Found this interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specsmanship

International Committee for Display Metrology will release a comprehensive 400 page book of display measurement standards in June 09 that I will be purchasing. It covers all the common measurements as well as the more difficult ones like uniformity, viewing angle...etc

Another driving force was that measurements for certain aspects of display performance are notoriously easy to manipulate. This made it easy for manufacturers to engage in what is commonly called "specsmanship." Therefore, chief among the goals of the Standard were, in the words of the committee, "to establish standard setup and testing conditions to assure accuracy in testing and work to eliminate such 'wiggle room,' so that those who test displays cannot skew conditions in order to demonstrate favorable results."

Contrast and Response times being prime examples they mention.

Great word.

I've never understood why members put so much importance in specs and so little trust in their eyes.

I love the contrast ratios in manufacturer literature. It's always a nice, round number, 30,000:1, 2,000,000:1. You telling me they measured the dark & light brightness, divided one by the other and it magically came out to an even number? Amazing! :D

jeff

Great word.

I've never understood why members put so much importance in specs and so little trust in their eyes.

The best thing to do is gather as much information as possible whether it be test results, professional reviews, hands on experiences and mostly viewing the sets you have interest in and view them in several different environments if possible then sort out what's important to you. Specs on data sheets don't mean a whole lot but test results do have some meaning for those that understand them.

The best thing to do is gather as much information as possible whether it be test results, professional reviews, hands on experiences and mostly viewing the sets you have interest in and view them in several different environments if possible then sort out what's important to you. Specs on data sheets don't mean a whole lot but test results do have some meaning for those that understand them.

As you mentioned, you should use a myriad of factors to determine which is the best TV for you. Just only "trusting" your eyes is a piss poor way of selecting a TV when you think of the environment in which you are demoing the display. Next are the settings on the display in the store. Then comes the video source you are viewing. Another factor, is that some faults on a display may become more apparent after you've owned the set for a few months and have had the time to observe its performance over a period of time. As for specs and proper measurements, for me it all depends on who is doing it. Reputable & ethical professionals are around that over time I've grown to trust, and I would accept their measurements over say some goon w/little or no credentials. Also, on that score, I still like to have multiple sources. Do your homework & research diligently and thoroughly. That's my take on it.

Contrast and Response times being prime examples they mention.
This thread has alot of intresting possibilities.

I remember when mike53 explained how Sharp measured ms response times compared to other TV makers. And Sharp's method was more difficult to achieve.

Then you'd read where members would say I'd get a faster panel with brand X because they would claim a better number than Sharp. But in reality it was slower than Sharp's.

And contrast with dynamic testing is a joke.

Why aren't there testing standards for TV makers?

Great word.

I've never understood why members put so much importance in specs and so little trust in their eyes.


You need both. The specs are very important, and are a way of quantifying what you can expect to see. Also the specs may warn of some deficiencies which you might overlook in store showroom, and only notice them later at home after you have bought the set.

Specs in reality can be incredibly meaningless. Contrast ratio is one of the most meaningless. In most applications in the home (and not a testing lab), a LCD or plasma set will have a contrast ratio of less than 50:1 and in some case, closer to 10:1, even though, in the testing lab it will test out at 2000:1 (and yes, dynamic contrast is dumb- at least until you get the LED backlight with the Dolby system). These low scores do not look good for you out there, who think that "BIG NUMBERS" mean better. The parameters of the test must be defined and the result must be meaningful.

Advertisers and manufacturers have long pandered to those out there who need to "read" that their hard earned money went to buy the "world's best". Invented specsmanship does a disservice to the industry but it is the nature of the beast.

Specs in reality can incredibly meaningless. Contrast ratio is one of them. In most applications in the home (and not a testing lab), a LCD or plasma set will have a contrast ratio of less than 50:1 and in some case, closer to 10:1, even though, in the testing lab it will test out at 2000:1 (and yes, dynamic contrast is dumb- at least until you get the LED backlight with the Dolby system). These low scores do not look good for you out there, who think that "BIG NUMBERS" mean better. The parameters of the test must be defined and the result must be meaningful.

Advertisers and manufacturers have long pandered to those out there who need to "read" that their hard earned money went to buy the "world's best". Invented specsmanship does a disservice to the industry but it is the nature of the beast.
Your logic is always superb.

This is why I said you have to trust your eyes.

Specs are extremely useful provided they translate into viewable results.

Contrast ratio, for example, is a very useful measurement, provided the measurements you're comparing were achieved under the proper conditions. Manufacturer specs and claims are nearly entirely useless here, but independent measurements conducted fairly and consistently can certainly provide a useful indication of what your eyes would see.

Specs are extremely useful provided they translate into viewable results.
Contrast ratio, for example, is a very useful measurement, provided the measurements you're comparing were achieved under the proper conditions.
Thats why if standards had to be followed then we'd believe them.

And that's why I never pay any attention to manufacturer claims.

I mean, there are 2,000,000:1 contrast ratio Samsung displays out there...according to Samsung. That means absolutely nothing when you compare it to the claimed contrast ratio of another set.

Measured results from professional calibrators/reviewers are another matter.

As long as they lay out the means and the tools through which their measurements were taken and that their methods are consistent throughout their testing, then the results could certainly be useful.

All of this is true regarding specs- "IF" the playing field was level and if the average users actually understood what the specs mean.

The LCD OEMs (not the TV makers) use a completely dark room to measure contrast. White divided by black and that's it. Tested this way, the best panels get 2000:1 (or less). The problem is that 2000:1 (or less) does not impress anyone, especially since plasmas, tested the exact same way, scores much better. However, take both technologies into a lit room and the numbers drop precipitously for both technologies. But how do you define a lit room? What is the light source? From what angle? What about reflections from the ambient environment?

Since it is all but impossible to properly define these "external" criteria, they are merely ignored; rendering the tests pointless.

The LCD mfg'ers and the folks that sell them sure know about all those people that like to "trust" their eyes when choosing a display. That's why they crank the LCD's up to torch mode and draw people in like moths to a flame. You walk by a say "WOW, that TV has much more pop to their picture!", then the sales person adds more misinformation to your "trusting" eyes and you're sold.

Great word.

I've never understood why members put so much importance in specs and so little trust in their eyes.

There is some merit in knowing those specs in comparing sets from the same manufacturer.

My approach is simple: set a budget - in my case it is 2k, select a set of the size I want and buy the set with highest CR. Then set the backlight level to what I like - typically, for the Samsungs I own, it would be about 4 - and check if black bars can be distinguished from the frame. If not, I am done. If yes, the set gets a full-spectrum lamp behind.

It worked for both of my sets so I am done without spending another couple of grand chasing those crazy .000000001 black levels that need a light meter only NASA can afford.

There is some merit in knowing those specs in comparing sets from the same manufacturer.

My approach is simple: set a budget - in my case it is 2k, select a set of the size I want and buy the set with highest CR. Then set the backlight level to what I like - typically, for the Samsungs I own, it would be about 4 - and check if black bars can be distinguished from the frame. If not, I am done. If yes, the set gets a full-spectrum lamp behind.

It worked for both of my sets so I am done without spending another couple of grand chasing those crazy .000000001 black levels that need a light meter only NASA can afford.

Even specs published by manufacturers are often meaningless. How does 20000:1 compare to 30000:1? Is it really 10000 difference or is it barely noticeable if at all? How did they achieve that spec? Manufacturers, especially Samsung, have engaged in a numbers game to sell sets and it reminds me back in the days when you use to read about Brand X amps that put out 1000 watts and then you found out that a little 15 watt per channel amp from Marantz kicked it's butt all over the place. :eek:

That's why buying a set with the highest contrast ratio means nothing.

There is some merit in knowing those specs in comparing sets from the same manufacturer.

Yes from the same TV maker but:

This thread is how each TV maker comes to there own set of numbers.

Theres no standards where these numbers come about. So they try to top one another by "fudging" the numbers.

Thats why I've always been a skeptic when AVS members throw these numbers around stating them as "fact".

This thread has merit and we should learn what the word specmanship means to each one of us.

Just like in other areas of ones life like Santa Claus, some believe and some don't.:)

Just because someone wants to believe I'm not going to take that right away from them.

Theres no standards where these numbers come about. So they try to top one another by "fudging" the numbers.



Just as USDA defined what beef or juice is and nobody freaks out, I think we would benefit from having the ANSI checker test imposed by the FTC on this industry to eliminate "fudging", double-speak, etc. It's rare but there are times that I really like the Fed's heavy hand. I am digressing but I would volunteer to be a juror if they could criminally prosecute some of the audio charlatans who claim that a 100-dollar gold-plated AC socket will improve the sound from an AV receiver. Just dreaming.

Just to show what a nice and super-intelligent bunch of guys we are - in spite of our differences - here is an excerpt from an audio forum:

I have my system tweaked to the nth degree. Well, at least for now, because any audiophile worth his salt is always trying to tweak his system to try to get closer to that elusive "live, you are there" feeling. So on a lark, I decided to experiment with just the male connector on my AZ Krakatoa power cord. I tried the factory stock, Hubbell 8215c( with and without Quicksilver Gold applied); then after a week of intense listening, I switched to a Marinco 5266,Arrow Hart 6266, Hubbell 5266,Wattgate 330i, and finally a FIM 303. Each plug had been previously broken in on other cords, but I still allowed a full week of continous play on each plug on my preamp to evaluate. I am amazed how each connector has its own sound and its own signature along with its own positives and negatives in the sound.

They even have names for AC power cords! Don't you feel better already?

There is some merit in knowing those specs in comparing sets from the same manufacturer.

My approach is simple: set a budget - in my case it is 2k, select a set of the size I want and buy the set with highest CR. Then set the backlight level to what I like - typically, for the Samsungs I own, it would be about 4 - and check if black bars can be distinguished from the frame. If not, I am done. If yes, the set gets a full-spectrum lamp behind.


Wow, I couldn't think of a worse possible way of buying a tv, if you were actually serious and that wasn't a joke.

It worked for both of my sets so I am done without spending another couple of grand chasing those crazy .000000001 black levels that need a light meter only NASA can afford.

You won't find any lcds with that low a black level anyways. The closet you will get is a Kuro at .001fL.

Have you ever really read a "professional reviewer" that did not have some kind of agenda?

yes

You won't find any lcds with that low a black level anyways. The closet you will get is a Kuro at .001fL.

Actually, Kuros can acheive a good deal below .001ftL, it's just that the vast majority of the equipment used to measure luminance cannot resolve lower levels than that.

You won't find any lcds with that low a black level anyways. The closet you will get is a Kuro at .001fL.

I apologize for my sarcasm. At least you have to give me credit for originality: the first time ever use of a number for this purpose. I regret that I failed.

Wow, I couldn't think of a worse possible way of buying a tv, if you were actually serious and that wasn't a joke.

But I am sure you can think of a better way. What is it?
The full version of my selection process is like this: LCD, no gloss, Samsung, 120Hz, 52 inches, price limit of 2k, and CR, in that order.

The bad part is that this does not leave much room for all the fun of reading and comparing. The good part is it takes less than 5 minutes so I can spend the unused time being here waiting for maxdog's next response.

Actually, Kuros can acheive a good deal below .001ftL, it's just that the vast majority of the equipment used to measure luminance cannot resolve lower levels than that.

That is false. The limiting light output at low levels is about 0.001 fL. I have worked on many Pioneer Kuros and have a light meter that measures down to 0.000004 fL.

A problem you run into is that when you go very dark the eyes switch from photopic to mesopic and then scotopic vision as the level drops and they have time to accommodate the lower level. Essentially, our vision system is increasing the amplification as things get darker. This tends to offset the benefits as things get very dark. This presents a problem with most instruments used to measure these displays as they are calibrated for photopic sensitivity when they should arguably provide mesopic and scotopic results as the light level decreases.

For a particular observer the time duration of a dark scene along with the initial bright scene level and room light level will influence perception along with the age of the viewer. As time progresses your eyes will dark adapt at a rate that is correlated with the inverse of your age. The amount of dilation will also depend on the viewers age. A typical 70 year old will also see a darker level at full adaptation than a 20 year old. If something like Dark City in a dedicated theater room is your cup of tea you will value great near black performance more than someone who watches shows more like Mama Mia in a normal living room.

The idea of a simple CR or black level measurement representing what everyone will see in all situations is very misleading. The non-linear, observer, situation, material and time dependent nature of our sensitivity to light levels complicates all of this analysis. Near black color and bit depth performance is another issue that is even more important than pure black level, but is generally ignored in this discussion.

That is false. The limiting light output at low levels is about 0.001 fL. I have worked on many Pioneer Kuros and have a light meter that measures down to 0.000004 fL.

I could have sworn that it was, in fact, you - or someone speaking on your behalf - who made the claim that mine was based on. Of course, the search function isn't cooperating, but thanks for the correction.

umr, great post. The explanation it provides shows the futility of the law of diminishing returns. The crazy pursuit of perfect blacks, which by the way do not exist in nature where humans congregate, leads to this self-sustaining spiral to the bottom that cannot be reached.

This perverse logic start when a guy wants the blackest blacks he can afford. After the purchase he turns off all the lights to get it. His stubborn eyes adapt and those blacks are not that black anymore. So he upgrades to a better set and the game repeats. On top of this, even light from a single candle in the room brings all those dizzying 1 million to 1 CRs crushing down to tree-digit numbers at the very best.

On top of all that his wife is mad because he just turned HER living room into a scientific photo lab where she can't read and the kids are scared of the darkness.

I think I am going to start a poll to show a corellation between being single or married versus owning plasma or LCD.

umr, great post. The explanation it provides shows the futility of the law of diminishing returns. The crazy pursuit of perfect blacks, which by the way do not exist in nature, leads to this self-sustaining spiral to the bottom that cannot be reached.

This perverse logic start when a guy wants the blackest blacks he can afford. After the purchase he turns off all the lights to get it. His stubborn eyes adapt and those blacks are not that black anymore. So he upgrades to a better set and the game repeats. On top of this, even light from a single candle in the room brings all those dizzying 1 million to 1 CRs crushing down to tree-digit numbers at the very best.

On top of all that his wife is mad because he just turned HER living room into a scientific photo lab where she can't read and the kids are scared of the darkness.

I think I am going to start a poll to show a correlation between being single or married versus owning plasma or LCD.

My wife and I are both into film and we really love our dedicated theater.

IMO plasma and LCD do not really deliver the goods if you really want to capture the best of the theater experience. My home theater black level is set at about 0.0004 fL with about 40,000:1 On/Off CR and it is completely light controlled with no LED's even in view of the screen. Great black levels are nothing to sneeze at, but taking full advantage of them does involve extreme measures. I suspect my system is close to or at the point of diminishing returns. In this situation though the difference between a 5,000:1 CR system and my 40,000:1 is large with dark scenes.

Specs in reality can be incredibly meaningless. Contrast ratio is one of the most meaningless. In most applications in the home (and not a testing lab), a LCD or plasma set will have a contrast ratio of less than 50:1 and in some case, closer to 10:1, even though, in the testing lab it will test out at 2000:1 (and yes, dynamic contrast is dumb- at least until you get the LED backlight with the Dolby system). These low scores do not look good for you out there, who think that "BIG NUMBERS" mean better. The parameters of the test must be defined and the result must be meaningful.

Advertisers and manufacturers have long pandered to those out there who need to "read" that their hard earned money went to buy the "world's best". Invented specsmanship does a disservice to the industry but it is the nature of the beast.

It is true that the manufacturers themselves do not publish many useful specs. About all that they really give is a grocery list of nominal characteristics, i.e., dimensions, weight, pixel resolution (1080p vs. 720p), etc. And the contrast ratios they do publish are often made under ridiculously atypical circumstances.

You really need to use the specs published by trusted reviewers in the magazines and online. These measurements are very useful, and far more detalied than anything published by the manufacturers. And I believe that these reviews are indispensible for anyone to make an intelligent decision on any purchase.

The crazy pursuit of perfect blacks, which by the way do not exist in nature

Sure they do, at least they do when factoring in the limitations of our own eyesite. Have you ever been deep into a cave with no light source?

Switching on a Kuro and feeding it video black in that environment would provide a huge source of light.

And on a Friday night when my girlfriend and I sometimes sit down to watch a movie, all lights are off and we both enjoy the high contrast ratio of the display.

Sure they do, at least they do when factoring in the limitations of our own eyesite. Have you ever been deep into a cave with no light source?



I meant where humans, not bats, tend to congregate.

So you only watch material that involves places that humans congregate?

And in my own livingroom, when I'm watching something with the lights out, I can easily discern areas of the room that are darker than the blacks on my Kuro.

I find that I get the best black levels when I view things with my eyes closed. Contrast isn't so good though.

I find that I get the best black levels when I view things with my eyes closed. Contrast isn't so good though.

And the colors are lousy, too.

But I am sure you can think of a better way. What is it?
The full version of my selection process is like this: LCD, no gloss, Samsung, 120Hz, 52 inches, price limit of 2k, and CR, in that order.

The bad part is that this does not leave much room for all the fun of reading and comparing. The good part is it takes less than 5 minutes so I can spend the unused time being here waiting for maxdog's next response.


Start with the professional reviews and user reviews from here. Take a look at the actual measured contrast and black levels of the set. Then go to the store and compare models. Get the remote and change the settings to Cinema. Compare various models. How much detail are they showing? Is there black crush? How is the screen uniformity? Is the motion smooth or blurry? Get close to the set, and then slowly walk back to the seating distance you will be at home. How does it look now?

All of these things are a better way to decide what tv to purchase, rather than just going in and buying the set with the highest contrast ratio in your budget, considering manufacturer contrast ratios mean nothing.

Start with the professional reviews and user reviews from here. Take a look at the actual measured contrast and black levels of the set. Then go to the store and compare models. Get the remote and change the settings to Cinema. Compare various models. How much detail are they showing? Is there black crush? How is the screen uniformity? Is the motion smooth or blurry? Get close to the set, and then slowly walk back to the seating distance you will be at home. How does it look now?

All of these things are a better way to decide what tv to purchase, rather than just going in and buying the set with the highest contrast ratio in your budget, considering manufacturer contrast ratios mean nothing.
My take on what this thread is all about is how we go about selecting a TV.

Where you can see some of us don't trust the TV makers numbers as well as the motives of professional reviews. Takes money to sell magazines as well running a website.

User reviews have more credit than professional, but how do you know who to trust? Or someone who says these are "facts" that should raise a red flag.

I know from a first hand experience I'll never trust a professional review. Its all what we are comforatable with, just like if you invested your money with Bernie Madoff you'd be kicking yourself in the a** for putting trust in someone other than yourself.

If I'm going to make a mistake it will be on my shoulders not what someone thinks is better or better yet using "facts".

Just my take. But I also understand my lack of trust is a learned behavior, and not everone will agree with it. But I accept anybody's methods and what makes one happy.

Start with the professional reviews and user reviews from here. Take a look at the actual measured contrast and black levels of the set. Then go to the store and compare models. Get the remote and change the settings to Cinema. Compare various models. How much detail are they showing? Is there black crush? How is the screen uniformity? Is the motion smooth or blurry? Get close to the set, and then slowly walk back to the seating distance you will be at home. How does it look now?

All of these things are a better way to decide what tv to purchase, rather than just going in and buying the set with the highest contrast ratio in your budget, considering manufacturer contrast ratios mean nothing.

Your advice is sound and I did all of that to the extent I could. From this preview I developed a preference for Samsung LCDs and so far I have not been disappointed. Call it brand loyalty, but not the blind kind. Same for glossy screens, which I cannot tolerate, no matter what the rest of specs are.

You did omit the price. My budget, which has nothing to do with how much money I have, is about 2 grand. I cannot justify more on the same basis that I can't justify more than 400 for a digital camera on the basis of diminishing returns. In my opinion, a 4k set is not twice as good as a 2k model so that Sony for 7k will have to be sold to someone else.

The LCD mfg'ers and the folks that sell them sure know about all those people that like to "trust" their eyes when choosing a display. That's why they crank the LCD's up to torch mode and draw people in like moths to a flame. You walk by a say "WOW, that TV has much more pop to their picture!", then the sales person adds more misinformation to your "trusting" eyes and you're sold.

If I can get the display to look good when I get home and it doesn't break down on me, how is this a bad thing?

If I can get the display to look good when I get home and it doesn't break down on me, how is this a bad thing?

When writing that post, I'm assuming you are NOT one of the 35% HDTV owners in the US that do not know the difference between SD & HD. If you're happy w/your TV then what's the beef, right? This is a hobbyists Forum for audio/video enthusiasts, and therefore we have discussions that may not appeal to those individuals that just want any ole TV that shows a colorful screen. Do you happen to choose your display based on how bright it looks in the Store? If you find a TV that "looks good" in the store, and when you get it home suddenly it now "looks bad", do you immediately haul the beast back to the Store for a refund and another crapshoot TV? Or do you just live with "Buyer's Remorse" and learn to accept a TV with a lame PQ? Do you ever look at "Reliability" statistics/records, and learn about the actual "build quality" of your TV, or do you wait until a few months after the new shine wears thin and little buttons fall off to discover this fact? There is a better way to select a display, but it requires a little effort on your part to be an informed consumer.

When writing that post, I'm assuming you are NOT one of the 35% HDTV owners in the US that do not know the difference between SD & HD.

Absolutely not. Once I decided that it was about time to upgrade to a High Def TV, I began to do research. I continued to do research on the various types of HDTV's their strengths and weaknesses, performance levels, power useage etc for about 2 years while waiting for the prices to come down and the technology to mature to the point where its fairly reliable. I figured if I was going to drop $1000 or more on a Television, I was going to know exactly what it was that I was purchasing as I do not have a lot of cash to throw around.


If you're happy w/your TV then what's the beef, right?

RIGHT!!!


This is a hobbyists Forum for audio/video enthusiasts, and therefore we have discussions that may not appeal to those individuals that just want any ole TV that shows a colorful screen.

That I completely agree with.

Do you happen to choose your display based on how bright it looks in the Store?

Some people do.

I went TV shopping with a friend who wanted my opinion since he was completely clueless on all the technology to do with High Def and his biggest criteria was "No Reflectivity!" After going to the retailer, he saw the Plasma displays were highly reflective compared to most LCD's and even though I told him not to dismiss Plasma, as it tended to have the best picture he didn't care. He wanted the least amount of glare possible. He has skylights in his ceiling and during the day, his home is very well lit, and the one thing he hated was all the glare on his old CRT television. So even though I told him of the benefits of plasma and tried to steer him in that direction, he went home with a top-quality 52" 120hz Samsung LCD.

If you find a TV that "looks good" in the store, and when you get it home suddenly it now "looks bad", do you immediately haul the beast back to the Store for a refund and another crapshoot TV? Or do you just live with "Buyer's Remorse" and learn to accept a TV with a lame PQ?

My suggestion would be to adjust the settings to get the picture to look as good as you possibly can before attempting to return the set. Settings adjustments can oftentimes work wonders with a displays PQ. But I'm sure I don't have to tell you guys that!

After that, if you aren't satisfied with the quality and/or it has problems you can't deal with, sure return it. Just question your motives and make sure you aren't returning it because you've psyched yourself out from coming to these forums too much, which I suspect quite a few people around here end up doing.


Do you ever look at "Reliability" statistics/records, and learn about the actual "build quality" of your TV, or do you wait until a few months after the new shine wears thin and little buttons fall off to discover this fact? There is a better way to select a display, but it requires a little effort on your part to be an informed consumer.

I tend to look at user-reviews to find out what average people think of their sets. If they've had problems, they'll post them. I find that while they might not know much about PQ or which panel they've gotten or about color accuracy (which I don't really care about either), they post very honest opinions about the performance of their sets (if it looks good or great, decent or terrible etc) and if they've had any problems, they scream about them.

I am not a HT or HD enthusiast (yet). I am a little tech-savvy, and I can't afford to waste my cash, so I did research so I knew what I was getting. I just love watching movies and playing games, and as long as my display does a somewhat better than adequate job at displaying the images I need, I'm good to go.

What I don't understand is that pretty much every HD display I've seen (except for some of the worst low budget brands) have had great PQ. Especially compared to SD. My main point here is that as long as a display is capable of presenting a good looking HD image and a person is happy with that image, what is the point of ridiculing or attacking them for their choice or opinion?

I'd say our disagreements, debates and general discussions here on video tech are pretty tame compared to the audio side of AVS Forum. An important side to all of this is to give back something, and actually help people who come on here for advice. I've learned quite a lot myself from AVS over the years, and sometimes I'm able to pass it along & share it, which hopefully helps someone else. Don't think our little rants and raves on these Forums really account for anything. It's not serious, at least from my perspective. It's only TV!:D