Vizio P-Series Quantum

[mzupeman]

https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/vi...series-quantum

This is kind of big deal. Rtings is saying Vizio’s new PQ television is a little better than Samsung’s Q9FN... and this set is about $1400 cheaper.

[avs commenter]

Originally Posted by mzupeman

https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/vi...series-quantum

This is kind of big deal. Rtings is saying Vizio’s new PQ television is a little better than Samsung’s Q9FN... and this set is about $1400 cheaper.

Samsung overcharging for their products is actually pretty normal

[mzupeman]

Originally Posted by avs commenter

Samsung overcharging for their products is actually pretty normal

Yes but the Q9FN is also the highest rated LED of 2018. Surprising that Vizio is actually going toe-to-toe this year.

[samlop10]

I posted this in the other thread but since there’s a dedicated one for this now...

Basically echoing similar thoughts:

Originally Posted by samlop10

Rtings just posted their review of the Vizio PQ series. It got great results overall and based on price/quality they seem to be recommending it over higher end models (Sony, Z9D, Samsung Q9FN) except for the LG C8:

rtings Vizio PQ-Series Review

It seems to have great contrast and local dimming, great color gamut with great color volume (very similar to Samsung’s on their Quantum series like the Q9FN), and better handling at shadow detail with their local dimming (whereas the Q9FN crushes some detail).

The TV isn’t perfect (color gradients could have been handled better) but given bang for your buck, Vizio seems to have done it again with the picture quality you get and the (relatively) low price, especially when compared to a model like the Q9FN or the Q8FN (both of which are more expensive than the Vizio). You get very similar quality for a lower price.

Also, for people that care, the TV seems to get plenty bright. They measured almost 2,500 nits on smaller percentage windows.

[alexanderg823]

their comparison shots showed really bad black levels and really bad blooming. it's a great attempt to bring good performance to a lower level, but I really think most enthusiasts would be disappointed.

[mzupeman]

Originally Posted by alexanderg823

their comparison shots showed really bad black levels and really bad blooming. it's a great attempt to bring good performance to a lower level, but I really think most enthusiasts would be disappointed.

Their shots always do a terrible job of actually conveying this sort of thing though. Their blooming tests are never as bad in their videos as they are on a calibrated set.

[samlop10]

Originally Posted by alexanderg823

their comparison shots showed really bad black levels and really bad blooming. it's a great attempt to bring good performance to a lower level, but I really think most enthusiasts would be disappointed.

I wouldn’t judge a display’s performance with pictures or videos. Most cameras introduce artifacts and fake blooming. Even pictures of OLED displays show blooming. So the pictures don’t show real in-person performance at all.

In keeping up with the owners’ thread over at AVSForums, it seems blooming is only a problem with credits and bright logos against a black background. But otherwise, going by their usage and comments, it seems to be pretty free of blooming and the black levels are really good.

[brian9229]

I somehow seriously doubt it.

[ray0414]

Let the over hype begin.

Compared to other flagships:

Worse upscaling
Worse gradient performance
Worse blacks/raised blacks/blooming with HDR
Worse Eotf tracking than the Samsung Q9 (where's the stink about this like there was with the Samsung?)
Worse reflection handling

Looks to be good value at the price, but there are sacrifices from the flagship tvs.

Rtings also says the Q8FN is better than the Z9D but only has 40 zones.

[samlop10]

The thing is their recommendations are based on price for quality, not just quality alone. Of course that is subjective, but for them the PQ series is a better TV given the quality you get for the relatively low price. This is meant for people who want a quality TV but don’t want to, or can’t, spend as much for higher end models from other brands like the Z9D and the Q9FN. What’s impressive is the quality for the price. Not just quality alone. The PQ series brings features and performance that is closer to those models without paying $3K or $4K for them. It costs just over $2K (2099 at Best Buy right now).

[ray0414]

Originally Posted by samlop10

The thing is their recommendations are based on price for quality, not just quality alone. Of course that is subjective, but for them the PQ series is a better TV given the quality you get for the relatively low price. This is meant for people who want a quality TV but don’t want to, or can’t, spend as much for higher end models from other brands like the Z9D and the Q9FN. What’s impressive is the quality for the price. Not just quality alone. The PQ series brings features and performance that is closer to those models without paying $3K or $4K for them. It costs just over $2K (2099 at Best Buy right now).

Right, price is factored in. But when people read the review they are going by quality alone, you can tell by people's reactions despite rtings clearly stating that the TV underperforms in key areas but people are going by the "overall rating score".

[x RadicalAura x]

I was keeping an eye on this TV for awhile mainly because of the 2,000 nits thing and have no doubts that it's an amazing value but ultimately bit on a 65" B7A for $1750 (brand new) instead. A 65" OLED for <$2k was just too enticing. Should be a big upgrade from my 65" KS8000 that I got back in 2016!

[samlop10]

Originally Posted by ray0414

Right, price is factored in. But when people read the review they are going by quality alone, you can tell by people's reactions despite rtings clearly stating that the TV underperforms in key areas but people are going by the "overall rating score".

Well, that’s not rtings fault. They can’t control how people read/process their reviews, lol.

Point is, the PQ-series is one hell of a bang-for-your-buck TV. Perhaps, arguably, the best one for this year (given price/quality).

[DisplayCalNoob]

Originally Posted by ray0414

Let the over hype begin.

Compared to other flagships:

Worse upscaling
Worse gradient performance
Worse blacks/raised blacks/blooming with HDR
Worse Eotf tracking than the Samsung Q9 (where's the stink about this like there was with the Samsung?)
Worse reflection handling

Looks to be good value at the price, but there are sacrifices from the flagship tvs.

Rtings also says the Q8FN is better than the Z9D but only has 40 zones.

No Vincent review. 17k:1 local dimming is pretty good for 192 zones. They chose detail over crushing them, so it all comes down to manufacturer priorities.

Also if a calibrator can fix the EOTF using 2 pt and 11pt white balance controls without lowering contrast then it's a difference.

[ray0414]

Originally Posted by DisplayCalNoob

No Vincent review. 17k:1 local dimming is pretty good for 192 zones. They chose detail over crushing them, so it all comes down to manufacturer priorities.

Also if a calibrator can fix the EOTF using 2 pt and 11pt white balance controls without lowering contrast then it's a difference.

A high contrast ratio can still be spoiled by lack of dimming control. When light spills/blooms, the ratio for the surround area is no longer 17000:1. They clearly state that the Q9 and Z9D has better dimming control (and the crush on the Q9 is also fixable via calibration). (keep in mind that the reviewed.com PQ review also noted raised blacks and worse black level performance compared to previous Vizio tvs)


The big stink about the Eotf was out of box on the Samsung. It was better/corrected with calibration but people still bashed the out of box Eotf. So Vizio gets a pass apparently.


TV looks very good for the price, but it's being way overhyped despite many flaws clearly stated in its review.

[WKoA13]

Originally Posted by ray0414

Let the over hype begin.

Compared to other flagships:

Worse upscaling
Worse gradient performance
Worse blacks/raised blacks/blooming with HDR
Worse Eotf tracking than the Samsung Q9 (where's the stink about this like there was with the Samsung?)
Worse reflection handling

Looks to be good value at the price, but there are sacrifices from the flagship tvs.

Rtings also says the Q8FN is better than the Z9D but only has 40 zones.

Worse upscaling - On 480, and 720 sources, it's Samsung's 8.0 vs the Vizio's 7.0. I doubt you would actually notice the 1 point difference on sources of that quality.

Worse gradient performance - 8.6 vs 7.4. So 1.2 points....the Vizio scores lower, but not by huge margin.

Worse black levels - .9 point difference to the Samsung. Again, likely not as obvious of a difference in real life as you are trying to make it sound.

Worse Eotf tracking than the Samsung Q9 (where's the stink about this like there was with the Samsung?)

Worse reflection handling - by 3/10 of a point. Again, not something you'd probably actually actively notice when engaged with watching something. And if you are watching a movie in a dark room (like you really should if PQ matters that much to you), you definitely won't notice it then.





On the flip side of your own argument.

Vizio has the higher score on
-SDR and HDR peak brightness.
-Grey Uniformity.
-Viewing angle.
-Pre and Post calibration picture quality/accuracy
-Overall color gamut
-Response time and flicker free motion
-Inputs
(Not that TV speakers are anything to brag about, but since you wish to fanboy nit pick)
-Better distortion performance on audio
-Ad-free smart features
-Better remote app

All of those SMALL score differences between the two, but, oh, wait....the Vizio is also 1,400 USD CHEAPER than Samsung's flagship.

I don't see anyone calling this the best TV ever made, but the fact that the "budget" brand is, all told, still pretty much on par with Samsung's highest end model, is definitely worth some attention and hype.

And when Samsung's model costs anywhere from 3,500 to 3,800, there's definitely going to be some complaining about out of box performance at that high price point.

[ack_bak]

This TV will force the other manufacturers to either step up their game or lower their prices. It's not a perfect TV but for under $2K? Very hard to beat. And I bet we see this priced even lower for holiday and Superbowl. Too bad I don't need a new TV right now

[ray0414]

Originally Posted by WKoA13

Worse upscaling - On 480, and 720 sources, it's Samsung's 8.0 vs the Vizio's 7.0. I doubt you would actually notice the 1 point difference on sources of that quality.

Worse gradient performance - 8.6 vs 7.4. So 1.2 points....the Vizio scores lower, but not by huge margin.

Worse black levels - .9 point difference to the Samsung. Again, likely not as obvious of a difference in real life as you are trying to make it sound.

Worse Eotf tracking than the Samsung Q9 (where's the stink about this like there was with the Samsung?)

Worse reflection handling - by 3/10 of a point. Again, not something you'd probably actually actively notice when engaged with watching something. And if you are watching a movie in a dark room (like you really should if PQ matters that much to you), you definitely won't notice it then.





On the flip side of your own argument.

Vizio has the higher score on
-SDR and HDR peak brightness.
-Grey Uniformity.
-Viewing angle.
-Pre and Post calibration picture quality/accuracy
-Overall color gamut
-Response time and flicker free motion
-Inputs
(Not that TV speakers are anything to brag about, but since you wish to fanboy nit pick)
-Better distortion performance on audio
-Ad-free smart features
-Better remote app

All of those SMALL score differences between the two, but, oh, wait....the Vizio is also 1,400 USD CHEAPER than Samsung's flagship.

I don't see anyone calling this the best TV ever made, but the fact that the "budget" brand is, all told, still pretty much on par with Samsung's highest end model, is definitely worth some attention and hype.

And when Samsung's model costs anywhere from 3,500 to 3,800, there's definitely going to be some complaining about out of box performance at that high price point.

This what's wrong with rtings In general. People like you putting more weight into the score ranking system which is extremely flawed. "it's only a. 2 difference!).

For example the reflection score doesn't actually show the massive difference, but the actual real life picture of the 2 tvs side by side DOES show a huge difference. Again showing the scoring system they use is pretty much useless and misleading for potential buyers.

As for color gamut and viewing angle, rtings Q9 is a panel varience loser. Most are in the upper 90s. And their viewing angle analysis was always suspect. They use a single clip to test, which doesn't show the specific times the Q9 has a wider than usual viewing angle. I haven't seen the PQ yet, but the Q9 has the best off angle blacks I've seen on an LCD TV and it really makes my previous lcd tvs look pretty bad, yet it doesn't reflect in their score/review so anyone reading their review would have no idea.

Not saying the PQ is a bad TV, it's actually good for the money, but there are definitely sacrifices made that other tvs are better at.

[mzupeman]

I keep hearing about the Samsung’s black levels and all, but their flagship model this year has a tendency to actually crush details in blacks, which in my opinion makes their ‘near OLED black levels’ pretty worthless. The way it handles HDR highlights is also concerning. I want a picture that’s accurate, not one that artificially tampers with black levels and boosts peak brightness and even the curve associated with it in order to LOOK impressive. The one thing that sticks out to me in the Vizio review is that it actually does better at retaining highlights in dark areas. That’s key.

That’s not to say I’m advocating for people to go and buy a Vizio PQ right now. There’s obviously going to be some lottery differences and some have already revealed themselves early on in the AVS thread. I myself have been shopping around for television, and I did consider the Q9FN until I read about its issues. I was actually then leaning towards a Z9D, or if I couldn’t find one, even a 900F despite have way less zones. Overall image accuracy is what’s important to me, and I’m willing to pay more for a better quality product. As of right now I stand to buy the Z9F as soon as I can get my grubby little hands on one.

Still, seeing Rtings review this television so favorably and at its price point… it’s certainly enticing.

[ack_bak]

Originally Posted by ray0414

This what's wrong with rtings In general. People like you putting more weight into the score ranking system which is extremely flawed. "it's only a. 2 difference!).

For example the reflection score doesn't actually show the massive difference, but the actual real life picture of the 2 tvs side by side DOES show a huge difference. Again showing the scoring system they use is pretty much useless and misleading for potential buyers.

As for color gamut and viewing angle, rtings Q9 is a panel varience loser. Most are in the upper 90s. And their viewing angle analysis was always suspect. They use a single clip to test, which doesn't show the specific times the Q9 has a wider than usual viewing angle. I haven't seen the PQ yet, but the Q9 has the best off angle blacks I've seen on an LCD TV and it really makes my previous lcd tvs look pretty bad, yet it doesn't reflect in their score/review so anyone reading their review would have no idea.

Not saying the PQ is a bad TV, it's actually good for the money, but there are definitely sacrifices made that other tvs are better at.

Then don't look at the scores, look at the wording:

"The Vizio P-Series Quantum is slightly better than the Samsung Q9FN 2018. The Vizio Quantum is a bit brighter with SDR and HDR content. The Quantum also has better motion handling with a faster response time. The Samsung Q9FN has better gradient handling and has new features that improve gaming performance, such as VRR and automatic low input lag."

"The Vizio P Series Quantum is better than the Sony Z9D. The Vizio P Series Quantum has a much better response time and a better input lag which is great for those who play fast-paced video games. The Sony Z9D has more traditional smart features which many will prefer and also has a bit better local dimming."

"The Vizio P Series Quantum is a better TV than the Sony X900F. It has slightly better reflection handling and marginally better brightness which is great if you watch TV shows or sports in brighter rooms. The Vizio P Series Quantum also has better local dimming that makes blacks look deep in a dark room. The input lag of the Vizio P Series Quantum is better and this is great for gamers. On the other hand, the Sony X900F has more intuitive smart features."

No factor in the price. Under $2K at Costco.

Is an LG OLED a better TV? Yes. But good luck finding a brand new one at Costco, Best Buy, etc for under $2K. Price to performance this TV looks like it's in a league of it's own. If money is no object? There are better TV's.