On Sep 21, 11:30*am, TonyQ wrote:

indeed... that was my backhanded message. Does the TV industry today
think and function like Enron or MCI or Lehmann Bros management?

I never said my old CRT unit *gave a BETTER picture than the good new
LCD units. *It has ended up to be an incredible value. *Will I be so
lucky when I buy an LCD model? *It's up to you designers.... and
corporate management, boys and girls.

I guess I missed the social message embedded in this. Just sounded
really odd to see raves about the image of analog TV, that's all.

I was very, very glad to see LCD TVs of reasonably large size, and
digital TV, become available. Even at a very young age, i.e. grade
school age, I couldn't understand why TV images had to look so bad
compared with movies, or why TVs had to be so enormous for such a
small image area. TV always seemed to me to be a bad compromise,
required to get images over RF. So I've been following the evolution
of "advanced TV," then DTV, since way back in 1986, with great
anticipation.

My own luck with analog TVs was so so. And I never saw any evidence
whatever of them being built with any special care. Quite the
opposite, if anything. Analog CRT TVs, as far as I could tell, were
always far more cheaply built than any audio gear I've owned. Probably
had to be that way, to keep the price down.

Our oldest analog TV was more than 15 years old when the flyback
transformer fried in a dramatic display of sound and smoke. One quit
working early on, just a couple of years old. I got it fixed, but that
didn't last long. Newer ones quit typically after 7 or 8 years or so,
with the image suddenly becoming ghosty, then recovering, then back to
ghost, or with power supply problems. A couple of them shut off
suddenly, then back on again, then off, etc. The last two CRTs we
owned were still working when we gave them to charity. They were both
around 9 or 10 years old.

My expectation is that LCDs, which do not need high voltages, should
last fairly well. We'll see.

Bert