High end CRT vs High end LCD

[Guest2]

I currently have an Acer X34 - 34" curved, G-sync, IPS panel

3440 x 1440 - lots of desktop space and a very nice panel.

I have owned LCD screens since maybe 2004 but have always felt they are lacking something - even now. I used Dell CRTs and the picture quality as I remember was always very crisp, blacks were proper blacks and gaming input lag was none existent even on a 75Hz Dell which I cannot remember the model of.


I am toying with the idea of finding something like a Sony Trinitron GDM FW900 or a similar Trinitron CRT.

Possible issues...
The viewable screen size will be massively reduced - 34" to around 21"
Desk space reduced - around 20" depth
May have to go 4:3 - Proper aspect ratio for gaming but movie watching will take a hit.
GPU load will be a fair bit less though - 5million > 3 million pixels if going 3440x1440 > 2048×1536

Too much stuff to go wrong with CRT?
Has anyone gone back to CRT for any reason?
Are the technologies built into LCDs now such as G-sync only to iron out the issues with old LCD tech and an attempt to replicate the zero input lag of CRT?
Am I crazy?

 

[JediFragger]

Nah, go forward not back. Get a B6/B7 OLED for a good price second-hand and see what you think. If you have the desk space of course, they're ****ing big!!

 

[JasonM]

Guest2 I can fully understand where your coming from.

Back in the day I use to run Diamondtron CRT's, then all the LCD's came out and i was not happy with all the grays and lack of contrast.

I don't know much about these very modern monitors, however I've been very happy with some old Ag Neovo monitors that are glass fronted. Basically if you could imagine the digital precision of an LCD, but the dark blacks and contrast of a Dimondtron CRT then you have what I have at the moment.

And these are what I run.
http://global.agneovo.com/global/content/e-w22.asp

22 wide LCD screen thats almost 8kg!

And you will all think i'm crazy, but a few year ago I went into OCUK showroom, looked at all the monitors on display and was really disappointed, in my personal view I still personally prefer these old Ag Neovo monitors with glass on the front of them. No one ever talks about glass fronted monitors, but there great if you want the old CRT look, and they cut all the eye strain out.

 

[hornetstinger]

Would not go back to CRT. Finding a 27" 2560x1440 144hz CRT with freesync, low power consumption, hardly any heat dissipation, no eye strain, no radiation, adjust height, curved inward, perfect geometry, no convergence issues, light, slim.

If you want CRT like PQ I'd get a OLED.

 

[Nexus18]

Nah, go forward not back. Get a B6/B7 OLED for a good price second-hand and see what you think. If you have the desk space of course, they're ****ing big!!

This, although I would try to get a 2017 set over a 2016 set if possible.

Nothing comes close to an OLED display.

very crisp, blacks were proper blacks and gaming input lag was none existent even on a 75Hz Dell which I cannot remember the model of.

OLED achieves all of this (120HZ @ 1080P has very low input lag) without the disadvantages that CRT has.

CRT was/is ******* great and in many ways still trumps LCD (I still have 2 somewhere in the garage or/and loft) but as said, too many disadvantages with CRT in this day and age.

Although as I say to everyone, I wouldn't use OLED for desktop usage (just have a basic LCD monitor for desktop usage) or at least be very wary and ensure that you set up the necessary precautions to avoid burn in.

 

[EsaT]

The viewable screen size will be massively reduced - 34" to around 21"

Actually in vertical direction there isn't that much difference because of 21:9 low screens being very wastefull for desk space.

In picture quality LCDs have pretty much brought as many problems as they've solved.
Viewing angle and contrast being serious problem.
Both really coming from LCD's structure of separate light source and image pixel "component".
But instead of actually pushing for truly mature flat screen techs monitors makers have been just devising one way after another to sell same old LCD again.

 

[Guest2]

Those AG Neovo E-W22 monitors do look quite nice. 22" will look quite small as i'm used to 34" I reckon. Would love to see some screens in use
Also, I have been looking in PVMs and BVMs. This sounds like a beast of a BVM - Sony BVM-D24E1WE

 

[G550]

Analogue/CRT can't be beaten for fluidity / immediacy of response though some of the better LCD displays with backlight strobing are getting pretty close.
However, examples will all be getting quite old and well used by now.

Certainly wouldn't advise a Sony FD based one. Good when new, but the tubes degrade over time.
Mine (E400) still degausses (boings!) itself into life after a bit of coaxing, but its now getting a bit dim/low-contrast having had to adjust the G2 voltage vith Sony WinDas software via a serial line inteface to offset the increasing black level as the tube ages (blacks become a light grey as the tubes age).

A Mitsubishi Diamondtron one might have better longevity and from what I can remember, a friends example was always a bit more vivid than my Sony at the expense of slightly higher dot-pitch.

OLED doesn't seem to be there yet as regards longevity either. Burn-in test results on the net aren't very reassuring given the cost of the displays.

My LG 24GM79G (TN) was a cheap (£200) way into a strobed LCD display few months ago. Its brighter and more contrasty than my E400 CRT has been for a long time and fluidity/response with strobing enabled isn't far off what you get from a CRT and I can't say I really notice any lag.
Contrast with strobing enabled is a bit lower, but still pretty good. Towards the bottom of the screen you do get a much fainter second image of moving objects but fluidity-wise its far better with strobing on than off.
I run it in strobed mode all the time. Even appreciate the difference on the desktop.

All the usual TN caveats apply. Contrast shifts, particularly in the vertical where you can't adjust your sitting position a couple of cm without noticing the difference. Also banding on colour gradients, and darker shades that need help from the black stabiliser function to avoid a bit of black crush on this monitor.

I wouldn't go back to a CRT now, even though I'm still not chucking the E400 out (nostalgia!).

 

[JasonM]

Those AG Neovo E-W22 monitors do look quite nice. 22" will look quite small as i'm used to 34" I reckon. Would love to see some screens in use

There really old monitors, the only way to get them is look second hand. They were really expensive monitors when they first appeared costing around double most typical 22" screens. Far as I'm aware they use CCFL to light the monitor, they certainly don't use the newer LED technology, but that's maybe part of the reason I like them as apparently LED back-light monitors can give eye strain.

 

[sadbuttrue]

Putting the CRT pros/cons aside there is one major issue - modern graphics cards no longer have an analogue (VGA/DVI-A) output. The adapters available are poor at best with limited bandwidth. Owners at the FW900 thread on HardForum are having to buy expensive adapters and modify them to do a half decent job.

 

[hornetstinger]

Putting the CRT pros/cons aside there is one major issue - modern graphics cards no longer have an analogue (VGA/DVI-A) output. The adapters available are poor at best with limited bandwidth. Owners at the FW900 thread on HardForum are having to buy expensive adapters and modify them to do a half decent job.

I wonder if you could modify the CRT monitor so it has a DVI input, bypassing analogue section so it's direct to the electronics.

 

[NirK]

The size and aspect ratio of them is enough of a con to make it not worth doing IMO.

Also it is extremely old tech and you would be better just waiting for something better to come out.

overall... just no.

 

[james.miller]

Hot, big, heavy, picture distortion, anything you buy these days is going to be old and worn... The only place for a CRT these days is the retro console scene IMO.

 

[d_brennen]

I often yearn for sitting in front of a small particle accelerator for hours a day

Some things are best left in the past

 

[andicole0]

Surely no one makes crt any more? And was the resolution much over 1024?
Andi.

 

[hornetstinger]

Surely no one makes crt any more? And was the resolution much over 1024?
Andi.

2560x1600@75Hz for the FW900

 

[NirK]

Definitely a case of something that you remember as being great, but in reality it is not worth the effort. Do you REALLY want to downgrade a 34" 3440x1440 100hz monitor, to a 22" 4:3 monitor...

 

[Rroff]

Analogue/CRT can't be beaten for fluidity / immediacy of response though some of the better LCD displays with backlight strobing are getting pretty close.

Pretty close being a bit relative here - even the best LCDs have a delay of around 1ms while the pixel responds and stabilises enough there is no residual image issues while a CRT is significantly sub ms - in some cases IIRC more than 100x faster.

People get used to the slower response and the brain ends up compensating for a frame or two until the image stablises - spend awhile on a good CRT and go back again and you'll notice the difference for awhile until your brain starts compensating again.

The only reason I'd go back to a CRT would be for the response time and much lower residual image in motion - in pretty much every other way even with some of the negatives the LCD is better.

 

[hornetstinger]

CRT had phosphur discharge elay though,

 

[G550]

even the best LCDs have a delay of around 1ms while the pixel responds and stabilises enough there is no residual image issues while a CRT is significantly sub ms - in some cases IIRC more than 100x faster.

As Hornetstinger implies, CRT phosphor persistence is significantly higher than 1ms. The formulation of the phosphor must give a decent tail-off in luminance otherwise you'll be subjecting the user to an unacceptable level of flicker and eventually eye-strain at the refresh rates a CRT typically runs (generally sub 120Hz).

Side by side, the old E400 and this LG (strobed) give a similar feel.
Yes, analogue CRT definitely has an edge; it just feels that bit more connected and "alive" (the hint of flicker). However, add in phosphor persistence, lower refresh (the E400 will only do 75-77Hz at 1600x1200) and all the caveats of CRT technology, and modern LCD doesn't really feel like second best at all.

Do a side by side test, dragging a white mouse pointer on a black background in the middle of the screen and the LG has less visible crystal persistence than the phosphor of the CRT.
What the LG does have is a second, single faint ghost of the pointer which is quite noticeable when near the bottom of the screen, but almost invisible near the middle.
And, of course a degree of processing lag and crystal transition lag (mitigated by strobing), though unless you're hopping from one technology to the other, you generally won't notice any difference. I certainly don't anyway.

All of the above in relation to LCD hangs on the strobing however. Switch that off and the LCD experience is much less impressive. I do feel I'd have been disappointed with any high refresh LCD without strobing given how the LG performs with it disabled.