ProSoundWeb Community

Sound Reinforcement - Forums for Live Sound Professionals - Your Displayed Name Must Be Your Real Full Name To Post In The Live Sound Forums => LAB: The Classic Live Audio Board => Topic started by: Dave Gunnell on May 25, 2014, 01:22:09 AM

Title: EAW SB2001 Opinions
Post by: Dave Gunnell on May 25, 2014, 01:22:09 AM
Hi All:

Years ago I invested in the EAW BH760 horn loaded sub as my main workhorse sub.  They have worked very well for many years (very efficient, extension to ~30 Hz), but as my business is transitioning from less EDM events to more live sound, I am considering the SB2001.  The 800-pound gorilla down the street from me has dozens of them (and loves them) on their KF740 rig, but our schedules have not yet aligned for an audition.  While I'm waiting for that to happen, what are your experiences with this sub?  I am familiar with the SB1000, but not its big brother.  I will be running KF650z's on top, and I hear that the SB2001 can be crossed a bit higher than 80Hz and sound very good. I also hear it goes stupid low, but requires serious power to really get up and go.  I've heard it arrays very nicely as well.  Any users out there?  What do you think of this sub?

Dave
Title: Re: EAW SB2001 Opinions
Post by: Frank Czar on May 27, 2014, 09:13:57 AM
Hi Everyone,

I would like to hear any opinions on these too....anyone?
Title: Re: EAW SB2001 Opinions
Post by: Caleb Dueck on May 27, 2014, 04:01:24 PM
I AB'ed them with Danley DBH subs a couple years back.  Output and low freq extension were pretty close, but the DBH were more accurate. 

Are you looking to cross rent, and have full EAW system?

Typed on a virtual keyboard. 

Title: Re: EAW SB2001 Opinions
Post by: Peter Morris on May 27, 2014, 08:37:59 PM
My experience with the 2001 is very limited but I thought they sounded great the few times I have heard them.  I always loved the size and output of the SB1000, but I never really liked the sound quality. In comparison EAW have achieved more output per lb./Cu ft., more LF extension and they sound really nice. Everyone I have spoken to about the 2001’s seems to have a similar opinion.
In comparison to the Danley DBH that Caleb mentioned, the 2001’s are smaller and lighter, 22.5” x 45” x 45”  Vs. 22.6” x 33.5” x 45” and 125Kgs Vs. 91 Kg's.  I have never heard the DBH’s to comment, but I suspect Caleb is correct … there is always a trade-off.   

Its interesting that Caleb thought that they both had similar output, because on paper the Danley appears to have a lot more output, but you have to read the fine print with Danley - they don't quote SPL in W/m! 
Title: Re: EAW SB2001 Opinions
Post by: Ivan Beaver on May 27, 2014, 08:58:51 PM
but you have to read the fine print with Danley - they don't quote SPL in W/m!
And no other manufacturer actually measures in watts.  They ALL use voltage-NOT wattage.  Nobody actually delivers 1 watt across the freq response of the driver.  If they did-then the actual freq response would be all over the amp.

What they DO is to apply a voltage that is the equivalent of 2.83V which would be 1 watt IF the loudspeaker had an impedance of 8 ohms.

But if you look at the actual impedance CURVE (NOT the simple number), you will see that over much of freq response the impedance is not the rated impedance. 

Therefore the wattage is NOT 1 watt.  It can more or less than that.

Danley feels that a more accurate rating of SPL is in terms of an applied voltage-since that is what amplifiers actually deliver.  They do NOT apply a wattage to the loudspeaker.

They apply a voltage, in which the actual power is a result of the applied voltage and the impedance at a particular freq.

So all Danley products are measured as referenced to 2.83V-no matter the impedance.  Some are higher-some are lower.

 
Title: Re: EAW SB2001 Opinions
Post by: Peter Morris on May 27, 2014, 11:45:11 PM
And no other manufacturer actually measures in watts.  They ALL use voltage-NOT wattage.  Nobody actually delivers 1 watt across the freq response of the driver.  If they did-then the actual freq response would be all over the amp.

What they DO is to apply a voltage that is the equivalent of 2.83V which would be 1 watt IF the loudspeaker had an impedance of 8 ohms.

But if you look at the actual impedance CURVE (NOT the simple number), you will see that over much of freq response the impedance is not the rated impedance. 

Therefore the wattage is NOT 1 watt.  It can more or less than that.

Danley feels that a more accurate rating of SPL is in terms of an applied voltage-since that is what amplifiers actually deliver.  They do NOT apply a wattage to the loudspeaker.

They apply a voltage, in which the actual power is a result of the applied voltage and the impedance at a particular freq.

So all Danley products are measured as referenced to 2.83V-no matter the impedance.  Some are higher-some are lower.

I fully understand the impedance issuers; however manufactures normally specify their products as a 1W / 1 m referenced to the nominal impedance 8 or 4 ohms. i.e. 8 ohms @ 2.83 Volts or 4 ohms @ 2 volts.
 
People use the SPL specification to roughly compare the efficiency of various speakers. While you have all the information on you spec sheet, I think it could be a little misleading as it appears at first glance that your speakers are more efficient than they really are.

eg. Sensitivity - EAW 2001 95 dB    DBH 117dB ... that's a lot of difference until you look more closely.
 
http://eaw.com/portfolio_page/sb2001/
EAW  - 1W/m

http://www.jblpro.com/www/products/tour-sound/vtx-series/g28#Specs
JBL  - 1W/m

http://www.turbosound.com/upload-files/File/datasheets/TSW218_datasheet_v2.0.pdf
Turbosound - 1W/m

http://nexo-sa.com/attachments/products/49/nexo_rs18_datasheet.pdf
Nexo – 1W/m

http://www.danleysoundlabs.com/danley/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/DBH-218-spec-sheet.pdf
Danley – Sensitivity @ 1m  (fine print - 2.83 volts ½ space) and the nominal impedance is 2 ohms.
Title: Re: EAW SB2001 Opinions
Post by: Caleb Dueck on May 28, 2014, 06:56:36 AM
Quote from: Peter Morris link=topic=149880.msg1375163#msg1375163
Its interesting that Caleb thought that they both had similar output, because on paper the Danley appears to have a lot more output, but you have to read the fine print with Danley - they don't quote SPL in W/m!

The reason I said "similar" was two-fold.  First, I had two EAW's vs one Danley, and second, I'm a huge Danley fan but don't want to be labeled a fanboy.

From memory, the EAW's had UX8800 and a large Lab amp, the Danley was run 2 ohm from an FP14k, HP/LP only.  Client went in assuming the EAW's would be louder and lower, we were both surprised, and ended up using only the Danley that night. 

The other dual 21 I've used more is the RCF.  1:1 it has similar output and extension to a DBH, but not as accurate.  I didn't have it together with the EAW, but would add it and the Fulcrum US221 to the list of modern dual 21 subs.

The DBH is my personal favorite so far, at least until I visit the Danley booth in a few weeks at InfoComm.

Typed on a virtual keyboard. 

Title: Re: EAW SB2001 Opinions
Post by: Ivan Beaver on May 28, 2014, 07:38:48 AM
I fully understand the impedance issuers; however manufactures normally specify their products as a 1W / 1 m referenced to the nominal impedance 8 or 4 ohms. i.e. 8 ohms @ 2.83 Volts or 4 ohms @ 2 volts.
 
People use the SPL specification to roughly compare the efficiency of various speakers. While you have all the information on you spec sheet, I think it could be a little misleading as it appears at first glance that your speakers are more efficient than they really are.

eg. Sensitivity - EAW 2001 95 dB    DBH 117dB ... that's a lot of difference until you look more closely.
 
http://eaw.com/portfolio_page/sb2001/
EAW  - 1W/m

http://www.jblpro.com/www/products/tour-sound/vtx-series/g28#Specs
JBL  - 1W/m

http://www.turbosound.com/upload-files/File/datasheets/TSW218_datasheet_v2.0.pdf
Turbosound - 1W/m

http://nexo-sa.com/attachments/products/49/nexo_rs18_datasheet.pdf
Nexo – 1W/m

http://www.danleysoundlabs.com/danley/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/DBH-218-spec-sheet.pdf
Danley – Sensitivity @ 1m  (fine print - 2.83 volts ½ space) and the nominal impedance is 2 ohms.
Another reason Danley uses voltage instead of wattage is that often times the ACTUAL impedance of the cabinet is a good bit different than the RATED impedance.

People want "simple" impedance numbers-like 4 8 or 16 ohms.

MANY-I said MANY people get very confused if a cabinet was rated for 6 form for example.  They just cant seem to figure out what amp to use-since they don't see that rating on the amplifier spec sheets.

So "standard" numbers are used.  But since the actual "wattage" wold be very different going into a "non standard" impedance-what should be used?

Lets say a cabinet is rated for 8 ohms-but the actual impedance is closer to 12 ohms.  Should you use the "standard" 2.83V to get 1 watt and use the wattage rating?

But you are putting less than 1 watt into the loudspeaker and this will give a lower SPL reading-so you are cheating yourself.  Or do you raise the input voltage to get 1 watt?  But at what freq?  What exactly is the "average" impedance?  Is it based on average per hertz? or Average per octave?  What bandwidth is actually considered in the "average".

As you can see-there are all sorts of different ways to come up with numbers to mean whatever you want.

So Danley keeps it simple and uses the same voltage for every cabinet-no matter the impedance.

OF course this requires a little bit of thought/knowledge and effort on the part of the end user to determine and compare to other products.

There are a tons of different "games" that can be played with the spec numbers.  To me it is important to know exactly where they are coming from-and how well the actual "simple numbers" stand up against the measured data and what sort of "real world" performance could be expected.

But some people like to keep things simple-so the truth is avoided.
Title: Re: EAW SB2001 Opinions
Post by: Peter Morris on May 28, 2014, 08:30:51 AM
But some people like to keep things simple-so the truth is avoided.

give me a break Ivan   ;) ... EAW's 2001 sensitivity is quoted 95 dB W/m your brochure says the DBH is 117 dB, but if you look at your frequency response graph its more like 110 dB minus 6 dB for 1/2 space less another 6 for the 1 watt one meter figure, that's 98 dB average 30hz to 80Hz ... so the DBH is more like 3 dB louder than the EAW in use, which is about what I would expect ... and because it a horn it will be more accurate... and that's exactly what Caleb described  :)

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure its a great box and I would be proud to own some.
Title: Re: EAW SB2001 Opinions
Post by: Riley Casey on May 28, 2014, 10:15:27 AM
Huh ?


... and because it a horn it will be more accurate... a
Title: Re: EAW SB2001 Opinions
Post by: Peter Morris on May 28, 2014, 10:40:33 AM
Huh ?

A properly designed horn like the DBH will have lower harmonic distortion, better impulse response and a better phase response than a reflex or band pass enclosure.
Title: Re: EAW SB2001 Opinions
Post by: Brandon Wright on May 28, 2014, 10:40:54 AM
http://forums.prosoundweb.com/index.php?topic=510.10

Post #12
Title: Re: EAW SB2001 Opinions
Post by: Ivan Beaver on May 28, 2014, 12:26:08 PM
give me a break Ivan   ;) ... EAW's 2001 sensitivity is quoted 95 dB W/m your brochure says the DBH is 117 dB, but if you look at your frequency response graph its more like 110 dB minus 6 dB for 1/2 space less another 6 for the 1 watt one meter figure, that's 98 dB average 30hz to 80Hz ... so the DBH is more like 3 dB louder than the EAW in use, which is about what I would expect ... and because it a horn it will be more accurate... and that's exactly what Caleb described  :)

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure its a great box and I would be proud to own some.
Yet another example of not reading the provided information.

The sensitivity is NOT speced at 117dB-but rather it is stated that at 100hz it will produce 117dB.  We also show the response that shows where that number came from.

Many companies simply state a number-and you have no idea where it came from-at what freq etc. 

We simply provide that number for the guys that are looking for a larger number.  But we also state the freq it is at.

We also state that it is measure in half space on the spec sheet.

To me-whole space measurements of subs are pretty worthless.

I would love to know of a situation in which BOTH the sub or the listener are in whole space (at the sub frequencies).

When EITHER one is in half space (such as standing on the ground -most people don't float in the air) you get the additional gain of half space loading.  But you don't get it twice if both the listener and speaker are on the ground.

So again-the measurement is done so as to predict real world situations.

Full range cabinets are a different story.  At the mid and high freq a person standing or seated on the ground is not in half space (for those freq) and if the speaker is flying, then both could be in "whole space", so that type of measurement is correct for that intended usage.

You will see the same thing in some of our other full range products-such as the monitors.  They are measured in half space-figuring that most of the time they will be sitting on a floor or stage-so the measurement should reflect the intended usage of a product-not some "arbitrary standard" that does not reflect the real intended usage.

The whole idea of a spec sheet (at least to me) is provide valuable information so the user can know what to expect out of the product.

I'm sorry, but that is my opinion and people are welcome to disagree with it, but I will stand behind it and back it up as to why I feel that way.
Title: Re: EAW SB2001 Opinions
Post by: Jens Droessler on May 28, 2014, 09:31:00 PM
When EITHER one is in half space (such as standing on the ground -most people don't float in the air) you get the additional gain of half space loading.  But you don't get it twice if both the listener and speaker are on the ground.
I don't think that's right. If that was true, a subwoofer in the air would give the same impact/SPL to people on the ground as the same subwoofer on the ground to people on the ground. That's not the case. And if you think a bit further, your statement would mean that a subwoofer placed in the corner of a room would give the same SPL 20m away on any point in the room, no matter if the listener is on the floor, in 3m height in mid air far away from any wall or even standing in the corner. Anyone can debunk this one very easily at home, right?
Of course that's just my opinion, but I think we get a double gain by placing subs and people on the ground.
Title: Re: EAW SB2001 Opinions
Post by: Cailen Waddell on May 28, 2014, 11:37:24 PM

I don't think that's right. If that was true, a subwoofer in the air would give the same impact/SPL to people on the ground as the same subwoofer on the ground to people on the ground. That's not the case. And if you think a bit further, your statement would mean that a subwoofer placed in the corner of a room would give the same SPL 20m away on any point in the room, no matter if the listener is on the floor, in 3m height in mid air far away from any wall or even standing in the corner. Anyone can debunk this one very easily at home, right?
Of course that's just my opinion, but I think we get a double gain by placing subs and people on the ground.

SPL and impact are different.  I would expect a sub on the ground to offer additional tactile experience due to the shared floor, but not more SPL (if I understand all the math, and I may not), assuming the patron is on the ground.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: EAW SB2001 Opinions
Post by: Peter Morris on May 29, 2014, 03:31:15 AM
I don't think that's right. If that was true, a subwoofer in the air would give the same impact/SPL to people on the ground as the same subwoofer on the ground to people on the ground. That's not the case. And if you think a bit further, your statement would mean that a subwoofer placed in the corner of a room would give the same SPL 20m away on any point in the room, no matter if the listener is on the floor, in 3m height in mid air far away from any wall or even standing in the corner. Anyone can debunk this one very easily at home, right?
Of course that's just my opinion, but I think we get a double gain by placing subs and people on the ground.

I think Ivan is correct ... (but I still don't like his spec's)  ;D .. this paper may help explain what happens.

http://www.fulcrum-acoustic.com/assets/pdf/whitepapers/comments-on-half-space.pdf

In practice things are slightly different because we are dealing with sub arrays not point sources and your ear is far enough away form the boundary to have some impact at bass frequencies.
Title: Re: EAW SB2001 Opinions
Post by: Ivan Beaver on May 29, 2014, 07:43:28 AM
I don't think that's right. If that was true, a subwoofer in the air would give the same impact/SPL to people on the ground as the same subwoofer on the ground to people on the ground. That's not the case. And if you think a bit further, your statement would mean that a subwoofer placed in the corner of a room would give the same SPL 20m away on any point in the room, no matter if the listener is on the floor, in 3m height in mid air far away from any wall or even standing in the corner. Anyone can debunk this one very easily at home, right?
Of course that's just my opinion, but I think we get a double gain by placing subs and people on the ground.
Things you have to consider.  When looking at SPL you have to keep the distance from the source the same to compare.

If a sub in the air is 20' away from a listener as compared to a sub that is 6' away on the ground from a listener-then of course the 6' will be louder.

That is EXACTLY why I like to fly subs in an install.  You do not decrease the distance to the furthest listener-but you DO decrease the distance to the closest listener.

This results in a much more even sub SPL level over the whole room.  Now if you want the SPL to be louder at the stage-then put the subs on the ground-it depends on what you are after in the design.

Tactile impact is another thing.  When the subs physically couple to the structure, they will "transmit" the vibrations better-which can result in a feeling of more bass-even though the actual SPL is not there.

That is exactly how butt shakers work for drummer and home theaters etc.

Boundary effects and how sub energy builds up in a room is a completely different situation than simply flying or ground stacking subs.

When doing comparison tests- you can have only ONE variable.  If you have more than one-getting accurate -usable-meaningful results is A LOT harder to do.

You may get "results" but do they mean anything?
Title: Re: EAW SB2001 Opinions
Post by: Dave Gunnell on June 18, 2014, 10:28:21 AM
This thread wandered off in the wrong direction...

Who else has experience with this sub?  I came across a line array shootout here (http://www.live2playezines.com/spl09/page2.html) where several of the observers decided that the SB2001 was their favorite sub hands down (up against offerings from EV, RCF, DAS, Turbo, Vue).  One reviewer commented that "the EAW subs ate everything else in room."  Another reviewer remarked "the SB2001's have the capability to vibrate the contact lenses out of someone's eyes."  And another posted "the eight EAW SB2001 double 21” subs absolutely rocked the venue and were my favorite overall."  So they were very well received.

Another question I just thought of: the SB2001 is 33.5" wide.  My current subs are 30" wide, wondering if 33.5" starts to get you into trouble getting in/out of building entrances/exits.  I believe the ADA minimum door spec is 32"...
Title: Re: EAW SB2001 Opinions
Post by: joejiorle on June 18, 2014, 12:13:29 PM
The SB2001 have 4 swivel casters on the bottom of the box, unlike the SB1000s which have 2 dumb casters. Getting them in through a door shouldn't be an issue.
Title: Re: EAW SB2001 Opinions
Post by: Bill Schnake on June 18, 2014, 03:19:45 PM
This thread wandered off in the wrong direction...
That is an understatement.  Upfront I will state that I am a huge EAW fan.  We have used the SB1000zR and SB2001.  I have not use the Danley subs.  I can tell you that we can do a large fair with a crowd of between 3,000 and 4,000 with a 3/3 a side KF850T/SB2001 and the low end sounds great.  We use this system for several of the shows we do each year.

Hope that helps.

Bill 
Title: Re: EAW SB2001 Opinions
Post by: Dave Gunnell on June 18, 2014, 07:19:26 PM
...with a 3/3 a side KF850T/SB2001 and the low end sounds great.

So what are you using to power the SB2001s?  How much power/driver, and at what impedance are you loading your amps?
Title: Re: EAW SB2001 Opinions
Post by: Bill Schnake on June 19, 2014, 09:57:25 AM
So what are you using to power the SB2001s?  How much power/driver, and at what impedance are you loading your amps?
We use an I-Tech 8000 for every two cabinets.  Side A is cabinet one and Side B is cabinet two.  Generally, the amp is showing a 5 ohm load although it does go lower as you get close to driving the speakers full out.  I have seen it register 3.4 ohm on the amp before.  I am sure that there is some reason for that, but I am not sure why.

Bill  ;)
Title: Re: EAW SB2001 Opinions
Post by: Jim McKeveny on June 19, 2014, 10:20:43 AM
3/3 a side KF850T/SB2001 and the low end sounds great.

I am sure those audiences got their money's worth, but KF850s - TAD or no - are simply not a serious option for THIS audience of touring pro's. I witnessed their birth and development, but to use them as a benchmark by which to judge current offerings is just weird.....before we bring in the measurement tools.
Title: Re: EAW SB2001 Opinions
Post by: Bill Schnake on June 19, 2014, 11:35:01 AM
I am sure those audiences got their money's worth, but KF850s - TAD or no - are simply not a serious option for THIS audience of touring pro's. I witnessed their birth and development, but to use them as a benchmark by which to judge current offerings is just weird.....before we bring in the measurement tools.
Jim, I appreciate your opinion.  I was simply giving an example of my experience.  I agree that 3/3 aside isn't going to turn anyone's head in this forum, but it does a fine job for what we need to used them for.  Additionally, the great thing about the 850 system, old as it might be, is that it is easily scalable.  Just add more cabs and amps as needed.  I would much rather use the 850/with 1000/2000 series subs than just about any line-array that I personally have heard. 

Also please note that I was answering the original post.

Thanks and have a great day.

Bill  ;)
Title: Re: EAW SB2001 Opinions
Post by: Jim McKeveny on June 19, 2014, 01:36:19 PM
Bill-

Thank you for reminding us that this isn't JAMA, The Lancet, etc., but just an opinion forum.

The 850 is so old that the "No KF850" line has been absent from tech riders for years, just like "No S4, TASCO Harwell, Hill Audio" etc. disappeared long ago.

That said, if you and clients are satisfied with scalable comb filtering that delivers whack-a-mole coverage coupled with an intractable size/weight penalty, then bless you. I prefer my sound gear post-millenium.

Just my opinion..
Title: Re: EAW SB2001 Opinions
Post by: Bill Schnake on June 19, 2014, 02:16:04 PM
Bill-

Thank you for reminding us that this isn't JAMA, The Lancet, etc., but just an opinion forum.

The 850 is so old that the "No KF850" line has been absent from tech riders for years, just like "No S4, TASCO Harwell, Hill Audio" etc. disappeared long ago.

That said, if you and clients are satisfied with scalable comb filtering that delivers whack-a-mole coverage coupled with an intractable size/weight penalty, then bless you. I prefer my sound gear post-millenium.

Just my opinion..
Jim, I was trying to be nice and not hurt anyone's feelings or step on any toe, but you just had to go and piss me off.  So as my last act before being ban from this site I say...and please quote me on this...'Fuck You and the Horse you rode in on you arrogant Rat Ass Bastard ...'  Please feel free to ban me for my language... I think I was clear...
Title: Re: EAW SB2001 Opinions
Post by: Doug Fowler on June 20, 2014, 05:11:42 PM
Jim, I was trying to be nice and not hurt anyone's feelings or step on any toe, but you just had to go and piss me off.  So as my last act before being ban from this site I say...and please quote me on this...'Fuck You and the Horse you rode in on you arrogant Rat Ass Bastard ...'  Please feel free to ban me for my language... I think I was clear...

Yep, that will git r dun.....

Bye.