Just wanted to make a comment regarding CMS settings...
While I think you can generally plug in anyone's calibrated greyscale (white balance) settings and get a far better image out of the box, CMS settings seem to have a wider range.
There are two other truly (as in using equipment) calibrated SQs that I know of with posted settings, Avmanic's and the one Reviewed.com tested, and both their CMS settings are noticeably off on this set.
Reviewed.com's settings come out looking comical as his set seemed to have a lot of error for the red primary so on this set red is insanely oversaturated, glows neon style and faces come out mega red.
With Av's settings (I have a preset mode here with all his settings on it), colours are oversaturated and there are some hue errors like with yellow coming out with too much red in it so it looks a bit orange.
My point is that it isn't a guarantee that another's CMS values will look good on your set and if they don't, it's best to try another and if still not looking "correct" it's probably better to just reset the CMS settings to 0 and go with things out of the box.
I'd also like to say that if you put someone's calibrated settings in and there are some clear colour issues, don't assume the person is crazy and what you see is what they see especially since they actually used equipment to get to those settings. Taking this set as an example, colours look FANTASTIC and super accurate yet they could easily look like piss on another person's set and if so, what they see isn't what I am seeing. It's too bad sharing CMS settings couldn't work better.
Another example of how different sets can be is with the contrast setting. On this set, I have it at +26 partly for greyscale reasons and partly because I simply can't go much higher without killing highlight detail. At +30 it crushes highlight detail (area just below 235 video level for white) while between +26 and that +30 the amount of above white decreases so at best I could have this at +29 if I didn't want to be crushing detail just below white. Others who have calibrated I would think aren't crushing their highlight details yet they can get +30 so that shows there can be a decent difference there.
Right now I am playing GTA Online and this image looks very good. Nice colour and maybe it is placebo but I swear there is slightly more image depth than before. If that is the case, I don't know if that is because I have the tighter greyscale/gamma by using the 10 point or if it is because my colours are better. Some may have been a bit oversaturated before which can decrease perceived image depth and ruin colour detail. Or, some were undersaturated before and now being better saturated are adding to the depth.
That is a good link for anyone who wants to see how having things "wrong" can make the image look although their monitors need to be accurate to truly appreciate the difference. The colour temp too high comparison is a good example of how screwed up a high colour temp makes an image look.
The comparison under concluding remarks is basically how these sets look out of the box although they're still more blue than that on the low temp setting. Hideous and the people at Sharp should be beaten with a wet noodle for it.