Are CRT rear projection TV's obsolete?

[tnitsuj]

?

 

[ballmode]

still being sold, people are milking them as much as they can

 

[PurdueRy]

Yes, the sets are obsolete with them only being sold on clearance now for the remaining sets

 

[Falloutboy]

a properly calibrated good CRT still walks circles around DLP

 

[Evadman]

LCD > CRT.

 

[LtPage1]

edit: accidental, misinformed post, sorry.

 

[aswedc]

I just bought one. Same picture, why would I want to spend twice as much for a LCD?

 

[Deeko]

I've got one, high def, bought it maybe 2 years ago. Its still a BEAUTIFUL tv, and I got it for way less than LCD/DLP prices.

 

[CrackRabbit]

With the exceptions of weight and case depth, i fell CRTs are still just as good as plasma or LCD tvs.

 

[soydios]

CRTs are really big and really heavy.
CRT technology has also been around for a really long time. It's gone through a lot of refinement. CRT picture quality extremely good, if not the best. You just need to properly calibrate it, instead of leaving it at showroom settings (really bright and really vibrant).

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Falloutboy
a properly calibrated good CRT still walks circles around DLP

You are correct, sir!

Originally posted by: Evadman
LCD > CRT.

You are wrong, sir!

They are not obsolete. The market has simply moved past them. It's almost like the CD/LP argument. LPs beat CDs hands down for sound quality. Better freq response, real sound vs sampled sound... But you can't play an LP in your car... and CDs don't sound bad. They're also more durable and convenient.

Same thing with CRT RPTVs. CRT provides the best black levels and richest color possible when properly calibrated. For pure picture quality, CRT beats all. It isn't even close. But they are big and boxy. And with a DLP or LCD you don't have to worry about convergence or burn-in. And since DLP/LCD don't look bad and are smaller, lighter, brighter, newer, cooler technologies... they sell better.

CRT will eventually be driven out of the market... and with the introduction of laser based DLP technologies they may be surpassed altogether. But of the current technologies available today, nothing beats CRT for pure picture quality.

 

[Rubycon]

They make high frequency noises that make me want to cry.

Kill the stegasaurus and bring out the new stuff already!

 

[PurdueRy]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Falloutboy
a properly calibrated good CRT still walks circles around DLP

You are correct, sir!

Originally posted by: Evadman
LCD > CRT.

You are wrong, sir!

They are not obsolete. The market has simply moved past them. It's almost like the CD/LP argument. LPs beat CDs hands down for sound quality. Better freq response, real sound vs sampled sound... But you can't play an LP in your car... and CDs don't sound bad. They're also more durable and convenient.

Same thing with CRT RPTVs. CRT provides the best black levels and richest color possible when properly calibrated. For pure picture quality, CRT beats all. It isn't even close. But they are big and boxy. And with a DLP or LCD you don't have to worry about convergence or burn-in. And since DLP/LCD don't look bad and are smaller, lighter, brighter, newer, cooler technologies... they sell better.

CRT will eventually be driven out of the market... and with the introduction of laser based DLP technologies they may be surpassed altogether. But of the current technologies available today, nothing beats CRT for pure picture quality.

Oh boy, not the old LP is better than CD people....

 

[Amused]

CRTs still offer the best black levels for low light theater style viewing.

I've yet to find a DLP, LCD or plasma that looks as good as my professionally calibrated CRT RP in a dark room.

Granted, for high light TV viewing, DLPs are better. But if you're into movies in a darkened room, CRTs will walk circles around a DLP.

This is why the best high end FP units are still CRT.

 

[Svnla]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
.......LPs beat CDs hands down for sound quality. Better freq response, real sound vs sampled sound...

LP is better than CD in sound quality? I remember LP made all the pop and crackle noise when I played them years ago.

I am waiting for the slim fit CRT HD Widescreen comes down to about $500 for 30" unit. The Plasma/LCD/etc are too expensive for my taste right now <$1K or more for a good midsize set>.

 

[13Gigatons]

CRT's were able to do 1080p years ago while LCD, plasma and DLP still can't.

 

[PurdueRy]

Originally posted by: 13Gigatons
CRT's were able to do 1080p years ago while LCD, plasma and DLP still can't.

Um....no. CRT's have been doing 1080i for a while now...but not 1080p as the standard wasn't even out yet. They were capable of it, but it wasn't implemented into the sets

Secondly, I do believe all the formats you mentioned(DLP, LCD and plasma) can now do 1080p

 

[Demon-Xanth]

I'm waiting for SEDs to hit the market.

 

[Thraxen]

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth
I'm waiting for SEDs to hit the market.

Indeed. SED will make everything else in this debate a moot point.

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: Svnla

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
.......LPs beat CDs hands down for sound quality. Better freq response, real sound vs sampled sound...

LP is better than CD in sound quality? I remember LP made all the pop and crackle noise when I played them years ago.

I am waiting for the slim fit CRT HD Widescreen comes down to about $500 for 30" unit. The Plasma/LCD/etc are too expensive for my taste right now <$1K or more for a good midsize set>.

The pop and crackle is directly related to the care given to the LP record. The difference in sound is not imaginary.
Dynamic Comparison of LPs vs CDs

Conclusions
It appears that the vinylphile claims are not as outrageous as they seem: LPs do have a usable dynamic range far greater than the measured dynamic range would suggest, and LPs consistently have higher relative dynamics over digital formats. But it is also true that LPs have higher distortion levels which translate to ultrasonic frequency harmonics.

The question is: is the higher relative dynamics of LPs an indication of higher accuracy, or are LPs exaggerating transients and dynamics? I'm not sure, and I would welcome comments.

If LPs have higher distortion and are exaggerating dynamics, it may explain why the apparent "benefits" of LPs translate even into LP recordings, and potentially explain why LPs of digital recordings sound better than their CD equivalents.

 

[Falloutboy]

Originally posted by: PurdueRy

Originally posted by: 13Gigatons
CRT's were able to do 1080p years ago while LCD, plasma and DLP still can't.

Um....no. CRT's have been doing 1080i for a while now...but not 1080p as the standard wasn't even out yet. They were capable of it, but it wasn't implemented into the sets

Secondly, I do believe all the formats you mentioned(DLP, LCD and plasma) can now do 1080p

he is prolly refering to FP CRTs which have supported 1080P and beyond since the mid to late 90s

 

[Rubycon]

The main problem with CD's is 16 bits (65536 discrete values per sample) is far too low to be considered a high resolution format. With mainstream lifeless pop crap this ugly horse rarely whinnys but rest assured with classical recordings and jazz it's apparent as well as the very obvious dither to provide a trampoline for the quiet passages so the digital shredder isn't as harsh. Pity.

 

[BDawg]

<3 my 55" RPTV.
</3 my 55" RPTV's size. I have to take it apart to get it down the steps.

 

[QED]

I think some people here are confusing direct-view CRTs with CRT rear-projection.

In terms of image quality, absolutely nothing beats a direct-view CRT.

CRT rear-projections are, for the most part, just a very cheap way to get a very large viewing area, but what you gain in viewing area you lose in image quality. Not to mention they are quite large and heavy.

If your priorities are large viewing area first, then price, and image quality a distant third, then CRT rear-projection is your TV.

If your priorities are image quality first, then price, and viewing area last, then a direct-view CRT is your TV.

If your priorities are image quality first, then viewing area, and price last, then a plasma is your TV.

If you value image quality, price, and viewing area equally then a good DLP RPTV might be your best choice.

 

[Falloutboy]

Originally posted by: MathMan

I think some people here are confusing direct-view CRTs with CRT rear-projection.

In terms of image quality, absolutely nothing beats a direct-view CRT.

CRT rear-projections are, for the most part, just a very cheap way to get a very large viewing area, but what you gain in viewing area you lose in image quality. Not to mention they are quite large and heavy.

If your priorities are large viewing area first, then price, and image quality a distant third, then CRT rear-projection is your TV.

If your priorities are image quality first, then price, and viewing area last, then a direct-view CRT is your TV.

If your priorities are image quality first, then viewing area, and price last, then a plasma is your TV.

If you value image quality, price, and viewing area equally then a good DLP RPTV might be your best choice.

this is incorect the HIGH end Crt RPs still beat DLP when calibrated profesionaly, but that more work than most consumers want to do to get a good setup, thats why DLP and LCD has taken over that market