Nearly all manufacturers do not advertise/exhibit their product measurements? Why?


After my Audio Science Review review forum, it became apparent that nearly the only way one can determine the measurements of an audio product is wait for a review on line or in a publication.  Most equipment is never reviewed or is given a subjective analysis rather than a measurement oriented review.  One would think that manufacturers used tests and measurements to design and construct their products. 

Manufacturers routinely give the performance characteristics of their products as Specifications.  Those are not test measurements.

I searched the Revel speaker site for measurements of any of their speakers and could not find any.  Revels are universally lauded for their exceptional reviewed measurements.  Lack of published manufacturer measurements is true for nearly every speaker manufacturer I've searched for on line, perhaps several hundred.   Same is true for amps, pre-amps, DACs, transports, turntables, well you get the picture.  Do they have something to hide?   I doubt the good quality products have anything to hide but poor quality products do.  

ASR prides itself in providing "true" measurements that will aid in purchase decisions.   Why don't the manufacturers provide these measurements so that reviewers can test if they are truthful or not?

Then there are the cables and tweaks for which I suspect that there are inadequate tests available to measure sonically perceived differences but which objectivists believe don't exist or are "snake oil."  

Well, please chime in if you have some illuminating thoughts on the subject.   

I would have loved to see manufacturers measurements on my equipment and especially those that I rejected.  

fleschler

I did not deride Mogami cable. If test measurements make it ideal for recording or mastering, that’s what pros should use. If it happens to work in a home system, that’s great too. I only reported what it sounded like in a few upper mid-fi and one high end system. My own experience had the same result with Canare cables.

High Fidelity (brand) cables (defunct) were so much worse than pro-cables. They actually made us cringe at the sound and wanted to leave the listening rooms we heard them in.

A very cheap yet good beginners IC is the original Monster Interlink 300. It is relatively neutral with a slightly plummy bass and modestly rolled off highs but is inoffensive. Decades ago, nearly all my friends used it. I tried it but my boutique cables are superior. Further iterations by Monster are bright/hard sounding. The designer made this one off cable for Monster than began his own line of high end cables.

You know how much money it would cost to use boutique cables in a recording studio, that's probably the reason they use mogami or belden. 

@fleschler , if I had budget I would use Mapleshade XLR's throughout the whole system but with roughly 11 active speakers and long runs for height channels and surrounds, not gonna happen.

Of course I understand economics.  It is feasible for me at my age and station to acquire more expensive (and in my opinion) better quality cabling.  You do the best you can.   

Back when I was in my teens and 20s, no one even spoke of boutique cabling.  I was not content with the sound of my system and kept changing speakers and amps.  Smog killed the rubber suspensions in my cartridges in the 70s and early 80s (in Los Angeles) so replacements were made prematurely every 3 years.   I also was married in 1981 and had additional concerns.  Then a critically ill wife for 11 years and a child.  Funds were tight until 1998.  

I did appraise two studios which used boutique cabling, among the other extraordinary studio construction (like my current listening room).  The other 14 appraised studios and comparable studios I inspected generally used pro cabling like Canare, Belden and some other names I've forgotten.  There were a lot of cables in the storage rooms.