Both have their advantages. The advantages of CRTs are perfect viewing angles, accurate colors, resolution flexibility, no lag and no pixel response issues. LCDs on the other hand can be manufactured to larger screen size, flexible form factors, higher resolutions, and they always look 100% sharp at their native resolution (unfortunately only at that). They also do not suffer from blur / geometry issues that plague aging CRTs. IPS/VA LCDs have reasonable contrast, color reproduction and viewing angles, although still not as good as CRTs.

In the end, I believe that LCDs won the battle mostly due to two factors - much smaller footprint and much lower power consumption. These two things are huge and obvious, whereas all the other advantages/disadvantages are not always visible, and are not something the "average Joe" even pays attention too.

Yeah, I agree with your opinion, clearly the advantages in term of size and power comsumption were alreeady enough for the consumer world where space and electricity surely were and are a big factor. And surely LCD are much easier nowdays to built.
But at the end of the technology I've seen some flat high end crt that had basically everything you could ask even anti glare.

one thing I like about LCDs is the durability, CRTs gave me a lot of problems after a few years of usage...

but I miss the smooth motion and good quality at lower res.

A good LCD for my workstation, CRTs for gaming.

I find it interesting how there's a huge "analog revival" movement in the audio realm, but in the video world everyone seems to be happy with blocky, laggy, muddy, oversaturated displays. Well, everybody except me.

LCD. CRTs are just too big to have around when I can use the space for other stuff.
Also, the low frequency flicker of CRTs give me a headache.

Generally LCDs - smaller, cooler running, lower power, and bigger size. I still have a few CRT monitors around that I use for testing older machines, and from time to time have dragged out for my main setup/workstation area. Overall I'm not too fired up about some sort of holy-war debate on picture quality - both have strengths and weaknesses, and IMHO both can make great displays.

133MHz wrote:

I find it interesting how there's a huge "analog revival" movement in the audio realm, but in the video world everyone seems to be happy with blocky, laggy, muddy, oversaturated displays.

I've actually wondered about this too; tubes and vinyl and etc are all the rage in some audio circles, but CRTs and other analog video mediums don't seem to be coming back. Perhaps that will change in the future though.

IMHO CRTs are better for retro-gaming, where as in modern usage LCDs weaknesses do not matter as much. Here are some pros of each.

LCDs:

• Flicker-free (unless using a backlight with bad PWM)
• Slim - Can be easier to fit in some desks, easier to put other hardware behind it, etc.
• Available in different form factors
• Sharp on native resolution - Great for browsing the internet, reading and dealing with images/videos (assuming you have one with decent color reproduction)
• Energy-efficient - Produces less heat, saves up on electric bills
• Lighter - Easier to move around, cheaper to get shipped
• New ones in production - You don't need to buy them used or pay a little fortune for NOS
• Several inputs - Unless you go for the absolute cheapest ones, you should have at least one DVI and one VGA port. Better ones might have multiple digital inputs (my main monitor has got 1 VGA, 1 DVI, 2 HDMI and 1 Display Port)

CRTs:

• Resolution flexibility - Better for retro-gaming because they do not a native resolution, every possible one is displayed natively without any software scaling
• Infinite color resolution - Colors are analog signals, so the number of colors that can be displayed is limited only by the graphics card's DAC
• Viewing angles - Colors do not change depending on the viewing angle
• No physical pixels - If you know how to choose a CRT, you can get one that makes those old low-res games look smooth, but not blurred
• No input lag

I did not say anything about color reproduction because cheap CRTs might not offer the necessary options for calibration, and high end IPS panels have decent color reproduction. Also, even decent TN panels can look passable if correctly adjusted... my BenQ XL2420T looks ATROCIOUS on the default settings (oversaturated, weird gamma, excessive brightness), but once correctly adjusted is looks good enough.

I used to do just an LCD with my retro rig, then went to a 21" CRT. That was was MASSIVE though...couldn't fit it well on my desk without moving my desk 6" away from the wall. I went back to a 20" 1600x1200 LCD (good ratio) was mostly happy with it. However, scaling issues were still there and pixel response time was left VERY much wanting since I saw some ghosting in a lot of game titles. One of the biggest fails of LCD's is pixel response time and scaling issues with pixels and screen ratios.

Since a few months ago I went back to a 17" CRT, but didn't have the options to go past 72Hz. I got a high-end 19" CRT that can push up to 120Hz, NIB, but haven't hooked it up yet. That should offer the best of both worlds of CRT pluses and manageable size.

IMO, if you have the room and can find a CRT still in good condition, go CRT. If you don't have the room, try to get a 1600x1200 20" LCD (HP makes a good one, and a few Dells but you need a good revision number).

133MHz wrote:

I find it interesting how there's a huge "analog revival" movement in the audio realm, but in the video world everyone seems to be happy with blocky, laggy, muddy, oversaturated displays. Well, everybody except me.

The analogue revival in audio isn't about audio fidelity though, it's about the tangible experience of owning and using records. I'd wager that most of the people buying vinyl today will take it home and play it on a cheapo Chinese USB turntable.

People chasing audio fidelity and "pure-ness" are into Blu-Ray Audio and SACD, very much digital.

Why are they happy with low-quality LCDs? Well, if you watch a Blu-Ray movie of filmed content (i.e. not animated), it actually doesn't look terrible on most non-bargain-basement screens under usual viewing conditions (naturally lit room, good viewing distance, etc).

IMHO CRTs are better for retro-gaming, where as in modern usage LCDs weaknesses do not matter as much. Here are some pros of each.

You forgot to mention that some LCDs have backlight bleed and CRTs don't.

The analogue revival in audio isn't about audio fidelity though, it's about the tangible experience of owning and using records. I'd wager that most of the people buying vinyl today will take it home and play it on a cheapo Chinese USB turntable.

It's mostly the same thing here with CRTS though --- despite a few pros to them, I think the biggest reason people on the forum would use CRTs is for a nostalgic experience.

LCDS have garbage black levels perhaps game designers adjusted their games to suit the LCD display, case in point, fire up doom or any first person shooter side by side against any lcd and their is no comparison, CRTs eat those displays for breakfast, I thought buying an IPS Dell would have been a big improvement but its barely much advanced from the first cheap Korean LCD I bought back in 2004.

Im hoping that OLED or other technology will be the saviour and we can finally claw back to the same black levels of 15 years ago.

smeezekitty wrote:

I think the biggest reason people on the forum would use CRTs is for a nostalgic experience.

I admit that every once in a while I get the nostalgia bug and I pull out an old, beat up 14" (or even 12" B&W) TV to play some video games through the noisy RF input 'cause that's how I played back then, but most of the time I'm using high-end CRTs (Sony PVM and the like) and direct RGB connections, which to me is about quality and not nostalgia.

LCDs all the way. I find that most newer LCD monitors aren't so blurry at low resolutions. In fact, my Iiyama B1906 looks just as sharp at 640x480 as it does at 1280x1024. It's also LED-backlit, so there are no noticeable bright spots as on my older Samsung 940n (CCLF backlit), or edge mirroring like my Eizo F930 CRT.

I never liked CRT monitors, not even back in the day (an I had some quality CRT monitors too - my old 21" Eizo comes to mind ). I always fount CRT monitors incredibly tiring due to their native flickering - even at high refresh rates. They are big, bulky and can be noisy at high refresh rates. Geometry is hard to get right, and despite popular praise, I find most models, just like LCD displays, have trouble with correct color reproduction - even more as they age - and they do not age gracefully. Also, storing and maintaining them can be a nightmare.

[/doctor mode on] From a health point of view, CRT monitors can have serious consequences when used daily. Flickering aside, they emit small doses of EM ionizing radiation (even the latest models) in the form of UV and X-Rays - not enough to make you sick, but enough to trigger a defense response from your autonomous nervous system. The radiation greatly intensifies your blinking rate, causing minor abrasions and deforming your cornea which leads to astigmatism. Prolonged exposure to CRT electron tubes can also cause the crystalline lens to loose it's flexibility causing early onset presbyopia (polymerizing effect of x-ray radiation) . All that aside, they are perfectly safe to use occasionally for retro activities - including the oldest models - but as a doctor, I advise against prolonged use on a daily basis.

On the other side LCD monitors emit considerably higher amounts of "blue light" - particularly older CCFL-backlit models, and some newer LED-backlit models that advertise absurd contrast ratios. Long term exposure to blue light causes sleep-wake cycle disturbances, diminished sex drive and minor depression. I swear I'm not making this shit up - it's in my newer ophthalmology, endocrinology and neurology textbooks.

For me it's a combination of price, availability, space and how the image looks. LCD for me as well.

I would never advocate the regular use of a CRT monitor except for Retro purposes and even then you'd want to limit your exposure, from an OH&S issue the prevalence of LCD screens is probably the best thing to happen for office workers over the past 30 years, it must have been torturous for many users to be stuck on a CRT for 8 hours a day.

I think the the X-ray thing borders on paranoia. Literally everything will hurt or kill you with enough exposure. That said, I do find I experience more eye strain when looking at CRTs for a while so it probably isn't the best on the eyes. I am fairly sure it is the flicker that bothers me.

I have also heard that blue light causes sleep problems --- but I never seem to have that problem. I go to bed right after leaving the computer and go right to sleep.

both!. LCD has it's uses but, damn CRT has the image quality. i haven't checked out VA panels yet, the only LCD with decent black levels i hear. higher latency though. I will have a new CRT coming in the not to distant future though. It's something special there were only 3 left when i got it. I will post pics in the CRT thread when i get it.

EDIT: i have noticed eye straining on CRTs when windows defaults them to 60 hz. haven't had any on my 75 hz and 85 hz monitors.

My uncle used to rant about CRTs emitting UV but I've never found evidence of that. It's not like fluorescent tubes which natively produce UV which gets downconverted to visible light by the phosphor coating. Is there a particular TV phosphor which produces small amounts of UV as a byproduct? And if so, shouldn't the glass block most (if not all) of it? As for X-rays, the front glass is very thick and leaded so that a correctly working display won't produce detectable X-rays, coupled with safety mechanisms to shut down the display in the event of excessive high voltage.

Regarding "CRTs make you blink more", I've seen (and experienced) the exact opposite. People staring at displays for hours tend to stop blinking, leading to dry eyes.

I believe CRTs get such a bad rap from the general populace because of flicker. Bad ones are painful to use, while the crappiest of LCDs looks rock solid in comparison. Most people haven't seen a quality CRT display so it's understandable they have such prejudice.

My personal flicker threshold is kind of weird. Progressive 60Hz on low quality PC monitors flickered awfully (especially on my peripheral vision), but interlaced NTSC TV looks perfectly solid. PAL TV was also a headache-inducing flickerfest when I first experienced it, nowadays I barely notice any flicker, except for large patches of solid color which make me feel like I'm staring directly at a disco strobe light.

I love a good CRT. Bad ones are painful, though.
I'm still annoyed at the disappointing service life of my last CRT, a 19" Trinitron. I would love to have that thing in good condition today. It had all the specs I could want, and it looked better in games than any other monitor I've ever had.
As it rapidly degraded though, the picture got severely washed out and it got blurry. The blur made it unbearable to use when I was tired. Found out later that the rapid decay was a well known defect and probably could have been fixed if I knew anything about electronics or soldering back then.
I do still have an NEC 17" aperture grille CRT with a good picture. It quit working after a power outage, I'm hoping it's something simple to fix but I haven't looked into it. It's not nearly as good in specs as that old Sony was, but it has a nice picture.

I've run into a few old video cards that don't work properly on LCD monitors. All things considered I would definitely rather have a CRT on a retro game machine. For my modern desktop I'll stick with LCDs, mainly because of sharpness but also because of space. I still prefer 5:4 or 4:3 aspect ratio though.