Anyone else tired of consumer reports crap? I work in the industry and im just sick and tired of everyone in the world thinking panasonic plasmas are the best cause of something they read.

Secondly, if they do rate products based upon their value, who are they to determine the value of a product to a consumer. The value of the dollar isn't the same to everyone. I couldn't see myself spending x amount of dollars on a low quality set when i couild get a much better set for just a 1/3 more.

The decrease in flat panel profit has drastically hurt the CE industry, yes if people continue to buy low quality plasma displays prices will fall. But in turn, the build quality will fall as well.


Anyone else have similiar thoughts?

I heard the latest issue covers plasmas and lcds. I personally have not had a chance to see it, but I'll pick up a copy today to see how they're ratings go.

I recently saw a news report (CNN maybe?) where the reporter said that it was "insane" for people to be spending over $3000 on a tv.

I love (sarcasm) those types of judgments. It's insane for me to spend $3,000 on a tv that I use 35 hours a week but perfectly acceptable to spend $40,000 on a car I use 10 hours a week?

I heard the latest issue covers plasmas and lcds. I personally have not had a chance to see it, but I'll pick up a copy today to see how they're ratings go.

The March issue identifies five LCDs and one plasma as having excellent HD display.

Most of us tend to pay very little attention to Consumer Reports, particularly when it comes to rating televisions.

I love (sarcasm) those types of judgments. It's insane for me to spend $3,000 on a tv that I use 35 hours a week but perfectly acceptable to spend $40,000 on a car I use 10 hours a week?

I think both situations are pretty insane, personally.

But, a lot of people do spend way more than 10 hours per week in their cars.

But, a lot of people do spend way more than 10 hours per week in their cars.
Yes, some do. Some don't. Some spend 2 hrs a week watching their display, some spend 60. My point was that everyone needs to decide based upon thier personal priorites how/where to spend their money.

BTW, if you figure 12,000 miles per year is about average, and then divide that by 365 days. You end up with an average of 33 miles/day. If you use an average speed of 33 mph, then it works out to 1 hour per day or 7 hours per week as the average driving time.

Must be nice. I drive about 1000 miles a week in my car. But I know I'm the *FAR* end of the bell curve.

-Joel

Most of us tend to pay very little attention to Consumer Reports, particularly when it comes to rating televisions.
Prove it!

Anyone else tired of consumer reports crap? I work in the industry and im just sick and tired of everyone in the world thinking panasonic plasmas are the best cause of something they read.

Secondly, if they do rate products based upon their value, who are they to determine the value of a product to a consumer. The value of the dollar isn't the same to everyone. I couldn't see myself spending x amount of dollars on a low quality set when i couild get a much better set for just a 1/3 more.

The decrease in flat panel profit has drastically hurt the CE industry, yes if people continue to buy low quality plasma displays prices will fall. But in turn, the build quality will fall as well.


Anyone else have similiar thoughts?
Well Panasonic IMHO is the best value PDP out there. Would I like a Pio Elite or an NEC? Of course who wouldn't. But then again I don't pay any mind to what is published in CR :D

Yes, some do. Some don't. Some spend 2 hrs a week watching their display, some spend 60. My point was that everyone needs to decide based upon thier personal priorites how/where to spend their money.

Well, I basically agree with that. On the other hand, I don't think there's anything wrong with looking at a TV that costs $4,000, then looking at a TV of the same size that costs $1,500 and has 99% as good a picture as the first, and pronouncing the second TV the better value. That's what CR does, theoretically. I don't really read the magazine but I don't have a problem with the concept of naming one TV a better value than another, at least. If you're going to spend an extra $2,500 or however much on that extra 1%, then you're pretty much by definition not looking for "value" anyway, you're looking for quality at any price.

BTW, if you figure 12,000 miles per year is about average, and then divide that by 365 days. You end up with an average of 33 miles/day. If you use an average speed of 33 mph, then it works out to 1 hour per day or 7 hours per week as the average driving time.

33 mph is pretty optimistic for an average, even if you're doing mostly highway driving. I spend, for example, five minutes warming up my car before I even set out, then around ten minutes at the Dunkin Donuts drive-thru, then I sit and wait in my car at the train station for about five minutes (because it's cold on the platform). I've just driven one mile in 20 minutes, for an average of 3mph. I think a lot of people have similar daily routines (obviously I'm not the only one sitting at that drive-thru for 10 minutes on my way to the train station).

5 minutes warming up your car does nothing but waste gas and release more pollution. If its very cold out, wait 30 seconds max and drive off. Your cat and engine will warm up faster when driving and you will not be damaging anything. So unless you're doing it so the cabin is warm and you don't freeze your butt off, there is no reason.

Consumer Reports is very good at what they do. However you have to realize what it is that they do. They measure things. How many hours to failure. How much weight before breaking. How many foot lbs of suction. How much speed is delivered. Whatever.
CR decides what is important and what should be measured for each type of product it's testing. If what's important to you isn"t what's being measured, the testing won't be helpful. What CR can't do is measure the intangibles. It can't say which picture looks the most lifelike or filmlike. It can't measure which car offers the most excitement. It can't say which can of beans will taste the best to you.
Consumer Reports is just a tool to be used along with other information and your own senses.

I've just driven one mile in 20 minutes, for an average of 3mph.
Now that we've totally hijacked the thread, if I was only averaging 3mph, I'd walk.

I like CR, I respect what they are doing (for the most part), and I think they do a decent job of fulfilling their mission statement. I referred to their ratings before I bought my HDTV. However, I only used their ratings as a gauge. I didn't use them as the determining factor.

I think it's just human nature to play favorites. We all do it, well, sometimes. :)

FYI - CR's highest rated HD product is the Optoma HD72 at 81. Their highest rated HDTV display is the Hitachi 62HM196 & 62MX196 both scored a 78. The TH-58PX600U scored 71.

Now that we've totally hijacked the thread, if I was only averaging 3mph, I'd walk.

Forget that nonsense. That's why God made hydrocarbons. To burn so I can stay toasty.

-Joel

I quit believing anything consumer reports says several years ago.

I am in the automotive business and they lost my subscription when they published an article testing all season tires. They set up a test and tested all kind of criteria (Dry braking, wet braking, dry cornering, wet cornering, noise, traction...). The only things they left out were wear or durability. They went simply by what the manufacturers recommended mileage was. WHAT A STUPID TEST!!!

Your tires are only going to perform like new for about the first 5,000 miles. There is a dropoff in their performance as they wear out (that dropoff also varies amongst brands) - and they all wear out at different rates. The tests they performed only showed about a 5% variance amongst all brands in most categories (Negligable in my opinion); yet they were able to tell you which was the best tire - COMPLETE BS. They were only able to tell you one thing - how the tires performed when brand new on their test track under their weather conditions.

The reason their tests were flawed is this - What does the typical mass market consumer want in a tire? Sure they do care about things like wet traction, dry traction, noise; but the most important thing to MOST people is HOW LONG THEY LAST - a criteria they chose to ignore (or took the manufacturers word for it) .

When they noticed that everything compared pretty damn close as far as performance was concerned they should have looked elsewhere; Into things like "how does tire performance decrease as they wear" and "how fast do they wear."

TRUST ME the tests would have turned out MUCH different than they did had they tested the things they should have. Instead the customer is left with an empty evaluation on tires. When in 15,000 miles they are left with worn out tires that have horrible wet traction they will be wondering why consumer reports gave them a good rating .

The sad thing is alot of people actually believe what they print and take it as fact. These guys are amateurs - Mythbusters does a better investigation. Take what you will from their studies, but I personally don't believe a word they print.

I find that the best info you can find now comes from this type of forum. I research my purchases by talking to the end users and finding out if they are happy. I also ask the opinion of a professional in the field(not a salesman) - They usually know what they are doing.

Sorry I went on a rant, but you guys brought up a sore subject.

^How much time do you think it would take CR to put 30,000 miles on every set of tires they test?

Hey cmspeedy, did CR agree with your highly sophisticated evaluation of their testing methods? Surely you must have fired off a letter pointing out the errors in their "STUPID TEST". Was your "rant" about the Nov 05 or Nov 06 article. I thought both were highly informative and educational. Well, back to flat panels....

CR is crap...don't listen to them...trust your eyes.

I'm a big fan of Consumer Reports. I can't think of a single appliance or car I've purchased principally because of their recomendations that I've been sorry I made. Naturally, when you're talking about tvs you'd be nuts not to check out the picture in the store. And if you really saw a picture you liked better than what CR liked, then of course you should go with what you like. But I think they're a great place to get started on researching potential purchases and really can't be beat for reliability ratings.

