Rating of Book and Floor speakers by ConsumerReport (full report).

[Smokey]

From Nov '03 issue.

BOOKSHELF SPEAKERS:

1. Cambridge Soundworks Newton Series M80, $400 Excellent, with long (10-yr.) warranty. Vinyl cabinet.

2. Sony SS-MB350H, $100 Excellent and well-priced, but short (1-yr.) warranty.

3. BIC America Venturi DV62si, $200 Excellent.

4. Bose 201 Series V, $220 Excellent. Asymmetrical; designed specifically for left or right position. Easy to wall-mount. May cause video interference near a TV.

5. Boston Acoustics CR75, $300 Excellent overall, but avoid if you play bass-heavy music very loud. Easy to wall-mount.

6. Cambridge Soundworks Model Six, $150 Well-priced, excellent speakers with long (10-yr.) warranty. May cause video interference near a TV.

7. Boston Acoustics VR-M50, $700 Excellent but expensive; not the best choice if you play bass-heavy music very loud. Easy to wall-mount.

8. Cambridge Soundworks Newton Series M60, $300 Excellent, with long (10-yr.) warranty, but not the best choice if you play bass-heavy music very loud. Vinyl cabinet.

9. PSB Image 2B, $370 Excellent. 5-yr. warranty only if card mailed in; otherwise 1-yr.

10. Pioneer S-DF1-K, $200 Very good.

11. Pioneer S-DF2-K, $260 Very good.

12. Boston Acoustics CR85, $400 Very good. Easy to wall-mount.

13 Bose 301 Series V, $330 Very good. Easy to wall-mount. Asymmetrical; designed specifically for left or right position. May cause video interference near a TV.

14. Bose 141, $100 Very good overall. Small, light, and well-priced. Compact, gray vinyl cabinet. May cause video interference near a TV.

15 Sony SS-X30ED, $500 Very good. Short (1-yr.) warranty.

16. Polk Audio R20, $150 Very good. Easy to wall-mount. Asymmetrical; designed specifically for left or right position.

17. KLH 911B, $85 Very good, lightweight speakers at a low price, but short (1-yr.) warranty.

18. Klipsch Synergy SB-3 Monitor, $450 OK overall, with excellent bass handling.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FLOOR-STANDING SPEAKERS:

1. Sony SS-MF750H, $280 Excellent, but short (1-yr.) warranty.

2. Cerwin Vega E-710, $300 Excellent, though may cause video interference near a TV.

3. Polk Audio R30, $300 Excellent and well-priced.

4. Jensen Champion Series C-5, $180 Very good and well-priced.

5. Polk Audio R50, $400 Very good.

6. Bose 601 Series IV, $600 Very good. Asymmetrical; designed specifically for left or right position. May cause video interference near a TV.

7. Bose 701 Series II, $700 Very good. Has tone controls. Asymmetrical; designed specifically for left or right position. May cause video interference near a TV.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

REAR SURROUND SPEAKERS:

1. Cambridge Soundworks Newton Series, MC100, $140 Excellent and lightweight. Long (10-yr.) warranty.

2. Infinity OWS-1, $275 Very good, but larger than most. Not stable on a horizontal surface.

3. Bose 161, $160 Very good and lightweight, but not stable on a horizontal surface.

4. Pioneer S-H052S-K, $120 Very good and lightweight, but not stable on a horizontal surface.

5. NHT SB1, $300 Very good, but may cause video interference near a TV.

6. JBL Northridge Series N24 II, $200 Very good.

7. B&W LM1, $350 Very good.

9. Polk Audio RTi28, $280 Good.

[RGA]

Geez they're all very good and the one that wins by default is the one with the ten year warranty.

Glorified toilet paper for those who think they understand scientific testing - or subjective testing for that matter since they don't listen to the speakers.

[Woochifer]

While I think the Newtons are decent speakers, they are not class leaders by any stretch. Once again, I have to say that the CR speaker rankings are absolutely worthless because they treat inaccuracies the same, no matter where in the frequency range they occur. It's basically a statistical deviation exercise. While it has statistical validity, it has zero applicability to real world listening because it fails to acknowledge that inaccuracies in the midrange count more against a speaker's overall performance than any other because so much of the information with all sources originates in the midrange. It also ignores the body of research that ranks midrange accuracy as the most important criteria in speaker design.

The response charts are useful because a buyer can see where the inaccuracies occur, but their numerical scoring system is fundamentally flawed at the very least. But, even that has some problems because they measure the direct/reflecting Bose speakers differently than the other speakers. Considering how much more prone to room interactions those types of speakers are, I don't see how they can make any kind of meaningful measurement that doesn't have an inherent bias.

And I also take major issue with their choosing to rank surround speakers separately from the mains. If this is their way of recommending that people just buy the highest ranked main and highest ranked surround speaker, without regard for how they sound as a unit in a five-speaker configuration, then CR is absolutely clueless.

[Debbi]

1. Design and cosmetics -the reason why Timberland shoes cost 49.00 and Ferragamos 300.00. The timberlands would test better at CR since 1/6 the price, heavier, longer wearing and all around more functional.Cosmetics certainly is a smaller factor in audio but growing and, hey whats wrong with that.

2. CR doesnt make it clear if price is used in the ratings or how its factored in and weighted....if it is, the cheaper speakers would actually rate better since they happen to be the ones discounted 40% or so.My 2003 issue Shows B & W 602s2s and Mission M72s.They apparently fell off the list on the new guide. Those along with Boston would no doubt rate even lower since discounts of more than 15% not common.

[spacedeckman]

Okay, the "best of the best" includes entries from Sony, Pioneer, and Bose. Doesn't anybody see anything wrong with this picture. The Sony and Bose products I am quite familiar with having talked a couple of people out of them very recently by showing them what else could be had for little more or even sometimes less money. I haven't listened to the offerings from Pioneer for years, but I don't imagine things have changed all that much.

So we have a collection of speakers with horribly non-linear (not just normally non-linear) frequency responses, flimsy enclosures that are highly resonant and severely color the sound, unsuitable paper cone tweeters in the Bose (especially given the price, domes have been "it" for 25 years guys...but they do give you two to counteract the horrible dispersion characteristics endemic to a paper cone tweeter), poor quality drivers, rudimentary crossovers, and performance far below (in my opinion and that of others with audio backgrounds) make up the lions share of the recommendations. HELLO!!!! Is anyone home?!!!!!

There are a ton of good little speakers out there for those on a budget. It doesn't appear that CR has found any of them. Maybe they just need to broaden their horizons. Heck a couple of years ago they didn't even know B&W existed. I'm not a B&W fan in the least, but I'd rather do that than Sony, Pioneer, or Bose for about the same money. At least that is almost a good speaker.

Space

[Smokey]

So we have a collection of speakers with horribly non-linear (not just normally non-linear) frequency responses,..

Not so fast. The speakers were mainly rated according to their frequency response. Those on top were more linear frequency wise than the ones on the bottom of the ratings. So it happen that Sony, Bose or BIC have more frequency linearity than Klipsch, Polk or B&M. Whether which one sound better is up to consumers to decide.

Sometimes I don't know why CR rating get trashed. I mean one wouldn't go buy a speaker just mainly on one magazine review, would they?
CR rating just show which speakers are lemon in term of their frequency response, and one will have a chance of getting a better speaker if the chosen speaker is from top rather than the bottom half.

There is nothing wrong on having more information on a product whether it comes from CR, S&V or whatever. Also, when was the last time you saw a magazine evaluate 42 speakers in one issue? :D

[RGA]

What Hi-Fi rates way more than 42. Not all at once but neither did CR.

And measurements are Vague mostly. I can't remember how they get their frequency rating...On Axis? A BIG dip in the midrange is better than an ever so slight spike in the treble.

Paul Messenger of Hi Fi Choice provides reliable important measurements at a reasonable listening position and ALL the listening is level matched, BLIND and in a panel of reviewers. It os not a DB test because the assumption is that there will be a difference(the measurements of course prove that there is a difference).

[mtrycraft]

What Hi-Fi rates way more than 42. Not all at once but neither did CR.

And measurements are Vague mostly. I can't remember how they get their frequency rating...On Axis? A BIG dip in the midrange is better than an ever so slight spike in the treble.

Paul Messenger of Hi Fi Choice provides reliable important measurements at a reasonable listening position and ALL the listening is level matched, BLIND and in a panel of reviewers. It os not a DB test because the assumption is that there will be a difference(the measurements of course prove that there is a difference).

It doesn't have to be DB test if you are rating the speakers over all, using a check sheet for different areas as does Dr. Floyd Toole, behind a curtin for bias controls, very important.

[spacedeckman]

Smokey, those speakers are horribly non-linear in the places where your ears are most sensitive, and have really bad off axis responses. CR is taking a speaker and putting a microphone in front of it. That isn't the way your ears will experience it in a room. Two massive strikes for the testing having any meaning. It actually negates anything that they will put in print based on those measurements.

Think about this. Your ears are most sensitive in the midrange, so any large aberrations there should be weighted heavier by a factor of 3 or maybe even 5. Doing that would turn CR's number ratings on their ears, and completely change the way that the ratings fell. #1 could easily be #10 and vice versa. CR gives every frequency the same weight which is not the way your ears perceive sound.

Secondly, you listen to your speakers off axis, unless you are using severe toe-in, which will really destroy your stereo imaging. In order to get good off axis response, you need to do a few things. You need to have a speaker with broad dispersion characteristics. This means the lowest possible crossover points on the tweeter and midrange (on a three way). Narrow speaker baffles to minimize diffraction. And your speakers need to act like a point source to provide the accurate imaging.

Thirdly, your speakers need to be free of obvious distortions such as port noises, cabinet resonances, driver and crossover problems, etc. If you are only measuring and not listening, these noises will just be added into the overall chart CR uses, and considered as part of the speakers frequency response.

Most of CRs recommendations will fail these three things miserably. If they were to identify a good speaker using these parameters it would be a complete accident. Your best bet is to forget that CR even exists when it comes to audio. I realize that this is a real leap of faith for some people. It's like telling someone that getting a "100 watt" receiver isn't important when that is the only shopping parameter they have. It is going to be hard, but you are going to have to really depend on yourself for this one. Maybe take a few recommendations from some of the people here. However, you need to do me one favor. If you have a Best Buy store anywhere close, do what I first told you to do. Go compare the Athena B1 bookshelf speaker to any of the Sonys. The Athena will make them sound like they are broken. The Sonys won't be broken though, the Athenas are just that much better, and they AREN'T recommended by CR. And at under $200/pr will decimate almost everything on CRs recommended list. I almost didn't include the almost in that comment. The Athenas are not great speakers in the big picture, but they sound a whole lot better than they have a right to for the money and since they are in the same display with the Sonys at Best Buy, gives you and easy chance to prove me right. If I'm wrong on the Athenas vs Sony, Bose, or Pioneer, you need to have your hearing checked or get out and listen to more speakers.

Go do it, I bet you won't have the guts to say I'm wrong.

Space.

[drichardson]

Smokey, those speakers are horribly non-linear in the places where your ears are most sensitive, and have really bad off axis responses. CR is taking a speaker and putting a microphone in front of it. That isn't the way your ears will experience it in a room. Two massive strikes for the testing having any meaning. It actually negates anything that they will put in print based on those measurements.

Think about this. Your ears are most sensitive in the midrange, so any large aberrations there should be weighted heavier by a factor of 3 or maybe even 5. Doing that would turn CR's number ratings on their ears, and completely change the way that the ratings fell. #1 could easily be #10 and vice versa. CR gives every frequency the same weight which is not the way your ears perceive sound.

Secondly, you listen to your speakers off axis, unless you are using severe toe-in, which will really destroy your stereo imaging. In order to get good off axis response, you need to do a few things. You need to have a speaker with broad dispersion characteristics. This means the lowest possible crossover points on the tweeter and midrange (on a three way). Narrow speaker baffles to minimize diffraction. And your speakers need to act like a point source to provide the accurate imaging.

Thirdly, your speakers need to be free of obvious distortions such as port noises, cabinet resonances, driver and crossover problems, etc. If you are only measuring and not listening, these noises will just be added into the overall chart CR uses, and considered as part of the speakers frequency response.

Most of CRs recommendations will fail these three things miserably. If they were to identify a good speaker using these parameters it would be a complete accident. Your best bet is to forget that CR even exists when it comes to audio. I realize that this is a real leap of faith for some people. It's like telling someone that getting a "100 watt" receiver isn't important when that is the only shopping parameter they have. It is going to be hard, but you are going to have to really depend on yourself for this one. Maybe take a few recommendations from some of the people here. However, you need to do me one favor. If you have a Best Buy store anywhere close, do what I first told you to do. Go compare the Athena B1 bookshelf speaker to any of the Sonys. The Athena will make them sound like they are broken. The Sonys won't be broken though, the Athenas are just that much better, and they AREN'T recommended by CR. And at under $200/pr will decimate almost everything on CRs recommended list. I almost didn't include the almost in that comment. The Athenas are not great speakers in the big picture, but they sound a whole lot better than they have a right to for the money and since they are in the same display with the Sonys at Best Buy, gives you and easy chance to prove me right. If I'm wrong on the Athenas vs Sony, Bose, or Pioneer, you need to have your hearing checked or get out and listen to more speakers.

Go do it, I bet you won't have the guts to say I'm wrong.

Space.

I agree with you 100% . Going on another level - when you calibrate a surround sound system where is the measurement taken? From the listening position not directly at the speakers drivers. The sound from the listening position is what matters. Sony, Pioneer (cheap materials produce cheap sound), Bose - spacious but incorrect (cheap materials + excellent marketing = Bose) but, I will put the Bose speaker in another class compaired to the Sony and Pioneer stuff. CR needs to broaden its horizons or do they think that the common consumer will not pay over 300.00 for a pair of speakers - are they looking at that? (I bought a pair of Klipsch Tangent 50's in excellent condition - drivers in mint condition for $50 - (retail in the military was $998.00) all because the people of my town thought that speakers should not cost $500.00 the seller was from out of town and just got frustrated and sold them to me for 50!!!!

[bturk667]

.....

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Secondly, you listen to your speakers off axis, unless you are using severe toe-in, which will really destroy your stereo imaging. In order to get good off axis response, you need to do a few things. You need to have a speaker with broad dispersion characteristics. This means the lowest possible crossover points on the tweeter and midrange (on a three way). Narrow speaker baffles to minimize diffraction. And your speakers need to act like a point source to provide the accurate imaging.

Space.


I just want to address several issues you raise Space. First, I listen to my speakers on axis, not off axis. The imaging does not suffer at all because I am following the speaker designers recommedations that state "for proper imaging toe in the speakers so the center axis intersects just behind the head, this will yield that flattest frequency response, broadest soundstaging, and the most neutral tonality"

I think your statement should be presented with the caveat "based on speaker design".

"This means the lowest possible crossover points on the tweeter and midrange (on a three way)"

Lowering the crossover points too much reduces power handling and requires the use of larger drivers. The use of larger drivers can cause the sound to "beam" at the upper frequencies of its operating range actually making dispersion uneven, and roughen the off axis response.

". And your speakers need to act like a point source to provide the accurate imaging."

This is correct, but very few speakers actually accomplish this goal. All the speakers mentioned in the CR tests are unable to do this well because all either use 2 or 3 order crossovers.

"Thirdly, your speakers need to be free of obvious distortions such as port noises, cabinet resonances, driver and crossover problems, etc. If you are only measuring and not listening, these noises will just be added into the overall chart CR uses, and considered as part of the speakers frequency response"

True, however driver and crossover problems show up in the measurement process as a rough response(off or on axis) Since CR doesn't appear to measure distortion, then I find myself highly suspect of their testing methods.

"If I'm wrong on the Athenas vs Sony, Bose, or Pioneer, you need to have your hearing checked or get out and listen to more speakers.

Go do it, I bet you won't have the guts to say I'm wrong."

When listening to speakers there is no right or wrong, its a matter of taste. I have a taste for well made horn loaded speakers(Klipschorns, my own studio monitors, and genelecs) but I know plenty of people who cannot stand the sound of any of these speakers. Are they right and I am wrong, I don't think so.

[spacedeckman]

I don't enjoy those speakers (Klipsch or pretty much any horn loaded speaker I've encountered), but, if you haven't heard the Sonys, you are in for a real treat. No midrange whatsoever, huge "scoop" in the middle. They are the definition of "awful", there is no decision to be made here, it was pre-made at the factory for you.

Most speakers lose the ability to "disappear" if you crank them over so far "on" axis. I've never heard a horn disappear very well at all. Maybe it could happen, but it would be very hard physically due to the design. With Klipsch especially, such severe toe in accentuates the harshness to my ears and gives the illusion of a very small center image and two point sources with little happening inbetween any of them. Horns are great for concentrating sound in large venues, but the downsides for home use swamp any perceived benefits, IMHO. The poor off axis response improperly energizes the room (horns are engineered for poor off axis response...it's what the horn is all about) and really strips many of the spatial cues from music, making it far less enjoyable. If you love them...cool. You wouldn't get me close to 'em.

Lower crossover points don't necessarily mean larger drivers, just ones designed for better heat dissipation. In the big picture, lower power ratings aren't going to be a big deal since most listening is done at very low power levels...even loud listening. Klipsch uses the horn to allow lower crossover points by concentrating the HF energy into a smaller area. While the horn does botch up the dispersion pattern, the lower crossover point does allow a smoother transition from the woofer which does help make the problem a whole lot less awful than it could be if they would stick with a 3.5-4.5k crossover like many manufacturers do.

More later...wife calls

Okay, I'm back.

You see, Terrence, it is my view that a speaker should reproduce what is put into it with reasonable accuracy (a given), but even more importantly, not call attention to itself while performing its intended mission. If I'm thinking about a speaker instead of the music while I'm listening to it, it has already failed in my book. I want an evenly dispersed soundfield that bears little or no correlation to two speakers (or more) making sound in my room. Suspension of disbelief.

So, let's get beyond the engineering stuff to what really matters. You agree that CR testing is flawed. This is what I told them to do a few years ago, not being worried that anyone would take it very seriously at all. Get a standardized "room" Something akin to an average or slightly larger living room. 2x4 and 1/2" sheetrock walls. Screen off the front with acoustically transparent material on a slider. Place speakers in best performing position in front of room, based on RTA. Listen, comment, score, next speaker (all pre-marked for position). Compare comments, and possibly do some A/B comparisons based on results of first run. Listeners should be placed on and off axis in room and listen to same material from both positions. Kind of a quasi NRC setup. 5 or 10 people could comment and offer numerical rating (they like that stuff) and average or cumulative (current 100 point scale). Otherwise, they could use the old IASCA card in an RTA and let the computer rate the score. That would be easier, faster, and more accurate since it rates midrange deviations as more detrimental than highs or lows, and downrates for rapid shifts in FR over a short frequency range. The old IASCA card already bases the score on a 100 point scale, so little would have to change for readership. Although a quick comment drawn by listening about how badly the speaker manages to call attention to itself would be helpful as well. That would give a chance for two ratings that mean more than the tone control corrected one.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

{quote} Most speakers lose the ability to "disappear" if you crank them over so far "on" axis. I've never heard a horn disappear very well at all. Maybe it could happen, but it would be very hard physically due to the design. {\quote}

While I realize that there are not many well designed horn loaded speakers, I must submit to you that you must get out more. The are out there and I hear them all the time at AES and CES. Secondly, I fully realize that my horn loaded four way speakers are a custom job and do not represent what is offered to consumers, but I also know that horn loaded speakers are designed to be eq'd, and not just positioned and left like other types of speakers. There is absolutely nothing in the design of horn loaded speakers that prevents them from becoming sonically invisible. Mine disappear even with movie soundtracks(that comes from using 1st order crossover as opposed to the 3rd and 4th order more commonly used). My speakers are phase and frequency correct(within 1db from 20-20khz if placed 4ft from any wall, and measured from 10ft away).

{quote}With Klipsch especially, such severe toe in accentuates the harshness to my ears and gives the illusion of a very small center image and two point sources with little happening inbetween any of them{\quote}

Your ears are probably used to hearing more "room signature" than output from the speaker directly. Klipsch's new reference series of speakers do not exibit the harshness that you describe. Maybe klipsch older models do, but not this series. Also, to be accurate especially should be eliminated from your sentence. ALL speakers exibit the qualtities you describe when EXTREMELY toed in. No speaker should be EXTREMELY toed in, as I would consider this improper setup of the speaker. Your exaggeration shows your prejudice of the technology.

{quote}Horns are great for concentrating sound in large venues, but the downsides for home use swamp any perceived benefits, IMHO{\quote}

I am glad you state this as just YOUR opinion, because it has very little relationship to the facts. Horn loaded speakers are designed for controlled dispersion not concentrate sound. If the sound was concentrated in a large venue, it would be worthless to the venue as it would require so many speaker for coverage that it would create immense acoustical problems. Horn technology for the home is VERY different than that used in a commercial venue. To mix the two together shows a profound lack of understanding of horn technology, and how it is used differently in different settings. Horns used in commercial settings have a much wider horizontal dispersion pattern than those used in the home.

{quote}The poor off axis response improperly energizes the room (horns are engineered for poor off axis response...it's what the horn is all about) and really strips many of the spatial cues from music, making it far less enjoyable. If you love them...cool. You wouldn't get me close to 'em.
{\quote}

This is the biggest bunch of audiophile BS snobbery I have read in ages on this board. Horns are NOT engineer for poor off axis response. They are engineered for controlled dispersion, and effeciency. Spatial cues from music lie in the recording themselves, not in reflections off of walls, floor and ceilings. Horn loaded speakers with their controlled dispersion do not interact with the ceiling, walls, and floor nearly as much as their non horn cousins, and therefore get more of the naturally recorded spatial cues directly to the ears. Speakers that interact with the room significantly sacrfice image specificity, signal tonality, not to mention the phase relationships of the individual channels. What they do impart is a artificial ambience of room reflections which alter tonality, and add reflections that are not in the recording. So the spatial cue's that you mention are not real, but artificially imparted over the original recording.

{quote}Lower crossover points don't necessarily mean larger drivers, just ones designed for better heat dissipation. {\quote}

Heat dissipation is not the only problem, cone excursion is also a problem. The lower the crossover, the larger the driver must be for the sake of cone excursion. If this is not compensated for, distortion will occur in the lower operating region of the driver.

{quote} While the horn does botch up the dispersion pattern, the lower crossover point does allow a smoother transition from the woofer which does help make the problem a whole lot less awful than it could be if they would stick with a 3.5-4.5k crossover like many manufacturers do.
{\quote}

Horns do not "botch" up the dispersion pattern. It directs it in a way as to minimize the sounds interaction with surrounding surfaces. Thats a good thing in anyones book.

It is one thing not to like a particular design. Its another to berate it because you don't. Your negative comments regarding the horn design are inaccurate, and are like painting a picasso with a fire hose. The bottom line is this, any well designed, well measured speaker whether it be a horn loaded one, or non horn loaded is what people should be looking for. There are bad horn loaded and non horn loaded speakers, so your emphasis on some bad examples of one technology is really quite disingenous.

[spacedeckman]

You say "poe-tay-toe" and I say "poe-tah-toe".

I'm very aware of horn theory in both home and pro-environments. I see the limitations, you see the possibilities. Dang, I'm becoming a pessimist in my old age. It's a religion I have been unable to accept, since I have never heard it work right. Especially at the lower price points we were discussing in the first place.

Essentially, you are calling it "controlled dispersion" and I'm calling it "limited dispersion".

Sorry we don't see eye to eye.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

You say "poe-tay-toe" and I say "poe-tah-toe".

Not quite.
Limited dispersion=Not adequate dispersion=design flaw=negative comment
Controlled dispersion=Predictable and purposeful dispersion=Predictable and desireable result=positive comment

This is not as simple as a arguement in spelling ;>)


I'm very aware of horn theory in both home and pro-environments. I see the limitations, you see the possibilities.

I am not so sure. If this is true then you would not be focusing so much on the negative. A well designed horn loaded system can make a live recording sound incredibly real because of its very low distortion, excellent dynamics, and ability to get more of the recording to your ears with minimal room interference. I think this is what every speaker designer shoots for with varing degrees of sucess.


[quote] Dang, I'm becoming a pessimist in my old age. It's a religion I have been unable to accept, since I have never heard it work right. Especially at the lower price points we were discussing in the first place.[\quote]

Just because you have never heard it right doesn't mean it hasn't been done right. Wouldn't you agree this is true? And would you really qualify any of these speakers as TRUELY very good sounding at this price point?. A well made, well designed, well measured horn loaded speaker can not be found at this price point....they cost a a bit more than this to build.

[headknocker]

One question..where's Athena? I'm not saying they're the best speakers in the world but I'd most-certainly take them over anything from Bose,Sony,Pioneer and KLH(KLH?!!).

Anyone who knows a thing about audio would never even consider using CR for their recommendations. They obviously have no idea about the large array of quality speakers available today.It appears that they checked out their local BB and CC and called it a day. Again, where's Athena?

[Debbi]

...quoting the 2003 listings a few weeks back. Im as baffled as the next person as to how they decide which ones to test to begin with, rank them and test them, and how they weight cost vs quality. Interesting that I bought some Boston CR8s on sale for 135/pr when they were selling them out. I always wanted to own some Bostons. They have two pairs the CR75 and CR85 on the present list which are almost identical.Truthfully, these are the worst speakers I have ever owned. I have tried them in 3 different rooms and with other equipment and the results are the same. They sound like 2 isolated small bricks. I cant imagine using them without a sub for any application.The front baffle and rear panel are plastic which has the feel of $2 plastic waste basket and the cherry vinyl exterior looks like contact paper from the 1970s. I would rate them as an especially poor value since Boston rarely discounts vs a lot of other speakers on the list, where you can get 40% off 7/365. On the other hand they rate Klipsch SB3s at #20. I have an old pair of these( paid about 300 and still the same price) in my den setup.Given the choice, I cant imagine anyone choosing the Bostons....wont comment on the other speakers I havent heard or owned.

[jerryci]

C.R. testers and writers in general know only a little about speakers and most things they measure. Consumer Reports fills in a gap when only when there is no other knowledgeable magazine or source that covers a product. This is not only true of audio equipment, but other examples include cars and photo equipment. There are audio magazines with professional reviewers that cover this subject much better. One excellent example is Stereophile magazine. The October 2003 edition includes their annual listing of "Recommended Components" These include Classes A and B speakers that are generally larger speakers $1600 and up. These also include Class B -Restricted L.F., Class C -Full Range, and Class C-Restricted L.F that are frequently smaller and less expensive. There are zero Bose or commercial Japanese brands listed. While being adequate for some people, they are quite simply not competitive with the better brands in their respective categories. From sifting through Stereophiles extensive list, I would say that the Triangle "Titus" stand-mounted minimonitor is the least expensive highly rated small speaker (Class B -Restricted L.F., $495/pair). I don't own them, so I'm not simply promoting "my" speakers as so many people are apt to do. I would encourage anyone interested in good audio to check out Stereophile's October edition, The Absolute Sound, or another magazine with professional knowledge.

Jerry Cipriano

[jerryci]

As a brief addendum, I do not intend to promote one speaker, the Triangle Titus, as an answer for all readers. I merely wanted to throw out an example in the $500 price range which seemed to be an average price focus in the C.R. recommendations. To be non-denominatonal, I'll add the Class C full range: Rega Jura ($850/pr.), and Class C restricted LF: Kirksaeter Silverline 60 ($698/pr.), Monitor Audio Silver S2 ($749/pr), Paradigm Reference Studio/20 ($650-$900/pr.), and Class D: Athena Technologies As-F2 ($599/pr.), PSB Image 4T ($649/pr.) and PSB Alpha B: ($249/pr). Generally Class A is considered better/more accurate than Class B, which is better than Class C, etc.

Jerry C.