Just to echo above sentiments. Why would you pay twice as much for a player if it has been universally shown to have poorer picture quailty than its cheaper alternative?
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Just to echo above sentiments. Why would you pay twice as much for a player if it has been universally shown to have poorer picture quailty than its cheaper alternative?