Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 2/4/2006 7:52:06 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/5/2006 10:42:00 AM EDT by DrMark]
I'm in the market for a 36" CRT 4:3 HDTV.

It seems there are a lot fewer of these on the market than there were couple of years ago. Is that because the manufactuers rather push pla$ma and LCD and projection TVs in the >32" category? Any ideas?

Link Posted: 2/4/2006 7:54:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/4/2006 7:55:11 AM EDT by Burley]
Sony

www.circuitcity.com/ssm/Sony-36-TV-KD-36FS130-/sem/rpsm/oid/127524/catOid/-12868/rpem/ccd/productDetail.do

And get a sturdy TV stand/entertainment center. My brother-in-law has a 36" Sony and it weighs damn near 200 lbs. It was a bitch to unload and move into his house.
Link Posted: 2/4/2006 7:54:53 AM EDT
You will find more of a variety if you go 16:9 instead of 4:3 I would suspect
Link Posted: 2/4/2006 8:05:37 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/4/2006 8:05:52 AM EDT by Emoto]
Stay away from Sony. As great as they were many years ago is how bad they are today. I must know 5 people personally whose Sony TV picture tubes went south within months of running out of warranty.

I have a 32" CRT HDTV and it is great. Zenith, FWIW, but I have no idea how they rate overall. I bought it as a close-out floor model for less than the 20 hyear old TV it replaced cost when it was new.
Link Posted: 2/4/2006 8:20:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Emoto:
Stay away from Sony. As great as they were many years ago is how bad they are today. I must know 5 people personally whose Sony TV picture tubes went south within months of running out of warranty.



That's not encouraging.

All I've found so far is a Sony.
SonyKD36XS955

Well, there's always "extended service plans."

Link Posted: 2/4/2006 8:25:57 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Burley:
Sony

www.circuitcity.com/ssm/Sony-36-TV-KD-36FS130-/sem/rpsm/oid/127524/catOid/-12868/rpem/ccd/productDetail.do

And get a sturdy TV stand/entertainment center. My brother-in-law has a 36" Sony and it weighs damn near 200 lbs. It was a bitch to unload and move into his house.



Yeah that's the configuration I'm looking at, but in an HDTV version.

I have a TV cubby hole over my gas fireplace, sized perfectly for a 36" CRT TV. As the house was being built, I came in one evening and reinforced the framing support before they sheetrocked.

The 36" CRT just seems to fill the sweet spot for what I want. Good picture quality to price ratio (cheaper than plasma/LCD) and size isn't a problem as I have the perfect space for it.

Link Posted: 2/4/2006 8:35:11 AM EDT
Buying 4:3 in HD is a very bad idea. You will regret it in the long run. All HD is broadcast in 16:9

If you just looking for a standard definition set thats alright but stay far away from 4:3HD. You will be the laughing stock of the entertainment world in 2 years.
Link Posted: 2/4/2006 8:39:09 AM EDT
As for Sony picture quality, I've had my 27" WEGA for 3 years, picture is still great.

I've soured on a lot of Sony products, but I consider their TV's to be top notch.
Link Posted: 2/4/2006 8:42:27 AM EDT
+1 on the sony quality, I have a 27 " wega trinitron from 2000 and the picture is still very very clear. I also have a 50" 3 LCD HD TV and it works and looks great. I love sony TV's
Link Posted: 2/4/2006 8:45:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Crappybob:
Buying 4:3 in HD is a very bad idea. You will regret it in the long run. All HD is broadcast in 16:9

If you just looking for a standard definition set thats alright but stay far away from 4:3HD. You will be the laughing stock of the entertainment world in 2 years.



+1

Absolutely NO reason to be consiering a 4:3 if you're buying a new TV right now, PARTICULARLY if you're buying a HiDef. There will be ZERO HiDef broadcast in 4:3 within the next couple of years.
Link Posted: 2/4/2006 9:00:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Crappybob:
Buying 4:3 in HD is a very bad idea. You will regret it in the long run. All HD is broadcast in 16:9

If you just looking for a standard definition set thats alright but stay far away from 4:3HD. You will be the laughing stock of the entertainment world in 2 years.



Well, there's this one:
SonyKD34XS955

Seems the same as the 36" except that it's a smaller screen for more money. 16:9 images would be the same size on the 34" 16:9 and the 36" 4:3, but 4:3 images would smaller on the 34". I see disadvantages for the 34" 16:9 but no advantages.

Admittedly, I'm far from being an expert. What am I missing?

Link Posted: 2/4/2006 9:02:01 AM EDT
I helped a buddy "install" a 36" crt.

That thing weighs about 350 lbs
Link Posted: 2/4/2006 9:10:33 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/4/2006 9:14:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Paul:
Have a look at the 16:9 sets.



I will. I want to be informed before I buy, but...


Originally Posted By Paul:
If you get a 4:3 HDTV you'll have a nice clean picture of the middle of what's getting on.



