Have quality user CRT monitors died out?

[EugenyG]

Up to 2-3 years ago there was a good selection of high-quality CRT monitors. Sony Trinitrons, MAGs, good Viewsonics. The price for a good 17'' CRT was up to $500, but the quality was worth it -- low dot size, high resolutions, high refresh rate, and most importantly NATURAL, pleasant colors.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But nowadays, all you see is LCD's, LCD's, and then some more LCD's.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't deny some of the advantages of LCD's over CRT's, but personally I just don't like them. The maximum resolution is low, the screen looks unnaturally bright (and no changing the brighness/contrast doesn't help), reading text is difficult for me on an LCD. I tried using some of the highest-quality LCD's out there (say 19'' 700:1 contrast 4ms response), and I still don't like them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some people may naturally prefer LCD in quality, it is obviously up to them. I don't claim CRT's are always better, this is just a personal view.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now, in a free and fair market users would be given a complete choice of monitor type, and allow the user to decide for him/herself how to best spend their money. Unfortunately, the media-driven image of CRT's have been deliberately branded as "archaic" and "outdated", in order to persuade users to shell out more cash for LCD's and make them the standard. The most aggravating part, to me, is that the vast majority of users would make their choice of a CRT/LCD based on how the thing looks in their living room (which LCD obviously wins), as opposed to the actual monitor quality. While I don't blame users for lack of knowledge in the IT field (everyone has their own specialization), I do blame the media and corporations for exploiting public ignorance in order to promote a de-facto standard which may not nessecarily be the best choice for the consumer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why do I care? Because this frenzy unfortunately also affects the "minority", that is us CRT lovers. Whereas a few years ago, as I have mentioned, there was a healthy range of CRT's in both quality and price, nowadays I see a sharp polarization. 95% of CRT's made today are of extremely poor quality (my 6 year old MAG would beat any CRT monitor I saw at FutureShop, LondonDrugs or Costco that was on display). Why? Because CRT monitors are now branded as "superbudget", selling at a price range of $50-100, only because at this price it is simply impossible to manufacture any kind of LCD. As a result, all those CRT's have horrible bent screens, refresh rate never exceeding 60-75 hertz, poor sharpness, etc etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The other 5% of CRT's are intended for the professional artist market, that is for those people who truly do understand that pretty much no current LCD is capable of delivering the naturality and richness of colors a CRT can. Unfortunately, since this market is designed for professionals who use it for a living, rather than average users, the price tag for such a monitor (for example the awesome GDM-C520K w/ Artisan Color Reference System) cost an upward of $2000, and is obviously out of my affording price.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Where are the solid mid-to-upper range CRT's, with 400-500 USD pricetag, that I have so lovingly used in the past decade? Gone. Dead. Died out like the dinasours. Why? Because LCD's have replaced them. The slimness and style of the monitor on your table has overcome the true qualities of the monitor, as far as the mainstream market is concerned (just what happened to countless other products, video games included, once the mainstream advertisers took over the product distribution).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Once again, I do not mean to say that all LCD's are bad, or that they are worse than CRT's for everyone; however, it is true for a significant number of people (whether they are aware of that or not). Nor do quality CRT's have COMPLETELY disappeared (you can still get the occasional half-decent CRT from ViewSonic at a non-astronomical price, and of course you can buy pre-used), but the diversity of quality user CRT's has dropped dramatically.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...I'm still using a 4-year-old 17 inch Sony Multiscan G220, because despite the usage of my monitor, and all the time for technology to advance, I STILL haven't found any Aperture Grill CRT monitor under $600 that I would enjoy more. Sony has discontinued the Multiscan monitor series (guess why...)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyone else feels the same way?

[____]

I'll agree that good quality and affordable CRT's are on the verge of being dead. They dropped sharply when LCD's get to be.. more affordable I guess would be the best resoning.

 

 

 

I can still pickup fairly good quality CRT's without a problem from a few places. But yeah, most are like $50 or so.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And, there would be more than enough people out there who aren't prepared to sink money into something which will most likely be obsolete within the next few years :-?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Can't really stand in the way of progress I supose, which kind of sucks sometimes (eg: ipod mini being replaced by the micro - wtfgay w/ that).

[Chris]

Too... Much... Reading...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ugh 7AM.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I myself agree to a certain extent, to be honest I believe you can get better TFT monitors, you know what they say "You get what you pay for".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I myself would buy some 20" or 22" TFT's for my room, but at near enouth ÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâã500 - 600 a pop, I'll pass. At the moment I have 3 21" Sony Trinitron tubed CRT's. I got them cheap :mrgreen: .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Eventually when I can afford to get a new PC, I'll use my two black ones for that like I did before I sold it. The third is for friends to use, when they bring their PC's round.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's true that a CRT offers unbelievable value for money compared to TFT's, but I still want 3. :P