ProSoundWeb Community

Sound Reinforcement - Forums for Live Sound Professionals - Your Displayed Name Must Be Your Real Full Name To Post In The Live Sound Forums => SR Forum Archives => Product Reviews: Sound Reinforcement FUD Forum Archive => Topic started by: Jeff Knorr - Cobra Sound on August 20, 2009, 09:55:32 am

Title: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Jeff Knorr - Cobra Sound on August 20, 2009, 09:55:32 am
Yesterday I had the pleasure of attending a Danley Sound Lab's products demonstration at Starlite Productions in Cherry Hill, NJ. A thank you goes out to my Lienau AV rep, Chris Hutnick, and Starlite for hosting the event.  Also, it was nice to meet Gus and Arnold from Starlite, Joel from Danley, and Dominic from Lineau AV.

On to the toys!  Below is the group shot of the products that were on hand for the event.  The picture was taken toward the end of the event so it doesn't show the SH95 and SH-mini on top of the SH64 (which is where they were originally auditioned).  Unfortunately, the TH221 and TH812 weren't on the truck and thus weren't able to be heard at the demo.

index.php/fa/24484/0/

My reason for attending the event was to finally put some names to faces and to experience the TH412 subwoofer.  Our basic listening tests were not in the least bit scientific, we just cranked up some tracks and swapped boxes around as we desired.  We also weren't listening in the quietest of environments due to running cooling fans and other background noise.

We started out with the smaller Danley products and worked our way up the line.  The SH-mini sounded very good for its diminutive size.  It's not the loudest or most efficient box out there but it's a great speaker for home, fill, or small reinforcement tasks.  The SH-mini was also paired with the TH-mini sub which definitely helps to round out the package and makes a surprising amount of bass for it's size!

I believe the next box auditioned was the SH95, this has all the nice characteristics of the SH-mini but is more potent due to it's increased efficiency and power handling.  The SH95 also seems to offer some pretty good pattern control due to its Synergy Horn design.  Later in the event we tried the SH95 in a floor monitor configuration--with some audio wood or slightly modified cabinet design, I think we might have a good contender for critical low to moderate SPL monitoring needs.  The SH95 paired up with the TH115 made for a nice full range system that certainly wouldn't take up much truck space.

The SH60 contains the same driver complement as the SH50 but is packaged on a slightly modified cabinet to achieve a 60 by 60 degree pattern.  Run full range or with the TH115, the SH60 is an impressive cabinet.  Again it demonstrated excellent pattern control from the Synergy Horn.

We proceeding on to the SH64 which I think can be a solid one box solution where bass response much below 50 Hz isn't required.  I thought it sounded a touch bright during its audition but it really wouldn't be used in a near field app like we were listening to it and would probably really shine with a touch of EQ.  It also has a considerable amount of horsepower behind the grill and great pattern control from the Synergy Horn.

I believe we kicked on the TH412 around this time and I recall a few smiles appearing in the room.  The TH412 definitely makes some boom and extends deeper than the TH115. The TH412 also was almost able to keep up with the pair of SH46's (we dropped the SH46 level by 3-5 dB) which is pretty darn impressive.  Later in the event we tried the TH412's and SH46's powered by a Powersoft K10DSP amplifier and were even more impressed.  The last few pictures in this thread will show a comparison in the physical size between the TH115 and TH412.  Note that in the front shot the TH115 isn't quite as wide as the TH412 but it appears to be due to it's location in the picture.

I asked Joel about comparisons between the TH412 and TH115, he stated that 1 TH412 can produce more low bass than an array of four TH115's.  Personally, I think that the TH115s would have the definite advantage in the 60-100 Hz range but would love to be proven otherwise.  Unfortunately we didn't do any measurements or more scientific comparisons between the two boxes as this event.

We currently own eight of the SH46 boxes and have been very happy with them so far.  They exhibit great pattern control and pack a heck of an SPL punch for their size and weight. In my opinion they're an excellent option for anyone looking for boxes in the KF-650 class or better.

Feel free to fire over any questions or comments.  Hopefully Chris, Joel, Dominic, or anyone else at the event can chime in with their opinions as well.

Jeff
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Jeff Knorr - Cobra Sound on August 20, 2009, 09:56:15 am
TH412 Full Frontal

index.php/fa/24485/0/
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Jeff Knorr - Cobra Sound on August 20, 2009, 09:57:13 am
A pair of SH46's sitting on top of the TH412's.  This could be our future combo.

index.php/fa/24486/0/
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Jeff Knorr - Cobra Sound on August 20, 2009, 09:58:14 am
Side by side comparison of the TH115 and TH412 subs.

index.php/fa/24487/0/
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Jeff Knorr - Cobra Sound on August 20, 2009, 09:58:46 am
One more TH115/TH412 shot.

index.php/fa/24488/0/
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Rick Powell on August 20, 2009, 10:16:38 am
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.  
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Jeff Knorr - Cobra Sound on August 20, 2009, 10:44:44 am
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.  


Hi Rick,

Yes, the SH69 is supposed to have the same components and sound quality as the SH50 and SH60 but is just loaded on a differently sized horn.  They are just making more coverage pattern options available with the newer models.

Jeff
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Silas Pradetto on August 20, 2009, 10:53:11 am
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...
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Silas Pradetto on August 20, 2009, 10:54:32 am
damn internet!
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Silas Pradetto on August 20, 2009, 10:56:15 am
ahhh another duplicate! damn internet!
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Silas Pradetto on August 20, 2009, 10:58:24 am
really, this isn't me, it's the internet not working...I keep hitting the refresh button because the internet is out at work and it somehow manages to submit the post but it won't load the page...
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Jeff Knorr - Cobra Sound on August 20, 2009, 11:35:38 am
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...


I thought the TH412 was pretty darn impressive.  I would like to hear it in a large space with some other subs to compare it to before making any purchases though.  I am definitely interested in your thoughts of it against the LAB as well.

The TH412 really seemed to wake up when it was powered by one channel of the Powersoft K10 even though we weren't driving it much harder than with the Crest/Danley amp. Make sure that you have adequate power available. Smile

Jeff
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Rick Powell on August 20, 2009, 11:53:25 am
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)
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Silas Pradetto on August 20, 2009, 12:01:13 pm
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)


Personally I'd like to see a really flexible stage monitor and pole mountable speaker, like an SH-LPM that's pole mountable. The SH95 is a bit big and expensive for what I'm looking for.
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Michael Hedden Jr. on August 20, 2009, 12:51:24 pm
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)

Rick,
Thanks for the kind words and noticing we are indeed working on rounding out the line.  More products are on the way that should be very attractive to the folks like you describe and it is still made in the US and not China/Mexico.

Thanks,

Mike Hedden
Danley Sound Labs, Inc.
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Jay Barracato on August 20, 2009, 04:21:14 pm
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.
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Jeff Knorr - Cobra Sound on August 20, 2009, 05:22:27 pm
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.


Hi Jay,

There weren't very high for the demo (just the height of the TH412, ~26" or something like that).  We regularly use scaffolding to get the tops high enough.  We would either continue to do that or stack up more subs until the desired height was obtained.  Our scaffold setup usually puts the tops a touch under 7' off the ground.

Jeff
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Rick Powell on August 20, 2009, 05:25:01 pm
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.

Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Rick Powell on August 20, 2009, 05:31:10 pm
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.




Of course, another TH 412 stacked on top of the bottom one would make a nice pedestal for the SH 46's!
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Jeff Knorr - Cobra Sound on August 20, 2009, 09:11:30 pm
Rick Powell wrote on Thu, 20 August 2009 17:31

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.




Of course, another TH 412 stacked on top of the bottom one would make a nice pedestal for the SH 46's!


I think they need to be higher than that for best results.  The Synergy Horn seems to throw the best if it's entirely above head level.

Jeff
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Michael Hedden Jr. on August 20, 2009, 10:30:46 pm
The Synergy Horn seems to throw the best if it's entirely above head level.

Jeff[/quote]
That principle would apply to any loudspeaker as the are all governed by the inverse square law Smile

Mike Hedden
Danley Sound Labs, Inc.
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Langston Holland on August 21, 2009, 02:45:28 am
Hey Jeff - nice post. :) You also helped force me to go over the data I got with my way too brief time with some of those loudspeakers at my secret testing facility. I had two days available to play with them and one day was rained out - I do this kind of thing outdoors...

Overall I was most impressed with the SH46 and TH Mini. You could add the word "surprised" for impressed. I have never heard a box the size of the SH46 go so loud for its size and weight - and retain most of the Danley sound and all its arrayability. Add to that the fact that the box uses passive crossovers... Amazing. The TH Mini is really fun and would be even more fun if it had the option of a built-in amp given that it's application will often be with self powered tops.

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...

Now, about the TH412 - that thing definitely goes lower than several TH115's and sounds wonderful doing it. I'd need more output from the TH412 to justify it's cost though. The problem here isn't with the TH412, it's how good the humble TH115 really is. (2) TH115's have the same measured output as (1) TH412 and the TH115 covers the LF spectrum perfectly for 95% of the program content I deal with. VLF bang for the buck seems to land squarely in favor of the TH812, which I didn't have but I really want to spend some time with. One of those has about the same output as (4) TH115's while going even lower than the TH412, and in my experience, (4) TH115's a side will cover thousands of folks very nicely.

Green trace is a single TH412, white is a single TH212 and blue is a single TH115:

http://soundscapes-info.com/pub/PSW/TH412_212_115.PNG

My little cost/benefit calculations on "upgrading" from the TH115 (ignores amplification):

http://soundscapes-info.com/pub/PSW/THcompare.png
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Ivan Beaver on August 21, 2009, 07:52:35 am
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.  


Actually it has 6 mids and is arrayable in the 60
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Jeff Knorr - Cobra Sound on August 21, 2009, 09:08:30 am
Hi Langston,

I've been waiting for your review!  Your chart sums it all up nicely.  I have actually been toying with a similar spreadsheet as well.  As you pointed out, it doesn't look like the TH412's offer as much output as I'd like to have in order to justify the switch from the TH115's.  I would love to get even more LF extension but it's mostly for my own enjoyment and unfortunately doesn't have a solid business case behind it.

Jeff "needs some EDM gigs from customers with deep pockets!" Knorr
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on August 21, 2009, 10:02:33 am
As usual nice work.. One missing data point from your comparison chart is bandwidth. In the "no free lunch", physics of well designed boxes, accompanying bandwidth data might make the comparison results more logical.

JR
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Phil Lewandowski on August 21, 2009, 10:36:42 am
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...




Hey Langston,

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?


Thanks Much!
Phil
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Langston Holland on August 21, 2009, 11:04:17 am
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?


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.


Edit: on the "punch" thing, I forgot about some basic physics I learned long ago that is more likely the cause of the TH212's "tighter" or "punchier" sound vs. the TH115's "warmer" sound. When you increase filter Q such as with sharp response peaks or higher order slopes, you get ringing in the sound. That means the sound lasts longer than a smoother, wider bandwidth device would. 1/F = T. Duh. The TH115 has a lovely peak just before its LF cutoff that I've really warmed up to. :) Don Davis used to fuss about the misuse of equalizers and the affect on ringing in the system response... He probably still fusses about this. :)
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Phil Lewandowski on August 21, 2009, 11:09:15 am
Langston Holland wrote on Fri, 21 August 2009 11:04

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?


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.


Thanks Langston!
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Frederik Rosenkjær on August 21, 2009, 12:20:55 pm
I've read this "goofiness" of movement with the TH212 a couple of places, but I'm having trouble figuring out what it is about it that would be troublesome. Can anyone elaborate on this a bit?

I'm very much considering getting a couple of TH212's, and since size is a very big issue for me I'd prefer them to TH115's. Also very much because of their 38 cm height when laying down, which allow them to go under many stages, and I'm an addict of center/mono subs.
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Ivan Beaver on August 21, 2009, 01:25:27 pm
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. Rolling Eyes
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Frederik Rosenkjær on August 21, 2009, 01:53:03 pm
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. Rolling Eyes


I see. Thanks for clarifying, Ivan! (once again Smile)

Sounds like trade-offs I can live with.
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Silas Pradetto on August 21, 2009, 01:58:43 pm
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...


Hmmm, a TH412 just showed up at my shop (thanks Danley). Anything anyone wants me to test in particular?
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Art Welter on August 21, 2009, 02:37:04 pm
Silas Pradetto wrote on Fri, 21 August 2009 11:58

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...


Hmmm, a TH412 just showed up at my shop (thanks Danley). Anything anyone wants me to test in particular?

Amplitude and phase response under the same test conditions as the last test with the Labs and Th-115.

A/B listening tests with adequate AC power..
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Silas Pradetto on August 21, 2009, 07:10:17 pm
Silas Pradetto wrote on Fri, 21 August 2009 13:58

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...


Hmmm, a TH412 just showed up at my shop (thanks Danley). Anything anyone wants me to test in particular?


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...
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Peter Etheredge on August 21, 2009, 07:30:01 pm
Silas Pradetto wrote on Fri, 21 August 2009 18:10

Silas Pradetto wrote on Fri, 21 August 2009 13:58

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...


Hmmm, a TH412 just showed up at my shop (thanks Danley). Anything anyone wants me to test in particular?


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...


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
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Evan Kirkendall on August 21, 2009, 07:43:52 pm
Peter Etheredge wrote on Fri, 21 August 2009 19:30

Silas Pradetto wrote on Fri, 21 August 2009 18:10

Silas Pradetto wrote on Fri, 21 August 2009 13:58

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...


Hmmm, a TH412 just showed up at my shop (thanks Danley). Anything anyone wants me to test in particular?


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...


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



+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
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Silas Pradetto on August 21, 2009, 07:57:41 pm
Evan Kirkendall wrote on Fri, 21 August 2009 19:43

Peter Etheredge wrote on Fri, 21 August 2009 19:30

Silas Pradetto wrote on Fri, 21 August 2009 18:10

Silas Pradetto wrote on Fri, 21 August 2009 13:58

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...


Hmmm, a TH412 just showed up at my shop (thanks Danley). Anything anyone wants me to test in particular?


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...


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



+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



Crossed at 100Hz 24dB/octave to meet nicely with an RS880. I'm pretty sure everyone's heard of out-of-band EQ to smooth stuff out that is still getting through the crossover, which in this case was EXTREMELY audible. Remember it's a 10dB peak at 200Hz over the 80Hz response so it's quite obvious.

More testing to come....
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Ivan Beaver on August 21, 2009, 08:06:05 pm
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.
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Peter Etheredge on August 21, 2009, 08:06:57 pm
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?
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Adrian Genovesio on August 21, 2009, 08:14:45 pm
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?


Yes, I'm using the crossover in the Itech. Don't worry, I'm not stupid Rolling Eyes ; 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 Embarassed
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Silas Pradetto on August 21, 2009, 08:22:04 pm
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.


Ivan, I confirmed that the polarities are all correct. If they weren't I'd be getting no sound at all. Now I'm not saying I'm getting nothing, I just don't seem to be getting the performance I'd expect...for some reason the drivers are bottoming out way early, I do think something is wrong with the setup and I'll be checking it out soon.

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. The sound quality of the TH412 is certainly better than the LABs, mostly in the top end, but the TH412 still doesn't seem to go as loud.

When I used the TH412 on the IT4000 it was reading 2 ohms, but when I used it on the IT8000 the channels measured 7 and 6 ohms. I'd figure that it should be reading 4 ohms, but the Itech load impedance meters are notorious for being off.
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Ivan Beaver on August 21, 2009, 08:33:25 pm
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 Embarassed


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 Embarassed

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.
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Silas Pradetto on August 21, 2009, 08:45:00 pm
Ivan Beaver wrote on Fri, 21 August 2009 20:33

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 Embarassed


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 Embarassed

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.


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.

I've made all sorts of errors before. At a show, one of my guys Plugged an IT8000 into the first four LABs and another IT8000 into the second four labs, but jumped both blocks of four LABs...effectively jumping both amp outputs. I was trying to figure out why the amps were in thermal/clipping without much bass, until I thought of "I didn't patch it, let me check it".

The sound of the woofers bottoming out was extremely loud and obvious, so I can only assume that there was an issue with the setup somewhere. The signal chain was pretty simple; out of my interface into the IT8000, out of the IT8000 with one 4 conductor cable into the sub. Inside the sub I had wired it so that two woofers were on +-1 and two were on +-2.

I'm going to set it back up right now and mess around with it some more.

How does Danley do "peak" power? I'd assume it would be double the "program" rating. 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...
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review-Not quite.
Post by: Ivan Beaver on August 21, 2009, 08:45:15 pm
Silas Pradetto wrote on Fri, 21 August 2009 20:22

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.


Ivan, I confirmed that the polarities are all correct. If they weren't I'd be getting no sound at all. .


Not quite.  If they were out of polarity, you would be getting lots of cancellation, but nowhere near "no" sound.

Try it sometime on some other loudspeakers.  Run a pair and then flip the polarity on one of them.  See if the sound all goes away.

In the electronic domain you will get cancellation if the levels are evenly matched-but not in the physical domain with loudspeakers.  There are still all sorts of "differences" with drivers that are not occupying the same space and are perfectly identical.

Also are you sure that you are driving both sets of drivers?  If you are only driving one set (for some reason) both sets will be moving and not only one set not be helping the other set-they will actually be working against the working set resulting in low sound output and poor quality sound.

A couple of years ago at an Infocomm Danley had a very important client come in to listen to the TH215 before the show opened.  But the TH115 was going much louder and lower than the 215.  I then realized that the cabinet was wired up for 2 8 ohm loads and we were driving it with just a single amp channel-so only 1 driver was working.

We found the problem and quickly rewired it and then the client was much more impressed.  He understood how "things happen".
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Ivan Beaver on August 21, 2009, 09:01:55 pm
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...


As has been discussed here many times-there is no "exact" way to set limiters so you do not have any damage to loudspeakers.

Damage can occur from several different areas.  Mainly Overexcursion and heating (which is both level and time dependant).

The crest factor of the material is a huge part of it.  The peaks of a low crest factor signal will do more damage than peaks of a high crest factor signal-even if the peaks are the same level.  The low crest factor signal is doing more heating of the voice coils.

But for starters, set the peak voltage around 100V.  RMS voltage around 75V.
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Tim McCulloch on August 21, 2009, 09:13:31 pm
Adrian Genovesio wrote on Fri, 21 August 2009 19:14

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?


Yes, I'm using the crossover in the Itech. Don't worry, I'm not stupid Rolling Eyes ; 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 Embarassed

I'll pass.  I'll wait until somebody at Danley figures out that the center of the Audio Universe is much closer to the center of the country. Laughing

Tim Mc
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Ron Kimball on August 21, 2009, 10:39:36 pm
Just looking at the impedance curve published for these big boys I see peaks at 98hz (17.5 ohms), 45hz (10 ohms), and 22hz (11 ohms) with the nominal impedance being 2 ohms. In a "traditional" cab these would be frequencies at which the cone excursion is not well controlled. A 25hz HFP would be right at the frequency at which the impedance is 2x nominal so Danley's Hrecommended HPF at that frequency makes sense. I'll have to assume that the peak at 45hz is magically controlled somehow Wink but I'd sure like to see a published excursion vs frequency chart Smile. The peak at 98hz would worry me a bit as it is by far the larger one, a LPF at 85hz would be right at the 2x nominal impedance point just like the 25hz on the low end so if I was the one messing about with this big guy I'd set my crossover there to prevent any possible over excursion at 98hz. Might also be interesting to raise the HPF above that 45hz peak to 50hz (again 2x nominal impedance) and see what happens. 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 Very Happy?
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Mike Pyle on August 21, 2009, 10:43:50 pm
Silas Pradetto wrote on Fri, 21 August 2009 17:22

Ivan Beaver wrote on Fri, 21 August 2009 20:06

Are you sure you have EVERYTHING wired up for proper polarity?...


...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....



Until I read this post I was going to suggest that it would have been good to try the sub as it arrived, unmodified. You say here that you did that, and it sounded great, yet after you reconfigured it sounded like crap. If I got those results I would strongly suspect that something might be wrong with my setup rather than the product.
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Tim McCulloch on August 21, 2009, 10:47:22 pm
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 Very Happy?


http://www.danleysoundlabs.com/pdf/danley_tapped.pdf

You can also read the patents online.

Have fun, good luck.

Tim Mc
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Ron Kimball on August 21, 2009, 10:59:23 pm
Tim McCulloch wrote:

Ron Kimball wrote:

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 Very Happy?
http://www.danleysoundlabs.com/pdf/danley_tapped.pdf
Thanks! That does seem to show three excursion peaks but as it doesn't show the impedance curves it's unclear if they are coincidental. Again it would be real interesting to see the excursion vs frequency curve of this particular cab Smile. In any case I'd have powered this big guy up with an RMX4050HD and been pretty confident it would run happily for years Smile - but then again I don't have to squeeze the last .1db of SPL out of my stuff for them big jobs yous guys do Laughing. I get to try to blow up a pair PV118's with an RMX2450 again tomorrow night - I'll get them cooked one of these days so's I can load them with some of them He-Man drivers yous guys use Laughing.
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Dave Rickard on August 21, 2009, 11:27:08 pm
Adrian Genovesio wrote on Fri, 21 August 2009 18:14

Don't worry, I'm not stupid Rolling Eyes

(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 Embarassed

Thanks for the chuckle...

Good luck with the mystery, looking forward to your findings.
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Silas Pradetto on August 21, 2009, 11:45:07 pm
We have some new data, and it's good and bad news.

I checked the wiring in the TH412 for shorts and open circuits. Each pair of drivers reads around 4 ohms DC resistance; the drivers are not lose and everything is wired correctly.

We did some tests. First was a 2.83 volt test to see if published sensitivity was correct. The voltage was determined based on my Fluke 334 average reading, and it's not true RMS. At 2.83 volts my radio shack dB meter read exactly 110dB, and this was leaving the crossover from 30 to 100Hz enabled, so it should not read the peaks at 100Hz and up. Doing the same exact 2.83 volt test on a pair of LABs read 113dB or so, meaning the pair of LABs has 3dB higher sensitivity. Also noteworthy is that the LABs are considerably higher impedance (3 ohms for 4 drivers vs 2 ohms for 4 drivers in the TH412) so there is an even greater SPL advantage here.

After checking the SPL at 1 meter, we put the rat shack meter in the mouth of the horn and got 120dB, so there was a 10dB increase over the 1 meter distance.

Next was a full power "at limit" test at 100 volts as mentioned by Ivan. At this reading the meter was only saying 120dB at 1 meter away, which was impossible from a physics standpoint. The 100 volts peak was confirmed by the Fluke which was reading 25 volts average (pink noise has a 6dB crest factor so 25 volts + 6dB = 100 volts).

Moving the SPL meter into the mouth of the horn at limit yielded only 121 or so dB, so my meter is completely wrong and unable to read above 120dB or so.

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. Who knows what the real measurement was.

During testing, the TH412 was undergoing massive excursion and sounded "like it was going to explode" or "bad things are going to happen". Adrian theorized that Danley would not appreciate getting their demo back covered with fire extinguisher foam so we did not do any more full power testing. Worthy of mention is that 100 volts is only 2500 watts at 4 ohms, or 5000 watts into the whole cab, which is less than the rated program power.

During the 100 volt test the LABs sounded perfect and probably could have kept going.

The LABs are a fantastic value for what they are--they are pretty much impossible to beat. The TH412 does sound quite a bit better than LABs, and it does match up to specifications if you consider that my meter is broken. I guess 130+ dBc doesn't sound that loud to me anymore Laughing

Congrats to Danley for coming out with such a loud, great sounding sub.

PS: I recall my TH Mini tests that showed it could reach 120dB also...now that I know my meter is wrong I wonder how loud it really got...

Anyone want to recommend me an SPL meter? I really want one with "no weighting" as an option

Funny pic:
index.php/fa/24527/0/
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Mike Pyle on August 21, 2009, 11:52:57 pm
Did you check that the amplifier polarity is the same at the outputs? That the input is not in bridge mode?
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Silas Pradetto on August 21, 2009, 11:55:37 pm
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?


Absolutely not in bridge. Reversing polarity on one channel effectively gives zero output; it's nearly perfect cancellation. And the same wiring has the LABs sounding like they should so everything's fine.
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Duncan McLennan on August 21, 2009, 11:59:47 pm
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'.
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Jim Duyck on August 22, 2009, 12:02:14 am
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


SMAART???
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Silas Pradetto on August 22, 2009, 12:03:29 am
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'.


Absolutely correct. The TH412 is about 4 inches taller than a single LAB. LABs are 22.5 x 45 x 45 inches, the TH412 is 26.5 x 45 x 45.

You should probably note that I can build a LAB for less than $500, while list price on the TH412 is $7700 Rolling Eyes

Now how many LABs could you build for that much money??
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Silas Pradetto on August 22, 2009, 12:04:34 am
Jim Duyck wrote on Sat, 22 August 2009 00:02

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


SMAART???


I have no way to calibrate my measurement mic, and I assume the calibrator is more $ than a good meter.
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Duncan McLennan on August 22, 2009, 12:06:27 am
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.
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Silas Pradetto on August 22, 2009, 01:12:35 am
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.


I'd rather see a 4 driver vs 4 driver comparison than a 1 cabinet vs 1 cabinet comparison; I think that's more fair.
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Ryan Lantzy on August 22, 2009, 01:59:40 am
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


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.
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Ron Kimball on August 22, 2009, 09:41:53 am
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.

Yes, it is quite possible that your meter is accurate. My understanding is that the SPL stops going up by the expected amount as you get within a small multiple of the radiating diameter (AKA width, height, diagonal). I believe Danley measures at 10 meters precisely because of this?
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Silas Pradetto on August 22, 2009, 09:45:39 am
Ryan Lantzy wrote on Sat, 22 August 2009 01:59

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


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.



I think I'd have to do this outside as the room modes and reflections would probably contribute to bad measurements inside.
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Ron Kimball on August 22, 2009, 09:48:56 am
Silas Pradetto wrote:

I have no way to calibrate my measurement mic, and I assume the calibrator is more $ than a good meter.
There are places you can send your meter or RTA mic to be calibrated. A really good meter is expensive, a calibrated RTA mic isn't too bad. It's not too hard to calibrate a laptop's input so's you can get within a percent or two of true Smile. In practice you're probably more interested in relative vs absolute measurements anyways, no? Smile
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Tom Danley on August 22, 2009, 10:00:12 am
Hi Silas

I am glad the demo th412 arrived, I have a few thoughts.

If your seeing huge excursions at modest powers, there are several things you should check.
First, confirm you are powering all four drivers and not just two.
This certainly would do what you described.

Second, if your powering all the drivers, then raise your high pass corner a bit.

Third, if your still seeing large motions, then try a different amplifier that has no internal processing etc to rule out an amplifier dynamic artifact (such as VLF pumping which can be caused by some forms of compression).  If you have an old style oscilloscope, take a look at your amp voltage and see if it looks proper and un-clipped. If you see any clipping (which if short enough isn’t audible as a “clipping” artifact) work your way up the signal chain to see what stage it is.  Instantaneous clipping in the chain is surprisingly common yet not heard as the familiar “clipped” sound.

Fourth, if you’re using a hand held sound level meter to measure SPL, a word of caution.
Meters like the trusty old Radio shack variety (using the small Panasonic mic element) become non-linear in the low frequency range around 110-115dB SPL.

Lastly, all conventional bass horns, or at least all of the ones I know of, have a drooped off response where the SPL at say 80-100Hz is considerably higher than the level where ever the “knee” is in the lf response.   Because of that, a set of response curves at a fixed level may be more informative than a broad band SPL meter.
Generally speaking, one advantage of the Tapped horn is that for a given box size and low corner, they have a flatter response than a conventional horn.

If you were measure them outside to see the naked system responses at an equal power, then overlay the response of the TH-412 over the Labsub, what you should see is that because of the flatter response of the Tapped horn, that the low end should be significantly stronger than the lab but the high end should be a bit lower as it has less “tilt” in its response.

The issue in a system design or box choice is how important is that low corner or flat response?   Extending the low corner with a given box volume costs you about 9 dB per octave in efficiency, one more way low bass is hard.
Anyway, a few thoughts on a Saturday morning.
Best,
Tom Danley

Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Ron Kimball on August 22, 2009, 10:34:19 am
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.
Laughing Ya know, I think your quest for the ultimate "Hurt Yourself Real Bad" bass would find it's fulfillment in another older Danley design:
http://www.ultimateavmag.com/features/704way/index3.html
    http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140741&p age=2
Four of them = 142dB @ 30Hz with only 1.6kW of power Shocked!
I've seen them for sale used from time-to-time but it's unclear if the company still makes them:
http://www.servodrive.com
If you want a modern design a trailer truck load of TH812's driven off a few racks of Crown BelchFire's might do it for ya Cool.
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Pascal Pincosy on August 22, 2009, 06:16:07 pm
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.


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.
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Berti Jacobs on August 23, 2009, 11:15:38 am
Silas,

+1   I also would like to know how a 1:1 comparison LAB / TH412
turns out  max SPL  low-end  ect. thanks,



Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Frederik Rosenkjær on August 23, 2009, 11:29:47 am
Pascal Pincosy wrote on Sat, 22 August 2009 23:16

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.


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.


Very much looking forward to the reviews. Not least you impressions of the SH46. Make sure the review will be "findable" when you release it! Smile
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Ron Kimball on August 23, 2009, 01:44:06 pm
Pascal Pincosy wrote:

We solved the problem by turning the gain down a bit and raising the HPF from 25Hz to 30Hz.

Slope? Butterworth, Bessel or Linkwitz-Riley?
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Pascal Pincosy on August 23, 2009, 04:55:52 pm
Ron Kimball wrote on Sun, 23 August 2009 10:44

Pascal Pincosy wrote:

We solved the problem by turning the gain down a bit and raising the HPF from 25Hz to 30Hz.

Slope? Butterworth, Bessel or Linkwitz-Riley?

I believe the Danley rep set the crossovers to 18 or 24 Butterworth and we stuck with that.
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Pascal Pincosy on August 23, 2009, 04:58:59 pm
Frederik Rosenkj
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Michael Hedden Jr. on August 23, 2009, 05:10:25 pm
Berti Jacobs wrote on Sun, 23 August 2009 16:15

Silas,

+1   I also would like to know how a 1:1 comparison LAB / TH412
turns out  max SPL  low-end  ect. thanks,





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.  
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Phil Lewandowski on August 23, 2009, 05:34:23 pm
Michael Hedden Jr. wrote on Sun, 23 August 2009 17:10

Berti Jacobs wrote on Sun, 23 August 2009 16:15

Silas,

+1   I also would like to know how a 1:1 comparison LAB / TH412
turns out  max SPL  low-end  ect. thanks,





 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.  


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!  Wink

Thanks!
Phil
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Rick Powell on August 23, 2009, 06:52:14 pm
[quote title=Phil Lewandowski wrote on Sun, 23 August 2009 16:34Mike, 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!  Wink

Thanks!
Phil[/quote]

http://www.danleysoundlabs.com/tapped_horn.asp?MODEL=TH%20MI NI
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Phil Lewandowski on August 23, 2009, 07:37:29 pm
Rick Powell wrote on Sun, 23 August 2009 18:52



 http://www.danleysoundlabs.com/tapped_horn.asp?MODEL=TH%20MI NI

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
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Paul Dershem on August 23, 2009, 11:07:07 pm
Phil Lewandowski wrote on Sun, 23 August 2009 18:37

Rick Powell wrote on Sun, 23 August 2009 18:52



  http://www.danleysoundlabs.com/tapped_horn.asp?MODEL=TH%20MI NI

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


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.  Smile

Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Winston Gamble on August 24, 2009, 01:27:46 am
Paul Dershem wrote on Mon, 24 August 2009 04:07

Phil Lewandowski wrote on Sun, 23 August 2009 18:37

Rick Powell wrote on Sun, 23 August 2009 18:52



   http://www.danleysoundlabs.com/tapped_horn.asp?MODEL=TH%20MI NI

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


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.  Smile




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. Rolling Eyes
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.  
http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k309/lifeloverwg/subwooferlineup.jpg

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
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Tim McCulloch on August 24, 2009, 02:32:17 am
Hi Mike-

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. Smile

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
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Michael Hedden Jr. on August 24, 2009, 08:56:15 am
Tim McCulloch wrote on Mon, 24 August 2009 07:32

Hi Mike-

You need the sub equivalent of "It's a dessert topping/no, it's a floor wax."

Tim Mc


"Shimmer, It's the best shine you've ever tasted!"

Mike Hedden
Old School SNL Fan
Danley Sound Labs, In.c
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Phil Lewandowski on August 24, 2009, 09:53:50 am
Winston Gamble wrote on Mon, 24 August 2009 01:27



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. Rolling Eyes
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


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

Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Ivan Beaver on August 24, 2009, 12:15:40 pm
Michael Hedden Jr. wrote on Mon, 24 August 2009 08:56

Tim McCulloch wrote on Mon, 24 August 2009 07:32

Tim Mc


"Shimmer, It's the best shine you've ever tasted!"

Mike Hedden
Old School SNL Fan
Danley Sound Labs, In.c


I thought the best "shine" was up in the North Carolina mountains. Laughing

Those 'ol hillbillies know how to cook some shine-or so I have heard.
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Ron Kimball on August 24, 2009, 12:53:12 pm
Ivan Beaver wrote:

I thought the best "shine" was up in the North Carolina mountains.
Ain't no shine I ever tasted that tasted "good" Sad. More like reject rocket fuel with a hint o' Drano. Now lab grade ethanol, that's some good stuff. Back in school there was some good ol' boys in the Chem Eng Dpt that would order up an "extra" barrel any time they needed some for the labs - good friends to know and got invited to all the best parties Wink.
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Phil Lewandowski on August 24, 2009, 12:56:33 pm
Michael Hedden Jr. wrote on Mon, 24 August 2009 12:54


What price range would be acceptable? Please, keep it realistic,i.e., non Pacific Rim or DIY hobbyist type pricing.

Mike Hedden
Danley Sound Labs, Inc.


I am thinking in the $1000-2000 range, since the Mini is in the $1200 range.
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Adam Schaible on August 24, 2009, 09:46:39 pm
How come this hasn't been moved to the review section?
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Caleb Dick on August 25, 2009, 05:53:59 pm
Phil Lewandowski wrote on Mon, 24 August 2009 09:56

Michael Hedden Jr. wrote on Mon, 24 August 2009 12:54


What price range would be acceptable? Please, keep it realistic,i.e., non Pacific Rim or DIY hobbyist type pricing.

Mike Hedden
Danley Sound Labs, Inc.


I am thinking in the $1000-2000 range, since the Mini is in the $1200 range.


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
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Phil Lewandowski on August 25, 2009, 08:27:06 pm
Caleb Dick wrote on Tue, 25 August 2009 17:53

Phil Lewandowski wrote on Mon, 24 August 2009 09:56

Michael Hedden Jr. wrote on Mon, 24 August 2009 12:54


What price range would be acceptable? Please, keep it realistic,i.e., non Pacific Rim or DIY hobbyist type pricing.

Mike Hedden
Danley Sound Labs, Inc.


I am thinking in the $1000-2000 range, since the Mini is in the $1200 range.


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


Yeah, wanted to give Danley something to work with, Wink


Phil
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Rory Buszka on August 25, 2009, 11:10:49 pm
From the DIY department, here's a tapped horn design that a friend of mine and I designed and built in April 2008. It's an unconventional design in that it deviates from the typical conical tapped horn by incorporating a 2.2:1 restriction at the mouth that forms an acoustic mass element, effectively shifting the low corner of the horn down to about 45 Hz. This makes it the first (that I'm aware of) in a new class of tapped horn designs: the "Mass-Loaded Tapped Horn". Put simply, a bit of efficiency is sacrificed to achieve a slightly lower corner frequency; the tradeoff is that the more mass is added, the lower the overall efficiency. A very small amount of mass is added in this design, but I've seen promising things from designs where more mass is added.

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.

index.php/fa/24592/0/
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Paul Dershem on August 25, 2009, 11:56:29 pm
Thanks for sharing this.

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?
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Rory Buszka on August 26, 2009, 12:20:02 am
Paul, in our experience the mass-loading actually increases the acoustic impedance at the 'mouth'-end of the waveguide, which causes a wavefront traveling down the horn to be reflected back into the horn again before it can be radiated. Think of it as the wave going back and forth inside the horn until it has picked up enough steam to 'jump out' of the enclosure through the mass element.

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.
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Paul Dershem on August 26, 2009, 01:01:41 am
Thanks for your most thoughtful reply. Very interesting stuff, indeed!    Smile


I found and interesting discussion of group delay here:
http://www.trueaudio.com/post_010.htm
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Phillip_Graham on August 26, 2009, 01:16:33 pm
Rory Buszka wrote on Tue, 25 August 2009 23:10

From the DIY department, here's a tapped horn design that a friend of mine and I designed and built in April 2008. It's an unconventional design in that it deviates from the typical conical tapped horn by incorporating a 2.2:1 restriction at the mouth that forms an acoustic mass element, effectively shifting the low corner of the horn down to about 45 Hz. This makes it the first (that I'm aware of) in a new class of tapped horn designs: the "Mass-Loaded Tapped Horn". Put simply, a bit of efficiency is sacrificed to achieve a slightly lower corner frequency; the tradeoff is that the more mass is added, the lower the overall efficiency. A very small amount of mass is added in this design, but I've seen promising things from designs where more mass is added.

...

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.



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...
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Rory Buszka on August 26, 2009, 06:22:26 pm
Phil, that sounds like an intriguing design, and I'd like to see a schematic just so I can understand the system you're describing. One thing I do want to mention, though, is that even though an acoustic mass element is used in my design, there is very little (if any) helmholtz resonance taking place (the type of resonance where the entire volume of air inside the enclosure comprises the air spring). Instead, the mass element is there to modify the quarter-wavelength resonance of the pipe. As best I understand it now, it's like adding more path length to the waveguide, but more resistance as well. A constriction at the end of the horn, being of negligible length, would behave acoustically like a resistor, and would only serve to increase the resonant character of the horn while decreasing overall SPL response, but a mass element (such as a port with a defined length) has a reactance that shifts the low corner of the horn's response even lower in frequency.

Send me a PM with details of the design, if you'd be so kind.
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Ivan Beaver on August 27, 2009, 06:37:18 am
Paul Dershem wrote on Wed, 26 August 2009 01:01

Thanks for your most thoughtful reply. Very interesting stuff, indeed!    Smile


I found and interesting discussion of group delay here:
http://www.trueaudio.com/post_010.htm


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.
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Phillip_Graham on August 27, 2009, 07:24:11 am
Rory Buszka wrote on Wed, 26 August 2009 18:22

Phil, that sounds like an intriguing design, and I'd like to see a schematic just so I can understand the system you're describing. One thing I do want to mention, though, is that even though an acoustic mass element is used in my design, there is very little (if any) helmholtz resonance taking place (the type of resonance where the entire volume of air inside the enclosure comprises the air spring). Instead, the mass element is there to modify the quarter-wavelength resonance of the pipe.


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.

Quote:


A constriction at the end of the horn, being of negligible length, would behave acoustically like a resistor, and would only serve to increase the resonant character of the horn while decreasing overall SPL response, but a mass element (such as a port with a defined length) has a reactance that shifts the low corner of the horn's response even lower in frequency.


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.
Title: Re: Danley Demo Review
Post by: Silas Pradetto on July 06, 2010, 04:19:01 pm
Pascal Pincosy wrote on Sat, 22 August 2009 18:16

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.


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.


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!