Much trumpeted especially in the USA these have now reached the UK market.
On Samsung's web site the specification is incomplete, not explicitly stating the ports nor even the tuner(s), a manual download only gets you the first two pages and a leading trade magazine reports that they will use third grade OLED panels: -
https://www.whathifi.com/news/samsung-is-still-planning-to-launch-standard-oled-tvs-using-lgs-cheapest-panels
Much trumpeted especially in the USA these have now reached the market.
<link>
On Samsung's web site the specification is incomplete, not explicitly stating the ports nor even the tuner(s), a manual download only gets you the first two pages and a leading trade magazine reports that they will use third grade OLED panels: -
https://www.whathifi.com/news/samsung-is-still-planning-to-launch-standard-oled-tvs-using-lgs-cheapest-panels
I think they need to do better than this...
Much trumpeted especially in the USA these have now reached the market.
<link>
On Samsung's web site the specification is incomplete, not explicitly stating the ports nor even the tuner(s), a manual download only gets you the first two pages and a leading trade magazine reports that they will use third grade OLED panels: -
https://www.whathifi.com/news/samsung-is-still-planning-to-launch-standard-oled-tvs-using-lgs-cheapest-panels
R. Mark Clayton wrote:
I think they need to do better than this...
So save up for an S95B or A95K ...
On 20/04/2022 12:11, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
Much trumpeted especially in the USA these have now reached the market.
<link>
On Samsung's web site the specification is incomplete, not explicitly stating the ports nor even the tuner(s), a manual download only gets you the first two pages and a leading trade magazine reports that they will use third grade OLED panels: -
https://www.whathifi.com/news/samsung-is-still-planning-to-launch-standard-oled-tvs-using-lgs-cheapest-panels
they also have sets with their own oled panels that are apparently
superior to lg ones. only thing is they don't have dolby vision but not
to worry, sony have a model using the new samsung panel if you're happy
to pay the premium.
Andy Burns wrote:
R. Mark Clayton wrote:
I think they need to do better than this...
So save up for an S95B or A95K ...
That is what we are talking about: - https://www.samsung.com/uk/tvs/oled-tv/s95b-55-inch-oled-4k-smart-tv-qe55s95batxxu/
(US version)
AFAIK Samsung do not make their own OLED panels, but are buying 3rd grade LG ones - LG are keeping the best ones for their own sets.
To be fair AFAICT the only difference is brightness, so in most scenarios they should be OK.
R. Mark Clayton wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
R. Mark Clayton wrote:
I think they need to do better than this...
So save up for an S95B or A95K ...
That is what we are talking about: - https://www.samsung.com/uk/tvs/oled-tv/s95b-55-inch-oled-4k-smart-tv-qe55s95batxxu/I assumed QN95B was a slightly different model?
(US version)
Yes there is some confusion here. The UK model is different because AFAICT it includes a satellite tuner, not present in the US model, and presumably other differences like mains voltage etc.It's been ages since I saw any bit of consumer electronics that wasn't
they also have sets with their own oled panels that are apparently
superior to lg ones. only thing is they don't have dolby vision but not
to worry, sony have a model using the new samsung panel if you're happy
to pay the premium.
AFAIK Samsung do not make their own OLED panels, but are buying 3rd grade LG ones - LG are keeping the best ones for their own sets.
To be fair AFAICT the only difference is brightness, so in most scenarios they should be OK.
Sony also use LG panels, but I think they get the betters ones: - https://www.oled-info.com/sony-oled
https://www.whathifi.com/news/the-sony-a95k-qd-oled-tv-is-more-expensive-than-samsungs-own-qd-oled
On 20/04/2022 12:11, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
Much trumpeted especially in the USA these have now reached the
market.
<link>
On Samsung's web site the specification is incomplete, not
explicitly stating the ports nor even the tuner(s), a manual
download only gets you the first two pages and a leading trade
magazine reports that they will use third grade OLED panels: -
https://www.whathifi.com/news/samsung-is-still-planning-to-launch-sta
ndard-oled-tvs-using-lgs-cheapest-panels
What Hifi reviewing and commenting on TVs? This often the Russ
Andrews type bullshit.
On 22/04/2022 15:31, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
Yes there is some confusion here. The UK model is different because AFAICT it includes a satellite tuner, not present in the US model, and presumably other differences like mains voltage etc.It's been ages since I saw any bit of consumer electronics that wasn't 100(ish) to 250(ish) volts rated ?
Those hi-fi enthusiast magazines seem to assume a limitless budget.
