Notice: Your browser is not supported or outdated so some features of the site might not be available.

Logitech G533 Wireless  Headphones Review

Review updated Dec 15, 2020 at 08:38 am
Latest change: Writing modified Jan 10, 2023 at 04:10 pm
Logitech G533 Wireless
7.7
Neutral Sound 
5.3
Commute/Travel 
5.8
Sports/Fitness 
6.4
Office 
7.6
Wireless Gaming 
6.0
Wired Gaming 
6.5
Phone Calls 
Tested using methodology v1.5 
 2

The Logitech G533 Wireless are sleek gaming headphones that are well-built and comfortable. They're compatible with Logitech G HUB software, which offers a lot of customization features such as a graphic EQ. Thanks to their non-BT wireless USB transmitter, they have sufficiently low latency for gaming and watching videos. However, like most gaming headphones, they're not very suitable or practical for more casual or outdoor use. Still, they offer a customizable and wireless experience that fans of PC and PS4 gaming should enjoy.

Our Verdict

7.7
Neutral Sound 

The Logitech G533 are decent for neutral sound. They have an excited v-shaped sound profile that adds extra bass and sparkle without overwhelming lead instruments and vocals too much. Unfortunately, their frequency response is a bit inconsistent, and you may lose a significant amount of bass if you wear glasses or have thick hair.

Pros
  • Customizable sound via companion software.
Cons
  • Bass and treble delivery varies significantly across users. Sensitive to glasses.
5.3
Commute/Travel 

The Logitech G533 Wireless are inadequate for commuting. They have to be within the range of their USB transmitter to receive audio, which is very limiting for any sort of traveling, and they aren't made to be used with mobile devices. However, on a plane, train, or a long bus ride, you may be able to use them with your laptop or tablet. They won't block out almost any ambient noise around you, though.

Pros
None
Cons
  • Poor noise and leakage isolation.
5.8
Sports/Fitness 

The Logitech G533 are sub-par for sports. They're not really designed for this purpose, as they need to be within range of their USB transmitter to receive audio. They're also not very stable on the head, and they have a bulky design that can trap some heat around your ears, which may be made worse when working out.

Pros
None
Cons
  • Not very stable.
6.4
Office 

The Logitech G533 are sub-par headphones for office use. They have great customization features, they're comfortable, and you can use them while they charge. However, they have poor isolation, so they will leak at higher volumes and won't block the noise of a lively office environment.

Pros
None
Cons
  • Poor noise and leakage isolation.
7.6
Wireless Gaming 

The Logitech G533 are good for wireless gaming. These comfortable headphones have low latency, which is suitable for gaming, and an excited sound profile to help bring out the thump and rumble in sound effects without totally overpowering vocals. They also have companion software that allows you to customize their performance. Their foldable boom mic can separate your voice from moderate background noise, although it sounds thin and flat.

Pros
  • Low latency for gaming and home theater.
  • Customizable sound via companion software.
  • Great noise handling mic.
Cons
  • Bass and treble delivery varies significantly across users. Sensitive to glasses.
6.0
Wired Gaming 

The Logitech G533 are wireless gaming headphones and can only be used with their wireless USB transmitter.

6.5
Phone Calls 

The Logitech G533 are alright for phone calls. Their retractable boom mic does a satisfactory job of capturing your voice, although it sounds very thin and flat. On the upside, it can separate your voice from moderately noisy environments like a gaming tournament. Still, it's better to use these headphones in a quiet environment, since they don't really block out most ambient noise around you.

Pros
  • Great noise handling mic.
Cons
  • Poor noise and leakage isolation.
  • 7.7
    Neutral Sound
  • 5.3
    Commute/Travel
  • 5.8
    Sports/Fitness
  • 6.4
    Office
  • 7.6
    Wireless Gaming
  • 6.0
    Wired Gaming
  • 6.5
    Phone Calls
  • Changelog

    1.  Updated Jan 10, 2023: We've renamed these headphones from Logitech G533 Wireless Gaming Headset to Logitech G535 Wireless across the site.
    2.  Updated Sep 09, 2022: We've added a small disclaimer to the App Support test which highlights some of the most commonly reported issues users online have encountered with Logitech's G HUB companion software.
    3.  Updated Jun 29, 2021: Converted to Test Bench 1.5.
    4.  Updated Dec 15, 2020: Updated review for accuracy and clarity.

    Check Price

    Differences Between Sizes And Variants

    The Logitech G533 come in one variant: 'Black'. If you come across another variant, please let us know in the discussions, and we'll update the review.

    Compared To Other Headphones

    The Logitech G533 are good wireless gaming headphones that use a USB transmitter. While they're only compatible with PC and PS4, they offer a good overall mic performance and have companion software that allows you to customize their sound profile. Their battery performance is great, and they support DTS 7.1 virtual surround, though we don't test for this. Check out our recommendations for the best gaming headsets under $100, the best wireless gaming headsets, and the best gaming headsets for PC.

    Logitech G733 LIGHTSPEED Wireless

    The Logitech G533 Wireless are slightly better for wireless gaming than the Logitech G733 LIGHTSPEED Wireless. The G533 have a better build quality, and their boom mic has better overall performance. They also have a more robust virtual soundstage to give you a spacious, dimensional sound. On the other hand, the G733 have longer continuous battery life. Their companion app offers more sound customization options, and their boom mic is detachable for when you want a more casual look.

    Logitech G535 LIGHTSPEED Wireless

    The Logitech G535 LIGHTSPEED Wireless and the Logitech G533 Wireless are similarly performing wireless gaming headphones. While both headphones are comfortable and have very low non-Bluetooth wireless latency, the G535 have a significantly longer continuous battery life. However, the G533 are better built, and support DTS 7.1. They also have a better overall boom mic that rejects noise around you.

    Logitech G935 Wireless

    The Logitech G533 Wireless and the Logitech G935 Wireless each have their own pros and cons. The G533 have a longer battery life, but can’t be used wired. The G935 have more customization options with the Logitech G HUB software, but worse wireless range and latency.

    Razer Barracuda X Wireless 2021

    The Logitech G533 Wireless are better for wireless gaming than the Razer Barracuda X Wireless 2021. The Logitech are better-built, with a more neutral sound profile out-of-the-box. They offer a better passive soundstage and have companion software with a graphic EQ so you can customize their sound. The Razer have longer continuous battery life, and unlike the Logitech, you can use them wired. They're also more stable, and they leak less audio.

    Show more 

    Test Results

    perceptual testing image
    Sort:
    RATINGS
    Filter:
    All
    Design
    Style
    TypeOver-ear
    EnclosureClosed-Back
    WirelessYes
    TransducerDynamic

    The Logitech G533 look like typical gaming headphones. They have a decently stylish design with big, square ear cups, a large headband, and a two-tone matte and glossy finish that makes them look high-end. However, they're a bit bulky compared to the HyperX Cloud Flight. The mic isn't removable but folds into a dedicated indentation on the left ear cup.

    7.5
    Comfort
    Weight0.8 lbs
    Clamping Force
    1.1 lbs

    These headphones are comfortable but a bit tight on the head. They have large ear cups that are decently well-padded, and while they're a bit tight, they don't exert too much pressure on your head. Unfortunately, they're a little heavy, and the ear cups are somewhat shallow. The fabric padding, although breathable, isn't the softest on the skin, which may also be fatiguing during long gaming sessions.

    5.4
    Controls
    OS Compatibility
    Not OS specific
    Ease Of UseDecent
    FeedbackDecent
    Call/Music ControlNo
    Volume ControlYes
    Microphone ControlMute/Unmute
    Channel Mixing
    No
    Noise Cancelling ControlNo
    Talk-Through
    No
    Additional ControlsPresets

    Update 09/17/2019: We had previously listed the Logitech G533 as having channel mixing, which they don't have. We also made the text clearer as to what you can do with the controls.

    They have disappointing controls. They only have a simple volume dial and a mute-mic button, which is clicky and responsive. The mute-mic button can also be customized as a multi-function button and can be preset using the Logitech G HUB software. If you wish to change the function of the button, you can still flip the mic to mute it. Unfortunately, these headphones don't have controls for mobile support or even changing tracks when directly connected to your PC, which is a bit disappointing.

    6.5
    Breathability
    Avg.Temp.Difference5.7 °C

    These headphones have okay breathability. The ear pads trap in some heat, which could cause discomfort if you're gaming for several hours at a time.

    5.7
    Portability
    L7.0" (17.8 cm)
    W7.0" (17.8 cm)
    H3.0" (7.6 cm)
    Volume147.00 in³ (2,408.89 cm³)
    Transmitter RequiredYes

    Like most gaming headphones such as the Logitech G535 LIGHTSPEED Wireless, the Logitech G533 aren't the most practical to carry around on your person without a bag. They're big, bulky, and don't fold into a more compact format. You also need to have their wireless USB transmitter to use them, which is limiting. They don't come with a carrying case or pouch, either.

    0.0
    Case
    TypeNo case
    LN/A
    WN/A
    HN/A
    VolumeN/A

    These headphones don't come with a carrying case.

    7.5
    Build Quality

    The Logitech G533 have a good build quality. The headband is flexible, well-padded, and has a thin metal frame for support. The ear cups are also decently dense and shouldn't break if you accidentally drop them once or twice. Unfortunately, the hinges are a bit loose out-of-the-box and don't feel very sturdy. However, the large ear cups and relatively narrow headband make the hinge the most susceptible weak point of their design in comparison.

    5.5
    Stability

    The Logitech G533 aren't the most stable. They're bulky and may slip off your ears, even during casual listening sessions, if you tilt your head too far back. They're not made for sports or physical activity. On the upside, the wireless design removes the risk of them getting yanked off your ears because the audio cable is hooked on something.

    Headshots 1
    Headshots 2
    Top
    In The Box

    • Logitech G533 headphones
    • USB transmitter
    • USB charging cable
    • Manual

    Sound
    Sound Profile
    See details on graph tool
    Bass Amount
    1.4 dB
    Treble Amount
    -1.07 dB

    These headphones have an excited, v-shape sound profile. They deliver a thumpy, boomy bass that helps bring out sound effects in action-packed gameplay. Although a little muddy, they also have a well-balanced mid-range for vocals and lead instruments. Their bright treble helps bring sparkle and detail to sibilants as well. If you prefer a different sound, their companion software offers a graphic EQ.

    5.7
    Frequency Response Consistency
    See details on graph tool
    See details on graph tool
    Avg. Std. Deviation
    1.08 dB

    The Logitech G533 have a sub-par frequency response consistency performance. Their bass delivery varies and a drop in bass can occur if the ear cups aren't flush to your head, such as if you wear glasses or have thick hair. The treble range is also inconsistent. As the overall frequency response depends on the fit, seal, and positioning of these headphones, once you achieve a good overall fit, you should get a more consistent frequency response each time you use them.

    Raw Frequency Response
    See details on graph tool
    See details on graph tool
    7.7
    Bass Accuracy
    See details on graph tool
    Std. Err.
    3.37 dB
    Low-Frequency Extension
    10 Hz
    Low-Bass
    2.49 dB
    Mid-Bass
    3.32 dB
    High-Bass
    4.77 dB

    The Logitech G533 have good bass accuracy. The entire range's response is very flat, although a bit overemphasized, resulting in a more prominent thump, punch, and boom. Some users may even find it sounds a bit muddy.

