Rick Powell wrote on Thu, 20 August 2009 10:16 |
Did they mention the new SH-69, which is even smaller than the SH 46? 118 lbs, 2-12's, 3-mids and a compression driver, 60 x 90 pattern. |
Silas Pradetto wrote on Thu, 20 August 2009 10:53 |
How rockin' was the TH412? My demo is shipping to me today so I'll be reviewing and comparing to LABs in a few days. Was it ridiculous? Or just really good... |
Rick Powell wrote on Thu, 20 August 2009 11:53 |
I, for one, would like to see a product somewhere in between the SH95 and the SH69...something that has strong spl and fidelity, can be used as a stand alone SOS, and could be hoisted on a stick by 1 person over a sub. Not complaining, tho - their line has really filled out nicely, with something for almost everyone and every app. (except for those on a tight budget like many weekend warriors) |
Rick Powell wrote on Thu, 20 August 2009 16:53 |
I, Not complaining, tho - their line has really filled out nicely, with something for almost everyone and every app. (except for those on a tight budget like many weekend warriors) |
Jay Barracato wrote on Thu, 20 August 2009 16:21 |
How high were the tops when they were stacked on the TH412? It looked to me like you would want to stack on the stage wings or scaffolding instead of ground stack. |
Rick Powell wrote on Thu, 20 August 2009 16:25 |
TH 412 26.5" height SH 46 29" height So the combined stack tops out at 55.5" or 4'-7 1/2" when stacked at ground level. About 3' elevation of the 46's would seem to be in order in a ground stack setting. |
Rick Powell wrote on Thu, 20 August 2009 17:31 | ||
Of course, another TH 412 stacked on top of the bottom one would make a nice pedestal for the SH 46's! |
Rick Powell wrote on Thu, 20 August 2009 10:16 |
Did they mention the new SH-69, which is even smaller than the SH 46? 118 lbs, 2-12's, 3-mids and a compression driver, 60 x 90 pattern. |
Langston Holland wrote on Fri, 21 August 2009 02:45 |
Another thing that truly surprised me was how easy the TH412 was to move around and manage by myself. They did a great job with the caster board design. The position of the drivers in the cabinet weights the thing so that it comes off and back on the caster board very easily for something of that size. The king of easy to move is the TH115, but the TH412 is very nice. The TH212 is goofy to move around, though it's lighter than the TH115 it feels heavier due to the layout. Nice sounding sub, but given that issue and it's price and somewhat steeper amp requirements, I'd stick with the TH115 unless its smaller size was critical for a given application. The 12" driver TH subs have a bit of a different character than the 15" I'm used to. There seems to be a little more detail or something in the 12's, but at the point of overload the 15 seems to maintain its composure better and have a softer and more forgiving sound to it. Sorry for the subjectivity... |
Phil wrote on Fri, 21 August 2009: |
If you had to start again would you still pick the TH-115 over the TH-212 considering everything. You mentioned the TH-212 was a little goofy to move around. What about SQ wise? It has been mentioned that the 212 might be slightly more "punchy"? Also did you get a chance to take actual SPL measurements between the 212 and 115? It seems like they would be really close anyway? |
Langston Holland wrote on Fri, 21 August 2009 11:04 | ||
I'd stick with the TH115 due to cost mainly. Subjectively, if they cost the same I would still lean toward the TH115 due to ease of handling, softer overload characteristics and slightly reduced amp requirements. Though the TH212 is slightly "punchier" sounding (maybe due to the slight emphasis they have at the kick fundamental), there is a bit of warmth that I've become accustomed to with the TH115 that I prefer - but I could go either way on this - they both are amazing compared to the competition that I'm aware of. |
Ivan Beaver wrote on Fri, 21 August 2009 18:25 |
The issues with moving a single TH212 are two fold. A pair sitting on a dolly is easy. First when you go to move it, the handle position is in favor of "vertically challenged" people. Taller people have to lean down a bit. The other reason is that it "doesn't take corners well". This is due to the narrow width (shallow height) that makes it great for sticking under stages and so forth, and the wheels being close together. If you take corners not to carefully they can tend to fall over out of your hands. I agree that the movement/balancing of the TH115 is much better, but the TH212 was trying to keep into a relatively small package that was versital-due to the two possible sound "exits". But the TH1212's are smaller than a TH115 and take up less truck space. In a standard truck you can put 12 of them easily in 3' of truck space and be 6' high. If you you can stack a couple more on top. |
Silas Pradetto wrote on Thu, 20 August 2009 10:53 |
How rockin' was the TH412? My demo is shipping to me today so I'll be reviewing and comparing to LABs in a few days. Was it ridiculous? Or just really good... |
Silas Pradetto wrote on Fri, 21 August 2009 11:58 | ||
Hmmm, a TH412 just showed up at my shop (thanks Danley). Anything anyone wants me to test in particular? |
Silas Pradetto wrote on Fri, 21 August 2009 13:58 | ||
Hmmm, a TH412 just showed up at my shop (thanks Danley). Anything anyone wants me to test in particular? |
Silas Pradetto wrote on Fri, 21 August 2009 18:10 | ||||
First impressions of the TH412 vs LAB: Unfortunately, a pair of LABs with half the power kills the TH412 by a solid 3+ dB. The TH412 really needs that 200Hz bump EQ'd out or it's really obvious and "boinky". The TH412 came wired for 2 ohms, I rewired it for 2 x 4 ohms and hooked it up to an IT8000. This time I'm on a dedicated 30 amp 240 volt circuit with 60 feet of 10 gauge cord running from the main service entrance to the amp rack. Far before I even reach the rated RMS power (2x 1400 watts at 4 ohms) it sounds like the woofers are going to explode/bottom out. I was running the recommended 25Hz high pass at first but I raised it to 30Hz and it didn't really help. I can't even pass -10dB on the IT8000 before the woofers sound BAD. I'm looking into what the problem could be... |
Peter Etheredge wrote on Fri, 21 August 2009 19:30 | ||||||
It doesn't need a 200Hz bump evened out because I cannot think of any case in which one would run their subs up that high. -peter |
Evan Kirkendall wrote on Fri, 21 August 2009 19:43 | ||||||||
+1! Where the hell are you running them up to Silas? I'd probably throw a 24dB LR filter at 85hz on those things! Evan |
Peter Etheredge wrote on Fri, 21 August 2009 20:06 |
What are you using as a crossover? Is it the one in the iTech? If so I think there was just a thread where a guy had either an IT or XTi that was passing a whole range of stuff that it wasn't supposed to; perhaps that's the case here? |
Ivan Beaver wrote on Fri, 21 August 2009 20:06 |
Are you sure you have EVERYTHING wired up for proper polarity? Inside the cabinet-the 4 cond wire itself (connectors)-polarity setting inside the amp and so forth. Turn off one channel and listen. Now turn on the other. Does it get louder? If not, then there is a polarity issue somewhere. So put a eq cut at 200Hz if you want. No big deal. |
Adrian Genovesio wrote on Fri, 21 August 2009 20:14 |
Why does everyone doubt my findings? Fly over to my shop and you can see for yourself. Edit: just realized I'm using the computer that Adrian was logged into...let me switch over to my office computer for the next post |
Ivan Beaver wrote on Fri, 21 August 2009 20:33 | ||
I wasn't doubting what you were hearing. But it just seems like something is wrong-somewhere. If I said I had never miswired something, or had weird things happen that always turned out to be the gear-then I would be lying. I can't count the times I have made bonehead errors that made gear look bad-but turns out it was my fault in something I had done-wiring-settings etc. OOPS Heck, at the NY subshootout-with all the sound guys there, on the second day when we went to "play" with the subs, we pounded away at what we "thought" was a pair of TH115's. Untill one started to smoke. During the troubleshooting phase that followed-it turned out that only ONE was getting signal. I don't remember what the problem ended up being-routing or cabling. It happens to all of us. If it hasn't happened to you, you haven't done it long enough. I was just suggesting a logical path of troubleshooting to follow. When something doesn't seem right-then try to find what might be wrong. The second step of troubelshooting is that if something is not sounding right, don't keep on pounding on it-thinking it will get better. Slow down a bit. |
Silas Pradetto wrote on Fri, 21 August 2009 20:22 | ||
Ivan, I confirmed that the polarities are all correct. If they weren't I'd be getting no sound at all. . |
Silas Pradetto wrote on Fri, 21 August 2009 20:45 |
Are there any voltage specs for the woofers so I can dial things in exactly? Like I said before I had the RMS power limiters set at 1400 watts @ 4 ohms but I never saw them limit... |
Adrian Genovesio wrote on Fri, 21 August 2009 19:14 | ||
Yes, I'm using the crossover in the Itech. Don't worry, I'm not stupid ; I'm pretty sure the I-techs that I use at every gig are working correctly. Why does everyone doubt my findings? Fly over to my shop and you can see for yourself. Edit: just realized I'm using the computer that Adrian was logged into...let me switch over to my office computer for the next post |
Silas Pradetto wrote on Fri, 21 August 2009 17:22 | ||
...I tried the TH412 wired stock as 2 ohms on one channel of an IT4000 at first, which is only 1800 watts, and it took that power no issues right up to clip and sounded great.... |
Ron Kimball wrote on Fri, 21 August 2009 21:39 |
But then again the actual physics of Danley tapped horn subs is a trade secret last I knew so my trying to relate them to "normal" cabs might be a waste of time ? |
Tim McCulloch wrote: | ||
|
Adrian Genovesio wrote on Fri, 21 August 2009 18:14 |
Don't worry, I'm not stupid (snip) Edit: just realized I'm using the computer that Adrian was logged into...let me switch over to my office computer for the next post |
Mike Pyle wrote on Fri, 21 August 2009 23:52 |
Did you check that the amplifier polarity is the same at the outputs? That the input is not in bridge mode? |
Silas Pradetto wrote on Fri, 21 August 2009 22:45 |
Anyone want to recommend me an SPL meter? I really want one with "no weighting" as an option |
Duncan McLennan wrote on Fri, 21 August 2009 23:59 |
Silas, how large is the 412 compared to a LAB sub? It seems two LABs will outrun the 412, however aren't two of them quite a bit larger than a single 412? Just sayin'. |
Jim Duyck wrote on Sat, 22 August 2009 00:02 | ||
SMAART??? |
Duncan McLennan wrote on Sat, 22 August 2009 00:06 |
A hell of a lot of them! However for the sake of fairness of comparison (not necessarily monetary value), especially when dealing with a horn loaded design, a 1:1 comparison would probably be more fair. I still think LABs are the best bargain bottom end on the planet if you have the space to move them around, and a good shop in which to build them. |
Silas Pradetto wrote on Fri, 21 August 2009 23:45 |
Anyone want to recommend me an SPL meter? I really want one with "no weighting" as an option |
Ryan Lantzy wrote: |
Believe it or not it's actually a bad idea to measure horn loaded subs near the mouth. They radiate over a MUCH larger area than front loaded subs. Typically the sound intensity (power per square inch) is lower, but there are are more inches to be radiated over, so in the far field they win. |
Ryan Lantzy wrote on Sat, 22 August 2009 01:59 | ||
Do you measurements at 10 meters and add about 20dB. Believe it or not it's actually a bad idea to measure horn loaded subs near the mouth. They radiate over a MUCH larger area than front loaded subs. Typically the sound intensity (power per square inch) is lower, but there are are more inches to be radiated over, so in the far field they win. |
Silas Pradetto wrote: |
I have no way to calibrate my measurement mic, and I assume the calibrator is more $ than a good meter. |
Silas Pradetto wrote: |
Doing the same "at limit" test with the pair of LABs yielded 122dB on the meter, but Adrian told me to shut it off because he was going to be sick. |
Silas Pradetto wrote on Fri, 21 August 2009 17:45 |
I was more pointing out the ridiculousness of the crossover accusations. Like I wouldn't notice if I was sending full range to the sub? I definitely ran pink first full range, and let me tell you, the wash coming off the back of those woofers is LOUD. |
Pascal Pincosy wrote on Sat, 22 August 2009 23:16 | ||
FWIW I recently demo-ed the TH-412 (I'll have a review of it and the TH-46 posted soon) and I ran into exactly the same problem. With the TH-412 getting 2 X 2500 watts, at full power the drivers sounded like they were going to come apart and the racket coming out of the cabinet was quite loud. We solved the problem by turning the gain down a bit and raising the HPF from 25Hz to 30Hz. |
Pascal Pincosy wrote: |
We solved the problem by turning the gain down a bit and raising the HPF from 25Hz to 30Hz. |
Ron Kimball wrote on Sun, 23 August 2009 10:44 | ||
Slope? Butterworth, Bessel or Linkwitz-Riley? |
Frederik Rosenkj
Post by: Michael Hedden Jr. on August 23, 2009, 05:10:25 PM
I will encourage Tom to chime in on this as he would be the definitive authority on the subject but low freq extension wise, Danley Sound Labs has at least five commercial subs with significantly more low frequency extension than the Lab sub (TH115, TH215, TH812, TH412, TH221). I recently did a side by side comparison of an SH46/TH412 system next to a very highly regarded system comprised of two different subs in addition to the tops. The TH412 had +20dB difference from 40Hz and below and it of course was easy to hear on almost any track. Perhaps we at Danley have enough subs that are truly infra and should turn our guns on products with ridiculous output but only going down into the 45Hz range. Mike Hedden Danley Sound Labs, Inc. Post by: Phil Lewandowski on August 23, 2009, 05:34:23 PM
Mike, I would actually be interested in a product such as that. Like a flat to 40-45hz but very, very efficient in that 45-100hz range, but then of course the harder part to do that all in a managable size for a weekend warrior! Thanks! Phil Post by: Rick Powell on August 23, 2009, 06:52:14 PM Thanks! Phil[/quote] http://www.danleysoundlabs.com/tapped_horn.asp?MODEL=TH%20MI NI Post by: Phil Lewandowski on August 23, 2009, 07:37:29 PM
Hey Rick, That gets close but I demo'ed the TH-Mini's and Growlers next to each other and the slight low-end extension advantage that the Growlers had was apparent. So I am thinking something in between a TH-115 and TH-Mini. That might be too small of a gap for them to consider but maybe not. Phil Post by: Paul Dershem on August 23, 2009, 11:07:07 PM
Reasonably flat and efficient from ~100 Hz down to 40 or 45Hz, sized between the TH-115 and the TH-mini, and competitively priced, would excite a lot of small bands, like mine, that gig with their own PA. I don't have space for LAB subs or double-eighteens, and we're playing live music at levels that make small club owners happy - disco volume and uber-deep throbbing bass aren't even on our radar. After reading numerous threads and visiting the web sites of several retailers and manufacturers, this niche market seems somewhat underserved. A powered TH-mini or Growler with a built-in crossover would be just the kind of off-the-shelf solution I'm looking for - especially if were touted by the ranks of grizzled SR professionals as the real deal. Post by: Winston Gamble on August 24, 2009, 01:27:46 AM
I've never heard the Growler, but I've also never had anybody complain about any missing 5hz of low end from our TH-Mini's. Sure, it's probably apparent to a bunch of sound nerds if you have the two next to each other. I'm sure all of us would notice the difference in response between the two if we could listen to them both at the same time. But for live rock and blues, most bar patrons probably wouldn't notice the difference even if you pointed it out. Although they would nod and make agreeable noises. Obviously the Growler is a quality product as is evident from all the positive feedback it receives here. However, I don't understand why it's always being compared to the TH-Mini. It's not that much smaller than a standard single 18" sub so if size is a major concern there just isn't much comparison between the two what with the Mini being about 40% smaller. Sure, I like extended low frequency response as much as the next guy, but I don't have the pack space and we really don't need it. Winston Post by: Tim McCulloch on August 24, 2009, 02:32:17 AM You need the sub equivalent of "It's a dessert topping/no, it's a floor wax." I think subwoofer buyers come in 3 basic flavors: 1) the bad-ass kick drum crowd/live rock, pop, country; 2) extended LF for dance, SFX, certain genres of live and 3) people who need BOTH attributes and can juggle the size, price and performance criteria to find a product. Type 3 buyers probably aren't in this forum. The Type 1 buyer would gladly sacrifice the bottom 1/3 ocatave of the TH115 if it means one or more of smaller, cheaper, higher long term output could be achieved. Extra points if it's a useful size ratio for PA stacking and easy transport. The response can drop like a stone at 40hz and nobody will cry. Besides, Danley has some nice infra stuff to go with it if they become at Type 2 buyer. The open question is what exact new product(s) would be profitable for DSL to service this market if it chose to. What trade offs will this market accept? Will buyers actually then purchase that feature set or remain fixated on a lesser product for less money? My new Digital Crystal Ball Post by: Michael Hedden Jr. on August 24, 2009, 08:56:15 AM
"Shimmer, It's the best shine you've ever tasted!" Mike Hedden Old School SNL Fan Danley Sound Labs, In.c Post by: Phil Lewandowski on August 24, 2009, 09:53:50 AM
Hey Winston, All very valid points! I think the reason the TH-Mini and Growler are compared so much is because they are the most well known *horn* loaded (Meaning non-direct radiator subs) that have a smaller footprint. The TH-Mini is a very good amount smaller than the Growler and I think that the briefcase size is very, very important to many people, like yourself. I think if you heard them side by side you would agree about the sound, but that is ok, because there has to be some sort of trade-offs for such a small size. It came down for me that I didn't need such of a small size that the Mini offered and I really like the extra extension that the Growler offered, which makes sense that it wasn't just 5hz, but more like it was slightly more efficient in the 35-50hz region and was noticeable. Again, this doesn't make one product necessarily better than the other. So I would curious in something maybe Growler sized or just a tad bigger in Tapped horn form and see what kind of performance you could get from that, that would be a step up from the Mini, but not quite to a TH-115. (And a powered and processed version at Tim Mc. mentioned could be quite popular too!) Take Care! Phil Post by: Ivan Beaver on August 24, 2009, 12:15:40 PM
I thought the best "shine" was up in the North Carolina mountains. Those 'ol hillbillies know how to cook some shine-or so I have heard. Post by: Ron Kimball on August 24, 2009, 12:53:12 PM
Post by: Phil Lewandowski on August 24, 2009, 12:56:33 PM
I am thinking in the $1000-2000 range, since the Mini is in the $1200 range. Post by: Adam Schaible on August 24, 2009, 09:46:39 PM Post by: Caleb Dick on August 25, 2009, 05:53:59 PM
That's a big price gap. I like both the 115 and Mini a lot, for their respective uses. The TH-115 is an awesome sub, and a great value IMO; there would have to be something to make a next-step-down model attractive. A slightly larger, powered, 15" Mini very competitively priced, that drops off below 45hz? Caleb Post by: Phil Lewandowski on August 25, 2009, 08:27:06 PM
Yeah, wanted to give Danley something to work with, Phil Post by: Rory Buszka on August 25, 2009, 11:10:49 PM Since this first prototype was built, a second driver has been added. It's seen quite a bit of use in bars, where its small footprint makes it easy to tuck away, and I've never heard a disagreeable sound out of it. The only measurements we have so far are fairly crude, and were simply used to verify the LF corner frequency of the design. I only submit it as an example of what's possible when bottomless LF extension isn't the goal. It more than keeps up with the pair of vintage EAW tops that it gets used with, and is usually driven with 600 watts or so. The working title for the design is the "Hornet". Jerry McNutt of Eminence is using a 40Hz version designed for the HL-10 and is pleased with it; development of the ML-TH concept is ongoing. Post by: Paul Dershem on August 25, 2009, 11:56:29 PM Stupid question: Does the added mass mean an amplifier can stop the cone's motion more effectively (but less efficiently), reducing unwanted cone resonance in the process? Does this cabinet sound, for lack of better words, "tighter," or "quicker?" Seems like the added mass might effect back-EMF; does it? Post by: Rory Buszka on August 26, 2009, 12:20:02 AM The increase in acoustic impedance at the mouth of the waveguide increases group delay, which tends to increase the subjective 'resonant' character of the waveguide over a tapped horn which is not mass-loaded. The more mass that is added, the higher the spike in group delay at the corner frequency appears to be. Also, demands on cone excursion are slightly increased, but not greatly. This happens when the quarter-wave resonant mode gets shifted down below the driver's own resonant frequency. There is still no free lunch, but the mass-loaded tapped horns built so far have still exhibited a subjectively less 'boxy' sound than competitive bass-reflex designs. As with just about any design it's possible to 'overdo' it (in this case, by adding too much mass). I don't mean to hijack the thread - I just wanted to submit an example of a tapped horn design with a form factor that's very well suited to portable use, with an LF response characteristic that's very close to what was being discussed in the last few posts. Post by: Paul Dershem on August 26, 2009, 01:01:41 AM I found and interesting discussion of group delay here: http://www.trueaudio.com/post_010.htm Post by: Phillip_Graham on August 26, 2009, 01:16:33 PM
Rory, Since we are discussing such designs, I should mention that Art Welter and I cooked up something related to your design, but that is not a tapped horn. I was inspired by the design of a class of optically "pumped" "q-switched" laser resonator cavities. Art took to calling it the "Resopump." There is a mouth reactance, and also a precisely-placed secondary reactance. The coupled reactances are "pumped" by the driver, which has one side exposed to the open air. Art went and put flesh on my theoretical bones, and tweaked the mouth cross sectional area for best performance. Externally the design looks like a standard vented box with a slot port, but the measured response is similar to a bandpass enclosure. I also started with the HL10C as the preferred transducer transducer, with its high BL and high FS. I'm not sure its a viable commercial product, but the model behavior was accurately reflected by the as-built device. Another way to skin the bass cat... Post by: Rory Buszka on August 26, 2009, 06:22:26 PM Send me a PM with details of the design, if you'd be so kind. Post by: Ivan Beaver on August 27, 2009, 06:37:18 AM
I didn't read very far into that discussion, but I saw nowhere at the beginning where they were discussing GROUP delay. I say discussions about plain old regular signal (time) delay. Very different animals. I think they are confusing the two terms. Maybe later on it turns into Group delay-I don't know. Post by: Phillip_Graham on August 27, 2009, 07:24:11 AM
I'm not describing a Helmholtz case either, though you now have me wonder if the laser guys consider population inversion in the cavity to like Helmholtz resonance... I like, like you, are modifying the acoustic impedance at the pipe end.
I think that a constriction at the flare end still has an effect on the distributed reactance of the flare, and therefore will still exhibit a similar effect. Post by: Silas Pradetto on July 06, 2010, 04:19:01 PM
I know I'm bumping an old thread here, but it was never concluded properly and an unassuming reader might conclude that the TH412 is a piece of crap. Since Adrian started the real review with the most impossibly searchable, misspelled title possible, I'll link everyone to the review of the real TH412. Here is the TH412 review using the updated woofers: http://srforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/m/480312/14303 The original TH412 design used neo woofers which made a bad "cracking" sound due to some air compression problem in the voice coil area. Nothing to do with the cabinet design itself. Thanks! |