Hi dakkon,
Reviewers at Cnet are not immune to psychological bias. If they know a flat screen like the Kuro is priced at a couple thousand dollars more than a Panasonic or Samsung plasma, then the thinking goes like this, "well, it costs $4,500, so it must be better."
This kind of thinking has been disproven through years of double-blind tests of loudspeakers and amplifiers, most of which were done in Canada, in which I've participated as a professional reviewer for more than 25 years, and I believe this biased thinking exists in video reviewing as well.
A few years ago, at the Consumer Electronics Show in Vegas, I'd rush back and forth between the Pioneer demo booth and the Samsung and Panasonic booths comparing the image quality of similar-sized flat screens, and each time I'd conclude, "I just don't see it" in the Kuros. They looked very good, but as I said earlier, if anything, the Panasonics and Samsungs delivered a more vibrant picture. At the time, I thought, well, perhaps the Kuro sets weren't set up as carefully as the sets in the other demo booths.
And I'll acknowledge that I've not been in a room with different brands of plasmas set up beside the Kuro displaying an identical picture with the brand names concealed; however, my judgements of image quality have been honed over many years and I trust them. Besides, if I'd seen an obvious superiority in the Kuro image over the Panasonic and Samsung plasmas, I would have bought a Kuro.
Personal bias plays a role here as well. I like a vibrant, brilliant picture (not one with the set run in the "torch" mode used for retail stores); maybe the Cnet reviewer(s) have different criteria. I previously worked with several of the Cnet guys at a defunct electronics web site (etown) that fell victim to the .com boom and bust, and we didn't always agree on image quality of sets in the test room.
Regards,
Alan
