In every technology comparison, all technologies are compared to a "state of the art" reference standard. That standard is still CRT's.
A cheap CRT is gonna be better than a cheap CRT but a quality CRT is still untouched in the desktop arena as far as image quality goes.
I couldn't find this year's comparison easily enough with their search engine, but in the previous one, Extremetech.com wrote:
"If you can live with a bulky unit and a 40 inch or smaller screen size then the CRT is the clear image quality winner. For thin direct-view displays the plasma is currently better for video but the LCD is better for (non-gaming) computer applications. For large screen image quality the DLP currently produces the best overall image quality......"
While response times have improved for LCD's they are still grossly overstated on manufacturer's spec sheets. I don't much care if someone advertises they have a 6 ms response time when it's tested here on Tomshardware and their tests show it to be 30. For the most part LCD's response times are a fraud. I even remember tomshardware complimenting a vendor (Eizo IIRC) for publishing accurate response times noting how such a practice was unique in the industry. Contrast is another area wher published specs are grossly overstated.
LCD's have certain advantages mainly in brightness, size and weight. For the most part, their resolutions still pale compared to CRT's. We have three 19" 1280 x 1024 LCD's and I find the fact that I can see individual pixels annoying. I can see the border around pixels. We also have a 17" 1920 x 1200 LCD and that is quite good in respect to individual pixels not being visible to the naked eye at normal viewing distances.
As for heat generation, my experience contradicts "rumor". The exterior temperature of our 21" CRT is 22 degrees C.....the LCD's are 29C.
Finally, if you want an authority with regard to display technology, go to the source....go to the people who develop the software to test display technology. These are the people who run the technology comparisons on extremetech.
http://www.displaymate.com/crtvslcd.html
Note the most important criteria:
Color and Greyscale Accuracy - CRT's
The reference standard, the very best color and gray-scale. If you need very accurate color and gray-scale calibration then get a CRT. LCD's - Pleasing images but not accurate because of problems with black-level, gray-scale and Gamma. Reduced color saturation at low intensity levels due to a poor black-level. Generally not suitable for professional image color balancing.
Contrast - CRT's Produce the highest contrast levels normally available. LCD's - Lower contrast than CRTs due to a poor black-level. Don't believe the published contrast ratios. Real world operational values are substantially lower.
Resolution - CRT's Operate at any resolution, geometry and aspect ratio without the need for rescaling the image. Run at the highest pixel resolutions generally available.LCD's - Each panel has a fixed pixel resolution format determined at the time of manufacturer that can not be changed. All other resolutions require rescaling, which generally results in significant image degradation, particularly for fine text and graphics.
Grey Scale - Have a perfectly smooth gray-scale with an infinite number of intensity levels. LCD's Have an irregular intensity scale and typically produce fewer than 256 discrete intensity levels. For some LCDs portions of the gray-scale may be dithered.
Black-Level CRT's Produce a very dark black. Suitable for use even in dimly lit and dark environments. LCD's Have difficulty producing black and very dark grays. Not suitable for use in dimly lit and dark environments.
Finally, LCD's is a "close the curtains" technology. Using a LCD in proximity of an uncovered window, outside or in a car is too often an exercise in frustration.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram