Sony monitors are TERRIBLE!
Rockn
It's not a design flaw, it is there for a reason.
p.m.h...@dundee.ac.uk (Pete bog) wrote in article
<335f9f6e...@news.exeter.ac.uk>...
DON'T EVER BUY A SONY TRINITRON MONITOR! Apart from being more expensive
than normal monitors, there is a dark line right across the screen. No, it
wasn't faulty, they are all like that - it's a design flaw. And yes, it IS
noticable. Load anything with a white screen like word, and you get this
really annoying black line across the screen. I definitely will never buy
one. Lucky I spotted it on a friends before I went and bought one.
**************************************
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people
very
angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
----------
Pete bog
DON'T EVER BUY A SONY TRINITRON MONITOR! Apart from being more expensive
than normal monitors, there is a dark line right across the screen. No, =
it
wasn't faulty, they are all like that - it's a design flaw. And yes, it =
IS
noticable. Load anything with a white screen like word, and you get this
really annoying black line across the screen. I definitely will never =
buy
one. Lucky I spotted it on a friends before I went and bought one.
**************************************
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people=
Chris
I looked at the advertisement in one of the computer magazine for the
Sonny 300 SF 20 inch. The advertisement claims a perfect picture corner
to corner. I didn't see a perfect picture corner to corner on the 200
SF,
so I sent it back. Otherwise the graphics while in windows were
completely awsome. The text in DOS mode was a bit hard on the eyes.
I guess a solution would to resize the display to point were the edges
of the display extend beyond the bezel.
d7dot
p.m.h...@dundee.ac.uk (Pete bog), said this n that:
:)DON'T EVER BUY A SONY TRINITRON MONITOR! Apart from being more expensive
:)than normal monitors, there is a dark line right across the screen. No, =
:)it
:)wasn't faulty, they are all like that - it's a design flaw. And yes, it =
:)IS
:)noticable. Load anything with a white screen like word, and you get this
:)really annoying black line across the screen. I definitely will never =
:)buy
:)one. Lucky I spotted it on a friends before I went and bought one.
:)**************************************
:)In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people=
:) very
:)angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
Normally I don't cross post to this many groups, but to follow your
lead....The lines are damper wires, all Sony monitors have them.
They are not considered a problem by many users, myself included but
it is a personal choice that can be made. While your subject stated
your views, mine differ. I won't change the subject to Sony Good.
Regards, Brad
d7...@mindspring.com
d7...@juno.com
Brad's Internet Help Resources
http://www.mindspring.com/~d7dot
Keith Evans
In article <335f9f6e...@news.exeter.ac.uk>, p.m.h...@dundee.ac.uk wrote:
>DON'T EVER BUY A SONY TRINITRON MONITOR! Apart from being more expensive
>wasn't faulty, they are all like that - it's a design flaw. And yes, it =
Congratz. You just took your first step into learning the difference between
an apperature grill (i.e. Trinitron) and shadow masks.
Step 2: How to post a well-known fact about computer technologies on
Usenet without making yourself sound like an idiot.
Sarcasm mode: Off.
Sorry, folks, it's been a long day... ;-)
Cheers from kev...@direct.ca! Please remove the 'spamguard'
UBC grad '94, BA w/ Eng Lit major from my address if you wish
http://mypage.direct.ca/k/kevans to email me. Thanx!
Burke Rutherford
It's not a design flaw, it's an unavoidable problem in an otherwise
excellent monitor. I love my sony trinitron. Look I'm typing right
through the thred line now(it's to keep the trinitron screen from
vibrating) Some people like Trinitron monitors and some people hate them.
Well that's a rather profound statement to make.
Pete bog <p.m.h...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote in article
<335f9f6e...@news.exeter.ac.uk>...
DON'T EVER BUY A SONY TRINITRON MONITOR! Apart from being more expensive
than normal monitors, there is a dark line right across the screen. No, it
wasn't faulty, they are all like that - it's a design flaw. And yes, it IS
noticable. Load anything with a white screen like word, and you get this
really annoying black line across the screen. I definitely will never buy
one. Lucky I spotted it on a friends before I went and bought one.
**************************************
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people
very
angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
----------
Carlos Marrero
Sony 15" Screens have one horizontal line about 1 inch from the bottom
and the 17" screens have one on the top and the bottom. That is to
spread the display into three different areas to keep the temperature of
the display low due to the flat screen the Trinitron Tube has.
--
---
----
_
Los
T. Nguyen
Other than that line, which isn't always noticable, they have REALLY GOOD
picture quality. I would actually suggest one, if price wasn't too much
of a factor.
Alan John Galbraith
Pete bog wrote:
>
> DON'T EVER BUY A SONY TRINITRON MONITOR! Apart from being more expensive
> than normal monitors, there is a dark line right across the screen. No, it
> wasn't faulty, they are all like that - it's a design flaw. And yes, it IS
> noticable. Load anything with a white screen like word, and you get this
> really annoying black line across the screen. I definitely will never buy
> one. Lucky I spotted it on a friends before I went and bought one.
> **************************************
> In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very
> angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
In fact you didn't even notice it before that which proves it is not as
annoying as you make out.
Samuel Samurai Wright
On 25 Apr 97 04:04:49 GMT, "Burke Rutherford" <bur...@speedline.ca>
wrote:
>It's not a design flaw, it's an unavoidable problem in an otherwise
>excellent monitor. I love my sony trinitron. Look I'm typing right
>through the thred line now(it's to keep the trinitron screen from
>vibrating) Some people like Trinitron monitors and some people hate them.
>Well that's a rather profound statement to make.
>
>Pete bog <p.m.h...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote in article
><335f9f6e...@news.exeter.ac.uk>...
>DON'T EVER BUY A SONY TRINITRON MONITOR! Apart from being more expensive
>than normal monitors, there is a dark line right across the screen. No, it
You will also see it on Sony Televisions as well.
But they are still fine products!
The Samurai Press, Inc.®
Bakersfield, CA.
"Tell them you have a Samurai
In your pants!!"
Samuel Samurai Wright
On Fri, 25 Apr 1997 00:34:03 GMT, d7...@mindspring.com (d7dot) wrote:
>:)wasn't faulty, they are all like that - it's a design flaw. And yes, it =
>:)IS
>:)noticable. Load anything with a white screen like word, and you get this
>Normally I don't cross post to this many groups, but to follow your
>lead....The lines are damper wires, all Sony monitors have them.
>They are not considered a problem by many users, myself included but
>it is a personal choice that can be made. While your subject stated
>your views, mine differ. I won't change the subject to Sony Good.
>
>Regards, Brad
>
Sony's are great monitors. The Line is a matter of taste, as Brad
said. There are people out there who never notice it until someone
points it out, or they are bored.
Frog
Carlos,
Actually, these wires that are in the Sony Trinitron tube are not to keep
the temperature of the display low. These wires are support wires for the
aperature grille on the tube itself. Shadow mask tubes from other
manufacturers don't have these wires. Also, your incorrect about the
horizontal lines on the 17 inch Sony. The 17 inch models have two thin
noticable lines at the bottom of the screen that will show up on an all
white display such as MS Word. I own an older Sony 1304 display with a
single support wire at the bottom of the screen. With time you adjust to
this naturally occurring phenomona and actually ignore it.
A Sony Trinitron Lover till the end.
Carlos Marrero wrote in article <33604B...@door.net>...
Tim D. Strong
> :)than normal monitors, there is a dark line right across the screen. No, =
> :)it
> :)wasn't faulty, they are all like that - it's a design flaw. And yes, it =
> :)IS
> :)noticable. Load anything with a white screen like word, and you get this
> :)buy
> :)one. Lucky I spotted it on a friends before I went and bought one.
> :)**************************************
> :)In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people=
> :) very
> :)angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
Its the nature of the beast. Trinitrons dont have horizontal masks as I
understand it. They just
have vertical bars of phosphour. If you hit one on the side (lightly)
all the vertical wires in the mask will shake and you'll see a pattern
on the screen. If the horizontal line wasn't there it would be even
worse.
The monitor I'm using actually has two of them. If you are patient
you'll find you never notice them after a while. The resolution
improvment given by the vertical mask more than makes up for
it in my opinion. Look closely--only one horizontal line. On most
monitors there are serveral hundred one between each pixel.
I wouldn't call it a design flaw as much as an unusual feature.....
I don't like the buttons on my monitor that are used to control it but
Its hardly a design flaw.
Don Sterner
There is a reason that Sony monitors are somewhat more expensive than some
others. They are better quality. The line is easily ignored, unless you are
simply looking for something to complain about. You are hung up on the (VERY)
small stuff.
Love my Sony monitor.
>p.m.h...@dundee.ac.uk (Pete bog) wrote in article
><335f9f6e...@news.exeter.ac.uk>...
>
>DON'T EVER BUY A SONY TRINITRON MONITOR! Apart from being more expensive
>than normal monitors, there is a dark line right across the screen. No, it
>wasn't faulty, they are all like that - it's a design flaw. And yes, it IS
>noticable. Load anything with a white screen like word, and you get this
>really annoying black line across the screen. I definitely will never buy
Don Sterner
On Fri, 25 Apr 1997 01:12:53 -0500, Carlos Marrero said.....
>
>Sony 15" Screens have one horizontal line about 1 inch from the bottom
>and the 17" screens have one on the top and the bottom. That is to
>spread the display into three different areas to keep the temperature of
>the display low due to the flat screen the Trinitron Tube has.
Now that's a new one. From what source did you obtain this information? What
does the flat screen design have to do with it?
Steve Simmons
And where have you been since they came out? Hey, did you know that the
8086 architecture lacks a linear memory space? Gads, wotta flaw.
Steve
On Thu, 24 Apr 1997 23:00:26 GMT, p.m.h...@dundee.ac.uk (Pete bog)
wrote:
>DON'T EVER BUY A SONY TRINITRON MONITOR! Apart from being more expensive
>than normal monitors, there is a dark line right across the screen. No, it
<SNIP>
Yes it is annoying, but what is even more annoying is that they can't
be bothered to setup their tubes correctly.
And if you get a chance, play the titles at the end of a film (White
text on Black background, viewed in a darkened room) on a Sony TV and
watch the ghostly flashes top and bottom, these appear to be from
internal reflections inside the tube. Uugghh!!
Steve
Peter Szymonik
>DON'T EVER BUY A SONY TRINITRON MONITOR! Apart from being more expensive
>than normal monitors, there is a dark line right across the screen. No, =
>it
>wasn't faulty, they are all like that - it's a design flaw. And yes, it =
>IS
>noticable. Load anything with a white screen like word, and you get this
>really annoying black line across the screen. I definitely will never =
>buy
>one. Lucky I spotted it on a friends before I went and bought one.
>**************************************
>In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people=
> very
>angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
I use nothing but Sony tubes, they have the sharpest and brightest
display of any monitor on the market. My six year old 14" Sony looks
ten times better than some of thew new monitors I've seen shipped with
PC systems.
Yes, there is a line, but you hardly notice it, and I'd trade that for
a murky display any day.
Peter T. Szymonik
xo...@msn.com
...change is constant...
Jeremy Norris
I have a 15" Sony Trinitron. The damper line is there, but it allows the
picture to be as flat and crisp as it is. It's definitely worth it in my
opinion. I don't think I'll ever go back to shadow mask tubes because
after looking at the Sony, they all look like beach balls now.
Pete bog <p.m.h...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote in article
<335f9f6e...@news.exeter.ac.uk>...
DON'T EVER BUY A SONY TRINITRON MONITOR! Apart from being more expensive
than normal monitors, there is a dark line right across the screen. No, it
wasn't faulty, they are all like that - it's a design flaw. And yes, it IS
noticable. Load anything with a white screen like word, and you get this
really annoying black line across the screen. I definitely will never buy
one. Lucky I spotted it on a friends before I went and bought one.
**************************************
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people
very
angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
----------
Steve (greasbys)
Don Sterner wrote:
>
> There is a reason that Sony monitors are somewhat more expensive than some
> others. They are better quality. The line is easily ignored, unless you are
> simply looking for something to complain about. You are hung up on the (VERY)
> small stuff.
>
> Love my Sony monitor.
This is some what of a contradiction. Sure the picture quality is good
everywhere else on the screen, but it CAN be seen and it DOES interfere
with what what should be displayed. Therefore the obstruction causes
poor picture quality in the general location of the line. Its like
obstructed seats at a ball game, and it is an inconvenience. I had a
Sony monitor for just under a month. People told me I would get use to
it; I never did. I returned it and picked up a high end NEC monitor.
My NEC actually had higher resolution and better color definition than
the Sony. The sony was a bit brighter but in my mind quality is much
more important than brightness.
--
Steven Greasby
Peter Szymonik
>This is some what of a contradiction. Sure the picture quality is good
>everywhere else on the screen, but it CAN be seen and it DOES interfere
>with what what should be displayed. Therefore the obstruction causes
>poor picture quality in the general location of the line. Its like
>obstructed seats at a ball game, and it is an inconvenience. I had a
>Sony monitor for just under a month. People told me I would get use to
>it; I never did. I returned it and picked up a high end NEC monitor.
>My NEC actually had higher resolution and better color definition than
>the Sony. The sony was a bit brighter but in my mind quality is much
>more important than brightness.
>--
>Steven Greasby
There is no way your NEC has a sharper display than the Sony, because
the NEC dot pitch is bigger (.26 or .28 vs. 25 on the Sony.)
I also don't know what you mean by "higher resolution", most Sony's
will go to 1248x1048 with no problem.
In terms of quality, I've seen a lot more dead NECs in my career than
dead Sonys :-)
Finally, the line on the Sony tube doesn't interfere with the display
whatsoever, it's hardly noticable. Depending on how bright the
monitor setting is and what color the background, you *can't* even see
it. It's not like there is a big black line going across the screen.
