7 ms·

There's no way CRT manufacturing could come back right? Is OLED manufacturing easier? What is the easiest display to actually make?

by fallat 4y ago

em3rgent0rdr 4y ago
A decade ago it was generally assumed that vinyl recordings were over with. And vacuum-tube amplification should be obsolete. But retro-fashion persists.
- JohnBooty 4y ago
  CRT manufacturing is, at a minimum, an order of magnitude more complex. In all likelihood the ability/knowledge to manufacture high quality CRTs has been irrevocably lost and won't be regained unless somebody wants to sink large amounts of cash (hundreds of millions?) into reviving it. In contrast, vinyl never actually went away. retro-fashion CRTs still have some technical advantages (essentially zero lag) and notable differences compared to modern flat panel displays. The appeal to many of these outdated technologies extends beyond "fashion."
  - hnlmorg 4y ago
    CRTs also scaled images very nicely. LCDs et al have had to rely on higher pixel densities to achieve the same results. This is then requires more powerful graphics processors too. So for games, some gamers have turned back to CRTs which means they can run their games at lower screen resolutions but have all the rendering effects enabled. Resulting in a better looking game than they would have gotten from the same computer hardware powering an LCD display. There might have even been a discussion on here about this actually.
    - JohnBooty 4y ago
      Agreed on all counts! Digital Foundry has done some excellent videos on CRTs for retro and modern gaming. High end CRTs are actually fantastic for modern games, too, especially at 120hz. (Although, good luck finding/affording one...) https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=digital+foundry+crt https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=digital+foundry... While purely subjective, many would agree that low-rez pixel art looks much better on a CRT: https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/9xg8w3/the_same_pixel_art_on_a_crt_vs_lcd_screen/ https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/9xg8w3/t... There might have even been a discussion on here about this actually. There have been a few. Of course, any time an older technology is mentioned on HN, a bunch of uninformed tech bros dismiss it as "fashion" or "hipster" or "nostalgia." In reality, sometimes these old technologies have unique qualities. I have to laugh at the idea of CRTs being "retro-fashion." I've got a half-dozen CRTs in my home and basement and let me tell you, nobody thinks it's cool ha ha ha ha.
    - SilasX 4y ago
      Yes! They’re also better for rhythm games, like Dance Dance Revolution, because you avoid the lag from upscaling.
  - Zardoz84 4y ago
    A CRT it's only a special vacuum tube. And now, there is a small manufacturing of vacuum tubes in China.
    - JohnBooty 4y ago
      That's only part of it. There's also the phosphor masks, etc. It's not that we literally don't know how to make CRTs any more. But the manufacturing ecosystem is gone: the machines, the tooling, etc. That was the product of 80 years and many billions of dollars of R&D. Making high-quality CRTs requires some pretty specialized propietary gear. We could probably manufacture a 1950s-style black and white TV without too much effort. But it would be a tremendous leap from there to creating e.g. a high-end Triniton monitor capable of doing 1080p@120hz.
    - willis936 4y ago
      A vacuum tube with 3 balanced heaters, specific and large blown dimensions, a delicate mask inserted, coated with lead, and wrapped in copper coils. You could make one in your garage for sure. /s
  - louhike 4y ago
    Yes, old technologies (video games consoles before HDMI use, VHS) were made to be displayed on CRT and the quality is far worse when seen on recent TV. I recommend the twitter of CRT Pixels if you want examples.
  - speeder 4y ago
    I was using CRT until recently, sadly it broke in a way nobody could fix :( Reasons why I preferred it over flat panel: 1. Zero lag (lag annoys me a lot when I am gaming) 2. Arbitrary resolutions (for example I was running several recent games using a medium-range video card, with graphic options on ULTRA or above, because the games would look gorgeous on CRT with low resolution) 3. Arbitrary resolutions (want to use content for other format than widescreen? It is covered! Content designed for pixels that are not square? It works too!) 4. Stupid high refresh rate if desired (while lowering resolution of course) 5. Stupid high resolution if desired (while lowering refresh rate). 6. Better contrast (one of the reasons I got CRT back was that I got annoyed with flat panel when I tried to play SuperHOT and watch Game of Thrones on the same day, if I avoided SuperHOT becoming a white blob, Game of Thrones became black blob, if I avoided Game of Thrones becoming black blob, superhot became white blob) The last one sadly is only "theoretical" for me because I never had the right equipment and software, but CRT could do HDR images, for example Silicon Graphics for a time was shipping computers for digital art that had a fancy video card that could output 48 bits of colour, that computer came with a ginormous widescreen CRT too... I believe that CRT is the one John Carmack is using in a famous photo. Also I heard before Windows Vista that introduced a lot of DRM-related restrictions on video and sound drivers, you could do a lot of fancy shenanigans with CRTs, seemly intended for engineers and architects, but I never got too much details about it, I never seen it in person and nobody ever described it to me, I only saw people bemoaning it was removed.
    - JohnBooty 4y ago
      Also I heard before Windows Vista that introduced a lot of DRM-related restrictions on video and sound drivers, you could do a lot of fancy shenanigans with CRTs, seemly intended for engineers and architects Huh, that's interesting. I'd love to know more about this if you manage to jog your memory. I'm not sure what you're referring to so that's why I'm interested.
      - speeder 4y ago
        I remembered the name, it was "Overlay" seemly it allowed you do things like control the RAMDAC directly and skip the CPU, send arbitrary information to the CRT, and other shenanigans. From what I understood the non-official reason for its removal was to prevent people from using it to circunvent HDMI restrictions in a way that would allow them to duplicate movies without using DRM. The official reason was that it caused driver instabilities and thus Microsoft was against its inclusion in the new driver model for Vista. Why it was popular with CAD, I have no idea.
  - TillE 4y ago
    Zero lag is the really important bit. If you're a top-level speedrunner of a retro game, there's just no good alternative yet. When existing CRTs deteriorate beyond repair, that's a big problem. We can replace aging consoles with highly accurate FPGA clones, but we can't replace the displays. The best modern displays still effectively lag behind a CRT by about a frame (~15ms), which really does matter.
    - JohnBooty 4y ago
      If you're a top-level speedrunner of a retro game, there's just no good alternative yet. I think even the most casual of gamers feel the difference when input/display lag is reduced, even if they don't know why their enjoyment is greater. Similar to how most folks, in a blind test, would prefer a fresh-baked pastry from a skilled baker that uses quality ingredients vs. some kind of shelf-stable junkfood pasty. They would likely not know or care about the fact that one uses high quality grassfed butter and the other uses partially hydrogenated oils and that one uses cane sugar and the other uses corn syrup. But they would enjoy one more than the other, even if they weren't able to articulate why.
- ddingus 4y ago
  It is fashion. Frankly, a well made tube amp coupled with a quality phonograph cartridge has a great sound! It is a sound many people, myself included, crave. Some of that sound happens because of production constraints. There are limits to what can be put into a groove with good results and those impact how the music is produced. A vinyl mix often stands right out. A similar thing exists with AM radio. Back in the peak time for AM music listening, many stations were broadcasting 8 to 10Khz of bandwidth. It is a far cry from the brutal 5khz brick wall so many stations use today. Mixing music so it would sound good on AM as well as FM, stereo and wi-fi, tape, vinyl, involved some production constraints that again color how music is produced. That distinctive 70's era sound is that way because of these things, in part. Obviously, there is more to the story, but where there are limits, there is art. As those limits were removed, we got loudness wars and some albums shipped clipped and brick wall tiring to listen to. Expose someone growing up on that to a banging vinyl production and it can blow their minds and they go looking for more! And let me be clear: The tube amp and vinyl source material are not better than a CD, though they may be better in some respects than a stream is, and digital audio is superior. Period. It is better than our ears are and has been since we got the storage to produce it and distribute it properly to people. So that gives? It is all about the limits and the art. Sounds people crave. And for what it is worth, each vinyl play is unique. Heard only once and then forever gone. People know the record is consumable, an experience to be valued and so they do. I like to capture them after a few plays. The occassional rattle from the cartridge, pop, click, all speak to the time I recorded a record I love while in it's prime. Here is a sort of digital parallel experience that might help: Right now, I am typing to you in the little HN text input window. I could take it off line, use other tools, then paste it right in. Sometimes I do. Depends on what it is and whether I feel the window is risky... And the difference on your end? NONE! It was for me. A bit of theatre, immediacy, connection to a "conversation", or "person" created in my mind that does help what I say flow differently. These little things matter to people. They are why apps will signal, "X is typing..." in an attempt to convey more than text, but less than people in close proximity. People run little radio stations for it too. The station has very low power. But, it is "on air" and that sense of a unique experience colors what people in the studio do. Others may listen on a radio, and a few will. Locals. Most will stream, or pick up a replay later. And there will be a subtle energy in that missing from just recording in a studio. Once a person begins to look for this, it is fascinating! And that is why I am writing this. Music from before the computer editing and processing was not quite as perfect as we can make it. But ask around and many pick up on the energy to be had from a great show performed decades ago. Maybe from before the listener was born even. And they will talk about those humans who did it in real time, no bullshit, just everyone in the moment, experiencing something familiar, yet unique to them. And that is all. The analog age has a sparkle to it people crave. And it will still work today too. All people have to do is embrace the art. Take the limitations and roll it all up onto good sounds.
usrn 4y ago
People have built homebrew monochrome CRTs. The process looks surprisingly easy.
- em3rgent0rdr 4y ago
  link please.
  - babypuncher 4y ago
    This video is mostly about a diffusion pump, but he uses it to pull a vacuum in a homemade CRT made out of an Erlenmeyer flask and the filament from an incandescent light bulb. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrNVLCHrJtY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrNVLCHrJtY
formerly_proven 4y ago
Manufacturing OLEDs is vastly more complex than CRTs, which is essentially folding and welding sheet metal and glasblowing. I'm pretty sure one person can make basic CRTs in their shed because that's pretty much how early CRTs were made. Of course really good or very fast CRTs are a tad different, but the fundamentals (i.e. electron optics) are still used in various places, so it's not like we've collectively forgotten how to shape an electron beam. Tektronix also published tons of literature about stuff like this. > What is the easiest display to actually make? Discounting electro-mechanical displays, I'd say VFDs.
- phkahler 4y ago
  >> Manufacturing OLEDs is vastly more complex than CRTs, which is essentially folding and welding sheet metal and glasblowing. I recall an article from ~20 years ago where some researchers made an OLED display using an inkjet printer. I'm sure the consistency and reliability were not what you get out of modern manufacturing, but still... I've been waiting for inkjet based printing of simple circuits and lighting but it's just not happening. Imagine printing light-up signs. c'mon Y-combinator we need this tech everywhere.
  - xyzzy21 4y ago
    Fun fact: OLEDs have radically shorter lifespans "in the field" than LED or LCD. According to a paper from Samsung at IEEE IRPS three years ago, the best OLED screens only have about 2 years (600 hours) best case continuous use but that is extended by "screen savers" and estimates of only 25%-50% customer use in a 24 hour period to about 5 years (extend by not using) https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8720529 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8720529 Part of the reason for this: low energy manufacturing materials/processes, by definition (physics), will have low energy failure mechanisms (which always means they will fail more quickly). This is about chemico-physical reaction activation energy. Anything ink-jet created or organic is a low energy process/material.
    - NikolaNovak 4y ago
      >>best OLED screens only have about 2 years (600 hours) best case continuous use I don't have access to paper, but rough estimate is that there are ~17k hours in 2 years. If screen has actually 2 years 24x7 continuous use (and I assume they use a semi-arbitrary brightness threshold or something?), I imagine for TVs that'll be an easy decade of real-world use, depending on usage patterns. For some phones maybe less. I'd be curious what the specs for LCD & LED are then.
mschuster91 4y ago
> There's no way CRT manufacturing could come back right? Not really. CRTs are more bulky, more fragile, require lead for the front glass (which means issues with environmental protection laws), complex power supplies and they have a significant quality loss in the analog conversion. Why should anyone buy a CRT these days, unless for authentic replacement of historic appliances? > Is OLED manufacturing easier? What is the easiest display to actually make? That depends on your definition of "easy" - these days I'd assume TN LC displays are the easiest to manufacture at scale, the technology is decades old (and thus, no patents in play) and there are lots of manufacturers. OLEDs may be easier to manufacture (JOLED aka Sony/Panasonic have shown that one can print a display using an inkjet printer), but that stuff is heavily under patents for the next two decades so it's not accessible enough to meet the "easy" definition IMO. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JOLED https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JOLED
xyzzy21 4y ago
With current supply chains and infrastructure, yes, flat panels in general are easier. OLED are still somewhat specialized so most come from JP or KR companies (with factories in JP, KR or CN). My current employer (based in Taiwan) makes an "LCD Flat Panel Manufacturing Plant" product. You literally just need a building shell (the plans for which we can provide to qualified sales prospects). Then you place your order and a few months later dozens of shipping containers arrive and you put the contents into the shell like a child's construction toy or Ikea furniture. All the cables are snapped together and you start feeding it the inputs, and out pops flat panels. It's 100% turn-key. This product is part of the reason why flat panel TVs are so cheap now - and Chinese customers LOVE how it's so simple for them and requires zero actual knowledge of making flat panels - sort of the ideal manufacturing for them (we also sell a support contract service to run them). Also one of the very last CRT manufacturers on the planet (which now manufactures flat panel screens as well with CRT production ending in the mid 2000s) was in Taoyuan TW (their logo still has a CRT in it last time I drove by their plant). Taoyuan and Hsinchu have been glass centers for TW for the last 200-300 years due to natural reserves of highly pure silica and natural gas in the area. Before semiconductors, these places made scientific glass products (chemical/medical glassware, lenses, etc.) which is why this former CRT plant was located there. Note that the supplier of lenses for iPhones is located in this same area. The common supply chain of silica is why Hsinchu is the semiconductor center that it is. Old fashion geography still applies to why the world is the way it is. If you were to start a CRT manufacturing plant in the US, the only best place would be in NY or PA near Corning NY because Corning Glass is still there and doing leading edge work in glass still. There's no company nor area better for glass or glass dependent products in the USA at this point in history.
