Print

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

[Corey Scogin]

Download EASE Focus and start to download speaker files from Danley and TW Audio and create a typical outdoor venue for yourself. If you are a geographic nerd like myself you can even screenshot a Google Maps view of your outdoor venue and import it to get a reality check on your sound pressure gradients.

Then also find a typical 12"+horn file (QSC K12, for instance is available) to compare to. You can also download RCF boxes like the TTL6A to check it out. Or a silly short line array on a stick can also be modeled.

I didn't realize EASE had a free visualizer product. That's a neat utility.

The Danley and QSC GLL files are not licensed for the latest version of EASE Focus.

[Scott Holtzman]

I didn't realize EASE had a free visualizer product. That's a neat utility.

The Danley and QSC GLL files are not licensed for the latest version of EASE Focus.

FBT is in the same boat, hasn't licensed V3.  You can still download V2 though. 

[Douglas R. Allen]

Bren:

Download EASE Focus and start to download speaker files from Danley and TW Audio and create a typical outdoor venue for yourself. If you are a geographic nerd like myself you can even screenshot a Google Maps view of your outdoor venue and import it to get a reality check on your sound pressure gradients.

Then also find a typical 12"+horn file (QSC K12, for instance is available) to compare to. You can also download RCF boxes like the TTL6A to check it out. Or a silly short line array on a stick can also be modeled.

I have gone thru 10-15 boxes and found the best output/mass ratio to be the IG4T Douglas mentions. There may not be enough, especially in the mid-bass, for your program material, but you can check this with octave modeling in EASE focus.

EASE Focus also assists in visualizing the help that going from the 80* nominal pattern to a 60x40 like the T24N could provide for HF directivity. You should also consider that some of your mids may be currently absorbed in the first couple of rows and additional elevation like scaffolding might help.

HTH,
Jon

I've started to write an informal review on the IG4T's.  I thought they were rather thick in the 90 to 300hz range. I set the crossover on the IG4T's to 110hz when listening and used the 100hz crossover on the Yorkville EF500p when I compared them. Not sure if excursion would be a limiting factor with the crossover set to 110hz for loud play back in the 90/300hz range.  I have not looked at them with my smaart setup as of yet or gone out with them.  They are certainly better than the EF500p which is a 15 woofer and 3 inch horn voice coil in overall coverage by a lot. Possible more output as well.  I think 2 IG4T's a side , with the large coverage they give , would with proper subs would be more than impressive for 2 40lb boxes a side.   Again this is just a draft I had started.

""" Did a quick listen at work. I have been using Yorkville's EF500p's with LS801pb subs. The tops and subs have been my staple for many years. I did a direct comparison today. The 4-6.5 inch drivers I really didn't expect to keep up with the subs nor did I really expect them to sound "full" if you will.
With a EF500p on the left and IG4T on the right this is what I found. IG4T has a listed 1 db less max output. I used recorded music and Live band tracks returned to my desk for testing

The horn on the 4T's are different and need to be heard. The up front level seems smoother and not as "pointed" as the EF500p's. Left to Right coverage up front is miles above the yorkie's. I pointed both speakers to the left about 45 degrees off center. The 4T's still sounded even where the horns on the 500's were down and the very high's missing. Great L/R coverage on the T's.

75 feet back the Yorkvilles sounded as expected straight on within the tight pattern but lacked again side to side. The odd thing was the IG4T's seemed louder than the 500's in the back and the coverage was great.

Over all sound. The EF500's sounded average with no eq and had some 250 to 450hz gack stuff that I always take out. The IG4T's didn't need any eq to sound good. The fullness they gave was not expected. If anything they sounded very thick but clean at 100 to 300hz range with authority. I found I used the 110hz crossover frequency built into the DSP in the IG4T's compared to the 100hz cut on the yorkvilles.

To sum it up. Pretty much the same volume as my EF500p's which I really like up close but much better coverage. Farther back they manage to be louder in relation to the 500's and still have better coverage. All in all I can retire my EF500p's to high level drum / bass monitoring on stage and replace them with these.
Same to better volume. Better coverage and "Sound" plus a 50 percent reduction in weight. These are better than my EF500p's.

Side note. The IG4T's take a little more input to reach full output at the same time as the EF500p's. I adjusted for that during testing. They do have a handy VU meter on the back that shows input and gives you a quick reference as to the headroom left on the speaker. Also they had no problems keeping up to my subs. I may have had about 3-4db's to go in my tops when the subs limit lights came on with average tracks. '''''

Again an informal listening/testing at this point.  I was amazed that a 40lb box gave such good coverage/output and to me bested my 15/3 inch tops that weigh in twice as much. I ordered some LP-IG Ingenia link brackets and they should be here in a day or so. I really like to take a look at a stack with Smaart.  I'm really hoping to not like what I see because I'd hate to have to order another pair...  ;-)

Douglas R. Allen

[Peter Morris]

Bren:

Download EASE Focus and start to download speaker files from Danley and TW Audio and create a typical outdoor venue for yourself. If you are a geographic nerd like myself you can even screenshot a Google Maps view of your outdoor venue and import it to get a reality check on your sound pressure gradients.

Then also find a typical 12"+horn file (QSC K12, for instance is available) to compare to. You can also download RCF boxes like the TTL6A to check it out. Or a silly short line array on a stick can also be modeled.

I have gone thru 10-15 boxes and found the best output/mass ratio to be the IG4T Douglas mentions. There may not be enough, especially in the mid-bass, for your program material, but you can check this with octave modeling in EASE focus.

EASE Focus also assists in visualizing the help that going from the 80* nominal pattern to a 60x40 like the T24N could provide for HF directivity. You should also consider that some of your mids may be currently absorbed in the first couple of rows and additional elevation like scaffolding might help.

HTH,
Jon

That’s a much better way of getting some idea of what the speakers are capable of; it however assumes the manufacturer has put the correct data representative of the speakers true SPL capabilities, which may or may not be the case.

Many manufactures max SPL figures often just represent the max SPL capability of the HF driver, but in practice the typically lower output capability of the low / mid driver is a better representation of what we can expect in the real world.  Using an EASE sim solves this.

So FWIW these are some results of EASE Focus 3 -  Boxes @ 4m height, SPL at 50M

I have used mostly RCF and dB Technologies boxes assuming they may use the same measurement methods as they are part of the same company ??

4 x DB Technologies VIO 210 – 97.6dB
4 x DB Technologies T12 FIR – 97.6dB
4 x DB Technologies T8 FIR – 93.7dB
2 x RCF TTL6 – 92.7dB
1 x TW Audio T24N – 87dB
1 x RCF TTL6 – 86.3dB
1 x RCF TT25MK2 – 82.3
2 x DB Technologies IG4T – 80.9dB
1 x DB Technologies IG4T – 76.3dB

[Ivan Beaver]

That’s a much better way of getting some idea of what the speakers are capable of; it however assumes the manufacturer has put the correct data representative of the speakers true SPL capabilities, which may or may not be the case.

Many manufactures max SPL figures are often just represent the max SPL capability of the HF driver, but in practice the typically lower output capability of the low / mid driver is a better representation of what we can expect in the real world.  Using an EASE sim solves this.

That is a VERY important point.

There are some products that have a large hump around 1-2KHz (where the Hf driver is being really loud), without eq applied.

So that point can be 10dB louder than the rest of the response of the cabinet.

So is that "hump" really what you want to know (It will have to be eqed down anyway), or rather how loud the OTHER freq can get?

This is a prime example of where a "single simple number" can get you in all sorts of trouble in terms of expected output/outcome.

You MUST look a bit further in order to get the real/usable answers.

[Peter Morris]

Thank you Peter for sharing all the info regarding the PM 90. I would love to hear these cabinets some day.

Just wondering what you would consider to be the maximum distance  you would want between subs and tops in a small system like the SM 80/TH 118.  Would this distance have the same effect on the system in both the vertical and horizontal planes?

I have heard the SM80 pole mounted on top of a TH118 and it worked perfectly. I suspect if you flew the SM80 20 plus feet in the air and ground stacked the sub I would expect you to notice a few issues. In these case you really want solid performance down quite low and a crossover around 80Hz or less.

The PM90 is also a bit of a compromise with a nominal crossover of 100Hz. It can be crossed as low as 80Hz but at the expense of LF output/SPL.

[Douglas R. Allen]

That’s a much better way of getting some idea of what the speakers are capable of; it however assumes the manufacturer has put the correct data representative of the speakers true SPL capabilities, which may or may not be the case.

Many manufactures max SPL figures are often just represent the max SPL capability of the HF driver, but in practice the typically lower output capability of the low / mid driver is a better representation of what we can expect in the real world.  Using an EASE sim solves this.

So FWIW these are some results of EASE Focus 3 -  Boxes @ 4m height, SPL at 50M

I have used mostly RCF and dB Technologies boxes assuming they may use the same measurement methods as they are part of the same company ??

4 x DB Technologies VIO 210 – 97.6dB
4 x DB Technologies T12 FIR – 97.6dB
4 x DB Technologies T8 FIR – 93.7dB
2 x RCF TTL6 – 92.7dB
1 x TW Audio T24N – 87dB
1 x RCF TTL6 – 86.3dB
1 x RCF TT25MK2 – 82.3
2 x DB Technologies IG4T – 80.9dB
1 x DB Technologies IG4T – 76.3dB

Just for clarity. These are at 50 meters. 164 feet out in the USA. 80.9 dbs I find respectable at 164 feet. Working backwards that would be around 116db's at 2.5 feet? *roughly*  Close to 5db's of coupling for the two boxes as well.  Not too bad. Especially in that price range. Is this full bandwidth within the designed frequency range of the box? I know the SM80 has somewhat limited range below 140hz or so but I believe some eq can be added without thermal or excursion limits in spl?  How does a person go about using EASE when some eq is or low cut filters may be needed? Also within the 90hz to 120 Low Cut Filter range used in the IG4T's how does these numbers correlate? I see the IG4T as a mid/high box and not as a full range box.   I'm guessing proper eq is done by manufactures in self powered boxes so a big hump in output around the horn's cut off and above is already corrected?  I as well believe looking at Peak spl is silly at best. You get what you pay for is as always true within reason.  I certainly didn't hear any large hump around 1-2 k.  My fathers health at 86 has dominated my time at current but I'll try to give the 4T's a look with smaart at some point as I could be wrong.

Douglas R. Allen

[Peter Morris]

Just for clarity. These are at 50 meters. 164 feet out in the USA. 80.9 dbs I find respectable at 164 feet. Working backwards that would be around 116db's at 2.5 feet? *roughly*  Close to 5db's of coupling for the two boxes as well.  Not too bad. Especially in that price range. Is this full bandwidth within the designed frequency range of the box? I know the SM80 has somewhat limited range below 140hz or so but I believe some eq can be added without thermal or excursion limits in spl?  How does a person go about using EASE when some eq is or low cut filters may be needed? Also within the 90hz to 120 Low Cut Filter range used in the IG4T's how does these numbers correlate? I see the IG4T as a mid/high box and not as a full range box.   I'm guessing proper eq is done by manufactures in self powered boxes so a big hump in output around the horn's cut off and above is already corrected?  I as well believe looking at Peak spl is silly at best. You get what you pay for is as always true within reason.  I certainly didn't hear any large hump around 1-2 k.  My fathers health at 86 has dominated my time at current but I'll try to give the 4T's a look with smaart at some point as I could be wrong.

Douglas R. Allen

In the case of the IG4T the peak which is usually around 2K for a 3" diaphragm compression driver has been equalised flat by the on board DSP: but that does not change its underlying efficiency and ability to produce SPL.

FWIW I have some of the IG4Ts ... very nice smooth sounding speaker. Its tall slim profile almost disappears from view in many applications - great for those corporate functions where that is important.

With respect to EASE Focus3 you can model EQ and crossovers 

[Douglas R. Allen]

In the case of the IG4T the peak which is usually around 2K for a 3" diaphragm compression driver has been equalised flat by the on board DSP: but that does not change its underlying efficiency and ability to produce SPL.

FWIW I have some of the IG4Ts ... very nice smooth sounding speaker. Its tall slim profile almost disappears from view in many applications - great for those corporate functions where that is important.

With respect to EASE Focus3 you can model EQ and crossovers

Peter;

        Thanks for the information.  One of the reasons I picked them up was the small footprint and weight.  I was thinking about a standard 12 and horn but in some rooms I do these these are even better for line of sight.  That and I have 2 rooms that a single stack of 2 with a pair of subs under will most likely be how I will go out with them.
        How they matched and in some ways out did the ef500p's was an unexpected bonus.  Have you stacked them in pairs and any problems I should look out for?

        Thanks again;
        Douglas R Allen

Sorry for topic swerve.

[Ivan Beaver]

I have heard the SM80 pole mounted on top of a TH118 and it worked perfectly. I suspect if you flew the SM80 20 plus feet in the air and ground stacked the sub I would expect you to notice a few issues. In these case you really want solid performance down quite low and a crossover around 80Hz or less.

Agreed.  It is all a matter of "it depends".  When the full range cabinets are not truly full range, and located a distance from the subs, you get the impression that you are hearing highs and lows from different places, which you are.

Some people like to have different parts coming from different places, and consider that "good"-I am not one of them.

Agreed that if the tops and subs are separated by a decent distance, the tops need to be full range.

Hence the reason for the SM80F (F is for full range) for installs.  But not exactly pole mountable for portable setups.

[ProSoundWeb Community]