Who is still watching a CRT TV?

[Mr Chin Stubble]

My roku  1 broke and the fact that this set up was working when I moved here to my new house -- roku 1/composite cables; Sling TV; and my CRT-TV with a digital tuner-- helped me justify not getting cable or a new tv.

But now since it broke I was wondering if I should just buy a 200 dollar 32" TV that I saw on sale and watch Sling TV with that? :/
Or I guess buy another roku ...

[NoStacheOhio]

We probably would be, but we've inherited two different LED TVs in the last five years. If you're in Cleveland, I'm happy to share. ;)

[Tris Prior]

Me! It's 13 years old and still works fine. We have a Roku and don't even have the digital antenna hooked up as there's nothing we really want to watch on network TV - we stream news if something important is happening.

[PJ]

I am.  I do have cable (I share it with my downstairs sub-let tenants), but have not seen the need to spend a couple of hundred dollars on a new TV when this one works just fine. I have priced them out though, and the $200 price range you mentioned below is about what I'd be willing to spend.  That will get one of the smaller size ones - I don't really want a huge TV dominating my living room anyway.

[Cadman]

Absolutely! Running an '84 RCA Lyceum (Colortrak 2000/Dimensia clone) here. Sharp picture, deep blacks, digital keyboard tuning, multiple AV inputs, 25" screen and last of the US built RCA's. And it's one less disposable thing in the house.

Speaking of disposable, we too, had to replace our Roku recently- we lost the right audio channel and it was only 2 years old. Bought a refurb of the identical model and we're carrying on.

[Mr Chin Stubble]

The 200 dollar model I was eyeing does not have wifi. Really glad I didn't impulse buy it as that would defeat the point of replacing a roku with a non internet tv. I can also get it cheaper than the store I was in. There are other 200 dollar TV's that would fit the bill ie internet capable. However, I don't like the idea of my TV spying on me. My roku was a refurb and broke after 6mo. incidentally. Time to buy new I guess...

[Dave1442397]

The 200 dollar model I was eyeing does not have wifi. Really glad I didn't impulse buy it as that would defeat the point of replacing a roku with a non internet tv. I can also get it cheaper than the store I was in. There are other 200 dollar TV's that would fit the bill ie internet capable. However, I don't like the idea of my TV spying on me. My roku was a refurb and broke after 6mo. incidentally. Time to buy new I guess...

We bought a 32" Samsung TV on Costco's website for $167 in December.

People around here are giving away CRT TVs for free.

[Mr Chin Stubble]

I caved and bought the lg and I have a refurb roku on the way. I have my savings rate at 30 percent and that doesn't include my profit sharing ... I doubt 200 is going to matter and the tv and my rabbit ears antenna makes my place look ghetto

[jim555]

Wow that is real old school (CRTs).  You need a crane to throw them in the trash. 
TVs are so cheap and good these days.

[better late]

Count us in the CRT club; our extended family thinks we are nuts. I know our TV bugs them when they want to watch sports.

eta-our upscale spendy-town has electronic recycling; you wouldn't believe the TVs that pour out of people's homes on pick-up day.

[BlueMR2]

Still got a CRT as our main TV.  Still works fine, don't see any reason to get rid of it!

I inherited a larger flat screen from my father when he passed.  Unfortunately though it doesn't have audio output, so isn't a viable replacement for the main one (as there's no way to direct the sound from it to the amplifier).  Seriously, who builds a nice flat screen TV loaded with HDMI in ports that has no way of redirecting sound out to a sound system?

[NoStacheOhio]

Still got a CRT as our main TV.  Still works fine, don't see any reason to get rid of it!

