In my TV room, I have an older 60Hz and a newer 600Hz next to each other. I can't see any difference. No blur in either. Kind of thinking the "# of Hz" is more of a marketing gimmick than reality. (Somebody please educate me if wrong.)
"You get it back all in one trade because you see AAPL price flashed 30c below the market for 1/30 of a second..." The monitor pays for itself...
Yes, it DID make a difference. Seems there was flicker at 60Hz and no flicker somewhere around 70-75hz. With newer LCD flat panels, it's common for the "only" choice to be 60Hz... at which there is no flicker.
Let's see... (1) I'm going to see it, (2) know it's the correct play, and (3) be able to click the mouse... all within .03 seconds. NOT EVEN WHEN I WAS 17 WITH A PERPETUAL HARD ON!
It is even less evident on LCD's compared to CRT's, but a percentage of people (maybe 10-20%) can see the difference. I know I can tell instantly if an LCD is 60hz and it causes eyestrain. In general though, I am hypersensitive to sights and sounds, like my brain isn't properly integrating the image. I can't tell between 80hz and 120hz though - for me 80hz or above is all good.
The actual issue is often that power, and therefore your lights, run at 50 Hz, and the brain picks up the 10 Hz the comes from the combination of the two signals (i.e. multiply two sine waves). 10Hz the brain can detect, but 110 Hz it cannot.
There is a difference between seeing moving objects on TV clealry and the issue with a monitor. On TV's that refresh as 60 Hz, fast motion can be blurred, making watching sports annoying. With monitors, it's not an issue of "seeing it faster", but rather of eyestrain from flicker.