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

@jerryg123 

Please take your deflated balls and go home.

@kota1 

This is another bait and switch tactic from someone who is unable to walk the measurement and system walk when it comes to himself. 

Once more, this thread is about audio system measurements from manufacturers.  If you have nothing else to say on this topic, then that is that.  Changing the topic to my system, my room measurements, etc. has zero to do with the topic at hand.

And so far, I am the only one posting measurements.  You have post nothing.  Not even about your favorite topic (your room measurements).

@kota1 

@amir_asr , the title of this thread is not cables anything. The title is about manufacturers and measurements right? I posted the specs of the cables I list in my virtual system because it got right to the point of the OP, that’s it.

This is the title of the thread:

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

Before I showed up on page one, you all started to talk about cables.  Hence my questions to you.  You have not posted anything about the cables you say you fell in love with.

Nothing in the thread title is about in-room measurements of people. Nor are the members here showing any interest in such measurements.  As I said, create a new thread and see if there is interest in it.  If there is, and you have something worthwhile to say that is not just noise like these posts, then I will engage.  Until then, we are discussing manufacturers and why they don't post measurements.

As for @mikelavigne he was nice enough to contribute to a thread I started about end game systems. That thread wasn’t about measurements OK?

You post it here in the context of measurements.  And your demands that I show in-room measurements of mine.  You showed no interest in his room measurements so clearly letting your eyes judge his system.  As such, you are a prime target for marketing department of audio companies.  They love non-critical people who go by looks than objective performance or controlled subjective listening.

@kota1 

This thread isn’t about blind testing yet here you are demanding it and then were rude in your reply, how can you get a blind test wrong, you hear what you hear.

Again, I explain this in the video I posted earlier. A single trial like you performed means nothing.  You could imagine there is a difference and get lucky by pointing to one product you prefer.  It is only true repetition and randomization that we can tell you consistently can find the same attribute.

If you run the test only once and guess "right," there is still 50% chance it was a lucky test.  You need to repeat the test and get enough right that probability of guessing shrinks down to less than 5% (p<0.05).  If the results are obvious to you, then you should grind that down to 0%.  For 10 trials, this requires at least 8 correct guesses. 

As to why we are talking about blind tests, folks said they had no use for measurements.  I am perfectly fine with that.  Use your ears instead and show that you can reliably tell the difference beyond lucky guesses.  Do it with your system, your content and as much time as you want to take.  Not an onerous ask. 

Remember, instrumentation shows that what reaches your ear is no different due to these cable differences.  This is why we insist on proper protocol to make sure the improbable thing you say is really there.  You understand this, right?

And where are the specs for that Mapbleshade Digital Interconnect again @kota1?

@kota1 

BTW, it is not "we" talking about blind tests. When it came to the topic of cables I posted specs of the cables listed in my profile which is exactly the topic of this thread, a manufacturer listing measurements. I never said I "blind tested" them.

You didn't?  What was this then on page 6: 

@amir_asr , OK, thanks for sharing. The last time I did the test you just posted was when I auditioned a Mapleshade Digital Interconnect I had for a 30 day trial (about $250). After about 100 hrs of break in I "blind tested" it with my current cable and it was MUCH better so I kept it.

$250 is a lot of money to not know, or want to know if the thing really has an audible effect.

@kota1 

@amir_asr , I did the "blind test" as you posted, that’s it. The $250 is refundable, no risk:

Folks sell ointments online to grow hair with money back guarantee.  That doesn't mean I am going to go and buy them to try and I hope you are not either.  They are hoping that you procrastinate and get stuck with the thing whether it performs or not.  It is the oldest trick in the book for mail order/online selling.  

And it is not free either.  You are not only responsible for return shipping, you must also insure it and go through the hassle of boxing and sending it back.  On top of that, they could complain about it not getting to them, being damaged, etc.:

" We strongly encourage customers to send product returns using a shipping method that is both trackable and fully insured.   It is your responsibility to ensure the returned item arrives to us undamaged.  Mapleshade will not accept responsibility for returned items that are lost or damaged during shipping.  Once received, we will process your return promptly.  Then we will issue your refund or credit -- or ship your exchange item as has been prearranged."

Really, stop acting as PR person for companies and start to advocate for consumer rights here.  Demand that they provide measurements of two audio gear, one with their cable and one with a generic one.  See if the output of your audio system actually changes.  Don't fall for empty claims for the cable.  You don't stick a digital cable into your ear and listen.  You listen to the output of your system. 

And to be clear, there is no way, no how that digital cable improves the sound of your system -- with or without break in.  I will donate $1,000 to your favorite charity if you can properly demonstrate otherwise.

@jerryg123 

I am a dog guy @amir_asr just not a one to listen to shills, and liars that hide behind alleged science.

So sad and pathetic.

Why is it that people who have least amount of familiarity with audio science the ones that judge others to not have any such knowledge?  If I asked you how many research papers you have read the answer would be close to zero, right? If I asked you if you have any professional experience in audio, the answer would be zero, right?  If I asked you if you have ever had a mentor who knows audio science, the answer would be zero, right?

Why do you do this?  I answer: because audio science doesn't agree with what you have taught yourself from random individuals online, or improperly conducted listening test evaluations.  Show some emotional maturity in this regard.  Most of equipment I test at ASR forum come from members.  Out of the entire set of what I test, I only recommend about 1/3 of it.  The rest just don't perform.  Yet the people who send them to me are still happy to have done so and like the fact that they finally have some reliable data about their gear.  The move on with optimizing their system that way and routinely wind up with more performance at much less cost.

@dustyb123 

If you listened to 2 amps and liked one better but found out the specs on the one you didn't like were better would it change your decision?

It must not as long as a) you only used your ears and repeated the test a few times to make sure you are right and b) your listening tests were comprehensive enough to cover limitations of the amp.  For example, if you listen at low volumes, the amp may be fine but once you crank it up, it heavily distorts -- something the measurements show you.

Bottom line: listening test are the gold standard.  Just do them right.  That's all.

@kota1 

@amir_asr , I followed your instructions about having a friend switch cables to the letter, I have no idea what you are talking about when you say single trial, you said guess which cable is better 8 out of 10 times, I did that, duh.

Hmmm.  How did this test move from past to present?  Your claim of 100 hour burn-in was before we interacted at all.  Your original story about you liking that cable better said nothing about repeating the test, much less 8 out of 10 times.  You even wondered why I was asking you this.  Now all of a sudden that is what you did???

No worries.  Do you know how to shoot a video on your phone?  If not, get some help and redo the whole test so that we can see and observe.  And *please* watch the video I post on things you need to be careful of to generate reliable results.

@kota1 

@amir_asr , you raise an interesting point about risk. As you are a dealer I respect the fact you might not like when a manufacturer or dealer assumes all the risk in a transaction by offering a 30 or 60 day return policy.

Once more, they don't assume all risks.  You have to pay for return shipping and hassle of boxing and shipping it back to them.  Then you sit there waiting for a refund which may or may not come.  And that burn-in period requirement is a sure way to make sure you don't immediately send the thing back.

You are a perfect victim of their marketing if you fall for this scheme.  Here is the wiki for you: 

"The use of money back guarantees has grown significantly over the last few years and has become standard practice in direct marketing across all media. Very often, unreliable businesses use it as a tactic to reel the customer into a false sense of safety....Issues relating to false guarantees have become so common in the United States that the Federal Trade Commission has specifically addressed the issue in the Code of Federal Regulations Handbook (§ 239.1)."

I suggest not being such a gullible consumer.  It is folks like you who let these companies get away with empty and false claims for their products.  Instead of being an advocate of audiophile buyers, you have joined the sellers in promoting junk audio products with zero benefit to fidelity of your system.

@jerryg123 

I also know you are not an EE all you are is some guy with some software (that a member had to teach you how to use) and then you banished him from ASR.

