heres what i want to say ..
i dont buy into whfis performance per pound tv reviewing procedure ..
its too ambiguous and easily manipulated , and often is imo..
too many expensive tvs get 5 stars , even though many of those tvs have faults which whfi mention in their reviews of said tvs , but they usually dont lose a star ?example , crosstalk on
all 3d samsung lcds reviewed to date , other reviewers knocked these tvs for this , whfi gave them
all 5 stars ?
yet these sammy tvs range from being very expensive to astoundingly expensive ? the tv mentioned by the op here is over £5000 i believe , what was it compared against ? an imax theatre ?
heres another gripe ..
sonys brilliant ex503 tv , touted as the best tv on a performance per pound basis in two recent tests that also included much more expensive tvs that didnt get docked a star ? why was that ? if you have a 4 horse race you can only have one winner ? not 3 winners ...
but my main issue is this , why didnt what hifi test the sony against the samsung c750 lcd tv ? because samsung didnt send you one for review ? why not buy one then ? and send it back to samsung for a refund ? or sell it on ebay or discounted to a staff member ? whfi would only lose a couple of hundred at the most , surely in the interest of providing the best choices available to you for your readers who may make a big decision based on your verdict , this small loss could be easily warranted ?
the reason i ask this ? well its simple enough really , the c750 is very similarly specced as the sony ex503 , its the same price as the ex 503 , its likely to be as good as the ex503 , (last years b650 and w5500 were very evenly matched) and you know what ? its a full 3d tv to boot ..
now , how many people that bought the sony off the back of whfis magazine supertests are going to be happy to find out that they could have spent the same money on another very good tv
and had 3d ?
surely the ommision of the samsung from the test designed to find
the best world cup tv was a glaring mistake on what hifis part ?
if not a mistake , was it strategically ommited because it may have hindered the sale of the more expensive 3dtvs that the various makers are hoping to sell ? aided by whfis generous , neverending list of 5 star endorsements at seemingly any price ?
there is a global reccession at the moment , many people , families etc would have bought the mag , or indeed be subscribers , that look to whfi for guidance in these tough economic times , are these people less important to the future of what hifi clare ? or are the profits of the likes of sony , samsung etc more of a concern for the magazine going forward ?
there is no doubt whfi is inextricably linked to tv sales , to most av. sales in the uk actually , and thats fine , as a company and a business model thats to be applauded , the forums here are fantastic , youve got multi million pound facilities which are the envy of a.v. people worldwide , your in pole position ..
but heres my point clare , people of all ages are now able to find their way around a computer , even my mum now asks me to look up things online for her
, and many of your subscribers and those that buy the mag will also be looking to the internet to find information on various products , many a.v.related , now if whfi continually buck the trend of other reviewers out there , then people will start to see that , and will , like me ask why all the expensive tvs , cables , blu-ray players etc get top marks here , but not elswhere ?
when conducting supertests in the future , i think they should be compiled from the tvs most relevant to the buying public and that
truly provide the best value /features for money available , and honestly judged on that basis , irrespective of what knock on affect that may have on the sales of more expensive tvs, not having review samples when they are on sale is a cop out , be the publics friend and the future will be rosy for whfi , ponder to the manufacturers clare and you will be found out over time ....
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram