Earthquake may think they're playing it safe by not wanting independant test results for their subwoofer to be published. However, they are gambling just as much with this tactic, as they would by playing ball with the tester. Their attitude speaks volumes and I see no upside for them.
As for CR, I don't know if they have tested any Bose products since the review in question, but I were them, I would just not bother testing them anymore. Then,
every time testing of similar products is conducted, they could include a statement saying that Bose was excluded because they don't want their products tested using proper, generally accepted methodology. That'll learn 'em...
Consumer Reports has reviewed Bose speakers since then, and they have been willing to give them negative reviews. However, they do not exhibit the rabidly anti-Bose stance that some people have, and that causes some people who don't actually measure or even listen to the speakers in question to feel as though they are being overly gentle. The simple fact is, some Bose speakers are better than others, some of which are not that bad, all things considered. Also,
Consumer Reports reviews speakers that are models that many people might consider, so they never review the expensive high end, and they don't tend to review very obscure and hard to find items. Also, they tend to compare models at similar price points, so when they rate a particular $200 speaker as a "best buy", they are indicating that, among the speakers tested, that model is noticeably better than other models near that price point; they are
not saying that it would compare favorably with a good $1000 speaker.
They also give excellent advice to people who are smart enough to read the text of their articles instead of stupidly just glancing at the charts, as they often say that speakers that score similarly may sound very different, so one ought to listen before one buys. This, of course, makes a lot of sense that speakers that score similarly may sound very different, as different speakers have different combinations of virtues and vices, so one excelling in one area may be substandard in another, and another speaker may excel where that one is poor, but be poor where that one excels.
Most of the people who bash
Consumer Reports don't actually read it, which is evident from their comments about it. And many who bash them also don't bother considering actual measurements of the performance of the speakers that are supposedly "good brands" that audiophools admire, and when one of them measures a poor frequency response (with significant peaks or dips),
Consumer Reports rates the speaker in accordance with such facts, that audiophools often ignore. Most audiophools seem to use brand reputation more than actual listening, and certainly not double blind unbiassed listening, to decide what is "better".
