Sony 55a2000 reviewed in What Hi-Fi 4 stars!

audimushroom

Prominent Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Messages
1,365
Reaction score
123
Points
299
Location
Derby
Good news for anyone considering this TV and some confirmation for anyone who has already bought this TV.
The only reason it did'nt get 5 stars was that its a RPTV in my view because they mention off axis contrast is reduced, well yeah thats expected with RPTV doh!

Also good news is that Which(April) has the TV in its listing and say its the only RPTV they would recommened and it gets 4/5 stars :thumbsup: even with the old price, its not featured directly its only in a column , more space dedicated to LCD etc..
 
Good news for anyone considering this TV and some confirmation for anyone who has already bought this TV.
The only reason it did'nt get 5 stars was that its a RPTV in my view because they mention off axis contrast is reduced, well yeah thats expected with RPTV doh!

Not wanting to knock the Sony, as it's a good set, but we are talking about the magazine that classed the Sony W2000 LCD as its set of the year and as having better blacks than than the plasmas under review, and really does believe that different HDMI cables have an impact on definition and colours :)
 
Well, I ordered mine today based on two things, the "rewiews" and experiences in this forum, and seeing it in the flesh in a Sony centre a few weeks ago. However, even I have to admit that it is good when the pros (meaning they get money for it) come to the same conclusions as the amateurs (meaning we don't get money for it, nothing to do with experience).

The Which? review was interesting, they just did not want to admit they liked an RP set. It's okay to admire a projector which requires cutting a hole in the ceiling and feeding wires, putting up a big screen and then not being able to put anything in the way of the picture throw; but to consider having a television set that is about 30CM deep!!!!!!!!!:eek:
 
Ah, thanks for pointing that out. May have to go buy a copy. I suppose it shows What Hi-Fi actually do review some things that people are interested in :)

I didn't actually buy this issue, first time in years, as the cable reviews last month were too much. Comparing cables to fishwives, brawlers and wedding cakes was just... :rolleyes:

Guess I'll need to go buy it despite myself now !
 
Well, I ordered mine today based on two things, the "rewiews" and experiences in this forum, and seeing it in the flesh in a Sony centre a few weeks ago. However, even I have to admit that it is good when the pros (meaning they get money for it) come to the same conclusions as the amateurs (meaning we don't get money for it, nothing to do with experience).

The Which? review was interesting, they just did not want to admit they liked an RP set. It's okay to admire a projector which requires cutting a hole in the ceiling and feeding wires, putting up a big screen and then not being able to put anything in the way of the picture throw; but to consider having a television set that is about 30CM deep!!!!!!!!!:eek:

Well, nearer 50cms but I kinda see your point.
 
Well, nearer 50cms but I kinda see your point.

Sorry, I still struggle with this new fangled decimal stuff. Hell, I was quite shocked to discover I didn't have to pay for the TV in Guineas. :eek: :D
 
Not wanting to knock the Sony, as it's a good set, but we are talking about the magazine that classed the Sony W2000 LCD as its set of the year and as having better blacks than than the plasmas under review, and really does believe that different HDMI cables have an impact on definition and colours :)


All these magazines are a total scam. They never offend anyone who might advertise with them. If you don't believe me, try go looking for a review of Bose kit - everyone knows their products are atrociously overpriced garbage, yet the hifi mags never review them because they couldn't seriously give them anything above 1 or 2 out of 5.
 
mart.stokes said:
The Which? review was interesting, they just did not want to admit they liked an RP set. It's okay to admire a projector which requires cutting a hole in the ceiling and feeding wires, putting up a big screen and then not being able to put anything in the way of the picture throw; but to consider having a television set that is about 30CM deep!

They didn't even mention the depth of the cabinet. Here's what they actually said:

Now here's a first – a rear projection TV that actually finds favour with our viewing panel. Sony break the duck for rear projection technology, with this sizeable high resolution 55-inch screen from the ever popular Bravia range.

It features a built-in Freeview digital tuner and pretty decent picture and sound quality – although the latter is off-set by a slightly irksome internal fan noise. Viewing angles are relatively poor but this set is so massive, this is unlikely to be an issue.

Our expert viewing panel remarked that this television is the best large screen rear projection TV seen to date. It has vibrant colours and doesn't suffer from normal rainbow effects or viewing angle problems, but it does suffer from unnatural grainy and gritty, texturing on screen and uneven brightness.

When viewing in Freeview mode, it is OK but has some motion blurring and noise. Via HDMI it is above average, showing the same texture as before, not much banding. The listeners commented that the fan noise on this television is and intrusive. The sound is somewhat coloured in the mid-frequency, but it has a fairly wide response and produces a big sound.

It does boast better clarity and detail than many of the televisions on test with some impressive dynamic energy. Connection-wise it's equipped with three Scart sockets (one is SmartLink enabled) and two HDMI sockets. Both socket types are located at the rear, so accessibility is not a problem. AV input sockets at the front of the set allow for convenient connection to portable devices and a headphone output jack, which can mute the TV speakers or independently adjust the headphone volume.

The TV also has a stereo audio output socket for connection to a hi-fi system, and an optical digital audio output socket for connection to a home cinema system or digital audio recorder. The digital tuner has an eight-day EPG that can display programmes in either 30 minute or two hourly sections.

The banner that is displayed when channels are changed contains only 'Now' information rather than Now and Next. It can also trigger a suitable VCR to record via a Scart link.

The remote control is wider than average, so considered large for users with small hands but is reasonably well delineated and labelled.

Pros: Massive screen, 1080p output, good picture quality for this type of technology.

Cons: Fan noise
 
Nicholas B, thanks for posting that, the first part of my comment was in relation to the "breakout box" alongside the league table in Which? they felt it necassary to mention their usual dislike of the technology, not that particular set, which they liked. I just felt they begrudged giving their rating. I have certainly not read the What Hi-Fi report, so cannot comment on that.

The second part of my comment was general in relation to the attitudes towards the technology, I am convinced people don't like it because it is "thick". Yet few people comment on the downsides of projectors, they accept their shortfalls as being quirks and acceptable (and I think they are as acceptable as the quirks involved in RP sets, I would love a projector as much as I love RP technology). The point about LCD and Plasma technology is that the requirement for a flat panel was the primary consideration during development, not picture quality, would Plasma have ever got off the ground if it had been three foot thick? Of course not, form was more important than function. Plasma and LCD have come on leaps and bounds over recent years and the quality has vastly improved, but it was the desire to achieve a flat "hang on the wall" technology that was the primary reason for development.

Many RP sets are an economical way of achieving excellent big screen performance without many of the drawbacks of LCD and Plasma. To me, the drawbacks of RP (okay, I may regret saying this once I hear the fan on the 55A2000, my soon-to-be-replaced 50" RP Pioneer is silent) are very minor. I always laugh about viewing angles, because unless I sit in exactly the right spot in my room, my DD or DTS sound is shot to bits anyway. It wouldn't matter if I had a plasma with a wide viewing angle, sit too close to one speaker and the sound is ruined.
 
I just felt they begrudged giving their rating. ..

I agree it seemed to be 'we need to justify' why we don't normally like these sets rather than let the review stand and readers make up their own mind by actually going to look at one in the flesh.

I thought Which was supposed to be unbiased :confused:

I've always thought magazine reviews over critcal and hence if an A/V item is well reviewed its a safe buy, not true really, you must see and hear it yourself buying blind can be disapointing even with a glowing review.
Multiple mags from different publishers helps give a better view because I have known one mag to gush about something and another give 1 star which goes to show in general that you can't beat your own eyes and ears.
 
I thought Which was supposed to be unbiased :confused:
In what way do you feel it was biased? With the possible exception of cooling fan noise (which I think they did overplay a bit) all of their criticisms of the 55A2000 are quite legitimate: the TV does suffer from uneven brightness (and often uneven colour); compared to LCD or plasma flat-panels, silk screen effect is a significant issue; ditto viewing angle; the sound is a bit below par for a TV of that size/price; and the built-in Freeview tuner is decidedly mediocre.
 
Well, it does seem they're a little against rear-pro's in general, if not just this set in particular. They set their stall out early by starting the article with
Now here's a first – a rear projection TV that actually finds favour with our viewing panel
Doesn't that suggest a slight bias against these type of sets if they don't like ANY of them ? I'm sure there's been one or two passable rear pro's in recent times they could have reviewed :)

It seems a little unfair listing a con of:
good picture quality for this type of technology
That to me smacks of "this is the best of a bad bunch". They could in theory put their comment against any current display, as none are without faults. I'd think it would be especially useful when reviewing LCD's. Also, when mentioning "this type of technology" it would have been good if they'd touched on this being a slightly different type of technology from most other RP's. I appreciate they have a "clear english" policy so this may have been tricky. But it would have been fair if they'd at least tried to explain why it's a good performer, and sufficiently different from other RPTV's (that they've probably slated, and therefore turned their readership away from) to warrant serious consideration.

I've read many of their reviews and admired their very honest stance. However it seemed to me that this one had a very negative tone to it. Maybe it's just me, but they do seem more ready to accept the limitations of the flat panel market.
 
Maybe it's just me, but they do seem more ready to accept the limitations of the flat panel market.

Agreed, I know it sounds wrong (for obvious reasons), but I would like to see a "blind test" of TVs. I have a feeling something like the 55A2000 could easily hold its own against "flat" technology, if viewers were not aware of the technology they were viewing.

Mind you, I suspect then the reviewers would just play a game of "guess the technology from the picture" ("mmmh, slight light dropoff at corners, must be rear pro; some fast action shots seem to blur, might be LCD; Sky One logo visible in corner when viewing another channel, could be plasma") and then they may concentrate on other failings of the technology they think they are watching instead of reviewing the picture.

I accept what NicholasB said further up about the failings of RP technology, but isn't it strange that (using the fan noise as an example) they noticed things more when they knew they were there? They seemed to spot the failings of RP technology because they know what the failings are. All those people who had never noticed the rainbow effect of DLP until they were told (accepting that this IS disturbing to some people, but they didn't need to be told to look for it).............:eek:
 
I accept what NicholasB said further up about the failings of RP technology, but isn't it strange that (using the fan noise as an example) they noticed things more when they knew they were there? They seemed to spot the failings of RP technology because they know what the failings are. All those people who had never noticed the rainbow effect of DLP until they were told (accepting that this IS disturbing to some people, but they didn't need to be told to look for it).............:eek:

Yep, I totally get what you mean. Been very guilty of it myself, though not any more.

What I find with many mag (and net) reviews is that reviewers go into them expecting certain occurences, such as motion blur on LCD, and then they don't mention these "flaws" as they're inherent in those technologies. This Which? review possibly seems critical to us as we're used to these inherent "flaws" in RP.

But then on the other hand, for a fair review system, as Which? have been so forthright about RP's inherent weaknesses, shouldn't they then mention common Plasma and LCD traits in every review of those sets? Do they? I wouldn't imagine so, as I would imagine that no-one reading Which? would buy a TV if they did! I could be wrong though :)

As I said, I used to enjoy Which?. But I feel that sometimes things are a little over-simplified to enable them to appear more clear and concise. In a past article they said that the best thing about rear pros is that you get a big screen for little cost, and in another that rear pro PQ wasn't on a par with the best Plasma and LCD sets. Kinda blanket statements and fair enough, maybe a 5k Panasonic or Pioneer plasma would make me swap, but I wouldn't trade my set for any LCD Which? have looked at.
 
Any review that considers 55" massive for a 1080p set isn't worth reading. It's just borderline big enough - 65" would be better.
 
In what way do you feel it was biased? .

Basically if they are pointing out flaws in RP technology surely its only fair to mention the LCD and Plasma flaws, I mean Plasmas have fans too maybe quieter but they do have them... its that mentioned no:mad:
 
Basically if they are pointing out flaws in RP technology surely its only fair to mention the LCD and Plasma flaws, I mean Plasmas have fans too maybe quieter but they do have them... its that mentioned no:mad:

Yes, I think the fact that LCDs and Plasmas are thin means reviewers are more likely to forgive. And, to be honest, we all do it. An attractive girl (or man, depending) bumps into you in the street or spills your drink in a pub and is obviously an idiot, you are much more likely to forgive them than a (perceived) unattractive person. The truth is that there isn't a perfect viewing technology and, in my case, the preference is for projection (from the front or rear, ho-ho, ooh-er missus) technology.

Less than two weeks before I get my 55A2000 now (being as I want Saturday delivery and the shop doubts it will get it for this weekend) and I have a Sky HD box on its way! Can't wait. It will be interesting to see what my ancient Sony DVP-S7700 DVD player makes of it. Fifth Element and Starship Troopers will be dragged out straight away for a viewing. :D
 
You can set the fan to run at two different settings. The higher setting is quite loud, the lower you can't really hear unless you are trying to. The lamp doesn't seem to get hot on the lower setting, so I've left it on that.

It could be the reviewers had been playing with the settings or the set provided was on the high fan setting.

Although I'm not technically knowledgable about different displays etc...I've spent a great deal of time reading about and looking at different 1080p TVs and technologies. I believe you would have to spend at least £3000 on alternative techolnogies to equal or beat the 'overall' performance of this TV. So the fact is, yea it's a bit big, but right now my wallet isn't big enough to extend to between £3000-£6000 for a TV. RP gives people like me the opportunity to watch a 1080p TV with a good quality image at the right size to take advantage of the resolution, rather than buying something that looks good but doesn't perform, or waiting a year or two for prices to fall - but what then - things will have moved on... I don't need What or Which to tell me if it's any good.
 
From what i can gather you really need to tweek the Sony 55 SXRD to get the best performance from it, i think "What" just unboxed it switched it on and gave a verdict its only a very brief review nothing in depth so probably a 5 minute job.
 
I've just been to Makro with my brother where he bought one of these for £999 + VAT to partner with his PS3. The TV box is quite light but the box containing the stand is very heavy.
 

The latest video from AVForums

TV Buying Guide - Which TV Is Best For You?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom