GOTTA LOVE PEOPLE WANTING LCD'S!!!

[Lurknomore]

I gave away my 34" sony SFP crt.

 

[BUTCH1]

I migrated my "32 Sharp to the bedroom when I got my LCD, I still watch it a lot, for some reason it seems less strenuous on the eyes, maybe the SD signal demands less brain power to look at??..

 

[Shadowknight]

I have 2 Sony 34xbr960s (the super-fine pitch set everyone keeps mentioning in this thread). Before I got them, I had an Insignia HD CRT (27", 4:3) and was impressed by the image quality. In December of 2007 I picked up a $2,000 Samsung LCD, it was their next-to-the-most top of the line at the time; I took it back a week later. The blacks looked great in store, but at home they were grey and washed out, even after turning down the LCD backlighting and using a calibration DVD. The colors weren't as good as the Insignia, and it has issues with the motion, where things were too smooth, too blurry, and too jittery all at the same time. Since I was concerned with potential burn-in from video games, plasmas weren't an option, and I don't fancy having to pay $250 every couple of years so DLP wasn't an option either. The Sony's higher resolution (1400x1080i) helps bridge the gap between the other, lower-resolution CRTs and the higher-resolution, but motion and black-challeneged LCDs. I'm a little unhappy at the smalll size, and since Pioneer's going to stop making plasmas next March I'm going to have to go ahead and get a Pioneer Kuro since no other tv or tech can produce an image as good as it in it's size-class.

 

[EKKC]

Originally posted by: Mo0o
Yeah totally!!! I picked up an awesome 56k modem just the other day. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to log off and make a phone call.

ROFL!!!

i sold my WEGA to a friend of mine (because i bought a 45" LCD back before the prices went down on a freefall) and he's been bitching ever since

 

[ultimatebob]

Originally posted by: masterxfob
you probably should consider that that 34" CRT weights probably 3X more than the LCD, takes up 3X more space than the LCD, and probably does not have HDMI inputs.

And uses 3X more power as well.

 

[ViviTheMage]

LCD weighing a couple pounds @ 42" and better quality > a heavy clunky CRT only 34 inches.

That is why people upgrade lighter, better quality, slimmer, etc.

 

[Descartes]

These kinds of arguments are always hilarious to me, and always for the same reasons. One person values one attribute of a product and another person another. Arguments ensue about which attribute is more important, generally with one side claiming to be of superior reasoning abilities for their choice.

There's a reason why they have different products on the market. Congrats on your deal though. I have a good 32" CRT in one of our bedrooms that I'd be happy to give someone for free if they'd just pick it up.

 

[geno]

Originally posted by: QueBert
a true 1080p CRT

Those exist? now that would be cool to see in person.

 

[AndroidVageta]

Its the KD-34XBR970 model...I believe the last Sony CRT...In either case, this is the cren de la creme of CRT's. It actually supports a 1400x1080 resolution and my PC (4870 via HDMI) looks STUNNING. Breath taking. Despite the arguements here, excluding weight and power usage (not a concern to me) this set is absolutely better than any LCD I've ever seen or purchased hands down.

Besides weight, size and power usage...Ive yet to see someone flat out say LCD is better for IQ...so I dont understand all the arguing here about LCD vs. CRT. If you want the absolute best picture CRT is still KING. And I see people here saying that I got this cause I'm broke and couldn't get an LCD...I have an LCD...I was just bragging at the fact that I got such an amazing TV/PC monitor for pennies on the dollar.

Show me a better monitor for $150 - LCD or CRT. Can't do it? That's why I bought it.

 

[finite automaton]

I hope you don't watch TV a lot, cause that thing is going to suck the power lines right out of the walls.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: AndroidVageta
Its the KD-34XBR970 model...I believe the last Sony CRT...In either case, this is the cren de la creme of CRT's. It actually supports a 1400x1080 resolution and my PC (4870 via HDMI) looks STUNNING. Breath taking. Despite the arguements here, excluding weight and power usage (not a concern to me) this set is absolutely better than any LCD I've ever seen or purchased hands down.

Besides weight, size and power usage...Ive yet to see someone flat out say LCD is better for IQ...so I dont understand all the arguing here about LCD vs. CRT. If you want the absolute best picture CRT is still KING. And I see people here saying that I got this cause I'm broke and couldn't get an LCD...I have an LCD...I was just bragging at the fact that I got such an amazing TV/PC monitor for pennies on the dollar.

Show me a better monitor for $150 - LCD or CRT. Can't do it? That's why I bought it.

How difficult is it to just accept that weight, size and power usage might be important attributes to people? You keep promoting your criteria for being "KING" and neglect precisely that which makes the LCD attractive.

Not to be dismissive, but this is the typical geek/nerd mentality where you're in the weeds analyzing the nuances of detail forgetting the bigger, more obvious picture that motivates most people.

As an example: I'll pay more for a lesser picture just because it has a smaller footprint and so would a lot of people.

 

[Gothgar]

using caps makes you cool

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: AndroidVageta
Its the KD-34XBR970 model...I believe the last Sony CRT...In either case, this is the cren de la creme of CRT's. It actually supports a 1400x1080 resolution and my PC (4870 via HDMI) looks STUNNING. Breath taking. Despite the arguements here, excluding weight and power usage (not a concern to me) this set is absolutely better than any LCD I've ever seen or purchased hands down.

Besides weight, size and power usage...Ive yet to see someone flat out say LCD is better for IQ...so I dont understand all the arguing here about LCD vs. CRT. If you want the absolute best picture CRT is still KING. And I see people here saying that I got this cause I'm broke and couldn't get an LCD...I have an LCD...I was just bragging at the fact that I got such an amazing TV/PC monitor for pennies on the dollar.

Show me a better monitor for $150 - LCD or CRT. Can't do it? That's why I bought it.

Stop being a dick. Weight, size, and power usage matters to most people, that's why an LCD is better for most people over a CRT. Since CRTs are obviously KING, and far superior to LCDs, you should start manufacturing them and sell them. If what you say is true, you'll be rich!

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: finite automaton
I hope you don't watch TV a lot, cause that thing is going to suck the power lines right out of the walls.

sigh.

People have really gone nuts on the save power, oh no, I'm using 100 watts crap, when they don't even conserve where it counts most. Insulation, water heater, appliances.

I have a spare 32" crt it uses a whole 105 watts ! Oh no !
Less than all LCD in that range.

The reason they went to LCD is not because CRT used more power. It often uses less power . It was based on it not scaling up to larger screens and the weight of the unit.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: Mo0o
Yeah totally!!! I picked up an awesome 56k modem just the other day. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to log off and make a phone call.

:laugh:

 

[polarbear6]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: Mo0o
Yeah totally!!! I picked up an awesome 56k modem just the other day. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to log off and make a phone call.

:laugh:

WTFF!!
i didnt knew they had moderators for off topic
what do they moderate
when some one talks sense )
joke of the milenium

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: finite automaton
I hope you don't watch TV a lot, cause that thing is going to suck the power lines right out of the walls.

LCD TVs don't exactly sip power either, at least my TV doesn't. My 26" LCD uses around 130w.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: masterxfob
you probably should consider that that 34" CRT weights probably 3X more than the LCD, takes up 3X more space than the LCD, and probably does not have HDMI inputs.

all of this, with the 3rd item for special emphasis. congrats on your "HD" TV purchase.

 

[Lurknomore]

Originally posted by: AndroidVageta
Its the KD-34XBR970 model...I believe the last Sony CRT...In either case, this is the cren de la creme of CRT's. It actually supports a 1400x1080 resolution and my PC (4870 via HDMI) looks STUNNING. Breath taking. Despite the arguements here, excluding weight and power usage (not a concern to me) this set is absolutely better than any LCD I've ever seen or purchased hands down.

Besides weight, size and power usage...Ive yet to see someone flat out say LCD is better for IQ...so I dont understand all the arguing here about LCD vs. CRT. If you want the absolute best picture CRT is still KING. And I see people here saying that I got this cause I'm broke and couldn't get an LCD...I have an LCD...I was just bragging at the fact that I got such an amazing TV/PC monitor for pennies on the dollar.

Show me a better monitor for $150 - LCD or CRT. Can't do it? That's why I bought it.

Dude, that model is NOT the Super Fine Pitch model- the SFP is the 34XBR960.
Still, it's a good model, but doesn't compare in any way to the SFP.
$150 is a decent price- it would be a steal for the SFP. Normally, you might find a 34" SFP on Craigslist from $300- $700, but def. not for $150.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: masterxfob
you probably should consider that that 34" CRT weights probably 3X more than the LCD, takes up 3X more space than the LCD, and probably does not have HDMI inputs.

all of this, with the 3rd item for special emphasis. congrats on your "HD" TV purchase.

