Sound Reinforcement - Forums for Live Sound Professionals - Your Displayed Name Must Be Your Real Full Name To Post In The Live Sound Forums > Product Reviews

JBL SRX828SP, Danley DBH 218, Yorkville LS808, and QSC KW181: An Audience's Take

<< < (2/7) > >>

Debbie Dunkley:
I am surprised the KW181 received the same votes as the SRX828 - they are very different in sound with the SRX going deeper, sounding cleaner and getting louder - even the SRX818 beats it hands down IMHO. The KW181 is more in the same category as the JBL PRX series. ( I own PRX too so not bashing the KW181 in any way - it is an impressive sub for the money)

Peter J. Curtis:

--- Quote from: Debbie Dunkley on August 29, 2020, 01:15:21 pm ---I am surprised the KW181 received the same votes as the SRX828 - they are very different in sound with the SRX going deeper, sounding cleaner and getting louder - even the SRX818 beats it hands down IMHO. The KW181 is more in the same category as the JBL PRX series. ( I own PRX too so not bashing the KW181 in any way - it is an impressive sub for the money)

--- End quote ---

I agree that the KW is probably not in the same league. It's definitely not loud and they saw that. It got zero for sound quality and loudness unprocessed and only 2 people voted for it in sound quality in processed. I think this is because the QSC sounds different than the SRX; I prefer the sound of the SRX but the KW does have a similar sound to the Yorkville just a little more fuller and less loud. This has its appeals to certain people.

In either case, that was the main reason for doing this. Their choices seemed par for the course, but the few people who chose otherwise made it interesting.

To be fair, I'm not positive about how Danley's specs are taken. The DBH should have a higher continuous output than 141db. My assumption is that they read 28.3V as it is taken in 2 ohms. So if you extrapolate backwards (factor of 8:1 from 8 ohms to 2 ohms I believe), you'll find the actual sensitivity is less than 112 compared to a 1 watt at 8 ohms calculation (I think it'd be 106-108? Just off the top of my head). It can be considered a little naughty by some but I've seen plenty of spec sheets do this; if just calculate backwards, you get the right numbers and their 112 looks correct for their stated 2.83V. After some googling, this jives as to why the JTR Orbit Shifter Pro has less sensitivity than the TH118 on paper but puts out basically the same output in person. And they have roughly the same continuous and max spl's too, despite the TH118 having a higher sensitivity on its spec sheet. Either way, the SRX and the TH215 should be at least 6db quieter all around than the DBH, which should be very noticeable but apparently not everyone agreed on this. Although, the majority did agree.
 
I think I figured out why the others were considered "louder" in the unprocessed test: In the first test, I saved the DBH218 for last and I used it first for the processed test. I remember doing this because it was easier just to keep the DBH hooked up rather than lifting and moving it out of the way. Thus, its loudness was overshadowed by the TH215 and the SRX828 for some, since those boxes are quite loud as well. So there you go! My other assumptions before were (probably) wrong and I'm almost certain this is the reason why and it's the reason why they thought it sounded so much better because they had literally just heard it unprocessed before.

David Allred:
I appreciate that a sub has great value if it is just connected an amp and sounds good.  But if it has a processor designed to be used with it, shouldn't it be judged on that?  So be it if the added cost bumps it into another class range.  And similarly, if there are factory recommended eq settings, they should be implemented for comparison testing.  My 2 cents.

Peter J. Curtis:

--- Quote from: David Allred on August 30, 2020, 11:39:28 am ---I appreciate that a sub has great value if it is just connected an amp and sounds good.  But if it has a processor designed to be used with it, shouldn't it be judged on that?  So be it if the added cost bumps it into another class range.  And similarly, if there are factory recommended eq settings, they should be implemented for comparison testing.  My 2 cents.

--- End quote ---

I agree but there are people out there looking for plug and play. Plus, when you rent speakers, most people don't care about processing. I'd say for more than 50% of the rentals I've seen they skip the processor. It's probably something like 1 out 5 people get/use the processor when they rent. Even when they get an itech with processing embedded, they almost never use it or even ask how to. Should've specified that's what the business I work for mainly does and the reason why unprocessed is important. This project also helped choose which subs the company will end up focusing on when business gets going again.

Art Welter:

--- Quote from: Peter J. Curtis on August 29, 2020, 03:41:08 pm ---To be fair, I'm not positive about how Danley's specs are taken. The DBH should have a higher continuous output than 141db. My assumption is that they read 28.3V as it is taken in 2 ohms.....After some googling, this jives as to why the JTR Orbit Shifter Pro has less sensitivity than the TH118 on paper but puts out basically the same output in person.

--- End quote ---
Peter,

Interesting comparisons, different strokes for different folks ;^).

The 112 dB sensitivity of the DBH-218 is referenced to 2.83V @1M 1⁄2 space, measured as 28.3V @ 10M.
To be a "one watt" sensitivity rating in to it's 2 ohm (1.8 minimum) nominal load, the drive voltage would have to be reduced to 1.41/14.14 volts.
Since 2.83v in to 2 ohms results in a 6 dB higher output than a 1 watt/1 meter rating, the "continuous" rating of 141 dB at 3600 watts reflects that calculated sensitivity, with no power compression considered.

The Orbit Shifter (available in 2, 4 or 8 ohms)is referenced to 1 watt/1 meter, and rated for 139dB, using an 8000 watt calculated peak of 142db 3dB power compression.

Art

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version