This months TV giant test

[admin_exported]

Erm!!!!!!!!! The Panasonic G20 gets 4 stars!, and you rate the 40EX503 above it?

did you actually take the Panny out of its box? Did you calibrate it, (you do know it's fully ISF calibratable)
[edited by mods - House rules]
I have a feeling this post will disappear quite quickly.

Shame on you WHF your OBVIOUS bias towards brands beginning with S is getting out of hand.

BTW this copy of WHF will be the last I ever buy

Regards

 

[Anonymous]

[edited by mods - please do not discuss moderation]

 

[Anonymous]

its just an opinion , im watching itvhd on my g10 , and its like being at old trafford , i dont care if it got one star , if you like the g20 then what difference does whfis opinion make to you ?? the whfi review team have been more impressed with lcd tvs of late , many other sites find the panasonics to be the best , thats life ..

 

[Andy Clough]

Oh come on. Did we get it out of the box? Did we calibrate it? How on earth would we test anything if we did neither of those things?

OK, you don't agree with our verdict. But have you seen all those TVs, properly calibrated, in A-B comparisons in a dedicated test room built especially for the purpose?

As we say in the verdict "the main reason we settled on a verdict of four stars for the Panasonic is cost..." We review on a performance-per-pound basis. Which doesn't make the Panasonic bad - in fact it's good - but not good enough to justify a price premium of £200 over the Sony.

 

[Clare Newsome]

Sorry to hear you disagree with the verdict of our test team.

Yes, of course we set-up the Panasonic properly - and as the full review shows, we rate it very highly indeed; the best blacks in the test, as we comment (for example). Again, as the test says, it was going to be a five-star rating but then the all-round performance and value of the Sony 'EX503 came into play.

All the sets in the test were reviewed side-by-side, fed from the same range of sources (SD and HD).

Have you had the same chance to extensively compare the two sets (or indeed the other six in our test)?

[EDIT - Andy beat me to it!]

 

[matthewpiano]

WHFS&V was a thorn in Sony's side TV-wise in 2009 with reviews repeatedly making an issue about backlight consistency.

With that in mind, how can you cry bias at the outcome of this month's test?

 

[Andy Clough]

Looks like we were posting our responses simultaneously Clare!

 

[Clare Newsome]

matthewpiano:WHFS&V was a thorn in Sony's side TV-wise in 2009 with reviews repeatedly making an issue about backlight consistency.

With that in mind, how can you cry bias at the outcome of this month's test?

Indeed. Remember, Panasonic won a TV Award from us last year; Sony didn't get a bean....

But then it seems some people would rather make irrational, knee-jerk reactions to some of our test results then look at the facts - that our team purely reviews on performance-per-pound, and nothing else.

 

[Anonymous]

Claire, it isn't a knee jerk reaction, it's an opinion I work in the AV industry and have had the Sony within 10ft of the Panasonic

for the last 3 weeks, the Sony is a fine set and offers exceptional VFM but it still has issues especially with SD, it has poor

veiwing angles, with a very noticable dropping off of the darker end of the colour spectrum, motion handling is inferior on all

sources to the Panny, The £200 difference in pricing is more than made up in MY opinion.

 

[ear]

from the tvs I've seent at stores I would also prefer the 503.

 

[Andrew Everard]

tdm34:Claire

It's Clare

tdm34:I work in the AV industry

In which case please declare your interest in your signature, in accordance with House Rules.

 

[Clare Newsome]

tdm34:
Claire, it isn't a knee jerk reaction

Forgive me, but going on a magazine's Forum and accusing it of bias and of not testing products properly - just because you disagree with its verdict - seems rather reactionary to me...

And do you have a decent SD source where you work, with which to fairly judge the Sony? Many retailers don't, due to shared aerials etc.

 

[Anonymous]

Sorry about the incorrect spelling of Clares name (slightly pedantic IMO)

Sorry about not revealing I work in the AV industry, I genuinely didn't realise I had to declare it, I work in a specialist

retailer and have worked in the industry for 17 Years, with regard to Clares remark re the aerials yes it's a shared system

but it applies to both sets, Yes we do calibrate the sets and try to have the light levels at domestic levels, not the

Super-Nova setting most retailers seem to use these days. We use a HD Satellite feed to all sets for evaluation it's distributed

at 1080i using component video and it gives very consistant signal at all points.

 

[Anonymous]

Although I have yet to collect my copy of May's issue from my local newsagent (I look forward to reading the supertest),I cannot agree that there a bias towards Sony televisions either in the magazine or website.

The amount of negative coverage given to the backlighting problems has recently put me, and I suspect many others, off purchasing any of the pre 2010 models.

 

[Anonymous]

Andy Clough:

Oh come on. Did we get it out of the box? Did we calibrate it? How on earth would we test anything if we did neither of those things?

OK, you don't agree with our verdict. But have you seen all those TVs, properly calibrated, in A-B comparisons in a dedicated test room built especially for the purpose?

As we say in the verdict "the main reason we settled on a verdict of four stars for the Panasonic is cost..." We review on a performance-per-pound basis. Which doesn't make the Panasonic bad - in fact it's good - but not good enough to justify a price premium of £200 over the Sony.

hi andy ,

I know that a first look this question wont seem to you very pertinent , but for me is , so please help me :

As you say "performance-per-pound basis" , so if i could get the panasonic model for £200 less would i be getting a 5 star rating set ? or a 4 star bargin ?

And that buzz about the black levels issue (pana) - do you have any information about it, ?

Im in portugal and will only get the WHF issue close to 16 th april and need to make a decision tv set .. help me

thank you

 

[bigboss]

tdm34:

Erm!!!!!!!!! The Panasonic G20 gets 4 stars!, and you rate the 40EX503 above it?

did you actually take the Panny out of its box? Did you calibrate it, (you do know it's fully ISF calibratable)
[edited by mods - House rules]

I have a feeling this post will disappear quite quickly.

Shame on you WHF your OBVIOUS bias towards brands beginning with S is getting out of hand.

BTW this copy of WHF will be the last I ever buy

Regards

Hmmmm.........reminds me of someone who was banned a few times in the past but still kept coming back with different forum names

 

[Andrew Everard]

tdm34:Sorry about not revealing I work in the AV industry, I genuinely didn't realise I had to declare it, I work in a specialist retailer and have worked in the industry for 17 Years

Yes, you do have to declare it, and 'In the AV industry but not telling where!' just isn't good enough to satisfy the requirements of House Rules. Please clarify, or your account will be discontinued.

 

[Anonymous]

The problem I have with your rating system, is that, as queried above, if you ignore the price, which is the best TV.

With Hi-Fi, if you use the price as a factor, the best kit would score low because of the huge extra cost.

 

[Sky Explorer]

Hi all,

I read the article last night with interest, however cannot figure out why the Panny got 4 stars based on cost. Yes it is more expensive than the Sony, however there were other TV's in that review that cost far more than the Panny, yet got 5 stars.

I also noticed that the online review of the Philips 46PFL9704 got five stars and yet that TV costs a whopping £2200 !!! http://www.whathifi.com/Review/Philips-46PFL9704/ Yes the picture is probably great but, there was nothing else that stood out with that TV (its not 3D for example) that could justify paying nearly £1000 more than the Sony KDL-46EX503 or Panasonic TX-P46G20. Therefore based on the cost vs benefit scale surely this TV should not be a 5 star TV, and thus I can't understand why when reviewing the Philips TV its got 5 stars regardless of cost ,it seems inconsistent??

So if money was not an issue, is the picture quality of the Panny as good as the Sony. You have already mentioned that the black levels with the Panny were best of all the tested TV's.

Regards

 

[Anonymous]

Sky Explorer:

Hi all,

I read the article last night with interest, however cannot figure out why the Panny got 4 stars based on cost. Yes it is more expensive than the Sony, however there were other TV's in that review that cost far more than the Panny, yet got 5 stars.

