Treker
Super Member
Back when I was a kid my mom subscribed to Consumer Reports and almost religiously followed their “Best-Buy” and “Check-Rated” recommendations over the years. My mom passed away in 2008, but back a few weeks ago while helping my dad go through some of my mom’s old stuff I came across her collection of old Consumer Reports, dating from about 1966 up through 1981, the year I graduated from High School. I started thumbing through them and noticed that it seemed like just about every other issue contained at least one test of something hifi or audio related. But I got to thinking about it, and it made total sense. If you pick up a Consumer Reports today, virtually every other issue will have a report on HDTVs or smartphones, the items that people are purchasing in great numbers today. It's just that back in the '60's and '70's, the consumer item being purchased in great quantities happened to be hifi audio gear. And today we are reaping the benefits of all those hifi purchases back in the day with the bounty of vast quantities of vintage audio gear available at very reasonable prices. As I sorted through my mom's stack of old Consumer Reports issues, I decided to save all of the audio related issues as I thought that some of this material might be interesting for discussion here on Audio Karma.
Now I know that people have various opinions as to the validity of CU’s recommendations and testing methodology, (I personally feel it is very good), but our family had very good luck over the years with the products we purchased based on their rankings. In fact, a large reason I am into hifi today is due to this particular issue of Consumer Reports; the May 1970 issue and its included test of Loudspeakers. In this issue CU rated the Dynaco A25 a “Best Buy,” which my mom used to help justify my parent’s purchase of a pair of these wonderful speakers in 1971. These were the speakers that I grew up listening to, and they were my very first exposure to quality hifi equipment, which in my late teens I would grow to love. But regardless of your opinion of CU and their publication, Consumer Reports, I think many will find this article interesting. I have included a PDF version of the complete article at the bottom of this post. For now I will quote a few selected sections from the article, but I would really recommend reading the whole thing in order to evaluate their comments in their full context.
LOUDSPEAKERS
“Loudspeakers start at about $30 and can run as high as $1000. But past experience has convinced CU that one needn't spend anything like the top price for high quality. Indeed, very few stereo enthusiasts could afford to invest $2000 for a pair of speakers. On the other hand, we have also learned that loudspeakers priced much under $80 are unlikely to deliver the deep bass response needed to reproduce sound with high accuracy. Thus, we decided to build this test program around models in the general area of $80 to $150.”
“CU’s latest tests indicate that loudspeaker quality presently available is very high indeed. Five of the 19 compact speakers tested merited a check-rating. Those were the Dynaco A25, the ADC 303AX, the Scott S15, the AR2ax, and the KLH Six. Two of those – the Dynaco A25 at about $80 and the ADC 303AX at $100 – are judged Best Buys. CU considers the check-rated models high-accuracy loudspeakers. And we were happy to note that all the also-rans could be termed medium-accuracy speakers – no clinkers in the group.”
“Testing: a complex problem
Whenever loudspeaker testing is discussed, two strongly opposed schools of thought usually emerge. Many engineers believe that by using the right tests and interpreting them correctly, speakers can be rated on the basis of laboratory measurements alone, just as can amplifiers, turntables, and other kinds of audio equipment. High accuracy in a loudspeaker, after all, is simply (or not so simply) the precise duplication of the electrical input signal to a corresponding acoustical wave form. Others say that the performance of a loudspeaker is too complex to be thus pinned down and that none of its measurable aspects take into account the listener’s personal likes and dislikes or widely differing room acoustics. Therefore, this group contends, tests and Ratings give no real clue to what any specific buyer will decide is a ‘good’ speaker.
Over the years, CU has constantly refined its testing methods and examined repeatedly the relationship between measurable factors and listeners’ judgments on quality. From such studies, we arrived at two conclusions. First, loudspeaker quality, as the listener finds it, can be measured in the lab, but only roughly – to divide speakers into broad quality groups of the kind used in our Ratings. Second, we found that, except for rare instances, three main characteristics determine how a speaker will sound: 1) The ‘frequency limits,’ or the highest and lowest tones the speaker will effectively reproduce; 2) the ‘spectral energy distribution,’ or the way in which the sound produced by the speaker is distributed within the frequency limits; 3) the ‘time delay accuracy,’ a measurement of whether tones reach the ear with the same relative timing they had when fed into the speaker. (A speaker with time-delay distortion tends to blur the attacks and decays in music.)”
“Analysis of the listening panel’s findings indicated that they judged as most faithful to the reference sound those speakers that had showed up best in the objective laboratory tests. However, the panelists could make no significant ranking inside the quality groups they easily picked out. Thus, both the objective and subjective tests divided our speakers into general quality groups, but did not distinguish between the quality of speakers within the groups.”
“To say that the check-rated models are equal in overall quality (power considerations aside) is not to say that they all sounded alike. Each has an individual characteristic sound. Were you able to make a comparative listening test of the check-rated speakers, chances are you would like some better than others. In order to have an accurate and fair listening test, you must listen to the speakers under identical conditions.”
“A person’s audio memory is notoriously short, so direct comparisons are a must.”
“The ultimate test will be how a speaker sounds at home, so by all means try to get return privileges.”
“When you get your speakers home you’ll have to decide where to place them. Placement can be very important, especially in how much bass the speaker can produce.”
And now, the rankings:
ACCEPTABLE – HIGH ACCURACY
The following loudspeakers were judged to be relatively free of sound coloration and to have the best combination of wide sound range and smooth response.
DYNACO A25 – Check Rated and a Best Buy
ADC 303AX – Check Rated and a Best Buy
Scott S15 – Check Rated
AR2ax – Check Rated
KLH SIX – Check Rated
ACCEPTABLE – MEDIUM ACCURACY
The following loudspeakers were judged to be below the preceding models in overall quality and to have sound coloration that was noticeable but, in general, not necessarily unpleasant.
REALISTIC OPTIMUS 1
EMI 92
SHERWOOD SR5
JBL LANCER 44
EV NINE
LEAK MINI-SANDWICH
ALTEC MADERA 892A
FISHER XP7B
The following loudspeakers were judged to be sound reproducers of medium accuracy but somewhat below the preceding models in overall quality; sound coloration was more noticeable.
WHARFDALE W40D
YAMAHA NS15
JENSEN TF3B
ALLIED 2370
LAFAYETTE CRITERION 5XA
UNIVERSITY LAREDO
This article also included a review of the Bose 901 system, as well as the Harmon-Kardon HK-50 speakers. Speakers that CU called of “Special Interest.”
Now, many of these speakers and speaker manufacturers I was familiar with, while a couple I had never heard of, for example the University Laredo and the Leak Mini-Sandwich (Wow! What a name for a set of speakers!) I was just curious if anyone else has ever heard of these speakers and can comment as to their audio characteristics.
I was also wondering if any of the other speakers mentioned in this report are worth a listen. I am intrigued by the ADC 303AX speakers, as I personally was not aware the ADC ever even made speakers. I have always thought of them as primarily a phono cartridge company.
This is my first post based on these salvaged CR issues. If this information proves interesting to the people here on AK, I will post additional articles in the future. There are lots of reviews of other speakers, receivers, turntables, and phono cartridges from what many consider the Golden Age of Audio that may be of interest.
Edit: 12/8/12: The 2nd post in this series, "Consumer Reports July 1973 Medium-Priced Loudspeakers Test and Rankings", can be found here: http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/showthread.php?t=486249
Now I know that people have various opinions as to the validity of CU’s recommendations and testing methodology, (I personally feel it is very good), but our family had very good luck over the years with the products we purchased based on their rankings. In fact, a large reason I am into hifi today is due to this particular issue of Consumer Reports; the May 1970 issue and its included test of Loudspeakers. In this issue CU rated the Dynaco A25 a “Best Buy,” which my mom used to help justify my parent’s purchase of a pair of these wonderful speakers in 1971. These were the speakers that I grew up listening to, and they were my very first exposure to quality hifi equipment, which in my late teens I would grow to love. But regardless of your opinion of CU and their publication, Consumer Reports, I think many will find this article interesting. I have included a PDF version of the complete article at the bottom of this post. For now I will quote a few selected sections from the article, but I would really recommend reading the whole thing in order to evaluate their comments in their full context.
LOUDSPEAKERS
“Loudspeakers start at about $30 and can run as high as $1000. But past experience has convinced CU that one needn't spend anything like the top price for high quality. Indeed, very few stereo enthusiasts could afford to invest $2000 for a pair of speakers. On the other hand, we have also learned that loudspeakers priced much under $80 are unlikely to deliver the deep bass response needed to reproduce sound with high accuracy. Thus, we decided to build this test program around models in the general area of $80 to $150.”
“CU’s latest tests indicate that loudspeaker quality presently available is very high indeed. Five of the 19 compact speakers tested merited a check-rating. Those were the Dynaco A25, the ADC 303AX, the Scott S15, the AR2ax, and the KLH Six. Two of those – the Dynaco A25 at about $80 and the ADC 303AX at $100 – are judged Best Buys. CU considers the check-rated models high-accuracy loudspeakers. And we were happy to note that all the also-rans could be termed medium-accuracy speakers – no clinkers in the group.”