My background is an open book.  It is linked to every post on ASR for example: 

I do have an electrical engineering degree.  But importantly, I grew up with electronics.  No way I could do what I am doing without that knowledge.  Here is a bit of what is posted there on my background:

"Without giving away my exact age, I grew up in 1960s with analog electronics as my primary hobby. Learned that from my oldest brother who likewise had the same hobby and spent his nights and days designing electronics. This gave me an intuition for analog electronics which to this day serves me better any textbook or formal education.

Speaking of formal education, I naturally aimed to get an Electrical Engineering degree which I received in early 1980s (still trying hard to not give away my age!). During that time though, the personal computer revolution was upon us and I quickly fell in love with my second hobby: software. I programmed my Apple II and later managed the computer lab at the college where I wrote a bunch of custom software including an editor all the students used to write their programs.

During schooling, I worked at an electronics repair shop, fixing everything from audio equipment to VHF radios. That childhood experience really got cemented combined with a new skill of having to troubleshoot equipment, usually with no schematic. All in all, I repaired hundreds of pieces of equipment, getting a good feel for quality engineering versus not.

[...]

In late 1980s I had an opportunity to work at the computer division of Sony. Initially the job was building a software team to develop Unix but we proposed and won approval to design and build our own hardware to go with it. There we went deep, developing our own ASICs (large scale custom electronic IC), motherboards, audio subsystem, power supply, LCD display etc. Working for Sony was great as at that time they were in their peak of success and their quality standards were quite high. We combined that with great engineering from US in silicon valley and really pushed state of the art in design and simulation at that time."

There is more there and you can also look up on my LinkedIn profile.

My measurements of hardware is with Audio Precision APx555.  It is not "software" but software controls it of course.  I have had an AP since early 1990s so am quite familiar with how to use it.  Speaker measurements are with Klippel Near-field Scanner ($100K system).  I don't need the help of some random person you say we banned at ASR.

If this is how you research your facts about audio, no wonder you are so lost in the woods there.

@kota1 

Can we get this game on, will you post your system profile, stop with the hot air already???

Are you trying to avoid discussing yours???  

@kota1 

system/FR measurement throw down-

Audiogon Forum 1- ASR 0

I don't know why you keep giving  yourself score of 1.  You have not post any measurements of your room as it sits now.  What you have in your profile is a fantasy.  It is NOT your room current room measurements.  You don't even know how to use the tool you have there.  Right now, I would give you score of -1. 

@fleschler 

After replacing all six power cables, he admits that scientifically it is unexplainable but the difference exists. 

Science trivially explains that.  You mad a change, he listened more carefully and now he "heard" more detail, air, etc.  Nothing had changed in the sound.  It was him that changed because our hearing is elastic and 2-way.  A comparison causes our brain to work differently and hence we perceive things differently.  

We prove the above two ways:

1. We test the person blind and repeat at least 10 times and see if he gets > 8 right.  Every audiophile tested this way has failed to hear the same differences.

2. We perform measurements to see if there is a difference or not.  If nothing has changed in the waveform coming out of your audio device, then your listening test protocol is wrong.

All of this has been known for decades.  But some audiophiles refuse to believe it.  No amount of explaining the simple facts of how their perception works makes them change.  They go on wasting money on useless audio product after useless audio product.

I have tested a number of digital audio cables by the way. The last one was the $1,800 Nordost Tyr 2: 

I also performed listening tests and found no differene.

Before you come back and say you can hear what I can't, turn on a video camera and perform the AB test and repeat 10 times randomly.  Unless you can show this, you have no case.  None.  You are simple unaware of how your hearing and perception work.  

@fleschler 

That he is a fool too? 

Folks used to think you caught a cold because the air was cold.  This didn't make them a fool.  They just didn't know that it was caused by a virus.  Every bone in their body thought it was the cold weather because that is when people generally caught cold.  It made layman sense.  But simply was not true.

Professionals in every field know of things that lay people think are true but they are not.  In audio however, folks walk around ignoring what the science/engineering says.  They think they are so smart that they have figured out things that eluded those people.  

So no, he is not a fool but was fooled by you.  He didn't know everything I just explained.  You do but still go on causing people to believe in nonsense and cost them money.

