Why are there no tube televisions anymore?


It’s funny when you come to think of it and compare video with audio. How come in the audio world discussions sometimes become intense, while there seem to be far less intense discussions in the TV & video realm?

With TV’s there’s no talk on tubes, transistors, analog, digital, vinyl, cables, power cords, heck we can even get ’audio’ fuses and -USB cables.

No one has a tube TV (while they really have a ’warmer’ image :) and very few people use a $400 power cord with their TV set. And while there are expensive HDMI cables on the market, the vast majority uses one below $50. And no one spends money on floor spacers to avoid cable vibrations.

Our eyes may even be far more sensitive than our ears ... yet discussions are far less intense. How come?


rudyb
Guys

I had a 31" Mitsubishi for years and moved on to projectors. I briefly craved a 35" Mits, there was one on the floor at JL Hudson's in the Twelve Oaks Mall, Novi. I was puzzled though, it wasn't plugged in. Hmmm.

I asked for demo and the guy said "if we switch it on it blows circuit breakers" LOL......I'm guessing they didn't sell very many.....plus the thing was near 200 lbs and it would take movers to get one home.
Tube TV's were built to be repairable, manufacturers today don't want  anything to be repaired or be backwards compatible. Read 'The deals that made the World' Jaques Peretti. No conspiracy theory just fact on how we continually get shafted in every aspect of life.
Let's all remember that old ANALOG video still had a sampling rate. It was exactly 29.97 frames per second!  (or 25 in Europe).  And what about those scan lines?  UGGHH!   Any comparing of video to analog audio is ridiculous.  I'm pretty sure OP was just baiting us into this.  

Even more analog would be film... that's real analog pictures at a discreet frame rate of 24fps.... which is analogous to a digital sampling rate. There's some really great YouTube explanations on why 24fps is more beautiful and artistic looking than faster frame rates.  I agree.  I do not like faster frame rates. They DO look more real, but disturbingly so.  
@mirolab The discussion ran in all kinds of directions, while I was merely wondering how come in the audio world ...

A. There still is a desire to cling to (very) old technologies like vinyl and tubes.
B. There’s a broad range of components and accessories on the market that are (very) expensive and at the same time are questionable because no one knows why or how they work, but buyers claim to hear an improvement.
C. Debates on these subjects often get heated.

... while in the video world there’s a lot less of all three of the above. New technologies are embraced as improvements and there are far less accessories like ’video fuses’ or esoteric cables on the market ... you get yourself a proper HDMI cable and that’s about it, with far less debates.

Well ... maybe the frame rates discussion and whether people can really see the difference between 120 or 240 Hz. And it’s also interesting why movie lovers prefer a 24Hz sampling frequency when watching a screen, while I assume they prefer ’analog without sampling’ while watching out of the window?
@rudyb - Possibly because it's easier to be objective about video than audio. You can look at two images and tell if one is sharper than the other, and I can't think of a reason why anybody would want a less sharp one. With audio, it's all about individual preferences as to what 'sounds good' - some people like one type of sound, some people prefer another, etc, and too many are convinced that they are right and others are wrong if they disagree, hence the sometimes heatedness!