"Time to go shopping, Bob."

We have two BT-LH1760s. Never realised they could do that, will investigate further. Thanks.

Bob.

If anyone knows of a way to check for field order errors without a CRT I'll get rid of my CRTs pretty soon.

Just play the files in VirtualDub - it has display options of progressive/field order A (UFF)/field order B (LFF) - the 'field order' option which gives smoothest playback is the field order of the video. With a fast enough PC, it might be possible to do this direct from the Vegas timeline via the frameserver plug-in.

[url=http://www.virtualdub.org/] and [url=http://home.comcast.net/~fcchandler/index.html] for the MPEG-2 and VMV plugins.

Mind you, some of the content on broadcast TV these days suggests that technical quality is way down the list of priorities - field order errors, fields spatially swapped, poor quality HD -> SD conversions etc....The worrying part is that either some people don't care or (worse) don't understand what's wrong....Maybe they think that just because it's shot in HD it'll automatically be 'better' irrespective of how much it's screwed up in post-production....(time to take off my cynical hardware-engineer hat now :-)

Tony

Thanks for that, another option to look into.

What I'd like to find is a plugin that could detect the problem instead of visual inspection. Thinking this through it should be doable using motion vectors. If the motion vector goes the opposite way between fields compared to between frames fairly consistantly then the field order is wrong, kind of thing.

Reason I'm hammering this is it's an insideous problem and one that affects Vegas. I've found Vegas capable of flipping field order in its rendered output and I'd never have caught the problem without my little CRT confidence monitors.
Before anyone panics it only happens with Digibeta material captured and rendered by Vegas. Possibly it only affects PAL material.

Bob.

Jay? I don;t know what else to add other than saying that what I do on the JVC monitor is reflected on the BRAVIA -and THAT I was not convinced was going to be the case some 18 months back. However, I DO watch my work from a SONY DVD upscaler player through the HDMI port and I am more than happy with the outcome. So, when I say I can see my colour and grading work on the BRAVIA I am not disappointed - what more can I say?

Yes I looked at a comparison of a 42" LCD and a 47" Plassie and there was no contest. Details on the P{Lassie were smeary, but on the LCD they were AS the graphics designer wanted. I could see that.

Blacks on the BRAVIA were now complex and graded, this too persuaded me. I was now starting to understand the search for "black" on an LCD. But it just doesn't stop there. My last 18 months depression was that Blacks were crushed-out and there was no subtly. So, IMO, the search for "black" had kinda ironed-out subtlety - yeah? I'll leave the maths and graphs and science to Bob!

The area of development will continue to be along the lines of image enhancement and this WILL be through s/w faster and more complex chips. With CRTs, there is just so much one can do with a gun pointing at a screen scanning 625 (or whatever) lines! As I said up there somewhere, the size and impactful-experience of a large screen LCD is something we can not force back in the bottle. Once out there is no way of going back. But, as always, we are at the mercies of the R&D chappies coming with more robust and complex wang-doodles and do-hickies that will make our visual experience even more engaging, organic and visceral.

Our "eyes" are real hard task masters. And for some of us, they are majorly harsh judges too. No change there then?

Grazie

LCDs aren't bad if the surround is very bright (e.g. you have lighting turned on / going full blast).

2- On the other hand, some of the things consumer TVs do are laughable. Motionflow, noise reduction, poor de-interlacing, etc. etc.

3- Some plasmas do look good. I am sensitive to the phosphor trails on some (but not all) models.

I've said this before and call me "old fashioned" but my 34" Sony XBR HD Ultra-fine-pitch CRT TV looks pretty darned good. I've jumped on the LCD bandwagon, I have several 42" 1080P displays and they look really good, but there's something about the image produced on my 34" HD CRT that is still immensely pleasing. Of course, I occasionally still like listening to my 45-year-old McIntosh tube audio equipment, it just sounds so musical.

"but there's something about the image produced on my 34" HD CRT that is still immensely pleasing."

Yes, yes indeed. I believe it is the "glowing" time of the phos on the inside of the CRT that gives a smoothness to colours THAT a CRT can give.

LCD bandwagon? Eh . . . work in progress bandwagon - and it is STILL rolling. But at this point in time and my development and wallet, the BRAVIA is as good as I can get it in my lounge.

BTW, John, how much would an equiv 42" CRT HD cost?

Grazie

... what more can I say?

Nothing. I guess I was thinking it couldn't be as simple as that or perhaps you were glossing over the process.

Thanks!

