Oled out of the box now what.........

Caporegime
Joined
21 Jun 2006
Posts
38,372
@Ayahuasca Agreed. I think this is the point with a lot of AV whether it's sound or audio. Everyones ears and eyes are different. Mostly subjective IMHO.

sound is subjective. picture isn't IMO.

you want the picture to look natural therefore reference standard. it's a set standard has never changed. this shade of red should look exactly like it was intended to be displayed. not any birghter, darker , etc.

sound is subjective because of how it works. some people like more bass. sure people may like a brighter tv but it will wash out the colours then they have to up contrast and now colours are too strong. also it has been suggested reference sound isn't very pleasant to some peoples ears and gives them fatigue. they prefer a slightly warmer sound with high frequencies slightly dulled down.

it's why both tv's and amps come with presets. when it comes to sound i don't think there is a wrong way to do it. so long as you like it. with tv however i believe it should be reference just because that is what it should look like in the real world. i also leave my sound settings on auto calibration to adjust for room correction, etc. so it sounds like it should in the real world. however i do like upping the bass a notch sometimes.
 
Soldato
Joined
1 Mar 2010
Posts
21,785
[ye I do not think a calibration is as valuable as a BMW pro nav add-on ,
following the donkey 'saying' how do you prove you did not change it, or they provide a written version, in case of h/w reset ]

He's maintained for years there is not difference in picture when a player is used as a digital transport without post processing and output via HDMI
discussing this for a second, in the same manner folks do bit accurate rips of cd's (ripping at slow speed and validating checksum) not sure why the same philosophy would not apply to a blu-ray/uhd, I selected a cd/dvd drive that supported it. (ie not all transports are equal)

The review i posted from AV forums is written by Steve Withers, Ive been reading and listening to his reviews over the last decade. years as well as being the editor of the website he's certified by THX and the ISF and runs a Home Cinema installation company and a calibration business.
Steve should not put unqualified conjecture (of xbox defeatable processing) in his reviews, stick to the known facts, in the same manner you reproach me. !
Silicon area/functionality cost money so avoiding defeatable noise reduction on the xbox would not be surprising, they provide noise reduction on the intel gpu's, it is a must have for lower bitrates media.

It surprise me there is not an English speaking review site, with as in depth reviews, as the French site (they know what an oscilloscope is) , french site should syndicate their reviews - but I have raved about them before
 
Caporegime
Joined
28 Feb 2004
Posts
74,822
sound is subjective. picture isn't IMO.

you want the picture to look natural therefore reference standard. it's a set standard has never changed. this shade of red should look exactly like it was intended to be displayed. not any birghter, darker , etc.

sound is subjective because of how it works. some people like more bass. sure people may like a brighter tv but it will wash out the colours then they have to up contrast and now colours are too strong. also it has been suggested reference sound isn't very pleasant to some peoples ears and gives them fatigue. they prefer a slightly warmer sound with high frequencies slightly dulled down.

it's why both tv's and amps come with presets. when it comes to sound i don't think there is a wrong way to do it. so long as you like it. with tv however i believe it should be reference just because that is what it should look like in the real world. i also leave my sound settings on auto calibration to adjust for room correction, etc. so it sounds like it should in the real world. however i do like upping the bass a notch sometimes.



So who decides what the real world looks like ?

Picture, or more precisely colour, is extremely perceptive and subjective. People do see differently.

The first thing to remember is that colour does not actually exist… at least not in any literal sense. Apples are not green, and fire engines are not red, the sky and sea are not blue, and no person is objectively "black" or "white".

What exists is light.

Light is real, you can measure it, hold it and count it (well … sort-of).

But colour is not light. Colour is wholly manufactured by your brain.

How do we know this? Because one light can take on any colour… in our mind.

Latest research is pointing towards the fact that colors are differentiated by how our brains react differently to different wavelengths of light.

They believe our brains don't automatically associate, for example, short wavelengths with blue, they are trained to as we grow up.

Scientists think that other factors, such as mood, feelings and even emotions can affect our perception of colours.

They claim it's entirely possible that two people can look at the exact same object and have the exact same wavelengths hit their eyes, yet “see" different colors!



Another factor that may affect perception is the physical parts of our body that process the information from the world around us.

Most people have three different photo receptors in the backs of their eyes that perceive, (for the sake of simplicity), the wavelengths that refer to red, green and blue. Of course, color-blind people may be missing one or more of these photo receptors.

Still others — called tetrachromats — may have a fourth photo receptor that helps them see the full range of colors with greater sensitivity than the average person.

Unless your eyes are specially tested, you might not ever know you're a tetrachromat. You might just spend your life perceiving colors in ways that most people never will!



So we all see the world differently. Indeed, we have no choice about this because our individual experiences of the world, are necessarily individually different.

None of us sees the world as it truly is, only how we as individuals perceive it.

In this sense we are all delusional, what each of us sees is a meaning derived from our shared and individual histories.

So who is to say what anything actually truly looks like in the "real world", so where is this "reference" you talk about, who sets that?
 
Associate
Joined
10 Aug 2004
Posts
717
[


discussing this for a second, in the same manner folks do bit accurate rips of cd's (ripping at slow speed and validating checksum) not sure why the same philosophy would not apply to a blu-ray/uhd, I selected a cd/dvd drive that supported it. (ie not all transports are equal)


Steve should not put unqualified conjecture (of xbox defeatable processing) in his reviews, stick to the known facts, in the same manner you reproach me. !
Silicon area/functionality cost money so avoiding defeatable noise reduction on the xbox would not be surprising, they provide noise reduction on the intel gpu's, it is a must have for lower bitrates media.

It surprise me there is not an English speaking review site, with as in depth reviews, as the French site (they know what an oscilloscope is) , french site should syndicate their reviews - but I have raved about them before

Oh really, perhaps you should invest in this USB cable...

https://www.whathifi.com/supra/usb-20/review

Its reviewed as having a relaxed sound.

I doubt many people from this British forum are going to start reading French review sites either.
 
Soldato
Joined
27 Mar 2013
Posts
9,121
environment does have an effect but i doubt it's as big as you think it is. it's pretty much like me taking a tv from the bedroom and putting it in the games room. the environment has changed. but i doubt it will have changed so dramatically that it now needs a complete re-calibration. you can control some of the environment too. make sure you use the same LED light bulbs in every room, etc.

only if there was a huge change to the environment would it have a noticeable effect. which is why calibrators normally do a bright room and dark room calibration and then save both settings onto the tv.

after 5 years brightness will have degraded. all you would need to do is up the brightness to compensate. sure it won't be perfect but again it will be within a marginal amount of error.

resale price would be higher than the same tv had it not been calibrated because that has always been the case among enthusiasts. look at how much calibrated Kuro's or Panny plasmas still sell for. so you get some of the money back (not all of it) on resale.
Don't you mean backlight as changing the brightness renders your calibration pointless, and if you feel it's necessary then maybe it should be done every year or 6 months as things drift.
 
Soldato
Joined
1 Mar 2010
Posts
21,785
EDIT: whathifi are less credible than avforums -I think we have destroyed them already in many previous threads

Picture, or more precisely colour, is extremely perceptive and subjective. People do see differently.
I did not think he refuted that
 
Caporegime
Joined
28 Feb 2004
Posts
74,822
I did not think he refuted that

sound is subjective. picture isn't IMO.

you want the picture to look natural therefore reference standard. it's a set standard has never changed. this shade of red should look exactly like it was intended to be displayed. not any birghter, darker , etc.

sound is subjective because of how it works. some people like more bass. sure people may like a brighter tv but it will wash out the colours then they have to up contrast and now colours are too strong. also it has been suggested reference sound isn't very pleasant to some peoples ears and gives them fatigue. they prefer a slightly warmer sound with high frequencies slightly dulled down.

it's why both tv's and amps come with presets. when it comes to sound i don't think there is a wrong way to do it. so long as you like it. with tv however i believe it should be reference just because that is what it should look like in the real world. i also leave my sound settings on auto calibration to adjust for room correction, etc. so it sounds like it should in the real world. however i do like upping the bass a notch sometimes.


Psycho said he thought picture should be set to a reference, implying that every TV wherever you are and belonging to whoever should all be set to the settings that achieve a reference picture and colour palette

I am saying Picture is as subjective to people as sound is.

You cannot have standard settings for sound as every one hears slightly differently.

So I say you cannot have a standard reference for picture, as everyone sees differently.

So set the settings yourself to how you want it, what is the point of a calibrator coming in and setting to a specific standard, as there is no such specific standard that suits every person.
 
Soldato
Joined
1 Mar 2010
Posts
21,785
agree picture and sound are both perceived individually/subjective, but that does not make a calibration pointless.
so where is this "reference" you talk about, who sets that? ...
what is the point of a calibrator coming in and setting to a specific standard,

An individuals Colour perception, is consistant(ish) , so the tv needs to show the same colour you would observe if you saw the real scene, so a reference calibration or pre-certified screen, for your viewing environment, would be appropriate (just copy someone elses night calibration:imhop)

They may want to subsequently modify calibration, in the way we might wear sunglasses say (genuinely if hdr/camera gamut improves), or to artificially change image eg brightness for personal taste.

yep Sound is subjective, trying to achieve the reference is probably impossible unless you have the cinema environment it was mastered for, or yet unavailable dsp power to make the corrections.

.... I am probably still missing the point though






fourth wall -
Ok Drax, guess that one flew over your head.
definitley - do not get the Drax reference (james bond villain ;))

Oh really, perhaps you should invest in this USB cable...
https://www.whathifi.com/supra/usb-20/review
Its reviewed as having a relaxed sound.
assumed you were saying cool down ? I had not clicked the link though, whathifi's on my noscript fake-review blacklist.
 
Caporegime
Joined
28 Feb 2004
Posts
74,822
agree picture and sound are both perceived individually/subjective, but that does not make a calibration pointless.


An individuals Colour perception, is consistant(ish) , so the tv needs to show the same colour you would observe if you saw the real scene, so a reference calibration or pre-certified screen, for your viewing environment, would be appropriate (just copy someone elses night calibration:imhop)

They may want to subsequently modify calibration, in the way we might wear sunglasses say (genuinely if hdr/camera gamut improves), or to artificially change image eg brightness for personal taste.

yep Sound is subjective, trying to achieve the reference is probably impossible unless you have the cinema environment it was mastered for, or yet unavailable dsp power to make the corrections.

.... I am probably still missing the point though

My point was that;

If the person you are calibrating for is, purely for example, someone who sees short wavelengths as Red, and long wavelengths as blue, then there is zero point in any baseline calibration, to any semblance of a "normal" colour spectrum spread as the individual sees colour opposite to a "normal" person.

Ok yes very extreme, but according to the new ideas some people are that different.

Now if you take the new ideas to where some scientists are saying this extends to, whereby every single person sees colours slightly differently to every single other person, I.E. your perceived vision of colour is as unique to you as your fingerprint

Then if as you say "the tv needs to show the same colour you would observe if you saw the real scene," every single person will observe that colour slightly differently in the real scene, so how can there be any central certified reference point that will suit every individual ?
 
Caporegime
Joined
21 Jun 2006
Posts
38,372
My point was that;

If the person you are calibrating for is, purely for example, someone who sees short wavelengths as Red, and long wavelengths as blue, then there is zero point in any baseline calibration, to any semblance of a "normal" colour spectrum spread as the individual sees colour opposite to a "normal" person.

Ok yes very extreme, but according to the new ideas some people are that different.

Now if you take the new ideas to where some scientists are saying this extends to, whereby every single person sees colours slightly differently to every single other person, I.E. your perceived vision of colour is as unique to you as your fingerprint

Then if as you say "the tv needs to show the same colour you would observe if you saw the real scene," every single person will observe that colour slightly differently in the real scene, so how can there be any central certified reference point that will suit every individual ?

forgetting people with poor vision and colour blindness for a moment here.

for the majority of people with decent eyesight should be seeing roughly the same colour if not exactly the same IMO within tolerable differences.

e.g. a white car looks white to everyone rather than cream, or off white, etc.

everyone is different and it's plausible what you have said before but i would then argue it's even more so important you have everything calibrated to a reference standard. so it looks like as it would in real life. if person A sees reds slightly darker in real life then that is how it should be viewed on screen as well.

therefore reference is the standard everyone should be hoping for so that anyone no matter how their eyes work should be seeing it as they would in real life.
 
Soldato
Joined
3 Nov 2003
Posts
5,036
Location
Lancashire
Certain topics on here just get people biting. Calibration is one of them. For those that have had their TVs calibrated by a professional, I have yet to see anyone who wasn't impressed with the results.

There is a reason why professionals that to see accurate colours for their job use calibrated monitors.

When i shelled out what for me was a big chunk of cash on a 65" LG B6, it was a no brainer to get it calibrated. It would have bugged the hell out of me knowing that the TV I worked so hard to pay for could look better for a couple of hundred £.

I used it for a bit out of the box. Tried using all the AVFourums calibration guides and I thought I was happy with the TV. But after the TV was calibrated correctly the differences are like night and day.

Vincent from HDTV Test did mine and the results are stunning. Worth every penny in my opinion. He rocked up with thousands of £ worth of calibration gear and darted in and out of menus like a ninja. I've still kept my original settings that I thought were awesome, flicking between the calibrated setting and my attempt shows just how wrong I was.

Yes if I was was colour blind then its pointless, but to be honest, thats a daft argument to get into. If you're the type of person that doesnt believe in calibration then there is no amount of forum discussion that will make you change your mind. Keep that cash in your pocket and enjoy the picture you have. For those that believe it does make a difference and are happy to pay a professional to do what they do. Get it done, I think it's worth every penny.
 
Soldato
Joined
1 Mar 2010
Posts
21,785
I don't dispute a calibartion is worthwhile, but I would like to know
what is the mismatch in colour rendering of sets off of the same production line such that one (night) calibration would not be fit for all ?
so why could the manufacturer not just do it himself and provide a certification certificate (like when I buy a torque wrench say)
If Vincent could publish an indication of the variation that exists between sets I could be converted.


one more shot to counter the calibration is pointless viewpoint
Then if as you say "the tv needs to show the same colour you would observe if you saw the real scene," every single person will observe that colour slightly differently in the real scene, so how can there be any central certified reference point that will suit every individual ?

putting it another way :
- the standard Macbeth colour chart defines orange as SRGB #d67e2c, if you confirm with a spectrophotometer
at the 'real scene' you have this colour, then the tv needs to be calibrated so the spectrophotometer, pointed at tv, would show the same value;
I am assuming (wrongly?) the tv is being calibrated for multiple people to view, each with their own individual perceptions;
if the tv was viewed by a single person and that person had a visual 'defect' and was not able to distinguish orange from yellow (say) then they could have a tv calibration that had orange=yellow, but as soon as soemone else looked at the tv, without that visual defect, it would look wrong.
 
Soldato
Joined
14 Oct 2007
Posts
8,721
Location
newcastle
Indeed I thought the Sony would have won on motion as people always say it's LG's downfall.
Motion on all oleds are the same due to the instant refresh of the pixels. When oled first came out a lot of people made a big thing about it only having 300 lines of motion resolution, but because of the instantaneous refresh rate it makes next to no difference. And a plus with sample and hold you don't get the annoying flicker of an impulse driven panel like plasma and crt
 
Caporegime
Joined
23 Apr 2014
Posts
29,257
Location
Dominating rooms with symmetry
Motion on all oleds are the same due to the instant refresh of the pixels. When oled first came out a lot of people made a big thing about it only having 300 lines of motion resolution, but because of the instantaneous refresh rate it makes next to no difference. And a plus with sample and hold you don't get the annoying flicker of an impulse driven panel like plasma and crt

Yeah that's what I thought but over on avforums everyone bangs on about Sony having much better motion processing, I've always had that switched off on any TV I've owned though.
 
Back
Top Bottom