Consumer Reports is unimpressed with the voice quality of the iPhone.

From their blog:

In voice-quality tests, the iPhone’s performance has been undistinguished at best. Quality when listening to a call was fair. Calls from the iPhone heard on another phone were good in quality. By comparison, among the AT&T-compatible smartphones in our current Ratings (available to ConsumerReports.org subscribers), only the Palm Treo 680 scored that low in voice quality. The best-sounding AT&T-compatible phones, the Samsung BlackJack and Cingular 3125, scored good and very good respectively in listening and talking modes. And all those phones cost $100 to $200, compared with the $499 and $599 price tags for the iPhone.

I’ll go beyond the fact that they don’t even disclose what their testing measures are (methinks they were somewhat subjective based on some guy making and receiving calls) and just say that Wirelessinfo.com, who has equipment specifically designed to check the audio quality of phones scientifically (not subjectively) is probably in a better position to comment on the voice quality of the iPhone. Here’s their review of the voice quality of Apple’s new phone:

The iPhone performed exceptionally well in this test; the frequency curve of the phone was right between the limits, only coming close to them at a couple of points. This means that people talking to you over the phone will sound clear and bright, with well-balanced sound that should accurately represent what they sound like in person.

This compares extremely well to other phones. The iPhone scores higher on this test than all of the five comparison phones, and only one phone that we have tested so far (the BlackBerry Curve) scored higher. Whatever Apple is doing with the small speaker inside the iPhone, they are doing it right.

That’s quite a far departure from “undistinguished” and there’s plenty of scientific backing for their claims. Of course, Consumer Reports probably never even had one in their hands to begin with as evidenced by this absolutely asinine line:

Other ways in which the iPhone could use a little more polish as a phone: It has no voice-activated dialing and offers no easy way to access frequently called numbers

Proof positive that they didn’t even have one in hand to test at the time. If they did, they’d notice that in the lower left corner of the screen, there’s a button marked FAVORITES. I wonder what this guy thought those were?

Of course, there’s plenty of FUD about the iPhone out there from this review that says the Treo is a better phone (and that’s probably why so many people I knew who bought the iPhone switched from… TREOS!) all the way around and that the Palm OS (surely you remember Palm OS?) is more user-friendly than the iPhone, to this tub of tripe that claims that instead of buying your iPhone, you should invest in a 401k (no, I’m not shitting you; apparently the iPhone is the only purchase you’ll make this year and you’d be better off investing it in something like a 401k or an $800 Windows Mobile device).

The iPhone is not without its issues. I’ve discussed them on Information Salad with Ryan Block just this past Friday. It’s not perfect. In fact, it’s got a long way to go. That being said, for everyone bitching about the fanboyism of anyone who dares say it’s a great device, there’s a publication like Consumer Reports or the Street or even the formerly relevant Joshua Quittner who’s returning his iPhone (not not buying one, returning one) because it doesn’t have a removable battery and because his Treo is great and there’s no Flash support on the iPhone (as John Gruber points out, is there Flash support on the Treo?). He even says the plans are too expensive ($59.99 with unlimited data, rollover minutes, 200 txt messages and 5000 night and weekend minutes is apparently more expensive than Verizon’s $80 equivalent).

If anyone who likes the iPhone is a fanboy, what does it make those who consistently beat on it?