Osprey
Registered User
- Feb 18, 2005
- 28,059
- 11,018
Hook it up! You're missing out on your QD-LED's true potential until you experience Pitfall! on it.Last gaming I had was an Atari in 1981. Couldnt care less.
Hook it up! You're missing out on your QD-LED's true potential until you experience Pitfall! on it.Last gaming I had was an Atari in 1981. Couldnt care less.
If I was in the market Gee-Wally was, I'm probably buying the LG G3, but that's based on having a pretty high-end gaming PC and a PS5. If I was just buying for his purposes, I'm probably getting the A95K or A95L. LG probably offers the best options for gamers, especially if you want more than one HDMI 2.1 hook up (I believe A95K has one, A95L has two, but one is needed for eARC if that is how you choose to push sound) whereas LG G3 has 4 outputs capable of 4K/120hz. But, while among posters in this thread that may be important (considering this sub-section of the forum is primarily about video games), to the average consumer slightly better processing/picture quality is probably going to win out.I think both Sony and LG have excellent picture quality. I would list then #1A and #1B as far as having the best picture on the market. They both have a nice, natural look to their picture/colors. Some prefer the more “vivid” look of Samsung, but Samsung would be behind Sony and LG for me. Great TVs, don’t get me wrong. I just prefer the other two.
I still prefer Sony processing and upscaling myself but LG has definitely caught up in that area. Sony is still king though IMO (especially the processors they use in their high end TVs).
But I wouldn’t hesitate to buy an LG OLED. I went with my Sony a80j over the LG C2 mainly because of price. I was able to get the Sony for under $1000 for a 55”. I just didn’t see the point in spending the extra $250 on the C2. If both were equal price I’d have probably tried the LG.
I’ve owned multiple OLEDs and QLEDs as both general purpose television displays and gaming monitors and I’ve encountered zero burn in on any of them. And I play MMOs that display bright static images for long periods of time. Again, pixel refresh and screen shift technology have come a long way in combating these problems.
Of course it’s possible to burn in an OLED in a closed lab setting when you’re deliberately trying to burn it in. And even then, you’re only going to notice the burn in on a gray screen test when you’re specifically looking for burn in. For the average consumer using these displays for average sports/movies/games, noticeable, experience altering burn in is simply not a realistic concern.
Also, I don’t know where you’re hearing that OLEDs/QLEDs are being discouraged for use as PC monitors. The exact opposite is happening in the marketplace right now. OLED/QLED have exploded in popularity as PC monitors, with Samsung, Dell, LG, and ASUS all selling new OLED/QLED models. These are among the most popular high end gaming monitors on the market right now.
It’s inarguable that OLED displays have a shelf life and will inevitably get dimmer after many, many years of constant use. I suppose it comes down to how you view electronics. If you’re the type of person who buys one TV every 20 years and expects it to last, then no, OLEDs are not for you. But if you’re a person who buys a new display every 5-7 years, there’s simply not a better technology than OLED/QLED. The picture quality on these panels is just vastly superior to traditional LED. They’re not even comparable. It’s like going from 30fps to 144fps.
Now that we've confirmed that these TVs are experiencing permanent burn-in, why is there such a difference between QD-OLED and WOLED displays?
….
One possible explanation for the difference in burn-in performance is the lack of a white subpixel on the QD-OLEDs. Unlike WOLED panels used on LG OLED displays and some Sony OLEDs, which use red, green, blue, and white subpixels, QD-OLED panels only have a red, green, and blue subpixel. This means that when the TV needs to produce pure white, it has to run all three subpixels at the same time. With static white content, like the white area around a TV news channel's "Breaking News" banner, this could lead to faster degradation of all three subpixels, so they'll appear darker than the surrounding areas. The darker areas on both the S95B and the A95K correspond perfectly to the white areas on CNN's banner, so this looks like it could be the cause of the burn-in. LG Display seems to agree, as they used the two-month results from this test in an LG Electronics Reviewer's event to showcase why they use white subpixels on their OLED displays.
Does this mean that everyone should avoid QD-OLED displays? Probably not. Our test is an extreme case. Two months of runtime on our test is the equivalent of watching about four hours of CNN per day, for about eight months, without ever changing channels or watching anything else. As long you watch varied content and don't leave static elements visible on the screen for long periods, you shouldn't have any issues.
What about PC users; should they avoid using QD-OLED displays? These results don't look good for computer users. A computer's user interface often has large white areas, even if you're using your computer's Dark Mode feature, and those areas are likely to cause burn-in. There are steps you can take to reduce it, though, and as long as you mix up your usage, you probably won't have any issues. It's also unclear if the QD-OLED panels used for computer monitors perform the same. They use different compensation cycles than the TV versions, and this could play an important role in reducing image retention or preventing burn-in. We're looking into possibly adding a QD-OLED monitor like the Dell Alienware AW3423DW or AW3423DWF or the Samsung OLED G8 to the test temporarily to see how they perform. Let us know if this is something you're interested in or if you have any ideas for why these QD-OLED panels might perform differently when used as a TV compared to the Monitor implementations.
Like I said, I agree on OLED that the vast majority of people don’t need to worry about burn in. It’s a proven technology at this point.
QD-OLED is different than OLED though. It’s a new OLED screen that Samsung just started producing a couple years ago. It’s not the regular OLED screens that LG has been producing and providing to the OLED industry for a decade+ now (every OLED TV manufacturer uses LGs OLED panels, including Sony in their A80 and a90 series, except the newest Samsung and Sony QD-OLED TVs that use QD-OLED provided by Samsung). QD-OLED is made by Samsung and uses different colored sub pixels (a combo of red, green and blue) compared to LG’s (W)OLED’s. If you read the article I linked previously it explains it pretty well. That’s also the article I was referring to that recommends against QD-OLED (not OLED) for computer monitors.
And QLED isn’t OLED at all. Totally different than OLED. It uses regular LED backlighting with Samsung’s “quantum dot” layer in front of it. It doesn’t uses millions of organic light emitting diodes that can turn on and off individually like OLED TVs do. LED isn’t susceptible to burn-in.
Here’s an article on the difference between OLED, QLED and QD-OLED.
QD-OLED TV: What you need to know about Samsung's next gen' TV tech
Everything you need to know about QD-OLED, Samsung's new flat screen TV technologywww.whathifi.com
I love the looks of the new QD-OLED screens. They are gorgeous. If I was in the market for a TV a Qd-OLED would be hard to resist. I was simply saying I am curious to see how they hold up, being new tech and all.
Sorry OP. I don’t mean any of this to make you nervous about your new purchase. I don’t think you have anything to worry about. Plus you have the warranty so you’re all good for 5 years at least, which is a good lifespan for a newer TV anyway.
Like I said, I agree on OLED that the vast majority of people don’t need to worry about burn in. It’s a proven technology at this point.
QD-OLED is different than OLED though. It’s a new OLED screen that Samsung just started producing a couple years ago. It’s not the regular OLED screens that LG has been producing and providing to the OLED industry for a decade+ now (every OLED TV manufacturer uses LGs OLED panels, including Sony in their A80 and a90 series, except the newest Samsung and Sony QD-OLED TVs that use QD-OLED provided by Samsung). QD-OLED is made by Samsung and uses different colored sub pixels (a combo of red, green and blue) compared to LG’s (W)OLED’s. If you read the article I linked previously it explains it pretty well. That’s also the article I was referring to that recommends against QD-OLED (not OLED) for computer monitors.
And QLED isn’t OLED at all. Totally different than OLED. It uses regular LED backlighting with Samsung’s “quantum dot” layer in front of it. It doesn’t uses millions of organic light emitting diodes that can turn on and off individually like OLED TVs do. LED isn’t susceptible to burn-in.
Here’s an article on the difference between OLED, QLED and QD-OLED.
QD-OLED TV: What you need to know about Samsung's next gen' TV tech
Everything you need to know about QD-OLED, Samsung's new flat screen TV technologywww.whathifi.com
I love the looks of the new QD-OLED screens. They are gorgeous. If I was in the market for a TV a Qd-OLED would be hard to resist. I was simply saying I am curious to see how they hold up, being new tech and all.
Sorry OP. I don’t mean any of this to make you nervous about your new purchase. I don’t think you have anything to worry about. Plus you have the warranty so you’re all good for 5 years at least, which is a good lifespan for a newer TV anyway.
Dreaded? Man you are really misinterpreting what I said.I understand QD-OLEDs are a different technology. Regardless of QD or OLED, my point is that the typical RTings stress testing is not applicable to the average consumer. They’re leaving these televisions on all day long every day at peak brightness with static news station HUDs on the screen. Of course they’re accumulating bad burn in. And no normal consumer will utilize their panel like this.
I agree that there is slightly more unknown to QD OLED than regular OLED. I’m not disputing that. But the tech isn’t so new or different from existing OLED that established anti-burn in methods aren’t working.
Again, I speak as someone who owns an AW3423DW gaming monitor. After thousands of hours of use, most of it on a single game, there is no observable burn in. And this is the dreaded QD OLED technology you’re talking about. The other QD monitors all remain strong performers in the market, as well, with many more set to launch within the year.
This is not a marketplace that is shying away from QD. The exact opposite.
How are you liking it so far? Watch any good 4k HDR movies yet?Alls well that ends well.
Now my son has my older Bravia and sound bar.
win - win.
View attachment 729306
How are you liking it so far? Watch any good 4k HDR movies yet?
Way of the water is on my list. I haven’t had the chance to watch it yet, but if it’s anything like the first movie I bet it looks gorgeous. Especially on that QD-OLED!loving it.
watched Spiderman No WayHome, Maverick Top Gun and Avatar Way Of Water.
Tremendous picture and sound.
Way of Water was visually breathtaking.
The Samsung OLED 65” I bought a few weeks ago is disgustingly good. Feels like I have new eyeballs now with how good the picture quality is
I am really surprised to read this. Are you sure it’s blooming and not another issue? OLED TVs are not supposed to have blooming at all.Which did you get? I’ve had the S95B for about 6 months it’s pretty good but the blooming is awful.
top gun maverick has to be one of my favorites. I have a nice home theater system with 7 speaker surround and two pretty big subwoofers with 18” drivers and the bass in that movie is insane. It feels like the planes are flying right through my house. My windows flex and walls shake.
I mounted 2 bookshelf speakers on my ceiling in front to try atmos, but I think my ceilings might just be too low to really get proper atmos effects. I’ve never really noticed much difference. I think it’s my room/setup. I sit pretty close to my speakers and have one of my subwoofers near field for the added tactile effects. I think it’s that plus the low ceilings (7ft). Proper atmos is nice though!I have a 5.2.4 Atmos home theater setup (four in-ceiling RSL C34E MKII Atmos speakers).
Surprisingly Top Gun Maverick had almost zero Atmos content. Whoever did the home market master of that movie really screwed up, there was so much more potential for Atmos, and I'm sure they had good original movie Atmos soundtracks to work with. Major disappointment.
In comparison some of the best Atmos content I've seen are Bladerunner 2049, Dune and The Hobbit 4k remastered movies, especially Battle of the Five Armies.
I mounted 2 bookshelf speakers on my ceiling in front to try atmos, but I think my ceilings might just be too low to really get proper atmos effects. I’ve never really noticed much difference. I think it’s my room/setup. I sit pretty close to my speakers and have one of my subwoofers near field for the added tactile effects. I think it’s that plus the low ceilings (7ft). Proper atmos is nice though!
A buddy has RSL atmos speakers and I really like them.
What do you have for your front 3 speakers and subwoofers?
2 speaker Atmos is a supported configuration, but to really experience Atmos you need a 4 speaker setup. Good Atmos soundtracks will pan objects front to back as well as side to side. You don’t get that front to back effect with only 2 speakers. Such as a helicopter, missile or Smaug the dragon flying over your head.
Atmos is all about the angles. With a 2 speaker setup on a 7’ ceiling your two Atmos speakers should be located on the ceiling approximately 8 inches in front of your main listening position (almost directly overhead) and approximately 4 feet to the left and right of your main listening position.
Also, lots of content (like Top Gun Maverick) simply has poor or no Atmos. A good AVR will upmix your base (5.X/7.X) surround layer into the Atmos speakers, which keeps a nice 3D “sound bubble“. But the upmix is nowhere near the listening experience of a movie with a well done Atmos soundtrack. The # of movies with good home Atmos soundtracks has been increasing in recent years, expecting this trend to continue.
I’m using the RSL 10S MKII Speedwoofers:
I don’t think you can find a better subwoofer for under their $450 price. And there are many more expensive subwoofers which don’t perform as well. How much subwoofer power a setup requires can vary by room size, so the 10S might not fit everyone’s needs or budgets. It is sitting in a nice sweet spot imo of being the best value in that price range.
Front speakers are (15 year old) Polk RTi A5s and a Polk CSi A4. I‘m planning to upgrade the Polk center to a SVS Ultra Center within the next week or two—massive upgrade, but maybe not the best value for cost ($800). Have no plans to upgrade the left/right A5s, they’re doing great for my needs.
What types of front speakers work best depends on your usage. For example I’m doing 100% home theater and gaming, with 0% stereo music. For a home theater you want front speakers with great dialogue coverage, especially the center speaker (hence my SVS upgrade plan). Expecting your subwoofer(s) to handle the low end bass.
If on the other hand you listen to a lot of music in addition to home theater usage then most people prefer beefier left and right speakers with more low bass output vs depending on a subwoofer for the low end. I wouldn’t recommend my old RTi A5s for this usage mix—I’d be upgrading them.
All great speaker choices. Emotiva and JBL (on sale, but they're frequently on sale) are some of the most popular price/performance options. My room is 2100cu ft. It's not completely enclosed, but close enough to it that the 10S subwoofers work great for my space.
I've been considering a lot of center channel options. The C2+ and THX 365c are on my research list. The Infinity RC263c has been discontinued for a couple years. I might never notice the difference, but the dual mids on the C2+ make me uncomfortable for potential lobbing. Leaning towards the pricier SVS Ultra Center. I know it's not the best bang for the buck—costing twice as much as the C2+ and 365c while not performing twice as well. Confident I'll love the SVS Ultra without worrying about upgrading again in the future. I frequently sit 20 degrees off-axis, with the widest seating at 30 degrees. One of the reasons I liked the SVS centers as they have outstanding wide off-axis coverage.
After getting the new center the next thing to sort out will be two new surrounds to replace my RTi A1s. The A1s work fine, but I want to switch over to wall mounted speakers and they're too deep to wall mount with my room layout. In-wall speakers aren't an option either. So looking around for solid compact surround speakers with low depth. One option is the Ascend 200SE's at 6.5" depth.
One of the best things when upgrading to my Atmos setup was getting a receiver with Dirac Live room correction. Dirac is so much nicer to use than the Audyssey room correction I had on my previous receiver.
Another bassaholic! Love it.Way of the water is on my list. I haven’t had the chance to watch it yet, but if it’s anything like the first movie I bet it looks gorgeous. Especially on that QD-OLED!
top gun maverick has to be one of my favorites. I have a nice home theater system with 7 speaker surround and two pretty big subwoofers with 18” drivers and the bass in that movie is insane. It feels like the planes are flying right through my house. My windows flex and walls shake.
I set the 24oz water bottle next to it for scale.
The 2nd one fires directly into the back of my seat. lol
View attachment 729318