I think you guys are being a little unfair. First, if and to the extent this IS public knowledge, you can knock yourselves out by resorting to the publicly available literature. But, to the extent this company has their own methodology which yields results, they are entitled to treat it as proprietary, so long as it has not already been publicly disclosed or made available to others in its entirety without appropriate confidentiality restrictions. And if the publicly available descriptions of the process are inaccurate, and don't disclose the real processes or their nuances, then the real process remains proprietary notwithstanding public disclosure of some bastardized version of it.
I don't think it is incumbent on the manufacturer to 'correct' this by fully disclosing what they consider to be proprietary. Is it proprietary? It may well be- trade secrets, 'know how' and other confidential info, ranging from how to make a cheesecake to how to tune an old carburetor, can all be protected as 'confidential information' under US law if not known in its unitary whole by the relevant trade or public.
As to whether that makes business sense, that's a different question. I guess I come down on the side of: hey, this is something that a manufacturer offers as part of 'buying into' its brand. Presumably, this Master class (and I know nothing about it, in substance, other than what i have read on the Net), trains dealers to do proper set-ups of the manufacturers' equipment.
I don't see that the manufacturer has an obligation to provide that information to the general public; to the contrary, they can treat it as a 'value added' proposition for customers, who know they will benefit from good set-up if the product is purchased from an authorized/trained dealer.
I'm not shilling for Sonus Faber, either. In fact, I was somewhat critical of what I heard in NY in the Spring and a couple people informed me that the overdamped room was likely the factor, not the speaker or the 'set up' per se.