TKratz
New member
Clare Newsome:
Indeed - and don't forget we gave it an enthusiastic four-star review. Four stars meaning 'very good'. And it's only the price/performance of the Sony that stopped it getting five stars. Other reviewers who don't test on a performance-per-pound basis would be more than justified giving it full marks
Just trying to keep it factual, and in perspective, here
Fair enough Clare. We should of course all keep things in perspective
And I realise that WhatHifi actually gave G20 a good 4 star rating.
All reviews I consider serious is on a performance-per-pound basis, and this is also what I can't help but finding a little funny. Because where a lot other sites states:
'This is a very good TV, not close to becomming the new reference, as it can't tough the Pioneer Kuro, but for the price it is unbeatable'.
WhatHifi somehow got this argument turned upside down:
'This is a very good TV, but it is too expensive to get the full 5 stars'.
You must admit that is a little funny?
I of course respect that you find this TV to be 'just' very good rather than excellent, but I have given it some thoughts, and here is what I think. Please let me know if I am wrong in any of the considerations.
I believe WhatHifi reviews are purely subjective. Isn't that so?
You of course set up the TV's to provide the best results possible, but from there it is purely subjective as far I know? There is nothing wrong in that, but I personally like to spice this up with some more hard facts on how the TV performs against international standards.
Maybe I am a purist, simply seeking the picture that reflects what the filmmaker intended when shooting the movie. This is probably also why I tend to agree more with reviews more based on how close the TV get's to the correct colour temperature of 6500K, a clean gamma curve etc. rather than what is subjectively percieved as the best picture.
Indeed - and don't forget we gave it an enthusiastic four-star review. Four stars meaning 'very good'. And it's only the price/performance of the Sony that stopped it getting five stars. Other reviewers who don't test on a performance-per-pound basis would be more than justified giving it full marks
Just trying to keep it factual, and in perspective, here
Fair enough Clare. We should of course all keep things in perspective
All reviews I consider serious is on a performance-per-pound basis, and this is also what I can't help but finding a little funny. Because where a lot other sites states:
'This is a very good TV, not close to becomming the new reference, as it can't tough the Pioneer Kuro, but for the price it is unbeatable'.
WhatHifi somehow got this argument turned upside down:
'This is a very good TV, but it is too expensive to get the full 5 stars'.
You must admit that is a little funny?
I of course respect that you find this TV to be 'just' very good rather than excellent, but I have given it some thoughts, and here is what I think. Please let me know if I am wrong in any of the considerations.
I believe WhatHifi reviews are purely subjective. Isn't that so?
You of course set up the TV's to provide the best results possible, but from there it is purely subjective as far I know? There is nothing wrong in that, but I personally like to spice this up with some more hard facts on how the TV performs against international standards.
Maybe I am a purist, simply seeking the picture that reflects what the filmmaker intended when shooting the movie. This is probably also why I tend to agree more with reviews more based on how close the TV get's to the correct colour temperature of 6500K, a clean gamma curve etc. rather than what is subjectively percieved as the best picture.