Where is the like buttonOriginally Posted by 1audiohack
This.This one goes to 11.
Where is the like buttonThis.
Hi Barry,
Thanks for the input. I had a quick look (< half-hour) at the Danley Sound Labs Web site, and speaking for myself only (not Budney), my comments will follow below. I watched the owners' approach video and checked specs and/or data sheet for three models: PG 118, PG 218, and J1-94 (JH90) which you mentioned.
I never heard, nor owned any of their speakers so I cannot comment on their particular sound. I do trust your ears for that matter, considering the type of gear you own plus your experience as well as knowledge.
Their business is definitely to be the LOUDEST as seen in the video, though they also claim to do that with "higher fidelity". Certainly a horn addict's paradise. Craftmanship, in the USA, looks impressive to me. But as you probably know by now, I'm not a LF horn fanatic, nor a space-high SPL junkie, for the many reasons I already mentioned in this thread. However, I am capable of recognizing and admitting a horn's advantages over a vented-box, such as efficiency/sensitivity, pattern control/directivity, etc. I guess I'd rather have some of your JBL 43 series boxes than your impressive mammoth-size RCA/Community monsters (no insult intended).
Danley's business model for SPL is built on the principle of mutual coupling of drivers inside a horn box to increase efficiency/sensitivity/output, instead of coupling boxes together (as seen in video). Clever, maybe not new. Danley mentions celebrating their 10 years in business (2005-2015).
On the other hand, you may remember that E-V came out in the early 90s with the Manifold Technology Systems described as: "The MTL-4A low-frequency section features four DL 18mt drivers manifolded in a vented-box design. The MTL-4A is typically 2-3 db more efficient than horn-loaded enclosures of equivalent size in the 40- to- 80- hz region. Four drivers manifolded in each of the four band passes." E-V Pro Sound Products Catalog, 1993, P. 16. Danley's principle looks to me similar to E-V's, at first sight the difference I can readily see being that Danley applied it to horns, whereas E-V initially applied it to LF vented-boxes and later to some LF horns. Old new idea/stuff ? (Old because the basic principle may have existed a dozen or so years before, and new because of the different and/or better execution ?). In the 1996 E-V Pro Sound catalog, this time with another model, but still a Manifold Technology LF system, "The PI218L vented low-frequency system features two DL18MT... woofers facing a central manifold chamber. The air-mass load of the chamber provides 2 to 3 db more output in the fundamental 40- to 80- hz range, compared to conventional direct radiators." (P.33) Re underlinings, are these typos or dumb me (as D.B. Keele once said) has missed something here? If that 2-3 db over direct radiators may make sense for 2x18" manifolded in PI218L, but then also 2-3 db over horn-loaded (not a second 2-3 db gain over direct radiators for doubling of drivers) for 4x18" manifolded in MTL-4A ? Maybe Horn Guys and Fanatics here can shed some light on this for us? Output can be something else than efficiency.
Danley thrives on less boxes needed, compared to others, because of their huge SPL. Their marketing is based on "buy ours you'll need a fraction of the number of the others with our SPLs" type of thing. For me that means the guy sitting/standing close-by gets blasted for the remote listener to hear well. I prefer more boxes spread correctly, at a reasonable sound level each, for everyone to hear. So many people out there destroying their hearing for what glory? Hearing loss is cumulative and irrevocable...
RE PG 118 and 218 they provide a good looking operating range, but no ± db @ hz, no 3 db down point... That seems suspicious to me for a premium manufacturer. Sensitivity is given with 2.83 volts input which leads to a higher number of watts in a 4 ohms box: voltage squared/resistance = watts (2.83^2/4 = 2 w) instead of the usually accepted 1w/1m. Then their rated sensitivity of 108 db shouldn't that be 105 db ? Disapointing a bit. Also, they are heavier, less portable, than the ones mentioned in my previous post.
RE J1-94 (JH 90) "The loudest Reference Monitor" as they say. 47-18khz ± 3 db (37 hz @ -10 db). Your large JBL 43 series probably do better than that ? 148+ db spl no wonder the're loudest! 6 X 18" drivers and a "light" 720 lbs box, one needs a forklift to move this even a few feet! I'm not even sure I'd want to ask them the price of any of these... Regards,
Richard
The dbx 120A has two stereo inputs, two stereo outputs, and a subwoofer output. Subwoofer crossover frequency is 80 Hz (120 Hz optionally). Use of the subwoofer channel is optional, original bass and synthesized bass can be routed via the normal stereo outputs as well.
The recommended configuration here is 2 or 4 of JBL 4520 Bass Horns with the JBL 2395 lens on top, and a custom built "monster basshorn" for the lows (see below). The synthesized signal ranges from 24 Hz up, so here a 25 Hz horn is not an exaggeration. A crossover of 80 Hz does not mean that the 4520s run idle at 79 Hz, okay?
The inner part of the monster bass, where dimensions are small, can be made from multiplex, the rest can be made from bricks. I have designed such a thing when I was a student.
I wrote "monster bass" cause such a horn is an attraction. Do not hide these pretty things
You may as well use other main speakers with such a setup, for example the JBL Dance 3 or Dance 5.
Ruediger
A monster basshorn, made from bricks??? That definitely sounds like a monster!The inner part of the monster bass, where dimensions are small, can be made from multiplex, the rest can be made from bricks. I have designed such a thing when I was a student.
I wrote "monster bass" cause such a horn is an attraction. Do not hide these pretty things
I think that's a little bit overkill for what I want
do you have any pictures?
Look for post #1A monster basshorn, made from bricks??? That definitely sounds like a monster!
I think that's a little bit overkill for what I want
do you have any pictures?
http://www.audioheritage.org/vbullet...-huge-basshorn
It does not resonate, it is quickly built, it is relatively cheap, so why not?
Ruediger
why not indeed, they look kind of like a klipsh speaker. I was initially picturing a lot bigger when you mentioned bricks.
The split scoop looks interesting, what is the benefit of splitting the horn either side of the driver like that?
Wavefronts in a horn are always bent and never plane, even in a straight horn. At hornbends things get even more complicated, as the path at the outer side is longer than the path at the inner side.
When you make a horn "flatter" or "thinner" the difference between outer and inner path length gets less. You need to make the horn wider, of course.
You get the horn flatter by splitting it.
Ruediger
Hi Ruediger
When making a horn flatter, in what way does it change the sound?
Could you tell me more about your 'monster' horn, are the plans for it on that thread? what driver did you load it with?
Thanks
Barney
Some minor correction and missing underlinings in my post # 32 here.
On the other hand, you may remember that E-V came out in the early 90s with the Manifold Technology Systems described as: "The MTL-4A low-frequency section features four DL 18mt drivers manifolded in a vented-box design. The MTL-4A is typically 2-3 db more efficient than horn-loaded enclosures of equivalent size in the 40- to- 80- hz region. Four drivers manifolded in each of the four band passes." E-V Pro Sound Products Catalog, 1993, P. 16. Danley's principle looks to me similar to E-V's, at first sight the difference I can readily see being that Danley applied it to horns, whereas E-V initially applied it to LF vented-boxes and to some MF horns. Old new idea/stuff ? (Old because the basic principle may have existed a dozen or so years before, and new because of the different and/or better execution ?). In the 1996 E-V Pro Sound catalog, this time with another model, but still a Manifold Technology LF system, "The PI218L vented low-frequency system features two DL18MT... woofers facing a central manifold chamber. The air-mass load of the chamber provides 2 to 3 db more output in the fundamental 40- to 80- hz range, compared to conventional direct radiators." (P.33) Re underlinings, are these typos or dumb me (as D.B. Keele once said) has missed something here? If that 2-3 db over direct radiators may make sense for 2x18" manifolded in PI218L, but then also 2-3 db over horn-loaded (not a second 2-3 db gain over direct radiators for doubling of drivers) for 4x18" manifolded in MTL-4A ? Maybe Horn Guys and Fanatics here can shed some light on this for us? Also, output can be something else than efficiency.
Richard
Hi Barney,
a bend in a horn is nothing you can easily account for when computing the horn shape. It results in a discrepancy between the calculated horn and the horn actually built. Splitting the horn makes the discrepancy smaller. That should result in a more precise sound. See a cutaway view of the Waldorf horn with its large bend at the bottom: that is anything but a well defined horn. The 4520 and 4530 suffer from the same disease.
The drivers were 18 inch JBL for sure, E155 I think. I don't have plans any more, they were quite simple anyway. It was a simple W-horn, like the Martin bin.
Ruediger
Quickly and comments not necessarily in any order:
The EV manifold box more different than the same as a T.H. The TH's maintain a solid grip on the drivers over a wide range much like a tuned box at resonance. This drives the conversion efficiency up. When I beat on mine I watch the cones moving about quarter inch at 1200 Watts and can't believe the voice coil to cone juncture doesn't break but they don't. Mini's are done at 40Hz but I can carry two of them at once and they scale nicely.
I haven't heard the W boxes yet but they apparently have the sound signature that fits dance clubs. Cool.
The BC subs work on a different theory and really sound natural to me. The design make it possible to create a "Synergy" crossover into the full range horns where that is not possible with a T.H.
Fewer sources (above subwoofer range) is a magic bullet for sound quality in my experience and the bigger the sources the worse it gets when you have to add.
Shading:
My shop is 200 by 70 feet concrete with 28 foot ceilings. With big horns on the mezzanine tilted properly I can maintain better than 3dB difference (closer to 2dB) front to rear intil you get nearly under the horns where they fall off rapidly. Single sources in close proximity don't have to melt your hair.
Fireworks.
Search the Danley site for audio downloads. There are two fireworks recordings that are very very dynamic. A word of caution, you can ruin stuff with these recordings and the really sharp stuff is near the end so creep up on the volume.
I have played this on every system I own and my SH50's do it well with at least eight Danley Mini subs and about 12,000 Watt's total power and the Community stack with the Boxer bass bins with four 2440's and 2220's in the Levi's do pretty well but even at that, having heard plenty of full scale fireworks as all of us have, if you closed your eyes, you would never ever be fooled into thinking you were really there.
A pair of J394's with a pair of BC218's in the center could very honestly convince me. I listened in utter disbelief.
A pair of J3's cost about the same as a pair of DD6700's retail. They sound so good I just can't get over it.
Barry.
If we knew what the hell we were doing, we wouldn't call it research would we.
Hi Justin,
RE YOU'RE POST # 28
"I'd be interested in what you think about the flared levan horn extensions used on W subs for club sound systems, they are supposed to run all the way down to 30hz. These are what I was basing my initial ideas on, a few clubs in the 70s and 80s had these extensions and are still spoken about today as having the best sound around. These subs were used with special crossovers(the same kind that I wish to use) that allowed the dj to play with their gain throughout the night. Also I think they were used as well as already existing bass cabinets, so the levan horn would be running at 100hz and below, but the other bass cabinets would also output 100hz and below.
I know that technically this is a big no no because of all the time aligning and phase issues, but the clubs that had the system set up in this way still worked excellently and were known for their sound. I think that set up worked because the dj had control over them. Most of the time they weren't in use, and the dj could suddenly turn them on for added effect. Also they used a dbx boom box to increase the amount of low frequency content available.
I'm not saying that I wish to use these kinds of subs, I don't think its practical for a small room like I plan on having, they'd take up most of the floor space. That being said, I do like the idea of being able to control subs in that way by using that type of crossover and boombox. The system I plan on using does not have to take portability into consideration as once its there it won't be moving again. "
I use Rane AC 22, stereo 2-way, 24db/oct., Active Crossovers with each channel having: master level control, low and high level controls, Mono sub (inactive on channel 2), Mute, adjustable delay and adjustable freq. 70-3600 hz. I can play with the gain as much as I want in many ways, but don't consider them as "special crossovers" as you say. Just damn good X-overs! Except for their low voltage "wall wart" transformer which I don't like, but that's the compromise to have these Rane. Replaced by AC22S, also now discontinued, sniff.
One more time, 4520 and 2395 are short throw devices, and the subwoofer shown in the 1rst pic is long throw, all in the same stack. I have already commented on mixing these "randomly" in previous posts here and elsewhere. No need to repeat myself again, refer to this thread again. The logic and technical worthiness of running both 4520 and the subs at the same time to cover the SAME < 100 hz is beyond me. BTW Beware of DBX sub-harmonic use on 4520, not appropriate. On real subs OK.
As for short/long throw on first picture you posted: since that is outdoors, the inverse-square Law would apply (- 6 db per doubling of distance from box, though not a perfect point source), as well as effects of temperature, wind, humidity. (see John Eargle, Sound System Design, P.22...). Then, image listeners sitting/standing at 100+ feet or so from the stack (remember 4520 is for 75 feet or less according to JBL), what can they be expected to hear ? Not rocket science to figure that out. Most likely the long-throw horn's BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, and a lot less from the other devices in such situation... Sounds good ? Indoors, other issues involved such as absorbtion, reflections, reverb time, etc. (Eargle, same, P. 32...)
NOTE TO RUEDIGER RE: "A crossover of 80 Hz does not mean that the 4520s run idle at 79 Hz, okay?" Hi Ruediger, long time no see. In case you are referring here to one of my previous posts where I said: "If you were to put subwoofers for < 100 hz or so frequencies as in your example, this would defeat a good part of the purpose of having 4520 boxes, since their bass amplitude from rear horn-loading, giving "punch" to the bass notes, is mostly in the 60-125 hz range! Logically, proper subs should rather cover frequencies from about < 50-55 hz." Since I usually "work" with the above-mentioned steep 24db/oct. X-overs, an 80hz freq. at that rate would mean -24 db at 40 hz, and around - 12 db at 60 hz or so, just where the 4520 "punch" starts to kick-in according to JBL's response curve. That's why I suggested a lower X-over freq. mentioned above as "about", just below where the 4520 "punch" starts, otherwise why bother building complicated 4520 boxes if you're not going to use all of their inherent impotant attributes ? Regards,
Richard
Hi Richard,
I understand the acoustic principles with those boxes, and understand that mixing them up isn't acoustically sound. However, what I don't understand is how to achieve the low frequencies that those bass horns produce, without them being so large and hence having such a long throw. When you say "Deeper bass would probably require larger box volumes and that's too penalizing in terms of size, weight, portability..." then what box would be suitable? If it were a permanent install where size and weight does not matter. Also taking into account acoustic treatment of the room, which is what was done to the best clubs anyway.
I'm not going to build these speakers, I will stick with the 4520, just curious. I should also add that I'm getting most of the information about the crossovers, subs etc from a document about the Paradise Garage, known at the time to be the club with the best sound system in the world. Maybe not technically correct in every sense, but still spoken today as a legendary system in certain circles, and people lucky enough to have heard it speak very highly of it. I've attached this document, it should be able to explain things much better than I can, and I would like to hear what you think about it. Also this link has it typed up, may be easier to read through, but the attached pdf has better pictures and diagrams.
http://www.ibiza-voice.com/media/new...van/sound.html
That sound system pictured in the pdf has now reappeared 40 years later, in the form of the new Pioneer GS Wave range, the second picture that I posted on my earlier post. Funny how a sound system with such limitations and technical faults is still in demand today.
I guess you could make an analogy to the old analogue synths of the 70s and 80s. Some very limited, with plenty of faults, always going out of tune, not perfect at all by todays standards. But still have a specific sound that people chase today, and the vintage synth market is thriving because of it. If you go by specs alone, modern synths should win hands down every time, but they don't. Developers are now responding to this and going back to the old designs, the reissue of the minimoog being a prime example. The same could be said of old sound systems, no? Albeit slightly different, theres not really a thriving market for vintage sound systems, not for big ones anyway.
I've seen on other posts that you have some documents relating to the 4520 and rear loaded horn design, do you think you could send them to me?
Thanks
Barney
Hi Justin,
In a previous post, In relation to E-V's vented-box Sound Reinforcement "subs", I did mention "Deeper bass would probably require larger box volumes and that's too penalizing in terms of size, weight, portability... (...) Maybe, making cabs with 2 x 15" look better? " There was a message here I think (driver vs box size).
As a general rule-of-thumb, larger drivers are usually more suitable for larger vented-boxes and smaller drivers to smaller ones, naturally subject to each driver's specific T/S parameters. Also, larger box volumes usually lead to lower bass frequencies than smaller volumes.
What you're trying to get here is large driver, in smaller box but with very low bass... That's everyone's dream, however it doesn't work this way in real life, unless unduly compromising efficiency (and distortion) by using a smaller driver/box to cover very low bass notes. Because of the very large cone excursions required from such a smaller combination trying to move enough air for low bass, it would not survive long in your application... Well-known Speaker Engineer W.J.J. Hoge wrote about this in an understandable way with his article "Confessions of a Loudspeaker Engineer", Audio Magazine, August, 1978, P. 47-55 (John Hoge is also the guy who started the WAVE on subwoofing with his article "Switched-on Bass", Audio Magazine, August, 1976, P. 34-40, followed by the above "Confessions...", after being flooded with letters and phone calls about reducing the vented-box subwoofer size (600L/21 cu.ft., F3 20hz, 1% eff., 15" driver). After explaining the applicable science and math, his advice was to go for less deeper bass, instead of compromising efficiency/distortion. (BTW, Hoge is also the guy John Eargle (JBL) took to review his manuscript of Handbook of Sound System Design).
As for horns, well its similar. To go deep LF horns must be rather long, therefore large also. This is why they fold the horn to reduce box size. There's no magic. You decide If you can accept/live with that. If you think the "Paradise Garage" is the way to go, then my advice is go for it, try to duplicate their system.
From the beginning, this Thread has had more and more the looks and sound of other ones here like "4520 speaker replacement" and "Skating rink bass build". With mostly theoretical questions "just for curiosity." We seem to be turning in circles since some issues already covered. You've already been given a lot of info/explanations and many box suggestions from others and myself. Time to do your homework.
Richard
Hi Richard
I started this thread as a way to get some technical and practical advice for what I was trying to achieve, to 'emulate' the Richard Long way of doing things. As far as I'm concerned, I've gained a huge amount of advice and knowledge (hopefully others have too), which is exactly what I was after, mainly thanks to you. I'm not going to build those huge bass horns with the extensions, I'm not going to build the altecs with the long throw. I've gained more from this thread than the other 4520 threads, if those threads had all the info I needed I wouldn't have posted in the first place. I've also bought the books that you recommended, and will read them thoroughly before doing anything. If you have any other documents that you think I would benefit from reading, the ones you are quoting from, then I would really appreciate it if you could send them to me, so I can do my homework as you say.
Trying to duplicate that system is a fools errand. The amount of time, money and manpower that went into it is on such a large scale that I can't even comprehend. Also I don't fancy running a huge super club for 1000+ people. I was just trying to make the point that even if all the technical details aren't correct, they mix long throw with short throw boxes, they have phase issues with the tweeter arrays, they have the subs running on the same frequencies as the other bass cabs, it was and is still regarded as the best sound system in the world for that application. It won awards year after year, despite not being perfect on paper. I never heard that sound system, but the one I have heard is the same style. Tweeter arrays, long and short throw boxes, subs and bass cabs playing together. It was hands down the best system I'd ever heard. When there, listening to it, I wasn't thinking about how there is phase and acoustic issues, I was marvelling at how incredible it sounded. How it was fantastic that the dj could work the subs and arrays to their liking, which is what inspired me to try and do it myself in the first place.
I believe with this kind of sound system, it is as much the person using it and playing with it in the way that its set up, as it is technical details. I believe that the added tweeters and subs, are treated more like dj effects, than they are a cohesive part of the sound system. There is the full range stacks, and then the dj can use extra subs and tweeters to their liking when they deem appropriate. That is what I think makes it stand out. You say that the 4520/2395/2405 combo was common around the world, but I had never heard of that combination before. I had heard of a Richard Long sound system. I didn't know what it consisted of, but I had heard of it.
Barney
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
