Jackobots, then we're both guilty of the same thing. Look, some of the calibrators knocked the Sharp Elite, but yet I couldn't be happier with it.
Sometimes I really feel they can get so mired in their test data or fixate on one thing, that they don't look at the picture the way we do. I think they tend to look at the picture more through the eyes of their data and we just look at the picture through our eyes period. I'm not saying the data isn't valuable, but in the end it's our eyes and not the data that tell us what's right or wrong. Some of the data doesn't easily translate to visible flaws and yet IMO some of the data doesn't show an issue we may see with our eyes.
As I say, IMO this works both ways. I love Kevin and his work and he insisted the 8500 calibrated perfectly, yet I saw a bit of a red bias in some scenes. At times I think I was the only one that saw it since most of the calibrators didn't. Where I saw it, I thought it was clearly there. I could see it in the sand of Lawrence of Arabia. Yet during Skyfall they all looked identical to me.
The data didn't suggest this, but I saw it on occasion. I'd bet though, without an A/B, we'd never pick it up. Likewise, the data doesn't suggest the 8500 has greater sharpness then the VT/ZT, but most of us see it pretty easily.
Fun stuff, but in the end I trust my eyes. It's the only way to buy a display and it's the real reason why people should buy these things based on what they see, not what others say.
BTW, I don't want to overplay the red bias thing as it wasn't there for most scenes and when it was, it wasn't a big deal. I mentioned it more to show data is one thing and our eyes are something else.