OLED vs QLED: Which is the best TV technology?

[What Hi-Fi?]

LG is the boss of OLED and Samsung is sticking to QLED. So what's the difference? And which is better? Read on...

OLED vs QLED: Which is the best TV technology? : Read more

 

[Mr. C Nation]

"With the Holy Grail of TV still likely a long way off... "

That's a ridiculous statement. There is no 'Holy Grail' of any technology. Remember one B. Gates saying, probably some years before you were born "I can't see why anyone would want more than 640km of memory" ?

Actually, he never said that. It's a techie urban myth but the principal holds. Tech is an endless belt, as at Tesco checkouts. At some point you have to make a decision and plonk your choice on the belt, pay up and 'consume it' - ie watch TV.

But what someone did say - I am old enough to be of the time when it was said - on the opening of Calder Hall nuke power station, "With a few more like Calder Hall, electricity will be too cheap to meter". That was a Government Minister! Complain now to your lekky supplier - they said it was gonna be free! The Holy Grail of lekky generation!

May be in days to come, when I care even less about 'Holy Grail' tech, you will be able to paint LEDS or somesuch onto a wall, stick a cable onto it and have a wall of content at better than human optical resolution.

Then they'll offer content direct to your audio-visual cortex. Mad Max XXV in a pill.

Holy Grail ... 😆

 

[Crabbydude]

We have a plasma in our main viewing room, and an LED (both by chance Panasonic) in our basement. Both offer a great picture and once immersed in a program or event it becomes less relevant. If I get picky, I appreciate the blacks the plasma offers and would lean to OLED once it needs replacement. Field of view is also key, again if choice is an option.

 

[DougM]

"With the Holy Grail of TV still likely a long way off... "

That's a ridiculous statement. There is no 'Holy Grail' of any technology. Remember one B. Gates saying, probably some years before you were born "I can't see why anyone would want more than 640km of memory" ?

Actually, he never said that. It's a techie urban myth but the principal holds. Tech is an endless belt, as at Tesco checkouts. At some point you have to make a decision and plonk your choice on the belt, pay up and 'consume it' - ie watch TV.

But what someone did say - I am old enough to be of the time when it was said - on the opening of Calder Hall nuke power station, "With a few more like Calder Hall, electricity will be too cheap to meter". That was a Government Minister! Complain now to your lekky supplier - they said it was gonna be free! The Holy Grail of lekky generation!

May be in days to come, when I care even less about 'Holy Grail' tech, you will be able to paint LEDS or somesuch onto a wall, stick a cable onto it and have a wall of content at better than human optical resolution.

Then they'll offer content direct to your audio-visual cortex. Mad Max XXV in a pill.

Holy Grail ... 😆

There is a holy grail for TV though. You can deliver a picture bright enough and detailed enough to exceed the capabilities of the human eye to detect any further improvement. We're not there yet, but we're getting close on detail (64k tvs will get there for 100 inch picture at standard viewing distances), and brightness is probably only an order of magnitude short.
Content direct to visual cortex without a screen really isn't 'tv' any more.

 

[Mario Super Mario Bros]

After careful analysis, various consultations, and comparisons between OLED and QLED, I would never recommend a QLED today—especially now that OLEDs are more reliable and the average lifespan of a TV is around 5 years.

 

[GSV Ethics Gradient]

After careful analysis, various consultations, and comparisons between OLED and QLED, I would never recommend a QLED today—especially now that OLEDs are more reliable and the average lifespan of a TV is around 5 years.

Please don't try to drive traffic to other websites - it's against the forum's rules.