Old Sony monitor

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

I worked on my nephew's dinosaur the other day and he has this old Sony
monitor that has an individual control knob for each setting: contrast,
color, height, width, horizontal & vertical spacing, etc. It was so easy to
adjus, no on-screen menu to time-out, or scroll through, just direct control
by turning the right knob! I loved it, sure wish that modern monitors would
go back to this kind of control!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On Thu, 7 Oct 2004 20:26:59 -0700, "Lunaray"
<yarNOT@easystreet.com> wrote:

>I worked on my nephew's dinosaur the other day and he has this old Sony
>monitor that has an individual control knob for each setting: contrast,
>color, height, width, horizontal & vertical spacing, etc. It was so easy to
>adjus, no on-screen menu to time-out, or scroll through, just direct control
>by turning the right knob! I loved it, sure wish that modern monitors would
>go back to this kind of control!
>


Knobs are easier for one resolution, but the problem is
multiple resolutions. Most modern monitors memorize
different profiles for each resolution, while that one
probably doesn't. It may only look right at the one res
it's tweaked on unless you're willing to settle for
sub-optimal refresh rates at other resolutions or have a
video driver that can manually change parameters enough to
compensate, which is a lot more difficult in the long run
than just using a monitor with OSD to do it.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

kony wrote:

> On Thu, 7 Oct 2004 20:26:59 -0700, "Lunaray"
> <yarNOT@easystreet.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I worked on my nephew's dinosaur the other day and he has this old Sony
>>monitor that has an individual control knob for each setting: contrast,
>>color, height, width, horizontal & vertical spacing, etc. It was so easy to
>>adjus, no on-screen menu to time-out, or scroll through, just direct control
>>by turning the right knob! I loved it, sure wish that modern monitors would
>>go back to this kind of control!
>>
>
>
>
> Knobs are easier for one resolution, but the problem is
> multiple resolutions. Most modern monitors memorize
> different profiles for each resolution, while that one
> probably doesn't. It may only look right at the one res
> it's tweaked on unless you're willing to settle for
> sub-optimal refresh rates at other resolutions or have a
> video driver that can manually change parameters enough to
> compensate, which is a lot more difficult in the long run
> than just using a monitor with OSD to do it.

True. Plus that handful of buttons replace a LOT of pots, variable
inductors, and magnetic sliders you don't normally have access to when
doing it 'the old fashion way'.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On Thu, 7 Oct 2004 20:26:59 -0700, "Lunaray" <yarNOT@easystreet.com>
wrote:

>I worked on my nephew's dinosaur the other day and he has this old Sony
>monitor that has an individual control knob for each setting: contrast,
>color, height, width, horizontal & vertical spacing, etc. It was so easy to
>adjus, no on-screen menu to time-out, or scroll through, just direct control
>by turning the right knob! I loved it, sure wish that modern monitors would
>go back to this kind of control!
>
Yeah, I agree - the humble knob is a much lamented loss these days.
From radios to tellys, clocks to coffee makers - it's all poxy little
push-buttons.

I keep an old Dell Ultrascan 15" monitor for my test-bed setup. I plug
this monitor into all the old compys I pick up from the local tip.
There's never any telling what the display will look like when the
machine fires up, but with a quick turn of a couple of knobs I can
bring everything into line.

I expect expense has something to do with it - but it wouldn't take
much to combine the two methods.... a single knob to make adjustments,
and a digital panel to assign a function to the knob. Best of both
worlds!

Regards,



--
Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations
www.shwoodwind.co.uk
Emails to: showard{whoisat}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

Stephen Howard wrote:

> On Thu, 7 Oct 2004 20:26:59 -0700, "Lunaray" <yarNOT@easystreet.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>I worked on my nephew's dinosaur the other day and he has this old Sony
>>monitor that has an individual control knob for each setting: contrast,
>>color, height, width, horizontal & vertical spacing, etc. It was so easy to
>>adjus, no on-screen menu to time-out, or scroll through, just direct control
>>by turning the right knob! I loved it, sure wish that modern monitors would
>>go back to this kind of control!
>>
>
> Yeah, I agree - the humble knob is a much lamented loss these days.
> From radios to tellys, clocks to coffee makers - it's all poxy little
> push-buttons.
>
> I keep an old Dell Ultrascan 15" monitor for my test-bed setup. I plug
> this monitor into all the old compys I pick up from the local tip.
> There's never any telling what the display will look like when the
> machine fires up, but with a quick turn of a couple of knobs I can
> bring everything into line.
>
> I expect expense has something to do with it

Of course. It's much easier to interface switches to the on-board
microprocessor and they consume less processor power, as they're already
digital (no A/D conversions needed), and membrane switches are a heck of a
lot easier to make, mount, and wire than mechanical pots.

> - but it wouldn't take
> much to combine the two methods.... a single knob to make adjustments,
> and a digital panel to assign a function to the knob. Best of both
> worlds!

By the time you pushed all the buttons 'assigning' some function to it
haven't you done the same thing as if you just went ahead and hit the up or
down arrow key a few times to adjust?

>
> Regards,
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 01:53:36 -0500, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
wrote:

>Stephen Howard wrote:
>
<snip>
>
>By the time you pushed all the buttons 'assigning' some function to it
>haven't you done the same thing as if you just went ahead and hit the up or
>down arrow key a few times to adjust?

Aha! I thought about that...what you need is a knob with a pull-out
switch function. Pull the knob out and it brings up the OSD, turn the
knob to select the option, push the knob back and adjust the option!

I had a car radio with a function like this, and what impressed me
more than anything was how intuitive and fast it was to make
adjustments.

Regards,



--
Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations
www.shwoodwind.co.uk
Emails to: showard{whoisat}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

Stephen Howard wrote:

> On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 01:53:36 -0500, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Stephen Howard wrote:
>>
>
> <snip>
>
>>By the time you pushed all the buttons 'assigning' some function to it
>>haven't you done the same thing as if you just went ahead and hit the up or
>>down arrow key a few times to adjust?
>
>
> Aha! I thought about that...what you need is a knob with a pull-out
> switch function. Pull the knob out and it brings up the OSD, turn the
> knob to select the option, push the knob back and adjust the option!
>
> I had a car radio with a function like this, and what impressed me
> more than anything was how intuitive and fast it was to make
> adjustments.
>
> Regards,
>
>
>

Interesting idea. And would be easier for the micro if it were an optical
encoder 'pot'.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On Thu, 7 Oct 2004 20:26:59 -0700, "Lunaray" <yarNOT@easystreet.com>
put finger to keyboard and composed:

>I worked on my nephew's dinosaur the other day and he has this old Sony
>monitor that has an individual control knob for each setting: contrast,
>color, height, width, horizontal & vertical spacing, etc. It was so easy to
>adjus, no on-screen menu to time-out, or scroll through, just direct control
>by turning the right knob! I loved it, sure wish that modern monitors would
>go back to this kind of control!

Pots are relatively costly, and are less reliable than digital
controls. The latter can be more accurate as well. Modern is better.


- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.

 

[Kent_Diego]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

> I worked on my nephew's dinosaur the other day and he has this old Sony
> monitor that has an individual control knob for each setting: contrast,
> color, height, width, horizontal & vertical spacing, etc. It was so easy
to
> adjus, no on-screen menu to time-out, or scroll through, just direct
control
> by turning the right knob! I loved it, sure wish that modern monitors
would
> go back to this kind of control!
>
>
Yes but it probably cost $700. Losing the knobs saves money. Remember when
TV sets had a channel display? It's been a long time. The modern monitors
ability to remember the settings for each resolution is a lot better then
having to fiddle with knobs all the time.

-Kent

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 07:23:47 +1000, Franc Zabkar
<fzabkar@optussnet.com.au> wrote:

>On Thu, 7 Oct 2004 20:26:59 -0700, "Lunaray" <yarNOT@easystreet.com>
>put finger to keyboard and composed:
>
>>I worked on my nephew's dinosaur the other day and he has this old Sony
>>monitor that has an individual control knob for each setting: contrast,
>>color, height, width, horizontal & vertical spacing, etc. It was so easy to
>>adjus, no on-screen menu to time-out, or scroll through, just direct control
>>by turning the right knob! I loved it, sure wish that modern monitors would
>>go back to this kind of control!
>
>Pots are relatively costly, and are less reliable than digital
>controls. The latter can be more accurate as well. Modern is better.
>
No-one mentioned 'pots' as such...just knobs. Don't much care what
goes on behind the knob..jus' as long as I got sommat to twiddle....

Regards,



--
Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations
www.shwoodwind.co.uk
Emails to: showard{whoisat}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 11:37:32 +0100, Stephen Howard
<seesigfor@email.uk> wrote:


>>Pots are relatively costly, and are less reliable than digital
>>controls. The latter can be more accurate as well. Modern is better.
>>
>No-one mentioned 'pots' as such...just knobs. Don't much care what
>goes on behind the knob..jus' as long as I got sommat to twiddle....

I suppose a knob could be in front of an optical sensor but
have never seen it done that way on a monitor, odds are it'd
be a pot if it's a rotary control.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

"Kent_Diego" wrote:
> > I worked on my nephew's dinosaur the other day and he has this old Sony
> > monitor that has an individual control knob for each setting: contrast,
> > color, height, width, horizontal & vertical spacing, etc. It was so easy
> to
> > adjus, no on-screen menu to time-out, or scroll through, just direct
> control
> > by turning the right knob! I loved it, sure wish that modern monitors
> would
> > go back to this kind of control!
> >
> >
> Yes but it probably cost $700. Losing the knobs saves money. Remember when
> TV sets had a channel display?

I remember when my color went out on my fancy TV, and I took then tubes down to the
store to test them and buy a couple of new ones.

Jon

..

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 11:31:13 -0700, "Kent_Diego" <None@Nomicrosoft.com>
wrote:

| > I worked on my nephew's dinosaur the other day and he has this old Sony
| > monitor that has an individual control knob for each setting: contrast,
| > color, height, width, horizontal & vertical spacing, etc. It was so easy
| to
| > adjus, no on-screen menu to time-out, or scroll through, just direct
| control
| > by turning the right knob! I loved it, sure wish that modern monitors
| would
| > go back to this kind of control!
| >
| >
| Yes but it probably cost $700. Losing the knobs saves money. Remember when
| TV sets had a channel display? It's been a long time. The modern monitors
| ability to remember the settings for each resolution is a lot better then
| having to fiddle with knobs all the time.

Those old TV tuners were mechanical. There was too much that could go
wrong. Even a little dust could interfere with the contacts at times.
Newer tuners are far better!

Larc



§§§ - Change planet to earth to reply by email - §§§

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 13:22:48 GMT, kony <spam@spam.com> put finger to
keyboard and composed:

>On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 11:37:32 +0100, Stephen Howard
><seesigfor@email.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>>Pots are relatively costly, and are less reliable than digital
>>>controls. The latter can be more accurate as well. Modern is better.
>>>
>>No-one mentioned 'pots' as such...just knobs. Don't much care what
>>goes on behind the knob..jus' as long as I got sommat to twiddle....
>
>I suppose a knob could be in front of an optical sensor but
>have never seen it done that way on a monitor, odds are it'd
>be a pot if it's a rotary control.

If it's an optical sensor, then it's digital, and being digital, it
would interface to a microcontroller. Furthermore, you would only need
one such digital pot to handle all functions. At least that's how my
LCD monitor works (Mitsubishi Diamond View DV152).


- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.

 

[None]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 01:24:11 GMT, Larc <larc-news@jupiterlink.net>
wrote:

>On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 11:31:13 -0700, "Kent_Diego" <None@Nomicrosoft.com>
>wrote:
>
>| > I worked on my nephew's dinosaur the other day and he has this old Sony
>| > monitor that has an individual control knob for each setting: contrast,
>| > color, height, width, horizontal & vertical spacing, etc. It was so easy
>| to
>| > adjus, no on-screen menu to time-out, or scroll through, just direct
>| control
>| > by turning the right knob! I loved it, sure wish that modern monitors
>| would
>| > go back to this kind of control!
>| >
>| >
>| Yes but it probably cost $700. Losing the knobs saves money. Remember when
>| TV sets had a channel display? It's been a long time. The modern monitors
>| ability to remember the settings for each resolution is a lot better then
>| having to fiddle with knobs all the time.
Are you trying to say that simple control pots are MORE expensive than
complicated chip memory dependent controls?
Sorry but you're incorrect, it actually costs MORE.

>
>Those old TV tuners were mechanical. There was too much that could go
>wrong. Even a little dust could interfere with the contacts at times.
>Newer tuners are far better!
Apples and Oranges. TV tuners are another ball of way all together.
Yes dirt could mess up the old magnetic core dial tuners, but the
early versions of solid state tuners cost more and had their problems
as well.
It took many years of R&D to get it right and cost effective.
>
>Larc
>
>
>
> §§§ - Change planet to earth to reply by email - §§§

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

none wrote:

> On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 01:24:11 GMT, Larc <larc-news@jupiterlink.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 11:31:13 -0700, "Kent_Diego" <None@Nomicrosoft.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>| > I worked on my nephew's dinosaur the other day and he has this old Sony
>>| > monitor that has an individual control knob for each setting: contrast,
>>| > color, height, width, horizontal & vertical spacing, etc. It was so easy
>>| to
>>| > adjus, no on-screen menu to time-out, or scroll through, just direct
>>| control
>>| > by turning the right knob! I loved it, sure wish that modern monitors
>>| would
>>| > go back to this kind of control!
>>| >
>>| >
>>| Yes but it probably cost $700. Losing the knobs saves money. Remember when
>>| TV sets had a channel display? It's been a long time. The modern monitors
>>| ability to remember the settings for each resolution is a lot better then
>>| having to fiddle with knobs all the time.
>
> Are you trying to say that simple control pots are MORE expensive than
> complicated chip memory dependent controls?
> Sorry but you're incorrect, it actually costs MORE.

