Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Robert Lunceford]

The Danley SM80 has been well regarded for sound quality, output, and pattern control due to the design of the synergy horn cabinet and crossover. It could be considered a "benchmark", a speaker that others are judged against in it's class.
Fulcrum Acoustics has come out with some very innovative designs that have gotten rave reviews.

If we compare the SM80 to a Fulcrum FA12ac, both being a single 12" coax loaded cabinet, in what areas would be expect one design to excel against the other? Let's consider the horn loaded design of the Danley with it's pattern control and Fulcrum's FIR filtering that corrects abnormalities in response due to the limitations of cabinet design, drivers, and crossovers.
For example, would the Fulcrum excel in the "near field" due to the FIR filtering's phase correction, and might the Danley be more cohesive at longer distances due to the pattern control?
In what type of install situations would you choose one design over the other?

[Justin Perrachon]

For example, would the Fulcrum excel in the "near field" due to the FIR filtering's phase correction, and might the Danley be more cohesive at longer distances due to the pattern control?

I own both and would say this is the exact description I use when comparing the two.


Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[Robert Lunceford]

I own both and would say this is the exact description I use when comparing the two.


Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

What is the criteria where you would choose to deploy the Danley rather than the Fulcrum, and visa-versa?

[Mark Wilkinson]

What is the criteria where you would choose to deploy the Danley rather than the Fulcrum, and visa-versa?

What I'd like to see/hear, is the Fulcrum with the Danley horn, or the Danley with the Fulcrum FIR !

[Robert Lunceford]

What I'd like to see/hear, is the Fulcrum with the Danley horn, or the Danley with the Fulcrum FIR !

Fulcrum has a line of horn loaded cabinets that claim pattern control to below 300Hz.
It is hard to tell from the drawing on the pdf, but the design does look similar to a Danley.
https://www.fulcrum-acoustic.com/assets/pdf/Spec%20Sheets/Prod%20Spec,%20AH96%20v6.pdf

They say that for every action there is a reaction. If FIR filters were added to a Danley Synergy Horn, besides latency, would the FIR filters have any other negative effect on their performance?

[Caleb Dueck]

Fulcrum has a line of horn loaded cabinets that claim pattern control to below 300Hz.
It is hard to tell from the drawing on the pdf, but the design does look similar to a Danley.
https://www.fulcrum-acoustic.com/assets/pdf/Spec%20Sheets/Prod%20Spec,%20AH96%20v6.pdf

They say that for every action there is a reaction. If FIR filters were added to a Danley Synergy Horn, besides latency, would the FIR filters have any other negative effect on their performance?

Fulcrum and Danley are similar, but very different "under the hood". 

Besides latency, the other potential issue is manufacturer support and thus product price.   Do they build their own amps, do they provide settings for other amps/DSP?  It's not trivial and costs have to rise.


Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

[Peter Morris]

Caleb and Robert, I would argue they are quite different. The Fulcrum [AH96] has a concentrically located HF horn in the mouth of a low mid horn plus some wonderful processing.

Danley’s designs use the same horn for all frequencies; this gives you the single point source like you want, but it’s not without problems.

If you use a horn design that loads the drivers effectively and produce good smooth pattern control it will not be suitable for both high and low frequencies.

If you use a conical expansion (more or less like Danley) it will work in terms of driver loading but will produce fingers or lobes in the HF pattern.  The trick is to find a nice acceptable compromise which I think Danley has done in most cases.

The SM80 is a cleaver compromise; it uses a standard B&C coaxial driver mounted in a short horn.  The main issue here is the HF reflecting of the horn mouth, but Danley has found a very acceptable compromise. The other issue is that its really only loaded down to about 200 Hz or so and there is not much output below 100Hz.

https://www.danleysoundlabs.com/danley/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/SM80-spec-sheet.pdf

compare this to the Fulcrum [FA12ac]-

https://www.fulcrum-acoustic.com/assets/pdf/Spec%20Sheets/Prod%20Spec,%20FA12ac%20v3.pdf

Danley has sacrificed low frequency extension and output for mid and high frequency output.

[John L Nobile]

Size and weight need to be considered. I can lift an SM80 on to a speaker stand. I'd need a heavy duty stand and another person to get an AH96 up.

We're not comparing apples to oranges here. More like apples to melons.

[Mark Wilkinson]

Size and weight need to be considered. I can lift an SM80 on to a speaker stand. I'd need a heavy duty stand and another person to get an AH96 up.

We're not comparing apples to oranges here. More like apples to melons.

All three speakers seem very different to me.

The FA12ac being a 47lb self-powered, designed to be a do-it-all, small stick/install  speaker/monitor, with -3dB in the  50's. 123dB cont processed SPL using a 80Hz hpf.
The SM-80 being a 65lb passive, designed to be very high output vs weight, stick/install, with -3dB at 140Hz. 128dB cont unprocessed SPL using a 110Hz hpf.
And the AH96 being a 115lb biamp passive using Fulcrum DSP settings, designed to be a very high output vs weight, install only, with -3dB around 90 Hz.  135dB cont processed SPL using unknown hfp (prob in the 80's)

The specs are listed just to show how different the boxes are.....

I think maybe a big part of the original post was to consider the sound quality between FIR and synergy horns......
....so addressing that....

I guess I don't really see the SM-80 as a true synergy which places multiple (non-coaxial) drivers in the same horn for acoustic co-location.
I don't think it's really fair to expect the SM-80 to compete on a SQ basis with the FIR tuned boxes listed above.
I know Danley has never touted the SM-80 as being one of their more revealing speakers. I always appreciate their straight talk about the SQ of their boxes.
The SH-50 or such would make a much fairer comparison I think,..... again when considering SQ.....FIR vs synergy.

But I really don't think FIR and synergy are in any way mutually exclusive.

I do believe the SM-80 could be improved with FIR, even by a guy like me with rudimentary FIR knowledge.
Maybe even a SH-50 could be improved ...I've priced one several times with the idea to see how a tri-amped FIR attempt might compare.....

[Helge A Bentsen]

FWIW.

I used to own SH50. I really liked how they sounded.

However,
I put them up against a 3-way FIR-processed box with DSP-settings based on Gunness earlier work and I wil say that it lost in terms of SQ and SPL. It wasn't that the SH50 sounded bad, it was just the other box being better. I would still gladly mix a show on one if it was the right box for the gig.

[ProSoundWeb Community]