In their December issue they review HDTVs. One of their points is that RPs need more repairs than flat-panels. OK so far, I don't doubt that. But now comes the howler: they INCLUDE ALL LAMP REPLACEMENTS. No I'm not kidding. That's like saying that a car is defective the first time it needs new tires.

Yes they do briefly mention that some of these are premature lamp replacements (which would be legitimate repairs) but make no attempt to separate out such early replacements from routine ones. I presume that's because their survey doesn't measure this. But in typical CR form they skirt around that.

I now remember why I stopped buying CR 25 years ago. It'll probably be that long before I buy another one.

I'm an avid reader of CR and find their reviews/testing to be quite thorough and well done overall...MUCH better than some website or magazine that is getting paid by certain manufacturers they may be reviewing.

As for the bulb issue...the latest info I could find in relation to your beef is this statement by CR in regards to reliability..It sure doesn't sound as doom and gloom as you're amking it sound .....if I'm missing something can you please post the link as I'm a member of their website.

Consider reliability. Rear-projection TVs using CRT technology have been much more repair-prone than conventional picture-tube TVs. As noted, any pattern left on a CRT screen for long periods--such as a stock ticker or video game--can burn into the tubes of a CRT-based model, producing a permanent ghosted image on the screen. Most warranties don't cover burn-in. This problem doesn't affect other types of rear-projection TVs. Microdisplay technologies are newer and haven't established a track record for long-term reliability. But preliminary data show they're even more repair-prone than CRT-based projection sets during their first year of use. They're not vulnerable to screen burn-in, but they might require lamp replacement, which can cost a few hundred dollars.

Granted, CR is writing to the avg. consumer - not the full-blown AVS Forum geek who knows how to prevent CRT/plasma phospher burn, or knows that other types of RPTV are gonna need a new bulb down the line....

CR doesn't like to predict reliability unless they have something like 5 years of data on a relatively large sample base. Microdisplay rptvs haven't been sold in large numbers long enough for them to do much more than report preliminary data, meaning data based on relatively small numbers of fairly early model microdisplay sets. Such early sets from most all mfgs. have had a fair number of teething problems, ranging from bad color wheels on early Samsungs to premature bulb failures on Toshiba and JVC, the JVC LCOS recall, Sony premature bulb failure on Grand Wega III, and green globs on XBR-1 SXRDs.

What does bother me is that LCD flat panels haven't been sold in large numbers long enough to really know anything about long term reliablility yet they don't publish any warnings about them.

I have been a subscriber to CR for MANY years but when it comes to electronics it leaves much to be desired.
Last year when they did their RP TV reviews they didn't even include Samsung which, if not the leader, was one of the leaders with DLP.

.....if I'm missing something can you please post the link ....

Look up the box on p. 25 "TV reliability", section on RPs. It gives an overall FAILURE rate of 18% (caps mine) and then blathers on about lamp replacement. Very misleading for the average reader.

Look up the box on p. 25 "TV reliability", section on RPs. It gives an overall FAILURE rate of 18% (caps mine) and then blathers on about lamp replacement. Very misleading for the average reader.

Will check when I get home..

Since we are on the topic...my parents Mitsu DLP bulb failed after less than a year and had to be replaced...I've read of a few folks here and on other forums that have had what some consider premature bulb failure...so it's not out of the realm of possibility to have an 18% failure on sets..especially since DLP is fairly new to the TV landscape.

In a March 2007 article posted on their site they offer this blurb....

Data on LCD and plasma flat-panel TVs are promising. During the first year or two of use, both types appear to be as reliable as conventional picture-tube TVs, though it's too soon to know how they'll hold up over time. LCD flat panels from JVC, Magnavox, Panasonic, Philips, Samsung, Sanyo, Sharp, Sony, and Toshiba have had relatively low repair rates. Plasma flat panels from Fujitsu, Hitachi, Panasonic, Pioneer, Sony, and Toshiba have also had relatively low repair rates. Philips and Vizio plasma sets have had more repairs than most. We don't yet have enough data to comment on other brands.

Our data on rear-projection sets bought new in 2005 or 2006 show that about 10 percent needed repair--three times the rate of picture-tube and flat-panel TVs. Microdisplays using LCD, DLP, or LCoS technology, which have largely replaced CRT-based models, require a special bulb. Failure of these bulbs, sometimes prematurely, has been a common problem with microdisplays, but not the only one.

These TVs have been even more repair-prone than CRT-based rear-projection TVs during their first year of operation. Our survey data show that Panasonic (LCD) and Sony (LCD and LCoS) microdisplays have been less repair-prone than most brands. RCA's DLP-based sets and JVC's LCoS-based models (which they call by their own term, D-ILA) have been more repair-prone than most microdisplays.


Still not sure I see anything "misleading" as of yet...will look a little deeper via the mag when I get home though.

I found that article pretty helpful. It is not that big a deal to figure out how bulb failure figures in to their findings.

Look up the box on p. 25 "TV reliability", section on RPs. It gives an overall FAILURE rate of 18% (caps mine) and then blathers on about lamp replacement. Very misleading for the average reader.


I think this is very informative data. Where else can we get the experience of almost 100,000 owners of late model, new technology sets? The sets surveyed were 2004-2007 models. Given their age, I think lamp failures should be included in reliablity of these sets. These lamps are not 10 bucks, they are 200 plus in most cases. If the lamps lasted as well as promised VERY few should have failed on sets that new. Also they stated that 25% of the problems on microdisplays were lamp related. Even if you removed lamps as a 'repair' item they are still more trouble prone than equal aged sets of other types. I will never touch another RPTV, when I can buy a plasma or flat LCD with a far lower chance of problems, including replacing pricey lamps.

In a March 2007 article posted on their site they offer this blurb....



Still not sure I see anything "misleading" as of yet...will look a little deeper via the mag when I get home though.


The above info was updated in the latest issue with more concrete data from a survey taken in the summer.

... The sets surveyed were 2004-2007 models. Given their age, I think lamp failures should be included in reliablity of these sets. These lamps are not 10 bucks, they are 200 plus in most cases. If the lamps lasted as well as promised VERY few should have failed on sets that new. ....

Many sets are run 8-10 hours a day or more. That's 3000 or so hours a year, so a substantial fraction would have required new lamps given a normal lamp life. But you miss my point. I am talking about CRs blatant misclassification, which reflects on their general competance.

As to your choice of display device, that's your decision, but at large sizes the price differential between good-quality RPs and flat-panels still amounts to several lamps, probably more than one would purchase in the lifetime of the set. But that's a different topic.

CR doesn't sell ads - true. they do however need to sell magazines. the general public doesn't want to hear that the old tech RPJ is a better value than the same sized plasma/LCD - people wouldn't buy it. people want to hear why the new tech is worth the bigger $$ - selling magazines is all CR cares about.

i sell dodge vehicles and hate the fact that toyota has been getting a free pass from CR even when testing wasn't completed, they gave favorable ratings and even RECOMMENDED off of prior years ratings.

CR doesn't sell ads - true. they do however need to sell magazines. the general public doesn't want to hear that the old tech RPJ is a better value than the same sized plasma/LCD - people wouldn't buy it. people want to hear why the new tech is worth the bigger $$ - selling magazines is all CR cares about.

i sell dodge vehicles and hate the fact that toyota has been getting a free pass from CR even when testing wasn't completed, they gave favorable ratings and even RECOMMENDED off of prior years ratings.

Well ya gotta admit, Dodge has a very troublesome track record for quality...I'd never buy one after owning two...tranny's were the worst! Toyota on the other hand has proven for YEARS that they can make a quality product...

Back on topic though...I completly trust their testing procedures...they are WAY more in depth than some fly by night website review places etc...

I dont rely on consumer reports with anything. Thats their problem they rely on testing of all products from people that most of the time dont really know what they are talking about. This includes, cars, electronics, dishwashers, etc.

I dont rely on consumer reports with anything. Thats their problem they rely on testing of all products from people that most of the time dont really know what they are talking about. This includes, cars, electronics, dishwashers, etc.


Weird..I responded to your interesting take on this and it disappeared...oh well, try this again. :)

Here's some info on how they test:

Our National Testing and Research Center, in Yonkers, N.Y., is the largest nonprofit educational and consumer product testing center in the world. Research and testing are pivotal components of the work of Consumer Reports.

Before a product even enters one of the dozens of labs at our Yonkers headquarters, it has been subjected to considerable research. We gather data about products and services, about consumer demand in the marketplace, and about what our subscribers plan to purchase. Editorial, technical, and research staff then scrutinize that material, along with suggestions from our subscribers, to develop our testing schedule.

After additional research to define a project's scope, staff shoppers--assisted by a network of shoppers in 65 U.S. cities--buy the products we use as test samples.

To supplement laboratory testing, the survey research department gathers the experiences that hundreds of thousands of our subscribers have had with products and services through an annual questionnaire. Those results are the basis of our well-known auto Frequency-of-Repair index and other product-reliability reports.

More than 100 testing experts work in seven major technical departments--appliances, auto test, baby & child, electronics, foods, health & family, and recreation & home improvement, while more than 25 research experts work in three departments--product acquisition, product information, and statistics & quality management. In addition, we have more than 150 anonymous shoppers throughout the country. (Pay a virtual visit to our auto-test track.)

State-of-the-art testing equipment is always used and is sometimes complemented by equipment designed by our engineers. The actual tests are based not only on government and industry standards but also on standards our specialists think should apply.


I trust this group WAY more than some blogger type review sites or some site with zero credentials who claims they are a great review site.

I really dont trust any group or person out there people are way too biased in terms of everything. Doesnt matter if its cars or electronics. I think people get too carried away by the name on the product rather than the product itself and thats why i trust my judgement and experience on a product. I will sometimes listen to advice on products from this forum though because i believe people on here are a lot better so called "experts" than say consumer reports has or other places.

Replacement bulbs are the biggest racket in the video industry!

Don't tell me that Wal-Mart couldn't source them from China and sell them for $99 and still make a profit.

they could probably sell them for $20 and still make a profit and not have to source them to china.