I inherited a larger flat screen from my father when he passed.  Unfortunately though it doesn't have audio output, so isn't a viable replacement for the main one (as there's no way to direct the sound from it to the amplifier).  Seriously, who builds a nice flat screen TV loaded with HDMI in ports that has no way of redirecting sound out to a sound system?

https://www.amazon.com/ViewHD-Extractor-Optical-Converter-VHD-H2HSAs/dp/B00KBHX072

Problem solved

[Zikoris]

Can I just say, I'm SO GLAD those things are mostly gone? They make a very high pitched sound that the majority of people can't hear, but feels like I'm having my brain drilled into. I went through the entire early part of my life trying to convince people that their televisions were making some kind of mystery sound that they couldn't hear, that wasn't affected by volume, but was very uncomfortable to me, and a LOT of people thought I was nuts. My grandfather and dad were actually the only people who believed me, because they understood the technology deeply enough that they knew exactly what the part was that caused it.

[Davids]

I have a CRT in my basement. We do not use the basement much so no need to upgrade the TV down there. Living room and bedroom is HDTV.

[Mr Chin Stubble]

Wow that is real old school (CRTs).  You need a crane to throw them in the trash. 
TVs are so cheap and good these days.

Meanwhile I get like 2 channels now with my new tv and my roku is still in the mail. CRT is back out of the closet again. What is this shit? It's like everything now feels like it's built on a thin dime and ready to be consumed for consumption sake. Maybe that is just in mind ... at least I have a "new" tv so I feel ok about it.

[Davids]

The one advantage CRT TV will always have over HDTV is Nintendo's Duck Hunt, you cannot play Duck Hunt on a HDTV.

[inline five]

New flat screens are amazingly simple pieces of equipment. Basically a thin screen with a circuit board on the back, and some speakers.

The old TVs are ridiculous. You can do so much more with a thin light flat screen (the more you spend, the thinner and lighter they are). Can't wait for the new OLED screens to go mainstream sending costs plummeting like the 1080 and 4k TVs as of late. It's mind boggling to me that you can pick up a decent 50"+ 4k TV these days for $500-$600.

I don't really want/need a 4k TV so I'm happy with our decent quality 1080 stuff but the OLED is super thin and light. Makes your place look nice. I like to live in a nice looking place.

[Mr Chin Stubble]

I actually watched both my CRT and my new 720p LCD/LED tv -- side-by-side.

I honestly think the differences are almost negligible with the exception of trying to read very small print. Admittedly my crt has a digital tuner and my lcd is only 720p still...

[Cadman]

My problem, is that if I spend $279 on a flatpanel (a popular online price), I know exactly what I'm going to get. In 5 years or less I will be putting it on the trash heap and spending another $279 post tax dollars, wasting days doing research on which model to get and where to get the best deal, arguing with myself to spend more or less for some sort of perceived advantage, wasting time installing it and getting it set up, only to repeat this process over and over and over.

Should I decide to spend 2x, 3x or 4x as much, I'll get a bigger picture, or a nicer look, or more bells and whistles, but inside, the same grade capacitors are used, the same employees are assembling the set and it's getting packaged and shipped over on the same boats making that ocean journey only to end up scrapped again in 5 years.

Sorry, not biting.

TLDR: Judge Judy is no less entertaining on a quality CRT set.

[jim555]

CRTs are 480 lines while most TVs are 1080 lines, so that is one reason to upgrade.

[GuitarStv]

My problem, is that if I spend $279 on a flatpanel (a popular online price), I know exactly what I'm going to get. In 5 years or less I will be putting it on the trash heap and spending another $279 post tax dollars, wasting days doing research on which model to get and where to get the best deal, arguing with myself to spend more or less for some sort of perceived advantage, wasting time installing it and getting it set up, only to repeat this process over and over and over.

Should I decide to spend 2x, 3x or 4x as much, I'll get a bigger picture, or a nicer look, or more bells and whistles, but inside, the same grade capacitors are used, the same employees are assembling the set and it's getting packaged and shipped over on the same boats making that ocean journey only to end up scrapped again in 5 years.

Sorry, not biting.

TLDR: Judge Judy is no less entertaining on a quality CRT set.

I've only ever owned one television, and it is an LCD.  Purchased ten years ago, and it's given me no issues of any kind in that time . . . garbage capacitors and all.

[markbike528CBX]

Two of my three computer monitors are 24" CRT,  Sony fw900' flatscreen and 100lbs a piece.

[BlueMR2]

Still got a CRT as our main TV.  Still works fine, don't see any reason to get rid of it!

I inherited a larger flat screen from my father when he passed.  Unfortunately though it doesn't have audio output, so isn't a viable replacement for the main one (as there's no way to direct the sound from it to the amplifier).  Seriously, who builds a nice flat screen TV loaded with HDMI in ports that has no way of redirecting sound out to a sound system?

https://www.amazon.com/ViewHD-Extractor-Optical-Converter-VHD-H2HSAs/dp/B00KBHX072

Problem solved

Oh, very cool.  Maybe by the time this CRT TV dies, people will be giving those away for free.  :-)

[MrGreen]

From and efficiency perspective, you can probably pick up a used flat screen from someone for $50 and the energy savings over a few years will probably outstrip the cost of the flat screen.

Sent from my MotoE2(4G-LTE) using Tapatalk

[slackmax]

I have an old 25 inch Sharp Linytron CRT which is looks clearer to me than the flatscreens I have seen. 

[Cadman]

GuitarStv, sounds like you have one of the good ones. I'll come clean and admit I'm also a TV collector/restorer and keep up socially with like-minded friends that have side hustles fixing these flat panel curb finds. $5 worth of caps from the start would double the life of most sets, but with margins razor thin, there's no incentive for the manufacturers to do that.

CRT vs Flat Panel, there's really no wrong answer. For us, we watch a lot of OTA programming which is interlaced. This has always been an LCD weakness since it's a progressive technology and requires de-interlacing and scaling to match its 'simulated resolution'. Again, YMMV if you're a sports fan or pay for a high def package.

Mr. Green mentioned power consumption and that reminded me of something worthwhile whether you have a dog in the fight or not. Throw a kill-a-watt on any set and box you leave plugged in and check the quiescent current draw. The 1981 CRT I'm watching right now has a max draw of 135W when on (that's on par with a larger LCD) but when I switch it off, it draws ZERO watts.

[jim555]

The specs for OTA TV are 1080i or 720p so some channels are interlaced not all.

[Cadman]

Jim555, therein lies the problem. If all the content I wanted to watch were in 720p, I'd pick up a compatible tuner and set, but it's not, and a lot of programming I enjoy was created in standard def (480i). Up-converting looks terrible, even if you spring for a more sophisticated unit. And the 75-ohm output from most A to D boxes is interlaced for the NTSC standard anyhow.

This is one of the problems console gamers have (low scan line resolution) and it's why there's still a cult following for the high-end CRT's of the late 90's. The Sony BVM-20F1U is a favorite..costing almost 10 grand when new; I got lucky and snagged one in mint shape at a sale last year for a quarter. Also great for video playback from Beta and VHS decks which flatpanels have a tough time syncing with.

[jim555]

That must be one rare TV with 900 lines.

[Prairie Stash]

http://energyusecalculator.com/electricity_lcdleddisplay.htm

CRT uses a significant amount more power than LED. If you have your TV on a lot, that's something to consider, obviously if you rarely use a TV then the power use is minimal. For some the power savings alone will pay for the TV is a reasonable amount of years. Its analogous to the argument against keeping the 1950's refrigerators, what you pay in extra power every year is far more than replacement costs.

[Slee_stack]

Replacing a CRT with another seems pretty foolish.

Besides them costing more money to operate, they are also heavy as heck, and that $50 you save up front on a 'FREE' CRT over a $50 used LCD might literally break your back when you go to move it.  Ever try to move a 32" CRT up or down narrow stairs?  Yeah...eff that crap.  CRTs are a penny-wise, pound-foolish pursuit. 

When the next CRT dies, you'll also get to PAY someone to dispose of your hazardous block of lead for you.  It might even cost you more than the $50 you would have spent on that LCD if you need someone to come pick it up from you to bring to the haz mat dump.  Gee what's not to like?

Time to see if i can find a smokin' deal on bias ply tires....

[ketchup]

Besides them costing more money to operate, they are also heavy as heck, and that $50 you save up front on a 'FREE' CRT over a $50 used LCD might literally break your back when you go to move it.  Ever try to move a 32" CRT up or down narrow stairs?  Yeah...eff that crap.  CRTs are a penny-wise, pound-foolish pursuit.

This, this all day long.  My dad and I moved a 34" Sony XBR HD CRT years ago to his house from a relative.  Just looked it up: damn thing weighs 196lbs, and of course the weight is distributed awkwardly.  I'd rather move a piano.

Great picture quality though.

[Cadman]

Just so the 'energy hog' stereotype doesn't keep getting perpetuated, here's a link that allows you to calculate actual usage. For large CRT sets, the use is approximately that of a 100w incandescent light bulb.  http://energyusecalculator.com/electricity_lcdleddisplay.htm

If you're going to compare a smaller set, like a 19" vs 19" then yeah, there's a difference there. 22w vs 80w, but at 2 hours of screen time a day, every day for a year, that works out to around $4 a year energy difference at $0.10/kwh. Practically speaking, a lot of the smaller sets like this don't get a lot of use since the price of 42" and up LCDs are now so cheap.

If you look at a 42" LCD for example, you'll see it uses as much power, if not more, than the old 21"-25" CRT sets that were considered "big" for direct view and are what's usually getting supplanted.

All of this ignores the standby power draw which can make matters worse, especially if it's replacing an older CRT set that uses 0 watts when off.

Now if you're dumping a plasma for LED, you should really see a difference on your bill.

[GuitarStv]

You can't directly compare energy use of a 19" CRT with a 19" LCD television fairly.  Wide format TVs actually display less image area than the older square ones . . . so you're getting a smaller picture with the 19" LCD.

[Cadman]

You can't directly compare energy use of a 19" CRT with a 19" LCD television fairly.  Wide format TVs actually display less image area than the older square ones . . . so you're getting a smaller picture with the 19" LCD.

Excellent point! And if you're watching a 3:4 program on a 16:9, you lose even more. Unless you're 70, then I think there's some sort of rule that you have to keep the aspect ratio set to Stretch.

[Mr Chin Stubble]

Besides them costing more money to operate, they are also heavy as heck, and that $50 you save up front on a 'FREE' CRT over a $50 used LCD might literally break your back when you go to move it.  Ever try to move a 32" CRT up or down narrow stairs?  Yeah...eff that crap.  CRTs are a penny-wise, pound-foolish pursuit.

This, this all day long.  My dad and I moved a 34" Sony XBR HD CRT years ago to his house from a relative.  Just looked it up: damn thing weighs 196lbs, and of course the weight is distributed awkwardly.  I'd rather move a piano.

Great picture quality though.

Meanwhile after much contemplation I returned the 32" lcd. It is too small. My current crt is a 27 inch.  I  cannot for the life of me get why a 27 in. CRT is an acceptable viewing size while a 32 in. LCD is too small.

Incidentally I get more channels with CRT set than with LCD; with either of my antennas; in either my living room or bed room. And yes after moving the crt back and forth from my closet -- I will not be doing any squats at the gym this week. Also some have utils in their rent or maint. charges.

[projekt]

I've got a 32" Sony WEGA widescreen HD TV (1080i). It's got an HDMI input, and a true black. That's all I really wanted. It's great for watching films.

[GuitarStv]

I  cannot for the life of me get why a 27 in. CRT is an acceptable viewing size while a 32 in. LCD is too small.