Where else can you go to get reliability statistics on products? I don't use CR as the Bible but as someone else commented CR is just a good place to get started on researching a product.

I quit believing anything consumer reports says several years ago.

I am in the automotive business and they lost my subscription when they published an article testing all season tires. They set up a test and tested all kind of criteria (Dry braking, wet braking, dry cornering, wet cornering, noise, traction...). The only things they left out were wear or durability. They went simply by what the manufacturers recommended mileage was. WHAT A STUPID TEST!!!

Your tires are only going to perform like new for about the first 5,000 miles. There is a dropoff in their performance as they wear out (that dropoff also varies amongst brands) - and they all wear out at different rates. The tests they performed only showed about a 5% variance amongst all brands in most categories (Negligable in my opinion); yet they were able to tell you which was the best tire - COMPLETE BS. They were only able to tell you one thing - how the tires performed when brand new on their test track under their weather conditions.

The reason their tests were flawed is this - What does the typical mass market consumer want in a tire? Sure they do care about things like wet traction, dry traction, noise; but the most important thing to MOST people is HOW LONG THEY LAST - a criteria they chose to ignore (or took the manufacturers word for it) .

When they noticed that everything compared pretty damn close as far as performance was concerned they should have looked elsewhere; Into things like "how does tire performance decrease as they wear" and "how fast do they wear."

TRUST ME the tests would have turned out MUCH different than they did had they tested the things they should have. Instead the customer is left with an empty evaluation on tires. When in 15,000 miles they are left with worn out tires that have horrible wet traction they will be wondering why consumer reports gave them a good rating .

The sad thing is alot of people actually believe what they print and take it as fact. These guys are amateurs - Mythbusters does a better investigation. Take what you will from their studies, but I personally don't believe a word they print.

I find that the best info you can find now comes from this type of forum. I research my purchases by talking to the end users and finding out if they are happy. I also ask the opinion of a professional in the field(not a salesman) - They usually know what they are doing.

Sorry I went on a rant, but you guys brought up a sore subject.

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/TireSafety/ridesonit/brochure.html


Uniform Tire Quality Grading System (UTQGS)

To help consumers compare a passenger car tire's treadwear rate, traction performance, and temperature resistance, the federal government requires tire manufacturers to grade tires in these three areas. This grading system, known as the Uniform Tire Quality Grading System, provides guidelines for making relative comparisons when purchasing new tires. You also can use this information to inquire about the quality of tires placed on new vehicles.

Although this rating system is very helpful when buying new tires, it is not a safety rating or guarantee of how well a tire will perform or how long it will last. Other factors such as personal driving style, type of car, quality of the roads, and tire maintenance habits have a significant influence on your tire's performance and longevity.
Treadwear grades are an indication of a tire's relative wear rate. The higher the treadwear number is, the longer it should take for the tread to wear down. For example, a tire grade of 400 should wear twice as long as a tire grade of 200.

Traction grades are an indication of a tire's ability to stop on wet pavement. A higher graded tire should allow you to stop your car on wet roads in a shorter distance than a tire with a lower grade. Traction is graded from highest to lowest as "AA", "A", "B", and "C".

Temperature grades are an indication of a tire's resistance to heat. Sustained high temperature (for example, driving long distances in hot weather), can cause a tire to deteriorate, leading to blowouts and tread separation. From highest to lowest, a tire's resistance to heat is graded as "A", "B", or "C".

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/TireSafety/ridesonit/brochure.html


Uniform Tire Quality Grading System (UTQGS)

To help consumers compare a passenger car tire's treadwear rate, traction performance, and temperature resistance, the federal government requires tire manufacturers to grade tires in these three areas. This grading system, known as the Uniform Tire Quality Grading System, provides guidelines for making relative comparisons when purchasing new tires. You also can use this information to inquire about the quality of tires placed on new vehicles.

Although this rating system is very helpful when buying new tires, it is not a safety rating or guarantee of how well a tire will perform or how long it will last. Other factors such as personal driving style, type of car, quality of the roads, and tire maintenance habits have a significant influence on your tire's performance and longevity.
Treadwear grades are an indication of a tire's relative wear rate. The higher the treadwear number is, the longer it should take for the tread to wear down. For example, a tire grade of 400 should wear twice as long as a tire grade of 200.

