There are loads of threads on the forum asking about calibration of TVs and the optimal settings that were found when WHSAV tested a TV, but I would like to know as I dont recal it ever being mentioned before what equipment do WHSAV use to calibrate the TVs they test?
How do WHSAV calibrate TVs for testing?
- Thread starter D.J.KRIME
- Start date
Well we've got THX and ISF-trained staff on the test team - not a gadget, but certainly a very important factor in the calibration process!
Depending on the test/products involved they use their expertise with a range of tools at their disposal - but all devices that consumers can get hold of, including THX glasses/Optimizer, DVE disc, Spyder etc.
We don't give up on any TV until we've tried to tweak it to its ultimate - plus also assessed all the pre-set modes available on a set out-of-the-box (some of which are getting pretty good, it has to be said).
And remember, all of this is going on alongside reference sets plus other TVs in the same size/price class - nothing is being looked at in isolation.
Depending on the test/products involved they use their expertise with a range of tools at their disposal - but all devices that consumers can get hold of, including THX glasses/Optimizer, DVE disc, Spyder etc.
We don't give up on any TV until we've tried to tweak it to its ultimate - plus also assessed all the pre-set modes available on a set out-of-the-box (some of which are getting pretty good, it has to be said).
And remember, all of this is going on alongside reference sets plus other TVs in the same size/price class - nothing is being looked at in isolation.
Hi Claire,
Superb insight into work of your test team, appears to be complex but works brilliantly. I've never been disappointed when purchasing products recommended by the What Hi-Fi team. I'll look for to using the calibration guide when finding the best settings for my new Sony 40 EX503.
Superb insight into work of your test team, appears to be complex but works brilliantly. I've never been disappointed when purchasing products recommended by the What Hi-Fi team. I'll look for to using the calibration guide when finding the best settings for my new Sony 40 EX503.
Clare Newsome said:
So when doing these tests do you check the sets greyscale,colour temp,gamma etc with the Spyder? if so which software do you use? calman or colorfacts?
Hi Andrew,
Are the reviews printed in the magazine the same as the ones that appear on the website? I assume there's a time delay before they appear on the web (priority given to print?)
Cheers,
Mick
Are the reviews printed in the magazine the same as the ones that appear on the website? I assume there's a time delay before they appear on the web (priority given to print?)
Cheers,
Mick
Andrew Everard said:
micks_address said:
Yes, we usually delay most reviews a bit after the magazine appears, though we may publish one or two as a taster. But of course if you want the reviews on your screen just as soon as the magazine is published, our digital edition awaits...
Thanks Andrew - just as an aside - can i ask if/when you are reviewing the Panasonic VT30s? Cheers, mick
Andrew Everard said:
micks_address said:
TX-P50VT30 is in July issue, out early June, but that's the only one I can see on contents lists at the moment.
D.J.KRIME said:
I'm guessing -- which is always dangerous -- that advanced calibration to determine how close to perfect greyscale tracking a TV can get isn't an integral part of the WHF review process.
Obviously this is an important, and more heavily weighted, factor on review sites targeting the most ardent and tech minded of videophiles; but only a very small percentage of television owners employ an ISF accredited engineer or attempt DIY advanced calibration.
My guess is that it's too time consuming to attend to the finest points of calibration on every TV reviewed in WHF, though I'm happy to be corrected on this assumption.
I go back to my original point about our test team including ISF- and THX-trained individuals
But yes, we don't display graphs - they are meaningless to the vast majority of consumers. It's simply not the WHF way - we'd rather share real-world abiltiies of a set.....
But yes, we don't display graphs - they are meaningless to the vast majority of consumers. It's simply not the WHF way - we'd rather share real-world abiltiies of a set.....
Thanks Clare.
The point I was making was that, while you have ISF accredited members of the review team, and I don't doubt their credentials, it must be incredibly labour intensive (I dare impossible) for them to fully calibrate every TV tested (including extensive and measured tweaking of white balance menus, etc.)
Given that an ISF engineer can spend half a day calibrating just one television, this must be incredibly difficult to do when it comes, say, to a group test. The reason other reviewers are able to perform extensive technical evaluation of a TV is because they don't test anything like the same volume of products as WHF.
I'm not trying to be controversial, as I think WHF provide reviews that are relevant to the overwhelming majority of consumers; not to mention the fact that I've never been steered wrong by the magazine. I just think WHF caters to a subtly different (and much larger) consumer segment than some other publications.
The point I was making was that, while you have ISF accredited members of the review team, and I don't doubt their credentials, it must be incredibly labour intensive (I dare impossible) for them to fully calibrate every TV tested (including extensive and measured tweaking of white balance menus, etc.)
Given that an ISF engineer can spend half a day calibrating just one television, this must be incredibly difficult to do when it comes, say, to a group test. The reason other reviewers are able to perform extensive technical evaluation of a TV is because they don't test anything like the same volume of products as WHF.
I'm not trying to be controversial, as I think WHF provide reviews that are relevant to the overwhelming majority of consumers; not to mention the fact that I've never been steered wrong by the magazine. I just think WHF caters to a subtly different (and much larger) consumer segment than some other publications.
But they DO fully calibrate every TV - it takes at least half a day with every TV before you're at a stage to test it properly. You've got to remember that we team test - we've got a full-time team of people dedicated to testing products in a level playing field environment.
Whether it's leaving a pair of speaker to run in for at least 48-72 hours before we start to test (and more afterwards if needed) to taking the time to really get to know what a TV's capable of, we've got the staff and faciltiies to achieve it.
It may not mean we get a 'hands-on review' of a product out within 10 minutes of it first being shown at a press launch - nor that we serve up technical diagrams that equally bear no relation to real-world experience.
Whether it's leaving a pair of speaker to run in for at least 48-72 hours before we start to test (and more afterwards if needed) to taking the time to really get to know what a TV's capable of, we've got the staff and faciltiies to achieve it.
It may not mean we get a 'hands-on review' of a product out within 10 minutes of it first being shown at a press launch - nor that we serve up technical diagrams that equally bear no relation to real-world experience.
Thanks for clarifying, Clare (and sorry if I implied otherwise).
I agree entirely that the tone of reviews (and lack of graphs, etc) is best suited to a magazine with a broad readership. In that sense, WHF strikes a nice balance between highly specialist and accesible language in its reviews.
I agree entirely that the tone of reviews (and lack of graphs, etc) is best suited to a magazine with a broad readership. In that sense, WHF strikes a nice balance between highly specialist and accesible language in its reviews.
Thanks - that's what we're aiming at.
We realise we can't please all the people all of the time, but we're trying to be of most use to most people 🙂
We realise we can't please all the people all of the time, but we're trying to be of most use to most people 🙂
Clare Newsome said:
Whilst I admit I like the way WHSAV present your TV reviews as they are informative yet not bogged down with technical jargon the I don't doubt the masses of your readership doesn't care about, to say that the technical graphs have no relation to real-world experiance with a TV is IMHO wrong, if a TV has poor gamma tracking which is shown by said technical graphs this has a massive effect on the TVs proformance in the real-world viewing space being our living rooms, like wise if the TVs greyscale is way off as not all of us have the equipment to adjust these issues at home. Surely there is room to include these technical graphs with your revews here on the forums?
Don't get mewrong Clare, I'm not trying to be arguementative or have a moan about how the reviews are in the Mag but maybe you could publish a more indepth review here on line?
D.J.KRIME said:
And IOHO correct.
D.J.KRIME said:
Good use of self-aggrandising jargon, but reality everything after the third, hyphenated, word is pretty superfluous
D.J.KRIME said:
And how much more would you be willing to pay for this more in-depth online review? Just askin', like...
Andrew,I'd gladly pay extra for each copy of the mag if it ment more indepth reviews here online.
But we will have to agree to dissagree about the value of technical graphs, but what I was trying to put accross is that if the out of the box graph displaying a TVs RGB tracking was to be shown here online and say for example that this displayed poor tracking from 0-100 IRE, then this will have a effect on the TVs proformance in the real-world right?
Not all of us have the equipment or ability to correct these errors in the TVs out of the box settings, but to have graphs that show if set A is better than set B in such aeras could help those looking for better out of the box settings pick there next TV over another as these errors in a TVs settings can't be amended using THX test patterns and your eyes.
But we will have to agree to dissagree about the value of technical graphs, but what I was trying to put accross is that if the out of the box graph displaying a TVs RGB tracking was to be shown here online and say for example that this displayed poor tracking from 0-100 IRE, then this will have a effect on the TVs proformance in the real-world right?
Not all of us have the equipment or ability to correct these errors in the TVs out of the box settings, but to have graphs that show if set A is better than set B in such aeras could help those looking for better out of the box settings pick there next TV over another as these errors in a TVs settings can't be amended using THX test patterns and your eyes.
Andrew Everard said:
D.J.KRIME - Andrew & WHF can obviously talk for themselves, but I don't think the two of you are so far apart, just looking at it in a different way. Clearly, the technical information expressed in graphs does have a real world effect - it's just a question of whether a graph is of any real world use. For me, no. For probably 99% of the WHF readership (vast majority not active on the forum), no. WHF is able to say in words what you would understand from the graphs. So reviews helpfully say things like 'out of the box it looks x, y, z'. 'With minor tweaking it looks a, b, c'. 'After extensive fiddling in the set up menus it looks...' And then a reader can presumably decide their own technical abilities and how much they might be able to get out of a set.
I also imagine WHF would say things like their THX optimiser advice and 'how to get the best out of' video would be more helpful than a graph for the vast majority of readers. And I think they'd be right.
I should also say, as a man more interested in HiFi than TVs, I wouldn't fancy any more of the mag being devoted to TV reviewing
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram