The Consumer Reports Jury is back...Samsung 5084...not glowing - Page 5

Lighten up Hans

I guess if you don't like black levels and contrast, Panasonics newer plasmas are 'perfect' for you. Consumer Reports agrees, I agree, and UMR will agree.

It doesn't take an ITT tech grad to figure that out. Hahaha. Eeee... I really hope no one reads this and actually takes any merit out of this. Owners of Panasonic you're excluded because the decision has been made.

Me personally, when I find a better display than Pioneer's Kuro series, I'll gladly admit it. Panasonic fanboys can't seem to shake off the fact that they haven't made any significant improvement in their plasma series in a LONG time. This is the first year where I've heard their plasmas have gotten even worse!

When you're top dog in sales... you get kinda lazy apparently.

Well johnny comparing last years pansonic vs pioneer- black levels were still better on panasonic. But i agree they have not made no stride in years but they were in the lead for many years, and only until this year pioneer now has the best CR. And i agree Vizio rules! I just ordered a vizio t-shirt

Wha? The new Kuros to the old years panasonic?

Very. Very. Very. False.

Hey can someone make this clear for me?... Since when was .012 a better black level than .004.

Why do I feel like we have these darn conversations all the time on AVS? I bet even there was a display that had a black level of nothing... some people still wouldn't admit differently that Panasonic was worse at blacks.

Panasonic hasn't been the best at black in about 2 years. Riiight... and Panasonics have better black level than the best CRTs right? Geez.. these memories are running back like it was just yesterday.

I meant last years pio-vs panasonic not the kuro. Certainly i agree kuro has the best blacks, no contest there. But last years pio still wasent as deep as panny or samsung. Samsung has a little better blacks than panny imo, but color accuracy panny is close to pioneer, atleast last years models were side by side comparison. Brightness wise one calibrator says the kuros are brighter, one said the panny is brighter by 1/3, one owner of both xb1032 says the kuro is a little brighter. I myself find the kuro not as bright but thats my honest opinion. I think it's far fetched to say pannys are junk though compared to pioneer. I think they close as heck besides black levels. Panny being a little sharper.

Wow!
UMR is one of the top 5 calibrators in the US. And one of the most sought after/desired calibrator in the country

He is highly respected here on AVS for his unbiased opions. For you to say some crap like that.....

I'll second what Ken said;

If you had any decency you'd apologize to UMR.

Gee, that's nice!

Someone with brains happened to provide some real world calibration experience which contradict your
limited retail observations , so you try to insult him?

Don't let the facts cloud your judgement or anything, after all you are quite happy with your choice of bezel, right?

As a matter of fact, triple CRT projection sets were well known for the blackest of blacks....because the electron beam current could be switched completely off in the black areas of the screen. By contrast, a plasma cell has a small current flowing to keep the gas ionized - although the bias current is being reduced with each generation of panel, resulting in blacker blacks.

Of course, back when front and rear CRT projection sets were king, Pioneer Elite rear projection sets were my pick for best-of-the-best.

Triple CRT front and rear projection sets were displaced by flat panel technology when such panels were noticeably and distinctly inferior in image quality compared to CRT projection. The reasons for this were the flat panel was more stylish - a better fit in most furnished rooms, when the rear projection TVs were massive black boxes, and the front projectors required darkened rooms and high gain screens. The convenience factor overcame the inferior flat panel image, not any superiority in video quality.

Oh last years Pioneer panels. Right. Yes I agree then. Sorry. Haha.

But really I thought both the panels in 06 while Panasonic had a better black level... they both were at that "meh" stage for me. So do I lose the processing, color decoding, and look of the Pioneer just for Panasonics slightly darker gray blacks? Just wasn't worth it IMO. Toss the price factor in there than the decision is more difficult.

Now that Kuro has the darkest blacks static-wise since CRT (not counting Samsung 81), it makes the arguement moot.

I'm sure even though flat panels had worse black levels and I think for the most part they still do in the darkest rooms. (Even Kuro) Flat panels do some aspects of PQ better. Sharpness for one being direct view and fixed pixel. ANSI contrast another.

But you're right. The main sale of flat panels is because they just look cooler.. period. I'd say the same arguement for direct view CRTs. If you were a black level freak... or still are... CRTs and even CRT front projectors still are the golden comparison.

For me Kuro has gotten to the point where I'm cool. CRT can have the darker blacks. Kuros black level doesn't bug me anymore. Yay.

This is a very good point. It makes the Consumer Reports review more valid than other reviews.

Mitsubishi and Sony had the best rp-crt's, then pioneer. Plasmas are cool as heck but ill never forget the movie theater type experience with the 65 rp-crt. Totally owned the theater in every aspect except size. While plasma is great, it's not quite on the "holy grail" level yet, maybe never.

What kind of snake oil do you think I am pushing. I OWN A PZ77U! It's a Pani if you are at all confused. Where did I ever mention anything about CR's rating system? I SAID MONEY MAGAZINE...who happened to pick a PANI as their best buy...a 600U to be correct. Are you so hell bent on picking a fight with anyone that you can't even see when someone (me) is trying to point out (IMHO) that there might be higher value displays on the market than Kuros?

I did compare a Pioneer to a Visio. Are you saying the Pioneer has lower PQ than a Visio? I did that as to not get you all worked up, but apparently you will argue about anything. I even stated that the Visio (IMHO) is a better value for the average consumer. Take your meds and quit insulting people...even the ones that are remotely close to agreeing with you. Also, that statement about UMR was way out of line.

Did I attack someone here?

For sure plasmas do things better, it's hi rez digital perfect focused images that makes the digitals look just more clearer and wow factor. Where crt has that softer analog look, especially the rp-crts, not so much the tubes. And no image brightness drop off, those rp-crts image droped huge when you standed up. But when you compare a BIG screen size crt to a plasma of the same size, say 65in, you notice alot more noise in the picture. Plasmas are noisy, evident even in the 50in size. Lcd, sxrd,dlp, do have alot less noise in a BIG screen size.

Does your banishment list include the Panasonic z750u, their top of the (consumer) line model? Or just any of their models below it? Just curious, since the hdguru Gary Merson gave it his highest recommendation, pre-Kuro release. While he does have his detractors, he is generally considered to be at least reasonably credible. Just trying to reconcile his "highest recommendation" with your "not worth my fee" comments. Quite a divergence of opinion.

thanks.

btw, this thread is entertaining. Usually it's a single topic 'us' against 'them' throwdown. Or two. But here, there's about a dozen skirmishes going on at once..

CR vs a/v mags
Samsung vs Panasonic
Panasonic vs Pioneer
Visio vs Panasonic
Panasonic 2 years ago vs Panasonic today
my definition of 'fanboy' vs your definition of 'fanboy'
crt vs flat panel
plasma vs lcd


I need a program guide to keep track of all the differently colored team jerseys.

Just curious. Is a Pani not worth your fee because it would take too long to calibrate?

Gary McCoy, in post #116, lays out exactly how CR does it's testing and how they arrive at their final results. How can you possibly argue with their methodology? They buy displays from stores just like we do. They blind test PQ using techs and non techs, they add up the results and publish them. They do not take into account other outside reviews, they do not take into account past reputation. Knowing that, how can some still say that CR's reviews are crap? Let's see, they buy from a store, they accept no advertising $$$, they calibrate the displays themselves, they use techs and J6P's to evaluate the displays with the mfgs name covered. How could they be more fair? Now if Pioneer would have been rated number one you would all be calling them geniuses. And lets drop the price card. They mistakenly had the Pioneer priced at $1900. Even with that it came in fourth. Maybe they had a weak Kuro sample. Maybe it would have been number one had they used HDMI. But they said right up front that they were using component connections.

I think this gets to the heart of the matter.

By including a diverse group of reviewers, with different levels of experience and sophistication, CR employs more of a "focus group" approach.

I do have to deal with focus groups often, and I generally dislike them. They serve to cover the behinds of marketing departments, who in the case of a product failure, can always point to the record of the focus group, and claim that nobody expected the failure, thus nobody should be blamed for it:-)

One problems with focus groups is, that often they employ poor methodology. For instance, if CS had 5 testers in the same room, the group opinion can easily be colored by one "leader" participant.

Another problem is, that focus groups tend to smother vision and bring everything to the lowest common denominator. If you asked the crowd at Dairy Queen to pass on the merits of say, art, you may very well end up with a velvet painting, rather than a Van Gogh....

And they are often wrong. For instance, if I remember correctly, Ford famously decided that there was absolutely no US market interest in a roadster, after extensive focus-group testing. That was just a couple of years before the introduction of the Miata, which of course started a decade-long roadster-fad. Similarly, the Prius tested horribly in focus groups.