In article <XnsAE81DDA1DFBB337B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
Those hi-fi enthusiast magazines seem to assume a limitless budget.
It depends a bit on which ones you read, and the particular authors /
writers / editors. But I'd agree that I miss the days when HFN
printed DIY info, etc. And many enthusiasts assembled their system
with some practical skills, knowing which end of a soldering iron to
hold, etc.[1] Different world to today. But the basic point is that
they publish what the market wants to pay to read, and at a price
that is to some extent supported by makers being willing to send
items for reviews. And over the years those writers and editors have
shifted from being amatuer entusiasts/engineers to being pro writers/editors/owners who use the mags to make a living.[2]
Makers/designers used tom be keen to have their items reviewed as
they needed that for people to know they existed and were worth
buying. But since then some makers have avoided sending items for
review because they may get a 'bad' one, or seem unsatisfactory when
compared with something else at a much higher price and construction
quality. Good components and metal work cost more than
cheap-and-cheerful.
[1] Currently enjoying a 1970s issue of HFN that had one of the first organised listening tests to check the claims some 'golden eared'
were making about 'amplifier sounds' that didn't show up in
measurements.
[2] Alas, on occasion in the past also as a way to exploit makers by
also offering 'consultantcies' on the QT prior to 'reviewing' their
product in a magazine. I *think* this has now stopped, but can't be
sure of course.
Jim
On 10:07 23 Apr 2022, Jim Lesurf said:
In article <XnsAE81DDA1DFBB337B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
Those hi-fi enthusiast magazines seem to assume a limitless budget.
It depends a bit on which ones you read, and the particular authors /
writers / editors. But I'd agree that I miss the days when HFN
printed DIY info, etc. And many enthusiasts assembled their system
with some practical skills, knowing which end of a soldering iron to
hold, etc.[1] Different world to today. But the basic point is that
they publish what the market wants to pay to read, and at a price
that is to some extent supported by makers being willing to send
items for reviews. And over the years those writers and editors have
shifted from being amatuer entusiasts/engineers to being pro
writers/editors/owners who use the mags to make a living.[2]
Makers/designers used tom be keen to have their items reviewed as
they needed that for people to know they existed and were worth
buying. But since then some makers have avoided sending items for
review because they may get a 'bad' one, or seem unsatisfactory when
compared with something else at a much higher price and construction
quality. Good components and metal work cost more than
cheap-and-cheerful.
[1] Currently enjoying a 1970s issue of HFN that had one of the first
organised listening tests to check the claims some 'golden eared'
were making about 'amplifier sounds' that didn't show up in
measurements.
[2] Alas, on occasion in the past also as a way to exploit makers by
also offering 'consultantcies' on the QT prior to 'reviewing' their
product in a magazine. I *think* this has now stopped, but can't be
sure of course.
Jim
I can understand manufacturers wanting to flaunt their flaship models.
From what I understand, most manufacturers (not only of hifi) with a
wide range of goods produce a flagship model to set a market image but
expect the vast majority of sales & profits to come from models much
lower in the range. A flagship model might even make a loss.
That seems like typical marketing. However the editorial of magazines
such as What HiFi always give the misleading impression that upper
market models are what everybody reading must consider buying. The same
goes for smartphones and many other electronic products.
The end result of such magazines is an image of pure fantasy affordable
by only a few, while Mr and Mrs Average buy products which may not get
a single review.
I can't tell you how many articles I've read about "budget" this or
that in which the cheapes of the so-called budget models cost three or
four times the maximum price my budget stretched to.
In a review a comment would be made such as "brand X is better value for money with a better this, that or other". There would be a link to the
brand X review and in that review a comment that "brand Y is better
value for money with a better this, that or other" and so on.
After 30 minutes of reading I reached the stage where perhaps my
original selection may have been wrong and I needed to go for
brand/model Z - until the price for brand Z was checked and found to be
x3 more than the original budget.
I now find that although I selected a relatively small camera that 99%
of my photos are now taken on my mobile phone which is a lot more
convenient to carry around.
On the other hand ... HiFi News in the 1960s and 70s was somewhat
different because there it often seemed well-heeled enthusiast
manufacturers were talking to well-heeled enthusiast buyers and they
all shared a common aim of pure excellence at any cost. Mr and Mrs
Average probably didn't read such stuff as they weren't in the market
for £5,000 amps (at a time when £5,000 was worth a lot more than
today). Intriguingly HFN journalists could still find faults with these highly expensive models.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 02:46:37 |
| Calls: | 6,666 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 12,212 |
| Messages: | 5,335,607 |
