Updated comparison - Samsung 226BW S, A & C panels

[jaguarskx]

Behardware has compared two out of the three panels used, by the Samsung 226BW monitor. The much desired "S" panel, and the less appreciated "A" panel.

http://www.behardware.com/articles/667-1/samsung-226bw-a-and-s-series-the-verdict.html

Behardware was also kind enough to provide two profiles that will greatly improve colors from the default factory settings. There is a Windows XP version and Windows Vista version. You can download them from page 3 of the review.

Profiles and installation instructions.

Note: These profiles did not work for everyone who tried it. Page 4 contains instructions on manual calibration, but it will not be as good.

Here are a couple of interesting quotes from the article:

The 226BW A and S can go as low as 0.17 cd/m². Such a depth in black is typical of Samsung, and we’ve never had an AU Optronics panel capable of such a black. This leads us to believe that Samsung sub-contracted out to AUO and CMO, however in providing them with their own components. The « A » panel which is supposedly an AUO does not look like one of this manufacturer’s classic products, nor does it have its performance.

This suggests that Samsung may have outsourced their 22" LCD panel technology to AUO for their 226BW monitor. This is contrary to the belief that AUO produces their own 22" LCD panels for Samsung to use.

Luckily (!), we don’t have to go this far as the panel is indeed a 2 ms. Actually, it’s a 5 ms with an optimised overdrive. As a reminder, Samsung calls its overdrive, RTA, for Response Time Accelerator and only they can use it. This is why it’s strange to find the RTA function in a hidden menu of an AU Optronics screen, something they could not do without Samsung’s consent. This reinforces the hypothesis that Samsung simply delegated the manufacturing of some of its screens to AU Optronics and CMO, giving them precise instructions and even specific components. Either way, the RTA function found in the series A tends to suggest this.

Basically what this means is that Samsung's version of "overdrive" to reduce response time is called RTA. This feature is buried in the OSD menu of the 226BW "A" panel. This further strengthens the case that AUO is manufacturing the "S" panel on their production line.

Is an S better than an A ? Yes, because in the end it’s preferable to have truer colors. After this, A series owners can install the file and calibrate their screen. User testimony on this subject is starting to come in. Some that have tried the calibration have complained of a dominance in red. To our knowledge, they have since resolved the problem.

.
.
.

Should we regret having bought an A version and would another screen have been better? No. The 226BW, whether it’s an A or S, is still above the rest.

 

[udontseeme]

Thanks for posting that, it was an informative read. I just ordered the monitor from newegg. Hoping for an "S", but at least I'm a little more confident about improving the performace of the A or C if I get caught with one of those.

 

[jaguarskx]

Bump.

Just in case anyone is interested in this info.

Hopefully someone will be kind enough to walk into BeHardware's office with the Samsumg 226BW "C" panel so that they can compare it to the much sought after "S" panel.

Personally, I hate 6-bit TN panels. But this info may prove useful to others.

 

[jaguarskx]

cdos has already posted a link to the review of the Samsung 226BW "C" panel, but I figure I'll update this thread as well.

http://www.behardware.com/articles/673-1/samsung-syncmaster-226bw-c.html

Interestingly enough, this story does not appear to listed in Behardware's Monitor section which is probably why I missed it.


Anywaste, the "C" panel does certainly seem to be the runt out of the three different 226BW monitors. Behardware provided a link to a monitor profile that should help with the color calibration of the “C” panel. Unfortunately, the results are inconsistent based on user responses.

The “C” panel has a blue bias and color calibration seems to have very little effect on the LCD’s colors. This is unlike the “A” panel, which seems to be at least adjustable by the user to make it acceptable.

In addition, backlighting seems to be an issue. While the brightness homogeneity seems to have an acceptable 21% variance (the average LCD variance is 35%), it is concentrated in a very peculiar way. When displaying a black background, the Samsung 226W C seems to show a faint horizontal “H” on the screen. See the screenshot in the article.

In short the Samsung 226BW C is a monitor to avoid.

Here's a disturbing quote from the Behardware article:

We just finish this express article on the model C when we hear that a fourth version of the 226BW has been released. It’s still a 226BW C, but this time the C is for CPT – another panel manufacturer with a poorer reputation than CMO. Enough is enough !

It seems that it is time to simply give up on the Samsung 226BW and move on to a different LCD monitor if you are in the market for a 22" LCD.

===========================================

One such monitor could be the Samsung 226CW. I’ve only heard about this model recently since I’m not really in the market for a 22” LCD monitor (I’m looking at 24”+).

What’s the difference? The BW series use panels with a 72% color gamut (which is typical of most LCDs). The CW will use LCD panels that has a 92% color gamut. Such a high color gamut is usually reserved for graphics professional LCDs; perhaps the cost of such technology has dropped.

Based on some reports 92% color gamut may seem a little weird to some people because the colors will look different than on an LCD with 72% color gamut. Graphic professionals generally prefer wider color gamut because the colors are more precise. Again for the average person, the colors may seem weird.

No release date yet.

 

[tranhgiang]

Just like the name imply: Super -> Acceptable -> Crap

 

[cdos]

Samsung is cheting ppl sending the s to all the test sites and selling the a/c crap to most ppl
should be a law about staff like that , and this is what they have to say when i e-mail them
Dear asaf david

Thank you for contacting Samsung E-Mail Support.

There are no physical differences between the 226BW A, S, and C panels. They all have the same specifications.



Have a great day!

rrr

 

[cdos]

The series A screen is indeed an AU Optronics panel. For the « S », it’s less clear. The listed reference is AMLCD 220M1, while the Samsungs are called LTM220M1. There is, however, more of a chance that they are related as other panel manufacturers AU (M220EW01), CMO (M220Z1) and LG-Philips (LM220WE1) didn’t opt for the 220M1 suffix

thats from the a vs s on that website

hmm am not 100% sure i get how to tell what ones are samsung
are all the: amlcd 220m1 ltm220m1 ?
am going to the shop next day gona get in to that hidden menu but am still not sure what code word means its samsung
if anyone can tell me what ones are samsung will help a ton thx

 

[udontseeme]

Anywaste, the "C" panel does certainly seem to be the runt out of the three different 226BW monitors.

I got a C, and there was a large discoloration in the center of the screen. Great QC guys.

One would think that if they were going to outsource the manufacture of their panels, they would at least hire a chop shop that could produce them to demand. I called the manufacturer the day after I received it, and have been waiting over a month while they have 226BW monitors on backorder.

Thank you for contacting Samsung E-Mail Support.
There are no physical differences between the 226BW A, S, and C panels. They all have the same specifications.

I think they have that response on their clipboard at this point. I got the exact same response.

 

[jaguarskx]

The series A screen is indeed an AU Optronics panel. For the « S », it’s less clear. The listed reference is AMLCD 220M1, while the Samsungs are called LTM220M1.

I think the easiest explanation why the AMLCD 220M1 panel can appear in a "S" version and the LTM220M1 can appear in the "A" version is due to a delivery mix up from a clerical error. The LTM220M1 panels could have been delivered to the "A" panel production line and vice versa.

Or it could be a labling error.


Oh well... sux for anyone who wants to buy a Samsung 226BW.

 

[jaguarskx]

I got a C, and there was a large discoloration in the center of the screen. Great QC guys.

Sorry to hear that.

If possible I would return it. If you bought it from an on-line store, then ask if you can exhange it for another monitor of equal or greater value. You'll have to pay the price difference and the return shipping though.

 

[eric54]

Actually, there is something people can do. The problem is that samsung is an international company, so making a class action lawsuit is a different animal. However, creative got nabbed for something similar (they advertised 24 bit cards but were really 16bit).

A friend of mine picked up a c panel and if not for side by side comparison its not that bad. I'd say its very very close, for the record, the s panel had backlight bleeding too. His c panel has less bleeding, but thats a tradeoff for the color accuracy. For gaming though, the panel is excellent. Though, if i were in the market i would just get a viewsonic or lg 22". Samsung is a huge douchebag for doing this, and they will get whats coming to them.

Now, aside from that. The price went down by nearly 100.00 since its release, i smelled a rat when that happend. I'm fairly confident there arent any more s panels, as those were all sold prior to the price drop. If you can find a 226bw for around 460.00 than its probably an s panel. Just a thought i had, my friend saved 70.00 on his moniter in respective to what i paid. Did he get a good 399.99 screen? yes. Did he get a 480.00 screen? no, but i paid extra for it, and was lucky to get an s. Would i pay 80 bucks for a relatively small difference? yes, but i'd be just as inclined to pay 399.99. In the end, everyone who got an S panel paid more than what anybody paid for a c or a panel. Thats really what this is all about, is there still value?

 

[jaguarskx]

Actually, there is something people can do. The problem is that samsung is an international company, so making a class action lawsuit is a different animal. However, creative got nabbed for something similar (they advertised 24 bit cards but were really 16bit).

I really doubt that a class action lawsuit will work in this case. The reason is because no where is it advertised by Samsung that they only sell LCD monitors using only their own panels. Regardless if you get the A, C, or S panel, you are purchasing a monitor made by Samsung.

If you want to argue on the technicals, then Samsung can simply state that they are simply selling 22" LCD monitors that use 6-bit LCD panels. All of the panels meet that criteria. Due to the global consumer demand, it is unrealistic to expect that a manufacture can and will manufacture all the components that goes into their own products. Like car companies and many other consumer products, the manufacturer contracts out components to not only meet consumer demand, but also to reduce costs. A Toyota Camary is still a Toyota Camary whether the engine in manufactured in Japan, or somewhere in the US.

I'm not defending or attacking the way Samsung manufactures and markets their products. I am basically giving a point of view. The case against Creative has more solid footing since they advertised their 16-bit cards as 24-bit cards. Whereas Samsung is simply stating, "This is a 22" 6-bit LCD monitor."

 

[eric54]

I see where you're coming from and i do agree. The case would be weak but the bad publicity fallout would make things end up in the consumers favor.