TGDAILY : Our readers often email us feedback and opinions, but some of the emails are exceptionally well-crafted and we are always happy to publish them. One such email was from Brian Ahn, a helicopter mechanic for the United States Army and avid gamer. The Columbia South Carolina resident argues that there is still some life left in traditional Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) monitors. Mr. Ahn has allowed us to publically post the email.

Brian Ahn : Anyone trying to buy a CRT computer monitor today is bound to feel like walking through a museum of ancient history, or to put it more bluntly, a graveyard. You haven’t seen any CRT ads or reviews in years, so you search online to be unwittingly hit by pages dating back to 2002 or earlier, and visit retailer sites to find that the CRT monitor selections are either non-existent or limited, at best. If you do manage to find an online-retailer that has a section on CRTs, it’s not uncommon to see 15" monitors shown along with whatever else they have left, making you feel as if you are looking to purchase some sort of an antique.

Of course we all know that CRT monitors are a dying breed of technology that’s been getting replaced by the LCDs for quite a while now. We’ve read, seen, and heard a million times each since five years ago how slick LCDs look, how their prices are plunging and performances are reaching new levels. So what kind of moron would buy an obsolete, ugly, hulking piece of abomination that is the CRT, right ? A gamer, like myself, that’s who. And I know that I am not alone.

Much confusion and controversy have been brought to the unsuspecting consumer base by the word "response-time," thanks to the LCD industry’s clear, honest and simple marketing. Well, I suppose I couldn’t ask them to advertise the bare truth : LCDs won’t let you turn or look around in a game of "Counter-Strike : Source" or "World of Warcraft" as smoothly and nicely as you can with CRTs. Nobody advertises, wants to find out, nor advises consumers to look for the number regarding what a response-time of a CRT monitor is. That’s because response-time is never a problem for CRTs. Only is it a problem when LCDs come along and people try to push the idea that they are as good for gaming as CRTs are.

The best performing LCDs now come with "overdrive" capabilities, in a desperate attempt to come a little closer to CRTs regarding latency problems. As a matter of fact, manufacturers are so desperate that they are willing to sacrifice other video performances to make LCDs faster. How close they’ve come and what they’ve had to suffer in order to be a little faster fails to interest me, as the idea of being "overdriven" and still not cutting it seems bad enough to begin with.

In the heat of all the fuss about LCDs’ reactivity and latency issues, people seem to conveniently forget the simple fact that 0.294mm is longer than 0.21mm or 0.25mm. Note that 0.294 mm is the pixel length of today’s fastest LCDs measured horizontally, while most of today’s CRTs have a horizontal pixel length of 0.21 mm and a diagonal length of 0.25 mm. Yes, in case you haven’t noticed, LCDs have much bigger pixels than CRTs. Bigger pixels in the same or smaller resolutions mean uglier texts and pictures. Well, it just so happens that LCDs even have limited resolutions compared to CRTs, which is why you end up with blocky texts on LCDs.

So there you go, there is not a darn thing actually on the screen of a LCD that is better than that of a CRT. They manage to be slower, with bigger pixels and limited in resolution. I wish I were lying, but I’m not. Oh, and I kind of like being able to stretch my neck or sit back and relax in my chair to enjoy the same quality on my screen instead of it turning too black or too white.

Hmmm, what else should I consider when buying a computer monitor ? Oh, that’s right, the price ! If there is one thing I’ve heard enough of, it’s how much cheaper LCDs are nowadays. It strikes me as a bit odd that no one would tell me how I can buy a good 21" CRT (20" viewable) with the same money that will buy me a good, I use the term loosely, 19" LCD (19" viewable). Maybe someday, LCDs that strive to resemble the performance of CRTs will cost less than or equal to the price of CRTs and their "cheapness" will actually mean something.

Looking cool is the singular, defining strength of LCDs. Too bad that most of us, when we’re playing computer games, are looking at the screen, not the plastic that goes around it. LCDs look sharp, just in the wrong place.

Saving desk space also sounds nice, though it seems weird that suddenly the solution to more desk space is get a flatter monitor at any cost, as opposed to ’don’t buy the smallest, thinnest desks’ or simply ’clean up the desk.’ In any case, I’m not too worried about the desk space immediately to the front and back of the monitor, which would be the precise space a LCD would save, as I don’t usually spend long hours doing something I can’t do with a computer on said spaces. Maybe some people had been waiting to put a decorative flower vase smack in the middle of themselves and the monitor, or right behind it. Not me.

Listing "less power consumption" as one of the advantages of LCDs in place of CRTs is just ludicrous. Oh, because the 72 cents I spent on the electricity bill using a CRT last month was really putting my financial life in jeopardy, while the 36 cents I would have saved by using a LCD that I paid an extra $200 on to make my games look and feel worse is so priceless.

Is it just me who wants to buy a good old fashioned, cheap monitor with great screen quality as opposed to an over-priced, under-performing but savvy-looking monitor that the market is saturated with ? Has the aggressive marketing of a new technology forced gamers to adjust to a lower standard ? Am I the only person who wishes he could find more, or ANY, reviews of CRT monitors today ? I must be, because the media and the market have simply been ignoring us for a long time.