Power Sound Audio V3600i

[BoredSysAdmin]

I agree, I don't have time for your nonesense replies ATL. Thanks for reminding me that

 

[djreef]

It's good to see the conversation hasn't changed during my 3 month absence.

Ya, who is Adam, anyway?

DJ

 

[mike c]

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

i didn't know that, i was in and out of the subwoofer game.

it started when AVTALK started third party ground plane tests, then htshack ... and then fast forward to today with Josh's Databass (that's Josh's right?)

i've always seen 2m numbers.

perhaps you could include the 2m discrete numbers in another tab on your pages, to satisfy the freaks like me. i do appreciate that you use numbers that can be compared with other brands within your page.

 

[shadyJ]

“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

Now that I have permission to quote an authority on the subject from what was said in private conversation, here is what Don Keele has to say about the subject:
"I don’t agree with using Pascals to calculate the CEA-2010 average SPL one bit!!! The CEA number is a simple figure of merit and is no way based on the averages of the powers in the three bands.

The differences between the two methods are very large if extreme values in the three dB values exist! If one or two bands essentially have no power at all (like in the following example), averaging the Pascal numbers always yields a relatively bogus high value which is essentially based on the results of only one or two bands! The band(s) with no output is given no weight at all in the rating!!"

Josh Ricci also seems to have a problem with averaging in pascals, per this post: "We will be removing the averaged output data from DB entirely at some point, due to the numerous discussions over Pa conversion vs simple averaging and some differing of opinions on what this data is supposed to be conveying to the person reviewing it."

Btw, the first person I quoted in the prior post was not Keele or Ricci but someone else in the industry who is very knowledgeable, and just because it is an uncited quote does not change the math. I have not seen a good argument for averaging in pascals. The only reason which I can see why it is being done is so CEA averages can be inflated. If the Consumer Electronics Association wanted to use Pa to represent passing output levels, the individual frequency measurements should have been represented in Pa as well.

 

[Steve81]

I have not seen a good argument for averaging in pascals. The only reason which I can see why it is being done is so CEA averages can be inflated.

The reason why we average in Pa is fairly simple: it's a linear unit of measure whereas dB is not. Taking a simple average of 100dB and 118dB is meaningless given that 118dB represents 8x the sound pressure of 100dB. This also matters given how we perceive deep bass. At the levels bassaholics are shooting for, it's not just an auditory experience, but a tactile one as well.

The counterpoint to this as Mr. Keele notes is that averaging in Pa will consequently bias the average towards the higher dB number. If you're trying to average widely spaced figures, such as 80dB, 100dB, and 120dB, this can result in a misleading average. Of course in such a case, the average would have fairly limited value regardless of whether you calculated it in dB or Pa. This is why having the discrete values is also important.

 

[shadyJ]

The reason why we average in Pa is fairly simple: it's a linear unit of measure whereas dB is not. Taking a simple average of 100dB and 118dB is meaningless given that 118dB represents 8x the sound pressure of 100dB. This also matters given how we perceive deep bass. At the levels bassaholics are shooting for, it's not just an auditory experience, but a tactile one as well.

As long as the reader understands that decibels are logarithmic, I don't see how averaging using dB is a problem. Going from dB to Pa and back to dB causes way more confusion and makes much less sense.

The counterpoint to this as Mr. Keele notes is that averaging in Pa will consequently bias the average towards the higher dB number. If you're trying to average widely spaced figures, such as 80dB, 100dB, and 120dB, this can result in a misleading average. Of course in such a case, the average would have fairly limited value regardless of whether you calculated it in dB or Pa. This is why having the discrete values is also important.

If you want to understand a subwoofer's performance, having discrete values is pretty much the only thing you should be looking at, so you can get a sense of its frequency response, instead of guesstimating how cleanly loud it might or might not get within a certain averaged region. Averaging just dumbs down data to make it accessible for people who don't care as much. The standard CEA presentation of the individual frequencies is pretty data sparse as it is, seeing as how it is only six frequencies and the limiting factor is never displayed, at least outside of Josh Ricci's measurements.

 

[Steve81]

As long as the reader understands that decibels are logarithmic, I don't see how averaging using dB is a problem. Going from dB to Pa and back to dB causes way more confusion and makes much less sense.

I'll have to agree to disagree here. IMO, if the reader understands that the dB scale is logarithmic (and understands what logarithmic means ), they'll also understand that a simple average isn't accurate.

If you want to understand a subwoofer's performance, having discrete values is pretty much the only thing you should be looking at

I agree that discrete values are more useful; OTOH, Tom is still giving more data with averages than the vast majority of subwoofer manufacturers (not to mention the base FR and compression charts he also usually provides).

Averaging just dumbs down data to make it accessible for people who don't care as much.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with that either. From Tom's earlier post:

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.

 

[shadyJ]

I agree that discrete values are more useful; OTOH, Tom is still giving more data with averages than the vast majority of subwoofer manufacturers (not to mention the base FR and compression charts he also usually provides).

I don't know why you are defending Tom here, I was criticizing the standard implemented by the Consumer Electronics Association. But as for Tom giving more data, yes there is data there but not very useful data. The CEA averages are an uninformative mess. Compare his data to that on Hsu's product pages: is PSA's data really that much easier to understand? Tom also helpfully provides data on other manufacturers, although inappropriately so, which is misleading and therefore worse than if it wasn't there at all. Furthermore, the compression measurements do not match those captured by data-bass, and what good is all that extra data if it isn't accurate?

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with that either. From Tom's earlier post:

With respect to Tom's earlier post, it basically boils down to "averaging helps make my sales pitch easier" which is not a serious point to make in an analytical discussion. Averaging clouds the representation of subwoofer performance, period.

 

[Steve81]

I don't know why you are defending Tom here, I was criticizing the standard implemented by the Consumer Electronics Association.

Well it is a PSA thread, and Tom is averaging ala CEA...

But as for Tom giving more data, yes there is data there but not very useful data. The CEA averages are an uninformative mess. Compare his data to that on Hsu's product pages: is PSA's data really that much easier to understand?

I agree, the averages aren't as informative as the discrete values. OTOH, the average gives a broad picture, and that is useful for taking a quick glance.

Furthermore, the compression measurements do not match those captured by data-bass, and what good is all that extra data if it isn't accurate?

That Tom & Josh's data doesn't match perfectly doesn't make one or the other inaccurate. Different test samples on different days with different weather, different measuring equipment, etc. can cause significant variances in measurements.

Averaging clouds the representation of subwoofer performance, period.

Well yes, that's what averages do, hence why I made this statement earlier:

Of course in such a case, the average would have fairly limited value regardless of whether you calculated it in dB or Pa. This is why having the discrete values is also important.

In any case, let's try to get back to the actual topic of the thread, the V3600i.

 

[Tom V.]

That Tom & Josh's data doesn't match perfectly doesn't make one or the other inaccurate. Different test samples on different days with different weather, different measuring equipment, etc. can cause significant variances in measurements.

Hi Steve, Anyone familiar with shayd understand I'm in a "lose lose situation" no matter what I do. If I follow CEA-2010 guidelines I'm wrong. If I don't follow them, I'm wrong...so excuse me while I ignore that type of damned do/don't trolling.

If you look at our compression and compare it to Josh's I think you'll see they actually line up really well when you take into account all of the variables involved. Test units, weather, sweep levels, sweep duration,etc. Of COURSE there will always be measurement variations. You can measure the same device back to back and see variations. Ilkka mentioned this repeatedly in his experiences too. It's well documented if folks want to take the time to investigate things for themselves.

Tom V.
Power Sound Audio

 

[Adam]

Ya, who is Adam, anyway?

I was wondering the same thing.

 

[Adam]

I get that people are quibbling over the numbers, but does anyone think that these won't be worth the price? I'm just wondering if this is all one big academic pi**ing match. I honestly don't care about max output anyway. I'm likely never going to want to play something at over 100 dB.

 

[Alex2507]

Hi Steve, Anyone familiar with shayd understand I'm in a "lose lose situation" no matter what I do.

Keep making good subs. You win and we win. eff the rest.

 

[Steve81]

I get that people are quibbling over the numbers, but does anyone think that these won't be worth the price?

Numbers aside, I'm not really sure how the V3600i will fare in the market given how tough the competition is. The Cap 1400 mentioned in the OP is quite a bit smaller (30x20x22.5 vs 44x20x25) and a bit cheaper ($2,000 vs the regular price of $2,300). While the V3600i may potentially have a bit more output, realistically the Cap 1400 has been verified by Josh as packing more than enough firepower for any halfway sane individual. As for the insane ones that want more, they're liable to go DIY anyway.

 

[fuzz092888]

Numbers aside, I'm not really sure how the V3600i will fare in the market given how tough the competition is. The Cap 1400 mentioned in the OP is quite a bit smaller (30x20x22.5 vs 44x20x25) and a bit cheaper ($2,000 vs the regular price of $2,300). While the V3600i may potentially have a bit more output, realistically the Cap 1400 has been verified by Josh as packing more than enough firepower for any halfway sane individual. As for the insane ones that want more, they're liable to go DIY anyway.

Or go to Deep Sea Sound

http://deepseasound.com/

 

[its phillip]

...the Cap 1400 has been verified by Josh as packing more than enough firepower for any halfway sane individual. As for the insane ones that want more, they're liable to go DIY anyway.

I think plenty of people have an Orbit Shifter LF/LFU (or multiples), so I dunno about that

 

[Tom V.]

Numbers aside, I'm not really sure how the V3600i will fare in the market given how tough the competition is. The Cap 1400 mentioned in the OP is quite a bit smaller (30x20x22.5 vs 44x20x25) and a bit cheaper ($2,000 vs the regular price of $2,300). While the V3600i may potentially have a bit more output, realistically the Cap 1400 has been verified by Josh as packing more than enough firepower for any halfway sane individual. As for the insane ones that want more, they're liable to go DIY anyway.

The cap1400 is a great product, Jeff knows his stuff.

Pricing is very close as the cap1400 doesn't include shipping.

I believe there is a large gap in pre sales and post sales customer service. We're available 7 days a week, 365 days a year. Folks may or may not find this important in their decision process.

All of our products have a 5 year warranty(versus 2 in this case).

The finish on each product is quite different too. I'll include a couple close up shots of our Satin Black.

Also, the V3600 is going to pull ahead in the mid and upper bass.

So there are a variety of differences to consider between the two products. The importance of each will need to be weighed by each person obviously.







Tom V.
Power Sound Audio

 

[Steve81]

Hi Tom,

Any plans to include the V3600i in premium finishes?

 

[Tom V.]

Hi Tom,

Any plans to include the V3600i in premium finishes?

Hi Steve,

Not at this time. I'm scared of that quote..

We haven't even had time to do all the Solid-Works stuff for all the quotes on the speakers and smaller subs. We just got the V3600i finalized and now folks are demanding a V1800.


Tom V.
Power Sound Audio