Wouldn't I have a 16:9 image the same size as I'd see on a 16:9 TV of the same width, just with black bands at the top and bottom?

Link Posted: 2/4/2006 9:26:41 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Burley:
Sony

www.circuitcity.com/ssm/Sony-36-TV-KD-36FS130-/sem/rpsm/oid/127524/catOid/-12868/rpem/ccd/productDetail.do

And get a sturdy TV stand/entertainment center. My brother-in-law has a 36" Sony and it weighs damn near 200 lbs. It was a bitch to unload and move into his house.



Sony's are the heaviest for a given size because they use thicker glass on the picture tube. I used to cringe @ Circuit City when people bought them. One of the 36" models weighs fucking 236 pounds
Link Posted: 2/4/2006 9:30:58 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/4/2006 9:31:33 AM EDT by gus]
I have a JVC D800(?) 36" non-HiDef TV circa 2000, and it has to weigh well over 300 lbs. If I were buying a TV today, it definately would not be a CRT. I almost dread having to remove the JVC to make way for a 62" something next year.
Link Posted: 2/4/2006 9:36:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DrMark:

Wouldn't I have a 16:9 image the same size as I'd see on a 16:9 TV of the same width, just with black bands at the top and bottom?




Yes and no - there are a couple of other things to keep in mind.

A standard def TV will only have 480i or maybe 480p verticle scan, since HDTV is 720p or 1080i there is no way you will realize the clarity and resolution of an HD broadcast. The image will be descaled to the standard TV scan rate.

A true HDTV will only come with a 16:9 aspect ratio and either 720p 1080i or 1080p resolution, 480i or 480p is usually also viewable but the tv will upconvert to its native resolution.

If you plan on watching a lot of standard def TV 4:3 might still be the way you want to go but if you really want to see HDTV the way it was meant to be seen you really need a HDTV with a 16:9 aspect ratio.

I have a 50" DLP HDTV and while it's stunning to view HD material the standard def material looks horrid. You really need to see both formats on both types of TV's to determine what you like best.
Link Posted: 2/4/2006 10:43:59 AM EDT

Originally Posted By NoVaGator:
I helped a buddy "install" a 36" crt.

That thing weighs about 350 lbs



+1

I bought a Sony 36" WEGA TV @ Costco a few years ago for around $1.3K

I don't think is HDTV ?? But It gets a great picture on Comcast Cable.

That mother weighs at least 250 lbs.

I damn near dropped my 1/2 of it when buddie of mine and I were hoisting it up about 4 feet into the TV slot built into my house / wall.

Hope it lasts 10+ more years so if I ever have to remove it ... I can Saw-Zall it in 1/2 1st !
Link Posted: 2/4/2006 10:47:08 AM EDT

Originally Posted By StrkAliteN:

Originally Posted By NoVaGator:
I helped a buddy "install" a 36" crt.

That thing weighs about 350 lbs



+1

I bought a Sony 36" WEGA TV @ Costco a few years ago for around $1.3K

I don't think is HDTV ?? But It gets a great picture on Comcast Cable.

That mother weighs at least 250 lbs.

I damn near dropped my 1/2 of it when buddie of mine and I were hoisting it up about 4 feet into the TV slot built into my house / wall.

Hope it lasts 10+ more years so if I ever have to remove it ... I can Saw-Zall it in 1/2 1st !



Gonna haul it to the pit, or just shoot it right there?
Link Posted: 2/4/2006 10:48:09 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/4/2006 10:49:18 AM EDT

Originally Posted By gus:
I have a JVC D800(?) 36" non-HiDef TV circa 2000, and it has to weigh well over 300 lbs. If I were buying a TV today, it definately would not be a CRT. I almost dread having to remove the JVC to make way for a 62" something next year.



+1 on that. When I sold my 36" CRT, I was damn happy I didn't have to do any lifting of the thing.

I think I only lifted it up once. When I moved the tv around the room I just slid the whole stand on the floor.
Link Posted: 2/4/2006 11:00:31 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Crappybob:
Buying 4:3 in HD is a very bad idea. You will regret it in the long run. All HD is broadcast in 16:9

If you just looking for a standard definition set thats alright but stay far away from 4:3HD. You will be the laughing stock of the entertainment world in 2 years.


Two years? Two years ago we heard that we'd have HDTV by now. Two years before that we heard the same thing. I wouldn't hold my breath.

Considering the reality that cable companies do not want to do HDTV and are obstructing it at every chance, I wouldn't worry about buying a 4:3 TV to last ~5 years. Do you think your cable company will even offer HDTV by then? I know the local one promised it more than 2 years ago, but now they're saying it's going to be over a decade before all of their subscribes get it. I notice that DrMark is in VA. If he's near DC, he might be able to get HDTV within the next five years, but for many of the rural areas, I wouldn't be surprised if it takes over a decade. For DVD's, they're such low resolution that an CRT can handle them so that's not a problem with buying a non-HDTV.z
Link Posted: 2/4/2006 5:39:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By zoom:

Originally Posted By Crappybob:
Buying 4:3 in HD is a very bad idea. You will regret it in the long run. All HD is broadcast in 16:9

If you just looking for a standard definition set thats alright but stay far away from 4:3HD. You will be the laughing stock of the entertainment world in 2 years.


