ProSoundWeb Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Down

Author Topic: Danley SH96HO biamping  (Read 15368 times)

Ara Ayrassian

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 58
Re: Danley SH96HO biamping
« Reply #20 on: December 02, 2015, 05:29:15 pm »

How are the settings working for you? I know they did not translate well for me into powersoft armonia. One thing I keep coming back to over and over again with these speakers is how to deal with the lobing , yes I said lobing, in the vertical at 4k. EQing for a flat response on axis makes for a ridiculous ice pick in the forehead response at any slight movement off axis in the vertical plane. This anomaly is born out in Danley's measurements and is discussed by Merlin in his article. I have been going back and fourth finding a happy medium in both the on and off axis response. Don't get me wrong it is a wonderful box and gets stupid loud (i've found that one SH96HO to four dbh218 is about the right ratio), but it does have this one particular wart.

On a brighter note, I have found that taking a few rotations out of the box really seems to bring the vocals up front and adds separation. Confirmation bias is a beautiful thing.

The one thing I notice with Danley speakers over any other speaker, is even with a somewhat ragged frequency response, I still hear things in recordings that I have never heard before. However, as has been discussed before, this is sometimes a good thing and a bad thing. I'm finding a lot of my usual source material unusable.

P.S. sorry for the crappy cell phone pic.

Below is the phase response before (blue) and after FIR correction (green). The scale on the Y axis is 720 degrees.

Overall they sound very nice a few peaks 2K and 4K EQ'd them down I look forward to using the system again unfortunately I have been super busy and haven't had time sorry I don't have more info or photos of readings I did with my RTA .
« Last Edit: December 02, 2015, 05:32:19 pm by Ara Ayrassian »
Logged
Danley SH96HO's 2 DBH218 powered ,SPL td-1's  Danley DSL P48 processor 2 x Danley THmini 15 subs 4 SM100's 2 SH50's and Ashly Protea 4.24C ,Crown tech 6000, Crown MA12000i QSC PLX 3602 , Crown xdi 6002, EAW JF80 x 4 Altec A6 VOTT, EVZXA1's
You can be right with a wrong spirit so listen carefully.

Peter Morris

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1313
Re: Danley SH96HO biamping
« Reply #21 on: December 02, 2015, 05:31:48 pm »

Brandon,
My 85 x 35 SynTripP design does not seem to suffer much from off axis peaks being louder than on axis response.
Worst case in the vertical is at 5 degree off axis being 1.5 dB louder than on axis at 1590, 5500 and 8000 Hz.
Worst case in the horizontal is at 5 degree off axis being 3 dB louder than on axis at 2500 Hz, and 1 dB louder at 5.5 kHz.
Although I didn't chart more than 5 degree increments, while slowly tuning the test turntable I never have seen (or heard) anything "jump out" that would make me think any frequencies or dispersion angle is any worse than shown.

The response of Peter's "DIY" chart shows lobing of about 1 dB, as well as a pattern inconsistent with a stated 50 degree vertical (perhaps it is showing the 90 degree horizontal pattern?) pattern.

Although the 5 degree spacing on my chart won't reveal all the warts, there is no ambiguity regarding levels. Colored charts without a dB scale for those colors don't tell us the depth of any problems.

That said, an on axis dip at 4kHz is the worst possible frequency, as average ears have their maximum sensitivity there- and noise induced hearing loss also is centered at the same, so deaf sound engineers would not be aware of the potential problem.

Ouch.

Art


Those were the horizontal (90 degree) plots.  Yes the HF950 is not perfect and there is some slight variation but it behaves very well, much better than a conical horn.  Here are the vertical plots.
Logged

Tom Danley

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 144
Re: Danley SH96HO biamping
« Reply #22 on: December 04, 2015, 10:43:38 am »


Those were the horizontal (90 degree) plots.  Yes the HF950 is not perfect and there is some slight variation but it behaves very well, much better than a conical horn.  Here are the vertical plots.

Hi
One might ask if you measured the cabinet at a distance where one gets a true far field result, like the SH-96 was.   
The need for that distance is explained by fellow at the independent lab who took the measurements and that would allow an “apples to apples” comparison.

http://etcinc.us/assets/nl043_far_field_criteria.pdf

Also, while the color bars are pretty, the polar plots are often more useful visually and if you examine the polar plots for the SH-96 you will see  the same data displayed in a familiar way.

The 96 is a wide dispersion cabinet and if one wanted to cover an audience plane, one wants something like what is shown in the polar plot.

 Examine the polar plot at 4k and consider that on axis, what looks pronounced in the color plot, is actually much like what one wants, that is to say the ideal shape has a broad curved front, not a lobe that is loudest at the center and tapering off to the sides.

If one looks at the -6dB points in the clf data, ideally one would have 90 degree beam width at all frequencies (true constant directivity) and if that were the case, it means that as you move off axis, the spectral balance (sound character) doesn’t change at all with position , only the loudness changes and if this is consistent enough, one can adjust the mounting height and down angle so that the SPL stays essentially the same.     

It is not uncommon in sports stadiums to not only have it “sound the same everywhere” and also have an SPL variation of + -2dB over the entire venue by exploiting constant directivity and the forward directivity. 
That is one reason why about half (with a couple more next season) of the 100,000+ seat sports stadiums have all switched over from concert style arrays to Synergy horns.      Even though they have fewer drivers, a result of not having them fighting each other with partial cancellation and producing an interference pattern allows them to radiate more acoustic power and have much greater “throw” than the arrays and sound much more “hifi” and vastly more consistent seat to seat.   

Another reason is that one wants as much sound going to the audience and as little as possible to the sides and rear and even a modest sized horn like a 96 has less energy sprayed outside the intended pattern than the arrays have because the arrays produce an interference pattern.    To the degree more of the total sound energy is concentrated in the desired coverage pattern, that also means less energy to the rear and sides outside the pattern which improves intelligibility and musical articulation (where that matters) when used indoors or where there are walls. The down side is they are much smaller and less impressive looking.
Best,
Tom
Logged

Brandon Wright

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 105
Re: Danley SH96HO biamping
« Reply #23 on: December 04, 2015, 02:44:24 pm »


 Examine the polar plot at 4k and consider that on axis, what looks pronounced in the color plot, is actually much like what one wants, that is to say the ideal shape has a broad curved front, not a lobe that is loudest at the center and tapering off to the sides.

If one looks at the -6dB points in the clf data, ideally one would have 90 degree beam width at all frequencies (true constant directivity) and if that were the case, it means that as you move off axis, the spectral balance (sound character) doesn’t change at all with position , only the loudness changes and if this is consistent enough, one can adjust the mounting height and down angle so that the SPL stays essentially the same.     


Hi Tom,

What I am finding is that this off axis peak at 4k that is considerably louder than the on axis response makes this hard to do. If you point the on axis response at the farthest seats and try to use the off axis response in the near-field, the seats in the near-field are getting killed with 4k. Then if I pull out 4k for appropriate spectral balance in the near-field, it is lacking in the far-field.  Merlijn seems to have gotten around this in his article by only using the lower third of the boxes coverage and shooting the rest over the patrons heads. Luckily the 96HO has the output to waste, but this is less than ideal indoors of course.

And Tom, I have nothing but the utmost respect for you and am not trying to denigrate your products. I really think you are going about speaker design in the right way, and I have made a considerable investment (for me) into your products as a result.

If this is truly a characteristic of conical, straight horns it is worth discussing and further exploration. However, any compromises that are made in the synergy design are greatly outweighed by all of the advantages that you report (proximity of drivers, efficiency, pattern control, coherence, etc...)
Logged

Tom Danley

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 144
Re: Danley SH96HO biamping
« Reply #24 on: December 04, 2015, 03:39:38 pm »

Hi Tom,

What I am finding is that this off axis peak at 4k that is considerably louder than the on axis response makes this hard to do. If you point the on axis response at the farthest seats and try to use the off axis response in the near-field, the seats in the near-field are getting killed with 4k. Then if I pull out 4k for appropriate spectral balance in the near-field, it is lacking in the far-field.  Merlijn seems to have gotten around this in his article by only using the lower third of the boxes coverage and shooting the rest over the patrons heads. Luckily the 96HO has the output to waste, but this is less than ideal indoors of course.

And Tom, I have nothing but the utmost respect for you and am not trying to denigrate your products. I really think you are going about speaker design in the right way, and I have made a considerable investment (for me) into your products as a result.

If this is truly a characteristic of conical, straight horns it is worth discussing and further exploration. However, any compromises that are made in the synergy design are greatly outweighed by all of the advantages that you report (proximity of drivers, efficiency, pattern control, coherence, etc...)

Hi Brandon
I am not sure but is your illustration showing the box positioned with the horizontal axis exchanged for the vertical?
 In the horizontal plane the listening locations 45 degrees to either side of center are 1.4 times farther and so ideally would be +3dB louder than the center if keeping the spl constant across the listening plane was the object).

Thanks for the comments too but I would also say that real measurements are a double edged sword, there aren’t that many loudspeakers that use independently gathered data (not prettied up) or with that much detail and that visually the old style polar plots may be more useful.
     
On the other hand, if you use the Direct program, you can get a predicted frequency response anywhere you choose to look at it and it’s vastly faster and easier than EASE for predicting direct coverage and mounting height / angle etc.  It would be the go to fast tool for a room layout like your showing and can show the best box choice, mounting height and angles.
There is a reason arrays generally do not show detailed or independent measurements, that most pro loudspeakers don’t have full spherical polar data and few use independent “un retouched” measurements and it isn’t because they look good.
Best,
Tom
Logged

Brandon Wright

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 105
Re: Danley SH96HO biamping
« Reply #25 on: December 04, 2015, 04:01:10 pm »

Hi Brandon
I am not sure but is your illustration showing the box positioned with the horizontal axis exchanged for the vertical?

Tom, the illustration is from Merlij Van Veen's case study on using the SH96HO's for a performance he consulted for. I figured you had already seen it, but if not you should check it out.

The speakers were oriented as intended.

https://www.merlijnvanveen.nl/en/study-hall/90-danley-sound-labs-case-study

In the horizontal plane the listening locations 45 degrees to either side of center are 1.4 times farther and so ideally would be +3dB louder than the center if keeping the spl constant across the listening plane was the object).

I would agree, but not in the vertical domain where the off axis listeners are closer below the box.

And Ideally, this would be uniform across the bandwidth, not at a handful of frequencies.


Thanks for the comments too but I would also say that real measurements are a double edged sword, there aren’t that many loudspeakers that use independently gathered data (not prettied up) or with that much detail and that visually the old style polar plots may be more useful.
     
On the other hand, if you use the Direct program, you can get a predicted frequency response anywhere you choose to look at it and it’s vastly faster and easier than EASE for predicting direct coverage and mounting height / angle etc.  It would be the go to fast tool for a room layout like your showing and can show the best box choice, mounting height and angles.
There is a reason arrays generally do not show detailed or independent measurements, that most pro loudspeakers don’t have full spherical polar data and few use independent “un retouched” measurements and it isn’t because they look good.
Best,
Tom

Merlijn says in his article that he used Direct, and I presume that is where he pulled those images from. These issues are born out as you suggest in direct using your data as we have discussed thus far in this thread. The evidence is in polars, coverage maps, and frequency response plots.

« Last Edit: December 04, 2015, 04:12:19 pm by Brandon Wright »
Logged

Brandon Wright

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 105
Re: Danley SH96HO biamping
« Reply #26 on: December 04, 2015, 04:24:08 pm »

I guess my point with all of this is this:

One of the primary goals of the synergy concept (correct me if I am wrong) is uniformity across the coverage pattern. Here is an example (albeit an arguably minuscule one) where the straight, conical horn compromises this design goal. 

FWIW The SH96, and HO derivative, seems to be one of the more extreme examples of the models I have perused in Direct. The Sh50 and Sh46 don't appear to exhibit this phenomena to such an extreme. Maybe related to radiation angle? 

Side note: As I am sitting here thinking about this discussion and others that have been had over the years, I can't help but think that this is one of the downsides of offering a "technically superior" product. The product attracts end users who care about such things and bring about a greater level of scrutiny than other manufacturers may experience with their "technically inferior" products.

There is probably some more appropriate analogy that could be inserted here, like something about a pedestal, king in the castle, etc..., but you get the point. 
Logged

Ivan Beaver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9045
  • Atlanta GA
Re: Danley SH96HO biamping
« Reply #27 on: December 04, 2015, 04:52:40 pm »

Of all of the SH96HOs that have been sold-I must say this is the first time I have heard of this "issue".

I just did a quick model.

I am not sure what the "other" plots were done it-but this is from our software.

It is a SH96HO turned vertical (so as to see the vertical orientation  coverage)

THe mics are 40' from the speaker.  THe black one is on axis- the blue one off axis-but in the "lobe" pattern.

The coverage plot is at 4Kz.

You can see the overall freq response in the mic positions to the left.

The greatest deviation is at 1500Hz, which is +/-1.5dB.

This is nothing that I would bet upset at.

What I find amusing is that when coverage plots are shown that have 15dB holes, somehow that is "accepted".

Logged
A complex question is easily answered by a simple-easy to understand WRONG answer!

Ivan Beaver
Danley Sound Labs

PHYSICS- NOT FADS!

Josh Millward

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 713
  • Meridian, MS
Re: Danley SH96HO biamping
« Reply #28 on: December 04, 2015, 05:06:43 pm »

What I find amusing is that when coverage plots are shown that have 15dB holes, somehow that is "accepted".

Oh yeah, I just love seeing things like that!!!

Generally I'll have to ask something along the lines of "Are you sure that is the best you can do?" To which I'll typically get a very quizzical look from the presenter.
Logged
Josh Millward
Danley Sound Labs

Ara Ayrassian

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 58
Re: Danley SH96HO biamping
« Reply #29 on: December 04, 2015, 05:45:19 pm »

Regardless still the best sounding PA's I have had or heard .
« Last Edit: December 23, 2015, 12:28:12 pm by Ara Ayrassian »
Logged
Danley SH96HO's 2 DBH218 powered ,SPL td-1's  Danley DSL P48 processor 2 x Danley THmini 15 subs 4 SM100's 2 SH50's and Ashly Protea 4.24C ,Crown tech 6000, Crown MA12000i QSC PLX 3602 , Crown xdi 6002, EAW JF80 x 4 Altec A6 VOTT, EVZXA1's
You can be right with a wrong spirit so listen carefully.

ProSoundWeb Community

Re: Danley SH96HO biamping
« Reply #29 on: December 04, 2015, 05:45:19 pm »


Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Up
 



Page created in 0.044 seconds with 22 queries.