DefTech Super Cube 8000 Tested By Sound&Vision Magazine

Be sure to scale the CEA to 2m if needed to compare to the way most data is published on the net.(ala Ricci). I haven't seen the review but IIRC soundvision publishes 1m numbers?

Tom V.

I think I have seen them post both 1m and 2m, but good point. You have to subtract 6db if it is 1m measurements.
Edited by ack_bk - 8/10/12 at 12:35pm

6dB for 2m to 1m.

Thanks, I corrected it.

Iirc CEA actually states 1m for published data. But everyone measures at 2m for accuracy....just leaving it at 2m eliminates one compensation that could be forgotten. I think Josh said at one time he left everything at 2m so his data would be more easily compared to Illka's but I could be mistaken.

Another good aspect of the 2m number is it will more accurately compare to what someone can expect at their seating position in a typical room. Now, I'm not saying it will transfer over EXACTLY or anything close to that. But, generally speaking....you'll be MUCH closer using the 2m GP data than the 1M data..


Hey, at least there's some protocol now. 10 years ago we had to make TONs of assumptions about room size, measurement methods, ect to try to compare one data set to the next. Now we just have to check to see if its 1m or 2m.

Tom V.

Tom agreed, having a set standard makes things a much more level playing field. Josh has mentioned though that calibrating the equipment for CEA is important (and it is not very clear how to properly calibrate), and if not properly done, can account for some pretty significant differences (as much as 3db).

Where can you get a 25-30% discount?

Well I know where to get 25-30% off, but it is refurbished directly from Deftech and there is no warranty outside of 30 days.. Am guessing he has the same source.

I have two SC1's and be careful of how DT rates those watts. While most subs use a 4ohm driver hooked up to a 300 watt plus amp, DT uses a 32ohm sub driver to get an amp rating of 1500 watts. This was confirmed by Chet at DT when I questioned him about ohm ratings. Also the SC 1 would drop like a rock at 27Hz and below and sound bloated. So I have no choice but to use my two SC's as mid bass subs and bought a SVS to get real sub 20Hz bass.

Agreed, even if the numbers are 1m it is still pretty impressive for a small cube.

Tom V.

Interesting. I hadn't really considered them but now maybe I'll have to bring them into the mix. Didn't think their low end was that great initially. Not have FR plots really makes it tough to trust their subs.

Anybody have any experience with the Supercube Reference?

I owned the Trinity which is basically 2 reference subs stacked on each other. Overall it had solid output, but didn't sound all that great with music. I did a writeup on here comparing it to my CHT 18.T setup. Overall I preferred the CHT setup.

Compared to my now 2 JTR Captivators, there really is no comparison.

CEA-2010 official documentation suggests 1m peak SPL values ( I believe this is what S&V and Polk uses). However the two largest public independent sources of CEA-2010 type measurements, Illka at HTS and AVTalk both listed data in 2 meter rms format. When measuring at 2 meters versus at 1 meter it allows the radiation from multiple sources on a subwoofer whether drivers, PR's, ports or what have you to integrate more fully by lessening the differences in distance from the various radiation points to the microphone element. Also it can reduce effects from a large enclosure surface area on the measurement. Additionally a half-space ground plane measurement produces 6db greater SPL than if the speaker was allowed to radiate into free space but doubling the distance from 1 to 2 meters conveniently drops the SPL back down by 6dB due to the inverse square law. This results in measurements that should be close to a 1 meter free space (anechoic measurement.). Also as Tom V. mentioned the 2 meter SPL levels recorded seem to line up a little better with what would be seen in most rooms. While there is gain seen by the enclosed boundaries of a room, the listener distance from the subwoofer is usually much greater which will offset the SPL gains somewhat. All of these are the reasons that measuring at 2 meters makes more sense to me. The fact that the 2 largest public repositories of CEA-2010 data prior to starting DB were already in this format is the cherry on top.

CEA-2010 reports the SPL as calculated from the peak of the waveform where as most other measurements of speakers that you will see are reporting it as calculated from the rms value of the waveform. This difference in the way that CEA-2010 reports SPL results in roughly 3dB greater values. So lets say that you record one SPL measurement using ARTA or TEF or another audio program with a subwoofer playing a continuous 50Hz sine wave and get back a result of 100dB. Without turning the 50Hz signal off or touching any of the equipment you switch to the CEA-2010 program and set it for 50Hz meanwhile disconnecting the CEA-2010 output signal from the sub so that it keeps producing only the 50Hz steady sine tone without adding in the actual 50Hz burst from CEA-2010 (which would in fact increase the signal strength and skew the results.) You record the spl result with CEA-2010. It will show a value of 103dB instead of 100dB because it is reporting the peak value. So when you calibrate CEA-2010 you have to remember this or it will skew your results. If you attach a calibrator producing a 94dB tone and calibrate the CEA-2010 program to read 94dB you are now recording the equivalent of the rms not peak value so if you report it as a peak SPL measurement it will actually be 3dB low. The output from the sub and the strength of the signal generating the SPL has not actually changed any it is just being reported in different ways. Lets say that a subwoofer produces 110dB at 50Hz at the limiter with a long sine sweep. Then CEA-2010 testing records 114dB at 50Hz. You would think that this sub is much more dynamic and capable of an extra 4dB with a shorter burst signal but in reality it only produced an extra 1dB increase in output. For this reason and to keep the SPL values more comparable with the rest of the measurements typically seen such as the output compression tests, myself, AVtalk and Illka all opted to subtract the 3dB from the peak number.

In short a 2 meter measurement will result in values 6dB lower than those taken at 1 meter. A peak CEA-2010 measurement results in an SPL 3dB higher than the typical rms calculation. So in order to compare 1m peak CEA-2010 data with that from DB, AVtalk, Illka or my reviews at AH you have to subtract 9dB in total.