Consumer Reports...

[Debbi]

The 2003 guide reviews Bookshelf speakers(page 301). Again Bic dv62si scored higher in accuracy than B & W 602 s2 and much better than klipsch SB3s I own. The B & W runs 550 and the klipsch 450 while Bic at 200 and discounted on net a number of places for 110-120/pr.Pioneer, Bose and cambridge sound also have high rated speakers at low cost. I realize that CR is not the bible but they do test these things. I note also that Sony is making well reviewed reasonable speakers with Kevlar cones like B & W. It is afterall just a piece of plastic. Its becoming obvious that good speaker design parameters readily available and no reason why one mfg cant knock off an approximation of anothers for a fraction of the cost.It may be time for us to consider some of the alternatives to high priced cadre of names thrown around on this forum. As a bonus, a lot of these low cost, high value speakers are made by well established companies with a excellent track history....the highest rated on the list is the Pioneer S-DF3-k for 350/pr prior to discount which can be considerable. When is the last time someone touted Pioneer or Sony speakers on this forum? Hey, when the 57 chevy came out, they were seen as low cost mass market entries and became classics...By the way, I am among the guilty and have been looking at B & W, Paradigm etal myself. For the cost of a couple of meals out, I might try those Bics and report on them.

[C Bennett]

Let me know whatyou think if you get the BIC's im thinking of a new pair too and am on a budget. I was actually looking at Wharfedale Diamond 8.1's($199) and got told that Dayton also had a nice kit($139) but you actually build the speakers.

[Woochifer]

The issue that I've always had with CR's speaker tests is that they rely almost exclusively on these statistically based accuracy scores. Deviations in the midrange are scored the same as inaccuracies in the extreme high and low frequencies, where much less of the audio information comes from with most music and movie soundtracks. The charts themselves have some value in that you can look at how the manufacturer voiced a particular speaker model, and compare that to your own preferences. But, to then put use this one measure as the basis for a ranking without regard for where the inaccuracies occur is a flawed methodology because research done by the NRC and other entities have ranked midrange accuracy as the most important factor. Also, CR has no provisions for off-axis performance or distortion levels.

I totally hear you on unearthing some gems that might be otherwise disregarded because of where they're sold or how much they cost. The thing about all of the aforementioned research that's been done over the past 20 years is that entry level speakers nowadays sound much better than before (all you have to do is compare the $200 bookshelf speakers of today versus those speakers that used to come with those matched rack component systems and also sold for roughly around $200). And speakers do sound a lot more similar than before because manufacturers have a better idea of what defines people's sound preferences. But, just in my own subjective listenings, those speakers that come from specialty manufacturers just have a higher overall audio quality to them.

I'm also curious as to how Bose placed in this year's rankings. With their recent lawsuit against the CEDIA over the rights to the word "lifestyle" it seems that their lawyers have been turned loose again. It may a coincidence, but Bose has ranked fairly high in the speaker tests ever since they sued CR in the early-90s (a case that CR won). And they still sued CR despite tests that make special accommodations to Bose speakers (since the late-70s I believe, CR has used multiple microphone locations to test Bose's direct/reflecting speakers; because of this, they used to evaluate Bose speakers separately, but subsequently began including them in the rankings despite the obvious difference in methodology).

A while ago, CR rated the Bose 301 ahead of the B&W DM602. When I read that, I just happened to have both of those speakers in my living room, and I couldn't help but laugh at that. The DM602 so far outclassed the 301s, it was ridiculous. Absolutely no way, under any circumstance should the 301 possibly rank ahead of the DM602. This is not "IMO" this is just reality! As much as 2+2=4 and up is up/down is down, the DM602 blows away the 301, end of discussion.

[C Bennett]

I agree, and yes again Bose ranks high as do some other "bargain" speakers like Pioneer,Yamaha,CSW,Sony. Top 5 in Consumer Reports tests are(bookshelf) CSW Newton series M80,Sony SS-MB350H(a best buy),BIC America Venturi DV62si,Bose 201,Boston Acoustics CR75. Of the 18 they tested Klipshc Synergy finished dead last. So I know they test them but don't really know the criteria and do know they did not even test a bunch of speakers, some even moderately priced that would have beat(in some cases crushed) the ones they did test. I know you can't test them all but do think that soem PSB,AR,B&W(they did test B&W center channels),Wharfedale,Paradigm,etc would have added to the testing.

[Smokey]

In which CR issue is the new speaker evalutation. Is it in nov 03 issue?

Could you please post more info about top 5 five speakers they ranked such as acurracy # and bass responce.

Thanks :)

[Debbi]

Who owns both pioneer and B & W 602s aug 8, 2003
http://www.audioreview.com/Bookshelf,Speakers/B&W,DM602,S3/PRD_130193_4290crx.aspx

[Debbi]

In which CR issue is the new speaker evalutation. Is it in nov 03 issue?

Could you please post more info about top 5 five speakers they ranked such as acurracy # and bass responce.

