Originally Posted by dzt41j
Respectively, but no kidding they haven't manufactured Pioneers in years? I was going to buy another one! LOL
And you are wrong on different components for different sets. One clue is look at the Panasonic 65vt,gt,and st lines. Sizes are all a little different and the weight's are different, with the higher end TV's being heavier (due to better components?).
If they didn't have different components then the TV's would all be identical with software differences for different features.
You do get what you pay for.
My point about the Pioneer is that this is a topic about what size plasma someone should buy now and I was responding to a comment about whether buying a more expensive plasma now (instead of a bigger one) meant higher likelihood of it having more reliable components that wouldn't fail. So it really doesn't matter what the Pioneer had in answering the question of whether buying a new plasma now would mean more expensive sets have better components. We only have 3 companies to compare in the current purchase equation and I don't agree it is universally true that the more expensive sets are more reliable or have better physical components.
Also, it's not true that all sets would be the same if the key components (plasma screen, power supply and main electronic boards) were the same. Software can be different even on the same boards and it's not unusual for manufacturers to even use the exact same boards and simply software disable the higher-end features on the lesser sets. Every year some clever people figure out how to hack their lower and mid-level Samsung sets to turn on features supposedly only available in the higher end sets. Same with LG. Often times the higher end sets cost more for three reasons: 1) Design aesthetics (which can contribute to the weight difference but don't necessarily impact the reliability of the internal components), 2) Software features (or processing power), and 3) The filter on the glass (which, but for the exception of the peeling last year of the early production cycle D7000, is not typically a cause for likelihood of set failure). For example, the VT uses a nice looking edge-to-edge pane of glass design that the ST doesn't. Glass is heavy. Does that pane of glass improve the reliability of the set? The e8000 uses a dual-core processer that the other Samsung's don't have, making it faster. That doesn't mean the chip is more reliable. And, if anything, the built-in camera on the e8000 is another point of potential failure, not something that improves the set's reliability.
Getting what you pay for doesn't not always mean more reliability. Pioneer got out of the plasma business because not enough people were shopping for its premium products, so by definition that's not what consumer at large we're willing to pay for. (And, BTW, when they were still in business and consumer reports was ranking reliability by brand they usually weren't near the top.) Many, I would argue most, are paying for more features and better performance (i.e. black levels, pro settings, etc.), as opposed to reliability. You see people here talking about Panasonic versus Samungs or LG for reliability as a brand, but not so often an 8000 versus a 6500 on reliability. So, yeah, you get what you pay for but it may not have anything to do with reliability in the case of current plasmas.
Now if you have some data that the VT series and 8000 series consistently are more reliable that the GT's, ST's and 7000's and 6500's, that would be interesting. Or if someone has documented the power supply used in the 8000 versus the 7000, etc., and found it to be of a different quality. Until then, respectfully, I remain skeptical.