[jackm]

That's funny!

 

[Steve999]

In theory, and in general, I'm with the Consumer Reports defenders. But I have to say this particular Consumer Reports report is a disaster. If you want to see for yourself (though it would be a waste of time), go buy yourself a pair of the "best-buy" 2nd rated Sony CD180s for $20, rated between two phones selling for well over $100, and compare them to anything you have that's decent, at any price. I was silly enough to do this, and compared to any semi-decent pair of headphones, from $20 on up, they're a disaster. They're okay at first if you have an open mind, but listening to them for any length of time somehow reminds me of eating cardboad. I'm not sure why, it just does.

The mid-bass is overwhelming and they are hopelessly muffled sounding. My conclusion: the report is a disaster.

 

[FCJ]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr.PD Their demographic profile is my mother. 60 some years old retired school teacher.

What headphones does she use? I hope she's not using a pair from the current issue. Did you steer her in the right direction?

Seriously, you're right--the ratings are for users who care only enough to get "good enough." If someone is more interested, and really cares about what they buy, than they will look to a more specialized source (just like the one here).

 

[Eagle_Driver]

I used to be a subscriber to what I now call "Crapsumer Reports". Given their recent audio-reviewing history, I would be betting that CR will downrate the Sennheiser 600 and the Grados for having what they call "overblown mids". Obviously they think "accurate mids" is what most of us call "recessed mids". And they'll downrate the Etys for "having no bass at all whatsoever". (That is, if they would even dare to get their hands on samples of those 'phones for testing.)

 

[andrzejpw]

Quote:

For my 2 cents; I haven't liked con-sumer reports since they killed the Jeep CJ5. They said that the CJ5 rolled over to easily. Well I owned one and I only rolled it once. In the middle of the freeway doing 30mph. I don't think it was the Jeeps fault, it was the tires...

Were you ok?

You're not improving the case here.

 

[Davie]

Quote:

Originally posted by Steve999 In theory, and in general, I'm with the Consumer Reports defenders. But I have to say this particular Consumer Reports report is a disaster. If you want to see for yourself (though it would be a waste of time), go buy yourself a pair of the "best-buy" 2nd rated Sony CD180s for $20, rated between two phones selling for well over $100, and compare them to anything you have that's decent, at any price. I was silly enough to do this, and compared to any semi-decent pair of headphones, from $20 on up, they're a disaster. They're okay at first if you have an open mind, but listening to them for any length of time somehow reminds me of eating cardboad. I'm not sure why, it just does. The mid-bass is overwhelming and they are hopelessly muffled sounding. My conclusion: the report is a disaster.

I bought the offending issue of CR, and also the Sony CD180s. After looking things over more closely, it seems to me that CR did a particularly half-assed job on the headphones. In the same issue they review speakers, and they test twice as many models in the bookshelf category than they did for headphones altogether. Ditto the digital cameras. If your selection process for items to test is going to be random and arbitrary, at least you've got a better shot of testing the good stuff if you use a larger sample. Also, they've limited themselves to "home" models, on the stated assumption that all portable models are just variations on the crap that comes packaged with portable players. This automatically eliminates models like the Koss KSC50 and Portapro, as well as the Sennheiser MX500 earbuds (while theoretically allowing inferior variants like the Koss UR40, though those are too new to be included in this set of tests). This, I think, is entirely misleading -- it tells people that big and bulky is necessary if you want to do better than prepackaged phones. Also, it occured to me that since the Sennheiser 4x7 and 2x2 lines are relatively new and rather poorly distributed that there may be a good reason why none of those were tested. This is a shame since they clearly are the best overall value in the type of phones that CR was targetting at the date of publication.

I think the biggest problem is that headphones have changed alot in the last few years and CR's testing methodology doesn't reflect these changes. People are much more likely to be listening to phones using a portable than a home rig compared to, say, ten years ago, and some manufacturers have stepped up to the plate to serve this new market -- witness Sennheiser's new models, the Grado SR60s, Koss Portapros, etc. There's a whole array of different styles to consider -- earbuds, earplugs, clip-ons, "portable" headphones, phones geared for athletic use, models designed as switch-hitters for both portables and home, audiophile models that still demand large amounts of power from the amp. There are good and bad models in all these categories, and people's needs will also vary. None of this was reflected in the CR report (or the little headphone post-script to ther portable audio review awhile back). The digital cameras, for instance, were given a more thorough treatment. CR's approach might have made some sense given the state of headphones in, say, the mid 80-s, but clearly its time for them to take a new approach.

