I'm picky with just about everything about them. My overall favorite CRT line has been the Mitsubishi Diamond Pro series and monitors based on that like NECs. I have a 2070SB but it's in storage. I've had previous models in the same line. Unfortunately I can't remember too much about the monitors I had before that which were mostly hand-me-downs to me and nothing special anyway.

-size: 19-20"ish
-resolution: 1600x1200 preferred for daily use (2048x1536 is cool and all and my eyes are decent but they aren't THAT good) - if serving specifically for retro gaming duties then I could go with less of course
-refresh rate: minimum 85Hz, 100Hz or 120Hz preferred, even at 1600x1200, for daily use
-contrast... well it just has to be good, not sure in terms of a number
-not too flickery even at 60Hz (different monitors use different formulations of the phosphor which have different decay times which affecs several things including flicker and max refresh rate)
-reasonably sharp for a CRT - they're not going to be LCD sharp, but some are better than others
-reasonably bright or else unfortunately not much can be done but replace them... CRTs wear over time which is why burn-in happens
-quick access brightness and contrast controls which many CRTs did have unlike this menu garbage some LCDs make us go through
-good geometry control so you can get your screen looking frustratingly close to square in a way that only you will ever notice that it's off a little bit

These days I guess I'll want to add compatibility with low resolutions like 320x240.. if not I'll have to use a line doubler, which is not really an issue, or get a CRT that can. I do have an XRGB Mini which might do the trick if I need it, but I kind of want a 2+ which would be better for a CRT display vs the mini which is more for a digital input display... or maybe an Extron doubler

"What makes a CRT a 'Good' CRT?"

Considering how long it's been since CRTs were mass-produced, I would say.... if it turns on and displays a picture, then it's good. 🤣

Support for high refresh rates, small dot pitch, high contrast, easy to use picture adjustment controls (I prefer digital controls with memory), and generally flatter tubes are better. I also like displays that don't have black borders around the picture. The size of the tube depends on what generation of PC you're shooting for. For retro stuff 14-17" is probably ideal. Most of the NECs and Sonys were pretty good.

From my research Sony FD Trinitron tubes are supposed to be the best, with the Sony F520 being the best 4:3 CRT, though many people say the FW900 is the best (it's a widescreen CRT, imo not ideal for retro gaming as most retro games dont support that aspect ratio). F520 is a bit hard to find, the slightly lower end Sony G520 is easier to find and still great, also it has some rebranded versions, like Dell P1130, HP P1130, and IBM P275 (which I just bought yesterday btw). Those are 21"-ers and are heavy as fuck, of course there's 19" and 17" versions as well.

My favorite was my no name crt I had it from 2003-2010, it had a slight blur, not bad enough to make text hard but enough where I had no idea what a jaggy was in a game I never really saw what the big deal was with aa when I had it. So my favorite was technically broken 🤣

I'm really happy with the one I'm using now: Viewsonic A75f. Perfect flat, and very crisp up to 1024x768 (I use it for DOS only). Nice colors, can't complain about anything about it.

We're getting to a point in time that lcds are now surpassing crt's in refresh rate , resolution , black levels. Aside from nostalgia and how cheap they are , crt's are finally beyond saving.

the only crt's that you really SHOULD save are rare ones. Like and apple 2 monitor , or a monitor for an ibm 5150 or a next cube or something. if it's generic , then there's not much reason to save it.

Yup, but they are still inferior to laser based screens. 😉

emosun wrote:

We're getting to a point in time that lcds are now surpassing crt's in refresh rate , resolution , black levels. Aside from nostalgia and how cheap they are , crt's are finally beyond saving.

Well, the CRT's main selling point was (and still is) adjustable resolution. None of the modern screens look good in any other than their native resolution. I couldn't imagine myself using a modern flat screen for DOS or WIN98 as they simply don't work well in that environment.

Don't for get that crt's work with light guns and lcd do not.

sf78 wrote:

emosun wrote:

We're getting to a point in time that lcds are now surpassing crt's in refresh rate , resolution , black levels. Aside from nostalgia and how cheap they are , crt's are finally beyond saving.

Well, the CRT's main selling point was (and still is) adjustable resolution. None of the modern screens look good in any other than their native resolution. I couldn't imagine myself using a modern flat screen for DOS or WIN98 as they simply don't work well in that environment.

Thats true . If you have a very old or cheap lcd it will only support a few select resolutions. If you use a more modern lcd it will then auto scale resolution under its native.

emosun wrote:

sf78 wrote:

emosun wrote:

We're getting to a point in time that lcds are now surpassing crt's in refresh rate , resolution , black levels. Aside from nostalgia and how cheap they are , crt's are finally beyond saving.

Well, the CRT's main selling point was (and still is) adjustable resolution. None of the modern screens look good in any other than their native resolution. I couldn't imagine myself using a modern flat screen for DOS or WIN98 as they simply don't work well in that environment.

Thats true . If you have a very old or cheap lcd it will only support a few select resolutions. If you use a more modern lcd it will then auto scale resolution under its native.

The common issues with many screens in doing this is that the scaling can look bad with old graphics that are mostly flat, and also that it can add significant input latency when doing so. And even newer LCDs don't always play nicely with very low resolutions like 320x200, 320x240, etc. Sometimes older LCDs actually handle those lower res modes better, though older LCDs are likely to have even worse scaling (and worse contrast and color reproduction and other stuff as well).

This is why console gamers often use expensive scalers for old consoles... like the XRGB line from Micomsoft for example. And you should be able to use some of that hardware that console gamers use for old PCs on newer displays, too, if you have an LCD that doesn't work well on its own and don't want to get a CRT (and honestly, because CRTs wear out as they do, I wouldn't blame anyone for wanting to avoid them).

Oh and when using an LCD or Plasma, it is in my opinion a requirement to use scanlines to get good image quality for old games. Scalers often make this easy but you can sometimes use other, cheaper methods to add them.

I've seen these scalers on youtube in action, but for some reason their picture doesn't look even close to what
was seen on our old television set with its RF tuner and these big knobs on the right side. Strange, isn't it ? 😉

Jo22 wrote:

I've seen these scalers on youtube in action, but for some reason their picture doesn't look even close to what
was seen on our old television set with its RF tuner and these big knobs on the right side. Strange, isn't it ? 😉

It's not the same, but in many cases it's the only way to get "close enough" without buying large equipment that is getting harder to find as well as getting closer to death every day.

Or if you mean the actual experience in using the equipment is different, I agree, though I've always liked fiddling around with advanced settings in devices so it doesn't bother me too much (as long as I don't run across incompatibilities which do happen with old equipment).

To me, a Good CRT to me is one that has bright, vibrant color, yet keeps the background of the screen black, and has just the right amount of "smear" (relating to the dot-pitch) in low resolution modes to make older games look a little more "cartoon-like" than "lego-like".

My favorite CRT's over the years have been....

Addonics MON7C4B - Good ol' reliable 14" CRT was my first CRT monitor that was VGA capable (prior to that was a Tandy CM-4 RGB). It was perfect for those older 486 and earlier systems that spent most of their time in 320X200 and 640X480 because it was JUST "smeary" enough between the pixels in 640X480 that all but the most dithered graphics looked almost photo quality, but was crisp enough that it was not an eyesore to work with, and old school VGA games looked downright AMAZING on it. The Secret of Monkey Island showed up exactly as I think Ron Gilbert and co expected it to in 1990.

Zenith Data Systems 1490 VGA - This 1987 Trinitron style flat-CRT monitor was the apitamy of AWESOME. It had a dual layer screen on it that gave it a really cool, almost 3-D Shadowbox type effect. I loved this monitor so much I continued using it as my main monitor well into the period that I was using Windows 98 SE on a Celeron 500 (at 640X480 true color). It also is heavy as a boat anchor, and generates so much heat it has a dedicated fan inside to keep the innards cool. I had 2 of these. I wish I still had them.

IBM 8518 CRT - I had one of these on my PS/2 Model 30 286 back in the day, and it too was a very crisp monitor, and the anti-glare coating worked great. I think a lot of my love for these also is the nostalgia because this was actually the monitor we had AT SCHOOL where I cut my teeth on computing as a kid (we had an IBM Lease agreement so PS/2's everywhere!). The 8518 seemed to be the most solid and stable of that style of monitor. It was nice, large, crisp color, and were my preferred choice for editing login screens in 320X200 @256 MCGA/VGA graphics mode on an IBM PS/2 Model 70 386 running Linkway Live.

As far as what I look for now, I also look to make them serviceable and that means the SAMS/Service Manual should be available, it should be common enough someone else has owned one at some point, and it should be as compatible with as much stuff as possible. The NEC MultiSync JC-1401-P3A and JC-1402-HMA are my top choices for this because they look the era (big grey bezel with beige casing, screaming totally 80's), they can run 9-pin, 15 pin 3 row, 15 pin 2 row, and just about anything else an adapter was made for. If I had to reduce the space of my systems, I would opt for just the JC-1402-HMA I have now for that because it is VERY Crisp, very CLEAR, and very adjustable. The only problem is a bit of voltage and focus drift as it runs but it eventually levels out and runs just fine after that. They are also very easily serviceable, they were designed to be fix when they break.

TheAbandonwareGuy wrote:

What makes a CRT good in your mind?

Bright and reasonably accurate colors
Controls for color, contrast, brightness
Good gamma levels
Not blurry
Slightly bulgy screen (I don't like flat CRT screens -- they always look warped somehow)
No flickering corners (unlike a certain Iiyama Vision Master Pro 451 I had the misfortune of purchasing)
Decent screen geometry

Color, brightness, good refresh rates at the resolution I am going to use, low dot pitch, sync on green so they work with my old macs, good geometry and good controls to fix slight imperfections, digital controls with memory.

For windows desktop work or high-res games you can't go past a Trinitron or Diamondtron, the bigger/newer the better. Had a Diamond Pro 19 for a while that was a beast until the antireflective coating started to delaminate.

For older games though, it's different. The old 320x200 games look best on a 14"-17" shadow mask CRT with not too fine a dot pitch, IMO. You want that analogue filtering. Even 640x480 games look best on a 17".

My absolute favourite was an EIZO F56 17" shadow mask with digital controls and BNC inputs. Just awesome in every way. Unfortunately the flyback went kaput and at that time I wasn't confident enough to repair it.
These days I have very late model Philips 17" shadow mask which is a good compromise and importantly was NOS so has a fresh tube. This is my general DOS and 640x480 Windows gaming CRT.

Another great screen is the Philips CM8833 and its variants. These are 15KHz screens so we're talking EGA. The fat scanlines and rich colours of these are something else and a million miles away from viewing the same content on a modern LCD.

/url]

kenrouholo wrote:

Oh and when using an LCD or Plasma, it is in my opinion a requirement to use scanlines to get good image quality for old games.

You are also left with two options with a TFT screen, either zooming 4:3 games to 16:9 which looks like crap, or black borders on either side that also looks like crap. There's just no way you can get an old game to work properly on a new HD widescreen without throwing in all kinds of filters and scanline generators. it also makes the whole thing redundant when you can find a decent CRT for free these days.