HI
I need to get a larger monitor, been using 17" crt's but with higher screen resolutions this is becoming increasingly irritating.
I was looking at some 22" crt's but then you look at the spec's and they are actually 20" (what is it about crt's - they always quote a percieved and a real size?) I also noticed that TFT monitors are actually what they are quoted as IE a 17" IS 17"!
Anyway I am thinking of a 19" TFT or a 22"(20"!)CRT any thoughts or reccommendations, I only want it for Music and nothing else.
OH; and do TFT's put less strain on the eye?
Flipper.
Monitor reccommendations.
-
original flipper original flipper https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=8999
- KVRAF
- 2544 posts since 14 Sep, 2003 from Essex
-
original flipper original flipper https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=8999
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 2544 posts since 14 Sep, 2003 from Essex
HI
OH; your not using monitors?
Flipper.
OH; your not using monitors?
Flipper.
-
- KVRAF
- 4749 posts since 15 Jul, 2001 from Holmfirth, West Yorkshire, U.K
im using 2X17" TFT from ebuyer.com
something like these
http://www.ebuyer.com/customer/products ... _uid=65119
not only are they easier to work with than crt imo
but also there not ovens.
I used to have 2xcrt and my studio was like a hot house.
something like these
http://www.ebuyer.com/customer/products ... _uid=65119
not only are they easier to work with than crt imo
but also there not ovens.
I used to have 2xcrt and my studio was like a hot house.
original flipper wrote:HI
OH; your not using monitors?
Flipper.
-
- KVRAF
- 3399 posts since 26 Mar, 2002 from london
They quote the viewable and/or actual size (without the plastic cover), which vary in ratio.
I bought a couple of second-hand monitors which work very nicely and were very cheap.
I bought a couple of second-hand monitors which work very nicely and were very cheap.
Every day takes figuring out all over again how to f#ckin’ live.
-
- KVRist
- 360 posts since 27 Jul, 2004 from Cologne/Germany
No replies? Perhaps a way to show you that this is the wrong forum? 
Ok, maybe not so funny ... and definitely not helpful
I still prefer CRTs but mainly because I have to do a lot of graphic work and at least like to have an idea about colours.
Exclusively for music, I guess I'd have a TFT. They are light on the eyes and they save you a lot of space (and maybe noise when you use single coils )
Regards,
Tommy
Ok, maybe not so funny ... and definitely not helpful
I still prefer CRTs but mainly because I have to do a lot of graphic work and at least like to have an idea about colours.
Exclusively for music, I guess I'd have a TFT. They are light on the eyes and they save you a lot of space (and maybe noise when you use single coils
)Regards,
Tommy
-
- KVRAF
- 6519 posts since 13 Mar, 2002 from UK
flipper,
CRT's are measured on the diagonal of their tube, a good inch each side of this is usually covered by the bezel.
As far as panels go I prefer 17". Both 17 and 19 inch TFT's almost invariably have a maximum native display of 1280x1024 so with 19" you pay a lot more for bigger pixels.
Also I've alway found that anything larger than a 19" crt / 17" tft gives me neckache. I can't scan larger monitors comfortably without making small involuntary neck turns. Hurts like hell after a couple of hours.
TFT's come in a variety of flavours. I prefer Samsungs PVA monitors. They are viewable from a much greater angle that TN type monitors and ,to me, just look better. Unfortunately, driven by the games juggernaut and it's demands for fast rise times, most manufacturers (even samsung) are reverting to TN types.
Finally, feel free to disagree. Purely subjective but I know what works for me.
CRT's are measured on the diagonal of their tube, a good inch each side of this is usually covered by the bezel.
As far as panels go I prefer 17". Both 17 and 19 inch TFT's almost invariably have a maximum native display of 1280x1024 so with 19" you pay a lot more for bigger pixels.
Also I've alway found that anything larger than a 19" crt / 17" tft gives me neckache. I can't scan larger monitors comfortably without making small involuntary neck turns. Hurts like hell after a couple of hours.
TFT's come in a variety of flavours. I prefer Samsungs PVA monitors. They are viewable from a much greater angle that TN type monitors and ,to me, just look better. Unfortunately, driven by the games juggernaut and it's demands for fast rise times, most manufacturers (even samsung) are reverting to TN types.
Finally, feel free to disagree. Purely subjective but I know what works for me.
-
- Skunk Mod
- 21249 posts since 10 Jun, 2004 from Pony Pasture
The exaggerated picture-tube measurements come from the early days of electronic television (as opposed to John Logie Baird's mechanical TV system).
In the earliest days, television picture tubes had a circular cross section, not rectangular, so there was only one screen dimension to measure. Diameter.
Every manufacturer wanted to sell the biggest sets, so when they went to more squared-off tubes, they took the most impressive possible measurement of their tubes -- the diagonal, equivalent to the old tubes' diameter. Going to an honest viewable-area measurement would have put a manufacturer at a disadvantage compared to others still declaring the bigger number.
So it's partly marketing, partly history.
Related issue: Don't know if they still do this, but makers of loudspeakers used to give the diagonal distance between mounting holes as a driver's "size," rather than an honest measurement of the actual sound radiating surface.
Meffy
In the earliest days, television picture tubes had a circular cross section, not rectangular, so there was only one screen dimension to measure. Diameter.
Every manufacturer wanted to sell the biggest sets, so when they went to more squared-off tubes, they took the most impressive possible measurement of their tubes -- the diagonal, equivalent to the old tubes' diameter. Going to an honest viewable-area measurement would have put a manufacturer at a disadvantage compared to others still declaring the bigger number.
So it's partly marketing, partly history.
Related issue: Don't know if they still do this, but makers of loudspeakers used to give the diagonal distance between mounting holes as a driver's "size," rather than an honest measurement of the actual sound radiating surface.
Meffy