> They say AAC is not reliable on android..they say but is it true?.

More like there's no single reference encoder for AAC, which leads to massive quality differences between different devices. As for AptX I guess marketing had a huge hand in that. They needed something to advertise as being "better than generic Bluetooth".

> You are the one banging on about "perceived" things - here is Notebookcheck, telling you that despite how the subpixel array looks, the image is not grainy.

Lol, you yourself kept going on about how "perception" is snake oil, so I gave you an objective method to prove your dumb point.

If matte is not the cause of graininess, then there will be matte panels with equally sharp subpixels like there are for most glossy panels. All your excuses whining about "subpixels don't matter" are just that, excuses.

You keep harping about objective standards, I gave you an objective way to prove it. You didn't.

> So? People love sticking to established lingo even if it's wrong.

😂😂😂

Notebookcheck and "sticking to established lingo".

"Is it me that's wrong? No, it's literally anybody and everybody else including reviewers and manufacturers that are wrong."

> I did, but you ignored it because it's inconvenient.

Lol. Perception isn't "snake oil" anymore?

> LOL no it doesn't. This is how it looks outdoors. Half the screens is obscured with the reflection. And here is the Acer - not a hint of glare.

And you can already see it being all washed out to hell. Perception was only "snake oil", was it?

> But... it isn't.

Uh huh. Someone really didn't watch the video. Probably was too inconvenient for their worldview.

> ... how did you come to this conclusion?

From your logic. deltaE and colorspace don't depend on ambient light, and you keep claiming that's all there is to perception, so it shouldn't matter where I place the colorimeter, right? Any distortion should be snake oil, right?

> Can link you dozens of threads on reddit where people keep droning on about this. Here is the latest one.

So the "popular argument" is one that is downvoted to hell and the rest of the thread is complaining about how there's a severe lack of 1440p 24-inch monitors? Do you know what "popular" means?

> So we've established from the article that it's a spectrum rather than binary.

Lol, no. The "spectrum" is the amount of haze the matte coating is put through, with the lighter hazes coming with less graininess and diffusion but more glare. Almost as if glossy is the end point of that spectrum.

Don't try to pretend your stupid assumptions are valid because "spectrum".

> I explicitly mentioned that the "stripped" panel without the outer layer isn't the same as an all-out glossy panel with a glass layer

Nope, that's something you started wailing on once your "glossy is just matte with glass on top" nonsense failed to prove itself.

> My argument still stands: to create an actual glossy panel, you need a layer of glass/hard plastic on top.

Are you seriously thinking there's no glass on Dell Ultrasharps or Asus ProArts? Are those panels magically glossy now? Oh wait, you did call the matte version of Apple's monitor glossy as well. Guess there's no saving.

No matter the delusion you keep telling yourself, glossy displays do not have anything extra over their screens than matte displays do. Samsung Display showing off "thinnest" laptop panel, and yet it is glossy. One would think they'd be going for matte if matte displays magically have a layer less than glossy displays do.

> Like MacBooks, smartphones, etc do. If you don't have that, your screen isn't glossy, end of story.

LG Gram has no glass and the plastic is flexible. Guess it's matte now, lol.

> Except that's not "perception", that's literally a material with different qualities used and the article you linked states so.

Same deltaE, same colorspace, same white balance, same contrast measured. What now?

😂😂😂

This guy really thought this and this are equally sharp.

Damn, no wonder you can't tell the difference between matte and glossy sharpness.

> "Subjectively, the panel offers excellent picture quality because even bright surfaces do not look grainy despite the matte coating."

Did you ever try to read the full sentence?

DESPITE THE MATTE COATING

Oh golly gee, I wonder why they needed to make that distinction, that too on literally every laptop with a matte panel.

> Subpixel array photos do not reflect actual graininess. I have never conceded that point, nor will I. You are the only one riding on it here.

> So now I'm supposed to argue points that go against my own claim and experience? Do you even know how arguments work?

Exactly lol. Simple physics dictates a grainier screen will have grainier subpixels by definition. There's no panel in the world that looks grainy but has completely sharp subpixels under a microscope.

You keep claiming all screens are matte by default, hence matte shouldn't have an effect on the graininess. And yet, you haven't managed to produce one matte screen that can match the sharpness of glossy panels, let alone exceed them in sharpness.

But then again you literally can't tell the difference, so you're incapable of arguing anything in the first place.

> They say that for literally every display that isn't a phone display with 500+ nit brightness. Try someone who doesn't know their lingo inside and out lmao. It's very clear from the photo that the display looks excellent outdoors.

So does the Macbook Air, so I guess matte doesn't do shit regarding reflections?

> Of course, it doesn't sit well with you to just admit it's as clear as the ones you've linked, there has to be a defect...

Yeah, only person who would claim that would be someone with very bad eyesight, someone who never bothered to open my links, or someone deliberately trolling. It's like saying 720p is equally sharp as 4k.

> No, sorry. "Sharpness" is determined only by resolution, and "perceived vibrancy" is snake oil.

Lol, that's why the Eve 4k with glossy was more sharp than the one with matte? One 4k was different resolution from other 4k?

Sharpness is determined by a lot of things, and the graininess of the screen coating is one of them.

You're scraping the bottom of the barrel there, buddy.

And as for "perceived" being snakeoil, diffused light is the same thing as non diffused light, eh?

Lol, do you even know how those metrics are measured? By literally sealing the display area being measured to prevent ambient light leakage.

By your logic setting the colorimeter 5 feet away from the display will give the exact same readings. Some "facts".

> The same "literally anyone" who tried to convince me that 1080p at 24" is "totally enough" and there's no point in trying to get a rare 1440p 24" monitor to increase actual sharpness? Yeah, I'll totally listen to those people.

And who exactly is claiming that? Making up arguments because no real ones available?

And as for your laughable "dug your own grave":

You: All panels are matte by default!!! Glossy is just layer over matte!!!

Article: Matte or glossy depends on the treatment of polarizer layer.

You: See I was right!!! You dug your own grave!!!

Looks like along with poor eyesight your also got poor reading comprehension, and in the end all you could do to salvage it is to say some matte screens are light enough to reach somewhat close to glossy screens, lol.

EDIT: Oh yeah, weren't you claiming "perception" was snake oil? Got on that train very quick when you found "light matte" is close to glossy in that regard lol.

> Almost as if actual graininess has nothing to do with matte and everything to do with low quality screen materials.

The laptops I listed all have much higher quality screen materials than laptops costing at least twice as much?

Surely even you think you're reaching.

> I never promised to deliver it.

Yes, because it completely counters your absurd claim of "all glossy is just glass over matte".

> All I've ever claimed is that even glossy screens can have a blurry subpixel array on those photos.

But they can also have sharp subpixel arrays, something almost non-existent on the matte ones. You seem to be avoiding this fact quite conveniently.

> But sure, here you go: Acer Aspire Vero AV14-51. Definitely a matte screen (see full review). What now?

Great. Let's look at the review again.

> It is possible to use the screen outdoors, provided that the sun isn't overly bright.

So by reducing the matte haze to improve the sharpness (still not fully, you can clearly see the graininess at the edges), you already lost the diffusion advantage, like what happens with all those "semigloss" and "2H" panels. Thanks for proving my point.

In the end, glossy panels have more sharpness and perceived vibrancy than matte panels, while matte panels are more usable in harsh lighting than glossy panels. Just as is common knowledge for literally anyone but you apparently.

> Already explained to you why that's not going to happen.

How convenient. Almost as if matte causes graininess by its nature, and glossy displays do not have "native matte" surfaces. If the "diffusion" is the problem, then all the matte panels would be far sharper than the glossy panels, as by your definition glossy panels have an additional layer on top of the matte panel.

> Do your eyes look at individual subpixels? No.

Look up the concept of subpixel antialiasing. Also that LG Gram, Zenbook and Vivobook are all 1080p, so that excuse won't fly either.

Again, I'm waiting for that mythical matte panel with subpixels as clear as almost all the glossy laptop panels.

Except most glossy display notebooks are as sharp.

Macbook air

Acer Spin 5

Surface Laptop 3

LG Gram 14

Vivobook 15 Pro

Huawei Matebook 13

Given it's so easy to find the glossy panels with sharp subpixels, it should be even easier to find the matte panels with sharp subpixels, given your claim. Especially when many of them cost far more than the laptops I've listed, so no excuses about "low end panels" either.

