Some brands found out the hard way that measurements don’t just stay in reviews anymore.
Independent measurements have started influencing outcomes that used to sit outside the review cycle.
Between 2022 and 2026, published test results contributed to product withdrawals, legal disputes, and declining resale confidence across parts of the high-end audio market.
Claims that once went largely unchallenged began facing public verification.
How High-End Audio Worked Before the Graphs
For decades, buying high-end audio was a lot closer to buying wine than buying a toaster.
Reviews did most of the heavy lifting. A writer would describe an amp as “warm,” “smooth,” or “more musical,” and readers learned which reviewers matched their taste. If you trusted the person, you trusted the product.
Specs were there, but they were easy to “win” on paper. A brand could advertise a big wattage number, and the average buyer had no way to tell what that number really meant in real use.
Was it measured at 1 kHz or across the full range? One channel or all channels? A quick burst or continuous power? Into an easy load or something closer to an actual speaker?
Most people never saw those details, and most product pages didn’t volunteer them.
So the decision usually came down to reputation and the demo. You listened at a dealer, you liked what you heard, and the price tag helped seal the story. If it cost five figures, it felt safe to assume the engineering had to be serious.
And without lots of independent, apples-to-apples testing, that system held up. Brands could lean on mystique, reviewers could lean on language, and buyers didn’t have many tools to push back.
The Measurement Revolution
Change didn’t happen because people suddenly stopped caring about how music feels. It happened because a few reviewers made it easy for regular buyers to see what the gear was actually doing, using the same kind of test gear manufacturers use.
One huge example of that is Audio Science Review, ran by Amir Majidimehr, which pushed that approach into the mainstream.
Instead of writing around sound with vibe words, ASR centered repeatable measurements and put results into rankings people could compare at a glance. SINAD became the headline number for a lot of DAC and amp discussions because it compresses noise and distortion performance into something easy to line up side by side.
Some speaker reviewers followed the same general idea but with different tools. Erin Hardison (Erin’s Audio Corner), for instance, focused on loudspeakers and made measurement-based coverage feel normal for buyers who used to rely on “trust me” descriptions.
GoldenSound also did it from the digital side, testing codecs and signal chains and showing what changed between input and output instead of asking people to take claims on faith.
Once those results were public and easy to share, comparisons got uncomfortable fast. People could point to a graph or a score, not just a description. That didn’t kill subjectivity, but it did change the baseline.
A brand’s claims could be checked in public, and “because we said so” stopped being enough.
What Happened When the Data Hit Back
The consequences of this recalibration weren’t theoretical. In multiple cases, independent measurements led to lasting reputational damage.
Measurements end a comeback
The Bob Carver Corporation tried to revive the brand in early 2022 by leaning hard on the legacy of Bob Carver and selling the Crimson 275 as its flagship stereo tube amp.
However, when Audio Science Review tested it, the measurements landed on two problems that were hard to explain away as “taste.”
- It did not hit its advertised power cleanly, with distortion climbing well before the rated output.
- It had insufficient chassis grounding arrangement for a high-voltage tube amplifier.
That second point is what changed the tone. People can argue about how much distortion is “acceptable.” They do not argue the same way about potential shock risk.
So, once that question was on the table, the amp’s name started traveling through forum threads as a warning, not a recommendation. Even defenders ended up debating safety first, sound second.
The company later suspended production in April 2024.
Suing the messenger
Tekton’s clash with measurement culture followed a different pattern.
As a recap, ASR reviewed the Tekton M-Lore and published data showing a frequency response that deviated heavily from what many listeners consider neutral. Tekton’s owner and designer, Eric Alexander, disputed the result and questioned the setup.
ASR then re-measured using Alexander’s requested method and still got essentially the same outcome.
The situation grew even further when Erin Hardison measured another Tekton model and Alexander threatened legal action. This did more damage than the graphs, and became a story that traveled beyond the usual measurement crowd, because it looked like an attempt to intimidate an independent reviewer who ran a crowdfunded channel.
People did not need to understand the technicalities to have an opinion about that.
Alexander later said sales took a hit after the controversy
Luxury pricing doesn’t buy protection
dCS sits at the ultra-luxury end of the DAC market, and the GoldenSound dispute showed how little “prestige” helps once technical criticism is public.
Back in 2021, GoldenSound reviewed the dCS Bartók and was mixed on whether the performance justified the price, even while acknowledging strengths like build and features. Then, in 2024, he received a legal letter demanding a retraction and threatening a lawsuit for very large damages.
GoldenSound shared the letter publicly, and the conversation quickly stopped being about the Bartók’s sound and about the optics of a luxury brand trying to lawyer its way out of criticism.
dCS’ Managing Director, David Steven, soon issued a public apology, said the threatening language was not authorized, and the company withdrew the legal threat. The executive involved was terminated, and dCS opened a dialogue with GoldenSound and Headphones.com.
Black-box tech meets open analysis
MQA’s collapse played out in slow motion, and the measurement angle mattered because MQA was built on claims that were difficult for outsiders to verify. It promised “studio quality” in smaller files, with authentication indicators that were supposed to confirm fidelity.
GoldenSound tested MQA using controlled signals and showed that the process changed the audio in ways that contradicted the marketing story. This included added noise and authentication behavior that did not reliably reflect whether the source was intact.
Around the same time, Audio Science Review published corroborating measurements.
That combination did not prove what every listener would prefer, and it did not need to. It made MQA easier to criticize in concrete terms. Tidal later moved away from MQA toward FLAC for high-resolution streaming, and MQA Ltd. entered administration in 2023.
Regulation, Market Shifts, and Resale Pain
The spread of deceptive specifications prompted a regulatory response. In June 2024, the Federal Trade Commission issued final amendments to its amplifier power output rule. It was the first major update in decades.
This revised rule mandated standardized testing methods. It also emphasized continuous power ratings over peak or burst figures. Manufacturers must now test across the full 20Hz-20kHz bandwidth into real-world loads. Plus, the rule addressed long-standing abuses in multichannel power ratings.
What independent reviewers had demanded informally was now enforceable under federal law.
The practical impact is that “questionable specs” can move from a debate topic to a compliance risk. And because measurement reviews are now easy to find and easy to share, they don’t stay confined to niche forums.
Instead, they follow products into buying decisions and resale negotiations, where a model’s reputation can either protect its value or turn every listing into an argument.
Brands now face a clear choice. They can compete on verified performance. Or, they can disappear from a market that no longer tolerates unverifiable claims. In modern high-end audio, belief is optional. The data isn’t.
THD, wattage and frequency graphs tell absolutely nothing about what something sounds like. Also 20Watts being 17Watts inactiality is just as pointless a metric. It’s one ignorant telling the other they are ignorant.
Wrong.
Specs give an indication of how colored or transparent something will sound, and they reveal whether an amp is behaving properly — things like frequency response (tonal neutrality), distortion profile (what happens near clipping), and output impedance (how it interacts with real speakers).
Those factors materially affect what you hear.
So what are you getting at? The point it to provide transparency and consistency with advertising. Is that a bad thing?
I urge you to rethink what you’ve written. Ponder how these devices are engineered in the first place, it’s certainly not some random process that ignores the fundamentals of physics and electronic engineering. So, of course those measurands are important, and do impact the sound quality, but they might not tell the full story. There are additional parameters that need to be quantified in order to fully characterise a device. Whether that sounds good or not is entirely your personal subjective response, but you cannot change the laws of the universe. The data does matter, it’s whether you choose to accept it or not.
But claiming 50 watts and delivering only 17 DOES make a real difference. And while THD might not tell you how something sounds, it can tell you its going to sound wrong.
So you’re saying that an amp (for example) that outputs 40w at 14% THD, might sound just as good as a 60w amp at 0.02% THD?
I feel stupid even suggesting that, so I hope I misunderstood you.
Bonjour,
Il faut noter qu’en Europe au moins, je ne sais pas comment c’était ailleurs, toutes les critiques de matériel audio était assorties de mesures faites par les labos des magazines.
Il en résultait que des produits très chers ne tenaient pas la comparaison avec de bons produits de moyenne gamme.
Cela a dû s’arrêter dans les années 1980 1990 quand les mini chaînes sont arriver, puis que les consommateurs lambdas allaient vers le home cinéma plutôt que la hifi.
Les mesures ont disparues progressivement.
No, you just have no clue how to interpret them. A full measurement set on a speaker tells me far more about how it will sound in a room than some flowery language from some useless subjective reviewer.
Testing at full power across the bandwidth into real load.look out those chifi tube amps.
Still plenty of room for what we hear vs what the specs say. I bought one of the top rated Sinad amps in ASRs list and it was notas transparent as a lower rated amp. Sounded veiled like I was hearing it through plastic. So we have come a long way in measurement relevance, but we are not there yet.
I think of measurements as a canary in the coal mine in that it doesn’t mean the mine is completely safe just because the canary is still awake.
There should be a measurement that identifies the issue you have with the sound. Find it, prove it’s true.
What is important is that ASR is not funded by affiliate money from headphone companies. The garbage reviews I see on YouTube are all funded by affiliate money from large headphones companies, which is why their opinions cannot be trusted and are mostly garbage compared to ASR.
Sound clarity is still an individual and unique perceived comprehension. At least we are trying to level the playing field.
It is worth noting that measuring audio products as this article describes is not new. It was done extensively in the 19 70s ’80s and ’90s by the the big audio magazines of the time. Stereo review, high Fidelity, audio, stereophile, and absolute sound. Then followed a couple of decades of no measurements at all, and then we enter the time period of this article
True. Then magazines turned into useless rags shilling for the companies.
Thank you. I was going to make the same comment. I avidly read Julian Hirsch’s technical reviews in Stereo Review in the 1980s. The magazine seemed to disappear after the mid 1990s, but was probably swamped by more industry friendly competition. I bet Stereo Review lost advertising after publishing the detailed double blind ABX test results on Monster Cable. IIRC, a forty person audiophile “golden ears” club in the Midwest could not real even a difference between 16 ga. zip cord and Monster Cable, let alone whether one sounded better. The audio magazine landscape soon devolved into magazines that talked only about “transparent bass” and other nonsense. I’m really glad to see some measurements being made and published again.
Measurements are one thing but ASR is a terrible source to cite, unless it’s a Chinese brand which has been a proven sponsor of the former marketing exec Amir.
Great overview. I would push back slightly on the very last paragraph. I don’t think the industry and hobby have fully embraced the reality of using measurement as a critical baseline for evaluating gear and uncovering snake oil. Sighted bias still rules the day, particularly as the price rises. Thus brands suffering from either poor or simply non-differentiated (from products 1/10 the price) measurement is still hit or miss. The measurement momentum is there, it is certainly growing but there is still a long way to go.
Agreed. The three sites mentioned are thankfully leading the charge, but there are still the subjective faithful out there. Im still in counseling after all the snake oil I bought into as an audiophool, but I’m freed from unnecessary expenses after seeing the light.
While the good stuff is still expensive, at least I get what I’m paying for now. A pair of Genelecs and an RME dac flank my desk now, and it’s been a pure revelation.
I cannot afford the Genelecs nor the RME DAC. But, I do have some vin tage gear that makes me very happy. For my desktop, though, has changed from too big of speakers on the desk to now having the best headphones I’ve ever heard, (HIfiman Arya Organics) with inexpensive but potent electronics (Topping D70pro OCTO DAC/A90D amp)
Thats what these young “independent Reviewers” dont get. The real audiophiles dont care about measurements.
yup audiophiles only care about “feelings”, not measurable facts
This is all great news for the industry and its consumers. (Unlike Jim, I don’t feel statistical measurements are meaningless. As the article itself acknowledges, listening DOES matter — but to say it’s “pointless” to compare products based on real, measurable performance metrics is to say that there’s nothing wrong with a company selling $2,000 gold-plated interconnects with an outer jacket woven from real yeti hair, even when there is no measurable difference from an ordinary $30 cable.
Not finding a measurable difference on your particular tests doesn’t mean there isn’t a difference. Companies are still free to make exotic cables and potentially innovate. What there’s nothing wrong with is you voting with your wallet as to whether or not you’re willing to pay extra for their unsupported claims.
This is kind of funny. As far back as the 1960s (maybe 50s) magazines like Stereo Review and High Fidelity were publishing instrumented test reviews, and the high end audiophile community called them meaningless. Hey, it only took you guys 60+ years to figure out you were wrong. Congrats!
Yep. I became an audiophiles. And I read stereo review, high Fidelity y, Audio, and even absolute sound and stereophile magazines did testing
It’s about time people start realizing the emperor has no clothes.
It’s an insult to GoldenSound by lining him and ASR side by side.
You’ll never know how it sounds until it’s in your listening room. Yes, machines “hear” better but the usual graphs won’t ever provide what the music is expressing.
Glad to hear dCS fired that guy finally. We need the FTC to also get involved with audio gear that isn’t just an amplifier, such as dsps, players, mixers, transducers, etc, because I’ve seen pro gear that is advertised as being full spectrum frequency and low distortion and then you test it out of the box and it’s rolling off at like 15 kilohertz and is adding 100 times the IMD and noise of the original signal, making even lossless files sound lossy. Ditto marketing 96 digital output that’s up sampling from the DSP running at 48. Up sampling for the digital out just so they make it look like the DSP is running at 96 when it’s not. USA also needs to update our lemon, warranty, and customer service laws to match Europe’s.
We must found a middle ground.
Sadly audiophile world is slowly becoming a silly engineering contest.
to a hammer everything looks like a nail.
good measuring equipment has become incredibly accessible in the last 20 years. that and the disappearance of brick and mortar stores has lead to widespread reliance on measurement data. the issue with that reliance, imo, is that human perception is much more complex than most people want to acknowledge. it’s nice to think we can easily measure, therefore control, every important aspect of playback quality. if you pay attention to the leading designers and audiophiles in the field- like Nelson Pass, Steve Guttenberg, and Peter Comeau, they aren’t endlessly chasing zero distortion and ruler flat frequency response. the human ear is their final arbiter. even the sophisticated measurement guru Andrew Jones is constantly refining what measurement data represents which audible characteristics. it’s not as cut and dry as people online would have you believe. don’t get me wrong. there’s a lot of utility in measuring equipment. just don’t be too shocked when you think your system has achieved near measurement perfection, but you don’t much look forward to listening to it
No pun, but this is music to my ears!