Nope. The microprocessor controls are not only better overall but less
expensive.

>
>
>>Those old TV tuners were mechanical. There was too much that could go
>>wrong. Even a little dust could interfere with the contacts at times.
>>Newer tuners are far better!
>
> Apples and Oranges. TV tuners are another ball of way all together.
> Yes dirt could mess up the old magnetic core dial tuners, but the
> early versions of solid state tuners cost more and had their problems
> as well.
> It took many years of R&D to get it right and cost effective.
>
>>Larc
>>
>>
>>
>> §§§ - Change planet to earth to reply by email - §§§
>
>

 

[None]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 23:29:02 -0500, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
wrote:

>none wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 01:24:11 GMT, Larc <larc-news@jupiterlink.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 11:31:13 -0700, "Kent_Diego" <None@Nomicrosoft.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>| > I worked on my nephew's dinosaur the other day and he has this old Sony
>>>| > monitor that has an individual control knob for each setting: contrast,
>>>| > color, height, width, horizontal & vertical spacing, etc. It was so easy
>>>| to
>>>| > adjus, no on-screen menu to time-out, or scroll through, just direct
>>>| control
>>>| > by turning the right knob! I loved it, sure wish that modern monitors
>>>| would
>>>| > go back to this kind of control!
>>>| >
>>>| >
>>>| Yes but it probably cost $700. Losing the knobs saves money. Remember when
>>>| TV sets had a channel display? It's been a long time. The modern monitors
>>>| ability to remember the settings for each resolution is a lot better then
>>>| having to fiddle with knobs all the time.
>>
>> Are you trying to say that simple control pots are MORE expensive than
>> complicated chip memory dependent controls?
>> Sorry but you're incorrect, it actually costs MORE.
>
>Nope. The microprocessor controls are not only better overall but less
>expensive.
You'll never convince me that they are cheaper than potentiometers.(I
spent many years in the electronics service/repair business.)
>
>>
>>
>>>Those old TV tuners were mechanical. There was too much that could go
>>>wrong. Even a little dust could interfere with the contacts at times.
>>>Newer tuners are far better!
>>
>> Apples and Oranges. TV tuners are another ball of way all together.
>> Yes dirt could mess up the old magnetic core dial tuners, but the
>> early versions of solid state tuners cost more and had their problems
>> as well.
>> It took many years of R&D to get it right and cost effective.
>>
>>>Larc
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> §§§ - Change planet to earth to reply by email - §§§
>>
>>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

none wrote:

> On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 23:29:02 -0500, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>none wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 01:24:11 GMT, Larc <larc-news@jupiterlink.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 11:31:13 -0700, "Kent_Diego" <None@Nomicrosoft.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>| > I worked on my nephew's dinosaur the other day and he has this old Sony
>>>>| > monitor that has an individual control knob for each setting: contrast,
>>>>| > color, height, width, horizontal & vertical spacing, etc. It was so easy
>>>>| to
>>>>| > adjus, no on-screen menu to time-out, or scroll through, just direct
>>>>| control
>>>>| > by turning the right knob! I loved it, sure wish that modern monitors
>>>>| would
>>>>| > go back to this kind of control!
>>>>| >
>>>>| >
>>>>| Yes but it probably cost $700. Losing the knobs saves money. Remember when
>>>>| TV sets had a channel display? It's been a long time. The modern monitors
>>>>| ability to remember the settings for each resolution is a lot better then
>>>>| having to fiddle with knobs all the time.
>>>
>>>Are you trying to say that simple control pots are MORE expensive than
>>>complicated chip memory dependent controls?
>>>Sorry but you're incorrect, it actually costs MORE.
>>
>>Nope. The microprocessor controls are not only better overall but less
>>expensive.
>
> You'll never convince me that they are cheaper than potentiometers.(I
> spent many years in the electronics service/repair business.)
>

It may be that no one can convince you but the fact of the matter is that
they are.

The microprocessor replaces a whole host of internal adjustment components,
greatly reducing assembly costs, and simplify the alignment process wile
improving it as well. The last step, to convert the front panel pots to
pushbuttons is done with a simple piece of laminated plastic, the membrane
switches, that come dern near free; not to mention simpler mounting and
less discrete wiring (assembly cost).

You're looking at the 'repair' cost of replacement thinking, boy, the 'one'
pot I imagine I would need, vs this microprocessor, is cheap but try
designing and manufacturing 'the whole thing'.