Sky Glass 2.0 Launch Details

[CliffyCliff]

I am not getting into this to much because people just do not want to learn but a mini LED TV is always going to deficate on a LCD TV from a great height. LCD TVs just cannot keep up. I am curious what specs of the GEN 2 you are comparing and where you found them as i have not seen any yet unless "better HDR" counts as a spec. I take it back, it also says "zonal dimming" but fails to say how many zones. Could you please list teh actual specs you are lookig at and comparing, would be interesting to see considering i cannot find actual specs anywhere

[Carnoch04]

---

@CliffyCliff wrote:

I am not getting into this to much because people just do not want to learn but a mini LED TV is always going to deficate on a LCD TV from a great height. LCD TVs just cannot keep up. I am curious what specs of the GEN 2 you are comparing and where you found them as i have not seen any yet unless "better HDR" counts as a spec. I take it back, it also says "zonal dimming" but fails to say how many zones. Could you please list teh actual specs you are lookig at and comparing, would be interesting to see considering i cannot find actual specs anywhere

---

I am not looking at specs, I am actually looking at the two TV's in the same room next to each other. Picture clarity = similar, blacks = similar, picture depth better on Gen 2, sound much better on Gen 2. Philips also as a blurring effect on some shows with fast movement which is not on the Gen 2. I am not a techno-phile, I am just telling you which of the two I prefer watching. When it comes down to it, that is the main  reason for having one. 

[Chasloyal]

@Carnoch04 you do realise a higher refresh rate makes for far smoother viewing and is not just about gaming requirements don't you?

Where did you do the side by side comparison if you don't mind me asking as I'm curious about what sort of environment it took place in?

I can't lie, I am completely baffled bordering skeptical on how you interpreted the picture that the Sky Glass 2.0 produced was superior to that of what the Mini LED produced.

I don't have any reason to doubt that Sky Glass 2.0 produces better sound to be fair. But let's not beat about the bush here though, as built-in speakers on televisions set a very low bar indeed.

Even the sound on high-end flagship TV's will nigh on get trumped by literally the most basic budget soundbar with additional rears and a separate sub. All television manufacturers seem to hoodwink punters in to thinking their units' built-in speakers can produce a satisfactory level of immersion when that is simply not true.

I've spent way in excess of 3000 quid on arguably the best wireless audio for the telly in our living room and of course its performance is acceptable, even decent perhaps. Alas the brutal truth though is that it still can't replicate what a couple of bang average ceiling speakers will produce when it comes height channels 😕 unfortunately Mrs Loyal point-blank refuses to even consider my regular requests to complete the rig with a couple, or perhaps even 4, ceiling speakers so it probably won't ever happen.

Sorry about going off on a tangent, it was just a very long-winded way of me arguing that the built-in speakers should play absolutely no part in anyone's considerations when purchasing a new TV.

[Carnoch04]

---

@Chasloyal wrote:

You do realise a higher refresh rate makes for far smoother viewing is not just about gaming requirements don't you? 

Where did you do the side by side comparison if you don't mind me asking as I'm curious about what sort of environment it took place in?

---

The comparison was in my front room. I now have the Philips in my bedroom so I watch both every day and I have never switched the Philips on and thought "this is a better picture". All I am doing here is giving my opinion of the two sets. 

[Chasloyal]

---

@Carnoch04 wrote:

---

@Chasloyal wrote:

You do realise a higher refresh rate makes for far smoother viewing is not just about gaming requirements don't you? 

Where did you do the side by side comparison if you don't mind me asking as I'm curious about what sort of environment it took place in?

---

The comparison was in my front room. I now have the Philips in my bedroom so I watch both every day and I have never switched the Philips on and thought "this is a better picture". All I am doing here is giving my opinion of the two sets. 

---

Fair enough if that is what you can see you can't really argue with your own eyesight.

Though I reserve the right to say I'm completely gobsmacked and would love half hour to fiddle about with the settings on your Mini LED.

I know it definitely won't reflect an accurate image but have you got any pics of the 2 TV's sat next to each other displaying the same content you can upload on here?

[CliffyCliff]

I am definately not doubting your experience but would also be interested in where you were able to see both side by side. It sounds to me though that the Phillips was poorly configured (or defective) by whom ever set it up (the blurring effect can be disabled for example). Mini LED should never be worse then LCD and thats not a bias as i have never owned mini led display , mini LED is just superior tech much like OLED is litterally the best display tech. What you saw was definately either defective or very poorly configureed.

[Carnoch04]

@Chasloyal yes, I am happy with what I see and that, I suppose is what matters. I didn't take pics of the two sets next to each other I'm afraid.

@CliffyCliff I did the side by side comparison in my front room. The Philips is just over a year old and was set up by a Philips engineer after he replaced the faulty motherboard ten months ago. 

To quote @stereohaven from another thread

"Aficionados would say there are far, far better TVs out there for less or similar money, which you could easily plug Sky Stream into (and they are 100% correct), but this TV is pitched at "most" customers, who don't care about the intricacies of display technology, nits, true Dolby Atmos or what type of HDMI sockects it has, but are happy with a fairly decent picture, rounded sound"

I totally agree. 

[Chasloyal]

---

@Carnoch04 wrote:

@Chasloyal yes, I am happy with what I see and that, I suppose is what matters. I didn't take pics of the two sets next to each other I'm afraid.

@CliffyCliff I did the side by side comparison in my front room. The Philips is just over a year old and was set up by a Philips engineer after he replaced the faulty motherboard ten months ago. 

To quote @stereohaven from another thread

"Aficionados would say there are far, far better TVs out there for less or similar money, which you could easily plug Sky Stream into (and they are 100% correct), but this TV is pitched at "most" customers, who don't care about the intricacies of display technology, nits, true Dolby Atmos or what type of HDMI sockects it has, but are happy with a fairly decent picture, rounded sound"

I totally agree. 

---

Little Charlie on my left shoulder is saying just let it go whilst little Charlie on my right shoulder says oh no geezer, raise what you've read  🤔

Your initial foray in to this debate actually said you wished someone would show you a better TV than Sky Glass that costs less but then in your most recent contribution you post a quote stating that it is 100% correct you can get far far better TV's for less or similar money and that you totally agree with that 😲

Thus I don't think it's inappropriate of me to point out that you can't really have it both ways fella. 

And throughout this whole debate I've stopped myself from coming back with the highly predictable and reasonable, but rather catty, response that you're hardly going to admit that your old telly is superior to the shiny brand new one you've just forked out 300 quid more for are you?

It's a totally natural human emotion to feel the new toy we've just bought is better than the old one it's replacing. I'd suggest 99.9% of us will be wired up the same way on that front.

I can assure you I very much felt it when I bought a mid-tier 43" Samsung 1080p to replace my flagship 40" Sony 1080p about 14 or 15 years ago.

The Sony cost me just over 2 grand, 2200 quid I think it was, yet because I wanted a bigger telly I sold it for 500 quid about 18 months later and bought this 43" Samsung thing to replace it for about a grand.

Kept telling myself the Samsung was a better telly for the first month or so that I had it but then eventually I just had to get real and admit defeat. Without a doubt my biggest mistake in over 35 years of buying and selling my home entertainment gear, even recollecting it now makes me wince and squirm with shame 😳

Hence I'll be rather interested to know if you still feel the same about your Sky Glass 2.0 a couple of months down the line. At least you've still got the Mini LED to swap them about if you see things differently then.

[Carnoch04]

@Chasloyal the post I was answering claimed "It is true you can get as good for £200 from a supermarket".  I said I wish someone could show me one and so far all I have seen is ones costing 3 times that at least. 

[Hunter2660]

Oh my word, please enough. People who buy Glass aren't bothered about specs, they just want a TV to watch Corry, Emmerdale, Eastenders etc. in a one box, plug in and play, no ugly wires solution. As long as they like the picture they see, (and Glass isn't that bad when calibrated, I have one in my man cave to watch sport, and it suits me fine, no aerial, no wires, easy). Give people here a break, we all know you can buy a super duper TV for a little less, but that's not what they come here to read about. 

[Chasloyal]

---

@Hunter2660 wrote:

Oh my word, please enough. People who buy Glass aren't bothered about specs, they just want a TV to watch Corry, Emmerdale, Eastenders etc. in a one box, plug in and play, no ugly wires solution. As long as they like the picture they see, (and Glass isn't that bad when calibrated, I have one in my man cave to watch sport, and it suits me fine, no aerial, no wires, easy). Give people here a break, we all know you can buy a super duper TV for a little less, but that's not what they come here to read about. 

---

You what, so they come here to read pearls of wisdom advising them to spend more money on less TV then? 

Yep that sounds really logical so thanks for putting me back in my box 🫡

[Chasloyal]

---

@Carnoch04 wrote:

@Chasloyal the post I was answering claimed "It is true you can get as good for £200 from a supermarket".  I said I wish someone could show me one and so far all I have seen is ones costing 3 times that at least. 

---

I can't comment on that because I'm a tech snob who has never even glanced at a supermarket TV, let alone scrutinised the specs.

Though a wild stab in dark says it'll probably be easier to out one of those on when you're done with it than it is to find a buyer for a second-hand Sky Glass unit.

[Hunter2660]

Jeeez! Your not listening are you. I think it's probably best to avoid this thread in future. Too many arguments, I'm really not interested.

[CliffyCliff]

@Hunter2660 I think you are missing the point lad. This is a general topic about Sky Glass Gen 2. This is exactly where you discuss competing products. Its like if you where on a tech forum, a general thread regarding Nvidia 50series and you would expect to see dicussion aboiut AMD graphics cards. This is how forums work. This is where perspective buyers would go to find out about what gen 2 can do and what other products that compete with it can do.

If you want a thread just about Ge 2 then create a SKY Glass Gen 2 Owners thread. That would be a thread where you just talk about Gen 2 and its many faults or maybe even plus points like not having to plug a HDMI lead in. I am sorry but teh problem with this thread is it has certain people who rush out to buy the product knowing next to nothing about it because homework is not there strong point and buy just because its on finance and then they do not like to hear how they made a mistake or could of done so much better, Then these same people become tocix calling people losers or mentally unstable.

Learn how forums works, learn how intellectual discussion and debate works. I have had enough of this whole Sky Community, it is full of Sky apologists who only want to be told how great there system is and just do not understand how forums should work or be run. I'll stick to forums where i can learn stuff and others are willing to learn also without getting uposet cause there new shinny is pants 

[Chasloyal]

Whoah whoah whoah, I am not arguing though.

I and those like me are merely making a fairly legitimate case for why prospective adopters can do significantly better than Sky Glass for similar money or even less money.

Needless to say that will upset some of those who are very much invested in Sky Glass. Regardless of if they're folk who have spent their own money on their device or they are those who have been supplied with a unit by Sky but are unable to reveal this because of NDA's, some will take the view we are trashing Sky Glass which is just simply not the case.

I passionately believe there needs to be some balance because you ain't getting much of that from a sizeable chunk of the folk round here. They firmly believe Sky Glass is the mutts's nuts which is why there are those who will push back against anything that doesn't champion it like they do.

You only have to look at last night's posts to see it weren't a Sky Glass sceptic giving it all the bunny, getting stroppy dishing out personal insults.

So I'm sorry but raising valid points and engaging in reasoned debate does not equate to arguing, whilst creating a brand new account to come in here and start lobbing hand grenades about in all directions does.

Have a nice evening as I'm off to Kuttenberg to partake in some medieval goodness now 🎮