The CNET Lounge forum

General discussion

Should manufacturers stop building direct-view (tube) sets?

by Marc Bennett CNET staff/forum admin / September 7, 2006 7:50 AM PDT

With the increasing popularity of flat-panel TVs, should manufacturers stop building direct-view (tube) sets?

Absolutely not! (tell us why)
Probably not (tell us why)
Maybe (tell us why)
Definitely! (tell us why)
Not sure

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Should manufacturers stop building direct-view (tube) sets?
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Should manufacturers stop building direct-view (tube) sets?
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
No, CRT has the best picture
by msd1107 / September 8, 2006 2:20 AM PDT

The CRT has the best picture. The more technical literature you read, the more this conclusion is reinforced.

However, you have to live with size and weight limitations.

I remember when I went to pick up my Sony KD34 HDTV from a dealer that was getting out of direct view to concentrate on pixel based displays that every one of his demos had noticeable visual artifacts and deficiencies.

CRT are not power hogs either. Industry tests show plasma has twice the power consumption as CRTs and it is only at the smaller sizes where pixel based displays offer lower power consumption.

Technology is improving the performance of pixel based displays, but it is going to be quite awhile before they are on a par with a CRT at an equivalent price.

Collapse -
Should they stop manufacturing tube sets?

Until they figure a way to make these new and improved TVs in a more square shape; I have no intention of buying. I and several others I know, do not care for the squashed and stretched out sideway shaped TVs.

Collapse -
Tube sets still rule
by lakephillip / September 8, 2006 3:21 AM PDT

The Best total overall picture quality is still direct-view tube televisions.
They are also the most affordable for inch per inch viewing quality.
You can get a 26" WIDESCREEN tube set for $399 retail.
What kind of Plasma can you pick up for $399?

Collapse -
Tube sets still rule
by lakephillip / September 8, 2006 3:23 AM PDT

The Best total overall picture quality is still direct-view tube televisions.
They are also the most affordable for inch per inch viewing quality.
You can get a 26'' WIDESCREEN tube set for $399 retail.
What kind of Plasma can you pick up for $399?

Collapse -
Should maufacturers stop manufactuering CRTs
by rochagomes / September 8, 2006 3:44 AM PDT
In reply to: Tube sets still rule

Probably Not. Why
1. Still Cheaper
2. CRT still has the best picture quality
3. Plasma/LCDs/DLP are really cosmetic only because of Point # 2...Electronics as in engineering means you identified the most superior and cost effective solution for your design or product. Cosmetic....beauty...thin is not a valid engineering judgement or decison
4. If you want an inexpensive 3rd or 4th set or are young with little $$$ than cost is a factor (point # 1)

Collapse -
You mean what kind of LCD can you get!
by Zeppo / September 8, 2006 7:13 AM PDT
In reply to: Tube sets still rule

LCD's at the 26" size are what you would get. Plasma TV's are much larger than that, usually 32" and above.

Still, though, you must factor in the energy cost of running your CRT TV vs LCD TV over about a 7 year period. One poster here states the difference is about $200.

Therefore, the question should be: What kind of LCD TV can you pick for up to $599? There are several that come close to that.

And as time marches on, the cost of LCD's WILL continue to drop in price as they have been doing for some time now.

Collapse -
Manufacturers of picture tube TV's.
by srckidd / September 8, 2006 3:37 AM PDT

To many people seem to forget that there are a very large amount of the population that can't afford the extreme high price of new technology. For many people, the TV is thier only form of entertainment. I've been there, I know what it's like; to be lucky enough to find a TV at a garage sale or thrift store for 20 to $30.00.(that works.) I'm lucky now to have a very good paying job that I can afford alot of nice things. I could go out right now & buy a $2000.00 TV if I wanted, but my $200.00 38" Tv works just fine.(that I bought at wal-mart on sale) There is nothing wrong with keeping regular TV going for years to come, but I quess greed will win out in the end & the fat cats can reap the profits & "those" people can fend for them selves. Just food for thought. Thank you MR & Mrs America.

