A few weeks ago the OLED thread made me curious to try something other than LCD for my monitor. I've been eyeing the Sony GDM FW900 CRT for a long time now and finally decided to give it a shot a few weeks ago. This is a very popular CRT and often mentioned as one of the best, mainly because it's pretty large (22.25"), widescreen (16:10) and high resolution (1920x1200*). There are larger CRTs, or ones with a higher horizontal scan frequency, but the GDM FW900 seems to tick the most boxes. Here it is on the floor when I first got it: This picture doesn't capture how massive it really is. You need a lot of space to the back of your desk. I'm lucky because mine is positioned in a corner. When you do buy one of these monitors it will almost certainly need to be calibrated. In my case the G2 value was set way too high (I went from 154 to 124) which caused the blacks to be way too bright. Everything looked grey and desaturated. The Hardforum megathread has links almost everything you need to know: https://hardforum.com/threads/24-widescreen-crt-fw900-from-ebay-arrived-comments.952788/ These two also helped me a lot: http://forums.blurbusters.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=504 https://hardforum.com/threads/windas-white-point-balance-guide-for-sony-trinitron-crts.1830788/ This is also pretty interesting: https://ntrl.ntis.gov/NTRL/dashboard/searchResults/titleDetail/ADA415156.xhtml# I went out and bought a USB to TTL adapter and an X-Rite DTP94. By the way: You can plug in the cables for the USB to TTL adapter in the back of the monitor without opening the case. My monitor was manufactured in 2000 and definitely saw a lot of use. There's also 16 years worth of dust in the back. Thankfully the glass doesn't have any deep scratches, but the anti-glare coating is removed. The case has some scratches, but it doesn't look too terrible. All included I paid less than 200€. I went from a BenQ XL2420T 120Hz LCD to this one. For most of my use cases the GDM FW900 is better for the following reasons: Instant reponse time. It's noticeably faster than even a 120Hz LCD. This is even with the 95Hz refresh rate (at 1920x1200) that I run most of the time, but for CS:GO I like to use 1440x900 at 126Hz. Technically nothing can beat a CRT for response time. This is amazing for gaming. Less motion blur. Phosphor decay seems to generally be as fast as OLEDs. Much faster than LCDs. Much better black levels under optimal conditions. As the screen coating is more of a grey than black the black levels get worse than LCD with direct light hitting the screen. Also because of the CRT glare the black will get much worse if there's a bright image next to it. Black bars for movies often don't look darker than on LCDs. Absolute black levels should be better than Plasma, but it's no OLED. You can still tell it's on. I think the black level is somewhere in the 0.000Xcd/m² range. More accurate colors. I don't think the XL2420T even covers the full sRGB gamut. The CRT primaries seem to closely match the SMPTE-C primaries, which almost covers the full sRGB range. The sRGB standard is from when CRTs were the only monitors available. As far as I know almost all CRT monitors seem to use the P22 phosphor set. At this point I'm most concerned about sRGB performance than wider gamuts. I like the glass front panel. It feels more solid than the anti-glare stuff on LCDs. Technically better bit-depth than almost every other screen due to the analog nature. Good luck finding a consumer graphics card with a 10bit VGA output. The viewing angles, especially vertically are much better than the TN LCD. With the LCD I got color and (more importantly) major gamma shifts across the screen even from a normal viewing distance. Some of the stuff that is better with LCDs: Maximum brightness is limited. WIth a brand new one it's about 125cd/m², but older ones with more use won't be as bright. Like with OLEDs or Plasmas this also depends on the picture that is displayed, so it will be brighter for a smaller white image and less bright when the whole screen is white. The contrast is limited for black-white transitions. There will always be some glare around white images on a black background. This is what annoys me the most with CRTs. LCDs, especially the ones with local dimming, aren't perfect in this regard either, but the area right next to the bright spot won't be as dark with CRTs. As you move further away the blacks get much better on the CRT though. This is also what limits sharpness with text. In my opinion this is the best thing about OLEDs (and Plasma): The amazing instant contrast between having one pixel fully on and the one sitting next to it completely off. Images generally look less sharp, but this CRT is by far the sharpest I've seen and I've not even touched the sharpness screws in the back. Mine buzzes a bit. I think most CRTs do to some extent. It also seems like some buzzing gets induced into dynamic driver headphones when you get really close. The screen isn't perfectly flat. The glass is flat, but the screen is a cylindrical shape, with the edges on the sides slightly recessed. This doesn't bother me much. With the Trinitrons you get one or two very thin wires across the screen. In this case there are two. This is noticeable in bright scenes. You don't have to worry about geometry issues, landing errors, moiré, magnets next to your monitor and all sorts of weird stuff. Size. Doesn't need an explanation. This thing is huge. Weight. 42kg. Power consumption/heat output. I think under normal usage it draws about 150W. As with audio gear things that run hot and draw a lot of power are often better. Takes some time to warm up. You can use it immediately, but it takes more than an hour for the best black levels and sharpness. Reflections on the glass panel. My room is generally not too bright, especially in the winter, so this doesn't bother me much. The green phosphor takes a long time to fully decay. When you have a white object moving on a very dark or black background you can see a green trail. This can get annoying with some material. CRTs are more suspectible to burn-in than LCDs. Almost everything other than LCD has burn-in. CRTs seem to be better than OLED or Plasma in this regard. Mine is really old and white still looks almost perfectly uniform. Do you think CRTs are still a viable alternative in 2016 (and 2017)? I certainly do, especially for the price they go nowadays. There may be LCDs that I would ultimately prefer, but definitely not for 200€. Is anyone on here still using a CRT? *From my understanding it only has 1920 vertical lines, so the maximum resolution of 2304x1440 actually can't be resolved. EDIT: On a spare CRT that I got for free now, since my FW900 broke again for the third time. I never fixed it properly, but I know it can be fixed.