The monitor’s regulation of brightness is implemented in an unusual way. When you enable the color management technology called MagicColor, the brightness is regulated by means of modulation of the backlight at a frequency of 335MHz. When MagicColor is turned off, the brightness is regulated with the matrix. I don’t know the reasons why Samsung’s engineers have implemented such an unusual regulation.
The average brightness uniformity is 5% on white and 7.1% on black, the corresponding maximums being 11.3% and 22.6%, respectively. These are acceptable results.
The gamma curves look good at the defaults settings except that the blue curve has a lower value of gamma than necessary and goes above the others as the result.
At the reduced settings the three curves almost coincide. Unfortunately, the red and green curves rise up to merge with the blue one rather than otherwise. The image looks whitish as the consequence. Such flaws in color reproduction can be corrected by adjusting the value of gamma in the monitor’s menu. You don’t need a calibrator for that.
The color temperature setup isn’t very accurate. There is a temperature dispersion of over 1500K in each mode, which is not good. The Warm mode is the only acceptable one as the color temperature deflects much only on the darkest halftones in it – this is less perceptible to the eye. Darks are considerably colder than lights in every mode.
The monitor’s color gamut is slightly larger than sRGB in greens and differs from it in reds. It’s all just like with other monitors that have ordinary backlight lamps.
According to my tests, the monitor has a response time average of 6.2 milliseconds (GtG) with a maximum of 15 milliseconds. In other words, it is even faster than declared. For comparison, the RTC-less version of this model had a response time of 25 milliseconds on transitions between light halftones only. On dark halftones it would be as slow as 100 milliseconds! Response Time Compensation is indeed a vitally important technology for PVA matrixes.
Well, RTC is always accompanied with errors. Here, the RTC error average is 8.3%. The maximum error is 79%. It means that RTC-provoked artifacts won’t be conspicuous most of the time, yet you can spot them on certain transitions between dark halftones. Not an ideal result, yet not a failure, ether.
The monitor didn’t show an exceptionally high contrast ratio in my tests even though its contrast ratio is higher than most TN-based models can offer. It will satisfy most users, though.
Of course, the updated SyncMaster 940T belongs to a higher class and costs more than the other monitors tested for this review. It is comparable in price to expensive TN-based monitors with Response Time Compensation and exquisite exterior design. But I would recommend it to you if you are not satisfied with the viewing angles of TN matrixes because its matrix is fast enough for most applications. The only drawback of this model I could find is the inaccurate setup of the color temperature modes.
I want to warn you once again that there are two versions of SyncMaster 940T selling currently. The version with the model code of LS19HATESQ is the one tested in this review. It is based on an RTC-enabled PVA matrix with a specified response time of 8 milliseconds. The other version, LS19HATES7, does not have RTC and its response time is as high as 25 milliseconds. There is the same thing with the SyncMaster 940Fn model (its LS19HAPAS7 version has a slow matrix, and its LS19HAPASQ has a fast matrix). You should check out the model code to make sure you buy the version you want.
- Wide setup options
- Good viewing angles due to the PVA matrix
- Rather fast matrix
- Sloppy color temperature setup
- Two versions of this model, a slow and a fast one, sell simultaneously
- Text-based applications (documents, spreadsheets, Internet)
- Movies and games
- Viewing and editing photographs