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

@fleschler

 

Are you deaf (or rather taste depleted that you can’t tell salt from sugar)?

I believe you have lobbed that insult more than once.

Can you tell me specifically what I wrote that leads you to think I have poor hearing?

My discernment for characteristics in sound, both large and minute, is routinely put under scrutiny for my job. I make a living with my hearing. I can't just brag about my hearing on an internet board.   If my hearing sucks, I lose my job.  How about you?

I’ve also put my hearing under rigorous tests where I don’t get to "peek" and ACTUALLY use ONLY my hearing to see what I can tell apart. That is: blind tests.

How often have you truly tested your hearing - your hearing ONLY! - rather than when you know what you are listening to? If you continue to brag about how you can tell things apart in "sighted" tests where you know different gear is being switched, that’s about as "impressive" as saying you can tell me what number the dice will roll...but only if you first get to look at the result after the roll.

 

 

 

My hearing is fine. It was tested twice in the past two years. My upper limit is 16 Khz, the tester said at normal amplitude which I do not know. I have exceptional hearing for my age as does my 88 year old mother. I must have great hearing and reflexes while sleeping to hear my wife’s Dexcom/phone alarm which just beeps to provide her with juice when her blood sugar drops and she would otherwise die.  She sleeps through fire alarms and has no awareness of low blood sugars after 61 years of Type 1 diabetes.  So, my hearing is critical to my marriage.

I also am very depended upon by an orchestra, chamber group and many choirs to make good recordings in major venues. My recordings are generally superior to current over-reverberant, distantly miked modern recordings. My chamber work has the clarity of the best jazz recordings.

There is a multitude of forums not on ASR and my above cited new Audiogon forum which is what I believe about measurements as a starting point, trial and error and personal listening preferences. You don’t like it, do what you want. I don’t need to be lectured as to right and wrong.

Sighted tests are verboten? They can only be guesses and wrong. Like rolling dice? Must have measurements! Must be ABX blind testing! Sounds as ridiculous as it is.

 

 

@kota1 +1 You are so correct.  Some audiophiles feel that the listening room is 50% of the sound.  I know from my experience, that getting the room acoustics right is fundamental to maximize the quality of the sound.  As you can read/see from my listening room components and construction, I get high end sound out of less than exorbitantly priced equipment because of my dedication to creating a favorable listening environment.  My neighbor wanted to purchase my home before I did and convert the 20X20X10 living room into a listening room because his room is just average with $1/2 million audio system.  At least he finally got cabling right so that it is now a very enjoyable listening experience at his house.  

@fleschler , it is so much less expensive to treat a room (maybe not an auditorium) than to keep switching out components.  Not that it can’t be made better, there is no perfect anywhere, but it is so "right" you just don’t have that same upgraditis any more (at least not to the same degree :) )

I had to work with the room I got, members who have purpose built rooms/studios very fortunate. The Auralex products are so inexpensive for what they deliver, at least in my room it was a great result.

When I see $$$$ speakers in a room surrounded by hard flat surfaces I feel bad, both for the speaker designer whose "vision" gets stuck in a less than ideal setup, and for the owner who is flushing that investment away.

You see people going on and on about what room correction software that came with their receiver and they spend big money to get the one they want. Then they stick that kilobuck receiver in the same untreated room and expect it will be magic, no.

This is a pretty good breakdown on how to get the best of both worlds, DSP and room treatments working together, even if you are not a Sound United customer.

At 5:00 in the video "If you use DSP you want it to do the least amount of work possible..... it can only do so much":

 

@kota I know. I only upgraded my analog with a new SUT to suit my former cartridge in 17 years. I now use a 1/3 less costly cartridge which sounds great with most of my collection. I have the same amps/pre-amp/phono pre for 20-22 years. It was only the digital realm that needed upgrading and I am successful at that so no more digital upgrades either. My ICs, power and speaker cables remain the same since 2018. My speakers are very good but when I can afford to, I want to upgrade them for similar sound, better dispersion (seating area) and ambiance retrieval. The more efficient line of Von Schweikert speakers I’ve heard would be ideal.

I’ve gone to two local homes with $$$$ speakers in $$$$ excellent built rooms but with either terrible cabling and/or equipment which ruined the sound. The equipment and/or cabling were just not synergistic (or could never be good sounding eg: High Fidelity cables).

Notice that I have a tapestry mounted on the front wall. I have not found something as thin and slightly absorptive that can compensate for the slight upper right corner echo we hear without it. I’ll check out GIK because they have inexpensive, cardboardy material that might work. I’ve tried a half dozen other panels which were either too absorptive or too reflective.