CRT vs LCD television which is better I think a Crt would win would you agree?

Question

Here are facts to prove this 1) better colors in a CRT tv while this is lacking in a lcd 2) Refresh Rates absent in Lcd while crt has the best refresh rates 3) Crts can be viewed from all angles where as head on viewing compulsary for better pictures in Lcd 4) Price

Answer 1

I disagree! CRTs are analog. This makes control over colors harder than with the digital interface of a LCD (I'm referring to the electronic signal to the screen, and not the video input). Contrast on the other hand is not as good in LCDs, this is caused by the back light in the display. It is always on which makes the blacks not so black. However, that is soon changing. The back lights are evolving from florescent tubes to LEDs. With the LEDs, there is now the ability to turn off the light behind black areas, fixing the problem. Granted feeding video into the back light to do this, has only been around for a few months, and hasn't hit the shelves yet, but it soon will.

Refresh rates in LCDs are limited to response times which are already down to 8mS allowing a refresh rate of 125Hz. You eye couldn't even see something that fast. 30 Hz is the minimum, 60 Hz is ideal. Any faster is unnecessary. Besides, most video standards are no wheres near the speed of an LCD.

As far as viewing angles go, I can see a clear picture on my LCD up to 180 degrees. You cant get any better. True some older displays were not that good, but that has changed.

I think the only thing CRTs have over LCDs is the price. But for the weight, I still rather have an LCD. And don't worry, the prices have been rapidly falling as well.

Answer 2

1) and 3) somewhat true, but 2) no longer applies, since great improvements have been made in LCD response time. And even in case 1), the difference is being narrowed. But you left out the most significant deficiency of the CRT: there is no average-consumer-level CRT set (either direct view or projector) that can actually display 1080 line of resolution (vertical) or more than 1000 lines of horizontal resolution. This is an inherent limit in the low-cost tubes used in typical consumer sets, and is regardless of what you feed the set (CRTs only accept 1080i, since the sweep time of 720p is too fast for inexpensive CRT tubes.) LCD sets have at least 1280 lines horizontal resolution, and you can get them now with full 1920x1080 pixel resolution.

If you want to pay $40,000 to $60,000 for a high end CRT front projection system (with 9" CRTs), then you can get 1080i resolution, and for those sets I would agree with you.

Answer 3

High-end CRTs still provide better video quality than LCDs, and do so at a significantly lower price.

However, the problem with CRTs is their size and weight. Because of that I would rather have an LCD for a television. Besides, there is nothing on television worth paying attention to, so video quality isn't that important.

Answer 4

I don't particularly care for LCD screens- I find CRTs more natural and pleasing to the eye. Also, they don't suffer response time issues, which is something I really notice. They also don't suffer from dead pixels smack dab in the middle of the screen.

But they are thin, and convenient. In some instances, they make more sense than CRT displays do.

Answer 5

CRT Im sitting in front of a nice flat screen crt very nice and lcd's dry my eyes out or its the house lol

Answer 6

hmm...i guess when you say "best", you're looking for "quality". But in the end, if the television was "computer monitor", you'll have to consider about the CRT types' eyestrain level.