I also noticed that the online review of the Philips 46PFL9704 got five stars and yet that TV costs a whopping £2200 !!! http://www.whathifi.com/Review/Philips-46PFL9704/ Yes the picture is probably great but, there was nothing else that stood out with that TV (its not 3D for example) that could justify paying nearly £1000 more than the Sony KDL-46EX503 or Panasonic TX-P46G20. Therefore based on the cost vs benefit scale surely this TV should not be a 5 star TV, and thus I can't understand why when reviewing the Philips TV its got 5 stars regardless of cost ,it seems inconsistent??

So if money was not an issue, is the picture quality of the Panny as good as the Sony. You have already mentioned that the black levels with the Panny were best of all the tested TV's.

Regards

Yes, im still trying to get this...... will wait to see answer cause my question I 'll be answered to !

 

[Anonymous]

...... are you guys preparing a WHF exceptional correction issue ?

Seriously... this questions that were made makes a lot of sense , and would be great to see it answer ...

thank you in advance

 

[Anonymous]

I'd be interested in a little more explanation on the thought process behind the four star rating as well. It seemed a bit arbitrary splitting the classification between up to £1,100 and then over £1,100. If you had a classification of up to £1,000 and then £1,000 and above, using the same logic would the Panny not have five stars and the Phillips four stars, could the extra £700(?) possibly justify the improvement in image

I think it would be helpful to have a table comparing performance in certain areas such as bright day light (how was the Panny for reflections), night time, blacks, shadow details, motion handling, sharpness, off axis viewing, etc.

As regards the initial post, it was OTT to say the least. I've warned people off Sony's based on what I've read in the magazine in the last year.

It was an interesting article. I'm looking to change my five year old SD Plasma and it certainly gives plenty of food for thought.

 

[Clare Newsome]

CM7:

...... are you guys preparing a WHF exceptional correction issue ?

Seriously... this questions that were made makes a lot of sense , and would be great to see it answer ...

thank you in advance

No correction needed - as mentioned previously it's all on performance-per-pound.

Sets like the Samsung and the Philips are a far superior proposition to the lower-priced TVs in the test, which is why they warrant five-star ratings even at their higher price.

However, we fully appreciate that not everyone can afford that premium pricing, so - just like we do in our Awards every year - we have a winner at a more affordable level, too. In this test it's the Sony, which we feel offers better all-round value than any other set in the group we tested.

Yes, the Panasonic offers the best blacks, and is in many other ways an excellent TV - hence its four-star (Very Good) rating - but (as clearly mentioned in the test verdict) it's pricier than the Sony, which we feel offers a sharper picture and more natural colours.

I'd encourage people to read the test in full - or at least take a good long look at the TVs in question (which, of course, we'd always recommend you do before you buy) before jumping to any further conclusions.

And if you still prefer the Panasonic? Brilliant - it's a great set that may suit some people better than the Sony and i'm sure would provide many years of great viewing. We're here to help you understand your options - not make the buying decision for you.

 

[Clare Newsome]

Sky Explorer:
So if money was not an issue, is the picture quality of the Panny as good as the Sony. You have already mentioned that the black levels with the Panny were best of all the tested TV's.

Again, if you go back to the article - specifically the test verdict on p43 - it clearly states where we feel the Sony outperforms the Panasonic, as well as beating it on price.

 

[Anonymous]

Why are plasma fans... how to put this nicely... always so... articulate?

So what it didn't get 5 stars? The way I look at it any product that gets 4-5 stars is worth buying and comparing to other producsts of a similar rating. When I buy anything if it has 4-5 stars it makes the inital shortlist, depending on budget etc. Then I go take a look at them.

And what's with the focus on black levels, it's far from the only factor of a good TV...

The way I see teh review was done was that both TV's had similar performance overall. Each had their strengths and weaknesses that the other adressed. Then when it came to price time the panny was 200 quid mroe expensive. Docked a star because you can get the same level of overall performace (Not just blacks or viewing angles!) for les money.

Makes perfect ense to me...