Latest Consumer Reports...PLASMA, PLASMA, PLASMA....

Notice the lowly Maxent was not much lower rated than the 2000 dollar more expensive LG. Once again shows that price does not always equal quality. Also notice that the middle rated plasmas beat out most of the Microdisplay set and no projector bulb to replace. I was surprised how low rated the RP CRT sets were.

you just have to except that's CU's 'concept.'

hopefully people will stop looking at the maxent's and saying "OMG THIS TV IS SO CHEAP AND IT HAS THE HIGHEST RESOLUTION...I WANT ONE AND I DONT WANT TO UPGRADE TO HD DISH BECAUSE THE TV ALREADY HAS A HIGH RESOLUTION AND I KNOW ALL ABOUT TV'S BECAUSE I SHOP BY RESOLUTION AND I WONT LISTEN TO YOU"


heres a thought, maybe comsumer reports gets paid by best buy...cause maxent plasma's have low margin and it hurts stores to sell it......maybe there is a conspiracy so both places(consumer reports and bb) can make more money.

....Consumer Reports "on the take?!"

I think not. They have been on the cutting edge of exposing any and all such underhandedness. Heck, they don't even accept advertising because of the possibility of conflicts of interest.

Believe me, these guys are the ultimate boy scouts of commitment to objectivity and independence.

I'd like to see a report that reports on the credibility of the various "Consumer Rating" organizations.

...Objectivity.

You may not like their conclusions, but they are arrived at entirely without bias and they have been an invaluable tool for consumers for the last 50+ years.

Understand here. I am only referring to "Consumer Reports"? not other "consumer reporting" publications.

...someone's decided to ask a logical, if impertinent, question. Given the state of news reportage' in recent years, It's the thoughtful individual who would question the objectivity of even so lauded a magazine as Consumer Reports. We all have biases, even if we're not ourselves aware of them. To say that even Consumers Union is completely free of bias is, you'd have to agree, at least a little ludicrous.

However, the futher logical question is, how DOES one confirm at least their scientifically achieved test results? Do they do any kind of audits, either external or internal? Would they ever submit to an external audit? My guess is they wouldn't, or at least not voluntarily. Perhaps if some corporation was piqued enough to sue them over a rating, they could get such an audit as a part of their discovery.

This is not to immediately and unwarrantedly indict CU of New York Times/CBS-levels of bias. I merely suggest that the concept of questioning authority seems to have gone out of fashion now that the generation that coined that concept is actually IN authority. It may not always be a pleasant thought, but as we should have all learned by now, the price of freedom, even so treasured a freedom as that of speech and expression, is eternal vigilance. So let it never be considered anything less than sane to occasionally posit: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

...I particularly like:

***the concept of questioning authority seems to have gone out of fashion now that the generation that coined that concept is actually IN authority.***

How very true. As one of those 60's guys protesting the war in Vietnam, Watergate, South African Apartheid, etc. I suppose we do quickly forget that questioning authority is an essential part of any health free society.

It's easy to lose sight of that when those of us who were "outs" become the "ins."

Thanks for the thoughtful post.

Consumer Reports has had numerous law suits filed against them because of unfavorable reports and unacceptable ratings for products. The most famous is the little Suzuki SUV that failed the roll-over tests and was given an unacceptable rating. Suzuki sued and lost because (surprize) they DID roll over. According to Consumer Reports, they have never been successfuly sued.

You don't have to crazy to spend $4000 on a HDTV, but it helps you wife cope if she thinks you are.
With CU you need to understand HOW and what factors they use whe they evaluate items. Yes they do have thier own idea of what is good, this dosen't mean they are wrong, but it dosen't mean they are allwise right either.
Everything is not black and white.
Example: In 1969 I bought a new Volvo 144 for $3500.
Most of my friends bought American cars "69 Camero, Chevy Impala V8 engines auto trans,etc for about $2900.
CU, said Volvos were over pirced compaired to American cars, not a good value for the money.
Fast forward to 1987 I bought a Volvo 245 wagon.
All of my friends were on thier 3rd car since 1969, they never stopped making car payments all thoes years.
In 1987 CU was saying that Volvos were a good investment, well made car, long lasting, very safe car to dive, etc. Did Volvos change??? Or did CU change their minds on what factors to use evaluating cars?
I use CU as a resorce NOT final the word. John

I love consumer reports when it comes to lawn mowers and toaster ovens. But their "objective" approach doesn't work as well when it comes to something like a high def tv which is intended to reproduce art: in this case, films.
If Consumer Reports tested a McLaren FI, the highest performance car ever made, the review would probably say: "Brisk acceleration, but the seating area is cramped, the fuel mileage is poor, and it is noisier and stiffer riding than the Camry and Accord. Not recommended."

It is one thing to measure the pixel count and the brightness, but you have to give weight to the proper things, black level, color trueness, etc.

"It is one thing to measure the pixel count and the brightness, but you have to give weight to the proper things, black level, color trueness, etc."

Did you read the Consumer Report Issue? I missed the rating by pixel count. They rated on picture quality, ease of use, etc. with an overall score given based on several criteria. In addition, there is a rating of picure quality as excellent, very good, good etc also as a comparison. Would I buy only the #1 rated Consumer Report item? Of course not, but it gives me a good place to start looking and helps make a choice if I am torn between 2 or 3 items.

..It upsets some around here.

lol

He didn't like some words they use when reviewing his 901 speakers!!! Oh well!! John

...Sounded "awful," "unlistenable," "made you want to shove ice picks in your ears," "caused unexplained bleeding from your ear canals?"

Stuff like that?

Well you can't expect CU to point out every subtlety.

nt

$1800 Clear crisp and still think its a bargain. maybe I'm dust toopid :-/

...Are you going for a burial or cremation?

;~)

what's the big deal if it breaks...?
i hear plasma are the ony way to chill...and i've been to alot of the stores too and plasma are better in pic quality....dogs

...Quite reliable while all the rear projection sets have had much higher than average rates of repair.

If I were you I'd lok really carefully at the viewing angle issue. Especially on the vertical plane. There's no way whatsoever that a rear projection set comes anywhere near a plasma in this regard.

No way at all.

At the 2006 C.E.S., Sony announced an upcoming 55 inch 55SXRD. Supposed to be thinner, brighter, with an entirely new light engine. Also 1080p compatible HDMI inputs. Also might wait, as I am, to not only see the new Sony, but also Samsung's new HL-S5679W. Supposed to have 3 LED's that replaces the color wheel/lamp image engine. Brighter, higher color fidelity, and no rainbow effect. April on the Samsung at c. $4200. No price or real availability time from Sony yet, but if their hype is true, I suspect this might surpass the current XBR1 fifty and sixty inch offerings. Hence the current drops in prices. I'm in the same boat as you, so please keep me abreast of your findings, and also your opinions after seeing these new sets. It looks like this is going to be the name of the game for the next year, as I suspect others will follow in catching up to Sony and Samsung. It'll be obsolete a week after you purchase anyway, may as well get the latest technologies. Hopefully Cnet will review these new offerings as soon as they hit the market. Stay in touch.

...Good post John.

Excellent and valid points.

Actually though, my greatest concern about all RP systems has always been the viewing angle issue and picture shift as you move left - right and up - down. As you point out, SD looks awful no matter how you slice it. My Sony plasma does as good a job as any on SD. What I can't and won't tolearate are the horrid stretch modes that try and "make believe" that 4:3 is 16:9. It simply isn't and until they broadcast ONLY 16:9 (it can't happen too soon!) I'll watch 4:3 as it should be...in 4:3.

Even thoght my CRT-RP has good strech modes, I too watch 4x3 in 4x3. This gives me a 38" picture, which is 6" bigger than my old 32" CRT.
In my setup with the TV on the narrow end of the room, viewing angle is not much of a problem. The viewing area is basicaly straght on. As the number of types of TVs increases so does the number factors needed to be considered. Who says my Frains Bried. John

...or at least not to start. One problem that I haven't heard solved with plasmas is the burn-in factor, i.e. static images of any sort leaving a permanent after-image on the screen. The bad news is I've heard this can happen when one ''keyholes'' a 4:3 image on a 16:9 screen, or even letter-boxing movies that have a still-wider aspect ratio than 16:9 on such a screen. The good news is that after the first 100 hours or so of use, the burn-in problem is supposed to go away, so thereafter you can run a plasma as you would a old-fashioned CRT. So at least to start with, streching SD to the HD aspect ratio might be a good idea with plasma screens. Anyone know if the CR article addressed this issue? It's kind of important!