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

@thespeakerdude

You forgot to post your FR, this is throw down to get the crown,

you got nothing, as expected.😫

@kota1 is THE:

@kota1 

That looks fantastic!! @amir_asr has no reasonable responses to that other than envy.

@thespeakerdude 

Seems like you have a bit of difficulty reading between the lines or accepting a congruent argument at face value.

I enjoy responding to you and others...simply because it is entertaining to do so.

You said: 

per mastering92: "A failed tech executive at Microsoft"

per bio: "During my time at Microsoft, as VP of Digital Media Division, I grew to manage a division of nearly 1000 engineers, testers, marketing and business development people." 

Strength in numbers at a company means hardly anything. I know business owners who have run successful businesses with only 20 to 40 employees.

And of course a VP at Microsoft would manage a larger team! Microsoft is a HUGE company...That would be no different for anyone else who landed Amir's role before or after at Microsoft.

Failed - because WMA/WMP is freeware, no real audio editing software to speak of, the lowest layer of Windows Audio was already well established before Amir took sail of that boat, Zune, and others failed against the iPod. Today we have lots of DAPs that are better than the iPod. It's about innovation....and being able to get the attention of  a larger audience. 

@kenjit 

- This guy sent me a message on here: 

"Why don't you invent your own speakers and sell them?" 

Wow, what a compliment. I sure do have quite a bit of audio knowledge. But you know what? I'm not in competition with anyone; nor do I have grandiose narcissism like @amir_asr . 

Judging from how many discussions were started by @kenjit about speakers, perhaps he should give it a go first. Only because I am not qualified to do so. I can certainly do my best to help tune the final result as per your standard of sound quality to the masses, or even tell you if they're accurate / neutral / uncolored etc. Unlike folks at ASR, I know my limits and stay within them. I don't try to pretend to be something I'm not.

This is from another post that I wrote:

@amir_asr @kenjit

I made sure you two lovebirds were on the same line....so as to be together.

I have been disappointed my so many of the top-measuring audio electronics featured on that website..! To such an extent that I sold all of them!! From DACs, to headphone amplifiers, to USB C dongles for android smartphones that claim better performance on paper than any high-end stand-alone DAC. You would think that Hollywood studios, Sony Music Studios, and other big players in industry would be using or recommending ASR gear by now...

High-end audio and the pro audio/live sound industries should have died off since the inception and frequently-posted publications on ASR - The industry as a whole has not adapted; and there are a multitude of reasons why they haven’t.

Products from those brands (You know who they are) are all "built to a cost" meaning that costs savings was all-important in terms of the quality of internal parts, design/implementation of DAC chips, the use of OP amps rather than discrete or custom types of FETs, poor quality casework that is feather-light and does not damp the internals properly, soldered-on inputs/outputs, vertical-chip capacitors that are computer-grade, rather than audio grade and therefore much cheaper to buy in bulk, the use of axial or radial capacitors rather than snap-in, the lack of ceramic saftey capacitors, no saftey resistors, and even the total absence of sacrificial fuses that blow in the event of a malfunction; to protect the inputs/outputs, reactive load (speakers, headphones), and the circuit itself. I could go on and on... lol

It is so easy to buy the latest DAC chip in bulk, slap it on a PCB, include a cheap crystal oscillator at 10 cents a piece, and have output. Therefore, the measurements are often not the total sum of parts inside the electronics, but the DAC chip at the engineering standard itself. And not all DAC chips are created equal. The easier it is to implement/ it can withstand all kinds of substandard parts tolerances and temperature variations/ the worse it will sound. Rather than have all parts when, which measured, do not vary wildly and will compliment eachother to create a high-performace unit.

@mastering92 , how many people work under you?? What is the most number of people you have ever had work under you at a company?

Microsoft is huge. How many people at Microsoft have 1,000 people under them? You argument about them being a huge company matters little. Huge companies also don't allow people to grow into rolls where 1,000 people are under them if they are "failed". Sure, it happens, but in general, if you rise to have 1,000 people under you, then you had a lot of success and accomplishments along the way.  When you make statements like that, it has no relevance to the discussion and just comes across as sour grapes. To me, I won't even read the rest of what you wrote as making that statement shows you are unable to be objective in your views and analysis.  If you want people to respect what you write, then be respectful in your writing.

Go on and on? A list of what people without experience fear serves no purpose in your credibility with me. In my experience, people who specify "ceramic saftey capacitors" and "no saftey resistors" know how to spell "safety". Can you tell me the difference between a computer grade "vertical-chip capacitor" and an audio capacitor? I doubt my EEs know, perhaps they could learn something.

Perhaps you can share how if you measure a box, that happens to be a DAC, you are not measuring "the total sum of parts inside the electronics, but the DAC chip at the engineering standard itself".  How could the equipment doing the measuring of the box measure anything but the total sum of the parts?  Your statement is not logical.

I am not an EE, but I have a bunch working for me and I am quite aware of the processes and decision trees they use to achieve the results we have targeted and it is not to throw out a laundry list of fears. I would suggest not doing the same for speakers. That is an area I know very well.

It is good to be critical of any form of review, whether a listening test or even a measurement to ensure what was done is accurate and representative. However, your last post is not a reasoned critique addressing specific elements. It is an appeal. It does more to justify ASRs existence than it does to discredit it.

A critique would be calling into question the Klippel testing that was done of a large panel speaker.  While Klippel can still provide highly accurate measurements of a speaker such as this, the test procedure must be modified, not just in the number of measurement points (which was done), but also the measurement cloud locations (and distance). This relates, as Amir has noted, to the accuracy of the model, but that accuracy figure is based on assumptions of what is being measured, so both need to be adapted and accurate  to accurately assess the error band. As well, the calculated summaries such as predicted room response, reflections, etc. must be adapted when a source is large enough to behave as a line array in the room it will be installed in or they will be grossly inaccurate at the listening position.