At least they mentioned Headroom. They could just add the sentence, "Ignore everything we've just said and listen to what these guys have to say."

 

[Eagle_Driver]

Gah. Consumer Reports has COMPLETELY missed the "heart" of the moderately-priced full-sized home-headphone market on this one! I think they tested only the so-called "best-sellers" that are sold at your typical Best Buy/Circuit City type superstore! And they completely ignored the better-performing ones in this same price range simply because they sell relatively poorly or not at all in those stores!

 

[gaineso]

I'm not too sure I'd trust CR for anything much anymore. They keep saying they aren't paid or biased, but I find too many other sources strongly disagreeing with them, especially on cars and trucks.

O think they are still pretty good on Kitchen stuff, but I just don't trust them much anymore.

 

[jackm]

I don't think you can even count on Consumer Reports to get kitchen stuff right. The straw that broke the camel's back for me was their report on blenders. CR said that a Kitchen Aid blender was far worse at chopping ice than a Waring blender. I tested both blenders myself, and got exactly opposite results.

So, if I know that I can't trust Consumer Reports' results, then all I'm left with is interesting reading. I cancelled my subscription.

I was an ardent fan of Consumer Reports for years.

I *suspect* that their automotive repair frequency data is valid.

 

[markl]

We may not be able to affect Consumer Reports reviews, but we have a chance to affect Stereophile's reviews:

http://www.head-fi.org/forums/showth...threadid=17610

Check it out and give your approval!!!

Mark

 

[Eagle_Driver]

That bottom-rated RadioShack 33-1159 headphone rated in Consumer Reports is the RadioShack-badged version of the Koss UR-20. And I can't fscking believe that Headroom had been "recommending" the UR-20 for over a year before Sennheiser started shipping its HD 202 out to the folks in Bozeman, Montana.

 

[bifcake]

Yeah, but did you know that Consumer Reports is run by Ralph Nader?

<hears everyone mumbling... "well, that changes everything!!!"

 

[Steve999]

I'd like to revise my comments. I keep listening to my Sony CD180s, and you know what, they are not that bad. They are worth $20. They are decent. I'll keep them. And it's nice to have an alternative closed headphone sound to the fabulous V6. They sound like really dark V6s. I have always been skeptical of burn-in, but maybe that's what's happening here. The highs seem to be getting much better. Or maybe my mistake was to A/B them with SR60s, MDR-V6s, and HD 497s.... not a good idea. But really, they sound decent, they do... Still, CR missed the sweet spot of the headphone market in an awful way. The CD180s should not be the star of the show.

Edit -- But I like the Sony MDR-CD180s. I really do. They're a welcome addition. I'm enjoying them. They're sort of Beyer 250-80 like.


Quote:

Originally posted by Steve999 Go buy yourself a pair of the "best-buy" 2nd rated Sony CD180s for $20, rated between two phones selling for well over $100, and compare them to anything you have that's decent, at any price. I was silly enough to do this, and compared to any semi-decent pair of headphones, from $20 on up, they're a disaster. They're okay at first if you have an open mind, but listening to them for any length of time somehow reminds me of eating cardboad.

 

[jona]

Finally read the review. Highly incomplete & disappointing- but predictable considering the source. Must be too much work to type "headphones" into google.com and spend 5 minutes collecting a bit of background info!!!!
I used to subscribe to the rag, but IMHO the quality of their info in all areas has declined markedly over the past few years (e.g. strangely ignoring the recent Toyota engine sludge controversy). Just call it......

Consumer Distorts!!!!

Jon

 

[redshifter]

long before i came here i bought a pair of sony cd180 at a record store. they are just ok for the price. they have a distant, dry sound with rolled off bass & treble. they are also very non-fatiguing and are best suited for computer work and games. even though they are closed they have poor isolation, outside sounds seem to get inside the earcups and rattle around. overall their strongest point is their comfort, with non-fatiguing sound and build.