDTV looks better for you, but that just means your old standard def TV wasn't the best there is. There's no shame in this and for a lot of people that shouldn't be a surprise and is why most people have no trouble with the upgrade. However, there are some that really did have top notch CRTs designed to show standard def TV at its best, and when they compare it with new HDTVs, it lacks the quality they are used to. Hence posts like this one and hence my response
emotion-1.gif
 

Alec

Well-known member
Oct 8, 2007
478
0
18,890
Visit site
professorhat:

hi fi newbie:I have to disagree with this, I have seen V+ used on a Panasonic 32 inch CRT which did retail at around 1000.00. This has then be compared to V+ on the Panasonic PZ800 it would be an understatement to call it a night and day thing. However, when viewing freeview, yes I would agree, there isn't a lot to choose between them. However to be honest guys, pair a decent amp and speakers up to at least an HD Ready tv playing blu ray, then you will appreciate just how good a film experience can be
emotion-2.gif


That was my point - play a Blu-Ray on a new HDTV and it will look fantastic (assuming you have a good HDTV) because this is the resolution this TV was designed to show. However, standard definition broadcasts are at the mercy of the upscaling chip and there is absolutely no way an HDTV will beat the best of yesteryears CRTs designed to display standard def broadcasts. Yes, it's possible your new HDTV looks better for you, but that just means your old standard def TV wasn't the best there is. There's no shame in this and for a lot of people that shouldn't be a surprise and is why most people have no trouble with the upgrade. However, there are some that really did have top notch CRTs designed to show standard def TV at its best, and when they compare it with new HDTVs, it lacks the quality they are used to. Hence posts like this one and hence my response
emotion-1.gif


Personally i think even average (or worse) CRTs were far better than most flat "HD TVs" with SD, not just the really good ones.

Mind, i dunno which crt i had. just went to the second hand crts and said "want that one" based on size and price - wasnt in to all this stuff then. So it might have been the dogs.
 

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts