2. misc-audio
  3. 180193-17492

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
holmz's avatar
holmz
2,328 posts
 

holmz Guess it is to nuanced, The Nobel Prize.

Must be a Down Under thing? 

@jerryg123 usually I blame the spell checker, but in this case the ‘o’ and the ‘i’ are adjacent to each other and I typed it in wrong… but it looked so good, it was not worth correction.

By the way it should be, “too nuanced”.

holmz's avatar
holmz
2,328 posts
 

kota1 - thanks for posting cable study paper link!

that “ paper “ captures most of important IC parameters for passive circuits. unfortunately, audio system is more complex than that, and has sources and receivers built of active circuits. active circuits can add “audible” ringing to the signal, if cable parameters push circuit phase margin below targeted value. EMI/RF noise also can be audible, because not all sensitive amplifiers have enough high frequency noise rejection, to withstand modern days RF noise in our living spaces. depending on modulation technique, RF noise can be heard as additional “unexplained" noise affecting SQ. phono-pre could be a good example of sensitive active circuit usage, and therefore it is very hard to find good match between cartridge, cable, and phono-pre, to achieve excellent SQ. 

Does that RF show up with an o-scope?
Or in IM components?
Or in a raised noise floor?

invalid
1,208 posts
 

I don't care what the measurements say, I care what my system can do in my room with my ears.

jerryg123's avatar
jerryg123
3,429 posts
 

Too much Roo Poop in your ears to hear a difference.

must me that the sound is too nuanced? I know a Nobel Prize is. 

holmz's avatar
holmz
2,328 posts
 

Too much Roo Poop in your ears to hear a difference.

must me that the sound is too nuanced? I know a Nobel Prize is. 

Please try to stay on topic..,,. The topic is “manufacturers and measurements.”

It is not about marsupials, nor distribution of money made from dynamite sales.

 

or at least share with us what you’re drinking, in order to put the comments in context.

More to discover