Consumer Reports and Speaker Ratings

[theaudiohobby]

Recently I found several old copies of Consumer Reports (2001-2003) that contained the ratings of several types of speakers. They state their ratins/rankings are based on how "accurately" the speaker reproduces sound. After reading this forum several of the speakers/manufacturers that held in high or low regard here are almost polar opposite of what Consumer Reports rating/ranking. I know CR is not a sterophile magazine but they appear to taking a scientific approach to reporting a speakers ability to reproduce the original source. Can anyone explain/comment on the value of Consumer Reports as a useful source for determining future purchases. Sorry if this has been threaded before but I thought I'd ask...

If you are interested in the definitive commentary on their correlation or lack of, I suggest you read some of Dr. Floyd's O'Toole comments and their associated AES papers, one of their studies says

Among the results are conclusions that measurements with1/3-octave resolution are not adequate, that sound power or in-room measurements alone are not sufficient to predict listener preferences, and that the flatness and smoothness of high-resolution on-axis curves need to be given substantial weighting.

On a side note, a lot of folk's impressions about scientific based testing is based on what they read in consumer magazines and is really the wrong place to look, they are consumer orientated and rigorous scientific testing is simply beyond their scope, certain parameters are simply not measured due to cost or brevity. However a knowledgeable eye can still learn a great deal about a speaker behaviour from some of the detailed treatments.

[Pat D]

If you are interested in the definitive commentary on their correlation or lack of, I suggest you read some of Dr. Floyd's O'Toole comments and their associated AES papers, one of their studies says



On a side note, a lot of folk's impressions about scientific based testing is based on what they read in consumer magazines and is really the wrong place to look, they are consumer orientated and rigorous scientific testing is simply beyond their scope, certain parameters are simply not measured due to cost or brevity. However a knowledgeable eye can still learn a great deal about a speaker behaviour from some of the detailed treatments.

Consumers Reports had the advantage of providing objective data but not enough to be very useful. One criticism has been that they did not take directivity into account and this was made long ago by none other than Julian Hirsch. As well, as you point out, the research has shown that 1/3 octave resolution is insufficient and that 1/10 octave or better is needed. Floyd Toole's comments on CR reports can be found on page 20 of the White Paper you linked:

http://www.harman.com/wp/pdf/AudioScience.pdf

[RGA]

The attack on Bose does continue -- but for interest sake Hi-fi Choice did blind level matched panel listening sessions and awarded a recommendation for a Bose speaker back in the mid 90's the 305 I believe was the number. Julian Hirsch said the 901 was the best speaker ever built -- and a lot of folks put a lot of stock into what he said.

Hi exact words were "Nevertheless, at this moment, I must say that I have never heard a speaker system in my own home which could surpass or even equal the Bose 901 for overall "realism" of sound."

And they have technical white papers out of MIT telling you why nothing is as good and so does Harman -- get the speakers in the same room and listen to them. This is not hard. They have to first work in real world listneing rooms not ones made out of foam walls. Then they have to work in your room. I have heard the 901s in about 5 rooms and every time I've felt they were very poor as I have felt with every Bose I've heard. But it's usually the price that kills them more than the sound. If they were about 1/5 the price they'd be competitive. But as Bose has proven -- they don't need to do anything to change the formula - put the technobabble get a few famous reviewers on board -- and you will meet your sales quotas. The Bose model is one most have tried to copy -- plenty of marketshare to aqcuire.

[thekid]

I think I may have started another Bose thread here....Re Woochifer's comments.. If I understand you correctly you are saying is that CR does not weight their test it basically is pass/fail. So if I speaker for example can not hit highs but does everything else right it might be deemed accurate by the CR methodology. So it really becomes a question of hearing what is missing or finding what you like correct? But would'nt the CR tests have some value in the sense they would tell you that a speaker that is rated accurate in their tests might have deficiences but they would have less deficiences than a speaker rated lower. That would help narrow your search somewhat but you would still need to find the speaker that best suits your personal preference.

At the risk of fueling the lurking Bose thread here....I am not exactly buying the lawsuit=good ratings statement stated/hinted in a couple of threads. Automobiles are more my field of knowledge and if several auto manufacturers who have not been rated highly by CR over the years thought that lawsuits were a way to affect CR's opinions they have teams of lawyers who could bury CR with lawsuits. Certainly GM has deeper pockets than Bose and if the tactic described were effective that would have used it years ago. If CR could so easily be intimidated they would have been out of business years ago.

[Haru]

Julian Hirsch said the 901 was the best speaker ever built -- and a lot of folks put a lot of stock into what he said.

I have a pair of "The best speaker ever built" The bose 901 series II's

I would be glad to part with the "The best speaker ever built" for a nominal price.

Seriously, The 901's need proper room placement and amplification in order to sound the way it was designed to sound. If set up correctly, they are great for background music or rear surrounds if you have enough horsepower to get them up and running.

Please no offense intended to those of you who are running 901's for your daily drivers. Its just one man's opinion

haru

[JSE]

Here is a simple answer.

Listen to as many speakers as you can and buy the ones that sound best to "YOU". No report on a certain speaker can or should tell you what to buy. Only you have your ears. CR looks at a few speakers. There are thousands and thousands of speaker makers out there. What sounds good to you might sound like crap to others. Who cares. It's your ears that have to listen to them.

In terms of the Blose issue. Here is another simple answer. Go to a store that has Bose and other brands. Listen for yourself. Maybe Bose will sound better to you but I bet you will be like 99% of the rest of us who have listen to Bose compared to other speakers and found no comparison. Bose are simply beat in just about every aspect except for style (subjective) and size. But, don't take my word, Wooch's word, Pat's word or RGA's word, go listen for yourself and decide. If you like Bose the best buy them, albeit at an inflated price.

JSE

[thekid]

As feared this has morphed into a Bose/anti-Bose thread....I really just wanted to focus on the testing methodology of CR. I only mentioned Bose because of the divergence of opinion based on what I read here and what CR reports but there are examples that I could have (should have..) used. I often see a lot of techno speak in this forum that at this point of time is over my head. I am familiar with CR based on past experiences/purchases and really just wanted to know if they would be a valid starting point Thanks to everyone for the feedback ultimately I think your ears/individual tastes are the true evaluators and will proceed on that basis. For those who are still interested please continue the usual Bose thread....

[Pat D]

The attack on Bose does continue -- but for interest sake Hi-fi Choice did blind level matched panel listening sessions and awarded a recommendation for a Bose speaker back in the mid 90's the 305 I believe was the number. Julian Hirsch said the 901 was the best speaker ever built -- and a lot of folks put a lot of stock into what he said.

Hi exact words were "Nevertheless, at this moment, I must say that I have never heard a speaker system in my own home which could surpass or even equal the Bose 901 for overall "realism" of sound."

And they have technical white papers out of MIT telling you why nothing is as good and so does Harman -- get the speakers in the same room and listen to them. This is not hard. They have to first work in real world listneing rooms not ones made out of foam walls. Then they have to work in your room. I have heard the 901s in about 5 rooms and every time I've felt they were very poor as I have felt with every Bose I've heard. But it's usually the price that kills them more than the sound. If they were about 1/5 the price they'd be competitive. But as Bose has proven -- they don't need to do anything to change the formula - put the technobabble get a few famous reviewers on board -- and you will meet your sales quotas. The Bose model is one most have tried to copy -- plenty of marketshare to aqcuire.

Julian Hirsch's review of the original Bose 901 was published way back in September 1968, a fact you somehow neglected to mention. You can follow the link here and click on his review and no, he did not say it was the best speaker ever made, though he was enthusiastic about it.

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/art...article_id=536

Very few speakers available in 1968 would compare very well with good speakers nowadays (which is not to say the would sound bad or unpleasant). Some would, especially since the advent of computer aided designs in the early 1970's. But then, have you ever actually heard the early series 901's? I have and they weren't bad sounding at all as I remember.

Oh, I understand! This is another roundabout way to get a dig at Harman International and its highly respected Vice President of Acoustical Engineering, Dr. Floyd Toole, who had nothing to do with the development of the Bose 901. You're really stretching with this one.

[RGA]

Patd

He said nothing surpassed it or was the equal to it ---- what does that say to you? It says to me nothing is is better and nothing is as good -- which means it is the best.

1968 -- please there were good speakers abound.

Yes I heard the original ones and two newer sets...and all were no good.

In fact I don't know much about him just that his name gets mentioned -- Until you said it I didn;t know he worked for Harman...but since all the Harman speakers and copy cats I've heard over the last 15 years -- well it's not surprising to me that he likes Bose!

[Pat D]

Patd

He said nothing surpassed it or was the equal to it ---- what does that say to you? It says to me nothing is is better and nothing is as good -- which means it is the best.

1968 -- please there were good speakers abound.

Yes I heard the original ones and two newer sets...and all were no good.

In fact I don't know much about him just that his name gets mentioned -- Until you said it I didn;t know he worked for Harman...but since all the Harman speakers and copy cats I've heard over the last 15 years -- well it's not surprising to me that he likes Bose!

Sometimes I wonder whether you remember what you wrote. " And they have technical white papers out of MIT telling you why nothing is as good and so does Harman--" You are bringing in Harman, which is where Dr. Toole works now, even though it has nothing whatever to do with Bose or the Bose 901. You also like to bring in Paradigm when it has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

You've really lost it suggesting Julian Hirsch worked for Harman. I've never seen it in accounts of his career, which you can look up as easily as I can on the S & V site. Now, logic is not your strong point. You quote Mr. Hirsch as saying it was the best speaker he had listened to in his home--but he certainly did not listen to every speaker in the world in his home. He also said, "I am convinced that it ranks with a handful of the finest home speaker systems of all time." No matter how you cut it, RGA, you can't interpret him as meaning it was the greatest speaker of all time. But in 1968, you have to look at the competition, and it sounded better in a good set up than most speakers.

FYI, it was not only Julian Hirsch and his colleague, Gladden Houck, who thought highly of the original 901. High Fidelity magazine liked it a lot, so did Consumers Reports, and for that matter, so did J. Gordon Holtin Stereophile. But what did it have to compete with? Not a great deal, though there were some, such as the Klipschorn, the Quad ESL, the JBL Paragon, Altec VOT, Infinity Servo-Statik, Acoustic Research AR-3a and maybe some others. Nowadays, there are dozens and dozen of very fine speakers that are more better sounding and more accurate than almost all speakers back then, many of them have greater power handling (post-digital, you know), and may of them cost less, inflation adjusted.

FYI, it was not just Julian Hirsch and his colleague, Gladden Houck, who thought the original Bose 901 was a very good speaker, but High Fidelity Magazine, Consumers Reports, and even J. Gordon Hold did. But you have to look at the competition back then, and the Bose 901 could compete very well then. You apparently have never heard them in a good set up..

[RGA]

Pat I opologise I read this wrong "Oh, I understand! This is another roundabout way to get a dig at Harman International and its highly respected Vice President of Acoustical Engineering, Dr. Floyd Toole, who had nothing to do with the development of the Bose 901. You're really stretching with this one." From that I interpreted that because i was talking about Bose and Hirsch that you brought in Toole that hirsch had worked there or something -- which is why I said i did know that Hirsch worked at Harman.

Interestingly, though the K-Horn and Quad are still noted by many as favorites by many people -- the bose 901 sucked then and still suck now. They got either conned into liking its fake sound or they were paid off -- which knowing Bose would nto be overly surprising. And using other advertising for reviews magazines is hardly credible support.

Your list of competitors -- Which speakers exactly did you hear from 1968 and before that were around the same price and were worse than the Bose 901? I was not around in 1968...but I have heard the K-horn the Quad ESL 63 and the Bose 901 originals(heck even those boston Acoustics A100s were better 9don;t know how old they are though).

Beating the ESL 63 I might give Hirsch on non classical or jazz or acoustic instruments but only because the ESL 63 when i heard it left me scratching my head as to why this was even remotely considered a classic -- I would not even consider it Good - total shocking disaster on anything amplified. Do I choose the big sounding but goofball presentation 901 or the bass and macrodynamically inept 63 and just listen to strings and very small ensembles? I'd take the 63 because I could probably make it work and at least some music does sound pretty good on them.

Or do I take the pain in the ass to position right but live big sounding and imo superior scale and dynamic impact, transient and decay and subtlety, albeit flawed in that shouty tube way K-horn? My pick is K-horn. 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.

[shokhead]

Julian Hirsch's review of the original Bose 901 was published way back in September 1968, a fact you somehow neglected to mention. You can follow the link here and click on his review and no, he did not say it was the best speaker ever made, though he was enthusiastic about it.

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/art...article_id=536

Very few speakers available in 1968 would compare very well with good speakers nowadays (which is not to say the would sound bad or unpleasant). Some would, especially since the advent of computer aided designs in the early 1970's. But then, have you ever actually heard the early series 901's? I have and they weren't bad sounding at all as I remember.

Oh, I understand! This is another roundabout way to get a dig at Harman International and its highly respected Vice President of Acoustical Engineering, Dr. Floyd Toole, who had nothing to do with the development of the Bose 901. You're really stretching with this one.

Good speakers in 68 can be as good as equal good speakers today. IMO,speakers havent changed much in the line of A/V.

[Pat D]

Good speakers in 68 can be as good as equal good speakers today. IMO,speakers havent changed much in the line of A/V.

All I said was that there were few really good ones in 1968, I didn't say there were none. There are dozens and dozens of great speakers nowadays and many of them cost far less, inflation adjusted, than speakers in 1968. Just how many great home listening speakers can you think of that were around in 1968?

Klipschorn (if you like it)
Quad ESL
JBL Paragon
Altec VOT (if you like it)
Infinity Servo-Statik
AR-3a