Puzzling LCD Questions?

[Jaw3000]

Ok, here are a couple of puzzling questions involving 17? LCD displays:

1. What does the "typical" phrase NEC and others conveniently put next to the response time, contrast ratio, & brightness?

2. Why would Iiyama have discontinued the AS4314UTG, when they don?t have a comparable or better model to replace it with?

3. Solarism has apparently "upgraded" their old LM1711 model to what they are calling "version 2.0" which still has 25 ms, but boasts a 700 brightness and 500:1 contrast. With these great specs, is this really an upgraded new model, and if so, why would they have kept the same model name?

4. On the LG US website, they list the L1710B as an old 40 ms one. On the LG UK site, they list the L1710B as a 16 ms one. Is this 16 ms model not available in the US? Why would LG name two very different models with the same model name? And BTW, does this display use the 16 MS AUO panel or another one made by LG/Philips?

5. And finally, the following is a list of what I think are all of the different models using the same AU Optronics 16 ms panel (let me know if I leave one out):

Hitachi CML174 (260, 400:1)
NEC LCD7V (260, 400:1)
Planar PX171M (260, 400:1)
NEC 1760 (V/NX) (260, 450:1)
Acer AL732 (260, 450:1)
ViewSonic VG170m (260, 450:1)
Solarism LM-1730 (260, 450:1)
BenQ FP791 (400, 450:1)
BenQ FP767 (260, 500:1)
ViewSonic VP171b (260, 500:1)
LG L1710B (250, 450:1)

My question involves the specs. If all these models use the same AUO panel, why are there so many different specs? Like how could the BenQ FP791 have a 400 brightness rating (Appearently, AUO Makes a second 16 MS panel w/ 380 brightness. Wonder if this BenQ model is the first to use this panel?)? Or the different monitors having different contrast ratios? Are they accurate?

BTW, what's the real difference between the NEC 1760 and LCD7V? If they use the same panel, how can one be much cheaper and have different specs?

Thanks!
-Jeff

 

[Kingofcomputer]

they lie on the spec.

 

[JammingJay]

No real regulations on how manufacturer's rate their specs. I believe PCWorld ran a interesting article on how different actual specs are vs claimed/stated specs.

 

[JZilla]

4. According to user AnthonyB, you get what ever is on your national LG site. Read his comments in the 16ms typ 19" lcd thread and over at the gigantic Ars thread (page 75 & 76).

5. I think they measure the specs differently.

There has been quite a number of lcd threads recently. In this thread, a couple of guys bought the Viewsonic VP171 and were happy.

Anyway, I'm in the same situation as you. I have got it narrowed down to the NEC 1760NX and Viewsonic VP191, with the Hitachi CML174, LG 1710B and Samsung 172T as outsiders.

 

[KristopherKubicki]

JZilla, those monitors your listed at all the same panel with the exception of the 172T.

Jaw3000 --- here you go!

1.) Typical is much overused. When talking about response time it is usually the average of the rise and fall (which makes no sense at all). So sometimes a "typical" response time will be 13ms, even though its 21 rising and 4ms falling.

In a less extreme case, the "typical" response time will just be the two response times added together. So sometimes you will see 16ms typical response time, which is 12ms rising and 4ms falling. Its somewhat missused because that is the total time it takes the pixel to go from black to white to black again. Its not really typical at all.

Any other use of "typical" usually means just the 'realworld' specs. That is, if you consider realworld to be in a closed darkroom inside a testing facility. Specs are always skewed to favor the manufacturer.

2.) Most LCD manufacturers don't produce their own glass (or even entire monitors). My guess is that Iiyama's OEM partner dropped the panel and Iiyama does not wan to commit to a new panel manufacturer or does not like the price or performance of the new substrate.

3.) Solarism is not a company I know much about, but I have been told their business model is pretty similar to ViewSonic, ie they just reband monitors. Most likely their OEM changed the spec, so they did to. I find it pretty hard to believe that it is really a 700:1 contrast ratio monitor, and in fact, I find it hard to believe it was truely 500:1. My guess is they just took their contrast ratio test from a different (more favorable angle), rereleased the monitor as 2.0, and are laughing all the way to the bank.

4.) Please refre to the post JZilla made.

5.) All of those look about right. (BTW I think Albatron is making an LCD TV based on the 16ms panel).

Usually, the manfufacturers of all those models will re-run the same VESA tests on their monitors after they put in their circuitry. Most of them hollowly believe that their electronic components increase the visual qualitities of the LCD substrate, but in reality these are often unfounded claims.

In my opinion, there are lies, damn lies, then LCD marketing statistics.

Cheers,

Kristopher

 

[JZilla]

Thanks for setting that straight Kubicki.

I thought the typ time was the rise and fall. Oh well, you learn something new every day.

I know all 16ms monitors (except LG), uses the same panel. And this does naturally apply to Samsung. But I'm still debating whether I want to use $130 more on the Viewsonic, compared to the NEC.

 

[KristopherKubicki]

JZilla,

I will be speaking with the Vice President of Marketing for LG.Philips tommorow (again). I will set this 16ms thing straight.

Cheers,

Kristopher

 

[AnthonyB]

In my opinion, there are lies, damn lies, then LCD marketing statistics.

Amen.