Power Sound Audio V3600i

[Steve81]

Looks like Tom V. is at it again:
http://www.powersoundaudio.com/products/v3600i

Dual 18" drivers, 1.7kW of ICEpower amplification, and a massive slot ported cabinet promise big output. By Tom's reckoning, it should be capable of:

(CEA-2010 averaged 1m, peak)
16-25hz ~ 122.3
31-50hz ~ 132.3
63-100hz ~ 136.0
16-100hz ~ 131.8

While output isn't everything, those numbers compare favorably with the figures the JTR Cap 1400 put up recently at data-bass:

CEA-2010 averaged in Pa, converted to 1m, peak
16-25Hz:122.2dB
31.5-50Hz: 130.5dB
63-100Hz: 131.2dB
16-100Hz: 128.8dB

Pre-order price is $1,800, regular will be $2,300.

 

[gene]

Steve you should know better than to post 1m peak data. Always reference 2 meter RMS and don't include that averaging crap Discrete frequency data only please.

 

[KEW]

Steve you should know better than to post 1m peak data. Always reference 2 meter RMS and don't include that averaging crap Discrete frequency data only please.

It is a new product, so I am guessing the data in the preferred measurement format is not available.
Are you saying we should not provide measurements unless they adhere to a specific format?
I hope not, because I think it is still useful information (though not ideal)

 

[mike c]

PSA has this note on their product pages
"*Subtract 9dB for an equivalent RMS 2m ground plane measurement distance."

though i agree that it would be easier for everybody to use a single standard.

if there's a premium version of this subwoofer, something that uses a higher grade of woofers + more power, that would be awesome.

 

[gene]

It is a new product, so I am guessing the data in the preferred measurement format is not available.
Are you saying we should not provide measurements unless they adhere to a specific format?
I hope not, because I think it is still useful information (though not ideal)

No but Average SPL data is nonsense and 1 meter peak gives the illusion of A LOT more output to the uninitiated. It's no different than a receiver company rating power with 1CH driven, 1kHz at 10% THD. They are ALL starting to do that now!

 

[shadyJ]

PSA has this note on their product pages
"*Subtract 9dB for an equivalent RMS 2m ground plane measurement distance."

though i agree that it would be easier for everybody to use a single standard.

if there's a premium version of this subwoofer, something that uses a higher grade of woofers + more power, that would be awesome.

Are you referring to the Seaton Terraform?

Mark Seaton is using the Dayton Ultimax 18" for that one.

 

[Steve81]

Steve you should know better than to post 1m peak data. Always reference 2 meter RMS and don't include that averaging crap Discrete frequency data only please.

As KEW mentioned, averaged data is all that's available right now. It's not as clear cut as a full battery of testing from Josh, but it gives us some ideas of what the V3600i can do.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

Are you referring to the Seaton Terraform?
Mark Seaton is using the Dayton Ultimax 18" for that one.

Terraform XL is 54" tall, while V3600i is only 44"

10" shorter matters because this is ridiculous:

 

[its phillip]

I think averages are lame as well. I'm sure it will be a solid product like the rest of the PSA lineup though

 

[ATLAudio]

No but Average SPL data is nonsense and 1 meter peak gives the illusion of A LOT more output to the uninitiated. It's no different than a receiver company rating power with 1CH driven, 1kHz at 10% THD. They are ALL starting to do that now!

Why is averaging in Pa (definitively) nonsense? Perhaps it allows the uninitiated, as you call it, an easier explanation. In any case I believe we'll be getting more details when they actually start selling this sub next month. Hec' they just have a drawing of it so far!

One meter is an acceptable CEA 2010 standard. I disagree that this is like your example of power output because that method deliberately ignores 99.99_% of available data, a 1 meter CEA 2010 measurement still provides 100% of available data, however more inflated than 2m. Should we use 2m for speaker sensitivity so that the answer stated is not so high for the laymen?

In any case, we can all agree to disagree that this is a new product with limited information available. That will soon change.

 

[shadyJ]

Terraform XL is 54" tall, while V3600i is only 44"

10" shorter matters because this is ridiculous:

They are both refrigerator sized subs, they are both ridiculous, but neither will be out of place in a dedicated theater. I don't think that extra 10" makes a difference aesthetically at this point, but it will assist performance.

 

[shadyJ]

Why is averaging in Pa (definitively) nonsense? Perhaps it allows the uninitiated, as you call it, an easier explanation. In any case I believe we'll be getting more details when they actually start selling this sub next month. Hec' they just have a drawing of it so far!

One meter is an acceptable CEA 2010 standard. I disagree that this is like your example of power output because that method deliberately ignores 99.99_% of available data, a 1 meter CEA 2010 measurement still provides 100% of available data, however more inflated than 2m. Should we use 2m for speaker sensitivity so that the answer stated is not so high for the laymen?

In any case, we can all agree to disagree that this is a new product with limited information available. That will soon change.