    Their bass delivery varies significantly across users and is sensitive to the quality of the fit, seal, and whether you wear glasses or have thick hair. The response here represents the average bass response and your experience may vary.

    8.1
    Mid Accuracy
    See details on graph tool
    Std. Err.
    2.56 dB
    Low-Mid
    3.68 dB
    Mid-Mid
    -0.03 dB
    High-Mid
    -0.82 dB

    These headphones have great mid accuracy. There's an overemphasis continuing from the bass range that makes mixes sound muddy or cluttered. However, the mid-mids are well-balanced and neutral, resulting in present upper harmonics. The slight dip in the high-mids weakens instruments and vocals a bit, but it shouldn't be too noticeable.

    8.1
    Treble Accuracy
    See details on graph tool
    Std. Err.
    2.84 dB
    Low-Treble
    0.73 dB
    Mid-Treble
    2.5 dB
    High-Treble
    -1.59 dB

    The Logitech G533 have very good treble accuracy. The low-treble is just a little overemphasized, but it results in bright, detailed, and present vocals and lead instruments. There's a bit more of an overemphasis in the mid-treble, though, so sibilants like S and T sounds could be a bit piercing.

    Their treble delivery varies noticeably across users. The response here represents the average response, and your experience may vary.

    8.0
    Peaks/Dips
    See details on graph tool
    Peaks
    1.34 dB
    Dips
    1.01 dB

    The Logitech G533 have very good peaks and dips performance. There's a small peak in the low-mid which slightly clutters and muddies the mix. A dip in the high-mid makes vocals and lead instruments sound weak and distant. There are also two peaks in the treble range, which make upper harmonics sharp and bright, while sibilants are piercing.

    8.0
    Imaging
    See details on graph tool
    See details on graph tool
    Weighted Group Delay
    0.31
    Weighted Phase Mismatch
    8.54
    Weighted Amplitude Mismatch
    0.32
    Weighted Frequency Mismatch
    3.24

    The Logitech G533 have great imaging. The weighted group delay is low and the graph also shows that the entire GD response is below our audibility threshold, ensuring tight bass and transparent treble reproduction. Also, the L/R drivers of our test unit are well-matched in amplitude and phase, meaning that objects (like footsteps) and instruments are located very accurately in the stereo image on these headphones. They're a little mismatched in terms of frequency, which may cause holes in the stereo image at certain frequencies. However, these results are only valid for our unit, and yours may perform differently.

    7.4
    Passive Soundstage
    See details on graph tool
    PRTF Accuracy (Std. Dev.)
    4.04 dB
    PRTF Size (Avg.)
    6.57 dB
    PRTF Distance
    15.75 dB
    Openness
    7.7
    Acoustic Space Excitation
    6.5

    They have a decent passive soundstage. The soundstage sounds large and as if coming from out in front of you. However, it's a little unnatural and it doesn't sound as open as headphones that use an open-back enclosure.

    5.2
    Virtual Soundstage
    Head Modeling
    No
    Speaker Modeling
    Adjustable
    Room Ambience
    Presets
    Head Tracking
    No
    Virtual Surround
    DTS 7.1

    The Logitech G533 have a disappointing virtual soundstage. They support DTS 7.1, and you can even cycle through different presets to find a sound that suits your needs. However, we don't currently test the functionality of this feature.

    7.6
    Weighted Harmonic Distortion
    See details on graph tool
    WHD @ 90
    0.178
    WHD @ 100
    0.214

    The weighted harmonic distortion performance of these headphones is good. There are no peaks at a normal listening volume, so audio sounds clean and pure. However, there's a spike in the mid-range at max volume. It can be hard to hear this when listening to real-life content, though.

    Test Settings
    Firmware
    112.0.11
    Power
    On
    Connection
    Wireless (Proprietary)
    Codec
    PCM, 24-bit, 48kHz
    EQ
    Default
    ANC
    No ANC
    Tip/Pad
    Default
    Microphone
    Boom

    These are the settings used to test the Logitech G533. Our results are only valid when using these settings.

    Isolation
    3.0
    Noise Isolation
    See details on graph tool
    Isolation Audio
    Overall Attenuation
    -8.26 dB
    Noise CancellingNo
    Bass
    0.32 dB
    Mid
    -3.88 dB
    Treble
    -21.4 dB

    These headphones have poor noise isolation. They don't have active noise cancelling, and don't isolate any noise in the bass-range like bus or plane engines. They also barely reduce mid-range noise such as office chatter. While they do a slightly better job of cutting down high-pitched noise like the hum of an AC fan, they're not a suitable choice if you game in a noisy environment.

    4.4
    Leakage
    See details on graph tool
    Leakage Audio
    Overall Leakage @ 1ft
    52.38 dB

    The Logitech G533 have a poor leakage performance. They have a wide band of leakage, so if you're listening to your audio at a high volume, those around you can hear it, even in a moderately noisy environment like an office. For gaming headphones that leak less audio, see the Razer Barracuda X Wireless.

    Microphone
    Microphone Style
    Integrated
    No
    In-Line
    No
    Boom
    Yes
    Detachable Boom
    No
    MicYes

    These headphones have a foldable boom microphone.

    7.0
    Recording Quality
    See details on graph tool
    Recorded Speech
    LFE
    530.46 Hz
    FR Std. Dev.
    2.22 dB
    HFE
    6,736.4 Hz
    Weighted THD
    0.196
    Gain
    21.18 dB

    The Logitech G533's boom microphone has a satisfactory recording quality. Speech sounds very thin and flat. However, you shouldn't have too much of a problem being understood.

    7.5
    Noise Handling
    See details on graph tool
    SpNR
    27.98 dB
    Noise Gate
    On/Off Toggle
    Speech + Pink Noise Handling
    7.5
    Speech + Pink Noise Audio Sample
    Speech + Subway Noise Handling
    7.5
    Speech + Subway Noise Audio Sample

    The Logitech G533's boom microphone has great noise handling. They can separate your voice from moderately noisy environments. That said, if you're looking for a similarly-performing wireless gaming headset with even better microphone noise handling capability, check out the Logitech G733 LIGHTSPEED Wireless.

    Active Features
    8.0
    Battery
    Battery Type
    Rechargable
    Continuous Battery Life
    17 hrs
    Additional Charges
    0.0
    Total Battery Life
    17 hrs
    Charge Time
    3.6 hrs
    Power-Saving Feature
    Auto-Off Timer
    Audio While Charging
    Yes
    Passive Playback
    No
    Charging Portmicro-USB

    The Logitech G533 have a great battery performance. They can last up to 17 hours and have an auto-off timer when there's no audio playing to help conserve battery life. Unfortunately, they take quite a bit of time to charge, but if you're in a pinch you can use them while charging, which is handy.

    8.0
    App Support
    App NameLogitech G Hub
    iOSNo
    AndroidNo
    macOSYes
    WindowsYes
    Equalizer
    Graphic
    ANC Control
    No
    Mic ControlAdjustable Level
    Room Effects
    No
    Playback Control
    No
    Button MappingYes
    Surround Support
    Yes

    Logitech G HUB is great companion software. It has a graphic EQ, surround sound effects you can personalize, as well as microphone and volume levels you can set directly from within the software. You can also create interchangeable profiles with saved personal settings and map specific actions to the multipurpose button, though it's not as customizable as the Logitech G933 Wireless' three mappable buttons. On the upside, there's also an auto-off timer option not available on the other Logitech G Series headphones, which is a definite plus. On the downside, even though we didn't experience issues using this software, there have been many user issues regarding Logitech G HUB software, including but not limited to: startup issues, freezing, and connection issues with some devices. If you'd like to share your experience using this software with your unit, please leave a comment in the discussions.

    Connectivity
    0.0
    Bluetooth
    Bluetooth Version
    No Bluetooth
    Multi-Device Pairing
    No
    NFC Pairing
    No
    Line Of Sight Range
    N/A
    PC Latency (SBC)
    N/A
    PC Latency (aptX)
    N/A
    PC Latency (aptX HD)
    N/A
    PC Latency (aptX-LL)
    N/A
    iOS Latency
    N/A
    Android Latency
    N/A

    The Logitech G533 aren't Bluetooth-compatible.

    9.0
    Non-Bluetooth Wireless
    Non-BT Line Of Sight Range
    180.00 ft (54.86 m)
    Non-BT Latency
    22 ms

    The Logitech G533 have great non-Bluetooth Wireless connectivity. Using their wireless USB transmitter, they have low audio latency, so they should be suitable for gaming.

    0.0
    Wired
    Analog Audio
    No
    USB Audio
    No
    DetachableNo
    LengthN/A
    Connection
    No Wired Option
    Analog/USB Audio Latency
    N/A

    These headphones can't be used wired. They come with a USB charging cable and a wireless USB transmitter.

    PC Compatibility
    Analog
    No
    Wired USB
    No
    Non-BT Wireless
    Audio + Microphone
    PlayStation Compatibility
    PS4 Analog
    No
    PS4 Wired USB
    No
    PS4 Non-BT Wireless
    Audio + Microphone
    PS5 Analog
    No
    PS5 Wired USB
    No
    PS5 Non-BT Wireless
    Audio + Microphone
    Xbox Compatibility
    Xbox One Analog
    No
    Xbox One Wired USB
    No
    Xbox One Non-BT Wireless
    No
    Xbox Series X|S Analog
    No
    Xbox Series X|S Wired USB
    No
    Xbox Series X|S Non-BT Wireless
    No

    These headphones aren't compatible with the Xbox One.

    3.4
    Base/Dock
    Type
    Wireless USB Dongle
    USB Input
    Yes
    Line In
    No
    Line Out
    No
    Optical Input
    No
    RCA Input
    No
    Dock Charging
    No
    Power Supply
    USB

    The Logitech G533 come with a wireless USB dongle.

    Recommended Articles

    Comments

    1. Product

    Logitech G533 Wireless: Main Discussion

    Let us know why you want us to review the product here, or encourage others to vote for this product.

    PreviewBack to editorFormat guide
    Sort by:
    newest first
    1. 2
      1
      0
      1
      0

      Hi I’m wondering if you will start adding HDR specific color accuracy calibrations and ICC profiles to your reviews

      Hi there!

      Thanks for the question! We are in the process of finalizing our HDR color accuracy test for TVs. Once we’re happy with the results for TV, we’ll look to add it to the Monitor review. We don’t have a date yet, but it’s in the plans!

    2. 2
      1
      0
      1
      0

      Hey!

      Thank you for the great words!

      Many of you have asked us to add a test for fan noise, so it’s definitely in the pipeline. I’ll also make sure to add power consumption to our suggestion list.

      Thanks for the suggestion!

    3. 2
      1
      0
      1
      0

      Hey!

      Thanks for your suggestion, it’s actually a test we’d like to introduce for the monitor review. We’ve just finished designing a test for HDR accuracy for TVs that will be part of our next test bench. Once we’re satisfied with the quality of the test, we’ll look at adapting it to our monitor review.

      Thanks

    4. 2
      1
      0
      1
      0

      Hi!

      To be completely honest, in my case, this product was in my blind spot, so thank you for the suggestion. We’ll run the numbers internally to assess the possibility of working on this type of product. In any case, your questions are relevant, and we’re currently evaluating an internal approach to address this kind of inquiry more efficiently.

      Thanks for the feedback

    5. 2
      1
      0
      1
      0

      In my experience, older OLED panels showed significantly less VRR flickering than newer ones. My sold LG 65C9 (where I had the panel replaced twice and also tested VRR flickering on), my current 48C1 and Sony 55A80J all have a very similar, low level of VRR flickering. My 77C2 shows it much more strongly. Unfortunately, I noticed that straight away. Is it possible for you guys to verify this with older displays? Like LG OLED C9, CX, C1, Sony A80J etc? BTW, I only see VRR-scores for monitors. Pls do these tests for TVs too. There are more gamers playing on TVs than monitors.

      Hey!

      Thanks for asking

      Unfortunately, these TVs are no longer available for retest. We either already sold them or they are heavily burnt by our longevity test

      Edited 7 months ago: forgot words
    6. 2
      1
      0
      1
      0

      Would you please add this vrr flicker test in the gaming tv section? I wanna buy a LG b4 oled tv and want to know if it flickers, thanks!

      Hey!

      Currently, there is no plan of adding the VRR flicker test in the TV review but it can change in the future!

    7. 3
      2
      1
      2
      0

      Hey Trooper!

      We tried back in 2022 but we weren’t able to reach the quality we wanted for it so we put it on the shelf for now. We would definitely like to come back to it sometimes.

      Thanks for the suggestion!

    8. 2
      1
      0
      1
      0

      Hey!

      Thanks for following up on this!

      Working on warranties is not a simple matter because there can be a big difference in the experience of manufacturers in managing warranties. A manufacturer could answer yes to all the questions mentioned and still have a offer a very poor after sale service like you dealt with for your mouse. So, there’s a risk of giving a good score to a product whose warranty experience could be miserable and giving a bad score and some will a have a good experience.

      The case of some AW3423DW users is a good example, some got very bad experience and some good:

      All this to say that we haven’t done it for the moment, but we may do it in the future when we have a good idea on how to do it.

    9. 2
      1
      0
      1
      0

      Hi RtingsUser2893388,

      HDR for monitor review is in our pipeline for the next update of methodology. Thanks for your feedback, we will look at this kind of scene when development will start. In the meantime, while we don’t directly test for it, the review showcases some aspect that are the building block for it. The HDR Picture performance usage is a good metric to have the combination of all theses aspects and have an idea of the HDR performance of the monitor. Brightness was intentionally left outside of the metric to emphasize the dynamic range part of the “high Dynamic range”. That said if you want to see for yourself, you can look at this individual aspect of HDR to make your own conclusion:

      • Contrast
      • Local dimming
      • Color Gamut
      • Color Volume
      • PQ EOTF tracking

      Hope it helps and thanks for taking the time to share feedback

    10. 4
      3
      2
      3
      0

      Hey!

      Thank you for taking the time to leave a comment. It’s a good thing because your comment has greatly accelerated our thinking process on the subject. Thanks to your comment, we’ve made the decision to switch to the metric system as main unit for all our work starting now.

      *except for value that makes more sense in inches like display size for example.

    11. 3
      2
      1
      2
      0

      Thank you for the detailed feedback.

      These are great suggestions! I can see them added to have a more comprehensive coverage of the flicker issue on display. And just for clarification on point 3, we make sure to always validate that the VRR flicker occur only when VRR is enable and the non VRR backlight flicker is addressed in the “image Flicker” box. However, you are right that we don’t currently test for near black chrominance overshoot. It is something that we have in mind for the future.

      Thanks for taking the time!

    12. 2
      1
      0
      1
      0

      Will the test kit/the test pattern be downloadable somewhere? If the test pattern is a website like Blur Buster’s TestUFO.com, will it be available to be access online for everyone to test? Or will it be open sourced on github?

      Hey!

      We plan to have a more structured method but for now, you can refer to this discussion to find what you are looking for!

    13. 2
      1
      0
      1
      0

      Hey!

      We plan to increase the scope of our HDR testing, and color accuracy is one of the tests we’ll be considering. As for the novideo_srgb software, it’s interesting and something we’ll keep in mind during development!

      Thanks for the suggestion!

    14. 2
      1
      0
      1
      0

      Hey Woodduck!

      You are not the only one who has asked for the addition of power consumption in our monitor review. We’ve had it in our backlog for a while. We are already testing energy consumption for TVs! In your opinion, would our testing method for TVs be sufficient for monitors?

      Thanks for your suggestion!

    15. 3
      2
      1
      2
      0

      Thanks for getting back to us. It’s a fair point! I will add it to our methodology update suggestion and see what we can do about it!

      Thank you!

    16. 2
      1
      0
      1
      0

      Hi Greg,

      Thanks for the suggestion. We will keep it in mind if it ‘s needed for future development.

      Thank you

    17. 2
      1
      0
      1
      0

      Hey!

      Yes, we thought about it when we developed our current rolling shutter test. However, we felt that showing the angle of skew for rolling shutter was a more applicable test when it comes to real-life use. If you don’t mind sharing, I would be curious to understand why you prefer having the readout speed measured using a strobe light?

    18. 2
      1
      0
      1
      0

      Thanks for pointing it out. Using ISO800 for the photo was a mistake on our side. We added the Nikon ZII to a retest queue to fix that. In term of performance, base ISO and ISO800 should be close. For example, the difference in Raw format noise performance is less than 2 dB

      As for the lens, all the test where the lens as an impact, we always go for “the best” option to make. Our best option is not necessarily what most would use but the lens that we have or we need that won’t limit the performance of the body. As an example, for Autofocus testing for Sony APS-C cameras, we use the Full frame Sony FE 24-105mm f/4 G OSS and all image quality testing is done using the same lens (Zeiss Milvus 50mm f/1.4). In any case, we make sure, that the body is not limited by the lens to provide data form the body itself and from the combination of the lens and the body.

