Countdown to the death of the arcade monitor?.....

[Patent Doc]

No, No, No, a million times NO!!! HAN SHOT FIRST!!! That scene is a defining moment of his character, and changing that scene diminished Han.

Here, here....there was no missing a target at point blank range or dodging a blast moving at the speed of light....only the premptive strike by a mercinary with questionable moral character so we can watch the evolution of his character.  He was out for number one up to this point.   

Once again, we return now to our regulary scheduled programming

 

[genesim]

Ahh Frizzle Fried...I knew something was missing.   

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXx

Look I am not trying to cause trouble, but I never understood this.

If Han shoots first, or doesn't shoot first, why does that change his character?

I mean seriously, what did you think he had that gun under the table for...tiddly winks?   I think he had every intention of shooting Greedo, and he just needed the opportunity.

Though I will say this.   Han reaching up was a good move, and the Greedo first shot ruins that "distraction" moment.

That and the fact that who they got to play Greedo the split second before is HORRIBLE.   What is that thing anyway.  If anything needs to be digitall corrected, take that thing OUT!

[bfauska]

I mean seriously, what did you think he had that gun under the table for...tiddly winks?   I think he had every intention of shooting Greedo, and he just needed the opportunity.

Nobody start an argument about this, it all comes down to what somebody we don't know intended at a time in history... those arguments go nowhere. 

[Patent Doc]

Genesim

The abysmal part is 1) Greedo missing at point blank range...seriously the dude is supposed to be a bounty hunter or hitman...really is the guy gonna miss (in my opnion the most offensive) 2) Han in the original seems to be a scoundrel of sorts....you arent' sure which way he leans except he will move with what is best for him whichever way that is.  By making him shoot first you make him a gray and uncertain.  He also becomes a person you don't want to trifle with.  He'll kill ya just as soon as look at ou if you get in his way. By shooting second (a hero never shoots first) he is shooting only in defense ....he appears cleaner...to some this is less appealing for the character.  They want to see the redemption of Han over time.

Ultimately it means little...but Greedo missing just looks stupid

Yeah - I went there...I couldn't resist

Patent Doc grabs the popcorn sits down next to bfauska and waits to see if the fireworks start.

[meismr]

Man I'm going to hate myself in the morning, but... 
The argument that no one knows what the programmers wanted their code to look like seems illogical.  A programmer for a specific system knows what the end product will look like.  It goes through a QC phase (even if it's only done by the programmer) so of course the programmer will modify it to how the end result will be.  If the group that programmed, I don't know... how bout the ancient game pacman, tried to make pacman have an ear and nose and then saw the end result and it looked like pacman had a beak with flounder looking eyes, they'd change their code... 

and the most important part:
Thank you Patent Doc for the point I tried to make to my buds who were falling all over themselves for the new star wars... 
Greedo missed a shot my 2.5 year old could make.  Are you kidding me!  It now looks like Han defended himself against a retarded alien. 

Ok...  not wanting to fuel fires I'll add:
I'd love to use an LCD for my project, but I haven't seen a 27" LCD 4:3 anywhere...  so it's a TV for me...

[Anubis_au]

Let's keep this topic on-track

Han in the original seems to be a scoundrel of sorts....you arent' sure which way he leans except he will move with what is best for him whichever way that is.  By making him shoot first you make him a gray and uncertain.  He also becomes a person you don't want to trifle with.  He'll kill ya just as soon as look at ou if you get in his way. By shooting second (a hero never shoots first) he is shooting only in defense ....he appears cleaner...to some this is less appealing for the character.  They want to see the redemption of Han over time.

Yes, yes! To Patent Doc you listen!!

Han Solo is NOT a hero. He's a rogue acting for pure profit (initially). He blows Greedo away (sure, Greedo would have done the same), throws a couple of coins to the barkeep for his troubles, and walks out... the coolest dude in all of Tatooine.

By having him shoot AFTER Greedo makes him more of a goody-goody. Makes you wonder, would he have shot if Greedo hadn't? Like Mace Windu having Dooku at lightsaber point and doing buggar-all. Or having Palpatine at lightsaber point... man, you suck Mace!!

[ahofle]

I didn't even think the Han/Greedo thing was up for debate.  He did it to make the movies more 'family friendly'.  And then he proceeded to film Dooku being decapitated in cold blood, Jedi children being slaughtered, and a young Anakin burning alive and screaming in part 3. 

[Anubis_au]

I didn't even think the Han/Greedo thing was up for debate.  He did it to make the movies more 'family friendly'.  And then he proceeded to film Dooku being decapitated in cold blood, Jedi children being slaughtered, and a young Anakin burning alive and screaming in part 3. 

 

You forgot decapitating Jango in front of his kid 

[genesim]

I guess that is where I disagree.

Han shoots before...after, it doesn't matter.   He isn't a "goody goody" because he shot under the table.

Add to that, his shot is done so fast, I don't consider it calculated for a shot happening first.   He was shooting anyway.

Now as for this Greedo thing.   Maybe his eye sight sucks.   I haven't studied up on Greedo, but I never took him to be some great bounty hunter....more like a hired hand out for himself.    That was why he wanted the money NOW, instead of giving it to Jabba.

Which of course gets to the next scene that was changed.   Jabba was and will always be a slug who got his hands on Han after Darth Vader delivered him.    Other then that, he would have never been cornered.   So the next scene didn't change Jabba IMHO because that was always what I thought about him.   Han stepping on him, falls right in line with my perception...and apparently Georges.   

Which gets back to George.   We don't know his original intentions, other then what he presented to us.   It is still weak though, because he changed it TWICE.    So yes, I am making excuses...I hate it too.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Meismr,

It goes through a QC phase (even if it's only done by the programmer) so of course the programmer will modify it to how the end result will be.

But they didn't.  They keep each pixel congruent, which doesn't lead to evidence that they changed with the CRT limitations.    Look at the evidence.   

If a flat screen had been around at the time, we don't know if that is what would have been picked.   

What is so illogical about what I said?   LCD's weren't around at the time, so they couldn't have possibly ruled them out as a monitor.   YET CRT's on the other hand, were what they were, and it would have cost too much if they did know there was better in the future.    But again, this is a stretch.   How, because of my first point.   They didn't program for it!!

Its kind of like the argument that people made masters to fit records, when it was the BEST they had at the time?   That doesn't make sense at all.    Why would they have purposely left things out of the record master(like frequency response of say a drum hit, or high pitch sound) if they had a choice?

I use my ears though.   And it is obvious that we are gaining alot from the original master with the clarity.   The same can be said of LCD.   The clearness of the original signal(as in no color distortion or bending pixels at the side) is a good thing, not bad.

Now the blur of "boxy" pixels are another story.   Have we beat this dead horse enough already?

[Patent Doc]

God I know I'm gonna regret this in the morning but

Its kind of like the argument that people made masters to fit records, when it was the BEST they had at the time?   That doesn't make sense at all.    Why would they have purposely left things out of the record master(like frequency response of say a drum hit, or high pitch sound) if they had a choice?

I use my ears though.   And it is obvious that we are gaining alot from the original master with the clarity.   

For the record, no engineer leaves anything out, they know the limitations of the sound on a given media an mix and process the sound to compensate. 

I agree the CD can have added clarity even from an analog master (which by the way is still the preferred media for recording artists).  But that is precisely the problem...when a recording is made mikes are placed in the studio the sound travels to the mixing board where it is subject to all sorts of processing such as delays, echos, reverb, chorus, eq (graphic and parametric), compression, filters, and limiters.  The master is the result of the manipulations of each of these for each track (usually somewhere in the neighborhood of 64 tracks) which are then mixed down to a stereo signal (though now 5.1 mixes are becoming common).  Hell even the mike placement is made to emphasize certain sounds that the engineer needs to help recreate what he hears on the recorded media.  Anyway, engineers at the time were well aware of what would and would not sound good or could be accomplished on the LP and would manipulate the recording to the master so it would accurately represent what was played in the studio (Despite my preference for LP's I willingly concede the media has limitations). I do know this happens as a former studio musician. 

If you make a CD from a master prepared with an LP in mind, you pick up information in the mix that wasn't intended to be heard.  Yes, it accurately reflects the master, but a master that was designed to correct the flaws in another media.  So you will here frequencies not intended, maybe one instrument is over emphasized because on the LP it gets burried. This is why CDs get remastered (meaning you go back to the original tracks ...reapply the effects to reflect the limitations of the new media and mix down from there).  The newly mastered disc should accurately reflect the original recording and will sound better than the disc master for an LP.  Music recorded now will have the added advantage of being able to also place mikes to fix limitations in the CD in addition to the manipulations that are available to old recordings.

So in the end just taking the master intended for the LP may arguably be "more accurate" to the master, but not to the recording.  The remastered disc is a different story (given of course that anyone actually remembers what the recording sounded like after all those years).  Anyway, getting to the point ...I will always concede that the LCD represents the code more accurately, I just don't think that what you capture with the LCD was what was intended for you to capture.  I know you believe that it was...will have to agree to disagree.  My belief is that the programmer like the recording engineer manipulated the product to accommodate for the limitations of the
media to arrive at his artistic vision and given a different media would have changed the manipulations.

Han shoots before...after, it doesn't matter.   He isn't a "goody goody" because he shot under the table.

Add to that, his shot is done so fast, I don't consider it calculated for a shot happening first.   He was shooting anyway.

I see your point about shooting under the table and the shot being so fast, but George has given interviews saying Han was reacting....this is why fans have a problem with it... shooting so fast as a reaction is implausible, Han was already fiddling with the gun, and well come on even if Greedo is legally blind he and nothing but a second rate henchman, he can hit the fuzzy object 2 ft away rather than the wall a foot up and to the right of Han...its just ruins the suspension of disbelief. Beyond that attempting to make han appear cleaner ruins the rogue many grew up loving.

[genesim]

My belief is that the programmer like the recording engineer manipulated the product to accommodate for the limitations of the
media to arrive at his artistic vision and given a different media would have changed the manipulations.

You have yet to answer the 100,000 dollar question.   Where is the evidence that ANY...notice ANY manipulation of the code has occured to compensate for the problems I mentioned?   There is no evidence that I see, as with the engineers with the LP vs CD.

It is all theory, but if anything, the exact opposite is true.   Bass would be turned down and High pitched sounds would be turned down so they do not cut out(because frequency range is limited).    This is where a higher bit rate would capture some of the problems.

So you will here frequencies not intended, maybe one instrument is over emphasized because on the LP it gets burried.

This is not how recording works.    I say this with all honesty, it doesn't sound like you know what you are talking about.  You are mixing frequency range(as in pitch of certain wind instruments, or an extremely high pitched string) of an instrument with loudness???

(which by the way is still the preferred media for recording artists).

There are lots of reasons for this, and this is changing more everyday.

I do know this happens as a former studio musician.

I don't doubt your intentions, but simple home recording will tell you, that if you want to reduce the limitations, you scale back the instrument that is being cut off NOT emphasize more.

As for Remasters, most of the time they are done because A.   They used crappy second generation record masters(which were tweaked quite often) the first time, and B.   They use a higher sample bit rate.  i.e.  DSD technology.

Alolt of this is bologna.   The original masters are the blueprint, and while mucked with, that is okay.  Because what is good for LP is even better for CD/DVD Audio/SACD.

Why, because no matter how much tinkering has went on, like I have said a hundred times...FIRST you capture the master in the best way possible, then SECOND you change what you don't think is authentic if you have evidence to back it up.

Whoever was in the studio at the time, laid down the tracks, and the rest I could care less about.    I want to hear the instruments in their rawest form.    If a studio head messed with it, and there is any way to cut them out...GOOD.    The artists vision is most of the time more dead on anyway.

Unfortunately in most cases this is impossible.   So we do the best with what we have, and sorry records IMHO are not it.    Bad frequency range, uneven quality, analog....just like alot of CRT's.

[genesim]

Forgot to mention, I really do concede about Greedo.   Your points are well taken.

[genesim]

One more thing that must be said.

An ORIGINAL MASTER RECORDING is one that doesn't have EQ or other trickery put to it.   Even microphone placement to supposedly adhere to an LP or any other source.   And yes, that is right, the original master TAPE which has a better frequency range, shouldn't be changed.

If any trickery goes on, and alternate master is made.   This is almost always the case.   The ORIGINAL MASTER RECORDING has the music go direct to tape.

That is why the accuracy is so much better.   Many of the re-re-re masters came from using those crappy alternate master sources that I spoke of.    The original, should be the music in its rawest form.   Only a fool would go mucking with the original vision.

[Singapura]

With LCD display resolutions becoming higher and higher it should be easy to write a program that imitates a low or medium res CRT display. Even the curve of the tube could be simulated by software. I'm already looking for something like that for quite some time but haven't found it yet.

[Patent Doc]

Genesim

OK its 3:20 am here so my arguments probably aren't the most coherent right now...and to be honest I'm fiddling with this as I take breaks from emergency filings due to patent rule changes that are about to go into effect.  With the exception of Han statements any technical statement I make that doesn't make sense or self contradictory should probably be taken with a huge grain of salt...I'm not really reviewing what I'm writing and I'm at a point sleep wise that everything is sounding good to me...even Brittany's new album.

That said....the point I was trying to make (and still may fail) was if you know a media tends to cut a frequency (Hz) due to its inherent characteristics, you can try to compensate by overemphasizing the problem frequency through equalization.  You can also try to adjust the levels of various instruments in the mix to help as certain instruments will fall within a given frequency range (for example emphasize the splash cymbol or a flute in a mix to bring out the treble in the mix).  If the bass is boomy you would cut the bass.  Different means to skin the cat.  If my previous statement made it seem like I was confusing pitch and loudness I apologize, it wasn't my intent.  Anyway, if the CD doesn't have these frequency problems then your attempts to compensate are highlighted by taking the master designed for one media and using it to press the other.  The flute you emphasized to help correct for a loss in certain frequencies is now in your face. 

Am I making sense?  Just because a media doesn't handle certain frequencies well doesn't mean you can't compensate you would still have loss but your correction fixes the end product.  What you notice on the CD when compared to the LP is the loss that occurred with the LP that the engineer tried to correct for (by the way unlike the programmer whose intentions I admit we don't have record of, but my gut tells me is the same, there are tons of articles that describe the recording process and what engineers had to do back in the day).

I think we are actually differing on how best to deal with cut-off ...your solution is to de-emphasize so you don't hear it....for digital recordings this may be the better approach.  However, you can also solve the problem by overcompensating so the cut-off (which really isn't an absence of sound as LP's do produce the entire spectrum of frequencies including subsonic and ultrasonic (to our ears) frequencies that CD's do not (albeit by intentional design) is accounted for (if I want to end with 5 and I will lose 1 I can start with 6).

I totally agree about a flat recording being more desirable, problem is many songwriters will have to many parts to be accomplished with the band at hand (Boston was a good example of this...they had either toured with an army of musicians to recreate the studio performance .... which wasn't done live due to the same person playing many roles or failed to reproduce what they recorded) or in many cases the band isn't that great in reality and the engineer makes them sound WAY better (say Cher or any of the overly processed vocalists of the day).

Anyway, I'm obviously shot...and I'm starting to ramble (I know...I know)

later

[Patent Doc]

see you added more while I was slowly being wordy

regarding masters...I agree with your statements on what constitutes a master (though levels are still tweeked a bit here though not as much as is done later in the process), I was originally trying to simplify the process as I am aware the press master and the original master and the mix master are different entities in the process.  I had no idea you had any clue about that and didnt want to confuse the issue.

Have you listened to a master recording before....it isn't what you'd expect is it?  Any original master is processed before any CD or LP was made its still very raw.  Most bands would fail miserably if the original master went to press rather than the post engineering masters.  Bands will often add tracks upon hearing the master to fill voids. I am glad you like the rawness of an orignal master if you've heard one...most don't appreciate it...but if you haven't don't confuse the rawness of the original master with a live performance...not necessarily the same beast.  Depending on the band and whether they record live a song they previously rehearsed (The Police did this) or pieced together a song and then toured with compromised version (Boston).  I would argue that the better live shows are with bands that just record them as they are rather than use the studio to become something more....of course the latter can result in the better album.

[genesim]

Alright, lets get down to brass tax again.

If the original master has been messed with in regards to LP's, then we are screwed, and it is the best master to take from.

If the original master hasn't been messed with in regards to LP's, then we are in better shape and it is STILL the best master to take from.

So any tinkering you want can come later after the original master is represented correctly.    Got it?

I understand completely what you are saying, and there is some merit.  No doubt redbook cd's have been patterned after lp's in what they should sound like, but if you are going to work with something...or better yet improve on it, the only hope is to first.   Retain the master in best possible quality, so as to gain improvements by extracting information that may have never been heard before, and then work from the ground up.

But one must have a solid foundation.

Same goes for the original code.   Whatever changes the programmers made.  Duplicate that code, then work with filters and overlays etc later.   But first get the "master" right.

Now that said.   I say BULL when it comes to the original programmers.   There is no evidence to support that pixels were changed in shape and color from the original CRT.   Don't believe me, look yourself.    Any CRT has some level of distortion, and Pacman can easily be counted because it is under 300 Pixels.  Look closely and tell me now if the programmers meant for that to happen(referring to the "bowing" effect, as well as the color bleeding and uneven quality).

This cannot be denied.

While changes were likely made in small form, most of it was no doubt like Pacman.   They went with the tricks that worked, but more often worked on the fly.    Depending on the artist, the parameters changed.   If it sounded cool, that was a wrap.     

Digital technology only enhances this fact...not hurt.     More information from the master is a good thing..not bad.   As been heard many many times.   

Analog lovers when challenged, can't often pinpoint what they like.   I can, and I do A and B comparisons.   Even down to the muffled words that are pretty much inaudible on the analog transfer on record, but when compared with the smooth cd quality....how would anyone choose otherwise?

These are all my opinions though, and we could go on like this forever.   

Hell even some people say that 44 khz wasn't enough.   But DVD-Audio and SACD pretty much made those people shut the hell up.

Besides, it is one thing to percieve changes, it is another thing to consistently be able to tell the difference.   A small feeling in your toe doesn't count.

[Patent Doc]

Besides, it is one thing to percieve changes, it is another thing to consistently be able to tell the difference.   A small feeling in your toe doesn't count.

Yeah but its a really big toe 

I completely agree with respect to 44kHz and DVD-A (can't say anything about SACD I've never listened to one)...the sampling rate is so fast that I personally can't tell which is the true wave and which is the approximation of the area under the curve...my comments for exemplary purposes were related to CD only....and really only then because it was more analogous, the early sitauations where CD's were pressed using the LP settings.  When a CD is remastered from the ground up this situation should disappear.  DVD-A on a good system should sound damn near perfect.

I say BULL when it comes to the original programmers.   There is no evidence to support that pixels were changed in shape and color from the original CRT.   Don't believe me, look yourself.    Any CRT has some level of distortion, and Pacman can easily be counted because it is under 300 Pixels.  Look closely and tell me now if the programmers meant for that to happen(referring to the "bowing" effect, as well as the color bleeding and uneven quality)

As I stated earlier, my call there is just gut...unsupported by any data....just a sort of a belief that surely they cared enough about the end product that it wouldn't be any other way.  I understand your point I just find it hard to believe that the situation would be true if the programmer cared at all about the product.

Compeletely off topic...did you ever go into a true audiophile store and listen to a unused or lightly used LP on a really good turntable with a quality cartridge as I suggested (something truly high end...not a technics MK1200....I'm talking about a $10K+ turntable and over a $500 cartridge (again has to meet these criteria or equipemt will limit you and/or the degredation of the LP through use (which is a critical flaw in the media) will show and the comparison is shot)?  I promise you that you will be pleasently surprised.  Problem is LPs degraade and the equipment to see how much better an LP truly is ....is well...out of reach for most people.  Of course none of the digital media have this problem as a mediocre player will work and the discs barring abuse never wear out.

[XyloSesame]

 



there's this button on the top of each sub-forum...

i think it might be time to use it.

[Patent Doc]

As one who contributed to the tangent ...I agree

[XyloSesame]

As one who contributed to the tangent ...I agree

And I share the blame.

[Anubis_au]

Why are we not discussing Star Wars?

Yeah, this thread is over.

[genesim]

...the sampling rate is so fast that I personally can't tell which is the true wave and which is the approximation of the area under the curve...

And if done correctly..you can't.   The sampling is so far above overkill it is sick.   But CD's are in alot of ways as well...if done correctly.   I totally understand your point about "sweetening" the sound.   

No I have never been to an audiophile store, but yes, my friend who was a DJ was a huge record nut, and had thousands in equipment...much like myself.  (Quadrophonic sound baby!)

Then CD's came along, and while a few arguements took place, after a small small amount of debate, both of us knew by hearing, and seeing what was up.    DIGITAL RULES!

But it is all opinion..

Yes Topic exhuasted..new top request for me too.    I am totally satisfied as well.   Though we all will never agree, I think we took it as far as it can go.   

[jcoleman]

brass tax

Is this a tax you pay on bedposts?

brass TACKS

Coleman

Thread reboot in 5...4...

[genesim]

From wikipedia:

It is also argued that the idiom is derived from the "Brass Tax of 1854". When the makers of clothing, shoes, instruments, tools, etc. that required brass would gather the materials and count up the cost, accounting for the brass tax was the last - and most expensive - step. Therefore the phrase "get down to brass tax" could mean to get to the last and final thing, or to get past the formalities and get down to the crux of the matter.

This is how I think of it, and how it was taught to me.   

[Anubis_au]

In news today, genesim argued coherently and convinced another forum member to agree with his POV.

In other news, hell simultaneously froze over.

 

brass tax

[genesim]

POV how do you figure.

This is a factual statement....I think.  Wikipedia is etchy at times, but I didn't dig the saying up out of the ground!

In other news...veteran board members didn't actually nitpick every little thing I said trying in desparation to find error where this NONE....same news Hell hath frozen over.

[SavannahLion]

Yeah, this thread is over.

And a perfect example illuminating a perfectly valid point between the two crops up elsewhere. Oh well. 

I guess Hell really is endothermic.

[jcoleman]

Except you guys didn't actually look it up yourselves!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brass_tacks

Genesim's definition is certainly on the page, but it's not the first one (also note the spelling of the link, which is what I referred to).  Even more interesting is the following:

The earliest known use of the complete phrase in print, in the March 4, 1871 issue of the Galveston News (page 3), is "filing down to brass tacks"; hence, a shoemaker filing away too much material in excessive zeal to do a thorough job. The meaning was originally about the same as "putting too fine a point on it" or "overarguing the point." 

Most importantly it's another example of one person's opinion over another's which is what this whole thread was about in the first place. 

Coleman

[Level42]

Pfffffffffffffffffffffff, oaaaaaahhhh well, we can always BUILD YOUR OWN CRT:






(let's hope he didn't get x-rayed )

[genesim]

Genesim's definition is certainly on the page, but it's not the first one (also note the spelling of the link, which is what I referred to). 

Ummm doesn't 1854 come before 1871???   That would make Brasstax the original.

Though "proving" either one is a lesson in futility.   Both are in common use.

[danny_galaga]

Pfffffffffffffffffffffff, oaaaaaahhhh well, we can always BUILD YOUR OWN CRT:






(let's hope he didn't get x-rayed )

love it! the synth oscilloscope at the end reminds me of kraftwerk for some reason (",)

[genesim]

My question is if it has been established that I never misused the term "brass tax".   

[FrizzleFried]

Pfffffffffffffffffffffff, oaaaaaahhhh well, we can always BUILD YOUR OWN CRT:






(let's hope he didn't get x-rayed )

That is cool!

[Jimbo]

Well, it seems Hantarex are no longer producing their Polo range of arcade monitors...

http://mania.net/hantarex/gaming_monitors.html

I wonder how long before other big names follow...

[Todd H]

Looks like I better pick up a tri-sync monitor while I can.

[Ken Layton]

Good riddance! I can't stand Hantarex monitors.

Still plenty of other CRT monitor makers out there.

[Ummon]

Good riddance! I can't stand Hantarex monitors.

Still plenty of other CRT monitor makers out there.

Why?  I thought some, like grantspain, have said they were great. ??

[Pixelhugger]

I wonder how long before other big names follow...

Sorry to bump an old topic, but I was just shocked to find that tri-mode monitors are no longer available with curved screens. Not Wells Gardner not Betson.... This seemed to happen overnight, and makes me wonder if CRT arcade monitors are closer to extinction than previously thought.

This really sucks, since I spent months and lots of money building a curved bezel for my cab. I'm terrified that if my Betson goes bad I won't be able to find a curved replacement. By the time I retrofit the curve to fit a flat display, I wonder if they will have disappeared as well. sigh

[Rickn]

Yes no question the end is coming. As everyone is buying LCD TV's there is not enough market for a picture tube company to sustain. Most CRT factories are closing up shop.

As it is I still have about 600 39" flat tubes a few hundred 24.8 and 27" tri-res tubes, a hundred or so curved 32" and 27" standard res tubes.

After that I will bring them in as long as I can get them from overseas, how long is up to the CRT companies over there.

I am told Neotec is out and I am hearing Wells is close to it as well as far as CRT based monitors.

I plan to try to be the last guys standing!!

don't wait too long if your heart is set on a CRT monitor and don't miss the obvious, get it from some one like me that is planning to be around to support it.

good Luck
Rick
We also offer multi-res LCD's (CGA, Mid Res and higher)