Trinitron: Sony's Once Unbeatable Product [video](youtube.com)
youtube.com
Trinitron: Sony's Once Unbeatable Product [video]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aFhzGEBQlk
172 comments
Cool.
This isn't related to TVs, but I have a couple pieces of old Sony HiFi equipment from the very early 1970's and I'm always amazed by the quality and attention to detail Sony had back then. I feel like it's back when Sony had something to prove. This may have been the case for most consumer electronics manufacturers back then though.
One is a TA-1130 amplifier, and the other is a reel-to-reel tape player (I forget the model). The most amazing to me is that the reel-to-reel still works fine after nearly 50 years, considering all the moving parts.
This isn't related to TVs, but I have a couple pieces of old Sony HiFi equipment from the very early 1970's and I'm always amazed by the quality and attention to detail Sony had back then. I feel like it's back when Sony had something to prove. This may have been the case for most consumer electronics manufacturers back then though.
One is a TA-1130 amplifier, and the other is a reel-to-reel tape player (I forget the model). The most amazing to me is that the reel-to-reel still works fine after nearly 50 years, considering all the moving parts.
The record player in my dad's mid-80s Sony hifi recently stopped working.
He called the local Sony store to buy a spare part and the assistant was born after the part ceased production.
Begrudgingly he had to replace the record player.
Every (remaining) part of that old Sony is beautiful, unmistakably 80s but so well designed and finished it's still a joy to use; plus it sounds great.
He called the local Sony store to buy a spare part and the assistant was born after the part ceased production.
Begrudgingly he had to replace the record player.
Every (remaining) part of that old Sony is beautiful, unmistakably 80s but so well designed and finished it's still a joy to use; plus it sounds great.
> the assistant was born after the part ceased production
I can't help but wonder if there's some correlation there. Perhaps the assistant's father was so dismayed at the part's cessation that the only comfort he could attain was in the arms of his wife.
I can't help but wonder if there's some correlation there. Perhaps the assistant's father was so dismayed at the part's cessation that the only comfort he could attain was in the arms of his wife.
Did you mean causation and not correlation here?
I did, thank you, although causation implies correlation as well.
Sony was so legendary in terms of their CRT.
There is a saying in Vietnam that goes "Sharp/Fine like a Sony," when someone talks about an act, a product, or a person so fine. That's in the context of a culture that does not (as) often associate products with brands (for example, they say photocopy instead of xerox, clasp locker instead of zipper, permanent marker instead of sharpie,...)
There is a saying in Vietnam that goes "Sharp/Fine like a Sony," when someone talks about an act, a product, or a person so fine. That's in the context of a culture that does not (as) often associate products with brands (for example, they say photocopy instead of xerox, clasp locker instead of zipper, permanent marker instead of sharpie,...)
Yes, this is an excellent book. I like how it gets boring towards the end as the discussion turns to USA-Japan import/export issues and other less inspiring subjects. As the book slips into being boring it coincides with the decline of Sony so it's symbolic. But it's only perhaps the final third that is boring. Otherwise, it's a great read that rarely gets mentioned online.
You might also want to watch Frontline: Coming From Japan [The Fall Of The US Television Industry] (1992)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aesJTsZqm6c
and read: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1990/09/30/j...
to understand what happened in home electronics, especially TV sector. It was an economical revenge for WW2.
and read: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1990/09/30/j...
to understand what happened in home electronics, especially TV sector. It was an economical revenge for WW2.
for me sony is not the apple of its era but much more. It is simply spoken the greatest electronics company that ever existed and their peak was the AIBO
No love for the PS2 which was the champion of its era?
By the time the PS3 rolled around Sony was getting a little too full of itself, lacking the competitive fire that made products like the Walkman and the Trinitron screen. It was a good console, but not one that redefined what a console was.
By the time the PS3 rolled around Sony was getting a little too full of itself, lacking the competitive fire that made products like the Walkman and the Trinitron screen. It was a good console, but not one that redefined what a console was.
> No love for the PS2 which was the champion of its era?
Champion perhaps in terms of sales, but the Dreamcast felt like the more forward thinking console of that generation.
It introduced the console industry to online gaming, downloadable content (it was free on the DC though), the idea of games being able to write portable mini games. Ok, that was badly executed but the VMU still had other cool quirks which was new for its era, like an LCD screen showing in game graphics.
The PlayStation 2, as nice as it was, was really just a hardware upgrade rather than a paradigm shift
Champion perhaps in terms of sales, but the Dreamcast felt like the more forward thinking console of that generation.
It introduced the console industry to online gaming, downloadable content (it was free on the DC though), the idea of games being able to write portable mini games. Ok, that was badly executed but the VMU still had other cool quirks which was new for its era, like an LCD screen showing in game graphics.
The PlayStation 2, as nice as it was, was really just a hardware upgrade rather than a paradigm shift
The Dreamcast ran a version of Windows CE. It's kind of a recurring pattern - you partner with Microsoft, they learn from you, help you design just the perfect API for your use case, then they launch either a competitor or something that allows their licensees to compete against you.
At the time we called it a bacon and eggs partnership where they are the chicken and you are the pig.
At the time we called it a bacon and eggs partnership where they are the chicken and you are the pig.
The Windows CE APIs were an optional interface rather than its primary OS. But most developers chose to use Sega's APIs rather than CE.
Wasn't DirectX developed at more or less this time?
DirectX had already been out quite a few years by that point. I think I was writing PC games in DirectX 6 or 7 (I forget which) around the time the Dreamcast was released, so it was already quite a few versions along.
That all said, I don't recall DirectX being hugely popular - or at least for games development - until around that era or not that long before. So it might have felt like it was pretty new back then. Particularly with how some of the new releases being quite a fundamental change from their previous releases (I seem to recall one version of DirectX (possibly 7?) dropped the previous version of Dx's DirectDraw APIs in favour of promoting Direct3D for all 2D rendering).
That all said, I don't recall DirectX being hugely popular - or at least for games development - until around that era or not that long before. So it might have felt like it was pretty new back then. Particularly with how some of the new releases being quite a fundamental change from their previous releases (I seem to recall one version of DirectX (possibly 7?) dropped the previous version of Dx's DirectDraw APIs in favour of promoting Direct3D for all 2D rendering).
Every PlayStation after the first is just a middle-of-the-road play it safe machine imo.
The first was truly groundbreaking in many ways (though some might say that was in part due to Sony was originally developing it with a games company).
After that later generations have mostly just gone with “make it faster” style evolution and taking the best parts of the previous generations competitors.
No drive to evolve like we’ve seen from Nintendo (Wii, Switch) or MS (Kinect, XBL, or even their games sharing ideas that got them pilloried).
The first was truly groundbreaking in many ways (though some might say that was in part due to Sony was originally developing it with a games company).
After that later generations have mostly just gone with “make it faster” style evolution and taking the best parts of the previous generations competitors.
No drive to evolve like we’ve seen from Nintendo (Wii, Switch) or MS (Kinect, XBL, or even their games sharing ideas that got them pilloried).
I had a Dreamcast at the time too and while it felt kind of fresh and new, it also felt like it was going on the Neo Geo trajectory: Really cool but something that will never be fully appreciated until after it fails.
The PS2 was better in that it not only became popular, but it had a huge wealth of titles for it. The true gems for a console come out usually near the end of the life-cycle when everyone's pushing the hardware to the limit. Sadly the Dreamcast never got that far.
The PS2 was better in that it not only became popular, but it had a huge wealth of titles for it. The true gems for a console come out usually near the end of the life-cycle when everyone's pushing the hardware to the limit. Sadly the Dreamcast never got that far.
Another thing that happened in that time was the infighting between the media production branches and the electronics branch.
Apparently you never experienced the aberration that was their earlier generations. Sony had decided in their infinite wisdom to make their laser lenses out of acrylic instead of glass, causing them to discolor and fail.
I've never been as frustrated with a console as I have reading "disc read error" dozens of times a day.
I've never been as frustrated with a console as I have reading "disc read error" dozens of times a day.
I never had any problems with the PS2 like that, the thing worked like a champion. I did get "red ringed" on the 360, though.
At least lens replacement is a simple thing, not like changing the solder.
At least lens replacement is a simple thing, not like changing the solder.
