Originally Posted by guitarguy316
I agree Sony's tech in terms of just picture processing (including scaling and motion) is better. To most, it is not $900 better when you see how close the results are. That's the point I think some are trying to make.
Some folks prefer and value Sony's Acoustic Surface Audio solution, and are willing to shell out a bit more for that. Ken Ross and other LG fans can try to downplay the differences all they want, claiming "most people" would not notice the difference, and they are correct, but the reality is, some of us video enthusiasts are not "most people"
. I notice all sorts of things that "most people" do not notice. I bought a C7 and A1E in 2017 and watched 'em side by side with HDMI UHD HDR splitter. The A1E has noticeably better processing, much more than "2%-3%" difference. The A1E has noticeably better motion, not "2%-3%" difference. Coupled with the much better sound on glass solution on the Sony, and the much better build quality, meant the A1E was easily worth paying a bit more for than the LG. I will admit that the LG C7 OS and remote is miles ahead of Sony's garbage A1E Android system (which admittedly did improve over time with updates), but picture and sound quality trump tricks and gizmos. So naturally, I ditched the C7 and kept the A1E. The fact that the A1E had much less vertical stripe banding on 5% vs. the C7 was icing on the cake.
Ken Ross says he doesn't watch lower quality sources, so there are no major differences for him. Well I watch plenty of lower quality sources and I am not an immature child who plays video games all day, so I could care less about LG's lower input lag.
It's nice that we have choices. For "most people" who aren't very discerning about processing and motion differences, and for children who like to play games all day, by all means enjoy their LG.
Some of us will gladly pay a bit more for noticeably better experience, which is more than the 2-3% difference in scores would suggest. 2-3% difference in scores does not necessarily translate to 2-3% difference in quality observed.
The scoring system is arbitrary and by no means scientific.