- missedthecue 4y ago
  What's the ballpark figure for the amount of money it takes to buy one of these factories in a box?
  - kurthr 4y ago
    I don't know the business that the original poster is talking about. However, I would guess that this is a ~Gen4 LCD glass plant. That would make the sheets ~1m^2 and the factories are typically over 300m in length. You can get the mother glass delivered by truck (even get poly silicon pre-deposited), if you don't have those facilities on-site... however that would make the product more expensive and sensitive to supply chain disruption. Most productive factories are almost sand in to panels out. If I had to guess on pricing of a single line capable of generating ~1-3000m^2 a day, it would be in the 10s of $million excluding the factory building or land itself.
syntaxing 4y ago
Depends what you mean by “easier”. The biggest issue with OLED is yield. Most OLED require some sort of plasma deposition which is hard to get high throughout, good uniformity and low scraps for something that’s so large (hence why I guess phones OLED are so much more abundant)
beecafe 4y ago
https://youtu.be/qg8pMUd-tSk https://youtu.be/qg8pMUd-tSk You can make the OLED part at home, but patterning it into a screen with an active matrix of see-thru transistors is hard.
lazyier 4y ago
> There's no way CRT manufacturing could come back right? Probably not. > Is OLED manufacturing easier? Define "Easier". Is it easier to manufacture a transistor or is it easier to manufacture a vacuum tube? If you were stuck out in the wilderness with nothing but rocks, sticks, and a pile of sand and a team of engineers you would probably have a much easier time building a primitive CRT display than a OLED one. But if you have a goal of having to manufacture a reliable display at minimal cost then OLED wins hands-down. Depending on your constraints one is 'easier' then the other. ------------ Old CRT displays were nice (inherent advantages in terms of resolution, refresh rates, color depth, view angles, and color accuracy), but they were fragile and required significant amount of labor to construct. It is unusual for CRT-based televisions to last decades without requiring repairing and tuning. Where as modern modern flatscreen displays are much cheaper to produce, are much more efficient in terms of resource usage, and are much more reliable. People tend to replace flat screens because they become obsolete. However they replaced tended to CRTs because they stopped working.
GekkePrutser 4y ago
CRTs also have pretty high drawbacks... High energy use (remember the high energy use of plasma displays which were basically flattened CRTs). Flashing, bulk, high material cost. Radiation (since you were basically looking into a beta-radiation emitter). So no. I don't think it will be back. Modern displays are much easier to make also, more high-tech but use less energy and materials.
- perardi 4y ago
  They also require somewhat obscure rare-earth elements, which are not getting cheaper. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphor You'd also have to scale strontium mining and refining back up.
- formerly_proven 4y ago
  > Radiation (since you were basically looking into a beta-radiation emitter). This is completely wrong while technically correct. Sure, electron guns throw electrons around. So you are looking at a beta-emitter. But those electrons can't leave the tube. Even if they could - CRTs have, depending on size and application, an acceleration voltage of somewhere between 10 and 30 kV - this translates to a range of a few centimeters in air at best. CRTs do produce radiation, namely X-rays by way of bremsstrahlung due to the electrons getting, well, bremsed at the screen. This is part of the reason why CRTs are heavy (aside from faceplate structural integrity); leaded glass is heavy. > Flashing Visible flicker is obviously undesirable, but low duty cycle displays are preferable for moving images.
  - GekkePrutser 4y ago
    > CRTs do produce radiation, namely X-rays by way of bremsstrahlung due to the electrons getting, well, bremsed at the screen. This is part of the reason why CRTs are heavy (aside from faceplate structural integrity); leaded glass is heavy. True, I didn't want to get into that level of complexity. The electrons are also quite easy to capture with conductive glass. But the bremsstrahlung can be significant.
Johnny555 4y ago
OLED's are certainly cheaper to ship, you could probably stack 8 20" OLED displays in the space that my old Sun 20" monitor used to take up.
phendrenad2 4y ago
Not unless someone finds a product that people want that needs a CRT. I expect that in 20 or so years, CRTs will be so rare that they could be a nerdy conversation piece. So someone could go back into business making a simplified, no-frills CRT and selling it at enthusiast prices ($1000+).

