Just my opinion BUT......

[kitkat]

I cannot help thinking that the old trusted crt tv was retired far too early with all the problems you read about lcd's and plasma's I will stck to my Panasonic Quintrix it still beats the picture you get from the best lcd's.

 

[Anonymous]

To each his/her own

 

[Anonymous]

If you want a small TV that doesn't give you HD, then stick with it

 

[Clare Newsome]

The first few generations of flatscreens (and the worst examples today) were certainly a poor second, but the arrival of HD and some truly superb technical advances have taken them beyond CRT. See a properly calibrated LCD or plasma showing decent content and it's breathtaking.

However, the screens are getting better (and relatively cheaper) at the time, so if you're in no rush to buy, stick with what you're happy with!

 

[Andy Clough]

Agreed, the Panasonic Quintrix sets were excellent (I had a 32in before I bought my Sony Bravia LCD), but they couldn't handle HD of course, and as Clare says picture technology has improved enormously over the last few years. And with Dixons and others dropping sales of CRTs, their days are inevitably numbered.

 

[Anonymous]

Millions of us were lulled into a false sense of security when HD Ready TV's hit the streets.

We all went out on the assumption that all we had to do was get it home and plug it in and we would be greeted with most fantastic picture ever whatever the source but more importantly with standard definition pictures.

The key of course was in the phrase "HD Ready" which we all missed.

Having said that there are glut of HD Ready TV's that do actually perform well with Standard Definition sources but not many and then there are also the multitude of problems people have experienced with so called other compatible sources , for example, with AV amps-audio delay-lyp Synch-DVD players and the list goes on.

Then we got to Blu Ray which in my book still has a long way to go -Yes it's overall better than DVD-but it's' not leaps and bounds ahead yet once again we all get carried away and simply have to one of the newer machines in the shops when quite frankly a very good quality DVD player continues to do the business and more

 

[Anonymous]

To be honest ave never seen a tv like the Panasonic QuintricSR3 Acuity now there was an awesome set

 

[Anonymous]

I know what you're saying Kitkat but it is a very boring opinion!

I know that with standard-def material CRT tvs seem to be better than LCD or plasma, but I think to some extent the picture quality between the different types of tv is just different - not better or worse. I mean, when you view standard-def content with your face twenty centimetres away from an LCD screen it can be quite shocking to see how bad it looks. However, if you are watching from an appropriate distance it is actually quite good. And some things are much better on an LCD compared to a historic CRT; the picture is nice and stable... and progressive, so you don't get that horrible flickering interlaced effect. And on a flatscreen you see far less of the actual individual pixels, unlike on a CRT where you can just about see that the picture is made up of little bricks of fluttering light. Also, when watching on an LCD you may be tempted to remember the 'good old days' of CRT while wearing a high strength pair of rose tinted goggles! Cos the grass is always greener on the other side.

I'm not saying that CRTs weren't good at producing a certain type of image, and flatscreens may have their flaws when displaying standard-def material - there can be that dreaded mosquito noise and blockiness which you never had to put up with CRT, but overall flatscreens are definitely the future.

 

[professorhat]

As well as the TV (obviously), it is heavily dependent on the source. I have a Topfield PVR which I bought for the main reason it had a USB port for copying recorded programmes off onto PC (or Mac in my case). On my CRT (which is a Panasonic Quintrix by chance, and one of the main reasons I still trust Panasonic TVs implicitly!) this looked fine. However, when I hooked it up to my Panasonic TH-42PX600B HD screen, it now looks horrible and I can't bear to watch it! This is okay as I use it to record TV shows and films, export them to Mac and then watch them through my PS3 (where they look absolutely fine, even after being converted down to an MP4!).

Just a demonstration of how a bad source can make a good TV look bad.

 

[woodburner]

Finally someone that shares my opinion.

Although I agree completely that crt is being phased out far too quickly it is purely down to the fact that the screens take up so much less room.

I too considered a flat panel when they were first on the market but I wasn't prepared to sacrifice the picture quality along the way. Unfortunately I found out the hard way that the pixelation issues that I thought were limited to the technologies of the flat screens and the digitalisation of television was now staring at me from my brand new CRT 32" Panasonic TX32PD30. I had always found the Panasonic screens to be fantastic and the sound was far superior to the majority of other major brands. I was extremely disappointed to find that when trying to display any block of colour from deep blacks to creams that I would be staring at an unsightly mass of pixels. I certainly didn't get this issue with the Panasonic it replaced. Is this down to the tuner or what? I feel that consumers expectations of picture quality are being diluted by the digital age.

Does anyone actually go back and compare the so called 'best flatscreen we've ever seen' with the 'best crt we've ever seen' to get a realistic comparison of how we've been subdued by the glamour and convenience of getting a large screen in our tiny living rooms.

I have yet to see a flat screen with the all round picture quality of even an average crt.

I would like to know if someone can give me a valid argument for or against the old CRT technology. I'm talking about picture quality now not the physical size of the sets.

 

[Anonymous]

[quote user="woodburner"]
Does anyone actually go back and compare the so called 'best flatscreen we've ever seen' with the 'best crt we've ever seen' to get a realistic comparison of how we've been subdued by the glamour and convenience of getting a large screen in our tiny living rooms.

I have yet to see a flat screen with the all round picture quality of even an average crt.

I would like to know if someone can give me a valid argument for or against the old CRT technology. I'm talking about picture quality now not the physical size of the sets.
[/quote]

You can't remove the size of the sets from the argument because it is all about size! Look at the depth of a 32" CRT. Now imagine what it would have to be for a 52" CRT. Sure you could put HD material on a 32", but what's the point?

I actually don't think there is much difference between a 32" CRT and a good LCD of same size. They both show SD material very well. It's all about calibration and sitting at the correct viewing distance, both of these things are exactly what new owners don't do! Sit 12 inches from a 32" CRT and you'll see that the picture is blurred and absolute rubbish, so it can't be any surprise when people sit too close to a big LCD and say the same!

I sit 8 feet from a 46" LCD. SD is rubbish (but acceptable) compared to the 32" CRT it replaced and I don't care, I KNEW it would be. When I put a HD or a up-scaled DVD on, it is astoundingly good and that's all I care about.

 

[Andrew Everard]

Personally, I think it all went wrong when we switched from 405 lines to 625.

And colour? Don't get me started on colour...

 

[Anonymous]

Snooker has never been the same since the broadcasts went colour. I much preferred it when the white was behind the vaguely grey'ish ball.

 

[Andrew Everard]

[quote user="Eddiewood"]Snooker has never been the same since the broadcasts went colour. I much preferred it when the white was behind the vaguely grey'ish ball.[/quote]

What was that classic bit of snooker commentary? Something like "For those of you watching in black and white, the blue ball is the one behind the pink"

Which was almost as good as the great Motty's ""For those of you watching in black and white, Spurs are in the all-yellow
strip"

 

[Anonymous]

[quote user="professorhat"]a bad source can make a good TV look bad.[/quote]

That is one of the few weak spots with the latest flat screens. They can be unforgiving. At present I only watch SD material (apart from Blu-ray and upscaled DVD's) but the difference between two BBC programs;- 'Strictly Come Dancing' which had me diving for the contrast, brightness and colour controls, and 'Lark Rise to Candleford' which looks cinematic. The latter being shot in HD can only be good for us all in the long term.

My pioneer cannot handle motion as well as my old Panny. That's about it.

 

[professorhat]

[quote user="professorhat"]
I have a Topfield PVR ... On my CRT this looked fine. However, when I hooked it up to my Panasonic TH-42PX600B HD screen, it now looks horrible and I can't bear to watch it!
[/quote]

Well, I finally got round to switching my old SD Tosh DVD player (which I only use for multi-region discs now having a PS3) to a component lead and this freed up my QED RBG Scart cable so I figured I'd use this for my Topfield (didn't think it justified another outlay of cash for the cable before). How wrong I was - the picture is sooo much better it's unbelievable!

So check your cables on your SD sources as well, it could make all the difference. I know that's standard advice, but even on kit you wouldn't normally buy a decent cable for can be improved dramatically.

 

[Alec]

grumpy git alert - im a bit fed up with people who criticise lcd's and hd being mocked as luddites. they simply dont want to pay over the odds for new technology that doesnt do its job that well (and lets remember that that job is still showing standard def pictures - anyone who seriously wants to contend that john smith, as opposed to whfs&v geeks wants to spend all their tv viewing time viewing an hd signal with games or dvds is simply wrong - i mean, c'mon now!). add to that tha fact that many say it makes no diference with a screen below 40 odd inches, and the fact that most people are confused, means why bother...? The only reaon for people of this opinion to bother (and there are MANY), is that lcds/plasmas look great as furniture. Oh, and the fact the industry is forcing our hands. Now, i admit im tempted just because tehy do make beautifully furniture, but lets not pretend they do their basic job well, or that everyone understands and wants hd. because it is not true.

 

[professorhat]

I understand your point, but I don't think many people here were mocking people as "luddites", they were just pointing out that technology marches on. The problem is, a good HDTV can be made to look bad with a bad source (and ITV2 or ITV3 does us no favours on this!). But no one here is insisting you go out and buy a new HDTV (I don't think anyway, I'm certainly not).

