There are only two elements to the comparison chart on our website.
1)Output data. We use the data complied per the industry standard CEA-2010 measurement protocol. This protocol has been developed based on a decade's worth of research in two extremely important areas. 1)what type of output testing will most closely mimic real world usage. 2)the audibility of harmonic distortion in subwoofer frequencies. If you see anyone suggesting the decade's worth of research is invalid, please ask them to reference the specific AES papers involved and then provide their own EVIDENCE. Hey, the earth is flat....maybe if i say it enough times someone might believe me?..
The *fact* is....the CEA burst method IS the measurement method that most closely mimics what the subwoofer will reproduce in the real world(music/film).
2)We average the data for the entire 20-63hz measurement spectrum (again, per the CEA-2010 measurement protocol). If anyone wants to focus on a single test frequency as being "most important" that is up to them. I personally feel the entire bandwidth should be weighted equally. After all, who can say 20hz is more important than 50hz? Or vice versa? Are there cool film effects at 20hz? Absolutely. Is music/film going to have more 50hz content than 20hz? By magnitudes.
*All* of our data is calculated using the CEA-2010 measurement + The minor scaling that the reviewer in question has confirmed is correct on one model---the XV15. (adding about 1dB to his XV15 measurements because the driver was actually about 7foot from the mic versus 6 foot for other brands). Is is all simple math, and math we have performed accurately. Is anyone feels that last decade of research (by the likes of Keele, Toole, etc) is invalid and they have a better solution to an industry standard----by all means----present the paper explaining such at your local AES meeting then post a copy here. I'm sure it would be quite interesting. Until then, keep screaming the earth is flat?
Power Sound Audio