G
Guest
Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)
GRL asked:
> Finally I'm not sure I understand your statement: about the CR tests of old
> "They even pointed out that the audibly smooth sound of a speaker, perhaps
> the factor actually resulting in its high rating, was actually due to a
> broad, shallow (around 1dB) dip in measured frequency response centered at
> around 1000 Hz.". Using the CR rating system, flat frequency response is
> rewarded with a high score. As such your statement only makes sense to me if
> you mean that the near flat response of that speaker (1 dB broad dip is
> basically nothing) yielded both good sound and a high score, validating
> their test protocol. I assume you meant this as a compliment to CR on their
> test protocol?
I don't know how old you are, so this may have been well before you
began reading Consumer Reports. The speaker in question was the AR-3,
which makes this comment nearly 40 years old. Although the magazine
clearly judged the AR-3 highly on the basis of its good sound, there was
no "high score" in accuracy involved because there was no "accuracy
score" at that time. I did mean the comment as a compliment to Consumer
Reports, in the day when their judgments of loudspeaker performance were
subjective. They uncovered the AR-3's secret when nobody else did.
GRL asked:
> Finally I'm not sure I understand your statement: about the CR tests of old
> "They even pointed out that the audibly smooth sound of a speaker, perhaps
> the factor actually resulting in its high rating, was actually due to a
> broad, shallow (around 1dB) dip in measured frequency response centered at
> around 1000 Hz.". Using the CR rating system, flat frequency response is
> rewarded with a high score. As such your statement only makes sense to me if
> you mean that the near flat response of that speaker (1 dB broad dip is
> basically nothing) yielded both good sound and a high score, validating
> their test protocol. I assume you meant this as a compliment to CR on their
> test protocol?
I don't know how old you are, so this may have been well before you
began reading Consumer Reports. The speaker in question was the AR-3,
which makes this comment nearly 40 years old. Although the magazine
clearly judged the AR-3 highly on the basis of its good sound, there was
no "high score" in accuracy involved because there was no "accuracy
score" at that time. I did mean the comment as a compliment to Consumer
Reports, in the day when their judgments of loudspeaker performance were
subjective. They uncovered the AR-3's secret when nobody else did.