hi, obviously what hi- fi magazine is a very influential tool with regard to tv sales as there are many people who do not have shops nearby where tv viewing conditions are very useful ie.all tvs sharing one feed etc Influenced by tv,s with 5 star reviews many people are happy to buy on these reccomendations.We all realise that the best facilities are available to the team with regards to calibration.When reading the forum it is obvious that the amount of comments indicating pleas for the teams or any any other persons suggestions for settings indicates that although the tv has 5stars they are not seeing what the team are seeing and in varying degrees are unhappy.not everyone can either afford proffessional calibration or understand other software orientated ways of doing this.,Although when asked before, it was said in response by the team ,that we all have different viewing conditions, and publishing o f the teams settings would not be very usefull.I believe however that some of us would find them usefull as a starting point,with maybe a little tweaking,rather than people continually changing settings trying to acheive the excellent level of picture already viewed by What Hi - Fi.Your views as ever would be much appreciated.
what hi-fi team
- Thread starter camper 1
- Start date
Hei Sizzers, I think you forgot to put another set of exclamations signs and write this NO of yours in bold just to make your point abundantly clear.
I also, would would like to see the calibration settings, to use as a starting point, what harm could it do? .
professorhat
Well-known member
yukdan:I also, would would like to see the calibration settings, to use as a starting point, what harm could it do?
Perhaps comments from people such as "I used the so-called experts' settings from the WHF website and the picture looked far worse - don't buy their magazine, they know nothing"...
I don't think it matters how many times you say it, people who are lazy will ignore the fact that any settings given by WHF won't be suitable for their conditions and they need further tweaking. And since this is the case, what therefore is the point in posting them? You need to tweak them so just use the factory setting then tweak them from here until you're happy with the picture - it's not rocket science.
Perhaps comments from people such as "I used the so-called experts' settings from the WHF website and the picture looked far worse - don't buy their magazine, they know nothing"...
I don't think it matters how many times you say it, people who are lazy will ignore the fact that any settings given by WHF won't be suitable for their conditions and they need further tweaking. And since this is the case, what therefore is the point in posting them? You need to tweak them so just use the factory setting then tweak them from here until you're happy with the picture - it's not rocket science.
Professor, I think you are bending the logics a bit with your suggestions. I agree some people are lazy, but some are not and just dont have a time or confidence. For some people settings used by WHF team may be useless , then again some people will find them working wonders. The real question is who are you to judge other people interests, intentions and requests. If the request was made then it is quite a legitimate issue. I agree answering NO is the simplest possible way to deal with the problem. Answering YES requires a bit of action, and as we know thats more difficult.
professorhat
Well-known member
I'm not judging your requests, just providing legitimate possibilities as to why I think it's not a good idea for these settings to be published.
For those with the proper inclination to get the best from their TV but not the confidence, then simply use the WHF video (chapter 5) which demonstrates how to use the THX Optimiser (available on hundreds of DVDs which can be found here) to get the best settings. I can't accept that people who genuinely want to ensure they are getting close to getting the best picture don't have the 20-30 minutes which is required available to them to follow through this - if they don't, then they clearly can't really be bothered. And this is fine by the way, I'm not judging them (there's plenty of things in life I can't be bothered to do which others would I'm sure chastise me for!), I'm just saying these people can't legitimately complain about not getting the best picture.
For those with the proper inclination to get the best from their TV but not the confidence, then simply use the WHF video (chapter 5) which demonstrates how to use the THX Optimiser (available on hundreds of DVDs which can be found here) to get the best settings. I can't accept that people who genuinely want to ensure they are getting close to getting the best picture don't have the 20-30 minutes which is required available to them to follow through this - if they don't, then they clearly can't really be bothered. And this is fine by the way, I'm not judging them (there's plenty of things in life I can't be bothered to do which others would I'm sure chastise me for!), I'm just saying these people can't legitimately complain about not getting the best picture.
John Duncan
Well-known member
I think the point is that settings in one person's room (or to their taste) will not work for another's - the majority of TVs are tested in a special blackout room, which would probably not be right for most people's setups. So I think the mag's standard advice is "use a THX disc in the first place and modify to your own taste".
daveh75
Well-known member
I'd prefer the column inches taken up by info useful to all,rather than setting's that may benefit some.
If you're really that stuck with settings,there's plenty of info already on the web.