Thanks :)It was from a paper back book guide...no publish date but still in bookstores. Attached find #1 rated pioneer model.
http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/pna/product/detail/0,,2076_4165_33401,00.html

[C Bennett]

My wife subscribes to CR and I got my info out of the 2004 Buying Guide. Top 5 Bookshelves are
1.CSW Newton series M80: 94 accuracy/VG bass handling/$400
2.Sony SS-MB350H(a best buy): 92accuracy/good bass handling/$100
3.BIC America Venturi DV62si: 91accuracy/good bass handling/$200
4.Bose 201series V: 89 accuracy/VG bass handling/$220
5.Boston Acoustic CR75: 90accuracy/fair bass handling/$300

and some other notables and where CR thinks they rank

9.PSB image 2B: 88 accuracy/excellent bas handling/$370
16.Polk Audio R20: 83 accuracy/Good bass handling/$150
18.Klipsch Synergy SB-3 Monitor: 79 accuracy/excellent bass handling/$450


Center Channels
1.NHT SCI: 92 accuracy/$300
2.Boston Acoustics Bravo Center: 92 accuracy/$200
3.Boston Acoustics CRC: 91accuracy/$250
4.B&W VM1: 87 accuracy/$200
5.Acoustic Research AR2C: 86 accuracy/$450

Rear Surrounds
1.CSW Newton Series MC100: 91 accuracy/$140
2.Infinity OWS-1: 87 accuracy/$275
3.Bose 161: 84 accuracy/$160
4.NHT SB-1:accuracy 83/$300
5.JBL northridge N24II
6.B&WLM1
7.Polk RTi28

so I really dont know what to make of it. Im sure they review stuff but have heard quite a few of these and think they are way off but who am I to say :)

[Woochifer]

so I really dont know what to make of it. Im sure they review stuff but have heard quite a few of these and think they are way off but who am I to say :)

I would hope that CR put some kind of disclaimer about center and surround speaker matching, since they evaluate those speakers separately from the mains. To me, it's absolute BS to evaluate those ancillary home theatre speakers without any kind of tie-in to how well they all timbre match. By doing these kinds of rankings, it's almost as if they recommend that consumers simply buy the highest ranked speakers or the best buys off of each category and put a system together that way. But, since their "accuracy" scores say absolutely nothing about their tonal characteristics, taking this kind of approach can result in highly mismatched voice characteristics between the different speakers. And with 5.1 sources, it's best that the speakers sound as similar to one another as possible. I mean, if the main speaker has a linear midrange response with a large boost in the highs, while the center speaker has a more uneven midrange response with a tailed off high end, it disrupts the seamlessness of the front soundfield and creates a more incoherent front soundstage. If CR does not recognize that the main, center, and surround speakers function as an interrelated set, then they have no business making speaker recommendations.

[This Guy]

Let me know whatyou think if you get the BIC's im thinking of a new pair too and am on a budget. I was actually looking at Wharfedale Diamond 8.1's($199) and got told that Dayton also had a nice kit($139) but you actually build the speakers.

If you're looking at the BIC's let me reccomend these. B.I.C. America DV62CLR. They're listed as center speakers at most places, but they're also left and right speakers. You can find them around $100 each and you get DUAl 6" woofers with the tweeter. You'll still need stands, but This will probably have a much fuller sound then the single woofer speakers in this price range. This speaker got rave reviews and Ed Frias also has a modification for the crossover that makes it sound better (supposedly). If you get three of these for the fronts you'll be rockin. I'd say this is a great contender in this price range. just thought I'd bring it tou your notice.

-joey

[RGA]

Hahahahaha.

I purchased my 1994 Pontiac Grand Am off of the OUTSTANDING reviews by Consumer Reports...much better than before yadda yadda.

Worst piece of crap I've ever purchased. Of course three years later I read the Lemon-Aid and newer Consumer Reports which also call the car a piece of crap.

Consumer Reports is a pitiful excuse for the basis of making a purchase...especially in audio. Open your ears up and listen to this stuff than basing your opinion off of the term "ACCURACY" which they don't even know what it is.

There is accuracy based off of a graph...and then there is accuracy to the reproduction of a musical instrument...there is no "PROVEN or even "credible" correlation between flat speaker response equating to a "Good" speaker. Since no speaker is flat. A slight spike in the treble is a helluva lot more irritating than a fairly large dip in the midband. Yet the large dip will come out worse in this stupid magazine.

[Smokey]

Thanks Debbie and C Bennett for CR speaker information. I may have to go local bookstore and pick up a copy. And that link for Pioneer vs B&W sure was an eye opener.

Given that Pioneer speaker that was rated number 1 in the earlier issue is no longer available, then one have to look at Sony or BIC if need a good cheap speaker :)

[Debbi]

Thanks Debbie and C Bennett for CR speaker information. I may have to go local bookstore and pick up a copy. And that link for Pioneer vs B&W sure was an eye opener.

Given that Pioneer speaker that was rated number 1 in the earlier issue is no longer available, then one have to look at Sony or BIC if need a good cheap speaker :) .....at etronics.com for one....believe it was 245/pr

[This Guy]

Wehn I said this speaker got good reviews, I was talking about guys that wee you doing the mod on the speaker in DIY forums. I don't even know if CR reviewed it and I never even read their reviews. I was also judging it by it's specs, it being pretty much the only bookshelf with 2-6" woofers in it for this price, and BIC is usually a good name fore low-mid end audio.

