Consumer loudspeakers rated higher than professional monitors in blind tests

Evidence

In 1985 I hosted a loudspeaker measurement seminar at the NRCC, where we showed and demonstrated our measurement capabilities and had lectures on things that were believed to be measurable and important to what we heard and preferred. The ultimate test was a double-blind subjective evaluation—ears and brains determined what was good, not the appearance of a curve. We also demonstrated those. The audience was a who’s who of loudspeaker designers and researchers from the US and Canada, and there were animated discussions. Among them were two engineers from Consumer Reports. Knowing they were coming, I had an overhead transparency prepared. For four loudspeakers that both of us had evaluated, it showed the subjective “fidelity” rating from our double-blind listening tests, and the “accuracy score” from their publication. The correlation was −0.7 (negative 0.7!). I still have the transparency. There was discussion, some puzzlement on their part, but nothing changed at the magazine. Based on this comparison, readers would have been well advised to invert the page of ratings. — , Toole, Floyd E - Sound reproduction-…, 583 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

As far as the real world is concerned, high-end audio lost its credibility during the 1980s, when it flatly refused to submit to the kind of basic honesty controls (double-blind testing, for example) that had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor since Pascal. — , Toole, Floyd E - Sound reproduction-…, 161 (#expands, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Consumer Reports loudspeaker ratings inversely predicted perceived sound quality. — , Toole, Floyd E - Sound reproduction-…, 583; Professional monitor loudspeakers were not reliably neutral or accurate references of sound quality; High-end audio forfeited credibility by refusing blind testing — , Toole, Floyd E - Sound reproduction-…, 161

Related

• Sighted loudspeaker evaluations are demonstrably unreliable (similarity 0.90)
• Consumer Reports speaker ratings were negatively correlated with blind-test fidelity ratings (similarity 0.90)
• High-end audio forfeited credibility by refusing blind testing (similarity 0.90)
• Consumer Reports loudspeaker ratings lacked rigorous subjective validation (similarity 0.90)
• Consumer Reports loudspeaker ratings inversely predicted perceived sound quality. (similarity 0.89)
• Speaker cables and devices show near-zero audible differences in blind tests (similarity 0.87)
• Blind listener tests reliably favor the most neutral loudspeakers (similarity 0.87)
• Consumer loudspeakers at moderate prices rival professional monitors in sound quality. (similarity 0.86)
• Audible resonances drove low sound-quality ratings in early blind tests (similarity 0.86)
• Professional monitor loudspeakers were not reliably neutral or accurate references of sound quality (similarity 0.86)
• Professional monitors rated lower than consumer products in blind sound quality tests. (similarity 0.86)
• Historically, published loudspeaker specifications were often artistic rather than factual. (similarity 0.85)
• Even professional monitor loudspeakers showed measurable defects in early tests (similarity 0.85)
• The UREI 811B, a popular studio monitor, scored lowest in double-blind listening tests (similarity 0.85)
• Sound power alone cannot predict listener preference for loudspeakers (similarity 0.83)

Broader Connections

• Consumer Reports loudspeaker ratings inversely predicted perceived sound quality. #corroborates (0.90) — , Toole, Floyd E - Sound reproduction-…, 583
• Professional monitor loudspeakers were not reliably neutral or accurate references of sound quality #corroborates (0.85)
• High-end audio forfeited credibility by refusing blind testing #expands (0.75) — , Toole, Floyd E - Sound reproduction-…, 161