ScooBStu

I was considering buying one after seeing a mates although the picture quality was rubbish - I put it down to it being a cheap one which is probably partly to do with it.

Went to a few shops and watched them - Even the bloody expensive ones and they are just plain cr@p to be honest - There is no way I am gonna get rid of my Phillips CRT for one of them.

They were all lined up and the CRT picture quality was far far better.

Anyone have any differing opinions? I likened them to the blocky rubbishy pitures of rear projection TV's.

Bit gutted as I wanted one but it will annoy the hell out of me!!!

jowl

I would imagine in a place like dixons/currys they wouldn't get the best out of them. They probably have one analogue ariel to a splitter

Could you compare the quaility on a CRT V LCD using a sky digital / Freeviw input?

What about when playing a DVD?

My analogue CRT is pretty poor but with a digital input the picture is great

jameswrx

iTrader: (4)

I've seen a decent sony one and the only thing that impressed me was the look of the thing as an ornament!

Butkus

I agree with you. I was in the Panasonic shop in Guildford talking to the guy in there about the different TVs. I said to him that I thought the LCD and Plasma screens were very bad quality. He said "what do you mean?" So I said that he should look at LCD screen next to the ordinary TV and the picture was just plain awful. The picture doesn't look real and all the colours are 'off'. I admit the screen that was playing a DVD looked better, but the other screens in there all showing the same TV programme really highlighted the difference.

Would an LCD screen hooked up to Sky Digital be a lot better than what I saw in this shop, because from what I've seen so far I wouldn't bother with LCD?

ScooBStu

Not just me then - My girlfreind even noticed the difference and that surprised me. There were LCD tv's next to standard CRT's and I presume they were fed from the same aerial and the picture was horrendous really in comparison. I went into richer sounds and they had all of theirs running a DVD - No surprise then as the picture was a lot better.
I was prepared to buy one but I think I will stick with the CRT which I have got!!!

jameswrx

iTrader: (4)

No..

I've seen this exact setup on a high end lcd and it was awfull. The picture was covered in huge dots over certain colours. Did look ok with a DVD on, but what do you watch more.

ScooBStu

People must only really buy them for the wow look at my TV thing - No dont turn it on please we are socialising!!!!

Petem95

I cant see why LCD TV's should be poor quality - just look at the picture quality of some LCD monitors. I recently replaced a high quality CRT monitor with a good TFT, and the image is fantastic - as good as the CRT without doubt.

Why should TFT Tv's be that different to monitors? Theyre displaying a lower resolution image generally, but few other differences really.

andrewdelvard

Yeah we went for a look at a few LCD screen tvs and were completely underwhelmed. No thanks.

Luminous

iTrader: (3)

LCD's are not going to be that good for a little while longer I think. The technology is not yet ready.

They seem to be starting to be really good for PCs as monitors. I'm not sure why they cannot get it right for the TVs

Angry

CRT is still best for die hard picture quality, for both TV and PC's. However I do find a TFT much easier on the eye when using a PC for work related stuff like e-mail, spreadsheets etc, but for games or movies I'd pick a high quality CRT every time.

Petem its all about how fast the pixels can change colour, their response time. The slower they are the worse the picture quality. Also some TFT's have noticeable problems with tracing, especially with very dark colours.

As response time decreases and pixel size decreases we will see better picture quality, its getting better all the time.

misty

I have a Sanyo 20" LCD TV in the front room. It's a good quality screen, good sound, and far less intrusive than an equivalant CRT TV! As for PC's there is simply no comparison between LCD and CRT, LCD will win every time! why? no flicker at very low refresh rates, and if you get a good fast (10-12 ms) response time LCD, then they will play games just as well as any CRT. IMHO of course.
dave

ozzy

The problem isn't necessarily the LCD panel itself, but more the actual source. My brother has a 27" LCD and the quality is excellent on DVI sources and XBox through S-Video.

Stick a aerial connection and watch terrestrial TV and it's cr@p. Sky via RGB or S-Video is much better.

For sat/terrestrial I still prefer a 50Hz CRT, but for gaming or DVD's I like LCD/Plasma.

misty

Agree mate, But for better picture quality I have a 100hz flicker free in the back room, this allows for pic in pic and freeze frame.
dave

davegtt

Correct, the fact that the LCD screen is of higher quality it will show the poor input feed, Sky for example, even being a digital source can and will look sh!te ona plasma/LCD without the need for high quality Scart leads.... hopefully in a couple of years when sky pull their finger out of their backsides and ditch Thomson and really roll out HDTV then we'll see which sets are superior, until then 90% of people will stick by their CRT sets. especially when veiwing flat panel TVs in currys or dixons, you'll never see what theyre capable of.

NeilT

I have a 32" Philips 'Pixel Plus 2' LCD screen and the picture, via standard co-ax from the Sky Digital feed is fairly poor. However I also have Svideo wired to it, which is a whole different ball game - crystal clear, very sharp and vibrant colours.

I tend to watch DVD, Xbox via Svideo, and the run of the mill TV on the co-ax.

So in answer to the question, no they are not rubbish quality (assuming you get a decent one), they just tend to show the flaws in the signal more than a CRT.

Loads of info on LCD tv's on www.avforums.com if you want to look into it further

Just my two-pennieth..

Neil

CooperS

I saw a "high definition" tv in Dixons yesterday, for £7999

It was mahoooooosive

Very good quality too.

My gran's got an LCD tv, don't think it's that good either

http://www.dixons.co.uk/martprd/stor...m=null&tm=null

I particularly like their offer on the starter pack at the bottom

lightning101

Emperors new clothes syndrome.

WRXtra power

You cant experience HDTV quality yet. Although the sets are rolling out into the shops, there is no HDTV signal being broadcast yet so all you were seeing was analogue/digital or DVD at best.

As for LCD quality, I agree the picture quality is poor but you are reducing the costs of a Plasma screen. I have a 50" Pioneer Plasma and am more than happy with the quality of picture I am seeing.

Also the signal being sent by broadcasters is not really designed for very large screens (anything over 34") so you will lose some definition due to the image being blown up, just as you would if you enlarged a photo beyond its standard size.

Daryl

My 26" LCD in the bedroom looks great and it cost less than £500. If I want to get fussy about picture quality, the 90" screen in the HT is just the job

CRT gives great quality, but it is also extremely compromised - just waiting for the Philips in the lounge to give up the ghost and it'll be replaced by a flat screen

Listy

Guys please note the following---

It's only as good as what you put in !

If your signal isn't 100% and your leads are naff it will greatly exagerate the poor quality.

Plasma is no different.

CooperS

I've got a 28 inch crt that I bought from tesco's 6 years back, does me well enough

davegtt

Not strictly true, you can get DVD with Hi Def on them and hi def DVD players.... should see you a quality picture, the fact that its not mainstream yet is the issue

WRXtra power

I was not aware of this. I stand corrected.

G_Sleigh_STi

There is a massive thread about this osme where with technical information.


LCD is better than Plasma, we have 3 42" screens, 2 LCD and 1 Plasma, the LCD's are so so so so much better BUT they all have faults. BIG faults.

man its a long story to type what to look out for, how to get the best you can out of them, i will look for that thread.

WRXtra power

????? Me thinks not!! Where are you getting this cr*p?

I have been involved in the Home Cinema Industry for about 5 years for a well established high grade dealer. What brands are you comparing for the above?

Agreed they all have their faults, but LCD better than Plasma???? Absolute RUBBISH.

You get what you pay for.........

G_Sleigh_STi

O.k well my LCD's and Plasma's are all runinng through a Sky+ box each.

We have had around 7 Plasmas and a head of curries and Toshiba came to see us because they were litterally bringing one and taking one away each with with our complaints.

They sat down and basically said "look, the quality you are after is not possible, what can we do to get you guys happy?"

When watching normal TV the destortion on the faces is shocking and DVD's are slightly better.

You can play with all the settings you like but we have bought them from £1999-£4999 and just cant find one that performs that well.

As i said the LCD's seem to have the same problems but not to the same levels.

I am just going on experience chap.

WRXtra power

lol @ Currys + Toshiba, Very Low end. If you want good quality you need to pay the guys who originally developed Plasma (rather than the copycats).



Pioneer have won numerous awards for their Plasma range. Unfortunately too many people are buying the likes of Daewoo, Toshiba etc and are expecting to see a new dimension in quality. Unfortunately if you want cutting edge technology you have to buy the best.



Also Plasma's and large LCD's are designed to be viewed in a cinematic environment, ie not 1 meter away (high street store conditions). The dealer is correct though, what you want to see is not possible. The signals sent either analogue or digital are not designed to be shown on such large screens, therefore the image is blown beyond its capabilities and becomes pixelated which is why you need to watch them from at least 2.5 meters (which you would anyway to enjoy the 5.1 sound system that is a must for the big screen).

If you are looking for low budget screen then I would actually recommend LCD. Budget Plasma's are very poor quality and a LCD of equal price would be superior. But if you have the money to spend then you cant do better than a top of the range Plasma.

G_Sleigh_STi

Ah fair play then.

We have a store in Nottingham called Seven Oaks that only deal with high end equipment. I must admit they have some units for around the £7000 mark which appear to be hugely different in quality, BUT they are running high definition in their shop to show of the quality of all their products. Which i would say is upfair because we do get this yet as standard in this country.

In our cinema room i we are thinking of going for a 200" rear projector BUT once again trying to get the quality from one of them is so difficult. You got to spend about £3000 on a projector and even then in perfect dark its just not got the quality i dont think.

Saying that Seven oaks send a team around to set it up correctly and get the best from your set up. So that should be an interesting route that we are taking.

TelBoy

Excuse my ignorance, but why is the slave labour that builds Pioneer televisions any different to that which builds Toshiba? In my experience you've just been won over by a Pioneer sales rep, as Toshiba televisions keep a LOT of people happy, because they're pretty good in most respects. They're not at different ends of a spectrum, not within the mass-produced mainstream market at least. Daewoo i have no idea about.

Agree about LCD though - i get frustrated with the compression on digital transmissions on a flagship 100mHz CRT television, and from what i've seen of LCD, it's all but unwatchable. It seems strange that television is one area of technology where standards seem to have regressed. My current CRT really isn't a patch on the 1980s model it replaced in terms of picture quality, even though on paper it should trounce it.