There's no way CRT manufacturing could come back right? Is OLED manufacturing easier? What is the easiest display to actually make?

by fallat 4y ago

There's no way CRT manufacturing could come back right? Is OLED manufacturing easier? What is the easiest display to actually make?

em3rgent0rdr 4y ago

A decade ago it was generally assumed that vinyl recordings were over with. And vacuum-tube amplification should be obsolete. But retro-fashion persists.

JohnBooty 4y ago
CRT manufacturing is, at a minimum, an order of magnitude more complex. In all likelihood the ability/knowledge to manufacture high quality CRTs has been irrevocably lost and won't be regained unless somebody wants to sink large amounts of cash (hundreds of millions?) into reviving it. In contrast, vinyl never actually went away. retro-fashion CRTs still have some technical advantages (essentially zero lag) and notable differences compared to modern flat panel displays. The appeal to many of these outdated technologies extends beyond "fashion."
- hnlmorg 4y ago
  CRTs also scaled images very nicely. LCDs et al have had to rely on higher pixel densities to achieve the same results. This is then requires more powerful graphics processors too. So for games, some gamers have turned back to CRTs which means they can run their games at lower screen resolutions but have all the rendering effects enabled. Resulting in a better looking game than they would have gotten from the same computer hardware powering an LCD display. There might have even been a discussion on here about this actually.
  - JohnBooty 4y ago
    Agreed on all counts! Digital Foundry has done some excellent videos on CRTs for retro and modern gaming. High end CRTs are actually fantastic for modern games, too, especially at 120hz. (Although, good luck finding/affording one...) https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=digital+foundry+crt https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=digital+foundry... While purely subjective, many would agree that low-rez pixel art looks much better on a CRT: https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/9xg8w3/the_same_pixel_art_on_a_crt_vs_lcd_screen/ https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/9xg8w3/t... There might have even been a discussion on here about this actually. There have been a few. Of course, any time an older technology is mentioned on HN, a bunch of uninformed tech bros dismiss it as "fashion" or "hipster" or "nostalgia." In reality, sometimes these old technologies have unique qualities. I have to laugh at the idea of CRTs being "retro-fashion." I've got a half-dozen CRTs in my home and basement and let me tell you, nobody thinks it's cool ha ha ha ha.
  - SilasX 4y ago
    Yes! They’re also better for rhythm games, like Dance Dance Revolution, because you avoid the lag from upscaling.
- Zardoz84 4y ago
  A CRT it's only a special vacuum tube. And now, there is a small manufacturing of vacuum tubes in China.
  - JohnBooty 4y ago
    That's only part of it. There's also the phosphor masks, etc. It's not that we literally don't know how to make CRTs any more. But the manufacturing ecosystem is gone: the machines, the tooling, etc. That was the product of 80 years and many billions of dollars of R&D. Making high-quality CRTs requires some pretty specialized propietary gear. We could probably manufacture a 1950s-style black and white TV without too much effort. But it would be a tremendous leap from there to creating e.g. a high-end Triniton monitor capable of doing 1080p@120hz.
  - willis936 4y ago
    A vacuum tube with 3 balanced heaters, specific and large blown dimensions, a delicate mask inserted, coated with lead, and wrapped in copper coils. You could make one in your garage for sure. /s
- louhike 4y ago
  Yes, old technologies (video games consoles before HDMI use, VHS) were made to be displayed on CRT and the quality is far worse when seen on recent TV. I recommend the twitter of CRT Pixels if you want examples.
- speeder 4y ago
  I was using CRT until recently, sadly it broke in a way nobody could fix :( Reasons why I preferred it over flat panel: 1. Zero lag (lag annoys me a lot when I am gaming) 2. Arbitrary resolutions (for example I was running several recent games using a medium-range video card, with graphic options on ULTRA or above, because the games would look gorgeous on CRT with low resolution) 3. Arbitrary resolutions (want to use content for other format than widescreen? It is covered! Content designed for pixels that are not square? It works too!) 4. Stupid high refresh rate if desired (while lowering resolution of course) 5. Stupid high resolution if desired (while lowering refresh rate). 6. Better contrast (one of the reasons I got CRT back was that I got annoyed with flat panel when I tried to play SuperHOT and watch Game of Thrones on the same day, if I avoided SuperHOT becoming a white blob, Game of Thrones became black blob, if I avoided Game of Thrones becoming black blob, superhot became white blob) The last one sadly is only "theoretical" for me because I never had the right equipment and software, but CRT could do HDR images, for example Silicon Graphics for a time was shipping computers for digital art that had a fancy video card that could output 48 bits of colour, that computer came with a ginormous widescreen CRT too... I believe that CRT is the one John Carmack is using in a famous photo. Also I heard before Windows Vista that introduced a lot of DRM-related restrictions on video and sound drivers, you could do a lot of fancy shenanigans with CRTs, seemly intended for engineers and architects, but I never got too much details about it, I never seen it in person and nobody ever described it to me, I only saw people bemoaning it was removed.
  - JohnBooty 4y ago
    Also I heard before Windows Vista that introduced a lot of DRM-related restrictions on video and sound drivers, you could do a lot of fancy shenanigans with CRTs, seemly intended for engineers and architects Huh, that's interesting. I'd love to know more about this if you manage to jog your memory. I'm not sure what you're referring to so that's why I'm interested.
    - speeder 4y ago
      I remembered the name, it was "Overlay" seemly it allowed you do things like control the RAMDAC directly and skip the CPU, send arbitrary information to the CRT, and other shenanigans. From what I understood the non-official reason for its removal was to prevent people from using it to circunvent HDMI restrictions in a way that would allow them to duplicate movies without using DRM. The official reason was that it caused driver instabilities and thus Microsoft was against its inclusion in the new driver model for Vista. Why it was popular with CAD, I have no idea.
- TillE 4y ago
  Zero lag is the really important bit. If you're a top-level speedrunner of a retro game, there's just no good alternative yet. When existing CRTs deteriorate beyond repair, that's a big problem. We can replace aging consoles with highly accurate FPGA clones, but we can't replace the displays. The best modern displays still effectively lag behind a CRT by about a frame (~15ms), which really does matter.
  - JohnBooty 4y ago
    If you're a top-level speedrunner of a retro game, there's just no good alternative yet. I think even the most casual of gamers feel the difference when input/display lag is reduced, even if they don't know why their enjoyment is greater. Similar to how most folks, in a blind test, would prefer a fresh-baked pastry from a skilled baker that uses quality ingredients vs. some kind of shelf-stable junkfood pasty. They would likely not know or care about the fact that one uses high quality grassfed butter and the other uses partially hydrogenated oils and that one uses cane sugar and the other uses corn syrup. But they would enjoy one more than the other, even if they weren't able to articulate why.
ddingus 4y ago
It is fashion. Frankly, a well made tube amp coupled with a quality phonograph cartridge has a great sound! It is a sound many people, myself included, crave. Some of that sound happens because of production constraints. There are limits to what can be put into a groove with good results and those impact how the music is produced. A vinyl mix often stands right out. A similar thing exists with AM radio. Back in the peak time for AM music listening, many stations were broadcasting 8 to 10Khz of bandwidth. It is a far cry from the brutal 5khz brick wall so many stations use today. Mixing music so it would sound good on AM as well as FM, stereo and wi-fi, tape, vinyl, involved some production constraints that again color how music is produced. That distinctive 70's era sound is that way because of these things, in part. Obviously, there is more to the story, but where there are limits, there is art. As those limits were removed, we got loudness wars and some albums shipped clipped and brick wall tiring to listen to. Expose someone growing up on that to a banging vinyl production and it can blow their minds and they go looking for more! And let me be clear: The tube amp and vinyl source material are not better than a CD, though they may be better in some respects than a stream is, and digital audio is superior. Period. It is better than our ears are and has been since we got the storage to produce it and distribute it properly to people. So that gives? It is all about the limits and the art. Sounds people crave. And for what it is worth, each vinyl play is unique. Heard only once and then forever gone. People know the record is consumable, an experience to be valued and so they do. I like to capture them after a few plays. The occassional rattle from the cartridge, pop, click, all speak to the time I recorded a record I love while in it's prime. Here is a sort of digital parallel experience that might help: Right now, I am typing to you in the little HN text input window. I could take it off line, use other tools, then paste it right in. Sometimes I do. Depends on what it is and whether I feel the window is risky... And the difference on your end? NONE! It was for me. A bit of theatre, immediacy, connection to a "conversation", or "person" created in my mind that does help what I say flow differently. These little things matter to people. They are why apps will signal, "X is typing..." in an attempt to convey more than text, but less than people in close proximity. People run little radio stations for it too. The station has very low power. But, it is "on air" and that sense of a unique experience colors what people in the studio do. Others may listen on a radio, and a few will. Locals. Most will stream, or pick up a replay later. And there will be a subtle energy in that missing from just recording in a studio. Once a person begins to look for this, it is fascinating! And that is why I am writing this. Music from before the computer editing and processing was not quite as perfect as we can make it. But ask around and many pick up on the energy to be had from a great show performed decades ago. Maybe from before the listener was born even. And they will talk about those humans who did it in real time, no bullshit, just everyone in the moment, experiencing something familiar, yet unique to them. And that is all. The analog age has a sparkle to it people crave. And it will still work today too. All people have to do is embrace the art. Take the limitations and roll it all up onto good sounds.

