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

I should add that as soon as Schiit started to measure their products, their performance shot up through the roof.  It created a new market for them with that improved performance.  So there is business opportunity there for companies.

I have plenty of this data.  It falls in these categories:

1. Company never bothered to make any measurements.  You can count on this being the reason in just about any audio tweaks (cables, etc.).  I know this because they are often surprised by my measurements.  But when I ask them for theirs, they have none.

2. They make very rudimentary measurements often using obsolete audio analyzers that don't remotely present the deep dive that I provide in ASR reviews.  One of the main reasons for this is the cost of instrumentation.  A proper audio analyzer sets you back US $30,000.  A proper speaker measurement requires spending $2K to get measurements in anechoic chamber or buying $100,000 Klippel NFS that I have.

3. They have the right measurements but don't want to publish them.  Harman as noted falls in this category with their speakers.  Their marketing department thinks it will be "confusing" to people if they publish detailed measurements.  Engineers and product planners disagree and leak it in forums and such.  So the information is there but not in product pages.  

Note that #3 is quite rare.

Note that even if you had measurements on cables for example, they would be useless.  I don't know about you but I don't listen to cables.  Or power conditioners.  Or AC cables.  I listen to the output of my audio system.   You would think if these things change the output of your system, these companies would be anxious to show them in measurements.  Or failing that, using controlled listening tests.  You get neither.

Instead, companies talk about such things as "lower noise," "EMI," "Jitter," yet no measurements are shown.  Instead, some theories are put forward that sound good to consumers.  Sadly some audiophiles buy into these unproven claims so companies think "life is good so why bother."

The industry is transforming though because if they don't measure, then I might.  :)  Smart company would want to get ahead of the game and make their own measurements.  And offer them.  Schiit for example when through this major change from using obsolete measurement gear to what I have now.  Reports are now released with every new product.  

Audiophiles have gotten quite a bit more educated and are driving this change.  I routinely hear from companies saying people want me to measure their gear before they buy them.

I hope every audiophile is supportive of more information than less and will push the industry to provide comparable and reliable information about their products.

"Just listen to it" sounds good, but those of us who were around when amplifier power "specifications" were mostly a figment of the manufacturer's imagination should appreciate today's more accurate power reporting requirements.  Is there still a little monkey business going on, maybe some, like reporting half of the 4 ohm power measurement as the 8 ohm power output (when it is really higher) to make it look like the amplifier power doubles into 4 ohms, or maybe the actual distortion at the reported output or reporting results at 1K Hz instead of from 20-20K Hz, but mostly the reported values are much more reliable than in the 1970's.

In the case of speakers, I don't know why any potential speaker buyer wouldn't first look at efficiency and impedance specifications, just to make sure the speakers are likely to mate well with their amplifier.  DAC output voltage is another useful specification/measurement when determining the gain (or not) needed from the partnering preamp.  Output/input impedances for source components, preamps, and amplifiers are nice to have in order to head off potential component mis-matches that can lead to rolled off or uninspiring sound.

@overthemoon

The reason is likely based on manufacturer- ultimately because the customer that buys there stuff doesn’t care if they aren’t publishing measurements.

This is also quite correct and you share a truth.

What is missing from this truth is the analysis that it is the marginal customer, the one who questions the price, quality, whatever, and ends up buying it, is the one who determines what everyone else who don’t care, get.

Without going into handwaving, this is true of any freely traded commodity or service.  Some people call it supply and demand.  Do they explain exactly what that means?

The reason is likely based on manufacturer- ultimately because the customer that buys there stuff doesn’t care if they aren’t publishing measurements. 
 

People often make emotional decisions then justify with facts. Rarely the other way around. Think about your significant other or best friend- there qualities were something you learn over time and something about them impressed you enough to follow up from your first discussion. 

@ebm 

Because nobody cares much.

And that's the way the manufacturers and the vested interests on this forum want this situation to remain. 

They are going all out to discredit outfits which conduct careful measurements, its pretty obvious even to blind freddy.

Just tonight, I was attempting to find out a few basic answers for a driver. The translation was so poor, that I will just look elsewhere. No need to bother those who cannot simply provide basic specs. To be clear, the specs were provided in such a way that you had to know that the typos actually meant watts instead of ohms, for example. After a long list of errors, i had to ask myself why I bother. There is a mountain of other choices to narrow down for the design to start with.

Specs are meant for appliances. Look to Consumer Reports for reviews. They should be used as a guideline at best and viewed with a critical eye because specs can be measured under different conditions that may not even be mentioned.

*sigh*  This is one among many 'discussions' that will endure beyond our lifetimes for as long as the items made for humans to appreciate any ephemeral event in their own homes are made for the pursuit.

Make your own call, buy the thing, and try to enjoy it.

I'll read or listen to what you've done.

I may, or not, agree.

'Twas always thus, and will likely continue to be such.

Listen to the music... 'k?

@ebm exactly, it is about how it sounds in your audio chain. Synergy not spreadsheets. 

Because nobody cares much.

The sort of person who bases their purchasing decision purely based on measurements, will also be the person who buys the cheapest product with best measurements.

Why on earth would an audio manufacture want to pursue that customer? Its pointless.

Go buy yourself the $300 DAC from a pro audio company and the flattest measuring speaker. And then convince yourself the terrible sound it produces is somehow fantastic and can not be bettered.

No boutique audio manufacturer wants such people for a customers. 

The way I look at it is specifications balanced with how a component is tuned to suite a specific sound objective. Specifications matter to set a baseline for if it can fulfill the needs of its application but after that, it comes down to individual preference and simply trying things.

One of the things I've learned as a relatively new 'audiophile' is learning how to balance specifications and subjectivity as the main factors. Leaning too far one way or another have been the only times I've been disappointed in products in the past.

David Gilmour's Astoria recording studio used 23 kilometers of boutique cables, how much do you think that cost them.

Of course I understand economics.  It is feasible for me at my age and station to acquire more expensive (and in my opinion) better quality cabling.  You do the best you can.   

Back when I was in my teens and 20s, no one even spoke of boutique cabling.  I was not content with the sound of my system and kept changing speakers and amps.  Smog killed the rubber suspensions in my cartridges in the 70s and early 80s (in Los Angeles) so replacements were made prematurely every 3 years.   I also was married in 1981 and had additional concerns.  Then a critically ill wife for 11 years and a child.  Funds were tight until 1998.  

I did appraise two studios which used boutique cabling, among the other extraordinary studio construction (like my current listening room).  The other 14 appraised studios and comparable studios I inspected generally used pro cabling like Canare, Belden and some other names I've forgotten.  There were a lot of cables in the storage rooms.

@fleschler , if I had budget I would use Mapleshade XLR's throughout the whole system but with roughly 11 active speakers and long runs for height channels and surrounds, not gonna happen.

@invalid +1

You know how much money it would cost to use boutique cables in a recording studio, that's probably the reason they use mogami or belden. 

I did not deride Mogami cable. If test measurements make it ideal for recording or mastering, that’s what pros should use. If it happens to work in a home system, that’s great too. I only reported what it sounded like in a few upper mid-fi and one high end system. My own experience had the same result with Canare cables.

High Fidelity (brand) cables (defunct) were so much worse than pro-cables. They actually made us cringe at the sound and wanted to leave the listening rooms we heard them in.

A very cheap yet good beginners IC is the original Monster Interlink 300. It is relatively neutral with a slightly plummy bass and modestly rolled off highs but is inoffensive. Decades ago, nearly all my friends used it. I tried it but my boutique cables are superior. Further iterations by Monster are bright/hard sounding. The designer made this one off cable for Monster than began his own line of high end cables.

djones51, you described why I decided to audition Mogami cables. If they are used in the studios to record music I can at least capture that much fidelity. I also took a page from the pros by going with active speakers although I don't use pro monitors. I like JBL speakers a lot for the same reason, in my man cave, a lot of studios use JBL. 

However, studios use LONG runs of lots of cables. If you want recordings made with high end cables try Mapleshade Records, WOW, very good.

Power cables and speaker cables appear to be easier to design

Geometry designed to lower inductance (i.e., twisted, star-quad or braid) and sufficient gauge to conduct the current should get you most of the way there with power and speaker cables.  However with SCs, and perhaps irrationally, I have found a sonic preference for multiple, individually insulated, small diameter solid core wires (e.g., Harmonic Technology with foamed PE insulation or Cardas with individually enameled wire).  OTOH, I also like the sound of my vintage Western Electric wire as both speaker cable and power cable, and I am using 7awg WE wire to power my large monoblock amps, which supports my thoughts on geometry and sufficient gauge.  

Makes prefect sense, dull, boring cables to record music. Does it record only dull boring music?  The only thing this shows is the need for controlled testing. 

The measurement I focus on the most is my room using Audyssey, ARC or REW. 

As I previously said, equipment must be matched to a system and in a room.   If it sounds best to you, that's fine.  ICs are the most common beta test that I have done in 25 years (about 90%, maybe 100 designs).  Fortunately, after all those trials, the manufacturer has had only three designs in 10 years.  Power cables and speaker cables appear to be easier to design with less than half a dozen each in the same period.  The ICs I use cost $750 a pair, about 15 times more than Mogami, so you're right about cost.  

@fleschler , re: cables I am using Mogami XLR in a 9.2.7 home theater with predominantly active speakers. The runs to my surrounds and surround height speakers are more than 10 feet. It works very well and I think to make it noticeably better would cost $$$$. With an interconnect I want transparency, with a power cord I want dynamics.  

Well those two cable manufacturers do publish their test measurements.   It's too bad that the Canare and Mogami tried in the past 10 years by friends (4X) said that were mediocre for playback, not bad just uninteresting. They purchased more expensive cable which they preferred the sound.  Too bad, another instance where test results don't translate into better sound for playback.  They sounded flat and uninteresting, not open sounding either.  However, for professional use in recording, they are probably ideal with a perfectly flat frequency response and interacts well with other pro gear.   Years ago I tried some pro cables (could have been Canare) and also found that dull and uninteresting.   Maybe cables designed for recording are not compatible with reproduction/listening back for enjoyment.   

Canare shows extensive specs on cables as well. I only use pro cables,  they're built to withstand a lot of abuse and as long as you keep guage, length, connectors in mind shouldn't be any difference in most cases. 

@fleschler , re: specs for cables Mogami lists fairly extensive specs with each cable it sells:

https://mogamicable.com/category/products/W2319.php

Mogami Gold:

SPECIFICATIONS

Configuration
Part No.		W2319
Conductor	Details	12/0.18TA
	Size(mm²)	0.305mm² (#23AWG)
Insulation	Ov. Dia.(mm)	1.6Ø (0.063")
	Material	PE
	Color	Clear
Sub-Shield	Ov. Dia.(mm)	1.8Ø (0.071")
	Material	Conductive PVC (Carbon PVC)
	Color	Black
Main-Shield	Served-Shield	Approx. 38/0.16TA
Jacket	Ov. Dia.(mm)	5.0Ø (0.197")
	Material	PVC
	Color	Black
Roll Sizes		100m (328Ft)
Weight per 100m (328Ft) roll		3.5Kg

Back To Top
 

ELECTRICAL & MECHANICAL CHARACTERISTICS

"...all I get for cable and tweaks are subjective reviews.  Are there no good measurements/tests for them..."

Cables put different loads on the amplifier as does the loudspeaker. So a proper test for a cable's sonic signature would be to use an amp that is susceptible to those changes and a loudspeaker that has wildly different loading across the frequency spectrum. You would not be measuring the cable individually but the entire system's output. You would have to have a baseline system to do this...which would be our own system in most cases.  

@phusis Great discussion of speaker performance.  My Legacy speakers marketing targeted very low bass distortion.  Distortion numbers at frequency intervals at low and high SPL as well as bass=very indicative of a speaker's capability.  Speakers which have less good (even defective) measurements can still work well under certain circumstances (room, matching system, types of music).  I don't know their measurements but I find that I really enjoy listening to Maggies on voice and small combos but not for orchestral music, big band or heavy rock as a possible example (I've heard LRS to Tympanis to 20.1s over 35 years). 

As to measurements and reviews, all I get for cable and tweaks are subjective reviews.  Are there no good measurements/tests for them (I would suspect at least acoustic tests to view their effect on, frequency, dynamics, distortion and other acoustically testable phenomena)?  .  

Speaker manufacturers use measurements as a necessary tool in their development, but they're not necessarily to any good use to the buyer as it pertains to being a worthwhile reflection of their sound in certain respects. In some cases though they can be of use, like the measurements supplied to the pro compression drivers of my speakers where we used them as an outset (before taking measurements ourselves) for making filter notches and a peak suppression in an active configuration. The supplied measurements by the manufacturer turned out to be rather spot-on, we just used our own measurements to hone in more precisely on the specific notch and suppression frequencies in the tweaking process, while also to be the wiser on the actual, overall frequency response. 

What I would like to see supplied with speakers, and which I believe to be relatively indicative of a speaker's performance in selective areas, is distortion numbers at frequency intervals over their entire spectrum and at low to high SPL's. Distortion numbers in the bass for example can amount to double digits at higher SPL's, but the more headroom the lower the distortion and the cleaner the bass. The same essentially goes for the remainder of the frequency spectrum. At least in that regard - i.e.: distortion numbers - I see speaker manufacturers hiding the ugly facts from exposition here, rather than honestly feeling them "irrelevant" to the consumers. 

