Should Speaker Manufactures provide a Frequency Response Graph?

The waterfall plot displays both the frequency response of a loudspeaker (in various dimensions) and it’s behaviour in time. It is very revealing of any "ringing" in the speaker’s response, ringing being a major cause of the lack of transparency a loudspeaker exhibits.

I agree with @bdp24 . After looking at waterfall plots for years, I feel like I can get a good idea of a speaker's amplitude response even though of course in the end, you have to listen to it.

I never knew you had to get a manufacturer's permission to post a measurement. I'm all for graphs but if it sounds good, it works for me.

I also agree with @bdp24. A waterfall plot provides the most revealing graphical representation of a speakers frequency response.  However, unless procedures are standardized, comparisons between manufacturers/models will have latent errors. Also, on and off quasi-anechoic measurements do not represent real world response.  While critical during the manufacturer’s design phase, quasi-anechoic response graphs are useful for to attempt to make some preliminary determinations if a speaker may meet our listening preferences.  Audition in a real world environment, and if possible your own home and system is necessary. 

The full measurements that the kipples spit out are super valuable. At $100k-ish they don’t cost much for a business to own. It is a way for smaller (compared to Harman, Kef, etc) companies to do measurements and make better speakers. It is much cheaper than anechoic chambers which can be upwards of a million dollars. When companies want to sell speakers for $30k+ I expect them to invents money and time into design equipment.