This is a patently absurd assertion, it simply does not follow.
That a manufacturer does NOT use a tool does NOT in ANY way
prove it is not useful.

Of course not. Had you kept the quote in context you might realize that it was
the point of the post. Use or nonuse per se is not proof of effectiveness or
lack of effectiveness of a testing method.


There are a LOT of tools out there that there that are VERY
useful for the design and evaluation of audio products.
Unfortunately, MANY "engineers" in the high-end audio realm
are very unsophisticated (many of them have NO engineering
background, in fact) and are utterly unaware of these tools,
or have incorrect ideas about what they do. This fact DOES
NOT render these tools useless.

Arracks on unnamed "engineers" aren't very meaningful. Maybe you could cite
some examples of speaker manufacturers that "are very unsophisticated and are
uttly unaware of these tools." Then maybe it would help to cite the specific
tools you are refering to.



Unfortunately, many of the tools and techniques cherished by
some of the more highly regarded high-end luminaries are the
audio equivalent of leaches and drilling holes in one's head.

Some specific examples please.


The mere fact that they use them is NO proof of their efectiveness,
any more than NOT using something is proof of its uselessness.


That was the point of the post you were objecting to.