Some more suggestions...

Hi Clare & the What HiFi team.

Very glad to see that you have started to include pictures of the remote control in TV tests. What did you think of the results? Are you going to continue doing it?

Anyway, I have a couple more suggestions that I would really like to see.

1.) The power consumption of large T.V.s is significant. It would be nice if consumers started to take power consumption into consideration when choosing which device to purchase; higher awareness of this leads to more competition in this area, leading to more efficient, cheaper-to-run T.V.s. Could you start to include somewhere in your tests the "running" and "idle" power consumption of T.V.s (using your own measurements and not relying on what the manufacturer says)? Maybe you could include estimated 1-year running costs for running the T.V.s 1, 2, 4, 8 hours a day.

2.) As devices such as T.V.s and set-top-boxes become more and more complex and manufacturers rush them to market, operational bugs and severely flawed design have started to creep in. However, these flaws only become apparent in more detailed, longer-term testing. For example, the digifusion freeview recorders that you liked a couple of years back had woefully under-specified power supply units that burnt out, more generally I don't think there's a single bug-free freeview recorder out there (except maybe a Topfield that's been "patched" to the hilt). Many models have a nasty habit of corrupting their entire library of recorded stuff if you compress an already-recorded show, there are various failing-to-wake-up for recordings bugs, etc. etc.

Now that "Freeview playback" is coming/is here, how confident can we be that a recorder really will record the entire series for us? Obviously this is something that you guys can only test over a long period of time.

Have you ever considered running longer-term tests on complex items in order to determine how well they really stack up in day-to-day use?