Dad just got an LG L226WT and I had a few hours to spend with it.
Upon opening it up ($310 from Circuit City), I didn't expect a DVI cable at that kind of price, and sure enough it was missing. That's alright though as I used a DVI cable from another monitor to test it.
First I hooked it up in dual-DVI mode from my 7800GT. Immediately I noticed that the LG had amazing contrast, besting that of even my 20WMGX2. Another thing I immediately noticed was the typical viewing angle problems with TNs: you move your head and the whole picture changes. I can tell you right now that's the most annoying part of this whole LCD.
Loading a gradient on both LCDs, both showed more than acceptable performance in gradlin. The LG's colors weren't quite as 'intense' if you will and looked slightly faded in the middle, partly due to its matte coating (vs. the NEC's glossy). There was some banding (really gradation) in the dark areas like on my NEC. They basically weren't much different.
The 20WMGX2's only obvious advantages over the L226WT are: uniformity, screen/viewing angle stability, and midtone vibrancy. The L226WT showed very acceptable text performance, although my dad's opinion was that it was too bright. I'm used to using a 20WMGX2 at 200 nits all day, so the L226WT at 200 nits and being higher contrast reproduced better text than the NEC from what I could see with my eyes. The text was darker and easier to see, and not overly sharp. It could be a byproduct of the screen size but it was definitely higher contrast than the NEC.
The LG had trouble reproducing the whole range of colors as well as the NEC at the same time, even if it reproduced a small range of colors better than the NEC could. In lots of images, detail was "swallowed" and blended in on the LG, not distinct like on the 20WMGX2. Only at certain settings could you see the whole color range, and at those settings the picture wasn't very dazzling. I found a happy medium and decided to attempt calibration. More on that later.
The NEC undoubtedly had better response time control, and usually better response time period. The LG had noticeable artifacts during movement while the NEC's motion was mostly flawless. During gaming (UT2004, BF2, tuxracer) in dual-LCD clone mode I felt myself looking over to the NEC more. It was easier to see enemies, easier to see dark areas, and easier to focus on shooting things overall. It felt more responsive, too. The snow in tuxracer (penguin racing game) was a lot more detailed on the NEC.
The kinks in the LG's armor (such as the inability to show distinct tones) didn't manifest themselves as much as you'd think. By and large the image reproduced by the LG rivaled the NEC, besting it in some cases because of higher contrast. This was very surprising coming out of a TN LCD. Still, the viewing angle issues and lack of color/hue distinction as mentioned above put it below the NEC overall, especially for photo editing. Despite the LG having higher contrast it was unable to show the midtone range that the NEC was. It's as if the contrast was rather unbalanced. Midtones looked faded and washed out in comparison to the NEC's almost overly intense, vibrant tones. Though for general use it's great, and for videos/gaming it's not bad. In videos the 20WMGX2 was able to capture the overall aura and tone better than the LG (sort of like a CRT), which seemed more erratic. In a few cases the NEC appeared a lot more natural, but the LG "appeared" slightly more natural in most cases due to higher contrast.
Now for the calibration results.
Target: 200 cd/m2, 6500K, L* curve
NEC 20WMGX2 (DVI): dA=0.0,
dB=0.0. 0.20
dE94 avg, 0.70
max, 0.21
std. dev; contrast:
528:1 (200 white/0.38 black).
Screenshot;
ICM (brightness: 36.7, contrast: 48.0, standard DV, ADVM off, R: 93.7, G: 89.8, B: 91.7, sharpness: 16.6)
LG L226WT (DVI): dA=0.1,
dB=0.2. 0.48
dE94 avg, 1.39
max, 0.31
std. dev; contrast:
899:1 (196 white/0.22 black).
Screenshot;
ICM (f-Engine: Normal, brightness: 72, contrast: 65, gamma: 0, color: sRGB, sharpness: 5)
The sRGB setting in the LG was almost exactly 6500.0 K. That was another thing I liked about this LCD: it
seemed more accurate than the NEC by default.
The NEC returned more accurate colors but the LG had a much higher contrast (about 900:1!) Quite amazing for a TN. After calibration, the NEC was able to reproduce the black level test much better, though it was acceptable on the LG. Testing with calibration was done one monitor at a time, i.e. I applied the NEC profile and looked at the NEC, and then applied the LG profile and looked at the LG. There are no mechanisms to send a gamma profile to each monitor that I know of.
There were no technical problems with it. DDC worked flawlessly, the name of the monitor and native resolution was recognized, and hook-up was a snap. The LG seems to only support single-link DVI as opposed to the NEC's higher-bandwidth dual-link port. That shouldn't be an issue at 1680x1050 anyway, but it is worth mentioning.
Black and solid colors were reproduced better on the NEC. They were very clear and bright, and black was uniform and pitch black due to the coating. Even though the colorimeter posted a black level almost twice as high on the NEC, it could be because of the coating that black seems darker to me on the NEC.
Overall, the LG is the most impressive TN I've ever used. Whether it matches the 20WMGX2 might even be a matter of opinion. I feel that for gaming and video-related activities it falls short due to the viewing angle and aforementioned color rendition issues. For general usage, the higher contrast, slightly more natural white (the NEC had a reddish hue) and bigger image is more pleasing to the eyes.