Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

WHY NOTHING BIGGER THAN 34 for DIRECT VIEW CRT HDTV ??

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
December 13, 2004 11:24:40 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Went shopping and it seemed obvious to me
that the CRT direct view HDTV was superior to everything.


So why are they not found larger than 34 inches?

Is that limit going to change?






















--
..
Nothing is the way it is because that's the way it has to be.
..
1 HP = 745.69987158227022 Watts
1 PS = 735.49875 Watts
..
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm - Current national
debt
On 11/02/2004 the National Debt was $7,429,582,471,118.88
On 12/09/2004 the National Debt was $7,546,778,677,941.37, up 127
billion in the 1 month and 7 days since the last Presidential election.

http://www.ips-dc.org - The nation’s oldest multi-issue
progressive think tank.
http://brookings.edu - Writing, and speaking about the major
challenges and opportunities facing the United States and the world.
http://www.carnegieendowment.org - Dedicated to advancing cooperation
between nations and promoting active international engagement by the
United States.
http://www.cannabisnews.com - Stay abreast of marijuana news.
http://www.norml.com - Support marijuana legalization by
becoming a member of NORML.
http://www.mpp.org - Support marijuana legalization by
becoming a member of MPP.
http://narconews.com - Learn about the South of the Border drug
war.
..
..
FOUR MORE YEARS to a 10 trillion dollar national debt! (
$10,000,000,000,000.00 )!
..
FOUR MORE YEARS until 20% of the federal budget is interest payments on
the debt!
..






..
Anonymous
December 13, 2004 11:24:41 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <326tmsF3j6op9U1@individual.net>,
greek_philosophizer@hotmail.com says...
>
>
> Went shopping and it seemed obvious to me
> that the CRT direct view HDTV was superior to everything.
>
>
> So why are they not found larger than 34 inches?
>
> Is that limit going to change?

Cost & weight. The mechanical stresses on a 16:9 glass CRT are
tremendous, meaning large ones have to be made with really thick
glass and are heavy as heck. You are unlikely to see larger CRTs.
In fact, the current generation of CRTs may be the last. Most
vendors are switching to one (or more) of the newer technologies.

I agree that I've never seen anything I like as well as my 34" Sony
XBR910. I bought it figuring that by the time I was ready to replace
it, one of the other technologies would look good. I sit close, so
34" is large enough.

/Chris
Anonymous
December 14, 2004 3:30:48 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

greek_philosophizer wrote:
> Went shopping and it seemed obvious to me
> that the CRT direct view HDTV was superior to everything.
>
> So why are they not found larger than 34 inches?
>
> Is that limit going to change?

There was a 38" 16:9 CRT HDTV set offered by RCA/Thompson several
years ago. As I recall, saw it in the store - massive set. Sony also
offered a ~300 lb 40" 4:3 CRT TV which was an HD set, but dropped it
from their lineup this year. You may still see the 40" Sony at Circuit City.

Unless the slim CRT catches on, the larger CRT TVs will fade from the
market. People want the convenience of flat panel TVs in the >30" range,
be they plasma or LCD or bigger RP TVs. I think over the next several
years, the Japanese brands will drop out of the big CRT market, if not
all CRTs, leaving them to the Koreans and Chinese companies, and go for
the larger profit margins in plasma and LCD sets. It is already happening.

Alan Figgatt
Anonymous
December 14, 2004 4:34:47 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

The quality of Sony's 34" CRT is about the same as a high quality
computer monitor. The HD Sony set I ordered was 198 pounds.
I would think most of that is the CRT itself. I was hoping for a 36"
direct view CRT. I have not seen one as yet. I like the direct view
best. The picture looks good even from rather steep angles.

Use google for some reviews on the Sony KD-34XBR960.
Try cnet.com and others.

hdtvfan


On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 20:24:40 -0500, greek_philosophizer
<greek_philosophizer@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>Went shopping and it seemed obvious to me
>that the CRT direct view HDTV was superior to everything.
>
>
>So why are they not found larger than 34 inches?
>
>Is that limit going to change?
December 14, 2004 6:02:31 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Here's an article on the future of CRT's, including a new line of slim
CRT's. (The article seems to indicate that the maximum CRT size is about
42", but I bet 34" is about the biggest you see in most of the stores.)


http://asia.cnet.com/news/personaltech/0,39037091,39203...


Race




"greek_philosophizer" <greek_philosophizer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:326tmsF3j6op9U1@individual.net...
>
>
> Went shopping and it seemed obvious to me
> that the CRT direct view HDTV was superior to everything.
>
Anonymous
December 14, 2004 8:54:29 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Alan Figgatt wrote:

> There was a 38" 16:9 CRT HDTV set offered by RCA/Thompson several
> years ago. As I recall, saw it in the store - massive set.

I have one. Beautiful picture, and it has a DirecTV tuner built in. They're
still available:
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=mozclient&ie=utf-...
Anonymous
December 14, 2004 9:53:21 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

The RCA "38" is indeed a nice set, when operatable, However that are a total
nightmare for the average service facility. The complex nature of these sets
necessitate in-depth troubleshooting and qualified technicians.
"hdtvfan" <hdtvfan@echostar.com> wrote in message
news:bv8tr0p8co0r3cdemrob6n8e0hjqligual@4ax.com...
> The quality of Sony's 34" CRT is about the same as a high quality
> computer monitor. The HD Sony set I ordered was 198 pounds.
> I would think most of that is the CRT itself. I was hoping for a 36"
> direct view CRT. I have not seen one as yet. I like the direct view
> best. The picture looks good even from rather steep angles.
>
> Use google for some reviews on the Sony KD-34XBR960.
> Try cnet.com and others.
>
> hdtvfan
>
>
> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 20:24:40 -0500, greek_philosophizer
> <greek_philosophizer@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Went shopping and it seemed obvious to me
>>that the CRT direct view HDTV was superior to everything.
>>
>>
>>So why are they not found larger than 34 inches?
>>
>>Is that limit going to change?
>
Anonymous
December 14, 2004 8:56:05 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Stuart Hofmann" <stuart@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:41BE8012.9C11F47A@sonic.net...
> Alan Figgatt wrote:
>
> > There was a 38" 16:9 CRT HDTV set offered by RCA/Thompson several
> > years ago. As I recall, saw it in the store - massive set.
>
> I have one. Beautiful picture, and it has a DirecTV tuner built in.
They're
> still available:
>
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=mozclient&ie=utf-...
>
>

I remember that set! I loved the picture, but I did not like the fact that
it was not flat and a lot of the inputs are now almost useless.
Anonymous
December 14, 2004 9:25:56 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Remember in one of the original Star Trek movie. Scotty went shopping
for an aquarium for the whales. It is lightweight and strong. All you
need is to get that transparent aluminium formula, then you can build a
CRT big enough to hold a whale inside.

Back to reality. It may be easier to build a large pot-belly CRT
because a spherical shape can hold the vacuum inside the CRT better.
The trouble is that consumer no longer would buy pot-belly screen when
the bar had been raised to the flat screen in the past few years.


Dave Oldridge wrote:
> greek_philosophizer <greek_philosophizer@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:326tmsF3j6op9U1@individual.net:
>
> >
> >
> > Went shopping and it seemed obvious to me
> > that the CRT direct view HDTV was superior to everything.
> >
> >
> > So why are they not found larger than 34 inches?
> >
> > Is that limit going to change?
>
> Probably not. CRT's don't scale up well physically and increasing
the size
> necessitates increasing the high voltage, which in turn can cause
dangerous
> X-ray emissions.
>
>
> --
> Dave Oldridge+
> ICQ 1800667
>
> A false witness is worse than no witness at all.
Anonymous
December 14, 2004 10:31:11 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

greek_philosophizer <greek_philosophizer@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:326tmsF3j6op9U1@individual.net:

>
>
> Went shopping and it seemed obvious to me
> that the CRT direct view HDTV was superior to everything.
>
>
> So why are they not found larger than 34 inches?
>
> Is that limit going to change?

Probably not. CRT's don't scale up well physically and increasing the size
necessitates increasing the high voltage, which in turn can cause dangerous
X-ray emissions.


--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667

A false witness is worse than no witness at all.
Anonymous
December 14, 2004 11:10:15 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Steve K. (steve@nodamnspam.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> My RCA F38310 works just fine using my Onkyo Receiver for most of the
> inputs. Plenty of inputs, all still quite useable. Since the HDTV
> Tuner is built-in, no need for any connections there.

I use the component input for my PC-based HD recorder, and it handles
1080i just fine, and with an outboard component switcher (which I would
need with any HDTV...I have 4 component output devices), having just
one component input isn't a big deal.

I also use my A/V receiver to switch composite and S-Video, and dedicated
the rear "input 1" to composite and "input 2" to S-Video. That still
leaves one input.

I also like the fact that *all* audio comes out of the optical digital
output.

--
Jeff Rife | "Don't try this at home, kids. This should
SPAM bait: | be done only by trained professional idiots."
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
spam@ftc.gov | -- Plucky Duck, "Hollywood Plucky"
Anonymous
December 14, 2004 11:10:16 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

The biggest factor in my opinion why they do not manufacture a lot of
CRT sets much above 34" is weight.My parents bought a SONY 34" CRT,and
it took 4 guys STRUGGLING and grunting every step of the way to get it
in and set into their made-for-TV armoire.The set weighed close to 270
pounds.Could you imagine a larger set and the weight(s) involved with
it?
And if you are trying to get it upstairs in a condo unit in a
multi-floor structure that features only stairs,if I was a member of the
delivery team,I would put it down on the ground floor and tell you to
find a way to get it up yourself.No way would I kill my back,and risk
injury.
Anonymous
December 15, 2004 6:28:43 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Caloonese" <caloonese@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1103077556.434642.94250
@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

> Remember in one of the original Star Trek movie. Scotty went shopping
> for an aquarium for the whales. It is lightweight and strong. All you
> need is to get that transparent aluminium formula, then you can build a
> CRT big enough to hold a whale inside.
>
> Back to reality. It may be easier to build a large pot-belly CRT
> because a spherical shape can hold the vacuum inside the CRT better.
> The trouble is that consumer no longer would buy pot-belly screen when
> the bar had been raised to the flat screen in the past few years.
>
>
> Dave Oldridge wrote:
>> greek_philosophizer <greek_philosophizer@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> news:326tmsF3j6op9U1@individual.net:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Went shopping and it seemed obvious to me
>> > that the CRT direct view HDTV was superior to everything.
>> >
>> >
>> > So why are they not found larger than 34 inches?
>> >
>> > Is that limit going to change?
>>
>> Probably not. CRT's don't scale up well physically and increasing
> the size
>> necessitates increasing the high voltage, which in turn can cause
> dangerous
>> X-ray emissions.

And people forget that these are VACUUM tubes. Even my little 27 inch
has a force of nearly 2.5 TONS on its face! At 34 inches that becomes
nearly 4 tons. At 42 inches it would become 6 tons.


--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667

A false witness is worse than no witness at all.
Anonymous
December 15, 2004 7:40:00 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

SAC 441 (SAC441@webtv.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> The biggest factor in my opinion why they do not manufacture a lot of
> CRT sets much above 34" is weight.My parents bought a SONY 34" CRT,and
> it took 4 guys STRUGGLING and grunting every step of the way to get it
> in and set into their made-for-TV armoire.The set weighed close to 270
> pounds.Could you imagine a larger set and the weight(s) involved with
> it?

The 38" RCA weighs less than that. It only took the delivery man and
me to lift it onto the 31" high stand, and I'm no strong man. I also
moved it onto a cart by myself so that I could pull the back off the set
later and do some minor surgery (removing the VSM enable wire).

--
Jeff Rife |
SPAM bait: | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/FoxTrot/TransporterError.j...
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
spam@ftc.gov |
December 15, 2004 7:18:41 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 20:24:40 -0500, greek_philosophizer
<greek_philosophizer@hotmail.com> had a flock of green cheek conures
squawk out:

>
>
>Went shopping and it seemed obvious to me
>that the CRT direct view HDTV was superior to everything.
>
>
>So why are they not found larger than 34 inches?
>
>Is that limit going to change?

One limit is the size of the door to the average residence. They
won't be able to sell a big tv to someone who can't get it inside.

Stephen

--
Anonymous
December 16, 2004 10:24:12 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Thank you everybody for the replies.

They were very helpful.

..
December 16, 2004 3:27:46 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Dave Oldridge wrote:
> "Caloonese" <caloonese@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1103077556.434642.94250
> @c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>>Remember in one of the original Star Trek movie. Scotty went shopping
>>for an aquarium for the whales. It is lightweight and strong. All you
>>need is to get that transparent aluminium formula, then you can build a
>>CRT big enough to hold a whale inside.
>>
>>Back to reality. It may be easier to build a large pot-belly CRT
>>because a spherical shape can hold the vacuum inside the CRT better.
>>The trouble is that consumer no longer would buy pot-belly screen when
>>the bar had been raised to the flat screen in the past few years.
>>
>>
>>Dave Oldridge wrote:
>>
>>>greek_philosophizer <greek_philosophizer@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>>news:326tmsF3j6op9U1@individual.net:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Went shopping and it seemed obvious to me
>>>>that the CRT direct view HDTV was superior to everything.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>So why are they not found larger than 34 inches?
>>>>
>>>>Is that limit going to change?
>>>
>>>Probably not. CRT's don't scale up well physically and increasing
>>
>>the size
>>
>>>necessitates increasing the high voltage, which in turn can cause
>>
>>dangerous
>>
>>>X-ray emissions.
>
>
> And people forget that these are VACUUM tubes. Even my little 27 inch
> has a force of nearly 2.5 TONS on its face! At 34 inches that becomes
> nearly 4 tons. At 42 inches it would become 6 tons.
>
>

Could quartz glass be used? Cost-prohibitive? Or is that what's being
used already?

Chuck
Anonymous
December 16, 2004 8:22:56 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Chuck wrote:


>
> Could quartz glass be used? Cost-prohibitive? Or is that what's being
> used already?
>

It would have to be leaded quartz glass. I don't know anything about the
strength of leaded quartz glass.

Matthew
Anonymous
December 18, 2004 4:41:40 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Sometime in the late 1980s or thereabouts Circuit City had a 45" Sony
IDTV console on display. It was marked $40,000, but I don't know
whether they really had any for sale. As I recall, Mitsubishi made
reasonably-priced 41" standard TVs for a while.

I wish I had purchased on of those RCA F38310s. I was about to but the
fan noise bothered me.
Anonymous
December 18, 2004 4:41:59 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Sometime in the late 1980s or thereabouts Circuit City had a 45" Sony
IDTV console on display. It was marked $40,000, but I don't know
whether they really had any for sale. As I recall, Mitsubishi made
reasonably-priced 41" standard TVs for a while.

I wish I had purchased on of those RCA F38310s. I was about to but the
fan noise bothered me.
Anonymous
December 18, 2004 9:45:38 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

<mikengroups@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1103406100.119521.272490@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Sometime in the late 1980s or thereabouts Circuit City had a 45" Sony
> IDTV console on display. It was marked $40,000, but I don't know
> whether they really had any for sale. As I recall, Mitsubishi made
> reasonably-priced 41" standard TVs for a while.
>
> I wish I had purchased on of those RCA F38310s. I was about to but the
> fan noise bothered me.


The Mits was 40" in the USA, maybe 41" in Canada. You should be happy that
you did not buy the RCA, based on the repair horror stories that I keep
hearing from the RCA ASCs that work on them.

Leonard
Anonymous
December 18, 2004 10:08:09 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <hh3xd.7433$jn.4074@lakeread06>, Leonard Caillouet
<no@no.com> wrote:

> <mikengroups@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1103406100.119521.272490@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > Sometime in the late 1980s or thereabouts Circuit City had a 45" Sony
> > IDTV console on display. It was marked $40,000, but I don't know
> > whether they really had any for sale. As I recall, Mitsubishi made
> > reasonably-priced 41" standard TVs for a while.
> >
> > I wish I had purchased on of those RCA F38310s. I was about to but the
> > fan noise bothered me.
>
>
> The Mits was 40" in the USA, maybe 41" in Canada. You should be happy that
> you did not buy the RCA, based on the repair horror stories that I keep
> hearing from the RCA ASCs that work on them.
>
> Leonard
>
>
I've had one of the RCA F38310 since March of 2001. The fan noise
isn't an issue, at least for me. Just a little "white" noise. So far
it has performed beautifully! (knock on wood)

Leonard, what sorts of "horrors" am I in for?


Heinrich
Anonymous
December 19, 2004 3:11:59 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

mikengroups@yahoo.com wrote:

> Sometime in the late 1980s or thereabouts Circuit City had a 45" Sony
> IDTV console on display. It was marked $40,000, but I don't know
> whether they really had any for sale. As I recall, Mitsubishi made
> reasonably-priced 41" standard TVs for a while.
>
>
I have friends who bought the 40" Mitsubishi and it has performed quite
well over the years.

Sony also had a 40" HD ready set that they discontinued not to long ago.
It was one of the TV's I was considering this time last year when I
bought my HD set. Unfortunately it wasn't a widescreen.

ALV
Anonymous
December 19, 2004 8:38:39 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Heinrich Galland wrote:
> In article <hh3xd.7433$jn.4074@lakeread06>, Leonard Caillouet
> <no@no.com> wrote:
>
>
>><mikengroups@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:1103406100.119521.272490@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>Sometime in the late 1980s or thereabouts Circuit City had a 45" Sony
>>>IDTV console on display. It was marked $40,000, but I don't know
>>>whether they really had any for sale. As I recall, Mitsubishi made
>>>reasonably-priced 41" standard TVs for a while.
>>>
>>>I wish I had purchased on of those RCA F38310s. I was about to but the
>>>fan noise bothered me.
>>
>>
>>The Mits was 40" in the USA, maybe 41" in Canada. You should be happy that
>>you did not buy the RCA, based on the repair horror stories that I keep
>>hearing from the RCA ASCs that work on them.
>>
>>Leonard
>>
>>
>
> I've had one of the RCA F38310 since March of 2001. The fan noise
> isn't an issue, at least for me. Just a little "white" noise. So far
> it has performed beautifully! (knock on wood)
>
> Leonard, what sorts of "horrors" am I in for?
>
>
> Heinrich

Fan noise isn't much of a problem for my RCA F38310 either. Works just
fine. My friend still has the Mitsubishi 40" as well. Still working
fine also!

Steve
Anonymous
December 19, 2004 10:26:39 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <zt8xd.3132$9j5.2717@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"Steve K." <steve@nodamnspam.com> writes:
> Heinrich Galland wrote:
>> In article <hh3xd.7433$jn.4074@lakeread06>, Leonard Caillouet
>> <no@no.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>><mikengroups@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:1103406100.119521.272490@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>>Sometime in the late 1980s or thereabouts Circuit City had a 45" Sony
>>>>IDTV console on display. It was marked $40,000, but I don't know
>>>>whether they really had any for sale. As I recall, Mitsubishi made
>>>>reasonably-priced 41" standard TVs for a while.
>>>>
>>>>I wish I had purchased on of those RCA F38310s. I was about to but the
>>>>fan noise bothered me.
>>>
>>>
>>>The Mits was 40" in the USA, maybe 41" in Canada. You should be happy that
>>>you did not buy the RCA, based on the repair horror stories that I keep
>>>hearing from the RCA ASCs that work on them.
>>>
>>>Leonard
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I've had one of the RCA F38310 since March of 2001. The fan noise
>> isn't an issue, at least for me. Just a little "white" noise. So far
>> it has performed beautifully! (knock on wood)
>>
>> Leonard, what sorts of "horrors" am I in for?
>>
>>
>> Heinrich
>
> Fan noise isn't much of a problem for my RCA F38310 either. Works just
> fine. My friend still has the Mitsubishi 40" as well. Still working
> fine also!
>
I also have a F38310 and the fan noise isn't really that big of a deal.

The image quality is pleasing, and the NTSC video quality is damned
good (but not quite perfect, especially because of the limited 640H
resolution.) The 3D comb in the F38310 is the best one in my repetoire
(maybe my Canopus ADVC300 might be better, but I havent fully
measured it yet.)

For a 'small' screen, the F38310 is probably the ultimate CSI
TV set :-). (Okay, maybe I am biased :-)).

John
Anonymous
December 19, 2004 10:26:40 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

I used to lust after the F38310. I remember stopping into CC on the way
home from work to look at it every few days for the short time they
carried it. Unfortunately, I couldn't afford it at the time, so I had to
admire it from afar. I've seen lots of big, fancy, "sexy" plasma's and
LCD's since, but imo, this set just blows them out of the water on
picture quality. That motherf**er had "PRESENCE".

I'm sure that all things being equal, you could get a flat panel to
equal or better it now, but there's just something about a huge hi-def
CRT that just pleases my eyes like none of the newer technologies can.
Not yet anyway.

Dub
Anonymous
December 19, 2004 12:06:27 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Heinrich Galland" <heinrichg@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:181220041908093966%heinrichg@hotmail.com...
> I've had one of the RCA F38310 since March of 2001. The fan noise
> isn't an issue, at least for me. Just a little "white" noise. So far
> it has performed beautifully! (knock on wood)
>
> Leonard, what sorts of "horrors" am I in for?
>
>
> Heinrich

Hopefully, none. If the set works and you don't need service, you have no
problem. If it breaks, be sure to go to a Thomson ASC that has techs that
are familiar with these sets. Even so, the techs that I know that work on
them find them to be a PITA and tech support to be lacking. Hopefully, as
time goes on and more repairs are effected, the experience with them will
make the repairs less costly and easier.

Leonard
Anonymous
December 19, 2004 12:09:48 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Walter Wagers" <dubbagee@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:11763-41C53282-1@storefull-3233.bay.webtv.net...
> I used to lust after the F38310. I remember stopping into CC on the way
> home from work to look at it every few days for the short time they
> carried it. Unfortunately, I couldn't afford it at the time, so I had to
> admire it from afar. I've seen lots of big, fancy, "sexy" plasma's and
> LCD's since, but imo, this set just blows them out of the water on
> picture quality. That motherf**er had "PRESENCE".
>
> I'm sure that all things being equal, you could get a flat panel to
> equal or better it now, but there's just something about a huge hi-def
> CRT that just pleases my eyes like none of the newer technologies can.
> Not yet anyway.
>
> Dub

While I am not a fan of the RCA products from a service standpoint, I would
have to disagree. I can't think of a single plat panel display that would
look better than a properly operating, properly calibrated F38310. The
problem is the variance in performance of the big tubes made getting a good
one a matter of chance.

Leonard
Anonymous
December 20, 2004 6:24:23 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

John S. Dyson wrote:

> In article <zt8xd.3132$9j5.2717@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> "Steve K." <steve@nodamnspam.com> writes:
>
>>Heinrich Galland wrote:
>>
>>>In article <hh3xd.7433$jn.4074@lakeread06>, Leonard Caillouet
>>><no@no.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>><mikengroups@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:1103406100.119521.272490@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Sometime in the late 1980s or thereabouts Circuit City had a 45" Sony
>>>>>IDTV console on display. It was marked $40,000, but I don't know
>>>>>whether they really had any for sale. As I recall, Mitsubishi made
>>>>>reasonably-priced 41" standard TVs for a while.
>>>>>
>>>>>I wish I had purchased on of those RCA F38310s. I was about to but the
>>>>>fan noise bothered me.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The Mits was 40" in the USA, maybe 41" in Canada. You should be happy that
>>>>you did not buy the RCA, based on the repair horror stories that I keep
>>>>hearing from the RCA ASCs that work on them.
>>>>
>>>>Leonard
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>I've had one of the RCA F38310 since March of 2001. The fan noise
>>>isn't an issue, at least for me. Just a little "white" noise. So far
>>>it has performed beautifully! (knock on wood)
>>>
>>>Leonard, what sorts of "horrors" am I in for?
>>>
>>>
>>>Heinrich
>>
>>Fan noise isn't much of a problem for my RCA F38310 either. Works just
>>fine. My friend still has the Mitsubishi 40" as well. Still working
>>fine also!
>>
>
> I also have a F38310 and the fan noise isn't really that big of a deal.
>
> The image quality is pleasing, and the NTSC video quality is damned
> good (but not quite perfect, especially because of the limited 640H
> resolution.) The 3D comb in the F38310 is the best one in my repetoire
> (maybe my Canopus ADVC300 might be better, but I havent fully
> measured it yet.)
>
> For a 'small' screen, the F38310 is probably the ultimate CSI
> TV set :-). (Okay, maybe I am biased :-)).
>
> John

I agree about the F38310 John! I use a Canopus ADV-100 for grabbing
video into the Mac. Works like a charm!

Steve
!