If you're really that stuck with settings,there's plenty of info already on the web.
ive often posted them here , some like em , and some don't , i always point out that they are for hd , in a dark room , some people just want settings , they wont try calibrating themselves , if it keeps em happy ....
scene
Well-known member
I think the current comments about calibration and settings in WHFSV are fine. Comments about what it looks like "out of the box" and the ability to calibrate to a reference level (6500K) or not are sufficient. As others have said, there are so many variables when it comes to calibration, variations in panels, light sources, ambient light, colour of walls (!), etc. Therefore, there's probably little point in mentioning to much on calibration, above and beyond the measured temperature on colour presets.
If people want to know what someone, even WHF are using to calibrate their screens, then the forums are probably the best place.
Also, the calibration settings methods vary hugely from make to make and screen to screen and there would be no real way of presenting them in any consistent manner.
I'm with more space for comparisons and reviews!
If people want to know what someone, even WHF are using to calibrate their screens, then the forums are probably the best place.
Also, the calibration settings methods vary hugely from make to make and screen to screen and there would be no real way of presenting them in any consistent manner.
I'm with more space for comparisons and reviews!
professorhat
Well-known member
Lots of reference to calibration. Do What Hifi actually calibrate displays towards industry standards like ISF, THX calibrators using sensors, test patterns ? If you are calibrating you will have before and after data, which could easily be made available on the web site for those interested. Calibration results would help quantify what reviewers are seeing and would boast What Hifi credibility with skeptics who criticize reviews as being subjective rather than objective.
I was under the impression that reviewers were looking at out of the box settings and then tweaking displays to personal preference. Actual settings might not be too useful due to variation in manufacturing, viewing conditions and viewer preferences, but regardless many people like to know what settings other people use.
I was under the impression that reviewers were looking at out of the box settings and then tweaking displays to personal preference. Actual settings might not be too useful due to variation in manufacturing, viewing conditions and viewer preferences, but regardless many people like to know what settings other people use.
Our test team has had both ISF and THX training, and uses a range of tools - including the THX ones plus discs such as DVE, the Spyder etc - to set-up TVs for test.
knightout:Lots of reference to calibration. Do What Hifi actually calibrate displays towards industry standards like ISF, THX calibrators using sensors, test patterns ?
Yes.
knightout:I was under the impression that reviewers were looking at out of the
box settings and then tweaking displays to personal preference.
Sorry if you got that impression, but it's not the case.
knightout:Actual
settings might not be too useful due to variation in manufacturing,
viewing conditions and viewer preferences
Indeed.
Yes.
knightout:I was under the impression that reviewers were looking at out of the
box settings and then tweaking displays to personal preference.
Sorry if you got that impression, but it's not the case.
knightout:Actual
settings might not be too useful due to variation in manufacturing,
viewing conditions and viewer preferences
Indeed.
It's an interesting topic which always raises a lot of debate. There appears to be so many performance variables which affect the TV settings (including the very subjective personal preferences) during calibration that the WHF team seem reluctant to put a stake in the sand due to the expected avalanche of criticism from people who disagree. What I would be far more interested in is the WHF team declaring other technical information relating to TV test conditions which are not so variable or subjective but which do affect the results; such as Cable details, Aerial/ Dish source/quality/signal strength used for over the air performance. I assume there is a standard WHF set-up which is used for all TV reviews which readers may find useful.
Clare Newsome:
Our test team has had both ISF and THX training, and uses a range of tools - including the THX ones plus discs such as DVE, the Spyder etc - to set-up TVs for test.
Thanks for the info. Could you provide a bit more detail. What ISF and THX training have they received and did they take and past the tests. The discs and Spyder are not the same as professional sensors, do they use any other sensors, what do you mean by "the THX ones." Are they the equivalent to professional calibrators. If you calibrate the displays you have before and after readings already on the laptop, why not make them available on the web site.
By THX training and tools do you mean your calibration is the same as THX calibration. THX calibrators need to have ideally taken at least both THX courses, which are more hands on than the ISF course, past the test and to be listed do 10 calibrations and have them checked. Unlike ISF they also have equipment requirements usually at least a test pattern generator and spectrophotometer, this calibration equipment must it self be maintained(calibrated) on a regular schedule, a test disc may also be used for display chain calibration. The spyder colorimeter and discs you mention are primarily enthusiast diy tools, that would not by themselves meet the requirements. ISF training is mostly history and theory. If you do THX quality calibration then you defiantly should put before and after results on the web site for people interested
Our test team has had both ISF and THX training, and uses a range of tools - including the THX ones plus discs such as DVE, the Spyder etc - to set-up TVs for test.
Thanks for the info. Could you provide a bit more detail. What ISF and THX training have they received and did they take and past the tests. The discs and Spyder are not the same as professional sensors, do they use any other sensors, what do you mean by "the THX ones." Are they the equivalent to professional calibrators. If you calibrate the displays you have before and after readings already on the laptop, why not make them available on the web site.
By THX training and tools do you mean your calibration is the same as THX calibration. THX calibrators need to have ideally taken at least both THX courses, which are more hands on than the ISF course, past the test and to be listed do 10 calibrations and have them checked. Unlike ISF they also have equipment requirements usually at least a test pattern generator and spectrophotometer, this calibration equipment must it self be maintained(calibrated) on a regular schedule, a test disc may also be used for display chain calibration. The spyder colorimeter and discs you mention are primarily enthusiast diy tools, that would not by themselves meet the requirements. ISF training is mostly history and theory. If you do THX quality calibration then you defiantly should put before and after results on the web site for people interested
professorhat:
yukdan:I also, would would like to see the calibration settings, to use as a starting point, what harm could it do?
Perhaps comments from people such as "I used the so-called experts' settings from the WHF website and the picture looked far worse - don't buy their magazine, they know nothing"...
I don't think it matters how many times you say it, people who are lazy will ignore the fact that any settings given by WHF won't be suitable for their conditions and they need further tweaking. And since this is the case, what therefore is the point in posting them? You need to tweak them so just use the factory setting then tweak them from here until you're happy with the picture - it's not rocket science.
I'm with Professorhat, factory settings have never let me down.
yukdan:I also, would would like to see the calibration settings, to use as a starting point, what harm could it do?
Perhaps comments from people such as "I used the so-called experts' settings from the WHF website and the picture looked far worse - don't buy their magazine, they know nothing"...
I don't think it matters how many times you say it, people who are lazy will ignore the fact that any settings given by WHF won't be suitable for their conditions and they need further tweaking. And since this is the case, what therefore is the point in posting them? You need to tweak them so just use the factory setting then tweak them from here until you're happy with the picture - it's not rocket science.
I'm with Professorhat, factory settings have never let me down.
It seems that i opened quite a can of worms wqith this topic.I had bought samsung 37 b550 partly on the magazines review,and was abit dissappointed. Ihave spent alot of time trying to get the picture to my liking so i object to the word lazy.Perhaps i was expecting too much.
Can we help? Have you run the THX Optimiser?As well as the video, this step-by-step TV set-up blog could be very useful.
Are you disappointed with all sources, or just SD? Sure we/others can make some suggestions to help you get more from your set.
Are you disappointed with all sources, or just SD? Sure we/others can make some suggestions to help you get more from your set.
professorhat
Well-known member
camper 1:I have spent alot of time trying to get the picture to my liking so i object to the word lazy.Perhaps i was expecting too much.
Please note, I certainly wasn't directing the lazy comment at yourself - it was directed at people I predicted were likely to try and just use the WHF settings (were they to be published) and then expect miracles from them with no further tweaking.
professorhat:I don't think it matters how many times you say it, people who are lazy will ignore the fact that any settings given by WHF won't be suitable for their conditions and they need further tweaking.
Hope this clears things up and I certainly hope I haven't caused any offence with my comments as it was not the intention.
Please note, I certainly wasn't directing the lazy comment at yourself - it was directed at people I predicted were likely to try and just use the WHF settings (were they to be published) and then expect miracles from them with no further tweaking.
professorhat:I don't think it matters how many times you say it, people who are lazy will ignore the fact that any settings given by WHF won't be suitable for their conditions and they need further tweaking.
Hope this clears things up and I certainly hope I haven't caused any offence with my comments as it was not the intention.
I too have spent hours/ days using the THX cd calibration tests along with the THX glasses, kindly provided by WHAT hi-fi, but would like to compare my picture to that of the teams settings, being a layman in this field I have no idea whether my picture is good, bad or indifferent and no benchmark to aim for, or to compare to.
Similar threads
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram