Choosing between 4 CRT Monitors

[laki2128]

I have the option between 4 CRT Monitors, as described in the title.

1. Elsa Ecomo 750 (Diamondtron 21" 121khz) Seller is looking for 219 Euros which is a bit out of my budget, but i could talk him down to 150 probably which is still on the edge of what i'd pay.
2. Sony CPD-E200 (17" 85kHz) Seller is looking for 20 Euros which is probably the most attractive of all these monitors. I am leaning towards purchasing this one as im pretty sure it can be winDAS'd to increase the kHz and vcap.
3. Belinea (19" 96khz) Seller is looking for 20 Euros which is good, but the sony is in a better and closer location so its easier to get. Im not sure to take this one or the Sony.
4. Olympus OEV 203 (20" PVM) This is the most attractive deal, at 210 Euros. Could talk the seller down to 150 euros and it would be a great deal. Im mainly chosing between this or the Belinea/Sony.

Thanks for reading, let me know which monitor i should take

[laki2128]

Update: The Elsa is out of the question. Its too far and is too expensive for what it is considering I have a lacie 19 iv and Dell p991

[spmbx]

I'd take the 20eur one any time. Some of your options are 10x as expensive, but will in no way come anywhere within a mile of being 10x as good.

[BazookaBen]

The last one is a SD 240p/480i monitor. It's not directly comparable to the others.

If you're trying to play 480p and/or modern HD games, the get one of the first 3. If you're trying to play classic 240p games from the 80's/90's, then get # 4.

[laki2128]

Thanks guys.
I decided on the Sony and will post a picture of it if/when i get it. I was looking at the 240p monitor to use for games but i realised that its be a hassle to connect and pretty useless compared to the sony.
Thanks again!

[BazookaBen]

pretty useless compared to the sony.

Why would it be useless compared to the Sony?

[tongshadow]

Get the OEV, CRT Monitors wont be as valuable as PVM's in the long run.

[laki2128]

pretty useless compared to the sony.

Why would it be useless compared to the Sony?

Because:
1. A pc monitor has more versatility
2. It would be a hassle to connect to pc and isnt made for displaying text, etc.
3. I live in the uk and already have two monitors. I'm going to study in germany and will keep this one there to use it once i go. On the other hand, monitors are really easy ti find in germany if you can drive, so i could wait.
4. The sony is cheaper (doesnt make the oev useless though)

[laki2128]

Get the OEV, CRT Monitors wont be as valuable as PVM's in the long run.

Problem with the pvm is that its use case is more limited. I can use the monitor for games AND text, whereas the pvm for games only and thats also annoying to connect to pc, so it would mainly be for consoles. if i were to get a pvm it would have to be 480p for stuff like xbox 360. plus this is gonna be for work and uni so its more important then a pvm for games only.

[tongshadow]

If you're on a budget, then I suppose a good CRT monitor could deliver a good performance compared to cheap flat panels. But a good modern display will outperform any CRT for PC use, specially now that high performance OLED monitors are finally available.
In contrast, the PVM will always remain relevant due to being a high quality analog display, there's really no modern replacement or equivalent to it.

[laki2128]

If you're on a budget, then I suppose a good CRT monitor could deliver a good performance compared to cheap flat panels. But a good modern display will outperform any CRT for PC use, specially now that high performance OLED monitors are finally available.
In contrast, the PVM will always remain relevant due to being a high quality analog display, there's really no modern replacement or equivalent to it.

What are you talking about. You have clearly never used CRTs. Crts (at least for me) provide no eye strain, better contrast ratio than any lcd panel, way better response time, refresh rate and motion clarity, better black floor and more. OLED's are better contrast-wise and black level wise, but do not have better refresh rate OR motion clarity/response time. The CRT monitor can produce images better than any PVM made (apart from maybe the BVM-A32). There is NO equivalent to the CRT monitor. CRT monitors are also analog.

Sorry for the rant lol.

[orange808]

Higher refresh rates may reduce eye strain, but you're still putting hours on a CRT for no tangible reason. Furthermore, I've been staring at the white backgrounds inside of IDE's for decades and I can tell you for certain that a flicker free LCD is easier on my eyes.

For content creation, your display has to show you a mastered image of what the audience will see all day during the week. Old worn CRTs are unlikely to provide that for very long and they don't do HDR. Furthermore, I need to see and evaluate a master of what people will see at the movies on a 3DLP light cannon or in their homes on an OLED. I can see the possibile effects of persistence blur, studder, and micro studder. Same thing applies for creating assets (while that lasts, because machine learning will end that career path soon). A CRT can't show me the colors or the motion that viewers will see and experience. That won't work.

For audio, high refresh rates are better than motion resolution for audio software. Although, the biggest latency concerns aren't display related. It's also easier to incorporate a digital display around audio gear.

Yes. I've used a CRT and I can't think of even one viable and profitable use case for a CRT while working. Furthermore, I'm scared LCD will go away, because it's very durable and dependable for a lot of important (but mundane) utility uses.

[laki2128]

Higher refresh rates may reduce eye strain, but you're still putting hours on a CRT for no tangible reason. Furthermore, I've been staring at the white backgrounds inside of IDE's for decades and I can tell you for certain that a flicker free LCD is easier on my eyes.

For content creation, your display has to show you a mastered image of what the audience will see all day during the week. Old worn CRTs are unlikely to provide that for very long and they don't do HDR. Furthermore, a digital display will show me a master of what people will see at the movies on a 3DLP light cannon or in their homes on an OLED. I can see the possibile effects persistence blur, studder, and micro studder. Same thing applies for creating assets (while that lasts, because machine learning will end that career path soon).

For audio, high refresh rates are better than motion resolution for audio software. Although, the biggest latency concerns aren't display related. It's also easier to incorporate a digital display around audio gear.

Yes. I've used a CRT and I can't think of even one viable and profitable use case for a CRT while working. Furthermore, I'm scared LCD will go away, because it's very durable and dependable for a lot of important (but mundane) utility uses.

Hours on them??? > Thats what they're made for. I run 1600x1200 @85hz flicker free and trust me, try a properly calibrated crt like my lacie electron blue 19 IV which has a black floor of 0.01 and high of 100 nits (can be higher just not optimal) and your eyes will forgive you for all the pain youve put them through . There is ZERO flicker on 80hz or above on crt. My crt does 2.2 gamma and 10000:1 contrast ratio, blowing the water with lcd's. its not about the high refresh, but the motion clarity and persistence. HDR isnt needed on these to look good. Most people would be better off using crts for work (apart from some specific fields like your image mastering). There are viable usecases for using them while working: No eye strain, better resolutions than most lcds, smoother, etc. crts can reach up to 80k hours and beyond which is almost impossible for any LCD to achieve.

[laki2128]

also durability is truly another selling point for the CRT.
mine is super durable and will likely last forever

[orange808]

I don't even know where to begin responding to all that and it's not even worth it. Enjoy your monitor.

[laki2128]

I don't even know where to begin responding to all that and it's not even worth it. Enjoy your monitor.

Thanks. This shows that CRTs are truly better. There's nothing to argue

[BazookaBen]

Because:
1. A pc monitor has more versatility

That's true in the grand scheme, you can run 480p at the lowest, up to 1200p and beyond depending on monitor, but it won't do direct 240p from an old console. You'd need a Retrotink or OSSC. Even with those, the artificial scanline options are limited and don't approach the look of a real 15kHz CRT (like the OEV/PVM)

With emulators, you can run more complex scanline shaders at high resolutions like 1920x1440 @ 60hz. And it can start to look good. But still not an "authentic" 240p experience

[bobrocks95]

Doesn't sound like this guy's playing games necessarily, since text rendering keeps coming up. Anyone else on this forum probably would gladly pick up a 20" PVM for 210 Euros. A friend of mine just made a 6 hour round trip after work one day to pick up a 20" PVM for $400 USD and he though that was a steal...

[BazookaBen]

A friend of mine just made a 6 hour round trip after work one day to pick up a 20" PVM for $400 USD and he though that was a steal...

A little over 5 years ago and you could find places that couldn't give them away. Reddit changed everything

[tongshadow]

If you're on a budget, then I suppose a good CRT monitor could deliver a good performance compared to cheap flat panels. But a good modern display will outperform any CRT for PC use, specially now that high performance OLED monitors are finally available.
In contrast, the PVM will always remain relevant due to being a high quality analog display, there's really no modern replacement or equivalent to it.

What are you talking about. You have clearly never used CRTs. Crts (at least for me) provide no eye strain, better contrast ratio than any lcd panel, way better response time, refresh rate and motion clarity, better black floor and more. OLED's are better contrast-wise and black level wise, but do not have better refresh rate OR motion clarity/response time. The CRT monitor can produce images better than any PVM made (apart from maybe the BVM-A32). There is NO equivalent to the CRT monitor. CRT monitors are also analog.

Sorry for the rant lol.

Why are you so quick to assume I havent? Having owned numerous CRTs, and other display technologies, I understand that are advantages and downsides to each of them. None of them are perfect but there's a sweet spot where the sum of the advantages is bigger than the downsides, and taking into account a modern context, CRT monitors are below LCDs and OLEDs.

Response times.
OLEDs are nearly instantenous as well, and the fastest LCDs are quick enough to not cause ghosting. If you're refering to display lag, most of them are below 10ms@60hz. If we're talking about 360hz displays it gets as low as 2ms. So even if we assume CRTs have "0ms display lag", is this difference big enough to justify using one?

Contrast ratio.
Some LCDs already offer local dimming, so if contrast ratio is important to you these models are available.

Refresh Rate
This is where CRTs lose, they can only reach higher refresh rates by sacrificing resolution, reducing picture quality considerably. I dont know how fast your CRT is, but try using it at 144hz. It will only be possible at very low resolutions and it WONT look pretty. Consider that even cheap LCDs can do 144hz but at much higher resolutions, improving picture quality and fidelity, and you'll see CRTs lose in this area.

Motion Clarity
CRTs at 60hz are better than LCD and OLEDs. Hah, bet you didnt expect that. However this is mostly due to manufacturers being lazy, good BFI/Strobing implementation are capable of greatly improving motion clarity and closing the gap between LCD/OLEDs and CRTs. Look at how good the Viewsonic XG2431 LCD is at 60hz: https://www.rtings.com/assets/pages/q2a ... -large.jpg
BenQ's DyAc+ and ULMB2 are also impressive, even though they only work at higher refresh rates (which is ideal for modern content anyways): https://www.rtings.com/assets/pages/M5b ... -large.jpg
The only advantage the CRT has here is at 60hz. But there's also another option for 60hz content that has none of the CRT issues: Plasma TVs (yes, I'll always mention them whenever possible )

And now it's time to mention the flaws. CRTs have issues when it comes to scalability (no large sizes available), geometry, uniformity (focus/convergence/purity), resolving higher resolutions and text clarity. Also, the fact that majority of content is 16:9, and most CRTs are 4:3, means there will be even more loss in resolution (aka black bars). I'm also ignoring the fact most CRTs are worn out by now, potentially making the picture even less than ideal.


Overall, the only area where CRTs still fare better than modern offerings are: Motion Clarity and maybe Contrast Ratio. In all other aspects modern displays perform just as good or better, without none of the issues CRT technology has AND while also offering modern technologies like VRR and HDR. Motion Clarity can be mitigated by choosing a display that has good Strobing/BFI implementation, and Contrast Ratio by choosing LCDs with local dimming zones or an OLED. In this case, any advantages the CRT still has just become smaller and harder to justify.

And that's why, imo, it makes little sense to use CRT if one can afford a better modern display, all things considered. CRTs are still cool for old games though.

[laki2128]

Because:
1. A pc monitor has more versatility

That's true in the grand scheme, you can run 480p at the lowest, up to 1200p and beyond depending on monitor, but it won't do direct 240p from an old console. You'd need a Retrotink or OSSC. Even with those, the artificial scanline options are limited and don't approach the look of a real 15kHz CRT (like the OEV/PVM)

With emulators, you can run more complex scanline shaders at high resolutions like 1920x1440 @ 60hz. And it can start to look good. But still not an "authentic" 240p experience

If I ever do play games on it, it would be pc games/Wii, ps3 and Xbox 360 so no 240p. I might just try and pick up both although that is highly unlikely.