I see the Z2 has had the royal snub! Only 3 stars from WHF

Crocodile JD · 10-01-2004, 10:04 AM

WHF only gave the Z2 3 stars. Having banged on about all the excellent features, it then went on to say that the picture is poor with unresponsive menus when trying to tweak a better performance. They actually rated it below the Panny PT-AE300 in a head to head.

So what is the official verdict from the Z2 owners club now that you've all had chance to tweak at length. Does it live up to expectations? or is there a hint of disappointment when taking an honest stand?

yours at the risk of being a tad controversial

Croc

KraGorn · 10-01-2004, 10:12 AM

IMHO the Z2 is better than the AE300 ... having changed from one to the other. I'm no more than an armchair tweaker, the basic 5 AVIA calibrations is about my limit, to that extent the Z2 isn't a problem. Whether the maintenance menu is lacking in some way I have no idea.

Lens shift alone makes it a LOT more practical for me than the Panny, the picture is sharper because of the lack of the SDE-reduction feature of the Panny, and the higher resolution means SDE is not an issue.

VB is present, I haven't felt inclined to go fiddle with parameter 14 or whatever it is, I don't often see it and even then it's nothing more than a passing 'oh, there was a bit of VB'.

As in all things, the experts will find flaws in products the non-cognoscenti won't even know about. Maybe I need to go read about the poor pictures I'm seeing .. then go buy a £3K DLP and suffer the rainbows to improve it.

I'm well happy.

10-01-2004, 10:28 AM

Perhaps Sanyo haven’t placed any adverts in WHF recently

As to unresponsive menus…they ought to try putting some new batteries in their remote…..

Z2 =

- still well chuffed with it!

buns · 10-01-2004, 11:03 AM

the sanyo needs more expertise than WHF have available to show it off properly. That said, it is a fault of sanyos that it is like this. It is fantastic, but in sending the things out of the factory poorly calibrated, they were always setting themselves up for poor reviews

ad

Synchronicity · 10-01-2004, 12:34 PM

2 thumbs fresh from me

3 stars?They must be having a giraffe!As quatermass said,probably a lack of advertising by Sanyo,shame on them

Im well happy with mine,although I am living in fear of the dreaded dust blobs

WeirdFish · 10-01-2004, 1:04 PM

I'm glad I bought it when I did. If I'd read that review I may have had second thoughts which would have been a shame coz its exceeded all my expectations.

Chipster · 10-01-2004, 1:13 PM

I allways take magazine reviews with a pinch of salt. One mag will give 5 stars, the next will give 1 star for the same product

Quite often the mag with the best review will rubbish the product in a few months anyway.

Im happy with my Z2, and if I read every magazine review I'd probably never buy anything...ever!!

First hand experience from this forum was the best deciding factor for me.

Cool-hand · 10-01-2004, 1:56 PM

Oh you mean to say WHF actually bothered to take it out the box?
Err well you can decide

CH

Dimmy · 10-01-2004, 2:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cool-hand
Oh you mean to say WHF actually bothered to take it out the box?
Err well you can decide

CH

I'd be surprized...

Cambridge Audio anyone? WHF's new 'star' manufacturer...

*Coughs* RICHERS

Bristol Pete · 10-01-2004, 2:31 PM

WHF reviews have always been inconsistent.

Considering that they awarded the Z1 five stars, I find it hard to believe that have only given the Z2 three, which should surpass its older brother in every way.

However, is this a sign of how the PJ market has evolved in the last year? - I mean do the writers at WHF, who receive the stuffed brown envelopes in their pockets expect more for their 'budget' money even though they dont ever have to buy the stuff?

The other question I have always wondered is what time frame constitutes a review? An hour here or there in the demo room. Not really the kind of time it requires to eek the best from something is it?

Give me a Kramer review anyday

(seen the Z2 yet Kramer?)

Cap

William123 · 10-01-2004, 2:38 PM

Perhaps they were the winners of that recent auction for a Z2 on Ebay and used that as a test machine.

I can't say that the menu's are unresponsive...I tend to take most reviews with the proverbial pinch of salt.....and that view would not change had it been awarded 5 stars.

buns · 10-01-2004, 3:13 PM

did they say how they tested it? Low lamp? Color temp preset? input? How they calibrated?

I doubt it!

without stating such parameters, the review actually is meaningless

ad

VirusKiller · 10-01-2004, 3:18 PM

One of my New Year resolutions is not to buy any more Hifi mags... These forums are far more useful!

On this subject though, ProjectorCentral did say that they saw occasional artifacting with an interlaced feed vs. a progressive feed (which they didn't see with the Panny AE500). Did WHF mention any specifics regarding image quality?

Dimmy · 10-01-2004, 3:49 PM

WHF? Specific!?

I've stopped buying it full stop now. Read it on the magazine rack at Asda.

I'll stick with these forums & Hi-Fi Choice.

buns · 10-01-2004, 5:28 PM

I used to buy it but it then occurred to me that my belief that i was btter informed because i read it was totally wrong and that i would be as well just letting my dealer choose my system (actually i would be much better doing that!).

Basically there is no point stressing about this review, it means nothing. Just look at the things I said about my 1st Z2..... and compare what i say now

ad

Crocodile JD · 10-01-2004, 5:49 PM

Quote:

Did WHF mention any specifics regarding image quality?

Na... they just waffled on with some woolly blurb about the image not suffering from any particular flaw, but that it doesn't excite in the same way as images from the ae300 as the images from the Z2 were a little dull!!!!

The only specifics they gave were specs. I.E. It is an LCD PJ with a 16:9 panel and a 1280x720 res.

shock...no tell us more

Croc

buns · 10-01-2004, 6:12 PM

oh the image wasnt exciting...... so in other words they like the way tvs look in curry's...... ie. they are so used to a blue contrasty image that they assume this is how it should look.....

ad

Dimmy · 10-01-2004, 7:37 PM

i.e. They're hi-fi reviewers, bad ones at that, and shouldn't stretch themselves by giving verdicts on topics they clearly know nothing about.

gandley · 11-01-2004, 11:45 AM

its all just someones opinion at the end of the day. so its not right and its not wrong.
Let your own eyes be the jugde. and if what you see is good, then it is. We dont like people telling us what to do, so y be any differnt when it comes spending your hard cash.

DEMO everything. dont be swayed by others opinion. chances are yours is better.

nunew33 · 13-01-2004, 10:12 PM

I went cold turkey with WHF when I realised how much id save for upgrades if I didnt buy it. Bought one recently after 12 months abstinance and its laughable that I treated it as a guide. :Like its already been stated there is no tangible evidence to back up any review, its simply a list of mills and boons style adjectives to describe their opinion against this months best seller CD and DVD. Wouldnt be surprised to find WHF employs ghostwriters of trashy female novels

William123 · 13-01-2004, 11:27 PM

........Or do a spot of moonlighting at Richer Sounds

paulw77 · 14-01-2004, 10:11 AM

Where did they get the price from for the Z2 ?? £1880 !!

Is this really the list price ?

Crocodile JD · 14-01-2004, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Where did they get the price from for the Z2 ?? £1880 !!

May be they get it from the same "pinch of salt box" as the review

Croc

VirusKiller · 14-01-2004, 11:09 AM

For £1880, perhaps the Z2 is only worth 3 stars!!! The rating makes much more sense if it's based on that price. I know I wouldn't buy one for that money!

Of course, someone needs shooting at WHF for not reviewing it against a realistic/correct price. Then again, if that's the price Sanyo supplied (I doubt it), then Sanyo have shot themselves in the foot...

Noodle · 14-01-2004, 11:53 AM

The panasonic was shown as costing £1700+ IIRC.

buns · 14-01-2004, 1:23 PM

further proof that they have more place on sesame street than reviewing anything.....

ad

DVDcake · 14-01-2004, 2:53 PM

I have read this What hi-fi article and it seems to me that it was intended to extol the benefits of DLP over LCD rather than convey any meaningful technical information. Several times LCD projectors are mentioned as budget machines only, with DLP technology itself being more expensive. There is no review of the new Sony HS20 LCD against the higher priced DLP machines and no reviews of cheaper DLP machines against the LCD machines. What hi-fi eh?

paulw77 · 14-01-2004, 3:06 PM

Despite the fact that they have a similar article praising DLP technology just a coupeel of months ago.

Dimmy · 14-01-2004, 4:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by paulw77
Despite the fact that they have a similar article praising DLP technology just a coupeel of months ago.

December's issue, for whoever's interested, which is when I stopped buying this ludicrous magazine.

These forums are a far more reliable source, and hi-Fi choice is a much better review magazine.

Crocodile JD · 14-01-2004, 4:45 PM

They have indeed been pushing DLP over LCD for some time. Not much mention of rainbow effect though.

10-01-2004, 10:28 AM	#3
Quatermass Guest Posts: n/a	Perhaps Sanyo haven’t placed any adverts in WHF recently As to unresponsive menus…they ought to try putting some new batteries in their remote….. Z2 = - still well chuffed with it!
	Quote