ProSoundWeb Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 11   Go Down

Author Topic: Upgrade danley sm80  (Read 9466 times)

John Schalk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 205
Re: Upgrade danley sm80
« Reply #60 on: July 09, 2018, 04:19:04 pm »

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

Very interesting data Peter, thanks for posting it.  I have a few questions.  Did you model the 60 degree or 90 degree T24N and would the different horn pattern matter for an SPL reading in EASE?  Also, for the 2 x TTL6, did you model them as one over one in the vertical orientation or side by side?  None of the RCF system images for the TTL6 show it being used in a horizontal array; perhaps because of the design of the mid-high horn?  Regarding the IG4T, it seems very similar to the NXL 24A.  For both of those designs, do you know if the mids are sent to all four 6" drivers, or are they restricted to the top driver only. 
Logged

Douglas R. Allen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1080
Re: Upgrade danley sm80
« Reply #61 on: July 09, 2018, 08:56:58 pm »

Very interesting data Peter, thanks for posting it.  I have a few questions.  Did you model the 60 degree or 90 degree T24N and would the different horn pattern matter for an SPL reading in EASE?  Also, for the 2 x TTL6, did you model them as one over one in the vertical orientation or side by side?  None of the RCF system images for the TTL6 show it being used in a horizontal array; perhaps because of the design of the mid-high horn?  Regarding the IG4T, it seems very similar to the NXL 24A.  For both of those designs, do you know if the mids are sent to all four 6" drivers, or are they restricted to the top driver only.

John;.

In the case of Ig4t's it is a 2 way box with a crossover of 1.1k.  The 4 - 6.5 inch drivers are 16 ohm and the 4 are all wired in parrell for a 4 ohm load.  I did consider this total spacing of course to be to a little great for all the drivers to be closer than 1/4 wavelength and yet with music there doesn't seem to be a phase problem when listening from the top speaker going down to the bottom one.  I measured 20 inches from the top speakers center cone to the bottoms speakers center cone. So around 620hz and below should couple. When stacked as a pair this would change as well.  I have as yet not listened to them coupled.  I wondered why they weren't manufacturered as a "quasi" 3 way but maybe there is more to it than overall spacing.  Each driver in relation to the next one down is close enough to be closer than 1/4 wavelength at the crossover frequency so do they all couple as one? 

The 4 drivers in a line sound like one driver.  How they measure I haven't had a chance to check yet.

Douglas R. Allen

EDIT Adding a video with the IG4T being disassembled.   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZ_y9iCDypQ
« Last Edit: July 10, 2018, 05:10:09 am by Douglas R. Allen »
Logged

Peter Morris

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1286
Re: Upgrade danley sm80
« Reply #62 on: July 10, 2018, 04:03:38 am »

Very interesting data Peter, thanks for posting it.  I have a few questions.  Did you model the 60 degree or 90 degree T24N and would the different horn pattern matter for an SPL reading in EASE?  Also, for the 2 x TTL6, did you model them as one over one in the vertical orientation or side by side?  None of the RCF system images for the TTL6 show it being used in a horizontal array; perhaps because of the design of the mid-high horn?  Regarding the IG4T, it seems very similar to the NXL 24A.  For both of those designs, do you know if the mids are sent to all four 6" drivers, or are they restricted to the top driver only.

The Sim was for the 90 degree T24N and the 2 x TTL6's were one over one with the horns together.

The IG4T's are configured as Douglas said.  When you look at the GLL plots for one box they are very nice with some vertical issues around the crossover that you get with all 2 way boxes with the horn at the top.  When you look a the GLL plot for two boxes there is some comb filtering happening which produces some "fingers"  in the vertical coverage pattern - BUT the intended coverage area for how the boxes are designed to be set up is excellent with more or less no issues.

I have used the IG4T as a single and one over one ... and for what they are designed to do, they're great - we always get positive comments from the audience and engineers.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2018, 04:06:52 am by Peter Morris »
Logged

Mark Wilkinson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 968
Re: Upgrade danley sm80
« Reply #63 on: July 10, 2018, 11:28:50 am »

Hi Peter,   +1, on thanks for posting the Ease simulations.

Are you able to input the necessary information into Ease, to make comparable simulations for the PM 90/60s ? (and maybe even SM-80)
I'm thinking that could add a boatload of perspective to the thread....