-Joey

[WmAx]

"There is accuracy based off of a graph...and then there is accuracy to the reproduction of a musical instrument...there is no "PROVEN or even "credible" correlation between flat speaker response equating to a "Good" speaker. "

First. You would have to determine what 'GOOD' means. This is a sweeping generalization. Different people can interupt a lot of different things by what 'good speaker' means. Do you mean sounds GOOD to YOU(preference of sound)? Do mean it is a GOOD speaker as far as how close a specific individual or set of measurments is to perfection? Do you mean it is GOOD as compared to it's accuracy to the actual live sound recorded vs. the playback on a controlled linear recording situation? Do you mean it's GOOD as far as 'realistic' sound on an average set number of recordings(but then too WHO? Perceived realisim can depend alot on the listeners experiences with actual live music(better judgement) and his/her psychological biases.)? Do you mean it is a GOOD speaker relative to it's price -- then you need to qualify that in order to specify one of the previous specifications(in what manner is it good?). The list goes on....... Good can mean a whole lot of things. :-) One example I would pose: you might be surpised at how many heighly regarded audiophile headhpones sound very little like a real sound source(linear instrumentation/measurment micrphones supplying a live feed, with the original event being recorded avaiable live for reference) when taken off and put on for instant comparisions. You might be even more suprised at how a very specific headphone that is only considered 'average' or even 'below average' by many audiophiles sounds very much like the live source. I have learned that peoples' preferences often times have lttle correlation with absolute 'accuracy'. Anotehr variable is that the above example is using feed from precision measurment micrphones, that is not EQed. Fact is that most recordings are not performed with such micrphones, but instead, vintage and or popular designs that are not very accurate. Also, most engineers may EQ the fnal mix before it makes it to release. It is possible that some speakers and/or headhpones may actually compensate for some statistically based variable such as the average EQ or mic/mic techniques used on final releases, as opposed to a linear source.

While I believe that consumer reports fails miserably at speaker evaluations based on their insufficient measurements and imporoper methodologies, a speaker's performance can be accurately measured with the correct set of measurments and proper analysis. One needs to examine the impedance(to understand amplifier interaction), impluse response(from which phase, csd, amplitude/frequency response data can be calculated), harmonic distortion and itermodular distortion characteristics. Their is one more critical detail, you must perform: polar response(power response) measurements; the specific csd and amplitude/frequency response considering all dimensions, to understand the indirect radiation behaviour(s). But, these details would still ony tell about a speakers performance, not the room you may place the speaker into. Howver, a generalization can be concluded to predict performance in specific types/sizes of rooms if you full set of measured data about the speaker, as noted above.

"Since no speaker is flat. A slight spike in the treble is a helluva lot more irritating than a fairly large dip in the midband. Yet the large dip will come out worse in this stupid magazine."

I assume you mean a peak of specified magnitude to a dip of equal magnitude, then that would be correct. The peak would be more audible, according to established research data.

-Chris

[mtrycrafts]

Hahahahaha.

I purchased my 1994 Pontiac Grand Am off of the OUTSTANDING reviews by Consumer Reports...much better than before yadda yadda.

Worst piece of crap I've ever purchased. Of course three years later I read the Lemon-Aid and newer Consumer Reports which also call the car a piece of crap.

Consumer Reports is a pitiful excuse for the basis of making a purchase...especially in audio.

Don't read CR. Obviously you do not understand it. The 94 car was tested short term, not how well it will perform in the future. You should have consulted with the car models history in the past, how reliable it was.
One only has to look at the Mercedes reviews. They rate very well. But the history is not very good over time.

I suppose their more objective audio reviews may not be everyone's cup.

[skeptic]

RGA, your problem is that you should have bought a tube type car. We all know that you will never be happy with a solid state car. Not only that, but you should buy something much more efficient, like a Prius. Or an Auto Note!

[jbangelfish]

I remember them rating Scotch brand VHS tapes as number 1 and I was skeptical as I had never heard a good Scotch audio tape. It turned out that the VHS tapes were so poor that stores closed them out at dirt cheap and stopped selling them altogether.
There have also been other instances as well when they rated something very high which turned out to be crap down the road. I'm sure they get it right sometimes but I don't put much stock in their reviews of anything.
By the same token, if I own a product that they rated very high or number 1, it makes me feel smarter somehow. Apparently, we're kind of like dumb animals and even if we made a bad decision, as long as someone pats us on the back and says "good boy", we feel better.
Bill

[mtrycrafts]

I remember them rating Scotch brand VHS tapes as number 1 and I was skeptical as I had never heard a good Scotch audio tape. It turned out that the VHS tapes were so poor that stores closed them out at dirt cheap and stopped selling them altogether.
There have also been other instances as well when they rated something very high which turned out to be crap down the road. I'm sure they get it right sometimes but I don't put much stock in their reviews of anything.
By the same token, if I own a product that they rated very high or number 1, it makes me feel smarter somehow. Apparently, we're kind of like dumb animals and even if we made a bad decision, as long as someone pats us on the back and says "good boy", we feel better.
Bill

I hope you stopped reading that mag. Obviously you find nothing useful in it.

[jbangelfish]

I'm sure there might be some useful info in it but I'd rather read your review or someone else's who doesn't get paid to talk about how good or bad something is. Seems more like advertising to me. It is supposed to be unbiased but if you pay me enough, I'll tell you anything you want to hear and so would most people.
TV ads for insurance, as an example, they all claim to have the best rates available. I may not be very good at math but this seems physically impossible.
Anyway, I don't trust much information that is written to rate products that are sold to make money. Paranoid, skeptical, call it whatever you like but too much BS has been written IMO.
Bill

[Norm Strong]

They make mistakes as well. But they are better than whatever comes next. They are the most reliable single source of info on audio stuff.

But their most valuable contribution is to give you some idea of the relationship between price and quality; in the case of speakers--not much. The Nov 03 tests showed that the top half of the speakers cost only 20% more than the bottom half. That isn't much, considering that the total range of prices varied by 8:1. IOW, you don't get what you pay for. (But you might pay for what you get.)

What CR tests tell me is that you can get a damn fine pair of speakers for $100. This doesn't surprise me; mine cost $60, and they sounded better than NHT SuperOnes.

[Smokey]

Given that they don't accept advertising either give their evaluations more punch also :)

[jbangelfish]

Do they do this out of the goodness of their heart? I don't trust them even if they sometimes get it right. I've known many people who trust this organization to tell the gospel truth only to be disappointed later. Reliablity seems to be a big issue as many new items test well only to fail much too early. If you like the mag, read it, rely on it, whatever you choose. I'm a very skeptical person and have learned not to trust much of what is written about anything.
Over the years much hype and good reviews have been written about inferior products. Money talks, like it or not. Being an independent and supposedly unbiased reviewer means nothing to me. Underwriter's Lab has approved products for use which they themselves determined were unsafe. Aluminum wiring for example was approved for electrical applications in spite of their tests which failed it. Why would they do that? Because big companies like ALCOA have lots of money and stand to lose a great deal if they were unable to sell their product. Many people died from fires that were caused by aluminum wire. The problem has been solved by creating different terminals for aluminum wire but they didn't exist when the UL approval originated.
Ford Motor Company decided that it was cheaper to pay a few lawsuits than to change the fuel tank explosion problem on the Pinto.
So, a few people were severly disfigured or killed, Ford was making good money and employed lots of people. Dont' get me started...
Bill

[Woochifer]

Do they do this out of the goodness of their heart? I don't trust them even if they sometimes get it right. I've known many people who trust this organization to tell the gospel truth only to be disappointed later. Reliablity seems to be a big issue as many new items test well only to fail much too early. If you like the mag, read it, rely on it, whatever you choose. I'm a very skeptical person and have learned not to trust much of what is written about anything.
Over the years much hype and good reviews have been written about inferior products. Money talks, like it or not. Being an independent and supposedly unbiased reviewer means nothing to me. Underwriter's Lab has approved products for use which they themselves determined were unsafe.

Consumer Union is a nonprofit organization, and I think it does mean something that they don't accept advertising. My issues with them have never had to do with their integrity and their commitment to the organization's consumer protection mission. The problems I've had with CU is with their expertise and methodologies. They are spread so thin in rating everything from peanut butter to insurance companies to digital cameras that I question their ability to come up with meaningful research designs for everything that they rate. While I don't think their objectivity is in question, their competence often is. With their speaker tests, they are so obsessive about maintaining objectivity that they basically conduct flawed tests based completely on a single statistical measure, and no accounting for how speakers are actually used (i.e. with most of the sounds originating in the midrange, meaning that inaccuracies in that frequency range are much more significant than issues in other areas). I think organizations like CU are absolutely necessary, because just about every other source out there has a more commercialized agenda. Of course, that doesn't mean that whatever CU says is gospel. You just need to parse out the information that you can rely on from them, and take other bits with a grain of salt.

UL has a very different mission, since they were founded basically to provide safety research for the insurance industry. Their mission is not about consumer protection, it's about minimizing risks to their clients. If they knowingly approve dangerous products, then they would presumably have their own constituency to answer to, since lawsuits and claims are exactly what insurance companies don't want. But, ultimately they don't answer to consumers, they answer to the industries that support them, and those are typically companies that are paranoid about safety.

[bikehikefish]

Do they do this out of the goodness of their heart?

No they do not. CU's business is selling magazines that provide (supposedly) unbiased product tests and other consumer friendly information. It would not be to their advantage to intentionally violate this trust.

It's fine to question their methodologies and conclusions, as Woochifer does. But to accuse the organization of intentionally skewing the ratings demonstrates an ignorance of the business they are in and the strategies they must deploy to be successful (i.e. keep their readers).

I still remember the audio salesman at a now defunct national chain once tell me that CU did not like a certain speaker because the speaker manufacturer would not advertise in CR. As a regular reader, I knew there is no advertising in the magazine. Since he was either ignorant or a liar, I walked out of the store never to return, and to this day, I am skeptical of claims made by sales people.

[skeptic]

Aluminum wiring for example was approved for electrical applications in spite of their tests which failed it. Why would they do that? Because big companies like ALCOA have lots of money and stand to lose a great deal if they were unable to sell their product. Many people died from fires that were caused by aluminum wire. The problem has been solved by creating different terminals for aluminum wire but they didn't exist when the UL approval originated.

