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 wrote:

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 wrote:

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??