Print

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

[Keith Broughton]

So please explain how the coupled J3's J4's work. how does they couple and not creating comb filtering in their acoustical crossover region?

I don't think anyone would say there is no comb filtering in the array of speakers in the photo. Laws of physics and such.
However, a horn of that type which exhibits well behaved frequency respone at the edge of the coverage angle can provide a more tollerable sounding interaction.

[Lee Buckalew]

Yes-it is impossible to have more than 1 driver occupy the same physical space.

HOWEVER-it is possible to have multiple drivers enter into the same physical space-ie a horn, so from an audience perspective they ARE coming from the same physical space.

The "trick" is to get them do so across a wide freq range.

Simply put in pink noise into any system and walk around or get up close and move your head between the drivers/cabinets.

If you hear "swooshy swooshy" then you HAVE combfiltering.

I completely understand this Ivan.  There is no "swooshy swooshy" with MLA.
Have you tested and measured them?

As I am sure you are aware comb filtering is not only the "swooshy swooshy" sound that you refer to although that is the most directly identifiable to many people. There is also a significant amount of HF comb filtering created in individual horn throats.  Most audio people think this is simply a horn throat distortion and leave it at that.  It is actually comb filtering due at least in part to the air impedance change that occurs at the junction of the horn throat to horn and the reflections caused by this.  Dave Gunness has addressed this interaction in many (all, I don't know for sure) of the best tunings for his Fulcrum speakers.  He is not addressing it by correcting it after it happens, he is correcting it in a way that cancels the reflection in the horn throat through DSP. There can also be path length differences which lead to comb filtering due to reflections within the horn, path length differences within the horn manifold (if so equipped), etc.

You CANNOT-not with all the DSP in the world fix time issues with eq.  You also cannot-no matter how much delay you use, fix a time issue in multiple places with drivers that are physically spaced.

Many would have said the same thing about multiple drivers on a single horn.  It had been attempted many times, never fully  worked, it was not possible, etc.  It seems that Danley has figured a way to make it work.  Not by changing physics but by a more thorough understanding of them and by asking the right questions to solve the right problems. 

"Fixing" something with DSP is not always about changing an output with EQ, delay, etc. 
You understand and have stated on this forum that utilizing a filter out of the pass-band of the device to which it is applied can be done in order to change the in pass-band phase response as you desire it.  In much the same way changes to phase angle, eq, and amplitude can all be utilized to make multiple precisely known and precisely created physical driver interactions behave as one at a specific known location in space (each measurement point along the listening plane) in much the same way that physically correcting for these interactions on a common horn, once thought to be approachable but perhaps not actually achievable has been done by Danley to create summation at the horn exit. 

I also want to be very clear that MLA is not simply applying DSP as a solution.  It is first an integrated system of precisely designed and precisely known drivers, driver interactions, cabinet interactions, etc.  Processing is then applied to make these precision individual systems/cabinets behave as a single complex directional point source.

Have you directly listened to and/or measured MLA? 
You can not stick your head in between drivers and listen for problems because the system is inherently creating summation at the listening plane and not at the cabinets.  If you measure the results at the listening plane, which is the target, you will see/experience a lack of comb filtering across the full frequency range of that system. 

Still, it is certainly not the right, correct, or proper solution for every situation.  Nothing is.  When we ask the proper questions we can apply the proper logic in order to achieve an actual solution.  If we ask the wrong questions we can direct answers to achieve our desired response but that may not be a solution to the actual problem at hand. 
Not saying you are doing this, merely pointing out to those following the thread that often the wrong questions are asked, this in turn leads down a rabbit trail that achieves a result but not necessarily a solution to the problem at hand.

Lee

[David Sturzenbecher]

I don't think anyone would say there is no comb filtering in the array of speakers in the photo. Laws of physics and such.
However, a horn of that type which exhibits well behaved frequency respone at the edge of the coverage angle can provide a less more tollerable sounding interaction.

Any idea where this post/picture went? 

[Yoel Farkas]

Any idea where this post/picture went?

i see it is not just the picture it is the whole reply. maybe something wrong with it.

i understand that 4 single source speakers will be better of any system that has 100 sources.

but my question still apply: what is the approach of coupling those speakers. if the theory is that is have to be a "Single source" then they would have to use one single source like their J5's, and if the J5's are not enough they would have to build something like the Matterhorn. is there a way that those speakers coupled will sum as a single source or it just the best they could do at the time for this coverage requirement? what is the theory behind it?

[Scott Carneval]

i see it is not just the picture it is the whole reply. maybe something wrong with it.

Probably deleted as we're 'not allowed to discuss Danley in this thread' lol

[Keith Broughton]

but my question still apply: what is the approach of coupling those speakers. is there a way that those speakers coupled will sum as a single source or it just the best they could do at the time for this coverage requirement? what is the theory behind it?

There is no way to couple the speakers shown in the (missing) photo as a single, coherent source.
Your "best they could do" is the most accurate answer.
It's a compromise, as usual.

[Yoel Farkas]

Probably deleted as we're 'not allowed to discuss Danley in this thread' lol

i understand that people are fed-up discussing Danley products over and over. one of the reasons it comes up regularly is that because they are here and they answer questions. others don't answer questions here.

My question was not direct to Danley products. it was about the approach of Single source systems. if someone feels threaten by this post/question, it will not help to delete the post. because science doesn't change and the question is still here. if not now it will come up another time from another member.

[John Chiara]

i understand that people are fed-up discussing Danley products over and over. one of the reasons it comes up regularly is that because they are here and they answer questions. others don't answer questions here.

This.....

[Tim McCulloch]

Probably deleted as we're 'not allowed to discuss Danley in this thread' lol

Tom and the folks at DSL have managed to do something that inventors and manufacturers really want:  a proprietary and patented way of doing something that is an improvement over existing, similar things.  That gives them a virtually unlimited ability to be in an internet comparison as there is nobody else doing what they do the way they do it.

While I have great respect for Tom and have worked casually with Ivan several years ago on Paul Bell's NYC subwoofer shootout, I think this has turned any mention of D.S.L. products into a marketing platform.  It's somewhat akin to the iPod and iPad.  When released there was no immediate competition, but lots of fan-boy action.  In some respects that is the case for Danley products.

In the hands of owner-operators I'm fairly sure that there isn't much out there that can equal what D.S.L. does for either size or price point, but I've heard (and measured and evaluated) a couple of installations that used Danley products exclusively and they don't sound good.  That's out of Tom, Mike and Ivan's hands - and I don't assess blame to them or DSL for the result - I offer these observations to point out that whatever 'secret sauce' is used, the positive results of that can be instantly and permanently negated by a problematic design or FUBAR installation provisions by the general contractor, or errors by the installing dealer... or misapplication by end users.

I'm certainly interested in hearing less fan-boy and more input regarding other technologies that are raising the bar of both sound quality and touring practicality.

[Yoel Farkas]

In the hands of owner-operators I'm fairly sure that there isn't much out there that can equal what D.S.L. does for either size or price point, but I've heard (and measured and evaluated) a couple of installations that used Danley products exclusively and they don't sound good.  That's out of Tom,

my question was about the theory of coupling single source speakers. as they where designed and installed by DSL. i believe they sound good. my question is how. what are theory behind it.

[ProSoundWeb Community]