I don't know what your are referring to about UL approving products which failed their tests but aluminum wiring was approved by the National Electrical Code which is a subchapeter of the National Fire Code. The people who review and change these codes are experts in the areas of fire safety, electrical safety, and loss prevention. Their main customers are the insurance companies which pay off when there is an accident resulting in injury, death, or loss of property. They have a vested interest in preventing any such losses. Municipalities have the option to approve these codes as part of their own laws or as in the case of New York City, to write their own codes.

Aluminum wiring is pefrectly safe when used the way it was intended. However, the alloys used in the era when they were approved were relatively soft and underwent "plastic deformation" over time. Switches, receptacles, and other devices approved for use with aluminum wiring had springs which maintained adequate pressure to keep good contact over the years. But many homeowners and perhaps inexperienced or untrained Saturday afternoon electricians and handyman types used the hardware intended for copper wire instead. Over time, these connections became loose and would arc causing the aluminum to burn which further increased contact resistance, causing them to get even hotter from further arcing, and eventually could cause a fire. BTW, this can happen even with copper wire. Today large companies "thermoscan" all electrical connections during routine annual maintenance or when a problem is suspected. I saw a 200 amp GE safety swich melt down due to loose connections, the obvious result of long term inattention to maintenance. Luckly, it was discovered before an accident. As for UL, they merely verify that the equipment will safely do what the manufacturer claims it will under the conditions of use he specifies. They cannot protect people from themselves if they do not know what they are doing and screw up.

It might interest you to know that aluminum wire is still used today by utilities for high voltage feeder cables but the people who use it are well trained tradesmen and professionals who know exactly what they are doing. Aluminum has been taken away from the homeowner for his own protection from lack of knowledge and skill.

[300A]

Why anyone would pass aluminum wire as safe is beyond explanation.

When aluminum wire was allowed, many structures used them, with passing inspections, and fire resulted. Spring loaded connectors etc. aren't the long answer as corrosion will eventually cause problems, plus more contact points. Aluminum just isn't that good.

I for one would never use aluminum wire unless Forced to.

Positron




I don't know what your are referring to about UL approving products which failed their tests but aluminum wiring was approved by the National Electrical Code which is a subchapeter of the National Fire Code. The people who review and change these codes are experts in the areas of fire safety, electrical safety, and loss prevention. Their main customers are the insurance companies which pay off when there is an accident resulting in injury, death, or loss of property. They have a vested interest in preventing any such losses. Municipalities have the option to approve these codes as part of their own laws or as in the case of New York City, to write their own codes.

Aluminum wiring is pefrectly safe when used the way it was intended. However, the alloys used in the era when they were approved were relatively soft and underwent "plastic deformation" over time. Switches, receptacles, and other devices approved for use with aluminum wiring had springs which maintained adequate pressure to keep good contact over the years. But many homeowners and perhaps inexperienced or untrained Saturday afternoon electricians and handyman types used the hardware intended for copper wire instead. Over time, these connections became loose and would arc causing the aluminum to burn which further increased contact resistance, causing them to get even hotter from further arcing, and eventually could cause a fire. BTW, this can happen even with copper wire. Today large companies "thermoscan" all electrical connections during routine annual maintenance or when a problem is suspected. I saw a 200 amp GE safety swich melt down due to loose connections, the obvious result of long term inattention to maintenance. Luckly, it was discovered before an accident. As for UL, they merely verify that the equipment will safely do what the manufacturer claims it will under the conditions of use he specifies. They cannot protect people from themselves if they do not know what they are doing and screw up.

It might interest you to know that aluminum wire is still used today by utilities for high voltage feeder cables but the people who use it are well trained tradesmen and professionals who know exactly what they are doing. Aluminum has been taken away from the homeowner for his own protection from lack of knowledge and skill.

[300A]

Debbie. I have little confidence in CR as I have worked on what they considered the best products. What they thought was the best turned out to be a piece of junk in reliability terms. That, alone should disqualify a product from being the best.

To me, they had no idea what real quality meant.

[jbangelfish]

How much money does a hospital make? They are non profit. How much money does the Catholic church have? If money is involved, I don't trust anyone and rest assured that some people are making a great deal of money working for and running CR, CU, UL and any other initials that you can think of.
So far, I am able to question their methodology, their integrity and their conclusions. That's what makes this the good ol' USA.
Bill

[skeptic]

Why anyone would pass aluminum wire as safe is beyond explanation.

When aluminum wire was allowed, many structures used them, with passing inspections, and fire resulted. Spring loaded connectors etc. aren't the long answer as corrosion will eventually cause problems, plus more contact points. Aluminum just isn't that good.

I for one would never use aluminum wire unless Forced to.

Positron

Either you didn't read what I wrote or you just don't want to listen. As for using aluminum today, you aren't allowed to. The risk of someone who is not trained or skilled as an electrician or an electrical engineer making what could eventually become a fatal mistake is too great.

Aluminum was useful because it was a cheaper than copper and in trained hands a satisfactory alternative. I think most or all high voltage feeders in use are aluminum. BTW, they use different alloys today which are much harder and therefore don't have the same shortcomings as those used in the old days. Aluminum is also light and strong, a major consideration for long runs of heavy overhead cables.

[Woochifer]

How much money does a hospital make? They are non profit. How much money does the Catholic church have? If money is involved, I don't trust anyone and rest assured that some people are making a great deal of money working for and running CR, CU, UL and any other initials that you can think of.
So far, I am able to question their methodology, their integrity and their conclusions. That's what makes this the good ol' USA.
Bill

Plenty of hospitals are for-profit operations with investors and stockholders to account for. Even at nonprofit hospitals, you can't expect doctors to work for free.

You seem to confuse nonprofit with nonrevenue, and those are two entirely different concepts. ALL nonprofit agencies have some kind of administrative overhead that they need to pay for -- they would not be able to function otherwise. Staffers and professionals do not work for free, their offices are not free, the phone company and utilities do not donate their services, etc. Money or some other expression of economic exchange value has to be involved. In order to conduct research, you need to hire people who can develop the methodologies and carry out the testing. There's nothing suspicious about a nonprofit company that pays its staffers. If you don't trust anything where money is involved, then there's nothing you can trust, including yourself, since I'm sure you don't work your job for free.

You can do all the questioning you want, no one's stopping you or questioning your right to do so. But, that doesn't by definition make your suspicions and assertions factual.

[jbangelfish]

Either you didn't read what I wrote or you just don't want to listen. As for using aluminum today, you aren't allowed to. The risk of someone who is not trained or skilled as an electrician or an electrical engineer making what could eventually become a fatal mistake is too great.

Aluminum was useful because it was a cheaper than copper and in trained hands a satisfactory alternative. I think most or all high voltage feeders in use are aluminum. BTW, they use different alloys today which are much harder and therefore don't have the same shortcomings as those used in the old days. Aluminum is also light and strong, a major consideration for long runs of heavy overhead cables.
It is used exclusively by Commonwealth Edison for all overhead and underground wiring. The new terminals have solved most of their problems but not all of them. Aluminum expands 38% more than copper under load, this was the problem, eventually becoming loose and arcing. The springs you mention have taken care of most of this. It was first outlawed for use in mobile homes and perhaps has gone on to be outlawed in all homes. It was used for many years in these applications and did cause many fires. It took a few years for them to figure out what was going wrong, not from a lack of skill on the electricians part but from a lack of compatible terminals.

[jbangelfish]

Plenty of hospitals are for-profit operations with investors and stockholders to account for. Even at nonprofit hospitals, you can't expect doctors to work for free.

You seem to confuse nonprofit with nonrevenue, and those are two entirely different concepts. ALL nonprofit agencies have some kind of administrative overhead that they need to pay for -- they would not be able to function otherwise. Staffers and professionals do not work for free, their offices are not free, the phone company and utilities do not donate their services, etc. Money or some other expression of economic exchange value has to be involved. In order to conduct research, you need to hire people who can develop the methodologies and carry out the testing. There's nothing suspicious about a nonprofit company that pays its staffers. If you don't trust anything where money is involved, then there's nothing you can trust, including yourself, since I'm sure you don't work your job for free.

You can do all the questioning you want, no one's stopping you or questioning your right to do so. But, that doesn't by definition make your suspicions and assertions factual.

Someone just stated that they are non-profit and this must clear them of any misinformation or wrongdoing. It doesn't. How did they rate those Scotch VHS tapes as #1? Were they just inept? It was clear that these were inferior tapes the first time you used them. I'm skeptical of anything that they print. Sorry, it doesn't really matter what I think anyway. If you like them, use them. Many people do.

[Mash]

how so many people can criticize CU's speaker testing methodology, and I would bet that most of these same people have NO testing methodology of their own. They merely conduct sighted listening tests wherein they might compare one speaker to another. No double-blind. No live reference. No methodology, and rather vague criteria.

I think people criticize CU's speaker testing methodology because they do not like having their sacred cows gored.

I believe CU does publish their frequency response curves, so one can rerank the speakers based on how one evaluates the relative merit of the different response curves.

I believe someone here once published a Magnepan response curve from a magazine without realizing that those response curves are recorded with mics at 1 meter and that is way too close to measure active diaphragm panels that are 6 feet tall. Most cones act as point sources so the 1 meter mic placement will work.

[300A]

"Either you didn't read what I wrote or you just don't want to listen. As for using aluminum today, you aren't allowed to. The risk of someone who is not trained or skilled as an electrician or an electrical engineer making what could eventually become a fatal mistake is too great."

That is exactly why it shouldn't have been recommended in times past. IF electrical enginners don't understand what is going on, do you think local inspectors have the training? Some people weren't thinking.


"Aluminum was useful because it was a cheaper than copper and in trained hands a satisfactory alternative. I think most or all high voltage feeders in use are aluminum. BTW, they use different alloys today which are much harder and therefore don't have the same shortcomings as those used in the old days. Aluminum is also light and strong, a major consideration for long runs of heavy overhead cables."

Since when is aluminum cheaper than copper? High voltage feeders etc. can use aluminum because of properly trained people and properly scheduled checks to prevent problems from developing. Alot different than commercial, such as bldg and houses which have virtually no checks once installed.

The problem, back then, with aluminum is that it didn't have "spring" like copper does. So once it gives, it doesn't spring back. Temp changes etc. will cause it to come loose from the connection.

[RGA]

how so many people can criticize CU's speaker testing methodology, and I would bet that most of these same people have NO testing methodology of their own. They merely conduct sighted listening tests wherein they might compare one speaker to another. No double-blind. No live reference. No methodology, and rather vague criteria.

I think people criticize CU's speaker testing methodology because they do not like having their sacred cows gored.

I believe CU does publish their frequency response curves, so one can rerank the speakers based on how one evaluates the relative merit of the different response curves.

I believe someone here once published a Magnepan response curve from a magazine without realizing that those response curves are recorded with mics at 1 meter and that is way too close to measure active diaphragm panels that are 6 feet tall. Most cones act as point sources so the 1 meter mic placement will work.


There are many ways to measure a speaker...the inept totally uselss way is on reference axis at 1 meter - which is the way most of them do it. At least those making incompetant magazines and speakers. But the speakers are cheaper to make - show a nice graph and the profit margin soars.

Hi FI choice has a panel of listeners and they listen blind...and apparently they measure aspects that might acually resemble the sound you hear...which is why most of the time their GOOD measurement matches the "Perceived" good sound...unlike the reviews/measurements att soundtstage or Stereophile where the measurer differes from the subjective.

They "should" agree. The test NEEDS to account for the subjective.

This does not even mean i agree with Hi-fi Choice. Though looking their reviews over - most of the time they get it right...so I'll go with Paul messenger's measurements.

Measurements are used to help support statistics, Statistics are also used to provide correlations. Like hi school studen't marks will stay the same or drop once they get into college. That is the statistically scientific trend - not in my case - I went from C's to A's.

Statistics are a miserable way to live your life...My math professor rolls his eye's when he has to teach stats. There's math, bad math and there is statistics. Nothing overtly wrong with blind listening...the stats part of it however is where the scientists part from the engineers.

[Woochifer]

There are many ways to measure a speaker...the inept totally uselss way is on reference axis at 1 meter - which is the way most of them do it. At least those making incompetant magazines and speakers. But the speakers are cheaper to make - show a nice graph and the profit margin soars.

"most of them"? Most magazines out there do NO measurements whatsoever, so I don't see what point you're trying to make here. And aside from S&V and CR, most of the printed and online publications that do speaker measurements make several off-axis measurements, and do not limit their measurements to the frequency response. Stereophile also does spectral decay, impulse response, impedance, and box resonance measurements, all of which say something about different aspects of a speaker's performance.

I have no idea what you're trying to imply by bringing up the conspiratorial profit margin remark. That speakers that measure well on-axis are cheaper to make? That would be quite a statement considering how well the $80,000 Dynaudio Evidence Master measures, and how poorly the much less expensive Bose Acoustimass systems measure.


Hi FI choice has a panel of listeners and they listen blind...and apparently they measure aspects that might acually resemble the sound you hear...which is why most of the time their GOOD measurement matches the "Perceived" good sound...unlike the reviews/measurements att soundtstage or Stereophile where the measurer differes from the subjective.

They "should" agree. The test NEEDS to account for the subjective.

Why "should" they agree? Subjectivity is what it is, subjective. We hear diffrerently and have differing opinions of what sounds are supposed to sound like and have differing opinions as to what sounds good. Unless Stereophile's measurements are significantly different than what HiFi Choice's measurements say, then the problem is in the SUBJECTIVE evaluation, not the objective measurements. I have an opposite take, I think that speaker tests need to account for the objective, since most published speaker reviews put the emphasis on the subjective.


Measurements are used to help support statistics, Statistics are also used to provide correlations. Like hi school studen't marks will stay the same or drop once they get into college. That is the statistically scientific trend - not in my case - I went from C's to A's.

Statistics are either descriptive or predictive. In social science, a correlation coefficient of 0.6 is about as high as you can expect in any predictive hypothesis. Just because you went against a more generalized trend with your grades does not discount the validity of the predictive conclusion, since anytime you're dealing with socioeconomic studies, a researcher will never infer one-to-one causality when dealing with large numbers of people and backgrounds that are not easy to control for (for example, no way of controlling for the curriculum, grading criteria, quality of instruction, etc.). Just because you did not follow the trend does not discount the fact that many others did. Also, the aspect of the example that you left out is that the correlation between high school grades and college grades decreases with every successive year, to the point that there's a more or less spurious correlation by the time a student reaches their senior year in college. Same thing with scores on standardized college entrance exams.


Statistics are a miserable way to live your life...My math professor rolls his eye's when he has to teach stats. There's math, bad math and there is statistics. Nothing overtly wrong with blind listening...the stats part of it however is where the scientists part from the engineers.

Just about every professor at research universities cry foul any time they have to teach ANY lower division classes, whether that be calculus, trigonometry, precalculus, introductory statistics, introductory chemistry, introductory physics, history overview, introductory psych, etc. On the other hand, the two professors that I had for advanced statistics absolutely loved teaching that subject, since they could integrate their own research into the coursework, which made it more challenging and interesting for the students.

I don't find statistics miserable at all. I use them at work all the time, and occasionally construct statistical models for forecasting purposes. But, if you don't understand what their appropriate usage is, or what their limitations are, then I guess statistics can be a miserable exercise.

The issue with statistics is not with the theory, but with how people apply them. There are many ways of interpreting and misinterpreting statistics, and problems with stats is in that part of it, not the theory behind it. Calling it bad math is disingenuous.

Also, how is it that scientists and engineers use statistics differently? In the rhelm of speaker design, statistical modeling can be used to decide on the parameters around which designers build their speakers. I know that Adire Audio used this process to come up with hundreds of potential driver design configurations, and they narrowed it down to those designs that the model predicted would best fall within the performance and cost parameters that they specified. By going through this process, they only needed to build a handful of prototypes rather than hundreds of them, an important factor considering how small a company they are. I don't know of a single speaker designer out there right now that doesn't do some sort of measurement during the design process.

[spacedeckman]

CR is a horribly poor source for finding audio products. Anyone recommending something off of a CR audio test should be immediately disregarded...especially speakers.

With that said, let me add in the disclaimers. I do not think that, outside of another Bose lawsuit and related expenses, CR speaker tests are biased, only that they, in order to create a testing scheme that is easily repeatable and quick, have overlooked some HUGE problems in their methodology. Their electronics testing was best stated a few years back, something akin to "buy the cheapest receiver with the most watts and inputs". If you are happy with that, disregard the rest of this post and go back to reading CR's audio recommendations.

I'm not going to spend a whole lot of time covering what was so well covered in a previous post. Suffice it to say that equal weighting across the audio spectrum is a non starter, and dispersion is everything in a speaker, as is room interaction. I once posted a selection of recommendations for them, one included the NRC's essential testing method using listeners placed in different places in the room and writing down their observations. This could be done with as little as two or three people, albeit far more time consuming. What they are doing right now is a complete disservice to their legions of readers. The good part is that many people seemed to have figured this out. I still have some friends that sell audio and someone carrying in CR or referring to it in an audio sale has fallen from a multiple time per week to near "0". Most of them go months before seeing or hearing them mentioned in an audio sale. These guys work at places from Best Buy and Circuit to mid-fi independent dealers. What they are doing wrong could be fairly easily improved without adding a ton of complexity, but they really don't have much interest in changing. I can only tell you that I made a really good living for a number of years in the mid 80s to early 90s showing just how wrong CR was in audio.

Now, Smokey. Please, go out and listen to those Sony speakers. If you can, go do it at a Best Buy store. Then listen to the little Athena bookshelves in the same display. You will soon forget about Sony and CR. There is more to a speaker than cone materials. Sony is using real or simulated Kevlar as a gimmick to get some attention. They are not engineering a driver or speaker system to get any of the potential benefits of the material, they are just trolling for the easy sale. The performance of the current (and past) Sony speakers have been fairly sub-par given their price. They fall into the "happy face" EQ realm. Boosted "mid highs" and "mid bass" without good extension on either, muddy bass and boxy sounding midrange. The Athena will give you a good picture of what a pretty good speaker will sound like.

The best advice I can give to finding speakers is to use your ears. Be suspicious of any speaker that catches your attention on either extreme immediately. Listen to the midrange first, especially tonal quality and "placement" of a vocalist in relationship to the music (Yes, I'm a firm believer in music testing over the cartoonish aspects of home theater) then listen to see if the speakers "disappear", or if your ears keep locking in on them. If your ears keep locking in on the speakers, it typically means poor dispersion characteristics, and if the midrange sounds boxey and far behind the music, you've found one of the many "happy face" speakers foisted on an ignorant public. (Keep the "happy face" speakers for the kids who want the "boom and sizzle")
Next, the highs and bass. You want detail and definition, not the aforementioned "boom and sizzle". Find a speaker that sounds "right" to your ears. Forget brand names, number of drivers, size (as long as it fits in your room), better is better than bigger, big woofers facing forward are a very evil thing, and deep bass is best served with a subwoofer (don't buy one that plays only one note really well...that severely limits your choices in that category). Oh yeah, don't forget to check out speakers one level above and below your price range. It would really suck if you spent $400 on a nice pair but found ones that blew you out of the water for $500.

Good luck,

Space

[Thefrugalear]

The 2003 guide reviews Bookshelf speakers(page 301). Again Bic dv62si scored higher in accuracy than B & W 602 s2 and much better than klipsch SB3s I own. The B & W runs 550 and the klipsch 450 while Bic at 200 and discounted on net a number of places for 110-120/pr.Pioneer, Bose and cambridge sound also have high rated speakers at low cost. I realize that CR is not the bible but they do test these things. I note also that Sony is making well reviewed reasonable speakers with Kevlar cones like B & W. It is afterall just a piece of plastic. Its becoming obvious that good speaker design parameters readily available and no reason why one mfg cant knock off an approximation of anothers for a fraction of the cost.It may be time for us to consider some of the alternatives to high priced cadre of names thrown around on this forum. As a bonus, a lot of these low cost, high value speakers are made by well established companies with a excellent track history....the highest rated on the list is the Pioneer S-DF3-k for 350/pr prior to discount which can be considerable. When is the last time someone touted Pioneer or Sony speakers on this forum? Hey, when the 57 chevy came out, they were seen as low cost mass market entries and became classics...By the way, I am among the guilty and have been looking at B & W, Paradigm etal myself. For the cost of a couple of meals out, I might try those Bics and report on them.

I never considered Sony speakers before, but after hearing them I purchased the SS-MB350H's. IMO I think they're excellent speakers at a very low cost.