ProSoundWeb Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Down

Author Topic: Danley Jericho for large scale concert  (Read 29521 times)

Greg_Cameron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 675
    • Cameron Pro Audio
Re: Danley Jericho for large scale concert
« Reply #30 on: October 27, 2012, 12:38:22 PM »

I understand it to be that you would expect a theoretical 3db increase every time you double the number of cabinets.

I believe it's a 3dB increase doubling cabinets with the same power dissipated. e.g. 2x 15" subs consuming 100W will be 3dB louder than a single of the same sub consuming 100W. Since when you actually double up cabinets, you're able to consume 2x the power (double the current draw when connected to the same amp or adding an additional amp to power the box), you actually increase total output by 6dB for every doubling of subs, not 3dB. So in theory you would need 8 SRX subs to match 1 TH812. But then the are other qualifiers such as, at what frequency?, etc...
« Last Edit: October 27, 2012, 12:41:46 PM by Greg Cameron »
Logged
"Procrastinators of the world - contemplate uniting!"

Cameron Pro Audio

Ivan Beaver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9534
  • Atlanta GA
Re: Danley Jericho for large scale concert
« Reply #31 on: October 28, 2012, 12:08:11 PM »

Ivan,

Maybe you can help me with this comparison. According to the published specs, the TH812 is rated at 154db peak. In comparison, the JBL SRX728 (by no means a competitor to the Danley box, but a reference most people are familiar with) is rated at 136db peak. Ignoring any differences in measurement or calculation techniques (marketing hype) and just taking the published specs at face value, it appears that it would require 64 SRX728 boxes to equal the 154db rating of 1 TH812. That just seems insane!

Is my math correct?  I understand it to be that you would expect a theoretical 3db increase every time you double the number of cabinets. So two cabinets would net 139db, 4 cabs would net 142db, 8 cabs for 145db, 16 cabs for 148db, 32 cabs for 151db, and 64 cabs for 154db.  But wouldn't that 3db theory begin to lose steam as the array got larger?  To gain a true 3db the drivers must occupy the same space. Even an 8x8 array would have some drivers over 1/4 wavelength apart. It doesn't seem practical or economical to even attempt to run that many cabinets.
Greg is correct-you gain output (due to higher radiation resistance-ie coupling=3dB)-along with power capacity (3dB) results in a 6 dB addition-when doubling the cabinets and the power are both used.  Either one by itself is 3dB.

So if all you look at are the "simple numbers" (Which is not the correct way to do it), then yes, it would be 8:1.  Don't forget about the amps needed when looking at 'totals".

HOWEVER since the "simple numbers" don't come close to defining what the ACTUAL performance/response of the cabinets are-then you MUST look at the measure responses to get a better idea of how they actually compare.

Since the TH812 goes quite a bit lower in freq (as measured-not the simple numbers) ( and the "simple numbers" are taken at the higher end of the response range), at the lower freq, the ratio of cabinets is much larger.

So what SHOULD be happening-is that one looks at the measured response graphs at the lowest freq they are interested in-and then does the math.  But if 70-90 Hz is the low freq of interest-then the simple numbers will work.

You also have to look at other factors-when figuring out coupling.  For example-up close to a large array-the physical size will put some cabinets further away than others-resulting in not as much addition as the "math" would suggest.

However at a distance-the difference between the different elements in an array will be much less (to the further listener).  This is part of the way a line array "works".  Not so much the sound falls off at a slower rate-but rather that as you get closer the cancellations produced by the cabinets-and the lack of "theoretical summation" produces LESS spl. 

As usual-the REAL answer is a bit more complicated.  A simple answer results in a wrong assumption.

Sometimes you have to dig a bit deeper.
Logged
A complex question is easily answered by a simple-easy to understand WRONG answer!

Ivan Beaver
Danley Sound Labs

PHYSICS- NOT FADS!

John Roberts {JR}

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17176
  • Hickory, Mississippi, USA
    • Resotune
Re: Danley Jericho for large scale concert
« Reply #32 on: October 28, 2012, 01:34:55 PM »

I'm an unapologetic fanboy for Danley, and one thing that struck me from a recent write-up about a large stadium install was that the speakers were so high fidelity that the stadium was forced to upgrade their program source after hearing it play back through good speakers.

This seems like a good problem to have for a huge stadium.

JR

Logged
Cancel the "cancel culture". Do not participate in mob hatred.

g'bye, Dick Rees

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7424
  • Duluth
Re: Danley Jericho for large scale concert
« Reply #33 on: October 28, 2012, 01:35:59 PM »

I'm an unapologetic fanboy for Danley, and one thing that struck me from a recent write-up about a large stadium install was that the speakers were so high fidelity that the stadium was forced to upgrade their program source after hearing it play back through good speakers.

This seems like a good problem to have for a huge stadium.

JR

Now to work on the program content.......
Logged
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...

Lee Brenkman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 235
Re: Danley Jericho for large scale concert
« Reply #34 on: October 29, 2012, 12:22:07 AM »

Now to work on the program content.......

 :)
Logged

Ivan Beaver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9534
  • Atlanta GA
Re: Danley Jericho for large scale concert
« Reply #35 on: October 29, 2012, 07:36:05 PM »

Now to work on the program content.......
One thing that I have noticed over the years is that as my systems got better and better-there was less and less material I wanted to hear through them-especially at high levels.

A good quality system (ie one that is a good reproducer of what goes into it) is a double edged sword.

With a bad source (be it recorded or live), it will sound WORSE through a good quality system-due to the fact that the good system allows you to hear all the defects in the source.

HOWEVER-with a good source-it can sound quite amazing.

Just like how HD TV and large screens started showing off all the flaws in peoples faces.   Lessor definitions just "covered up" the imperfections.
Logged
A complex question is easily answered by a simple-easy to understand WRONG answer!

Ivan Beaver
Danley Sound Labs

PHYSICS- NOT FADS!

Keith Erickson

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 39
Re: Danley Jericho for large scale concert
« Reply #36 on: October 30, 2012, 01:50:54 PM »

Just a note, the 136db max SPL for the 728s is a free space measurement.  According to the spec sheet the 812 is measured in 1/2 space.  Measuring the 728 under the same conditions you get a max SPL of 142db so a block of 4 728s equally powered would have a max SPL of 154db.

Still the 812 is a beast!!!

Ivan,

Maybe you can help me with this comparison. According to the published specs, the TH812 is rated at 154db peak. In comparison, the JBL SRX728 (by no means a competitor to the Danley box, but a reference most people are familiar with) is rated at 136db peak. Ignoring any differences in measurement or calculation techniques (marketing hype) and just taking the published specs at face value, it appears that it would require 64 SRX728 boxes to equal the 154db rating of 1 TH812. That just seems insane!

Is my math correct?  I understand it to be that you would expect a theoretical 3db increase every time you double the number of cabinets. So two cabinets would net 139db, 4 cabs would net 142db, 8 cabs for 145db, 16 cabs for 148db, 32 cabs for 151db, and 64 cabs for 154db.  But wouldn't that 3db theory begin to lose steam as the array got larger?  To gain a true 3db the drivers must occupy the same space. Even an 8x8 array would have some drivers over 1/4 wavelength apart. It doesn't seem practical or economical to even attempt to run that many cabinets.
Logged

Tom Danley

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 500
Re: Danley Jericho for large scale concert
« Reply #37 on: October 31, 2012, 12:45:19 PM »

Hi All
Fwiw, on the origin Jericho horn, I mean in more recent times like the last few years, some genuine credit is due for it’s existence to two of the LAB folks.
     
A few years ago at Infocomm trade show, both Doug Fowler and Craig Leerman both suggested we try to make a larger Synergy horn, large enough so that you could use one per side in a decent size live show.     
The next year at the same trade show we had a working prototype Mike noticed the door in the demo room opened to a large parking lot and he arranged an impromptu demo in the parking lot at the end of that   day.   
While building security closed it down, a few important people were there and it was enough to get them specified into two sports stadium jobs and that lit the fuse.   

At the first installation, the designer wanted a lot of subs, like 16X TH812’s or something.   Mike talked him down and the designer was hesitant but willing to try 6 which is what I heard when I was out there.    6 can easily shake the far side of a 70,000 seat football stadium .

I am not sure if comparing a 2X18 to a TH-812 is fair as they are very different beasts intended for different uses.   For one thing, the TH812 having a low frequency “knee” nearly an octave lower and not having a tilted frequency response would make them sound VERY different subjectively.

Also, since “peak output” is most likely to be the least accurate spec, I am not sure that focusing on one number is very useful either .
       
Unless one actually measures, one has no idea where one runs out of linearity relative to it’s thermal capacity, in other words, at what fraction of rated power does the device become unlistenable / unusable  and at what frequency?

Keith posted something I have heard before about measuring in full space.   
Without a crane or silent helicopter, this is a rather hard condition to achieve for a subwoofer.   
In fact, while they don’t say what space it is on the pdf on line, if you model the two drivers in that 2X18 in a box that size, you find they published an honest HALF space measurement.         If you model that system, like any system, you can see at what power you would run out of Xmax, how the port choking nonlinearity rolls off the low end with increasing levels .

When a company is forthright enough to publish a measured 1W 1M response curve, then one can go a step farther than a one number comparison by examining the systems sensitivity vs frequency, for example, it’s sensitivity at 30,40,50, 60 Hz etc.
 
Our curves are usually taken at 10 meters and at 28.3Vrms which into an 8 Ohm load, produces a conservative 1W1M equivalent even for “big” cabinets.  For a 4Ohm nominal cabinet like 812, one has to subtract 3dB to get the 1w1m loudspeaker rating.
A quick eyeball off the TH812 data sheet and accounting for the load shows the 1w1m sensitivity to be;

http://www.danleysoundlabs.com/danley/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/TH812-spec-sheet.pdf

About 105dB at 30Hz
About 107dB at 40Hz
About 107dB at 50Hz
About 108dB at 70Hz
Perfect world Max Level at rated power, 39dB over 1W, calculated peak +45dB over 1W

From a dual 18 vented box spec sheet, 1w 1m sensitivity
About 92dB at 30Hz
About 96dB at 40Hz
About 97dB at 50Hz
About 97dB at 70Hz
Perfect world Max Level at rated power,  +32 over 1W, calculated peak +38dB over 1W.
Peak levels based on a noise signal which has a peak to average ratio of 6dB, thus peaks are +6dB greater than an average.

If one could also drive both systems at  rated power at all frequencies in question and had no power compression, the difference between the two would be;
About 20dB at 30Hz (100X)
About 18dB at 40Hz
About 17dB at 50Hz
About 18dB at 70Hz

Now, obviously on paper one can make up 18 dB by having 8 subs and 8x the power instead of one but then you run into the problem that dominates live sound speakers, the sources  interfere with each other, even can partially cancel each other out. 
   
With a “line array”, to the degree the sound actually falls off more slowly than an omni point source, it is because the individual sources increasingly cancel each other out in the near field in a complex interference pattern as you move closer to the system. 
Two or more sources can add coherently into one new source like two subwoofers can IF they are close together BUT this only happens when the sources are close enough together, about a quarter wavelength or less apart.   
Coherent summation sounds simple but even at low frequencies, it is hard to place direct radiating drivers that close together to avoid an interference pattern, consider that to add coherently at 100Hz, the sources can’t be any farther than about 33 inches apart so for a 50Hz high cutoff, the subwoofer radiators need to me within a 5 foot circle.     
For those interested in playing around with what happens with “where the sound goes” when you array woofers or sources etc,   there is a free modeling program you can download called DDT which is fast, powerful and fun and Doug Jones has made a couple some “how to” videos also on the company website.   It’s a work in progress and Doug keeps adding features and doodads but it’s already proven useful.

http://www.danleysoundlabs.com/support/ddt-files/

AS one might picture a wall of subwoofers produces a wall of sound but it also is an array of individual sources which are not adding coherently but partially canceling each other out in an interference pattern.  That array produces many time arrivals at the listener when fed a single impulse and has frequency dependant directivity and if the array is large enough it’s response also changes with location even outdoors (where there are no room effects)..   
         
The sort of “purest” approach I have taken is that if you feed the sound system a single impulse, that single impulse is all you should hear / measure no matter how powerful or large it is.    The more strong individual arrivals there are (all other things being equal),  the poorer the “fidelity”, the more complex the interference pattern, the more obvious it is when the wind blows etc).   It is not like aligning a bank of spotlights for even illumination, it is more like projecting a single  image with several projectors.   
Anyway, the point is that once you have enough sources, even subwoofers, they don’t add per the simple assumption, you are radiating an interference pattern comprised of lobes and nulls and spreading out impulsive events in time.
 
Part B of the interference pattern is a strong factor in commercial sound indoors, you do not want the sound projected to the sides, behind , above or below the speaker system.  One might think a large array has a lot of directivity, but in reality, one can make a large horn system that sprays / wastes  less sound in the wrong or counterproductive directions  by avoiding an interference pattern.  Doug wrote a White paper  that covers that part of it;

http://www.danleysoundlabs.com/danley/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/line-array-paper.pdf

Not radiating an interference pattern is very audible too or maybe more importantly is audible as that is what brought in all the stadium work.
If you have Face book and headphones on your computer, go to the company facebook page, hit " recent posts by others" and scroll down to “Mike posted a video” on July 31. 
http://www.facebook.com/DanleySoundLabs?ref=ts

If I remember right, that stadium has 4 or 6 TH812’s and a couple Jericho horns, the speakers are in the two score boards, the video taken at the far end (like 750 feet away from the speakers).     The sound level is within + - 1 or 2 dB (depending which meter you looked at) and to the ear, sounds the same everywhere over the seating area, no comb filtering and very little effect from crosswind..   The coolest part other than the difference in sound quality I think is when all the sources add coherently into a single source in time and space and avoid an interference pattern and you confine the sound to the desired pattern, it takes far fewer drivers, amps, DSP, EQ  and everything else to do a given size audience plane and SPL.
Best,
Tom Danley

Logged

John Livings

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 351
  • Los Angeles, California
Re: Danley Jericho for large scale concert
« Reply #38 on: October 31, 2012, 08:59:10 PM »

"It is not like aligning a bank of spotlights for even illumination, it is more like projecting a single  image with several projectors."

We will start using that "parallel", a very simple way to think of things, Thanks.

Regards,  John
Logged

Mark McFarlane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1946
Re: Danley Jericho for large scale concert
« Reply #39 on: November 01, 2012, 01:40:31 AM »

"It is not like aligning a bank of spotlights for even illumination, it is more like projecting a single  image with several projectors."

We will start using that "parallel", a very simple way to think of things, Thanks.

Regards,  John

FWIW, modern high-end projectors and lenses can perform many different image corrections that make combining projectors not as difficult as it may seem.  We run multi-projector visualization systems (2D and 3D caves) where each projector gets its own part of the image to display.  These systems work extremely well (seamless), although it takes a bit of maintenance to keep alignment, color and contrast consistent.  This could be considered a video 'line array' analogy where each projector has its own intended coverage area.

This near-perfect 'pattern control' of light is a bit more difficult to achieve with audio using speakers across the audible spectrum.

... or perhaps the intended analogy was multiple projectors projecting the same parts of an image which I think is a more difficult problem.  The video frame rate is so slow compared to the speed of light that what we would call 'comb filtering' due to arrival time differences would result in negligible motion blur in 24 or 30 fps video.  However, the problem of different physical light source locations is perhaps harder to solve in terms of spatial resolution (image sharpness), particularly for a still image. 

OK, over analyzed,...
Logged
Mark McFarlane

ProSoundWeb Community

Re: Danley Jericho for large scale concert
« Reply #39 on: November 01, 2012, 01:40:31 AM »


Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Up
 



Site Hosted By Ashdown Technologies, Inc.

Page created in 0.023 seconds with 25 queries.