Consumer Reports and Speaker Ratings

[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.