CEA-2010 Subwoofer Testing Master Thread

[ribosradagast]

So if I'm reading this correctly, not a single one of these subs can produce meaningful 20hz bass?

What's the point of a "sub" if it can't produce "sub bass"

 

[hardisj]

So if I'm reading this correctly, not a single one of these subs can produce meaningful 20hz bass?

What's the point of a "sub" if it can't produce "sub bass"

They're basically all midbass modules, IMHO.
The Elac seems to be the clear winner here in terms of value. It has the most linear response.

It has some of the best numbers (behind the Polk in the -A testing, but the leader in the -B testing). And it's the cheapest.

As far as value, let's look at -A results:
The Polk wins out here at $1.17/dB. I've ranked the Elac value as $1.20/dB. The next closest value is $1.49/dB (Sony).

-B results for value:
Elac at $1.21/dB. Next best is Polk at $1.22/dB.

The Polk and the Elac are neck and neck as far as value goes. But when you look at the frequency response, again, the Elac wins out. Not to mention the Elac absolutely wins the "output per size" category.




The Klipsch has more output on the lowest octaves in the -B test thresholds but it couldn't pass the 20Hz test so... bleh.

 

[KaiserSoze]

Man, I tell you guys one thing... this -B spec is plain weird. They apply weighting to each frequency's output. I have no idea why. But they do. The -A spec does not do this.


Klippel replied to me with a sheet on how they take the data and process it for final reporting per the -B spec. What I mean is, you have the actual measured max SPL (Peak SPL in the second column below). That's where -A would stop. But then -B takes those values and applies weighting to them per Paragraph 7.3 of the spec. The below is a screenshot example of how you get from the actual measured peak to the CTA-2010B reported values.

View attachment 83062




Even though I am perplexed as to why they apply the weighting, I won't be changing anything in my processing because the purpose of a spec is to be just that. So, I will be providing my results in the format prescribed by CTA-2010B. But for those of you interested in how it works, there you go.

Also, I like the fact that the B spec takes an average that includes the max SPL all the way up to 160 Hz. I don't quite understand the weighted or the complicated formula, but I think it is good that it includes the subwoofer's performance as high as 160 Hz. Maybe you should define a new spec, the C spec, where you do it like the A spec but including measurements taken up to 160 Hz.

 

[KaiserSoze]

The Master sheet has been updated.

Budget 10-inch subwoofer shootout results are now provided for both CEA-2010-A and CEA-2010-B.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18bz7z-xIlRJsC-bw6k4mHkuwv_uiGAMyEhgrTkjwdXc/edit?usp=sharing

View attachment 83069View attachment 83070View attachment 83071View attachment 83072View attachment 83073View attachment 83074View attachment 83075View attachment 83076View attachment 83077View attachment 83078View attachment 83079View attachment 83080View attachment 83081

Very good job Erin. You deserve a special commendation of some sort. That was a ton of work, but you pulled it off like it was nothing.

 

[ribosradagast]

Maybe you should define a new spec, the C spec, where you do it like the A spec but including measurements taken up to 160 Hz.

I propose he call it the "E" spec, for "Erin"

 

[q3cpma]

You could maybe add the amplifier (advertised) power in the spec columns, Yamaha having only 50W (at 10% THD!) could make it the limiting factor here.

Otherwise, you're doing a fantastic work, subwoofers need more love!

 

[NTK]

That is the new procedure added in rev B to determine the maximum broad band peak SPL.

The way I understand is that the standards committee wanted to distill all the measurements down into a single number for use by the average consumer. The max broad band peak SPL is a weighted average of the peak SPL from 20 to 160 Hz, with smaller weights for the frequencies at and below 50 Hz. It further "levels the playing field" by placing limits on bands that have peak SPL more than 3 dB higher than the average of 40 - 80 Hz bands.

 

[KaiserSoze]

That is the new procedure added in rev B to determine the maximum broad band peak SPL.

View attachment 83086

The way I understand is that the standards committee wanted to distill all the measurements down into a single number for use by the average consumer. The max broad band peak SPL is a weighted average of the peak SPL from 20 to 160 Hz, with smaller weights for the frequencies at and below 50 Hz. It further "levels the playing field" by placing limits on bands that have peak SPL more than 3 dB higher than the average of 40 - 80 Hz bands.

This is precisely my take on it as well. Everything has to be distilled down to a single metric. This both good and bad. It is simpler, but there is obviously loss of information.

Sometimes I think my morning brain is even worse than my late-night brain. I decided to try and rephrase the algorithm, thinking that I could make it seem less complicated. After I did that, I started thinking about how that limiting value is calculated, and then I added, as an afterthought, an explanation for how it (the limiting value) ideally would be calculated given that the SPL values that are available are values taken at the boundaries of the 1/3 octave intervals, and not average values for the intervals. It was splitting hairs to be certain, and I think that Erin was probably annoyed by it. Besides, the limiting value has no affect on the calculated result unless some of the weighted 1/3 octave values actually exceed the average in the 40 - 80 Hz band, by more than 3 dB. As long as that does not happen, the calculation of the limiting value is meaningless. I would wager that only in very rare cases would that limiting value come into play and have any influence on the "Broad Band Peak SPL". (And personally I think that uniformity of response from 20 Hz to 160 Hz is more important.)

 

[EJ3]

They're basically all midbass modules, IMHO.
The Elac seems to be the clear winner here in terms of value. It has the most linear response.
View attachment 83084



It has some of the best numbers (behind the Polk in the -A testing, but the leader in the -B testing). And it's the cheapest.

As far as value, let's look at -A results:
I've ranked the Elac value as $1.20/dB for -A. The next closest value is $1.49/dB (Sony).

-B results for value:
Elac at $1.21/dB. Next best is Polk at $1.22/dB.

The Klipsch has more output on the lowest octaves in the -B test thresholds but it couldn't pass the 20Hz test so... bleh.

My pair, theoretically (according to the manufacturer [Pioneer]), only have a range from 20 Hz-80Hz, right were I believe that this pair of 12" ones can legitimately garner the name SUB. That, I think, negates the idea of any test to 160Hz.

Because they expressed it likely better than me, I am going to copy & paste a couple of things related to SUB-woofers (not MID-BASS modules) that are in reply to:
Subwoofers are an unnecessary luxury
Join Our CommunitySubscribe to Paul's Posts
October 26, 2018 by Paul McGowan

Steven October 26, 2018 at 11:14 am #

Getting down to 27Hz is important because it makes a jazz trios work and solo piano is improved.

SoundWarp October 26, 2018 at 10:59 am #
The 32-foot pedal note of a pipe organ has a fundamental frequency of 16.351 Hz with a corresponding wavelength of 20.812 meters, which is C Octave 0. The lowest note on a standard piano keyboard is 27.5 Hz with a wavelength of 12.374 meters, which is A Octave 0. The lowest note of a double bass with a C extension is 32.703 Hz, with a wavelength of 10.405 meters, which is C Octave 1. The lowest note of a standard bass is 41.203 Hz with a wavelength of 8.258 meters, which is E Octave 1.
In reading the comments on your “Sub-woofers are an unnecessary luxury” it is obvious to me that the audio community is full of amazing subjectivity. There is not much one can say if some audiophile BELIEVES he doesn’t need a sub-woofer based on his own experience. May he live long and prosper.
For me a sub-woofer (or two) is an absolute necessity because I love organ music. No “full range” speaker system of which I am aware—and that includes six figure systems—can come close to giving you anywhere near the sense of realism that you experience, for example, in the Mormon Tabernacle or the Crystal Cathedral (now Christ Cathedral).
When Telarc recorded Cameron Carpenter playing the Marshall & Ogletree digital organ in Trinity Church Wall Street for his “Revolutionary” recording even regular sub-woofers couldn’t cut it. They had to use Thigpen rotary woofers from Eminent Technology. Large standard sub-woofers could only produce realistic 27 Hz sound pressure levels in the church. The TRW-17 rotary woofers were able to produce 32-foot, 64-foot and 128-foot pedal notes at realistic sound pressure levels in the church.
When I attend RMAF I always bring a couple of my favorite organ CDs along. When I play a track on many of the very expensive systems without sub-woofers I just breathe a disappointing sigh. They simply do not cut it!

 

[sweetchaos]

Truly outstanding work Erin!
Here's a small token of my appreciation for your work!
You're the hero we need!

 

[Vini darko]

So rooting for the Sony wasnt a total fail on my part. Elac really seem to have thier budget gear sorted.

 

[hardisj]

Truly outstanding work Erin!
Here's a small token of my appreciation for your work!
You're the hero we need!
View attachment 83094

Thank you, sir!

 

[MZKM]

They're basically all midbass modules, IMHO.
The Elac seems to be the clear winner here in terms of value. It has the most linear response.
View attachment 83084



It has some of the best numbers (behind the Polk in the -A testing, but the leader in the -B testing). And it's the cheapest.

As far as value, let's look at -A results:
The Polk wins out here at $1.17/dB. I've ranked the Elac value as $1.20/dB. The next closest value is $1.49/dB (Sony).

-B results for value:
Elac at $1.21/dB. Next best is Polk at $1.22/dB.

The Polk and the Elac are neck and neck as far as value goes. But when you look at the frequency response, again, the Elac wins out. Not to mention the Elac absolutely wins the "output per size" category.




The Klipsch has more output on the lowest octaves in the -B test thresholds but it couldn't pass the 20Hz test so... bleh.

Linearity above ~150Hz doesn’t really matter much, as crossovers for bass management are usually 80Hz or lower and LFE goes up to 120Hz. Before compression, the Klipsch would be more linear than the ELAC in the range we care about, they look level matched at 70Hz and at 40Hz the ELAC is down like 4dB compared to the Klipsch.

 

[hardisj]

The Klipsch does have more output in the lower octaves. But the linearity is more important to me. The Klipsch has a knee in response which, to me, is an indicator of an overall poorer design.

 

[ModDIY]

Hi, I have a question about the group delay, the Elac sub has a curve at the start of the graph, I would like to know how to interpret this.

Is it a delay in the bass response?

 

[EJ3]

Foreword:
Hey, guys. You may have seen my other thread gauging interest in a "budget subwoofer shootout".

Based on the positive feedback, I ordered (5) 10-inch powered subwoofers. After conducting the tests I thought "Hey, this wasn't so bad. I could do this for other subs". And thus, the evolution of a simple shootout to what I plan and hope will turn in to a master database of subwoofer testing.

First, however, I think it is important for me to lay the groundwork for this testing and provide some insight in to my testing setup and methods. Therefore, I have created the video below as my kickoff. I think some insight in to this will help people understand just exactly what is being tested and how the results are compartmentalized for sharing with the world.





That's it. Below is the link to my google sheet where I will be keeping all of this information update. I hope you all enjoy.






Erin's Master Sheet of CEA-2010 Results:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18bz7z-xIlRJsC-bw6k4mHkuwv_uiGAMyEhgrTkjwdXc/edit?usp=sharing


If you have a question, read the notes. They are there for a reason and may answer your question. If you want x/y/z... I probably won't provide it. I know, that sounds rude. But I want to keep this simple. I have added and removed countless formulas, sheets, and graphs all because I thought "yea, it would be cool to have but the average person won't need it and they'll get confused". Remember, the people who are likely to pay attention to these numbers may not care about all the fun things you can do with the data. They just want the results.

I initially had A & B on the same sheet. I thought it would be easy to navigate and understand. I sent it to some friends who aren't familiar with the specs and they were confused because I had so many little "notes" because A & B don't have the same frequency set. So, I split the results out to separate sheets.

Also, read the Foreword. It explains the method, the difference between A & B and why I will or will not provide certain data.


Contribute:
If you like what you see here and want to help me keep it going, please consider donating or purchasing a shirt via my Contribute page located here. Donations help me pay for new items to test, hardware to build test rigs (some speakers require different test stands), miscellaneous items and costs of the site's server space and bandwidth. All of which I otherwise pay out of pocket. So, if you can help chip in a few bucks, know that it's very much appreciated. Or, if you have a subwoofer you'd like to have tested, please contact me. If you can cover shipping both ways that would be great but maybe with enough donations we can take care of that or help offset the costs.

https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/contribute/

These would have to be DIY but here they are:

Foreword:
Hey, guys. You may have seen my other thread gauging interest in a "budget subwoofer shootout".

Based on the positive feedback, I ordered (5) 10-inch powered subwoofers. After conducting the tests I thought "Hey, this wasn't so bad. I could do this for other subs". And thus, the evolution of a simple shootout to what I plan and hope will turn in to a master database of subwoofer testing.

First, however, I think it is important for me to lay the groundwork for this testing and provide some insight in to my testing setup and methods. Therefore, I have created the video below as my kickoff. I think some insight in to this will help people understand just exactly what is being tested and how the results are compartmentalized for sharing with the world.





That's it. Below is the link to my google sheet where I will be keeping all of this information update. I hope you all enjoy.






Erin's Master Sheet of CEA-2010 Results:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18bz7z-xIlRJsC-bw6k4mHkuwv_uiGAMyEhgrTkjwdXc/edit?usp=sharing


If you have a question, read the notes. They are there for a reason and may answer your question. If you want x/y/z... I probably won't provide it. I know, that sounds rude. But I want to keep this simple. I have added and removed countless formulas, sheets, and graphs all because I thought "yea, it would be cool to have but the average person won't need it and they'll get confused". Remember, the people who are likely to pay attention to these numbers may not care about all the fun things you can do with the data. They just want the results.

I initially had A & B on the same sheet. I thought it would be easy to navigate and understand. I sent it to some friends who aren't familiar with the specs and they were confused because I had so many little "notes" because A & B don't have the same frequency set. So, I split the results out to separate sheets.

Also, read the Foreword. It explains the method, the difference between A & B and why I will or will not provide certain data.


Contribute:
If you like what you see here and want to help me keep it going, please consider donating or purchasing a shirt via my Contribute page located here. Donations help me pay for new items to test, hardware to build test rigs (some speakers require different test stands), miscellaneous items and costs of the site's server space and bandwidth. All of which I otherwise pay out of pocket. So, if you can help chip in a few bucks, know that it's very much appreciated. Or, if you have a subwoofer you'd like to have tested, please contact me. If you can cover shipping both ways that would be great but maybe with enough donations we can take care of that or help offset the costs.

https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/contribute/

Some subs (such as my DIY with Pioneer raw speakers) the raw speakers frequency response is rated as 20 Hz to 80 Hz likely making it possible to only do a partial B test. However, even the information gained from that could be useful.

 

[VintageFlanker]

 

[hardisj]

My first powered subwoofer review video is now up. Next time your friend asks you to recommend a cheap subwoofer for his/her house, send them this link.

Again, I asked Monoprice and PE if they would be willing to loan me their subs to review as part of this shootout but they did not reply.

Edit: @VintageFlanker is a dang ninja! He already posted the video link above so there ya' go.

 

[VintageFlanker]

@VintageFlanker is a dang ninja! He already posted the video link above so there ya' go.

Right on time! Hopefully, YT notifications work great on my phone... Still have to watch the video, then!

But I'm sure it will be some great work as usual, Erin!

 

[MZKM]

I would suggest publishing the Sheet to the web (File -> Publish to web), rather than linking to a viewable version of the actual Sheet, as on mobile it isn’t that nice to use/load (and crashes sometimes).

Did you also measure max SPL regardless of distortion, like Data-bass does:

If not, I would suggest stating why, because too much distortion could be over looked if it’s not crazy, but port chuffing can’t be as that’s annoying. Like does the Klipsch just have no output at 20Hz, or it is just too distorted even at low volumes?

Either way, great job.

I really am itching to know how the ~$150 Dayton sub-1200 performs, as that is my go to subwoofer recommendation and I want to know if I’ve been leading people astray (I also recommend the ~$200 sub-1500 for those that want a bit more oomph and can’t do dual 1200s). For ~$160 they also have a 10” low profile subwoofer to go under or stood up against furniture.