Two years? Two years ago we heard that we'd have HDTV by now. Two years before that we heard the same thing. I wouldn't hold my breath.

Considering the reality that cable companies do not want to do HDTV and are obstructing it at every chance, I wouldn't worry about buying a 4:3 TV to last ~5 years. Do you think your cable company will even offer HDTV by then? I know the local one promised it more than 2 years ago, but now they're saying it's going to be over a decade before all of their subscribes get it. I notice that DrMark is in VA. If he's near DC, he might be able to get HDTV within the next five years, but for many of the rural areas, I wouldn't be surprised if it takes over a decade. For DVD's, they're such low resolution that an CRT can handle them so that's not a problem with buying a non-HDTV.z




why don't cable companies want HDTV?

Comcast has no trouble piping a bunch of HD channes into my house. They don't have to....I can get them OTA, and I bet 75% of the US population can get HD OTA
Link Posted: 2/4/2006 5:56:34 PM EDT

I bet 75% of the US population can get HD OTA

But only with a very expensive tuner and good antenna. How many people do you know that have spent the money on the tuner and an antenna? The SAF (spouse approval factor) of adding a large antenna on the top of the house is pretty low. I know a lot of people with HDTV's, but I know of none that have ever received HDTV. Audio has always been a hobby of mine so I visit a lot of audio shops (just to look, I can't afford anything), and I still haven't seen an HDTV picture. Even when I went in a couple of nicer shops in San Francisco, they weren't setup to receive HDTV to show.z
Link Posted: 2/4/2006 6:06:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By zoom:

I bet 75% of the US population can get HD OTA

But only with a very expensive tuner and good antenna. How many people do you know that have spent the money on the tuner and an antenna?





About 1/4 of everyone I know has HDTV and they all get HD channels.

Most get them via cable or dish, but I'm pretty sure all of them could get OTA HD if they had a $100 antenna.

I think the external HD tuner is thing of the past. Virtually all of the HDTVs sold now have built in tuners.

Link Posted: 2/5/2006 8:17:38 AM EDT

Originally Posted By AZ_Sky:

Originally Posted By DrMark:

Wouldn't I have a 16:9 image the same size as I'd see on a 16:9 TV of the same width, just with black bands at the top and bottom?




Yes and no - there are a couple of other things to keep in mind.

A standard def TV will only have 480i or maybe 480p verticle scan, since HDTV is 720p or 1080i there is no way you will realize the clarity and resolution of an HD broadcast. The image will be descaled to the standard TV scan rate.

A true HDTV will only come with a 16:9 aspect ratio and either 720p 1080i or 1080p resolution, 480i or 480p is usually also viewable but the tv will upconvert to its native resolution.

If you plan on watching a lot of standard def TV 4:3 might still be the way you want to go but if you really want to see HDTV the way it was meant to be seen you really need a HDTV with a 16:9 aspect ratio.

I have a 50" DLP HDTV and while it's stunning to view HD material the standard def material looks horrid. You really need to see both formats on both types of TV's to determine what you like best.



Sony has 4:3 HDTVs like this one:
SonyKD36XS955

It looks like that might be the best choice for HD and SD, but I'll try to find one locally to look at.
Link Posted: 2/5/2006 8:19:34 AM EDT

I'm looking at actual HDTVs, that is, HDTV tuner built in. According to a couple of guys at work, they're picking up OTA HDTV on inexpensive antennae.

What I'm still trying to figure out is if I want a 4:3 HDTV like this one:
SonyKD36XS955

or a 16:9 HDTV like this one:
SonyKD34XS955

The 34" 16:9 HDTV seems the same as the 36" 4:3 HDTV except that it's a smaller screen for more money.

16:9 images would be the same size and quality on the 34" 16:9 HDTV and the similar-width 36" 4:3 HDTV (right?), but 4:3 images would smaller on the 34".

I see disadvantages for the 34" 16:9 HDTV (higher cost, smaller image for 4:3 sources) as compared to the 36" 4:3 HDTV but no advantages.

Link Posted: 2/5/2006 8:35:55 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/5/2006 8:36:35 AM EDT by AFARR]
When I went with mine, I got a Sanyo 32" 4:3.

Built in HD tuner.

I did the same research...

the 32" TV gave a 32" (standard/4:3 ratio) and a 30" 16:9 (widescreen) ratio when set to that (black bars at the top and bottom of the screen).

The 30" 16:9 Widescreen version had (naturally) a 30" widescreen image, but about a 27" 4:3 image unless you stretched the image to fit (black bars on the sides).

Figured the 32" was the better deal at the time. Good regular image, good HD image. Since I mostly watch regular TV (for now), it works fine....someday when I make some money, I may wind up with a 75" Plasma/LCD.

AFARR
Top Top