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 => LAB Subwoofer Forum => Topic started by: Brandon Wright on June 23, 2014, 05:46:50 pm

Title: BC218
Post by: Brandon Wright on June 23, 2014, 05:46:50 pm
Ok Ivan, spill the beans.

I was patiently waiting for a press release about the BC218. But, after you guys put up videos for the other products today, I'm succumbing to my impulsivity.   8)

So, how does the BC218 compare to say the dbh218lc that seems to have disappeared. Is this the reason the dbh218lc faded away? From the picture you posted it looks to be physically larger and intended to be used with a minimum of two boxes based on the mouth. Still using the 18sw115? Here is your chance to lay on the marketing spiel.
Title: Re: BC218
Post by: Caleb Dueck on June 23, 2014, 09:21:05 pm
Ok Ivan, spill the beans.

I was patiently waiting for a press release about the BC218. But, after you guys put up videos for the other products today, I'm succumbing to my impulsivity.   8)

So, how does the BC218 compare to say the dbh218lc that seems to have disappeared. Is this the reason the dbh218lc faded away? From the picture you posted it looks to be physically larger and intended to be used with a minimum of two boxes based on the mouth. Still using the 18sw115? Here is your chance to lay on the marketing spiel.
I doubt they have had a chance to AB these with DBH subs yet. 

These do make the LC variant subs obsolete, or nearly so.  If someone want to buy a pair of BC218s and ship them here, I'll AB with a pair of LC's. 

The LC subs are great in blocks of 8+.  I don't know how they compare SPL/dollar to the BC subs.

Last I heard Ivan did some preliminary measurements only on the BC subs, lack of time.

After Ivan has had time to measure them-  I'll bombard him with questions!

Caleb

Typed on a virtual keyboard. 

Title: Re: BC218
Post by: David Sturzenbecher on June 23, 2014, 09:38:11 pm
I doubt they have had a chance to AB these with DBH subs yet. 

These do make the LC variant subs obsolete, or nearly so.  If someone want to buy a pair of BC218s and ship them here, I'll AB with a pair of LC's. 

The LC subs are great in blocks of 8+.  I don't know how they compare SPL/dollar to the BC subs.

Last I heard Ivan did some preliminary measurements only on the BC subs, lack of time.

After Ivan has had time to measure them-  I'll bombard him with questions!

Caleb

Typed on a virtual keyboard.

I would love to hear these in a real room or outdoors...you know...a situation where everything doesn't rattle and you can actually tell something about what you are listening to.
Title: Re: BC218
Post by: Art Welter on June 24, 2014, 12:36:01 am
These do make the LC variant subs obsolete, or nearly so.  If someone want to buy a pair of BC218s and ship them here, I'll AB with a pair of LC's.   
Caleb,

The BC-218 appears to be the same horn layout as the DBH 218 LC, other than the rounded, rather than trapezoidal exit shape, which allows a pair of cabinets to be used either in the 60 inch deep configuration or the 22.5 inch deep 120" wide "BC" (Boundary Control) mode without having to remove the optional front or side panel used on the DBH 218 LC.

If a single BC-218 was stood up 60" tall, it would probably have the same response as the DBH 218LC using the horn exit configuration on the 45" x 60" side. With no dual cabinet measurements of either cabinet posted thus far (I don't recall any spec sheets for the DBH 218LC), I won't guess which would be better, but I'd bet removing the panel on the 45" x 22.5" end of  your DBH 218LC cabinets would result in a very similar response to the BC-218, though it appears the bracing in the BC-218 may be designed for the dual configuration a bit better than the DBH 218LC.

It appears very little wood work would be required to convert the DBH 218LC to the BC-218 should you decide to expand on your inventory of DBH 218LC.

Art
Title: Re: BC218
Post by: Ivan Beaver on June 24, 2014, 08:02:26 am
OK here's the deal.

The BC218 was finished and we got to play with it for about 30 minutes before it had to go on the truck to Vegas.  It is on the truck on its way back now.

A quick measurement (lots of bad conditions) shows the -3dB somewhere around 24Hz.  DO NOT hold me to that-I have to do real measurements to get real data first.

We don't know what the sensitivity is-but should be somewhere around the BC415.

Attached are some renderings of the various configurations that it could be used in.

There are 2 exits-and as long as one of them is closed off-it will work.

A block of 4 with the "eye" in the middle would provide a lot of forward directivity without having to use cancellation methods to get control.

We have A LOT of things going on right now and will get data/measurements as soon as we can.

The BC218 is a larger cabinet than the DBH218LC in a couple of dimensions and uses a different loading arrangement.

The DBH218LC is still around and depending on the intended application-it is still a viable option.

There is a "price" to be paid when you go low.  You lose output capability and the size has to get larger.

Not everybody needs to go low-but for those that do-it gets hard and this should be an answer.

Real measurements will show the results.

So be patient.

Everybody wants everything right now-but it takes time.

Most of the products we showed at the show were finished a day before we loaded the truck and were not heard by anybody but me before we setup at the show.  So we may (or may not) have a little "tweaking" to do before they are ready for sale.

The crossovers in the SBH cabinets (except the SBH10) and the Studio 60s all had prototype crossovers-so I need to get the actual boards designed and built before regular production.  This all takes time.
Title: Re: BC218
Post by: Art Welter on June 24, 2014, 12:13:21 pm
We don't know what the sensitivity is-but should be somewhere around the BC415.

Attached are some renderings of the various configurations that it could be used in.

There are 2 exits-and as long as one of them is closed off-it will work.

A block of 4 with the "eye" in the middle would provide a lot of forward directivity without having to use cancellation methods to get control.

The BC218 is a larger cabinet than the DBH218LC in a couple of dimensions and uses a different loading arrangement.
Ivan,

Thanks for posting the renderings, it appears the BC218 is 60" x 60" x 30", over 27 cubic feet larger than the DBH218LC, that's a whole lotta shakin' goin' on :^). 

1) There appears to be a 30" x 60" exit, and a semicircle ("eye") exit on the 60" x 60" side-  what do you mean by "There are 2 exits-and as long as one of them is closed off-it will work" ?

2) Wouldn't there be two "eyes" (one over the other) in the middle of a block of four with the 60" x 60" sides facing forward ?

3) Is the center cabinet with two "eyes" in the triple vertical stack going to be offered as a variant ?

Art
Title: Re: BC218
Post by: Brandon Wright on June 24, 2014, 12:38:11 pm
Based on their previous naming scheme, I would assume whatever it is is an 18. But, the 30" dimension is a bit suspect.

In the renderings, when two are stacked deep (60x60x60 cube) the mouth is considerably larger that when they are in the shallow configeration (120x60x30). I would have to ASSume that this would have an effect on the output/extension?
Title: Re: BC218
Post by: Ivan Beaver on June 24, 2014, 03:21:18 pm
Ivan,

Thanks for posting the renderings, it appears the BC218 is 60" x 60" x 30", over 27 cubic feet larger than the DBH218LC, that's a whole lotta shakin' goin' on :^). 

1) There appears to be a 30" x 60" exit, and a semicircle ("eye") exit on the 60" x 60" side-  what do you mean by "There are 2 exits-and as long as one of them is closed off-it will work" ?

2) Wouldn't there be two "eyes" (one over the other) in the middle of a block of four with the 60" x 60" sides facing forward ?

3) Is the center cabinet with two "eyes" in the triple vertical stack going to be offered as a variant ?

Art
One exit is a "half eye" that is located on the 60x60 side.

The other exit is a square exit that is located on the 60x30 side.

If both exits are "open" as if it were flown as a single cabinet in free space-the the exit area would be to large for the horn.

If they are facing each other (as with the "eye" configuration (120x60") towards the audience, or stacked (60x60 facing the audience) there is no need to block off the exit as it is part of the "rest of the horn" for the other cabinet.

The "triple stack" actually has a separate cabinet that has an open side (60x30) and a "half eye" on the top and bottom.

This is done strickely for looks and you could put as many as you want in the middle.

But you could also just stack pairs of cabinets so the 'special" one is not needed and there should no noticable difference in performance

Title: Re: BC218
Post by: Art Welter on June 24, 2014, 04:43:44 pm
The "triple stack" actually has a separate cabinet that has an open side (60x30) and a "half eye" on the top and bottom.

This is done strickely for looks and you could put as many as you want in the middle.
Is DSL planning to sell the BC218 with no grill covers ?
If so, will there be internal garbage and pest screens further inside to protect the drivers?
Title: Re: BC218
Post by: Ivan Beaver on June 24, 2014, 05:29:14 pm
Is DSL planning to sell the BC218 with no grill covers ?
If so, will there be internal garbage and pest screens further inside to protect the drivers?
We are looking into putting grills further back inside the cabinet-so as to not "block the view".

Again-this is the prototype-and we don't have measurements yet-so we are not sure if we need to make any other changes.

Trust me-I know what can happen when garbage gets inside horns-I used to have the Servodrive SDL-5's-and spent a lot of money getting them fixed due to "garbage in the horn".
Title: Re: BC218
Post by: Thad Kraus on June 25, 2014, 09:24:17 pm
Studio 60's? Perhaps I missed any press info on these.  Can you elaborate?



OK here's the deal.

The BC218 was finished and we got to play with it for about 30 minutes before it had to go on the truck to Vegas.  It is on the truck on its way back now.

A quick measurement (lots of bad conditions) shows the -3dB somewhere around 24Hz.  DO NOT hold me to that-I have to do real measurements to get real data first.

We don't know what the sensitivity is-but should be somewhere around the BC415.

Attached are some renderings of the various configurations that it could be used in.

There are 2 exits-and as long as one of them is closed off-it will work.

A block of 4 with the "eye" in the middle would provide a lot of forward directivity without having to use cancellation methods to get control.

We have A LOT of things going on right now and will get data/measurements as soon as we can.

The BC218 is a larger cabinet than the DBH218LC in a couple of dimensions and uses a different loading arrangement.

The DBH218LC is still around and depending on the intended application-it is still a viable option.

There is a "price" to be paid when you go low.  You lose output capability and the size has to get larger.

Not everybody needs to go low-but for those that do-it gets hard and this should be an answer.

Real measurements will show the results.

So be patient.

Everybody wants everything right now-but it takes time.

Most of the products we showed at the show were finished a day before we loaded the truck and were not heard by anybody but me before we setup at the show.  So we may (or may not) have a little "tweaking" to do before they are ready for sale.

The crossovers in the SBH cabinets (except the SBH10) and the Studio 60s all had prototype crossovers-so I need to get the actual boards designed and built before regular production.  This all takes time.
Title: Re: BC218
Post by: Cailen Waddell on June 25, 2014, 09:28:27 pm

Studio 60's? Perhaps I missed any press info on these.  Can you elaborate?

Yes please elaborate....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: BC218
Post by: Ivan Beaver on June 26, 2014, 07:44:40 am
Studio 60's? Perhaps I missed any press info on these.  Can you elaborate?
The "studio 60s" were more of a "proof of concept" than an actual product-so to speak.

The idea was to try to get flat phase response across 3 pass bands-and Tom did it with almost 0 phase shift from 100hz-10Khz with a PASSIVE crossover.  So just 1 amp channel per cabinet and no digital "artifacts".

We don't know what the upper response is-since we can only measure to 24Khz and it was only a dB or so down at that point.

People in the demo room could not believe that we were not playing a sub during the demo of these boxes.

We will be taking the concept (and what we learned) and making a real product.

The one that was demoed was basically a SM60F that was modified a good bit (different woofers-ports sealed-different crossover etc)

We will need to make a different mold for the real product-we will use a different woofer scheme and the cabinet shape will change.

Tom is proud of what he achieved-but the product that was shown is simply a lot of work-and by redoing a few things we can reduce that work load a HUGE amount and get a better performing product than what was at the show.

So be patient----------
Title: Re: BC218
Post by: radulescu_paul_mircea on August 23, 2015, 05:59:26 am
So, time has passed. We all have been patient. Now it is time to tell us more,if you are kind, about how this sub works, measures and sounds. I have seen pictures with 4 of them on Facebook. How they would compare with 4*th812.? Also, I saw that people are using the bc415 but this one,not so many

Thanks,
Paul

People aren't rational. We're not thinking machines, we're - we're feeling machines that happen to think. Peter Watts

Title: BC218
Post by: David Sturzenbecher on August 23, 2015, 08:55:06 am
4? Why not more?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: BC218
Post by: radulescu_paul_mircea on August 23, 2015, 09:03:34 am
4? Why not more?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Oh,man!!!! That is some serious trouble you have there ;)

Pleas,tell more... Where is that? What amps you use? Why so many 0.o

People aren't rational. We're not thinking machines, we're - we're feeling machines that happen to think. Peter Watts

Title: Re: BC218
Post by: radulescu_paul_mircea on August 23, 2015, 09:04:29 am
Do you have more pictures?

People aren't rational. We're not thinking machines, we're - we're feeling machines that happen to think. Peter Watts

Title: Re: BC218
Post by: Ivan Beaver on August 23, 2015, 10:10:14 am
Oh,man!!!! That is some serious trouble you have there ;)

Pleas,tell more... Where is that? What amps you use? Why so many 0.o

People aren't rational. We're not thinking machines, we're - we're feeling machines that happen to think. Peter Watts
This is in an open Air football stadium

How many double 18 subs would you use for seats of 700'ish away and a crowd of a bit under 100k people?
Title: Re: BC218
Post by: radulescu_paul_mircea on August 23, 2015, 10:52:50 am
Yes, I would have guessed it is a stadium. I have heard a pair of 415 and there is nowhere i could think you could have a permanent installation with 8... Or is it 16? :D
the thing is at Michigan state you used two stacks of three 812, and i was wondering about comparing them. I will do it on paper and on Direct,but in real life you can describe better the sensations.
I've been to an U2 concert last year and for 75k people they had around 400 speakers. They had sick SPL but the sound quality was not that good and very inconsistent. I really love the work you are doing at DSL, I admire you sincerity and I am learning all I can about your products. In the near future I will use them in a club if everything goes as planed (it never realy does..)

With respect,
Paul

People aren't rational. We're not thinking machines, we're - we're feeling machines that happen to think. Peter Watts

Title: Re: BC218
Post by: radulescu_paul_mircea on August 23, 2015, 11:10:58 am
This weekend it is a fest in the town and they played some reggae, d&b,rock and other things. (Argatu-Morphina is an example). For bass they used 2 stacks of 3*3 118 subs with another stac of 8*218,all on the center of the stage for a space of 175' by 450' and around 5-8 k people. The same inconsistent poor quality sound, with no content under 30hz. The only place the bass was even and deep was in front of them (but there I would puke because of SPL) and 60-85 meters away. I would realy like to measure the site but I don't have a good mic now. I was courious how many subs from danley (and wich ones) could replace and best those. I am thinking that 6 415 would be better

People aren't rational. We're not thinking machines, we're - we're feeling machines that happen to think. Peter Watts

Title: Re: BC218
Post by: David Sturzenbecher on August 23, 2015, 11:18:46 am
Oh,man!!!! That is some serious trouble you have there ;)

Pleas,tell more... Where is that? What amps you use? Why so many 0.o

People aren't rational. We're not thinking machines, we're - we're feeling machines that happen to think. Peter Watts

Some details:  This is in an american college football stadium.  Each 218 is powered by two bridged Crown iTechHD 5000's (one per driver).   The need for so many really didn't have as much to do with output as it did to gain pattern control.   The box itself provides good front to back rejection, and the tall stack allows for a bit of vertical collapse, and some steering.   Not having crazy (disproportionate) SPL's  directly underneath these was a big motivation in box count.

Due to scheduling and the limitations of my lectrosoinics wireless test rig, I really haven't had too much time to dig into the raw performance of it.  The one thing I have noticed at this point is when the boxes are really pushed, the impedance of the drivers (as seen via amplifier monitoring) seems to rise a little quicker then other boxes I have worked with.

Oh, and it resonates testing centers on the other side of campus. 
Title: Re: BC218
Post by: radulescu_paul_mircea on August 23, 2015, 11:54:45 am
So, do you have 2 of these stacks? And what you are using for the rest of the range?
 Those drivers have 1700 watts each RMS AES and the bridged crown has 5000. The impedance rise could be because the voicecoil is heating and ,being  a flh,with a small closed chamber in the back of the driver, the heat has nowhere to go so it builds up. Take care and set the RMS limiting to an appropiate value,or you risk to burn the voice coil. The peak limit sould be off to still have good dynamics,this way you will keep that efortless sound.

People aren't rational. We're not thinking machines, we're - we're feeling machines that happen to think. Peter Watts

Title: Re: BC218
Post by: Keith Broughton on August 23, 2015, 12:53:41 pm
Having heard these things out back of DSL location I can say that terms like "epic"..."mind blowing" and "life altering" are not out of place!
I am consulting on a rig that a local supplier is buying and am desparately trying to get him away from the RCF 2x21 subs and into these.
The front to rear rejection ratio is VERY surprising. They act like horns...imagine that  ;D
Title: Re: BC218
Post by: radulescu_paul_mircea on August 23, 2015, 01:09:02 pm
I heard 6 RCF 221's at an rock and pop concert and they weren't so bad. They are smaller than bc218's and the drivers from them are good and reliable. I have a friend who ownes 2 pairs in a near city and he is very happy with them.I haven't heard the bc218s, but i bet they would beat the c**p out of those rcf. At least,they will sound better and lower cu ft by cu ft.

People aren't rational. We're not thinking machines, we're - we're feeling machines that happen to think. Peter Watts

Title: Re: BC218
Post by: radulescu_paul_mircea on August 23, 2015, 01:19:30 pm
I am also a consultant here (I have just started for a year or so on pro products;until now only in home hi-fi)  and the main problem is getting the credibility I need. It is very hard to get the guy that has the money to understand that if he read three brochures and learn some technical terms like SPL and Frequency responce, it doesn't make him expert in acoustics. He hired me to tell him what to do,and then he tells me what to tell him :)) Sometimes litle information is worse than no information. We have two choices: either we educate them or we don't.

People aren't rational. We're not thinking machines, we're - we're feeling machines that happen to think. Peter Watts

Title: Re: BC218
Post by: David Sturzenbecher on August 23, 2015, 01:32:06 pm
So, do you have 2 of these stacks? And what you are using for the rest of the range?
 Those drivers have 1700 watts each RMS AES and the bridged crown has 5000. The impedance rise could be because the voicecoil is heating and ,being  a flh,with a small closed chamber in the back of the driver, the heat has nowhere to go so it builds up. Take care and set the RMS limiting to an appropiate value,or you risk to burn the voice coil. The peak limit sould be off to still have good dynamics,this way you will keep that efortless sound.

People aren't rational. We're not thinking machines, we're - we're feeling machines that happen to think. Peter Watts

No, I do not have two of these stacks.   That would just cause lobing in the horizontal which I have no need for.   I chose the 5000HD's so that I can get enough "peak room".   Peak, RMS, and Thermal Limiters are set accordingly.
Title: Re: BC218
Post by: radulescu_paul_mircea on August 23, 2015, 01:44:05 pm
Ok, so no need to worry about that impedance increase. What about the main speakers?
Thanks for the info so far. I will wait for more pictures if you have 

People aren't rational. We're not thinking machines, we're - we're feeling machines that happen to think. Peter Watts

Title: Re: BC218
Post by: radulescu_paul_mircea on August 23, 2015, 02:08:52 pm
I've followed the work af DSL and I am always blown away by the fact that using 8 sub and a small number of speakers they can cover an entire stadium. On another stadium,from miami,they used 517!!!!!!! Eaw mk,qx and mqx. 0.o

People aren't rational. We're not thinking machines, we're - we're feeling machines that happen to think. Peter Watts

Title: Re: BC218
Post by: Ivan Beaver on August 23, 2015, 04:31:23 pm
I've followed the work af DSL and I am always blown away by the fact that using 8 sub and a small number of speakers they can cover an entire stadium. On another stadium,from miami,they used 517!!!!!!! Eaw mk,qx and mqx. 0.o

People aren't rational. We're not thinking machines, we're - we're feeling machines that happen to think. Peter Watts
I am doing an alignment later this week at a college football stadium near Miami

The system is a single j1 for the mains with 2 sh 46 and I think 2  os80s for fills

It is either 1 or 2 subs bc415 or bc 218 I am not sure which
Title: Re: BC218
Post by: radulescu_paul_mircea on August 23, 2015, 05:28:44 pm
Et the event i was describin earlier they replaced the 118 synco subs and they put a total of 24 L'Acoustics sb218 in front of stage.the sound was much better than previous days. Using a bruel&kjaer hand held measurment tool, set to dBA fast peak mesurements,I've measured 114-118 dB at 45 meters FOH. Taking into acount directivity increase, gain, sensitivity and each sub getting 2400 W, what sould I use fro DSL.? Would two J1 and 4 bc218 be enough?

People aren't rational. We're not thinking machines, we're - we're feeling machines that happen to think. Peter Watts
Title: Re: BC218
Post by: Ivan Beaver on August 23, 2015, 07:46:08 pm
So, time has passed. We all have been patient. Now it is time to tell us more,if you are kind, about how this sub works, measures and sounds. I have seen pictures with 4 of them on Facebook. How they would compare with 4*th812.? Also, I saw that people are using the bc415 but this one,not so many

Thanks,
Paul

People aren't rational. We're not thinking machines, we're - we're feeling machines that happen to think. Peter Watts
I have not had computer internet all day-so here is a better reply.

When comparing the "Danley Big Boy" subs, here is my "take".

The TH812 wins in terms of overall smoothness/accuracy.

The BC415 wins in terms of "punch and fun".

The BC218 wins in terms of low freq fun and has a better "sound" than the BC415.  But you realize it unless you hear them side by side.

THe BC218 wins in terms of rear rejection and "pattern control".

The BC218 winds in terms of flexibility.  There are several ways you can configure it-which affect the freq response and pattern control.

It is not a matter of what is "better", but better for a particular application.

Here are some videos of the BC218 and BC415 in action.

As usual-use headphones to get the most accurate sound.  These are just the raw unprocessed recording from the recorder-a hand held zoom.

This is a field party that used 2 BC218 and 2 SM80s.  You can get more information from the comments/posts
https://www.facebook.com/ivan.beaver/videos/vb.100000581642030/1070611356301576/?type=2&theater

This is at a local HS football field for a event we did for the Atlanta Falcons a couple of weeks ago-we used 2 BC415 for this event.  The system was on "idle" when this was recorded.

We actually had the guy in charge tell us (when we turned it up a bit) and were playing some of the standard "football players rap"- You can't run that much bass during the event-you need to turn it down.  And this was from a guy that loves rap and football-Oh well---------
https://www.facebook.com/DanleySoundLabs/videos/vb.126113687424773/874671725902295/?type=2&theater
Title: Re: BC218
Post by: Ivan Beaver on August 23, 2015, 07:57:08 pm
Et the event i was describin earlier they replaced the 118 synco subs and they put a total of 24 L'Acoustics sb218 in front of stage.the sound was much better than previous days. Using a bruel&kjaer hand held measurment tool, set to dBA fast peak mesurements,I've measured 114-118 dB at 45 meters FOH. Taking into acount directivity increase, gain, sensitivity and each sub getting 2400 W, what sould I use fro DSL.? Would two J1 and 4 bc218 be enough?

People aren't rational. We're not thinking machines, we're - we're feeling machines that happen to think. Peter Watts
A measurements don't give any idea of how loud the subs were. 

Without any real data or comparisons, it is hard to say how many cabinets are equal to how many other cabinets.

You also have to consider the freq of interest.

At 50Hz it may be a particular ratio, but at 25Hz, that ratio is often QUITE different.

Is that important? It depends on how low you need to go.

But a "wild guess" would be that 4 BC218s would be equal to around 24-32 normal quality 2x18 subs.

Except down at 25 and 30Hz, in which it will take more normal subs to equal the output.

Yes your "mileage" may vary-but is a start.

Regarding the full range cabinets, How loud it really is depends on the integration time of the meter.

You said "fast peak".  A pair of J1s should produce that level (or more)-at that distance as measured by a peak reading meter.

A more "normal SPL meter" (Like a "standard Radio shack"), will show 10dB (give or take) less than that-due to the response time of the meter.

"Fast" on those meter is nowhere nearly as fast as true peak reading meter.  B&K makes real stuff-so I would take those numbers as pretty real.
Title: Re: BC218
Post by: radulescu_paul_mircea on August 24, 2015, 02:37:20 am
I have not had computer internet all day-so here is a better reply.

When comparing the "Danley Big Boy" subs, here is my "take".

The TH812 wins in terms of overall smoothness/accuracy.

The BC415 wins in terms of "punch and fun".

The BC218 wins in terms of low freq fun and has a better "sound" than the BC415.  But you realize it unless you hear them side by side.

THe BC218 wins in terms of rear rejection and "pattern control".

The BC218 winds in terms of flexibility.  There are several ways you can configure it-which affect the freq response and pattern control.

It is not a matter of what is "better", but better for a particular application.

Here are some videos of the BC218 and BC415 in action.

As usual-use headphones to get the most accurate sound.  These are just the raw unprocessed recording from the recorder-a hand held zoom.

This is a field party that used 2 BC218 and 2 SM80s.  You can get more information from the comments/posts
https://www.facebook.com/ivan.beaver/videos/vb.100000581642030/1070611356301576/?type=2&theater

This is at a local HS football field for a event we did for the Atlanta Falcons a couple of weeks ago-we used 2 BC415 for this event.  The system was on "idle" when this was recorded.

We actually had the guy in charge tell us (when we turned it up a bit) and were playing some of the standard "football players rap"- You can't run that much bass during the event-you need to turn it down.  And this was from a guy that loves rap and football-Oh well---------
https://www.facebook.com/DanleySoundLabs/videos/vb.126113687424773/874671725902295/?type=2&theater
Again,thank you for your your answer. I have seen the videos, but it is fun to watch them again.

People aren't rational. We're not thinking machines, we're - we're feeling machines that happen to think. Peter Watts

Title: Re: BC218
Post by: radulescu_paul_mircea on August 24, 2015, 03:01:20 am
A measurements don't give any idea of how loud the subs were. 

Without any real data or comparisons, it is hard to say how many cabinets are equal to how many other cabinets.

You also have to consider the freq of interest.

At 50Hz it may be a particular ratio, but at 25Hz, that ratio is often QUITE different.

Is that important? It depends on how low you need to go.

But a "wild guess" would be that 4 BC218s would be equal to around 24-32 normal quality 2x18 subs.

Except down at 25 and 30Hz, in which it will take more normal subs to equal the output.

Yes your "mileage" may vary-but is a start.

Regarding the full range cabinets, How loud it really is depends on the integration time of the meter.

You said "fast peak".  A pair of J1s should produce that level (or more)-at that distance as measured by a peak reading meter.

A more "normal SPL meter" (Like a "standard Radio shack"), will show 10dB (give or take) less than that-due to the response time of the meter.

