Which monitor would you keep? Need help, TIA

The LG has better specs, but I remember those, I used to have one. Because it's not LED, the colour wasn't a cool daylight, but rather the typical warm white of an older fluorescent bulb.

I also had a similar Acer. Better colour of light but weak brightness and the colour gamut sucked.

Keep the LG.

Poutsounia wrote: ↑ The LG has better specs, but I remember those, I used to have one. Because it's not LED, the colour wasn't a cool daylight, but rather the typical warm white of an older fluorescent bulb.

I also had a similar Acer. Better colour of light but weak brightness and the colour gamut sucked.

Keep the LG.

Thank you for the input. Forgot to post is the LG was manufactured in 2009 and the Acer in 2013. The Acer uses an external power supply. Monitor panel usually last quite a while, the only enemy is dying power supply capacitors, external power supply has an advantage, if the capacitors is dying, all you need is to replace the power supply while internal, you need to open up the monitor and replace the capacitors which require soldering skills.

Anyway, since my daughter is using the LG right now, I have replaced it with the Acer and let her decide which to keep, Thank you again for the input.

apvm wrote: ↑ Thank you for the input. Forgot to post is the LG was manufactured in 2007 and the Acer in 2010. The Acer uses an external power supply. Monitor panel usually last quite a while, the only enemy is dying power supply capacitors, external power supply has an advantage, if the capacitors is dying, all you need is to replace the power supply while internal, you need to open up the monitor and replace the capacitors which require soldering skills.

Anyway, since my daughter is using the LG right now, I have replaced it with the Acer and let her decide which to keep, Thank you again for the input.

I know that exact Acer. I had a guy who wanted to put one in his small RV, running off of 12v. That was perfect unit. I just spliced together a car adapter to plug into the cig lighter and provide the 12v directly to the monitor, skipping inefficient Inverters

Bad thing about it is that it's very easy to break. The LG is tougher. If that LG has LED backlight, you'd be set, but oh well.

I would keep the Acer with the LED backlight.

It should last longer than the LG. The LG with its' CCFL backlight starts dimming from the day of first use and continues to dim over it's lifetime. It may have been 300cd/m2 when brand new but it could be less than 200 cd/m2 now if you have been using it every day. Also, the LED backlight powers up at more or less full brightness while the CCFL backlight can take over 30 minutes to stabilize at full brightness.

Bear in mind that guys like myself, who edit images every day in a semi darkened room, run monitors at 80 to 120 cd/m2 and are perfectly happy with the brightness at those levels. Makes for less eye strain with all the white browser pages (like RFD) and our Word and Excel documents we edit. How bright your monitor should be run at is related to the ambient lighting of your work area. You probably don't need more than 140 cd/m2 for 6 months of the year when it is dark after dinner time and you are relying on artificial lighting. Most student's room with one 600 to 800 lumen bulb desk lamp would likely not require more than 120 cd/m2 of monitor brightness.

Or keep them both and run a dual monitor setup - very useful when running multiple applications at the same time as I do in my home office.

Edit: I'm assuming you are using these with a desktop. If you have a laptop and it is a consumer model, meaning typically they have a HDMI port, then the LG with its' HDMI input may be easier to use if you are constantly going mobile with the laptop. Running dual monitors on a consumer laptop, especially an older one, is usually not feasible. Running a single 1920x1080 external monitor as the only screen is standard and so much easier to work with than the typical small low res screens (1366x768?).

.

Poutsounia wrote: ↑
I know that exact Acer. I had a guy who wanted to put one in his small RV, running off of 12v. That was perfect unit. I just spliced together a car adapter to plug into the cig lighter and provide the 12v directly to the monitor, skipping inefficient Inverters

Bad thing about it is that it's very easy to break. The LG is tougher. If that LG has LED backlight, you'd be set, but oh well.

NewsyL wrote: ↑ I would keep the Acer with the LED backlight.

It should last longer than the LG. The LG with its' CCFL backlight starts dimming from the day of first use and continues to dim over it's lifetime. It may have been 300cd/m2 when brand new but it could be less than 200 cd/m2 now if you have been using it every day. Also, the LED backlight powers up at more or less full brightness while the CCFL backlight can take over 30 minutes to stabilize at full brightness.

Bear in mind that guys like myself, who edit images every day in a semi darkened room, run monitors at 80 to 120 cd/m2 and are perfectly happy with the brightness at those levels. Makes for less eye strain with all the white browser pages (like RFD) and our Word and Excel documents we edit. How bright your monitor should be run at is related to the ambient lighting of your work area. You probably don't need more than 140 cd/m2 for 6 months of the year when it is dark after dinner time and you are relying on artificial lighting. Most student's room with one 600 to 800 lumen bulb desk lamp would likely not require more than 120 cd/m2 of monitor brightness.

Or keep them both and run a dual monitor setup - very useful when running multiple applications at the same time as I do in my home office.

Edit: I'm assuming you are using these with a desktop. If you have a laptop and it is a consumer model, meaning typically they have a HDMI port, then the LG with its' HDMI input may be easier to use if you are constantly going mobile with the laptop. Running dual monitors on a consumer laptop, especially an older one, is usually not feasible. Running a single 1920x1080 external monitor as the only screen is standard and so much easier to work with than the typical small low res screens (1366x768?).

.

Thank you very much for the input, did not know that much about monitor until now. I bought both monitor second hand so no idea how they were used. Anyway, I found both look about the same with youtube 1080p clip and Windows 10 background. As for HDMI, since the monitor is for desktop and connected via DVI cable, so does not matter too much. In any case, I have a DVI to HDMI adapter so don't think it will affect much.

Thanks again.

Speaking of Acer, are any of you familiar with this model?:
https://www.acer.com/ac/en/CA/content/m ... .QG7AA.002

It is at Best Buy for $200. It was cheaper on Black Friday and I was considering it then.

Anyway, I agree with the guy who said the Acer will last longer. Acer used to be the lower tier of monitors but I think they have caught up to Samsung and LG now. Well, I suspect Samsung and LG have slipped a bit in quality control and I think they have so many models nowadays, I bet some of them are no better than Acer's top ones, at least.

teleguitar wrote: ↑ Speaking of Acer, are any of you familiar with this model?:
https://www.acer.com/ac/en/CA/content/m ... .QG7AA.002

It is at Best Buy for $200. It was cheaper on Black Friday and I was considering it then.

Anyway, I agree with the guy who said the Acer will last longer. Acer used to be the lower tier of monitors but I think they have caught up to Samsung and LG now. Well, I suspect Samsung and LG have slipped a bit in quality control and I think they have so many models nowadays, I bet some of them are no better than Acer's top ones, at least.

Not familiar with that particular model but IPS panel are usually better than TN panel (same consumer class). I have an Asus VP239, and the PQ is better than the LG and Acer above. Nonethteless my wife's Asus VS248 which is TN looks not bad and comparable with my VP239, so I would say the Acer that you are interested in shouldn't disappoint you in terms of PQ and the reviews over at Newegg are not bad either.

teleguitar wrote: ↑ Speaking of Acer, are any of you familiar with this model?:
https://www.acer.com/ac/en/CA/content/m ... .QG7AA.002

It is a run of the mill budget IPS panel monitor. Nothing special about it and pricewise it is in with a pack of other budget monitors with IPS panels. If you're comparing it to another 23.8" 1920x1080 monitor which has a TN panel and is 10% to 20% less, personally I would pay the extra 10 to 20% to get the IPS panel.

One point stands out to me.... it does NOT have a "Zero Frame Design" as their marketing spew claims unless what I am seeing on various websites are poorly implemented photo-shopped examples of the the screen. Looks like a half inch border on the right, left, and top.

.

NewsyL wrote: ↑ It is a run of the mill budget IPS panel monitor. Nothing special about it and pricewise it is in with a pack of other budget monitors with IPS panels. If you're comparing it to another 23.8" 1920x1080 monitor which has a TN panel and is 10% to 20% less, personally I would pay the extra 10 to 20% to get the IPS panel.

One point stands out to me.... it does NOT have a "Zero Frame Design" as their marketing spew claims unless what I am seeing on various websites are poorly implemented photo-shopped examples of the the screen. Looks like a half inch border on the right, left, and top.

.

Yes, not only Acer, Asus claims the VP239 to be frameless but there is half an inch border inside the frame on the right, left and top.

NewsyL wrote: ↑ It is a run of the mill budget IPS panel monitor. Nothing special about it and pricewise it is in with a pack of other budget monitors with IPS panels. If you're comparing it to another 23.8" 1920x1080 monitor which has a TN panel and is 10% to 20% less, personally I would pay the extra 10 to 20% to get the IPS panel.

One point stands out to me.... it does NOT have a "Zero Frame Design" as their marketing spew claims unless what I am seeing on various websites are poorly implemented photo-shopped examples of the the screen. Looks like a half inch border on the right, left, and top.

Thanks. Do you know of any comparable 1080p monitors (IPS, 24", maybe frameless?) that are around the same price and better (or probably better)? The colours seemed pretty good in the store but I guess those are set up by sales guys and not a true indication of what you can get?

teleguitar wrote: ↑ Thanks. Do you know of any comparable 1080p monitors (IPS, 24", maybe frameless?) that are around the same price and better (or probably better)? The colours seemed pretty good in the store but I guess those are set up by sales guys and not a true indication of what you can get?

No, sorry, in that price range I don't. They're pretty much a commodity now at that price level and don't get reviewed at the sites I follow.

A wee bit more expensive but this is something I would buy.
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/dell_u2417h.htm

I browsed the Dell Canada website and they have a number of models that may meet your criteria for a thin bezel but pricing may not be.

As for sales guys playing with color of a monitor on display in a Bestbuy, I kinda think they would not waste their time on a $200 monitor. Maybe a $1500 TV but not a budget monitor. The one standout feature of IPS is that their display has a fairly small amount of shift (compared to other LCD panel types) in gamma/contrast/colour at angles substantially offset from straight on so their colours will appear to be better than other types of monitor panels if you're in store viewing them from an angle.

Here's some other web sites to check out:

https://pcmonitors.info/

https://www.flatpanelshd.com/

.

NewsyL wrote: ↑ I would keep the Acer with the LED backlight.

It should last longer than the LG. The LG with its' CCFL backlight starts dimming from the day of first use and continues to dim over it's lifetime. It may have been 300cd/m2 when brand new but it could be less than 200 cd/m2 now if you have been using it every day. Also, the LED backlight powers up at more or less full brightness while the CCFL backlight can take over 30 minutes to stabilize at full brightness.

Bear in mind that guys like myself, who edit images every day in a semi darkened room, run monitors at 80 to 120 cd/m2 and are perfectly happy with the brightness at those levels. Makes for less eye strain with all the white browser pages (like RFD) and our Word and Excel documents we edit. How bright your monitor should be run at is related to the ambient lighting of your work area. You probably don't need more than 140 cd/m2 for 6 months of the year when it is dark after dinner time and you are relying on artificial lighting. Most student's room with one 600 to 800 lumen bulb desk lamp would likely not require more than 120 cd/m2 of monitor brightness.

Or keep them both and run a dual monitor setup - very useful when running multiple applications at the same time as I do in my home office.

Edit: I'm assuming you are using these with a desktop. If you have a laptop and it is a consumer model, meaning typically they have a HDMI port, then the LG with its' HDMI input may be easier to use if you are constantly going mobile with the laptop. Running dual monitors on a consumer laptop, especially an older one, is usually not feasible. Running a single 1920x1080 external monitor as the only screen is standard and so much easier to work with than the typical small low res screens (1366x768?).

.

Thanks again for your input, sold the LG at Kijiji for $70 within the hour. My daughter likes the Acer better, she thinks the PQ is better than the LG. Anyway, I have a spare Acer s231hlbid for my other daughter's laptop when she comes home from University. Did think about dual monitor but the LG's frame is too thick for that purpose and I don't really need such a set up. Thanks again.

Good stuff.

Just a note re the dual monitor setup.... I use mine with the desktop spanned across the two but never where I would try to game using two monitors or span an Excel spreadsheet across the two. I only game on monitor #1 and have admin tools on monitor #2. Ditto for image editing. Do the colour work on #1 and have a palette of tools on monitor #2. For work.... email and/or Word/Excel on one monitor and engineering drawings on the other.

apvm wrote: ↑ Thanks again for your input, sold the LG at Kijiji for $70 within the hour. My daughter likes the Acer better, she thinks the PQ is better than the LG. Anyway, I have a spare Acer s231hlbid for my other daughter's laptop when she comes home from University. Did think about dual monitor but the LG's frame is too thick for that purpose and I don't really need such a set up. Thanks again.

I'm not surprised as the higher color temp of LED will always appear to be "more quality" to older CCFL's to most people, myself included.

A monitor that has surprised me is what I have now, a Dell 27" IPS panel running at 2560x1440. The only thing that looks better is my OLED TV, and not by much.

I don't know for sure about a CCFL backlight monitor from 2007 which has a TN panel but I'd guess its' factory settings has it close to 6500K but who knows how much of sRGB it covered. Maybe 85 to 95% at best?

The LED backlights of that era (2010-2013) often had a distinct spike in the blue and if not calibrated might be no where near the standard 6500K. I recall reading of some people finding desktop monitors up over 8000K. That would certainly be perceptible to the eye vs 6500K and may be taken to be more desirable on first glance. My U2412M, with one of those blue spike LED's, was something like 6900K from the factory but not really noticeable until I put it next to a calibrated monitor.

High color temperature was more of an issue with laptop screens. I recall an ASUS laptop I had was 9000K straight from the factory. TN laptops of that era were commonly around 60% sRGB coverage and to this day many new laptops under $1000 are no better.

.

Poutsounia wrote: ↑
I'm not surprised as the higher color temp of LED will always appear to be "more quality" to older CCFL's to most people, myself included.

A monitor that has surprised me is what I have now, a Dell 27" IPS panel running at 2560x1440. The only thing that looks better is my OLED TV, and not by much.

NewsyL wrote: ↑ I don't know for sure about a CCFL backlight monitor from 2007 which has a TN panel but I'd guess its' factory settings has it close to 6500K but who knows how much of sRGB it covered. Maybe 85 to 95% at best?

The LED backlights of that era (2010-2013) often had a distinct spike in the blue and if not calibrated might be no where near the standard 6500K. I recall reading of some people finding desktop monitors up over 8000K. That would certainly be perceptible to the eye vs 6500K and may be taken to be more desirable on first glance. My U2412M, with one of those blue spike LED's, was something like 6900K from the factory but not really noticeable until I put it next to a calibrated monitor.

High color temperature was more of an issue with laptop screens. I recall an ASUS laptop I had was 9000K straight from the factory. TN laptops of that era were commonly around 60% sRGB coverage and to this day many new laptops under $1000 are no better.

.

I made a mistake, the LG was manufactured in November 2009. Anyway, I think my daughter is not aiming on PQ as when I tested them for dead pixels and hq photos, they both look the same to me. I think it was the look of the Acer, the LG is a little bulky. I think for these low cost monitors the difference between them are minimal, 2ms or 5ms are just marketing, I don't think the human eye can catch the difference with a 60hz monitor. As for HDMI, since both don't have built in speakers, a DVI to HDMI adapter from my old video card will fix connecting a laptop with only HDMI output if I ever need to connect the Acer to such a laptop. Correct me if I am wrong. Once again thank you for the input, learnt a lot about monitors. Thanks.

I'd send them both back. LG has unreliable support, only a year warranty. Acer is pretty much the same but I believe they have a better warranty (on paper anyway).

hagbard wrote: ↑ I'd send them both back. LG has unreliable support, only a year warranty. Acer is pretty much the same but I believe they have a better warranty (on paper anyway).

Both were out of warranty already, the LG is from 2009 and the Acer from 2010, as a matter of fact sold the LG for $70 last night. Don't know what you mean by send them both back? Thanks.

He didn't read the earlier posts, just flipped off an almost standard RFD response.

Your spare monitor, the Acer s231hlbid, also is an antique as it dates to 2011. Likely has a blue spike LED but really, for most people they would never know or care unless people started commenting on a colour caste in images that had been edited on that monitor.

HDMI on the monitor is great for people using budget laptops as many if not most of budget laptops for several years have this as a port. It is a convenient way to be able to work at 24" and 1920x1080 as versus 15" and 1366x768. Easier on the eyes and a desktop monitor usually has much better colour reproduction than the budget laptop screen.

Of course the HDMI port on the laptop is meant for connecting to a TV and sometimes can cause audio issues (no sound) with a laptop where you are connected to a monitor with no speakers but this is easily rectified by changes in the audio configuration of the laptop by right clicking on the speaker icon usually found in the Windows task bar. Some monitor manufacturers may have included HDMI to appeal to the laptop market but my understanding is that is was mainly for cost. As I understand it the license fee to include a Displayport is higher than HDMI - there may be a higher cost for the circuitry but I suspect it is fairly similar. Displayport has been in general preferred by display purists over HDMI but both standards have evolved over time and are very capable. There was a time when Nvidia graphics cards did not display a full RGB range over HDMI but that bug has now been fixed.

I don't think I would ever avoid buying a monitor because it looked too bulky. I'd take an EIZO or NEC monitor with all their backpanel thickness, square corners, and wide bezels over an Apple desktop monitor every time. It is all about image quality. In your case though your daughter made the right choice as I really believe the LG likely only had a couple more years at most before either the CCFL tubes or their power inverter died. I would expect the Acer, with its' LED backlight, to give you several more years of use.

.