Old LCD Monitors vs. New LCD Monitors

[bulbousbeard]

Good monitors are anything but free. There's a reason people are throwing away trashy old 4:3 LCDs. They have a ton of input lag, are too low res for HLSL, and have really bad response times.

Games are basically unplayable on them if you care about quality even a little.

[Malenko]

Good monitors are anything but free. There's a reason people are throwing away trashy old 4:3 LCDs. They have a ton of input lag, are too low res for HLSL, and have really bad response times.

Games are basically unplayable on them if you care about quality even a little.

What about people giving away old 4:3 CRTs? You saying a CRT isnt a good monitor?

I dont think if someone gave me a free arcade machine my first thought would be "man what a trashy old 4:3 LCD with input lag and bad response times!"
I love all the positivity found in every single one of your posts, you are such a breath of fresh air!

[shponglefan]

Good monitors are anything but free. There's a reason people are throwing away trashy old 4:3 LCDs. They have a ton of input lag, are too low res for HLSL, and have really bad response times.

Games are basically unplayable on them if you care about quality even a little.

Not true.  I have a number of older, 4:3 LCDs that are more than adequate for playing games on.  And a couple I got for free, to boot.

[Xiaou2]

Good monitors are anything but free. There's a reason people are throwing away trashy old 4:3 LCDs. They have a ton of input lag, are too low res for HLSL, and have really bad response times.

Games are basically unplayable on them if you care about quality even a little.

Not true.  I have a number of older, 4:3 LCDs that are more than adequate for playing games on.  And a couple I got for free, to boot.

 This depends on what you consider "Older".    If two years is ancient to you... then sure.   

 But many LCDs are in fact poor for fast moving games...  most especially LCDs made maybe between 3 to 6 yrs ago..  also dependent on the brand / components.   Many of them also have poor contrast and poor color representation.   And due to the age... the Backlight is probably getting near the end of its lifespan...  so it will be darker than you would like, and the light could cut out at any time.

 However, you can get a CRT for cheap at the thrift shops.. from 5 to 10$ around here... on the smaller sized units.  Not much more on the larger units.
You can also find them for free all over the place... especially if you ask around.

 Im still running a 34" 1080i  widescreen  sony tv.  The thing will probably last another 10yrs on top of its already elderly age.
Plays all consoles with great picture clarity... rather than the LCD native resolution issues (blurry and faded in non native res).   Even has a built in Subwoofer, and surround sound outputs.  HDMI, as well as component, digital, analog, and optical ports.

 My previous 37"  LCD died in about 3yrs of service.  Luckily, I got in before they changed the Warranty Policies.. and got my money refunded.  Took that money, and spend less than half of it, to get the used Sony.

[yotsuya]

Good monitors are anything but free. There's a reason people are throwing away trashy old 4:3 LCDs. They have a ton of input lag, are too low res for HLSL, and have really bad response times.

Games are basically unplayable on them if you care about quality even a little.

I tend to see that they're throwing them away because they see a 20" 16:9 as an upgrade to a 19" 4:3. It's wider, so it must be better is their train of thought.

The game I built for my sister, I used a 21" Dell CRT that I got for free. Looks like a real monitor and I don't need to run HLSL. Looks awesome, and I didn't pay a cent for it.

[shponglefan]

This depends on what you consider "Older".    If two years is ancient to you... then sure.   

 But many LCDs are in fact poor for fast moving games...  most especially LCDs made maybe between 3 to 6 yrs ago..  also dependent on the brand / components.   Many of them also have poor contrast and poor color representation.   And due to the age... the Backlight is probably getting near the end of its lifespan...  so it will be darker than you would like, and the light could cut out at any time.

Dunno what to tell you, but my experience disagrees with your post.  I've tested my LCDs and they are more than adequate for gaming.  And yes, I'm talking about monitors older than 2 years.   

[shponglefan]

Good monitors are anything but free. There's a reason people are throwing away trashy old 4:3 LCDs. They have a ton of input lag, are too low res for HLSL, and have really bad response times.

Games are basically unplayable on them if you care about quality even a little.

I tend to see that they're throwing them away because they see a 20" 16:9 as an upgrade to a 19" 4:3. It's wider, so it must be better is their train of thought.

Yep, I snagged old 4:3 monitors from my old work when they replaced 'em with bigger widescreens.

[Xiaou2]

Dunno what to tell you, but my experience disagrees with your post.  I've tested my LCDs and they are more than adequate for gaming.  And yes, I'm talking about monitors older than 2 years.   

 You can Roll your blind Eyes at me all you want.  Facts are Facts.   Just because your brain and or eyes are problematic, does not change the reality of LCD tech specs.

 Many of the hardcore games refuse to play on any monitor that does not have under a 1ms response..  and some of the latest developments are things like:  Lightboost, GSync,  and now  ULMB.

 See:   http://www.blurbusters.com/


 Consumer priced LCDs, have a ton of disadvantages to even a Decent CRT.

 Biggest one being Non Native Resolution Distortion.   Then Longevity...  and the list goes on and on... especially the further you go back in years.
 

[shponglefan]

Dunno what to tell you, but my experience disagrees with your post.  I've tested my LCDs and they are more than adequate for gaming.  And yes, I'm talking about monitors older than 2 years.   

 You can Roll your blind Eyes at me all you want.  Facts are Facts.

Again, my experience disagrees with your experience.  And given my experience is factual, there is literally nothing you can say to possibly change things.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

(It also is worth noting that plenty of other people have examples of cabs built with 4:3 LCDs.  So clearly I'm not alone in this either.)

Consumer priced LCDs, have a ton of disadvantages to even a Decent CRT.

Like anything, there are trade offs.  LCDs have certain advantages over CRTs as well.  There is no perfect "one-sized fits all" solution.

[Xiaou2]

Again, my experience disagrees with your experience.  And given my experience is factual, there is literally nothing you can say to possibly change things.

 Experience doesnt make truth.

 For example,  if I say I didnt hear the distortion in the CD I just bought...     or  I didnt taste the spice note in the meal just served to me..   or I didnt see 3d effect in the Imax3d movie...

 Does not make these experiences factual.    Sure, its a fact I tried them.. and documented my experiences...   but its based on my personal physical qualities, such as hearing, sight (eye spacing, visual acuity.. ), taste receptors (food),  and even sensory to brain translation issues.   As well as personal opinions.


 But Actual factual data is different.    For example, just because you dont hear half of the expanded output range in a high-end audiophile speaker,   does not mean that it does not exist.  In fact, it can be, and is proven to exist,  as these things can be measured.   They are measured from the get-go, and these specs are almost always listed and available.   If not available (and or just to confirm)  many whom are capable and have the devices to measure them, will in fact measure and report these things.

 This is why I gave you a link to Blurbusters.   Its a known issue with LCD display technology.    One of many many flaws.

 One thing about this hobby, is that most of us are playing older games, with limited color depth.. so we dont care much if the display is missing a color range, or its not completely accurate.  What does matter much more.. are things like motion blur, visual to controller delays, visual distortions, and lasting lifespan (who wants to rip apart their cabinet - and rebuild a new mount for a different LCD?  )    As well as the actual look being completely different altogether, than a real arcade monitor.

(It also is worth noting that plenty of other people have examples of cabs built with 4:3 LCDs.  So clearly I'm not alone in this either.)

 Saying that a lot of Lemmings watched a Movie, does not mean that movie was actually good and worth watching.
A lot of people put Asbestos in their houses..  and that wasnt good either.

 A lot of people eat at Taco Bell..   Does that make it the best place to eat?!   Certainly not good for you.. and I cant even imagine anyone with the lack of tastebuds who would claim such a thing.

 Yes, a lot of people use LCD.  In fact, if making a compact and light cab and or bartop is desired, its a good option.  But it really boils down to personal opinion, and what you are willing to compromise.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

 In the case of an Opinion, thats fine and good.  But in the case of proven data... then Ill just state those facts, which really, speak for themselves.   Again, its up to the user in the end.   And if the user is incapable of noticing the lag and or distortions.. then maybe hes ok with following your opinion.

 In this case, hes building for cheap / free.. and giving to whats probably a non-technical family.   Durability and last-ability,  IMO,  are high priorities..   unless he wishes to be a life-long fix-it man for them...

[dkersten]

While I agree that older LCD's are far from the best monitor to play games on, saying they are unusable for games is a stretch. 

I have a 100" screen with a nice 1080p projector.  With bluray content it looks unbelievably fantastic.  Yet 95% of the time when I check on what my kids are watching on it, they are on the non-HD channels, watching in a double letterboxed screen (4:3 in a letterboxed 16:9, letterboxed to 4:3 because it is not an HD broadcast) making the screen half the size and the resolution 4 times less than they can get with a different channel.  It looks like crap to me.  But the point is, they don't care, and they don't really even see the difference.  Just because the content they are watching is not ideally suited for the screen and projector doesn't mean they can't watch it or enjoy it.

Also, keep in mind that while playing a first person shooter on an older LCD with horrible lag and a terrible refresh might be noticeable compared to a CRT or a newer LCD, those are games that require both good resolution and the lowest latency possible to gain the edge when competing at the top level.  Arcade games are HARDLY requiring super smooth scrolling, sub 3ms latency, and perfect color reproduction.  And if you are one of those gamers who thinks you can pick out all the details when the action is most intense in a game like raiden fighters, well, then you are right up there with the audiophile who thinks he can pick out those subtle differences between a $100,000 pair of speakers and a $50,000 pair of speakers. 

For the record, I worked in car and home audio for many years, and worked with $100,000 speakers and $5,000 speaker wires, and while there was indeed a difference between each, to 99.99999% of people, that difference is so negligible in practice that it is completely irrelevant.  I also can't tell you how many elitist "audiophiles" walked into the store and heard something playing and commented on how much better all that expensive equipment made everything before realizing that they were listening to a $250 pair of speakers hooked up with lamp cord. 

Technically, everyone here is right.  Older LCD's, and even newer ones that don't employ lightboost or g-sync are usually not as good as a decent CRT from 15 years ago for gaming.  But at the same time, that doesn't matter to MOST people, and MOST people won't even notice the differences even if they are pointed out.

When it comes down to it, your eyes are the best judge for what works and what doesn't, and if a 5 year old LCD that cost you $20 on craigslist works for what you want to use it for, then it works and nobody will ever be able to tell you different.  If it isn't good enough for YOU, then YOU should get something better.

One last note here:  This argument spawned from a thread about how cheap you could make an arcade cabinet.  Since when does the cheapest solution have to also be the best possible solution?  Nobody can argue that even the crappiest LCD still WORKS well enough to play a game, and if it is free and you can't afford better, isn't that better than not having an arcade at all?

[HaRuMaN]

X2, isn't it just your opinion that we don't care much if the display is missing a color range, or its not completely accurate? Isn't it your opinion that motion blur, visual to controller delays, visual distortions, are more important?

I have to ask though, since pretty much all LCDs made use VESA mounting, why would you need to rip apart a cabinet to mount a different LCD?  Just unscrew one and put the new one in its place.

