Consumer Reports Says No to Buying HDTV (1 Viewer)

[Andy W]

I just received a letter from Consumer Reports to subscribe to their magazine. The letter says,

Should you buy a new high definition TV instead of a conventional large-screen television?
Not unless you’re willing to spend $2,000 or more: High definition televisions (HDTV) remain very expensive. And broadcasters are not providing much HDTV programming because very few people have the equipment to receive it.
So if you want a large screen TV, don’t be afraid to buy a conventional one - - it won’t be obsolete for years. A number of conventional 32” models that earned ‘very good’ ratings are available for about $530.

I agree that making a purchase decision for one’s main TV to be used for the long term is problematic for the moment. All NTSC analog broadcasting is scheduled to be terminated at the end of 2006 by federal decree (which may or may not happen given current transition issues). This would make NTSC analog displays useless to pick up over the air signals, unless one buys a digital converter box, which currently does not exist, may be expensive, and will almost certainly limit other hardware features (multiple source device direct connectivity, picture-in-picture capability). On the other hand, DTV and HDTV displays may run into their own obsolescence issues in the near term (firewire connectivity, proposed copy protection schemes, future cable compatibility issues, finding a display that is reasonably compatible with Fox’s planned 480p, ABC’s 720p, and NBC’s and CBS’s 1080i signals).
However, I think Consumer Reports is irresponsible for not saying the future is digital widescreen TV. They should have also noted that a widescreen digital or HDTV would be best for those who want to see the finest picture available from anamorphic widescreen DVDs, or for those who want to receive DBS HD satellite or over-the-air HD programming (for those who can receive such signals).
In my opinion, Consumer Reports is not helping the HDTV transition with such a limited, short and uneducational answer to the question of purchasing an analog versus a digital widescreen TV. I also think their recommendation to buy an analog TV lacks much needed additional information (they don’t even mention widescreen), and borders on being misinformation.
Your thoughts, pro or con, are appreciated.
P.S. – Are 32” TVs still considered “large-screen” as Consumer Reports implies?

 

[Rob Varto]

I could care less what CR says. I know J6P will,undoubtedly care, but my opinion is this: if you can afford a HD set (especially widescreen) and have the tools to receive an HD signal, you will not be let down. It's worth my hard earned cash to view shows like Sopranos and Band of Brothers in all it's HD glory. With major networks finally coming to the pump, it's only going to get better.

 

[Alan Markow]

They don't call us early adopters for nothing. We're ahead of the curve, and we're willing to put up with the glitches and the limited content to help push the envelope. CR is very conservative about products -- especially electronics.

 

[Mike I]

Just the fact of them saying the networks are not providing much HD programming show they do not know what the hell they are talking about.
------------------

 

[errol]

Hi ya folks,
Probably safe to presume that none of them have HD or participate in any of the HD message boards.
Thanks,
Errol
------------------
Keohi HDTV
Your Friendly HDTV Tips Site

 

[PerryD]

I stopped subscribing to them after reading their annual electronics issue. They compared their TVs by setting the contrast and brightness to the max, since "that's how the majority of people set them". This was several years ago, but even then I owned a copy of Video Essentials on Laserdisc (the earlier version) and I knew about ISF calibrations.
Would it have been too much for them to review their TVs by measuring resolution, color temperature accuracy, red push, gray scale, etc? Obviously.

 

[Scott_G]

CR never figures in or weights thinks that I think are major buying points.
Cars - Using CR - you would never buy a high performance sports car - not practical - poor crash protection, etc.
My BMW makes no sense to them. My friends $B'K music setup doesn't either.
They don't figure in the satisfaction of watching HD (what little there is) before anyone else.
Yea I paid lots to have HD, but people pay a lot for cars, houses, landscaping, etc.
CR gives J6P good advice on low end electronics and appliances. Paint types, etc.
Anything that is top of the line .... they find some reason why the lower end product works fine.
What percent of people have the cable into the VCR then the TV, even if the TV has Svideo and composite cables. I bet it greater than 95% !

 

[MarcS]

I sent them a letter a while back, just about ripping a new one for them...
In a recent article on HDTV, they said basically that the "sole" source for HD programming is satellite. Well, that pissed me off, so I wrote and asked them then what it is I've been getting on TimeWarner cable for the past year? And I'm in a small market... Their response? They didn't intend to mean it was the only way... then what does "sole" mean????
They did write me a personal reply (I also ripped them for continuing to claim they "won" the Isuzu case) that wasn't really satisfying, but it was about 1.5 pages long...
You've got to take everything with a grain of salt in Consumer's Report--especially due to some of their non-orthodox testing procedures...
I only get the magazine because it's a gift subscription--and it can be useful for things like appliances. But I'm even skeptical of their tire ratings--I think I'd trust a car magazine more--same with computer ratings--I'll go to the computer rags for that...
Speakers?? Fugetaboutit...

 

[Mark Zimmer]

Well, they do have a point. There is hardly any HD programming out there, and HBO HD is of course a travesty. It's not worth the money as far as I can see. I use my widescreen set just for DVDs because I can't justify the expense of an HD receiver or subscribing to some premium service just to get a couple hours of programming that I'm not really interested in. And yeah, I've seen HDTV (on a set at a TV station, no less).
------------------
"This movie has warped my fragile little mind."

 

[Matt Heebner]

This is the same company that rated BLOSE systems a CR best buy...isnt it?
Matt
------------------
....Eat, Drink, and Be Merry, For Tomorrow We Die....--DMB

 

[TomRS4]

There is hardly any HD programming out there, and HBO HD is of course a travesty.

Well, ABC & CBS combined do have over 34 hours of HD programming on their schedules for this week, which I don't think is too bad, really. Now, if they just could make a higher percentage of those 34 hours progams that I want to watch.
HBO's treatment of HD movies is a travesty in most cases, but their treatment of Sopranos and Band of Brothers is anything but.
CR has probably has its uses, but if you're interested in mid to high end audio or video equipment, don't waste your time.
------------------
Tempus Fugit

 

[DanP]

No HD programming to speak of huh? Well lets see. In the past year I've seen the Masters Golf Tournament, US Open Tennis, NCAA Final Four, AFC Playoffs and The Super Bowl in HD. All of CBS's scripted primetime line up has been in HD. Now ABC's primetime lineup is in HD. Glorious nature documentaries and mini-series on PBS HD...ummm..what else?
Well, now theres HDNet which had a dozen MLB games last month. 65 NHL games this season, and alot of other miscellaneous programming.
Theres Showtime HD which while not having gobs of content does show true HD in OAR and 5.1 HBO does have tons of content, though yes, they butcher 2.35:1 movies to 16x9. But then again, series like The Sopranos are worth the price of admission alone almost.
I'd say, at least for me, the investment has been well worth it 2 or 3 times over.
------------------

 

[AllenD]

quote: And broadcasters are not providing much HDTV programming because very few people have the equipment to receive it.[/quote]
This is very irresponsible. Let's not forget there are other reasons why ALL programs are not in HD: Cost to upgrade broadcasting equipment!
I always thought CR tries to remain neutral and present facts, not opinions. They should mention in the same article what CBS and ABC are showing in HD throughout the nation. Other than sports, there's no other programming worth watching in SD or HDTV, IMO. (OK, Enterprise should be in HD.) I'm glad I'm not a paying subscriber to CR.
[Edited last by AllenD on October 13, 2001 at 01:43 AM]