Re: Freeview signal changes disables early STBs

In article <CbEck.21972$jB5.6669@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Woody <harrogate3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Actually there is a point here that the change has been foisted on the
public without the industry really understanding their needs.

Firstly there is the issue of picture quality. Most people who have a TV
with no SCART (although it may have AV connections) will be using a CRT
TV which undoubtedly gives a better and more easily watched picture than
modern LCDs. Given failing eyesight (and those of us of an age all know
what that's about - don't we Bill?) I can understand resistance to LCD.

While I'm happy to agree a *good* CRT set will beat an LCD as regards
those with failing eyesight this is rubbish. And cheap CRT sets have
usually poor resolution - not up to making the best of what's transmitted.

Second is cost. You could buy a 20inch CRT TV for about £100 - even less
in recent times - where the cheapest 20" LCD will knock you back the
best part of double that and people (and I don't just mean those getting
on a bit) cannot afford it.

If you're talking new sets then the above applies even more - have you
ever looked at the cheap CRT sets on offer at the moment?

Put that up to a 24 inch (which is what most
would have to replace) and you could be looking at a cost factor
approaching three.

Can you still buy a large screen CRT set? If so it will be from a maker
who offers no support whatsoever repair wise.

Three - LCD TV's are essentially not repairable, the downside of living
in a throw away society. Many with a CRT TV will have had it 10-20
years, probably with little or no problems.

Oh yes? My last expensive one (Philips) lasted 5 years before needing an
uneconomic repair.

Get a LCD TV now and it
fails out of warranty and what do you do? Either face a repair bill
approaching the original cost for the manufacturer to repair it (if they
are even able to do so) or take out a service contract or extended
guarantee at exhorbitant cost which will not cover the fault when it
goes wrong.

I'm looking at an LCD monitor which is several years old and heavily used.

Fourthly size. In CRT there was 14", 16-17", 20", 22", and 24" -
usually. LCD is now bottoming out at 17", then about 22", and next up is
usually 26". Agreed they are much slimmer than CRT equivalents but
facially they tend to be bigger, and if you have limited space this can
be seen as a problem. What's more - IME - they are not so mechanically
stable as their predecessors and if they fall over they may not get back
up again.

But being so much lighter easier for a feeble person to lift?

Finally - and a very important factor - sound. Older TVs were mostly
mono, with a decent sized loudspeaker, and a moderately powerful amp to
drive it. Moderm TVs use small devices which by comparison are thin and
tinny. This requires the volume to be turned up which only makes things
worse as the amp is not powerful enough for the sound levels required.
Ask anyone with hearing problems - as my Management is constantly
telling me from her own experience - and they will tell you that
listening to a modern TV with its small speakers is no longer a
pleasure. Add to that that they are all stereo mostly without a mono
override which makes life even worse for someone who has single ear
impairment and/or only one hearing aid.

That is crap. All dialogue is mono on TV so it makes no difference to
clarity whether the set is mono or stereo. Nor do you need large speakers
for clarity - only good bass response. And plenty of CRT sets had equally
as diabolical sound as LCD ones. However, if someone has a hearing problem
headphones are the answer and most modern sets have this facility.

No, I can understand the situation only too well, and I heartily
sympathise. I wonder how the young tearaway designers of these machines
will handle the situation for themselves 20 or 30 years down the road?

Please don't flame me - it is just a viewpoint.

I dunno why the old are always invoked to try and get sympathy for a
viewpoint. I'm old. But neither *that* dotty or poor.
When you get old you also shouldn't have the responsibilities or
outgoings of the younger - mortgage paid off and no kids etc to pay for.
It's more the young I feel sorry for, economics wise, trying to make a
life in this financial climate.

--
*'Progress' and 'Change' are not synonyms.

Dave Plowman dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: LCD televisions more reliable than CRT based ones?
    ... CRT sets will last about 30,000 to 40,000 hours on the average. ... The new LCD ... I can get a decent 20" analog crt based Tv for abt $150 Or a 19" flat LCD based Tv for abt $700 Im curious if LCD based television have less failure problems than CRT based ones? ... I don't mind spending a premium on new technology as long as it has higher or AS high of reliability as the older technology. ...
    (sci.electronics.repair)
  • Re: OT You were right Harry!
    ... >> trying to convince her to buy a LCD version. ... >> To my surprise, they say the newer HD CRT sets have the best picture, ... The thing I really like about CRT HD is the wide viewing angle. ... mounted unit, only to find out that he couldn't sit on the floor with ...
    (rec.boats)
  • Re: video senders
    ... LCD TV sets do not sync lock exactly the same way as CRT sets. ... The LCD set uses XY addressing that is derived from the video ...
    (sci.electronics.misc)
  • Re: LCD televisions more reliable than CRT based ones?
    ... >>CRT sets are soon to no longer be manufactured. ... Support for them will ... >>The picture quality on an LCD set will also ...
    (sci.electronics.repair)