HDMI is not needed for HD. Not to mention you would have to spend thousands of dollars to get a picture quality as good as this one.

 

[zinfamous]

LCD schmelCD.

so how do black levels and color compare between CRT and Plasma? Seems like a more relevant comparison than CRT and LCD. LCD still can't touch Plasma when it comes to PQ. And they're cheaper; energy consumption/heat probably more on line with CRT, though. Lighter, but still heavy.

 

[ballmode]

OP = r TARDED

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Lurknomore

Originally posted by: AndroidVageta
Its the KD-34XBR970 model...I believe the last Sony CRT...In either case, this is the cren de la creme of CRT's. It actually supports a 1400x1080 resolution and my PC (4870 via HDMI) looks STUNNING. Breath taking. Despite the arguements here, excluding weight and power usage (not a concern to me) this set is absolutely better than any LCD I've ever seen or purchased hands down.

Besides weight, size and power usage...Ive yet to see someone flat out say LCD is better for IQ...so I dont understand all the arguing here about LCD vs. CRT. If you want the absolute best picture CRT is still KING. And I see people here saying that I got this cause I'm broke and couldn't get an LCD...I have an LCD...I was just bragging at the fact that I got such an amazing TV/PC monitor for pennies on the dollar.

Show me a better monitor for $150 - LCD or CRT. Can't do it? That's why I bought it.

Dude, that model is NOT the Super Fine Pitch model- the SFP is the 34XBR960.
Still, it's a good model, but doesn't compare in any way to the SFP.
$150 is a decent price- it would be a steal for the SFP. Normally, you might find a 34" SFP on Craigslist from $300- $700, but def. not for $150.

someone mentioned later that it probably does have HDMI outputs. I know you can get HD through DVI, or course, and through component (though in my comparison using my A2, not as good as HDMI--colors were off).

Assuming it has DVI--likely--then, sure. But someone else also mentioned that these later generation screens topped at around 540. So...is that HD? I won't argue color and blacks, but don't you at least need a minimum of 720 to be considered HD?

 

[Lurknomore]

Originally posted by: zinfamous
LCD schmelCD.

so how do black levels and color compare between CRT and Plasma? Seems like a more relevant comparison than CRT and LCD. LCD still can't touch Plasma when it comes to PQ. And they're cheaper; energy consumption/heat probably more on line with CRT, though. Lighter, but still heavy.

I believe the latest model lcd's- the Samsung 9 series and Sony XBR8's can compete and often exceed the non 8g and 9g Kuro plasmas. It's still allpersonal preference, and plasmas still generally have the advantage in price/performance and motion resolution.

 

[Shadowknight]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: Lurknomore

Originally posted by: AndroidVageta
Its the KD-34XBR970 model...I believe the last Sony CRT...In either case, this is the cren de la creme of CRT's. It actually supports a 1400x1080 resolution and my PC (4870 via HDMI) looks STUNNING. Breath taking. Despite the arguements here, excluding weight and power usage (not a concern to me) this set is absolutely better than any LCD I've ever seen or purchased hands down.

Besides weight, size and power usage...Ive yet to see someone flat out say LCD is better for IQ...so I dont understand all the arguing here about LCD vs. CRT. If you want the absolute best picture CRT is still KING. And I see people here saying that I got this cause I'm broke and couldn't get an LCD...I have an LCD...I was just bragging at the fact that I got such an amazing TV/PC monitor for pennies on the dollar.

Show me a better monitor for $150 - LCD or CRT. Can't do it? That's why I bought it.

Dude, that model is NOT the Super Fine Pitch model- the SFP is the 34XBR960.
Still, it's a good model, but doesn't compare in any way to the SFP.
$150 is a decent price- it would be a steal for the SFP. Normally, you might find a 34" SFP on Craigslist from $300- $700, but def. not for $150.

someone mentioned later that it probably does have HDMI outputs. I know you can get HD through DVI, or course, and through component (though in my comparison using my A2, not as good as HDMI--colors were off).

Assuming it has DVI--likely--then, sure. But someone else also mentioned that these later generation screens topped at around 540. So...is that HD? I won't argue color and blacks, but don't you at least need a minimum of 720 to be considered HD?

The Sony 910 had DVI, the 960 and 970 each have a single HDMI input.