![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
https://cdn.hardforum.com/data/attachment-files/2023/10/927771_1698178424416.png
Guess it's over for TN apologists.
Are you saying Max Refresh Rate is the most important spec when deciding to buy a display? And even if it were, by 2025 I'm sure OLEDs will reach those speeds without having to look so ugly.
Refresh rate is the only advantage TN has over other panel types. Saying, "Guess it's over for TN apologists," implies that the 360 Hz refresh rate of the Alienware OLED monitors is as good as a TN panel, so I posted a monitor with a refresh rate higher than 360 Hz.
That's precisely the case, OLED's pixel response times are within micro seconds, as opposed to TN's miliseconds. Consider that even TN doesnt have a performance advantage anymore and it has the worst picture of all displays technologies. Do you still think manufacturers will invest in TN panels in the forseeable future? Dont forget the 1080p@480hz OLED is right around the corner:
They will certainly be available... for pre-ordering. It's a play on words.
The actual response time of the PG248QP in practice is just over 1ms. Lets say you pick the worst-case scenario in a gaming situation and use Normal overdrive, which gives you 1.5ms response time. That is still good enough for no motion-related artifacts up to a refresh rate of 665 Hz. 1.5ms is more than fast enough for 540 Hz. Your reaction time cannot be faster than the picture being presented, so the fractions of a second response time of an OLED at the same refresh rate is not going to give you any appreciable advantage when both LCD and OLED are sample and hold.
in the room BURRRRRRN BABY BUUUUUUURRRRRRRNOr just use a pair of good stereo speakers and a receiver. Soundbars suck.
Do all Soundbars suck? I have a Katana soundbar for my PS5 it's not bad but I'm wondering how TV soundbars would sound like a Bose.
Plz don't try and school me with your generic sound bar sucking nonsense. I have gone through a massive sound journey with the PC starting with ISA sound blasters. My current setup is schit audio with monitors and Mr speakers ether flow headphones.
What about a z5500? It's small, simple, and use optical connection. It has a tiny footprint for a 5.1 aside from the big 10" sub.
You talk about shortcomings while using a QN90B as a gaming display?Too small. 27 is for a side monitor and is laughable as a main monitor. 32 is better but not big enough. 40 or 45 would be perfect. This isn't 2012 a large majority have moved on from smallish displays. Also they are still dim according to reviewers that have actually seen these new ones at CES. Still multiple shortcomings not even including the
No, all sound bars do not suck. Yes, a high end setup will always be better. A quality sound bar will beat a shitty 2.1 or 5.1 setup. They also make amazing 2.1 sound bars.
Feel free to PM me and we can chat. I don't want to derail a thread about a cool monitor. My initial response was just identifying a cool spec it had.
The QN90B is jaw dropping gorgeous. Brilliant HDR and outstanding brightness. I had an LG C2 oled it doesn't help your gaming performance. If you're good you can perform just as good on 144 as 240. A better player will not lose to a worse player because of 144 vs 240. Skill is the difference. Visually the oled looks worse for me. The dim colors are unacceptable for me. It lacks the big bold beautiful punch i need in a big gaming display. I want to be blown out of the water with brightness and color, not a dim display that will burn if I max out the brightness and then suffer from burn in and not even be bright enough maxed out lol. When they fix the brightness and burn in I will get one again. Until then the mini led QN90B is still the king of large gaming displays in my opinion.
I stand correctedA QB90B is the king of large gaming displays? Hisense 110UX with 10,000 nits + 40,000 dimming zones would disagree
https://www.cnet.com/tech/home-ente...ge-110-inch-tv-maxes-out-mini-led-brightness/
Too small. 27 is for a side monitor and is laughable as a main monitor. 32 is better but not big enough. 40 or 45 would be perfect. This isn't 2012 a large majority have moved on from smallish displays. Also they are still dim according to reviewers that have actually seen these new ones at CES. Still multiple shortcomings not even including the
There are two benefits from higher and higher fpsHz.
One is motion clarity. aka blur reduction.
The other is motion definition. aka smoothness. More dots per curved dotted line. More unique frames in an animation flip book and the pages flipping faster.
. . . . .
For all practical purposes, BFI (black frame insertion) is incompatible with HDR for the forseeable future since it cuts the brightness down by around 1/2. So it's not the best for the HDR era as it stands now, and it has some other tradeoffs. So the only way to reduce blur otherwise is by utilizing higher and higher fpsHz.
High fpsHz cuts motion blur down appreciably.
60fpsHz solid when moving the viewport at 1000pixels/second blurs almost 17 pixels wide.
120fpsHz solid when moving the viewport at 1000pixels/second blurs around 8 pixels wide.
165fpsHz solid when moving the viewport at 1000pixels/second blurs around 6 pixels wide.
240fpsHz solid when moving the viewport at 1000pixels/second blurs around 4 pixels wide.
480fpsHz solid when moving the viewport at 1000pixels/second blurs around 2 pixels wide.
https://www.blurbusters.com/blur-bu...000hz-displays-with-blurfree-sample-and-hold/
. . . .
That blur amount varies +/- by how fast you are moving the viewport (e.g. 2000px/sec = double that, 500px/sec halves the listed # of pixels, no movement = zero) . . but it affects the entire viewport during mouse-looking, movement-keying, controller panning. Everything. Texture detail, depth via bump mapping, objects, architectures, lights, text and even in game lettering/signage, etc.
So there are huge aesthetic (beauty, art, visual excellence) aspects to higher and higher fpsHz. In the future we'll probably hit 1000fpsHz someyear using frame amplification technologies.
. . . . .
Motion definition aspect.
I'd guess that somewhere after 200fpsHz or so (solid or minimum, not average) the motion definition aspect of higher fpsHz probably has diminishing returns.
It has the lowest lag ratings of all TVs and gamer-centric features like VRR, BFI and Black Equalizer at a reasonable screen size and price. All that while delivering exceptional picture quality, good sound, and SmartTV features.
They gave the nod to the OLED. Part of the reason they give points to the QLED FALD for bright room performance is because you need brighter to compensate just to get back to square one so that it will look how screens look in a dimmer / home theater environment.
I read the Rtings reviews front to back about the FALD and OLED reviews they published so I am familiar with all of the trade offs. The importance of the trade-offs to each person is what makes a difference. The criticisms of QN90B are basically nitpicking that it isn't perfect. Which is fine because no display is "perfect". The LG oleds I've seen and used have been dim. That is not a nitpick, that's a massive deal breaker. The QN90B is fast enough and looks good enough to our average enthusiasts don't nit pick because it truly is more than good enough in every way. The Oleds are not bright enough and that totally takes it out of the running unless it's always dark in the room, that's ridiculous and unacceptable. Another thing that is unacceptable is how fast they burn in. I've seen reviews online of burning in just a couple of months. Not interested in any of that, at all lol.
I don't feel right unless BRAZZERS is burnt into an oled.