ProSoundWeb Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Open letter to Tom Danley regarding SH-100 sensitivity spec  (Read 4425 times)

Art Welter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1700
Open letter to Tom Danley regarding SH-100 sensitivity spec
« on: April 19, 2011, 05:30:07 pm »

Tom,

My mistake in questioning the sensitivity of the SH-100.

I know comparing the Mackie HD 1521 to the SH-100 was a stretch, but the guitar player owned a pair of the 1521s.
Big guy, he could lift the 1521 on to a pole with less stress than me putting the little SH-100 up.

Before the SH-100 arrived, he had tried some of my 2x8” and 10” monitors, and he liked the midrange detail compared to the 1521, but the monitors  lacked the low end he wanted.

He was/is on a endless search for a better sound quality, based on the specs and the whole Synergy concept I thought the SH-100 would be a good choice for the small rooms he normally plays.

The Mackie HD1521 amp section is rated 1400 watt peak LF, 200 watts peak HF.
Who knows at what frequency Mackie “calculates” 135 dB Max peak SPL, but at least they put in a ”measured 125 dB” spec.

Anyway, I measured around 6 dB more output from the 1521 than the TH 100.

Considering that the 15 inch cone used in the 1521 is probably  around 100 dB sensitivity, it makes sense that the level difference would be that much, since the SH-100 is rated 95 dB.

In fact, the SH-100 did quite well considering the peak power available from the HD1521 amps may be more than the bridged mono Crest CC2800 (1190 watts into 8 ohm) driving the TH 100.

I would have replied in the SB1000z vs DBH218 thread where the discussion started, but it is locked.

Art Welter
Logged

Mike Hedden

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 63
Re: Open letter to Tom Danley regarding SH-100 sensitivity spec
« Reply #1 on: April 20, 2011, 11:47:54 am »

Anyway, I measured around 6 dB more output from the 1521 than the TH 100.

Considering that the 15 inch cone used in the 1521 is probably  around 100 dB sensitivity, it makes sense that the level difference would be that much, since the SH-100 is rated 95 dB.

In fact, the SH-100 did quite well considering the peak power available from the HD1521 amps may be more than the bridged mono Crest CC2800 (1190 watts into 8 ohm) driving the TH 100.

I would have replied in the SB1000z vs DBH218 thread where the discussion started, but it is locked.

Art Welter
Art,
Don't wish to instigate nor perpetuate any previous threads but simply in an attempt to verify our claims, yesterday I measured an SH100.  On a slow response spl meter (Audio Toolbox Pro) it does 120dB @ 1 meter using music.  Move the setting to fast response and it measures 126dB. 
Regarding TEF and accuracy it is a highly accurate measurement platform, many manufacturers use it as a final QC test and in fact it is one of a very few anlayzers that passes peer review scrutiny regularly to be used in court proceedings.  I know this first hand.

Mike Hedden
Danley Sound Labs, Inc.
Logged

ProSoundWeb Community

Re: Open letter to Tom Danley regarding SH-100 sensitivity spec
« Reply #1 on: April 20, 2011, 11:47:54 am »


Pages: [1]   Go Up
 



Page created in 0.059 seconds with 23 queries.