Moderns TVs are getting lost in the weeds of measurements and specs


When you buy a TV, what motivates the purchase: Picture quality? Value? Screen size? Brand loyalty?

Is brightness in nits, dimming zones and Delta E colour accuracy among those ‘needs’. I’d hazard a guess and say ‘probably not’.

Which is not to say that these areas are not important, but I’d make an assumption that most of the TV buying audience is not au fait with these areas – some won’t know their nits from their candelas, and others just won’t care.

And that’s fine.

But the TV market seems to have developed a fixation with measurements and numbers, and it’s become a question of to what end?

Advertisement

Playing the numbers game

For the most part, you’re unlikely to come across these technical terms during your TV buying experience. Browsing the likes of Currys, Amazon and Richer Sounds, you’ll be exposed to the marketing ramble, most of it words that look like they could be equations or formulas (NQ4 AI Gen3, a9 AI processor).

On our side, the reviewers’ side, we get this as well as insight on the technical side. Of course, we need to know how they work, but I won’t lie in saying that some of this stuff goes over my head and requires educating myself and asking questions.

The more advanced TVs get, the more complex they become to understand. The use of AI has, in a way, accelerated this complexity faster. AI is often used as a blanket term for tech. For some TV manufacturers, as part of their brand story, it’s easier to say AI to get people interested and fit as part of the overall story in tech.

TCL SQD-MiniLED
Image Credit (Trusted Reviews)

AI has helped TVs achieve a higher level of performance. But it’s also turned TVs into a numbers game – my number is bigger than yours.

But what does it really mean? If I have a TV from Samsung, LG, Sony, Hisense and TCL and they all hit 3000 nits of brightness, which is better? The one with more dimming zones? The one that covers the widest colour spectrum? The one with the best Delta E number?

Advertisement

Focusing on these areas turns it into a specs battle, and for most people, none of these measurements will have much context in their living room. If the picture looks good, then it looks good. Things like Delta E, tone mapping, and colour gamut – they’ll end up just confusing the buyer or making decisions more complicated, not easier.

Welcome to the real world

The TV that prompted this discussion was the Hisense UR9.

On paper, this TV has stonking specs. It’s an RGB Mini LED, brand new technology to the TV market that allows for purer colours, displaying a wider range of colours than more conventional LCD TVs and doing so with more accuracy. The number of dimming zones is nearly 1000, it claims to hit peak brightness levels of 4000 nits. All these specs suggest a Bona fide contender.

So why was I left underwhelmed by the UR9’s picture?

Colours weren’t that punchy or bright. The levels of sharpness and detail were less than those of an LG OLED65G6 sat next to it. The Dynamic mode, which should be the brightest, looked dull. Filmmaker mode, Cinema mode and IMAX Enhanced mode all looked identical to the point where I thought something must be wrong with the TV.

Advertisement

Having reviewed the U8Q in 2025 and hailed that as the best Hisense TV I’d tested, the UR9 felt as if the balloon had popped, leaving me deflated.

Hisense UR9 Alien Romulus
Image Credit (Trusted Reviews)

Reasons? I don’t think the anti-reflection/anti-glare screen worked in Hisense’s favour, as it seemed to shave off levels of detail, sharpness, and reduce contrast, which I also noted on Hisense’s Canvas TV. Highlights and overall brightness weren’t as high as measurements suggested, black levels not as strong or as deep as I hoped.

Viewing angles weren’t great either, like down to the type of panel used, and colours were a bit off despite many reviews noting the accuracy the UR9 out of the box.

But something just wasn’t quite right with the TV’s picture performance.

Personally, I wonder if this is down to Hisense’s PQ philosophy, or how it views colour. Every brand has a PQ philosophy; Sony wants to reflect the creator’s intent, as do LG and Panasonic, while Samsung wants to do that and offer the brightest, most colourful picture experience with any technology it gets its hands on.

Advertisement

But I can’t quite discern what Hisense’s philosophy is. In the past I’ve found its TVs have relied heavily on Dolby Vision, which is not their PQ philosophy but Dolby’s.

Earlier this year, I witnessed a shootout between several TVs: OLED, Mini LED, RGB Mini LED, and SQD Mini LED. The model that fared the worst was the Hisense, with all the test patterns and demos causing some sort of issue.

One pattern in particular showed Hisense’s lack of precision. The pattern was a white rectangle surrounded by green. The rest of the TVs showed the white rectangle as white – the Hisense showed the white rectangle to be a shade of green…

The gist of all this? What the specs say on paper doesn’t always translate to the real world.

Don’t be swayed by the specs, the charts, the stats. Not everything is always what it appears to be.

Advertisement



Source link

Leave a Reply

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get our latest articles delivered straight to your inbox. No spam, we promise.

Recent Reviews






It’s easy to assume that vehicles all had internal combustion engines until very recently. Gasoline and petrol engines were the standard for decades, after all, so why would early vehicles be any different? In reality, the early days of the automobile era were more varied than you might expect, and even featured a range of electric cars. Yes, despite electric vehicles not truly taking off until the 21st century, the first electric vehicles are much older than you think; drivers in the 1900s were going around town in electric vehicles — and where there are EVs, there are charging stations.

One such station, visible in the image above, was the creation of General Electric. Formally called the mercury arc rectifier, it took alternating current and sent it through vaporized mercury in a glass tube. This converted it into direct current, which powered up the EV’s battery. The woman in the image, who’s charging a Columbia Mark 68 Victrola, is standing at the control panel, which allowed a user to adjust power levels. 

These chargers could be installed everywhere, including homes, businesses, and public parking garages, supporting the electric vehicle boom of the early 20th century. While 21st-century EV chargers have come a long way from where they were, the basic building blocks are all still there, and it’s fascinating to see.

How EV chargers have evolved since the early 20th century

EV charging has changed a lot in some ways — but not in others. At the core of it all is the aforementioned conversion from AC to DC, which still happens when you charge modern EVs at standard charging stations. The difference is that your vehicle’s on-board charger performs the conversion, not the charger. Old EV chargers took between several hours and a day to charge, and current-day units can similarly take a few hours to well over a day from empty, depending on the charger’s speed. Fast chargers, which provide DC directly, can cut this down to around an hour or less.

Old-school and modern EV chargers also differ in how they provide power to the vehicle. Mercury arc rectifiers connected directly to the negative terminal of the lead-acid battery that needed charging. Nowadays, EVs use dedicated charging ports. Battery swapping was also commonplace in the early 1900s, and companies like General Electric tried to cash in by offering to replace drivers’ old, run-down batteries with new ones for a fee. That’s not yet possible with most mainstream EVs, although companies like Stellantis have tried to introduce EV battery swapping with moderate success.

Even if they were unrefined compared to today’s models, early EVs seemed to be on to something. Why, then, did electric cars fail, and how did gasoline end up becoming the predominant power source for vehicles?

What led to the downfall of the original wave of electric cars

EVs were no mere fad in the 1900s and 1910s. According to the 1900 United States census, 1,575 of the 4,192 vehicles sold that year were electric, with the value of these early EVs — $2,873,464 — accounting for more than half of the total market value of $4,899,443. It wasn’t just EVs, either; other sources of propulsion, like steam, were also vying for a foothold in the automobile market. By the 1920s and 1930s, though, these had all been superseded by the internal combustion engine.

One of the major drawbacks of early EVs was the fact that electricity was not yet widely available. Electrical hookups were a rarity outside of major cities, limiting the use of these vehicles. The lead-acid batteries they used also had their fair share of issues. They needed to be inspected, cleaned, and repaired every few days, making them more of an inconvenience than anything. Worse yet, they had poor mileage, and, with chargers possibly out of reach, many likely didn’t want to risk being stranded while out for a drive.

Eventually, price reductions for gas cars and improvements such as electric starters and better reliability prompted buyers and automakers alike to move away from electric rides. Thus, while the best-selling EVs of 2026 show that it’s a good time for EVs, this electric boom plainly isn’t the first of its kind. Early EVs eventually fizzled out, but they still set the stage for our current fascination with electric vehicles.





Source link