reviewer should be able to determine it and lower the drive level accordingly.
CEA doesn't tell anyone to do anything. It's a guideline. It's up to the reviewer to come up with a valid and accurate test plan accordingly.I just found the comment humorous, in particular "I do exactly what CEA tells me whereas others don't and it is they who need to prove themselves" so thought I'd point out his comment to you guys as I was guessing it was directed at you (I can't imagine who else it would be aimed at??).
True b/c we don't have enough of that with PoliticsBesides, these forums would be so benign without some controversy here and there.
You cannot do CEA measurements indoors with the same degree of accuracy as outdoor tests regardless what section 4.3 of the CEA 2010 standard suggests as a procedure to follow. For an indoor correction curve to even remotely be correct, you would have to apply a unique one for each sub being tested. I wasn't aware Brent was measuring indoors but that may explain why his tests have so much variability and are often overly optimistic. His DD15+ results were WAY HIGHER than my DD15+ results and HIGHER than Josh's DD18+ results.I would be curious to see these "correction curves" that permit someone to do CEA-2010 testing indoors. I.e., per Brent's assertion that "If the measurements are done properly, with a correction curve (this process is outlined in the CEA-2010 document and explained in greater depth in the article I linked to), it does not matter whether they were done indoors or outdoors". I can't wrap my head around how that would work as I'd guess any correction values required would need to be extremely room dependant.
Subject for another thread I guess.
Last edited by gene; 01-06-2012 at 04:29 PM.
He confirms testing is done outdoors but he applies a correction curve as he is within a specified number of feet from a boundary (his house). Was just curious about these correction curves for indoor and outdoor testing and what exactly they were.
Audioholics IS THE STANDARD for measurement protocol these days. It isn't even close! For Brent to think he is even on the same playing field when it comes to measuring gear to what AH staff is doing is laughable.
Even if you look at S&V reviews for loudspeakers they are nowhere as in-depth as AH.
It is possible that Brent was referring to other reviewers as he didn't specifically mention AH, who else is attempting cea2010 these days anyhow?
Also having multiple sources validate a each other prevents manufacturers from refuting test results if they aren't to their liking.
As I said earlier, I've been in contact with the CEA 2010 working group.
Here is an email I just got from them today:
Somebody better tell Brent that the new CEA2010A standard now averages SPL in pascals instead of dB'sWe have fixed our method for calculating average SPL per your earlier suggestion. Thanks for bringing that to our attention.
Our Audio Systems Committee discussed your proposed room size rating protocol late last year. While there seemed to be a fair amount of agreement that it is an appropriate method, there were some comments that it's not the only method. The group decided to go ahead with adoption of CEA-2010-A without incorporating your protocol so as not to delay adoption with the understanding that further changes can be made should consensus be reached on a room size rating protocol.
Regardless, averaging in dB's or Pascals is still not at all representative of anything meaningful especially if there are large variances in output at different frequencies. This is why a Room Size rating protocol like we developed is better or at least something that weighs the response.
excerpt from our Room Size Rating Protocol
It is mathematically incorrect to average logarithmic based numbers (such as decibels) as it will bias the outcome to the lowest number in the data set. The correct way to average dB's is to first convert them to Pascals (a linear, not logarithmic, measure of pressure) to properly average the data before converting back to dB's. There is a problem averaging like this, however, since our ears don't hear loudness equally for different frequencies. Averaging in Pascals will bias the average to the highest measurement in the data set. Properly averaging in Pascals (Pa) will make a sub with just one good SPL # still have a good average score. Averaging in dB’s (instead of Pascals) will make a sub with just one bad SPL # look bad.
Averaging across a bandwidth using discrete 1/3 octave wide data sets is just not a good idea any way you slice it. The speaker which is flat is going to achieve approximately the same score as one which is mistuned. If you tune too high, you get a bump followed by a quick rolloff. So if you average over too wide a frequency range, this information is obscured. 1/3 octave measurement is already a crude approximation for a sub. If you average that 1/3rd octave data over an even wider range, it just makes it harder to determine the quality of the product or measured data.
I also think subs are so... masculine, if I may be sexist for a moment. They're all about size and power. Look at that driver! How about that magnet structure! Bigger is better. Subs = testosterone-induced comparison checks.
billy p (01-07-2012)
If I was a professional reviewer, I know I'd be keenly interested in ensuring my reviews were comparable to my peers, and if they were well off the onus would be on me to figure out why. The DD-15 just sticks out like a sore thumb in my opinion as the CEA numbers just don't seem realistically possible for any 15" driver in a sealed box that size with 1250 watts applied to it, let alone compared to your own DD-15 and DD-18 tests.
Instead now we have comments floating around of "CEA testing can result in drastically different measurements from one person to the next" to justify the differences.
Even though, heck, ignoring Ed's comments above, you could take Josh's PB13 measurements and compare them to Ilkka's from back in 2007 or 2008 within a couple db's across the board (save IIRC below 20hz), most of which is fully explainable by the fact that the PB13 Josh reviewed had the new amp which added 1 to 2db's by virtue of it's additional 250 watts or so. Two different subs, several years later!