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 , 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.

@holmz "And it does not matter what every member of the audience is hearing..."

If you’re a member of the audience, it certainly does! It matters to oneself.

Ultimately, it does not matter what every measurement is telling me, if it doesn’t sound great to me, with my ears, in my room, to my taste

@fleschler I try it again, but it seems I am not making the point simply enough.

If there is a singer, and people are listening to the singer, they are all listening to the same thing. Maybe those audience members not hear above 4 or 8kHz, or miss out on any low frequencies… whatever it is that they hear, if the same song was played back flat, where there is no difference between the real singer and the playback, so they would hear the same thing in playback as the live performance.

And… that applies to everyone in the audience.

I suppose that we can talk about the room that the performance is in not be uniform, and that at different locations there is an actual difference of sound… but let’s ignore that.

The audience may all hear differently, but they are hearing the same thing.
And if it is played back exactly the same then they should hear it as sounding the same, and we can quantify how accurate it is.

The glasses and laser surgery are more like room correction, to make the vision be the same. 

Whether you, or anyone else, prefers the tone controls adjusted is all fine and dandy… but brightening up the high frequencies by 10 or 20dB to account for hearing loss will result in the playback not being like the actual singer.
That actually live performance would then sound dull… which is fine if it is admitted that the playback is preferred over the live performance. But it is not the same as what was heard live.

 

And similarly; when people look at a Van Gogh painting, whether they see in black and white, or blurry, they are looking at the same painting. If the colours are shifted in hue, then it may look better, but it is a different rendition of the painting.

We should not confuse what is technically correct with preference. Whether we like it correct or not, is indeed taste and preference.

The tread topic was about spec and measurements, and how almost none of the manufacturers provide that data. Now it almost seems like you do not care about that data, and do not want to see it, as it doesn’t matter anyhow and you only want to get what aligns with your preference. Which seems to ignore, or imply, that you preference cannot correlate with any measurements or specs… and that it is a hopeless endeavour to even try?

 

The idea of manufacturers specs and measurements is that if one wants it correct, then they have an easy way to find that gear. And if they want it to have the BBC sound, then it makes it easy to identify the gear that has that particular sound.

Without measurements and specs, we have only the option to fly or drive around and find shops that carry that gear, and listen to them all… to figure out if it aligns with our preference or not.
Once we have heard a few systems and decide we like (for instance) the BBC sound, then we can pretty quickly go from hundreds of speakers choices, down to dozens… and it becomes a more tractable problem of listening to only those.

 

Personally I prefer more neutral speakers and lower distortion.
I can just throw a tube preamp in to tailor it to my preference, and then I only have spice in the preamp, and not scattered throughout the system. Or I can use a DSP.

We can have the specs and measurement and ignore them, but we cannot choose to look at the specs and measurements if they do not exist, or are hidden. I would rather have the choice of them existing and what the manufacturer is making to be advertised truthfully and transparently. I can always choose to ignore it if I want to.

@holmz  Again, you have not read my postings.  I am very concerned with test measurements to begin/began my search for equipment.  My speakers are very low distortion, especially at low frequencies and are relatively neutral without major humps or bumps.  My tube gear is on the warm side of neutral but not "tubey," or high in distortion, even or odd, from low to high power range.  My cartridge test measured flat from 10Hz to 20Khz per the test sheet (unlike Lyras with their rising high end test measurements I've seen as well a heard).  

Where there are no measurements, I use trial and error as does everyone I know locally (and that's 100s of audiophiles, music lovers, etc). 

If I don't get your point, then maybe I have too low an IQ and you're just a genius.  

@fleschler 

 

My hearing is fine.

Ok, so that makes two of us.

 

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.

So you have never truly put ONLY your hearing to the test where you can't cheat. 

Ok.  (except, apparently, via an audiogram. And it's funny you'd accept those results, which are a blind test, but refuse to accept the validity of blind testing components for what you can *really* hear or not).

If you ever do so you may find it enlightening.  As I've said, between us it seems my approach shows the greater humility.

But it's clear by now we can't seem to communicate about this issue.

We'll talk gear elsewhere.  Cheers.