Doing away with the burst averages entirely certainly would avoid a lot of the issues. Sounds good to me.
Should we get rid of the long term sweep averages as well? I'm thinking yes...
I never see anyone discussing those and when I do it's an email from someone who is confused and trying to compare it to 1m burst data from somewhere else. Taking them away solves the problem with minimal effort. The correct way is to pull up the full bandwidth measurement and compare and we already have that data capability built in.
Just to illustrate how confusing some of this is here is some of the M.A.U.L. data using the various reporting methods.
Normal 2m "rms" method for reporting THD limited burst SPL used here at DB.
20Hz = 128.6
25Hz = 130.6
40Hz = 135.8
50Hz = 138.3
63Hz = 141.4
Of course the 1 meter "peak" results would be 9dB higher which is easy to understand at least.
20Hz = 137.6
25Hz = 139.6
40Hz = 144.8
50Hz = 147.3
63Hz = 150.4
Example simple SPL averages using the 2m data normally used here. Of course the 1m peak results would be 9dB higher.
20-31.5Hz=130.8 (139.8dB 1m peak)
40-63Hz = 138.5 (147.5dB 1m peak)
Here are the same results averaged in pascals.
20-31.5Hz=131 (140dB 1m peak)
40-63Hz = 138.8 (147.8dB 1m peak)
We can see that the results using Pa averaging are just a hair higher in this case. They are always higher than averaging using SPL. It doesn't amount to much here because the M.A.U.L. is actually quite uniform in output over these ranges. Varying by 12.8dB from 20Hz to 63Hz which seems like a lot but it is actually not that much. With systems having a decently uniform output the Pa averaging doesn't boost the output averages that much so it isn't a big deal. Let's look at a system which is not as uniform in output though.
Here's the Bic PL-200 THD limited burst data
20Hz = 84.0 (93dB 1m peak)
25Hz = 96.2 (105.2dB 1m peak)
31.5Hz=102.5 (111.5dB 1m peak)
40Hz = 107.7 (116.7dB 1m peak)
50Hz = 110.4 (119.4dB 1m peak)
63Hz = 108.1 (117.1dB 1m peak)
Averages of above PL-200 data as presented here. 2m, rms, straight averaging of SPL
40-63Hz = 108.7
Averages of the same data but reported at 1m, peak, with Pa averaging
40-63Hz = 117.8
In this case the 20-31.5Hz average is greatly boosted by 2.8dB by using Pa averaging. The PL-200 does have a wide variance over that bandwidth but it is by no means alone or the worst offender. There are many systems that have been tested that are similar. I believe that everywhere else reporting averages or most everywhere else anyway are using this Pa averaging method. It is better to simply look at the discrete frequencies individually rather than lump them together as averages in those cases IMHO. If you compare to another system that has much more uniform output down to deeper frequencies but do not look at the discrete bandwidths and only the averages when comparing systems, it would appear that the less uniform system is more comparable in deep bass output than it actually is.
Does anyone have a counterpoint or think we should keep any averages at all after the next big update?