|
As this forum is rarely used anymore, we've locked it. Feel free to browse and read. Questions? Please reach out to us directly. Cheers! |
|
|
 |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
macgyver655
Joined: 22 Aug 2007
Posts: 8508
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 9:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ecrabb wrote: | | macgyver655 wrote: | | And i don't agree with a lot of these dollars now vs dollars then equations either. And that debate could be much larger then the display one. And I remember those 1970 console tv's. We had one and so did my grand parents. And they lasted decades and I grew up watching them constantly. Around 1987 I bought a brand new RCA 32" console tv. It was a big deal back then as 32" was almost unheard of. I paid 1000 bucks for it and it use to be on 16 hr's a day, everyday for 10 to 15 years. |
Well, inflation happened whether you agree with it or not, Mac and it significantly changes the value equation.
The fact is that in 1970, middle class households had incomes in the $5,000-7,000/year ballpark. A typical sedan was less around half that, and expensive cars like Corvettes or Cadillacs were pushing $6,000. So, a $500 or $600 color console TV was a HUGE purchase back then if total household income was $6,000. To put that in perspective, if a household was making a decent middle-class $60,000 income, a TV purchase would have to be in the $5000-6000 range to be comparable.
There hasn't been as much inflation in the last 20 year so, so your example isn't as bad, but the comparison still holds true. Take your $1000 32" RCA console... Back in '86 or '87 when you bought that thing, average household income was around $30,000, and a brand new Caprice Classic was under $15,000, so again, a $1000 32" TV was still a pretty decent chunk of change - almost two weeks' income for that family. It was much cheaper than in the 70's, but still not cheap by any means. Of course, there were much cheaper options than the console even then.
But, in 2012, a similar-class sedan like an Impala is pushing $25,000 - more than half-again as much as the 80's car, and average household income is in the $50,000 ballpark now. But, you can find a 32" TV for $300 without even trying - less than HALF of what it cost back when you bought it. Or, you can put a couple hundred bucks with it and get a bigger 42" that you can hang on the wall for less than half of what you spent. That doesn't even account for inflation… If you do, the new 42" TV is less than half a week's family income (while your old 32" in the 80's was nearly two weeks' worth).
| macgyver655 wrote: | Oh, and did I mention i still have it and it still works just fine, with a great picture at that. And I never had to repair it.......  |
Yeah, a "great picture" that's not HD, needs a converter box because the analog-only tuner won't receive any broadcast, it weighs 150 pounds and takes up a huge amount of floor space (for little good purpose), and nobody would want one even you could still get one... Which is, of course why you can't get one.
SC |
Bla bla bla. I only went back 20 years. Spank went back to 1970. And as you said, inflation hasn't changed much in that time but electronics junk surely has. And yes, a great non HD picture. One might even say a better non HD picture then a HD flat panel picture. And it doesn't need a converter for cable, sat, dvd and so on. Go back to your other threads SC.....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
HaydnG90
Joined: 22 May 2006
Posts: 1356
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 10:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Have to say a HD feed (not 1080i) from my FIOS box into the 32XBR100 looks exceptional and far better than 480i should look, at least on paper.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Curt Palme
CRT Tech
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 24396
Location: Langley, BC
TV/Projector: All of them!
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 10:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| AnalogRocks wrote: |
I miss mine. It was a Garbage Electric brand (GE) and was out for repair more than we watched it. That TV broke my HV "cherry". The jolt threw me into the wall head first and knocked me senseless. ( as you say to yourselves "OHHHHH! That explains it )
 |
Gawd I hated working on GE TVs! THe tube ones were bad, the solid state CRTs were worse.