When widescreen TVs first came out the first thing I did was a calculation to see if they were ripping us off in terms of screen real estate.  They are:

width:height
16:9 vs 3:2

Screen size is measured by the diagonal which is calculated by Pythagoras theorem:

Wide screen:
a = width
b = height

a^2 + b^2 = c^2
a = (9/16)b

c = ((9b/16)^2 + b^2)^.5

Regular screen:
d = width
e = height

d^2 + e^2 = c^2
d = (2/3)e

c = ((2e/3)^2 + e^2)^.5


So, picking any value for the diagonal measurement c at all . . . like say 32:

Wide screen:
32 = ((9b/16)^2 + b^2)^.5
1024 = (9b/16)^2 + b^2
1024 = (337 / 256) b^2
b = 27.89
a = 15.69

Total area of a 32 inch wide screen is therefore:
a x b = 437.5 inches^2

Regular screen:

32 = ((2e/3)^2 + e^2)^.5
1024 = (2e/3)^2 + e^2
1024 = (13/9)e^2
e = 26.62
d = 17.75

Total area of a 32 inch regular screen is therefore:
d x e = 472.5 inches^2



You can do this calculation for any size of screen and it always yields the same results.  Wide screens have less surface area than square screens because of the diagonal measurement that is used.



TLDR - There was actually a point to learning math in elementary school.

[Cadman]

I've got a 32" Sony WEGA widescreen HD TV (1080i). It's got an HDMI input, and a true black. That's all I really wanted. It's great for watching films.

Projekt, that is a serious TV (my back aches just thinking about it)! I've considered adding an HDMI widescreen CRT to the collection as a historical footnote, but I'm not sure I want to make that kind of commitment. Not a WEGA mind you, but something in a manageable size, like a 26" diagonal set, though they're not popping up like they used to.

[Mr Chin Stubble]

I  cannot for the life of me get why a 27 in. CRT is an acceptable viewing size while a 32 in. LCD is too small.

When widescreen TVs first came out the first thing I did was a calculation to see if they were ripping us off in terms of screen real estate.  They are:

width:height
16:9 vs 3:2

Screen size is measured by the diagonal which is calculated by Pythagoras theorem:

Wide screen:
a = width
b = height

a^2 + b^2 = c^2
a = (9/16)b

c = ((9b/16)^2 + b^2)^.5

Regular screen:
d = width
e = height

d^2 + e^2 = c^2
d = (2/3)e

c = ((2e/3)^2 + e^2)^.5


So, picking any value for the diagonal measurement c at all . . . like say 32:

Wide screen:
32 = ((9b/16)^2 + b^2)^.5
1024 = (9b/16)^2 + b^2
1024 = (337 / 256) b^2
b = 27.89
a = 15.69

Total area of a 32 inch wide screen is therefore:
a x b = 437.5 inches^2

Regular screen:

32 = ((2e/3)^2 + e^2)^.5
1024 = (2e/3)^2 + e^2
1024 = (13/9)e^2
e = 26.62
d = 17.75

Total area of a 32 inch regular screen is therefore:
d x e = 472.5 inches^2



You can do this calculation for any size of screen and it always yields the same results.  Wide screens have less surface area than square screens because of the diagonal measurement that is used.



TLDR - There was actually a point to learning math in elementary school.

Couldn't you just take the length x width? I actually did and my 32 had more square inches. It just "feels" smaller (?)

[jim555]

Feels like calculus class.  Who knew it was this complicated?

[2Birds1Stone]

I can't stand the old CRT displays.

LCD TV's are so cheap these days (even new) that I couldn't justify it.

[slugline]

Not as much of a mass as a CRT, but we're still using an older Sony WEGA rear-projection LCD TV that's still pretty bulky. When it started fading, we briefly contemplated replacing it. Finding a replacement projector bulb for $20 online killed that discussion pretty quickly.

[goateeman]

I got rid of my CRT 3 years ago, LOL.

Finally moved to a Samsung LED TV on sale.  Sometimes it's just not worth it to keep old stuff around, when new stuff is exponentially cheaper, and vastly better.

