I'm not an expert at performing these tests, but isn't this one of the ways it shouldn't be done, placing them right next to eachother with the potential that one affects the other?
No doubt that the Fenix seems to be way off when the intensity increases - but there isn't any evidence that the Samsung is spot on either? (or am I missing something, I just scrolled quickly through the video?)
Without defending the OHR in the Fenix in any way - but to be fair the increased price is not suppose to give you a better OHR, it's more expensive because it has a lot of other features that the cheaper devices doesn't have. For example the much cheaper VA3 has the same sensor, and in fact it might actually perform a bit better due to the more favourable form factor of the VA3.
If I tick off a lot of options when buying a car the price will surely go up, but I'm not expecting the engine to perform any better just because I have a sunroof or fancy leather seats.
I stopped watching this as soon as I saw how he was wearing the watches. E.g. after about 2s :-) That's not the way how such a test should be done because one watch influences the blood-flow for the other if worn that close.
This issue became prominent when some "academic" evaluation of OHRs were made and a picture showed someone wearing several watches at the wrist. One next to the other. Valencell has some whitepapers available on how to do it right (I mean the test not necessarily the sensor :-)
Yes, I agree that at this price point, we should not accept sketchy software, and we should expect features to just work.
That said - regarding OHR specifically the story is a little different since it's kind of performing as expected - at least for those who took the time to do some research on OHR tech in general before buying, and I expect people to do some googling around before spending this kind of money. If so, the OHR performance shouldn't come as a surprise.
Yes - there are probably others brands/models that might perform better, but I believe that too is not necessarily true for all - some people get good results with FitBit, some with Samsung, some with Apple, some with none. There are so many factors coming into play, and it's almost like buying a ticket in the lottery - you might get lucky, but probably not.
Because of that - and because I care about HR when exercising - I placed a chest strap in the shopping cart right next to the F5+ right away. Even the cheapest and simplest chest strap will outperform any given OHR sensor. Also, not even being able to connect a chest strap at all was the sole reason why I moved away from FitBit in the first place.
A few thoughts. 1. The display going off on the Galaxy Active all the time (and having to do the gesture to turn it back on) is one of the main reasons that I hated my Gear S3 frontier. On that platform the gesture didn't always work, or the auto brightness didn't always respond properly and so you were left with a screen that while beautiful inside when on, was useless outside. This, above any other problem i had with the watch (including lousy OHR performance and poor GPS) is what prompted me to buy a Garmin. 2. As others have mentioned, having the watches this close is a sure way to make sure they interfere with each other. So it is highly likely that both are suffering here due to the way they are being worn. 3. Without some sort of control (didn't see in the few minutes i watched) you have no idea which sensor is right or wrong. Doing this with both OHRs and a chest strap is the right way to go.
Last point. I've yet to have a wrist based OHR that I could rely on for anything other than steady state running on pavement. The 5x plus performs well for that use case when worn tight enough to not bounce on my wrist. However, as soon as I take it for a hike or a trail run where cadence is all over the place, the sensor's filtering doesn't seem to perform well and I'm much better off with a chest strap if i care about accurate HR during the activity.
Hopefully companies continue to improve here because not wearing a chest strap all the time is really nice. My wife uses a rythm+ on her upper arm and it is quite good, so OHR can work well if placed in a location with plenty of blood flow, but that is not a reasonable place to wear my watch.
So yeah, regardless of the fact that the OHR on the fenix isn't great this test is even worse...
As mentioned above, the watches influence eachother by influencing the bloodflow. He should at least have done another try with the watches position swapped. Also, the galaxy seems to touch the f5x? Well, this again will influence the measurement (as the 5x can be lifted slightly by the galaxy for example, which would cause poor measurement). The watches are worn on different places of the wrist/arm, again an influence on measurements. And finally, indeed there is no control in the form of a hr-band or something...
But I believe hrdlpn is also not really known for it's thorough testing and reviews, more a clickbaiting feeling trying to sell as much stuff as possible.
So sure, the OHR leaves a lot to be desired but this is no comparison
