ConsumerReports HDTVs recommendation.

[Smokey]

From March '06 issue:

LCD FLAT-PANEL HDTV

Consumer Reports Quick Picks for 30- to 32-inch LCD television sets are the Sharp LC-32DA5U($1,600), the Panasonic Viera TC-32LX50 ($1,400) and the Maxent MX-32X3 ($1,100).

Their Quick Picks for smaller sets are Sharp Aquos LC-26GD4U ($1,500), Panasonic Viera TC-26LX50 ($1,200), Maxent MX-26X3 ($900), ILO (ILO-2600 (Wal-Mart) ($795), Sony LCD Wega KLV-S23A10 ($1,200).

PLASMA TELEVISION HDTV

Consumer Reports Quick Picks for a 50-inch television set is the Panasonic TH-50PX50U ($4,000), for 42-inch HD sets the Panasonic TH-42Px50U ($3,000) and the Panasonic TH-42PX500U ($4,000).

REAR-PROJECTION HDTV

Consumer Reports Quick Picks for high-definition television picture quality are Sharp 56DR650 ($2,500), Sony Grand Wega KDF-E50A10 ($2,500), and Toshiba Theater-Wide HD 52HM95 ($2,500).

PICTURE-TUBE (CRT) HDTV

Consumer Reports Quick Picks for wide-screen sets are Sony FD Trinitron Wega HDTV KD-34XBR960 ($1,900), Sony FD Trinitron Wega Hi-Scan KD-34XS955 ($1, 550), Sony FD Trinitron Wega Hi-Scan KV-34HS420 ($1,200), Sony FD Trinitron Wega Hi-Scan KV-30HS420 ($800), and Sony FD Trinitron Wega Hi-Scan KD-30XS955 ($1,000.).

http://newswire.ascribe.org/cgi-bin/behold.pl?ascribeid=20060206.152816&time=07%2039%20PST&year=2006&public=0

[westcott]

Unfortunately, Consumer Reports places way too much emphasis on attributes not associated with picture quality.

Its like using the Washington Post to recommend your speakers system (sound familiar?).

[paul_pci]

I guess CR didn't hear about the massive failure in Sony's LCD modlels including the KDF-E50A10 which they mention. What a totally useless publication.

[Smokey]

I guess CR didn't hear about the massive failure in Sony's LCD modlels including the KDF-E50A10 which they mention. What a totally useless publication.

I don't think reliability is a factor in the rating of TVs. Most weight are given to picture quality, sound and ease of use. I don't have the march issue, but they may have discussed Sony reliabilty in their rating's editorial :)

Any more info as to why Sony LCDs failed?

[ruadmaa]

I don't think reliability is a factor in the rating of TVs. Most weight are given to picture quality, sound and ease of use. I don't have the march issue, but they may have discussed Sony reliabilty in their rating's editorial :)

Any more info as to why Sony LCDs failed?

It is my understanding that just about any modern HDTV (of the same type, i.e. LCD, CRT, DLP etc.) can be calibrated to look exactly the same as any other tv. Strange as it may seem, picture quality should not be the primary reason for selecting an HDTV. It is so very easy for a tv dealer to make one set look better than another simply to sell the model that they make the most money from.

[paul_pci]

I don't think reliability is a factor in the rating of TVs. Most weight are given to picture quality, sound and ease of use. I don't have the march issue, but they may have discussed Sony reliabilty in their rating's editorial :)

Any more info as to why Sony LCDs failed?

Sorry, I was outta town for the weekend. It was a software problem. Audioholics had the article on it.

[hermanv]

I notice that Consumer Reports didn't bother to differentiate between the various techniques for RPT. There's the old standby CRTs (weakness convergence issues, weigth, size), LCoS (weakness contrast ratio, expensive lamp) DLP (weakness rainbow effect, expensive lamp).

When you read various sites about which TV is "best" their bias for whatever technique they sell or love is quite evident.

As usual it's really different strokes for different folks. If one technology was superior in any significant sense, all commecrcial HDTVs would be built that way. Modern coporations are terrified of being left behind, so they all jump on any bandwagon currently leading the pack.