[FireLane]

I have a massive, 17-year-old hulk of a CRT TV, made by GE and given to us from a relative's housecleaning. It took two people to carry it up the stairs, but it still works just fine. Some of my family members are incredulous that I don't want to upgrade to a flat screen, but DW and I watch so little TV that I don't think it makes sense to spend the money.

[Mr Chin Stubble]

I have a massive, 17-year-old hulk of a CRT TV, made by GE and given to us from a relative's housecleaning. It took two people to carry it up the stairs, but it still works just fine. Some of my family members are incredulous that I don't want to upgrade to a flat screen, but DW and I watch so little TV that I don't think it makes sense to spend the money.

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what I'm upgrading to?

Like I said, I cannot tell the difference of picture quality between an LCD and a CRT with the exception of not being able to read small print on the screen. The picture otherwise just looks different to me, but not necessarily inferior or superior. But just as 2 TV's don't have the same picture anyway. One (the crt) was brighter, and that is pretty much it.

As far as the weight is concerned -- do you perform this calculation with your other things? Like when you are furniture shopping to do you pick up a dining room table and say "Gee this is really heavy. In the event of a move, I would not want to get help carrying this thing or pick up a heavy thing"? Or how about when car shopping. Do you say "geez this car is 200 pounds lighter that this one." If I run out of gas and have to push this thing I'd rather have the lighter car"?

I can't help but wonder what other appliances you all are replacing in that case before their usefulness. Not saying the TV is any indicator of anything since they are pretty cheap now but, just wondering if there are other appliances that you are replacing due to "upgrading". And I am not saying that is necessarily a bad thing especially if income permits but, it doesn't really appear to be a frugal approach or conducive to an early, frugal retirement.

Having said all that I probably will buy a bigger flat screen soon just because.

[GuitarStv]

I  cannot for the life of me get why a 27 in. CRT is an acceptable viewing size while a 32 in. LCD is too small.

When widescreen TVs first came out the first thing I did was a calculation to see if they were ripping us off in terms of screen real estate.  They are:

width:height
16:9 vs 3:2

Screen size is measured by the diagonal which is calculated by Pythagoras theorem:

Wide screen:
a = width
b = height

a^2 + b^2 = c^2
a = (9/16)b

c = ((9b/16)^2 + b^2)^.5

Regular screen:
d = width
e = height

d^2 + e^2 = c^2
d = (2/3)e

c = ((2e/3)^2 + e^2)^.5


So, picking any value for the diagonal measurement c at all . . . like say 32:

Wide screen:
32 = ((9b/16)^2 + b^2)^.5
1024 = (9b/16)^2 + b^2
1024 = (337 / 256) b^2
b = 27.89
a = 15.69

Total area of a 32 inch wide screen is therefore:
a x b = 437.5 inches^2

Regular screen:

32 = ((2e/3)^2 + e^2)^.5
1024 = (2e/3)^2 + e^2
1024 = (13/9)e^2
e = 26.62
d = 17.75

Total area of a 32 inch regular screen is therefore:
d x e = 472.5 inches^2



You can do this calculation for any size of screen and it always yields the same results.  Wide screens have less surface area than square screens because of the diagonal measurement that is used.



TLDR - There was actually a point to learning math in elementary school.

Couldn't you just take the length x width? I actually did and my 32 had more square inches. It just "feels" smaller (?)

That's what I was doing, solving for length and width given the two ratios (4:3 and 16:9) and the diagonal measurement that's the defacto standard for televisions.  If you have the television in front of you to measure, just go with that.

[Slee_stack]

I have a massive, 17-year-old hulk of a CRT TV, made by GE and given to us from a relative's housecleaning. It took two people to carry it up the stairs, but it still works just fine. Some of my family members are incredulous that I don't want to upgrade to a flat screen, but DW and I watch so little TV that I don't think it makes sense to spend the money.

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what I'm upgrading to?

Like I said, I cannot tell the difference of picture quality between an LCD and a CRT with the exception of not being able to read small print on the screen. The picture otherwise just looks different to me, but not necessarily inferior or superior. But just as 2 TV's don't have the same picture anyway. One (the crt) was brighter, and that is pretty much it.

As far as the weight is concerned -- do you perform this calculation with your other things? Like when you are furniture shopping to do you pick up a dining room table and say "Gee this is really heavy. In the event of a move, I would not want to get help carrying this thing or pick up a heavy thing"? Or how about when car shopping. Do you say "geez this car is 200 pounds lighter that this one." If I run out of gas and have to push this thing I'd rather have the lighter car"?

I can't help but wonder what other appliances you all are replacing in that case before their usefulness. Not saying the TV is any indicator of anything since they are pretty cheap now but, just wondering if there are other appliances that you are replacing due to "upgrading". And I am not saying that is necessarily a bad thing especially if income permits but, it doesn't really appear to be a frugal approach or conducive to an early, frugal retirement.

Having said all that I probably will buy a bigger flat screen soon just because.

If you can't tell the resolution difference between 480i and 1080p on a 27" or larger TV, then it definitely doesn't matter.  I'd wager 99.9% of folks can though.

I've used a TV hooked up to an HTPC for many years now, so the move from a CRT to LCD was absolutely wonderful.  CRT had better colors back then, but that was it.  CRT Monitors with higher resolution existed but also were expensive as heck in larger sizes!  LCD costs dirt.

As to weight, the argument is for when you go to replace a TV, why lug a 32" CRT at 200 ish pounds when you can carry an equivalent sized LCD (with better everything) for about a 10th of the weight.  because you could save $50 up front?  Really?

Honestly, I have no furniture that weighs as much as a typical 32"+ CRT TV.  If it does, it also comes apart so it can be moved in more manageable pieces.  I don't generally buy things that two people can't move or re-position reasonably easily. 

Large appliances make no sense to even mention.  You can't get a 10X lighter major appliance if you wanted to.  If they begin to make them, and the cost and performance is on par, absolutely I'll buy them.  And cars?  Does anybody move their cars manually?  What the heck is the car for then?  I thought IT was supposed to move US?!  Once in awhile I'll thrown it in neutral and pull it a few feet in the garage I suppose.  I could fire it up and move it though.

There's just no advantage of setting up a replacement CRT beyond saving a couple bucks on the front end.  Savings that might evaporate or even cost you more as soon as it dies.  Or land you in the hospital with a hernia.  Pennywise.

[MilesTeg]

My roku  1 broke and the fact that this set up was working when I moved here to my new house -- roku 1/composite cables; Sling TV; and my CRT-TV with a digital tuner-- helped me justify not getting cable or a new tv.

But now since it broke I was wondering if I should just buy a 200 dollar 32" TV that I saw on sale and watch Sling TV with that? :/
Or I guess buy another roku ...

CRTs consume about 3x the energy of flat screens. If you're still rocking a CRT that's cool, but not necessarily frugal (depending on your usage, electricity price, etc). Here's a quick calculator that will help:

http://energyusecalculator.com/electricity_lcdleddisplay.htm

You can get a used flat screen for a lot less than $200.

[MilesTeg]

I have a massive, 17-year-old hulk of a CRT TV, made by GE and given to us from a relative's housecleaning. It took two people to carry it up the stairs, but it still works just fine. Some of my family members are incredulous that I don't want to upgrade to a flat screen, but DW and I watch so little TV that I don't think it makes sense to spend the money.

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what I'm upgrading to?

Like I said, I cannot tell the difference of picture quality between an LCD and a CRT with the exception of not being able to read small print on the screen. The picture otherwise just looks different to me, but not necessarily inferior or superior. But just as 2 TV's don't have the same picture anyway. One (the crt) was brighter, and that is pretty much it.

If you can't tell the difference between a 480i CRT and even just a 720p flat screen I am going to suggest that you visit an eye doctor (assuming you are using a 720p resolution source!).

No joke and no offense intended; serious concern is what I am relating.