Consumer Reports rates HDTV sets

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

The March 2005 Consumer Report has an extensive section on HDTV sets.

Their three top-rated rear-projection sets are

Samsung HL-P5085W
Panasonic PT-50DL54
Samsung HL-P5685W

They did not test any 63 or 74 series Samsung sets, though.

None of the sets they tested were check rated.

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

I think the November and December 2005 issue also listed many new
HDTV sets.

On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 00:43:47 -0700, Michelle Steiner
<michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

>The March 2005 Consumer Report has an extensive section on HDTV sets.
>
>Their three top-rated rear-projection sets are
>
>Samsung HL-P5085W
>Panasonic PT-50DL54
>Samsung HL-P5685W
>
>They did not test any 63 or 74 series Samsung sets, though.
>
>None of the sets they tested were check rated.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Perhaps you should have actually read the issue before you posted. This
month's issue of Consumer Reports (March 2005) did categorize them
separately by technology. Rear projection on pg. 17, plasma on pg. 19, LCD
on pg. 21, and CRT ("conventional" ) on pg. 23. I fact, the rear projection
sets are broken down into two separate ratings categories, microdisplay and
CRT-based, the plasma's by HD and ED sets, and conventions into 5
categories, 36" 4:3, 34" widescreen, etc., etc. They also include brand
repair histories, which I realize isn't quite the same as "maintenance
cost", but it does give you an idea of brands to avoid.

<jeremy@pdq.net> wrote in message
news:1107703517.884178.174750@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Michelle Steiner wrote:
>> The March 2005 Consumer Report has an extensive section on HDTV sets.
>>
>> Their three top-rated rear-projection sets are
>>
>> Samsung HL-P5085W
>> Panasonic PT-50DL54
>> Samsung HL-P5685W
>>
>> They did not test any 63 or 74 series Samsung sets, though.
>>
>> None of the sets they tested were check rated.
>>
>> --
>> Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
>
>
> Interesting, all three are LCD or LCD-RP (PT-50DL54) sets. The only one
> of those I've seen is the Panasonic model and it looked fantastic.
>
> The thing I strongly dislike about the Consumer Reports HDTV reviews is
> that they do not categorize sets by technology. They should list the
> best DLP, LCD, Plasma, CRT DirectView and CRT Rear-projection sets by
> those categories. Not everyone can afford $3500 for a set.
>
> All, in past years, Consumer Reports has known to leave out details
> such as maintence cost or rate of defect in their HDTV review
> processes. I don't know what their process is exactly (maybe it's the
> sampling of consumers they use to get their feedback). I would take
> their reviews with a grain of salt and look to publiclications geared
> toward Consumer or Pro Audio/Video for reviews. Perhaps the best place
> for information is on-line consumer reviews.
>
> -Jeremy
> HDTV Buyers Guide:
> http://hdtv.0catch.com
>

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Ski" <ski@nospamtoday.com> wrote in

> they said rear projection sets are the worst. they are wrong:

They said rear Projection __CRT__ sets are the worst.

I agree.

From their website

Direct View CRT
Pros: Least expensive type of TV, still the standard for best picture
quality. Mature, reliable technology.
Cons: Not available in jumbo screen sizes. Big and bulky, larger sets weigh
more than 100 pounds.

LCD
Pros: Thin and light. Can be wall-mounted. No risk of burn-in of static
images. Some can double as a computer display.
Cons: Maximum screen size limited--for now at least. Larger models are very
costly. Image may dim as you angle away from center of screen, especially up
and down. Not as good as picture-tube sets for displaying deep blacks and
fast-moving images. Unknown reliability.

Plasma
Pros: Thin and light enough to be wall-mounted. Big screens with vivid color
look impressive. High brightness and contrast.
Cons: Power-hungry. Generate lots of heat. Some lack speakers and tuner.
Burn-in of static images a concern. Fairly heavy in bigger sizes.
Wall-mounting can be costly. Unknown reliability.

Rear Projection LCD, DLP, Lcos
Pros: Thinner and lighter than CRT-based siblings. Cost less than comparably
sized plasma sets. No risk of burn-in of static images. Higher resolution
and often better picture quality than CRT-based projection units.
Cons: Pricey, especially for bigger-screen models. Image on some sets may
dim as you angle away from center of screen. Backlight bulb may require
periodic replacement. Not as good as picture-tube sets for displaying deep
blacks. Some DLP and LCoS models suffer from rainbow effect--flashes of
color seen by some viewers. Unknown reliability.

Rear Projection CRT
Pros: Low price, wide selection, plentiful features. Decent reliability.
Cons: Picture quality ranks lowest overall among all TV types. Big, bulky,
and heavy--more than 200 pounds for largest. CRTs need periodic realignment.
Image may dim as you angle away from center of screen. Burn-in of static
images a concern.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Frank Provasek (frank@frankcoins.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> "Ski" <ski@nospamtoday.com> wrote in
>
> > they said rear projection sets are the worst. they are wrong:
>
> They said rear Projection __CRT__ sets are the worst.
>
> I agree.

Well, you are wrong, too.

CRT-based RP TVs give the best picture of any RP technology when quality
CRTs are used and the display is correctly calibrated.

Like any other technology, there are many CRT-based RPTVs that aren't very
good quality. The top-of-the-line Mitsubishi and Toshiba CRT RPTVs give
the best picture quality of any display of the same size.

--
Jeff Rife | "Why the hell did you stuff yourself like that?"
| "Hey, Lowell threw down the gauntlet...I just
| poured gravy on it and ate it."
| -- Joe and Brian Hackett, "Wings"

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 21:03:56 GMT, "Frank Provasek"
<frank@frankcoins.com> wrote:

>"Ski" <ski@nospamtoday.com> wrote in
>
>> they said rear projection sets are the worst. they are wrong:
>
>They said rear Projection __CRT__ sets are the worst.
>
>I agree.
>
I disagree.
Thumper
>From their website
>
>Direct View CRT
>Pros: Least expensive type of TV, still the standard for best picture
>quality. Mature, reliable technology.
>Cons: Not available in jumbo screen sizes. Big and bulky, larger sets weigh
>more than 100 pounds.
>
>LCD
>Pros: Thin and light. Can be wall-mounted. No risk of burn-in of static
>images. Some can double as a computer display.
>Cons: Maximum screen size limited--for now at least. Larger models are very
>costly. Image may dim as you angle away from center of screen, especially up
>and down. Not as good as picture-tube sets for displaying deep blacks and
>fast-moving images. Unknown reliability.
>
>Plasma
>Pros: Thin and light enough to be wall-mounted. Big screens with vivid color
>look impressive. High brightness and contrast.
>Cons: Power-hungry. Generate lots of heat. Some lack speakers and tuner.
>Burn-in of static images a concern. Fairly heavy in bigger sizes.
>Wall-mounting can be costly. Unknown reliability.
>
>Rear Projection LCD, DLP, Lcos
>Pros: Thinner and lighter than CRT-based siblings. Cost less than comparably
>sized plasma sets. No risk of burn-in of static images. Higher resolution
>and often better picture quality than CRT-based projection units.
>Cons: Pricey, especially for bigger-screen models. Image on some sets may
>dim as you angle away from center of screen. Backlight bulb may require
>periodic replacement. Not as good as picture-tube sets for displaying deep
>blacks. Some DLP and LCoS models suffer from rainbow effect--flashes of
>color seen by some viewers. Unknown reliability.
>
>Rear Projection CRT
>Pros: Low price, wide selection, plentiful features. Decent reliability.
>Cons: Picture quality ranks lowest overall among all TV types. Big, bulky,
>and heavy--more than 200 pounds for largest. CRTs need periodic realignment.
>Image may dim as you angle away from center of screen. Burn-in of static
>images a concern.
>

To reply drop XYZ in address

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <1107703517.884178.174750@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
jeremy@pdq.net wrote:

> The thing I strongly dislike about the Consumer Reports HDTV reviews
> is that they do not categorize sets by technology. They should list
> the best DLP, LCD, Plasma, CRT DirectView and CRT Rear-projection
> sets by those categories. Not everyone can afford $3500 for a set.

Well, they did separate the CRT rear projection sets from the
micro-display rear projection sets. They also said which technology
each of the micro-display sets used.

They had separate ratings for direct-view CRT, plasma (and divided those
into HD and ED), and LCD sets.

So at least this time around, they did categorize by technology.

> All, in past years, Consumer Reports has known to leave out details
> such as maintence cost or rate of defect in their HDTV review
> processes.

They did show the repair rate of the different brands, but not the
maintenance cost.

> I don't know what their process is exactly (maybe it's the sampling
> of consumers they use to get their feedback). I would take their
> reviews with a grain of salt and look to publiclications geared
> toward Consumer or Pro Audio/Video for reviews. Perhaps the best
> place for information is on-line consumer reviews.

Their tests of the sets are done in their labs, using both subjective
reports and objective testing. Rates of repair are computed from
surveys they send annually to their subscribers.

They are arguably the most objective testing and reporting agency
around; about the only complaint I think that anyone could have is with
what they consider important and what they do not consider important
criteria in testing. Further, unlike commercial magazines that accept
advertising, they cannot be influenced by the financial influence of
advertisers.

And they have never lost a law suit from a manufacturer who did not like
a product review.

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <110dbkash20279b@corp.supernews.com>,
"Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:

> > And they have never lost a law suit from a manufacturer who did not
> > like a product review.
>
> IIRC, they did lose, once. Bose complained about a phrase used in the
> review of their speakers. Bose won the suit and was awarded $1
> without legal expenses.

Nope; they won the suit that Bose filed against them; they lost the
trial, but won at the appeals court level, and at the US Supreme Court.

<http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&c
ase=/us/466/485.html>

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

This is the kind of information where Consumer Reports is misleading...
or simply too opnionated for my taste. Here we see opnions stated as
fact. Many people still perfer CRT Rear projection for picture qualty.
To say they "rank lowest overall among TV types" is flat out wrong
based on the majority of "professional" opinons. Again, keeping in mind
that we are talking about something subjective. There are many
details of quality that can be measured: color accuracy, performance
(picture should not be "jerky" or show noticable delay), clarity of
image, proper constrast/brightness levels, etc.. These are all
mesurable attributes. If you take all the technologies available today
CRT DirectView and CRT Rear projection are still the best. There are a
few excellent LCD and DLP sets on the market, but they are the
exception to the rule.

So it's a statement like "(CRT Rear projection) picture quality ranks
lowest overall among TV types" that makes me question the Consumer
Reports.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <1107743117.368375.106400@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> jeremy@pdq.net wrote:
>
> > So it's a statement like "(CRT Rear projection) picture quality
ranks
> > lowest overall among TV types" that makes me question the Consumer
> > Reports.
>
> Keep in mind that they're talking averages here. What they
specifically
> say about CRT rear-projection sets (when talking strictly about rear
> projection sets) are
>
> pro: lowest cost, and mature technology
> cons: size and weight, burn in, and need for convergence
adjustments.
>
> "We didn't find that any one projection technology was consistently
> better than another for picture quality."
>
> Projection models have a history of reliability, but other
technologies
> haven't been around long enough to have an established history, so
> reliability is still unknown.
>
> However, the two top-rated CRT RP sets have the same point score as
the
> top three micro display models, but after that, the CRT sets have,
> position for position, lower ratings than the MDM sets.
>
> The sixth rated (out of nine) CRT sets had a lower score than the
bottom
> rated (out of thirteen--there were three of them tied for the lowest
> score) micro display models.
>
> As best as I can interpolate from the bar charts (calibrated every 20

> points); the MDM sets received the following scores:
>
> 67
> 65
> 65
> 62
> 60
> 60
> 59
> 59
> 59
> 58
> 57
> 57
> 57
>
> The CRT sets received the following scores
>
> 67
> 67
> 61
> 58
> 58
> 50
> 50
> 45
> 38
>
> --
> Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.