[Malenko]

Thankfully I have X2 blocked so I dont have to read his drivel (I suggest you do the same); I'm sure there's some off base comparison to food, or martial arts, or cars in it. Definitely something about how his opinion is fact and yours is just opinion.  That being said I need to address this:

While I agree that older LCD's are far from the best monitor to play games on, saying they are unusable for games is a stretch. 

I have a 100" screen with a nice 1080p projector.  With bluray content it looks unbelievably fantastic.  Yet 95% of the time when I check on what my kids are watching on it, they are on the non-HD channels, watching in a double letterboxed screen (4:3 in a letterboxed 16:9, letterboxed to 4:3 because it is not an HD broadcast) making the screen half the size and the resolution 4 times less than they can get with a different channel.  It looks like crap to me.  But the point is, they don't care, and they don't really even see the difference.  Just because the content they are watching is not ideally suited for the screen and projector doesn't mean they can't watch it or enjoy it.

Also, keep in mind that while playing a first person shooter on an older LCD with horrible lag and a terrible refresh might be noticeable compared to a CRT or a newer LCD, those are games that require both good resolution and the lowest latency possible to gain the edge when competing at the top level.  Arcade games are HARDLY requiring super smooth scrolling, sub 3ms latency, and perfect color reproduction.  And if you are one of those gamers who thinks you can pick out all the details when the action is most intense in a game like raiden fighters, well, then you are right up there with the audiophile who thinks he can pick out those subtle differences between a $100,000 pair of speakers and a $50,000 pair of speakers. 

For the record, I worked in car and home audio for many years, and worked with $100,000 speakers and $5,000 speaker wires, and while there was indeed a difference between each, to 99.99999% of people, that difference is so negligible in practice that it is completely irrelevant.  I also can't tell you how many elitist "audiophiles" walked into the store and heard something playing and commented on how much better all that expensive equipment made everything before realizing that they were listening to a $250 pair of speakers hooked up with lamp cord. 

Technically, everyone here is right.  Older LCD's, and even newer ones that don't employ lightboost or g-sync are usually not as good as a decent CRT from 15 years ago for gaming.  But at the same time, that doesn't matter to MOST people, and MOST people won't even notice the differences even if they are pointed out.

When it comes down to it, your eyes are the best judge for what works and what doesn't, and if a 5 year old LCD that cost you $20 on craigslist works for what you want to use it for, then it works and nobody will ever be able to tell you different.  If it isn't good enough for YOU, then YOU should get something better.

One last note here:  This argument spawned from a thread about how cheap you could make an arcade cabinet.  Since when does the cheapest solution have to also be the best possible solution?  Nobody can argue that even the crappiest LCD still WORKS well enough to play a game, and if it is free and you can't afford better, isn't that better than not having an arcade at all?

I can reply in 1 word:

AMEN!
 

[shponglefan]

Experience doesnt make truth.

 For example,  if I say I didnt hear the distortion in the CD I just bought...     or  I didnt taste the spice note in the meal just served to me..   or I didnt see 3d effect in the Imax3d movie...

 Does not make these experiences factual.    Sure, its a fact I tried them.. and documented my experiences...   but its based on my personal physical qualities, such as hearing, sight (eye spacing, visual acuity.. ), taste receptors (food),  and even sensory to brain translation issues.   As well as personal opinions.

I think you need to wind back to what I was originally posting to.  The original post was, "Games are basically unplayable on them if you care about quality even a little".  This is not true in my experience, and I stated such.

You then stated:

But many LCDs are in fact poor for fast moving games...  most especially LCDs made maybe between 3 to 6 yrs ago..  also dependent on the brand / components.   Many of them also have poor contrast and poor color representation.   And due to the age... the Backlight is probably getting near the end of its lifespan...  so it will be darker than you would like, and the light could cut out at any time.

Again, I have not experienced these same issues with older 4:3 LCDs.  In fact, I've had an old (5+ years) Samsung 4:3 LCD last longer than some of the newer widescreen LCDs!  Now obviously it does come down to the individual LCD monitor as quality varies.  But to paint all 4:3 LCDs with the same broad brush is a mistake, imho.

And please note that I never claimed 4:3 LCDs were the best option. Simply that it's a perfectly viable option if you have a suitable 4:3 LCD.  Which again, is based on my experience utilizing them.

[shponglefan]

While I agree that older LCD's are far from the best monitor to play games on, saying they are unusable for games is a stretch. 

I have a 100" screen with a nice 1080p projector.  With bluray content it looks unbelievably fantastic.  Yet 95% of the time when I check on what my kids are watching on it, they are on the non-HD channels, watching in a double letterboxed screen (4:3 in a letterboxed 16:9, letterboxed to 4:3 because it is not an HD broadcast) making the screen half the size and the resolution 4 times less than they can get with a different channel.  It looks like crap to me.  But the point is, they don't care, and they don't really even see the difference.  Just because the content they are watching is not ideally suited for the screen and projector doesn't mean they can't watch it or enjoy it.

Also, keep in mind that while playing a first person shooter on an older LCD with horrible lag and a terrible refresh might be noticeable compared to a CRT or a newer LCD, those are games that require both good resolution and the lowest latency possible to gain the edge when competing at the top level.  Arcade games are HARDLY requiring super smooth scrolling, sub 3ms latency, and perfect color reproduction.  And if you are one of those gamers who thinks you can pick out all the details when the action is most intense in a game like raiden fighters, well, then you are right up there with the audiophile who thinks he can pick out those subtle differences between a $100,000 pair of speakers and a $50,000 pair of speakers. 

For the record, I worked in car and home audio for many years, and worked with $100,000 speakers and $5,000 speaker wires, and while there was indeed a difference between each, to 99.99999% of people, that difference is so negligible in practice that it is completely irrelevant.  I also can't tell you how many elitist "audiophiles" walked into the store and heard something playing and commented on how much better all that expensive equipment made everything before realizing that they were listening to a $250 pair of speakers hooked up with lamp cord. 

Technically, everyone here is right.  Older LCD's, and even newer ones that don't employ lightboost or g-sync are usually not as good as a decent CRT from 15 years ago for gaming.  But at the same time, that doesn't matter to MOST people, and MOST people won't even notice the differences even if they are pointed out.

When it comes down to it, your eyes are the best judge for what works and what doesn't, and if a 5 year old LCD that cost you $20 on craigslist works for what you want to use it for, then it works and nobody will ever be able to tell you different.  If it isn't good enough for YOU, then YOU should get something better.

One last note here:  This argument spawned from a thread about how cheap you could make an arcade cabinet.  Since when does the cheapest solution have to also be the best possible solution?  Nobody can argue that even the crappiest LCD still WORKS well enough to play a game, and if it is free and you can't afford better, isn't that better than not having an arcade at all?

^ This.

As an aside, I've noticed that certain posters have a very myopic view of what constitutes proper arcade gaming.  So these types of discussions always seem to spawn from topics re: suitable monitors, computers, controls, etc.

I think some people don't understand that user wants/needs are variable and that what isn't an acceptable solution to one person may be a perfect solution for another.

[RandyT]

LCD lag is the result of pre-processing the signal before it is displayed.  This pre-processing is the conversion of an analog signal (if used), scaling of non-native resolutions, color translations, etc....  When using a TV as a gaming display, this usually ends up being worse, as there is sometimes other added processing specific to smoothing video.

To state categorically that LCD (or any modern display technology) is slow, or poor for gaming, is simply inaccurate.  About 10 years ago, even inexpensive TV's started employing 1:1 pixel modes, bypassing the slow pre-processing that muddied native resolution images.  Most sets will have "game" modes which also strip out a lot of this.

Smearing, or blur, is the result of slow crystal transition times, but even that has been largely a non issue for quite some time.  As for contrast levels, it's been hard to find an LCD which wasn't jet black in it's off state for just about as long.  Compared to the awful state of some CRT's in gamerooms (burn in, bad convergence, old monitors in need of caps or just plain adjustment to correct for their age) it's a stretch to say that even old LCDs are necessarily worse.

I have an old cheap Sceptre 4:3 monitor which is going on 10 years of service and used every day.  The black levels and viewing angles aren't what LCD can do today, but I have done some gaming tests with it in the past, and it is perfectly acceptable, even with an analog connection.  Heck, the video card I was driving it with failed and had to be replaced a few years ago, but the monitor is still fine.  At the moment, I am typing on a 42" 1080p 1:1 LCD TV, through HDMI, that is on it's 5th year as my primary computer monitor, with no degradation or issues.  I still have to run it at a fraction of the brightness it's capable of, or I'll go blind from staring at it all day.   Again, just fine for gaming, and being a TV, I researched the capabilities well and have not been disappointed.

So, in short, if using an older LCD PC monitor for gaming, the best results will be achieved with a digital (HDMI / DVI) connection and driven at it's native resolution.  Some light grey acrylic for the window will increase black levels, without hurting the brightness too much.   TV's are another beast entirely, so it pays to research them a bit more before deciding to use one, but the digital connection and native resolution recommendations remain the same.

[BobA]

Good points Randy.   I personally like 4:3 LCD monitors with VESA mounts for my bartops as they give the best bang for the buck.  They are lighter and easier to mount than CRTs of any sort.  Plus in a lot of cases they are free or close to it as people upgrade their monitors to the HD style that display MAME poorly due to their height to width ratio.  You get the best screen usage with the 4:3 monitor. 

I could not build my bartops now with a CRT as they do not have the room internally and that is how I like them.

The differences between the newer 4:3 LCDs and the older 4:3 LCDs is not noticeable to me and since they all fall in the same category as Cheap or Free I will take either without worry for my bartops.

[RandyT]

Another very simple point to consider:  If all LCDs actually were horribly short lived pieces of junk, as being characterized here, there would not be nearly the number of old, perfectly serviceable LCD monitors as there are out there, nearly free for the taking. 

[dkersten]

That is another good point for this topic: Technically a 4:3 is better for arcades until you exceed a 24" 16:9 format, at least in horizontal mode.  19 and 20" 4:3 LCD's are easy to come by, and are taller than anything smaller than a 24" 16:9.  And when you DO go to a 27 or bigger, you either have to go vertical or have a really wide cabinet, and even so until you get above 30" you are not gaining much height. 

Combine this with the arguments above and for MOST arcade users, an older LCD or CRT is going to be superior for the use.  I spent hours searching for the biggest 4:3 LCD I could get, and they never manufactured one over 21.6", and I think the height on that ends up being around 13.5", just about the height of a 27" 16:9.  For the cost, it was cheaper and easier to get a 27" widescreen, and THAT was the swaying factor in my decision to use a newer LCD in my cabinet, NOT the technology or display quality.  If I were viewing photographs or playing first person shooters competitively, that would be a different story.

Even so, my primary gaming monitor for the past 9 years has been a Dell Ultrasharp 24" 16:10 LCD, and like Randy said, while the color brilliance, black levels, and off axis viewing may not be quite up to par with the latest LCD panels, it is still a completely viable for ANY game, and trust me, I have logged well over 10,000 hours on this monitor with all genres of games.  Heck, just League of Legends alone I have easily topped 2000 hours of play (probably closer to 3000 hours), and since that game came out I don't play nearly as much each day as I used to.  It never once degraded my ability to play, even when playing first person shooters.

Just sayin...

[yotsuya]

Personally, I'll always use a 19 or 20 inch 4:3 CRT because I don't care for cabinets wider than two feet.

[dkersten]

Personally, I'll always use a 19 or 20 inch 4:3 CRT because I don't care for cabinets wider than two feet.

So a 32-40" tv turned vertically is out for you?     

[nitrogen_widget]

For years I gamed on a 15" Dell LCD monitor and honestly had zero problems.
No blur ect.
Just run the desktop at native LCD resolution & you should be good.
The monitor is close to 10yrs old & still works.
Except for the backlights.
If I ever get around to replacing them.

I also have an HP 19" 4:3 monitor hooked up to my PENTIUM 3 mame system I will use in my  classic vertical cab.
Looks damn good if i say so & even better with the scanline generator.
even not at native res.
no input lag or ghosting.

[Malenko]

Personally, I'll always use a 19 or 20 inch 4:3 CRT because I don't care for cabinets wider than two feet.

most (all?) games with a 25" CRT are at least 25"s wide.  y u no love teh MKs?

What about the 36" CRT I jammed into a KI cab?

[yotsuya]

Personally, I'll always use a 19 or 20 inch 4:3 CRT because I don't care for cabinets wider than two feet.

So a 32-40" tv turned vertically is out for you?     

Yes, when I can get a Samsung Syncmaster 21" 4:3 for around $100. If I did use a widescreen monitor, the only way I would use it is vertically.

I no love the MKs, bro, but I have no problem with the cabinet. It's proportions fit the 4:3 screen. It's 3 1/2-4 foot wide cabinets I find no bueno.

[dkersten]

My cab with a 27" wide screen is 28" wide total.. 4" wider than your 2 foot max, and while it IS a little "fat", it isn't like those ones you see with 32 or 40" horizontally mounted screens.  If only you could buy a commercially available 26" 4:3 LCD screen.. it would be all I would use.

[Malenko]

My cab with a 27" wide screen is 28" wide total.. 4" wider than your 2 foot max, and while it IS a little "fat", it isn't like those ones you see with 32 or 40" horizontally mounted screens.  If only you could buy a commercially available 26" 4:3 LCD screen.. it would be all I would use.

Im sure he's referring to the cabs that are a foot deep with a 42" monitor

[yotsuya]

My cab with a 27" wide screen is 28" wide total.. 4" wider than your 2 foot max, and while it IS a little "fat", it isn't like those ones you see with 32 or 40" horizontally mounted screens.  If only you could buy a commercially available 26" 4:3 LCD screen.. it would be all I would use.

Im sure he's referring to the cabs that are a foot deep with a 42" monitor

I'm not going to comment on what other people put in their cabinets. People have their reasons, whether it be availability, the fact that they want to play PC games, and so on. I'd buy 26" 4:3s as well, if available for a reasonable price. But even at that, the last 5 builds I've done I've used 19-20 inch computer CRTs, and will continue to do so. I've spent a grand total of $ 30 for them.

[Xiaou2]

X2, isn't it just your opinion that we don't care much if the display is missing a color range, or its not completely accurate? Isn't it your opinion that motion blur, visual to controller delays, visual distortions, are more important?

I have to ask though, since pretty much all LCDs made use VESA mounting, why would you need to rip apart a cabinet to mount a different LCD?  Just unscrew one and put the new one in its place.

 Yup.   They are generalities..    But they are centered on the fact that a Mame / Emulator cabinet, does not typically need to display in high-definition, with perfect color bar transitions.   Most of the elder games have at most 5 colors for shading an object...   not a photoshop style graduated shaded fill, using hundreds of color steps.

 In the same light...  Most of the elder games are fast action games... and often utilize faster projectiles than many of the more modern games.   You also have games where single pixel accuracy over fractions of second timeframes count.  You simply cant play Robotron well at all with any form of delay.  Ive had many runs where I was 1 to 3 pixels away from getting pinched.. about every 3 to 5 seconds in a level.

 Funny Randy mentions Sceptre.   It was that model, in 37"..  that died after the 3rd yr of ownership... not too long ago.   It was a model everyone was praising at first, due to comparable pricing.   After a short time, it started to have some blotchy translucent shadows that were forming..  which Im assuming was the films overheating and melting.  It was cool in the room, as I had an AC unit running.. as well as put a fan behind the "hot-box".   There was certainly image blur on fast images.   Accurate Photoshop work was impossible due to very poor color shade representation.  Side by side against my ancient tiny CRT - it was a total face-palm moment..  as you could easily see how much color loss was apparent, as well as how the colors and overall picture contrast / shades  were also incorrectly represented.   Im darn good at tweaking settings, and spent hours trying to get it to a better state.. but after all of that,  It was still about 40% worse than the CRT.

 I operated that LCD daily, as my main PC monitor.  Using it for countless hours at a time.   It wasnt the backlight that went, as Ive seen that issue before  (you can see make out a feint image when that happens, if your look closely).   I believe self terminated its power supply or controller motherboard.

 For clarification:  Yup, it was ran using a good Nvideo card, at full native resolutions,  with an HDMI cable.  (Tried the other ports as well, for kicks)


 Now... all that said... I have seen some amazing LCDs.   I did some contact work in the health care industry,  and installed Radiology monitors.  These things are Uber expensive.   They must be calibrated using a special hardware device.  They are tested for calibration often, and if they cant adjust to spec... they MUST be removed from service...  as any accuracy problems could cause incorrect diagnosis of the Patients problems.  These came in Black and White, as well as Color.

 One day I made a spreadsheet while using one, to map and track the progress of the installs.   I used multiple colors and hash like patterns.. and turned out quite pretty, was done mainly for being functionally easy to read.   I later went to transfer that to my standard CRT... for printing.   I was shocked to find out that you could barely tell the colors apart.  They went from vividly saturated and well contrasted.. to a  pale / poorly saturated color palette.. and all the colors were so similar in shade, they were hard to tell apart.  Very dramatic difference... hence the Monster price tag.

 And that said.. it might not be good for fast moving images either.   Ill have to check those specs again out of curiosity.

 I did kinda like that monster 37" sceptre  sitting in front of me.. and it was cool to be able to display a game with the full artwork, and have it nearly to scale.   But it just didnt look that great for games..  and motion blur on it, was visibly apparent.   It sucked for image creation, as well as even viewing pictures...  so in the end, it was a huge waste.   Luckily, I was able to get a refund when it Croaked, as shortly after my purchase timeframe, they had changed their refund policies.


 Anyways, I still dont understand how its cheaper to use an LCD?   I hit up craigslist and find postings of free CRTs every few days.   Perfectly good and working...  and will likely outlast an LCD by 20 more years past its already aged past.  It will look more close in approximation to the real machines...  have faster and better accuracy, and its rock solid nature will mean that you wouldnt have to diagnose or work out the display for possibly the life of the machine.

 Even the big name equipment these days seems to be made incredible poorly.   The lead-free soldier is still, as far as I know, is still a big reason why many of these boards are failing.  (and not everyone is going to try to reflow tiny surface mount chips... and do it successfully to boot)    As well as general quality control issues.. and the most horrific warranty periods.  Can you even find a TV or electronic device that has more than a 1yr warranty anymore?!   >.<   And or if you do..  you still get the shaft, due to downtime,  unexpected shipping & part charges,  getting a beat-to-hell  used refurb,  and or a replacement that will fail in that same time period for the same reasons.

 (I know a guy who bought an HP all-in-one pc for like 2k$   It lasted just about 1 month over warranty.  Dead.  Power supply, tests good voltages.  No error codes to help out.  The model has something like 10,000 pages of complaints and requests for help.. on that model.   No fixes or advice given.  Users left with an expensive paperweight and most likely a gaping hole still on their credit card.  Tried getting a replacement board, it was also bad.   User finally admitted defeat)

 Its pretty much random luck if you can get anything to last these days.


 And finally, IMO,   a  25  to  36"   Display, running a low resolution game like Pacman,  at a distance of two feet or less,  .. is horrible.   Way too close.  And way too big.   Makes the already pixelated picture  (due to modern monitors higher dot-pitch shadowmasks),  even more blocky.    The classic cabinets really had it right.   19" crts, at a minimal distance away from the user, with side-walls to keep you from distractions... as well as keeping the sounds in, and others sounds being less intrusive.    The distance and size was just right, for blending the images to a much more smooth look.

 Another way to look at it..  is taking a vcr quality image.. and trying to upscale it to a 1080p display.   Yet put that same image on a 13" tv, and its quite decent looking.

 I think if you are running a pedestal unit.. then that helps, as you can back the image away far enough to help a bit.  But then you lose that classic up-close feel and interaction.  It just doesnt feel the same, and is a real let-down when you get to experience it... and can compare it to the original configuration.

[ark_ader]

Uhh... one more laborious X2 post and I'm sure we will jumping off cliffs.  4:3 monitors are the best for arcade gaming use.  the later monitors (which I have plenty) has lots of issues when displaying games.  Consoles aside.

If it is an old 20ms monitor then yes I see where the argument is going, but most of them are in landfills by now.  Anything less than six years will be 5ms or less so lag is not a problem.  Color might be if the display has been used it's entire life but we know that already.

I'm sure someone can supply a beating a horse pic......

[Malenko]

heaven is just a few steps away ark.....

takes up so much less room with the exact same content that matters.

[RandyT]

Funny Randy mentions Sceptre.   It was that model, in 37"..  that died after the 3rd yr of ownership... not too long ago.   It was a model everyone was praising at first, due to comparable pricing.   After a short time, it started to have some blotchy translucent shadows that were forming..  which Im assuming was the films overheating and melting.  It was cool in the room, as I had an AC unit running.. as well as put a fan behind the "hot-box".   There was certainly image blur on fast images.   Accurate Photoshop work was impossible due to very poor color shade representation.  Side by side against my ancient tiny CRT - it was a total face-palm moment..  as you could easily see how much color loss was apparent, as well as how the colors and overall picture contrast / shades  were also incorrectly represented.   Im darn good at tweaking settings, and spent hours trying to get it to a better state.. but after all of that,  It was still about 40% worse than the CRT.

 I operated that LCD daily, as my main PC monitor.  Using it for countless hours at a time.   It wasnt the backlight that went, as Ive seen that issue before  (you can see make out a feint image when that happens, if your look closely).   I believe self terminated its power supply or controller motherboard.

The Sceptre I have was a ~10 years past Black Friday special 17" monitor, not a TV.    Currently, it is my building security system monitor and hasn't been turned off for 3 years straight.  When it comes to electronics, luck can be a good part of the equation.

Another factor can be price, but not always.  The leading cause of death is penny pinching on the internal components, like capacitors.  Nobody seems to do board level repairs anymore, so when a cheap, no-name LCD panel goes up in smoke due to a power supply issue, the lack of replacement parts seals it's fate.  It's always better to pay a little more for an LCD unit which is backed by a good manufacturer who will make sure there are going to be replacement parts.  The no-name (and I include the Sceptre, Emerson, Polaroid and other cheap brands) should be considered disposable, unless you like troubleshooting and soldering.

That being said, the older units which can be had for cheap have made it through that 2 years or so, where demise due to cheap components is most likely to occur.  I.e. if they made it this far, they are likely going to keep working for a good time to come.

As for color and performance, LCD's are not like CRT units.  How well they perform has as much to do with the processing capabilities as it does with the panel itself.  This can make for way more combinations of parts and possibilities for missteps than in the CRT realm.  Many high end units (like the expensive DCOM units in your health care facility) have extensive options for tweaking and calibrating the image, while the cheap, low-end (the ones most likely to fail prematurely) have very minimal controls.  To expect those two ends of the gamut to have anything comparable in quality is unrealistic.  But again, many of these old 4:3 units being discarded are not low quality units, just unwanted in favor of something else.

Selecting the right unit, and being willing to pay for the longevity, quality and performance being expected, will usually go a long way in the LCD realm.  But if you can pick them up really cheap and they look/perform half decently, does it really matter if they die after a couple of years, and end up on the scrap heap they were destined for before you got it?

[dkersten]

And finally, IMO,   a  25  to  36"   Display, running a low resolution game like Pacman,  at a distance of two feet or less,  .. is horrible.   Way too close.  And way too big.   Makes the already pixelated picture  (due to modern monitors higher dot-pitch shadowmasks),  even more blocky.    The classic cabinets really had it right.   19" crts, at a minimal distance away from the user, with side-walls to keep you from distractions... as well as keeping the sounds in, and others sounds being less intrusive.    The distance and size was just right, for blending the images to a much more smooth look.

The ONLY pacman cabinet I have seen in the past 10 years around here is a 25th anniversary one at the movie theater down the street from me, and it houses what has to be at least a 26" CRT turned vertical.  In comparison it would take a 40"+ LCD mounted horizontally to get the same height as that screen.  So if you are saying that a 27" widescreen 16:9 horizontally mounted with a screen height of approximately 13.5" is TOO BIG, then I would say you sir, are full of ---steaming pile of meadow muffin---.  Unless of course what you are saying is that the ORIGINAL games are too big as well.  Whatever floats your boat.

I have dozens upon dozens of 4-7 year old LCD's here and I have used tons of them for gaming, both modern PC games and arcade games, and never have I stopped and said "Oh man, this is just unplayable."

And BTW, if you read all the good info about LCD's for gaming, you would know that half of what you are talking about is a compromise.  You can get great color reproduction in an IPS as well as great off axis visibility, but you can't get over 60hz with one and the input lag is always going to be above 5ms.  (yes, the Koreans are selling overclocked IPS panels but they actually perform worse and have higher latency because all it does is heat them up and make them run worse).  But you take older "TN" technology and the color reproduction is not great and the off axis is horrible, but you can get sub 1ms response times with the ability to "usably" overclock the screen, and because of that, TN is what all the "gamer" monitors use, which happens to be a 10 year old technology. 

You can throw data and facts around all day, but if you can't realistically apply those to real life, then you tend to sound like you don't know what you are talking about. 

[yotsuya]

You can throw data and facts around all day, but if you can't realistically apply those to real life, then you tend to sound like you don't know what you are talking about.

Welcome to BYOAC. Did you get the manual at the orientation?

[Xiaou2]

Yes, the Aneversery models monitor was too big.

 Play a real machine, most likely, at a collectors house.  Note how much better it looks and feels.  Then, return here and post your findings.   Ohh, to add to that... find someone with a pedestal mame, and play Pacman, and some other classics. 

 Compare again.. how they feel completely different, due to the nature of not being closer to the smaller monitor..  as well as lacking the 'blinder'  side panels.


 I dont have to have every single Factoid on LCDs to know that in most cases.. they Suck for games.  Most especially Classic games.   Have fun memorizing useless data that will soon be outdated.  Ill play some games and enjoy life a little more in the meantime...

 

I have dozens upon dozens of 4-7 year old LCD's here and I have used tons of them for gaming, both modern PC games and arcade games, and never have I stopped and said "Oh man, this is just unplayable."

 Most modern games are child level easy.  As most are FPS games, in which there are a lot of waiting / hiding, walking, moments..  and even when your in action.. its very limited in its intensity and need of Constant precise reactions.   
 
 Robotron however, drops you in the middle of like 100 baddies.. some merely a few pixels away... and says "GO".   Between the robots and the 50mph projectiles... you are constantly dodging, shooting..   and often are one to three pixels away from death,  at least 5 times a level.   Most beginners have never been up to stage 10.. and cant get there repeatedly.  Ive been up to stage 30 on a real machine, although, I think it was set to 5 lives at that time.  Even that, took many hours of play, before it became a regularly attainable feat.

 With visual and or input lag delays, there is no way to play that game well.    Nor will it look anything like the original counterpart arcade CRT.   From color differences, to blending and bleeding, and a slight soft blur and glow... as well as a textural look from the larger dot pitch / thicker lined  Shadow-Mask.

 Can you play Mappy?   Sure.  Its a slower paced game.   Though, you may experience scroll-tearing...  which is always a distraction and an annoyance...

 Sinistar?   Another very intense game..  especially on 2nd level and up.   You cant have lag on that game.. as its pretty much impossible as it is.  I believe Ive gotten to level 4, possibly 5 (bad memory)  on the real machine.


 But as Ive stated, this is less about what your willing to compromise on.. and was started as a response to a thread about putting an LCD or a CRT in a donation machine... to a family low on funds.  I believe there was a separation of the thread.. and or I was so tired when I was posting.. it got posted here instead.


 As for my Departed Sceptre - It was about $1500  I believe.  And far less than 10yrs ago.   It was still much cheaper than the comparing LCDs....  but still, a serious amount of cash to drop for my budget.   Very luckily, I got a full refund.   That would have been  $500  per year for the poor-performance experience.

 But Contrary to your statements... and as Already posted..  cost has little factor these days.   That HP all-in-one was only a few years back... and it was an expensive model, and a well known brand.   And not much longer ago than that..  Id gotten an HP scanner,  that quickly developed a problem with noise, and thus the scans were completely unusable.  Id used it maybe 10 times.    Its probably another one of the many devices on HPs support page, that goes completely unanswered.. as it racks up Thousands of angry and desperate users cries for help and justice.

 Welcome to the world of Corruption.  Where its gotten a stranglehold in all facets of life... and people have accepted it, and even now Defend it.  Quite sickening, but thats the way it is.

[Typefighter01]

Have fun memorizing useless data that will soon be outdated.

[Xiaou2]

Have fun memorizing useless data that will soon be outdated.

 Sorry, but knowing how things operate, such as mechanics (gears, pullys, springs.. ), and Physics of things (Leverage, Mass, Impacts..  )  as well as Material Qualities..  all are timeless things.

 What it means, is that Memorization of something only goes so far.   But knowing the principles of something, will enable you to pretty much figure out anything.   

 A simple example of this, might be how one could memorize how to open up a certain model laptop.   If the MFG makes any changes.. that knowledge will not help you... especially if you have no access to acquire the new knowledge required.  However, one who is good with mechanical abilities, can often figure out how things are held together, opened up, all without damaging the assemblies.    Ive met a few memorizers in such fields.. and Ive witnessed them break things repeatedly, even when they knew the memorized process.  Ive also seen them miss key reasons why certain things failed.. due to their incorrect assumptions of knowledge base information... rather than actual physical diagnosis, tests..etc.  One guy thought a laptops hinges were bad because the lid was loose.  Sometimes that was true.  However, in this case.. all that was needed was to tighten the hinge screws.

 Its very much the same in Martial Arts.

 If you learn the principles of how the stuff works.. you can adapt to different kinds of attacks and interactions that you had never been trained against.   But if you only memorized techniques... you would be far more apt to fail when something happened that was outside of the scope of the training.

[GeoMan]

I am still using a ViewSonic 19" PF790 CRT for games and especially emulators /MAME. Although i bought it back in 2000 it is still in perfect shape with vibrant colors and not a sign of image distortion.

I wouldn't change it for any LCD right now (of course i'll be forced to do so when one day it dies, but for now it is perfectly fine!)

[dkersten]

Most modern games are child level easy.  As most are FPS games, in which there are a lot of waiting / hiding, walking, moments..  and even when your in action.. its very limited in its intensity and need of Constant precise reactions.   
 
 Robotron however, drops you in the middle of like 100 baddies.. some merely a few pixels away... and says "GO".   Between the robots and the 50mph projectiles... you are constantly dodging, shooting..   and often are one to three pixels away from death,  at least 5 times a level.   Most beginners have never been up to stage 10.. and cant get there repeatedly.  Ive been up to stage 30 on a real machine, although, I think it was set to 5 lives at that time.  Even that, took many hours of play, before it became a regularly attainable feat.

So games like Call of Duty played competitively for years are child level easy with no real motion issues or input lag, but robotron... watch out, your LCD simply can't handle the load...  Funny because the very sites you read all your LCD information on are specifically geared toward modern first person shooters where a couple milliseconds can be the difference between being competitive and being a smear on the side of a building.

Seriously, I get what you are saying, and in THEORY it is not wrong, but as a competitive PC gamer for two decades who has worked with computer monitors since the Vic20 came out, I can say that in practice, you give me ANY LCD monitor and I can PLAY a game with it just fine.  Are some better than others?  YES.  Are some FAR better than others?  YES.  But the scale is still going from "playable up to a semi-competitive level" to "playable AT a competitive level", it doesn't start at "unplayable". 

Look, for YOU, an older LCD might just not work for your tastes.  Nothing wrong with that AT ALL.  You can apply that to ANY enthusiast hobby.  But what one person might brush off as unusable might be the next person's treasure.  When you expend a ton of effort trying to convince other people that the equipment they have been using for years is unusable for a game, you not only tend to ruffle some feathers, but you also tend to come across as someone who needs an excuse for why you aren't very good at those games.  Your arguments have only convinced me that if you were playing robotron on my cab and didn't do as good as me, you would blame the monitor.  Or the joystick.  Or the height of the control panel.  Or the ambient light in the room throwing you off.  Or the temperature in the room.  Or the time of day.  Or the phase of the moon.  Never just having a bad game or a lack of skill. 

BTW, In January I was looking to replace my 9 year old Dell 24" LCD and I started reading up on g-sync, which of course led me to reading about other interesting facets of "gaming LCD's".  Up until I started dumping money into this hobby, I had planned to replace my aging LCD with the Asus ROG 27" w/G-Sync when it came out.  Last I had checked it was due out in July.  Frankly, now I will probably never bother unless my old Dell goes out, and even then I will end up spending only a couple hundred and just go bigger because when it comes down to it, the performance of the screen never really mattered that much to me in PC gaming.  If I ever decide to play another FPS, I will do so to have fun, and the screen will not matter.  If someone is good enough that their monitor actually gives them an edge, then they are already better than me so it wouldn't matter anyway.  My days of playing on any kind of competitive level are over, and I am OK with not being the best and having the edge over others at my skill level.  The same goes for having a cutting edge car stereo system, home theater, or car.  I have been there, done that, and it just doesn't matter much to me any more.  Funny thing, when you step down from the cutting edge you realize that the extra couple percent you gained by spending 3 times more money was really a waste.