Zeniths were decent save for the later System 3s. THe Chromacolor IIs were easy to work on save for the tuner assembly. Hitachis never failed, but there were a couple with design issues.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spanky Ham
Joined: 22 Mar 2006
Posts: 5643
Location: Comedy Central
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 11:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| macgyver655 wrote: | | ecrabb wrote: | | macgyver655 wrote: | | And i don't agree with a lot of these dollars now vs dollars then equations either. And that debate could be much larger then the display one. And I remember those 1970 console tv's. We had one and so did my grand parents. And they lasted decades and I grew up watching them constantly. Around 1987 I bought a brand new RCA 32" console tv. It was a big deal back then as 32" was almost unheard of. I paid 1000 bucks for it and it use to be on 16 hr's a day, everyday for 10 to 15 years. |
Well, inflation happened whether you agree with it or not, Mac and it significantly changes the value equation.
The fact is that in 1970, middle class households had incomes in the $5,000-7,000/year ballpark. A typical sedan was less around half that, and expensive cars like Corvettes or Cadillacs were pushing $6,000. So, a $500 or $600 color console TV was a HUGE purchase back then if total household income was $6,000. To put that in perspective, if a household was making a decent middle-class $60,000 income, a TV purchase would have to be in the $5000-6000 range to be comparable.
There hasn't been as much inflation in the last 20 year so, so your example isn't as bad, but the comparison still holds true. Take your $1000 32" RCA console... Back in '86 or '87 when you bought that thing, average household income was around $30,000, and a brand new Caprice Classic was under $15,000, so again, a $1000 32" TV was still a pretty decent chunk of change - almost two weeks' income for that family. It was much cheaper than in the 70's, but still not cheap by any means. Of course, there were much cheaper options than the console even then.
But, in 2012, a similar-class sedan like an Impala is pushing $25,000 - more than half-again as much as the 80's car, and average household income is in the $50,000 ballpark now. But, you can find a 32" TV for $300 without even trying - less than HALF of what it cost back when you bought it. Or, you can put a couple hundred bucks with it and get a bigger 42" that you can hang on the wall for less than half of what you spent. That doesn't even account for inflation… If you do, the new 42" TV is less than half a week's family income (while your old 32" in the 80's was nearly two weeks' worth).
| macgyver655 wrote: | | Oh, and did I mention i still have it and it still works just fine, with a great picture at that. And I never had to repair it....... |
Yeah, a "great picture" that's not HD, needs a converter box because the analog-only tuner won't receive any broadcast, it weighs 150 pounds and takes up a huge amount of floor space (for little good purpose), and nobody would want one even you could still get one... Which is, of course why you can't get one.
SC |
Bla bla bla. I only went back 20 years. Spank went back to 1970. And as you said, inflation hasn't changed much in that time but electronics junk surely has. And yes, a great non HD picture. One might even say a better non HD picture then a HD flat panel picture. And it doesn't need a converter for cable, sat, dvd and so on. Go back to your other threads SC..... |
I think you missed Tinman's original point, which was flat panel tech is only ten to fifteen years old. A 1960 CRT might be a better comparison to flat panel tech today, since CRTs would have been more than a decade old at that point. Of course broadcast networks were still in their infancy, so I decided to go with 1970 to give a little leeway.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tinman
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 1326
Location: Carson City Nevada
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2012 12:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| digitalayon wrote: | | Tinman wrote: | Open it up and look for bloated capacitors before you give up on it. Very, very common failure in modern Chinese electronics.
Marc |
Caps are good.....controller chip is dead. |
Oh, bummer...
_________________
This space for rent.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CasetheCorvetteman
Joined: 09 Nov 2008
Posts: 6326
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2012 7:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| macgyver655 wrote: | | Spanky Ham wrote: | | , I would hope that advancements in those twenty years would bring a much superior picture. Plus, I would guess the reliability should start to become a little better in the twenty years. |
^#$!$)@*#%!, sorry, I was choking on my coffee......  Let me know when this happens..... |
Yes, and if you wouldnt mind, could you dig me up out of the ground, open the box up and let me know when reliability improves too, cause ill be there by then for sure. Dont hold your f***en breath Spanky, cause youll end up in the ground too if you do!!
If you take a good look around at what is going on, youll see there are certain decent quality 10 yr old plus flat panels that are STILL going, and when they fail, you can look back and say well they did a good job for their day. Newer ones are FAR more cheaply made ( if you cant see this fact your eyes are shut or youre kidding yourself ) and substantially less reliable than they were 10 years ago. They are selling for less and less all the time, but they really arent worth the sweat off your balls either.
How many people do you know 20 yrs ago that used to upgrade to a newer TV every 2 to 3 yrs? I dont know any that did, not one single one. Now its very common, and mainly due to the fact they are so expensive to repair, its a more attractive step to buy a newer unit.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
digitalayon
Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 921
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2012 4:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
I sold the broken vizio the other day. I listed it as broken. He tried to come back today and get his money back. He thought it would be cheap to fix. Got plans for his 100 bucks.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecrabb
Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2012 5:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| digitalayon wrote: | | I sold the broken vizio the other day. I listed it as broken. He tried to come back today and get his money back. He thought it would be cheap to fix. Got plans for his 100 bucks. |
Are you serious? A guy actually showed up at your house to try to get his money back? Seriously? What the hell did you say? I'd be so incredulous, I'm not sure I could keep from laughing in somebody's face if they showed back up asking for money back on a broken/not working piece of consumer electronics.
Unbelievable.
SC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CasetheCorvetteman
Joined: 09 Nov 2008
Posts: 6326
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2012 5:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Haha!! What right has he got!! No one else to blame but himself!!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
digitalayon
Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 921
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2012 11:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
He was hoping to try and take advantage of a situation. Fcking idiot. I told him it was for parts only. Oh well...perhaps he will learn.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spanky Ham
Joined: 22 Mar 2006
Posts: 5643
Location: Comedy Central
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2012 3:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| CasetheCorvetteman wrote: | | macgyver655 wrote: | | Spanky Ham wrote: | | , I would hope that advancements in those twenty years would bring a much superior picture. Plus, I would guess the reliability should start to become a little better in the twenty years. |
^#$!$)@*#%!, sorry, I was choking on my coffee...... Let me know when this happens..... |
Yes, and if you wouldnt mind, could you dig me up out of the ground, open the box up and let me know when reliability improves too, cause ill be there by then for sure. Dont hold your f***en breath Spanky, cause youll end up in the ground too if you do!!
If you take a good look around at what is going on, youll see there are certain decent quality 10 yr old plus flat panels that are STILL going, and when they fail, you can look back and say well they did a good job for their day. Newer ones are FAR more cheaply made ( if you cant see this fact your eyes are shut or youre kidding yourself ) and substantially less reliable than they were 10 years ago. They are selling for less and less all the time, but they really arent worth the sweat off your balls either.
How many people do you know 20 yrs ago that used to upgrade to a newer TV every 2 to 3 yrs? I dont know any that did, not one single one. Now its very common, and mainly due to the fact they are so expensive to repair, its a more attractive step to buy a newer unit. |
You may be correct, but I remain hopeful that things will get better.
One reason you forget for upgraditis are the significant changes that have taken place over the last decade. For what like 40 years, the only big change was from black and white to color. Sources were NTSC, VHS and DVD over what like a twenty year period. Now we have flat panels that went from 480p to 720p to now 1080p. There is Bluray, streaming sources, HD broadcast, etc. In the upcoming years, there will be 4k and maybe even a watchable 3D. Lets not forget that people also want larger screens.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecrabb
Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2012 3:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Spanky Ham wrote: | | One reason you forget for upgraditis are the significant changes that have taken place over the last decade. For what like 40 years, the only big change was from black and white to color. Sources were NTSC, VHS and DVD over what like a twenty year period. Now we have flat panels that went from 480p to 720p to now 1080p. There is Bluray, streaming sources, HD broadcast, etc. In the upcoming years, there will be 4k and maybe even a watchable 3D. Lets not forget that people also want larger screens. |
Yeah, and don't forget that there even ARE larger screens to buy. For several decades, we were stuck at 27" for the largest direct-view sets. Decades. When 32" and later 36" sets came out in the 80's and 90's, everybody was all, "Ooohhhhh... 32-inches!" It took what, 10 or 15 years after 32" became commonplace before Sony was selling the giant pig of a 40" XBR... Oooohhh... 40-inches, and it took a forklift or four people to move the damned thing.
