get a u2311 now or wait for BenQ XL2410

Plasma is not a perfect technology. There is a big reason (literally) that it hasn't been adopted for computer monitors. The gas-filled chambers are quite large, so to achieve a desirable monitor resolution of 'Full HD' or above requires a screen size of 42" at the very least. This is beyond the very upper end of a comfortable monitor size. Moreover; plasma screens are not good when viewed close up. Because they are filled with gas there is noticeable flicker up close. CRT is far from perfect, too, as I'm sure you have discovered when comparing your GDM400PS.

As for TV viewing from a distance - plasma is very attractive given the current prices. OLED will most likely take over the premium TV market within the next few years and then interlace into the consumer LCD TV and montitor market perhaps by 2014-15.
 
Last edited:
Right. I tested the screen, side-by-side with my PVA screen.

I didn't realise this at the time, but that PVA screen really is an excellent piece of kit. The reason why I didn't realise that it was so good, is because at the time of purchase, I only had a Sony CRT monitor to compare it against. Obviously, the Sony CRT was fantastic, so when the PVA screen arrived, while I acknowledged it was good, I didnt realise that for an LCD screen it was fantastic.

Fast-forward 3 years and I now have my second LCD screen - the DELL - and I realise just how poor LCD tech is. What has shocked me is how people are happy to put up with such poor technology.

Don't get me wrong, the DELL is not a bad monitor. Far from it. But when you compare it to a good CRT monitor or a good PVA monitor, this screen gets beaten in most departments.

A big gripe of mine is the 16:9 ratio, which for a work station, is not the ideal resolution. A 16:10 ratio is much more ideal.

I have left my PVA monitor in my bedroom as I normally use it to watch movies and as this DELL is so poor at displaying movies/graphics, I am going to use the DELL for my work station, which I use mainly to view text.

Strength
...and this brings me to the DELL's single strength. Out of my 3 monitors, the DELL displays text best. It beats the Sony CRT by miles and is fractionally ahead of the PVA monitor. It is also easy on the eye. The PVA monitor is extremely vibrant, where the images shout out of the screen at you. The DELL is much more sober and merely presents the text/image on the screen, for the user to view.

Avatar
I tested a few films (in HD), comparing the PVA (DGM) with eIPS (DELL). Avatar is the film I want to talk about most.

For gaming, it is most likely that the performance of Avatar during the test will be similar to what it will be like to game on this monitor. The DELL looked flat. The colours were not vibrant, no matter how much I saturated the screen. The DGM's images popped out at you. I spent 30 minutes hunched over playing around with the menus on the DELL and no matter how much I tried, the DELL could not match the image quality of the DGM when displaying Avatar.

As Avatar looks so much like a high resolution computer game, I expect the DGM to outperform the DELL in gaming.

Price
The DGM cost me about £225 3 years ago. If DELL had asked me to test this monitor and come up with a price, based on the fact that the DGM was £225, I would price this DELL monitor at no more than £150 (due to the 16:9 aspect ratio, lesser image quality and smaller screen size). Most places are selling this monitor for around £260. At £260, this monitor is grossly overpriced and I certainly would not recommend it.

Warranty
What this monitor has going for it is the brilliant warranty. While DGM and other companies may mess you around for weeks/months till they do something about your broken monitor, DELL will deliver a replacement monitor direct to your door, within a few days. You don't even have to send your old monitor back first.

Summary
I can't say that I am absolutely pleased with this monitor. I've paid £186, which apparently, is a bargain. IMO this monitor is not worth £186. If you are expecting to buy this monitor and be totally blown away, don't expect this unless you have only ever used cheap LCD monitors. If you have used a decent CRT monitor or a PVA monitor, then this screen will probably be a downgrade.

So, I've spent a few hours analysing this monitor and you've read my opinions. If you have any questions, feel free to ask.
 
I really think you crave a broad gamut screen like the U2410. I have said many times on these forums and my own website that the extra vibrancy is palpable. From what I understand your other screens are probably all broad gamut so this is what you're used to.
 
I think the Dell 2410 can be had for around £450 (quick google).

Years ago I spent £450 on my Sony monitor. But I only bought it after extensive research and reviews which pretty much all stated that for graphics (I was a big gamer at the time), this monitor would deliver with almost 100% certainty.

But, to spend £500 on a Dell monitor which may or may not deliver...I don't think I could do that.
 
i think i have a bad light bleed, its on the left bottom conner, i would say it around 4" radius from the conner. anyone else has this with this batch of u2311h?


Also dell sent me 2 invoices crazy, 2 of the same letter. anyone else?
 
sunama said:
The problem is that the U2410 is considerably more expensive. I think it costs around £350.

What about the Benq BL2400PT: is that broad gamut?
Click to expand...

It features WLED backlighting so it is standard gamut. The image vibrancy is enhanced by the semi-gloss coating in place of an aggressive matte coating, however.
 
Does a semi-glossy or glossy coating make that much difference to vibrancy?

Matt Coating
Last night I placed the DELL in the same position as my old Sony CRT and the reflection I was getting from my light (bulb), was ridiculously annoying.

I have a plasma TV which is quite reflective. I have a PVA monitor which is quite reflective (glossy). Yet, this is the only screen which reflects light in a such a way that it becomes difficult to view the screen, due to the reflection.

If I could get all my money back on this monitor, I think I would return it as it just doesn't compare to any of the screens which I already own. Don't get me wrong - the screen itself is not defective in any way (the QC is excellent), but I feel the people who would like this screen are likely to be those who are used to using poor quality screens and hence have no idea of what a high quality piece of kit is capable of.

Had I paid £260 for this monitor, I would probably have returned it and taken the hit on the restocking fee, as this monitor is definitely not worth £200 (or more).
 
sunama said:
Summary
I can't say that I am absolutely pleased with this monitor. I've paid £186, which apparently, is a bargain. IMO this monitor is not worth £186. If you are expecting to buy this monitor and be totally blown away, don't expect this unless you have only ever used cheap LCD monitors. If you have used a decent CRT monitor or a PVA monitor, then this screen will probably be a downgrade.
Click to expand...
I somewhat shudder to think what your opinion would be if you spent £186 on a another monitor (i.e. mostly TN panels). The U2311H is far from perfect, but at the price we bought it, I think it's worth it. You've probably tried already, but set the monitor back to "Standard" colours, it seems to give it the most saturation of all the presets (more than Custom RGB at all 100), also you could bump the saturation up in your graphics card control panel (Nvidia has it under "Digital Vibrance")

The BL2400PT is probably going to provide you with a better movie watching experience, but I still think you're going to be underwhelmed by it. As PCM2 says, it sounds like you're just too used to wide-gamut monitors.

Your main gripes for the U2311H are the aspect ratio and the lack of saturation, in which case, the U2410 is the only monitor to go for, despite it's hefty price tag.

Dogbertx, I have a little bit of backlight bleed in the top right, very mild though. The one my Dad bought yesterday has even milder bleed in the bottom left, virtually unnoticeable unless you're straining to look for it. Nothing worth sending the monitors back for.

sunama said:
Does a semi-glossy or glossy coating make that much difference to vibrancy?
Click to expand...
Yes it does, even crappy TN monitors can look like their colours "pop" with a fully glossy screen. The AG coating basically diffuses the light going towards the screen, but also out of it, hence the colours can be slightly lacking. There are people that hate the AG coating so much they've taken their monitor apart and washed it off. I cannot imagine you being able to view what's on a screen with a fully glossy monitor, it's practically a mirror. Go find an Apple store or somewhere that sells their monitors and look at their monitors and see for yourself.
 
Last edited:
The coating does indeed make a difference. Heavy gloss by layering with glass or highly reflective plastic is no good because it does indeed cause distracting reflections. The reason that matte anti-glare coatings reduce this glare is that light is scattered and absorbed rather than reflected. This is a two way process - some of the light that the monitor should be emitting is scattered and absorbed. You can read lots of stories about people who have used a soaking method to remove the anti-glare coating on their monitor to achieve superior vibrancy. It doesn't have the same impact as an increased colour gamut but it certainly makes a difference.

You will either have to invest a bit more in a broad gamut LCD or grin and bare it until OLED monitors come out. Don't hold your breath though - a better alternative for now would be to try to increase the saturation in your graphics driver or use Digital Vibrance (as suggested) as this can simulate a little bit of extra vibrancy. Don't overdo it because it tends to produce garish and unnatural colours throghout the image if you 'put it on too strongly'. The strength of the U2311H is the subtle variation of shades displayed within the sRGB colour gamut. If you want a good variation of shades beyond that gamut (i.e. wide gamut) then you need to invest in a model with more expensive broad-gamut backlighting or see how you find a glossier coating or some extra 'software saturation'.

Edit: Cracking edit by cracker. Sorry to repeat what was said above :D.
 
Last edited:
As an aside and just for those who might interested you can now get the Dell U2711 for around £520 after various discounts and cash back. That is an absolutely staggering price for a 27” monitor with a cracking 3 year warranty and a S-IPS broad gamut panel. That offer runs out on the 26th so be quick!
 
Ezyryder said:
As an aside and just for those who might interested you can now get the Dell U2711 for around £520 after various discounts and cash back. That is an absolutely staggering price for a 27” monitor with a cracking 3 year warranty and a S-IPS broad gamut panel. That offer runs out on the 26th so be quick!
Click to expand...
Jesus, considering the U2410 is £460-£500 odd, that is a great price. I think I read the U2711 has pretty bad input lag or response rate though, so not really great for hardcore gamers, but for everyday use it's going to be decent.
 
Last edited:
Last night, when I ran the Dell alongside my DGM monitor, I played around A LOT with the saturation settings. No matter what I tried, the DELL lacked the punch which the DGM had. I saturated the colours to such a point that it was over saturated and ridiculously garish. I also used the Digital Vibrance setting, but once again, while heavily saturated, the images lacked punch.

There was "something" missing and I couldn't understand what this "something" was.

It would appear that this "something" is the colour range which cannot be cured by the user.

What I am amazed by, is that the images produced by my 3 year old DGM £225 monitor are better than the newer DELL screen. I'd have thought that technology would've moved forward during this time, but clearly this has not happened (and if it has, it hasn't made much difference).

One thing I will say is that I shall probably never buy a 16:9 monitor. For a work station, 16:9 just doesn't work, for me.

Here's an analogy:
If the DELL u2311h were human, he would be dressed in a grey suit. He would slim, tall, fair-skinned, with grey hair and would be extraordinarily boring. He would probably be an accountant.

If the DGM (or Sony) were a human, he would have bundles of personality, he would wear nice/attractive clothes and would bring a smile to the faces of those around him. By day he would work as a waiter, but by night, he would be a party animal.
 
Hello,

I am a bit puzzled by all I read.

From what I was able to read when I was considering the U2410, wide gamut is currently not supported by Win7 (let alone anterior versions), and very few applications (like Photoshop or Firefox) manage it properly if set properly.

Displaying sRGB applications on a wide gamut monitor resulted in totally erroneous, oversaturated, "leaking" colours, especially red.

Given all this, I fail to understand how going to a wide gamut display will improve anything, unless you are very aware of how to use wide gamut and the fact for example that Windows desktop cannot even be set to wide gamut, I don't even know which video players make use of wide gamut.

Edit :
Also, comparing CRT to TFT-LCD is like comparing apple to bananas. I am not aware of a single TFT-LCD that reaches the image quality (blacks, contrasts, speed, color vibrance) of CRT displays. A lot of people crawl e-bay looking for 45kg 1m deep old 21" to 24" graphics CRT monitors with outstanding image quality. I figured this was well known, though not so well accepted.
I do not think your GDM400PS is wide gamut.

Regarding your VA panel, from what I could gather it's a clone of a 2008 A-MVA Iolair MB24W, tested here :
http://www.digitalversus.com/iolair-mb24w-p358_3215_303.html
Ideed they say it's a very good monitor, especially for movies. The only drawback is the black level which is a bit high, higher than the Dell anyway (if their tests are consistent).
Another review (of another clone): http://www.prad.de/en/monitore/review/2008/review-yuraku-yv24wbh1.html

Final question : why are you purchasing the Dell, if the DMG has it all : 16:10 1920*1200, viewing angles, colors, speed ?
 
Last edited:
I trust that this question is aimed at me.

I'm not sure about wide gamut monitors. All I know is that I trust what I see with my eyes. I'm not one to be sold by specifications. A person's eyes are the best method to see if an object is decent or not.

In my own tests, when comparing the old (Sony) CRT vs old (DGM) LCD vs new (DELL) LCD, the new LCD came off worst, by a good margin. It wasn't even close to the old LCD.

I'm sure you will agree that computer hardware continually improves. Hard disks increase in capacity, while reducing in price. CPUs get faster, for a given price point. RAM gets cheaper, for a given capacity. You get my drift.

Apparently, the above rule does not apply to LCD screens. Apparently a 3 year old monitor can outperform the latest LCD screen. And judging by what I've read, this DELL monitor, by 2010 standards is actually a good monitor. I think this is what has frustrated me most.

Comparing the Sony CRT to LCD is unfair, as the technology used is different. However, comparing the DGM to DELL is fair. There cannot possibly be any argument against this.

My DGM has fantastic black levels. The black levels come VERY close to that of the Sony CRT. The Sony is marginally better. For graphics, the CRT is marginally better than the DGM LCD.

Only after I purchased the DELL have I come to understand just how low people's expectations have fallen, with regards to image quality.

The point I was making by comparing all my screens, is to give people who are used to using high quality screens, an idea of what to expect if they buy the DELL (e-ips panel, which is reputed to be very good (but not the best)). Like me, there may be some people out there who may own a good quality CRT or a 3 year old DGM (or similar) monitor, who believe that by spending around £260 on a DELL monitor, they are buying a product which will outperform their current screens. My mini-review explains that this will not necessarily be the case.

What seems to be the case is that over the years, manufacturers have concentrated on lowering the cost of cheap (TN) screens. Obviously this is where the demand is. Meanwhile those of us who require mid-high quality screens must now pay a higher price than they would've paid 3+ years ago.

So, why am I purchasing the DELL, if my DMG has it all: because the DGM is old and could break down any day. In 2 months, its warranty will be done and DGM no longer make this monitor, so there is no direct replacement available. DGM seem to have moved into manufacturing TN monitors (at dirt cheap prices).

Furthermore, I expected that perhaps since buying the DGM (almost 3 years), LCD tech would've advanced sufficiently enough, where an e-IPS equipped screen would be able to outperform the older screen by a good margin.

The 16:9 ratio of the DELL makes it obvious that the DELL might be purchased to view movies and play games, however, with such poor colour reproduction, I can't see why anybody would want to use this screen to display moving images.

The advantage of the DELL are low power usage, top class build quality and supreme clarity of text (and of course DELL's customer service/support/warranty)
 
Frankly speaking, I've been ranting on (other) forums for one year over how crappy LCD-TFT monitors are. They all suck, and all have at least one major drawback, no matter what their price is (well at least up to 600€, I read some good things about some higher end Eizo, but by now I don't believe them).
I even asked somewhere that the "Anti-TN" topic be renamed "Anti LCD".

Meaning that, I do agree with you on how sh*tty the offer is today, and that, like on many other technologies, more is actually less.

To the point that after 1 year of waiting for a decent monitor, I finally decided to just buy the cheapest non-TN I could find (the Dell actually), and wait 2 or 3 more years for decent monitors (AMOLED maybe ?) to arrive.

Another gripe is with all the technical "review" web sites, that keep giving top grades to sh*tty stuff...
 
One possibility is that because the general public (and that includes review sites) have become so accustomed to the poor image quality of LCD monitors, that when they see what is in fact, a poor monitor, they don't mark it down, as they believe that poor image quality is what we must expect.

The problem is that CRT was a mature technology which got phased out a few years ago, so the "reference" standard is no longer a top notch CRT monitor, due to the fact they can no longer be purchased, when new; so comparing a CRT monitor to an LCD is a little unfair.

Unfortunately, LCD manufacturers have concentrated on reducing the costs of cheaper (poor image quality) LCD monitors, as opposed to developing and improving the outright image quality of mid-high end monitors.

All this has resulted in us seeing dirt cheap 20"+ monitors, which have plenty of flaws.

To say that I was shocked when I realised that my 3 yr old LCD outperformed the new DELL LCD, is an understatement, especially when all the research I did suggested that the DELL U2311H's main problem is poor uniformity. Not once did I read a comment which stated that it had washed out colours and that this monitor lacked the vibrancy for video/gaming.

Don't get me wrong, the DELL has its uses. If I were running a business and I wanted a low power, ultra reliable monitor with fantastic after sales support, the first monitor I would recommend is the DELL which I purchased. However, if you like to watch movies, play games, etc, then DELL is a VERY poor monitor...especially, when you factor in the normal price of £260.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom