[jcinzano]

and it's not that great....

http://cnet.search.com/search?chkpt=...lasma&tag=srch


... sez it's a step down from the industrial model, gives it a 7.1


dunno about you guys, but that pretty much seals it for me -- i'm waiting for the HD8UKs...

 

[jrock65]

To say that it's not that great is kinda misleading, seeing as how it said this:

"With the notable exception of the industrial TH-42PHD7UY, the TH-42PX50U offers the best home-theater image of any 42-inch plasma in its class."


It got an excellent performance rating. Main issues were lack of some features (not a problem if you don't need or want those) and lower ability to calibrate compared to the industrial models.


The industrial models have always offered better calibration and tweakage, and that'll probably never change.


One thing I was surprised to find is that the article says that the PX50 has 2/3 pulldown. I can't find that in the specs on Panasonic's website.

 

[D-Nice]

7.1 is not a great score. At least it got a 8 for performance.

 

[jcinzano]

on the cnet scale, a 7.1 is labled "very good" ... so ... not great ... said it had the second best pic, but also dinged it on features. the notes about low level noise in some scenes is not a complaint it had about the industrial models, which is a big deal to me ...

 

[No_Towel_Lint]

I agree, the review seemed to mostly great things to say about the TV's picture quality (which is why most of us here like it so much). It was the lack of certain features that got its score lowered...and if you don't need those features then the fact that it's a 7.1 score is irrelevant.

 

[RicheyPoor]

Does anyone know what the "poor" on the DC Restoration test means in the real world?

 

[jrock65]

"on the cnet scale, a 7.1 is labled "very good" ... so ... not great ... "


By that reasoning, the Th-42PHD7UY "is not that great" either, since it got a 7.5 overall rating, which is also "very good" on the cnet scale.

"7.1 is not a great score. At least it got a 8 for performance."


Look above. And the performance score is what's relevant to most people, since these guys are conducting some objective test measures that the average consumer cannot. "Design" is completely subjective, and "features" are dependent on what you may or may not need.


These are cnet's performance scores:


Panny 42PHD7UY: 9

Panny 42PX50: 8

Pio 4350HD: 7

Hitachi 42HDT51: 6


-------------


Guess which one of the above got the highest overall rating (7.8)? You guessed it, the Hitachi 42HDT51. "Great" score!

 

[spyboy]

DC restoration is a measure of black level ability IIRC.

 

[jcinzano]

jeez, testy testy on the px50.


with all the raves i'm used to reading about pannys, here and elsewhere -- including on cnet -- i was expecting this set to rate *at least* as good as last year's commercials models, if not better. after all, they are supposed to improve each year, right? and yes, i'm talking performance scores, not just features. even last year's 50 model pulled a 9 on performance. and the UK mags, What Video and all that, gushed about this set.


so when i said, in my opinion, it reads "not that great," i stand by that.

 

[spyboy]

I looked it up.


"DC restoration is the ability to hold black at black."

 

[jrock65]

Well, I just don't see how "The best-performing 42-inch consumer plasma" equals "not that great performance".


Matter of semantics I guess.

 

[dsmith901]

I would think by now you guys would realize that CNet don't know jack about TVs.

 

[torch]

Being second best when compared to yester-year's PDP's is noting to brag about. I think Cnet like many consumers have raised there expectation of the PQ that they think is acceptable from a PDP. I think they are trying to say the PQ is great but they were not blown away.


Anyways, I have always felt that the PQ from the 7UY (50") is hard to beat and even Panny may find it hard to match with the 8UY.

 

[rogo]

Who cares what Cnet thinks?


You want it, buy it.


You don't want it, wait.

 

[jrock65]

Well, what do you expect?


There were practically no changes from the 7th gen. 7UY to the 8th gen. PX50/500.


All the specs are pretty much exactly the same. The only thing that the 8th gen. added is some kind of "sub-pixel controller", which for all we know has an adverse effect on PQ. We know that "Color Management" for the most part is not good for the PQ.


Consumer Panasonic plasmas are never going to have the full calibratability of the commercial models.

 

[Geo05]

They come out and say that PQ is better in the industrial models, as in the 7UY review, quote:

"The TH-42PHD7UY, Panasonic's latest 42-inch high-resolution industrial plasma panel, has a picture that's head and shoulders above its "consumer" 42-inch cousins..."


...and the more recent review: "After evaluating the TH-42PX50U, we still recommend the industrial models if you're just looking for the best picture you can get for the least amount of money"


but not much more is said...

 

[housecor]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geo05 They come out and say that PQ is better in the industrial models, as in the 7UY review, quote: "The TH-42PHD7UY, Panasonic's latest 42-inch high-resolution industrial plasma panel, has a picture that's head and shoulders above its "consumer" 42-inch cousins..."

That was a comparison to it's 6th gen PD25 series cousins which were out at the time, so no shock - the 7UY was certainly better than its older cousins. They made no "head and shoulders" claim comparing the 7UY to the PX50. Nor should they. The only ACTUAL differences that could produce a difference in PQ between the commercial and consumer are:

1. Red push of 10% on consumer

2. Inability to tweak grayscale on consumer

3. 2.5% overscan on consumer


The 3 points above make the commercial pic potentially better. How much better, CNET didn't say. But I personally doubt most would detect the difference. And keep in mind they are comparing the PQ of the PX50 which cannot be ISF'd to the 7UY which was ISF'd. So if you're comfortable dropping $250 - $450+ on a solid ISF calibration the 7UY is a no brainer. If not, I don't believe the 10% red push and minimal overscan on the consumer amount to a difference most would detect.


Keep in mind the ratings were pulled down by the PX50's mediocre feature set and the PX500 resolves most of their complaints...besides, we can all make decisions on what features we value on our own. It's strange this was spun by some as a mediocre review when they declared it the best PQ available in a consumer plasma. After reading it I'm just another happy PX500 owner! Decision reaffirmed...for whatever a Cnet review is worth these days.


BTW - For those asking - 2/3 pulldown was confirmed by Vanns (panny auth. dealer) long ago. See their site.

 

[Geo05]

Quote:

Originally Posted by housecor That was a comparison to it's 6th gen PD25 series cousins .... .

Many Thanks! This historical perspective is very useful.

Quote:

Originally Posted by housecor How much better, CNET didn't say.

Well, the 50PX50 was given a performance "rating" of 8 versus 9 for the 7UY...


This could be attributed to better calibration possibilities for the 7UY, reviewer (techie) bias (for complexity), or just noise...?

 

[Dovetails]

.

To quote Housecor: "It's strange this was spun by some as a mediocre review when they declared it the best PQ available in a consumer plasma. After reading it I'm just another happy PX500 owner! Decision reaffirmed...for whatever a Cnet review is worth these days. "



Well stated Housecor! I'm a new member to the board and I've already noticed that too many people here place too much emphasis on the 'official reviews' out there when in reality , one should trust what their own eyes are telling them. Just last night I was at my local BB and got the chance to compare the new PX series(a37" and a 50") with some of the new generation LCDs. ( Sony A-10 / Samsungs new 40" / Sharps' new 45" 1080p model) along with Pioneer and other brand plasmas ..... bottom line is while all the above mentioned were fantastic displays ..(MY) eye kept bringing me back to the Panny PX series. As good as the other pictures where, the Panasonic TO (ME) had the best combo of black level / contrast / sharp detail / accurate color /, that all combined to give (MY) eyes the most accurate rendition of that perceived "looking out the window" experience. Of course, the next person may prefer something entirely different. While one is always comforted by reading a positive review from one of the 'industry experts' on a particular model they may be interested in ... the bottom line is never forget to "trust your own eyes " when making your final judgement. 99% of the time they steer you into making the correct decision (FOR YOU).

 

[cmonsammy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dovetails . To quote Housecor: "It's strange this was spun by some as a mediocre review when they declared it the best PQ available in a consumer plasma. After reading it I'm just another happy PX500 owner! Decision reaffirmed...for whatever a Cnet review is worth these days. " Well stated Housecor! I'm a new member to the board and I've already noticed that too many people here place too much emphasis on the 'official reviews' out there when in reality , one should trust what their own eyes are telling them. Just last night I was at my local BB and got the chance to compare the new PX series(a37" and a 50") with some of the new generation LCDs. ( Sony A-10 / Samsungs new 40" / Sharps' new 45" 1080p model) along with Pioneer and other brand plasmas ..... bottom line is while all the above mentioned were fantastic displays ..(MY) eye kept bringing me back to the Panny PX series. As good as the other pictures where, the Panasonic TO (ME) had the best combo of black level / contrast / sharp detail / accurate color /, that all combined to give (MY) eyes the most accurate rendition of that perceived "looking out the window" experience. Of course, the next person may prefer something entirely different. While one is always comforted by reading a positive review from one of the 'industry experts' on a particular model they may be interested in ... the bottom line is never forget to "trust your own eyes " when making your final judgement. 99% of the time they steer you into making the correct decision (FOR YOU).

There are a few reasons many of us look to "official" reviews: they're able to control conditions, be it lighting, content, signal quality, and they're able to do careful measurements as a result. Also, the more reputable sources shouldn't have a direct profit motive in the outcome. I agree that you cannot discount your own experience, but at BB (or others) you may not find the two models you'd like to compare, or the lighting may not be consistent, you can't play a DVD, you often can't adjust the settings, and frequently the signal is pathetic...and how do you know the store hasn't adjusted the signal to promote sales of the unit with the biggest profit margin?


Bottom line: the typical consumer is unable to do the kind of careful side-by-side testing that the test labs can do, hence the interest in their results.