Hacker News Reader

Comment by emmanueloga_ | Hacker News Reader

haha so it is happening... CRTs are for gaming, in the same vein LPs are better for music, and valves are better for amps, etc, etc

View on HN

CRTs have some really nice characteristics with moving content. If you're using an LCD or OLED display now, if you quick scroll or drag a window around you'll see you can't read the text while it's moving. CRTs are different though, they strobe in a way that means motion is always clear.

While film lets you hide these artifacts with clever tracking and angles, it's very obvious with interactive video games. There are tricks to fix this, but consumer display tech is quite inconsistent.

You should be able to read it on OLED, which has instant response time, especially if it's a fancier one with 120fps or black frame insertion. The issues are more likely to be with your eyes than the screen. LED has more motion blur and occasionally flickery blacklights to deal with.

At lower pixel or subpixel brightness OLED is still terribly affected by PWM strobing. Turn/move your head and you can see the on-off-on-off steps required for dimmer scenes or dark portions of a scene.

A perfect 120Hz OLED is still over 8ms of blur (MPRT), a crt is closer to 1.5ms MPRT.

There also are almost no OLEDs the right size for PC gaming.

Hopefully as VR tech becomes mainstream, display tech can improve up to the 1.5ms mark.

The issue with modern displays (OLED and LCD) is that they are sample-and-hold, which means that a frame will remain lit for its whole duration, leading to motion blur. Even a perfectly instantenous pixel response won't fix that.

Very true. A project I'm working on involves some scrolling and animation on older hardware at 60Hz. Looks absolutely smooth on the CRT, but when emulated on a modern display there's always some kind of trailing/blurring.

Some older Zowie gaming monitors let you strobe the backlight at 60Hz to work with older software, as well as some modern TVs. It's quite fiddly to setup, but it can be worth it if you enjoy your old 60Hz locked games looking smooth.

If you care about this stuff...

(and there is absolutely no reason to care, but you are making a comment, so you seem to care a little)

...the tradeoffs are really fascinating. Don't think of it as one being better. It's just a different set of tradeoffs. CRTs are objectively better at some things, and are of course also objectively worse in a lot of obvious ways.

I would say that LPs and tube amps are objectively worse than their modern counterparts in every way. But the tradeoffs involved and the subjective issues are cool and sometimes do make for a better subjective experience in some ways.

Tube amps are amazing for distortion effects, no doubt. But for a 1-to-1 reproduction of audio signals, it's not great.

For sure. The even-order harmonic distortion can sound "good" though. It's not my cup of tea but I wouldn't say somebody's crazy if they prefer it!

LPs are a slightly more interesting discussion IMO. Objectively inferior to Redbook audio by a mile. But, given the 30-40dB noise floor even in a "quiet" room, and the THD added by the loudspeakers, I think their real-world performance competes very very well with digital audio...

A lot of the differences people ascribe to CDs vs. LPs may not be due to the medium, but to different paradigms used when mastering audio for one or the other.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com