Contrast that to LCD: We've literally gone from 32" and 37" sets in the $1000-1300 ballpark to 50" and 60" sets in that same price range - in SIX or SEVEN YEARS! The sets have damn near doubled in size (nearly quadruple in area) in just over half a decade. At the same time, they've gotten thinner, lighter, brighter, higher-resolution, and have better contrast and color. A single guy can carry most of them, they take up little-to-no floor space, and it only takes two people to hang it on the wall, and that's only because it's a big picture - not necessarily because it's heavy.
Personally, I say "good riddance" to the old picture tube direct-view set. I have a 2004-vintage 32" Panny in my basement the kids play games on. I'm sure I couldn't give it away at this point, so there it will sit until we move or until it dies.
I wonder which will die first? The 2004 32" Panny CRT or the 2006 Olevia 37" LCD? The Olevia has a shitload more hours on it because we only had the Panny a couple of years before we replaced it with the Olevia and got a bunch of our floor space back in the living room.
SC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CasetheCorvetteman
Joined: 09 Nov 2008
Posts: 6326
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2012 5:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Crabb, contrast and LCD dont belong in the same scentence!!
We may have done what you say, but the quality and reliability are continually declining. That is an observation that im sure im not the only one to have made.
| Spanky Ham wrote: |
You may be correct, but I remain hopeful that things will get better.
One reason you forget for upgraditis are the significant changes that have taken place over the last decade. For what like 40 years, the only big change was from black and white to color. Sources were NTSC, VHS and DVD over what like a twenty year period. Now we have flat panels that went from 480p to 720p to now 1080p. There is Bluray, streaming sources, HD broadcast, etc. In the upcoming years, there will be 4k and maybe even a watchable 3D. Lets not forget that people also want larger screens. |
Spanky, everyone has to have a dream  It would be great if yours comes true, and i would sure welcome it!! There is no good reason for things to not be the most reliable they have ever been, cause its not like as if things havent been well enough tested over the years is it.
The Japanese had HD back in the early 90s, SEGA had 3D LCD shutter glasses back in 1986 that work every bit as good as most LCD shutter glasses that come with TVs today, and both Europe and Japan were using RGB since god only knows when, while over there and over here we were all stuck with composite video and in the early 90s s-video...
What youre seeing now is nothing that hasnt been done many years ago, they are just thinner and less reliable.
They are cheaper and have more features cause if they were not, they wouldnt ever sell any. Ofcourse you can still buy 50 inch NEC 1920x1200 LCD for close to $6,000 if you want, the picture quality, build quality and WORTHY features will blow your mind, but no one wants to pay for something to be built right anymore.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spanky Ham
Joined: 22 Mar 2006
Posts: 5643
Location: Comedy Central
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2012 3:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So there were some bits and pieces of different things around the world, but nothing like what is available today.
I am sorry what was done in the past is no where near as good as the present. Tube sets had a good picture twenty years ago but it wasn't that great.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CasetheCorvetteman
Joined: 09 Nov 2008
Posts: 6326
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2012 2:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
And nor should it be!! We have had 25 yrs to improve and lets be honest, we have not come far. And Japan's HD back then was indeed a higher res than 1920x1080. Sega's 3D LCD shutter glasses were indeed as good as first gen recently sold shutter glasses. Every bit as good!!! Its all been done before.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecrabb
Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2012 4:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| CasetheCorvetteman wrote: | | And Japan's HD back then was indeed a higher res than 1920x1080. |
No, it was not.
SC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CasetheCorvetteman
Joined: 09 Nov 2008
Posts: 6326
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2012 5:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Was 1100 plus lines.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecrabb
Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2012 6:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
No, it was not.
Muse/Hi-Vision was 1125 lines, but that was the total line count - active lines were 1035i, very similar to the 1080i much of the world watches off-the-air content with now.