Here is a video to watch if you don't believe in being fooled:

@mastering92

Have you visted manufacturing facilities and corporate/engineering offices to confirm these supposed findings? I would think that any popular or even remotely successful audio manufacturer has more money than you, so being able to afford an audio analyzer is likely not a hurdle. Your $100k Klippel costs as much as a half-decent Porsche. There are better machines out there. If there's so much bad-measuring gear out there, why are those brands so popular and respected?! for example, Luxman and Accuphase. 

I have not only visited them, I have had them directly and explicitly tell me they lack such gear.  You and I may think it is justifiable for them to invest in such gear but they think otherwise. Take PS Audio with their super expensive new speakers.  Their designer is active on ASR and clearly stipulates that the company doesn't want to invest in this gear.  So they are having their speaker measured by a third-party testing lab.  After the fact (design) sorry to say.

As to better machines, no, it doesn't exist. The only alternative to Klippel NFS is a massive ancehoic chamber.  I am talking $5M+.  The $1M ones are too small to be anechoic to 20 Hz as Klippel NFS is (actually NFS has no lower limit).

What companies do is take shortcuts with gated high frequency measurements and patching that with ground plane testing.  This gives you decent results but it is very time and resource consuming so it only gets done once in a while.  With Klippel NFS, you can do two scans in a day and generate full 3-D map of the speaker during that time!  It will highly accelerate the design verification.

Then again, $100K plus space and training to use the gear is more than many companies want to spend. This is gradually changing though as I have seen companies buy the system after seeing ASR measurements.  And realizing that the awareness around these measurements is increasingly and rapidly so.

@mastering92 

Tell me what you think the product does (product description) and I will tell you if it meets those standards/fills that purpose. That is truly all a prospective buyer needs to know. Good enough or optimal for them, then they can buy what they want and be happy. End of story.

The perspective buyer has been kept in the dark with respect to true capabilities of the product.  Instead he has been trained to eat up marketing claims that are easily falsified. I am trying to shine some sunlight here.  What business of yours is it to push us back into darkness?  Stand aside if you have nothing technical to share that can be objectively relied upon.  Heaven knows we have enough people lining up to feed folks folklore this way....

@mastering92 

Small amounts of current or voltage variation can influence how well an audio component performs. Different types of metal - copper, silver, CCAW wire can impact sound quality. Why be so opinionated, as though only you are right?! I'm just stating what I believe is true based on experience.

Me being opinionated?  How about  you all? I stand on shoulders of numerous engineers and designers in audio.  Who do you go by?  Your gut and folklore you read online? 

Back to your point, yes, there are measurable differences in cables which I show day in and day out.  The problem you have is that the sound coming out of your gear does not change.  This is confirmed both in measurements and controlled testing where only your ear is involved.

You want to put your head in the sand, be my guest.  But don't make this personal about me.

@mastering92 

So you are the audio measurement god and all companies must yield before you so that you can measure their electronics and rank them on your website? Who cares what they use. Does it sound good? That's what really matters.

Another emotional rant with no constructive value.  No, I am not a "measurement god."  Learning to use an instrument to measure audio gear is not impossible or hard.  The problem we have is that audio companies think they can just feed you marketing claims and you accept it.  So why try harder to provide proof?

So I come around and test things.  That causes heartburn for you.  As if having more data is bad for us as consumers.  Better logic can be found in fortune cookies.  Be an advocate of consumers.  Ask for proof points.  If someone says XYZ sounds better, ask them for listening tests where only the ear was involved.  If they refuse, then ask them for measurements.  If they don't give you that either, then run, run away fast.

Alternatively be part of the solution than the problem.  Don't spend the time writing this missive of a response.  Instead, encourage companies to provide more reliable data to us.  Support the work some of us are doing to to improve the situation as opposed to acting the PR shield for companies.

I just finished testing a $2,299 IEM.  In ever regard it is worse than my favorite $50

one: 

This is what proper testing gives you.  And oh, the testing included listening test so don't climb up that tree.....

@bigtwin 

@mastering92  Re Amir and ASR.  I asked Paul at PS Audio to explain how Amir's testing of the PS Audio Power Plant showed the device did nothing at all.  Here's Paul's reply, which I got in only one day.  That's impressive in itself

Hi Eric,

Sure. I get it. Amir misses the point entirely of the Power Plant’s purpose, which is not as a passive power conditioner that cleans the line noise (which is rather unimportant, sonically). Instead, its purpose is to regenerate new power and regulate that power in a dynamic fashion. That act of regulation lowers impedance and is what improves sonically the connected equipment.

It works and is amazing.

I don't miss any point.  Indeed, I addressed every defense Paul put forward in my follow up tests and and videos.  That aside, it is remarkable that he says reduction of noise is not the point of the product.  This is mentioned clearly in the product page:

"With your system powered directly from the output of the P12, you can expect far better micro and macro dynamics, as well as cleaner, lower background noise. "

Everyone buys these things because they think they "reduce noise."  Paul has changed his tune because that was shot down in my testing showing that this generation of regen is not nearly as clean as a proper AC regenerator as it mixes incoming AC with a correction signal.  See this measurement:

And comparison against my proper lab AC regenerator:

As for impedance, I measured that post his argument.  The turth is the other way around.  An in-rush limiter was causing the device to produce less power than AC signal as shown in my amplifier measurements with Powerplant:

Impedance measurements confirmed that Powerplant made things worse, not better:

There was no stone unturned in analysis of this box showing that at best, it does nothing for your audio gear and at worst, you loose some power.  And you pay $6,000 for the priviledge.

So please, please don't run with stuff manufacturers say.  Be skeptical.  Ask him to prove that his device has lower impedance as I have shown above.  Ask him to show performance improvement with audio device outputs, not AC input.

@bolong

If you can’t trust your ears, what makes you think you can trust measurements?

Oh, we trust your ears completely. It is the rest of your body which you include in "sound" evaluation that causes problems. This is the reasons audio research blinds the listener so that we can  get more reliable data.

Alas, such blinding is time and resource consuming so we resort to measurements which are reliable and repeatable. We then interpret the results using psychacoustic research which is entirely based on listening tests.

@mastering92 

What success? 

A failed tech executive at Microsoft, worked at Sony for a while, made no meaningful contributions that stand today. No one from his generation knows who he is or what he does.

Man, that is a meanspirited thing to say.  Are you this way in real life?  Someone disagrees with your audio views and you get personal this way?  

That aside, I am sure there are executives or managers with better credentials and notoriety than me.  I am however, proud of the accomplishments of my teams and my personal contributions to many of them.  Here are some examples:

1. Technologies developed in my team ship in billions of devices a year.  Not millions but billions. Every few weeks I run into specs of a device that has technology from my team in all manner of products and software.

2. Our video technology is mandatory in Blu-ray format and was responsible for advancement of competing standards to catch up to same.  Without our involvement, Blu-ray format would have only supported the ancient but expensive (see below) MPEG-2 video codec.

3. We worked hard to make the cost of your AV products lower.  While royalties for MPEG-2 video codec was $2.50 per device with no cap, we pushed and achieved cost of less than 50 cents with caps for advanced codecs such as H.264.

4. Speaker of H.264 and other ITU/MPEG standards, we chaired the development of them at those organizations.

5. I came to Microsoft as part of an acquisition of our start up where we significantly innovated in delivery of video on the Internet.  We managed to do this by inventing such as schemes as MBR: multibitrate Audio/video.  Every video you watch on the web today uses the same scheme as you see the quality go up and down based on your connection speed.

6. Technologies developed by my team have been recognized by no less than three Emmy awards.  The first two predate the Internet as we know it today but the last one is well documented (for advancements in delivery of video on the Internet).  Here is a picture of me holding the statue: 

7. I created relationships with many enemies of Microsoft.  This included the top CE companies such as Panasonic.  My contact has been the CEO of this company now for many years.

I could go on but it should be clear that your assertion is incorrect.  But sure, maybe in the next post you show us your accomplishments and that of other reviewers covering audio.