LED-backlit LCDs battle for 'best' title

LED backlights can dim or turn off individually as needed.

(Credit: CNET)

Now that we've published our review of the LED-backlit Samsung LN46A950, we're already receiving e-mails from readers, apparently with money to burn, who're anxious to find out whether it's better than the Sony XBR8 series, another LED-backlit contender that will hit store shelves in October.

Sony and Samsung will also be joined by LG in the backlit-LCD race, despite apparent lack of reader interest in that company's LG 47LG90. Since we haven't reviewed either of those two models yet we don't know how they compare with one another or with the Samsung, but that won't stop us from "spec"ulating with the only information we do have: spec sheets, rumors, and brief eye-time.

First off, it's worth noting that each of the three sets use a technology colloquially called "local dimming," where the individual LEDs behind the screen can be dimmed or turned off as needed. It's this technology that adds some weight to each company's claim of a 1,000,000:1 contrast ratio (a nice round number, no?) When part of the screen goes dark and another is bright, standard fluorescent LCD backlights must rely on the LCD panel itself to block out the light and create dark areas. The result is the less-than-stellar black-level performance for which many LCDs have been noted.

Local dimming allows LED-backlit sets to produce extremely deep black levels, which are the most important ingredient in HDTV picture quality. The downside, at least in the case of the Samsung we reviewed, was "blooming," where a bright object on a dark background would evince a dim halo of light instead of pure blackness.

That's because the dimming isn't local enough; there aren't enough LEDs themselves to correspond with all 1920x1080 pixels of the TVs' 1080p native resolution, so there's some spillover along the edges. Samsung did not divulge exactly how many LEDs were used in its 46-inch model, and neither will Sony for its displays, but LG did. The 47LG90 has "1,536 individual light emitting-diodes arranged into 128 sectors," according to the company. How much that number affects blooming is still an open question.

Sony's "Triluminos" backlights use red, green and blue LEDs instead of white.

(Credit: Nikkei Electronics)

The biggest difference between the three companies' displays is price. The Sony 46-incher costs $5,000, about $1,500 more than the 46-inch Samsung ($3,500) and the 47-inch LG ($3,600). That's mainly due to a big spec-sheet difference: while the other two use white LED backlights, the Sony uses what the company calls "Triluminous" LED technology.

Sony's LEDs are arranged in groups of four, with two green and one each red and blue. The advantage, according to the company, is "significantly elevated color purity." A demo I saw of Sony's new LED-based models last summer looked impressive indeed, and CNET contributor Kevin Miller, for his part, said "the blacks on the new XBR8 series look to be the best of any LCD that I have seen to date by a good margin."

So we're back to the standard question, as one reader put it: "Is it even possible that the RGB LEDs could make the ($5,000) Sony almost 50 percent better than the Samsung ($3,500)?" The answer will have to wait. I'm receiving my review sample of the KDL-55XBR8 in early October, according to Sony, and LG for its part has promised to deliver its 47LG90 to CNET's lab as soon as possible. Naturally, we'll keep our Samsung sample around for as long as we can to perform our standard side-by-side comparison. Until then, all we can do is speculate.

What do you think? Will Sony's Triluminous technology beat the blooming and provide superior color and off-axis viewing compared with the Samsung? Even if it does, will it be worth the extra dough? What about dark horse LG? Let us know in the comments section.

[stickshaka]

Haven't you forgotten the Phillips 42PLF9803 which also uses LED's?

Strange Sony is using the argument of being more expensive because it uses RGB LED's, yet actually they're cheaper than white LED's.

[hafenbrack]

Yes, but they have 4 times as many LED's and will need much more complex routines to run those different LED's to go on and off as compared to the single white LED system.

[katzmaier]

Hey stickshasha,

I asked Philips about that model, and they finally got back to me. There is no LED-based LCD from Philips or Funai (which manufactures Philips-branded TVs sold in the U.S.) "on the roadmap" this year.

[Starfires]

What I want to see is a comparison with Plasma for black levels and colour fidelity. In my case, I went with LCD for the resolution, what with PS3 games and Blu Rays available to make use of it. Yet I still wonder if plasma gives a better picture overall- okay, better is subjective up to a point, but this is what many videophiles claim. Could this be the technology to better them both?

[mickeygg]

Well let's see, 1 white LED vs 4 colored (RGBG) LEDs. Suddenly the added cost on the Sony isn't so strange is it?

Regardless, contrast numbers are baked, so making numerical comparisons between same backlight technologies at this point in the game is irrelevant. The fact that they're still the main component of this article is unfortunate and somewhat deceiving. The main differentiator between white LED backlights and RGB LED backlights (other than price) is the color level. The only company that has publicly announced their color gamut at this point is Sharp on their AQUOS XS1 at "over 150% NTSC". That model was recently announced at the CEDIA show in Denver. Unofficially Sony has stated the NTSC of their XBR8 at around 120%.

But seeing is believing, so let your own eyes be the final word.

[steve8411]

I hope the Sony is worth the money and the wait... in fact, I just wagered $11,000.00 on it... preordered both the 46" and 55" to replace my 5 year old plasma and a one year old Toshiba that turned out to be quite a disappointment.

[rlmiller9]

just get a good plasma tv for good black levels !

[nosuchthing]

Backlight LEDs -- what's the fuss all about? It's still a stupid LCD TV with 4-8 ms delay. It will never be what a TV is supposed to be. Me? I got muself a 42-ich 720p LG for a grand the other day as a stopgap measure because in about 2-4 years I'll be ditching it for FED or SED TV with phosphorus based screen just like the CRT with no millisecond issues and artifact-filled moving images -- oh, yeah, and real blacks. The eye can hardly discern 720 from 1080 as it is, so why spent upwards of 4 g's when Sony's FED and Canon's SED are just around the corner? Save your money and check out the Vegas CES in January. They'll be there... And then? Your wonderful LCD will soon be gathering dust at the Salvation Army store along with all the Plasmas, Oleds and DLPs.

[bornlikethis38]

I want a laser tv! LEDs are great and all, but HELLO!!!!

LAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASERRRRRRRRRRRRRRS!

[joemajestic]

Yea, what's taking Mitsubishi so long to release their LaserVue sets? They've been promising a 3rd Quarter release for about a year. It's not the middle of September so Mitsubishi, if you reading this, you only have about 2 weeks remaining on your promise.

And you may want to be sure the pricing is low enough to really compete with the latest LED-LCD's already on the market. After all, your not really in the flat panel business with the LaserVue tech.

[Pricey]

OLED for me, thank you very much (no backlight is best for true black levels)

[hafenbrack]

I concur.

[gd1294]

When will nano tube technology ever hit the shelves.

[fdunn3]

Samsung has had LED backlight technology since the 800 series and they are beautiful but expensive.

Alas I am still a SD CRT person and will be until the LED Dynamic Backlit (not just brightness but color reinforcement) are affordable.

But LED Backlighting is very nice.

[franklinpross]

I was shocked to read the spec sheet on Sony's XBR 8 (OLED).

It burns at 350 watts. WOWEEE!

More costly than plasma to operate .

[sgpreston]

Don't know why you say more power than plasma.
Quick check of Pioneer PDP-6020FD and 5020FD list power at 534W and 436W
(page 135 of operating instruction manual)
Puts the 55" LCD between the 50" and 60" Plasma.

It's not good to use the numbers listed in manuals anyway.
They list the max power. Usually the power needed for the first second or two at power on.
EPA is putting out a new energy star spec that will provide good numbers to compare TVs against each other.

[franklinpross]

http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?sssdmh=dm11.111745&catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&productId=8198552921665532058&XID=E:XBRnotify_090808:46xbr8

Hey You Guys- Cut and Paste this address to see the

TRUTH IN PRINT from S O N Y

[franklinpross]

SONY 46" = 350 watts

SONY 55"= 480 watts.

is that too much juice just to watch TV ?

[Seffner]

You guys with your led, oled, sed, fet, dlp, plasma and led back lighting. The human eye just like the human ear can only resolve just so much information. Go out and spend two or three grand for a receiver that has specs that your ears can only hear about 50% of the sound the receiver can actually produce. "Nosuchthing" is spot on when comparing 720p to 1080P. You may be able to detect a slight difference, but is it worth a couple extra grand. And 95% of what you watch is only going to be produced in 720p or 1080i which are virtually identical. I've read that Blueray players will be hitting the sub $200 range by this Xmas. In another year they'll be pushing closer to $100. And right now, that it the only source for true 1080p. So if you are going to buy an HDTV, go to the store and look at what is available side-by-side and pick the one that pleases your eyes the most. And you'll save a couple grand or more in the process cause you'll realize that the $1100 CCFT backlight led tv looks just about as good as the $4000 plasma or led backlite led. Ninety percent of us are not video philes and don't need to spend $4000 just so we can say we spent $3000 more than our neighbor for an HDTV. For you 10 percent, go spend your money cause my eyes can't tell the difference between an HDTV with a 1,000,000:1 dynamic contrast ratio(DCR) and one with 10,000:1 DCR. And I'll have a whole lot more money left over in my pocket than you will. Matter of fact, my first HDTV only has 1800:1 DCR and sports and regular programming broadcast in 720p or 1080i looks damn good. And I'm not afraid to admit it's an off brand 32inch and only cost me $420 last Black Friday. Even the SD broadcasts look 10 times better than my old analog tv ever dreamed of looking because the reception is digital and the tv is an led. My next HDTV I buy will be a 50 to 55 inch and I'll buy what pleases my eyes not my wallet. So you 90 percent go save yourself some money. And BTW, wait until December when prices will be at their lowest.

[numberoneoppa]

Though I may agree with you about the audio components, and the human ear (somewhat), there is still a vast colour and resolution gamut that the eye can perceive that televisions can not reproduce. I don't see why you're criticizing people on a tech site for wanting the best TV that they can get their hands on. Have you seen these TVs up in person? The LED backlit TVs easily blow away any other TV on the market right now.

And then you say buying a 720p TV will be easier on the wallet? What do you say when you want to buy a 1080p TV later on then once you have a Bluray player? The difference is perceivable and there's absolutely nothing wrong with wanting a better picture, especially at larger TV sizes. You may not see the difference on the 32 inch TV of yours, but trust me, as the sizes get higher, it takes more pixels to keep the picture looking at its sharpest.

We aren't here to brag about the amount of money we spent or didn't spend, if we could get a Samsung or Sony LED tv for 500 dollars, you bet in a heartbeat that any single one of us would jump at the opportunity.

[lbeberdick]

Black level is nice, but for most viewers without a darkened media room, need to deal with lots of ambient light. So reflection, brightness and washout are key issues to the majority of real life users. The LED back light interests me because it is said to use 80% less power than Florescent. and i wouldn't count Mitsubishi out just yet. Their Diamond 246 series last year was quite impressive. It would also be great if you compared the various companies internet content since most of the higher end TVs come with a LAN connector. Another issue is the 240 HZ mode, are they really necessary, are they on by default? what are the drawback to using it all the time? if 240 HZ is so great, why does it have an off or mode switch?

[genghis-ron]

"With every new technology release, LCD tries to catch up to plasma in the picture quality race, but never seems to succeed." - CNET review LG42LH90 LED
_______________________________________________________

So very true. The buying public is getting duped again. First it was 120Hz, then 240Hz, soon 480Hz, anti judder, now LED...face it LCD technology is a patchwork of band aids that costs almost double and offers a lesser picture than Plasma. And don't get on about power consumption nonsense with Plasma...my big Pioneer Kuro maybe increased my electric bill by maybe the cost of a bag of chips a month. The one extra item you will need to shell out a few bucks for when you buy a Plasma is a drool cup - you'll need it because your jaw will be on your knees.

[gurman--2008]

Sorry, but edge lit or area lit doesn't do it. It fact, it may turn off future buys. Unless each pixel has an led behind it, true black nor true white cannot be achieved. Why keep losing to plasma displays? Cheap = cheap = inferiority. CNET should stop pushing anything that comes along. Confront the providers to deliver real black/white high resolution, real contrast, and real 3D capability. 10,000 contrast levels. Who is fooling whom?