I don't believe that anyone has ever made a 42" CRT HD television, that would require a LOT of glass. As it is, my 34" weighs in the neighborhood of 200 pounds. (90.7 kg) To my knowledge, a 40" was the largest CRT ever made and that was a 4:3 TV.

The other thing I like about my 34" is that it has no single "native" resolution, it will display whatever I throw at it in the video's native format, up to 1080i.

I've been looking forward to the release of FED (Field Emission Display) TVs, although it doesn't look like that will be happening any time soon. Essentially, it's a flat-panel TV in which each pixel is excited by its own electron beam using CRT-type phosphors.
----------------------------------------
What is FED?

The nano-Spindt FED (Field Emission Display) is a kind of FED that reproduces images using an array of nanocone emitters to excite phosphors. Taking advantage of highly efficient self-emissive phosphors combined with a line-sequential impulse drive system, this display delivers the visual performance required of a next-generation flat panel display, including a wide viewing angle, lifelike color, outstanding contrast with true black reproduction, and no-blur display of quickly moving images. It is capable of up to 240 frames per second.

"The other thing I like about my 34" is that it has no single "native" resolution, it will display whatever I throw at it in the video's native format, up to 1080i. "

I'm not certain that is possible.
Well it could be however SD would have to be displayed on a small areas of the screen.

Colour CRT's also have a native resolution, I believe.

Bob.

My 20 inch CRT was a behemoth that took over my desk and left little room for anything else. I went to LCD 5 years ago and haven't looked back. First I got a 19" Sony monitor, that produced a stunning picture. I just replaced that with a 23" hi def HP model with 1920 x 1080 resolution. I callibrate my monitors to assure color consistency My high definiton video never looked better; there is no ghosting or artifacts when viewing action films or video games.

This argument reminds me of a skit that Dana Carvey did on SNL. He ofter portrayed an old man longing for the past. Once he decried that in the "old days" huge microphones were the norm but "we liked them that way!" Technology marches on. It is conceivable for a CRT monitor to last for 20 years or more (I found a home for mine--it did not end up in a land fill); but do you really want to see your stuff on a system that is essentially obsolete. I, for one, want to approximate the experience of my viewers when editing video--the vast majority of people have LCD monitors these days. I feel I have a better idea of what my films will look like to my audience. To me that is more valueable than having blacker blacks (a subtle difference that is imperceivable to my eyes); at some point such stats get lost in our inability to really perceive the most subtle differences.

John Cline:
So your a "Toobie". You would definitely fit in on the Klipsch forum.
JJK

I've said this before and call me "old fashioned" but my 34" Sony XBR HD Ultra-fine-pitch CRT TV looks pretty darned good.
==========
My son has the 36 inch version. Someone offered him $900 for it. He didn't take it. It has an amazing picture.

John

I occasionally still like listening to my 45-year-old McIntosh tube audio equipment, it just sounds so musical.

There is one thing I am yet to see solid state audio equipment match: listening to music at a low volume.

I went to a time capsule of a store in Monrovia, California, and heard low volume music on a fairly inexpensive vacuum tube system, it was amazing. Unmatched even by several $125,000-$250,000 solid state systems I have listened to critically.

Vacuum Tubes. It's the Law.

[That would be "mu law," the transfer function of vacuum tubes. The owner of the store had the above on a bumper sticker...]

That and very few gain stages, and of course running them all in Class A (to efficient speakers).

I sure hope I'll still be able to get triodes when it's time for a hearing aid... :O).

They have a factory (FET bought it from Pioneer) and will be making professional monitors but not consumer monitors.

Do most folks here prefer LCD over Plasma?

I started looking at 32" LCD and wound up with a 42" Plasma. Very happy with it.
It's the Panasonic th42pz85u, deep blacks without losing shadow details. Very rarely any problems with motion. Very nice color (pushes reds a bit) Hard to beat at the price. (Got a good deal the day before the Super Bowl.)

The 2009 equivalent of this is the TC-P42G10 which is supposed to be much better. (New screens this year and much more energy efficient.)

LCD or Plasma..... today it really makes little difference.
With Plasma there is a bigger chance of pixel burn-in. Plasma does better in more lit rooms. LCD is rapidly becoming less expensive.
I think LCD over the last few years has taken over the field and I think they will become the standard.

I have a Samsung 52" 1080P LCD. It is amazing when watching Hi-Def Tv & Blu Ray.
I agree with previous posts regarding factory set up; most companies set the units up to be "too" bright. When you purchase your model, go online and search (google) for colour adjustments on your set, you'll be amazed at the amount of people posting their results of how to "tune" your new LCD/Plasma device properly.
I did that and I am VERY happy with the outcome.


