Consumer Reports and Speaker Ratings

[RGA]

Well C.E. told me wrong because the one on the left looks to be what i heard for sure because it had a center bulge and seems wider than higher. I should have asked my firend who is the purchasing agent and knows the stuff - rather than lacky salespeople. -- Or I should have looked round the back. I could audition this model again as someone in Victoria has them - soundhounds had a pair in but they panel arced or something and the bill to fix was so staggerring that the owners just decided to dump them. I don;t know if they're stil working on them anyway but they looked more like the ones on the right flat and black.

The one plus I have heard though is that they perfrom well with low powered triodes and the likes of the Sugdens so -- I would like another shot than just bryston which can be thin and brittle with some speakers. The panel may have simply given me the amp's weaknesses. It has to be something along the chain screwing them over in my audition.

[Pat D]

Well C.E. told me wrong because the one on the left looks to be what i heard for sure because it had a center bulge and seems wider than higher. I should have asked my firend who is the purchasing agent and knows the stuff - rather than lacky salespeople. -- Or I should have looked round the back. I could audition this model again as someone in Victoria has them - soundhounds had a pair in but they panel arced or something and the bill to fix was so staggerring that the owners just decided to dump them. I don;t know if they're stil working on them anyway but they looked more like the ones on the right flat and black.

The one plus I have heard though is that they perfrom well with low powered triodes and the likes of the Sugdens so -- I would like another shot than just bryston which can be thin and brittle with some speakers. The panel may have simply given me the amp's weaknesses. It has to be something along the chain screwing them over in my audition.

Here's a link to an article with better pictures of both--really, you can't mistake one for the other.

http://www.audiophilia.com/hardware/quads.htm

[nightflier]

...the numerous lawsuits that Bose has filed against Consumer Reports) might explain how Bose has lately been rating so high on the CU ratings.

I've sent a quite a few letters to CR regarding their A/V reviews. Generally speaking, they have a limitted budget and they may not consider speakers to be all that high on the priority list because they tend to emphasize features over performance. I have a friend who repairs refrigerators and he pretty much has the same complaints about what he know best.

I do have a wish list if anyone is going to mail them about speakers (I think they are tired of hearing from me):

- Include construction, bracing, materials, and durability of grills and finish as critera.
- Include tests for extreme conditions like how well does the speaker stand up to very loud levels and what happens when it bottoms out. Also: is there a hum at very low levels?
- List what equipment they are using for testing (what they list is too vague most of the time)
- Do customer surveys over time for durability and quality.

Regarding the selection of speakers, they will only test speakers that are easily bought at several locations, so most internet-only companies are left out. They also test lower priced speakers so that means the low end of the better companies and the rest of the consumer-oriented stuff at CC, BB, and GG, and even the dreaded "-marts." and Costco. After all, they are called "Consumer" Reports, right?

Regarding the Bose lawsuits influencing the results, I doubt that. They have stood up against the dairy industry, automakers and software companies, and so I doubt that Bose is a big threat. Bose does sue them quite often (and everyone else, for that matter), but seldom succeeds. I would rather think that the high ratings for Bose is the result of meager testing criteria, budgets, and manpower.

They do respond to your letters, so write them!

(And, no I don't work for CR)

[thekid]

Thanks for coming back on topic....
I agree with your list and will see if I can get them to address them. As I have re-read their tests they really do stay to the basics and do not seem to elaborate. A friend me showed some issues back in the 90's and they actually had some optimum settings and other details that are now absent.
Hopefully as HT becomes more common place they start testing some higher end speakers and upgrade their testing/reporting methods.

As I mentioned in an earlier post I don't buy the oft repeated lawsuit Bose bash either. There a lot of other companies with deeper pockets than Bose who have suffered at the hands of CR over the years and would love to be able to use a lawsuit or threat of a lawsuit to get a positive review. Maybe "Myth-Busters" can dedicate a show to it....

[John Ashman]

Kid,
Here's how CR measures speakers. This is from memory of their own description a few years back, but I believe it's correct. They take ~16 measurements from in front, to the side, above, behind, etc. Picture a sphere with multiple points. Those points are averaged. Then, in the most inexplicable part, they take the graph and spin it clockwise or counter clockwise, which ever makes the line more horizontal "in order to mimic the effect of a theoretical tone control". When Paul Barton, who worked at the CRC in Canada was visiting my store, I asked him about that, and he said that CR folks visited the CRC and he took them on a tour and he finally asked him how THEY measured speakers and he told them, as I recall "Uhhhh, you know that's wrong, don't you?" and he said they told him "Well, yes, but we have to have something that's objective". And that's how CR comes to it's entirely screwed up, meaningless conclusions. Moreover, unless you measure distortion, spectral decay, impulse response, etc, you're only getting a really BAD picture of ONE aspect of performance. Completely useless. Which is why CR is one of the most DANGEROUS magazines on the planet.

[thekid]

Thanks for the detailed reply. I'm learning.......slowly but I'm learning.

[filecat13]

[snip] I won't judge Harman too much until I hear the best they have to offer or at least speakers in their upper line (which I assume is Revel - as the reports on the JBL that I have been given, albeit second, hand rubbished the big JBL horns and the Tik set-up got pretty negative reviews. I have been a little unfair to Harman because it would be like Judging Audio Note based on Listening to the AX-1...I didn;t even like the AX -One -- so it may simply be that Harman while producing theory does not mean their speakers actually live up to the ideal (they don't list the specific speakers so that I may run a Double blind independant test to verify their conclusion.

Second hand info is barely useful at best, and it is the source of ingorance and prejudgice at worst. As in the case of CR, it's been said above that your ears are the best judge for you, since the data being reported by a friend or by a consumer magazine is focused through their preferences, prejudices, and equipment (be it ears or microphone).

I'll give some second hand info about Harman and JBL in particular. They have the world's most extensive and well-funded speaker research and development facility in Northridge, CA. The R&D benefits Revel, JBL, Infinity, and HK lines, with Revel being the most expensive and the most limited in terms of offerings. JBL has one of the the most extensive lines of speakers around, both in the Pro and Consumer divisions, not to mention car audio. JBL produces its own cabinets, crossovers, and drivers, mostly in America, though the TiKs come from Denmark and a few low end multimedia models get the China or Mexico treatment. However, even the entry level consumer stuff is made right there in Northridge, and it's called, uh, the Northridge Series.

The JBL Consumer line runs the gamut from low end multimedia stuff ($69 a set) to the $12,500 each K2 S9800 to the $150,000+ Synthesis Hercules home theater. Like most any line, the technology trickles down. You won't see every patented technology in the entry level stuff, and since JBL focuses on many markets, what's in the Pro stuff isn't always in the Consumer stuff, and vice-versa, but there is a lot of knowledge sharing.

Even within the Consumer segment, some Series will be horn based, some direct radiator based, some two-ways, some three-ways, some four-ways, etc. it depends on consumer preference and application.

My personal choice, the JBL Performance Series has all Titanium drivers except for the 14" subs. The tweeter is a 1" dome inside a proprietary EOS Waveguide (there's that trickle down) and the 4" midrange and 8" woofer are inverted Titanium domes. Weird, huh? Yet my ears told me that these outperform anything in their market segment, so I bought 'em.

Consumer Reports will never review these speakers, and if it did, it'd get it wrong because it's not prepared to do it any other way than wrong.

Somone who's never heard them might prejudge them as "harsh or metallic" because, well, Titanium has to be harsh and metallic, right? Or they might characterize them as "Junk But Loud" based on simple-minded stereotyping. However, until that person listens to them, it's all just ignorant blustering.

You've been fair to recognize both the second hand nature of your info and your lack of exposure to the JBL line and Harman products as a whole. Now, I've given you the JBL Rah! to let you know some of us have a lot of respect for the line, and we tire of the typical, dismissive treatment it receives. So, when you get a chance, give a listen to something above the entry level Northridge stuff to hear what your ears tell you.

(Just to be clear, I don't work for JBL or Harman, never have worked for them, never got anything free from them, never got a discount, never got a commission or bribe, never had a relationship with anyone there, and never dated, had sex with, or married anyone from the Harman or Lansing family.)

[thekid]

Filecat
I it makes you feel better I do have JBL's in my Toyota Sienna. I got a "Symphony" edition that has 6 JBL speakers and JBL radio/cd player. My little brother was dismissive saying JBL is not the company it once was but I have to say the system sounds pretty good and has made the trips in the family mobile extemely pleasant. My only complaint is the cd player can not play CD-R discs after about 30-45 minutes before it becomes total static. With your knowledge of JBL products if you know a solution to this I'd appreciate some help. Thanks!

[emaidel]

I've questioned speaker ratings in Consumer Reports since I first started reading the magazine back in the 60's when any and every speaker from Acoustic Research received top rating. At the time, I absolutely hated the sound of AR speakers, and would have chosen any number of others because I preferred their sound to the lackluster sound of an AR. Even my customers at the time preferred other speakers, but often purchased AR speakers anyway because of the CR rating.

While working for ESS during the late 70s', and owning a pair of Dahlquist DQ-10's at the time, I was flabbergasted to see CR rate the ESS AMT 1b well ahead of the DQ-10 in its ratings of "expensive" loudspeakers. No one in his right mind would EVER have selected an ESS speaker over the Dahlquist, but CR did! Of course, I used the ratings to help sell the AMT 1b, and even though I could have had a pair for nothing, I never did because I preferred the smoother, and more accurate sound of the DQ-10.

The problem arises with CR ratings when something as subjective as the sound of a speaker is something one tries to rate objectively. If it's purely an objective rating, such as whether or not a paint fades or peels, then CR's reports are invaluable: either the paint fades and/or peels, or it doesn't. But when it comes to a subjective matter and then applying a purely objective manner in "rating" it, I'm afraid CR does, and always has, fallen flat on its face.

[Woochifer]

I've questioned speaker ratings in Consumer Reports since I first started reading the magazine back in the 60's when any and every speaker from Acoustic Research received top rating. At the time, I absolutely hated the sound of AR speakers, and would have chosen any number of others because I preferred their sound to the lackluster sound of an AR. Even my customers at the time preferred other speakers, but often purchased AR speakers anyway because of the CR rating.

While working for ESS during the late 70s', and owning a pair of Dahlquist DQ-10's at the time, I was flabbergasted to see CR rate the ESS AMT 1b well ahead of the DQ-10 in its ratings of "expensive" loudspeakers. No one in his right mind would EVER have selected an ESS speaker over the Dahlquist, but CR did! Of course, I used the ratings to help sell the AMT 1b, and even though I could have had a pair for nothing, I never did because I preferred the smoother, and more accurate sound of the DQ-10.

The problem arises with CR ratings when something as subjective as the sound of a speaker is something one tries to rate objectively. If it's purely an objective rating, such as whether or not a paint fades or peels, then CR's reports are invaluable: either the paint fades and/or peels, or it doesn't. But when it comes to a subjective matter and then applying a purely objective manner in "rating" it, I'm afraid CR does, and always has, fallen flat on its face.

It just goes to show that there's a lot more to evaluating speakers than simply doing a measurement and letting it tell the tale. But even with this goal of objectivity, CU created an overly rigid methodology that fails to account for what people actually hear and how they hear it. I mean, their accuracy index gives the same weighting to inaccuracies in the highs, lows, and midrange, despite the vast majority of audio information and human auditory perception emanating from the midrange. The listening tests that Dr. Toole conducted confirmed the importance of the midrange accuracy, compared to the low and high range.

It's easy to see why the ARs would rate highly in CU's tests. They definitely have a less extreme sound than the "west coast" speakers of that era. However, if your music taste centered on classic rock albums that were mixed, mastered, and optimized to the sound of JBL studio monitors, the AR speakers would not be ideal for conveying those albums. Again, that's a level of subjectivity and a real world factor that CU's tests don't account for.