Is CRT dead?

Matmulder · 7 Nov 2006 at 22:37

Looking to get a new TV, as our old 26" CRT is getting past its best.

However its my understanding that buying a 32" HD LCD is pointless if you don't have a HD source (we get Telewest Digital atm, but no plans to get TVdrive) because, as someone mentioned, its like 640x480 on a hi-res PC monitor.

So is it pointless to buy a CRT these days? Some of the guys in the TV industry tell me that a *good* CRT is better than an LCD screen. I was looking at getting a Hyundai A321 before Chrimbo especially with the Ashes on TV...but now I'm not so sure?

Jez · 7 Nov 2006 at 22:40

For SD material you still wont do better than a CRT display no

dannyjo22 · 7 Nov 2006 at 23:16

Jez said:
For SD material you still wont do better than a CRT display no

Unless you need to save space then stick with the CRT. I have loads of friends with more money than sense that have huge screens but watch anything except channels 1-5 off an aerial. They try to make out they have a fantastic picture and how amazing the screen is when in reality they have stepped back 20 years.

SpeedFreak · 7 Nov 2006 at 23:45

I saw sky HD at the weekend and I'd have to say not yet, but soon they will be.

chaparral · 8 Nov 2006 at 00:39

dannyjo22 said:
Unless you need to save space then stick with the CRT. I have loads of friends with more money than sense that have huge screens but watch anything except channels 1-5 off an aerial. They try to make out they have a fantastic picture and how amazing the screen is when in reality they have stepped back 20 years.

Why watch 1-5 off an aerial went you get a much better picture off 1-5 on sky ???

squiffy · 8 Nov 2006 at 00:41

dannyjo22 said:
Unless you need to save space then stick with the CRT. I have loads of friends with more money than sense that have huge screens but watch anything except channels 1-5 off an aerial. They try to make out they have a fantastic picture and how amazing the screen is when in reality they have stepped back 20 years.

That's if you can get a good CRT TV. Nowadays they seem really low quality, terrible geometry and convergence issues.

Manlove is my forte · 8 Nov 2006 at 06:55

A lot of the major manufacturers are scaling down if they have not already stopped their CRT production.

You are right a HD TV is not great for SD TV. but it depends really on the model some are better than others.

Goatboy · 8 Nov 2006 at 08:48

It's dying, not quite dead.

Who cares if CRT is better, flat screen takes up less space and look better in the room.

It's like stereos who cares about searching out the best sound quality when you can have a sleek little unit with loads of pretty lights instead.

McMav · 8 Nov 2006 at 10:57

I was in same position earlier this year get an LCD or CRT

I plumped for crt again. Had no plans to get HD still dont so was simple choice.
Picked up a 28" panasonic and it looks fine on its not slim but I've got the room for it in the corner so its ok and the picture is superb. Once HD becomes mainstream then I will switch to LCD though planning on getting a smaller lcd panel for bedroom to replace outdated portable. Purely for space saving will probably wall mount it.

dannyjo22 · 8 Nov 2006 at 11:05

chaparral said:
Why watch 1-5 off an aerial went you get a much better picture off 1-5 on sky ???

Thats what I mean they dont even have sky just a Sd feed off an aerial or at best freeview.

I did buy a HD screen but returned it this week but that was purely a cosmetic reason. I dont watch enough TV to care about SD quality and my wife just wants one because she thinks she needs one.

Jez · 8 Nov 2006 at 11:35

chaparral said:
Why watch 1-5 off an aerial went you get a much better picture off 1-5 on sky ???

What planet are you on to think that sky offers a better quality of image than analogue terrestrial? Analogue terrestrial is by far the best quality way of receiving channels 1-5, if you run a decent aerial and suitable signal conditioners then the image will literally look faultless...the digital solutions are absolutely miles and miles off par?

alex2zulu · 9 Nov 2006 at 15:08

well the big pile of CRT's at my local dump says that they are very dead

but they could be used for a cool cheap multi screen setup - and there very paintable

marl · 9 Nov 2006 at 18:31

Goatboy said:
It's dying, not quite dead.

Who cares if CRT is better, flat screen takes up less space and look better in the room.

It's like stereos who cares about searching out the best sound quality when you can have a sleek little unit with loads of pretty lights instead.

YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS MAN!

Daytrader · 12 Nov 2006 at 21:54

picture quality is everything, crt displays are still the best by far its a shame they are fazeing them out just to make room in there warehouses

my panasonic 36" widescreen 100hz that i paid £2,500 for still beats any plasma/lcd around easily, but im waiting for SED displays to come available its like when you stepped up from traditional TV to HDTV again, HDTV to SED is going to be awsome, its display is (basically) in fact a gazillion tiny CRTs

Bobbler · 12 Nov 2006 at 22:11

Would have to agree with the comments so far. CRT is leaps and bounds ahead of LCD/Plasma for SD materials.
CRT is all but gone from most high street retailers and from a business point of view it makes sense - less shelf space, less storage space, lower shipping costs and people want shiney new things.
The number of people I know with LCD screens and they are hooked up to a VCR is not even funny, but they HAD to have one because Bill down the road has one.
My Tosh 36" CRT is great, its big, its heavy (which is actually a plus point, no one will be able to nick it and it stops the baby knocking it over!), its got component inputs for my Xbox and 360, it does Dolby Digital 5.1 very well and it cost half of what a similar sized decent LCD would cost.
However, I do have a Hydundai Q321 in my office for the 360 too and when running 720p it is much better than the CRT.

Daytrader · 12 Nov 2006 at 22:14

i edited my post mine also a 36" not 32"

Goatboy · 12 Nov 2006 at 22:25

Daytrader said:
HDTV to SED

SED will just be another type of HDTV, just like DLP's, plasmas and LCD's.

chaparral · 12 Nov 2006 at 22:42

Jez said:
What planet are you on to think that sky offers a better quality of image than analogue terrestrial? Analogue terrestrial is by far the best quality way of receiving channels 1-5, if you run a decent aerial and suitable signal conditioners then the image will literally look faultless...the digital solutions are absolutely miles and miles off par?

Don't matter how good the aerial is,,It still has to come through the RF input..
were if you have a skybox you have it coming through scart RGB..

Even things like game systems(eg xbox,ps2 etc) look bad though the RF input compared to scart RGB...

And i have never seen anyones 1-5 picture by Analogue aerial look anyway near as good as it does from there skybox through scart RGB.

Ben · 12 Nov 2006 at 22:56

Goatboy said:
SED will just be another type of HDTV, just like DLP's, plasmas and LCD's.

If it ever gets released. It sounds fantastic.. but it keeps changing, they were saying it would be cheaper to produce than LCD and Plasma Screens, but now it sounds like they're going for 50"+ with their target market of going in conference halls etc and costing more. So no longer aimed at the home user.

Kol · 12 Nov 2006 at 23:08

Jez said:
What planet are you on to think that sky offers a better quality of image than analogue terrestrial? Analogue terrestrial is by far the best quality way of receiving channels 1-5, if you run a decent aerial and suitable signal conditioners then the image will literally look faultless...the digital solutions are absolutely miles and miles off par?

Possibly, but analogue isn't in widescreen, usually only 14x9 so looks naff on a 16x9 set. I find terrestrial digital to be better than analogue. SKY being sometimes less so than dvb-t.

Is CRT dead?

Man of Honour

Man of Honour