I picked up a copy, I'm unimpressed, same garbage as last year. They've
carefully avoiding rating some of my favorite models (as they did last
year) and I disagree with some of their ratings. I see inconsistancy
across the board with what they have to say and other on-line consumer
reviews so I'm not going to give them a pass just because they are an
established "respected" magazine, in fact after seeing how much of a
hack of job they've done reviewing HDTV's I've lost most all the
respect I once had for all their product reviews. That's my opinion and
I could care less if it has any impact on what others think of CR, a
good number of people will trust them and to be fair I don't think
their reviews are way off the mark, it's just when you paint a picture
for an audience you can be selective about what paint you use, if some
colors never show up they can't be judged.

Consumer Reports holds considerable weight in public opinion, I'm sure
there was money involved in their reviews. I don't know exactly how
(perhaps favors for advertisers, which is common in publishing) or
under the table deals, but there is a reason they picked the makes and
models they reviewed. Don't for a moment think the process was
completely random.


-Jeremy
http://hdtv.0catch.com

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <1107750739.408739.118920@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
jeremy@pdq.net wrote:

> Trust them if you want to, I'm telling you they have been flat out
> wrong in the past.

Of course; they're not perfect. But they've never been proven to be
deliberately wrong.

> I've posted a few examples of this here, this year (again) they have
> been selective in their process and have carefully avoided some
> quality sets.

They tend not to test the bleeding edge; they've never tested Ferrari
and Rolls Royce cars for instance.

> Do you really think they are 100% objective? Don't buy into that
> garbage. Let me ask you this, name one competitor to consumer
> reports?

Consumers Digest < http://www.consumersdigest.com/>

> In the information age, I don't understand why anyone would look to
> only one source for information, if you use CR as part of your
> research process it could be a valuable tool. Otherwise it could be a
> misleading one.


I don't think that anyone has recommended that they be the only source
of information.

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Michelle Steiner" <michelle@michelle.org> wrote in

> As best as I can interpolate from the bar charts (calibrated every 20
> points); the MDM sets received the following scores:
>
> 67
> 65

Those are OVERALL scores, which include sound quality, ease of use, menus,
remote control, features, inputs as well as picture quality.

If you go by PICTURE QUALITY, out of 13 microdisplay projection sets, with
an HD signal, 9 rated VERY GOOD pic quality, 4 rated GOOD

On the 9 CRT RP sets with an HD signal, 3 rated VERY GOOD , 5 rated GOOD,
and one FAIR

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Michelle Steiner (michelle@michelle.org) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > Do you really think they are 100% objective? Don't buy into that
> > garbage. Let me ask you this, name one competitor to consumer
> > reports?
>
> Consumers Digest < http://www.consumersdigest.com/>

There is no such website (although the domain does exist):

;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NXDOMAIN, id: 15707
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 0

;; QUESTION SECTION:
;www.consumersdigest.com. IN A

;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
consumersdigest.com. 86342 IN SOA ns1.intellispace.net. dns-admin.noc.intelli
space.net. (
2004120201 ; serial
10800 ; refresh (3 hours)
3600 ; retry (1 hour)
604800 ; expire (1 week)
842 ; minimum (14 minutes 2 seconds)
)

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Peanuts/TenPin.gif

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c70e354369c5a65989b42@news.nabs.net...
> Michelle Steiner (michelle@michelle.org) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>> They do not accept any advertising
>
> This is only mostly true now. They don't have ads in their print version,
> nor do they have "ads" on their websites, but they do have affiliate links
> to various places that sell the items they review.
>

