Consumer Reports 1960 Ratings, cartridges and tonearms

[GP49]

The American magazine Consumer Reports tests products and rates them as to quality. While their testing of audio components these days is cursory and hardly worth reading, years ago Consumer Reports used to test high fidelity equipment quite extensively. While it is always arguable how authoritative their tests and ratings are (some say they derive their "authority" from nowhere but their own organizational ego), their reports always did make interesting reading.

Here, from the 1961 Consumer Reports Buying Guide, are the ratings of stereo phono cartridges and tonearms.  These ratings originally appeared in the November 1960 issue.  Not immediately apparent: the "London-Scott 1000" is the Decca ffss arm/cartridge. In 1960, Decca's importer in the USA was H.H.Scott, Inc.

[brian]

Thanks for that Gene, I understand Richard is in possession of this same report. Their rating for the Pickering 380A is surprising but reveals a preference for duller sounding cartridges in their audition setup.

Like Lebrecht's Decca article, to be taken with a grain of salt.

[GP49]

Like Lebrecht's Decca article, to be taken with a grain of salt.

Later in the 1960s and 1970s, Consumer Reports seemed to prefer loudspeakers that sounded "smooth" to them, due to a wide, shallow dip in response centered around the 1000 Hz-2000 Hz range.

They even mentioned this dip in one of their loudspeaker reports!  This seems to illustrate why "some say they derive their 'authority' from nowhere but their own organizational ego," to quote from the beginning of the thread.

[richard]

Brian, I'm not sure that I have this 1961 issue; I've got the one from 1960 (which covers 1959). Gene's source appears to be the Annual Buyer's Guide. Every year, one monthly issue of the magazine is published as a book which summarizes the individual test reports. They don't evaluate each product category every year; they often skipped, let's say, phono cartridges, for one or two years in a row. I could write a long critique of this report, picking at details that I disagree with. I'll spare you, and me.

One interesting note is how high some ceramic cartridges scored. I wouldn't give them that much credit. I also didn't have much use for CU telling people all that stuff about cables being too long or too short for certain cartridges. On the other hand, most people aren't like us: we'd cut the cables or add capacitors. And were they taking input stage capacitance into consideration? Maybe they explained this a bit better in the original article from which this summary was taken.

Regarding Gene's comment about CU and the later speaker tests: they didn't do these the same way as they tested cartridges. Speakers would be tested in the lab, and then evaluated by a committee of "average people." Then they'd assign scores based a formula that included both ratings. I was recently taken on a personal a tour of a loudspeaker factory, so I went into three anechoic chambers and clapped my hands. They're great for testing speakers but we don't live in anechoic chambers; I can't envision spending a night in one. I doubt that I'd even want to listen to music over speakers in them. So enlightened listening comments are very valid.

But even among the Lencophiles in our three Lenco bulletin boards to date, there'll be disagreement about what sounds good. First of all, our musical tastes will cause differences in what we like to hear (even if it's not accurate: "Awesome." "They blew me away." "They were dull and sucked like pigs." "Those speakers rock; they're killers of Pace, Rhythm and Tempo").

The funny thing about Consumer Reports is that as much as we can pick it apart, I find their reports useful in a general way. I once read a great line about highway signs in New York City: "They're gentle reminders for those who already know the way." Maybe that's how we can best use this resource.

[GP49]

Regarding Gene's comment about CU and the later speaker tests: they didn't do these the same way as they tested cartridges. Speakers would be tested in the lab, and then evaluated by a committee of "average people." Then they'd assign scores based a formula that included both ratings.

Consumer Reports has done such subjective testing, but has not provided (or in some cases, even mentioned) demographic data to back up those subjective testers as being typical of a broad sampling of "average people".  How are their "average people" chosen?  In some cases, such as cosmetics and automobile polish, the sampling is from their own employees. 

In deciding whether their loudspeaker ratings are valid, I would like to know whether their geographic location causes a bias in their listening tests.  They're in Mount Vernon, NY which is a lot closer to New England, home of the "New England speaker sound" (AR, Advent, KLH, etc.) than to California, home of the "California sound" (JBL and the like).

[richard]

Gene wrote,

Consumer Reports has done such subjective testing, but has not provided (or in some cases, even mentioned) demographic data to back up those subjective testers as being typical of a broad sampling of "average people".  How are their "average people" chosen?  In some cases, such as cosmetics and automobile polish, the sampling is from their own employees.

In deciding whether their loudspeaker ratings are valid, I would like to know whether their geographic location causes a bias in their listening tests.  They're in Mount Vernon, NY which is a lot closer to New England, home of the "New England speaker sound" (AR, Advent, KLH, etc.) than to California, home of the "California sound" (JBL and the like).

You know, in the end, I don't think that it matters much to us how they do this. I haven't ever seen a particular geographic slant about this. The only prejudice that I found in the organization was that it took them a few years to realize that Hyundai was actually making very good cars. Their method of evaluating cars (and many other products) stems from a track record of subscriber feedback, so all this information is stale.

The "Boston speaker sound" is one that I believe we, in other places, found to be musical, but excessively "polite." As I remember their speaker reviews, they did point out whether they found the sound dull, bright, etc., as well as their recommended positions in the room (well, perhaps decent starting points to adjust from).

What's significant is that not many people among our Lenco regulars depend on a publication such as this for our audio purchase decisions. We know too much. Auto handling junkies won't give CR much credance about selecting a car either.

Mount Vernon, NY, is a ride on a commuter train away from New York City. To an easterner, for whom distances seem much greater than they do to us here in California, Boston is not close. Neither is Philadelphia (which is a maximum of 90 minutes by train). If anything, Mt. Vernon is in the New York audio region, which includes nearby New Jersey.

I guess that what all this boils down to is that these people are honest and they try very diligently to do what we'd want them to do. But with repair bench experience, you and I can get really angry at what we've seen, especially regarding build quality, durability, and manufacturing ethics. I don't mind "honest failures" in products, but I resent "stupid failures:" repairs that should never be needed. I think that we're probably reading each others' minds right now about this. It's just not right that I had to redesign a Sony DD turntable with collapsed bearings because the engineer drew the assembly upside-down.

Now, we want Consumers' Union to expound about stupid defects like these, warning readers away from such products. But CU learned their lesson in court to stay clear of reporting about build quality and stupid engineering. After all, when Bose sued them because of something or other that they published, the suit went all the way to the US Supreme Court before lower court decisions were overturned. That was a close call. More recently, Sharper Image sued them because CU revealed the truth: their wildly overpriced, shoddy trick "air cleaners" don't work worth a damn.

I have a stereo receiver that was given a Best Buy rating in Consumer Reports. A woman brought it to me; it was in the repair shop once per year. I found that the power switch "relay arm" had an idiotic pair of bends. And there were critical flimsy parts that broke on the front panel. She abandoned the thing, and I've continued to use it after some, ah, "creative" gluing. Now, surely, Consumer's Union test staff had removed the cover; they'd seen what I saw. When she returned, I pulled the cover and showed the innards to the customer: "You bought this because it was top-rated in Consumer Reports. Look. This is what you bought!."

My beef is that they never seem to test the product that I'm really interested in.

They do their best. They try; they really do. Often, they get it right. But when we know better than they do, we may be better off following our own guts. I'd be interested in knowing how similar publications do similar things elsewhere. I have a comparison chart from a German audio publication (I doubt it's a non-profit) about record cleaning products. The chart includes two products I've been interested in: Stanton RC5+ and the Lencoclean. Yes, it's old.

Hey, Gene; I forgot to thank you for submitting this material!

[B52]

Funny report, first time I see (the 9' version of) "my" tonearm (the Sonograf-Jobo 2400) in a large test. The $29.00 All -balance arm performs better than the $99 SME...  : ;D

[GP49]

My beef is that they never seem to test the product that I'm really interested in.

...CU learned their lesson in court to stay clear of reporting about build quality and stupid engineering. After all, when Bose sued them because of something or other that they published, the suit went all the way to the US Supreme Court before lower court decisions were overturned. That was a close call. More recently, Sharper Image sued them because CU revealed the truth: their wildly overpriced, shoddy trick "air cleaners" don't work worth a damn.

Hey, Gene; I forgot to thank you for submitting this material!

CU's ratings can be influenced by exactly which products they choose to test.  Sometimes I look in vain in their ratings for a product I am interested in, about which I've heard good things from friends.  Yet a recent test didn't include that item, but instead others from the same manufacturer, that may have rated good, bad or indifferent.  I try out the "missing" product and find that, for my purposes, it's better than the high-rated products that did get into the test. So then I wonder, was this due to neglect, or "creative selection," or because their criteria, regarding either performance or criteria for testing, differ from mine?

Incidentally, Sharper Image ionic air cleaners are said to be an application of a "dynamic plasma process" patented by a tiny Northern California company.  Sharper Image licensed it and had the product made in huge quantities overseas.  The inventor reaped copious royalties from them.  Now that Sharper Image has gone bankrupt, I imagine the inventor has joined the queue of unsecured creditors who will get pennies on the dollar, if that.  The inventor also claims that the same technology has been applied to "super high-fidelity loudspeakers" of which I know nothing.

I'm glad that these old Consumer Reports ratings have garnered so much interest. I wish I had more of these to post but I don't have any more issues from 1962 until the 1980s, when the magazine's reports on audio gear had become much less detailed, and their testing process much less rigorous.  Regrettably the missing years include reports on many classic loudspeakers, turntables and cartridges; I particularly remember top ratings being given to two cartridges after I had purchased them: the Stanton 500E and Stanton 881S.

[ludwignut]

That air freshener in question ,garbage.Only cleans the air that is 1/8 of an inch in front of it.

Rob

[mosin]

Interesting are the comments regarding the Fairchild and Neumann cartridges that are now considered gold in certain circles.

[richard]

Gene wrote:

The inventor also claims that the same technology has been applied to "super high-fidelity loudspeakers" of which I know nothing.

Gene, where did you see this claim. I figure that he's talking about the Ionovac tweeter.

Fellas and Gals, this space-age air cleaner pulls air through itself using some sort of magic high-voltage electric charge. So, much was made about its being quiet.

I wrote a post about the air cleaners for this thread, but it seems to have vanished. I actually fell for the hype about these outrageously expensive,  incredibly flimsy, ultra-grotty Sharper Image products and bought two of them. They do seem to work, but what they collect from the air is strange black sooty stuff; I suspect that the contraption itself produces it. No instructions were ever provided for cleaning them; thus, they collect conductive schmutz internally and start buzzing lustily. One thing that they do accomplish is deodorizing the air by putting out copious amounts of (poisonous) ozone. As a reward for paying the insane amount of money for my two "Ionic Breeze" air "cleaners," I was given two "free" tiny versions. I had considered putting one in my hi-fi cabinet, hopefull, to attract dust that would usually fall on the turntable. But I recalled that ozone can damage electronic equipmennt (any comments?).

I also own two excellent, honest, electronic air cleaners that have conventional fans. These collect recognizable household dust on their collection plates, and not the strange black soot of the Ionic Breezes.

Alas, I have a superb bullshit antenna about audio, but I can get suckered about a few other things like anyone else.

[GP49]

The inventor also claims that the same technology has been applied to "super high-fidelity loudspeakers" of which I know nothing.

Gene, where did you see this claim. I figure that he's talking about the Ionovac tweeter.

I found it on the website of the inventor's company.

http://www.zenion.com/

He may be referring to the Ionovac, come to think of it.  Thanks, I'd forgotten about it.

[richard]

Ha!
Interesting that there's nothing on that site about Consumer Reports' review of air cleaners a couple of years ago, wherein they stated that the Ionic Breeze air cleaners barely worked at all and essentially just put ozone into the air. And that Sharper Image (who imported and aggressively hustled these products) went bankrupt. But not  before they sued Consumers Union (the publisher of Consumer Reports Magazine) because they told the truth (Sharper Image lost).

For readers outside the USA: Consumers Union is a long-established non-profit organization that tests various consumer products and reports on issues such as health care and medicines.

[gninnam]

We have something similar in the UK - called Which? (got to have the question mark on the end)

[willbewill]

We have something similar in the UK - called Which? (got to have the question mark on the end)

Yeah I just love their audio reviews