Arcade Monitor Vs Television

[Ocelot85]

Just wondering if an RGB arcade monitor is any better than a standard TV using RGB SCART.

You guys are the experts, so whats the answer?

[NFG]

THe quality of your display is more important than the type or signal you feed it. 

[Ocelot85]

So that's a yes, I wish I had known this a few years ago when I kept coming across old commodore monitors.

Thanks Lawrence.

[NFG]

That's not a 'yes'.  Your question is akin to asking 'how long is a piece of string?'  Unless you give specific details, your question is unanswerable. 

When I say the quality of your display is important, I am not implying that the arcade monitor or the TV is better quality.  What if your arcade monitor is a dodgy chinese unit?  What if it's defective?  What if it's in need of maintenance?  Maybe it's been dropped.  Maybe your TV is a super-expensive unit from a European company that makes displays for NASA.

I'd rather have a good TV with svideo than a crappy arcade monitor with RGB.

[Ocelot85]

Well how would a Commodore/Amiga monitor compare to a 'typical' 14" - 21" reputable brand SCART TV?

[NFG]

Too many variables to offer an accurate answer.

[Ocelot85]

It looks like I'll just have to keep looking for both types.

[viletim]

Those little Commodore (+ Atari, Apple) RGB monitors are about the best around... Far better than any TVs of the same size.

[Ocelot85]

Thanks, I'll try to find some of those. How do they compare to a VGA CRT 17" on computer emulators?

I've tried S-Video and Component on regular TVs but they look about the same as composite. The only difference I noticed was that black text looks a lot sharper and vertical lines aren't wavy.

[zedrein]

Ocelot, I think you'll find that those old Commodore monitors are better for 15 kHz RGB than most any television or display you will be able to locate. I 100% agree with Lawrence now. Sometimes it's hard to retire to the fact that a consumer television with S-video can actually look better than a proper arcade monitor with RGB.

[zedrein]

Because I desire not to get lashed by Lawrence for making a redundant new topic, I'll ask my question here:

Lawrence, often times when people ask if a distinction can be made between a computer monitor/display and a television set in terms of pq, I've observed that you will often remark that besides a tuner, which exists on a television, there is not an inherent difference between both displays. However, I have not once in my lifetime seen a television with a better or even comparable picture quality compared to a proper computer monitor (speaking about CRT displays, of course)

My entire point is that even though displays intended for television signals or computing exist at both end of the spectrum, every single computer display has looked significantly better for me...so there does at least appear to be an inherent difference.

[NFG]

without knowing the specifics of every display you've ever seen, I can't argue your point.  I can say with certainty though that there are some computer monitors that are not as good as some TVs.  You might not be incorrect when you say  'as a general rule computer monitors are better than TVs,' but this is not always true, and cannot be a statement offered without qualification.

Besides, it's a silly discussion: I've seen computer monitors with TV tuners, and I've seen TVs with computer inputs.  There is no difference between one CRT and another, it's the electronics that drive it that are important.  Low quality is low quality, right?  You might have discovered that computer monitors are generally higher quality than TVs, but hey - they're also more expensive.  Pay more, get more: the original purpose of the display is irrelevant.