Ted

LCD's have definitely made some strides, but from what I read, it seems like Plasma's still have better picture quality. This is especially true if you like to watch movies.

With Plasma there is a bigger chance of pixel burn-in. Plasma does better in more lit rooms.

Plasmas are much better about burn in than they used to be. Basically you only need to worry about it for the first 100-200 of set life (the first half life of the phosphors). You just need to have your Brightness and contrast set not too high when you first get your set and than after "burn in," you never need to worry about it again. Even if you have something paused on a Plasma a lot of them now have "pixel orbiting" which will move a paused image around a bit to prevent burn in. Even for folks who didn't go to the avsforums to learn all the above info, burn in on plasmas is pretty much a non-issue.

I thought LCDs did better in bright rooms? I thought that was one of the reasons they sell so well is they are very bright and tend to "pop" in TV stores. LCDs will most likely be the standard, but I still think Plasma will keep the crown for best picture quality in an affordable TV for the next several years.

I just read this in a HDGURU review of the new Panasonic G10. They really like the NEO PDP panel tehcnoology
http://hdguru.com/panasonic-tcp50g10-50-plasma-review/416/
In the past, LCDs were the only recommended flat panel technology for high ambient light environments, not any more. This display can provide high image brightness along superb motion resolution, wide viewing angles and excellent color.

Buster thanks for correcting me. I meant to say "LCD does better in more lit rooms". But then again, your post shows Plasma may be gaining on that as well.

Ted

"So your a "Toobie". You would definitely fit in on the Klipsch forum."

I'm not a dedicated Toobie by any means, I like the new, cutting-edge stuff. I just happen to also like listening to my old tube equipment occasionally. I'm not one of those people that thinks that tubes and vinyl records are the only way to listen to music, I think those people are nuts. A couple of days ago for the first time in a decade or more, I was transferring a record album for a client and I was marvelling at just how primitive the entire process was. Dragging a diamond through a plastic groove never made any sense to me even when it was the only way to obtain music.I sure don't miss the old analog LP pops, ticks, rumble and inner-groove distortion. I was always more of a reel-to-reel tape guy. There was a time when pretty much everything was available on pre-recorded commercial reel-to-reel tape. I do kind of miss the whole mechanical aspect of threading up a tape and watching the reels spin. I've got a 1" Type-C video recorder that is a real experience to see and hear in action. It scares small children. But the King of all mechanical monster video equipment was the Ampex ACR-25, it was the size of a minivan and was the video version of a hissing steam locomotive.

I did own a pair of Klipschhorns at one time and I still own four Altec-Lansing A7-500s "Voice of the Theater" speakers. I can't believe that the McIntosh MC-240 tube amplifier that I bought new for $250 in the 1960s is now a "classic" and worth close to $5,000. However, there is no such thing as "classic", highly prized and collectable video gear.

Some of the reasons old vacuum tube gear sounds so good:

1. Few and very simple gain stages, so very little phase smearing (which I think is the bane of a lot of current equipment).

2. No equalizers to bump whatever at the cost of phase linearity (with many designs).

3. Class A amplification all the way, which of course limits the practical output power, but still allows high SPL with efficient speaker designs (such as horns).

LPs were/are a royal PITB, but with good pressings feeding a high end system, they surpass CDs in several (but not all) aspects.

I wish CDs were sampled at a higher rate. Dithering seems to help the few 16 bits per word, but sample rate can't be faked...

Tubes generally produce more pleasing even-order harmonics, they are also typically high in second-order harmonics, which makes the music sound "rich." Push-pull bipolar transistor designs tend to null out the even order harmonics which leaves the less-pleasing odd-order harmonics. There are a LOT of other factors, too. I'm completely with you on Class A, but tube amps have output transformers which have phase issues and very low "damping factor", which is the amplifiers ability to control the mechanical movement of the speaker, this leads to "loose" or "floppy" bass. Also, since there is little or no negative feedback employed, the frequency response of the speaker varies dramatically with changes in impedance at different frequencies. Tubes are frought with peril, they just happen to sound "musical."

"LPs were/are a royal PITB, but with good pressings feeding a high end system, they surpass CDs in several (but not all) aspects."

Maybe on the very first play, before that diamond stylus shaved the high frequency information out of the grooves. LPs suck, always did, always will.