This line is going right across the line on my screen, unless I'm 2"
away from the screen, I can't see it. It certainly won't affect
resolution or text display!
But if you like the NEC better...
Duane Guingrich
In article <3362c660....@client1.news.psi.net>, r...@mdtsoft.com* wrote:
>
>On Thu, 24 Apr 1997 18:00:26 -0500, "p.m.h...@dundee.ac.uk (Pete bog)"
><p.m.h...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>DON'T EVER BUY A SONY TRINITRON MONITOR! Apart from being more expensive
>>than normal monitors, there is a dark line right across the screen. No, it
>>wasn't faulty, they are all like that - it's a design flaw. And yes, it IS
>>noticable. Load anything with a white screen like word, and you get this
>>really annoying black line across the screen. I definitely will never buy
>>one. Lucky I spotted it on a friends before I went and bought one.
>>**************************************
>>In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very
>>angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
>>
>
>in place.
Yes you are absolutely right. It is not a bug, it's a feature!
The damper wire exists because of an inherent weakness in the design of
the aperature grill. The aperature grill has much less rigidity than the dot
mask design. The damper wires are a kludge to work around this problem. I call
it a kludge because the effects are visible and obviously annoy many people.
The situation is worse, however, when the aperature grill is used on larger
monitors and smaller dot-pitches. The aperature grill has even less rigidity
in these cases and as a result, 21" and 17" aperature grill monitors are
plagued with geometry problems.
The aperature grill was a great design for TVs which have a large dot
pitch and thus allow the grill to maintain a greater rigidity. Also, geometry
flaws are much less noticable on a TV picture. However, a typical computer
screen image constantly reveals geometry flaws because of the numerous
rectangles that populate the screen.
An aperature grill monitors do generally have brighter pictures than dot
mask types, but the aperature grill design is a trade-off. IMHO, the trade-off
is not at all worth it with larger monitors which is why I bought a 21"
NSA/Hitachi Superscan 800 model. Not only does it have excellent geometry and
easy to use digital controls, but its color and brightness are great and it's
price is fantastic. I bought mine a few months ago for $1579, but you can get
it now for $1427 at NECX. NSA/Hitachi also has excellent 15" and 17" monitors.
Duane
|+| Duane Guingrich ===== X-Windows and SQL programming |+|
|X| Senior Consultant |_===== for engineering applications. |X|
|+| MindWeb Incorporated |___| dua...@iquest.net |+|
Wolfe
Carl Mueller wrote:
>
> xo...@ct2.nai.net (Peter Szymonik) wrote:
> >[...]
> >There is no way your NEC has a sharper display than the Sony, because
> >the NEC dot pitch is bigger (.26 or .28 vs. 25 on the Sony.)
>
> Remember that dot-pitch is measured diagonally, while grill pitch is
> measured horizontally. Thus you cannot compare the numbers directly.
> Without thinking about it a bit, I'm not even sure that a simple
> conversion from diagonal to horizontal is appropriate due to the
> different geometries of masks vs. grills.
>
Actually, I remember an article in Computer Shopper from a couple of
years ago stating that both dot and stripe pitch were measured as the
distance from one dot to the nearest dot of the same color. And that you
needed a slightly higher stripe pitch to equal a dot pitch
(.28SP ~ .30DP). Computer Shopper has some old articles on this stuff.
Try a serach for 'stripe pitch' or 'aperture grill' at:
http://www5.zdnet.com/cshopper/search.html
> >Finally, the line on the Sony tube doesn't interfere with the display
> >whatsoever, it's hardly noticable. Depending on how bright the
> >monitor setting is and what color the background, you *can't* even see
> >it.
>
> That varies, depending upon the monitor, the picture, and the individual
> involved. I happen to usually not notice the line since I work with a
> dark background on my (employer's) Sony OEM monitor. But occasionally
> when I have a bright background window, I notice the line clearly.
>
> >But if you like the NEC better...
>
> To each his own. It's good to have a choice, and it's a bit silly to
> argue about what is "best" since there are usually so many variables
> to which different people attach different significance.
>
> -Carl (mue...@cs.unc.edu)
Personally, I think the rich color, excellent text, and vertically flat
screens on a Trinitron are worth the extra cash. But like you said, to
each his own. Later ...
- Chris
=================================================
To reply by email, replace 'nospam' with 'erols'.
Carl Mueller
xo...@ct2.nai.net (Peter Szymonik) wrote:
>[...]
>There is no way your NEC has a sharper display than the Sony, because
>the NEC dot pitch is bigger (.26 or .28 vs. 25 on the Sony.)
Remember that dot-pitch is measured diagonally, while grill pitch is
measured horizontally. Thus you cannot compare the numbers directly.
Without thinking about it a bit, I'm not even sure that a simple
conversion from diagonal to horizontal is appropriate due to the
different geometries of masks vs. grills.
>Finally, the line on the Sony tube doesn't interfere with the display
Roger Kendall
BRAVISSIMO to this message:
Don Sterner
On Fri, 25 Apr 1997 15:55:26 -0500, Steve greasbys said.....
>
>Don Sterner wrote:
>>
>> There is a reason that Sony monitors are somewhat more expensive than some
>> others. They are better quality. The line is easily ignored, unless you are
>> simply looking for something to complain about. You are hung up on the
(VERY)
>> small stuff.
>>
>> Love my Sony monitor.
>
>everywhere else on the screen, but it CAN be seen and it DOES interfere
>with what what should be displayed. Therefore the obstruction causes
>poor picture quality in the general location of the line. Its like
>obstructed seats at a ball game, and it is an inconvenience.
Oh come on. The one and only time I went to a professional sports game (what a
mistake) I WAS behind a pole which was several rows in front of me. That pole
blocked at least 20-30 degrees of my vision. Now how on the world can you
claim that a tiny, almost invisible line on a crt presents an obstruction that
is comparable to 20-30 degrees of vision blockage? Methinks you exagerate
considerably.
> I had a
>Sony monitor for just under a month. People told me I would get use to
>it; I never did.
Once people can convince themselveS they don't like something, they often
never come to their senses.
> I returned it and picked up a high end NEC monitor.
>My NEC actually had higher resolution and better color definition than
>the Sony.
No possible way.
Lee Cao
Keith Evans wrote:
>
> In article <335f9f6e...@news.exeter.ac.uk>, p.m.h...@dundee.ac.uk wrote:
> >DON'T EVER BUY A SONY TRINITRON MONITOR! Apart from being more expensive
> >than normal monitors, there is a dark line right across the screen. No, =
> >it
> >wasn't faulty, they are all like that - it's a design flaw. And yes, it =
> >IS
>
> Congratz. You just took your first step into learning the difference between
> an apperature grill (i.e. Trinitron) and shadow masks.
>
> Step 2: How to post a well-known fact about computer technologies on
> Usenet without making yourself sound like an idiot.
He didn't make himself sound like an idiot. He merely stated a well
known fact and declared that he would never buy a trinitron for that
reason. I would never buy a trinition monitor for the same reason
plus a couple of other flaws inherent to trinitron monitors that make
it unsuitable for high resolution Windows-based CAD/CAM work.
> Sarcasm mode: Off.
>
> Sorry, folks, it's been a long day... ;-)
>
> Cheers from kev...@direct.ca! Please remove the 'spamguard'
> UBC grad '94, BA w/ Eng Lit major from my address if you wish
> http://mypage.direct.ca/k/kevans to email me. Thanx!
>
--
Lee Cao - http://www.glue.umd.edu/~ligeng
Send e-mail to: lig...@erols.com
Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain
rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others
retained by the people.
Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by
the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Lee Cao
Rockn wrote:
>
> It's not a design flaw, it is there for a reason.
It's a flaw in the picture, it's designed-in, therefore it's a design
flaw. How can you deny that? Whether or not it is there for a
reason is irrelevant.
Lee Cao
Peter Szymonik wrote:
>
> I use nothing but Sony tubes, they have the sharpest and brightest
> display of any monitor on the market. My six year old 14" Sony looks
> ten times better than some of thew new monitors I've seen shipped with
> PC systems.
14" shadow mask monitors aren't exactly your average high
quality monitor. These are usually designed with low cost
in mind. But look at a good 15 or 17" shadow mask monitor,
and with the exception for brightness, I think a good
shadow mask monitor is better.
>
> Peter T. Szymonik
> xo...@msn.com
> ...change is constant...
--
Lee Cao
I just thought of something:
What pixle layout does Dual-Scan notebook computer LCD panels
resemble?
What pixle layout does TFT-Active Matrix notebook computer
LCD panels resemble?
Lee Cao
Samuel Samurai Wright wrote:
>
> On Fri, 25 Apr 1997 00:34:03 GMT, d7...@mindspring.com (d7dot) wrote:
>
> >:)wasn't faulty, they are all like that - it's a design flaw. And yes, it =
> >:)IS
> >:)noticable. Load anything with a white screen like word, and you get this
>
> >Normally I don't cross post to this many groups, but to follow your
> >lead....The lines are damper wires, all Sony monitors have them.
> >They are not considered a problem by many users, myself included but
> >it is a personal choice that can be made. While your subject stated
> >your views, mine differ. I won't change the subject to Sony Good.
> >
> >Regards, Brad
> >
>
> Sony's are great monitors. The Line is a matter of taste, as Brad
> said.
Yea, some people don't mind a little sand in their food either.
> There are people out there who never notice it until someone
> points it out, or they are bored.
These are the same people who can't tell why an Accord handles
better than a Taurus, why a Rockford Fosgate Amp is better than
a Boss Amp, or why B&W speakers are better than Bose. In other
words, these are poorly informed people who would probably
otherwise put up with a 60Hz or less refresh rate because they
"didn't notice it before". Personally, I rely on unbiased
information from knowledgable people, those that know what to
look for in a good monitor. One or two black lines across a
$1000 monitor is not something I am willing to put up with.
But like you said, it's all personal preference.
>
> The Samurai Press, Inc.®
> Bakersfield, CA.
> "Tell them you have a Samurai
> In your pants!!"
--
Lee Cao
Tim D. Strong wrote:
> The monitor I'm using actually has two of them. If you are patient
> you'll find you never notice them after a while.
There is a saying in Chinese: That if you smell something for a long
time, you don't notice it anymore. But that doesn't necessarily make
the experience any more pleasant.
> The resolution
> improvment given by the vertical mask more than makes up for
> it in my opinion. Look closely--only one horizontal line. On most
> monitors there are serveral hundred one between each pixel.
What resolutions improvements? What several hundred lines? If
anything, I find shadow mask monitors to have finer pixles than
aperture grill monitors. I can "notice" the pixles on a trinitron
monitor much farther away from where I would begin to notice the
pixles on a good shadow mask monitor.
> I wouldn't call it a design flaw as much as an unusual feature.....
Yea, and the bugs in Microsoft Win95 aren't really design flaws
either, just unusual features that piss you off and make you loose
work once in a while.
> I don't like the buttons on my monitor that are used to control it but
> Its hardly a design flaw.
A flaw it is, since it's presence means that the picture is no longer
perfect. And it is a *design* flaw because the lines were designed
into the monitor. Therefore it's a design flaw.
Lee Cao
Reginald Patton wrote:
>
> A. That line is NOT a design flaw. This wire holds the aperture grill
> in place.
It's a flaw since it's an unwanted artifact on an otherwise "perfect"
picture. And it is inherent in the design. Therefore it's a design
flaw. Why is everyone trying to deny this?
>
> B. You are years late with your "discovery", yet you state it like it's
> ground-breaking, *new* information.
That's your interpretation of the message, which you are entitled to.
>
> --
> Reginald Patton r...@mdtsoft.com
> "All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence,
> and then success is sure." Mark Twain
>
> Remove the * at the end of the email address when replying.
Keith Evans
In article <33613831...@news.nai.net>, xo...@ct2.nai.net (Peter Szymonik) wrote:
>There is no way your NEC has a sharper display than the Sony, because
>the NEC dot pitch is bigger (.26 or .28 vs. 25 on the Sony.)
>
>I also don't know what you mean by "higher resolution", most Sony's
>will go to 1248x1048 with no problem.
>
Yup.
>In terms of quality, I've seen a lot more dead NECs in my career than
>dead Sonys :-)
>
Mmmm... no opinion. They're both excellent monitor makers.
>Finally, the line on the Sony tube doesn't interfere with the display
>whatsoever, it's hardly noticable. Depending on how bright the
'Hardly noticeable' = annoying, IMHO. I have never, and never will own a
Trinitron for this very reason. I have no complaints about the quality of the
picture, but, for me personally, those lines drive me up the wall.
>monitor setting is and what color the background, you *can't* even see
True.
>it. It's not like there is a big black line going across the screen.
>This line is going right across the line on my screen, unless I'm 2"
>away from the screen, I can't see it. It certainly won't affect
>resolution or text display!
>
Also true.
>But if you like the NEC better...
>
Exactly. I like NEC. Lots o' people like Sony, and that's that. I just
couldn't believe the original guy complaining it was a 'design flaw'. :)
mmkn
I have both a 20' trinitron (with my good ole Mac) AND a 21' Hitachi
Accuvue with my NT. It's NOT true that trinitron tubes are always
brighter. Take a look at the Hitachi. I have them side-by-side.
Preference? Picture quality wise, I would probably put them on par.
But yes, I do find the two damper wires slightly irritating on those
days when I get off the bed on the wrong side.
Rip McManus
I have a Trinitron and when I read this message, the first line was
was displayed right on that design flaw, so I thought he had changed
his mind and crossed it out. BTW, I'll take a fine line across the
display any day if it means I can actually read 4 point type in the
corners of the display at 1024 x 768. Those of us who are happy with
our Trinitrons for a lot of other reasons, including plenty of
CAD/CAM users, learn to tune out the fine line.
Lee Cao <lig...@banana.republik.net> wrote in article
<33618A...@banana.republik.net>...
