|   Recent ConsumerReport magazine's rating of A/V Receivers. | KiD SmokE
Oct 24, 2002 1:49 PM | | This rating Nov '02 looks almost like Receiver's rating of last year where Technics/Panasonic top the chart, and as usual Pioneer, Sony and JVC bring up the rear.
Sound Quality: (Excellent: 5 star)(VeryGood: 4 star)(Good: 3 Star)(Fair: 2 Star).
Manufacture....Sound Q....Power into (8 ohms, 6 Ohms, 4 Ohms):
1. Panasonic SA-HE100...4 Star.....65w, 112w, 45w
2. Onkyo TX-SR600/700...4 Star....109w, 127w, n/a
3. HK AVR 320/520...4 Star...88w, 105w, n/a
4. Onkyo TX-SR500...4 Star...92w, 110, n/a
5. Yamaha RX-V430/530...4 Star...101w, 115w, 74w
6. HK AVR 120/125...4 star...77w, 88w, n/a
7. Panasonic SA-HE70...4 star...73w, 94w, n/a
8. Kenwood VR-6060/6070...4 star...128w, 152w, n/a
--------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Pioneer VSX-D811S...3 star....140w, 157w, n/a
10. Pioneer VSX-D511/D411...3 star...135w, 149w, n/a
11. RCA STAV-3990/4090...3 star....139w, 152w, n/a
12. Sony STR-DE685/DE885...3 Star...131w, 151w, n/a
13, JVC RX-6020/7020VBK...3 Star...98w, 114w, n/a
14. Sony STR-DE485....3 Star....106w, 124w, n/a
Note that Kenwood VR-6060 had the highest power of the bunch that had received 4 star sound quality rating. |
| Where's the Denon's? | karl k
Oct 24, 2002 5:04 PM | | Was it the only 5 star in the bunch and held out of the results in respect to the losers? Where's the Outlaw?
I was glad to see the Kenwood make it, I am secretly eyeing the 6070 as an option to the Denon 2802. Hmmm decissions...
Karl K.
The shortest distance between two points is a straight line... in the opposite direction. |
| Previous issue | bikehikefish
Oct 25, 2002 6:51 AM | | The last time they rated receivers, about a year ago, the Denon 1802 was included. It rated about the middle of the pack. Keep in mind the CR rates based on "features" (quantifiable), not on sound quality (subjective).
I don't have the issue with me, but if you look in the back of every CR, there is a 1 year index. |
| The rating is also based on Sound Quality. | KiD SmokE
Oct 25, 2002 12:51 PM | | Although each receiver have independent rating for Features, Ease of use and Over all rating, but it also have rating for its Performance (which I based my sound quality rating on).
If you look at fine print for description of "performance", it said that it refer to lack of noise and distortion in the amplifier which are main category of sound quality, especially the distortion :) |
| The rating is also based on Sound Quality. | mtrycrafts
Oct 27, 2002 8:54 PM | | b but it also have rating for its Performance (which I based my sound quality rating on).
No, performance combines the lack of noise and distortion in the amp, plus AM-FM reception. Do you know what weight is given to each? Do you know any amount of noise and distortion was audible?
b which are main category of sound quality, especially the distortion :)
Yes, but did it say what score was for this quality and what for AM/FM reception and what amount was audibl? |
| They must be THEOCRATICAL ratings | pinetop
Oct 24, 2002 6:20 PM | | God i love that word, and my thank's to you smokE for that great word LOL bob d |
| Pinetop and Karl K...... | KiD SmokE
Oct 24, 2002 11:14 PM | | I was wondering that myself...where is Denon and Outlaw?? They test out Denon last year (it ranked 4 star also), but I have never seen Outlaw in ConsumerReport ratings. I guess one reason that might be is that you can not find outlaw at your typical local HI-FI store. |
| Sound Quality? | mtrycrafts
Oct 24, 2002 9:52 PM | | Where did you find that rating? I have the issue and just cannot locate what you are talking about. |
| It should say ConsumerReports on the front cover :) | KiD SmokE
Oct 24, 2002 11:25 PM | | Are you sure we are talking about the same magazine <img src="http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htforum/images/smilies/biggrin.gif">
It is in Nov 2002 issue, page 38-40. Use the blind fold only for listening, not reading..LOLOL |
| Yep | mtrycrafts
Oct 25, 2002 9:53 PM | | Mine says "overall score" and rated P, F, G, VG, E, and no sound quality score. Where does it appear in your issue? |
| The rating is under "Performance". | KiD SmokE
Oct 26, 2002 2:12 PM | | The sound quality rating is the same as "Performance" rating (next to "over all score"). If you look at fine print (below the rating) for description of Performance, it state that performance rating is for noise and distortion which is directly related to sound quality, especially distortion.
They might have pumped a test signal to the receiver's input and observe the output for Amp's power capability, noise and distortion. Best amp are the one that replica input signal without sound coloration which excessive distortion will do to the sound. I guess measuring it is posed to produce better result than just listening to it :) |
| The rating is under "Performance". | mtrycrafts
Oct 26, 2002 4:35 PM | | Yes, I see those explanations but you cannot come to a meaningful conclusion as AM/FM reception performance is also included in the performance rating. So you really don't know which may have more noise or distortion. And, no mention of audibility for either, is there. And, you numerical grade is inappropriate as well. |
| re: Recent ConsumerReport magazine's rating of A/V Receivers. | pinetop
Oct 25, 2002 6:41 AM | | SmokE what we have here are ratings for budget receivers i don't think any of them cost more than four hundred dollars. Receivers such as the Denons and Outlaw, Nad, Rotel, Yamaha, fall out of this category. bob d |
| re: Recent ConsumerReport magazine's rating of A/V Receivers. | bo130
Oct 25, 2002 10:55 AM | | Pinetop - What about the Denon 483 ($299) and the Denon 683 ($399)? Also, the Yamaha 5540 ($299) and the Yamaha 5550 ($399)? |
| Good point, they should have been rated also n-t | pinetop
Oct 25, 2002 12:20 PM | | |
| If they did, they probably would have ranked..... | KiD SmokE
Oct 25, 2002 12:56 PM | | ......somewhere in the middle.
Like the most expensive model they tested HK AVR 320 ($650) did (3rd). |
| I don't know about the other receivers in the list..... | karl k
Oct 25, 2002 2:21 PM | | but the Kenwood they list as the 6060/6070, the 6070 list's at $600 in which case the Denon 2802/982 would fall in this range. I just found it odd that they(CR) would leave out a decent product line. You guy's maybe right about the Outlaw being factory direct. I would like to think that if it were an "unbiased" rating, that they would include everyone in the price/features range. That would be like not including a Dell in a computer lineup!
Karl K.
The shortest distance between two points is a straight line... in the opposite direction. |
| re: Recent ConsumerReport magazine's rating of A/V Receivers. | ryewoods
Oct 25, 2002 2:26 PM | | I can't take CR's rating seriously. I believe the last time they did a speaker review they rated speakers from Pioneer, Technics, and Jenson ahead of B&W, Paradigm, and PSB. |
| They tested the B&W 602 S2 | Norm Strong
Oct 25, 2002 6:48 PM | | This is a speaker whose sound I'm familiar with. They also tested the Technics LX30--which I own. I'm afraid I'll have to agree with CR; the B&W is a very good speaker, but it's no better than the Technics, and it does cost 5 times as much.
I might mention a point that isn't necessarily obvious about the pricing of speakers. Some brands sell at or very close to the MSRP: B&W and Bose fall in that category. Others, like the Pioneer that rated so highly, sell on the street for less than half the MSRP. The best price I've ever seen for the Pioneer DF3 was $150/pr. The Bose 301, which is right below the Pioneer, is $300, and you'll have to pay pretty close to that amount if you want that speaker. |
| CR also gave Bose speaker thumbs down. | KiD SmokE
Oct 25, 2002 8:10 PM | | They rated Bose center speaker (VCS-10..$200) as the worst of 13 center channel speaker they tested (alomost to the point of giving it a "Poor" rating). That will shatter some notions out there that CR might be biased toward Bose-since Bose 301 speakers have always top the rating in their speaker evaluation :)
May be a law suit from Bose is under way for their Center speaker rating by CR <img src="http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htforum/images/smilies/biggrin.gif">
. |
| problem with CR's speaker ratings... | Woochifer
Oct 28, 2002 4:37 PM | | Don't even get me started on CR's Bose 301 ratings! Those are about as bogus as it gets because they make a special accommodation with how they measure the Bose direct/reflecting speakers. It was at least 20 years ago when I read this in one of their speaker tests, but when going over the methodology, they mentioned that they measure the Bose speakers using an additional measuring point in the rear since one or more of the drivers are facing towards the rear. All the other speakers were tested using a single on-axis measuring point; in other words they altered their testing methodology for Bose. So much for objectivity.
And yes, I'm well aware that in last year's speaker issue, the 301s rated ahead of B&W's DM602s. I say to that, no way in hell the 301 rates ahead of ANYTHING in its price class, not to mention the DM602. I mean, this isn't even a case of a subtle difference that needs repeated trials with blind tests -- these were very obvious differences that I heard when I had the Studio 40s, DM602, and the 301s that I use as surrounds, all hooked into my system for various comparisons.
From my understanding of their methodology, the problem with their scoring is that frequency deviations are treated equally, no matter where they occur. Inaccuracy in the lower bass or the extreme highs is treated equally as inaccuracies in the midrange. We know that in real life use, midrange deviations have a much more audible effect simply because most sounds in music and movies are in the midrange. The frequency response charts are useful to look at to get some idea of their tonal characteristics, but I wouldn't place too much stock in their rankings because they simply don't say enough about how the speakers will sound in real world conditions with CDs and DVDs rather than tone generators.
Your example of Bose's center speaker reinforces what I've been saying all along about the VCS-10 and the 161 surround speaker -- they are just plain bad speakers and Bose markets them as matching all of their direct/reflecting AND Acoustimass models; unfortunately, they match poorly with the models that I've heard paired with them. If you've ever heard any of those speakers, you'll definitely notice that they all have distinctly different voicing (even among the Acoustimass models, the new jewel cube models sound way different from their other Acoustimass satellites, but still mediocre, just in a different way).
Maybe Bose needs to put some drivers behind the speaker so they can force CR to once again make an "exception" to their testing procedures to accommodate and inflate the rating for those mediocre Bose models. |
| C R ratings are nothing but Bullshit | pinetop
Oct 25, 2002 9:08 PM | | I for one would like to know how they check them for sound quality? Do they use the same speakers? Do they use the same DVD or CD? Do they use a certain volume level? And the big one from a four star rating to a five give me a break will ya what the hell is the difference sound wise with one more star.Who in the name of hell do they have testing these units golden eared German shepard dogs to tell a one star difference. If i were doing such a test i would turn these receivers up full tilt to see wich one of them shit the bed first. bob d |
| C R ratings are nothing but Bullshit | mtrycrafts
Oct 25, 2002 10:01 PM | | ??? Based on what?
b I for one would like to know how they check them for sound quality?
Did they? Or You just blindly accept smokes claim that they did? He cannot read very well yet.
Oh, they didn't rate it for sound quality, by the way. No need for that. CR is not an audio rag. |
| I don't think it is that hard to test out.... | KiD SmokE
Oct 26, 2002 2:25 PM | | ...receivers sonically (with ear). All one need is a good reference Amp (low distortion, noise) that other can be measured against. Just do an A/B switch between two and see which produce a better sound (better clarity and more defined sound). All one need is a good set of ears. You and Pinetop make it sound like it is a rocket science :) |
| I don't think it is that hard to test out.... | mtrycrafts
Oct 27, 2002 9:01 PM | | No, it is not rocket science but it is not as simple as you make it sound. And, if the rating lab didn't listen, then why do you keep implying an audibility grade that you arbitrarily assigbned even though there are 5 circles to rate it by. |
| Unfortunately, CR is almost 100% correct due to their... | Debbi
Oct 26, 2002 5:37 AM | | ..unimpeachable comprehensive scientific testing methods, using state of the art, "spare no expense" testing equipment.Add to that, their time tested double blind testing of subjective factors and you have the most fair and accurate testing of audio equipment on the planet. They have made only a handful of testing mistakes over the past 25 years...notably when they tested the equipment that I own.Aside from that, they are damn near perfect... |
| I guess they are entitled to few mistake. | KiD SmokE
Oct 26, 2002 2:42 PM | | Few years ago, I bought a Panasonic Super Flat TV that top their TV rating, but I had to take it back due to its "fuzziness". Except for that time, they been right on for most other times, especially their TVs. |
| I guess they are entitled to few mistake. | mtrycrafts
Oct 26, 2002 4:38 PM | | b but I had to take it back due to its "fuzziness
Most likely a lemon. Even Toyota has a few, from time to time:) |
| Unfortunately, CR is almost 100% correct due to their... | mtrycrafts
Oct 26, 2002 4:36 PM | | b notably when they tested the equipment that I own.
What would that be? Very curious. |
| Unfortunately, CR is almost 100% correct due to their... | Debbi
Oct 27, 2002 5:03 AM | | My post was meant as sarcasm. I have A Yamaha RXV995 receiver and Klipsch RSB5 speakers. I have no idea how CR rated my stuff,or if in fact they rated it at all and frankly dont care.I do know that there were some issues with ratings such as reliablity at not only CR but other sources since they obviously cannot test enough units to obtain a statistical model, they necessarily depend on stats supplied by the manufacturers or others for number of failures, repairs etc.For example in the 1980s, as we know a number of GM vehicles like Buick and Chevies were made in the same factories and had identical engines, drive trains and other components. The govenment even forced disclsure via those window stickers we see. Yet there was a considerable difference in the number of repairs (reliablity) for models which should have scored about the same. What they found was that people who drove Buicks tended to be older with time on their hands and returned vehicles for small problems while chevy had a large fleet client base. In my case, I have a Taurus company car and have lived with small problems since the day I got it. I would assume that someone who paid for and owned a Lincoln or the high end Mustang would have taken the car in several times for the same problem, thus generating statistics.
Since beginning this, my interest is spike and I dug out an 2000 CR paper back...no speaker or audio rated but has cars and snowblowers...for snowblowers they rate clearing, throwing, handling and ease of use.The latter two sound subjective to me..ie I have a Yamaha and a Denon receiver and find the Yamaha easier to use. I have friends with both who claim the Denon is easier to use. What were the criteria for the speakers anyway? |
| Sarcasm appreciated! | bikehikefish
Oct 27, 2002 6:32 AM | | Debbi - I caught the sarcasm - good post!
But I think you are incorrect about CU's source of repair statistics. Every year they send out multi page surveys to Consumer Union members (subscribers) and collect repair data on automobiles and appliances. These statistics are used to compile the repair records.
Using manufacturer data would be contrary to the CU philosophy.
However your point about the habits of Buick owners vs others could still be true with this sampling method.
About the criteria for speakers -- It's pretty simple - feed signals from the low to high frequencies and measure the output (dbs). Come up with a graph and rate them by accuracy. Pretty subjective.
Not that I agree with the speaker ratings. They liked the Cambridge Soundworks Ensemble (II, I think), which I purchased and quickly returned to the manufacturer. My kid's boom box sounded better than those tinny things. |
| |
