Should Speaker Manufactures provide a Frequency Response Graph?

Eric at Tekton Designs has been battling two different reviewers who have posted measurements without his permission, using Klippel devices for their respective measurements.

So what? They posted measurements without Eric’s blessing/approval? Oh the horror! It’s a free country dude so comes with the territory. Other “manufacturers” (ehem) get by just fine without threatening litigation except for, uh, Bose. Go figure.

I’d really like to see an impedance graph along with phase angles. A frequency response graph doesn’t mean squat if my amp can’t adequately drive the speakers. Nominal impedance??? C’mon man.

The waterfall plot displays both the frequency response of a loudspeaker (in various dimensions) and it’s behaviour in time. It is very revealing of any "ringing" in the speaker’s response, ringing being a major cause of the lack of transparency a loudspeaker exhibits.

I agree with @bdp24 . After looking at waterfall plots for years, I feel like I can get a good idea of a speaker's amplitude response even though of course in the end, you have to listen to it.

I never knew you had to get a manufacturer's permission to post a measurement. I'm all for graphs but if it sounds good, it works for me.

I also agree with @bdp24. A waterfall plot provides the most revealing graphical representation of a speakers frequency response.  However, unless procedures are standardized, comparisons between manufacturers/models will have latent errors. Also, on and off quasi-anechoic measurements do not represent real world response.  While critical during the manufacturer’s design phase, quasi-anechoic response graphs are useful for to attempt to make some preliminary determinations if a speaker may meet our listening preferences.  Audition in a real world environment, and if possible your own home and system is necessary.