Keith Evans wrote:
>
> In article <335f9f6e...@news.exeter.ac.uk>, p.m.h...@dundee.ac.uk
wrote:
> >DON'T EVER BUY A SONY TRINITRON MONITOR! Apart from being more
expensive
> >than normal monitors, there is a dark line right across the screen. No,
=
> >it
> >wasn't faulty, they are all like that - it's a design flaw. And yes, it
=
> >IS
>
> Congratz. You just took your first step into learning the difference
between
> an apperature grill (i.e. Trinitron) and shadow masks.
>
> Step 2: How to post a well-known fact about computer technologies on
> Usenet without making yourself sound like an idiot.
He didn't make himself sound like an idiot. He merely stated a well
known fact and declared that he would never buy a trinitron for that
reason. I would never buy a trinition monitor for the same reason
plus a couple of other flaws inherent to trinitron monitors that make
it unsuitable for high resolution Windows-based CAD/CAM work.
> Sarcasm mode: Off.
>
> Sorry, folks, it's been a long day... ;-)
>
> Cheers from kev...@direct.ca! Please remove the 'spamguard'
> UBC grad '94, BA w/ Eng Lit major from my address if you wish
> http://mypage.direct.ca/k/kevans to email me. Thanx!
>
--
Nigel Wilson
In article <33618D...@banana.republik.net>, Lee Cao
<lig...@banana.republik.net> writes
>
>It's a flaw in the picture, it's designed-in, therefore it's a design
>flaw. How can you deny that? Whether or not it is there for a
>reason is irrelevant.
By the same logic, the fact that the picture on any monitor is not
magically projected on to a perfect, non-reflective, distortion free
surface and instead relies on a lump of slightly bent glass is a design
flaw. Possibly it's a case of choosing which design flaw you want to
live with - and that can be a personal opinion. In my experience,
eyesight has a lot to do with it. My father owns a car with a heated
wind screen (loads of tiny wires embedded in the glass!). He is long
sighted and can't see them - to me they are obtrusive as my near vision
is very good.
--
Nigel Wilson.
Founder member of the Institute of Unlikely Physics.
Watch out for the Web site unlikely to be coming soon...
Lars-Erik Osterud
> Yes, there is a line, but you hardly notice it, and I'd trade that for
> a murky display any day.
You notice it - But not until somebody show you the first time
(THEN it is annoying, I wish someone never sowed me it :-)
We use Sony 21" at work on some machines - truly great !!!!!
--
Lars-Erik Østerud - Info at http://home.sn.no/~larserik/
E-mail: lars...@sn.no - Work: Lars-Eri...@sds.no
Ed Brown
<<blithering deleted>>
In spite of all the sniveling going on about the rather insignificant
support wires in a Trinitron screen, my problem with a Sony monitor
is a REAL complaint: I don't care for the left to right curvature of
the screen. Sony ads say they have a "vertically flat" screen. To
me, this simply says that they have a horizontally curved screen. I
prefer to have a screen that is as flat as possible in BOTH directions
than one that is flat in one way but curved in another. I've used and
owned Sony monitors before and they have a bright, sharp, and clear
image. They are also of high quality. Were it not for the curved
screen, I'd be using one right now. There are other monitors available
that don't have this noticeable screen curvature and I prefer them.
This does not mean that Sony is junk or anything of a kind... just that
I prefer a different screen. Others can use and enjoy their Sonys all
they want. In fact, I'm happy that they are happy.
Regards to all,
-=- Ed
JRB
Lee Cao wrote:
>
> Rockn wrote:
> >
>
> It's a flaw in the picture, it's designed-in, therefore it's a design
> flaw. How can you deny that? Whether or not it is there for a
> reason is irrelevant.
>
>
> Lee Cao - http://www.glue.umd.edu/~ligeng
>
> Send e-mail to: lig...@erols.com
>
> Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain
> rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others
> retained by the people.
> Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by
> the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
> reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
I agree. I love the rest of the picture but the line is visible. I went
with the NEC for this very reason. Both monitors look just as good...
cost the same and NEC has no line. -JB
--
Remove the trailing character from my address to send me mail.
* I HATE SPAM!*
Zor Prime
Keith Evans wrote:
>
> In article <33613831...@news.nai.net>, xo...@ct2.nai.net (Peter Szymonik) wrote:
> >There is no way your NEC has a sharper display than the Sony, because
> >the NEC dot pitch is bigger (.26 or .28 vs. 25 on the Sony.)
> >
> Actually, the new CromaClear's have a .25 dpi.
Yep... My NEC monitor displays damn nice images... Reason why I have
this monitor is because I couldn't find any other 15" monitor that was
better. I have a NEC XV15+ . Wasn't for lack of cash, I just went
looking for the best bloody monitor I could find, and it happens to be
sitting right infront of my face, no bias at all, I used a Sony
Trinitron TV for a couple years, LOVE it, but, hey I LOVE this monitor
as well.
> >I also don't know what you mean by "higher resolution", most Sony's
> >will go to 1248x1048 with no problem.
> >
> Yup.
Da da da.. <Coughs> YepperZ.
> >In terms of quality, I've seen a lot more dead NECs in my career than
> >dead Sonys :-)
> >
> Mmmm... no opinion. They're both excellent monitor makers.
Indeed. One thing I like about the new monitors (I supose it's a
general thing now, the anti-static) is that i'm a smoker, smoke about a
little over a pack a day, and most of that smoke ends up blowing right
on the surface of my NEC XV15+ monitor screen, and ya know what, i'll
grab a paper towl, damp it down, and wipe my screen off like once every
couple months, and i'll be damned if much comes off at all! It's like
Anti-Smoke or something, I bloody fuckin love it. :^)
> >Finally, the line on the Sony tube doesn't interfere with the display
> >whatsoever, it's hardly noticable. Depending on how bright the
>
> 'Hardly noticeable' = annoying, IMHO. I have never, and never will own a
> Trinitron for this very reason. I have no complaints about the quality of the
> picture, but, for me personally, those lines drive me up the wall.
To tell the truth I WAS going to get a Sony monitor, since I love their
TVs!! BUT... I spend a majority of my spare time on IRC, in mIRC,
which has a WHITE background, I would had flung the Sony monitor over my
hill! I will never-ever get a Trin monitor because of that damn wire,
if Sony fixes it, then well, i'll be looking at a Sony monitor next time
I get a new monitor instead of my NEC. But hey guess what, the damn NEC
produces a picture just as good as any Trin monitor, without the wire,
hence the NEC is 'supirior' .
> >monitor setting is and what color the background, you *can't* even see
>
> True.
Damn, guess what, this news reador and editor has a white background,
thers white all over the place! (Although my primary windows background
is black, but I can change that to black tho) But anyways, tell me how
the hell am I suposed to get rid of ALL the White, so I can 'enjoy' a
Sony Trin without being tremendously annoyed? Sorry, but i'm a
perfectionist, that little damn wire would drive me bloody fuckin
insane, I don't care how un-noticeable it is, it's gonna be annoying by
just the 'knowingness' it's there.
> >it. It's not like there is a big black line going across the screen.
> >This line is going right across the line on my screen, unless I'm 2"
> >away from the screen, I can't see it. It certainly won't affect
> >resolution or text display!
> >
> Also true.
Yes, true enough.
> >But if you like the NEC better...
> >
> Exactly. I like NEC. Lots o' people like Sony, and that's that. I just
> couldn't believe the original guy complaining it was a 'design flaw'. :)
<Grins> :^) I like Sony and NEC, i'll buy Sony TV's where I can sit
across on the other side of the room, and i'll buy NEC monitors. ;^)
> Cheers from kev...@direct.ca! Please remove the 'spamguard'
> UBC grad '94, BA w/ Eng Lit major from my address if you wish
> http://mypage.direct.ca/k/kevans to email me. Thanx!
-Zor Prime
Steve (greasbys)
Peter Szymonik wrote:
>
> There is no way your NEC has a sharper display than the Sony, because
> the NEC dot pitch is bigger (.26 or .28 vs. 25 on the Sony.)
My NEC has a .25 inch dot pitch w/ a ChromaClear Tube. This tube
produces a higher resolution and color definition than traditional
tubes. These tubes are only available with NEC monitors so you probobly
wont trust any of there literature. However, PCMagazine had an article
on these tubes about a year ago. Check out for yourself how it rated
against the trinitron tube.
> I also don't know what you mean by "higher resolution", most Sony's
> will go to 1248x1048 with no problem.
I may be mistaken but I beleive the Sony I had only went up to 1024x768.
> In terms of quality, I've seen a lot more dead NECs in my career than
> dead Sonys :-)
I use to be a computer tech., now Im an engineer and I also maintain a
few computer systems for several small businesses. To tell the truth, I
cant remember seeing a Sony or a NEC ever needing a repair. At work,
the engineers prefer NECs, as did a majority of the people who lay out
graphics for all of the internal documentation.
> Finally, the line on the Sony tube doesn't interfere with the display
> whatsoever, it's hardly noticable. Depending on how bright the
> monitor setting is and what color the background, you *can't* even see
> it. It's not like there is a big black line going across the screen.
> This line is going right across the line on my screen, unless I'm 2"
> away from the screen, I can't see it. It certainly won't affect
> resolution or text display!
Ill admit I have seen some tubes that after making a few adjustments to
the tilt, color, and brightness then you could hardly see the lines. I
could not get rid of mine at all. So, its a gamble and you never know
if you will be able to get rid of the line or not, unless you open the
box at the store and fire it up. You can always see the line on white
backgrounds. I dont know about you but I prefer white backgrounds on my
wordprocessor. Ergonomicly its better to have a white background so you
dont strain your eyes when switching back and forth between the screen
and the white papers you are looking at while typing. Many web pages,
news readers, email readers, etc. all have white backgrounds. It is a
real inconvenience to tell me not to have a white background. Also, I
do quite a bit of graphics work. I hated the Sony b/c I had to scroll
the image up and down when ever I was editing the images near the line
else I could not tell what was actually happening under the line.
> But if you like the NEC better...
>
> Peter T. Szymonik
> xo...@msn.com
> ...change is constant...
--
Steven Greasby
J.Covington
Lee Cao wrote:
> It's a flaw in the picture, it's designed-in, therefore it's a design
> flaw. How can you deny that? Whether or not it is there for a
> reason is irrelevant.
Nope, it's not a flaw in the image. It's only a characteristic of *all*
trinitron screens. I'll admit, though, that when I bought my first
Trinitron monitor I, too, thought it was a flaw, and had trouble buying
the manufacturer's comment that it was a "charateristic" rather than a
flaw.
Several years later, I'll own nothing *but* trinitron monitors--and
presently own both Sony and Nokia trinitron monitors. I love 'em,
characteristics and all. A friend will buy nothing but NECs and
everytime he comes over he remarks about how he wished his image was as
"bright, clear, and sharp" as mine.
Although he only sees the trinitron lines when I point them out to him
against a bright background, I still haven't been able to persuade him
to dump his NECs--he acknowledges that the image is nowhere near as
clear and sharp as my trinitron's (we both use Matrox Milleniums), he
says he can't get past the "lines." So he sticks with an inferior
image. Go figure. It's sort of like missing the forest for the tree,
IMHO, but everyone's entitled to his own opinion.
John
Zor Prime
I don't quite get this, whats all of this about brightness? (Turns a
knob on the front of his NEC monitor) Okay, now the screen is so god
damn bright
that now even the black looks white. ;^)
-Zor Prime
billc
p.m.h...@dundee.ac.uk (Pete bog) wrote:
>DON'T EVER BUY A SONY TRINITRON MONITOR! Apart from being more expensive
>than normal monitors, there is a dark line right across the screen.
Gasp! really ?!?
Psshhh.... trust us, you will get used to it.
-billc
Gary Higgins
Zor Prime wrote:
>
> Keith Evans wrote:
> >
> > In article <33613831...@news.nai.net>, xo...@ct2.nai.net (Peter Szymonik) wrote:
> > >There is no way your NEC has a sharper display than the Sony, because
> > >the NEC dot pitch is bigger (.26 or .28 vs. 25 on the Sony.)
> > >
> > Actually, the new CromaClear's have a .25 dpi.
>
> Yep... My NEC monitor displays damn nice images... Reason why I have
> this monitor is because I couldn't find any other 15" monitor that was
> better. I have a NEC XV15+ . Wasn't for lack of cash, I just went
> looking for the best bloody monitor I could find, and it happens to be
> sitting right infront of my face, no bias at all, I used a Sony
> Trinitron TV for a couple years, LOVE it, but, hey I LOVE this monitor
> as well.
>
> > >I also don't know what you mean by "higher resolution", most Sony's
> > >will go to 1248x1048 with no problem.
> > >
> > Yup.
>
> Da da da.. <Coughs> YepperZ.
>
> > >In terms of quality, I've seen a lot more dead NECs in my career than
> > >dead Sonys :-)
> > >
> > Mmmm... no opinion. They're both excellent monitor makers.
>
> Indeed. One thing I like about the new monitors (I supose it's a
> general thing now, the anti-static) is that i'm a smoker, smoke about a
> little over a pack a day, and most of that smoke ends up blowing right
> on the surface of my NEC XV15+ monitor screen, and ya know what, i'll
> grab a paper towl, damp it down, and wipe my screen off like once every
> couple months, and i'll be damned if much comes off at all! It's like
> Anti-Smoke or something, I bloody fuckin love it. :^)
>
> > >Finally, the line on the Sony tube doesn't interfere with the display
> > >whatsoever, it's hardly noticable. Depending on how bright the
> >
> > 'Hardly noticeable' = annoying, IMHO. I have never, and never will own a
> > Trinitron for this very reason. I have no complaints about the quality of the
> > picture, but, for me personally, those lines drive me up the wall.
>
> To tell the truth I WAS going to get a Sony monitor, since I love their
> TVs!! BUT... I spend a majority of my spare time on IRC, in mIRC,
> which has a WHITE background, I would had flung the Sony monitor over my
> hill! I will never-ever get a Trin monitor because of that damn wire,
> if Sony fixes it, then well, i'll be looking at a Sony monitor next time
> I get a new monitor instead of my NEC. But hey guess what, the damn NEC
> produces a picture just as good as any Trin monitor, without the wire,
> hence the NEC is 'supirior' .
>
> > >monitor setting is and what color the background, you *can't* even see
> >
> > True.
>
> Damn, guess what, this news reador and editor has a white background,
> thers white all over the place! (Although my primary windows background
> is black, but I can change that to black tho) But anyways, tell me how
> the hell am I suposed to get rid of ALL the White, so I can 'enjoy' a
> Sony Trin without being tremendously annoyed? Sorry, but i'm a
> perfectionist, that little damn wire would drive me bloody fuckin
> insane, I don't care how un-noticeable it is, it's gonna be annoying by
> just the 'knowingness' it's there.
>
> > >it. It's not like there is a big black line going across the screen.
> > >This line is going right across the line on my screen, unless I'm 2"
> > >away from the screen, I can't see it. It certainly won't affect
> > >resolution or text display!
> > >
> > Also true.
>
> Yes, true enough.
>
> > >But if you like the NEC better...
> > >
> > Exactly. I like NEC. Lots o' people like Sony, and that's that. I just
> > couldn't believe the original guy complaining it was a 'design flaw'. :)
>
> <Grins> :^) I like Sony and NEC, i'll buy Sony TV's where I can sit
> across on the other side of the room, and i'll buy NEC monitors. ;^)
>
> > Cheers from kev...@direct.ca! Please remove the 'spamguard'
> > UBC grad '94, BA w/ Eng Lit major from my address if you wish
> > http://mypage.direct.ca/k/kevans to email me. Thanx!
>
> -Zor Prime
I don't want to knock anyone's monitor, but Sony monitors have always
seemed a little "grainy" to me. I love Sony TV's and have 2 of them.
They have very sharp pictures with good color quality.
But NEC's new Chromaclear .25 dp monitors are the best I have seen.
They are razor sharp to me, and with a good graphics card and refresh
rate, they have great colors and very solid screens.
Does anyone else think Sony monitors seem a little "grainy"? Or is it
just me. I've never noticed the lines that everyone is talking about
here. My friend just got a new Dell system, and got the best Dell (Sony
OEM) monitor they sold. When I looked at it, it just seemed more grainy
than my NEC XE17. But, the NEC XP17 looked a little grainy too.
The new NEC XV17+ and XV15+ with .25 mask, and chromaclear, are the best
I've seen.
I've been sold on NECs, because they are smooth and sharp. I guess
beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I think you can't beat a good
NEC.
--
Gary Higgins
Chicago, IL USA <The Windy City>
http://www.mcs.net/~garyh
+++ Don't Dream It, Be It +++
Chris Skates
In article <3362D6...@banana.republik.net>, lig...@banana.republik.net wrote:
>
>Nigel Wilson wrote:
>>
>> In article <33618D...@banana.republik.net>, Lee Cao
>> <lig...@banana.republik.net> writes
>> >
>> >flaw. How can you deny that? Whether or not it is there for a
>> >reason is irrelevant.
>>
>> magically projected on to a perfect, non-reflective, distortion free
>> surface and instead relies on a lump of slightly bent glass is a design
>> flaw.
>
>those design flaws, I'd buy it!
14" 1024x768 LCD screens are only £2500...
(that is, if you don't think the occasional duff pixel is a design flaw...)
(14" viewable screenage mind you, more than a 15" CRT)
-
/-------------------------------------------------------------------\
| The Lost One, Thanatos admin and all round good egg | You can't |
| Contact Thanatos BBS on *http://thanatos.yawc.net, | fool me. |
| *ftp://thanatos.yawc.net or | There ain't |
| *telnet://thanatos.yawc.net | no Sanity |
| (remove spam from email for valid address) | Clause! |
\-------------------------------------------------------------------/
John Oliver
>>Finally, the line on the Sony tube doesn't interfere with the display
>>whatsoever, it's hardly noticable. Depending on how bright the
>
>'Hardly noticeable' = annoying, IMHO. I have never, and never will own a
>Trinitron for this very reason. I have no complaints about the quality of the
>picture, but, for me personally, those lines drive me up the wall.
>
>>monitor setting is and what color the background, you *can't* even see
The "annoying line" isn't a manufacturing defect. It's called a
"damping wire". Someone told me once, when I worked at Sony, it had
something to do with the Earth's magnetic field. And, it's one of
those things that, once you notice it, it'll haunt you for the rest of
your use of the item! Some people have used their Sony Trinitrons for
quite a while, blithely unaware, until someone asks "Hey, what's this
line?" From that moment, they're doomed... :-)
*****************************************************
Please email responses.
My "reply-to" address has been altered
to foil bulk-emailers. To reply to this
message, remove the asterisk from the
end of my email address.
"If I thought you needed an opinion, I'd give you one!"
Ewald de Wit
One complaint that I never hear of is about the dotpitch.
This is the only thing why I dislike Trinitron tubes.
I mean if you look at a 0.25mm AGP display from a
distance of 50 cm, you still see all the vertical
phosfor lines. This is very annoying with small text,
especially black text on white background.
But 0.26 mm dots of a normal display are much to
tiny to see individually and blend nicely into each
other.
I think that 0.25mm AGP must be compared with like
0.35 normal dotpitch (just a wild guess).
--
-- Ewald
Lee Cao
Nigel Wilson wrote:
>
> In article <33618D...@banana.republik.net>, Lee Cao
> <lig...@banana.republik.net> writes
> >
> >It's a flaw in the picture, it's designed-in, therefore it's a design
> >flaw. How can you deny that? Whether or not it is there for a
> >reason is irrelevant.
>
> By the same logic, the fact that the picture on any monitor is not
> magically projected on to a perfect, non-reflective, distortion free
> surface and instead relies on a lump of slightly bent glass is a design
> flaw.
Yes that would be correct. And if you can make a monitor without
those design flaws, I'd buy it!
>
> --
> Nigel Wilson.
> Founder member of the Institute of Unlikely Physics.
> Watch out for the Web site unlikely to be coming soon...
--
Lee Cao
J.Covington wrote:
>
> Lee Cao wrote:
>
> > It's a flaw in the picture, it's designed-in, therefore it's a design
> > flaw. How can you deny that? Whether or not it is there for a
> > reason is irrelevant.
>
> Nope, it's not a flaw in the image. It's only a characteristic of *all*
> trinitron screens. I'll admit, though, that when I bought my first
> Trinitron monitor I, too, thought it was a flaw, and had trouble buying
> the manufacturer's comment that it was a "charateristic" rather than a
> flaw.
>
> Several years later, I'll own nothing *but* trinitron monitors--and
> presently own both Sony and Nokia trinitron monitors. I love 'em,
> characteristics and all. A friend will buy nothing but NECs and
> everytime he comes over he remarks about how he wished his image was as
> "bright, clear, and sharp" as mine.
>
> Although he only sees the trinitron lines when I point them out to him
> against a bright background, I still haven't been able to persuade him
> to dump his NECs--he acknowledges that the image is nowhere near as
> clear and sharp as my trinitron's (we both use Matrox Milleniums), he
> says he can't get past the "lines." So he sticks with an inferior
> image. Go figure. It's sort of like missing the forest for the tree,
> IMHO, but everyone's entitled to his own opinion.
Your friend does need to look at monitors other than NECs but I
think there are a lot of shadow mask monitors that are just as
sharp as aperture grill monitors and while not as capable in
brightness, are bright enough to satisfy. The brightness control
on my ViewSonic 17PS is set only halfway. Any brighter and my
eyes start to hurt.
>
> John
Lee Cao
You know, this is kind of like what Norelco put in the manual of their
electric shavers "Give it 30 days for your skin to adjust to your new
shaver". Yea, by the time you decide that your face is never going
to adjust, you can't return it anymore...
>
> -billc
Lee Cao
Keith Evans wrote:
>
> In article <33613831...@news.nai.net>, xo...@ct2.nai.net (Peter Szymonik) wrote:
> >There is no way your NEC has a sharper display than the Sony, because
> >the NEC dot pitch is bigger (.26 or .28 vs. 25 on the Sony.)
> >
> Actually, the new CromaClear's have a .25 dpi.
The ViewSonic 17PS also have a .25 shadow mask... talk about fine
pixles.
>
> >I also don't know what you mean by "higher resolution", most Sony's
> >will go to 1248x1048 with no problem.
> >
> Yup.
A 17" can be dizzying at 1600x1200 no matter who makes it but looking
at my 17PS doing it is aw-inspiring. I stare at a 1280x1024 CAD
screen all day long (PCB layout program).
> >In terms of quality, I've seen a lot more dead NECs in my career than
> >dead Sonys :-)
> >
> Mmmm... no opinion. They're both excellent monitor makers.
Yea, there are probably more NECs sold than Sonys... seeing how
NEC is a more recognized brand name in monitors. Personally, I
find NEC consistently above average, but nothing to call home
about.
> Cheers from kev...@direct.ca! Please remove the 'spamguard'
> UBC grad '94, BA w/ Eng Lit major from my address if you wish
> http://mypage.direct.ca/k/kevans to email me. Thanx!
>
--
Semirhage
>What resolutions improvements? What several hundred lines? If
>anything, I find shadow mask monitors to have finer pixles than
>aperture grill monitors. I can "notice" the pixles on a trinitron
>monitor much farther away from where I would begin to notice the
>pixles on a good shadow mask monitor.
The reason you don't notice the pixels on shadow mask monitors is
because the pixels are slightly fuzzier and melt together making it
hard to seperate one from another. That may be more pleasing to you
for normal work, but that's not an arguement for better quality.
P.S. In a previous post you mentioned "B&W" as a brand name for
speakers... What does B&W stand for? The only thing I can think of
is Black and White, which makes no sense. Personally, I would never
consider anything other than Infinity for speakers (except for
subwoofers).
---
Remove 'NOT' from address to reply via email.
Keith Evans
In article <3362F623...@mcs.net>, ga...@mcs.net wrote:
>The new NEC XV17+ and XV15+ with .25 mask, and chromaclear, are the best
>I've seen.
>I've been sold on NECs, because they are smooth and sharp. I guess
>beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I think you can't beat a good
>NEC.
Yuppers. I bought an NEC M700 very shortly after they came out. I run it at
1024x768x16-bit at 85HZ. Rock-solid, no lines, crystal clear. Couldn't be
happier. :-)
JRB
J.Covington wrote:
>
> Lee Cao wrote:
>
> > It's a flaw in the picture, it's designed-in, therefore it's a design
> > flaw. How can you deny that? Whether or not it is there for a
> > reason is irrelevant.
>
> Nope, it's not a flaw in the image. It's only a characteristic of *all*
> trinitron screens. I'll admit, though, that when I bought my first
> Trinitron monitor I, too, thought it was a flaw, and had trouble buying
> the manufacturer's comment that it was a "charateristic" rather than a
> flaw.
>
> Several years later, I'll own nothing *but* trinitron monitors--and
> presently own both Sony and Nokia trinitron monitors. I love 'em,
> characteristics and all. A friend will buy nothing but NECs and
> everytime he comes over he remarks about how he wished his image was as
> "bright, clear, and sharp" as mine.
>
> Although he only sees the trinitron lines when I point them out to him
> against a bright background, I still haven't been able to persuade him
> to dump his NECs--he acknowledges that the image is nowhere near as
> clear and sharp as my trinitron's (we both use Matrox Milleniums), he
> says he can't get past the "lines." So he sticks with an inferior
> image. Go figure. It's sort of like missing the forest for the tree,
> IMHO, but everyone's entitled to his own opinion.
>
Does the line distort the picture (even slightly)? Yes
Does Sony design them that way? Yes
Designed flaw (however slight) = Design Flaw.
Just because Sony "does not choose" to fix it does not make it a
feature.
It this line appeared in an off brand monitor then everyone would be
calling it a flaw. Because "Sony" does it... it is not a flaw?
Allan Cole
> An aperature grill monitors do generally have brighter pictures than dot
>mask types, but the aperature grill design is a trade-off. IMHO, the trade-off
>is not at all worth it with larger monitors which is why I bought a 21"
>NSA/Hitachi Superscan 800 model. Not only does it have excellent geometry and
>easy to use digital controls, but its color and brightness are great and it's
>price is fantastic. I bought mine a few months ago for $1579, but you can get
>it now for $1427 at NECX. NSA/Hitachi also has excellent 15" and 17" monitors.
Here's my take on it...
I think my 21" Trinitron based Mitsubishi 91TXM is -fantastic-, and I
much prefer it over the 21" Viewsonic\Panasonic\NEC dot mask monitors
I've seen. The 91TXM is the first Trinitron based monitor that I've
bought for myself, and I now understand why some people prefer
Trinitron tubes over all else.
When I first saw a Trinitron monitor I thought the monitor was damaged
when I saw the dark lines. After finding out that the lines were
normal on all Trinitron monitors, I pretty much marked off any
Trinitron monitors from my short list of monitors I'd buy. Then,
after reading the hardware.video group for long time, I began to see
that a lot of people preferred Trinitron type monitors regardless of
the lines. When I'd get a chance to compare monitors of different
makes, I began to see that most often dot mask monitors aren't as
bright as aperture grille monitors, that dot mask monitors often
require contrast and brightness to be set to maximum for my liking or
that when they are bright enough for me that black looks washed out
and on some "blooming" may occur, and that the colors of dot mask
monitors most often aren't as rich and vibrant as Trinitron monitors.
I also began to notice that Trinitron tubes are most often sharper
than all but the best dot mask tubes, and even when comparing the best
dot mask monitors, I might still consider an aperture grille monitor
to be sharper. After noticing all this however, I still was convinced
that I didn't want an aperture grille monitor because of the support
wires.
When the time came for me to upgrade my .28mm Panasonic 17" dot mask
monitor (about the same as a Viewsonic 17E or 17G), I initially
decided to stick with a dot mask monitor and ordered a Panasonic S21
(basically identical to a Viewsonic P810). After getting it, I found
there were a few things I didn't like about it. It had poor geometry
in the lower left-hand corner where I have my Win95\NT4 start button.
I also noticed that the monitor wasn't particularly bright either
(from what I've read, many 21" monitors aren't, especially dot mask
ones), and I had to adjust the contrast and brightness to maximum for
my liking. It's color consistency also wasn't very good and there was
some noticeable color variance across the screen.
NecX had just started carrying the 91TXM when I was getting ready to
return the S21 since it hadn't lived up to my hopes in a 1600 dollar
investment. I noticed that the 91TXM was one of the only Trinitron
based monitors to have the viewing area of a 21" monitor (19.7")
whereas most previous models using Sony tubes were smaller and sized
along the lines of a 20" monitor. I also noticed that the 91TXM had a
.28mm aperture grille whereas most all 20\21" aperture grille monitors
before it had only a .30mm aperture grille. It had all the features I
wanted with support for 1600x1200@76hz, BNC connections, numerous
adjustments, and it was priced reasonably at $1565US delivered. I
went ahead and ordered it and figured that if I ended up not being
able to live with the support wires that I could always return it.
I'm very_glad I made the decision to get it.
I was able to compare the S21 and the 91TXM side by side. I found my
91TXM to be sharper overall than the .25mm Viewsonic\Panasonic and
.28mm NEC dot mask monitors I've looked at even though the 91TXM has a
.28mm aperture grille. I found the 91TXM to be fantastically bright
requiring that the brightness be set to only 10% for most tasks
allowing colors to be bright while black remains *black*... a
considerable improvement over the S21. The flatter screen was a
welcome feature, and I particularly liked that the actual viewing area
was perfectly square and not rounded in the corners like the S21. The
perfectly square viewing area of the 91TXM allows me to make full use
of the viewable area without cutting off the corners with the rounded
edges of the viewing area as with the S21 or without sizing the
viewable image smaller so that the corners are no longer cut off. The
ruler straight edges at the limits of the viewing area just inside the
bezel of the 91TXM also make a great reference when adjusting the
geometry... I found this more difficult on the S21 since there was no
such end to the viewing area but only the bezel of the monitor limited
what could be seen as with many dot mask monitors. The color of the
91TXM is fantastic and really makes colorful games such as 3DFX
accelerated Tomb Raider and especially Pod look even more gorgeous.
The 91TXM has more adjustments than any dot mask monitor I've ever
used, and its 3 separate completely user-defined color modes allow for
easily and quickly changing pre-defined settings for different
applications. The lines don't bother me in the least; even being that
my monitor has such a large viewing area, I rarely notice that the
lines are even there. I'm sold on Trinitron tubes, but I realize that
it is a matter of personal preference. One thing is for sure, I'm not
alone in my thinking that aperture grille monitors are the preferred
choice.
As far as the dot mask Hitachi's go, here are some quotes from a
couple different people concerning the 91TXM compared to some dot mask
Hitachis:
______________________________________
These quotes are taken from posts made by Brian Hogan to this
newsgroup:
"Get neither. I STRONGLY recommend the Mitsubishi 91TXM for the
sharpest, most vivid monitor I've ever seen. I tried a ViewSonic P815
and three Hitachi CM802U 21 inch monitors. None were as good as the
91TXM I have right now. And, the 91TXM was only about $1570 at NECX
when I got it. Prices may be even lower now."
"BTW, You're right that I have very high expectations about monitors.
I use my computer for a variety of tasks, including C programming,
games, thermal and mechanical computational modeling, high-end CAD
design, internet surfing, writing test reports, and graphic arts. ANY
defect in the picture quality, especially the sharpness, just grinds
against my nerves to the point that I feel I got screwed when
purchasing the bad monitor. With this in mind, the P815 really ticked
me off. The Hitachis were much better, but I still thought that some
monitor out there had to have better picture qualities. The 91TXM has
met practically every demand I've wanted in a professional monitor."
"I use my computer system for everything from C++ programming to Pro/E
CAD design and computational fluid dynamics (CFD) thermal analysis. I
consider myself to be a VERY picky person when it comes to monitors.
As I mentioned before, I turned down 4 more expensive monitors before
sticking with the 91TXM, eventhough many of my friends thought the
others were adequate. To be sincere, the 91TXM, even with the
aperature grill (e.g. Trinitron) CRT has the sharpest, most colorful
monitor across the entire area of the screen that I've ever seen.
One thing I didn't like about the shadow mask CRT tubes was that text
was automatically anti-aliased by the nature of the triad phosphors.
This produces rounded rather than square pixels. On the contrary, the
aperature grill design produces clearly square pixels, which, in my
opinion, directly gives rise to the sharpness of the text with the
91TXM. I much prefer programming (I use simple text editors rather
than IDEs) on aperature grill CRTs than shadow mask CRTs."
______________________________________
Here is a mail I received from Fred Bushroe:
"I got my Mitsubishi 91TXM in. It is GREAT compared to the Hitachi
803's. The convergence is right on (and adjustable), the color
saturation is better, and when doing CAD with a black background -
white objects don't have the fuzy white halo around them.
The cylindrical screen is also great - much less reflection than from
the spherical screen on the Hitachi's."
Allan Cole
Allan Cole
I can't speak for all Trinitron monitors, but my Trinitron
(DiamondTron really) Mitsubishi 91TXM allows for the screen to be
very_bright with colors being very_vibrant while black_looks_black.
In my experience, this is generally not the case with most dot mask
monitors. Some people complain about the lines in the Trinitron style
tubes, but to me, I'm bothered much more by a monitor that displays
black with a hazy white glow to it when the brightness is adjusted to
my liking. Trinitrons offer better color and brightness than dot mask
monitors in general, IMO. I also believe that Trinitrons are
generally sharper than dot mask monitors of the same "dot\stripe
pitch". For me, the benefits of a Trinitron style monitor outweigh
the drawbacks of having a couple of very faint dark lines running
across the screen that I rarely notice with use.
Allan Cole
RK
>........Some people have used their Sony Trinitrons for
> quite a while, blithely unaware, until someone asks "Hey, what's this
> line?" From that moment, they're doomed... :-)
>
I've seen a lot of talk about the Trinitron lines, and I'm still not
clear on where do they appear on the screen and just how thick are they?
RK
Carl
On Thu, 24 Apr 1997 23:00:26 GMT, p.m.h...@dundee.ac.uk (Pete bog)
wrote:
>
>DON'T EVER BUY A SONY TRINITRON MONITOR! Apart from being more expensive
>than normal monitors, there is a dark line right across the screen. No, it
>wasn't faulty, they are all like that - it's a design flaw. And yes, it IS
>noticable. Load anything with a white screen like word, and you get this
>really annoying black line across the screen. I definitely will never buy
>one. Lucky I spotted it on a friends before I went and bought one.
>**************************************
>In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very
>angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
These wires are mentioned in the manual. I really need to get up
close and be looking for them to spot them. Perhaps your monitor has
thick wires. My Sony Trinitron cpd-220vs is superb and the images are
sharper than my xv15.
If you see lines in MS Word and thats all that bothers you with regard
to Word, consider yourself fortunate.
Carl
_________________________________
email:
carlcalo (at) crosslink (dot) net
_________________________________
Rithea - Hong
In article <3362d7e2...@news.erols.com>,
Semirhage <zen...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>P.S. In a previous post you mentioned "B&W" as a brand name for
>speakers... What does B&W stand for? The only thing I can think of
>is Black and White, which makes no sense. Personally, I would never
>consider anything other than Infinity for speakers (except for
>subwoofers).
I'm not the original poster, but B&W stands for Bowers & Wilkins. They're
a well regarded British speaker maker. Their line runs from moderately
priced models up to models costing many thousands of dollars.
For more info, you can check out http://www.mcnaur.com/bwprod.html.
Note that I'm not affiliated w/them except that I happen to have
a pair of their speakers.
--
Rithea Hong rit...@tamu.edu
Visit The Beyond: http://http.tamu.edu/~r0h7630
Tony Young
For all those who do not like SONY monitors......
For the PC market, whether one person likes a perticular brand of
monitor or not, it's largely a matter of taste and personal preference.
For the high-end graphics intensive applications for workstations, like
Silicon Graphics (SGI) workstations, Sun Workstations, HP workstations,
the manufacturers choose SONY as their OEM monitor more than anything
else. Doesn't this tell you something about SONY monitors?
At least this shows the taste of the majority users of high-end graphics
display applications like CAD, Animation, Video Editing, etc. These
users are the pickiest and most critical about color, contrast, image
crispiness, etc.
If the damper wire bothers you that much, fine. Don't buy a SONY
monitor. It's a waste of your hard earned money to buy an expensive SONY
just to do word processing. A MAG or SAMSUNG should do just fine for
this type of applications.
I use a 20-inch SONY monitor for my SGI O2 and share the monitor with my
PC through an electronics switch box (it switches the keyboard also).
Tony
J.Covington
JRB wrote:
>
> Does the line distort the picture (even slightly)? Yes
>
> Does Sony design them that way? Yes
>
> Designed flaw (however slight) = Design Flaw.
>
> Just because Sony "does not choose" to fix it does not make it a
> feature.
#1--No, I see no image distortion whatever. All I see, and I *only* see
it against a bright background, is an exact one-pixel thick *faint*
horizontal line. Against dark backgrounds, not even a faint line is
visible.
#2-Yes, Sony and *everyone else* who sells trintron monitors (whether
Sony builds 'em or not) builds 'em the "same way."
#3-What you just can't seem to understand is that with present
technology it isn't *possible* to do the trinitron design in any other
fashion. Even trinitron televisions have exactly the same
characteristic--you can't see it on the television, though, because of
the interlacing. It's only visible on non-interlaced rgb displays.
Remember that trinitron technology was initially designed for Television
and only later used for computer displays. The faint line shows up
against bright backgrounds on the computer display, not the television.
>
> It this line appeared in an off brand monitor then everyone would be
> calling it a flaw. Because "Sony" does it... it is not a flaw?
Well, try looking at it like this...NEC makes only dot mask monitors,
they don't even offer a trinitron (unlike Eizo (Nanao), for instance,
who offers both mask and grille --trinitron--monitors.)
It's an established scientific fact that trinitron grille monitors allow
more light from the guns to strike the screen--that's not something
anyone disputes. It is provable (Hence, the real advantage to the
trinitron design.)
If we were to argue the position from your standpoint, we'd have to
conclude that *all* dot mask (non-trinitron) monitors suffer from an
inherent "design flaw" simply because they don't pass as much light as
the trintron design. By your definition, non-trinitron monitors don't
pass as much light as the trinitrons because they were "designed" that
way, therefore dot mask monitors all suffer from that design flaw.
That has to be the way you think of that difference, based on your
earlier definition of "design flaw."
I don't see things like that, of course. Both the dot mask and
trinitron designs have their respective advantages and
disadvantages--not "design flaws." These are "design differences,"
instead.
John
yohashi
>> :)DON'T EVER BUY A SONY TRINITRON MONITOR! Apart from being more expensive
>> :)than normal monitors, there is a dark line right across the screen. No, =
>> :)it
>> :)wasn't faulty, they are all like that - it's a design flaw. And yes, it =
>> :)IS
>> :)noticable. Load anything with a white screen like word, and you get this
>> :)really annoying black line across the screen. I definitely will never =
>> :)buy
>> :)one. Lucky I spotted it on a friends before I went and bought one.
>> :)**************************************
>> :)In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people=
>> :) very
>> :)angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
>
>Its the nature of the beast. Trinitrons dont have horizontal masks as I
>understand it. They just
>have vertical bars of phosphour. If you hit one on the side (lightly)
>all the vertical wires in the mask will shake and you'll see a pattern
>on the screen. If the horizontal line wasn't there it would be even
>worse.
>
>The monitor I'm using actually has two of them. If you are patient
>you'll find you never notice them after a while. The resolution
>improvment given by the vertical mask more than makes up for
>it in my opinion. Look closely--only one horizontal line. On most
>monitors there are serveral hundred one between each pixel.
These two lines are not flaws. Due to its design, ANY Trinitron
monitor has one/two horizontal lines. They are there to hold the
vertical phosphour lines.....like what the guy above is saying. It
has been getting better and now, they use super thin wires, sorta like
fiber cables. If you look close enough, Mitsubishi Diamondtron has
some too.
Lee Cao
Semirhage wrote:
>
> >What resolutions improvements? What several hundred lines? If
> >anything, I find shadow mask monitors to have finer pixles than
> >aperture grill monitors. I can "notice" the pixles on a trinitron
> >monitor much farther away from where I would begin to notice the
> >pixles on a good shadow mask monitor.
>
> The reason you don't notice the pixels on shadow mask monitors is
> because the pixels are slightly fuzzier and melt together making it
> hard to seperate one from another. That may be more pleasing to you
> for normal work, but that's not an arguement for better quality.
But those "fuzzier" shadow mask pixles produce text that is just
as sharp as any aperture grill monitor I've seen (I am speaking
of ViewSonic 17PS with .25mm dp). Besides, even if the image
*was* less sharp, I'd rather put up with that than a grainy
picture.
> P.S. In a previous post you mentioned "B&W" as a brand name for
> speakers... What does B&W stand for? The only thing I can think of
> is Black and White, which makes no sense. Personally, I would never
> consider anything other than Infinity for speakers (except for
> subwoofers).
If you haven't heard of B&W's, it's no suprize that you would
stick to Infinity speakers. Infinity speakers are ok, they are
very average. B&W stands for Bowers & Wilkins and they are
a British company. But B&W is just one of the few companies
that are leaps and bounds better than Infinity IMO. There is
also Klipsch, Definitive, Paradigm, NHT, Energy...
>
> ---
> Remove 'NOT' from address to reply via email.
--
Semirhage
Lee Cao <lig...@erols.com> wrote:
>But those "fuzzier" shadow mask pixles produce text that is just
>as sharp as any aperture grill monitor I've seen (I am speaking
>of ViewSonic 17PS with .25mm dp). Besides, even if the image
>*was* less sharp, I'd rather put up with that than a grainy
>picture.
I have been considering the 17PS for myself just out of curiosity (and
because it's less expensive than AG tubes) so I am not going to
downplay the image that you see and from what I've heard it's quite
good. However, as far as the "grainy" picture on the AG goes,
unless you run at lower resolutions (less than 1152x864), you won't
see the pixels anyway because they really are too small to see.
I've gotten quite used to my Trinitron and will have very high
expectations from the Viewsonic. I do hope it is as good, so I won't
have to shell out more cash for an aperture grille monitor.
>> P.S. In a previous post you mentioned "B&W" as a brand name for
>> speakers... What does B&W stand for? The only thing I can think of
>> is Black and White, which makes no sense. Personally, I would never
>> consider anything other than Infinity for speakers (except for
>> subwoofers).
>
>If you haven't heard of B&W's, it's no suprize that you would
>stick to Infinity speakers. Infinity speakers are ok, they are
>very average. B&W stands for Bowers & Wilkins and they are
>a British company. But B&W is just one of the few companies
>that are leaps and bounds better than Infinity IMO. There is
>also Klipsch, Definitive, Paradigm, NHT, Energy...
You remind me of some guys I used to know. They would rave about a
certain music group for a while, but as soon as the group went
'mainstream' they were all of a sudden not cool anymore (even though
the music was the same). I'm not saying that you have ever raved
about the Inifinity, but your preference for speakers which are
clearly not mainstream reminds me of the same tendency. I wouldn't
call Infinity speakers average, however. The Kappa series certainly
not so.
Semirhage
RK <ko...@snet.net> wrote:
>I've seen a lot of talk about the Trinitron lines, and I'm still not
>clear on where do they appear on the screen and just how thick are they?
It's a faint line which runs across the bottom half of the screen on
15" monitors and bottom and top half of the screen on 17" and higher.
Imagine if you were wearing a pair of glasses and a strand of hair
fell on the lense. You probably wouldn't notice the hair unless you
concentrated on it. That's how thin this line is. Some monitors
have a slightly thicker line than normal... those monitors should be
considered defective, IMHO. The first Trinitron I purchased had a
much more noticable line than my current one (which is how I got this
one).
Bob Katayama
<HTML><BODY TEXT="#000000" BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" LINK="#0000EE" VLINK="#551A8B" ALINK="#FF0000">
Samuel Samurai Wright wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>On 25 Apr 97 04:04:49 GMT, "Burke Rutherford"
<bur...@speedline.ca>
<BR>wrote:
<BR>
<BR><I>>It's not a design flaw, it's an unavoidable problem in an otherwise</I>
<BR><I>>excellent monitor. I love my sony trinitron. Look I'm
typing right</I>
<BR><I>>through the thred line now(it's to keep the trinitron screen from</I>
<BR><I>>vibrating) Some people like Trinitron monitors and some people
hate them.</I>
<BR><I>>Well that's a rather profound statement to make.</I>
<BR><I>></I>
<BR><I>>Pete bog <p.m.h...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote in article</I>
<BR><I>><335f9f6e...@news.exeter.ac.uk>...</I>
<BR><I>>DON'T EVER BUY A SONY TRINITRON MONITOR! Apart from being
more expensive</I>
<BR><I>>than normal monitors, there is a dark line right across the screen.
No, it</I>
<BR>
<BR>You will also see it on Sony Televisions as well.
<BR>
<BR>But they are still fine products!
<BR>
<BR>The Samurai Press, Inc.®
<BR>Bakersfield, CA.
<BR>"Tell them you have a Samurai
<BR> In your pants!!"
</BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm suprised that the single missing line issue on Sony monitors
have not been
<BR>dealt with yet. The first time I saw it was almost three years ago.
<BR>The overall advantage of the tube design probably outways that fact that
the
<BR>technology used creates a single line in the tube.
<BR>This picture stablilizing line for the most part is not noticeable.
<BR>For those looking for a general purpose monitor then Sony is a good choice.
<BR>For those looking to do CAD/CAM work on their computer then the missing
line does cause a small inconvenience.
<BR>
<BR>From my experience, I have found that the majority of people that dislike
the Sony
<BR>monitors and/or TV's usually come to this conclusion very early in their
purchase.
<BR>Those that have had Sony monitors for a good number of years tend to say
only
<BR>good things about them. :-)
<BR>This could be said for most products but I find it more so with Sony products.
<BR>
<BR>If anyone gets a chance to visit Japan, they must go to the electronics
district
<BR>in Tokyo (AKIHABURA) I believe that's the right spelling.
<BR>You will see some hitech item's that make it to North America in a couple
of
<BR>years and also many more item's that never make it to mass production.
<BR>You will see item's come and go on a monthly basis.
<BR>Since the Sony monitor passed this fierce market testing grounds, the missing
<BR>line must have been a very minor issue to content with for Sony.
<BR>
<BR>Bob Katayama
</BODY>
</HTML>
gm
In article <33613831...@news.nai.net>, xo...@ct2.nai.net quips...
> see
>
heh heh, you might need some glasses cause I can see the 2 lines while at
12~18 inches from those type monitors. :-) You are right though. Once
you get involved with what you are doing istead of looking for those fine
lines, you don't notice them anymore. I thought it odd when I first
spied them and questioned it immediately. I did find the clarity however
of the entire monitor to be far superior from other monitors I've seen in
the past.
--
gm
(bu...@mci2000.com)
JRB
What makes it a flaw is the fact that even Sony does not *WANT* it
their... they just cannot do anything about it. It is a flaw in the
screen however slight and Sony cannot get rid of it. This may be why
some other companies do not use this method. About the brightness
issue.... I fail to see how my NEC Cromaclear is flawed because sony is
a little brighter. I believe you are comparing apples to oranges here. A
visible line across the display (or two lines in 17 inch monitors) is a
flaw.
Just because you like Sony and the picture is otherwise superior still
does not make that line (or lines) a flaw. I saw the line right away and
that is why I did not get a sony. Some others (yourself included) can
overlook it but I'm puzzled how you can overlook this line or lines but
you cannot forgive other monitor companies who use a less brighter
technology to aviod this infamous line. -JB
T. Nguyen
On Tue, 29 Apr 1997, Lee Cao wrote:
>
> Semirhage wrote:
> >
> > Lee Cao <lig...@erols.com> wrote:
> >
> > >But those "fuzzier" shadow mask pixles produce text that is just
> > >as sharp as any aperture grill monitor I've seen (I am speaking
> > >of ViewSonic 17PS with .25mm dp). Besides, even if the image
> > >*was* less sharp, I'd rather put up with that than a grainy
> > >picture.
If you were a graphic artist you wouldn't.
No, the Kappa series isn't bad, but I'd go with NHT or Paradigm.
I've never listen to a Klipsch or Energy, but I heard they were pretty
good. I heard that Definitive wasn't all that great, but it's all up to
the listener.
> Hmmm, if I was such a person as you describe, I wouldn't be
> recommending B&W speakers either since they are so popular within
> the audiopile circle. I'd be talking about brands far more
> esoteric. I am not going to sit here and tell you what to listen
> for in your music, but I've heard $600 B&W speakers far better
> than anything you can find at your local electronic chain store.
> The Kappa series in particular are overly bright because Infinity
> wanted the listners to notice their E-mit (spell?) tweeters. The
> bass is satisfying in most cases though it lacks definition found
> in better speakers. The midrange is about the only part that is
> listenable though even that has resonant peaks here and there
> depending on which model you have. Like I said, *very* average
> speakers.
>
> >
> > ---
> > Remove 'NOT' from address to reply via email.
>
> --
>
> Lee Cao - http://www.glue.umd.edu/~ligeng
>
> Send e-mail to: lig...@erols.com
>
> Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain
> rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others
> retained by the people.
Okay...I heard this earlier, and am now responding to whoever wrote it.
> Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by
> the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
> reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
If they people elect their representative, don't they essentially have the
power of the states to a lesser extent? So therefore, you aren't actually
aren't being restricted by the State government?
>
>
Ian Carmichael
>DON'T EVER BUY A SONY TRINITRON MONITOR! Apart from being more expensive
>than normal monitors, there is a dark line right across the screen. No, =
>it
>wasn't faulty, they are all like that - it's a design flaw. And yes, it =
>IS
>noticable. Load anything with a white screen like word, and you get this
>really annoying black line across the screen. I definitely will never =
>buy
>one. Lucky I spotted it on a friends before I went and bought one.
>**************************************
>In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people=
> very
>angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
I have used many monitors in my computing career and I can positivly
say that my current monitor, a Sony 17SF II is the best yet. The
colours are vibrant, the picture is rock steady and the focus is sharp
from corner to corner. As for the lines, after a while I can honestly
say that I have trouble noticing them unless I deliberatly look for
them.
Ian.
Ian Carmichael
On Sat, 26 Apr 1997 01:20:18 -0400, Lee Cao
<lig...@banana.republik.net> wrote:
>
>Peter Szymonik wrote:
>>
>> I use nothing but Sony tubes, they have the sharpest and brightest
>> display of any monitor on the market. My six year old 14" Sony looks
>> ten times better than some of thew new monitors I've seen shipped with
>> PC systems.
>
>14" shadow mask monitors aren't exactly your average high
>quality monitor. These are usually designed with low cost
>in mind. But look at a good 15 or 17" shadow mask monitor,
>and with the exception for brightness, I think a good
>shadow mask monitor is better.
>
>>
>> Peter T. Szymonik
>> xo...@msn.com
>> ...change is constant...
>
>--
Is this why many monitor manufacturers use Trinitron tubes in their
high end monitors.
Ian
Lee Cao
Semirhage wrote:
>
> Lee Cao <lig...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> >But those "fuzzier" shadow mask pixles produce text that is just
> >as sharp as any aperture grill monitor I've seen (I am speaking
> >of ViewSonic 17PS with .25mm dp). Besides, even if the image
> >*was* less sharp, I'd rather put up with that than a grainy
> >picture.
>
Hmmm, if I was such a person as you describe, I wouldn't be
recommending B&W speakers either since they are so popular within
the audiopile circle. I'd be talking about brands far more
esoteric. I am not going to sit here and tell you what to listen
for in your music, but I've heard $600 B&W speakers far better
than anything you can find at your local electronic chain store.
The Kappa series in particular are overly bright because Infinity
wanted the listners to notice their E-mit (spell?) tweeters. The
bass is satisfying in most cases though it lacks definition found
in better speakers. The midrange is about the only part that is
listenable though even that has resonant peaks here and there
depending on which model you have. Like I said, *very* average
speakers.
>
> ---
> Remove 'NOT' from address to reply via email.
--
Lee Cao - http://www.glue.umd.edu/~ligeng
Send e-mail to: lig...@erols.com
Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain
rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others
retained by the people.
Ron Martell
I think that the decision regarding Trinitron tubes depends to a large
extent on the use to which the monitor is being put.
For general business or home use I have no hesitation about suggesting
a Trinitron monitor if it meets the customer's desires in terms of
image quality and price.
However, for specialty work especially high end CAD, GIS, Commercial
publishing, photo editing, or other work were precise image details
can be critical and the Trinitron lines might obscure or
over-emphasize a critical element, then I am much more careful and
would only use a Trinitron monitor where the customer was fully
familiar with this circumstance.
I have a major customer who refuses to allow Trinitron monitors for
GIS work but just loves them for general business use.
Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://www.islandnet.com/~rmartell/online.htm
Keep your nose to the grindstone, your shoulder to the wheel,
your eye on the ball, and your ear to the ground;
then see how much work you get done in that position.
J.Covington
JRB wrote:
>
> Just because you like Sony and the picture is otherwise superior still
> does not make that line (or lines) a flaw. I saw the line right away and
> that is why I did not get a sony. Some others (yourself included) can
> overlook it but I'm puzzled how you can overlook this line or lines but
> you cannot forgive other monitor companies who use a less brighter
> technology to aviod this infamous line. -JB
> --
Right, that's what I've said--the faint line(s) visible in trinitron
displays (1 in 15" or less, 2 in 17" and greater), under certain
conditions, are *not* "design flaws", any moreso than the fact that dot
masks obscure more light than trinitron grilles is a "design flaw."
Each design has its own peculiar characteristics and thus its own set of
advantages/disadvantages.
I don't begrudge anyone who chooses a mask as opposed to a grille
technology. Especially with rgb monitors, beauty is most certainly in
the eye of the beholder...:) What looks good to you might not to me, and
vice-versa. Some folks see the tree and miss the forest, others see the
forest and miss the tree. I guess I'm in the latter group...:) But
fortunately there is an abundance of monitors to choose from so chances
are we can all find something we like.
Lee Cao
Michael wrote:
>
> dste...@neosoft.com (Don Sterner) wrote:
>
> >There is a reason that Sony monitors are somewhat more expensive than some
> >others. They are better quality. The line is easily ignored, unless you are
> >simply looking for something to complain about. You are hung up on the (VERY)
> >small stuff.
>
> >Love my Sony monitor.
>
> >
> I challange anyone sitting a normal distance from a 17" screen to fine
> the lines....ANYONE. A normal viewing distance is 12-16 inches from
> the screen. I have an allwhite background too. They just ain't a
> problem if you sit back a normal distance if your face is 6" or
> closer, yes you can see them....if you got a 17" monitor and sit 6" or
> closer you need glasses, not a new monitor.
You've gotta be kidding me. I can easily see it from two feet away,
maybe even a full yard. I haven't seen a Trinitron monitor where
I *can't* see the line from two or three feet away.
>
> Mike
Steve (greasbys)
Michael wrote:
> I challange anyone sitting a normal distance from a 17" screen to fine
> the lines....ANYONE. A normal viewing distance is 12-16 inches from
> the screen. I have an allwhite background too. They just ain't a
> problem if you sit back a normal distance if your face is 6" or
> closer, yes you can see them....if you got a 17" monitor and sit 6" or
> closer you need glasses, not a new monitor.
>
> Mike
No offence, but you must be blind. I could stand 5+ feet away from my
sony and still see the lines when a white screen is displayed. It was
horible while up in the 2-2.5' range. Thats why I took it back and got
one of the newer NECs which still have .25mm dp and but have the pixles
arranged differntly (Crystalscan) to get a crisper image than my
Trinitron. And guess what, NO LINE! The only downfall is that its not
as bright. But in my work enviroment I use to have to turn the Sonys
brighness down so I didnt strain my eyes.
--
Steven Greasby
Lee Cao
T. Nguyen wrote:
>
> On Tue, 29 Apr 1997, Lee Cao wrote:
>
> >
> > Semirhage wrote:
> > >
> > > Lee Cao <lig...@erols.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >But those "fuzzier" shadow mask pixles produce text that is just
> > > >as sharp as any aperture grill monitor I've seen (I am speaking
> > > >of ViewSonic 17PS with .25mm dp). Besides, even if the image
> > > >*was* less sharp, I'd rather put up with that than a grainy
> > > >picture.
> If you were a graphic artist you wouldn't.
Well, I am no graphic artist, but I am an electrical engineer who
use CAD software to design PC board layouts. I routinely put up
D size drafts up full screen on my monitor and see distinct 10mil
lines with 10mil spacing. I've tried it with a trinitron monitor
and the lines were merged into a single trace.
> > Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain
> > rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others
> > retained by the people.
> Okay...I heard this earlier, and am now responding to whoever wrote it.
> > Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by
> > the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
> > reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> If they people elect their representative, don't they essentially have the
> power of the states to a lesser extent? So therefore, you aren't actually
> aren't being restricted by the State government?
Well, the constitution outlines what the federal government can
or cannot do. But a large portion of the federal government is
not elected. When was the last time you elected someone into
FBI, IRS or the EPA? The congress and the president are elected,
true, but they *make* policies, not to carry them out...
Chris
Alexander Shulkin wrote:
>
> Just my $.02
> In <3366B5...@banana.republic.net> Lee Cao
> <lig...@banana.republic.net> writes:
>
> >Well, I am no graphic artist, but I am an electrical engineer who
> >use CAD software to design PC board layouts. I routinely put up
> >D size drafts up full screen on my monitor and see distinct 10mil
> >lines with 10mil spacing. I've tried it with a trinitron monitor
> >and the lines were merged into a single trace.
> When I started some 5 years ago learning AutoCAD at a trade school,
> there was, among other PCs, one with Sony Trinitron monitor. Every
> time when I by bad luck set behind it (there was no permanent sits and
> PCs assigned to students), I was catching a terrible headache due to
> eye strain after about 1 hr of working. Never with any other monitor
> there.
> I worked since as an engineer (using AutoCAD and, later, Intergraph)
> and as a CAD manager at several places, with several machines. Every
> time I encountered Sony Trinitron monitor, no matter what model, size,
> and price, it was the same eye strain and headache.
> I guess, that's because Sony pixels are stretched along vertical
> lines, not round like on other screens. This is the reason why any
> tilted line appeared on Sony broken into many vertical ones (same with
> other monitors, but pieces much smaller, and thus less noticeable and
> less annoying).
> So, if you don't care about your eyes, buy Sony and enjoy your crisp
> colors. However, for about the same money you can buy same size NEC,
> that is as crisp as Sony, but free of elongated pixels, broken lines,
> and lines across the screen.
> As for me, any no-name monitor is better then Sony. One of my
> machines is equipped with a 3+ year old Digiview, which is next to
> no-name, I still do some CAD work on it from time to time, and I would
> be really satisfied, if it were not so small - 14", but except for the
> size everything - colors, resolution etc. is OK.
> Later, Alex
Me too thats why I insist on dot pitch for CADD work.
Michael
dste...@neosoft.com (Don Sterner) wrote:
>There is a reason that Sony monitors are somewhat more expensive than some
>others. They are better quality. The line is easily ignored, unless you are
>simply looking for something to complain about. You are hung up on the (VERY)
>small stuff.
>Love my Sony monitor.
>
Michael
Lee Cao <lig...@banana.republik.net> wrote:
You know what I think: I don't think you can afford a Sony Monitor so
you're looking for a reason. What amazes me is that there are so many
posts. You obviously want one and can't afford it, no one in their
right mind can see those lines on a 17" monitor sitting a foot
away---and if you can, you have a bad monitor.
Mike
Samuel Samurai Wright
On Sun, 27 Apr 1997 00:38:02 -0400, Lee Cao
<lig...@banana.republik.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>You know, this is kind of like what Norelco put in the manual of their
>electric shavers "Give it 30 days for your skin to adjust to your new
>shaver". Yea, by the time you decide that your face is never going
>to adjust, you can't return it anymore...
>
Yes...But within those 30 days, I did get used to the new electric
razor, and it did not bother me anymore. I went back to a regular
razor to get that clean, close , kissable face that my wife likes!
LOL
The Samurai Press, Inc.®
Bakersfield, CA.
"Tell them you have a Samurai
In your pants!!"
Alexander Shulkin
Gilbert Baron
I think what everyone is missing is that the Trinitron has an
essential problem. The geometry is not very good on most of them, at
least not for a few minutes after you turn it on. I have a problem
with a trapezoidal shape that should be rectangular and it is smaller
on top. This gets MUCH better after arm up but THERE IS NO ADJUSTMENT
and I find that very strange for an 800 dollar monitor. Everything
else that has been said about this monitor concerning brightness and
clarity is th true and the reason that I decided that i would keep it.
I don't know if they can ever fix this. EVERY trinitron I have ever
seen has geometry problems.
>mike...@voicenet.com (Michael) wrote:
>
>Lee Cao <lig...@banana.republik.net> wrote:
>
>
>You know what I think: I don't think you can afford a Sony Monitor so
>you're looking for a reason. What amazes me is that there are so many
>posts. You obviously want one and can't afford it, no one in their
>right mind can see those lines on a 17" monitor sitting a foot
>away---and if you can, you have a bad monitor.
>
>Mike
>
--
Gil Baron W0MN gba...@sparc.isl.net http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/Trails/4168/
Bailar es vivir" pgp2.6 key http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/~bal/pks-toplev.html
"Cuatro caminos hay en mi vida. Cual de los cuatro sera el mejor"
[Posted with Agent 1.0. For info, email agent...@forteinc.com.]
Harry Barr
Said gba...@sparc.isl.net (Gilbert Baron) on Wed, 30 Apr 1997 12:07:08
GMT:
|>I think what everyone is missing is that the Trinitron has an
|>essential problem. The geometry is not very good on most of them, at
|>least not for a few minutes after you turn it on. I have a problem
|>with a trapezoidal shape that should be rectangular and it is smaller
|>on top. This gets MUCH better after arm up but THERE IS NO ADJUSTMENT
|>and I find that very strange for an 800 dollar monitor. Everything
|>else that has been said about this monitor concerning brightness and
|>clarity is th true and the reason that I decided that i would keep it.
|>I don't know if they can ever fix this. EVERY trinitron I have ever
|>seen has geometry problems.
Just dropped in to this newsgroup to check out my experience with a 15"
Trinitron 100sx. Interesting reading, this thread. I see that I was not
alone. I have very good vision (thank heavens) and the single, broken thin
gray line was quite annoyingly apparent to me in the programs where I
spend the most time (newsreader, web browser, word processor, spreadsheet,
database). I did appreciate the sharpness of the text and graphics
although it did seem to me that horizontal lines in the matrix were a bit
too apparent; but I saw that gray line as a defect. Count me among those
who can't see the forest for the tree, I guess.
I took the monitor back to Best Buy and told them I thought it was
defective; their techs checked it out on-the-spot and informed me that
this was a characteristic of the Sony monitors. I was utterly taken aback
and could not understand how Sony could sell monitors with a known
"defect", and wondered if the Best Buy folks were trying to put one over
on me to get rid of a defective product. But, they did cheerfully refund
my money, and I went on my way in ignorance.
I checked the Sony website this evening and found in their monitor FAQs
that indeed, the line is a characteristic of the design, as has been
discussed in this thread. Now that I know the "why", it's easier to
understand. But I'm still baffled at how this can be acceptable; to each
his own. It's just not for me.
Re the geometry - I did notice that no matter what adjustments I made, I
could not get a straight edge on both sides of the screen - and at the
squarest I could get the edges, the actual image on-screen appeared
convex with the center area seeming to curve away in proportion to the
bottom and top areas of the screen. This applied even after leaving the
monitor on for an hour, then two, then three...
Guess I'll get by with my Digiview HR-1508 for a while longer. I will
have to check out the recommendations I've seen here for the NEC displays,
though. Thanks for bearing with my ramblings.
(I'm another SPAM hater - remove the "XXX" to reply via Email.)
--
Harry Barr - h...@i1.net (Internet 1st)
Private Pilot, Airplane
Proprietor of Harry's Hangar at
http://www.i1.net/~hwb
Harry Barr
gm
In article <3366BA...@execpc.com>, nos...@execpc.com quips...
> Michael wrote:
>
> > I challange anyone sitting a normal distance from a 17" screen to fine
> > the lines....ANYONE. A normal viewing distance is 12-16 inches from
> > the screen. I have an allwhite background too. They just ain't a
> > problem if you sit back a normal distance if your face is 6" or
> > closer, yes you can see them....if you got a 17" monitor and sit 6" or
> > closer you need glasses, not a new monitor.
> >
> > Mike
>
> sony and still see the lines when a white screen is displayed. It was
> horible while up in the 2-2.5' range. Thats why I took it back and got
> one of the newer NECs which still have .25mm dp and but have the pixles
> arranged differntly (Crystalscan) to get a crisper image than my
> Trinitron. And guess what, NO LINE! The only downfall is that its not
> as bright. But in my work enviroment I use to have to turn the Sonys
> brighness down so I didnt strain my eyes.
> --
> Steven Greasby
>
Gateways sell computers with a CrystalScan and you can upgrade to the
Vivitron which is the one with the Sony Tube... Is this CrystalScan the
same as you speak of?
thanks
--
gm
(bu...@mci2000.com)
#10 Ox
On Wed, 30 Apr 1997 05:44:19 GMT "mike...@voicenet.com (Michael)" posted
to "comp.os.ms-windows.win95.misc" about: "Re: Sony monitors are TERRIBLE!"
:
-->Lee Cao <lig...@banana.republik.net> wrote:
-->
-->
-->You know what I think: I don't think you can afford a Sony Monitor so
-->you're looking for a reason. What amazes me is that there are so many
-->posts. You obviously want one and can't afford it, no one in their
-->right mind can see those lines on a 17" monitor sitting a foot
-->away---and if you can, you have a bad monitor.
-->
-->Mike
-->
I can see the lines from 2 1/2 feet. They are very faint. The color of
the monitor is fine. Sharp from corner to corner. 85 vert refresh rate at
1024 x 768, which seems just fine on the 16.1" usable screen diagonal....
The cpd200sf (17"/16.1") is a good choice. MSRP US$799/street $730.
Allows 1280x1024 @75hz refresh. The se II is quite a bit more, near $1000
and I don't know specifically why it is better 1600x1280? or higher refresh
at 1280x/ with same tube?. TS
"Skydiver's parachute tangles, details at 11:00" The News
What more do you need to know? And why do people leap
out of perfectly good airplanes?
fo'get abou' it .reddevilATix.netcom.com
Semirhage
hwb...@i1.net (Harry Barr) wrote:
>I checked the Sony website this evening and found in their monitor FAQs
>that indeed, the line is a characteristic of the design, as has been
>discussed in this thread. Now that I know the "why", it's easier to
>understand. But I'm still baffled at how this can be acceptable; to each
>his own. It's just not for me.
>Re the geometry - I did notice that no matter what adjustments I made, I
>could not get a straight edge on both sides of the screen - and at the
>squarest I could get the edges, the actual image on-screen appeared
>convex with the center area seeming to curve away in proportion to the
>bottom and top areas of the screen. This applied even after leaving the
>monitor on for an hour, then two, then three...
The first Sony monitor I got had a much more noticable line than this
one. The image also appeared to be slightly more concave than
normal as you also said. I sent it back and got this one which
improved on both of those aspects. Now, the only time I notice the
line is when I am reading this thread in the newsgroup and I am
reminded that it's there. :)
However, the concave appearance of the monitor is somewhat
attributable to your own perception. You've probably been used to
looking at monitors which are convex and seeing a vertically flat
screen is a big adjustment. When I first got this monitor, some
friends of mine were disoriented by my screen, but once they'd used it
for a little while they agreed that it really was flat and looked
better than their own.
The way you can tell if the image is flat or not is to look at the
monitor from the side from a distance in such a way that you can still
see the image. If the image is actually concave, it will still
appear to be concave when looked at from the side. Otherwise, it
will be perfectly flat.
Once you get used to a flat screen, you won't be happy with the
old-style convex monitors ever again.
Andrew R Lee
On Thu, 1 May 1997 09:44:12 -0600,Somebody wrote I ain't to sure who.
