My retroboxen are hooked up to a 4:3 LCD for that exact reason, in fact. Only problem is scaling. 320x200 doesn't scale well anywhere - 1680x1050 or 1920x1200 will work acceptably if you can find 16:10 panels anymore, but the giant-lego-blocks effect will be greatly magnified. 800x600 scales to 1600x1200 just fine, but 320x240 and 640x480 doesn't really play nice anywhere. 1280x960 would be fantastic, except that AFAICT, nobody ever made LCDs in that resolution. 1920x1440 doesn't actually seem to exist either (I can find a few vague Alibaba hits, but nothing that actually seems reliable).

I second the suggestions for 14-17" shadow-mask CRTs that aren't too high-density. Nothing else looks quite right. Not even the various scanline generators - to me those make the scanlines look huge and distracting, instead of reducing the blockiness. Trouble with CRTs, though, is getting one - shipping is expensive, since they're not only heavy but also bulky. So, if you can't find a good one locally, forget it, or near to.

If we're talking LCD's now, the only reason I use them on my retro systems is because they are cheap, light, and I prefer 4:3 on my main computer as well. Plus I can actually find them.

I got super lucky when I found the NEC MultiSync II for free, those things go for crazy money these days.

Well LCD is also better if your space contrained, I have enough space for a single monitor, but my HP will letterbox and scale 4:3 down to 640x480 which isn't to terrible to deal with, and just connect my computers to a KVM

I used to find free CRT monitors all the time on craigslist, but I haven't found anything locally in over a year. Of the few listings I see anymore, they're mostly all on the North side of Chicago. Unless I'm going that way anyway, it's just not worth paying tolls, using gas, and fighting the never-ending Chicago traffic jams.

Here's what makes a good CRT, in my opinion:

Was it free? Does it work? If the answer is "yes" to both, then it's a pretty good monitor.

My last freebie CRT was a 20" unit that I found on the North side. As others have mentioned, CRTs of this size are really heavy. I felt like I was going to pop a hernia while loading/unloading it from my car. You need a really sturdy desk to use a CRT larger than 19".

You could always place a craigslist ad saying that you'll haul away old monitors for free. You might find some that way.

The Gateway CrystalScan monitor you got it from an age when there was a shortage of 17" CRTs. This monitor was often referred to inside Gateway as the Chrismas Scam because it could've been made by serveral manfacturers.

The primary manufacturer was Mag Innovision, who went bankrupt in 1999, and reformed as Vizio.

One of the issues that existed when CRT's were the norm, and which still exists today, is the quality of cables. I would stray from monitors that have cables hardwired to the internals rather than a port, which you can plug your own cable into. But point being, to really see what a monitor is capable of, you need to use a pure, full-blown, mini-coax cable that uses true, 75-Ohm mini coax on R, G, B as well as Horizontal and Vertical sync lines. I mean, if you have one of those monitors that uses full-size coax with BNC connectors for all five, you're already set so long as the lines truly are 75-Ohm coax.

It's sort of like multimedia speaker reviews, which are pointless for the most part because the reviewer is using something basic, like a Soundblaster card or even worse, on-board sound. If you want to see what a set of speakers can really do, hook it up to something with a professional card, even if it's a lower end model by M-Audio or E-MU or Lynx or ESI, something with a quality DSP and DAC. It's sickening to think of all the years of reviews on hardware that wasn't given a fair chance because it was compared to other hardware, all of which was being run off of cruddy hardware--video cards outputting to monitors with poor quality cables, etc.

The biggest advantage of CRT monitors is their ability to produce clear motion. In fact, 60FPS at 60Hz on a CRT has motion clarity and eye tracking fluidity of an LCD that would run at 1000FPS and 1000Hz, which is something that doesn't exist. And even if a 1000Hz LCD existed, good luck running games at 1000FPS...

You can run this test on an LCD and on a CRT to see the difference:

https://www.testufo.com/photo#photo=quebec.jp … suit=0&height=0

On LCDs, 60FPS is just blurry. On a CRT it's crystal clear. Even a 144Hz LCD monitor isn't as good as a 60Hz CRT. And that's just comparing to 60Hz CRTs. I was using 85Hz, 100Hz and 120Hz with my CRT monitor when I still had it. No LCD monitor in the world can hope to match that currently. Plasma displays were able to compete, but they fell out of fashion. OLED and MicroLED might improve things again in the future, but only on display that use a rolling scan instead of doing sample and hold.

Rolling scan is what a CRT does, because the electron beam scans over the screen one row at a time, which eliminates motion blur. Sample and hold is what the majority of LCD monitors do, which results in motion blur. Some LCD gaming displays offer a motion blur reduction mode using backlight strobing to do black frame insertion, but they make image quality worse, they flicker too much, and produce motion artifacts.

Longevity as in having not too many hours on it and preferably a former owner who didn't blast brightness and contrast all the way up. The screen has to be still "fresh" so to say with the picture having a quality to it that you like. All other, more specialized, aspects are moot if the picture does not click with you.

Size is dependend on your preference and living space. In general a large, high quality CRT is more exciting than a little poo but there are small CRTs that have a unique look which makes them VERY enjoyable.

I can't speak much on the motion issue and the LCD vs CRT wars but when I use vintage hardware under DOS(text editor or 320x200 software) a CRT is an absolute must. One of the reasons why one uses a CRT is that its reproduction got a unique quality which is in itself THE vital part of the whole experience... especially the, implicit, scaling capablity is a winner.

There is no way to know how many hours a CRT has been used when you get one, right?

in my case a CRT that works is a good CRT, so many died the last decade for me...
for all the cons the smooth motion you get on any CRT you are not getting on any affordable (for me) LCD that's fore sure.

also, for 640x480 to look good it's the only way.

The crt monitor that I have is this one https://www.manualslib.com/manual/273794/Hp-H … l?page=3#manual
It is probably an average monitor, but I have nothing to compare it to.

realnc wrote:

The biggest advantage of CRT monitors is their ability to produce clear motion. In fact, 60FPS at 60Hz on a CRT has motion clarity and eye tracking fluidity of an LCD that would run at 1000FPS and 1000Hz, which is something that doesn't exist. And even if a 1000Hz LCD existed, good luck running games at 1000FPS...

Yep, that's a CRT's advantage. The disadvantage is that the very same technology that does this well also results in a flickering image which causes eye-strain and headaches. Of course that's mitigated by increasing the frequency, but that dramatically increases the price of the CRT and (if you want to avoid tearing) the requirements for your PC. I love CRTs for retro purposes, but I'm very glad to have replaced them with good-quality TFTs elsewhere.

amadeus777999 wrote:

[...]

Size is dependend on your preference and living space. In general a large, high quality CRT is more exciting than a little poo but there are small CRTs that have a unique look which makes them VERY enjoyable.

There's also the (subjective) choice between shadow mask and aperture grille (Trinitron/Diamondtron), and the choice between curved or flat screen. Generally, an aperture grille CRT with flat screen gives you the sharpest, crispest image, but particularly when running relatively low-res DOS stuff that may not be what you are after. Pixels appear a bit 'smudged' with shadow mask screens, which works as a kind of hardware anti-aliasing with low-res stuff. A lot of the more advances 320x240 VGA stuff was written with this effect in mind, so you get a better representation of how it was intended with a slightly fuzzy shadow mask screen than with a perfectly crisp Diamondtron.

Of course that then presents you with a bigger problem: ideally you would want a somewhat bulging shadow mask screen - but one with good electronics, support for high scan frequencies and just the basics like focus control etc - so a relatively recent high-end device. But by the last years of CRT, such screens were only being used in the absolute (crap) bargain-basement low-end stuff. So you have to choose between positively ancient good-quality shadow mask screens, more recent crap, or more recent excessively sharp aperture grille stuff. I've gone down the latter path with a 2001 high-end Iiyama Diamondtron, but have an old 1994 Tatung aquarium-style screen I intend to put to use sometime as well 😉

This is actually not such a simple question. It is also one that is massively subject to personal tastes and nostalgia.
Back in the early 2000's I really liked my Hyundai ImageQuest Q910 CRT monitor. It was capable of pretty high resolutions (1600x1200, but could be forced higher) and high refresh rates, 120Hz+.
It had a nice sharp picture and when I finally switched to an LCD, it actually felt like a step back. But LCD was the "cool" thing at the time.

Today though, you hear people writing about CRT's and many people raving about how wonderful some of the old 12" and 14" monitors were, with their distinct scanlines and so on.
Honestly, I do believe that nostalgia plays a major factor. When using a monitor for any kind of productive use, things such as scanlines truly don't make for a more comfortable viewing experience. It looks authentic, sure, but it's not kinder on the eyes. Using ANY version of Windows for example, is much nicer at higher resolutions (1024x768 and upwards) compared to 640x480.
So the question is, are you wondering "What makes for a cool retro experience?" or "What do you look for in a GENUINELY good CRT?" Because honestly, those two things are quite different.

Sorry for the long rant, but I just wanted to put it out there.

Fully agreed. That's why almost nobody actually uses CRTs for daily work anymore. They are just not good options for >8h staring at text & numbers. No CRT I ever had came close to my Dell QHD IPS screen in all its 23" 2560x1440 glory - and that's already 3 years old and by no means the best out there. For gaming in general a case can be made re the lack of input lag and ghosting - but if it were really that important, everyone in eSports would be using CRTs. They don't and it isn't.

What you're left with is the retro experience, which is why I could end up recommending a fuzzy shadow mask screen over a nice sharp Diamondtron 😉

That's also influencing a personal dilemma: I want a screen to view MDA/Hercules/CGA/EGA content. I never actually had any of those in the day, as we went straight from modulated composite home computer output to early VGA. By far the easiest - and best quality - option would be to shell out for something like the MCE2VGA (https://www.serdashop.com/MCE2VGA). But something in me wants to go for an 'authentic' TTL monitor, which - particularly if EGA support is required - would probably cost more and unless I find a unicorn would deliver significantly lower quality. But "real"... 😵

dionb wrote:

but if it were really that important, everyone in eSports would be using CRTs. They don't and it isn't.

eSports was using CRTs well past the date they stopped being manufactured. They were forced to switch to LCDs. Sponsors were also involved. They wanted tournaments to be played on their products, and these products were LCDs.

Also, better than 60Hz CRTs weren't expensive. Even the cheap ones back in the early 90s could do 85Hz, which is the point where the flicker becomes unnoticeable for the majority of people. The better ones could do 100-120. The expensive ones could go 180 and 200, which really wasn't needed.

And the LCD image sharpness advantage goes away once you try to play at a non-native resolution. I use a 2560x1440 IPS display. If I switch to 1080p or 720p, the image quality is worse than even the cheapest bargain bin CRT. It's just too blurry.

Of course not everything is bad. G-Sync is pretty amazing, sharpness at the native resolution is great, and the high refresh rate of my display (up to 165Hz) helps mitigate the motion clarity issues of LCDs. But still, every time I'm forced to use a low resolution, or want to play a game with the lights off in the room, I'm always reminded that we lost something when CRTs were replaced 😀

realnc wrote:

eSports was using CRTs well past the date they stopped being manufactured. They were forced to switch to LCDs. Sponsors were also involved. They wanted tournaments to be played on their products, and these products were LCDs.

If their teams truly could reliably win on CRTs, they would have kept a high-end gaming CRT line going to cash in on it - or insurgent teams with sponsors not in the TFT business still using CRTs would have swooped in and won all the tournaments. They didn't, there was no big corporate conspiracy. TFTs took over when they were good enough not to make a difference at that level, let alone at the gaming ability of mere mortals like us. And no, that doesn't mean any TFT is suitable, but as with anything else in this business prices start astronomical and drop fast as the technology involved goes mainstream.

realnc wrote:

And the LCD image sharpness advantage goes away once you try to play at a non-native resolution. I use a 2560x1440 IPS display. If I switch to 1080p or 720p, the image quality is worse than even the cheapest bargain bin CRT. It's just too blurry.

Of course not everything is bad. G-Sync is pretty amazing, sharpness at the native resolution is great, and the high refresh rate of my display (up to 165Hz) helps mitigate the motion clarity issues of LCDs. But still, every time I'm forced to use a low resolution, or want to play a game with the lights off in the room, I'm always reminded that we lost something when CRTs were replaced 😀

I use a Dell Ultrasharp U2410 IPS as my daily driver. It's great. I've compared it to many other LCD monitors, and hardly any, except very expensive ones, even come close in terms of image quality. When viewing it side by side with my Compaq V710 though, I keep getting amazed at how great the colours on CRTs are. I wouldn't want to go back to using a CRT on a daily basis, but having a late-era CRT for my retro rig is certainly a cool thing. In fact, on any system where you can't reliably play games at one specific resolution, it's a huge advantage. I'd never swap my V710 for an old 14" CRT though, it just has way too many advantages.

dionb wrote:

If their teams truly could reliably win on CRTs, they would have kept a high-end gaming CRT line going to cash in on it

eSports wasn't even remotely as popular back then for that to happen. When eSports became mainstream, they had long switched to LCDs.

They didn't, there was no big corporate conspiracy.

I'm not saying there was a conspiracy. It was simple practicality. LCDs were much easier to deal with. And sponsorship contracts; if a tournament was going to be sponsored by BenQ, they would supply the hardware. Even at the time when LCDs were objectively worse than CRTs when it comes to eSports, you couldn't just go to the tournament bringing your your own monitor. You had to use the monitor they provide. Everyone was on a level playing field anyway.

TFTs took over when they were good enough not to make a difference at that level, let alone at the gaming ability of mere mortals like us.

I don't think so. The first tournaments to use LCD displays were using displays that were objectively worse than CRTs. They only got good for eSports somewhere around 2009.

Some lower profile eSports tournaments were using CRTs even in 2014.