kneeOhFight
Addicted Member
Hmm, not even a mention of my favorite speakers at that time, Rectilinear
-
Please note that there are a few updates and clarifications made in the Audiokarma Rules, mostly relating to advertising and the addition of the new "Paying it Forward" & "Giving back" forums in the AudioKarma Audio Marketplace section.
Consumer Reports May 1970 Loudspeaker Tests and Rankings
- Thread starter Treker
- Start date
Gang-Twanger
Resident Wharfedaliophool
Thanks for transcribing and posting that CR article, Treker! Very interesting to look back in time and see not much has changed in the realm of rating audio gear debate.
I also wonder how much difference there might have been in the KLH Model Sixes that I own (1958) and the ones they tested. I like them VERY much.
That being said, I really need to get my hands on a pair of Dynaco A25's now
I'd be interested in the report on AR3a's...
I read that stuff about the AR3a in the .pdf... They said quite a bit, but basically they loved the AR3 and hated the AR3a. The said the new mid was part of the problem, and they also mentioned an issue with the tweeter (which may have just been a problem with the way it integrated with the mid).
Anyway, it should be in there. Follow the right columns and scroll down 'til you see it.
Gang-Twanger
Resident Wharfedaliophool
I see speakers at the thrifts all the time with the frequency response curve printed right on the front. Fine names like Yorx and SoundDesign. Lemmie know if you'd like me to pick you up a pair.
Nice.... I've seen those types of cheapo speakers with the response curve on the front, but the response curve usually spells out the phrase, "Oh My God!"... The response is the physical equivalent of the guitar solo in Janis Joplin's "Ball & Chain"... (the LIVE version).
Actually, I do have a pair of halfway decent speakers that have a response curve on the front... My dB Plus 1010's... They also say "DIGITAL" on the front as well. But these are made by API and have a pretty-good rep.
Last edited:
The response is the physical equivalent of the guitar solo in Janis Joplin's "Ball & Chain"... (the LIVE version).
C'mon GT, give Big Brother a little credit.
Gang-Twanger
Resident Wharfedaliophool
Oh no, you got me all wrong... I love that album. I really do... but I've always gotten a kick out of the guitar-players in that band. Fuzz pedals were all the rage at that point, and "Ball & Chain" takes fuzztone to it's absolute limits (kind of like a lot of ultra-cheapo speakers). But I like the live version even better because it's a bit wilder and one of the guitar-players is a little out of tune (the guy who's got the tremolo engaged on his amp), which adds to it, I think. Makes it better.
I'm also a fan of Blue Cheer's "Vincebus Eruptum"... I have an original 1st-pressing stereo LP (plus a vinyl-rip of the mono LP). That's more of an overdriven amp kind of fuzztone though... Not the same as a pedal.
Last edited:
Fran604g
Love at first sound...
Thanks G-T! I hadn't noticed the link. :thmbsp:
Fran604g
Love at first sound...
Interesting what they said about the AR3a having a problem in the midrange/bass crossover point. I've read that around 1970, AR changed the woofer's inductor coil in the crossover because of a problem with the woofer's performance when they changed from the cloth surrounds to the foam. I wonder if CU tested a pair before the inductor change and if CU was a catalyst for the change? Interesting. :scratch2:
Treker
Super Member
You know, you are absolutely correct. My mistake. I’ll go in and make the correction.
However, this brings an interesting topic to mind, and that is the fallibility of our perceptions. When I responded to the original poster questioning the “KLX SIX” reference, I saw “KLH”, not “KLX”. In fact, I was focusing on the “SIX” portion of the question, not the “KLX”, and did not actually see the “X” until I read your post. I was thinking that the person who wrote the original question was wondering if there was a difference between the “KLH SIX”, and the “KLH Model 6”, which is the way that this model speaker is referred to most of the time. That is why I responded in the way that I did.
What this goes to show us is that we often see what we expect to see. And mcuh in the smae way taht you can raed tihs stnencne wtih ltitle or no dtficufily eevn tghuoh mnnay of the wrods are mpilseseld, our brains often times fill in for information that is missing or inconsistent with information that is expected or is consistent. Our eyes are not the only participant in the process of “seeing.” Our brain is the one that actually does most of the heavy lifting with regards to sight, so in a sense it is our brain that “sees.”
Our brain is an active participant in “processing” the information that it receives from our senses, sometimes filling in information where it is not really present. This is a shortcut that our brain uses in order to be more efficient in its energy usage. And this applies to our sense of hearing as well. We often hear what we expect to hear because our brains are actively processing the information they are receiving from our ears. And in this way our brains can deceive us into thinking and believing things that are not really true. In other words, our senses can lie to us. As another example, this characteristic of our brains is what magicians exploit to deceive us with their magic tricks. Just remember, don’t believe everything you think.
If you are interested in reading more about this topic, I would recommend the book “Don’t Believe Everything You Think” by Thomas Kida. It is very interesting and very accessible to the layperson.
If it'll make you feel better - I did the exact same thing...
Fran604g
Love at first sound...
noogies
My Favorite Woofers.
"Rectilinear??? Damn near killed-a-linear!!" HAHAHAHA!
So this is the infamous review that Bose sued CU for. What is says about the 901 is actually fairly favorable and evenhanded. It says that the 901 system is on the cusp, the low side of "high-accuracy," the high side of "medium-accuracy." It does say that the 901 system sounds heavy, which is exactly what Julian Hirsch wrote later, not about the original 901, but about the Series VI. The review is generally accurate, even if you split hairs about the definition of "wander." Bose never had anything to sue about.
Treker, thanks for the article reprints. I saw this post early this morning and saved the PDF to read as a reward after I got my "chores" completed. Consumer Reports isn't perfect but at least they are open in how they do their testing. Please keep posting, I think lots of us are enjoying the vintage articles.
Treker
Super Member
Thanks for your kind words. I really appreciate it.
I'm glad that people are enjoying these articles and getting some value out of them. I'll keep posting new ones as time permits. I have over a decade of Consumer Reports magazines to go through, so hopefully there will be a lot of other articles that people will be interested in. I'll bet CU never thought their reviews would still be of interest to people 40 years after the fact when they were first writing them.
Just got finished recapping my pair of ADC 303ax. Mine just have a single (tar encrusted) 6uF cap.
They went from being pretty terrible to pretty darned good in one afternoon. I used Dayton 5% caps. I also gave the switches a shot of DeOxit, which helped a lot.
Definitely the biggest improvement from cap replacement I've experienced.
They went from being pretty terrible to pretty darned good in one afternoon. I used Dayton 5% caps. I also gave the switches a shot of DeOxit, which helped a lot.
Definitely the biggest improvement from cap replacement I've experienced.