Just happened to spot this...
 

... at www.consumerreports.org 's archive. Seems they weren't impressed with some brands of TVs.
Tom

If you go buy ConsumerReports then all you need is a 3$ surround processor with shitty innards like a DiVinci 'cause they all sound good to their ears. Kinda like Stereo Review.

Consumer Reports' main goal in life seems to be making controversy whether based on significant differences or not. In the past, their criteria for judging many items was far from well-balanced and did not take into proper consideration that some consumers may value certain attributes in a product. This was especially noticeable to me in their car reviews, where they sometimes put down sporty cars apparently because they didn't cater to the same uses as a family sedan!

They did do one thing for TV sets, in constantly complaining about the lack of full DC restoration, which was one of the failings of color sets for a long time. Eventually, one year, they did come up with the amazing but true revelation that most transistorized color TVs at the time had roughly the same picture quality, and reliability was now much better than the old tube sets. Don't know how they managed to write that, when their existence depends on finding differences among products.

What is the difinition of "private label" TVs? I would have assumed that Muntz, for example, WAS mass-produced. ??

I thought so as well. Private label I thought was something like Sears having their Silvertone brand slapped on a TV made by someone else. :dunno:

---

Methinks Consumer Reports was just recycling a photo from their archives. The article that that photo originally went with wasn't "private label" TVs. The article was about "minor brand" TVs which CU didn't normally cover due to either (a) being regional or small-house-brand brands, and/or (b) failing to meet certain basic criteria that CU generally required when choosing large B&W sets for testing at the time, namely having 3 IF stages and keyed AGC.

I have that actual report somewhere if anyone wants me to scan it.

veg

I've got it around here too. By the way, CU really seems to like that photo; they also used it in their I'll Buy That! 50-year retrospective book that they published in the late 80's.

Hope I don't deviate too much here... but Whirled One's showin' off my Amana! :thmbsp:

I've never actually laid my hands on a Setchel-Carlson, but don't those sets have hand-wired unitized "modules"? They find nothing that differenciates that from a Muntz???

Idiots.

It's almost comical if you know a certain product inside & out to read a CU report. They've aquired their "fame" by default, as I don't know of any other independant testing lab that reports to the public.

Yeah, Setchell-Carlson was about as far as you could get from a Muntz! I only have limited experience with them but I would put them on the same level as Zenith.

I used to be a big fan of CU but not so much anymore. What I liked about them: I always enjoy it when a tester runs a product down. Most magazines won't do that for fear of losing an advertiser. Anyhow, for some reason I just don't find Consumer Reports to be as entertaining a read as it used to be. Maybe there is less to run down these days! They certainly didn't like color tv-there was not what I would call a full report until the late 60s.

Whirled One, I had a copy of "I'll Buy That!". I was probably the only teenager in America to put that on his Christmas list!

I don't think that's automatically true, although I know they (CU) love to make people think that. Read a copy of a Car & Driver review of some car where they rank them 1st, 2nd,...8th, etc. Obviously whoever brings up the rear ain't gonna be happy.

Yet I doubt a single manufacturer doesn't run huge ads in C&D.

I found an old copy of Popular Science at the same estate sale I picked where I picked up the Halolight, with a review of the 1970 Detroit pony-cars. They put the Camaro well ahead of the Cuda, Mustang, & Javelin. All four companies had huge ads inside.

If your magazine is big enough, and honest enough, manufactuers can't afford NOT to run ads.

It's not the good old days
 

Back in the day you had Zenith and Rca, everybody else was playing catch up.

Now you have old-line names being resurrected such as Sylvania and others. The Sylvania products now are made by Funai. I'm not sure that what your getting today. Other than brands Like Sony, Phillips and Pioneer, the rest aren't what they seem Zenith is nothing more than a glorified Goldstar. Rca also uses other manufacturers for some of their models.

??? What gave you the impression that they rated the Setchell-Carlson the same as the Muntz..??

Looking at the actual article, the Muntz was the lowest-rated set tested, and rated below the worst of the sets tested in CU's 'regular' 21" B&W TV project that year.

The best rated of the "minor-brand" sets tested was the Andrea, but even it was not considered as good as the Dumont or Zenith (or even Admiral) sets tested earlier.

From the article:
"The Andrea's ranking throws a curious light on the promotion for this brand, which has persisted in claiming special "craftsmanship" that lifts it far above the "mass-produced" reciever. Actually, the general design features of the Andrea, as well as its performance, show it to be really the same breed of cat as the "mass-produced" sets of comparable quality. CU's study of the sets included in this project reinforces the concpet that neither mass-production nor small-scale production necessarily creates good TV quality or bad TV quality."
"Such quality depends, first, on what the design engineers do at their drafting boards; and second, on the exactness with which the final design is realized in production."
"This exactness can be achieved by automatic production machines, by women wielding soldering irons, or by men from outer space-- if they could be persuaded to come down and do the job. It's simply a question of how well the job is done; not how it is done."


As for the Setchel-Carlson, it wasn't actually given any ratings for quality, since it was judged "not acceptable" due to shock hazard, in part due to the fact it was the first set they had tested in the past several years that did not have a line-cord interlock. [You can complain about that being grounds for disqualification if you want, but it does seem distinctly odd to see a TV in 1960 without a safety interlock; wasn't that a UL *requirement* by that time..?]