Hi everyone

We had a debat here does vintage b&o sound better I think it would be interresting to have a debat about picture quality on lcd/plasma tv's ver picture tube tv's(mostly b&o)

regards

jan

Visitors invariably mistake my 32 DVD Avant for a high definition TV

LCD/ Plasma lets you go to larger screens with HD output keeping similar quality, but size for size you can't beat the B&O CRT. LCDs can't cope with fast movement quite as well. It'll be interesting to compare all with the new generation of LED TVs like the Samsung!

Vikinguk

With SD transmissions, CRT rules. Clearly things get trickier with HD.

A good CRT will always beat most modern LCD/plasmas. However, bear in mind that a CRT will only go up to 32". That's now not large enough for most people, who demand 40/50/65" and so on. This is the main benefit from a flatpanel. The other benefit is the dimension - those new Samsungs are wafer thin. OLED is even thinner. Try doing that with a CRT.

I expect a BV9 or BV7-40 MKIV to be close to a recent Avant with a HD or Blu-ray picture. As I said, you can get a 50" BV9 or a 65" BV4. I couldn't watch a 32" for movies now I'm used to my 40".

Until the majority of TV is transmitted in HD, exactly what is the point of a HD TV? People are already talking about upgrading to later versions of HD sets, yet the majority of broadcasts are SD. Why? Why? Why? Do you just want to watch DVDs through third party DVD players?

Whilst we're at it - how chavvy are 40"+ panels? Why, oh why, oh why?

I'm in my flame-proof undercrackers, so please fire away.

j0hnbarker:

Until the majority of TV is transmitted in HD, exactly what is the point of a HD TV? People are already talking about upgrading to later versions of HD sets, yet the majority of broadcasts are SD. Why? Why? Why? Do you just want to watch DVDs through third party DVD players?

Whilst we're at it - how chavvy are 40"+ panels? Why, oh why, oh why?

I don't see the 'point' you are trying to make? Almost as if you're convincing yourself you don't more than a 32", HD, Blu-ray and so on.

My old BV7-32 is tiny compared to the 40". I prefer the 40". I'm not saying I want anything larger than that, but I definitely don't want to go back. Also, what happens if you have a large room? It's often better to have the larger screen.

Most movies are available in HD, most sport and so on. Fair enough most of it is SD, but I ain't going back to an old CRT on the basis of 'just because'. Move on John :)

I think that people are accepting larger tv's purely for the fact that with crt it had a lot behind the screen, so the bigger the screen the more of your living room you gave up!!

I agree about hd is not taking over as yet, so the need for a hd set is not paramount.  But I think its a fashion thing with tv's like 100hz was!  People look at you like you have stolen a tenner out of there wallet if your new tv isn't hd.

I think that cheap large flatscreen's are awful! But thats why I am a member of beoworld not bekoworld!

My avant 32 rf gets mistaken for hd as well.

Just my 5 pence  

Flat panels LCD in my case are so much easier on my eyes.

I would agree that earlier LCD models had a problem coping with fast movement but that seems to be a thing of the past.

SD transmissions are meant for the CRT and HD seems meant for the flats. There is your difference in qualities. I suppose that boils down to horizontal and vertical lines and interlacing and what Hz and so on.

I am not really sure if you can even buy a brand new CRT TV in the US anymore I havent seen one on a store shelf for a couple years.

For a very brief time there were a few manufactures selling widescreen HD campatible CRT TV's but they were huge sets and not very popular.

Have you ever thought that most broadcasters can't 'afford' or justify moving to HD, because so many people are still using CRTs? Who breaks this cycle? Sky had 1 million HD customers, but it's still only a small fraction of the number of TV sets in the UK.

I doubt broadcasters would ditch SD and move over to HD in a hurry as it costs so much to produce HD content (new sets required, more expensive cameras and post-production).

I go back home and watch an old CRT and still think it has excellent PQ. However, I come back here, power up the PS3 and one benefit of a large 1080p screen is that they can be played and viewed in their intended 'glory'.

moxxey:

I don't see the 'point' you are trying to make? Almost as if you're convincing yourself you don't more than a 32", HD, Blu-ray and so on.

My old BV7-32 is tiny compared to the 40". I prefer the 40". I'm not saying I want anything larger than that, but I definitely don't want to go back. Also, what happens if you have a large room? It's often better to have the larger screen.

Most movies are available in HD, most sport and so on. Fair enough most of it is SD, but I ain't going back to an old CRT on the basis of 'just because'. Move on John :)

You're already moving on before the majority of transmissions have caught up with you - that's part of the point I was making. I just don't get it. You're so far ahead of the curve that you're actually thinking about replacing a HD set that won't work in HD for the majority of transmissions here in the UK. Surely that's a bit questionable?

How big is your living room BTW? Mine is 25' long and my 28" Avant is more than enough. I do have good eyesight and good central heating though. Perhaps this is why I don't hanker after a huge screen hung on my wall??

moxxey:

Have you ever thought that most broadcasters can't 'afford' or justify moving to HD, because so many people are still using CRTs? Who breaks this cycle? Sky had 1 million HD customers, but it's still only a small fraction of the number of TV sets in the UK.

I doubt broadcasters would ditch SD and move over to HD in a hurry as it costs so much to produce HD content (new sets required, more expensive cameras and post-production).

I go back home and watch an old CRT and still think it has excellent PQ. However, I come back here, power up the PS3 and one benefit of a large 1080p screen is that they can be played and viewed in their intended 'glory'.

The limiting factor to the spread of HD isn't the number of CRT TV's out there. In technical terms it is  simple to provide an SD stream of the same program. The limiting factors at the moment are availability of HD Content and bandwidth.

CRT TV is still the best option for most day-to-day TV watching, even though in the longer Long term CRT is dead in the water, which is why  CRT TV's are exclusively low-end budget models these days. We will all be upgrading in the end, but I am happy to wait for now.

Simon

I'm still in awe of the picture on my CRT (Avant & MX) and find that the picture is much better than any of my friend's Flat Panel TVs. They all agree too.

I guess sometimes 'Size doesn't matter'

In Aus, we have channels ONEsport,ABC1, SBS, SEVEN, NINE, TEN, ABC2, SBSnews... ok, and all of these are avail in SD and HD. (Yes foxtel is available, but seriously, life is too busy to justify having 1 billion channels repeating the same movies).

So for me personally, it doesn't matter whether or not the content is HD or SD. I couldn't be happier with a 32" SD CRT > i have a small house, the picture is yet to be beaten in my eyes - nothing beats it when it comes to the natural colour, movement and complete abscence of mechanical & electronic noise. The best part? It's cheap as chips, and the BV3's design is still mistaken for being a flat panel TV.

Ok, this is my first reply on BeoWorld, so forgive me if I make a particular "faux pas".

I currently have a 32" Avant with a standard Sky box fitted at the back, and I think the picture I get from it is nothing short of superb! Ok, if I want to play on the x-box the picture suffers a little but overall I think the picture I get from my tv beats many new LCD's hands down. Couple that with the sound that comes out of it and i'd like to see and hear a "mass produced" LCD do that!

A friend of mine recently bought an LG  42" LCD TV, he read all the relevant reviews for it and made sure he got the latest model and paid a very tidy sum for it, but the picture and sound from it are awful! Ok, plug in an x-box/ps3 and the HD cables make a difference with picture, but again a standard def picture isn;t anything close to my 9 year old Avant.

Cranking the sound up on "Guitar Hero" the other evening, ( I know, i'm old enough to know better!) and friends were just amazed. (Though doubt the neighbours were!).

I love my Avant and HD television content is not high on my agenda, and it's only available in a limited way here in the UK, so why would i want to change?

Plus I can;t find my wife's credit card to go and buy a new BV7-40. Damn, where has she hidden it!!??

I think there is a bit of performance vs. quality.  It depends on what you need or want most.  I love having my BV4 at home but when it comes to critical monitoring only my Sony Professional CRT Reference monitor at my studio would work.  Likewise, my Avant will outperform almost any other consumer TV in terms of performance.  Brightness, contrast and black levels are outstanding!  As for quality I feel like I've got a bit of a ferrari that looks and performs great but I'm counting the days before it needs a tweaking.  

Like most technologies and their analog counterparts (Phonograph/CD, Internal combustion/Electric) there seems to be a distinct qualitative/quantitative curve in terms of performance.

Interesting thread.

Well, I'm also adicted to my BV3-32 picture quality on SD and I'm pretty much an SD consummer, so I could say I'm pretty well set up until HD becomes widely established as the standard. However, I've moved to a large detached house outside of the city. My living room is quite big and the BV3 is clearly not up to the challenge. What is the best compromise solution for somebody that needs a large screen but demands good SD quality??

I would say that BV7-40 is the best combination that will work well with both contents (If I only had the 11k euro I need to get it). Or perhaps a BV8-40?

If my living room's size was not an Issue, I could live easily another 2 years with my BV3.

After CRT I personally think Plasma offers the best performance.  Not to mention bang for your buck right now.  The Panasonic Professional plasmas are a great value and integrate well with the BS3, although I know many people are partial to Pioneer.  

However, if they are still offering the discounted, Non-DVD version of the BV7-40 then I would spring for that.  That was an incredible deal as it actually was cheaper than the BS3 that it came bundled with.

oh dear, i am setting foot in a tv thread 

i have ~5 tv's running at any given time.

i would rate them from best to worst as...

1.) 30" philips crt (HD): 100% HD content / avant 32: 100% SD content

2.) 42" panny plasma: 100% HD content

3.) mx5000: 100% SD content

4.) 28" philips crt: 100% SD content

so, IMHO, the crt's still dominate whether HD or SD. the philips 30" is truly remarkable, and yes, people often ask me if the avant is HD as well.

if i could only keep one, i would miss my HD content because it would have to be the avant for everything else that it represents and does for me. i just love it.

Ditto to nearly all of you!
The Avant is truly wonderful, both with sound and with picture.  32" is all I will ever need in this house.
Oh, and I'm with j0hn on this too. So many people just get a bigger tv to out-do their pals. I live in a house, not a castle.

Andy T.

beobeo:

Interesting thread.

Well, I'm also adicted to my BV3-32 picture quality on SD and I'm pretty much an SD consummer, so I could say I'm pretty well set up until HD becomes widely established as the standard. However, I've moved to a large detached house outside of the city. My living room is quite big and the BV3 is clearly not up to the challenge. What is the best compromise solution for somebody that needs a large screen but demands good SD quality??

I would say that BV7-40 is the best combination that will work well with both contents (If I only had the 11k euro I need to get it). Or perhaps a BV8-40?

If my living room's size was not an Issue, I could live easily another 2 years with my BV3.

Why dont you get a projector?

This is a real minefield - and can be quite subjective regarding screen size/room ratio.....and as analogue SD will simply not be an option for much longer, its not just a matter of preference really.

I am continually amazed by the picture I see on my much -loved Avant 28DVD, fed content via a SKY HD box and using a decent scart.

Obviously there is no HD connectivity - but the quality of the broadcast/tuner is still a benefit over standard SKY (and the hard drive is huge).  With a decent scart, the image is superb, and without HD subscription, there are still good things to see via BBC HD.

For panels, we use the factor of 4 - 5 times the screen width away for SD viewing, when planning a room layout.  As others have said - a lot of the issues with panels are the "too-big-too-close" installations that are all too common.

timhanna:

beobeo:

Interesting thread.

Well, I'm also adicted to my BV3-32 picture quality on SD and I'm pretty much an SD consummer, so I could say I'm pretty well set up until HD becomes widely established as the standard. However, I've moved to a large detached house outside of the city. My living room is quite big and the BV3 is clearly not up to the challenge. What is the best compromise solution for somebody that needs a large screen but demands good SD quality??

I would say that BV7-40 is the best combination that will work well with both contents (If I only had the 11k euro I need to get it). Or perhaps a BV8-40?

If my living room's size was not an Issue, I could live easily another 2 years with my BV3.

Why dont you get a projector?

There's too much light in the living room and it would be difficult to keep on pulling up and down the curtains so often. I'm planning to have a projector for the attic though, for weekend usage.

I'm glad that people are buying huge LCD and Plasma screens as it brought the price of the Avant down to a price I could afford. I also get the same comments - A friend has a SONY 32" HD LCD and that's superb on Blue Ray, but on SD the Avant is better. 

vikinguk:

Visitors invariably mistake my 32 DVD Avant for a high definition TV

LCD/ Plasma lets you go to larger screens with HD output keeping similar quality, but size for size you can't beat the B&O CRT. LCDs can't cope with fast movement quite as well. It'll be interesting to compare all with the new generation of LED TVs like the Samsung!

 

Vikinguk

A friend of mine who is a TV presenter came round last night, took one look at the picture on my Avant and said, wow that's a great HD picture!

bandoboy:

Ok, this is my first reply on BeoWorld, so forgive me if I make a particular "faux pas".

I currently have a 32" Avant with a standard Sky box fitted at the back, and I think the picture I get from it is nothing short of superb! Ok, if I want to play on the x-box the picture suffers a little but overall I think the picture I get from my tv beats many new LCD's hands down. Couple that with the sound that comes out of it and i'd like to see and hear a "mass produced" LCD do that!

A friend of mine recently bought an LG  42" LCD TV, he read all the relevant reviews for it and made sure he got the latest model and paid a very tidy sum for it, but the picture and sound from it are awful! Ok, plug in an x-box/ps3 and the HD cables make a difference with picture, but again a standard def picture isn;t anything close to my 9 year old Avant.

Cranking the sound up on "Guitar Hero" the other evening, ( I know, i'm old enough to know better!) and friends were just amazed. (Though doubt the neighbours were!).

I love my Avant and HD television content is not high on my agenda, and it's only available in a limited way here in the UK, so why would i want to change?

Plus I can;t find my wife's credit card to go and buy a new BV7-40. Damn, where has she hidden it!!??

.