ProSoundWeb Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6]   Go Down

Author Topic: LabSub vs. Tuba36/Tuba36Slim  (Read 17711 times)

John Chiara

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2186
Re: LabSub vs. Tuba36/Tuba36Slim
« Reply #50 on: May 25, 2005, 01:51:17 pm »

Tom Danley wrote on Tue, 24 May 2005 20:39

Hi Guys



Rather than argue what spectrum there is in a concert and why, why not ask, what is there when all of the “practical” limitations are removed, such as in the studio?
Turns out, there is low bass in a lot of music and it is cool to reproduce it in a large scale and it is nothing like “can’t tell the difference”.
Tom Danley



I totally agree..and I believe this is what is usually missing from live sound reinforcement and what the future holds if enough
of us can have our say. The lacking lower octave+ in most systems is what ..IMO...keeps the music from achieving the intimacy it could..if those lows are reproduced.
I mix in the studio for my day job..with a sub flat below 20HZ..and far from being a "special effect" situation...it grows on you as a satisfying completeness that is sorely missed if removed. This is useful in mixing recordings but I believe even more so in reproducing live music in the 21st Century.

Logged
"mix is a verb, not a noun" Sooo, as Aunt Bea would say.."Get to it!!!"

John A. Chiara aka. Blind Johnny
Albany Audio Associates Inc.
Troy, NY
518-961-0069 - cell

Michael_Elliston¶

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 261
    • http://www.geocities.com/xobt
Re: LabSub vs. Tuba36/Tuba36Slim
« Reply #51 on: May 25, 2005, 07:01:36 pm »

pgolde wrote on Wed, 25 May 2005 12:51

mike nz
"I dont think we need another lab project-the punisher does the kicks nicely."


Are you insaine? The man just offered a new project!  Surprised
Since his latest Danley Labs subs claim to be the most powerful on the planet, I wouldnt mind being thrown a few crumbs from that. Very Happy



No doubt It would be a good product,but wouldnt contain any patented fun goodies Very Happy
Logged

Timmahh

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 131
    • http://www.chromepony.us
Re: LabSub vs. Tuba36/Tuba36Slim
« Reply #52 on: May 25, 2005, 07:31:19 pm »

FWIW, we have 4 v3 Labs. We did a Tent festival ( 80x150 ft ) a month back, 2 labs per side. ave. spl was 125 db,and more on peaks. and everything is still working great...subs shown no signs of distress, drivers are intact and still bumbing.  this was to date the only time we ve needed this much of the system, but there are a few shows coming up that will need it, and we re completeing 4 more of the v3 labs for one in August time, outside, 2 stages side by side, so 2 complete Speaker/amp systems, splitting feed to both from the one mix @ FOH.  This was one of my concerns with v3. but so far, everything is A OK...
more later.
Logged
I had to do it cuz I'm Just like that!!!!!
Timmahh!!!

fernand

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 25
Re: LabSub vs. Tuba36/Tuba36Slim
« Reply #53 on: May 26, 2005, 07:05:14 am »

Blind Johnny wrote on Wed, 25 May 2005 19:51

Tom Danley wrote on Tue, 24 May 2005 20:39

Hi Guys
Rather than argue what spectrum there is in a concert and why, why not ask, what is there when all of the “practical” limitations are removed, such as in the studio?
Turns out, there is low bass in a lot of music and it is cool to reproduce it in a large scale and it is nothing like “can’t tell the difference”.
Tom Danley



I totally agree..and I believe this is what is usually missing from live sound reinforcement and what the future holds if enough
of us can have our say. The lacking lower octave+ in most systems is what ..IMO...keeps the music from achieving the intimacy it could..if those lows are reproduced.
I mix in the studio for my day job..with a sub flat below 20HZ..and far from being a "special effect" situation...it grows on you as a satisfying completeness that is sorely missed if removed. This is useful in mixing recordings but I believe even more so in reproducing live music in the 21st Century.



Interesting, could you tell us from your experience what sorts of energy you are seeing in the low spectrum ?
Logged

John Chiara

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2186
Re: LabSub vs. Tuba36/Tuba36Slim
« Reply #54 on: May 26, 2005, 11:18:23 pm »

[/quote]

I totally agree..and I believe this is what is usually missing from live sound reinforcement and what the future holds if enough
of us can have our say. The lacking lower octave+ in most systems is what ..IMO...keeps the music from achieving the intimacy it could..if those lows are reproduced.
I mix in the studio for my day job..with a sub flat below 20HZ..and far from being a "special effect" situation...it grows on you as a satisfying completeness that is sorely missed if removed. This is useful in mixing recordings but I believe even more so in reproducing live music in the 21st Century.

[/quote]
Interesting, could you tell us from your experience what sorts of energy you are seeing in the low spectrum ?[/quote]

First thing you find is all kinds of junk!!!
It is..IMO.. necessary to run  aux fed subs if at all possible....although with a real low frequency reproduction the overall sound is better than with a system with a big hump at 50-80hz.
The main thing is that you get to hear the actual sound of many instruments that put out stuff in the 20-40hz area. In my experience having that extra octave makes it easier to balance kick and bass...frequency wise anyway..and even dynamically, having sufficient oomph down thaere feels very different from the boomy, muddy live venue sound we normally hear. The whole impression of "fidelity" changes..things sound cleaner, more open, more detailed..I think one reason is the extra low extension lets the fundamentals of lower instruments actually exist without being "cramped" by a restricted response.
Synths tracks that actually sound full range are a different beast than what we are used to.
I could go on subjectively but objectively I beleive that in practice "linear transfer"..meaning 'what goes in is what what comes out'..is at least approachable on the low freqency end...and I have not often..or ever..actually heard that in a live situation..but I do hear a whole bunch of other "crap" that seems to pass for low end..totally unnecesary with Labs, BassMaxx, BDeaps and Tom Danley's new sub models around. What needs to happen first is the pursuit of this as an ideal and then the tide can change. I am on board. Short term demos can help but I find a little "break in " time is often needed for the new response to become familiar enough to the conditioned brains of listeners to catagorize the resulting physical sensations as pleasant..but once it settles in there is no going back...PLUS one positive side effect is that listeners become comfortable with lower playback levels..a good thing for everyone..especially those of us working day after day at FOH.



Logged
"mix is a verb, not a noun" Sooo, as Aunt Bea would say.."Get to it!!!"

John A. Chiara aka. Blind Johnny
Albany Audio Associates Inc.
Troy, NY
518-961-0069 - cell

fernand

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 25
Re: LabSub vs. Tuba36/Tuba36Slim
« Reply #55 on: May 27, 2005, 01:28:01 am »

Thank you Blind Johnny,

could you tell us from your mixing experiences at what level the 20, 40, 60 , ... Hz signals are sitting in respect with the average signals ?
Logged

Alan Searchwell

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 26
Re: LabSub vs. Tuba36/Tuba36Slim
« Reply #56 on: May 27, 2005, 06:09:39 am »

Rory,

Please consider your audience when you say things like:

[quote title=BHFProfessional wrote on Sun, 22 May 2005 14:57]
And I didn't have to blow up an expensive driver to learn that information (though I extend my condolences to anyone who did, as there are better and less costly ways of learning that info.)

There are people on this board who have large multiples of the $135 cost of an Eminence HL-10 invested in their systems. For example $400+ would be considered a good deal on the Seismic 8196, Aura 1808 or McCauley 6174 that are used to load Bassmaxx cabinets (I think the list price is about twice that). Another example is the EAW SB1000 available at Music Center for $2,240. Not including labour, my prototype LAB cost me about $1000 complete with Rhino lining, 5 inch wheels and perforated metal grille but there are people who have had material cost them as little as $700. There are people on this board who have more than 8 LABs, heck I remember a guy in New Zealand saying he's planning to build 50! I plan to build four more and here in Jamaica that does not even qualify for entry into the real live sound market where I have seen 16+ SB1000 being used per side. Just think of how you must sound to some of these guys when you call a $135 speaker expensive!

[quote title=BHFProfessional wrote on Tue, 24 May 2005 09:12]
I also wanted to bring those concerns to your attention, after which I promptly had four or five people's feet broken off in my behind. Perhaps I wrote too authoritatively when I should have been phrasing more of the stuff as a question.

Yes, perhaps you did and perhaps you "wrote too authoritatively" some time back when as I remember you saying that "person A" should do this and that and so forth to his design to achieve what you think will be better results meanwhile the "Crusher" remains on the drawing board. "Youth-full Exuberance" is the term that comes to mind.

Tom Danley signs his posts "Tom Danley", Mark Seaton signs
"Mark Seaton, Seaton Sound, Inc., Danley Sound Labs". In the case of Mark, both companies exist and and have some credibility.  You on the other hand cite two imaginary "commercial ventures" which you proudly attach to your signature and then wonder why people stomp on you. Hmmm, are you trying to equate yourself to these gentlemen. It'll take quite a few years and some SOLID ACHIEVEMENTS to earn that kind of respect.

The remarkable thing about the LAB Sub is that the lead designer is somebody with considerable experience who, has made and is likely to continue to make, a good living designing speakers. He has led the design of a product that approaches the performance of his own proprietary design (BT7) and made it available under a licence that protects him from commercial exploitation while allowing DIYers AROUND THE WORLD considerable leeway. Through this project DIYers have a subwoofer that can hold keep up with and even outperform commercially available touring class products that cost more than twice as much. Bill's designs, though quite remarkable in their own right cannot match all these criteria.

There are people reading who have been lurking since the LAB Sub project was originally proposed back on "ye old Live Audio Board" who have only posted a fraction of the amount of times the exuberant Mr. Buszka has. Nonetheless it has been quite interesting although sometimes a tad irritating to read his posts. I suppose most of us have learned something.  Carry on. Oh, and thanks again Tom!
Logged
Searchie in Kingston

Michael_Elliston¶

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 261
    • http://www.geocities.com/xobt
Fuller response
« Reply #57 on: May 28, 2005, 11:19:21 pm »

I found this too,upon buying a jbl2226 with 350w plate amplifier for my small flat,my normal listening levels were lowered due to the 32hz bass extension which was a vast improvement over what was there.

I really dont see a problem with pursuing the bottom octave,or the top octave(that alot of HF horns miss)-but again it comes down to size,cost,transportation costs.

Bottom octave!!
http://www.speakerplans.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1525&a mp;PN=1

http://roborg.freefronthost.com/infra-horn.htm  Laughing
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6]   Go Up
 

Page created in 0.028 seconds with 18 queries.