Malano L

CRT HDTVs had a very limited production around five years ago. Despite all the improvements seen in today's TVs, the CRT HDTV still has no equal for black levels, color accuracy and contrast. The images are so lifelike, so punchy, and so vibrant that 480p is all one needs. 1080i on these sets is breathtaking, leaving the latest-model LCDs and plasmas behind in the dust (the only exception being the Pioneer Kuro Elite line, which is no longer in production).

TV manufacturers are working hard to achieve what the CRT TV had already perfected decades ago: better black levels, unlimited viewing angles, less blurring in moving objects, more detail in the shadows. And consumers are paying top dollar for these "improvements."

Where the flat panel TV is ahead is screen size. But I'll take a 32" TV with a brilliant picture over a 42" set with anything less in that department. The CRT is bulky, no doubt, but we have bulkier appliances in our homes. As for energy consumption, the new TVs are somewhat more efficient (depending on screen size). There are those who boast that their LCD sets save them money and save the planet, yet some of these folks have subwoofers powered by 1500-watt amplifiers.

Who are we deluding when we say the new TVs are better? "Better" when it comes to TVs refers to picture quality exclusively. Words like "greener," "lighter," "slimmer," and "3D" (that's right!) play no role in picture quality.

Currently the CRT has no rival. But I am optimistic that something will eventually supersede it. It just hasn't happened yet.

Groucho

Can you imagine a 50" CRT HDTV? That thing would weigh more than my car.

Malano L

That's what people don't want. So they sacrifice quality for convenience. Like MP3 taking over CD. But I'd take a 350 lb. 42" set. I don't think I can lift anything heavier than that.

Spiky

There are 50" CRT models, RPTVs. The Pioneer Elites were excellent. At one point I was going to get one, but I opted for big, instead.

The better quality of CRT would be nice, but it also has its limitations, interlacing being a big one, that was an unfortunate choice dictated by the compression tech of the time.

The largest single tube HDTV was 40" (around 320#, IIRC), and you can only crowd so many people around a little TV. It's fine for the living room, not so much the HT. And the CRT models had issues with viewing angle (even the Elites), vertical especially. Again, only so many people in the sweet spot. My LCD doesn't have those black levels, and I wish it did, but every seat is excellent. CRT FPTV was an option, but the projectors were also huge, and I just couldn't fit one in my room.

And no, you can't lift a 350# TV. Not by yourself. Unless you're one of these guys. And I'm not even sure they can, the TVs are really bulky, not like those nice compact Atlas Stones they pick up.

belboz

No thanks. CRTs were far from perfect. Convergence and geometry were always a problem on even the best displays and if you wanted to maintain top image quality, you had to fiddle with the settings almost constantly because it was always drifting.

bunkaroo

This.

I am quite happy with my DLP and its consistency. I had to spend countless hours on convergence tweaking and hundreds of dollars on pro-calibration to get my CRT in the neighborhood my DLP stays in effortlessly. I'll take the slightly lower performance of my DLP anyday over the constant nursing of my old CRT.

kefrank

+1

CRT had its strengths but it also had its weaknesses. The degree to which one thinks it "outshines the rest" depends on what one values the most. Personally, I prefer the lighter weight, perfect convergence, better temporal resolution and greater sharpness of my 720p 37" LCD to my old 42" 1080i rear projection CRT.

X

I still have my Pioneer Elite but size wins with a 110" DLP image. It's certainly not as film-like as the CRT, but it's more theater-like.

Alan Smithee

This is what I had from 1996 til this January:

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/DQBz0WxOrXw?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/DQBz0WxOrXw?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Randy Miller III

I still have my first HDTV (30" Philips CRT) in working condition.
It still puts out a great picture...but yep, it weighs a ton.

I'll be sad when it finally bites the dust.

Jediturtle

I still use my old faithful Hitachi 65S500 65" RP CRT as my main display. Still looks better than anything I've seen in stores. Sure she's big boned, but it fits the spot in my basement just fine. Yes, it does need some maintenance, but honestly it holds pretty well for 3-6 months before really needing a touch up. Speaking of which, I'm due for one. No biggie...half hour to an hour and it will be as good as new again. I hope she lives for many years to come. When the day does finally come, I'll be going front projection with whatever technology is best (within reasonable $$$) at that time.

It is a darn shame that the new technologies still haven't caught up with the picture quality, but I'll admit that the size is very attractive depending on the setting, and I'm pretty jealous of the perfect geometry and lack of convergence issues!

Sdallnct

This is why WIFE suggested a home theater!

She wanted a big TV in a room at the back of the house for the kids. 5 years ago flat panels were still expensive. Especially for anything over 60". I showed her a CRT (like yours) and then a RP DLP sitting on a cabinet. She said "those will take up several feet in our room, any other options". Of course than I showed her a front project and 100" screen. I had to explain these had no speakers so a surround sound would be required. The rest is history.

When people come to this board asking for TV recommendations, they often get pissed when I ask if image quality is a factor or THE most important factor. There are many, MANY reasons to settle on one TV or another. There is no perfect TV in every situation in every room, in every set up.

gerrytwo

The only remaining area you will see CRT displays is where the display has to be resistant to changes in air pressure, as in military aircraft. Saying CRT's have better pictures than new flat panel displays is subjective. Most TV buyers think bigger is better.

For Sony's 40th anniversary in 1986, Sony made a limited edition 40" TV set for a list price of $10,000. As I recall, Sony recommended that the TV be placed above a floor joist, the set weighed so much. The set came with a switch in the back to turn on an anti-gaussing device to remove magnetic build-up in the set. New CRT TV technology almost 25 years ago.

Once you have a 50 inch or bigger Panasonic plasma flat panel TV, there is no way almost everyone would go back to a CRT. There are also people who say tube amplifiers give out better sound and vinyl records have a warmer sound than CDs. Time marches on.

The one audio video area where new technology is over rated is music on mp3 files. mp3 sound is worse than audio from .wav files. Still, mp3 is the standard for compressed audio files, whatever the audio experts think about FLAC, Monkey audio and other lossless audio compression formats.

Jediturtle

Umm...yea...you are right. Size is a factor. That's why my CRT is a RP at 65". Pretty sure that's bigger (and probably better PQ, though like you said that's subjective) than a 50" Panasonic plasma.

rw2516

I've got a "34 inch Sony CRT HD display and have never had to "fiddle" with it. It's not rear projection, it's a 16x9 direct view picture tube with 720p/1080i. Weighs 285 lbs. Awesome picture.