or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Plasma Flat Panel Displays › F8500.. OR .. ZT60 ?????
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

F8500.. OR .. ZT60 ????? - Page 64

post #1891 of 3096
The difference between 3% and 5% is not 2%. It's 67% (rounded) and that's significant.

Edit: Actually I should say that 5% is 67% greater than 3% to avoid misunderstandings. Still, pretty close to double...
Edited by willieconway - 7/26/13 at 8:27am
post #1892 of 3096
Speaking on my personal experience, I have bought the F8500 recently, owning it just for less than 2 months already given me a lot of issues. First set had loud directional buzz at the center, returned it second set given me the same annoying buzz sound plus a horizontal line on a white background on the panel itself. Samsung offering me a full refund now, but the question now is I'm not sure which model shall I get...
post #1893 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by nrc2112 View Post

True

I hoped the /jk was obvious. Maybe not to some...
post #1894 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by willieconway View Post

The difference between 3% and 5% is not 2%. It's 67% (rounded) and that's significant.

Edit: Actually I should say that 5% is 67% greater than 3% to avoid misunderstandings. Still, pretty close to double...

That's a % increase from one number to the next, not a failure rate. IOW, with one you have a 3 in 100 chance of failure and the other a 5 in 100 chance. Or, to put another way, you're 97% assured of no failure with one and 95% with the other. Either way, this is far far from what was implied by one poster and nothing to get concerned about.
post #1895 of 3096
Personally, all the Samsung products I own/owned (2 plasma, 1 lcd, 1 refridgerator, 1 washer/dryer, 1 smartphone) have serviced me well without issue (sans a little floating black issue with the D8000 plasma). I can understand certain people's POV if they've had some back luck with Samsung, but saying all Samsungs will eventually fail is a bit much. Not sure what the rant was all about..
post #1896 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stu03 View Post

Mr nrc2122 and Vinnie

Try play nice, everyone should be entitled to an opinion imho.

It is a' VS' thread after all (basically) except 'OR' has been used in it's place instead lol.

wink.gif
I am being nice, and I didn't just attack the entire forum, did I? wink.gif
post #1897 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

That's a % increase from one number to the next, not a failure rate. IOW, with one you have a 3 in 100 chance of failure and the other a 5 in 100 chance. Or, to put another way, you're 97% assured of no failure with one and 95% with the other. Either way, this is far far from what was implied by one poster and nothing to get concerned about.
I'm not concerned about anything. But the mentioned failure rate for Samsung is 67% greater than the mentioned failure rate for Panasonic. Its simple math.
post #1898 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

That's a % increase from one number to the next, not a failure rate. IOW, with one you have a 3 in 100 chance of failure and the other a 5 in 100 chance. Or, to put another way, you're 97% assured of no failure with one and 95% with the other. Either way, this is far far from what was implied by one poster and nothing to get concerned about.
Thats not a failure rate I would want on an airplane.
What is "failure" anyway. I assume that the number of people having issues is much higher.
post #1899 of 3096
Hey guys - we know both have there share of problems which are emphasized on this forum and other like it. Peeling filters (Samsung) or increasing brightness (old Panny's). I would buy either one without a concern about quality - ST/VT/ZT or 8500. Preference for black levels, viewing environment and ABL (that was just for you Ken) aside. I think most forum members would agree, even Vinnie wink.gif
post #1900 of 3096
More information regarding reliability, from a leading consumer magazine.

"Panasonic plasma TVs have consistently been among the top performers in our Ratings over the last few years. And Samsung and LG plasma TVs have had consistently strong performance in our tests, just a bit below the best. Given that top-notch track record for those brands, we believe their TVs that are not in our Ratings are likely to do just as well. Also reassuring: The TV buyers we surveyed have reported a low rate of repairs for TVs from those brands. That's what we found when we asked about more than 216,000 flat panel LCD and plasma TVs purchased by our readers between 2008 and 2012. The graph shows the percentage of models for each brand that were repaired or had a serious problem. Differences of less than 3 points aren't meaningful, and we've adjusted the data to eliminate differences linked solely to the age of the TV. Models within a brand can vary, and design or manufacture changes might affect future reliability."

Panasonic - 3%
Samsung - 5%
LG - 6%

As mentioned above the 3% difference is not statistically significant. Keep in mind unlike other posts, this one is based on real data. Rates are for plasma only.
post #1901 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by smurraybhm View Post

More information regarding reliability, from a leading consumer magazine.

"Panasonic plasma TVs have consistently been among the top performers in our Ratings over the last few years. And Samsung and LG plasma TVs have had consistently strong performance in our tests, just a bit below the best. Given that top-notch track record for those brands, we believe their TVs that are not in our Ratings are likely to do just as well. Also reassuring: The TV buyers we surveyed have reported a low rate of repairs for TVs from those brands. That's what we found when we asked about more than 216,000 flat panel LCD and plasma TVs purchased by our readers between 2008 and 2012. The graph shows the percentage of models for each brand that were repaired or had a serious problem. Differences of less than 3 points aren't meaningful, and we've adjusted the data to eliminate differences linked solely to the age of the TV. Models within a brand can vary, and design or manufacture changes might affect future reliability."

Panasonic - 3%
Samsung - 5%
LG - 6%

As mentioned above the 3% difference is not statistically significant. Keep in mind unlike other posts, this one is based on real data. Rates are for plasma only.

did you really have to bring Consumer Reports into this.lol
post #1902 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by smurraybhm View Post

Hey guys - we know both have there share of problems which are emphasized on this forum and other like it. Peeling filters (Samsung) or increasing brightness (old Panny's). I would buy either one without a concern about quality - ST/VT/ZT or 8500. Preference for black levels, viewing environment and ABL (that was just for you Ken) aside. I think most forum members would agree, even Vinnie wink.gif
I would be hesitant with Samsung given past experience with one of their TVs; however, they have done well enough with QC more recently after owning their Galaxy S3 and a washer/dryer (even though the first dryer came with a broken sensor resulting in nothing being dried), that I might give them a try again (but it would probably be more likely to happen with OLED). ;0
post #1903 of 3096
Tell me who else has stats about repair records and I am not talking about their ratings of tv's which are laughable. Individually we may have had our own issues with one manufacturer or another, but what is posted on this forum in regarding this topic is nothing scientific regarding brand quality or reliability. I own a VT, so I could go along with the Samsung is crap that some post, but that wouldn't be fair or right. Both put out some good products - not just TVs - and it is understandable if you had a problem with one or the other you would be hesitant to buy again - I am the same way. I will post if we ever get back on topic, never thought I would miss Ken's posts about ABL.
Edited by smurraybhm - 7/26/13 at 7:30pm
post #1904 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bond 007 View Post

Thats not a failure rate I would want on an airplane.
What is "failure" anyway. I assume that the number of people having issues is much higher.

It's obvious the number of people having issues with any brand is much higher, but yes, I wouldn't want either brand's 'failure' rate in any plane I'd be flying in.

Wow, we've certainly derailed this thread from any real useful information for prospective buyers.
post #1905 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by willieconway View Post

I'm not concerned about anything. But the mentioned failure rate for Samsung is 67% greater than the mentioned failure rate for Panasonic. Its simple math.

Again, IMO a misleading way of expressing a failure rate. A 67% increase of an already very small number, is still very small. CR stats seem to agree with my take. But spin it any way you like. Personally I'd rather be more straightforward and put an end to these utterly absurd slams and exaggerations..
post #1906 of 3096
I chose the F8500 over the ZT60 because to my eyes it is a more punchy, vibrant picture than the ZT. This is largely due to the Samsung's innovative technology making the plasma brighter than it ever has been. On top of that, the filter that is incorporated in the panel makes the blacks almost as good as the Kuro Elite's of old. However what really makes the F8500 shine is in its 3D mode where twice the brightness than the ZT60 becomes apparent once you put on the 3D glasses. In other words, the F8500 plasma looks just as bright as the brightest setting on the ZT60 while wearing the 3D glasses. I rest my case as to which TV I can personally recommend. Also, if you are so worried about failure rate etc, just buy an extended warranty. Why is this even an issue is beyond me.
post #1907 of 3096
It's pretty simple: In order to tell the difference with blacks between the ZT60 and the F8500, you'd have to turn off all the lights or use a measuring device for the blacks. Even then, the difference is minimal. On the other hand, the F8500 is much brighter with much higher contrast that can be SEEN with the naked eyes, in any lighting condition. Add in better 3D, better Smart Apps, better Allshare video streaming (pretty much every codec is compatible), quad core CPU, and future proof with HVEC (.265) support for clearer and smaller streaming videos, it's a no brainer to me.

Why is blacks > brightness, whites, and contrast? To me, it's way low on the list as I'd rather have white whites along with extremely good blacks and high contrast..
post #1908 of 3096
+ 1. 8500 is superior. I've seen um both
post #1909 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by cyphron View Post

It's pretty simple: In order to tell the difference with blacks between the ZT60 and the F8500, you'd have to turn off all the lights or use a measuring device for the blacks. Even then, the difference is minimal. On the other hand, the F8500 is much brighter with much higher contrast that can be SEEN with the naked eyes, in any lighting condition. Add in better 3D, better Smart Apps, better Allshare video streaming (pretty much every codec is compatible), quad core CPU, and future proof with HVEC (.265) support for clearer and smaller streaming videos, it's a no brainer to me.

Why is blacks > brightness, whites, and contrast? To me, it's way low on the list as I'd rather have white whites along with extremely good blacks and high contrast..

According to the best calibrators black level is the most important perimeter followed by contrast ratio. Have you seen the F8500 and the VT/ZT in a dark room?
post #1910 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by TWD View Post

According to the best calibrators black level is the most important perimeter followed by contrast ratio. Have you seen the F8500 and the VT/ZT in a dark room?

I don't buy TV's based on some hypothetical ideals. I base it on what I see with my own eyes. The blacks on my TV is so black that I don't wish it could be any blacker. Now, washed out colors and faded whites really annoy me. 95% of my viewing and I assume anyone else with the TV in their living room will watch TV with a surrounding light source. Bright punchy contrasty screen is far more important than blacks that can only be measured by an instrument. Seriously, I can't imagine that blacks can get much blacker than the ones on the F8500. Not once do I think to myself that I wish it was blacker.
post #1911 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by TWD View Post

According to the best calibrators black level is the most important perimeter followed by contrast ratio. Have you seen the F8500 and the VT/ZT in a dark room?
I actually have seen both side by side in a fully dark room and both were newly calibrated as well, even calibrated for 3D. Even though the black level was better on the ZT60, my eyes preferred the slightly higher contrast ratio that the F8500 was able to achieve without clipping whites and crushing blacks in 2D mode. However both are equally enjoyable in a dark room equally. Now what sold me on the F8500 was after testing out the 3D mode on both watching clips of Avatar and Life of Pi. There is no contest as to which set does better in 3D mode. If 3D is important to you and you want the very best plasma tv I have ever seen while watching 3D movies, then the F8500 is your baby. There is a slight brightness pop issue that the 3D mode has, however the last couple movies after the latest firmware update seems to have fixed that problem. However I want to re watch Avatar to see if it has been fixed in certain scenes I remember. Look, both TV's are great plasma's. If all your watching will be 2D only and in pitch darkness, then I recommend the Panasonic. If you also want excellent 3D and daytime viewing as well as excellent night viewing, then get the F8500.
post #1912 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

Again, IMO a misleading way of expressing a failure rate. A 67% increase of an already very small number, is still very small. CR stats seem to agree with my take. But spin it any way you like. Personally I'd rather be more straightforward and put an end to these utterly absurd slams and exaggerations..

So which is it? Are you disputing the 3% and 5% numbers that were posted (I take it you have more accurate CS stats)? Or are you saying that a 5% failure rate is not 67% greater than a 3% failure rate? I can't wait to see a straightforward, non-slamming, non-exaggerating reply.
post #1913 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by smurraybhm View Post

Tell me who else has stats about repair records and I am not talking about their ratings of tv's which are laughable. Individually we may have had our own issues with one manufacturer or another, but what is posted on this forum in regarding this topic is nothing scientific regarding brand quality or reliability. I own a VT, so I could go along with the Samsung is crap that some post, but that wouldn't be fair or right. Both put out some good products - not just TVs - and it is understandable if you had a problem with one or the other you would be hesitant to buy again - I am the same way. I will post if we ever get back on topic, never thought I would miss Ken's posts about ABL.
Wow, excuse me for a direct response. smile.gif Sorry if I might have slightly disagreed about giving them all equal consideration. Anyway, the thread is back to the topic...the wonder of the magnificent F8500:
Quote:
Originally Posted by cyphron View Post

I don't buy TV's based on some hypothetical ideals. I base it on what I see with my own eyes. The blacks on my TV is so black that I don't wish it could be any blacker. Now, washed out colors and faded whites really annoy me. 95% of my viewing and I assume anyone else with the TV in their living room will watch TV with a surrounding light source. Bright punchy contrasty screen is far more important than blacks that can only be measured by an instrument. Seriously, I can't imagine that blacks can get much blacker than the ones on the F8500. Not once do I think to myself that I wish it was blacker.
That is exactly how I watch in the evenings whenever I want to get lost in the experience. Now adding a bias light just might cause those differences to diminish (due to pupil constriction). The benefits of having the deepest blacks aren't hypothetical, and there's an informal comparison on this very forum between the 2013 contenders (plus a Kuro) that proves the benefits of deeper blacks. This is in part why the Kuro still remains a benchmark to this day (no plasma can match their deepest in the 50" monitor models, even 5 years later).
post #1914 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by willieconway View Post

So which is it? Are you disputing the 3% and 5% numbers that were posted (I take it you have more accurate CS stats)? Or are you saying that a 5% failure rate is not 67% greater than a 3% failure rate? I can't wait to see a straightforward, non-slamming, non-exaggerating reply.

I have already addressed this nonsense. Yes, 5% is 67% higher than 3%. A failure rate of 3% is already very small. A failure rate of 5% is also small, just a bit higher. So dispense with CRs actual 'frequency of repair records' that show the Samsung as well as the Panasonics to be VERY reliable, dispense with the logic that your chances of not having a failure with a Samsung is 95% vs 97% with the Panasonic (2% greater). Both very small, both inconsequential.

Your attempts to make the Samsung look bad are truly amusing. biggrin.gif
post #1915 of 3096
We also shouldn't take CR stats as scientific proof of anything either. The problem with their survey is it is biased toward users who turn in their survey card so it's not a statistical random survey. As a former CR reader, I was asked to turn in my survey. However, since it was a long survey, I only turn in the part about my car and fridge since it gave me problems. I did not turn in every single item, including my perfectly working TVs (so they had no idea i have Samsung TVs and that they work fine). Samsung owning 30 % of the market means more absolute issues that may show up therefore more users will turn in their cards to report issues.

I'm not disputing the number. All I'm saying is that since its not a scientifically random survey, the statistical confidence of such must be so low that the 2% difference may not be that significant.
post #1916 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by cyphron View Post

We also shouldn't take CR stats as scientific proof of anything either. I'm not disputing the number. All I'm saying is that since its not a scientifically random survey, the statistical confidence of such must be so low that the 2% difference may not be that significant.

EXACTLY - couldn't have said it better. Guess I posted about this again after all rolleyes.gif
post #1917 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

I have already addressed this nonsense. Yes, 5% is 67% higher than 3%. A failure rate of 3% is already very small. A failure rate of 5% is also small, just a bit higher. So dispense with CRs actual 'frequency of repair records' that show the Samsung as well as the Panasonics to be VERY reliable, dispense with the logic that your chances of not having a failure with a Samsung is 95% vs 97% with the Panasonic (2% greater). Both very small, both inconsequential.

Your attempts to make the Samsung look bad are truly amusing. biggrin.gif

I'm not attempting to make Samsung look bad. I'm trying to make sure that you at least get the math right in your month long crusade against anyone who doesn't bow to the altar of Samsung. Which, by the way, I find pathetic.
post #1918 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by nrc2112 View Post

I am starting to notice a nasty turn of attitude here on AVS. All I ever read is a bunch of geeks arguing about their expensive toys. Using terms and adjectives that they picked up in Logic 101.

Look at how this forum attacked Ken Ross for his opinion about the Samsung F8500. This attack was long before I stated my opinion about the problem with Samsung sets. Then Ken was the First person to attack me and then others jumped to HIS DEFENSE.

I am so done with this place and you bunch of cry babies and prima donnas.

Bunch of geek losers. I know I will not be missed.

Funny! I would have never taken you as a drama queen.
post #1919 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supermans View Post

I actually have seen both side by side in a fully dark room and both were newly calibrated as well, even calibrated for 3D. Even though the black level was better on the ZT60, my eyes preferred the slightly higher contrast ratio that the F8500 was able to achieve without clipping whites and crushing blacks in 2D mode. However both are equally enjoyable in a dark room equally. Now what sold me on the F8500 was after testing out the 3D mode on both watching clips of Avatar and Life of Pi. There is no contest as to which set does better in 3D mode. If 3D is important to you and you want the very best plasma tv I have ever seen while watching 3D movies, then the F8500 is your baby. There is a slight brightness pop issue that the 3D mode has, however the last couple movies after the latest firmware update seems to have fixed that problem. However I want to re watch Avatar to see if it has been fixed in certain scenes I remember. Look, both TV's are great plasma's. If all your watching will be 2D only and in pitch darkness, then I recommend the Panasonic. If you also want excellent 3D and daytime viewing as well as excellent night viewing, then get the F8500.

The 8500 is more likely to crush blacks than the ZT, just sayin'
post #1920 of 3096
Quote:
Originally Posted by ll Viper ll View Post

The 8500 is more likely to crush blacks than the ZT, just sayin'

What's the basis for that statement? Just askin'.
Edited by abalone - 7/27/13 at 4:38pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Plasma Flat Panel Displays
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Plasma Flat Panel Displays › F8500.. OR .. ZT60 ?????