In September, TCL released a spectrogram that it said proved the presence of quantum dots in its TVs. However, it is unclear which model was tested,
and the results do not appear
See the TCL to include red or green colors.
The company declined to comment on why it did not special database provide more testing results,
See the TCL including data on the color gamut and accuracy of its QLED TVs.
Providing more detailed test results would help buyers better understand what to expect from a “QLED TV .” However, that level of detail is missing from both the recent accusations against QLED TVs and their defense. Meanwhile, the test results that were shared were more shocking.
To understand the real-world performance
Of one of the TVs in question, let’s look again at the TCL 65Q651G that Samsung tested at Intertek. This TV is mentioned in a lawsuit in what is a consumer trend? which TCL is accused of lying about its QLED TVs.
The TV’s DCI-P3 coverage is 88.3 percent, and its color volume is 26.3 percent. Both figures are below the 99.2 percent DCI-P3 coverage and 34 percent color volume that were recorded by the 2020 Vizio M Series Quantum. It’s also less impressive than TCL’s QM8, a Mini QLED TV that covers 94.59 percent DCI-P3 and has a color volume of 49.2 percent.
Growing suspicion See the TCL
Perhaps it is because of the lack of reliable testing results that consumers are increasingly beginning to doubt their QLED TVs and take them to court .
Samsung, perhaps seeking to ratchet up tensions with rivals like TCL, said it used Intertek to test TCL TVs. Intertek has been a “trusted source of calling list quality assurance and testing services for the industry” for over a century. However, another likely reason for the decision was that Intertek had previously tested three other TCL TVs and found that they lacked materials needed for QD TVs .
Hansol Chemical Seoul-based
Chemical manufacturer and distributor and supplier to Samsung, commissioned testing of three TCL TVs: the C755, C655, and C655 Pro. Hansol also hired Geneva-based testing and certification company SGS. SGS also failed to detect indium, even at its higher minimum detection standard of 5 mg/kg, and cadmium in the kits.