“Testing: a complex problem
Whenever loudspeaker testing is discussed, two strongly opposed schools of thought usually emerge. Many engineers believe that by using the right tests and interpreting them correctly, speakers can be rated on the basis of laboratory measurements alone, just as can amplifiers, turntables, and other kinds of audio equipment. High accuracy in a loudspeaker, after all, is simply (or not so simply) the precise duplication of the electrical input signal to a corresponding acoustical wave form. Others say that the performance of a loudspeaker is too complex to be thus pinned down and that none of its measurable aspects take into account the listener’s personal likes and dislikes or widely differing room acoustics. Therefore, this group contends, tests and Ratings give no real clue to what any specific buyer will decide is a ‘good’ speaker.
Over the years, CU has constantly refined its testing methods and examined repeatedly the relationship between measurable factors and listeners’ judgments on quality. From such studies, we arrived at two conclusions. First, loudspeaker quality, as the listener finds it, can be measured in the lab, but only roughly – to divide speakers into broad quality groups of the kind used in our Ratings. Second, we found that, except for rare instances, three main characteristics determine how a speaker will sound: 1) The ‘frequency limits,’ or the highest and lowest tones the speaker will effectively reproduce; 2) the ‘spectral energy distribution,’ or the way in which the sound produced by the speaker is distributed within the frequency limits; 3) the ‘time delay accuracy,’ a measurement of whether tones reach the ear with the same relative timing they had when fed into the speaker. (A speaker with time-delay distortion tends to blur the attacks and decays in music.)”
“Analysis of the listening panel’s findings indicated that they judged as most faithful to the reference sound those speakers that had showed up best in the objective laboratory tests. However, the panelists could make no significant ranking inside the quality groups they easily picked out. Thus, both the objective and subjective tests divided our speakers into general quality groups, but did not distinguish between the quality of speakers within the groups.”
“To say that the check-rated models are equal in overall quality (power considerations aside) is not to say that they all sounded alike. Each has an individual characteristic sound. Were you able to make a comparative listening test of the check-rated speakers, chances are you would like some better than others. In order to have an accurate and fair listening test, you must listen to the speakers under identical conditions.”
“A person’s audio memory is notoriously short, so direct comparisons are a must.”
“The ultimate test will be how a speaker sounds at home, so by all means try to get return privileges.”
“When you get your speakers home you’ll have to decide where to place them. Placement can be very important, especially in how much bass the speaker can produce.”
And now, the rankings:
ACCEPTABLE – HIGH ACCURACY
The following loudspeakers were judged to be relatively free of sound coloration and to have the best combination of wide sound range and smooth response.
DYNACO A25 – Check Rated and a Best Buy
ADC 303AX – Check Rated and a Best Buy
Scott S15 – Check Rated
AR2ax – Check Rated
KLH SIX – Check Rated
ACCEPTABLE – MEDIUM ACCURACY
The following loudspeakers were judged to be below the preceding models in overall quality and to have sound coloration that was noticeable but, in general, not necessarily unpleasant.
REALISTIC OPTIMUS 1
EMI 92
SHERWOOD SR5
JBL LANCER 44
EV NINE
LEAK MINI-SANDWICH
ALTEC MADERA 892A
FISHER XP7B
The following loudspeakers were judged to be sound reproducers of medium accuracy but somewhat below the preceding models in overall quality; sound coloration was more noticeable.
WHARFDALE W40D
YAMAHA NS15
JENSEN TF3B
ALLIED 2370
LAFAYETTE CRITERION 5XA
UNIVERSITY LAREDO
This article also included a review of the Bose 901 system, as well as the Harmon-Kardon HK-50 speakers. Speakers that CU called of “Special Interest.”
Now, many of these speakers and speaker manufacturers I was familiar with, while a couple I had never heard of, for example the University Laredo and the Leak Mini-Sandwich (Wow! What a name for a set of speakers!) I was just curious if anyone else has ever heard of these speakers and can comment as to their audio characteristics.
I was also wondering if any of the other speakers mentioned in this report are worth a listen. I am intrigued by the ADC 303AX speakers, as I personally was not aware the ADC ever even made speakers. I have always thought of them as primarily a phono cartridge company.
This is my first post based on these salvaged CR issues. If this information proves interesting to the people here on AK, I will post additional articles in the future. There are lots of reviews of other speakers, receivers, turntables, and phono cartridges from what many consider the Golden Age of Audio that may be of interest.
Edit: 12/8/12: The 2nd post in this series, "Consumer Reports July 1973 Medium-Priced Loudspeakers Test and Rankings", can be found here: http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/showthread.php?t=486249
Attachments
Last edited: