Questions regarding FlatpanelsHD reviews will be answered here.
By Kuschelmonschter
#16987
Why Sony has decided to downgrade the chip in its flagship TVs for spring 2019 is not clear but the same is true for the 8K Z9G.

I actually wondered why they did 4GB in last year's TVs while staying with 32-bit Linux/Android TV. It won't improve performance a bit. It will only result in more apps lingering around in the background, probably doing bad things. Multitasking is not much of a use-case on a TV. So 2.5GB is more than enough in my opinion.

Sony Android TVs are already underpowered so reducing RAM is obviously the wrong trajectory.

Increasing RAM size wouldn't help performance. Doesn't Android TV feel snappy on MT5893?
By PrzemysławMazurek
#16990 Rasmus, thanks a lot for another great review :)

Now, after reading all the reviews (A9F, C9 and A9G), I have still one question with no answer. Which one to go for.

I have been waiting 4 years now, hoping that each year both (Sony and LG) will take thair TV’s to the next level. But it seams that thay are improving in some areas but downgrading in the others.

So without taking into account the price, what would be your recommendation. Going for A9G vs A9F (that might be better in some areas) or maybe C9?
By Reviewno1
#16991 Def go with the a9g if you go with Sony remember numbers dont always tell you what your seeing. The a9g dynamic tone mapping is something to behold. This is the reason he said it had seen of the best HDR images hes seen. Last years a9f he said just had alright hdr performance not as good as the c8. This year he said it was keeping up with the c9 and the c9 has different tone mapping also. It makes its percieved brightness more then the c8 when watching the same content. The a9g is something to behold I own it after spending days with the a9f and a9g. The a9g does have improvements in image quality even better shadow detail. The highlights have more punch. And the Dolby vision modes arent as dim. As he stated even in standard he got it up to 850 nits its higher then the c9. The c9 is amazing tho and has so many good features like 2.1 and fressunc capabilitys. Its operating system of course is a dream I still say best image quality goes to a9g but its close.
By darren.pillans
#16993 I'm still not completely clear. The A9F sounds better and has more RAM. Will the A9G's reduced RAM affect the Android experience? AV Forums said their X950G crashed when testing. Is the A9G a better TV in ANY way? Should I get the A9F instead?
By TuxedoMax
#16994 If you plan to keep this set for 3+ years AND you care about gaming, then ONLY the C9 will allow you to play 4K @120Hz via HDMI 2.1. PlayStation has already announced the resolution of its next console for 2020. Since the pictures of all 3 appear largely indistinguishable if panel lottery is taken into consideration, go with the more future proofed TV.
By TuxedoMax
#16995
Reviewno1 wrote:Def go with the a9g if you go with Sony remember numbers dont always tell you what your seeing. The a9g dynamic tone mapping is something to behold...The a9g is something to behold I own it after spending days with the a9f and a9g. The a9g does have improvements in image quality even better shadow detail. The highlights have more punch...
But both A9G and A9F have the same X1 processor and SOC chip, so theoretically they should have identical performance but you just got a better A9G panel because yield consistency has improved for 2019? At least LG made an effort to update its processor and motion algorithm to visible improvements whereas Sony literally did absolutely nothing to improve A9F image quality.
By PrzemysławMazurek
#16996
TuxedoMax wrote:If you plan to keep this set for 3+ years AND you care about gaming, then ONLY the C9 will allow you to play 4K @120Hz via HDMI 2.1. PlayStation has already announced the resolution of its next console for 2020. Since the pictures of all 3 appear largely indistinguishable if panel lottery is taken into consideration, go with the more future proofed TV.

But what would be your choice if gaming is of no matter? Mostly movies and sport are our main activities.
By TuxedoMax
#16998
PrzemysławMazurek wrote:But what would be your choice if gaming is of no matter? Mostly movies and sport are our main activities.

Absolutely, without question, I would choose the Sony A9G for the following reasons: (1) trust the process: yes, I am cynical and feel that Sony "did nothing" to improve the set this year, however, that said, I still have to assume that any changes were made to improve the image, no matter how negligible. (2) forward thinking compatibility: product engineering being what it is, firmware upgrades are very hardware specific, and I don't want to risk firmware obsolescence if future firmware updates are only compatible with A9G but not the A9F. (3) Thinner/lighter than A9F: not a big deal, but I plan to mount it on the wall with the arm extended between 16" and 20" more often than not - so for me, a lighter product reduces the risk of mount failure. (4) Objectively the "best" image quality: after exhaustively reading reviews and measurements wherever I can find them, my conclusion is that the A9G is more likely than not, the best consumer level image quality you can buy. Consequently, "consumer focused" reviews downgrade the A9G as not being "worth" the price premium for these negligible qualities because they are helping you make a value judgement. As a matter of fact, I was seriously considering the 8K Samsung until early reviews revealed it to have inferior image quality notwithstanding the higher resolution.

All this said, I have both the 65" A9G (movies) and 65" Samsung Q90R (gaming and sports) ordered because I have mutually exclusive viewing environments. The A9G is in a darkened room to highlight the most minute improvements in HDR and color accuracy, whereas the Q90R is in the brightly lit mixed use entertainment room which best balances its hyperbolic color saturation, peak brightness and limited contrast ratio.
By TuxedoMax
#17000
PrzemysławMazurek wrote:
TuxedoMax wrote:If you plan to keep this set for 3+ years AND you care about gaming, then ONLY the C9 will allow you to play 4K @120Hz via HDMI 2.1. PlayStation has already announced the resolution of its next console for 2020. Since the pictures of all 3 appear largely indistinguishable if panel lottery is taken into consideration, go with the more future proofed TV.

But what would be your choice if gaming is of no matter? Mostly movies and sport are our main activities.
My choice would be the A9G because I have controlled lighting to fully highlight all the subtle details of the X1 Ultimate chip. Additionally it’s the only TV so far with IMAX and Netflix enhanced mode, which may not mean much but seeing how Netflix is taking their content quality seriously, I’ll take that gamble.
User avatar
By Rasmus Larsen
#17005
Kuschelmonschter wrote:I actually wondered why they did 4GB in last year's TVs while staying with 32-bit Linux/Android TV. It won't improve performance a bit. It will only result in more apps lingering around in the background, probably doing bad things. Multitasking is not much of a use-case on a TV. So 2.5GB is more than enough in my opinion.


In my opinion multitasking has the potential to be very important on a TV, if done right. Of course, a TV would have to work more like Apple TV (go into slumber instead of turning off). I want the apps that are used most frequently to stay in memory and load/switch immediately. Keeping those apps in RAM would be one way to achieve this.

Of course with Android TV more multitasking also enables more tracking and background processes. In that sense it's probably not something that's in the user's best interest.
User avatar
By Rasmus Larsen
#17006
PrzemysławMazurek wrote:I have been waiting 4 years now, hoping that each year both (Sony and LG) will take thair TV’s to the next level. But it seams that thay are improving in some areas but downgrading in the others.

So without taking into account the price, what would be your recommendation. Going for A9G vs A9F (that might be better in some areas) or maybe C9?


I think it depends on your needs. If you are a gamer and if you are planning to invest in PS5 or Xbox Two (?) I would say go for HDMI 2.1, or in other words LG's models. My only caveat here would be if HDMI 2.1 is limited in some form on LG's 2019 models. That's hard to say at this time. Another option would be to wait another year.

If you are not a gamer HDMI 2.0 should satisfy your needs. And then you can pick freely from all of them. The current OLED TVs are very similar besides the TV OS, speakers and such. Much of this comes down to personal preference, I think. Some of them have better pre-configured picture modes than others but overall they are more similar than different in my opinion.
User avatar
By Rasmus Larsen
#17007
Helvetica Bold wrote:Why did you give the A9G a score of 80 for features and the LG C9 a 74? The LG has 4 HDMI 2.1ports including better gaming features and a new OS. I don't understand the score.


LG TVs get -10 on features because webOS is not receiving updates. Same for Samsung's TVs (Tizen). It's highlighted in the big grey box in the conclusion.
User avatar
By Rasmus Larsen
#17008
darren.pillans wrote:I'm still not completely clear. The A9F sounds better and has more RAM. Will the A9G's reduced RAM affect the Android experience? AV Forums said their X950G crashed when testing. Is the A9G a better TV in ANY way? Should I get the A9F instead?


We didn't experience crashes during our time with the TV. But I don't doubt that it can happen. We have examined Android TVs for a few years now and although it has been improved performance still leaves a lot to be desired.

Depends on the difference in price. If you can manage to find A9F at a good discount, I would say go for it (unless you want the Apple features and Dolby Atmos support). If you want a more future-proof TV (HDMI 2.1) go for LG's 2019 OLED.