Print

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

[Gordon Brinton]

Thanks, Tom.

Sounds delightful. I want one. No, two!

I am, however, a little confused about who your target customer would be for such a box. What good is a small-room, small-crowd box if the small-time guys who typically do those rooms don't earn enough to justify the cost of such a product? Could we wave that wand toward affordability as well?

If a young fellow with a small company could be introduced to your product line early on, he would automatically seek out the rest of the products as his company grows. My advice, (not that you need my advice,) would be, lower the price and use that product as a lure-in for the rest.

[Ivan Beaver]

For the front fill application, I want a wide horizontal with a fairly short vertical, say 120° x 40° with a long term output of around 120-126dBA @ 1 meter; flat from 200-ish Hz to infrared (nudge, wink...16k will do).  The under-balcony version would probably need 60° vertical.  Both need to have a profile of <10", width is less of a consideration.  Let me know how the wand thing works out.

Tim Mc

I agree on the patterns that you suggest-HOWEVER-physics doesn't work that way.

As you go to a narrower pattern-the horn dimension has to get LARGER in order to maintain that pattern.

Lets say you have a box that is 10" so the horn opening is around 7" (once you subtract out the top and bottom wood, mounting etc) and it is 20°.  That would have a pattern control down to around 7KHz,  Below that the pattern would be wider.

So while it may have a "rating" of 20°, the actual pattern over most of the usable range would be MUCH wider.  So it is not of much good-at least how you "think" it should be working.

So just settle for a larger vertical pattern OR a much taller box.

If somebody claims to have a narrow pattern in a small horn-be sure to look at the polar response to see how it ACTUALLY operates and over what range.

It for for that same reason that our little SH100 has pattern control down so low.  Because the horn has a wide pattern.  If it were a narrower pattern of the same size-the control would be not be as low.

[Frederik Rosenkjær]

Hi Frederik, all

Hello Tom - thanks for your reply! (first post on the new forum too, I see  )

I am glad you’re enjoying the speakers AND that you wrote about them, it is hard to describe how something sounds on paper haha.   Do try them in your living room, I could never go back to electrostats.

Just used them last week-end two times for Norwegian funk master Ole Børud and got great feedback. A Norwegian guy in the audience (in Copenhagen) asked what in the world that was - if it was d&b or what. Said he'd never heard anything like it. Neither have I.

An advantage of having all the drivers connected to one horn is that the horn mouth can be as large as the cabinet and the pattern loss frequency is connected to that size and angle.     
The other “sharp” side of that same sword is the cutoff at the pattern edge is much more noticeable and so having the at least the angle relative to the peeps is very desirable.

True - and this is where the 60 degrees horisontal coverage of the SH46 (I'm laying them down on their side, which also takes some ingenuity...and a retired metalworker friend  ) often needs a little help.

So far my plan is two pr. side, only problem is, I'll probably never need the output of that configuration - only the coverage.

So, lets say you had a typical speaker on a stick job  like you mentioned.   With Harry Potters wand in hand, would you make it louder, make it smaller, make it sound better, change the radiation pattern, or relative to that one, what direction would you go (being somewhat realistic) to make it ideal for your use?
If one had a dedicated subwoofer on the ground (allowing a low corner near 100-125Hz), one could make something very loud and pretty small on a pole I think.
Best regards,
Tom Danley

Though I hate to admit it, I do see Gordon's point - I'm probably not the typical PA-buyer. My business is a kind of weekend warrior on steroids with respect to quality and quantity. I'm trying to pack as much (channels, mics, monitor mixes, wedges, mains and even lights) in as small a van as possible.

For the last 5 years my mains have been a single d&b AudioTechnik Q7 pr. side (plus subs, of course). This cab is a good idea of what I need. It weighs 49 lbs, is a little smaller than the SM60, has very good pattern control (though not as good as a SH of that size, obviously), sounds very very good and gets incredibly loud - 138 dB. It can really play drums, which in my book is sort of what separates the wheat from the chaff. This can do "speaker on a stick" jobs that don't sound like speaker on a stick-jobs.

Why not just keep that, then? Well, so far I am. But it would be great to have the same in a Synergy Horn, sounding even better, having even better dispersion control and not having to switch amps back and forth all the time, since they use their own proprietary amps.

So with Harry Potter's wand I'd want to conjure up:

• SM60-style cab size and weight (the key here is that it must managable by one person which no DSL cabinet above 130 dB SPL currently is)
• 75-90 x 40 degrees coverage (how about making asymmetrical coverage/shaded amplitude the standard btw.? I hate always having to waste half the pattern into the ceiling where it only does harm, and right on the axis people are always further away (always = 99%+ in my case)
• High 130's SPL (gotta have the muscle for that snare drum 150-200 Hz punch)
• Don't know what to say about sound quality. As long as DSL is willing to put your name on it, history shows it's fantastic
• Only use with subwoofers, 100-ish low knee is fine (I really love that suggestion. I'll never use them alone, so why not free up all that power that is lost in the tuning there!)
• Screw the cost (it's my dream scenario - I'll pay up  )

A different issue, which may be for another person at DSL is mounting. My recommendation would be for DSL to rent a d&b Q7 or two with D12 amp, and besides checking out what that can do audio wise (goes well with TH212 and TH118) get the d&b Swivel Bracket and see how that thing works. The mounting options for these speakers are so numerous and with the bracket it is incredibly fast and easy for one person to deploy, both on a stand (with 35mm attachment) or hanging (with a 28mm TV-spigot and a pipe clamp). The bracket attaches to the side of the cabinet with a slide-and-lock safety pin mechanism that takes about a second. Both horizontal and vertical alignment is now totally free and the speaker stays where you leave it.

For someone like me that is a big deal. Not having to screw in a long thread all the way and what not. Just slide the thing in place, put in the safety pin and there you go. This is the only place where DSL is lagging in my opinion.

Sorry for the long post. You should never have asked 
Say hello to Doug Jones from me - we met exactly a year ago in Poland!

[Mac Kerr]

I agree on the patterns that you suggest-HOWEVER-physics doesn't work that way.

As you go to a narrower pattern-the horn dimension has to get LARGER in order to maintain that pattern.

Lets say you have a box that is 10" so the horn opening is around 7" (once you subtract out the top and bottom wood, mounting etc) and it is 20°.  That would have a pattern control down to around 7KHz,  Below that the pattern would be wider.

So while it may have a "rating" of 20°, the actual pattern over most of the usable range would be MUCH wider.  So it is not of much good-at least how you "think" it should be working.

So just settle for a larger vertical pattern OR a much taller box.

If somebody claims to have a narrow pattern in a small horn-be sure to look at the polar response to see how it ACTUALLY operates and over what range.

It for for that same reason that our little SH100 has pattern control down so low.  Because the horn has a wide pattern.  If it were a narrower pattern of the same size-the control would be not be as low.

All true, but for a theatrical type front fill, probably not as big an issue. Since the listener will be within the very narrow vertical coverage, and the level will be low compared to the rest of the PA, the fact that the pattern blossoms at lower frequencies is not that much of a problem, till you get completely behind the speaker. Very low frequencies, where even larger speakers begin to go omni, will likely be filtered out before the speaker.

A 10" tall box is way too big for a theatrical front fill. Think Meyer UPM1, or Meyer M1D sized. Or at the extreme, Meyer MM1.

These would usually be mounted with U brackets to the front of the stage.
Mac

[Tim McCulloch]

I agree on the patterns that you suggest-HOWEVER-physics doesn't work that way.

True, but Tom is getting a magician's wand!  The laws of physics (and disbelief) are waived.

Work with me here, Ivan!

Have fun.

Tim Mc

[Nathan DePaulo]

(snip...)
So, lets say you had a typical speaker on a stick job  like you mentioned.   With Harry Potters wand in hand, would you make it louder, make it smaller, make it sound better, change the radiation pattern, or relative to that one, what direction would you go (being somewhat realistic) to make it ideal for your use?
If one had a dedicated subwoofer on the ground (allowing a low corner near 100-125Hz), one could make something very loud and pretty small on a pole I think.
Best regards,
Tom Danley

Well since you asked, and I've always wanted to say, I'll gladly give you my irrational wish list!

If I were to imagine the product that you could make that would get me to finally buy the Danley system I've always wanted it would be somewhere in between the SH46 & SM60F.  My priority would be high sensitivity, and manageable weight size for one person. I'm not concerned about LF extension below ~100 (because I'll always have subs), and ultra high power handling because for my gigs low current draw is a plus.  I'd like them to stand alone nicely, but be arrayable to a point (2 per side is fine, maybe 3).

To be overly specific, the bullet points would read like this:
* Danley Sound that everyone raves about.
* 103+ sens
* ~1000W power handling
* 80~100lbs
* stacks nicely on a TH115/118 sub, and makes a good 1 sub & top per side setup
* horizontal coverage over 60, below 90
* Flyable/Pole mountable a plus (but not critical)

My application is 90% 1 top & sub per side, but I run several systems a night, so if I'm going to have 6 of the same top box, I'd like to be able to put them together for the larger gig that does come up from time to time.  My current main speaker is the Radian RPX215, which is heavy and has a 90* dispersion, otherwise a nice box for my purpose.

So how close can magic get me?

[Ivan Beaver]

Well since you asked, and I've always wanted to say, I'll gladly give you my irrational wish list!

If I were to imagine the product that you could make that would get me to finally buy the Danley system I've always wanted it would be somewhere in between the SH46 & SM60F.  My priority would be high sensitivity, and manageable weight size for one person. I'm not concerned about LF extension below ~100 (because I'll always have subs), and ultra high power handling because for my gigs low current draw is a plus.  I'd like them to stand alone nicely, but be arrayable to a point (2 per side is fine, maybe 3).

To be overly specific, the bullet points would read like this:
* Danley Sound that everyone raves about.
* 103+ sens
* ~1000W power handling
* 80~100lbs
* stacks nicely on a TH115/118 sub, and makes a good 1 sub & top per side setup
* horizontal coverage over 60, below 90
* Flyable/Pole mountable a plus (but not critical)

My application is 90% 1 top & sub per side, but I run several systems a night, so if I'm going to have 6 of the same top box, I'd like to be able to put them together for the larger gig that does come up from time to time.  My current main speaker is the Radian RPX215, which is heavy and has a 90* dispersion, otherwise a nice box for my purpose.

So how close can magic get me?

Your wish may be granted shortly.  That is right up on top of my "to do" list.

Stay tuned.

[Christopher Gennette]

I'm in agreement with Fredrick.

I want a SM60 style one man box with output beyond the normal pole mounted speakers. I was hoping the new TMS would be just that: arrayable, 60-70 H x 40-50 V and high 130's, but it is not. So if you could take the SM60 form factor and get below 180hz with 106 sensitivity then I think you'd have a product to fit companies like mine. I realize this will is a somewhat "market specific" box, but it is what I want. Thanks for listening.

Chris Gennette
 

[Rob Spence]

* ~1000W power handling

Why does it matter how much power they handle as long as they get to the SPL needed? Just get an amp that does it.

[Ivan Beaver]

* ~1000W power handling

Why does it matter how much power they handle as long as they get to the SPL needed? Just get an amp that does it.

And I would like to turn the wand around.

What I would like would be for users to stop prejuding a particular product by either its "power handling" or by the driver used inside.

It should all be about how well the particular product does the job-sound quality-coverage-loudness-freq response etc-NOT by what means it accomplishes it.

I hear it all the time-"Well that product only has a "so and so" driver in it, there is no way it could work".  Have you actually tried listening to it? or is everything prejudged on old outdated notions?

So now everybody is a "loudspeaker designer"?  Like the old judgement of magnet weight when neo came out.  Well that magnet is so small-there is no way it could produce that much sound and so forth.

I will leave it at that-but could go on and on.

[ProSoundWeb Community]