Samsung surpasses Vizio for #1 TV maker

[TVTom51]

Anyone have a Vizio? I've always wondered about their quality since they seem generally cheaper at stores.

Vizio knocked to second by Samsung for top HDTV sales
November 18th, 2009, 9:04 am · 14 Comments · posted by Tamara Chuang, a.k.a. The Gadgetress
Vizio and Samsung continue to compete neck and neck in vying for consumer love when it comes to LCD TVs. This quarter, Samsung sold more TVs in the U.S. than the Irvine HDTV firm.

Vizio knocked to second by Samsung for top HDTV sales - The Gadgetress : The Orange County Register

 

[Aaron62]

This doesn't surprise me honestly. What does surprise me is that LG Electronics is 3rd. I hardly ever see their TVs for sale in stores.

 

[bicker]

Vizio had a nice ride until people realized that you really do get your money's worth...

 

[EscapeVelocity]

LG is one of the top 3 panel suppliers. Sony/Samsung, and Sharp

Minus Sharp plus Panasonic on the Plasma side.

 

[Piggie]

I am not sure about TVs, but for computer monitors I have found the Samsungs worth the money. Then again, you can find even a couple years ago Samsungs on sale for the price of a no name monitor.

My dang Ölevia has a great 720p picture, but the ATSC tuner in it glitches all the time and freezes the picture. That started just about about 22 months old. Next TV is buy is going to be a Samsung, even if I can only afford a 32 in 720p. My living room can't hold more than a 37 and really a 32 is plenty big. At least for me. Charts, salesmen, video buff will disagree that at 6 to 8 feet viewing distance it's not big enough. But I have also notice a huge price jump when you get to 37 inches also. So it's probably not in my future. I am nursing the Ölevia I have now until it totally dies.

 

[CptlA]

I am not sure about TVs, but for computer monitors I have found the Samsungs worth the money. Then again, you can find even a couple years ago Samsungs on sale for the price of a no name monitor.

My dang Ölevia has a great 720p picture, but the ATSC tuner in it glitches all the time and freezes the picture. That started just about about 22 months old. Next TV is buy is going to be a Samsung, even if I can only afford a 32 in 720p. My living room can't hold more than a 37 and really a 32 is plenty big. At least for me. Charts, salesmen, video buff will disagree that at 6 to 8 feet viewing distance it's not big enough. But I have also notice a huge price jump when you get to 37 inches also. So it's probably not in my future. I am nursing the Ölevia I have now until it totally dies.

You are right about the Sammy LCD monitors as a computer screen. It's all I use between work and home/play.

I've had Toshiba TVs for quite some time. Pretty happy with them too. Vizio's are sold mainly at Costco and Walmart right? I've never really paid much attention to them when walking by.

 

[O-O]

Wonder how the holiday season will affect TV sales. Which manufacture is going to offer the steepest discount to stores too? Guess we'll wait and see.

 

[highdefjeff]

So here's another opinion.

Forget Samsung. Not impressive. Just because they got great prices doesn't mean they're great TV's.

Vizio on the other hand is the best priced and, IMO, looks better than Samsung.

There it is.

 

[bicker]

So here's another opinion.

Forget Samsung. Not impressive. Just because they got great prices doesn't mean they're great TV's.

Vizio on the other hand is the best priced and, IMO, looks better than Samsung.

There it is.

What makes you say that Vizio looks better than Samsung? I've done a lot of looking, and when compared like-for-like, while Samsung is more expensive, it always seemed like you're getting a lot more quality for the money. I'm curious what you've seen that makes you feel otherwise.

 

[IDRick]

I tend to agree with Bicker. The vizio's do have a good picture but IMO, the samsungs are better in picture quality and features.

 

[TonyT]

I always thought that Panasonic and Toshiba made great TVs for the price. Vizio is cheap, not bad, but cheap.

 

[highdefjeff]

What makes you say that Vizio looks better than Samsung? I've done a lot of looking, and when compared like-for-like, while Samsung is more expensive, it always seemed like you're getting a lot more quality for the money. I'm curious what you've seen that makes you feel otherwise.

I don't do my viewing in the store, but in the home. The end result of a properly installed, set up, and calibrated television is how I judge the quality. I judge by the quality of the picture and the ease of set up and calibration.

In my experience, Samsung just isn't special. I've always described Samsung as pretty good, or o.k. Samsung never jumped out at me as better or one of the best.

In addition, I don't find their menus very intuitive and when it comes to calibration, they sometimes make unavailable some of the color adjustments. And, they are getting worse, not better...

Just a few days ago, I saw my new neighbor carrying in a 32" LCD Samsung. I hooked him up with some Grabbit Ears and went about to calibrate. When I went to set the temperature of the TV, I saw that Samsung had added yet another temperature choice, bringing the number of options to five! Cool2, Cool1, Normal, Warm1, and Warm2. That's just insane! (Use Cool1.)

They have also added a "Flesh tone adjustment". Either, this is pure genius and appropriately modifies all related color adjustments so that all you need to do is go there to calibrate, OR, they have no understanding of what is going on. I'm sorry to say that I didn't investigate that function since I had already calibrated the TV and the flesh tones were fine.

All I can say is Samsung never caught my eye, and I'm also not fond of their menu design. I do find Samsung to be more difficult to calibrate.

Vizio on the other hand, has a preset that is one of the closer I've seen to being correctly calibrated - which is also why Vizio advances on my list.

There isn't very much difference between televisions, once correctly set up and calibrated. That said, there are still some who stand out, and only two in the entirety of my not impressed list. Mitsubishi, though they've shown some improvement, ranks low for its difficulty in use, also.)

Vizio is the best value and Sony and Toshiba have picture that catches my eye.

So, that's just my opinion.

 

[IDRick]

Jeff,

What do you use to calibrate the tv? Visual only, calibration disk, or???

Thanks,

Rick

 

[highdefjeff]

Calibration Method

Rick,

The short answer is: by eye.

To understand why I calibrate by eye, here's how I got there.

When I first began writing the WOWVision website, I had found that many things that affected picture quality and system performance could be fixed at home (Things such as TV or receiver settings, cables, etc.). As I looked to find other things that might affect PQ, I began to research calibration as to its value in the PQ equation.

Every website that I researched had the same explanation of "seeing the movie as the director intended" and the same incorrect advice to use the warm setting. They also claimed that a properly calibrated television would take a week to a month to get used to!?!

While I was convinced that calibration would affect the picture quality, I was still unconvinced as to why.

I researched becoming an ISF Certified Calibrationist and decided that the cost of training and equipment was too much for me, so I looked to find alternatives. In my research I came across the Spyder Pro Colorimeter.

All reviews said Spyder Pro was good, except for one guy who said that the Spyder Pro was pretty good except that it left the picture too red. With all the good reports and only one dissenter, I decided to purchase the Spyder Pro system (Colorimeter, software, test pattern DVD).

I began practicing with the system by calibrating SD televisions, not willing to take any chance on possibly damaging someone's new flat panel TV. The more TV's I calibrated, the less satisfied I became with the result. I began to notice that the picture, though improved, was still too red. I recalled the dissenter's comment and decided that he was the one that was correct. By this time, I was no longer afraid to experiment with the settings so that's what I did, experiment. Each time I finished with the Spyder, I would end up going back to the settings and attempt to "finish" the calibration. Tweak after tweak, I'd check the picture and find that I couldn't get the red out. Getting the red out took going all the way back to the temperature setting and changing it from warm to cool and starting over. (Spyder always picked warm. Use Cool or 6500K) It only took a few more times of using the Spyder before I was ready to ditch it because I had to redo the calibration from top to bottom anyway!

Since then, I can recognize a Geek Squad calibration (here in STL anyway - Geek Squad uses Spyder) because of the end result - markedly improved but still too red.

I've found after much practice, that calibrating by eye is much quicker for me and more accurate than the machines out there. Further research revealed that even within the industry of calibration, the eyes of those who see (referred to as having "Golden Eyes") are considered the final word on calibration - not technology and I completely agree.

If you are considering paying for a calibration, I suggest CAUTION! Even an ISF Certified Calibrationist is only as good as his equipment if he doesn't have "Golden Eyes". I've witnessed this in up-scale showrooms that have been "professionally" calibrated. Might as well get Geek Squad and save a hundred bucks.

Color calibration is not about whether or not the actors tie is the correct color of red as the director intended. It is about detail and picture quality.

Details come from small and subtle differences in COLOR and SHADE (gray scale). If your color is not adjusted, you will not get the subtle differences that give TEXTURE and reality. These subtle differences in color and shade reveal the wrinkles or age spots of reality in skin tone and texture. It is these smaller variations of a color that can not be produced when the color mixing is not correct. (Or the contrast is set too high.)

Color calibration will also lessen the appearance of mosquito noise and motion blur.

Finally, and contrary to popular belief, a correctly calibrated television immediately looks "WOW!". It doesn't take any "getting used to" a great picture. It is only an improper calibration that will take time to get adjusted to. We don't have to get adjusted to reality, right?

God bless,
Jeff

 

[Aaron62]

Rick,

The short answer is: by eye.

To understand why I calibrate by eye, here's how I got there.

When I first began writing the WOWVision website, I had found that many things that affected picture quality and system performance could be fixed at home (Things such as TV or receiver settings, cables, etc.). As I looked to find other things that might affect PQ, I began to research calibration as to its value in the PQ equation.

Every website that I researched had the same explanation of "seeing the movie as the director intended" and the same incorrect advice to use the warm setting. They also claimed that a properly calibrated television would take a week to a month to get used to!?!

While I was convinced that calibration would affect the picture quality, I was still unconvinced as to why.

I researched becoming an ISF Certified Calibrationist and decided that the cost of training and equipment was too much for me, so I looked to find alternatives. In my research I came across the Spyder Pro Colorimeter.

All reviews said Spyder Pro was good, except for one guy who said that the Spyder Pro was pretty good except that it left the picture too red. With all the good reports and only one dissenter, I decided to purchase the Spyder Pro system (Colorimeter, software, test pattern DVD).

I began practicing with the system by calibrating SD televisions, not willing to take any chance on possibly damaging someone's new flat panel TV. The more TV's I calibrated, the less satisfied I became with the result. I began to notice that the picture, though improved, was still too red. I recalled the dissenter's comment and decided that he was the one that was correct. By this time, I was no longer afraid to experiment with the settings so that's what I did, experiment. Each time I finished with the Spyder, I would end up going back to the settings and attempt to "finish" the calibration. Tweak after tweak, I'd check the picture and find that I couldn't get the red out. Getting the red out took going all the way back to the temperature setting and changing it from warm to cool and starting over. (Spyder always picked warm. Use Cool or 6500K) It only took a few more times of using the Spyder before I was ready to ditch it because I had to redo the calibration from top to bottom anyway!

Since then, I can recognize a Geek Squad calibration (here in STL anyway - Geek Squad uses Spyder) because of the end result - markedly improved but still too red.

I've found after much practice, that calibrating by eye is much quicker for me and more accurate than the machines out there. Further research revealed that even within the industry of calibration, the eyes of those who see (referred to as having "Golden Eyes") are considered the final word on calibration - not technology and I completely agree.

If you are considering paying for a calibration, I suggest CAUTION! Even an ISF Certified Calibrationist is only as good as his equipment if he doesn't have "Golden Eyes". I've witnessed this in up-scale showrooms that have been "professionally" calibrated. Might as well get Geek Squad and save a hundred bucks.

Color calibration is not about whether or not the actors tie is the correct color of red as the director intended. It is about detail and picture quality.

Details come from small and subtle differences in COLOR and SHADE (gray scale). If your color is not adjusted, you will not get the subtle differences that give TEXTURE and reality. These subtle differences in color and shade reveal the wrinkles or age spots of reality in skin tone and texture. It is these smaller variations of a color that can not be produced when the color mixing is not correct. (Or the contrast is set too high.)

Color calibration will also lessen the appearance of mosquito noise and motion blur.

Finally, and contrary to popular belief, a correctly calibrated television immediately looks "WOW!". It doesn't take any "getting used to" a great picture. It is only an improper calibration that will take time to get adjusted to. We don't have to get adjusted to reality, right?

God bless,
Jeff

What happens if you're slightly color blind like me? Most of the time I cannot distinguish between the more expensive TV than a cheaper TV at a store anyway with my eye site. It stinks but it saves me money on upgrading more often to a better res (especially 1080p) television.

 

[highdefjeff]

Color calibration will increase detail by accurately portraying the colors, tints, and shades that give detail. Your colorblindness will not negate the additional detail (which is more about gray scale than actual color) you just won't see quite the same colors as the rest of us. But according to your "reality" of color perception, high quality HD should look as realistic to you as it would any other individual.