Sorry to be a grouch, but I had an AIBO (2nd gen) and the thing was overall corny and very limited, even at the time. Lightyears away from inducing any suspension of disbelief.
(It's that robotic dog, for anyone wondering)
(It's that robotic dog, for anyone wondering)
>the greatest electronics company that ever existed
That must be Philips. Google "Philips natlab".
That must be Philips. Google "Philips natlab".
I am probably too much an old-timer, but my TV is actually a Sony Trinitron CRT, bought (for a very steep price) in 2002 or 2003 and still going strong.
For the record, it is a "beast", even if it is "only" 32" in size, it is weighing around 70 Kg!
I bought it at the time with a specific table/support for it.
For the record, it is a "beast", even if it is "only" 32" in size, it is weighing around 70 Kg!
I bought it at the time with a specific table/support for it.
I have a similar Sony Trinitron TV - i'm not sure about the size, it should be at least 32" but might be bigger (it is a widescreen too). It is so heavy that you need at least two people (preferably three) to move it around and for the first three years i had it when i got it, i had it placed on the floor because... i couldn't lift it to place it anywhere else :-P.
The TV has barely seen any use, i got it because at the time i was thinking to buy one of the upcoming gaming consoles but i never got one and i do not watch TV. I couldn't connect it to my PC and, being on the floor, it wouldn't be very comfortable anyway. So it just stayed there until i moved and sent it to my sister who promptly sent it back once she moved :-P. That was the only time it saw any use. It is now in my bedroom, sitting there for 7+ years and - considering the weight - as far as i am concerned it is part of the house now.
Sometimes i am thinking to buy an HDMI to whatever input it uses (it has a bunch but not HDMI) adapter to connect a Raspberry Pi for watching a movie or something, but it is aligned at the side of my bed and it'd be much easier to rearrange the bed (and the rest of the room) than moving the TV.
It is like this TV was doomed to never be used since the first day i bought it.
The TV has barely seen any use, i got it because at the time i was thinking to buy one of the upcoming gaming consoles but i never got one and i do not watch TV. I couldn't connect it to my PC and, being on the floor, it wouldn't be very comfortable anyway. So it just stayed there until i moved and sent it to my sister who promptly sent it back once she moved :-P. That was the only time it saw any use. It is now in my bedroom, sitting there for 7+ years and - considering the weight - as far as i am concerned it is part of the house now.
Sometimes i am thinking to buy an HDMI to whatever input it uses (it has a bunch but not HDMI) adapter to connect a Raspberry Pi for watching a movie or something, but it is aligned at the side of my bed and it'd be much easier to rearrange the bed (and the rest of the room) than moving the TV.
It is like this TV was doomed to never be used since the first day i bought it.
Pi will drive it from the composite output, although you may need to borrow a HDMI screen to set it up.
At least for RetroPie, there's a config file you can edit directly on the SD-card, to force a video output and resolution and set overscan.
I'm using it force mine into 480p mode, to feed a HDMI->S-Video converter, which gives better video quality than using the composite output.
I'm using it force mine into 480p mode, to feed a HDMI->S-Video converter, which gives better video quality than using the composite output.
BTW if you have a device that takes component (i.e. PVM's) you can use an HDMI->Component adapter and drive 240P/480I/480P directly from the Pi with no rescaling :)
The HDMI output on the Pi is really flexible... you can even coax 2160P24 out of it... at least for static 2D displays.
The HDMI output on the Pi is really flexible... you can even coax 2160P24 out of it... at least for static 2D displays.
Setting resolution through config.txt is a feature of the firmware, not of any specific OS (although I think there's something weird about how NOOBS and Berryboot map their /boot partitions around, or something...and that's part of why I avoid them).
Anyhow, setting resolution in config.txt ought to work everywhere.
Anyhow, setting resolution in config.txt ought to work everywhere.
Yes, S-video is better than composite. But RGB component is the best, if your TV has inputs for it.
My TV has 2x SCART RGB, unfortunately I haven't found any good options for converting HDMI to SCART RGB. Everything is HDMI->component.
Something like this [1] seems like it might work (just go with whichever's cheapest).
[1] https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1080p-HDMI-to-Scart-converte...
[1] https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1080p-HDMI-to-Scart-converte...
All of those cheap converters only output composite video over SCART, no better than the Pi's composite output. Finding one that actually does RGB is either impossible, or really expensive.
I didn't knew that was composite, i thought it was something about audio or one of the generic I/O stuff. TBH i barely used the Pi, after getting it i played with it a bit but between the keyboard malfunctioning (keys getting stuck due to power, etc), wifi being disconnected (again a power issue) and the awful performance i didn't find much use for it. I also got a Pi2 but that seems to need a special cable for the composite output. But i guess Pi1 should be able to play video even if i have to transcode it in some other format and size.
The 3.5mm jack is a "TRRS" connector (3 conductors and a ground). So, left+right audio and video.
You've got to make sure that the cable has the ground in the right place, because I guess that different devices position it differently, so not all TRRS-to-RCA cables are compatible.
You've got to make sure that the cable has the ground in the right place, because I guess that different devices position it differently, so not all TRRS-to-RCA cables are compatible.
Considering you make it into 15 years of usage I think the price might be well worth it?
CRT in the old days, especially Sony's Trinitron CRT were extremely well designed and well made. Pretty much like ALL "Made in Japan" electronics sold were designed to last. I have a LCD TV from Sony that is now on 12 years of services, still going strong.
But as tech improves it seems the life expectancy of the product are taken less into account.
I would bet the Sony CRT monitor will out last my Sony LCD TV. And OLED is only going to be worst.
CRT in the old days, especially Sony's Trinitron CRT were extremely well designed and well made. Pretty much like ALL "Made in Japan" electronics sold were designed to last. I have a LCD TV from Sony that is now on 12 years of services, still going strong.
But as tech improves it seems the life expectancy of the product are taken less into account.
I would bet the Sony CRT monitor will out last my Sony LCD TV. And OLED is only going to be worst.
> But as tech improves it seems the life expectancy of the
> product are taken less into account.
On the contrary. The life expectancy has never been more important: it has never been more important to time the death of a device in such a manner that it hits some generational sweet spot to make the customer buy the same product over and over :-)
On the contrary. The life expectancy has never been more important: it has never been more important to time the death of a device in such a manner that it hits some generational sweet spot to make the customer buy the same product over and over :-)
One response to this is: the market has spoken, it's not interested in paying for product longevity.
I'm not entirely sure I agree, but here we are.
I'm not entirely sure I agree, but here we are.
I dont think it's a choice in the hands of the consumer anymore.
The market doesn't have enough information about product longevity to make an informed decision. The only reliable data point I have as a consumer is the warranty. The few brands that advertise longevity usually cost so much more than cheap versions of the same product that it's hard to justify the purchase. Why for example should I pay $150 for Patagonia jeans if I can get ten pairs of El-Cheapo jeans for the same amount?
How many people get rid of TVs in perfect working order just to get something with more features. I know at least 3.
If someone asked me for advice, I'd tell them to skip "smart TVs" and hook up a Raspberry Pi with OpenELEC, or an Android TV box — resolution's probably the only thing worth upgrading for.
I seems like some people buy a new screen, fridge, washing machine, speakers, etc etc, just because they feel like a change of scenery.
> How many people get rid of TVs in perfect working order just to get something with more features. I know at least 3.
I know exactly 0. :-) So YMMV.
I know exactly 0. :-) So YMMV.
>CRT in the old days, especially Sony's Trinitron CRT were extremely well designed and well made. Pretty much like ALL "Made in Japan" electronics sold were designed to last.
Yes, once upon a time, with the exclusion for portable devices of course (in which Sony excelled as well, if anyone remembers the first series of Walkman, it had the "wow" factor as it was only a little bigger than the cassette), electronics did actually "go by the weight", it meant that "better" hardware was put in it, both in the electronics and in the case.
Only a few days ago, while attempting (vainly) to put some order in a storage room, I happened to move a (relatively recent) compact stereo player, you know one of those that has radio, cassette player and CD player + amplifier in a little cube of 20x20x20 cm, and right after that I moved a venerable ol'time Marantz amplifier.
I simply applied the wrong amount of force, at first I had the impression that the amplifier was glued to the shelf.
Yes, once upon a time, with the exclusion for portable devices of course (in which Sony excelled as well, if anyone remembers the first series of Walkman, it had the "wow" factor as it was only a little bigger than the cassette), electronics did actually "go by the weight", it meant that "better" hardware was put in it, both in the electronics and in the case.
Only a few days ago, while attempting (vainly) to put some order in a storage room, I happened to move a (relatively recent) compact stereo player, you know one of those that has radio, cassette player and CD player + amplifier in a little cube of 20x20x20 cm, and right after that I moved a venerable ol'time Marantz amplifier.
I simply applied the wrong amount of force, at first I had the impression that the amplifier was glued to the shelf.
I still nowadays use a high-frequency, high-contrast, high-resolution 20-years-old CRT for my desktop at home, it works as well as the first day. I laugh at all those retina resolution debates.
I used a CRT monitor until the resoluions of LCD monitors were really “retina” and the IPS with color calibration appeared (and the graphic cards and OSes supported these resolutions properly). At least until that point a good CRT was better: analog transitions between the pixels on the quality CRT were much easier for reading than the TFT LCDs of these times. The analog elements provided the smoothness.
My trinitron started having issues after 10 years. At first the colors would shift and in the end everything would be greenish, if I remember correctly.
Also IIRC ... colour cast was one of the things you could adjust on the internals of a CRT: like some sort of collar or potentiometer on the green gun ... how I didn't kill myself messing around with CRTs before I knew better, I don't know.
If you have one be sure you know how to be safe before opening it - deathly voltages inside!
If you have one be sure you know how to be safe before opening it - deathly voltages inside!
Is that really that much of an issue though? The current generation of monitors and TVs are probably going to become obsolete before they stop working.
Yes you can still watch the new series of Star Trek on a 26" CRT, but it'll look a lot nicer on a 55" 4K HDR OLED. In 10 years time I'm sure that will look just as outdated.
Yes you can still watch the new series of Star Trek on a 26" CRT, but it'll look a lot nicer on a 55" 4K HDR OLED. In 10 years time I'm sure that will look just as outdated.
All my friends and myself had these Sony "flatscreen" TVs from around 2001. Took maybe three of us to move them out of our apartments. My friend had a bigger one, maybe 40" that was truly a beast and took up like a quarter of his Boston apartment living room. I remember I paid about $1K USD for the 32" model. I recently purchased a 4K 60" Samsung refurbed for $540. Memories.
When HDTV was getting started, the TV you wanted was the Sony XBR Trinitron. There was a reason that Best Buy didn't put them in the television display area with all the then-new LCD and Plasma flatscreens - because it had a far better picture and was half the cost (even at $1400).
They weighed 200 lbs (90kg) and nearly all of it was at the front with that thick cylindrical tube face. So you definitely needed a strong stand for them and you'd also want to add a strap to secure it to the wall so it wouldn't fall over on a child or pet.
They weighed 200 lbs (90kg) and nearly all of it was at the front with that thick cylindrical tube face. So you definitely needed a strong stand for them and you'd also want to add a strap to secure it to the wall so it wouldn't fall over on a child or pet.
Worth noting these were pushing very close to if not true 1080i on the final models with 1000~ lines of vertical res, when most LCD or plasmas were doing 1024x768(yep, non square pixels), or even 800x480. Only the REALLY expensive ones were true 720p, even.
They looked so much obviously better that it took plasma into the late 2000s to catch up
The closest comparison i can think of is gaming laptops vs desktops. You got objectively better performance for less money, at the cost of it being large and heavy. They were also pretty reliable, especially compared to early plasmas that blew various expensive boards constantly.(and i would know, i scored several for free this way)
They looked so much obviously better that it took plasma into the late 2000s to catch up
The closest comparison i can think of is gaming laptops vs desktops. You got objectively better performance for less money, at the cost of it being large and heavy. They were also pretty reliable, especially compared to early plasmas that blew various expensive boards constantly.(and i would know, i scored several for free this way)
I came to post here about exactly that TV. That TV was a major pain. It was the last CRT I ever owned. It requires two people to move it.
While the image quality was good, I replaced with with a cheaper, larger LCD a decade later and haven't looked back.
While the image quality was good, I replaced with with a cheaper, larger LCD a decade later and haven't looked back.
Not so strange. We just parted a few months ago from our 4:3 29 inch trinitron. It still worked, but we wanted a bigger screen for our new home. I never liked LCD so replaced it with a Sony OLED (yes I know the panel is from LG)
Does the remote still work? That always seemed like Sony's kryptonite.
>Does the remote still work? That always seemed like Sony's kryptonite.
Yes it does, but to be fair, it has never been used much (at least far less that what would be normal use) as I have it connected to a satellite box that has a remote that duplicates the TV's remote main commands and that is used like 99% of the times.
And I was optimistic about the weight:
https://docs.sony.com/release//specs/KV32FS120_mksp.pdf
• KV-32FS120: 165 lbs. 6 oz. (75 kg)
Yes it does, but to be fair, it has never been used much (at least far less that what would be normal use) as I have it connected to a satellite box that has a remote that duplicates the TV's remote main commands and that is used like 99% of the times.
And I was optimistic about the weight:
https://docs.sony.com/release//specs/KV32FS120_mksp.pdf
• KV-32FS120: 165 lbs. 6 oz. (75 kg)
We have a similar one (a 28" widescreen Trinitron from 2002) and you're quite right: while the TV is still fine, the excessively stylish remote died a decade ago. Happily we bought a Sony video recorder at the same time, and its more chunky remote still works and is also capable of controlling the TV.
(We do have a modern LED/LCD TV in another room but I mostly prefer the picture on the CRT, at least when watching TV or films)
(We do have a modern LED/LCD TV in another room but I mostly prefer the picture on the CRT, at least when watching TV or films)
I still have one too- from the 90's
Trinitron TVs definitely were the best. Famously, the Trinitron as a product was a huge inspiration to Steve Jobs and influenced the design of the Apple II casing.
My favorite trivia about them was that, for some engineering reason, every Trinitron screen had a barely perceptible horizontal line artifact about 2/3 of the way down the display. This was true in every Trinitron, from televisions to monitors even through the 1990s.
My favorite trivia about them was that, for some engineering reason, every Trinitron screen had a barely perceptible horizontal line artifact about 2/3 of the way down the display. This was true in every Trinitron, from televisions to monitors even through the 1990s.
They were only barely perceptible until someone told you about them. Then you saw them every time you looked at the screen :)
I do miss my 17" FD Trinitron monitor though. That was lovely. I didn't have enough money or room for a 21"
I do miss my 17" FD Trinitron monitor though. That was lovely. I didn't have enough money or room for a 21"
I was a kid at the time and we had an Apple display that used a Trinitron tube. One of my friends came over and tried to erase the "line" in the paint program. I had no idea what he was on about until I finally noticed what I had missed all along - the support wire.
He discusses that in the attached video, it was needed to prevent picture vibrations due to audio. https://youtu.be/0aFhzGEBQlk?t=9m9s
Yeah, I still have somewhere a CPD-G400 monitor that used a Trinitron tube and IIRC there were two of them, in the manual they called them "damper wires" and it was related to the use of an aperture grille instead of a slot mask or something like that...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aFhzGEBQlk — just watched the linked video with a nice Trinitron historical overview.
Apparently, there was always one wire 2/3 of the way down, but they would put a second one 1/3 of the way down on larger screens.
Apparently, there was always one wire 2/3 of the way down, but they would put a second one 1/3 of the way down on larger screens.
That line drove me bonkers, and I wasn't buying "the line means quality". I couldn't have been the only one.
Luckily my studio Trinitron I got second-hand doesn't have the line, or at least is imperceptible to me.
Luckily my studio Trinitron I got second-hand doesn't have the line, or at least is imperceptible to me.
Up until quite recently sony's grade 1 CRTs were the only* thing you could "grade" on. Even though they had stopped being manufactured in ~2006 there was a strong second hand market up until at least 2011.
* well kinda, it was the only thing at the time able to properly display the anywhere near the dynamic range that 10bit log provide.
* well kinda, it was the only thing at the time able to properly display the anywhere near the dynamic range that 10bit log provide.
And there's still a very, very strong market for these as retro gaming displays. I scored a few when they were dirt cheap used, and now people are charging $400+ for an old 20in with a ton of hours on it, and even more if it's a high end "broadcast" model
One of my first large purchases of computer hardware was a Sony GDM-17SE1 monitor. This was in 1994, when a 17" display was unusual, and the display went along with an 8MB 486DX/33 machine.
The display was expensive at the time ($2,300 in 2017 dollars), but lasted me a good 6 or 7 years. By the time 2000 rolled around, I was doing most of my computing on employer-owned machines and laptops, so my need for a desktop display was minimal. (That didn't stop me, though, from a briefly owned 19" Dell rebrand of a Trinitron display.)
Display quality on those CRTs was excellent, although the thin horizontal wires were indeed noticeable if you looked.
The display was expensive at the time ($2,300 in 2017 dollars), but lasted me a good 6 or 7 years. By the time 2000 rolled around, I was doing most of my computing on employer-owned machines and laptops, so my need for a desktop display was minimal. (That didn't stop me, though, from a briefly owned 19" Dell rebrand of a Trinitron display.)
Display quality on those CRTs was excellent, although the thin horizontal wires were indeed noticeable if you looked.
I ended up with a refurbed trinitron monitor in 2005 or so, it was 19 or 20 inches, 1600x1200, so sweet at the time. Thing weighed like 100lbs. After a while you developed wire blindness, but people who saw it for the first time would see the wires straight away... and would recoil in horror.
I own and use a Sony FD Trinitron Flat Screen CRT every day. Works great. I need a special adapter to connect it to my SHIELD. But it's outlasted several DVD players and game consoles. It's my family's only TV. Hadn't thought about how long I've owned it, but now realize it's been at least 12-15 years. I'd thought about chucking it for a flat screen, but was waiting for prices to come down. Then waited for HD prices to come down. Lately been waiting for 4k prices to come down. Now, why wait? They're so damn cheap. But after all these years, feels like I just... can't, and I just want to discourage too much TV watching (rationalization). Should I hang on to this thing?
My parents had a Trinitron when I was a kid; now they have a Samsung Quantum Dot LED display. The Trinitron was nice, but I could spend hours watching videos on the QLED. It's sharper, motion is crisper, and the colors are deep and vibrant.
There's really no comparison in terms of picture quality. And the Samsung is light enough that it can be easily mounted from the ceiling.
There are reasons why the market has shifted to some of these other technologies. Apart from nostalgia and familiarity, you won't miss the Trinitron if you upgrade.
There's really no comparison in terms of picture quality. And the Samsung is light enough that it can be easily mounted from the ceiling.
There are reasons why the market has shifted to some of these other technologies. Apart from nostalgia and familiarity, you won't miss the Trinitron if you upgrade.
I mount my Sony from the ceiling I'll break the ceiling.
Newer TVs take a long time to change channels. You probably want to hang on to this one.
I'm hanging on to a ~2005 Bang & Olufsen 28" MX8000, in my opinion one of the greatest 4:3 CRT TVs ever made (not a flat tube, but absolute TOTL in every other aspect, including sound). I use it primarily for retro gaming, and although I have considered getting an Open Source Scan Convertor and plugging the consoles into my 27" LCD, there's just something about playing games on an SD 4:3 CRT.
Well, the thing is a real pain in the ass to get rid off.
I bought an OLED to my parents as a present, thinking, ohh removing the old trinitron screen is easy. It required like 4 different people, and creating a set of wheeled machines. It takes so much 3d space(specially deepness) as well as weight.
Had I known about that, I would never have bought the OLED in the first place.
I bought an OLED to my parents as a present, thinking, ohh removing the old trinitron screen is easy. It required like 4 different people, and creating a set of wheeled machines. It takes so much 3d space(specially deepness) as well as weight.
Had I known about that, I would never have bought the OLED in the first place.
Yeah, my 27-inch tube is very, very heavy.
It probably still has better black levels than any LCD you can buy. Wait for the OLED prices to come down.
Yes. I wish I’d kept mine.
I use a 14" RGB Sony Trinitron medical imaging monitor for retrogaming; PVMs and BVMs are pretty much the gold standard these days, especially the Trinitrons, for their quality and longevity.
If you think Trinitron quality is great in your average Television CRT, it's _amazing_ in true RGB. Who knew SCART would keep bare-metal retrogaming alive?
If you think Trinitron quality is great in your average Television CRT, it's _amazing_ in true RGB. Who knew SCART would keep bare-metal retrogaming alive?
Used to love degaussing mine at work, it was so strong it would have a secondary effect on every monitor in a 6 foot radius.
We had a Sony Trinitron and I remember them for being sturdy. Ours survived:
1. An assault with a rock to the screen by my then three year old sister.
2. Over 4000km in a shipping container.
3. Putting a blank x-ray plate to the screen, which apparently created a static shock powerful enough to disable the device(not sure about this one because I was five when I did that).
1. An assault with a rock to the screen by my then three year old sister.
2. Over 4000km in a shipping container.
3. Putting a blank x-ray plate to the screen, which apparently created a static shock powerful enough to disable the device(not sure about this one because I was five when I did that).
They were very sturdy, but not in all situations.
One New Years Eve I was at home and a friend was having a party at his around the corner. He asked if he could borrow my TV which I agreed to, but when he turned up he'd taken far too many pharmaceuticals.
I helped him carry it to his house and was at the front crossing the road when I heard what sounded like a huge explosion. I turned round and he'd dropped the TV, it had imploded, and he was gurning and dancing around it.
I miss that Trinitron...
One New Years Eve I was at home and a friend was having a party at his around the corner. He asked if he could borrow my TV which I agreed to, but when he turned up he'd taken far too many pharmaceuticals.
I helped him carry it to his house and was at the front crossing the road when I heard what sounded like a huge explosion. I turned round and he'd dropped the TV, it had imploded, and he was gurning and dancing around it.
I miss that Trinitron...
_You_ did #3?!
How'd you get access to a blank X-Ray plate? What do you mean by "device" here?
How'd you get access to a blank X-Ray plate? What do you mean by "device" here?
My father used to be a lecturer/chief technician at a university and his field is medical equipment in general(the course he was responsible for was something along the lines of "x-ray devices"), so we had a few of those lying around in the house.
By "device" I meant the TV set. I remember hearing an obvious zap as the plate glued itself to the screen which went blank even though the TV seemed to be still on.
By "device" I meant the TV set. I remember hearing an obvious zap as the plate glued itself to the screen which went blank even though the TV seemed to be still on.
I'm really interested in learning why it would do that. I remember my screen generating some static electricity (e.g. paper would stick), but I would not have expected putting something on the screen to blank the tube. Is it a special property of the x-ray plate? (Is it conductive?) This feels like knowledge that will end up feeling obvious in hindsight. ;)
To be honest I still have no idea. I know the plate(or actually film) was made of some insulating material, because it accumulated a charge on its surface the same way the screen did.
Unfortunately I never got an ELI5, even though I was literally five back then.
Unfortunately I never got an ELI5, even though I was literally five back then.
Was the xray plate like a thin film of plastic with a metalised coating; would act as a large flat capacitor??
I had a 17" Iiyama 'Diamondtron' (really trinitron) monitor through the late 90s and well into the 00s. It had amazing picture quality for the time, put up with a fair amount of abuse and was still working perfectly when I gave it away in '05.
But then flat screens hit and all of a sudden I could have more screen real estate and more desk space. No contest really, the future had arrived even if the future was worse colour and response rates for a while.
I can't imagine the tonnage of CRT needed to recreate all the flat screens around my home and office now.
But then flat screens hit and all of a sudden I could have more screen real estate and more desk space. No contest really, the future had arrived even if the future was worse colour and response rates for a while.
I can't imagine the tonnage of CRT needed to recreate all the flat screens around my home and office now.
LCDs had much less screen real estate compared to CRTs which could run much higher resolutions. The first generations of LCDs were quite inferior on everything but form factor and power consumption.
> LCDs had much less screen real estate compared to CRT
Oh sure, in terms of resolution I went from the CRT being able to do 1600x1200 back to an LCD that could do 1280x1024 (IIRC). But the physical screen sizes were bigger very quickly, that's what I meant.
CRTs were certainly superior in terms of image, response time and resolution. But when I could buy a larger flat panel at 1280x1024 with a 16ms response time for a couple of hundred pounds... buh-bye forever CRT.
Oh sure, in terms of resolution I went from the CRT being able to do 1600x1200 back to an LCD that could do 1280x1024 (IIRC). But the physical screen sizes were bigger very quickly, that's what I meant.
CRTs were certainly superior in terms of image, response time and resolution. But when I could buy a larger flat panel at 1280x1024 with a 16ms response time for a couple of hundred pounds... buh-bye forever CRT.
In practice CRTs went up tp 22", LCDs eventually matched that with the 20" displays, but that didn't exactly happen overnight.
You are comparing an old and small CRT to an LCD of a different era. You could have bought a better and just as big CRT instead if you had wanted to.
(Not saying that you should have, but I find it weird to state that LCDs were bigger, that happened when the 24" widescreens arrived (at a ludicrous price)).
You are comparing an old and small CRT to an LCD of a different era. You could have bought a better and just as big CRT instead if you had wanted to.
(Not saying that you should have, but I find it weird to state that LCDs were bigger, that happened when the 24" widescreens arrived (at a ludicrous price)).
>> In practice CRTs went up tp 22"
Yeah but they were massive and still heavy. I'm not sure I ever met a CRT monitor over 19". LCDs larger than that became cost effective sometime around 05-06 ish. It wasn't much after that I got a widescreen too.
Yeah but they were massive and still heavy. I'm not sure I ever met a CRT monitor over 19". LCDs larger than that became cost effective sometime around 05-06 ish. It wasn't much after that I got a widescreen too.
> I'm not sure I ever met a CRT monitor over 19".
Many years ago I delivered and set up 22" and, I think 24", Cornerstone and Sony branded monitors for banking, drafting, and medical use when I worked for VARs. They were beasts to lift but beautiful displays. I personally bought and used for many years a Mitsubishi Diamond CRT display with the NEC version of the Trinitron tube because it had multiple inputs (and I had all kinds of adapters) and would happily sync to nearly anything- Sun, Mac, SGI, pc, composite.
Many years ago I delivered and set up 22" and, I think 24", Cornerstone and Sony branded monitors for banking, drafting, and medical use when I worked for VARs. They were beasts to lift but beautiful displays. I personally bought and used for many years a Mitsubishi Diamond CRT display with the NEC version of the Trinitron tube because it had multiple inputs (and I had all kinds of adapters) and would happily sync to nearly anything- Sun, Mac, SGI, pc, composite.
I used to work on an Iiyama Pro 510 22".
It weighed more than 70lbs and literally bent my (very 90s) trestle desk.
The image was fine, but not memorably outstanding. I remember colour calibration was a real problem.
I wasn't unhappy when LCD monitors took over.
It weighed more than 70lbs and literally bent my (very 90s) trestle desk.
The image was fine, but not memorably outstanding. I remember colour calibration was a real problem.
I wasn't unhappy when LCD monitors took over.
I bought the Vision Master Pro 410 in the early 2000's (http://vesta.homelinux.free.fr/wiki/iiyama_vmpro410.jpg), fantastic monitor, my last CRT. Worked great up until ~2008 when I replaced it with an LCD. Crappier quality but I reclaimed half of my desk.
When I was in uni I built up a multi-monitor setup of CRTs people left behind (the centerpiece was a 20" Apple Multiple Scan Trinitron, off to the sides was a 15" Sony Trinitron and a 17" Samtron display)
Then I got my first big paycheck from some remote work and I replaced them all with the original Apple 30" Cinema Display. That was a glorious day.
Then I got my first big paycheck from some remote work and I replaced them all with the original Apple 30" Cinema Display. That was a glorious day.
> I can't imagine the tonnage of CRT needed to recreate all the flat screens around my home and office now.
FWIW there were improvements on CRT's size at the end of their popularity with some having like half the depth or less, but by that time LCDs had won in terms of mainstream preference.
FWIW there were improvements on CRT's size at the end of their popularity with some having like half the depth or less, but by that time LCDs had won in terms of mainstream preference.
19" visionmaster pro 450 here (.25 dot pitch!)
Lasted me a good 8+ years until I replaced it with a Dell 2407WFP.. which, to be fair, is ALSO still going strong today.
Lasted me a good 8+ years until I replaced it with a Dell 2407WFP.. which, to be fair, is ALSO still going strong today.
Not Trinitron (Edit: Yes it is), but I had a pair of Sony FW900 Monitors. I got them free off of craigslist in 2010 when my laptop screen broke, I didn't have an external monitor and I was unemployed.
Those things are beasts. A little over 90 lbs each, 16x10 aspect ratio, and supported a resolution of 2304 x 1440 at 80 Hz.
https://www.cnet.com/products/sony-gdm-fw900/specs/
Those things are beasts. A little over 90 lbs each, 16x10 aspect ratio, and supported a resolution of 2304 x 1440 at 80 Hz.
https://www.cnet.com/products/sony-gdm-fw900/specs/
Those are Trinitrons too
Even says that on the page I linked. Thanks for pointing that out.
I have one of these at home in my closet. It was my primary home display from around 2005 to 2012.
Trinitron TVs had a legendary near-mythical status in the USSR beginning sometime in the 80s. It was the TV to measure anything by. To the point that "sonytrinitron" was common enough name everyone understood (much like "xerox" or "jeep" became common names over there).
But they have those damned horizontal tungsten wires going across the screen. Once seen cannot be unseen.
[deleted]
I had the same problem with these screens. Even after years of using Trintron monitors at work, I was never able to ignore the lines. I've never heard anyone else complain about them though - others seem to get used to them very quickly.
except they are hardly visible, most people filter them out again and it really doesn't impact the experience for them
In our house hold we had the infamous 40 inch XBR 700 (our neighbors had the 40 inch Mitsubishi equivalent, which was also very nice at the time). A 320 lb glorious spectacle. We loved it. Eventually though it started to wear out and because of it's shear weight and size, dad posted on Craig's List for free, with the caveat the person(s) had to come get it without him helping. The people who came were in for a rude awakening.
Do CRT monitor, given today's technology advance, still offers any benefits? Does it still wins on colouring and latency when we have OLED?
CRTs give the excitement of science
Electrons are coaxed away from matter, then shot through an artificial vacuum near the speed of light. Then they're meticulously guided by magnetic forces to SMASH into a pinpoint of phosphor to excite the release of photons, thousands of times every second, in perfect harmony.
LCDs are just really really smart Christmas lights. Very practical, but a bit boring.
Also, horizontal storage space, like having a shelf in the most ideal place to have a shelf.
Electrons are coaxed away from matter, then shot through an artificial vacuum near the speed of light. Then they're meticulously guided by magnetic forces to SMASH into a pinpoint of phosphor to excite the release of photons, thousands of times every second, in perfect harmony.
LCDs are just really really smart Christmas lights. Very practical, but a bit boring.
Also, horizontal storage space, like having a shelf in the most ideal place to have a shelf.
With 15 kV acceleration voltage (which I think is typical), the electrons only go 24% the speed of light.
Many high-end late-era CRTs can do 1600×1200 or above at 60Hz or more while also being able to do 800×600 at esports-friendly refresh rates of 100Hz or above, all on a screen with an area which is still good by today's standards and with very low latency. You can now get a flat-panel monitor which does both a higher resolution and a higher refresh rate (and at the same time) but that basically wasn't true until a couple of years ago: and you'll pay quite a lot for that high-end gaming screen, and it still won't do 4K.
I have a cheap trinitron (here is hooked on a retro PC running Quake [1] and here it is running a retro game i'm working on [2]). As far as colors go, it has hands down the best looking image in any of my other monitors, including a Dell U2713HM which i bought because all the artists in the (gamedev) company i worked at used it and recommended it to me (and i also used it myself at work, but wanted other opinions too), especially when it comes to contrast. Black looks like black, not washed out gray and white looks like white.
The only issue it has is that it has been used a lot (i got it used) and the guns are wearing out so it is a bit dim. I opened the case to calibrate it a bit using a guide i found and it was mostly fixed, but i avoid using it for too much because, well, things are only going to get worse. So i only use it in short bursts mainly to play older 2D games, like Fallout, that look way better in a CRT than any flat panel tech.
Which basically leads me to the main thing that CRT has over any modern tech: native support for multiple resolutions. Pretty much any resolution between 320x200 to 1280x1024 looks as good as it gets (although 1024x768 is the best resolution for this monitor due to size and refresh rate which maxes at 85Hz in that). With flat panels you are locked at whatever the native resolution and everything else looks blurry (if only Nvidia and AMD allowed integer nearest neighbor pixel scaling so we could at least get some resolutions crisper - that would also solve my main issue with 4K monitors, but that is another story).
As far as OLED goes, OLED seems to have the potential to match and perhaps surpass the best CRTs (and certainly my cheap one) but it first needs to come in the form of a PC monitor - preferably one that doesn't get discolored areas within the year. I have one of the first gen PS Vita handhelds which have OLED monitors and the image quality is great, so i'd like a monitor that looks like that.
[1] https://i.imgur.com/AdLcOGu.jpg [2] https://i.imgur.com/BKk3RX0.jpg
The only issue it has is that it has been used a lot (i got it used) and the guns are wearing out so it is a bit dim. I opened the case to calibrate it a bit using a guide i found and it was mostly fixed, but i avoid using it for too much because, well, things are only going to get worse. So i only use it in short bursts mainly to play older 2D games, like Fallout, that look way better in a CRT than any flat panel tech.
Which basically leads me to the main thing that CRT has over any modern tech: native support for multiple resolutions. Pretty much any resolution between 320x200 to 1280x1024 looks as good as it gets (although 1024x768 is the best resolution for this monitor due to size and refresh rate which maxes at 85Hz in that). With flat panels you are locked at whatever the native resolution and everything else looks blurry (if only Nvidia and AMD allowed integer nearest neighbor pixel scaling so we could at least get some resolutions crisper - that would also solve my main issue with 4K monitors, but that is another story).
As far as OLED goes, OLED seems to have the potential to match and perhaps surpass the best CRTs (and certainly my cheap one) but it first needs to come in the form of a PC monitor - preferably one that doesn't get discolored areas within the year. I have one of the first gen PS Vita handhelds which have OLED monitors and the image quality is great, so i'd like a monitor that looks like that.
[1] https://i.imgur.com/AdLcOGu.jpg [2] https://i.imgur.com/BKk3RX0.jpg
I know CRT is better than LCD, that is why i specifically mention OLED.
The prices of OLED will come down, expect the WOLED which LG current uses to be around the same as Top Range LCD in 2019 or 2020.
MicroLED, will fix every problem OLED has. Or may be MiniLED which allows up to 250ppi will be good enough.
Just wondering if there are anything CRT still wins, because even latency problem is an non issues with OLED, HDMI connection and software issues aside.
The prices of OLED will come down, expect the WOLED which LG current uses to be around the same as Top Range LCD in 2019 or 2020.
MicroLED, will fix every problem OLED has. Or may be MiniLED which allows up to 250ppi will be good enough.
Just wondering if there are anything CRT still wins, because even latency problem is an non issues with OLED, HDMI connection and software issues aside.
My problem isn't the price, it is that there is no actual OLED PC monitor. There are OLED handhels, OLED mobiles, OLED tablets even OLED TVs, but no OLED PC monitors. Dell was planning to release one, but a) it was way too big (30") and b) they cancelled it.
So in terms of CRT comparison, CRT at the moment still wins when it comes to colors and latency (since OLED doesn't exist yet for PC) and the ability to support multiple resolutions. OLED (or any other *LED) will solve the first two, but i doubt it'll solve the last one unless perhaps if we go to 500+ DPI where the inaccuracies of fractional scaling wouldn't be visible. Assuming Nvidia and AMD finally gives us the ability to scale without bilinear filtering, of course.
So in terms of CRT comparison, CRT at the moment still wins when it comes to colors and latency (since OLED doesn't exist yet for PC) and the ability to support multiple resolutions. OLED (or any other *LED) will solve the first two, but i doubt it'll solve the last one unless perhaps if we go to 500+ DPI where the inaccuracies of fractional scaling wouldn't be visible. Assuming Nvidia and AMD finally gives us the ability to scale without bilinear filtering, of course.
There's a method (a bunch of slightly different ones, actually) for rejuvenation of cathodes to improve emittance. This can significantly prolong the life of a tube and has been applied by many with great success to expensive measurement equipment.
They are still sought after by the retro gaming community, although there are many who like the professional studio monitors Sony made (BVM and PVM series) which have a cylindrical tube.
A friend of mine has one for this reason. He actually manages equipment and medical devices for a company that runs hospitals and was able to get one that one of their hospitals was going to throw away. It’s a really nice display for gaming on a CRT, but, to my eyes, not that much nicer than the Sony Wega he otherwise uses.
The Trinitron studio monitors also have RGBS (red, green, blue, composite-sync) BNC connectors, meaning that it's fairly easy to directly hook up bare arcade boards and get that real arcade experience.
The competitive Super Smash (Melee) community still uses them, and the good ones (like the trinitrons) are highly coveted.
Why? What actual competitive advantage do they offer? Or is it more an abstract look and feel thing.
Latency. A purely analogue path gets the signal to the screen quicker (in some cases multiple frames faster) which can make a serious difference in the fighting game community where input timing is typically calculated at the frame level.
Modern LCDs have a display lag that CRTs don't. Hardcore fighting games' units of measurement for moves are frames (as in frames per second). E.g. "it takes this character 17 frames to execute this move, and you have 5 frames from the start of the animation to block it." Under those conditions, a 5ms delay matters.
The other comments have hit the nail on the head.
The game is considered "very fast" mechanically so a slight change in screen rendering is a big deal.
People claim they can see the difference between a CRT vs LED with the same input latency, in how they differ in rendering the frame (I don't know technical details on this, but they do "feel" different).
It's an interesting scenario that the community is actively trying to migrate from.
The game is considered "very fast" mechanically so a slight change in screen rendering is a big deal.
People claim they can see the difference between a CRT vs LED with the same input latency, in how they differ in rendering the frame (I don't know technical details on this, but they do "feel" different).
It's an interesting scenario that the community is actively trying to migrate from.
I still remember playing a PSX for the first time. It felt so... slow. I complained to my cousin about it, 3 years younger than me. He made fun of me.
When it was finally my money to spend on games, I bought an N64. The only thing the Playstation seemed capable of was RPGs. And with the sole exception of FF7, the SNES ones were better.
When it was finally my money to spend on games, I bought an N64. The only thing the Playstation seemed capable of was RPGs. And with the sole exception of FF7, the SNES ones were better.
As far as I know only pre-digital game consoles provide a competitive advantage with CRT TVs. In Melee, a fairly "fast" game in terms of inputs and timing, the Gamecube/Wii can produce noticeable input lag when connected to a digital display due to the step of converting the signal. Analog CRTs alleviate this and are thus preferred for practically all levels of competitive play. Senior members of the Smash Melee competitive community have been known to keep their own personal stores of CRTs, making organizing large events easier.
I've known a few people in the scene to prefer these Trinitron TVs specifically, usually because the colors "pop" more, making it easier to discern movement on the screen. Or so they tell me.
For more modern consoles that output digital signals, no conversion is needed and you will typically see LED TVs being used instead.
Interestingly, Smash Bros. Melee also has a PC-based online community, where Gamecube emulators are used to play a modified version of the game over the internet. On an emulator, it's actually possible to provide less input lag than on a real console + CRT.
http://smashladder.com
http://fastermelee.net
I've known a few people in the scene to prefer these Trinitron TVs specifically, usually because the colors "pop" more, making it easier to discern movement on the screen. Or so they tell me.
For more modern consoles that output digital signals, no conversion is needed and you will typically see LED TVs being used instead.
Interestingly, Smash Bros. Melee also has a PC-based online community, where Gamecube emulators are used to play a modified version of the game over the internet. On an emulator, it's actually possible to provide less input lag than on a real console + CRT.
http://smashladder.com
http://fastermelee.net
A few years back I booted my beloved diamondtron. It felt ... better. It's no scientific measure, but even compared to 4K OLED, there's something pretty that is visually pleasing. Kinda like looking at kodachrome films.
This video about retro-console users seeking out CRTs and PVMs is interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAi8AVj9GV8
Nothings wins a CRT on latency
You can get a top of the line(or close to it) high performance CRT for free if you look around a bit, both PC monitors and TVs. Even the pro grade displays with RGB in. I haven't been able to find even a used OLED display of any kind that wasn't in a phone or tablet under $800
Additionally, OLED is stuck at one native resolution. A multi sync video monitor or PC monitor can natively display any resolution up to the highest the dot pitch can really resolve
Additionally, OLED is stuck at one native resolution. A multi sync video monitor or PC monitor can natively display any resolution up to the highest the dot pitch can really resolve
They have space to place stuff on top of them, any LCD setup gets messy if you have to add an external box like a decoder without a specialized TV table.
I was once a happy owner of last Sony's HDCRTs with hdmi input that I ordered from Japan for almost double the price.
Luckily, I soon started my career and was sent as an exchange student to Singapore. That put an end to my Quake 3 obsession,and lust for expensive gaming gear.
Luckily, I soon started my career and was sent as an exchange student to Singapore. That put an end to my Quake 3 obsession,and lust for expensive gaming gear.
Did it have input lag or artifacting, to your recollection?
They did, but it wasn't worse than modern TVs. The paradoxical thing is because everything went through the image processor,
digital input>processor>analog conversion>screen
was faster than
analog input>digital conversion>image processor>analog conversion>screen
There's a big thread on AVSforum with people whinging about this somewhere. The upside is, they're still nice to play stuff like switch games on
EDIT: the processing of analog sources, like 480p dvds, laserdisc, etc was superior to cheap modern TVs. They designed the scaler very well for older formats and it really did look quite nice. I remember being totally disappointed by my "high end" samsung tv in 2013~ or so in comparison. The colors are handled especially nice even on like, VHS. Artifacting/macroblocking/banding wasn't an issue with however they were handling the effects/processing which was a noticeable advantage over the flat screens of the era and even more recently
digital input>processor>analog conversion>screen
was faster than
analog input>digital conversion>image processor>analog conversion>screen
There's a big thread on AVSforum with people whinging about this somewhere. The upside is, they're still nice to play stuff like switch games on
EDIT: the processing of analog sources, like 480p dvds, laserdisc, etc was superior to cheap modern TVs. They designed the scaler very well for older formats and it really did look quite nice. I remember being totally disappointed by my "high end" samsung tv in 2013~ or so in comparison. The colors are handled especially nice even on like, VHS. Artifacting/macroblocking/banding wasn't an issue with however they were handling the effects/processing which was a noticeable advantage over the flat screens of the era and even more recently
I believe, there was some little extra lag on hdmi, because dac lag was added to hdmi buffering lag, but it was barely noticable
I've had multiple Trinitron monitors over my career. Until LCDs got good I would insist on having one. They had the least distortion and the best color.
2 monitors stand out in my memory:
In 1998 I bought myself a 19" name-brand Sony monitor, for $650! I used it for 10 years, until I finally replaced it with a pair of LCD monitors.
In the early 00s I worked for Sun Microsystems, and worked mostly from home. I bought a 27" Sun-branded Trinitron monitor off an internal surplus equipment auction and had it shipped to my home. It was so heavy it came on a shipping pallet!
2 monitors stand out in my memory:
In 1998 I bought myself a 19" name-brand Sony monitor, for $650! I used it for 10 years, until I finally replaced it with a pair of LCD monitors.
In the early 00s I worked for Sun Microsystems, and worked mostly from home. I bought a 27" Sun-branded Trinitron monitor off an internal surplus equipment auction and had it shipped to my home. It was so heavy it came on a shipping pallet!
Had one of these at my parents and they just out lasted most of my friends TVs and it was still working like new the day we finally was urged to switch to LCD tv after they had it 20+ years
Previous discussion 1 day ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16048202
I still sorely miss my GDM-5010PT monitor. It gave up the ghost in about 2006, losing the ability to display green. I didn't bother to service it and I'm kicking myself because it was a reasonable repair.
That said, it really was a boat anchor as far as weight goes.
That said, it really was a boat anchor as far as weight goes.
I think it's kind of sad that Sony's attention to detail and their status as a premium brand has been fading in recent decades. There are few product categories these days where Sony really is state of the art, although it seems as if they're trying to position themselves as premium manufacturer again (audio players, projectors come to mind) - a development I welcome, as I think there's room for brands in consumer electronics that work with the care of a small shop but can manufacture on a large scale.
edit: As other commenters pointed out there are some rather obvious categories I seem to have missed, including cameras and gaming consoles.
edit: As other commenters pointed out there are some rather obvious categories I seem to have missed, including cameras and gaming consoles.
Sony's huge and complicated. Obviously they're still doing well as a purveyor of gaming consoles, and their mirrorless cameras are AMAZING right now, but at the same time their forays into other markets (computing, e.g.) haven't fared well, and they went from market leader to also-ran in displays.
The thing that still shocks me, though, is the degree to which they blew their market leading position in portable music players. They OWNED that market in the 80s and 90s with the then-ubiquitous Walkman brand, which they extended into the CD era with "Discman" players that seemingly everyone had when I went to college in 1988.
Internal politics (I assume?) kept them from introducing a reasonable MP3 player until far, far too late for them to catch up. Some of their early efforts literally required you to re-encode your music into another weird format to use (ATRAC, I think?) -- and this while smaller players (Rio, etc) had devices you could load by copying MP3s to a memory card. I assume this is because Sony Music was afraid of the Mp3 revolution, but my understanding is that Sony Electronics has always been far more profitable than Sony Music, so it's hard to understand how that tail ended up wagging that particular dog.
(Oh, and there's also Sony's bizarre insistence on proprietary formats, like MiniDISC and MemoryStick -- that didn't help them, either.)
And then, of course, Apple came in with the iPod and gathered up the high-end, high-margin customers that were Sony's constituency.
The thing that still shocks me, though, is the degree to which they blew their market leading position in portable music players. They OWNED that market in the 80s and 90s with the then-ubiquitous Walkman brand, which they extended into the CD era with "Discman" players that seemingly everyone had when I went to college in 1988.
Internal politics (I assume?) kept them from introducing a reasonable MP3 player until far, far too late for them to catch up. Some of their early efforts literally required you to re-encode your music into another weird format to use (ATRAC, I think?) -- and this while smaller players (Rio, etc) had devices you could load by copying MP3s to a memory card. I assume this is because Sony Music was afraid of the Mp3 revolution, but my understanding is that Sony Electronics has always been far more profitable than Sony Music, so it's hard to understand how that tail ended up wagging that particular dog.
(Oh, and there's also Sony's bizarre insistence on proprietary formats, like MiniDISC and MemoryStick -- that didn't help them, either.)
And then, of course, Apple came in with the iPod and gathered up the high-end, high-margin customers that were Sony's constituency.
> (Oh, and there's also Sony's bizarre insistence on proprietary formats, like MiniDISC and MemoryStick -- that didn't help them, either.)
The Memory Stick was bizarre, no doubt about it. Minidisc (and with it, ATRAC), however, was quite groundbreaking and had the potential to be huge.
As a lossy psychoacoustic codec, ATRAC predated MP3 for years in commercial availability. Minidisc was both sturdy and flexible (esp. in comparison to DCC), had adequate audio quality (and later ATRAC versions became really good), and itcould have even been a contender for a 3.5" floppy successor in both capacity and speed. Sadly, this was the worst days of Sony hubris, both the physical format and the codec cost a lot to license, the use as a data medium was needlessly crippled, and as such it never really took off globally.
I really wonder what would have happened if Sony and Philips could have reconciled and worked together on this like they did with the CD, instead of going all format war (with the DCC being the real head-scratcher here...).
The Memory Stick was bizarre, no doubt about it. Minidisc (and with it, ATRAC), however, was quite groundbreaking and had the potential to be huge.
As a lossy psychoacoustic codec, ATRAC predated MP3 for years in commercial availability. Minidisc was both sturdy and flexible (esp. in comparison to DCC), had adequate audio quality (and later ATRAC versions became really good), and itcould have even been a contender for a 3.5" floppy successor in both capacity and speed. Sadly, this was the worst days of Sony hubris, both the physical format and the codec cost a lot to license, the use as a data medium was needlessly crippled, and as such it never really took off globally.
I really wonder what would have happened if Sony and Philips could have reconciled and worked together on this like they did with the CD, instead of going all format war (with the DCC being the real head-scratcher here...).
MiniDisc was definitely cool -- so cool that I bought a portable deck, and dubbed some CDs down for travel because it was smaller than carrying a Discman -- but it was also clearly doomed from the start. CD adoption was incredibly rapid because it was so obviously better in every way than cassettes, and offered (or could offer) superior fidelity vs vinyl.
Minidisk didn't have either of those going for it -- plus, Sony's complete (?) control of it meant nobody else was making equipment. That nearly everyone brought CD decks to market in the early/mid 80s meant that, over the course of maybe 4 years, CD went from "rich dude toy" to "I got a CD boom box for high school graduation".
You probably nail it with "Sony Hubris." To think they could recreate that perfect storm of demand and success was bananas. People duplicated their music libraries on CD, but no WAY were they gonna do that AGAIN after having bought into "perfect sound forever" on CD.
(Well, at least "perfect sound for decades;" my oldest CDs are from 1987, and the ones I still want to listen to still sound fine.)
Minidisk didn't have either of those going for it -- plus, Sony's complete (?) control of it meant nobody else was making equipment. That nearly everyone brought CD decks to market in the early/mid 80s meant that, over the course of maybe 4 years, CD went from "rich dude toy" to "I got a CD boom box for high school graduation".
You probably nail it with "Sony Hubris." To think they could recreate that perfect storm of demand and success was bananas. People duplicated their music libraries on CD, but no WAY were they gonna do that AGAIN after having bought into "perfect sound forever" on CD.
(Well, at least "perfect sound for decades;" my oldest CDs are from 1987, and the ones I still want to listen to still sound fine.)
Sony got screwed so hard by copyright owners in the US on Betamax and DAT, that they decided to buy up movie/record labels and become a copyright owner themselves. This put them on the wrong side of the tech war and they got mired in the DRM bullcrap which made their music players a PITA to use.
[suggested viewing: the techmoan episode on DAT https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4K1QKKPX_g ]
[suggested viewing: the techmoan episode on DAT https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4K1QKKPX_g ]
>Some of their early efforts literally required you to re-encode your music into another weird format to use (ATRAC, I think?)
It's not really different from iPods, those required iTunes to load music just like Sony's devices used SonicStage, with the difference of the iPod having an internal hard drive instead of a MiniDISC drive (and later CD walkmans with ATRAC/MP3 support).
It's not really different from iPods, those required iTunes to load music just like Sony's devices used SonicStage, with the difference of the iPod having an internal hard drive instead of a MiniDISC drive (and later CD walkmans with ATRAC/MP3 support).
That's incorrect, because loading music on iPods didn't require you to re-encode anything.
Sony's early digital players required your music to be in Sony's proprietary format, which was a whole additional step. And remember, 20 years ago, re-encoding took longer, so it was meaningfully less convenient.
There's definitely a case to be made that requiring iTunes to load iPods/iPhones is annoying and needlessly complex, but I think it's clear Apple did this to make it more accessible to normal humans, not to exert control or in a quixotic attempt to sideline open codecs.
(That Apple's current path is clearly away from iTunes sync and towards independent device connections to Apple Music kinda bears this out, I think, even if that's not something I'm interested in using.)
Sony's early digital players required your music to be in Sony's proprietary format, which was a whole additional step. And remember, 20 years ago, re-encoding took longer, so it was meaningfully less convenient.
There's definitely a case to be made that requiring iTunes to load iPods/iPhones is annoying and needlessly complex, but I think it's clear Apple did this to make it more accessible to normal humans, not to exert control or in a quixotic attempt to sideline open codecs.
(That Apple's current path is clearly away from iTunes sync and towards independent device connections to Apple Music kinda bears this out, I think, even if that's not something I'm interested in using.)
Sony digital cameras sensors are the best in the market. Guess what the Iphone uses, that is the number one camera in the world.
I'd argue they're top of the tree in gaming consoles, but on the whole I agree.
I'd say they compete favorably with Canon and Nikon with digital cameras.
In my view, they make great-ish Smart Phones.
Still remember the small Triniton Sony TV I've connected my Amstrad CPC to. It had a glass in from of the tube and was portable with a handle.
Is there currently a TV/panelntechnology to rule them all? I am very fond of OLED technology - superb contrast and vivid colors, even on UHD.
I mostly remember the two thin support wires crossing the screen. Loved my Sony vaio desktop.
[deleted]
I appreciate the quality of the screen, but I think the Mitsubishi flat screens were a step up from Sony's Trinitrons. If I recall, the Trinitron were a section of a cylinder (vertically flat) but the Mitsubishi 2040U (and later short-neck version, 2060U or something like that) used a strategically distorted picture to ultimately hit a flat screen (both vertically and horizontally flat) and appear focused.
Sony would, in my opinion, ruin their name by mistreating people (both customers and would-be customers) by publishing what we now call "fake news" in the form of movie reviews by "David Manning" (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Manning_(fictitious_writ... for more) and distributing malware to Windows users on some audio CDs (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootk... for more).
The latter means that Windows users who may have legally acquired a copy of the affected 58 known audio CDs (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Compact_Discs_sold_wit... for the list) and inserted them into their Windows OS computer may have contracted software now identified as either spyware, a trojan horse, or a rootkit called "XCP" that could not easily be removed even if the user refused the EULA presented to them. Some of the software on these CDs appeared to be copyright infringements from FLOSS as well. And to cap it all off, the uninstaller for the malware only hid the software's entry in the Windows add/remove software list without uninstalling the software. Even Sony BMG's initial rootkit removal software exacerbated the problem further mistreating users. Ostensibly this was all done in the name of preventing people from making a copy of the audio tracks to their computers.
I don't recommend running Windows or any other nonfree software. But that's no excuse for Sony's abuses. There's no good way to justify committing copyright infringement against developers who are respecting a user's software freedom. Nor is there good reason to justify Sony's choices to repeatedly subject users to malware, stand in the way of a non-infringing use, or make malware hard to remove.
I'm not keen to distinguish between the various arms of Sony, so I choose not to do business with any of them. I also notice that despite all this malicious behavior the people who run the various arms of Sony are apparently not keen to distance themselves from the name "Sony".
Sony would, in my opinion, ruin their name by mistreating people (both customers and would-be customers) by publishing what we now call "fake news" in the form of movie reviews by "David Manning" (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Manning_(fictitious_writ... for more) and distributing malware to Windows users on some audio CDs (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootk... for more).
The latter means that Windows users who may have legally acquired a copy of the affected 58 known audio CDs (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Compact_Discs_sold_wit... for the list) and inserted them into their Windows OS computer may have contracted software now identified as either spyware, a trojan horse, or a rootkit called "XCP" that could not easily be removed even if the user refused the EULA presented to them. Some of the software on these CDs appeared to be copyright infringements from FLOSS as well. And to cap it all off, the uninstaller for the malware only hid the software's entry in the Windows add/remove software list without uninstalling the software. Even Sony BMG's initial rootkit removal software exacerbated the problem further mistreating users. Ostensibly this was all done in the name of preventing people from making a copy of the audio tracks to their computers.
I don't recommend running Windows or any other nonfree software. But that's no excuse for Sony's abuses. There's no good way to justify committing copyright infringement against developers who are respecting a user's software freedom. Nor is there good reason to justify Sony's choices to repeatedly subject users to malware, stand in the way of a non-infringing use, or make malware hard to remove.
I'm not keen to distinguish between the various arms of Sony, so I choose not to do business with any of them. I also notice that despite all this malicious behavior the people who run the various arms of Sony are apparently not keen to distance themselves from the name "Sony".
Url changed from https://hackaday.com/2018/01/03/why-sonys-trinitron-tubes-we..., which points to this.
Generally we prefer to link to text rather than video, but there really isn't much in that article, so it doesn't seem justified to link there. The HN guidelines ask for original sources: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
Generally we prefer to link to text rather than video, but there really isn't much in that article, so it doesn't seem justified to link there. The HN guidelines ask for original sources: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
For the benefit of the kids, let me dredge up how these used to be lovingly pronounced "tri nitron". :)
Cheers.
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Made-Japan-Akio-Morita-Sony/dp/045115...