I've yet to wade into learning modeling programs, but I do  realize manufacturers typically provide Ease data.
So please pardon me for even asking this ......if manually inputting or guesstimating data,  isn't doable or is simply a lot of work  :)
Logged

Geert Friedhof

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 610
Re: Upgrade danley sm80
« Reply #64 on: July 10, 2018, 06:17:33 pm »

Ease focus is free to download and use for you. The manufacturer pays the fees. You just need GLL files.

Start playing!
Logged

Caleb Dueck

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1102
Re: Upgrade danley sm80
« Reply #65 on: July 10, 2018, 07:55:27 pm »

Ease focus is free to download and use for you. The manufacturer pays the fees. You just need GLL files.

Start playing!
But - since it costs the manufacturer quite a bit, many manufacturers don't pay to play.  This is why many manufacturers also create their own software, along with additional functionality they can program in their own that Ease Focus can't do. 

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

Logged
Experience is something you get right after you need it.

Geert Friedhof

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 610
Re: Upgrade danley sm80
« Reply #66 on: July 11, 2018, 07:17:04 am »

But - since it costs the manufacturer quite a bit, many manufacturers don't pay to play.  This is why many manufacturers also create their own software, along with additional functionality they can program in their own that Ease Focus can't do. 

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

yeah, i know, but it might give the OP some direction and understanding modelling some stuff on his own.
Logged

Peter Morris

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1286
Re: Upgrade danley sm80
« Reply #67 on: July 11, 2018, 08:17:05 am »

Hi Peter,   +1, on thanks for posting the Ease simulations.

Are you able to input the necessary information into Ease, to make comparable simulations for the PM 90/60s ? (and maybe even SM-80)
I'm thinking that could add a boatload of perspective to the thread....

I've yet to wade into learning modeling programs, but I do  realize manufacturers typically provide Ease data.
So please pardon me for even asking this ......if manually inputting or guesstimating data,  isn't doable or is simply a lot of work  :)

No I don't have a GLL file for the PM90/60. To do this its output has to be measured at every frequency over thousands of points over the surface of a sphere.  I have access to the equipment to do that but for it to be useful  I would need to buy a licence for Ease Focus ...$$$$$

Danley has GLL files but no licence for Ease Focus that I could use for comparison.  You can of course look at them using Ease GLL viewer - the SM80's plots are extremely good, there are only a few points where you see some lumps and bumps. The IG4T is also extremely good but you can see the issues at the crossover frequency between the HF and Low (1100Hz)
« Last Edit: July 11, 2018, 08:37:23 am by Peter Morris »
Logged

Mark Wilkinson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 968
Re: Upgrade danley sm80
« Reply #68 on: July 11, 2018, 10:28:10 am »

No I don't have a GLL file for the PM90/60. To do this its output has to be measured at every frequency over thousands of points over the surface of a sphere.  I have access to the equipment to do that but for it to be useful  I would need to buy a licence for Ease Focus ...$$$$$

Danley has GLL files but no licence for Ease Focus that I could use for comparison.  You can of course look at them using Ease GLL viewer - the SM80's plots are extremely good, there are only a few points where you see some lumps and bumps. The IG4T is also extremely good but you can see the issues at the crossover frequency between the HF and Low (1100Hz)

Thanks Peter, I had no idea GLL files encompassed so many measurements.
Interesting stuff.


And thx Geert,  yeah, I'd like to wade into modeling commercial boxes, especially wading in for free !....

it's just so far, I've been focused on DIY efforts, trying to get a good grip on making basic on and off axis measurements, and then listening to the coverage.
And i also have to admit I kinda hate using models when i feel I don't understand all the factors they rest on....

Logged

Geert Friedhof

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 610
Re: Upgrade danley sm80
« Reply #69 on: July 11, 2018, 11:40:22 am »

While you are at it, you might wanna have a look at the RCF TT 25 CXA. You too Peter. You might be in for a nice surprise...

I have 4 of those, and all i can say is: WOW! I suspect they will have a SM80 for breakfast. Not flyable though, but only 40 lbs or so.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2018, 11:43:21 am by Geert Friedhof »
Logged

ProSoundWeb Community

Re: Upgrade danley sm80
ยซ Reply #69 on: July 11, 2018, 11:40:22 am ยป


Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 11   Go Up
 



Page created in 0.058 seconds with 23 queries.