stassen@trwspp.UUCP (10/26/84)
[] A recent issue of _Consumer Reports_ reviewed the VHS T-120 Video cassettes made by several manufacturers. Tapes were scored in about 6 different categories, such as picture quality and sound quality. I don't have a complete list, but I do remember a few: #1: Scotch (With a "score" of 99) #2: Scotch "Gold" (95) .... Sony, Radio Shack, and Maxell were all in the bottom half of the chart. I found this a real surprise, as Scotch tapes are the least expensive in this area. -- Chris
amir@digi-g.UUCP (10/31/84)
In article <> stassen@trwspp.UUCP writes: >[] > > A recent issue of _Consumer Reports_ reviewed the VHS T-120 Video >cassettes made by several manufacturers. Tapes were scored in about 6 >different categories, such as picture quality and sound quality. I don't >have a complete list, but I do remember a few: > > #1: Scotch (With a "score" of 99) > #2: Scotch "Gold" (95) > > .... > > Sony, Radio Shack, and Maxell were all in the bottom half of >the chart. I found this a real surprise, as Scotch tapes are the least >expensive in this area. > -- Chris If Consumer Reports has said that, then I say they are getting some under the table money. 4 of my friends and I, who had used Scotch tapes before, had problems with the damn tapes. To my opinion they are as lousy as their floppy disks are. I have not had any problem with TDK and Maxell, both in Video and Audio dept.
dhc@mouton.UUCP (11/05/84)
[The referenced article quoted Consumer Reports' finding that regular Scotch was highly rated and certain other popular brands were less well rated.] > > If Consumer Reports has said that, then I say they are getting some under > the table money. > > 4 of my friends and I, who had used Scotch tapes before, had problems with > the damn tapes. To my opinion they are as lousy as their floppy disks are. > > I have not had any problem with TDK and Maxell, both in Video and Audio dept. Pretty shaky grounds for accusing CR of taking "under the table money." Two years ago Video Reviews tested tapes, and they also gave good marks to Scotch regular grade. If you prefer anecdotes, I will say that I have used Scotch for two years with no trouble.
rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) (11/07/84)
> > A recent issue of _Consumer Reports_ reviewed the VHS T-120 Video > >cassettes made by several manufacturers... [discussion of ratings followed] > > If Consumer Reports has said that, then I say they are getting some under > the table money. If you say that, I'd say you're being stupid to the point of tempting trouble. Consumer Reports has ALWAYS had the strictest of non- commercialism policies, and they're willing to go to some lengths to make the point. In fact, quoting from a note on "CU's objectivity" in the 1984 Buying Guide: If you ever hear that ANY CU Rating has been influenced by ANYONE, ask whoever says it to write it down and sign his or her name to it; then please send the document to us. Consumers Union takes full responsibility for the integrity of its work. We think it is fair to ask anyone who impugns that integrity to assume responsibility for doing so--and for the consequences. ["Consumers Union"==CU is the organization which publishes "Consumer Reports.] All of this isn't to say that CU may not have missed some points or done the wrong sort of tests. I've seen some reports, particularly in the past couple of years, with serious technical flaws. But there's a big difference between making a mistake and accepting a bribe (unless you're a politician:-). In CU's case, they rely very heavily on their reputation for impartiality. So was that just an off-the-cuff swipe at CU because their results don't square with your experience, or do you mean what you said? -- Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 ...Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.
amir@digi-g.UUCP (Amir ) (11/12/84)
In article <> rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) writes: >> > A recent issue of _Consumer Reports_ reviewed the VHS T-120 Video >> >cassettes made by several manufacturers... >[discussion of ratings followed] >> >> If Consumer Reports has said that, then I say they are getting some under >> the table money. > >If you say that, I'd say you're being stupid to the point of tempting >trouble. Consumer Reports has ALWAYS had the strictest of non- >commercialism policies, and they're willing to go to some lengths to >make the point. In fact, quoting from a note on "CU's objectivity" in the >1984 Buying Guide: > > If you ever hear that ANY CU Rating has been influenced by ANYONE, > ask whoever says it to write it down and sign his or her name to > it; then please send the document to us. Consumers Union takes > full responsibility for the integrity of its work. We think it is > fair to ask anyone who impugns that integrity to assume > responsibility for doing so--and for the consequences. > >["Consumers Union"==CU is the organization which publishes "Consumer >Reports.] > >All of this isn't to say that CU may not have missed some points or done >the wrong sort of tests. I've seen some reports, particularly in the past >couple of years, with serious technical flaws. But there's a big >difference between making a mistake and accepting a bribe (unless you're a >politician:-). In CU's case, they rely very heavily on their reputation >for impartiality. > >So was that just an off-the-cuff swipe at CU because their results don't >square with your experience, or do you mean what you said? >-- >Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 > ...Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity. As far as stupidity goes, do not confuse me with your family. I do not care what CU says, don't tell me that some of the reports they give is not biased to the American Products!
edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) (11/26/84)
> > As far as stupidity goes, do not confuse me with your family. > I'd expect this sort of comment in an elementary schoolyard, not in a communications medium supposedly used by adults. > > I do not care what CU says, don't tell me that some of the reports they > give is not biased to the American Products! > It has long been the contention of American automobile manufacturers that CU is biased *in favor* of foriegn cars, especially Japanese makes. (Since CU bases auto ratings on reliablility and quality control more than most other products, the statistics giving better 3-year reliability ratings for Japanese cars tend to make them higher-rated.) In general, CU tends to test items readily available on the US East Coast, and if a foriegn-made brand is so available and within the price range under consideration, it is generally tested. But I've hardly seen a bias towards American-made products among models tested--on several occasions I've seen a Japanese or German product come out on top. Note that in the case of video tapes, most brands with US labels are Japanese (Sony, etc) or German (BASF) made anyway! Methinks digi-g!amir has a grudge of some kind... -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall
rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) (11/28/84)
I took a shot at an article that suggested that Consumer Reports was biased (actually, taking bribes) in reporting on video tapes...it ended: > >So was that just an off-the-cuff swipe at CU because their results don't > >square with your experience, or do you mean what you said? > >-- > >Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 > > ...Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity. ...The response eventually came from the author... > > As far as stupidity goes, do not confuse me with your family. ...well, you know you're not going to get much substance out of someone who takes personal offense at your .signature file, but... > > I do not care what CU says, don't tell me that some of the reports they > give is not biased to the American Products! I doubt that we could tell you anything, with that sort of stubbornness. But have you got any evidence of bias? As I said, they make their share of mistakes, but that's quite different from bias or accepting bribes. How 'bout either put up (some info) or shut up (in net.video and move to net.flame where unsubstantiated accusations are de rigeur)? -- Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 ...Reality? Gad, that's worse than puberty!