Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 35
  1. #1
    I put the Gee in Gear.... thekid's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    VB VA
    Posts
    2,525

    Consumer Reports and Speaker Ratings

    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...

  2. #2
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,559
    They don't listen to the speakers -- I find nothing overly scientific about their evaluations do you. A speaker's job is to reproduce music in a satisfying manner over a long period of time...A test that does not incorporate this into it's parameters is not useful.

    On the other Hand -- Stereophile and big Hi end magazines reviewers are not necessarily trustworthy -- your ears are more trutworthy when shopping -- why not trust them at least a little bit.

    Consumer Reports does not provide any real useful information -- though I sometimes like their repair history notes etc on cars and electronics. I think Audio is tougher to reduce to a spec sheet than say a printer is. But many will no doubt disagree.

  3. #3
    I put the Gee in Gear.... thekid's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    VB VA
    Posts
    2,525
    I agree with the trust the ears advice. I guess I hear a lot of technical comments made in this forum and was wondering how their could be such a divergence of opinions if a speakers accuracy is something that can be measured precisely. I can't comment on the method CR uses. They are as you say a good source for auto ratings and other products so tend to think their methodology as a solid basis behind it. But when I Bose for example, ripped as poor speakers in this forum but near the top in some of the CR tests I just wonder where the disconnect occurs. Based on threads I have read and if I understand you correctly that a speaker can fade/lose accuracy over time and the CR testing method is just a one-time snap shot and does not reflect the qualities of a speaker over time?

  4. #4
    It's just a hobby
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    812
    Quote Originally Posted by thekid
    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.

  5. #5
    Forum Regular Woochifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    6,890
    Problem with CU's testing methodology is that their accuracy ratings are based on statistical deviations from a flat frequency response. Inaccuracies in the midrange are treated identically to inaccuracies in the highs or lows, where considerably less of the sound information from movie or music soundtracks goes. Plus, they make a special accommodation in their testing for Bose speakers because of their direct/reflecting design. This (and the numerous lawsuits that Bose has filed against Consumer Reports) might explain how Bose has lately been rating so high on the CU ratings.

  6. #6
    asdf bjornb17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    El Paso, Texas
    Posts
    485
    CR pretty much gives every Bose product an outstanding rating, while other speakers that are actually good somehow get lesser ratings.

  7. #7
    Loving This kexodusc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Department of Heuristics and Research on Material Applications
    Posts
    9,047
    1/3 octave resolution? That freakin' curve will look nothing like it's true self. These guys don't even listen to the speakers? Well, that might not be such a bad thing, since 10 evaluators still don't have my ears, but c'mon...
    I had no idea these guys were that bad...why bother?

  8. #8
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    883
    Quote Originally Posted by theaudiohobby
    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
    "Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
    ------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.

  9. #9
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,559
    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.

  10. #10
    I put the Gee in Gear.... thekid's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    VB VA
    Posts
    2,525
    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.
    Last edited by thekid; 09-06-2005 at 02:46 PM. Reason: misspell

  11. #11
    audio ninja Haru's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13
    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

  12. #12
    JSE
    JSE is offline
    MIA - Until Rich is back! JSE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Denial
    Posts
    1,937
    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

  13. #13
    I put the Gee in Gear.... thekid's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    VB VA
    Posts
    2,525
    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....

  14. #14
    JSE
    JSE is offline
    MIA - Until Rich is back! JSE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Denial
    Posts
    1,937
    Quote Originally Posted by thekid
    I am familiar with CR based on past experiences/purchases and really just wanted to know if they would be a valid starting point

    Yes and No. They only really test mass market brands. Not that there is anything wrong with mass market brands, they just leave out so many other good speakers brands that are less known and not "popular".

    JSE

  15. #15
    I put the Gee in Gear.... thekid's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    VB VA
    Posts
    2,525
    Thanks again. I am kind of stuck with the more "popular" brands since there is a limited number of vendors in my area. Basically I'm stuck with BB or CC. There are a few "home theater" vendors but from what little I have seen they basically try to supplement their video offerings with some overpriced systems.

  16. #16
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    883

    1968

    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    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.
    "Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
    ------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.

  17. #17
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,559
    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!

  18. #18
    BooBs are elitist jerks shokhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    So Cal
    Posts
    2,003
    Quote Originally Posted by Pat D
    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.
    Look & Listen

  19. #19
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    883
    Quote Originally Posted by shokhead
    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
    "Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
    ------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.

  20. #20
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    883
    Quote Originally Posted by 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!
    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..
    "Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
    ------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.

  21. #21
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,559
    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.

  22. #22
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    883
    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    In 1968, the Quad ESL-63 was still a dream in Peter Walker's head if that! The ESL-63 came out about 1981, I think. The Quad ESL referred to is the orginal Quad ESL, now often called the ESL-57, although the first ones were built earlier than that. Julian Hirsch liked it despite its limitations, and you can see a picture..

    http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/ass...9200314659.pdf

    Here's some more pictures, and the first one puts the original on the left and the ESL-63 on the right.

    http://www.quadesl.org/Album/General/general.html

    The original Quad ESL had very strict voltage limitations. It was only years later that Quad developed a protective circuit to prevent arcing, which would damage the membranes of the panels. The original Quad ESL still has its fans and it is a very ingratiating speaker, though I find it a bit rough in the upper midrange, and some reduce the output of the tweeter panels by about 1 dB.

    Of course the ESL-63 had protection from the first, could handle more power, could play considerably louder, and could go deeper in the bass. What on earth was driving the '63's you heard? Some puny little amp? Mine had no trouble at 90 dBa on my RS SPL meter, which is pretty loud. My ears give up much above that. But don't expect rock concert levels or high levels of deep bass out of them.

    I think by the mid-70's there were a number of speakers which outclassed the 901's and most other previous speakers.
    "Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
    ------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.

  23. #23
    It's just a hobby
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    812

    Question One of the sweetest speakers ever made...

    Quote Originally Posted by Julian Hirsch
    Despite it limitations in reliability, low bass response and dispersion, the
    The Quad ESL 57 one of the sweetest sounding speakers ever made
    My sentiments exactly, when I first heard the ESL 57 at home, sweet sounding are the exact words that came to my mind.

    Pat D, I have an option to acquire a fully refurbished ESL-63, how does it compare to my much loved ESL 57 which is just so sweet, coherent and tactile, context, listening to Aaron Copland - Fanfare for the common man, How does the ESL-63 compare?

  24. #24
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,559
    PatD do you have a picture of both the 57 and the 63? I want to make sure which one Commercial Electronics actually auditioned for me (they said 63) -- because it looked like the one you provided in the picture. They were running Bryston and a second hand Arcam CD player 8SE or 9.

    Things were fine with the violin disc but when I put on Tina Turner -- things collapsed. And it is a well recorded disc - Simply the best greatest hits and foreign affairs. I always double check through a number of other discs and got the same displeasing results.

    They didn't have proper drum weight which made them sound more like small monitors which also don't typically possess proper drum kit power. I get a surface presentation and I know where the drum is but there's no 3d physicallity of the instrument or sense that is "there". That was my problem with the Magenpan 1.6 as well. The lilt you speak of in the Quad in the upper midrange I actually noticed more being a problem in the 1.6 which is also why the dealer told me that this is a speaker they prefer selecting the music that is played through them so they can hide the weaknesses. They were correct in that when I put my own music on it drove a few people to leave due to be edgy. Still I figure one can work with the 1.6 and it still has a wow factor in holographics.

    I understand that people stack them to get more bass so perhaps you just need two sets for it to work.

  25. #25
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    883
    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    PatD do you have a picture of both the 57 and the 63? I want to make sure which one Commercial Electronics actually auditioned for me (they said 63) -- because it looked like the one you provided in the picture. They were running Bryston and a second hand Arcam CD player 8SE or 9.

    Things were fine with the violin disc but when I put on Tina Turner -- things collapsed. And it is a well recorded disc - Simply the best greatest hits and foreign affairs. I always double check through a number of other discs and got the same displeasing results.

    They didn't have proper drum weight which made them sound more like small monitors which also don't typically possess proper drum kit power. I get a surface presentation and I know where the drum is but there's no 3d physicallity of the instrument or sense that is "there". That was my problem with the Magenpan 1.6 as well. The lilt you speak of in the Quad in the upper midrange I actually noticed more being a problem in the 1.6 which is also why the dealer told me that this is a speaker they prefer selecting the music that is played through them so they can hide the weaknesses. They were correct in that when I put my own music on it drove a few people to leave due to be edgy. Still I figure one can work with the 1.6 and it still has a wow factor in holographics.

    I understand that people stack them to get more bass so perhaps you just need two sets for it to work.
    Aww RGA, just click on the first picture on the left on the link I gave you to Gary Jacobson's site. It's a picture showing both of them. The bigger black one on the right is the ESL-63.
    "Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
    ------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Latest AudioReview Articles

Hot Deals

Latest News

AudioReview on Facebook