new sony at currys

[Mickymoody]

And yet your CRT is physically incapable of displaying the full detail of a proper HD image.

And no, they don't use the same tubes as you use in your kitchen. Unless you light your kitchen with extremely small CCFLs, which I find unlikely.

How do LCD TV's project their images to the user? By Florescent tubes either side of the screen, ie backlit...how are flo tubes powered? but invertors? ie exactly the same as a computer vs backlit LCD screens,

I've replaced more tubes, and invertors than you have hot dinners, so how can you say that LCD technology is better than CRT's? that have powered the nations for 100 years? You talk from myth, I talk from being on the front line, what is your experience of repairing dead LCD screens?

 

[Monkeh]

And yet your CRT is physically incapable of displaying the full detail of a proper HD image.

And no, they don't use the same tubes as you use in your kitchen. Unless you light your kitchen with extremely small CCFLs, which I find unlikely.

How do LCD TV's project their images to the user? By Florescent tubes either side of the screen, ie backlit...how are flo tubes powered? but invertors? ie exactly the same as a computer vs backlit LCD screens,

Uhm, you were talking about kitchen lights, not other types of LCD. And yes, I'm well aware that both TVs and monitors use CCFLs. They can also use LEDs, or have you not caught up with the last five years yet?

I've replaced more tubes, and invertors than you have hot dinners

Sure you have.

so how can you say that LCD technology is better than CRT's?

When did I? Don't put words in my mouth.

You talk from myth, I talk from being on the front line

Because your 30 year old TV not being 1920x1080 pixels is myth?

 

[Mickymoody]

And yet your CRT is physically incapable of displaying the full detail of a proper HD image.

And no, they don't use the same tubes as you use in your kitchen. Unless you light your kitchen with extremely small CCFLs, which I find unlikely.

How do LCD TV's project their images to the user? By Florescent tubes either side of the screen, ie backlit...how are flo tubes powered? but invertors? ie exactly the same as a computer vs backlit LCD screens,

Uhm, you were talking about kitchen lights, not other types of LCD. And yes, I'm well aware that both TVs and monitors use CCFLs. They can also use LEDs, or have you not caught up with the last five years yet?

I've replaced more tubes, and invertors than you have hot dinners

Sure you have.

so how can you say that LCD technology is better than CRT's?

When did I? Don't put words in my mouth.

You talk from myth, I talk from being on the front line

Because your 30 year old TV not being 1920x1080 pixels is myth?

Yeah you have excessive quoting, you don't research your facts, you obviously never heard of B & O,

Try researching B & O...for a start. Then research CRT vs LCD, then try understanding what you understand, as opposed to what you make up. If you don't understand the subject manner, then please don't post..try to keep on topic? ((I say B & O, NOT B&Q, which you might be more familiar with?))

 

[Monkeh]

Yeah you have excessive quoting

I break my posts up into easy to follow sections, if this bothers you, don't read them.

you don't research your facts, you obviously never heard of B & O

Yes, let me go look up a TV with nothing to go on but a make and a rough age. And yes, I know who Bang & Olufsen are.

Try researching B & O...for a start.

I don't need to, I know who they are, and I know even they didn't make 1080p displays before such a resolution was used!

Then research CRT vs LCD, then try understanding what you understand, as opposed to what you make up.

That sentence didn't entirely parse, but I know all about CRTs and LCDs. I've used both, and I was more than happy to dispose of my last desk-hogging, back-breaking monster.

If you don't understand the subject manner, then please don't post..

Right back at you.

try to keep on topic? ((I say B & O, NOT B&Q, which you might be more familiar with?))

I am keeping on topic, you're the one bringing up how ancient, low-res CRTs are infinitely superior when displaying an image they're physically incapable of properly displaying, and then bringing up DIY stores.

 

[Mickymoody]

LMAO, that B & O aren't at the cutting edge of 1080p, when they charge upwards of £30,000, for a TV..u live in a dreamland....

So a £30,000 CRT, has worse screen resolution than a £150 LCD HD set from a supermarket? WOW !

 

[Monkeh]

LMAO, that B & O aren't at the cutting edge of 1080p, when they charge upwards of £30,000, for a TV..u live in a dreamland....

You live in the 1980s. Where they obviously couldn't spell.

So a £30,000 CRT, has worse screen resolution than a £150 LCD HD set from a supermarket? WOW !

I wasn't talking about cheap TVs. And I would honestly be surprised if a TV from 30 years ago has a native res of 1920x1080 or greater. And I'd be really, really surprised if it had HDMI ports or any other form of digital input. Tell you what, let's have a picture of this TV and a full list of its specs.

 

[Mickymoody]

So a cheap HDTV is worse than a good HDTV? Makes no sense.

A good CRT is better than HDTV. Don't be fooled. And a cheap LCD TV will fail before a better quality CRT, and a LCD will outlast OLED, or Plasma...believe what you will, but that's the truth.

Watch a picture on an old stylee B & O TV, that CAN scan the resolution, on CRT, and eat humble pie, but as you never had access to a B & O TV, sadly you are lacking in this department.

My monitor on my computer isnt't HD ready, but displays HD ready pictures, as does my other DTP 19" CRT monitor, neither is HD READY, but display HD pictures no problem? Why?

 

[Monkeh]

So a cheap HDTV is worse than a good HDTV? Makes no sense.

... You make no sense.

A good CRT is better than HDTV.

That's why B&O still sell CRTs, obviously. And why everything is still recorded on film, and we still use VHS.

Don't be fooled.

By you? Oh trust me, I won't be.

I'll say it again: Let's see some specs of your magic 1080p CRT from the 80s. Which you had £30,000 to buy, from your job repairing TVs.

I'll go get some sleep to give you plenty of time to do that.

 

[Mickymoody]

So a cheap HDTV is worse than a good HDTV? Makes no sense.

... You make no sense.

A good CRT is better than HDTV.

That's why B&O still sell CRTs, obviously. And why everything is still recorded on film, and we still use VHS.

Don't be fooled.

By you? Oh trust me, I won't be.

I'll say it again: Let's see some specs of your magic 1080p CRT from the 80s. Which you had £30,000 to buy, from your job repairing TVs.

I'll go get some sleep to give you plenty of time to do that.

Current models of B&O cost £30k, mine was far cheaper, your ignorance shows through. A little more research, and a little less ignorance, might make you look less of a fool.

 

[Monkeh]

Current models of B&O cost £30k, mine was far cheaper, your ignorance shows through. A little more research, and a little less ignorance, might make you look less of a fool.

Actually a Beovision 10 costs around £6000, and you clearly stated your CRT cost £30,000. Or were you comparing a CRT you do not own and they do not make to an LCD? Try again.

And I see you still haven't responded to my simple request for details on your mythical TV.

 

[maltaron]

The one simple point which all the digital buffs forget is that eyes and ears are analogue. You cannot see in digital. So, all images and sound have to be converted to digital (the sources are analogue) and back to analogue to see or hear them. No matter how HD it is, this conversion cannot physically be done without losing quality. The problem is that most of the younger generation have not, and now never will, enjoy true Hi-fidelity sound and vision. They will always accept that more & more pixels = better quality, but it is the conversion from pixels to something that we can hear or see that determines the quality and that depends on the quality of the TV or sound system. Until my recent retirement I was an Audio Visual Technician and even with the latest computers and SXGA quality projectors the pictures were still not up to good 16mm film.

 

[Monkeh]

The one simple point which all the digital buffs forget is that eyes and ears are analogue. You cannot see in digital. So, all images and sound have to be converted to digital (the sources are analogue) and back to analogue to see or hear them. No matter how HD it is, this conversion cannot physically be done without losing quality.

The sources are sometimes analogue, sometimes digital, however, your TV signal, your DVDs, your BDs, these are all digital. The display (assuming a Plasma or TFT) is also digital. Thus there is no conversion back to analogue involved.

The problem is that most of the younger generation have not, and now never will, enjoy true Hi-fidelity sound and vision. They will always accept that more & more pixels = better quality, but it is the conversion from pixels to something that we can hear or see that determines the quality and that depends on the quality of the TV or sound system.

And no matter how high quality a 30 year old TV is, it is physically incapable of displaying the information contained in a modern HD recording. I have no doubt that a 30 year old B&O TV looks pretty good, however it still cannot display the same detail as a good TFT.

SXGA quality projectors

Woohoo, SXGA! Massively high resolution.

Modern digital cinematography cameras record at 4096×2304, or thereabouts, they're not fixed resolution, and scenes recorded with them are kept entirely digital from recording to your TV screen.

 

[Mickymoody]

The one simple point which all the digital buffs forget is that eyes and ears are analogue. You cannot see in digital. So, all images and sound have to be converted to digital (the sources are analogue) and back to analogue to see or hear them. No matter how HD it is, this conversion cannot physically be done without losing quality. The problem is that most of the younger generation have not, and now never will, enjoy true Hi-fidelity sound and vision. They will always accept that more & more pixels = better quality, but it is the conversion from pixels to something that we can hear or see that determines the quality and that depends on the quality of the TV or sound system. Until my recent retirement I was an Audio Visual Technician and even with the latest computers and SXGA quality projectors the pictures were still not up to good 16mm film.

The valves vs Transistors argument and vinyl vs CD arguments go on forever...but the fact is that valves are better, vinyl is better, and CRT is better than LCD/Plasma.

What has happened recently regarding HD transmission, is that the upscalers used to process the transmitted picture were scaled back, due to bandwidth issues, due to the transistion from UHF fransmissions to digital, and thousands of complaints were made, so HD TV was actually worse TV quality than normal UHF broadcasts, or via digital. So LCD due to poor shelf life, missing pixels, or flo tube failure, or Plasma, that is even more unreliable, isn't worth the price paid vs service received, when a CRT still works with better quality after 30 years.

Sorry but a supermarket bought LCD, used on HD hasn't got the quality of a good quality CRT.

 

[Monkeh]

The valves vs Transistors argument and vinyl vs CD arguments go on forever...but the fact is that valves are better, vinyl is better, and CRT is better than LCD/Plasma.

Your opinion is that they are. The raw fact is that a perfect digital copy is a perfect digital copy. Vinyl can never match that. I won't go into transistors vs valves (audio playback, rather than storage, is very much personal taste).

What has happened recently regarding HD transmission, is that the upscalers used to process the transmitted picture were scaled back, due to bandwidth issues, due to the transistion from UHF fransmissions to digital, and thousands of complaints were made, so HD TV was actually worse TV quality than normal UHF broadcasts, or via digital.

That makes no sense whatsoever, and the digital transition was to SD TV, not HD. Let me repeat that: Freeview transmissions for the majority of the UK are not HD. Freeview HD is still quite limited in deployment.

Sorry but a supermarket bought LCD, used on HD hasn't got the quality of a good quality CRT.

And nobody was talking about cheap, crap supermarket TVs. And once again: A 30 year old CRT cannot physically display an HD image, nor take the signal carrying it to begin with.

 

[Mickymoody]

At the end of the day the eyes have it, or the ears...

If people seriously believe that what they watch via HD is better quality, then good for them!

If people seriously believe that CD is better quality than vinyl, good for them!

As pointed out, we are analogue creatures, so anything converted to digital, then reprocessed to analogue, isn't a natural source. Digital sources sound hollow, and precise, wheras analogue is more full, rounder, fuller sounds.

A digital TV picture is unnatural, a digital picture gets cut off at the slightest interference, we are going backwards in technology.

Does a record fail if it's scratched? NO

Does a CD fail if it's scratched YES

Was Betamax better than VHS, YES

Was BSB better quality than Sky YES

Can you get a picture in bad weather via Sky? NO

Can you get a picture in bad weather via an antenna? YES

Can you get a picture on Digital TV via an antenna? NO

Can you get a picture on normal TV via an antenna? YES

Do LCD TV's work for longer than 5 years? NO

Do Plasma TV's work for longer than 5 years? NO

Have a chat with yourself. It's like Concorde being withdrawn, technology in reverse. Would you prefer to watch a TV picture of poor quality, or a TV picture saying 'no signal being received?'