Theoretically, you should be able to get a better color gamut if you use four different colors of light instead of the traditional three (R, G, B). So, theoretically, you should get an improvement if you buy a display with four different pixel colors instead of just three. You really can't quarrel with the theory, and such displays actually exist
: the Sharp Aquos Quattron,
for one. And Google finds me some reviews that suggest that reviewers think the improvement is visible.
How many pixels colors does your monitor or TV use?
Do you know anyone who has a four-color model at all?
By the way, the theory involves some diagrams that look pleasingly like efficient frontier charts. In this one, the outer curve is the spectrum of pure wavelengths; the area inside represents all visible colors (all possible mixtures of spectrum colors). The kite-shaped area shows all of the colors that can be produced by mixing R, G, Y, and B light sources. With only three sources instead of four, you would only be able to produce the smaller range of colors in a triangle formed by connecting R, G, and B.
In short, you can improve your color gamut by diversifying your set of light sources.
Yes, I think there's some validity to the analogy, up to and including the question of, even if you grant that there's improvement, is that a lot of improvement or just a little, and is it worth the extra cost and complexity? (Stretching it even further... DFA fans would say that those stinky cheapjack Vanguard funds are impure light sources like the R, G, and B dots on the diagram, while DFA funds are positioned farther out, closer to the true spectral colors).
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.