- Nov 18, 2010
- 1
- 0
- 0
I have been following blogs/forums/videos/reviews etc on this and other sites where everyone seemed to be saying that the picture including SD is fantastic and just about the best available: well worth waiting for release of this set and paying the high price.
I have no interest in 3D and my viewing initially will be largely SD broadcasts and some DVD upscaling. I am attracted by the internet capabilities and alleged superior sound.
Now we have the What Hi-Fi review (December issue page 45) as part of their 3D group test. The Philips' SD performance is described as "coarse, lurid, noisy and edgy and rough" with a warning to "steer clear of DVD". It "isn't much of a television". "Verdict: When it's good it's very very good, but when it's bad it's horrid".
And there's the warning that all reviewers seem to note about the complexities of set-up - tweaks, settings, sub-menus etc.
How can the rave reviews be reconciled with What Hi-Fi's experience? Did they have a less than perfect set, were there some unfortunate settings, or what?
I am bound to wonder whether to heed the warning and look at other models!?
I have no interest in 3D and my viewing initially will be largely SD broadcasts and some DVD upscaling. I am attracted by the internet capabilities and alleged superior sound.
Now we have the What Hi-Fi review (December issue page 45) as part of their 3D group test. The Philips' SD performance is described as "coarse, lurid, noisy and edgy and rough" with a warning to "steer clear of DVD". It "isn't much of a television". "Verdict: When it's good it's very very good, but when it's bad it's horrid".
And there's the warning that all reviewers seem to note about the complexities of set-up - tweaks, settings, sub-menus etc.
How can the rave reviews be reconciled with What Hi-Fi's experience? Did they have a less than perfect set, were there some unfortunate settings, or what?
I am bound to wonder whether to heed the warning and look at other models!?