QD-OLED - Sony or Samsung?
Discussion
after months of vacillating both on PH and with Mrs DG I'm still torn - though it does seem as if my choice is starting to veer in a different direction to what I thought.
My first choice (by far) is the Sony XR65A95KU. It has a picture that is phenomenal, highly regarded build quality and that wonderful 'acoustic surface' meaning that the TV can function very well without turning on the home-cinema set-up (not a problem in and off itself, just another remote to mess around with every time). It doesn't look dreadful which is kinda important for a screen of this size!
But... but... I know you've got to 'pay to play' - the price is (IMO) eye-watering with the the biggest discount I've seen being £300 for the 2022 version. None of this would really be an issue were it not for the main competitor being some £1,000 cheaper. The competing Samsung S95B has a picture every bit as good but is a flat last (from what I can make out in the reviews) when it comes to sound, I guess one of the questions I need to answer for myself is if the better sound is 'worth' the Sony's premium.
The main question (beyond has anyone out there in PH land actually chosen between the 2) is if the Sony is actually a better build quality than the Sammy? I'll admit I have been a bit of a Samsung fan for a number of years - however my current(ly faltering) mid-range Samsung TV has me questioning things...
My first choice (by far) is the Sony XR65A95KU. It has a picture that is phenomenal, highly regarded build quality and that wonderful 'acoustic surface' meaning that the TV can function very well without turning on the home-cinema set-up (not a problem in and off itself, just another remote to mess around with every time). It doesn't look dreadful which is kinda important for a screen of this size!
But... but... I know you've got to 'pay to play' - the price is (IMO) eye-watering with the the biggest discount I've seen being £300 for the 2022 version. None of this would really be an issue were it not for the main competitor being some £1,000 cheaper. The competing Samsung S95B has a picture every bit as good but is a flat last (from what I can make out in the reviews) when it comes to sound, I guess one of the questions I need to answer for myself is if the better sound is 'worth' the Sony's premium.
The main question (beyond has anyone out there in PH land actually chosen between the 2) is if the Sony is actually a better build quality than the Sammy? I'll admit I have been a bit of a Samsung fan for a number of years - however my current(ly faltering) mid-range Samsung TV has me questioning things...
Don't know what AV system you have but if it's not Atmos compatible and eARC then I'd go the Samsung route with a compatible Samsung Q Symphony soundbar and wireless Atmos rear speakers. Using the 'adaptive' setting all the TV speakers plus the soundbar and rear speakers all play together - amazing sound 
Edit: All through one remote control.
Edit: All through one remote control.
Edited by dickymint on Monday 1st May 18:16
A few months back I bought a not inexpensive Sony OLED of some sorts tbh I can’t remember what model.
The ‘acoustic surface’ was a real disappointment.
The user interface was not great.
It suffered a few software glitches ( it would sometimes sign me out of Bravia Core for example).
And I didn’t like the picture quality; I assumed that it was because I was coming from a plasma,
So I returned it and got a Panasonic in its place.
Yes the Panasonic requires a sound bar but I prefer everything else about it.
The ‘acoustic surface’ was a real disappointment.
The user interface was not great.
It suffered a few software glitches ( it would sometimes sign me out of Bravia Core for example).
And I didn’t like the picture quality; I assumed that it was because I was coming from a plasma,
So I returned it and got a Panasonic in its place.
Yes the Panasonic requires a sound bar but I prefer everything else about it.
Dave Hedgehog said:
TEKNOPUG said:
I struggle to think of any question where Samsung is the answer.
Samsung instantly fails for me as they refuse to support Dolby Vision which is the standard for streaming services dickymint said:
Dave Hedgehog said:
TEKNOPUG said:
I struggle to think of any question where Samsung is the answer.
Samsung instantly fails for me as they refuse to support Dolby Vision which is the standard for streaming services The Sony looks poor next to the latest LG 36 models when viewed side by side.
Sony are also the most fiddly to use, with the most glitches and the poor sound, that is trumpeted as AMAZING
The Samsung was a desperation move for the brand, with an old low spec panel and a soft image. They tried the ballsy move of a very high retail price, in the hope it would be perceived as premium and develop a head of steak]m in the market.
The opposite happened, the truth was out and they were 1/2 price within a couple of months!
There are still just a few bargain 22 model years 26 screens about too, which are still better than the Sony!
Sony are also the most fiddly to use, with the most glitches and the poor sound, that is trumpeted as AMAZING
The Samsung was a desperation move for the brand, with an old low spec panel and a soft image. They tried the ballsy move of a very high retail price, in the hope it would be perceived as premium and develop a head of steak]m in the market.
The opposite happened, the truth was out and they were 1/2 price within a couple of months!
There are still just a few bargain 22 model years 26 screens about too, which are still better than the Sony!
TEKNOPUG said:
dickymint said:
Dave Hedgehog said:
TEKNOPUG said:
I struggle to think of any question where Samsung is the answer.
Samsung instantly fails for me as they refuse to support Dolby Vision which is the standard for streaming services 
As regards costs this and other sources suggest otherwise.......https://www.androidauthority.com/4k-hdr-guide-1209...
Dolby Vision is slightly older than HDR10, yet it’s not as popular for one good reason: TV manufacturers have to pay royalties to use it. As a result, vendors sometimes choose to avoid the extra cost and provide a more affordable product.
"Like its counterparts, Vision tops out at 10,000 nits, with content typically mastered at 4,000 nits or below. The reason to spend extra for it is that it offers both dynamic metadata and 12-bit color, making for some of the richest possible images. In fact you probably won’t find a TV that can take full advantage of the format, so you may want to choose HDR10 over Vision based on the difference in cost"
dickymint said:
TEKNOPUG said:
dickymint said:
Dave Hedgehog said:
TEKNOPUG said:
I struggle to think of any question where Samsung is the answer.
Samsung instantly fails for me as they refuse to support Dolby Vision which is the standard for streaming services As regards costs this and other sources suggest otherwise.......https://www.androidauthority.com/4k-hdr-guide-1209...
Dolby Vision is slightly older than HDR10, yet it’s not as popular for one good reason: TV manufacturers have to pay royalties to use it. As a result, vendors sometimes choose to avoid the extra cost and provide a more affordable product.
"Like its counterparts, Vision tops out at 10,000 nits, with content typically mastered at 4,000 nits or below. The reason to spend extra for it is that it offers both dynamic metadata and 12-bit color, making for some of the richest possible images. In fact you probably won’t find a TV that can take full advantage of the format, so you may want to choose HDR10 over Vision based on the difference in cost"
As for 12 bit, it's a bit of a red herring. The real benefit of DV over HDR10 is that DV has dynamic metadata. Whereas HDR can only apply it's processing and colour mapping to the whole film/show, DV can apply different processing on a scene by scene or even frame by frame basis. It's a superior technology which is clearly visible. I'd personally always choose a source with DV over HDR or HLG. In fact I have a 4k Firestick for it's DV functionality, even though all the apps are available via my SKY Q box and TV.
TEKNOPUG said:
dickymint said:
TEKNOPUG said:
dickymint said:
Dave Hedgehog said:
TEKNOPUG said:
I struggle to think of any question where Samsung is the answer.
Samsung instantly fails for me as they refuse to support Dolby Vision which is the standard for streaming services As regards costs this and other sources suggest otherwise.......https://www.androidauthority.com/4k-hdr-guide-1209...
Dolby Vision is slightly older than HDR10, yet it’s not as popular for one good reason: TV manufacturers have to pay royalties to use it. As a result, vendors sometimes choose to avoid the extra cost and provide a more affordable product.
"Like its counterparts, Vision tops out at 10,000 nits, with content typically mastered at 4,000 nits or below. The reason to spend extra for it is that it offers both dynamic metadata and 12-bit color, making for some of the richest possible images. In fact you probably won’t find a TV that can take full advantage of the format, so you may want to choose HDR10 over Vision based on the difference in cost"
As for 12 bit, it's a bit of a red herring. [The real benefit of DV over HDR10 is that DV has dynamic metadata. Whereas HDR can only apply it's processing and colour mapping to the whole film/show, DV can apply different processing on a scene by scene or even frame by frame basis. It's a superior technology which is clearly visible. I'd personally always choose a source with DV over HDR or HLG. In fact I have a 4k Firestick for it's DV functionality, even though all the apps are available via my SKY Q box and TV.
Bryanwww said:
Streaming services still do hdr10 if your TV is a Samsung but I've not done a side to side comparison - is Dolby Vision really that good?
Dynamic metadata is demonstrably better than static, no question. Whether you prefer HDR10+ or DV will largely come down to how your TV displays them. There is much more content available in DV than HDR10+. Obviously it depends what sources you have. iPlayer on uses HLG and SKY only HDR10. So you probably need to 3td party device to run either HDR10+ or DV natively.
The one thing you can't improve after buying a TV is the picture so I'd focus on that. Whichever one you get, if you're unhappy with the sound performance you could always improve it with something after you're purchase whereas you're stuck with the picture quality.
In regards to Sony Vs Samsung, if you're deciding between OLED and QLED as others have suggested look at LG instead as their pretty much the market leaders for OLED. But I really wouldn't discount Samsung over an OLED right of the bat like some do. I completely get the benefits of OLED and agree that in certain areas they outperform LED massively, but they do depend on where and when you're viewing them.
Where I have my TV, it's in direct sunlight in the afternoon/evening. An OLED would just get washed out by the light coming into the room whereas with an LED screen you have the benefit of a brighter screen making it not an issue.
Worth thinking about.
In regards to Sony Vs Samsung, if you're deciding between OLED and QLED as others have suggested look at LG instead as their pretty much the market leaders for OLED. But I really wouldn't discount Samsung over an OLED right of the bat like some do. I completely get the benefits of OLED and agree that in certain areas they outperform LED massively, but they do depend on where and when you're viewing them.
Where I have my TV, it's in direct sunlight in the afternoon/evening. An OLED would just get washed out by the light coming into the room whereas with an LED screen you have the benefit of a brighter screen making it not an issue.
Worth thinking about.
TEKNOPUG said:
Bryanwww said:
Streaming services still do hdr10 if your TV is a Samsung but I've not done a side to side comparison - is Dolby Vision really that good?
Dynamic metadata is demonstrably better than static, no question. Whether you prefer HDR10+ or DV will largely come down to how your TV displays them. There is much more content available in DV than HDR10+. Obviously it depends what sources you have. iPlayer on uses HLG and SKY only HDR10. So you probably need to 3td party device to run either HDR10+ or DV natively.
So then there is Quantum HDR+ x32 ...............
Quantum HDR 32x vs Dolby Vision
"Dolby Vision specifies a max peak brightness of 10,000 nits, although most movies are mastered to display between 1,000 – 4,000 nits of peak brightness. Quantum HDR 32x has a max peak brightness of 3,200 nits, so is in a similar ballpark to Dolby Vision.
Where they differ is that Quantum HDR 32x can achieve better detail thanks to the Quantum Dots making up the screen, and can give a wider dynamic range, if the movie is appopriately tone mapped.
Overall, picture quality will be better on the Quantum HDR 32x screen, but most Dolby Vision displays are not far behind."
https://www.lapseoftheshutter.com/quantum-hdr-vs-h...
But getting back to the OP's situation as regards choice - all I'm saying is that DV is not a deal breaker at an extra £1000 quid.
Gassing Station | Home Cinema & Hi-Fi | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff