ProSoundWeb Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: [1] 2  All   Go Down

Author Topic: McCauley M421 VS Danley TH812 Rock Monster  (Read 10827 times)

MIKE Lynn

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 31
    • Lynn Sound Systems
McCauley M421 VS Danley TH812 Rock Monster
« on: May 15, 2014, 03:55:05 pm »

   Simple Question , Which one wins ? Or mabey not so simple  ;D  Ill get to hear the McCauley next week , 2 of the driven by 2 powersoft K20's in a stadium so should be fun.
Logged
Lynn Sound Systems INC.
Crown-I-tech , JBL-VRX/VTX , Soundcraft, Shure

Ivan Beaver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8808
  • Atlanta GA
Re: McCauley M421 VS Danley TH812 Rock Monster
« Reply #1 on: May 15, 2014, 06:35:17 pm »

   Simple Question , Which one wins ? Or mabey not so simple  ;D  Ill get to hear the McCauley next week , 2 of the driven by 2 powersoft K20's in a stadium so should be fun.
Short of a side by side- measured responses would be a place to start to compare.

Of course they do not give any indication as to the sonic quality
Logged
A complex question is easily answered by a simple-easy to understand WRONG answer!

Ivan Beaver
Danley Sound Labs

PHYSICS- NOT FADS!

John Chiara

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1148
Re: McCauley M421 VS Danley TH812 Rock Monster
« Reply #2 on: May 15, 2014, 08:57:20 pm »

Short of a side by side- measured responses would be a place to start to compare.

Of course they do not give any indication as to the sonic quality
We all heard the McCauley a few years ago....it was LOUD...not sure I would want to listen to it for long..but please relate your experiences here.
Logged

Ivan Beaver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8808
  • Atlanta GA
Re: McCauley M421 VS Danley TH812 Rock Monster
« Reply #3 on: May 16, 2014, 06:23:43 am »

We all heard the McCauley a few years ago....it was LOUD...not sure I would want to listen to it for long..but please relate your experiences here.
I only have experience with the TH812 (and a good bit of it), but cannot relate it to the McCauley since I have not heard heard them side by side.
Logged
A complex question is easily answered by a simple-easy to understand WRONG answer!

Ivan Beaver
Danley Sound Labs

PHYSICS- NOT FADS!

Art Welter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1547
Re: McCauley M421 VS Danley TH812 Rock Monster
« Reply #4 on: May 16, 2014, 01:11:38 pm »

   Simple Question , Which one wins ?
Not very simple unless tested side by side.

https://soundforums.net/threads/1801-McCauley-M421-Quad-21-quot-Subwoofer

We can see that the M421 is -3 dB at 27 Hz, while the TH812 is -3 dB at 28 Hz.

The M421 uses four isobarically loaded 21" in what is generally referred to as a tapped horn. Isobaric loading reduces the cone area of four drivers to two drivers- each pair has more "push" but no more excursion or displacement than a single driver. The 21" used in the M421 are likely B&C21SW152, with  Sd of 1680 cm2, Xmax of 15 mm, so displacement 1680x 15 =25200cc x2 drivers =50,400cc.

IIRC, the 12" used in the TH-812 are no longer the same as pictured, but assuming the "long throw" 12" used have an Sd of 531 cm2 and an Xmax of 9 mm, 531 x 9 =4779 x 8=38,232cc displacement. If that assumption is correct, the M421 would win in output level by several dB if their cabinet volume were the same, but the TH-812 is larger, about 58 cubic feet compared to 42 cubic feet for the TH421. The cabinet size advantage could come very close to the displacement disadvantage.

If the 12" drivers used in the TH-812 have 15mm excursion (unlikely, but possible) displacement would total 63,720 cc, and the TH-812 would win in output by a fair margin.

At any rate, the TH-812 has smooth response in the 28-100 Hz range, the M421 does not.

Art
Logged

Ivan Beaver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8808
  • Atlanta GA
Re: McCauley M421 VS Danley TH812 Rock Monster
« Reply #5 on: May 16, 2014, 05:25:25 pm »

Not very simple unless tested side by side.

https://soundforums.net/threads/1801-McCauley-M421-Quad-21-quot-Subwoofer

We can see that the M421 is -3 dB at 27 Hz, while the TH812 is -3 dB at 28 Hz.

The M421 uses four isobarically loaded 21" in what is generally referred to as a tapped horn. Isobaric loading reduces the cone area of four drivers to two drivers- each pair has more "push" but no more excursion or displacement than a single driver. The 21" used in the M421 are likely B&C21SW152, with  Sd of 1680 cm2, Xmax of 15 mm, so displacement 1680x 15 =25200cc x2 drivers =50,400cc.

IIRC, the 12" used in the TH-812 are no longer the same as pictured, but assuming the "long throw" 12" used have an Sd of 531 cm2 and an Xmax of 9 mm, 531 x 9 =4779 x 8=38,232cc displacement. If that assumption is correct, the M421 would win in output level by several dB if their cabinet volume were the same, but the TH-812 is larger, about 58 cubic feet compared to 42 cubic feet for the TH421. The cabinet size advantage could come very close to the displacement disadvantage.

If the 12" drivers used in the TH-812 have 15mm excursion (unlikely, but possible) displacement would total 63,720 cc, and the TH-812 would win in output by a fair margin.

At any rate, the TH-812 has smooth response in the 28-100 Hz range, the M421 does not.

Art
Art-the TH812 has used the B&C 12 TBX100 for all cabinets except the first couple of units.

The Xmax is 10mm on them with a power capacity of 1000 watts continuous  (the original drivers had a 700 watt continuous rating).
Logged
A complex question is easily answered by a simple-easy to understand WRONG answer!

Ivan Beaver
Danley Sound Labs

PHYSICS- NOT FADS!

Art Welter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1547
Re: McCauley M421 VS Danley TH812 Rock Monster
« Reply #6 on: May 17, 2014, 05:57:55 pm »

Art-the TH812 has used the B&C 12 TBX100 for all cabinets except the first couple of units.

The Xmax is 10mm on them with a power capacity of 1000 watts continuous  (the original drivers had a 700 watt continuous rating).
Then I remembered correctly, but the BC 12TBX100 has an Xmax of 9 mm (as I used in the displacement figures) and an Xvar of 11mm.

10mm is close enough for rock & roll ;^).
Logged

Ivan Beaver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8808
  • Atlanta GA
Re: McCauley M421 VS Danley TH812 Rock Monster
« Reply #7 on: May 17, 2014, 08:24:17 pm »

Then I remembered correctly, but the BC 12TBX100 has an Xmax of 9 mm (as I used in the displacement figures) and an Xvar of 11mm.

10mm is close enough for rock & roll ;^).
I got the 10mm from the B&C spec sheet.  I got the 10mm from the B&C spec sheet.  Whats a millimeter or so between friends-------------
Logged
A complex question is easily answered by a simple-easy to understand WRONG answer!

Ivan Beaver
Danley Sound Labs

PHYSICS- NOT FADS!

Art Welter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1547
Re: McCauley M421 VS Danley TH812 Rock Monster
« Reply #8 on: May 18, 2014, 12:50:09 pm »

I got the 10mm from the B&C spec sheet.  I got the 10mm from the B&C spec sheet.  Whats a millimeter or so between friends-------------
You evidently have a different B&C spec sheet than mine ;^).
One silly millimeter made an ad campaign for Benson & Hedges 101..

Logged

Ivan Beaver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8808
  • Atlanta GA
Re: McCauley M421 VS Danley TH812 Rock Monster
« Reply #9 on: May 18, 2014, 01:54:58 pm »

You evidently have a different B&C spec sheet than mine ;^).
One silly millimeter made an ad campaign for Benson & Hedges 101..
OK silly me.

I checked on their website before I replied and I guess I must have clicked on the wrong driver :(  :(

You win again :)  A lot going on right now and things on my mind.
Logged
A complex question is easily answered by a simple-easy to understand WRONG answer!

Ivan Beaver
Danley Sound Labs

PHYSICS- NOT FADS!
Pages: [1] 2  All   Go Up
 


Page created in 0.057 seconds with 23 queries.