Unlike current 1080i, instead of digital compression, Muse used analog compression to cram a 20mhz signal into 8mhz worth of bandwidth. It was innovative for the time, but the equipment was horrendously expensive, and by today's standards, it's far, far inferior to the picture we get out of a $99 Blu-ray player.
SC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CasetheCorvetteman
Joined: 09 Nov 2008
Posts: 6326
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2012 6:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry, youre right, my mistake. I knew there was an 1125 in there somewhere.
Regardless, we still havent gone far forwards. As you know there were front and rear projection CRTs in the early 90s capable of way past 1920x1440 resolution and contrast ratios easily as high as we are only just stating to see on digitals now. They were expensive, they still are, but they LAST. They can also be reasonably easily repaired and rebuilt, making them considerably more valuable.
What makes this even more tipped towards the older side of the argument is that back then, things were in many ways over engineered which provided a very long life of future proofing, and very few sources could ever push them to their limits. Now pretty much any off the shelf source will put out the max resolution of the set ( and the set only has one set resolution it can properly fill the screen with anyway )
If stuff today was as reliable as it was in the 90s and built with the future in mind ( which it is not ), it would still cost as much or more than it did then.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecrabb
Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2012 6:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| CasetheCorvetteman wrote: | | Regardless, we still havent gone far forwards. As you know there were front and rear projection CRTs in the early 90s capable of way past 1920x1440 resolution and contrast ratios easily as high as we are only just stating to see on digitals now. They were expensive, they still are, but they LAST. They can also be reasonably easily repaired and rebuilt, making them considerably more valuable. |
I think we have gone quite far forward. That I can get PQ out of a new digital projector that surpasses everything but the very best CRT's in pretty much every category save for on/off, and I can do it with a 3-year warranty, a package that's probably 1/6 the size, that I can hang by myself, and that is very nearly silent and uses probably half the power and outputs half the heat... Personally, I think that's pretty impressive. Oh, and most can buy this level quality with significantly less than a months' salary... This level of picture quality used to cost tens of thousands of dollars, and home theater was the domain of the über-wealthy. Now, almost any middle class movie enthusiast can have a home theater. Sorry, but I think that's all pretty amazing, and certainly doesn't say, "haven't gone far".
This has been hashed out here at least 100 times. Yes, yes those high-end CRTs were capable of displaying resolution beyond 1920x1440, albeit with decreasing MTF. Yes, it's rebuildable, but it's quite expensive to do so. Just replacing the tubes in those high-end machines costs several times what many of us spent on our CRT's, and more than what a lot of people spend on a digital - never mind how much those high-end projectors cost to buy in the first place. Yes, the on/off contrast is excellent, but the ANSI contrast is terrible, the MTF lower, the size/noise inferior. Besides, who cares if it will display beyond 1920x1440... The best source we have is 1920x1080.
| CasetheCorvetteman wrote: | | What makes this even more tipped towards the older side of the argument is that back then, things were in many ways over engineered which provided a very long life of future proofing, and very few sources could ever push them to their limits. Now pretty much any off the shelf source will put out the max resolution of the set ( and the set only has one set resolution it can properly fill the screen with anyway ) |
Yes, it was over-engineered, and extremely high-quality, and well-built, etc... But nobody would be able to afford it. If cheap digital hadn't of come along, a CRT like what most of us here are watching would probably be north of $30,000 new by now, and because of the durability, still very expensive used.
| CasetheCorvetteman wrote: | | If stuff today was as reliable as it was in the 90s and built with the future in mind ( which it is not ), it would still cost as much or more than it did then. |
Exactly. Unfortunately, that would mean that almost none of us here would have any of it. I don't know about you, but I couldn't afford a $5,000 projector from government surplus that needed $4,500 worth of tubes replaced.
So, in many ways, you guys that love the old, over-engineered, expensive stuff really owe a debt of gratitude to the new, small, cheap, digital gear for forcing the stuff you love so much into obsolescence; if the whole "digital" thing wouldn't have happened, you probably wouldn't be able to afford the gear you have.
SC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Forum powered by phpBB © phpBB Group
|
|