From what I have read, there is some real industry disagreement about averaging in Pa. Supposedly it puts too much weight on the higher output numbers. Here is an example which I will quote from someone who works in the subwoofer business:
"So for example, let's say you have a sub that puts out 100, 110, 120 dB. With the simple average is 110 dB. With the Pa scale it would be 113.5 dB. Let's say you lower the 110 dB measurement down to 100, so it would be 100, 100, 120 dB. The average would be about 106.7 dB and the Pa would be roughly 112 dB. It seems a bit odd to me."

 

[Tom V.]

Steve you should know better than to post 1m peak data. Always reference 2 meter RMS and don't include that averaging crap Discrete frequency data only please.

CEA-2010 protocol is to publish the data in 1 meter, peak form. I agree it would be best to have one industry wide standard that all manufacturers would follow. But until that happens, it never hurts to provide the data in both or either form factors as long as you include the needed conversions.

I've found that audio enthusiasts have a tendency to focus on a singular frequency and put and extraordinary amount of value to that when full data-sets are available. Arguing about a couple dB at 16hz for example and all but ignoring the rest of the bandwidth. Averaging doesn't eliminate that but it minimizes it to a LARGE degree. Instead of trying to compare 9-10-11 separate metrics we offer 3(4 if you count the complete 16-100 set). Is this the best way for everyone to try to explain subwoofer headroom to others? I couldn't say. I do know I've been at this(helping potential customers) for about 15 years with 25,000(?) different examples under my belt and I've found the averaging method to offer the best combination of information and ease of understanding. The "hard core" forum regulars will goto data-bass and find a 1000 different points of comparison. But 98% of our webpage visitors have no idea what ANY of those graphs mean. So we try to find a way to offer the information in a more intuitive manner for them.

Also, thanks Steve for understanding our POV here and not taking any silly potshots just because we may not agree 100% on this...

Tom V.
Power Sound Audio

 

[Adam]

I don't think that extra 10" makes a difference aesthetically at this point, but it will assist performance.

Out-of-Context Man chuckles.

 

[Tom V.]

PSA has this note on their product pages
"*Subtract 9dB for an equivalent RMS 2m ground plane measurement distance."

though i agree that it would be easier for everybody to use a single standard.

if there's a premium version of this subwoofer, something that uses a higher grade of woofers + more power, that would be awesome.

The "standard" is actually 1 meter, peak per CEA-2010. Josh is the only one who uses 2 meter, RMS. I understand why he does that but that doesn't change reality. Anyone posting CEA-2010 data in 1 meter, PEAK fashion is following the industry CEA-2010 protocol.

Tom V.
Power Sound Audio

 

[ATLAudio]

From what I have read, there is some real industry disagreement about averaging in Pa. Supposedly it puts too much weight on the higher output numbers.

Because you have an enormous amount of bias to account for in any conversation about PSA; referenced citation needed. Also we are talking math here, it's not supposedly, it either does or does not. Why?

 

[Tom V.]

Why is averaging in Pa (definitively) nonsense? Perhaps it allows the uninitiated, as you call it, an easier explanation. In any case I believe we'll be getting more details when they actually start selling this sub next month. Hec' they just have a drawing of it so far!

One meter is an acceptable CEA 2010 standard. I disagree that this is like your example of power output because that method deliberately ignores 99.99_% of available data, a 1 meter CEA 2010 measurement still provides 100% of available data, however more inflated than 2m. Should we use 2m for speaker sensitivity so that the answer stated is not so high for the laymen?

In any case, we can all agree to disagree that this is a new product with limited information available. That will soon change.

1)Averaging in Pa wasn't our idea or something we just made up. That is CEA-2010 protocol. In reality, it makes VERY LITTLE difference to the end data-sets. We have a couple raw MDF prototypes on hand, first few production samples should be here within a couple days. First production "run" is scheduled for the week of 6-15.

2)Agreed, the CEA-2010 1m /peak protocol provides 100% accurate information which can EASILY be converted to 2m RMS if desired by a simple subtraction. Comparing this to " one channel of amp at 1kHz" seems like "nonsense" to me.

3)Averaging is part of the CEA-2010 protocol and IMO/IME is quite valuable to the large majority of Home Theater enthusiasts. We have to remember, 95+ % of folks don't want to spend 20 hours wading through forum politics/BS to figure out what sub to purchase. They want to pop into chat/website and 3 minutes later know what sub is best for them and why.

I JUST got off the phone with someone asking me to compare the XS15se, XS30se, XV15se, V1500 AND S3000i for their needs. If I tried to do so using singular metrics at 16,20,25,31,40,50,63,80,100hz.....they would have hung up on me. It would have been IMPOSSIBLE. But being able to reference a few averages, it went pretty smooth. YMMV..

Tom V.
Power Sound Audio

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

Because you have an enormous amount of bias to account for in any conversation about PSA; referenced citation needed. Also we are talking math here, it's not supposedly, it either does or does not. Why?

Regarding of ShadyJ's or your own bias, misquoting out of context only works in the vent thread (just ask Adam)
ShadyJ did provide actual example of this math which clearly illustrates his point. To whatever if that math is right or not, I don't know as I didn't check (but you're welcome to), but in general, averages is one of tools statistics use and you know what said about statistics: There are lies, damned lies and statistics.

Dear TOM V, providing only minimum information to give "accurate" information to your customers about performance to satisfy lowest common denominator is great way to go ! Just look how badly it "hurts" Ascend Audio business to do the opposite.

Rant above has nothing to do with my opinion of v3600i sub value - I think it's bargain (even with somewhat fuzzy math or not)

 

[gene]

1)Averaging in Pa wasn't our idea or something we just made up. That is CEA-2010 protocol. In reality, it makes VERY LITTLE difference to the end data-sets. We have a couple raw MDF prototypes on hand, first few production samples should be here within a couple days. First production "run" is scheduled for the week of 6-15.

2)Agreed, the CEA-2010 1m /peak protocol provides 100% accurate information which can EASILY be converted to 2m RMS if desired by a simple subtraction. Comparing this to " one channel of amp at 1kHz" seems like "nonsense" to me.

3)Averaging is part of the CEA-2010 protocol and IMO/IME is quite valuable to the large majority of Home Theater enthusiasts. We have to remember, 95+ % of folks don't want to spend 20 hours wading through forum politics/BS to figure out what sub to purchase. They want to pop into chat/website and 3 minutes later know what sub is best for them and why.

I JUST got off the phone with someone asking me to compare the XS15se, XS30se, XV15se, V1500 AND S3000i for their needs. If I tried to do so using singular metrics at 16,20,25,31,40,50,63,80,100hz.....they would have hung up on me. It would have been IMPOSSIBLE. But being able to reference a few averages, it went pretty smooth. YMMV..

Tom V.
Power Sound Audio

Tom, as you know there is a lot of stuff in CEA2010 that needs to be changed. Both myself and others have been lobbying this for years. The latest ver of this standard is even worse in some regards and needlessly more complex and confusing. Ironically some of it is incompatible with the old standard making data collecting and comparisons more challenging. But, I digress.

Averaging is nonsensical. It also masks potential linearity problems since the average is biased to a single # in the data set that is different from the rest.

This is why I worked so hard with Josh to come up with something far more meaningful; our Room Size rating.

http://www.audioholics.com/loudspeaker-design/subwoofer-room-size

IMO most folks won't know to convert 1m peak data to 2 meter RMS and get the illusion the product is more powerful than it really is, just like the 1khz power test which can also be converted if you are in the know. This also reminds me of the sub amp manufacturers claiming their amp puts out 10kwatts of power from a 120V line

 

[ATLAudio]

Regarding of ShadyJ's or your own bias, misquoting out of context only works in the vent thread (just ask Adam)
ShadyJ did provide actual example of this math which clearly illustrates his point. To whatever if that math is right or not, I don't know as I didn't check (but you're welcome to), but in general, averages is one of tools statistics use and you know what said about statistics: There are lies, damned lies and statistics.

Dear TOM V, providing only minimum information to give "accurate" information to your customers about performance to satisfy lowest common denominator is great way to go ! Just look how badly it "hurts" Ascend Audio business to do the opposite.

“Regarding of ShadyJ's or your own bias, misquoting out of context only works in the vent thread (just ask Adam)”

Where did I misquote? Who’s Adam? My bias? Please show me where I’ve, for years, gone on record reverse fanboying PSA or another manufacturer? Moreover, I suggest many subwoofers and laude many subwoofers not from PSA. ShadyJ’s bias is well documented with a simple Google search.


“ShadyJ did provide actual example of this math which clearly illustrates his point.”

He provided an uncited quote to reference his own claim. Considering his well documented bias against PSA, I’d like some citation. He also stated that “there is some real industry disagreement about averaging in Pa” so it shouldn’t be hard to provide a proper citation in context of his claim.

“To whatever if that math is right or not, I don't know as I didn't check (but you're welcome to),”

He provided the claim HE should provide the evidence and citation. His claim as stated begs the question that there is a potential and valuable reason for averaging in Pa. If he claims that we shouldn’t because he says so, fine. However, if he could cite some evidence supporting his claims, that would be ideal.

“but in general, averages is one of tools statistics use and you know what said about statistics: There are lies, damned lies and statistics.”

This is a cliché, not evidence.

“Dear TOM V, providing only minimum information to give "accurate" information to your customers about performance to satisfy lowest common denominator is great way to go ! Just look how badly it "hurts" Ascend Audio business to do the opposite.”

Define ‘minimum information,’ and are you claiming that the information is inaccurate? What’s your point here? What about Reaction Audio, they give no CEA 2010 data on their site (that I could find) neither does JLAudio. Are they hurting? I don’t think Tom V needs unsolicited advice from YOU to run HIS business, but I could be wrong. In any case, measurements should be independently verified if you are looking for the BEST data which you seem to champion. Like Tom said, most folks don't have time for all this nonsense.