NOT TRUE. They have links to their other publications and websites only.
They have links to manufacturer sites, but not sellers.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c70e407e8f50e75989b43@news.nabs.net...
> Michelle Steiner (michelle@michelle.org) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>> > Do you really think they are 100% objective? Don't buy into that
>> > garbage. Let me ask you this, name one competitor to consumer
>> > reports?
>>
>> Consumers Digest < http://www.consumersdigest.com/>
>
> There is no such website (although the domain does exist):
>
Why have they been publishing for 42 years? Why do I get their website
when I click on that link? They don't offer an ONLINE version of
the magazine, but they do give a summary of each issue

http://www.consumersdigest.com/contents.htm

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On 6 Feb 2005 18:25:17 -0800, jeremy@pdq.net wrote:

>This is the kind of information where Consumer Reports is misleading...
>or simply too opnionated for my taste. Here we see opnions stated as
>fact. Many people still perfer CRT Rear projection for picture qualty.
>To say they "rank lowest overall among TV types" is flat out wrong
>based on the majority of "professional" opinons. Again, keeping in mind
>that we are talking about something subjective. There are many
>details of quality that can be measured: color accuracy, performance
>(picture should not be "jerky" or show noticable delay), clarity of
>image, proper constrast/brightness levels, etc.. These are all
>mesurable attributes. If you take all the technologies available today
>CRT DirectView and CRT Rear projection are still the best. There are a
>few excellent LCD and DLP sets on the market, but they are the
>exception to the rule.
>
And are far more expensive than comparable picture quality RPCRT sets
Thumper
>So it's a statement like "(CRT Rear projection) picture quality ranks
>lowest overall among TV types" that makes me question the Consumer
>Reports.

To reply drop XYZ in address

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <AJENd.2208$UX3.833@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"Frank Provasek" <frank@frankcoins.com> wrote:

> > As best as I can interpolate from the bar charts (calibrated every
> > 20 points); the MDM sets received the following scores:
> >
> > 67 65
>
> Those are OVERALL scores, which include sound quality, ease of use,
> menus, remote control, features, inputs as well as picture quality.
>
> If you go by PICTURE QUALITY, out of 13 microdisplay projection sets,
> with an HD signal, 9 rated VERY GOOD pic quality, 4 rated GOOD
>
> On the 9 CRT RP sets with an HD signal, 3 rated VERY GOOD , 5 rated
> GOOD, and one FAIR

Good point.

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <r3FNd.2368$mG6.1776@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"Frank Provasek" <frank@frankcoins.com> wrote:

> > This is only mostly true now. They don't have ads in their print
> > version, nor do they have "ads" on their websites, but they do have
> > affiliate links to various places that sell the items they review.
>
> NOT TRUE. They have links to their other publications and websites
> only. They have links to manufacturer sites, but not sellers.

They do have links to Yahoo! Shopping; I never noticed that until it
came up in this discussion.

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:

> From what I recall of their testing methodology for TVs, they *never*
> have professional calibration done on the sets they test.

Of course not! Their objective is to test "out of the box" quality rather
than compare the set against some "objective" calibration standard most
buyers never heard of and wouldn't pay extra for. Most folks who are not
readers of this NG have no idea how to adjust their set and think a "good"
picture is one with excessive saturation and contrast.

OTOH, anyone with a good eye and good taste can easily adjust a TV for a
very acceptable picture _without_ calibration. I've always failed to
understand the rationale for calibration, because in flipping from channel
to channel there's so much variation in color temperature and other picture
parameters no single calibration setting can cope with the unstandardized
mess the broadcasters and cable companies hand us.

--
Anti-Spam address: my last name at his dot com
Charles Gillen -- Reston, Virginia, USA

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Michelle Steiner (michelle@michelle.org) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> In article <MPG.1c70e354369c5a65989b42@news.nabs.net>,
> Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:
>
> > > They do not accept any advertising
> >
> > This is only mostly true now. They don't have ads in their print
> > version, nor do they have "ads" on their websites, but they do have
> > affiliate links to various places that sell the items they review.
>
> Actually, they click you through to yahoo! shopping; they don't provide
> links directly to anyone selling the products, but Yahoo! does.

So, they get money from Yahoo instead of from the actual seller. I know
they say they don't get payment, but why pick "Yahoo" then...why not
offer 5 or 6 different places to shop? Or, why not use pricescan.com,
which has far more stores listed than Yahoo (which can give you better
deals, and isn't CR about getting the best deal?) At some point, there is
some consideration involved...I'll bet the farm on that.

> > This means that if a choice must be made to limit the number of items
> > to review, items that make them money through affiliate referrals
> > might be chosen in preference to other (possibly better) items.
>
> I think that that is stretching things more than just a bit.

Why? Looking at their TV reviews, they pick only the bottom of the
barrel of Mitsubishi CRT-based RPTV, and *no* other projection TV from
Mitsubishi (whose DLPs are the best of that technology). They also have
*no* Pioneer sets at all (again, one of the best in RPTV), but they do
have the Pioneer plasma, which is *not* Pioneer's best effort. They rank
the Sony plasma as the best for both HD and SD, yet it is universally
reviled for its picture quality over at AVS Forum (at least compared to
all the better plasmas you can get for the same price).

It used to be that their choices for electronics had the logic of "nothing
expensive", but now that $5K TVs are fair game, they need to look at *all*
the sub-$5K TVs.

--
Jeff Rife | "I feel an intense ambivalence, some of which
| doesn't border entirely on the negative."
|
| -- Ned Dorsey, "Ned and Stacey"

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

I would feel more comfortable with reviews from Home Theater dedicated
publications
like, Home Theater Magazine and WideScreen Review..
To me they would be more knowledgeable in this particular field. YMMV
though.

Michelle Steiner wrote:

>The March 2005 Consumer Report has an extensive section on HDTV sets.
>
>Their three top-rated rear-projection sets are
>
>Samsung HL-P5085W
>Panasonic PT-50DL54
>Samsung HL-P5685W
>
>They did not test any 63 or 74 series Samsung sets, though.
>
>None of the sets they tested were check rated.
>
>
>

--
Ric Seyler

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <P3ONd.26793$gS5.9708@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
RicSeyler <ricseyler@SPAMgulf.net> wrote:

> I would feel more comfortable with reviews from Home Theater
> dedicated publications like, Home Theater Magazine and WideScreen
> Review.. To me they would be more knowledgeable in this particular
> field. YMMV though.

And they don't consider advertising revenue when writing their reviews?
They're not concerned that a manufacturer will pull or curtail
advertisements in response to an unfavorable review?

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <MPG.1c716883b33901c6989b45@news.nabs.net>,
Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:

> > Actually, they click you through to yahoo! shopping; they don't
> > provide links directly to anyone selling the products, but Yahoo!
> > does.
>
> So, they get money from Yahoo instead of from the actual seller. I
> know they say they don't get payment, but why pick "Yahoo" then...why
> not offer 5 or 6 different places to shop?

Why don't you ask them? Why would you rather make these unfounded
accusations of lying and wrong doing? Who is paying you?

> It used to be that their choices for electronics had the logic of
> "nothing expensive", but now that $5K TVs are fair game, they need to
> look at *all* the sub-$5K TVs.

There are just too many sets for them to do that. Their budget couldn't
handle it, nor could their publication schedule.

The bottom line of your argument seems to be that you disagree with
their ratings and product selection, so they must be dishonest.

They have a decades-long history of fair and unbiased testing; you're
just some guy on usenet.

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 13:29:11 -0700, Michelle Steiner
<michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

>In article <rmle01h4pd7ks1jhmndu6kaq7id0l6938v@4ax.com>,
> Thumper <jaylsmithXYZ@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> >I subscribed to the magazine for many years. My car (toyota
>> >corolla) was picked from CR as a quality high gas mileage car back
>> >in 94. It cost $14,750 new and ten years and 165,000 miles later it
>> >still sold for $2000.
>> >
>>
>> That same year my Geo Prism was rated far down the list even though
>> it is THE SAME CAR! Mine is outside in the New England weather
>> waiting to be driven to work with 170,000 miles on it. Original
>> exhaust and all. The point is that Consumer Reports gets things
>> wrong precisely because they put so much stock into the biases of the
>> public.
>
>Here is what they have to say about the Prizm:
>
>Overview: The Chevrolet/Geo Prizm is essentially a California-built
>Toyota Corolla. The Prizm is a good sedan that depreciated faster than
>its Corolla cousin. Redesigned and badged a Chevrolet in 1998, the Prizm
>grew more refined. It rides quite comfortably and quietly, accelerates
>with reasonable urgency, and gets good fuel economy. Suspension changes
>for 1999 improved the tricky emergency handling we found while testing
>the 1998 model. The Prizm's exemplary reliability record is a major
>advantage, but the interior isn't as well trimmed as the Corolla's. The
>Prizm was dropped after the 2002 model year.
>
>We bought a Prizm in 1995; the test report in Consumer Reports was one
>of the reasons we considered a Prizm. Are you sure you're not thinking
>of their report of the Geo Metro?

No it was the Prism. 1994. The above was many years later. They
didn't say anything really bad but it was rated lower.

As far as other items Consumer reports tests, I have rarely been able
to find the models they test in any store. That may have changed
since I stopped reading it.
Thumper
To reply drop XYZ in address

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

What does CR say about ATSC 8-VSB DTV receivers?

Bob Miller

RicSeyler wrote:
> I don't know the inner workings of those publishing companies.
> But they go into extreme detail on why they feel the way they do.
> Over and above Consumer Reports depth of evaluation.
>
> I hear what you are saying. But I would still go to them for reviews
> over CR. But that's just me. :-)
>
> Michelle Steiner wrote:
>
>>In article <P3ONd.26793$gS5.9708@bignews3.bellsouth.net> <mailto3ONd.26793$gS5.9708@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
>> RicSeyler <ricseyler@SPAMgulf.net> <mailto:ricseyler@SPAMgulf.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>I would feel more comfortable with reviews from Home Theater
>>>dedicated publications like, Home Theater Magazine and WideScreen
>>>Review.. To me they would be more knowledgeable in this particular
>>>field. YMMV though.
>>>
>>>
>>And they don't consider advertising revenue when writing their reviews?
>>They're not concerned that a manufacturer will pull or curtail
>>advertisements in response to an unfavorable review?
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Ric Seyler
>
>

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Dunno, I don't frequent CR.

Bob Miller wrote:

> What does CR say about ATSC 8-VSB DTV receivers?
>
> Bob Miller
>
> RicSeyler wrote:
>
>> I don't know the inner workings of those publishing companies.
>> But they go into extreme detail on why they feel the way they do.
>> Over and above Consumer Reports depth of evaluation.
>>
>> I hear what you are saying. But I would still go to them for reviews
>> over CR. But that's just me. :-)
>>
>> Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>
>>> In article <P3ONd.26793$gS5.9708@bignews3.bellsouth.net>
>>> <mailto3ONd.26793$gS5.9708@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
>>> RicSeyler <ricseyler@SPAMgulf.net> <mailto:ricseyler@SPAMgulf.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I would feel more comfortable with reviews from Home Theater
>>>> dedicated publications like, Home Theater Magazine and WideScreen
>>>> Review.. To me they would be more knowledgeable in this particular
>>>> field. YMMV though.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And they don't consider advertising revenue when writing their
>>> reviews? They're not concerned that a manufacturer will pull or
>>> curtail advertisements in response to an unfavorable review?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Ric Seyler
>>
>>

--
Ric Seyler