Translated (English): http://translate.google.co.il/translate?hl=iw&sl=iw&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fhwzone.co.il%2Fnews%2F137046

Untranslated (Hebrew): http://hwzone.co.il/news/137046

Hope that from that point, LED backlit LCD displays, will stop to be called "LED" anymore.

Not really that new they had small OLED TVs back in 2007 (see here), I've seen them before and they're quite expensive at the time. I wonder how much the technology improved since then though...

But this is special, as this TV of Sony, have a true LED display with non organic LEDs, exactly as the outdoor large LED displays.
So thats why this is a true LED TV or Screen.
Usually LED TV or Screen refers to LED backlit LCD displays, which aren't different than the CCFL backlit regular LCD displays, and have less color gumat and their advantages over CCFL backlit regular LCDs are only economical and environmental advantages (HG free, low energy consumption, longer backlit system life).

Ah ok the translated article wasn't very clear, this english article should be better for the users here.

Usually LED TV or Screen refers to LED backlit LCD displays, which aren't different than the CCFL backlit regular LCD displays, and have less color gumat and their advantages over CCFL backlit regular LCDs are only economical and environmental advantages (HG free, low energy consumption, longer backlit system life).

Where did you hear that from, most articles I've read online seem to say the opposite in that LED backlight have better colour gamut.

Joseph_125: Even if most articles say that LED backlit have a better color gumat than CCFL backlit. Because LED backlit LCD displays usually uses WHITE LEDS and only very few uses RGB LEDs, and white LEDs have a boarder spectrum than that of the CCFL lamps (CCFL uses triphosphors, that produces produces five peaks, in which three of them are in the blue, green and red. By contrast, white LEDs produces mainly in the blue and the yellow parts of the specturm), LED backlit, in most of the cases, should have less color quality and gumat than CCFL backlight.
Regarding to your english article , it is say exactly what i wrote in my comment on Hwzone (That Sony new TV is a real LED TV compared to what usually called LED TV, and that it operates exactly like the outdoor large LED screen), and says very similar to what the Hwzone article said, but better.

What I really don't get is why you tend to exaggerate and generalize heavily on stuff, like what you did about those American switches and Canadian exit signs.

Also if you really have a problem with people making "fake" LED TVs have you worded a complaint to someone who can change it like say the manufacturers or the Israeli equilvaint to the FTC.

True OLED TVs have been about for a while now - though still dogged with two main problems.

A: The astronomical pricetag they come with, and B: Screen-burn issues due to the lumen maintenance of the LEDs themselves.

While that issue isn't a problem for small displays in tablet PCs, smartphones etc where they're starting to pop up commonly (my phone has an OLED display), it is of course more of an issue for TVs and monitors where high contrast static images are likely to be displayed for long periods.

Once these problems are ironed out though it will be very interesting to see where this technology goes - it's the first I've seen which really *can* give as good a picture as a decent CRT, with colours with real punch and properly black blacks.

Zelandeth: If the brightness of a CRT setted to the maximum, the blacks aren't true black.
Are you want to say me that in the correct brightness setting (When the black looks like true blacks), average CRT gives better color gumat and quality than the most expensive LCDs and Plasmas?
I'm aware that the new Plasma TVs and even CCFL lit LCD TVs consume more power than the old CRT TVs, because of their larger screens than CRTs. So why did the LCD and Plasmas took over the CRTs if they have less color gumat and quality than the CRT?
Of course, LCD displays don't flickers like CRTs because the pixels aren't lights by themselves, and Plasma should less flicker, because it can have a progressive scanning like the LCD and unlike the CRT.
Also the LCD (And i don't know if Plasma also) can have 720p and 1080p HD resolution (And recently even 4320p OHDV experimental resolution is in progress) and of course a wide display of 16:9 and 16:10 unlike CRT which can only have a 4:3 screen ratio and 576i (Europe and Israel) or 484i (North America) resolution.

Zelandeth: If the brightness of a CRT setted to the maximum, the blacks aren't true black.
Are you want to say me that in the correct brightness setting (When the black looks like true blacks), average CRT gives better color gumat and quality than the most expensive LCDs and Plasmas?
I'm aware that the new Plasma TVs and even CCFL lit LCD TVs consume more power than the old CRT TVs, because of their larger screens than CRTs. So why did the LCD and Plasmas took over the CRTs if they have less color gumat and quality than the CRT?
Of course, LCD displays don't flickers like CRTs because the pixels aren't lights by themselves, and Plasma should less flicker, because it can have a progressive scanning like the LCD and unlike the CRT.
Also the LCD (And i don't know if Plasma also) can have 720p and 1080p HD resolution (And recently even 4320p OHDV experimental resolution is in progress) and of course a wide display of 16:9 and 16:10 unlike CRT which can only have a 4:3 screen ratio and 576i (Europe and Israel) or 484i (North America) resolution.

I think LCD and plasma took over from CRT because why? CRT TVs are big and heavy compared to the other technologies and plus CRT TVs are hard to hang on a wall without using a visible bracket whereas LCD and plasma can be hung using a hidden bracket. I don't think colour gamut and quality was that much of why LCD and plasma became popular.

For the record they did make CRT and plasma HDTVs and with a 16:9 screen ratio like this so I don't know where you heard that from.....

Joseph_125: Today i know of the existence of Full HD plasmas, but i never heard of an existence of full HD CRTs and CRTs of 16:9 

Main reason for plasma and lcd panels being popular is size. CRT displays are as deep as the diagonal of the screen, and older units were even deeper. Add to this the front glass has to withstand enormous pressure, and has to support a shadowmask in alignment of less than a pixel width even though the mask temperature ranges from room ambient to glowing red, and with the temperature of each area being dependant on the brightness of the beam at that point. Making a large tube was expensive and heavy, would you buy a 100cm TV that came with 4 handles to allow the 4 people you needed to move it? Current models are much lighter for the same size, as they do not have the large vacuum chamber inside them. Smaller CRT units are still made and sold, as they are cheaper than flat panels in that price point, the plant having already been paid for, whilst the flat panel processors do not get much cheaper as the panel gets smaller.

The one place you only get CRT displays are in aircraft cockpits, as they can be made much brighter and are able to display in direct sunlight, as well as having a proven track record and documented failure modes that do not show false data.

I was really surprised when i readed that the wattage rating of the CCFL backlit LCD TVs is higher than that of the CRT TVs, considering that the display itself almost don't consume any current compared to a CRT display, and the fact that the CRT is a vaccum tube that operates by a flyback transformer.
Initially i thought that LCD TV have the CCFLs on the edge of the screen (Edge lit), until i readed that there are actually a panel of sometimes more than ten CCFLs behind the screen, which means higher energy consumption than the CRT TVs, considering their larger size and their 16:9 format which means more CCFLs on the panel.

@SeanB: The CRT panels were replaced in aircrafts (I mean new designs here) already quite some time ago, in fact even earlier then in the TV market.
There is combination of aspects:
- In an aircraft cockpit you do not need to display so many color shades so accurately as on the TV, you suffice with 16 basic colors. Only with radar image you need few shades of gray (to display e.g. the rain density,...), but it does not mater, if the "gray" have some color hue, so still easily attainable even with the simplest panels. TV's had to wait for panels capable to display the image in better quality (and for the panel cost to drop)
- LCD's could be made to harvest the incident light (part of each pixel is made with reflective layer), so they do not have to be by far as bright as the CRT's. This technology was used too on the Siemens S55 GSM phone I have (I do not use it anymore, but it is still sitting in my drawer). It offered limited color fidelity (compare to today's standards), but on the daylight it didn't need the backlight at all and it was well readable even on direct sunlight, by far better then present "true-color" models...
- The reduced energy consumption reduce the load on the on-board electricity generation and distribution and on the AC, saving quite some fuel when the aicraft is running on the APU (when on ground)
- And the most important, the reduced mass lower the aircraft fuel consumption when in flight.

The fuel savings are quite small percentage, but over the aircraft life it make for quite huge money, so were the main driving force to develop airworthy LCD panels for the flight instrumentation...

I'm absolutely convinced that the main reason that Plasma and LCD took over from CRTs was the trend for smaller, thinner sets rather than anything to do with the actual image quality. 

Sure, a black will stray from absolute black on a CRT if you crank the brightness all the way up - but realistically you shouldn't need to do that unless there's something wrong.  The black level should under normal circumstances be far, far better than on the majority of the best LCD sets.  A friend of mine has a 55" Samsung which does give a fantastic picture, but even so it's noticeable in a darkened room that black is still dark grey rather than black.  It also varies across the screen, especially when the viewing angle changes - which with a screen that size is quite an issue.

Granted...I fix TVs and similar things as a hobby, so am absolutely obsessive about setting up things like black level, gamma, greyscale tracking etc correctly.  Generally I've always found that with an LCD set it ends up being "all right" rather than perfect.

16:9 CRT sets do exist (there's one in the lounge here), as do HD versions, though they are quite rare.  The technology is definitely there - not that far removed from a CRT computer montior really - the resolutions in question are actually very modest in comparison.

I'm not completely against LCD or Plasma sets - they do have their advantages.  I live in a second floor flat, and getting the 36" widescreen CRT set which lives in my lounge up the stairs just about killed me as it weighs about the same as a small car!  The definition on a decent LCD is hard to fault as well, I still maintain though that a *properly set up* CRT will out-strip an LCD on black level, grey-scale tracking and colour rendition.  They just seem to be able to produce a picture with much more "punch" than most LCD sets - plasmas usually manage to fare better with that regards, but have their own set of problems with screen-burn, panel life etc.

A lot of recent production CRT TVs and such were built to be as cheap as possible and to be honest many came out of the factories never even properly set up, which probably didn't do anything to help their reputation.

Plasma allowed to make screens of large size (30" and above), practically not achievable with CRT's (not pure technical reason, but rather logistic - such tube would be too deep and mainly heavy). But it suffer from degradation and have huge power consumption (40" screen power input enter the kW range)
Larger screens were made as projection systems, but these were as expensive as the plasma and with nearly the same power requirement.
The LCD is low cost and longer life (so running cost) replacement for the smaller plasma screens and it allowed the screen sizes above 20" to become cost affordable for "normal" people. Only recently the defect density was reduced so, it allow screen sizes before exclusive for plasma or projection.
The OLED displays are here for some time already, but the defect density was so high, the larger size then few inches was not feasible.

Regarding the "black", most of CRT suffer from either the reflection of the external light and/or lack of brightness. So in dark room the "black" is really blacker, but when there is lot of light around (normally lit room), the contrast become comparable with average LCD's. Anyway, the picture signal in most digital formats is linear 8bits per pixel, what mean any contrast better then 1:768 (one LSB in one color is 1, other zero's, compare to all three at 255) is just perfect.