[aeberbach]

That's it, FCJ, the readers want "good enough" rather than best. Nobody with CR as guide will end up with Leica.

It might even work against them if they were to review absolutely everything. Many people have said to me, in hushed tones, "are you an... audiophile?" as if it was some kind of mental illness. Most people think it's somewhat crazy to spend even the price of the most expensive Best Buy system on audio. If CR started reviewing $400 headphones they might alienate some of their readership. Nobody every lost money by aiming at the lowest common denominator.

 

[dinosauract]

Yep, I think fcj has it exactly. The magazine taylors its reports to its target audience, the average consumer who wants good value for the dollar. Not the enthusiast who will will take great pains to get the absolute highest quality.

I use Consumer Reports pretty regularly when I buy things. Especially things I don't know a whole lot about. I took their recommendations recently for buyng a camera, a lawn mower, and major appliances. And I've been happy with all of those purchases. Do I have the best camera, no way. But with cameras, I'm an everage Joe, I want good pictures with a camera that's easy to use and not too expensive. And that's what I got. An enthusiast would look at my little autofocus 35 mm Canon as a toy, but it does what I want very well. Just as we might scoff at their choice of headphones or speakers. But I'll bet most people who take their recommendations for those items are happy with their choices.

Are they experts on audio? Of course not, nor are they really experts on anything else. But they do at least some use tests and sometimes some measurements on products, and they are at least reasonably impartial. Wnen it comes to things I'm enthusiastic about and have a lot of knowledge, I'll trust my own judgment over theirs.

I haven't seen the headphone report, but I'm definitely going to check it out. Do they give frequency response curves like they do for speakers? As rudimentary as that test is, I have found that their curves do at least correlate in a rough way to how the speakers sound. Of cousre, the magazine and its readership would think I was nuts for paying $3500 for my little Dynaudio speakers.

Too bad they didn't test the Senn 497's or any of the 60 ohm Koss's. That is one deficit of the magazine. They seem to purchase thei gear within a narrow window of time and retailers, so they frequently miss out on testing some noteworthy products.

 

[dariusf]

As poor as the sampling of the headphones is, its very true to what most people think as a selection of headphones. Perhaps with the deference that BOSE would be on the top of the list. Its sad but this just how it is. For most people Best Buy IS the place to find electronics and places like Cruthfield is the high end of the line. Its just reality.

 

[MacDEF]

Quote:

Originally posted by kelly I sincerely believe this is basically their mission statement and that it is implied.

I don't think it's implied anywhere, and in fact I've talked to friends who actually read CR who think that CR only reviews "the best stuff on the market." In other words, a lot of people think that if CR doesn't review it, it must not be good enough to even review

Quote:

Some items have caught on faster than others on the internet. Most people just don't put enough thought behind a pair of "replacement headphones" to think to shop on the internet.

But that's just it -- most people see the Internet as a legitimate shopping option. They may or may not buy stuff over the Internet, but they're aware of it being a viable option. If they see it as an option for some products, it doesn't take much to get them thinking about it for other products. So if CR said something like "There are many great headphones available today; in fact, for every headphone your local Best Buy carries, there are 30-40 other models available online, and many online vendors offer a generous return policy so you can try them out." If they said that, and listed a few good online vendors, at least people wouldn't be under the mistaken impression that CR was testing the best of the best, or that what CR was testing is all that's out there.


But let's forget about the Internet for a moment, and just talk about locally-available stuff...


Quote:

Originally posted by FCJ I'll make the same point as I did before--they know who their readers are and they cater to their needs/tastes (or lack thereof, I guess, in this case).

CR's own mission would seem to argue against that position -- they're not in business to validate their readership's poor taste. They're in business to help readers get the most for their money. And audio is one of the few areas where they consistently fail, mainly because, as I said before, it's a lot easier (and takes a lot less experience) to pick the best toaster than it is to evaluate audio equipment. The same type of CR panel that evaluates ironing boards evaluates audio gear, and that's a joke.

But that said, with all due respect, I think you guys are missing my point. I'm not saying that CR should review expensive "audiophile" gear. I'm saying they should at least review the good stuff their readers can easily buy, and therefore provide a useful service. Is testing some of the worst headphones on the market, and telling people what's the best of the worst really fulfilling their mission? I personally don't think so. They would be doing so much more good if they included some of the easily-available good buys in headphones. That's what a true consumer-oriented publication should be doing.


Quote:

Here's an example, in another context. Let's say I was interested in a camera. Not a digital one, but a 35mm camera. I want something simple that takes "good" pictures, and I'm only willing to spend, say, $150 on it. I am not willing to go to 10 or 20 stores to try out various brands, and I am not willing to buy magazines and read articles online about the different types of cameras. I just want something simple that takes "good" pictures, and I'm only willing to spend $150. I bet that's the same type of decision process a CR reader takes with respect to headphones. They have very low involvement in headphones, and are not willing to take the time, nor spend the money, to find out more than, say, CR can tell them.

But that's just it -- the readers of CR are people who are conscientious enough about their purchasing decisions that they go out and buy a magazine like CR to become more informed. Thus if CR did a *real* test of headphones -- one that included some quality models -- their readers would be that much more happy. I don't think you guys are giving CR readers enough credit.


Quote:

These are not the types of people who own, say 5-6 different headphones. They are not the types who buy a $185 pair of aftermarket cables for their headphones. They most likely listen to their headphones infrequently and through mass market gear. And I bet CR knows all of this. Which is why you'll never find a decent audiophile type of headphone on its pages. Their readership just does not have the level of involvement needed to justify its inclusion.

But that's not a logical conclusion. I agree that the people buying headphones based on CR aren't audio geeks. But they care enough to want to look at reviews. Just because they aren't total freaks about audio like we are

, does that mean that they should be doomed to listening to crappy audio all their lives? Or that they don't really care about good sound? Think about it -- CR is recommending headphones that cost $150! And those headphones are junk compared to other $150 headphones (and even compared to some $50 headphones). Don't you think that someone who is going to spend $150 on headphones cares enough about them to at least deserve a decent review of easily available options?


Here's what it comes down to for me: Off the top of my head I can name twelve headphone models that sell for less than $100, are widely available at brick-and-mortar stores, and sound as good as or better than every model they tested. In other words, for every headphone they included in their "test," a cheaper, better model is easily available:

Sennheiser HD 497
Sennheiser HD 212
Sennheiser HD 280 Pro
Sony MDR-V6
Koss KSC-50
Koss KSC-55
Koss PortaPro
Koss SportaPro
Sennheiser MX500
Sennheiser MX400
Grado SR60
Grado SR80


I would include the 35, but they're not as easily available now. I include the Grados because you can now get them at any Cambridge Soundworks store, as well as a lot of other electronics stores. I could have also included some of the Phillips models that are OK and are available at Target and Virgin Megastores.

Why weren't any of these high-quality headphones tested? To not include a single one of these headphones proves that CR is clueless about audio reviewing (as if their ranking PSB below Bose in their speaker tests didn't prove that conclusively already

)


Quote:

You (or we) can't try to graft your value set on their readers.

Why not? Again, I really don't understand this position. If CR is supposed to be a magazine dedicated to helping consumers get the best value for their money, why shouldn't they be held to that standard when reviewing audio? As people who actually care about audio, we should be demanding that they test products that actually sound good. We should be telling them that their headphone and speaker reviews are clueless.

I'm not saying they should be reviewing headphones like the HP1000, R10, HD 600, Orpheus, etc. I'm saying that if they're going to review stuff the average consumer can buy at their local electronics store, they should at least review the good stuff available at the local electronics store. If they can review overpriced junk like the $150 V700, they can review any of the twelve headphones I listed above, all of which sound better and cost less than $100.

 

[dariusf]

MacDEF

I totally agree with you!

 

[kelly]

MacDef
Out of your twelve models, which ones are available at the following outlets: Virgin Megastore, Borders, Tower Records, Walmart, K-Mart. The ones that are, I think, are valid complaints--they should have been included. The headphones only available at high end audio specialty shops I don't agree address their market.

Yes, it would be nice if you could print an article and automatically convert the layperson into a specialist but I disagree that this is Consumer Reports' goal. Consumer Reports isn't trying to get people to change where they shop. They're just trying to say, "While you're there, here's how the products rank in the store that you already go to."

People who shop at audio specialty shops are not well served by articles about audio equipment in Consumer Reports. We would be better served by audio enthusiast magazines--to whom we already have plenty of complaints to lodge.

 

[dariusf]

As it was mentioned before, they should at least add a disclaimer that the products listed in no way represent the best products available. And it would be nice if they actually put in some effort to the process.

 

[FCJ]

Quote:

Originally posted by MacDEF The same type of CR panel that evaluates ironing boards evaluates audio gear, and that's a joke. They would be doing so much more good if they included some of the easily-available good buys in headphones. That's what a true consumer-oriented publication should be doing. Thus if CR did a *real* test of headphones -- one that included some quality models -- their readers would be that much more happy. I don't think you guys are giving CR readers enough credit. But that's not a logical conclusion. I agree that the people buying headphones based on CR aren't audio geeks. But they care enough to want to look at reviews. Just because they aren't total freaks about audio like we are , does that mean that they should be doomed to listening to crappy audio all their lives? Or that they don't really care about good sound? Think about it -- CR is recommending headphones that cost $150! And those headphones are junk compared to other $150 headphones (and even compared to some $50 headphones). Don't you think that someone who is going to spend $150 on headphones cares enough about them to at least deserve a decent review of easily available options? Why weren't any of these high-quality headphones tested? To not include a single one of these headphones proves that CR is clueless about audio reviewing (as if their ranking PSB below Bose in their speaker tests didn't prove that conclusively already ) Why not? Again, I really don't understand this position. If CR is supposed to be a magazine dedicated to helping consumers get the best value for their money, why shouldn't they be held to that standard when reviewing audio? As people who actually care about audio, we shouldbe demanding that they test products that actually sound good. We should be telling them that their headphone and speaker reviews are clueless.

If the same people who test toasters test headphones, why would you think they know enough to pick "high-quality" headphones? Should they go outside and reach out to real authorities to make such choices? Isn't that against their mission statement? I just don't understand how they can be viewed as being so smart in choosing ovens but so dumb in choosing headphones?

Regarding your question about what we should or shouldn't be demanding, it's easy to make that choice--don't buy the magazine, especially when they review headphones or any other audio. Unfortunately, I don't think they it enters their decision process whether their headphone and speaker reviews are clueless--I bet they feel that they're picking what their average user picks when they look for headphones and they're pointing them in the right direction. There would be only one way to test this--I wish they would survey their readership to see what headphones and other high-end audio they own. Unfortunately, I bet you wouldn't find many Ultrasones, Etymotics, or Cordas on the list.

 

[andrzejpw]

Quote:

Just because they aren't total freaks about audio like we are , does that mean that they should be doomed to listening to crappy audio all their lives?

This is exactly what I'm saying. So what that the average CR reader is only looking for "a pair of headphones." If they're going to pay $150 for HD570s, they should be aware that there are other, BETTER headphones for the price. The senn 497s are fantastic for the price, and I'm pretty sure they are available at circuit city.

The most puzzling thing to me is, that they recommended headroom. I mean, headroom doesn't sell 1/2 of the products that they rate. But someone at CR must have found out about headroom. Or did they just type "headphones" into google?

 

[Eagle_Driver]

Quote:

Originally posted by MacDEF Just because they aren't total freaks about audio like we are , does that mean that they should be doomed to listening to crappy audio all their lives? Or that they don't really care about good sound? Think about it -- CR is recommending headphones that cost $150! And those headphones are junk compared to other $150 headphones (and even compared to some $50 headphones).

I can place the blame for reviewing the flashy crap on the headphone manufacturers themselves. Almost EVERY one of them generally reserve their GOOD-sounding models for distribution to those out-of-the-way places such as those audio salons that charge an astronomically high price for everything that they sell

- and shove down their mediocre or poor sounding 'phones everywhere else!

 

[dinosauract]

I agree with Eagle. My local Circuit City no longer stocks either the Senn 497 or Koss KSC-50. The best phone I could buy locally now would probably be a Phillips from Target or one of the Sony's CR rated.

 

[Steve999]

Thanks Slindeman!

I couldn't resist... I bought a pair of the Sony CD180s, just to see what the CR best buy was all about. After all what did I have to lose? (Answer: 20 bucks on another pair of headphones. Uhg.) If I take the bass down one unit on my minidisc player, they're quite decent for music, nothing to write home about, but you can relax and enjoy it and forget about the phones and have a little isolation.

They're also quite comfortable, and closed. So I think CRs evaluation... good buy and emphasized mid-bass and reduced low treble... was quite accurate and reasonable.

Edit... I did a quick A/B with my Sennheiser HD 497s, Grado SR 60s, and Sony MDR-V6s. In this context, the Sony CD180s are, well, worthless. They're going back to the store. Whatever the justification, it REALLY IS a shame the readers of consumer reports will not be informed of the incredible sound availabe in the price range of the report.

The "very good" CD180s were okay. I cringe to think what the lower-rated "good" headphones must sound like.

Quote:

Originally posted by slindeman I can give you some feedback and I hope it is helpful. I have the HD570s and my coworker has the CD180s. The CD180s are no KSC-35s, but they are definitely not as bad as most cheap headphones.

 

[Davie]

Circuit City's stocking system is strangely erratic, but at my local (NYC) stores they almost always have the KSC 50's available. (They also had a pair (one) of the Sennheiser 497's the other day.) They also have the KSC 50's at the new Best Buy here. Clearly Koss is widely distributed, and clearly the KSC 50's are one of the best (if not the best) value in expensive phones. For Consumer Reports to not even mention them just seems wrong. And if they're reviewing other Sennheiser models, why not the 497's? The 497s are just the kind of outstanding bargain that should get a "Best Buy" seal of approval from CR.

I agree that CR should review products that shoppers can easily get their hands on, but it also seems like they should at least let them know that there's something better available if they want to make the effort to find it. Especially since nowadays, with Amazon etc., it really doesn't take much effort at all. It sounds like what CR did was circulate more of the same kind poor information that people can get from badly trained salespeople, but with the prestige of the CR name behind it.

 

[jackm]

For years, I purchased Consumer Reports and eagerly read their articles. I was a big fan of Consumer Reports. Then I noticed that in almost every situation where I really knew something about the products that they reviewed, I took major issue with something about their article. For example, their testing methodologies did not include important aspects of the product. I'm not talking about audio gear etc., I'm talking about toasters and vacuum cleaners! Finally, I read a review where the data didn't make any sense. They had two tables: one listed the product weight in ounces, the other gave a rating of all the products and had a column showing ratings (bad, fair, good, excellent) of product weight. But the two tables did not correllate at all! It was impossible to make any sense of the data. So finally, I cancelled my subscription. I can't trust anything they say. Even about toasters.

 

[MacDEF]

Quote:

Originally posted by kelly Out of your twelve models, which ones are available at the following outlets: Virgin Megastore, Borders, Tower Records, Walmart, K-Mart. The ones that are, I think, are valid complaints--they should have been included. The headphones only available at high end audio specialty shops I don't agree address their market.

Apart from the Grados, I've seen every single one of the twelve I listed at one of the following: Target, Good Guys, Best Buy, Borders, Virgin. I think that's "widely available" enough to be considered "widely available," no? And considering that Cambridge Soundworks has stores on the west coast and east coast, and the Internet, I think it's at least worth it for CR to mention it. But even if you drop the Grados, that's still ten models, all better than any of those they reviewed, IMO, and all widely available.




Quote:

Consumer Reports isn't trying to get people to change where they shop. They're just trying to say, "While you're there, here's how the products rank in the store that you already go to."

Which, again, is exactly my point. The above headphones I listed are available at the places their readers already go to.