Originally Posted by MIX_MASTER_ICE
That PB-1000 review Brent Butterworth did for S&V is widely regarded as "off", putting it kindly. Not sure what Brent was smoking that day or if his measuring equipment was out of whack, but something went awry. Brent also reviewed the PB-2000 and through a good chunk of the frequency response his PB-1000 measurements show it having more output capability than his PB-2000 measurements, which should throw up a red flag.
The PB-1000 is supposed to be around 2dB down from the PB12-NSD's data-bass.com numbers. So if the Monoprice numbers prove accurate, the Monolith 10" will easily outperform the PB-1000 and even outperform the PB12-NSD.
The Pb1000 is "supposed" to be 2dB down versus xyz? According to what evidence? At every frequency?
The PB2000 outguns the Pb1000(both measured by brent) from about 45-50hz and down so that shouldn't cause any controversy. The Pb1000 did about the same at 50hz and was 2(?) dB more powerful at 63hz. So one measurement out of six data points. Not sure I'd call that a "good chuck". At any rate that could be easily explained in a variety of ways. The most obvious would be internal(to svs) DSP manipulation. Like the 12" sister sub(the pb12nsd) svs may have throttled back the pb2000 more than usual in the mid/upper bass. Or it could be the 10" in the pb1000 is inherently more efficient. If so, that advantage would show up when the system isn't displacement limited(mid/upper bass). Or, it could be a combination of both. Or it could be something entirely unrelated to these but perhaps contributing to them as well.
Point being. I would caution against casually dismissing any measurement(especially one from a guy like Brent) just because it wasn't what you/me/anyone expected.
Looking at cea-2010 data sets(even from the same reviewer) with a +/- 0.5 window is never a bad idea and I could make the argument for +/- 0.75. There's quite a few variables that no one (that I know of) spends much time worrying about. Also, even taken as absolutely accurate CEA-2010 is still limited in what it infers with regards to how a subwoofer will sound.
The mono-thx subs look to be pretty inefficient at each size. So being outgunned (significantly) in the mid/upper bass shouldn't be any surprise. The hsu vtf-2 does the same to the mono-10, the hsu vtf-3 does the same to the mono 12(at about the same pricing). The bigger hsu stuff and the rythmik fv15hp does the same to the mono-15. The pattern is established. So an efficient 10" doing it to the mono-10. I mean, where's the surprise factor?
.......HSU VTF-2 ($570?) vs. mono-10($500)
And it should be noted that this is one port mode for the Hsu which extends deeper than the mono10. If we used two ports for the hsu...it would have more output across the board and a HUGE(more than double) advantage when averaged from 40-100hz.
So all of the comparisons between the mono woofs and the better ID stuff(rythmik, hsu, pb1000) all show the same tendencies. Very close in the deep bass...but the mono stuff is WAY behind in the mid and upper bass at any given price point(or say within +/- $40?)
Putting a good 10" driver in a (relatively) huge ported cabinet will often surprise. Look back on the initial reactions when the Pb1000 predecessor the PB10isd was first measured..
The reviewer was sure his measurement gear was off kilter. Of course the guy who designed the pb10isd was pretty awesome /s...
Power Sound Audio