Traction grades are an indication of a tire's ability to stop on wet pavement. A higher graded tire should allow you to stop your car on wet roads in a shorter distance than a tire with a lower grade. Traction is graded from highest to lowest as "AA", "A", "B", and "C".

Temperature grades are an indication of a tire's resistance to heat. Sustained high temperature (for example, driving long distances in hot weather), can cause a tire to deteriorate, leading to blowouts and tread separation. From highest to lowest, a tire's resistance to heat is graded as "A", "B", or "C".


Okay, now I need to check my tires just to see what they are. You can learn an awful lot on this forum!

Well, after the recent CR debacle with the child car seats, I wont even consider what CR has to say about anything anymore...I will do my own research on the internet to come to my own conclusion.

Well, after the recent CR debacle with the child car seats, I wont even consider what CR has to say about anything anymore...I will do my own research on the internet to come to my own conclusion.

At least they admit when they make an error. This is a plus.

Folks, just because CR posts a result different than your expectations does not mean their results are wrong. They may consider some capabilities more or less important than you and rate them accordingly. This does invalidate their report.

You should indeed do your own research. Just remember many 'test results' you read on the internet are also flawed. And the reports that you read are just the impression of the author. Take all of these for what they are meant to be, a guide.

I think the OP is just pissed because CR did not rate his brand of plasma ahead of Panasonic. Keep in mind CR is not alone in rating Panasonic very high for plasmas - just read the reviews in any consumer video/CE mag and you will see Panasonics rate as good or better than the competition, and when price if included it is no contest.

Panasonic envy :D

The problem with consumer reports on tv's is how do they choose? Are they just watching a DVD movie? Customer feedback only? I know they rated Olevia great and they look horrible in the stores. The also rate Toshiba DLP over Samsung when Samsung/TI invented it and you know Toshiba has to pay Samsung royalty fees for the technology. I just find it hard to believe that Samsung would be that far down the chart.

Lastly they will not rate reliability becuase its too new so if a turd manufacture pops out a good picture they will say buy it. If kia had a car that got 65 MPG they would rate it better than a Prius if RELIABILITY was not factored in.

The problem with consumer reports on tv's is how do they choose? Are they just watching a DVD movie? Customer feedback only? I know they rated Olevia great and they look horrible in the stores. The also rate Toshiba DLP over Samsung when Samsung/TI invented it and you know Toshiba has to pay Samsung royalty fees for the technology. I just find it hard to believe that Samsung would be that far down the chart.

Lastly they will not rate reliability becuase its too new so if a turd manufacture pops out a good picture they will say buy it. If kia had a car that got 65 MPG they would rate it better than a Prius if RELIABILITY was not factored in.

You wrote opinions, based on your own personal preferences. You dislike Olevia but others must like them. I don't know what company developed DLP technology. But even 'if' Toshiba licenses the technology this does not prevent them from implementing their own version, updates. Toshiba's DLPs are highly rated by other reviewers as well as CR. A Samsung fan?????

BTW "In its November “Annual Electronics Issue" Consumer Reports, the independent nonprofit organization has published reliability data for flat panel televisions.

The Consumer Union found that during the first year or two of use, LCD and plasma TVs have been just as reliable overall as picture-tube TVs, which historically require very few repairs. " http://www.digitalhome.ca/content/view/1605/98/

You wrote opinions, based on your own personal preferences. You dislike Olevia but others must like them. I don't know what company developed DLP technology. http://www.digitalhome.ca/content/view/1605/98/

DLP was invented and patented by Texas Instruments.

So did the OP just drop a stink bomb and run or what?

Works in the industry? For who, I wonder?

Personally I don't read CR and wouldn't buy based on their recommendations.

I might avoid a product they openly panned, but for the most part I do my research in places like this, hearing from people who actually buy and use the products in question.

Probably some Aquos lover. :p

CR made me laugh when the were testing bicycles. One of the "tests" was to ride each bike down a hill coasting and measuring speed or distance traveled. I don't recall what they were trying to determine, but there are probably a dozen or more factors that would affect the test and have nothing to do with the "value" of the bikes :rolleyes:

As for the car-TV price/hour comparison, I'll likely spend $5k+ on my next bike and spend 5-10 hours a week on it during the summer. It's all a matter of priorities :cool:

-murray