Originally Posted by sasmallen
Consumer Reports indicates Vizio is really no better, and no worse than any other major brand when it comes to reliability (IOW, average) . I would be interested in hearing what evidence you have that would show CR is incorrect...
I will grant you that my evidence regarding infant mortality of Viz products is neither scientific nor all that comprehensive; it is only based on exhaustive research done on the internet forums, for the most part. This does leave room for error. I never positioned myself as an expert, just posting what I have encountered. That does not mean it does not have worth to those who want to know these things and have not had the time to do much research. It probably does have worth to them. And infant mortality is somewhat different than overall reliability. They are related, yet not quite the same thing, so evidence regarding one does not invalidate evidence regarding the other.
And CR is not the expert source many seem to think it is. They give 3 grad student interns 2 days to play with 15 models of TVs, and then give their opinion to a supervising editor, who either writes or assigns the article to someone else. If you swallow whole what they print, then you deserve to get blindsided when you find out the hard way that they have only a limited view based on minimal sketchy research, that they do not really have any experts on staff (who could afford to hire an expert for every product category?), and that there is much more to the story. You have to look at motivation, and theirs is to write articles and sell magazines while expending the least amount of effort and overhead, and to validate their own self-appointed expertness at the expense of readers who, since no one ever calls them out on it, have no way to know any better. They are a cheap operation with questionable findings, in my opinion.
They are far from experts, probably much further than a broadcast Engineer with a well-trained eye who has been evaluating video images for decades and getting paid rather well for it. CR seems to be expert until they pick a subject you are expert in, and then the curtain is pulled back and we see them for what they really are. You can test this theory yourself, as you are probably an expert in some area. When they pick your area, their significant limitations will become all too clear to you.
I think they added a lot to the discussion of high frame rates and what that might mean for the viewing experience. It was very revealing, yet as usual, it was a small part of the story. As usual, they did the bare minimum to come up with that article. And that was the rare exception; sometimes their reports are more harmful than helpful simply because of their tendency to only scratch the surface as little as possible and are therefore oversimplified and can lead consumers to an uninformed decision that may be worse than if they had questioned that research and done the due diligence to find out just how accurate they were. CR is a short cut that leaves a lot of the real view obstructed.
I do think CR may be correct when it comes to things like repair rates. That may be more comprehensive than either one person's surfing history or a couple of non-experts devoting a few hours comparing toasters, and I will not challenge them on that. But I do challenge them on nearly everything else and I feel that is self-serving and dangerous for them to cultivate the illusion that they are the last word on anything. They aren't. They are just one more resource to be taken with a grain of salt, just like every post on the internet.