usrn 4y ago

People have built homebrew monochrome CRTs. The process looks surprisingly easy.

em3rgent0rdr 4y ago
link please.
- babypuncher 4y ago
  This video is mostly about a diffusion pump, but he uses it to pull a vacuum in a homemade CRT made out of an Erlenmeyer flask and the filament from an incandescent light bulb. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrNVLCHrJtY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrNVLCHrJtY

formerly_proven 4y ago

Manufacturing OLEDs is vastly more complex than CRTs, which is essentially folding and welding sheet metal and glasblowing. I'm pretty sure one person can make basic CRTs in their shed because that's pretty much how early CRTs were made. Of course really good or very fast CRTs are a tad different, but the fundamentals (i.e. electron optics) are still used in various places, so it's not like we've collectively forgotten how to shape an electron beam. Tektronix also published tons of literature about stuff like this. > What is the easiest display to actually make? Discounting electro-mechanical displays, I'd say VFDs.

phkahler 4y ago
>> Manufacturing OLEDs is vastly more complex than CRTs, which is essentially folding and welding sheet metal and glasblowing. I recall an article from ~20 years ago where some researchers made an OLED display using an inkjet printer. I'm sure the consistency and reliability were not what you get out of modern manufacturing, but still... I've been waiting for inkjet based printing of simple circuits and lighting but it's just not happening. Imagine printing light-up signs. c'mon Y-combinator we need this tech everywhere.
- xyzzy21 4y ago
  Fun fact: OLEDs have radically shorter lifespans "in the field" than LED or LCD. According to a paper from Samsung at IEEE IRPS three years ago, the best OLED screens only have about 2 years (600 hours) best case continuous use but that is extended by "screen savers" and estimates of only 25%-50% customer use in a 24 hour period to about 5 years (extend by not using) https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8720529 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8720529 Part of the reason for this: low energy manufacturing materials/processes, by definition (physics), will have low energy failure mechanisms (which always means they will fail more quickly). This is about chemico-physical reaction activation energy. Anything ink-jet created or organic is a low energy process/material.
  - NikolaNovak 4y ago
    >>best OLED screens only have about 2 years (600 hours) best case continuous use I don't have access to paper, but rough estimate is that there are ~17k hours in 2 years. If screen has actually 2 years 24x7 continuous use (and I assume they use a semi-arbitrary brightness threshold or something?), I imagine for TVs that'll be an easy decade of real-world use, depending on usage patterns. For some phones maybe less. I'd be curious what the specs for LCD & LED are then.

mschuster91 4y ago

> There's no way CRT manufacturing could come back right? Not really. CRTs are more bulky, more fragile, require lead for the front glass (which means issues with environmental protection laws), complex power supplies and they have a significant quality loss in the analog conversion. Why should anyone buy a CRT these days, unless for authentic replacement of historic appliances? > Is OLED manufacturing easier? What is the easiest display to actually make? That depends on your definition of "easy" - these days I'd assume TN LC displays are the easiest to manufacture at scale, the technology is decades old (and thus, no patents in play) and there are lots of manufacturers. OLEDs may be easier to manufacture (JOLED aka Sony/Panasonic have shown that one can print a display using an inkjet printer), but that stuff is heavily under patents for the next two decades so it's not accessible enough to meet the "easy" definition IMO. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JOLED https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JOLED

xyzzy21 4y ago

With current supply chains and infrastructure, yes, flat panels in general are easier. OLED are still somewhat specialized so most come from JP or KR companies (with factories in JP, KR or CN). My current employer (based in Taiwan) makes an "LCD Flat Panel Manufacturing Plant" product. You literally just need a building shell (the plans for which we can provide to qualified sales prospects). Then you place your order and a few months later dozens of shipping containers arrive and you put the contents into the shell like a child's construction toy or Ikea furniture. All the cables are snapped together and you start feeding it the inputs, and out pops flat panels. It's 100% turn-key. This product is part of the reason why flat panel TVs are so cheap now - and Chinese customers LOVE how it's so simple for them and requires zero actual knowledge of making flat panels - sort of the ideal manufacturing for them (we also sell a support contract service to run them). Also one of the very last CRT manufacturers on the planet (which now manufactures flat panel screens as well with CRT production ending in the mid 2000s) was in Taoyuan TW (their logo still has a CRT in it last time I drove by their plant). Taoyuan and Hsinchu have been glass centers for TW for the last 200-300 years due to natural reserves of highly pure silica and natural gas in the area. Before semiconductors, these places made scientific glass products (chemical/medical glassware, lenses, etc.) which is why this former CRT plant was located there. Note that the supplier of lenses for iPhones is located in this same area. The common supply chain of silica is why Hsinchu is the semiconductor center that it is. Old fashion geography still applies to why the world is the way it is. If you were to start a CRT manufacturing plant in the US, the only best place would be in NY or PA near Corning NY because Corning Glass is still there and doing leading edge work in glass still. There's no company nor area better for glass or glass dependent products in the USA at this point in history.

missedthecue 4y ago
What's the ballpark figure for the amount of money it takes to buy one of these factories in a box?
- kurthr 4y ago
  I don't know the business that the original poster is talking about. However, I would guess that this is a ~Gen4 LCD glass plant. That would make the sheets ~1m^2 and the factories are typically over 300m in length. You can get the mother glass delivered by truck (even get poly silicon pre-deposited), if you don't have those facilities on-site... however that would make the product more expensive and sensitive to supply chain disruption. Most productive factories are almost sand in to panels out. If I had to guess on pricing of a single line capable of generating ~1-3000m^2 a day, it would be in the 10s of $million excluding the factory building or land itself.

syntaxing 4y ago

Depends what you mean by “easier”. The biggest issue with OLED is yield. Most OLED require some sort of plasma deposition which is hard to get high throughout, good uniformity and low scraps for something that’s so large (hence why I guess phones OLED are so much more abundant)

beecafe 4y ago

https://youtu.be/qg8pMUd-tSk https://youtu.be/qg8pMUd-tSk You can make the OLED part at home, but patterning it into a screen with an active matrix of see-thru transistors is hard.

lazyier 4y ago

> There's no way CRT manufacturing could come back right? Probably not. > Is OLED manufacturing easier? Define "Easier". Is it easier to manufacture a transistor or is it easier to manufacture a vacuum tube? If you were stuck out in the wilderness with nothing but rocks, sticks, and a pile of sand and a team of engineers you would probably have a much easier time building a primitive CRT display than a OLED one. But if you have a goal of having to manufacture a reliable display at minimal cost then OLED wins hands-down. Depending on your constraints one is 'easier' then the other. ------------ Old CRT displays were nice (inherent advantages in terms of resolution, refresh rates, color depth, view angles, and color accuracy), but they were fragile and required significant amount of labor to construct. It is unusual for CRT-based televisions to last decades without requiring repairing and tuning. Where as modern modern flatscreen displays are much cheaper to produce, are much more efficient in terms of resource usage, and are much more reliable. People tend to replace flat screens because they become obsolete. However they replaced tended to CRTs because they stopped working.

GekkePrutser 4y ago

CRTs also have pretty high drawbacks... High energy use (remember the high energy use of plasma displays which were basically flattened CRTs). Flashing, bulk, high material cost. Radiation (since you were basically looking into a beta-radiation emitter). So no. I don't think it will be back. Modern displays are much easier to make also, more high-tech but use less energy and materials.

perardi 4y ago
They also require somewhat obscure rare-earth elements, which are not getting cheaper. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphor You'd also have to scale strontium mining and refining back up.
formerly_proven 4y ago
> Radiation (since you were basically looking into a beta-radiation emitter). This is completely wrong while technically correct. Sure, electron guns throw electrons around. So you are looking at a beta-emitter. But those electrons can't leave the tube. Even if they could - CRTs have, depending on size and application, an acceleration voltage of somewhere between 10 and 30 kV - this translates to a range of a few centimeters in air at best. CRTs do produce radiation, namely X-rays by way of bremsstrahlung due to the electrons getting, well, bremsed at the screen. This is part of the reason why CRTs are heavy (aside from faceplate structural integrity); leaded glass is heavy. > Flashing Visible flicker is obviously undesirable, but low duty cycle displays are preferable for moving images.
- GekkePrutser 4y ago
  > CRTs do produce radiation, namely X-rays by way of bremsstrahlung due to the electrons getting, well, bremsed at the screen. This is part of the reason why CRTs are heavy (aside from faceplate structural integrity); leaded glass is heavy. True, I didn't want to get into that level of complexity. The electrons are also quite easy to capture with conductive glass. But the bremsstrahlung can be significant.

Johnny555 4y ago

OLED's are certainly cheaper to ship, you could probably stack 8 20" OLED displays in the space that my old Sun 20" monitor used to take up.

phendrenad2 4y ago

Not unless someone finds a product that people want that needs a CRT. I expect that in 20 or so years, CRTs will be so rare that they could be a nerdy conversation piece. So someone could go back into business making a simplified, no-frills CRT and selling it at enthusiast prices ($1000+).