Anyway, while this way of testing may have some merit, it also results in the jacked-up TV settings one sees on the floors of discount retailers (and in many homes:-)

So, there is something to be said for individual reviewers, whom you can judge based on your personal agreement or disagreement with their past reviews.

You guys need to stop falling for the trolling bait.

Well, sorry for popping the buble... 600U was rated by CR as #3, behind pio 1140, sammy 5073 and Vizio P50HDTV (2nd place tie) as of May 07. Panny 7x may be better, but 600U? Be real.

I don't have high regard to CR TV rating, but since we are talking about CR rating, let CR talk.

It does include that unit.

I do think the CR bashing can go overboard at times. I think they mean well, and ostensibly, they seem to meet at least a reasonable number of important criteria in their attempts at making impartial evaluations.

With that said, in light of just about every a/v dedicated source who've evaluated any one of the various Kuro models (the 5080 at least a few times, for an apples to apples point of reference) and all having subsequently rated them the best, and in some cases, rating them the best EVER of any product in the flat panel category, at minimum, the CR rating is at least curious, wouldn't you agree? On one side, the Kuros are considered to be leading the pack and sometimes by a significant margin, and on the other side (CR).. they're not even making it into the team photo. Any way you slice it, this is an odd divergence of opinion worthy of consideration.

And I'm sorry, charges of ad fees lining pockets to account for this lockstep uniformity of favorable Kuro opinion just doesn't fly. I'm not saying ad revenue can't have an influence on what products are rated and how they are rated, but the fact that all/most major brands are rated by the a/v dedicated magazines suggests that if there is bias due to these ad "clients", then there would be at least some more significant variation in their collective ratings. But no, in every case, the Kuros have been judged to be the best (as of right now). So unless someone can cite evidence that Pioneer has the largest ad budget or payola practices, we are reasonably left to assume that their glowing reviews are mainly based upon their reasonably thorough evaluations, which often included specific measurements to give context and weight to these praising evaluations, btw. Not something CR provides a whole lot of (i.e., measurements).


The same questions might apply to Samsung's rating, but to a less significant degree. I've seen at least a couple pro reviews which have Samsung outperforming Panasonic, even "smoking" them. Though there isn't quite enough smoke to yell "fire!" based upon this more limited pool of evidence.

Again, I am not outright dismissing the quality of Consumer Reports here. Only that their significant divergence of rating vs. everyone else warrants closer scrutiny.

Anyone who has to make baseless personal attacks to defend his position is pathetic.

Wow, that's interesting. I assume your brevity is at least partially due to wanting to stay above the forum frays as much as possible, so I won't ask any follow up questions of you. Afterall, courting controversy is bad for bidness.

I cannot discuss the inside story about Panasonic. I have seen the light output noted in other reviews and observed the same thing on showroom floors.

Consumer Reports' review value is only as good as the knowledge and experience of the actual reviewers (obviously). And it depends on their review criteria. The value to the reader is subjective to how much we agree or disagree with their conclusions.

I'll never forget the first time I was surprised at a C.R. "review". Back in high school (early '80s), Harmon Kardon released a special home audio-cassette player/recorder with Dolby HXPro noise reduction (along with the usual Dolby B and C), with the HXPro option providing benefits in the recording of material with high frequencies in the signal. H-K was the only brand that had this feature in a consumer model.

With C.R., they made a single comment about the unit, like: "other than the added Dolby HXPro option, this model is similar to other name-brand models". Well, duh! Rather than a mini-review or simple note about Dolby HXPro and it's benefits, the C.R. reviewer overlooked it's value, lumping it with the regular "bunch" of name-brand models at that time (from Teac, Pioneer, Technics, Akai, Sharp, etc]. It really impressed upon me that these people can have a limited knowledge of the product under review (at least in this case), or just didn't care to highlight a significant improvement in home-recording technology (at that time). I've been wary of their reviews ever since, although I'm still a subscriber.

This is a good post that explains why CR is the most trusted cosumer review magazine. They don't get cherry picked units and they don't accept advertising money. There is no conflict of interest. CR buys the exact same displays that any of could buy. They do an honest review. Anyone who disagrees has a hidden agenda. Consumer Reports has both technical experts and normal people participate in reviews.

I agree with the Consumer Report reviews. They are in-line with what I have seen. Panasonic is one of the best. Vizio is very good and bright. Samsung is low quality junk.