      Hope it help!

    19. 3
      2
      1
      2
      0

      Thank you for bringing the subject, because it’s a trend we’re noticing and trying to correct as best we can. If I understand correctly what you’re suggesting, it is a bit like what we do, perhaps with a lack of clarity on our side. Our scale score is based on buyers’ expectations and can be summed up as follows: • 10 to 7.5: This product is great for this usage or test. Everyone will be satisfied with it • 7.4 to 6.0: It is good enough for most people, but if you care about this usage or test, it will bother you. • 5.9 to 0.0: This product is below average at this usage or test. It could be an issue even if you aren’t particularly picky about this aspect.

      I must admit that once you’re in the red (5.9 to 0.0), it’s hard to quantify mediocrity, so we tend to be a little less aggressive with penalties once you’ve crossed the red line. For example, a bad contrast with a score of 3.5 or a bad contrast with a score of 1.8 is still bad, and if a buyer is concerned about this aspect, he’ll be disappointed in both cases.

      Does it make senses? It would like to here what you think of the above!

    20. 4
      3
      2
      3
      0

      You’re right, it’s true that the G3 should be better, but at equal brightness. The G3, which is theoretically more efficient for the reasons you mention (MLA), should push its panels less hard for the same outputted brightness and therefore have room to recover longer from burn-in, but since we run the TVs to their max, we use all the headroom the TV can get.

      Like Pascal mention earlier, we will keep a close eye on it

    21. 2
      1
      0
      1
      0

      Thanks for the suggestion, we’ll look into it when we revisit our screen test coverage. To better understand where the need comes from, do you prefer a glossy or matte screen?

    22. 2
      1
      0
      1
      0

      Hey! We just want to make sure we’re on the same page. What do you mean by “correct”? “Correct” in regards to what aspect?

    23. 3
      2
      1
      2
      0

      No problem, it’s always a pleasure to talk about test design!

      By penalizing cameras that can’t go that low in shutter speed, we found ourselves including the hardware capabilities of the cameras in the score, and we wanted to dedicate the score solely to noise analysis and avoid having multiple aspects in the score. However, as you can see, some cameras score better than they should and it’s a problem. For example, the Panasonic DC-S5 scores 8.7 compared to the Sony a7 IV which scores 8.3 just because the Panasonic has a N/A for the 0.25ms test.

      We are currently working on this problem and the change will be effective in our next test bench update. We’ll definitely take your feedback into account for our solution.

      Thank you!

    24. 3
      2
      1
      2
      0

      Hi there!

      Excellent question! The ISO value is an arbitrary value decided by the manufacturers. For example, on this graph, for the same amount of light reaching the sensor, Sony uses an ISO Value 2x higher. If the graph had been based on ISO, we would have obtained:

      • Nikon D780 @ ISO 800 = 32.9 dB
      • Sony A7C @ ISO 800 = 32.71 dB

      Looking at the value above, we could conclude that the Nikon and Sony perform similarly. However, for the same amount of light reaching the sensor, the Nikon only needs ISO 400 and therefore 34.35 dB. This leads to an entirely different conclusion, in which the Nikon performs better than the Sony.

      By using a graph based on incoming light instead of ISO, we can compare the cameras according to the brightness of the scene which we think is more useful when it come to low light performance.

      The methodology used by DxOmark is not available (unless I’m mistaken!), but I suspect they use a similar method with their “Measured” ISO.

    25. 2
      1
      0
      1
      0

      Hey!

      For our low light video testing we use F5.6 on all cameras. We usually don’t specify the setting when it’s the same for all cameras. We are in the process of reviewing the entire video section in regard to the quality. We take note of your suggestion for our development!

      Thank you!

    26. 3
      2
      1
      2
      0

      Hi Jward9562,

      We are aiming to improve our testing when it comes to HDR monitors. With a growing offer of monitors with good HDR performance, we need to increase the coverage of our test methodology to help buyers in their decision. Thanks for the suggestion, we’ll take note of it for our next update on our HDR tests.

      The suggestion of calibration with settings is noted, we add it to our list and look at it. As for the Average Cumulative Deviation, we are well aware of its existence, and we want to implement it when we will work on our response time measurement

      Thanks for taking the time to share these great suggestions.

    27. 3
      2
      1
      2
      0

      Hey Frog!

      Thanks for your patience! We knew about the amazing work of Aperture Grille in theory but wanted to take the time to dig into the impact in practice before answering you. As far as cumulative deviation goes, we are absolutely in favor of a metric that helps to get a better score. Cumulative deviation is one of those that we will look at along with a few other curve comparison metrics. Cumulative deviation has a big pros being known by users and used by other reviewers.

      For the Gamma correction, our measurement methodology for 1.2 was designed with the possibility of adding the gamma correction in the future. However, we had never tested it. After verification, it will be possible. This was an important factor in our decision making given the amount of monitor to be retested. We believe that by changing to a gamma corrected methodology and adding a measure such as cumulative deviation, it will fix your current issue with our methodology. We will have all the tools in hand to come-up with a score representative of monitor performance.

      Again, thanks for taking the time

    28. 2
      1
      0
      1
      0

      Hey Pi!

      We already have what you are looking for, you can find it under the “backlight” comparison. It can be found in the local dimming box for TBU before 1.9 and under Light Zone transitions for TBU 1.9

      Hope it helps!

    29. 2
      1
      0
      1
      0

      Hi Kambinga

      Thanks for the comment, we have similar requests in the past. If I may, I would take this opportunity to learn more about your need in a video. For example, how would a video on the OSD influence your purchase decision?

      Thanks for your time!

    30. 2
      1
      0
      1
      0

      Hi FrankBeauvais,

      For the most part, the resolution has no impact on the input lag. For example, for your x85K, there is 0.1 ms difference in input lag between 1080p@120z and 4k@120hz and this is the case on most TVs.

      I rolled the numbers and 95% of the TVs will have a difference lower than 4 ms between 1080p@120z and 4k@120hz. There is more variation for the “outside of game mode”, but we can notice the same trend, you have 52% for TVs that will have a difference less than 6ms and 90% of TVs will have a difference less than 18ms. So, if you want to know the performance of your TV at 4k@120hz “outside of game mode”, you can use the value from the 1080p@120hz “outside of game mode” and it’s relatively safe to say it will be around 92ms

      I hope it helps!

    31. 2
      1
      0
      1
      0

      Hey BubbleStar,

      Your absolutely right and we are eager to start as well. Since we have limited resource, we will slowly start to define the work and the direction we want a take at the beginning of the year but you can expect result to be visible a bit later this year. We will surely go back to all the great ideas that has been shared with us since the last TBU when we will define the work to be done

      Thanks for taking the time and rest assured that we are looking forward to work on Keyboards again!

    32. 3
      2
      1
      2
      0

      Hey! We’re soon to be off for the holiday and I’d like to take some time to analyze some data and review some past decisions before answering. I’ll get back to you in early 2023!

    33. 3
      2
      1
      2
      0

      Hey Frog!

      Thanks for taking the time, it is really appreciated!

      1- I agree and I have nothing to add. There is definitely a risk on this side to have a monitor with a better result on our photo than on the UFO and thus to make someone regret his purchase.

      2- Our photo lacks detail and going through a small amount of UFO photo, I agree that with more detail, the evaluation is easier. I actually went ahead and I made some comparisons to better understand this and I did not arrive at a case where our photo would give a different ranking or a misinterpretation of the results if we look only at the lack of detail. Do you have any specific examples that you can think of? I’d be curious to see some examples where our method misses things so we can address them! For context, here are the elements I looked at:

      Monitor UFO Rtings
      AW2721D Youtube link Fast
      S2721DGF Youtube link Extreme
      OMEN 27c Level 3 Level 3
      Neo G8 TFT Central Adaptive Sync
      Viewsonic XG2431 TFT Central Normal
      Acer Nitro XV273 TFT Central Advanced
      ASUS PG259QN Normal Normal

      Additional info: HP OMEN 27c Frog Feedback ViewSonic XG2431 TFT Central Review Samsung Odyssey Neo G8 TFT Central Review Acer Nitro XV273 TFT Central ASUS PG259QN UFO Extreme Setting ASUS PG259QN UFO OFF Setting

      Looking only at the level of detail, do you come to the same conclusion as me? Have you seen a case where the “Rtings” photo would give a different ranking than using the UFO photo

      Edited 2 years ago: Edit point 2
    34. 3
      2
      1
      2
      0

      Hey Chudy,

      Thanks for your suggestion, it’s true that a measure like cumulative deviation above the threshold could give a more representative score of the graph. There is a risk we would lose some simplicity in the equation and the ability to translate the result into a living room sofa arrangement for the future buyer. However, it’s worth thinking about! In any case, we’ll definitely consider your suggestion when we revisit the box

      If you have other suggestions like this one, don’t hesitate to share them with us. That’s how we improve

      Thank you for taking the time

    35. 3
      2
      1
      2
      0

      Hey Frog,

      Thanks for taking the time to follow up on this. I just want to stress the fact that we remember you brought this up previously, and we definitely haven’t forgotten the valuable feedback you provided. Rest assured that during our next Monitor Test Bench update, revisiting our photo pursuit is among our priorities. If it’s okay with you, I’d like to use this comment to go a little deeper. We went back and looked at your previous post (especially the section where you compare the PG279QM and the XB273U GX). In this particular case, the problem would be the balance of the weight of the components in the score and not the pursuit photo because as you brought it up, looking at both pictures, the PG279QM comes out on top.

      For now, we have decided to not change our photo for the UFO ghosting test as we’re worried it wouldn’t be a worthwhile upgrade when considering the time/resources it would take to update all our 129 monitors in inventory in relation to the value provided by the change in photo. Instead, we want to take the time to come-up with a better solution, which is where feedback like yours is extremely valuable. So, I’d love the opportunity to better understand the problems you see in our photo. For us, the main weakness of our photo is the absence of dark transition that would help for the slow transition VA monitors. They look better on our picture than on the UFO. Do you see any other differences?

      Regarding the score, since we haven’t had the chance to work on the monitor silo since the launch of our most recent test bench updater, Brandon’s answer remains the reason why for the moment.

      We are hoping to spend more time improving our monitor methodology as soon as possible and a big focus will be re-evaluating our current approach.

      That being said, we will continue to reflect over your suggestions until the next TBU and see how we can improve it all

      Once again, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with us, your comments are always welcome and allow us to continue improving our reviews and methodology.

    36. 2
      1
      0
      1
      0

      Hi there!

      Although, I agree it could be more explicit, we already test for ABL and ASBL. In our SDR and HDR Brightness test, you can find the brightness as a function of the window size (APL). We also give an ABL index based on the peak brightness results. Although we don’t have the notion of time in our sustained measurement, you can find information on the ASBL if you look at our sustained brightness results. A TV that has a large difference between the 2% and other windows sizes is more likely to have an ABSL that is disturbing.

      Is there anything in particular you would like to see that we are not displaying?

    37. 2
      1
      0
      1
      0

      Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us, you’ve definitely brought up some fair points and we understand why you might be surprised. Just to give you some insight, the main reason why we decided to put so much weight on the real scene is that the values are most representative of a real experience (metadata, color, etc..) versus the pattern tests.

      Regardless, you’re absolutely right, our “HDR real scene” sampling is limited to < 2% window size and you’re also right that it doesn’t depict the full experience of HDR brightness. We decided to prioritize the effect of color and metadata because the impact of HDR is mostly seen in the differences between the brightness of a highlight and the overall brightness of a scene (APL). So, the bigger the difference, the better the HDR experience. All that being said, we have a lot of ideas on how to improve this box and windows size is one of them. So, we’ll make sure to keep your observations in mind when we work on updates to our testing.

      Thanks again!

    38. 2
      1
      0
      1
      0

      Yes, that’s a fair conclusion to draw. However, I’d say this only applies to total reflections!

    39. 2
      1
      0
      1
      0

      Here some value that we pulled out to compare. One thing that I notice while reading your methodology is where is your light source? Is the light source the display? If yes, what color is on the screen?

      We do all our measurement with the display turned off with an external light source.

      Iphone 13 Pro Max Apple Studio Display Dell with Matte finish
      Center Display 6.721 11.46
      White Wall 156.8 241.9
      Calculated Reflectance 4.29% 4.74%
      Left Display 1.718 11.94
      White Wall 144 255.2
      Calculated Reflectance 1.19% 4.68%
      Right Display 1.45 11.52
      White Wall 125.2 238.2
      Calculated Reflectance 1.16% 4.84%
    40. 2
      1
      0
      1
      0

      Hi,

      Looking at the specification of the CM-26d from the datasheet, the value for the total reflection measurement should be quite close to ours. I would like to better understand the difference, do you have some value that you can share on a display that we have tested?

      Thank you

    41. 2
      1
      0
      1
      0

      M. Penczek,

      We’re slowly starting to look at the work we need to do for our reflection test. I was looking at user’s feedback and came across your answer. I’m sorry, it fell into a crack. Upon reading this response, I wanted to say thank you for the great feedback. We will definitely take it into account as well as your research papers that can be found on the SID website.

    42. 3
      2
      1
      2
      0

      Hello!

      Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts with us, we appreciate the feedback. We also understand where you’re coming from, it doesn’t feel right to have to pay a large amount of money for a product and then have to worry about getting it calibrated as well. That said, part of the issue is that the pre-calibration accuracy can vary between units so it can depend on the panel you get. Because of this, we need to be careful with the weight of it in the ratings. For example, we were unlucky with the C1 that we bought. It had a very bad pre-calibration. From what we could read online, most users were very happy with the out of the box calibration. It might also be worth nothing that that in these cases, most users will be more than happy with the pre-color accuracy of higher end displays and can achieve a very desirable picture quality by simply playing around with the picture settings.

      That being said, we definitely understand your concern and we will keep it in mind when we will revisit the usage!

    43. 3
      2
      1
      2
      0

      Hey Hugsun

      Based on our observations, the screens are usually uneven especially when the curve is aggressive. For the moment, we are only reporting the manufacturer’s value because it seems to give a good general idea, but we’ve taken note of your suggestions, and we’ll keep it in mind for future test bench updates. Thanks for the feedback!

    44. 2
      1
      0
      1
      0

      If we’re on the same page, it seems like you would like us to take the clearest picture possible to be able to judge the quality of the display based on the picture? If that’s the case, it isn’t something we can do at the moment as we haven’t found the best method to do it in a consistent way. For example, when we focus the camera on the image of the screen, it creates a moiré effect that prevents any analysis of the photo. We’ll keep this in mind moving forward though, and if you have any other feedback in the future, don’t hesitate to follow up!

    45. 2
      1
      0
      1
      0

      Hey eiglow

      At the time, when the test was designed, the goal was to show the noise of the keyboard as a disturbance in a working area. With comments like yours, we understood that sound is also a good indication of the feeling when using the keyboard so good room acoustics is definitely important. We’ll take your recommendations into account when we review the test!

      Thanks for sharing this with us!

    46. 2
      1
      0
      1
      0

      Hi inter2000a,

      It’s hard to tell without knowing your workflow. Could you elaborate a bit more on what you have tried exactly on your side? Specially, the part where you said that you tried “our” method.

      The method we used is the IDMS Method, you can find further information at the page 201

    47. 2
      1
      0
      1
      0

      Hi there!

      This is something we have noticed on our end. We tried a solution that looks very similar to what you suggest for the reflection box of our laptop review. You can see the result here. We were talking about doing the same thing for TV and Monitor. Would this solution answer your concern?

    48. 2
      1
      0
      1
      0

      Hey!

      This is actually something we tried to address in our newest test bench (specifically with the PQ EOTF tracking box where we track if the TV follow the creator intent for 3 peak luminance reference). The score is based on the shadow and midtone. However, we’re always looking for ways to improve so if you feel like we missed something with the new test or you were looking for something different, don’t hesitate to follow up!

    49. 2
      1
      0
      1
      0

      Hi Larry,

      The tracking Delta is simply the area between the curves for the section between 0 and 0.58 stimulus. Hope it helps!

    50. 4
      3
      2
      3
      0

      Sorry for the confusion. The old methodology and the picture you saw were already using a standardized method across all the keyboards including same camera, same manual setting (including white balance), same environment (including lighting and backdrop). The tweak that we did is changing the Lightroom pre-set for all keyboard to make sure the picture is even closer to the reality. Just to make sure, every keyboard goes through the same standardized process. Hopefully this clears things up, and once again, thank you for all the great feedback!