I don't need your excuses.

If you are right and I am wrong, you should be able to find at least one laptop with a matte display that is at least as sharp as the one I posted. Especially when there are laptops with matte displays that cost several times that of the Zenbook.

Unless you can post one such laptop from the immense database of Notebookcheck, it's all hot air and trolling.

> Oh okay, so we're firmly into snake oil territory now. Instruments say the colours are the same, but "perception" isn't.

Ah yes, professional monitors having to come with massive hoods to block out ambient light, studios having to be painted in neutral gray colors to prevent the brain from automatically correcting color casts, and mastering standards specifying bias lighting specifically to enhanced perceived contrast are all snake oil.

> Why is it like that? It's glossy! It's supposed to be crystal clear!

They do have a whole ass Wacom pressure sensitive layer on top, but go on, find more excuses and deflection as to avoid answering why your "uncoated native matte" is somehow even more blurry (even with your surface pro 9 example lol) than the supposed "gloss is just glass over matte" screens, in literally all cases.

Yep, a troll indeed.

You want to prove your point? Go ahead, show one laptop with a matte screen that has at least equal sharpness to the panel I showed you. Should be really damn easy, given the Zenbook isn't an expensive laptop and doesn't really use high end panels.

Until you can't, you'll remain a troll.

> Film. Here, watch a video that shows it coming off. That's some flexible glass...

Fine, it can be plastic as well. Happy? Does that change anything? Did the Macbook become magically matte all of a sudden?

> And here is another video showing an iMac's glass being removed. What's underneath? That's right, a matte panel...

That looks like matte to you? Since when do matte displays have razor sharp reflections?

And lol at linking literally 11 year old videos. If you haven't noticed, display tech has progressed quite a bit since then, and we used laminated displays now. Go ahead, use any modern smartphone, and see if there's any gap between the screen and your skin while touching it.

And as for peeling off layers, what exactly is up with all the "matte removal" processes available online?

Are these companies putting on "natively matte" panels, then putting glossy glass on it, and then again putting a matte coating on it?

> (Impossibly by definition, by the way, because one is glossy and another matte, but let's at least compare their stated specifications.)

Same colorspace, same brightness, same resolution, same refresh rate. What more do you want?

You seem desperate to grab at any tiny colorspace inaccuracy to justify the massive difference shown in vibrancy.

> Cool beans, I do too. And I don't want to switch off my ceiling light just so my screen is legible lmao.

Except I don't have to. I cant just tilt my screen away from light sources to completely eliminate reflections. But matte screens are still washed out.

> IPS, high contrast, above 90% sRGB coverage, low deltaE values. Again: I have yet to see this "washing out".

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Perceived vibrancy can be wildly different even if the colors measured at the surface of the panel is same. Do you even understand how matte works?

Basic physics: on a glossy surface, all light rays largely reflect off in a single direction, so if you angle it right, none of those reflections will ever reach you. But for matte surfaces, the reflections go all over the place. Regardless of how you angle it, there will always be some reflections coming to you, washing out the display.

And the video I linked originally gives a very good demonstration of how that turns out, and that's not the only comparison available.

> Yeah, because they use an additional anti-glare coating which tends to warp with age - remember Staingate? And I don't want to have to use maximum brightness, that depletes battery faster. Again something you should know from Notebookcheck.

I just used max brightness for the worst case scenario. In most cases even that's not required. You keep saying you're an "avid reader" of Notebookcheck, but then you'd be aware that Notebookcheck also says this in their Macbook reviews.

> CAPACITIVE TOUCHSCREEN. For fuck's sake! I love how you conveniently ignored the Wikipedia tidbit I linked.

Are you just spamming without reading now? I said the screens are already topped with glass or plastic even for matte, and you literally proved it for me with your videos, which means there's no barrier for matte displays getting capacitive input.

And the kicker? Here, from the very article you cited:

> Those for mobile devices are now being produced with 'in-cell' technology, such as in Samsung's Super AMOLED screens, that eliminates a layer by building the capacitors inside the display itself.

So the sensors are inside the display as well. No problem in making them matte now, given the "extra glass" layer is unnecessary, right?

> And yes, plenty of people have wanted a matte smartphone for years, because you DO use those outside a lot

And yet it has literally never come up once anywhere, outside of matte vs glossy arguments for monitors. Even people clamoring for small phones massively outnumber any such people.

> Oops, so it's still glossy, just less glossy.

Are you seriously claiming that glass can't be matte? Are you just trolling at this point?

> I guess people also buy gaming monitors for offices?

The panel manufacturing process is the same, they aren't going to spin up a whole other pipeline for glossy polarizing layers.

> Did. What difference am I supposed to be looking at?

Yep, you're trolling. No one with working eyes thinks this and this are the same.

Also "avid readers" of Notebookcheck would very much know they always point out the "graininess" of matte displays vs glossy ones, but it's already confirmed you're just trolling.

Only reply if you have actual arguments to make and not just spam nonsense in a cycle.

> Wildly incorrect. You can't tell by simply touching the display that the glossy ones have a layer of glass (or plastic) on top, really?

...what do you think the outer polarizing layer is made out of? Do you really think the matte layer isn't glass?

Please, take a look at how screens are made before making such outlandish claims.

> I'm well aware of that. And are you aware of the fact that even the same laptop or monitor can source difference panels with "similar" specs that aren't the same? You claim to read Notebookcheck - they bring up that fact over and over.

And in those cases the panels are different, and come with different identifiers and very often display suppliers. You see discrepancies between LG panels and Samsung panels, not one Samsung panel vs another Samsung panel.

> Good luck with that when your lights are on the ceiling like they are in most cases - or when you are working outside/next to a window (which is very often the case with a laptop).

Yes, in an office scenario. I like to consume media on my devices, and I do that in comfort of my home, not office, where I do have control over placement of lighting.

> Except it's not washed out if you have a decent screen.

Provable false. What counts as "decent screen"? 500$? 1000$? 6000$? All of them will wash out the display, that's literally how matte works.

> I literally said they can be. But they have to be resistive, not capacitive. Capacitive tech needs the glass or plastic layer to work. Read up on how it functions. "A capacitive touchscreen panel consists of an insulator, such as glass, coated with a transparent conductor, such as indium tin oxide (ITO)."

Once again, on both matte and glossy displays the outer polarizing layer is glass. So nothing stops matte displays from being capacitive touch.

> ... is an example of when a display actually has matte "coating" on top of the capacitive glass layer.

So if one is to use your logic, the Lenovo has matte panel, over which they put a glossy glass layer, over which they put a matte layer once again? Do I really need to point out how ridiculous this is?

> Get back to me when you build a capacitive display without the glass layer, you will be rich overnight.

Lenovo does. Go ask them. And from what I know they aren't exclusive in that either.

> Uh-huh - except matte screens do it to a much smaller extent and only on dark backgrounds. Glossy ones like on my MacBook do it regardless of background and lighting, and it's extremely tiring on the eyes.

Then I guess you should stop sitting out in direct sun, it will damage your panel either way. Macbooks at max brightness are nowhere that reflective in office lighting.

> You're joking, right? People have been demanding a matte MacBook for ages. When you do actual work on it for a full day instead of being a pretentious "graphics designer" playing with fonts for half an hour, the reflections become extremely exhausting. The reason Apple isn't doing it is because matte screens look "cheap" - glass looks expensive and fancy.

Apple laptops were only one class I mentioned, where are the excuses for the others?

And Apple does make a matte version of their expensive monitor, so it's obviously not limited to "glass looks fancy".

> Yet almost all desktop monitors, even the very expensive ones, are matte. I wonder why...

Because most people use them in offices. That's what drives it.

> As an avid Notebookcheck reader myself: citation needed.

Like I said, check the subpixel shots of glossy laptops and matte laptops. That alone should completely destroy the notion of "panels being natively matte and glossy just have glass over them".

> That's not as far from the truth as you think. The aforementioned MacBooks have been consistently offering some of the best displays on the market in terms of resolution, colour accuracy, and colorspace coverage - and all of them have glass. Those specs aren't the consequence of having glass, but they do skew the statistics in glossy screens' favour.

If glass was that unnecessary they wouldn't have put it on in the first place. Of course, that's assuming the ridiculous notion of "panels being natively" matte is true in the first place.

> So first of all, there no such thing as a matte """coating""". That's just the natural state of any panel. Calling it a "coating" the way he and you do is incorrect. Glossy panels are the ones that have something extra - the glass layer.

Based on what? Do you know how LCDs are manufactured?

All LCDs have an outer polarizing layer. The manufacturer decides whether that layer is coarsened to have a matte finish, or to leave it at that to get a glossy finish. Glossy displays don't have anything "extra" than matte displays do. There are exceptions at the ultra low end that do what you say, and the result is clearly visible. You don't get the vibrancy or sharpness of glossy displays nor do you get the diffusion of matte displays.

> Second, do the monitors in the video have exactly the same panel? He claims so, but I've seen plenty of big reviewers not understand the difference and claim that something is "the same/practically the same panel" when it wasn't even from the same manufacturer. Are brightness and contrast settings configured to match?

He runs his monitors full tilt for his tests, and yes, they're from the same manufacturer. Also I don't think you understand that there are only few actual panel manufacturers in the world, so many displays from different manufacturers will indeed have the same panel. The Eve shown in the video uses LG panels.

> Third, using ambient lighting as an argument in favour of glossy displays... really doesn't make sense. You can literally see it in the video how the monitor is reflecting him. Who wants that?

...so did the matte one. Did you even watch the full video?

In the case of glossy, I can position my monitor to completely cut out the glaring lights. With the matte even if I do that I still end up with a washed out image.

> The guy is literally talking out of his ass, claiming that the reason phones and tables have glossy screens is because "they provide the best visual experience". Wrong: it's because you need the glass layer for a capacitive touchscreen (back in the day, Windows Mobile PDAs had matte touchscreens because they were resistive - I miss that greatly, they also worked with anything that exerted pressure, meaning you could use them in gloves etc). Why should I listen to anything he says?

If anything you proved you're the one talking out your ass. If matte displays can't be touch sensitive, is Lenovo scamming customers by offering matte touch display options on their Thinkpads? Am I hallucinating that my screen protector on my phone right now is matte?

> He outright doesn't understand that reflections are not wanted by the overwhelming majority of users

And yet pretty much no one is claiming for matte displays on Apple laptops, smartphones, tablets or OLED TVs, despite it being such "an overwhelmingly negative point". Funny how that works, almost as if having a vibrant and sharper display where reflections can be mitigated pretty much completely through proper placement is way more desirable than washed out displays that are meant for office use where placement cannot be controlled.

> uses what's clearly a worse panel - my previous monitor (MSI Optix MAG241CR) also had that kind of "diffusion" that made text more difficult to read, but neither my current monitor (AOC Q24G2) nor my older one (Asus VX248H) do. All of them are matte.

And yet there are no laptops on notebookcheck where the matte display is anywhere near as sharp as their glossy counterparts (as seen in their subpixel view). Are they all using worse panels than the ones using glossy?

The part where you claimed the vibrancy of the panel has nothing to do with the coating. As shown in the video, any time there is any ambient lighting the matte version will look more washed out and dull compared to the same panel with a glossy coating.

And this isn't including the loss of sharpness matte coating causes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mTV1TOblbA

What you say is true if there is no light at all in your viewing space.

Screen readers as mentioned in the post.

> yet your “arguments” here seem much more emotional than rational. You simply dislike Bari Weiss, Elon Musk, and various others, and you filter everything through that lens of disdain – hence the sarcasm, the condescension, and everything else.

He literally posted every single reason as to why Bari Weiss is untrustworthy, yet you are dismissing the all based off some claim of “condescension”. You sure you’re not the emotional one here?

Also as far as “dick pics” go, the tweets and docs mentioned in the twitter files thread were of dick pics. You just didn’t bother to actually go check what those tweets were actually about, and this is a reason as to why Twitter Files itself is suspect. Obviously being about dick pics would completely defeat the accusations being made, hence it was conveniently left out, and who knows what else is being left out of these “Files”?

Also given you do not understand why Libs of TikTok is relevant to the conversation, it looks like you yourself haven’t read the Twitter Files.

> Technicalities cover areas such as soundstage, resolving ability and attack/decay.

All of which are way more subjective than tuning.

Does the new TC version have the same issues?

Either way, 200mw output is not to be sneezed at.