A 27" TV weighed just under 100 pounds (45kg) if I remember correctly.
Yes, a little short of 100lbs. The heaviest part of the set is the CRT, but more precisely, the front of the tube. It's very thick glass.
Also travel. Travel got even cheaper.
Lodging and home ownership on the other hand...
There were lots of reasons why you wouldn't want to buy one of these behemoths at the time (cost, weight, heat) but maybe the most significant was how bad NTSC video looked when you spread it across a 40" screen. I recently pulled out an old laserdisc player and connected it to a 65" OLED set and it looks absolutely terrible.
Short intro here https://www.retrorgb.com/upscalers.html , be prepared for endless ramblings of what is best why for what in countless other places.
A couple of thinner "speaker tables" with a small subwoofer + plate amplifier built in and a pair of full-range drivers. Not really a full console but does keep the wires to a minimum [1]. Just add an amp and sound source. (Sub is down-firing and underneath — so not visible.)
I built a taller version with storage for albums underneath (now we're getting closer to a console stereo [2]. (Sub is also down-firing.)
Additionally I built one for the TV that has a mid (full range) driver as well. With the integrated sub it's fully 3.1 with no external wires [3]. (Like previous, sub is also down-firing.)
FWIW, the "cavities" allowed for the drivers within the body of the furniture were designed to match the drivers in terms of volume (usually sized for a bass port as well). So there was a little more thought than to just slap speakers on a box.
Tried to find a build photo — this is the taller stereo version being built. Full-range drivers on each end, dual subs left-center, bass port in center, plate amplifier (for sub only) right-center: https://imgur.com/ZZtP2qp
I then emptied out the insides as with the lid it made a nice box to keep stuff in. A few years later I worked a 2.1 computer speaker amp and drivers in there (sadly I'd used the original speakers for a project), and added a Bluetooth receiver, an ipod touch and an additional aux cable - then mounted the whole thing on hair pin legs.
It is now a cute coffee table, chest and basic speaker system - but no where near as polished as yours!
So I already some wood-working experience before starting these. Still though, not a thing anyone else couldn't learn to build.
Yes, the cylindrically-curved screen is distinctively Trinitron. It’s easy to spot one at-a-glance, whereas the later fully-flat models look much more like those from other brands.
> I miss those buttery-smooth pans
This motion clarity is a big reason why CRTs are still the best way to play retro side-scrolling games.
Was working a Samsung exhibit where they were showing off their latest TV, some quarter million dollar beast. Part of the price tag was delivery and installation, as there was just no way a mere mortal could install this.
The problem wasn't that it was heavy -- it wasn't. Just fragile. The TV was made up of an array of much smaller borderless panels.
Think they sold a few to a coupla professional football players.
Last year I got bitten by the retrogaming bug and ended up getting now one, but two 17” Trinitrons, one for a MAME machine in our office's cantine, and one for my retro PC. Even after 25 years those beasts look gorgeous, old games really look great on them.
zabzonk•16h ago
kjellsbells•3h ago
10 PRINT "FART!"
20 GOTO 10
Not my finest code, I'll admit.
That was 40 years and a continent away.
antod•1h ago
Although I would suggest adding a space after the exclamation point and a semi colon after the end of the string for a better screen filling UX.
TylerE•3h ago
The monitor shelf on that computer table had about a 2” sag in it after years. Think that think weighed about 80lbs.
nsxwolf•2h ago
TylerE•1h ago
747fulloftapes•1h ago
They weighed a ton, were painful to move and basically consumed the entirety of any desk they were set on.
esseph•6m ago
747fulloftapes•1h ago
I seem to remember my Sony G220 had a native resolution of 1024x768 and I could run it up around 100Hz. I think the max was 1600x1200@60Hz.
Often my maximum refresh rate was limited by my graphics card's dot clock rather than the CRT specs.
pansa2•1h ago
That’s 5:4. The correct 4:3 resolution is indeed 1280x960.
esafak•3h ago