Quote:
Originally Posted by mojomike  I believe it's possible that the HSU could meet the CEA numbers mentioned. Why? Because when adjusted 6db down to allow for the 2m distance, they are essentially the same numbers that the PB13 have already been tested for. Nobody disputes the PB13's numbers. Assuming equal efficiency as the PB13 (who knows, it may be higher because of the bigger woofer), if the HSU amp can manage as much short-term power as the SVS, then it should make about the same numbers.
|
In general I am always very wary about comparing different data sets. There are many different variables involved, even when looking at CEA2010 data. For example, does one use single tone bursts or an averaging of tone bursts? Was there a fudge factor to convert the CEA2010 peak output to RMS output? Does one measure with the subwoofer in normal orientation or a different orientation?
Our measurement procedure is as follows:
We place the subwoofer in the middle of a parking lot. We use Beta 1.62 version of the CEA2010 software developed by Don Keele. We use a TES 1356 SPL Calibrator to calibrate the mic (Earthworks M30) before each test. We use the Pre-pro mic preamp, the same one that Don Keele uses. We do not use any fudge factor. We place the subwoofer in the normal upright position as suggested in the CEA2010, place the mic on the floor directly in front of the front baffle, 1 m from the woofer dust cap. We then test up to the highest level without hitting 'fail'. We do not use averaging.
So the reality is that our data is not directly comparable to any other data set that is gathered without using the exact same test procedures that we do. We believe in the validity of our methodology, but we do have to be careful about making extrapolations.
Sincerely,
