LG turns a bad TV story into a (potentially) good one

01753 491500 and ask for executive care team – see my comments below.

Our Sony smart TV had good sound when it was new but the audio quality progressively deteriorated to the point that it was necessary to add a sound bar. The TV is less than five years old and is hardly overworked – three or four hours a week at most.

Longer term testing is not something Which? seem to do, but Which? Connect could collate experiences such as yours. I wonder why the sound deteriorated? It should not be difficult for a technician to determine; maybe Which? need to invest in this kind of expertise for many other products also.

Malcolm – If you look back at one of the early Convos we were told that Which? had changed its scoring system for the sound quality of flat-screen TVs because the quality was not in the same league as many of the more bulky CRT TVs. The sound quality of small speakers has greatly improved but I have yet to hear a modern flat-screen TV that I would be happy to listen to, though no problem with speech.

The overuse of superlatives debases the Which? reviews, in my view.

John – Adding a soundbar bypasses the amplifier and built-in speakers in a TV. Speaker faults – usually a sticking voice coil – would be sudden rather than progressive, suggesting the problem was with the amplifier. Sadly, repairs can be expensive, so adding a soundbar can be a very good solution.

I expect that is what happened, Wavechange, because the sound became fuzzy and got worse over time. Again, it is a problem caused by the restricted space in a flat screen TV set and [possibly] the use of solid-state amplifiers. The Sony sound-bar sound quality is very good which shows the company can still deliver excellent reproduction with full range and depth; it helps that there is a sub-woofer to support the sound-bar, develop the bass notes, and enhance the spatial effect.

A great advantage of soundbars is that if you have the right one there is no need for a separate remote control and there are fewer wires to hide. My reason for avoiding this approach was because changing the TV might lose full compatibility with the soundbar. I’m happy with using a micro-HiFi connected to speakers that have provided good service, even though it is irritating to have to use a separate remote control.

The only reason I have not replaced the TV with a better one is that I don’t want to buy a TV that is likely to lose its smart features within a few years. Once a manufacturer promises to stop this anti-consumer nonsense I will be first in the queue.

“The overuse of superlatives debases the Which? reviews, in my view.”

I would have thought that when Which? (“assessed by our panel and technical tests”) describe the attributes of a tv thus ” The superb sound backs up the picture quality brilliantly“. then they are either telling the truth or making a very misleading statement. Maybe Which? should respond to this.

Are you suggesting that Which? are losing their impartial approach and that their independent testing does not give accurate results? 🙂

I stand by what I have said, Malcolm. I am certainly not questioning the impartial approach or the testing but as someone who loathes ‘marketing speak’, I don’t feel that superlatives such as superb and brilliant are appropriate.

I’d agree with the latter, and I’ve commented before with the same criticism (see the Amazon Prime promotion by Which?). Just as I have on campaigns and press releases that include “shocking”, “brink of collapse”, “broken”, “devastating”, eye-watering”, “betrayal”……………

I would like straightforward honest language, not sensationalised, either in marketing, sales speak, politics or press announcements. But that’s just a personal view.

I would prefer if we avoided this sort of language, but I think that output from Which? could be ignored by the press and others. I don’t see to much problem with the campaigns. In the case of broadband I am glad that ‘up to’ has been replaced with average speeds.

Yes; compiling press releases that are taken notice of is quite an art. Journalists look for the brief, impactive and at least slightly sensational. The papers are not really interested in printing good news. or anything that isn’t immediately obvious. Sad, but there it is.

The trouble with this sort of language is it devalues the impact of the words. When something is described as “life changing”, what happens when something really is life changing; I’ve experienced that. Do we resort to “more life changing”, very life changing”, extremely life changing” or perhaps, in Black Adder speak – “more life changing than the most ….etc?

It is like swearing; words that were strictly taboo not many years ago are now part of some people’s everyday language.

We’ll have to start inventing new words to properly express ourselves, perhaps.

Most of the news journalists gather will arrive unembellished with such words. I think the journalists on certain papers will use there own words to describe the news item they then put into print. An objective organisation like Which? should not need to do that.

Well, language is dynamic and thus words are constantly evolving and creating themselves. But Which? has to compete to get reported. The dispassionate and calm approach may work for a few, but not – I suspect – for the many.

But you’re right about devaluation. In the most recent episode of Endeavour, Sean Evans, the actor, was focussing on the initials “HB” on an old map. He repeatedly pronounced it as “Haich Bee” instead of the OED’s “Aich Bee”. This may not seem a huge deal, but Morse himself was a highly educated man, and spent some time correcting his Sergeant – Lewis – over linguistic errors. Morse would never have pronounced “H” as “Haich” and would have lectured Lewis in some detail about the error.

Similarly, the tendency to start explanations with the utterly redundant ‘so’ has wormed its way into normal conversation in only a few short years.

So language is being devalued all the time and attempting to change that evokes the image of Canute rather vividly.

Language is not being devalued by all. Some would of thought nucular was correct. So that does not mean it should enter the language. No more than text speak should determine proper spelling. Let us try and preserve our real language.

“Nucular” is an interesting example. It’s rather pervasive in the US, in fact, but there are many here who don’t know how to pronounce it.

Many who hold fast to what they perceive as ‘rules’ in English will find themselves overtaken by different generations and, eventually, death. Thus, words such as Disinterested and Uninterested become used in the same way, despite each having a distinct meaning, while few these days are even aware that the use of None requires a singular present indicative as in ‘None of these is real’. Why? Because None is a contraction of Not One.

The loss of subtle distinctions in our language affects our ability to imagine them, which further influences our own perceptions (if you can’t imagine it, does it exist?) so I’m in agreement that we should make every effort to retain what’s good in our language.

But here we encounter another issue; if you’re good at maths, people simply admire you and – importantly – accept correction. The same doesn’t apply to language, because language and identity are inextricably intertwined. Correcting someone’s use of language is almost always resented.

But we can’t preserve a dynamic entity such as language, any more than we can keep a garden in full bloom once all the flowers are at their peak. English is one of the world’s most comprehensive languages, simply because it has adapted and embraced all the invading cultures’ languages over a few thousand years. The hangover from that continuous process is revealed by the seemingly inconsistent and illogical spelling and pronunciation of many words.