The main reason I got my new Plasma TV was I bought an Xbox 360 (cos the PS3 had been delayed at the time!). Once I had this and started playing it on my old CRT, I realised the pictures I was seeing would be so much better on a TV capable of handling high definition so I spent a few months researching, then made my purchase. And boy was I happy! So much so, that two months later, two of my friends with Xboxes upgraded to HDTVs!

And I think that's what most people here are trying to say. Okay, SD sources may not be quite as good as they were on your old 28 / 32" CRT (at the moment), but if you get a decent plasma / LCD, they won't be far off. And once you have this, let me show you HD-DVD / Blu-Ray / upscaled DVD / PS3 / Xbox gaming / Sky HD / ... the list goes on. This is the future people and it looks so good!

So if you're really not interested, that's fair enough, but most people who come to this forum will (generally) be technology loving people, and that's why we give out this advice.

(And there's also the fact you can fit your 42" TV into your living room without having to knock through into the garage!)

 

[Alec]

Oh i agree on much you say, and i realise no one here is trying to twiat my arm. However, "the industry" i general is trying to twist my arm when, imo, plasmas and lcds should be seen as the niche(spelling?) items they are. Im sure i would love a well upscaled dvd (altho i would only get a 32" if i got one in my current home), and if i got one, i may try a hd/blu ray player to see what theyre like, but A) im not a huge hollywood blockbuster kinda person (and on the rare occasions i am i go to the cinema - theres still no substitute for certain films); B) im not a gamer; C) i dont think sky hd is worth it as im not into sport (ive covered the movies issue), and its therefore far too expensive for me for what id get out of it. Incidentally, examples (often from whfs&v staff) of why these new fangled tvs and hd are so great refer to the same things you did. My point is, i realise these appear to be the highly idiocyncratic whinings of a technophobe, but i think im more representative of the genereal public in my televisual needs (that is, in not wanting to do the aforementioned things) than most here. if peolpe want them, great, but people shouldnt be basically forced into them. Having said all that, i am very attracted to 'em as i said earlier, so, ask me tommorrow and, ever the contrarian, ill probably echo the sentiments expressed above, that they are just "diferent" rather than inferior to CRTs.

 

[professorhat]

Hi there

No, they're not whinings, they're genuine concerns, and I understand them all, and to a certain extent agree with them. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you look at it!), "the industry" will always try and twist your arm when it comes to new products - that's their business! Bring out a new CRT and everyone says, "yeah, okay, very nice" and some people buy it. Bring out a new technology that offers superior picture, and eventually, everyone will have to replace their old technology.

That's the cynical view. However, there are obviously benefits to the consumer as well. You're right though, at this stage, you probably represent the general masses (although I'd argue Sky HD is more about movies than sport, but obviously this doesn't change your stance) and that is, the service provided on these new TVs doesn't match their potential without extra spend on products you don't necessarily want or need. The only exception I can see is upscaled DVD. Virtually everyone has a DVD player these days, and therefore a DVD collection (however small). A very small amount of money can buy an upscaling DVD player these days, and this will definitely see improvements.

On the TV front, it reminds me a little of the PC issue. These days, the "software" (or TV broadcasts) doesn't really take advantage of all the fancy new hardware we've been sold. The difference is, with a PC, when you run old software, the experience isn't worse!

So until the broadcasters up their game and give us what we want i.e. HD broadcasts for free, if you only use your TV for this, there is definitely no point in upgrading. But you can't blame the hardware manufacturers for trying to move things on. Remember, hardware has to come first. If no one had bothered to build a TV set capable of displaying colour images, what would be the point in transmitting colour images?

And the other good news for you at the moment is, loads of people like me are selling their fantastic CRTs cheap on ebay... Silver lining in every cloud, eh?!

 

[Alec]

damn. i agree with every word. harrumph! Except to say that i believe the industry does like the fact that peole are confused, in a way, as people will make bad (and expensive) buying choices. However, i admit that problem could be cured with some research. Im talking about peole like my parents, who ive mentioned here before, who thought that hd ready tv was all you need. it took me a while to dissabuse them. Similar people will, i rekon, think "ah, but now we have full hd, that must do it". But, as im sure you would say (and i just did), thats nothing some research couldnt cure. otherwise, i couldnt agree more.

 

[professorhat]

Well, that's a cynical view again, but I couldn't comment on the moral ethics of certain consumer electronics companies...

However, you're spot on with a bit of research answering that issue. My Dad bought a superb Pioneer 50" plasma (with no help from me I might add) and he's 64. I think people use the "old" person angle too much - I don't think it has anything to do with a certain person's age as to whether they can find these things out for themselves. Like anything else, it's interest. My Dad, like me, is into hi-fi and gadgets (or should that be, I'm into them like him!). He therefore spends time finding out about electronic goods before purchasing them as he understands the return of that time spent. Others don't and therefore, don't get the best they could. This isn't entirely their fault, it's just they're not really interested. But I can't really see how manufacturers can change what they do. HD Ready was genuinely meant to help when it came out, then Full HD came out and it confused everything! It's always the same I'm afraid when you try to make something fairly complicated simple.

 

[Alec]

i really wanted to agree with all that, and indeed i almost do. i agree on the age point, certainly, and much else. but i believe people (age irrespective) also get these TV and are dissappointed that the standard def pic isnt up to snuff, because they have made the assumption that it would do its basic job well. I cant blame them for that. And its not like its a case of "well dont buy one then". At best, its a case of "...YET then - but at some point you'll more or less have to."

 

[Anonymous]

This topic made me laugh as I was just thinking about it today when I was walking around John Lewis. A couple of friends have recently bought Samsung and Pana lcd's and to be honest when viewing SD images I'm really not impressed. One of the main benefits of lcd/plasma is that the tv's are flat...but is it just me or do the images also appear 'flat' compared to CRT? Every lcd screen i've seen, whether its a Sony, Panasonic or Samsung seems to lack depth and dimension. Then there's the usual drawbacks of blur, blacks, viewing angle and thin sound (without numerous extra speakers) I currently own a Trinitron Wega - the colours are 'like no other', the blacks are 'jet' black when they're supposed to be, the audio thunders from a built in sub woofer and with a good quality DVD the images appear almost three dimensional. Ok CRT is doomed as the industry 'directs' the consumer to panel tv's (lower production costs ??) and magazines like 'What Hifi?' have nothing else to review, but I do think it may have been pushed to an early grave. I'm sure HD images are exceptional, but being realistic most of the population of the UK are not watching HD at the moment...the sources of HD material are still pretty restricted and its future is uncertain in terms of Freeview availability. Sony's reluctance to drop CRT and commit to lcd/plasma may almost have been the worst decsion they ever made, however it might just indicate their initial lack of conviction as to the benefits of this technology.

Oh and it seems that the majority of all these 'super slim' tv's still end up in the CORNER of the room!! Hahahaa

 

[Anonymous]

[quote user="oeurf"]One of the main benefits of lcd/plasma is that the tv's are flat...but is it just me or do the images also appear 'flat' compared to CRT? Every lcd screen i've seen, whether its a Sony, Panasonic or Samsung seems to lack depth and dimension.[/quote]

It's just you Mine looks just like my Toshiba 32" CRT did.

[quote user="oeurf"]Then there's the usual drawbacks of blur, blacks, viewing angle and thin sound (without numerous extra speakers)[/quote]

My Samsung 46" F86 LCD has excellent blacks, easily on par with my CRT. It's funny how quickly you get used to up-scaled Freeview, the main channels always look very good anyway. Viewing angle doesn't appear to be a problem and I am left wondering what all the fuss is about that. Many problems can be attributed to people not calibrating their TV and not sitting at the correct distance. Calibrating your TV makes a HUGE difference, most people haven't a clue.

[quote user="oeurf"]I currently own a Trinitron Wega - the colours are 'like no other', the blacks are 'jet' black when they're supposed to be, the audio thunders from a built in sub woofer and with a good quality DVD the images appear almost three dimensional.[/quote]

Same as my Samsung then (I don't use its audio, I use PLII through the amp). The blacks are BLACK and the colours are fantastic. Again, calibration is the key and most people just don't do it!

[quote user="oeurf"]I'm sure HD images are exceptional, but being realistic most of the population of the UK are not watching HD at the moment...the sources of HD material are still pretty restricted and its future is uncertain in terms of Freeview availability.[/quote]

Most is correct, however restricted is not. You haven't been following the freesat developments and also aren't aware of the huge numbers of people who have SkyHD or a PS3. HD content is selling like hot cakes and at a faster rate of growth than DVD, which according to Warner, has stalled.

You appear to be happy with your CRT, good for you. But what are you basing your views on? LCDs in the shop? Well these are ALWAYS going to be badly set-up with a poor source. An LCD in your mates house? Well what are the chances of that being set-up properly, does your mate really know how to do it? Has he got a calibration DVD? I bet not!

Not having a go at your personally, but time and again people come on to forums saying the same thing. They don't actually own an LCD but still make comparisons, they base their opinion on badly set-up LCDs in Comet/Currys or a huge badly calibrated LCD that their mate sits 4ft from!!