Rating of Book and Floor speakers by ConsumerReport (full report).

[Smokey]

From Nov '03 issue.

BOOKSHELF SPEAKERS:

1. Cambridge Soundworks Newton Series M80, $400 Excellent, with long (10-yr.) warranty. Vinyl cabinet.

2. Sony SS-MB350H, $100 Excellent and well-priced, but short (1-yr.) warranty.

3. BIC America Venturi DV62si, $200 Excellent.

4. Bose 201 Series V, $220 Excellent. Asymmetrical; designed specifically for left or right position. Easy to wall-mount. May cause video interference near a TV.

5. Boston Acoustics CR75, $300 Excellent overall, but avoid if you play bass-heavy music very loud. Easy to wall-mount.

6. Cambridge Soundworks Model Six, $150 Well-priced, excellent speakers with long (10-yr.) warranty. May cause video interference near a TV.

7. Boston Acoustics VR-M50, $700 Excellent but expensive; not the best choice if you play bass-heavy music very loud. Easy to wall-mount.

8. Cambridge Soundworks Newton Series M60, $300 Excellent, with long (10-yr.) warranty, but not the best choice if you play bass-heavy music very loud. Vinyl cabinet.

9. PSB Image 2B, $370 Excellent. 5-yr. warranty only if card mailed in; otherwise 1-yr.

10. Pioneer S-DF1-K, $200 Very good.

11. Pioneer S-DF2-K, $260 Very good.

12. Boston Acoustics CR85, $400 Very good. Easy to wall-mount.

13 Bose 301 Series V, $330 Very good. Easy to wall-mount. Asymmetrical; designed specifically for left or right position. May cause video interference near a TV.

14. Bose 141, $100 Very good overall. Small, light, and well-priced. Compact, gray vinyl cabinet. May cause video interference near a TV.

15 Sony SS-X30ED, $500 Very good. Short (1-yr.) warranty.

16. Polk Audio R20, $150 Very good. Easy to wall-mount. Asymmetrical; designed specifically for left or right position.

17. KLH 911B, $85 Very good, lightweight speakers at a low price, but short (1-yr.) warranty.

18. Klipsch Synergy SB-3 Monitor, $450 OK overall, with excellent bass handling.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FLOOR-STANDING SPEAKERS:

1. Sony SS-MF750H, $280 Excellent, but short (1-yr.) warranty.

2. Cerwin Vega E-710, $300 Excellent, though may cause video interference near a TV.

3. Polk Audio R30, $300 Excellent and well-priced.

4. Jensen Champion Series C-5, $180 Very good and well-priced.

5. Polk Audio R50, $400 Very good.

6. Bose 601 Series IV, $600 Very good. Asymmetrical; designed specifically for left or right position. May cause video interference near a TV.

7. Bose 701 Series II, $700 Very good. Has tone controls. Asymmetrical; designed specifically for left or right position. May cause video interference near a TV.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

REAR SURROUND SPEAKERS:

1. Cambridge Soundworks Newton Series, MC100, $140 Excellent and lightweight. Long (10-yr.) warranty.

2. Infinity OWS-1, $275 Very good, but larger than most. Not stable on a horizontal surface.

3. Bose 161, $160 Very good and lightweight, but not stable on a horizontal surface.

4. Pioneer S-H052S-K, $120 Very good and lightweight, but not stable on a horizontal surface.

5. NHT SB1, $300 Very good, but may cause video interference near a TV.

6. JBL Northridge Series N24 II, $200 Very good.

7. B&W LM1, $350 Very good.

9. Polk Audio RTi28, $280 Good.

[RGA]

Geez they're all very good and the one that wins by default is the one with the ten year warranty.

Glorified toilet paper for those who think they understand scientific testing - or subjective testing for that matter since they don't listen to the speakers.

[Woochifer]

While I think the Newtons are decent speakers, they are not class leaders by any stretch. Once again, I have to say that the CR speaker rankings are absolutely worthless because they treat inaccuracies the same, no matter where in the frequency range they occur. It's basically a statistical deviation exercise. While it has statistical validity, it has zero applicability to real world listening because it fails to acknowledge that inaccuracies in the midrange count more against a speaker's overall performance than any other because so much of the information with all sources originates in the midrange. It also ignores the body of research that ranks midrange accuracy as the most important criteria in speaker design.

The response charts are useful because a buyer can see where the inaccuracies occur, but their numerical scoring system is fundamentally flawed at the very least. But, even that has some problems because they measure the direct/reflecting Bose speakers differently than the other speakers. Considering how much more prone to room interactions those types of speakers are, I don't see how they can make any kind of meaningful measurement that doesn't have an inherent bias.

And I also take major issue with their choosing to rank surround speakers separately from the mains. If this is their way of recommending that people just buy the highest ranked main and highest ranked surround speaker, without regard for how they sound as a unit in a five-speaker configuration, then CR is absolutely clueless.

[Debbi]

1. Design and cosmetics -the reason why Timberland shoes cost 49.00 and Ferragamos 300.00. The timberlands would test better at CR since 1/6 the price, heavier, longer wearing and all around more functional.Cosmetics certainly is a smaller factor in audio but growing and, hey whats wrong with that.

2. CR doesnt make it clear if price is used in the ratings or how its factored in and weighted....if it is, the cheaper speakers would actually rate better since they happen to be the ones discounted 40% or so.My 2003 issue Shows B & W 602s2s and Mission M72s.They apparently fell off the list on the new guide. Those along with Boston would no doubt rate even lower since discounts of more than 15% not common.

[spacedeckman]

Okay, the "best of the best" includes entries from Sony, Pioneer, and Bose. Doesn't anybody see anything wrong with this picture. The Sony and Bose products I am quite familiar with having talked a couple of people out of them very recently by showing them what else could be had for little more or even sometimes less money. I haven't listened to the offerings from Pioneer for years, but I don't imagine things have changed all that much.

So we have a collection of speakers with horribly non-linear (not just normally non-linear) frequency responses, flimsy enclosures that are highly resonant and severely color the sound, unsuitable paper cone tweeters in the Bose (especially given the price, domes have been "it" for 25 years guys...but they do give you two to counteract the horrible dispersion characteristics endemic to a paper cone tweeter), poor quality drivers, rudimentary crossovers, and performance far below (in my opinion and that of others with audio backgrounds) make up the lions share of the recommendations. HELLO!!!! Is anyone home?!!!!!

There are a ton of good little speakers out there for those on a budget. It doesn't appear that CR has found any of them. Maybe they just need to broaden their horizons. Heck a couple of years ago they didn't even know B&W existed. I'm not a B&W fan in the least, but I'd rather do that than Sony, Pioneer, or Bose for about the same money. At least that is almost a good speaker.

Space

[Smokey]

So we have a collection of speakers with horribly non-linear (not just normally non-linear) frequency responses,..

Not so fast. The speakers were mainly rated according to their frequency response. Those on top were more linear frequency wise than the ones on the bottom of the ratings. So it happen that Sony, Bose or BIC have more frequency linearity than Klipsch, Polk or B&M. Whether which one sound better is up to consumers to decide.

Sometimes I don't know why CR rating get trashed. I mean one wouldn't go buy a speaker just mainly on one magazine review, would they?
CR rating just show which speakers are lemon in term of their frequency response, and one will have a chance of getting a better speaker if the chosen speaker is from top rather than the bottom half.

There is nothing wrong on having more information on a product whether it comes from CR, S&V or whatever. Also, when was the last time you saw a magazine evaluate 42 speakers in one issue?

[RGA]

What Hi-Fi rates way more than 42. Not all at once but neither did CR.

And measurements are Vague mostly. I can't remember how they get their frequency rating...On Axis? A BIG dip in the midrange is better than an ever so slight spike in the treble.

Paul Messenger of Hi Fi Choice provides reliable important measurements at a reasonable listening position and ALL the listening is level matched, BLIND and in a panel of reviewers. It os not a DB test because the assumption is that there will be a difference(the measurements of course prove that there is a difference).

[mtrycraft]

What Hi-Fi rates way more than 42. Not all at once but neither did CR.

And measurements are Vague mostly. I can't remember how they get their frequency rating...On Axis? A BIG dip in the midrange is better than an ever so slight spike in the treble.

Paul Messenger of Hi Fi Choice provides reliable important measurements at a reasonable listening position and ALL the listening is level matched, BLIND and in a panel of reviewers. It os not a DB test because the assumption is that there will be a difference(the measurements of course prove that there is a difference).

It doesn't have to be DB test if you are rating the speakers over all, using a check sheet for different areas as does Dr. Floyd Toole, behind a curtin for bias controls, very important.

[spacedeckman]

Smokey, those speakers are horribly non-linear in the places where your ears are most sensitive, and have really bad off axis responses. CR is taking a speaker and putting a microphone in front of it. That isn't the way your ears will experience it in a room. Two massive strikes for the testing having any meaning. It actually negates anything that they will put in print based on those measurements.

Think about this. Your ears are most sensitive in the midrange, so any large aberrations there should be weighted heavier by a factor of 3 or maybe even 5. Doing that would turn CR's number ratings on their ears, and completely change the way that the ratings fell. #1 could easily be #10 and vice versa. CR gives every frequency the same weight which is not the way your ears perceive sound.

Secondly, you listen to your speakers off axis, unless you are using severe toe-in, which will really destroy your stereo imaging. In order to get good off axis response, you need to do a few things. You need to have a speaker with broad dispersion characteristics. This means the lowest possible crossover points on the tweeter and midrange (on a three way). Narrow speaker baffles to minimize diffraction. And your speakers need to act like a point source to provide the accurate imaging.

Thirdly, your speakers need to be free of obvious distortions such as port noises, cabinet resonances, driver and crossover problems, etc. If you are only measuring and not listening, these noises will just be added into the overall chart CR uses, and considered as part of the speakers frequency response.

Most of CRs recommendations will fail these three things miserably. If they were to identify a good speaker using these parameters it would be a complete accident. Your best bet is to forget that CR even exists when it comes to audio. I realize that this is a real leap of faith for some people. It's like telling someone that getting a "100 watt" receiver isn't important when that is the only shopping parameter they have. It is going to be hard, but you are going to have to really depend on yourself for this one. Maybe take a few recommendations from some of the people here. However, you need to do me one favor. If you have a Best Buy store anywhere close, do what I first told you to do. Go compare the Athena B1 bookshelf speaker to any of the Sonys. The Athena will make them sound like they are broken. The Sonys won't be broken though, the Athenas are just that much better, and they AREN'T recommended by CR. And at under $200/pr will decimate almost everything on CRs recommended list. I almost didn't include the almost in that comment. The Athenas are not great speakers in the big picture, but they sound a whole lot better than they have a right to for the money and since they are in the same display with the Sonys at Best Buy, gives you and easy chance to prove me right. If I'm wrong on the Athenas vs Sony, Bose, or Pioneer, you need to have your hearing checked or get out and listen to more speakers.

Go do it, I bet you won't have the guts to say I'm wrong.

Space.

[bturk667]

.....

[Debbi]

...quoting the 2003 listings a few weeks back. Im as baffled as the next person as to how they decide which ones to test to begin with, rank them and test them, and how they weight cost vs quality. Interesting that I bought some Boston CR8s on sale for 135/pr when they were selling them out. I always wanted to own some Bostons. They have two pairs the CR75 and CR85 on the present list which are almost identical.Truthfully, these are the worst speakers I have ever owned. I have tried them in 3 different rooms and with other equipment and the results are the same. They sound like 2 isolated small bricks. I cant imagine using them without a sub for any application.The front baffle and rear panel are plastic which has the feel of $2 plastic waste basket and the cherry vinyl exterior looks like contact paper from the 1970s. I would rate them as an especially poor value since Boston rarely discounts vs a lot of other speakers on the list, where you can get 40% off 7/365. On the other hand they rate Klipsch SB3s at #20. I have an old pair of these( paid about 300 and still the same price) in my den setup.Given the choice, I cant imagine anyone choosing the Bostons....wont comment on the other speakers I havent heard or owned.

[jerryci]

C.R. testers and writers in general know only a little about speakers and most things they measure. Consumer Reports fills in a gap when only when there is no other knowledgeable magazine or source that covers a product. This is not only true of audio equipment, but other examples include cars and photo equipment. There are audio magazines with professional reviewers that cover this subject much better. One excellent example is Stereophile magazine. The October 2003 edition includes their annual listing of "Recommended Components" These include Classes A and B speakers that are generally larger speakers $1600 and up. These also include Class B -Restricted L.F., Class C -Full Range, and Class C-Restricted L.F that are frequently smaller and less expensive. There are zero Bose or commercial Japanese brands listed. While being adequate for some people, they are quite simply not competitive with the better brands in their respective categories. From sifting through Stereophiles extensive list, I would say that the Triangle "Titus" stand-mounted minimonitor is the least expensive highly rated small speaker (Class B -Restricted L.F., $495/pair). I don't own them, so I'm not simply promoting "my" speakers as so many people are apt to do. I would encourage anyone interested in good audio to check out Stereophile's October edition, The Absolute Sound, or another magazine with professional knowledge.

Jerry Cipriano

[jerryci]

As a brief addendum, I do not intend to promote one speaker, the Triangle Titus, as an answer for all readers. I merely wanted to throw out an example in the $500 price range which seemed to be an average price focus in the C.R. recommendations. To be non-denominatonal, I'll add the Class C full range: Rega Jura ($850/pr.), and Class C restricted LF: Kirksaeter Silverline 60 ($698/pr.), Monitor Audio Silver S2 ($749/pr), Paradigm Reference Studio/20 ($650-$900/pr.), and Class D: Athena Technologies As-F2 ($599/pr.), PSB Image 4T ($649/pr.) and PSB Alpha B: ($249/pr). Generally Class A is considered better/more accurate than Class B, which is better than Class C, etc.

Jerry C.