Collapse -
It will probably come down to economics
by GHW / September 8, 2006 4:36 AM PDT

While flat screens offer a range of advantages, not the least of which is the lower radiation output, for many people, the decision is an economic one.

While there is still a price advantage to buying a small direct-view television, there will continue to be a market for them. I suspect that this advantage will disappear by 2009.

Collapse -
Stop building Tube Sets
by georgesp / September 8, 2006 5:09 AM PDT

Actually, sony has stopped production on some CRT's.
After JAN. 1 2007, I believe Costco is no longer going to sell Tube sets. There are still some good HDTV
Tube set out there that look very good, but since HDTV, is a 16/9 media, why would you buy a Tbe set today.

Collapse -
Many reasons...
by baseman / September 8, 2006 5:57 AM PDT

There are many reasons to buy a "tube" CRT-based set. First, many say that the picture is still superior if you purchase a widescreen HDTV CRT unit. I aggee. Also, not everyone needs or can afford a 40" or 50" plasma or LCD. Plus, since many shows are still only in standard definition...not the prime time lineup, sports or movie channels...the picture quality of these broadcasts is generally worse on an HDTV. I've gone back to my old "tube" since much of what I still watch is not HD. The picture was pretty poor and I couldn't accept the trade off...for now.

Collapse -
stop making direct-view (tube) sets
by josephcr5 / September 8, 2006 6:21 AM PDT

its time for change. its been time. why produce big televisions is no one even buying them. i got rid of my tube telivision and bought a flat panel thats currently haging on my bedroom wall. tube telivisions are old. there a waste of time and labor.

Collapse -
I'll never go back to a regular TV
by glb613 / September 8, 2006 7:08 AM PDT

After high definition, it is hard to watch regular TV. But, I realize many people can't afford even the cheapest LCD, plasma or DLP TV. I think there should be low cost options for those who need it.

Collapse -
Maybe
by SujaGeorge / September 8, 2006 9:35 AM PDT

There are many users out there that don't understand the brave new world of digital TV's. I don't see all the older folks (past 70) trying to figure out all the features of the newer sets. Personally, I see no use for anything analogue...

Collapse -
CRTs - no, non-HDTV - Yes
by skywatch / September 8, 2006 9:47 AM PDT

The CRT remains an affordable alternative to get HDTV.
It should remain available as an affordable alternative to plasmas and LCDs, but only HDTV sets should be made.
I think that it's time for manufacturers to stop making non-HDTV televisions. In two and a half years they will be useless.

Collapse -
CRT Limitations
by aceruser / September 8, 2006 10:48 AM PDT

True, optimally a GOOD CTR MAY give a better picture than SOME LCDs, but consider a mid range 32 inch CRT screen, coupled with a mid to low range home theatre system.

In my case, this is just what happened. The result is a pink or blue bloom over half the screen, because the low cost ray gun is inadequately protected from the subwoofer, which in turn is inadequately shielded.

This is way more annoying than (slight) motion discrepancies from a low cost LCD screen, which as long as it has good reception and high resolution, will perform better than CRT in these circumstances.

It is probably cheaper to buy a better home theatre system if you already have a good wide screen CRT TV, otherwise I would suggest that LCD takes the biscuit every time, for a 50 to 100% price premium (hey, it's only money, live a little).

Collapse -
its called degaussing dumb/\$$...
by CathodeRayTube / September 8, 2006 12:16 PM PDT
In reply to: CRT Limitations

i have my subwoofer sitting right next to my CRT computer monitor, and when i first sat it there it did make a large magnetic "bloom" as you called it on my screen...but i degaussed my screen and its perfect now. if your tv doesent have a built in degaussing coil then it probobly is pretty low end anyway...but the problem can still be fixed by a manual degauss coil...or even...dare i say it ...(i hope this isent too technical for you) MOVE THE WOOFER AWAY FROM THE TV.

i and many other people have made many points that disporve your claims of crts being infirior to there flat counterparts, so im not going to bother repeating.

PS. if you have speakers that...dont compleatly suck, as most of the new dinky "5.1 surround" setups do, there is no need for a subwoofer at all...get some large floor speakers that have decent drivers.

Collapse -
Should manufacturers stop building direct-view (tube) sets?
by papaw1230 / September 8, 2006 10:45 AM PDT

THE PRICE TO REPAIR THE TUBE SET EXCEEDS THE COST OF THE SET.YOU COULD PAY 399 FOR A 27" SET,IF THE TUBE GOES OUT IT COULD COST UPWARDS OF 500 TO 1000.

Collapse -
Why repair a CRT when...
by BlazeEagle / September 10, 2006 12:59 PM PDT

it'd be cheaper just to buy a new CRT?

Also, is everyone arguing over just computer monitors or TV sets as well?

Collapse -
Repair or New?
by maxibemis / September 10, 2006 1:43 PM PDT

I originally thought it implied TV sets, but it seems that everyone is thinking of ANY sort of set, not just TV sets, but also computer monitors?

As for repair, my thing why I had my Sony 27'' repaired, was becuase it was either give the guy $100 bucks to put in an used tube or not have a TV set at all.
Well, not another one that was 27'' for the $100 bucks that I had.
I was too poor to buy a new set or I would of.

Now I have a 13" tube set next to my computer (which is using a CRT) and my new 32" LCD, which works fine, BTW.
Even when I have to set it to 4:3, it's still only one inche shorter, screen hight, then my 27" was.
So I don't really even notice any real difference, like I keep hearin people complain about stretched out images on TV or cropped or whatever?
Don't peoiple know how to set their sets to match what they're watching?
Not that hard, one button push changes it.

Collapse -
I understand now because...
by BlazeEagle / September 10, 2006 5:58 PM PDT
In reply to: Repair or New?

I wasn't sure what the reasons where. Sorry for misunderstanding.

Collapse -
ABSOLUTELY NOT
by duzzy / September 8, 2006 12:07 PM PDT

CRT's (picture tube TV's) should absolutely continue to be produced...Main reasons: 1) They are way, way, way less expensive than their LCD and Plasma cousins (you get way, way, way more value for your buck with a CRT TV). 2) They last way longer than the flat screens. 3) More things go wrong with plasma and LCD's more often than CRT's ; and the cost of repair (if you don't have a service plan) is way, way, way more expensive. 4)The picture quality of the high end tubers is as good as, or better than the low end, or mid-range plasma's and LCD's..(Just ask any qualified and knowledgable salesperson or repair tech).
There are more, but I believe the upsides I've noted should suffice for this discussion..Yes, the flat screens are "flashier" and "cooler" than the bulky and space-consuming CRT's; however, if your friends judge you about the TV style you have----get new friends! (or watch this beautiful picture with your cat (she/he will understand your choice).
By the way, I own a Sony 34" wide screen (model KV34XBR910 {discontinued} ) and I couldn't be happier....
Peace,

DUZZY

Collapse -
Get rid of CRT's?! Absolutely not!!!
by farhansyed / September 8, 2006 3:09 PM PDT

I do not think CRT's should be phased out/eliminated, both for televisions or computer monitors. Sure they take up more space and they're heavy, but how often do you move your TV or computer monitor?

And of course nothing beats the image quality, longevity, and ''bang for the buck'' of a good quality CRT. LCD displays frequently delaminate internally (causing lines on the screen) or the backlight burns out or starts to flicker after a couple of years. And of course the backlight is integrated into the LCD panel and cannot be changed out separately. Plasma displays suffer from burn-in and loss of brightness, again wearing out after a few years of use.

On the other hand, a GOOD quality CRT will last for 10 years or more, and its image quality will not degrade during that time.

I am more than happy with my TV's and computer monitors, all of which are standard CRT models. I don't know if they still make QUALITY CRT televisions anymore; I know that for computer monitors the only CRT's available are the cheap disposable models. That is why I kept my existing monitor (a Compaq 15'' flat CRT) even though I just purchased a new computer. If I could buy this monitor new again, I would so I could have a spare.

Collapse -
reply to poll
by rajnishsham / September 8, 2006 5:54 PM PDT

hi cnet members,
being in fieldwork regarding computers, still people like direct-view sets. the major reason for this is that they are still in the capacity of general people i.e. they can afford the cost of direct view sets.
flat screen sets are still costly. if tha manufacturers are able to reduce the cost of flat screen then the decision might be another
thank you

Rajnish (INDIA)

Collapse -
Tube sets
by pcpundit / September 9, 2006 2:00 AM PDT

Tube sets are bulky and heavy.
Moderns settings need space and conveniece.
Tube TV is outdated.
Tnx.

Collapse -
absolutely not
by goegoe / September 9, 2006 3:08 AM PDT

the primary of TV is the picture,but now those so-called HD TVs don't improve the picture greatly , we see more that are those manufacturer's boasts, by comparison ,now TVs are more light ,just in the point, ohters are in their boasts ,not to mention the way off the mark prices.

Collapse -
What ever happened to choice
by Hugh Middleborough / September 9, 2006 11:06 AM PDT

now its governments and multinational corporations making the choice for us. Not all people want the latest and greatest and some would like some stability in their purchaseing habits and some people simply don't like the picture display of a flat panel TV. While ever there is a market for these products then those of us who wish to purchase them should still be catered for.

Collapse -
What stores are people shopping at anyway?
by maxibemis / September 10, 2006 5:35 AM PDT

I don't get this bit about choice?
I still see plenty of tube sets being sold and they still will be for quite some time, but as a fading out deal.

Is everyone here that is complaining about CRTs fading out, also the same who own DVDs now?

I was pissed off when I found out that my local video store (name brand store outfit) phased out VHS tapes and I finally had to break down and buy a DVD player but I bought me one that could still let me view all my trillions of VHS tapes, I bought the combo deal.
But!, now that I'm into DVDs, I can't even see what I really liked more about VHS anyway, other then the longer recording times I could cram on one tape, but now that is even old since I now can put a decent quality video of 6hours on a single DVD, (double layer) so I'm already converted over and still have me a nice little combo set to back up all my old tapes before they all rott away.
Old school, tapes.
Tapes couldn't let me instantly jump to any part on the tape.
Tapes rot away.
New school, DVDs.
DVDs I can jump to any place I want instantly.
No rewinding.
Instant editing.

Same thing with this issue.
More advantages then not, with more coming as time goes by.
CRTs are the modern version of the old radios fading away for the TV area.
Or like back and whites being discontinued for color sets.
Zillions of people were quite happy with a cheap, inexpensive black and white set.
But look now, color is cheap and anyone can afford it and the same will come soon enough for LCDs and their ilk.

Collapse -
It'd be nice if DVDs where more durable...
by BlazeEagle / September 10, 2006 1:18 PM PDT

I don't manhandle my DVD's and their capacity is better, but I miss the relative durability of VHS tapes.

Like CD's, DVD's scratch relatively easily compared to VHS. Yes, it takes more then a flick to scratch them, but they're still relatively less durable when compared to a VHS tape.

Collapse -
DVD/VHS life span
by maxibemis / September 10, 2006 1:47 PM PDT

Well, this is true about DVDs getting scratched easier and all that, but at least they can be fixed.
Once a tape goes bad from old age, it's gone forever.
CDs can simply be resurfaced and you're back to brand new again.
Well, assuming you started with decent quality blanks or movies in the first place.
Not like those crummy blanks that are just chrome with no coating on the one side and you hold them up to the light and can see clean through them LOL
Now THOSE won't last worth a hoot.

Collapse -
I see what you mean now.
by BlazeEagle / September 10, 2006 6:01 PM PDT
In reply to: DVD/VHS life span

You make excellent points.

Popular Forums
icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

Does BMW or Volvo do it best?

Pint-size luxury and funky style

Shopping for a new car this weekend? See how the BMW X2 stacks up against the Volvo XC40 in our side-by-side comparison.