ProSoundWeb Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Down

Author Topic: LAB vs Tuba32... weight vs cost  (Read 6992 times)

Antone Atmarama Bajor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 851
    • http://www.geocities.com/somesoundgreat
Re: LAB vs Tuba32... weight vs cost
« Reply #20 on: March 12, 2006, 06:52:35 pm »

89.44VRMS = 1000W @ 8 Ohms

88 is close ~1%.   Very Happy

Antone-
Logged

Chris Coleman 2

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 33
Re: LAB vs Tuba32... weight vs cost
« Reply #21 on: March 12, 2006, 06:58:28 pm »

Ivan: yeah it said under a half millisecond of latency in the speakerpower dsp, which should make no difference to the sound but you can compensate for it with an external processor by delaying the tops. Don't they have an easy interface for adjusting the dsp programming ?? I guess Behringer is better than them, then!  Laughing
Logged

Mac Kerr

  • SR Forums
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10223
Re: LAB vs Tuba32... weight vs cost
« Reply #22 on: March 12, 2006, 07:10:21 pm »

Chris Coleman 2 wrote on Sun, 12 March 2006 18:58

Ivan: yeah it said under a half millisecond of latency in the speakerpower dsp, which should make no difference to the sound but you can compensate for it with an external processor by delaying the tops. Don't they have an easy interface for adjusting the dsp programming ?? I guess Behringer is better than them, then!  Laughing

Could you post a link to where it said less than .5ms of latency? It seems highly unlikely that you could do an analog to digital conversion, run it through the DSP, and then do a digital to analog conversion in less than .5ms. It might be less than .5ms through the DSP, but I think the 2 conversions are going to be more than that.

Mac
Logged

Chris Coleman 2

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 33
Re: LAB vs Tuba32... weight vs cost
« Reply #23 on: March 12, 2006, 07:20:15 pm »

Sure Mac, the link for the latency spec is here:

http://speakerpower.net/Specifications%20SP.pdf

"460 microseconds"

I guess it's a nice high sample rate converter !

Logged

Mac Kerr

  • SR Forums
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10223
Ivan, any idea?
« Reply #24 on: March 12, 2006, 07:36:37 pm »

So Ivan, you've actually used these things, and you're usually on top of specs that don't meet spec, do you have any idea how they get the latency down to 460
Logged

Craig Leerman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1389
    • http://www.techworksvegas.com
Re: LAB vs Tuba32... weight vs cost
« Reply #25 on: March 12, 2006, 07:37:35 pm »

Quote:

  Craig: do you think an active tuba would be more of a hot item than an active lab ?  


Depends on what your definition of a "hot item" is.

First, I'm not sure there is a small enough  size amp unit with large enough power available to convert a LAB.  And if there was, I don't think there is a large market segment of those who use Labs (or other large concert sized subs) that would switch from the racks of amps and cabling that they already own and use, to built in amps. So, for the Lab sub, I don't think built in amps are going to be a hot item.

As for the Tubas, it may be a better fit.  Bill's designs require less power, and there are a bunch of available small amps that could be built into his cabinets.  In fact, there is a guy on his forums that turned his small monitors into self powered units!

For a guy lugging stuff into a club or other small venue, self powered cabinets have a lot to offer. They don't add that much weight to a cabinet, but cut out a lot of weight from an amp rack.  In addition, they eliminate having to find a place for the amp rack on a small stage, and in a small truck or trailer.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of self powered cabinets.  The only benefit I like about them is the fact that a good manufacturer can install amps and electronics perfectly matched to the cabinets drivers, and get the most out of the box. But, today, with cheap DSP X/Over units like the Driverack stuff readily available, and some signal testing gear (like PC based Smaart) most folks can get the same level of quality out of any box and amplifier combo.  

My main dislikes are the fact that you have to run BOTH Signal and Power to each cabinet, and if the amp dies in a cabinet, that entire cabinet is now out of service.  In a standard unpowered speaker/seperate amplifier setup, you can always jump around a dead component (like and amp channel) or substitute a spare amp.

My other dislike is that unless you are starting out, you already have a big investment in amplifiers, racks, speaker cables, etc that are now obsolete if you buy powered cabinets.  But, if I stay with unpowered cabs, I can always upgrade cabinets and keep my amps, cables, etc  OR I can upgrade amps without having to buy new cabinets!  More flexible to me.
Logged
I'm so old, when I was doing FOH for Tommy Dorsey, to balance out the horn section I would slide their chairs downstage and upstage to mix!


Mark Seaton

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 142
Re: Ivan, any idea?
« Reply #26 on: March 12, 2006, 07:48:16 pm »

Mac Kerr wrote on Sun, 12 March 2006 18:36

So Ivan, you've actually used these things, and you're usually on top of specs that don't meet spec, do you have any idea how they get the latency down to 460
Logged
Mark Seaton
Seaton Sound, Inc.
"Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood..." - Daniel H. Burnham

Ivan Beaver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9010
Re: Ivan, any idea?
« Reply #27 on: March 12, 2006, 07:56:21 pm »

I have no idea and have not actually measured it Embarassed .  The only cabinets that I have been using them (so far) is in home theatre subs.  I will ask Brian about it and find out.  I am swamped untill NSCA, so I will talk to him there.
Logged
For every complicated question-there is a simple- easy to understand WRONG answer.

Can I have some more talent in the monitors--PLEASE?

Ivan Beaver
dB Audio & Video Inc.
Danley Sound Labs

Mac Kerr

  • SR Forums
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10223
Re: Ivan, any idea?
« Reply #28 on: March 12, 2006, 08:06:23 pm »

Ivan Beaver wrote on Sun, 12 March 2006 19:56

I have no idea and have not actually measured it Embarassed .  The only cabinets that I have been using them (so far) is in home theatre subs.  I will ask Brian about it and find out.  I am swamped untill NSCA, so I will talk to him there.
Thanks, I know that Optocore specifies 69 samples for the analog to digital to analog conversion process. This is 720
Logged

Chris Coleman 2

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 33
Re: LAB vs Tuba32... weight vs cost
« Reply #29 on: March 12, 2006, 08:37:11 pm »

Antone Atmarama Bajor wrote on Sun, 12 March 2006 18:52

89.44VRMS = 1000W @ 8 Ohms

88 is close ~1%.   Very Happy



Antone: Good point.. so 1000w makes about 11% more voltage than 800w.

Is excursion linearly related to voltage.. or to the square root or log of voltage ??
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Up
 

Page created in 0.046 seconds with 20 queries.