The gamma curves look inaccurate at the default settings: their shapes are far from ideal, especially that of the blue curve. The practical consequence ensuing from such gamma curves is that colors will be displayed by the monitor incorrectly.
The reduction of the brightness and contrast settings doesn’t help here. On the contrary, the blue curve deflects from the theoretical one even more.
There are only three color temperature profiles here. The Warm and Cool modes are rather good, having a temperature dispersion of some 1000K, while the User mode calls for you setting it up manually as dark tones tend to have a bluish hue in it. What is strange, the available modes do not differ much from each other – the color temperature fluctuates more within the same mode than between different modes. There is no really warm and no really cold mode here.
This is the typical color gamut of a normal monitor (I mean, a monitor that does not feature an extended color gamut). The point of red is shifted from its desired position and the monitor’s gamut does not full cover the sRGB space as a consequence.
The response time is just what you can expect from a modern RTC-enabled matrix. Its average is 3.1 milliseconds and its maximum is 6 milliseconds, just like that of the previous model in this review.
The AL1951D is better than the other monitor from Acer when it comes to RTC mechanism errors. The RTC error average is 10.2% here with a maximum of 51%. The resulting visual artifacts will be visible on this monitor, too, yet they are going to be less conspicuous and annoying.
The maximum brightness and the contrast ratio aren’t too bad, yet there is nothing this monitor can boast about. Its level of black is high, its max brightness is rather low, and its contrast ratio hardly exceeds 200:1. There are competing models available that have a fast matrix and much better other parameters.
The Acer AL1951D is a monitor based on a fast matrix with a rather accurate implementation of the RTC mechanism, but the rest of its characteristics aren’t impressive. It looks more attractive than the AL1916Fsd, but it’s up to you to decide if this attractiveness is worth the considerable (by a third) increase in price.