Sony Announces Pricing and Availability for BRAVIA XR A95L QD-OLED 4K HDR Google TV

Tsing

The FPS Review
Staff member
Joined
May 6, 2019
Messages
12,871
Points
113
Sony Electronics has announced that the BRAVIA XR A95L (2023) starts at $2,799.99 and will be available for pre-order starting August 21 at authorized dealers nationwide. Available in 55-, 65-, and 77-inch class sizes, this is a new QD-OLED 4K HDR TV from Sony that couples one of the world's premier display technologies with Google TV, Google's smart TV streaming platform. Users will also find a Cognitive Processor XR, a good number of HDMI 2.1 ports, and Acoustic Surface Audio+ (sound produced from the entire screen).

See full article...
 
LG C3 55" OLED is $1500. Nice try, Sony.
And the Samsung QD-OLED panel in the Sony is far better in brightness and contrast compared to the C3.

The LG G3 Evo is a better comparison, but the Sony/Samsung is still a better display. All LG did with the G3 Evo is drive the pixels harder for more brightness. Which just means shorter life and greater chance of burn in.
 
And the Samsung QD-OLED panel in the Sony is far better in brightness and contrast compared to the C3.

The LG G3 Evo is a better comparison, but the Sony/Samsung is still a better display. All LG did with the G3 Evo is drive the pixels harder for more brightness. Which just means shorter life and greater chance of burn in.
I'll say that this is probably true, but if one had to choose between buying a Samsung TV and an LG TV, irrespective of the panel I'd go LG every time. I'll happily buy a QD-OLED in someone else's monitor or TV, like in an Alienware (Dell) monitor or a Sony TV.

But that leads to another problem - Sony postures their products as the 'premium' option, which makes LG more price competitive for the same panel size. Also, while the argument about peak brightness almost certainly holds, we're already into 'good enough' territory here.

And if one needs a truly bright panel, OLEDs are still not going to be going toe to toe with LCDs.
 
More is not always better, I don't get this mania for "moooar brigtness" when I'm already running my traditional LCD far from peak brightness.
 
More is not always better, I don't get this mania for "moooar brigtness" when I'm already running my traditional LCD far from peak brightness.

OLED's are not bright, and get washed out in bright rooms. Since they don't use backlighting like a LCD.
 
I don't know why anyone would want Google permanently embedded in their TV.
 
I don't know why anyone would want Google permanently embedded in their TV.
Because google helped offset the cost in some say that was beneficial for sony so sony says everyone wants it.
 
More is not always better, I don't get this mania for "moooar brigtness" when I'm already running my traditional LCD far from peak brightness.

OLED's are not bright, and get washed out in bright rooms. Since they don't use backlighting like a LCD.
So I have an older LG OLED - a C6?. So not only is it one of the older models that doesn't get as bright, it has a few hours on it as well.

What Riccochet says is true - it does struggle if the room is bright. It's at it's absolute best when the lights are dim. I wouldn't call the screen dim, it has a peak output of around 600 nits, and if you had a pure white screen it could be blindingly bright, but it has a very aggressive auto-dimmer which will only let the brightness stay there for a moment and then it will dim the entire screen to preserve the contrast of the image (a nice trick to have when you have an infinite black level I suppose). Most of the time it isn't noticeable - you are watching something dynamic and the explosion only needs to be bright for a second, or the screen is sustained and it dims early on and stays dimmer for the duration - but it is present. But counter to that, as bright as the panel is capable of getting, I wouldn't want to run it at that level full time anyway as it would burn my eyeballs out.

That said, my biggest issue with it isn't that the screen brightness or the aggressive means needed to protect the screen - it is an issue, but compared to the contrast and color the screen can put out, it's a minor annoyance at best. My biggest gripe is the fact that the screen itself is glossy and reflects so much. Now, part of that does have to do with screen brightness, so I recognize it's somewhat related. I have to pull all the shades down in the room during the day or you can't see anything on the screen because of the reflections. The addition of an anti-reflective coating in the 2023 OLED models is the first thing that has had me thinking of upgrading.

But you can pry the absolute blacks and rich colors from my cold dead hands - I wouldn't trade that for all the brightness in the world. I guess everything has a tradeoff, it's just a matter of what you are willing to live with and pay for.
 
I love my C2 and C9. The C9 is positioned so that it's more susceptible to reflections and light from the windows. The C2 has some of that going on but not as bad since it's closer to the corner of the room and away from most of the windows. Both are in the living room. My experiences with both have pretty much mirrored what @Brian_B said. All that being said and I've no plans to upgrade anything as I feel everything is mostly how I want it (finally). I wouldn't mind upgrading the CRG9 but it gets the job done and is not worth the amount of money it would take to do it.

What I can't live with is an auto dimmer that changes the brightness of the screen to fake dynamic range.
I totally agree. One of the first things I look to turn off with a new display.
 
What I can't live with is an auto dimmer that changes the brightness of the screen to fake dynamic range.
Not sure it's for dynamic range, more so than panel protection.

And for video (movies etc.), it's not a poor compromise. Where it'd be unbearable would be for desktop use.
 
Not sure it's for dynamic range, more so than panel protection.

And for video (movies etc.), it's not a poor compromise. Where it'd be unbearable would be for desktop use.
It is definitely for fake dynamic range if the screen is dimmed when much of the picture is dark. Most backlit TVs do this. It is the first thing I turn off.

And no, it is not just a poor compromise it is an unacceptable one, I'd rather have slightly softer blacks than this fake nonsense that makes the actual part of the screen where there is something to see too dark to make out also.
 
It is definitely for fake dynamic range if the screen is dimmed when much of the picture is dark. Most backlit TVs do this. It is the first thing I turn off.
It's fake dynamic range on a backlit monitor. It's pixel protection on an OLED.

It still sucks, but the key differences are infinite black level and per-pixel control.
 
Become a Patron!
Back
Top