Ian S wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Consumer Reports (et al) is probably okay for appliances but
worthless for discerning the differences in serious audio or other
things requiring a higher level of discretion. This applies to some
simple things as well.

So they are OK for rating "appliances" but not simple things? Is a TV
an
appliance? How is "serious audio" defined?

If I were a serious washing machine buff-I'm sure they exist-I
wouldn't like CU's washing machine tests either. There are many
subtleties in washing machines, or there were during the time when I
was familiar with them. A Maytag was more durable than a
Kenmore/Whirlpool in the sense failures were rarer, but the Kenmore was
cheaper to fix. The belt was a bitch to change on the Kenmore, but did
act as a safety link against tearing up the transmission. Only
appliance technicians would know these things, or a obsessed washing
machine buff. CU didn't cover these kind of things. CU was probably
okay as a general guide weeding out the mostpoorly built machines and
directing people to the better ones in general, but it didn't have time
or inclination to communicate all the subtleties. And because most
people didn't really give a ****, that was a fair deal.

This group is composed of the audio equivalent of serious washing
machine buffs.




They rate a Sears Craftsman wrench the same as a
Snap-On for example. One is a mediocre product that meets a minimum
federal buying spec the other is pretty close to the best that can
be
built for its intended purpose. Since their tests only determine
whether or not they met a specification, both are equal.

Consumers Union develops its own tests and subjects the tested items
to the
same test. Frequently, testing involves a test to failure. In
addition,
products are evaluated on the basis of cost so that a product with
the same
performance but cheaper will rank higher. My response to the O.P. was
in
reference to TV displays. Perhaps you could read the report in
question and
determine specifically where it is deficient. I know "audiophiles"
poo-poo
CU's tests of audio equipment probably because they don't generally
test the
boutique components that audiophiles drool over.

A Craftsman
wrench is suited for its intended purpose but it is not as good as
a
Snap-On, it's as simple as that.

I suppose Snap-On wrenches are "serious" tools. I get the distibct
impression that "serious" to you is determined by the price tag.


You can get a pretty complete set of Craftsman hand tools for
mechanical work in 1/4, 3/8 and 1/2 inch drive and the equivalent sized
combination wrenches, et al, for three or four hundred dollars if you
wait until they are on sale. That same collection in Snap-On is
probably five grand. If you can wangle 'industrial' pricing or you buy
the whole enchilada at once from a truck vendor and you catch him at
an opportune moment, you might get a ten percent price break-period.
The price is the same whether you buy one wrench or the whole catalog,
theoretically. That's considered a plus, in their market. The Craftsman
tools will work but they are heavier, thicker, and will not take the
abuse the Snap-ons will, and the Snap-Ons will clean up easier, and are
just generally nicer to work with. Also, and this is the real
difference, Snap-On tools are vended to their target customers off a
truck-you are paying for convenience and for their credit policies.
Their industrial business is strictlyu a side-car to their auto
business.

But cost aside-their tools are a lot better. If all you do is change
your oil, you don't need Snap-On. But if you want the best tool you can
get, there they are. That's what "high-end" means.