I understand what you're saying about my TV being reviewed in 2007. But unlike most websites, CNET updates their reviews every few months. The XBR4 used to be an 8.4/10 but was lowered to an even 8 after newer models come up. Even with the new models it says "The XBR4 outpreforms any LCD we've tested". This is an overall. I'm sure there are parts of the Z4100 that are better than the XBR4 just as there are parts of the XBR4 that are better than the Z4100. Neither TV is bad, obviously. But here is the quote from CNET that turned me toward the XBR rather than the Z series.
Sony's well-featured, smartly styled KDL-46Z4100 performs well enough, but its picture doesn't match that of the best LCDs.
It's not just about numbers. The Z4100 has a contrast of 30,000:1 while the XBR4 has one of 18,000:1. But apparently the XBR4 has more accurate colors, possibly because the XBR series is Sonys top of the line and maybe the parts are of higher quality. And according to that review, the W series (lower series than Z) has better black levels.
We're not sure why the Z4100 would have worse black levels than its less-expensive cousin, and both have the same specifications, but that's what we observed after carefully calibrating both (along with the rest of the sets in our comparison, as always).
I guess it would depend on the settings for each set, what material you're playing (movies or games, etc) and a bunch of other factors. I dont take these comparisons too seriously, as I dont really think its possible to determine a bottom line "better" TV as there are too may variables. Both TVs are very good and that's all that matters, right?
Log in to comment