Phil Allison wrote:

"Michael R. Kesti"

Specifications are never measurments.

** Rubbish.

How CAN one argue with logic such as that?

Instead, specifications are chosen
values of parameters that, when measured, are promised to be no worse than
the values specified.

** Shame about all those "min", "typical" and "max" figures in data
sheets then.

I downloaded the specifications of the three mixers referenced in this
thread's base note, and not one of them provided "min", "typical", and
"max" parameter values. There were plenty of occasions of "greater than"
and "less than" for values of distortion, noise, and such parameters, and
untoleranced values of impedance, max levels, and the like. Perhaps you
would be so kind as to supply a link to a spec of a pro audio product that
includes min, typical, and max parameter values.

When chosing those values, manufacturers are walking
a line between how good they want their gear to appear on paper and how
many manufacturing rejects and/or customer returns they are willing to
tolerate.

** Most equipment specs represent typical figures found by measurement on
samples - unless otherwise specified.

If this is true, then about half of the delivered units are going to
perform worse than those figures. Would you find it acceptible to
discover that you had purchased a unit that measured worse than its
published specs?

--
================================================== ======================
Michael Kesti | "And like, one and one don't make
| two, one and one make one."
| - The Who, Bargain