If you spend a lot of money on audio equipment, it is helpful to have a basic understanding of specifications and how those might affect successful partnering of equipment.  Examples include how the relationship between amplifier power and speaker sensitivity affects dynamic performance, as well as how input/output impedances, speaker phase angles, and impedance fluctuations with frequency, can affect the successful partnering between equipment.

I do not agree with the statement that specifications are "pretty much useless unless independently measured".  I cannot remember any cases I have seen with wholesale deviations between published specifications and published measurements by a third party, such as Stereophile.  I would not purchase expensive audio gear without reviewing the specifications as due diligence to verify the gear is likely to serve the intended purpose. 

I understand a few measurements, but not most...I do not understand how any of the measurements relate to whether I will like the sound of the amp...

The reason for not providing infinite measurements from the manufacturers is a simple answer. Most engineers feel that non-engineers can't interpret the data. Secondly, the sales staff writes the specification, not the engineering department, pretty much useless unless independently measured. 

@waytoomuchstuff , I would add a third most important number,

3) Can I return my purchase after 30 days , no questions asked.

The 2 most important numbers when buying a piece of audio equipment:

1) Physcial dimensions.  Will it fit in my space?

2) Price.  Can I afford it?

#s 3-99 present the catalyst for infinite debate, and lots of fun between friends on audio forums.  #47 is my personal favorite.  But, I'm certain there'll be some disagreement on this.

@crustycoot , yes, Carver amps are rightly in the audio "Valhalla" of the 10 Most Significant Amps of All Time according to TAS. I am happy to say, deservedly so:

OMG, stop with the circular logic.  A is wrong but B is right, oh wait, no C, no I meant A. 

I bought a nice bottle of cabernet sauvignon and poured a glass for me and my friend.  I took a sip and declared the wine delicious. My friend took a sip and immediately spit it out and said it tasted like $#*t!

But both glasses of wine yielded the same measurements when run through a spectrophotometer. Go figure!

We all hear things differently and prefer certain types of sound.  Can't measure that.

This reminds me of the Carver Corp. claim in the 80’s that their amps could replicate the sound of any other amp design by adjusting the “transfer function” which was Bob’s buzz word for frequency response plus noise/ distortion profile.  Unless I’m mistaken these amps are not regarded as belonging in audio Valhalla.  The idea that ASR can characterize how an amp will perform with speakers using their methodology is just as suspect today as when Julian Hirsch did it for Stereo Review.  But it is also hard to make the case that an amp that demonstrably alters the signal by its performance can somehow be more high fidelity than one that “measures well”. 
And who would believe manufacturer’s specs anyway?  Independent reviewers are needed for credibility. As long as their credibility is trusted. I trust John Atkinson in Stereophile more than Amir or the shills at Ab Sound.

Cause it’s about the music man! Not the measurements. 

@carlsbad Yes, I was banned in less than 2 hours.  You can read about it on the Audio Science Review review on Audiogon.

@mitch2 The real problem are cables and tweaks.  Where are the electric and/or acoustic specifications (let alone measurements).   So much puffery and exaggerated promotion without a hint of specs or measurements, in general.

As to equipment, your examples of specs not conforming or relevant as measurements is also common.   So often power output at reduced impedances are lower and occasionally at 8 ohms lower than actual.  Impendence mismatches can be a problem.  I purchased Legacy Signature IIIs from a guy with a Boulder amp and some boutique tube (unknown) preamp.  They sounded quite awful which the seller admitted as the reason he was selling them.  I brought a Sherwood 7100 16 watt 1970s receiver.  It blew the seller away.   Great mid-fi sound, including decent bass.  He had already ordered other speakers so he let me buy the Sigs.  Legacy speakers post high efficiency but they have low impedances with occasional sharp phase angles.  While many decent 35 watt receivers can power them with good current/power supplies, other amps one would assume could power them (especially the bass) with 70 watts can't.  

I still think most manufacturers could do better.  Even the speaker company I want to buy my future speakers from has very limited specs (Von Schweikert).  

Manufacturers (or, more accurately, designers) measure certain parameters of their gear as part of the design process, and then they listen and voice the product to achieve the final result. Selected measurements are used to develop the product specifications, which are summarized in the published manual. I suspect most manufacturers believe the product specifications provide sufficient information about the product performance so that buyers can make an informed purchase decision. If they believed it would help sell the product, then they would probably provide a full set of performance measurements. As you implied, there are exceptions such as Lamm that provided measurements of each amp and preamp they sold, and there are others. There are also designers/manufacturers who take pride in achieving certain performance measurements, such as Cees Ruijtenberg at Sonnet Digital Audio (formerly Metrum Acoustics) [linearity plot from Sonnet’s Pasithea DAC/preamp].

I suspect raw product measurements are sometimes massaged before they are documented in the published specification, and that every single measurement used in the design process does not always make it into the specification. However, when preparing the published specs, the manufacturers probably don’t stray too far from actuality in the event that John Atkinson, Amir, or another entity or publication decides to actually measure the piece and publish the results alongside the published specs. My Aerial LR5 speakers were measured by Thomas J. Norton, and the measurements were published in a review by Michael Fremer.

As examples of why specs may vary somewhat from the raw measurements:

• Amplifier manufacturers like to show their amp’s power doubling when measured from 8 to 4 ohms, so they might take the power measurement at 4 ohms and divide the result by 2 to obtain the published power at 8 ohms, even though the actual power at 8 ohms may be greater than published,
• a preamp’s output impedance measurement may be reported as the single value measured at 1K ohms, instead of the range of values from 20 to 20K ohms, because potential customers may realize the higher output impedance values that sometimes occur in the lower frequencies would cause a low bass roll-off when used with a power amp having a low’ish input impedance, and
• speaker efficiencies and minimum impedances may be reported in a manner to maximize those performance parameters and thereby reduce the potential for lost sales to folks whose amplifiers are not powerful enough to drive low efficiencies or low impedances.

For an on-topic interview, Google "Why John Atkinson Believes Measurements Matter."

If anyone has a contact with a manufacturer feel free to share this thread, maybe they can post?

@fleschler ​​​​​​,

Manufacturers can provide anything upon request to reviewers, that is normal for all industries, then reviewers can verify the supplied measurement, if having the same measurement tooling, and transfer findings regarding production consistency. For the public i am not sure that could be possible (you could always ask of course) and if so, would you be sure that said measurements correspond to the specific model you purchased or to the general one?

@fleschler I don't often read the ASR trash. But other people quote it.  I heard ASR panned the EtherRegen switch and that put me over the top in my decision to buy it.  Great switch.  

They haven't banned you yet?

@lalitk Well, cartridge manufacturers generally do provide higher end cartridges (above $1000) with frequency response curves.  I remember even Grado's cheap cartridges did.   I use those measurements as I don't like rising high end cartridges (Lyra for example) and prefer flat responses (Dynavector for example).  Cartridge manufacturers maybe the best at providing test measurements and specs that will determine how well the product/cartridge mates with the tonearm and pre-amp.

@kota1 Yes, Audio Measurement Review where dealers can post their test measurements.  It's a start.

I think there's several reasons for audiophile manufactures not providing measurements for their equipment.

It's clear that audiophiles don't trust measurements to be representative of the resulting sound quality and even fewer would know enough about the measurements to understand the limitations of the information.

I don't think there's any industry standards for audiophile components, so without an expectation for universal measurements it really wouldn't be possible to make any comparisons anyways.  The last thing any audiophile wants is a designer chasing a specification.

I think there are some specifications that could provide some insights for listeners if they were available.  There has to be some correlation between some measurements and user preferences, but without the measurements it's impossible to know. 

@carlsbad Apparently you haven’t read the Audio Science Review forum with over 1000 posts to date. Amir threw me off after the first two hours with maybe 50 to 100 ASR member comments, taking neutral statements out of context, perverting my comments and defaming me.

@kota1 Unfortunately, upselling is common. Like Mark Shifter who had me purchase the Dynavector XX1 after owning the 20X, Ruby and D2. It was a poor tracker, I couldn’t see the stylus easily and something else I didn’t like (a long time ago). Or selling me Audionic M33? speakers with an 81db efficiency low impedance being driven with Dynaco Mark3 monoblocks-big mistake (hey I was 25, I relied on the store owner and didn’t know the measurements-would have made my decision not to purchase them). Some sellers just didn’t know any better selling me expensive Magnan IC cables, OCOS (did work here) with Martin Logan Monolith IIIs when he was using high powered Audio Research amps and top of the line front end/pre-amp which he knew I didn’t have (I had a Classic 60 amp and SP14 pre-amp).