>>
>> No offence, but you must be blind. I could stand 5+ feet away from my
>> sony and still see the lines when a white screen is displayed. It was
>> horible while up in the 2-2.5' range. Thats why I took it back and got
>> one of the newer NECs which still have .25mm dp and but have the pixles
>> arranged differntly (Crystalscan) to get a crisper image than my
>> Trinitron. And guess what, NO LINE! The only downfall is that its not
>> as bright. But in my work enviroment I use to have to turn the Sonys
>> brighness down so I didnt strain my eyes.
>> --
This is to my knowledge, incorrect the New NEC monitors with the
Chromaclear Tubes do have a damping wire, but only one. I am unable
to see the one on my M500 even if I peer at it from 6 inches.
Even if you can see the lines that does not make it a terrible monitor
still you did the right and proper thing if you didn't like it.
As for the NEC not being as bright have you tried turning up the
brightness control :-). or do you mean that the colour saturation is
not as good which I will not argue with.
Andy
Bob Myers
Sigh. The recurring flap over the aperture grille damper wires, and the
usual onslaught of misinformation regarding them. At the risk of extending
this thread even further, I'd like to spend a bit of whatever credibility I
have here and try to clear some of this up...
As most know by know, in place of a conventional shadow mask, the Sony
Trinitron (and related designs such as the Mitsubishi Diamondtron) has
what Sony calls an "aperture grille". This is actually an array of flat
wires, running vertically, and held in tension by a metal frame assembly.
One advantage of this arrangement over the conventional mask is the nearly
complete elimination of thermal effects on the mask - the "doming" of a
conventional mask, which results in color purity problems. Other benefits
include improvements in luminance ("brightness") for a given level of beam
current, since the grille intercepts less of the beam than a conventional
mask. This can be used either to provide a brighter display, or to achieve
a given level of brightness at a lower beam current (and so lengthen the
life of the gun). The aperture grille also permits the tube to be nearly
flat along the vertical axis. (The HORIZONTAL curvature of the Trinitron
faceplate is there for the same reasons a conventional tube isn't flat -
it makes for both a stronger faceplate without getting too thick, and the
curve makes the job of getting the convergence, focus, etc., a little easier
than it would be on a perfectly flat surface. But BOTH types are making very
good improvements in this area, and are capable of being pretty close to
flat at this point.)
The downside of the aperture grille design is increased weight and a little
more complexity, plus the damper wires that everyone is concerned about here.
These are required to keep the grille wires themselves - which again are
held under tension by a frame - from "ringing" too easily, and ultimately
to prevent the possibility of these wires crossing, when the tube is
subjected to mechanical shock or vibration.
Are they a "design flaw"? No, I would NOT use that word. They're a
design TRADEOFF, something which ALL CRTs and monitors have plenty of.
To get the advantages of the aperture grille in the areas mentioned above,
Sony chose to use this design, grille, damper wires, and all. Whether or
not YOU personally like the results is a matter of personal preference,
something that we all too often forget in discussions like this. Personally,
I do not find the damper wires objectionable, and I go back and forth between
Trinitron and non-Trinitron monitors regularly (in this job, you get to see
a LOT of different displays! :-)). Your mileage may vary, and that's just
fine. If you prefer a conventional tube, buy one. But don't criticize the
choices of others who don't happen to share your preferences.
Oh, one other thing: the pitch measurement IS different between the aperture
grille and conventional types, since the AG types have no real VERTICAL
pitch at all, and the dot pitch listed for them is measured horizontally.
The pitch spec for a conventional tube IS still the distance between
phosphor dots of the same color, but in the conventional (or "flat-square")
tube, this shortest distance happens to be along a diagonal. Some
manufacturers, notably Hitachi, have begun to quote vertical and horizontal
pitch separately, which CAN tell you a bit more about how much resolution
the tube provides. (Note that I'm using "resolution" here in the proper
sense, meaning the degree of detail - in dots or lines per inch, or some
similar measurement - that the tube can RESOLVE. Something like "1024 x 768"
is NOT a "resolution"; it's properly called a "format" or an "addressibility".
Sorry I'm so late jumping in to this one - been out of the country for the
past couple of weeks, doing the display-technonerd thing in the Far East.
Bob Myers | my...@fc.hp.com
Senior Engineer, Displays | Note: The opinions presented here
Workstation Systems Division | are not those of my employer.
Hewlett-Packard Co., Ft. Collins, CO |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, but I am unable to reply to e-mail requests; please post your question.
Gilbert Baron
>gba...@sparc.isl.net (Gilbert Baron) wrote:
>I think what everyone is missing is that the Trinitron has an
>essential problem. The geometry is not very good on most of them, at
>least not for a few minutes after you turn it on. I have a problem
>with a trapezoidal shape that should be rectangular and it is smaller
>on top. This gets MUCH better after arm up but THERE IS NO ADJUSTMENT
>and I find that very strange for an 800 dollar monitor. Everything
>else that has been said about this monitor concerning brightness and
>clarity is th true and the reason that I decided that i would keep it.
>I don't know if they can ever fix this. EVERY trinitron I have ever
>seen has geometry problems.
>
>
>
>>mike...@voicenet.com (Michael) wrote:
>
>>
>>Lee Cao <lig...@banana.republik.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>You know what I think: I don't think you can afford a Sony Monitor so
>>you're looking for a reason. What amazes me is that there are so many
>>posts. You obviously want one and can't afford it, no one in their
>>right mind can see those lines on a 17" monitor sitting a foot
>>away---and if you can, you have a bad monitor.
>>
>>Mike
>>
>
>--
>Gil Baron W0MN gba...@sparc.isl.net http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/Trails/4168/
>Bailar es vivir" pgp2.6 key http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/~bal/pks-toplev.html
>"Cuatro caminos hay en mi vida. Cual de los cuatro sera el mejor"
>[Posted with Agent 1.0. For info, email agent...@forteinc.com.]
This complaint seems to be my error. It is actually an optical
illusionism. I measured with a straight edge and not only are the
edges perfect but the corners are perfect rectangles. I guess I really
do have a really good monitor. I am glad I did not take it in and feel
foolish!
Da...@cais.com
>I can see the lines from 2 1/2 feet. They are very faint. The color of
>the monitor is fine. Sharp from corner to corner. 85 vert refresh rate at
>1024 x 768, which seems just fine on the 16.1" usable screen diagonal....
I know what you mean. I was testing monitors and the SONY was
beautiful. Clear and crisp with excellent color. But those line just
grated on my nerves. A little thing but so often it's the little
things that turn you into a raving loonie <GRIN>.
Dale
Steve Gage
On Thu, 01 May 1997 21:25:20 GMT, gba...@sparc.isl.net (Gilbert Baron)
wrote:
>This complaint seems to be my error. It is actually an optical
>illusionism. I measured with a straight edge and not only are the
>edges perfect but the corners are perfect rectangles. I guess I really
>do have a really good monitor. I am glad I did not take it in and feel
>foolish!
I know exactly what you mean. I have a 15" Sony Trinitron Multiscan
100sx, and at first I thought I was seeing a geometry problem as you
described. It _is_ an optical illusion - if you view from too close,
there seems to be a distortion. If you get back to a reasonable
distance, it is perfect. I love this monitor, and when, every once in
a while, I notice the stabilizing wire, it only serves to remind me of
how clear and crisp and bright it is!
Regards,
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
sg...@kear.tds.NOT (change "NOT" to "net")
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Smith
--------------51E2F918613BFAB4286CEE5A
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Tom Smith wrote:
>
>
> Steve (greasbys) wrote:
>
>> Michael wrote:
>>
>> > I challange anyone sitting a normal distance from a 17" screen
>> to fine
>> > the lines....ANYONE. A normal viewing distance is 12-16
>> inches from
>> > the screen. I have an allwhite background too. They just
>> ain't a
>> > problem if you sit back a normal distance if your face is 6"
>> or
>> > closer, yes you can see them....if you got a 17" monitor and
>> sit 6" or
>> > closer you need glasses, not a new monitor.
>> >
>> > Mike
>>
>> No offence, but you must be blind. I could stand 5+ feet away
>> from my
>> sony and still see the lines when a white screen is displayed.
>> It was
>> horible while up in the 2-2.5' range. Thats why I took it back
>> and got
>> one of the newer NECs which still have .25mm dp and but have the
>> pixles
>> arranged differntly (Crystalscan) to get a crisper image than my
>> Trinitron. And guess what, NO LINE! The only downfall is that
>> its not
>> as bright. But in my work enviroment I use to have to turn the
>> Sonys
>> brighness down so I didnt strain my eyes.
>> --
>> Steven Greasby
>
>
> No lines here on my 17in. NOKIA..... A very nice monitor......
>
> Tom
>
> --
> Have the right tools, but forgot were I left them.
I guess I said that enough times...
Sorry people..
Tom
--
Have the right tools, but forgot were I left them.
--------------51E2F918613BFAB4286CEE5A
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML><BODY>
Tom Smith wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>Steve (greasbys) wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>Michael wrote:
<BR>
<BR><I>> I challange anyone sitting a normal distance from a 17" screen to
fine</I>
<BR><I>> the lines....ANYONE. A normal viewing distance is 12-16
inches from</I>
<BR><I>> the screen. I have an allwhite background too. They just
ain't a</I>
<BR><I>> problem if you sit back a normal distance if your face is 6" or</I>
<BR><I>> closer, yes you can see them....if you got a 17" monitor and sit 6"
or</I>
<BR><I>> closer you need glasses, not a new monitor.</I>
<BR><I>></I>
<BR><I>> Mike</I>
<BR>
<BR>No offence, but you must be blind. I could stand 5+ feet away from
my
<BR>sony and still see the lines when a white screen is displayed. It
was
<BR>horible while up in the 2-2.5' range. Thats why I took it back and
got
<BR>one of the newer NECs which still have .25mm dp and but have the pixles
<BR>arranged differntly (Crystalscan) to get a crisper image than my
<BR>Trinitron. And guess what, NO LINE! The only downfall is that
its not
<BR>as bright. But in my work enviroment I use to have to turn the Sonys
<BR>brighness down so I didnt strain my eyes.
<BR>--
<BR>Steven Greasby
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>No lines here on my 17in. NOKIA..... A very nice monitor......
<BR>
<BR>Tom
<BR>
<BR>--
<BR>Have the right tools, but forgot were I left them.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>I guess I said that enough times...
<BR>
<BR>Sorry people..
<BR>
<BR>Tom
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
<BR>--
<BR>Have the right tools, but forgot were I left them.
</BODY>
</HTML>
--------------51E2F918613BFAB4286CEE5A--
Kent Hanson
I agree with you 100% I run into this all the time at work.
K Hanson
Lee Cao
Michael wrote:
>
> Lee Cao <lig...@banana.republik.net> wrote:
>
> You know what I think: I don't think you can afford a Sony Monitor so
> you're looking for a reason. What amazes me is that there are so many
> posts. You obviously want one and can't afford it, no one in their
> right mind can see those lines on a 17" monitor sitting a foot
> away---and if you can, you have a bad monitor.
Grasping at straws eh Mike? Why can't you even pretend that you have
an effective argument rather than this worthless reverse-psychology
analysis of yours. I own my own business so I can deduct any computer
related expenditures. That means Uncle Sam pays $400 for a $900
monitor. You think I can't swing $500 for a serious monitor? Belive
me, I am the pickiest when it comes to creature comforts. If $200
buys me a Sony that is better than my $700 ViewSonic, I'd get it.
But it doesn't so I stick with the best 17" I can find for under
$1000, a ViewSonic 17PS.
BTW, I am also on the verge of buying a ViewSonic P815, which is a
shadow mask monitor, which is actually more expensive than the
P813 aperture grill monitor. I tell it like it is, don't try to
read between the lines, there is nothing there.
> Mike
Rick New
>>
>> I know what you mean. I was testing monitors and the SONY was
>> beautiful. Clear and crisp with excellent color. But those line just
>> grated on my nerves. A little thing but so often it's the little
>> things that turn you into a raving loonie <GRIN>.
>>
Ya know it is all personal preference. For some the "clear and crisp with
excellent color" overrides the thin gray line that one doesn't notice after
a while. Obviously Sony sells a lot of monitors so there are some who
don't mind. I looked at NEC monitors for quite a while before I got the
Sony, for me the softness of the characters was more nerve racking than the
grey line.
Regards,
Rick
Stephan Schaem
Steve Gage wrote in article <33692a90...@news.tds.net>...
>On Thu, 01 May 1997 21:25:20 GMT, gba...@sparc.isl.net (Gilbert Baron)
>wrote:
>
>>This complaint seems to be my error. It is actually an optical
>>illusionism. I measured with a straight edge and not only are the
>>edges perfect but the corners are perfect rectangles. I guess I really
>>do have a really good monitor. I am glad I did not take it in and feel
>>foolish!
>
>I know exactly what you mean. I have a 15" Sony Trinitron Multiscan
>100sx, and at first I thought I was seeing a geometry problem as you
>described. It _is_ an optical illusion - if you view from too close,
>there seems to be a distortion. If you get back to a reasonable
>distance, it is perfect. I love this monitor, and when, every once in
>a while, I notice the stabilizing wire, it only serves to remind me of
>how clear and crisp and bright it is!
>
I'm looking at a 100sx right now, and its geometry and the dynamic of the
contrast
is terrible.
At least for this 100sx, its not an optical illusion. the scanline start
offset and stop
wobble all the way. This get worse when the image is not white, constrast
shrink
or expand the image.
This get really anoying when you open menu or else because the aspect of
the whole
screen tend to change by expanding or shrinking.
Sure its super detailed, but its defently flawed. If only the left and
right edge could be
strait and parallel to each other, and perpendicular to the horizontal AND
would no
change resize with contrast change , then I could recomand it for general
use....
Stephan