"Fast" on those meter is nowhere nearly as fast as true peak reading meter.  B&K makes real stuff-so I would take those numbers as pretty real.
Yes, my friend works at environment protection, so that B&K is the real dealer. And $$$. As far as the subs number and quality, I know there are many variables and ,as you always say, "it depends". But is sometimes is good to have a calculated guess from someone with that much experience. Also,when I will present these speakers to the "money guys", it is good for me to know my oppinion is backed up by others from this forum. We have a dealer here in Romania, but he doesn't have any speakers for demo, so I can't show my clients real products, just numbers, pictures examples from around the world and so forth.
Now another question: what can you tell me about the th221? There is not much talk on the web and I never heard about a setup. I would want to use them in a local cinema in the future, the specs looks good (and yous are real), and 4 in a 45/27/9 meters room would be enough.
 And another question: why not use the IPal drivers and modules in your (active) products? You could get around 3 db for a double 18 or 21 and could get a bit lower response (from my simulations)

Regards,
Paul

People aren't rational. We're not thinking machines, we're - we're feeling machines that happen to think. Peter Watts

Title: Re: BC218
Post by: radulescu_paul_mircea on August 24, 2015, 03:49:02 am
Another curiosity that I have is about the jerichos.
So, from what I see,  the j1 has the bass drivers FLH, with very high output, but the mid-high a little lower. On paper it seems it has the same bass output as 2 bc415.
The j2 is TH on the bass so it will go lower, but less sensitive and has a higher output on mid-hi compared to j1.  On paper, it has the same bass output as one bc218, but from 6 18 inch drivers..
The Caleb seems to me to have the low end of 2 j1 and mid-high end of 2 j2. Until what freq down low, the Caleb keeps it's 40 /15 pattern?

People aren't rational. We're not thinking machines, we're - we're feeling machines that happen to think. Peter Watts

Title: Re: BC218
Post by: Keith Broughton on August 24, 2015, 06:57:49 am
Ivan, when you say 4 cabinets do you mean 4 of the single boxes (2x18) or 4 "sets" of paired cabinets?
Title: Re: BC218
Post by: radulescu_paul_mircea on August 24, 2015, 07:56:31 am
It could be. If you have 16 double 18 vented subs,  like electrovoice, they are 96 db efficient. They will gain around 12 db in eff and around 15 from power increase. They have around 3000watts and around 133 db continous. So all in all they will have around 138-140 db at 10 meters

People aren't rational. We're not thinking machines, we're - we're feeling machines that happen to think. Peter Watts

Title: Re: BC218
Post by: radulescu_paul_mircea on August 24, 2015, 10:08:00 am
bc-218 has around 145 db i used like David use them. They will gain around 4 db in efficiency , 6 db from power increase and around 4 db from directivity. So at 10 meters they will be at around 139 db. But the low end will be at around 24 hz with -3 db. And at 68 hz it will be at 145 db max Damn!!

People aren't rational. We're not thinking machines, we're - we're feeling machines that happen to think. Peter Watts
Title: Re: BC218
Post by: Ivan Beaver on August 25, 2015, 07:43:17 am

Now another question: what can you tell me about the th221? There is not much talk on the web and I never heard about a setup. I would want to use them in a local cinema in the future, the specs looks good (and yous are real), and 4 in a 45/27/9 meters room would be enough.
 And another question: why not use the IPal drivers and modules in your (active) products? You could get around 3 db for a double 18 or 21 and could get a bit lower response (from my simulations)


The TH221 was designed (like it name-the cinimonster) to a high output sub that gets you solid down to 20Hz -without room gain.

With room gain-it is even more.

It does not have as much output as some of our other large subs, but it goes lower.

With bass extension you HAVE to trade something.

It is being used in a number of high end theaters.

The IPAL is an interesting driver.  Just because it "appears" to be better, does not mean it will actually WORK better.

In some designs it might, but Tom has modeled it several times and the big advantage of the IPAL (motor strength) is actually to much for our horn designs. 

So we can actually get better performance with a "weaker" driver-at a lower cost.

So once again-it is not what is "better", but what is "better for a specific usage".

We do this in a number of our designs.  Sometimes the "lessor" driver ends up working better.

That is the reason you model-measure etc, and don't just "stick popular drivers" in cabinets.

It is all about how the different parts of the overall cabinet work together.  Not only the drivers themselves, but also the cabinet, crossover etc.
Title: Re: BC218
Post by: Ivan Beaver on August 25, 2015, 07:51:25 am
Another curiosity that I have is about the jerichos.
So, from what I see,  the j1 has the bass drivers FLH, with very high output, but the mid-high a little lower. On paper it seems it has the same bass output as 2 bc415.
The j2 is TH on the bass so it will go lower, but less sensitive and has a higher output on mid-hi compared to j1.  On paper, it has the same bass output as one bc218, but from 6 18 inch drivers..
The Caleb seems to me to have the low end of 2 j1 and mid-high end of 2 j2. Until what freq down low, the Caleb keeps it's 40 /15 pattern?


This is what happens when you compare the "simple numbers".

You HAVE to look at not just the SPL numbers but ALSO the freq response.

Yes the J1 has a HUGE amount of bass output (one of my favorite cabinets), but it does not go as low the BC415.

Depending on styles of music, you could need 4 or more BC415/BC218s to "keep up" with J1.  On other styles it is more like 2:1.

Yes the Caleb (J5) has 12x 18" woofers, but it is VERY different than the J1 in several ways.

Because we were not interested in the Caleb going real low, we used lighter weight (than the J1 or BC218) 18" woofers, that gave us more output where we really needed it.

Also they are loaded on a much shorter horn than the J1.

The idea for the J1 was to have a single full range cabinet that could be used for most normal types of music without a sub.

The Caleb would probably always be used with subs in a larger situation-so it did not need to go as low.

Off hand I don't know low low the Caleb maintains its pattern control-but we (not me) have done the measurements and will be getting the data into our DIRECT modeling program soon.

But due to the large mouth, it is much lower than other 40* cabinets.
Title: Re: BC218
Post by: Ivan Beaver on August 25, 2015, 07:54:41 am
Ivan, when you say 4 cabinets do you mean 4 of the single boxes (2x18) or 4 "sets" of paired cabinets?
I was talking about 4 single cabinets.

The design of the BC218 was to be used with a "mating cabinet"-but can be used by itself.

So 2 cabinets is more than "twice one"-if that makes any sense.

It is "looking for" the loading of the second cabinet to get full performance.

But they work very well in singles, just better in doubles.
Title: Re: BC218
Post by: Ivan Beaver on August 25, 2015, 07:59:18 am
It could be. If you have 16 double 18 vented subs,  like electrovoice, they are 96 db efficient. They will gain around 12 db in eff and around 15 from power increase. They have around 3000watts and around 133 db continous. So all in all they will have around 138-140 db at 10 meters

People aren't rational. We're not thinking machines, we're - we're feeling machines that happen to think. Peter Watts
You HAVE to look at more than just a simple SPL number.

You HAVE to consider the freq at which that SPL number was being referenced to.

Most subs have nowhere near flat response, so the SPL number (continuous or peak) could be at any freq.

Looking at the calibrated UNPROCESSED freq response (processed hides much of the useful information) gives a MUCH better idea of what is really going on.

Some companies are very good with their specs, and some are VERY deceiving with their specs-even with the TOP manufacturers.

You HAVE to make sure you are comparing the same things.
Title: Re: BC218
Post by: radulescu_paul_mircea on August 25, 2015, 08:33:59 am
I was talking about 4 single cabinets.

The design of the BC218 was to be used with a "mating cabinet"-but can be used by itself.

So 2 cabinets is more than "twice one"-if that makes any sense.

It is "looking for" the loading of the second cabinet to get full performance.

But they work very well in singles, just better in doubles.
So the measurements from the specs sheet are made using a single or using a pair and then put the specs from only one?

People aren't rational. We're not thinking machines, we're - we're feeling machines that happen to think. Peter Watts

Title: Re: BC218
Post by: radulescu_paul_mircea on August 25, 2015, 08:37:04 am
You HAVE to look at more than just a simple SPL number.

You HAVE to consider the freq at which that SPL number was being referenced to.

Most subs have nowhere near flat response, so the SPL number (continuous or peak) could be at any freq.

Looking at the calibrated UNPROCESSED freq response (processed hides much of the useful information) gives a MUCH better idea of what is really going on.

Some companies are very good with their specs, and some are VERY deceiving with their specs-even with the TOP manufacturers.

You HAVE to make sure you are comparing the same things.
I was refering to EV because I've measured them with a calibrated mic two years ago, and they were at an average of 113 db at 10 meters with 20% distortion at 37 hz

People aren't rational. We're not thinking machines, we're - we're feeling machines that happen to think. Peter Watts

Title: Re: BC218
Post by: radulescu_paul_mircea on August 25, 2015, 09:13:44 am
This is what happens when you compare the "simple numbers".

You HAVE to look at not just the SPL numbers but ALSO the freq response.

Yes the J1 has a HUGE amount of bass output (one of my favorite cabinets), but it does not go as low the BC415.

Depending on styles of music, you could need 4 or more BC415/BC218s to "keep up" with J1.  On other styles it is more like 2:1.

Yes the Caleb (J5) has 12x 18" woofers, but it is VERY different than the J1 in several ways.

Because we were not interested in the Caleb going real low, we used lighter weight (than the J1 or BC218) 18" woofers, that gave us more output where we really needed it.

Also they are loaded on a much shorter horn than the J1.

The idea for the J1 was to have a single full range cabinet that could be used for most normal types of music without a sub.

The Caleb would probably always be used with subs in a larger situation-so it did not need to go as low.

Off hand I don't know low low the Caleb maintains its pattern control-but we (not me) have done the measurements and will be getting the data into our DIRECT modeling program soon.

But due to the large mouth, it is much lower than other 40* cabinets.
Ha!
Whenever I think at J1 and J5 i feel like a child looking at a stack of candy :))
Can't wait to work with this products!!
Thanks for the answers

People aren't rational. We're not thinking machines, we're - we're feeling machines that happen to think. Peter Watts

Title: Re: BC218
Post by: radulescu_paul_mircea on August 25, 2015, 09:16:28 am
No, I do not have two of these stacks.   That would just cause lobing in the horizontal which I have no need for.   I chose the 5000HD's so that I can get enough "peak room".   Peak, RMS, and Thermal Limiters are set accordingly.
So, now back to you ,sir.
I was waiting for you to tell us what mains are you using...

People aren't rational. We're not thinking machines, we're - we're feeling machines that happen to think. Peter Watts

Title: Re: BC218
Post by: radulescu_paul_mircea on August 25, 2015, 09:38:22 am
The TH221 was designed (like it name-the cinimonster) to a high output sub that gets you solid down to 20Hz -without room gain.

With room gain-it is even more.

It does not have as much output as some of our other large subs, but it goes lower.

With bass extension you HAVE to trade something.

It is being used in a number of high end theaters.

The IPAL is an interesting driver.  Just because it "appears" to be better, does not mean it will actually WORK better.

In some designs it might, but Tom has modeled it several times and the big advantage of the IPAL (motor strength) is actually to much for our horn designs. 

So we can actually get better performance with a "weaker" driver-at a lower cost.

So once again-it is not what is "better", but what is "better for a specific usage".

We do this in a number of our designs.  Sometimes the "lessor" driver ends up working better.

That is the reason you model-measure etc, and don't just "stick popular drivers" in cabinets.

It is all about how the different parts of the overall cabinet work together.  Not only the drivers themselves, but also the cabinet, crossover etc.
Yes,indeed you are building real subwoofers fo a real market and it is no need to overkill where it is with no use.
As I was talking on another forum about the posibility of using the M-force driver in your designs, people had given me good arguments on "why NOT to use them"
That driver (and also the I-Pal ) need specific tweaks and designs to work properly, they are (very) expensive and they could be used only in places where cost is no object. Like the Tingpen rotary.
Yes,it would be fascinating to just see what is possible. You could use 20 of them, in 10 VERY VERY large horns and try to sim a real tornado or a rocket, but otherwise, I don't know.
 What is your oppinion on that type of driver and tech.?
For me, powersoft, pkn and speakerPower represents in amp world the same as DSL in speaker world. Except DSL are trying to make a revolution,not evolution ;)

People aren't rational. We're not thinking machines, we're - we're feeling machines that happen to think. Peter Watts

Title: Re: BC218
Post by: David Sturzenbecher on August 25, 2015, 10:36:42 am
So, now back to you ,sir.
I was waiting for you to tell us what mains are you using...

People aren't rational. We're not thinking machines, we're - we're feeling machines that happen to think. Peter Watts

No need to derail a perfectly good Danley thread right :) ? Sometimes it's nice when threads stay germane to the topic at hand.  There should be some articles coming out soon.
Title: Re: BC218
Post by: radulescu_paul_mircea on August 25, 2015, 10:43:33 am
No need to derail a perfectly good Danley thread right :) ? Sometimes it's nice when threads stay germane to the topic at hand.  There should be some articles coming out soon.
Yes indeed!
Some measurements of those beautiful monsters? :D

People aren't rational. We're not thinking machines, we're - we're feeling machines that happen to think. Peter Watts

Title: Re: BC218
Post by: Ivan Beaver on August 25, 2015, 12:47:46 pm
So the measurements from the specs sheet are made using a single or using a pair and then put the specs from only one?

People aren't rational. We're not thinking machines, we're - we're feeling machines that happen to think. Peter Watts
The "simple numbers" are for a single cabinet (NOT the dual pair)

However the spec sheet shows the freq response of both single and duals in both of the normal configurations (standing up and laying down).

As you will notice, the response is different for the different configurations.

Hence the reason for seeing the ACTUAL MEASURED response-and not a "simple number".
Title: Re: BC218
Post by: radulescu_paul_mircea on August 25, 2015, 01:02:22 pm
I've seen that. Good to remind me.
I know they are simple numbers. We, who are working with the products, realize that real performance can't be always put on paper. But the people who hiers us, don't :/ so we have to first of all learn ourself how to "read between the lines" and then to show others

Now, another question. In the situation where I would have to use 4 bc218 in front of the stage and if I would have enough space, would it be good to put two of them tacked and the other two end to end to the sides if that stack? I am thinking that this way I would avoid lobbing AND use the directivity and get some gain. The only thing would be pounding the croud very hard in front...

People aren't rational. We're not thinking machines, we're - we're feeling machines that happen to think. Peter Watts

Title: Re: BC218
Post by: Ivan Beaver on August 25, 2015, 01:06:53 pm
Yes,indeed you are building real subwoofers fo a real market and it is no need to overkill where it is with no use.
As I was talking on another forum about the posibility of using the M-force driver in your designs, people had given me good arguments on "why NOT to use them"
That driver (and also the I-Pal ) need specific tweaks and designs to work properly, they are (very) expensive and they could be used only in places where cost is no object. Like the Tingpen rotary.
Yes,it would be fascinating to just see what is possible. You could use 20 of them, in 10 VERY VERY large horns and try to sim a real tornado or a rocket, but otherwise, I don't know.
 What is your oppinion on that type of driver and tech.?
For me, powersoft, pkn and speakerPower represents in amp world the same as DSL in speaker world. Except DSL are trying to make a revolution,not evolution ;)

People aren't rational. We're not thinking machines, we're - we're feeling machines that happen to think. Peter Watts
Tom has also spent a good bit of time trying to get the M force to work in our designs, but as of now it is not a good match.

We can get better results with much less expensive drive units.

It is the TOTAL result that is what should be considered-NOT just one part of it.
Title: Re: BC218
Post by: radulescu_paul_mircea on August 27, 2015, 08:35:00 am
I am curently reading all I can about DSL products and there is a lot of discussions on forums. I see (and always seen) the problems when using simple numbers, or when everybody starts focusing only on what is fashionable.
When direct comparing different products and especially different types (like horn vs vented etc.) there are so many factors that has to be taken into acount and on paper they will never be accurate. Also it implies that the customer should have some knowledge about acoustics and how it all works ( like the difference between acoustical power and Spl, or how they all add up etc)
That is why it is very important to have a showroom and more important the ability to make a demo. If the products are what you( we, me) are saying they are, they will sell themself.
I was playing with the M-Force in hornresp and it is imposible for me to make it work. I knoe that the parameters can be tweaked, but as Josh Ricci said,  they are not giving any clear advantages under 30hz or so.
If they would make the diafragm so strong that it could take tremendous compression ratio and allow them to have a bigger stroke, it could be used in application where the cost wouldn't be the main issue.

People aren't rational. We're not thinking machines, we're - we're feeling machines that happen to think. Peter Watts

Title: Re: BC218
Post by: Ivan Beaver on September 11, 2015, 02:24:08 pm
I am curently reading all I can about DSL products and there is a lot of discussions on forums. I see (and always seen) the problems when using simple numbers, or when everybody starts focusing only on what is fashionable.
When direct comparing different products and especially different types (like horn vs vented etc.) there are so many factors that has to be taken into acount and on paper they will never be accurate. Also it implies that the customer should have some knowledge about acoustics and how it all works ( like the difference between acoustical power and Spl, or how they all add up etc)
That is why it is very important to have a showroom and more important the ability to make a demo. If the products are what you( we, me) are saying they are, they will sell themself.

People aren't rational. We're not thinking machines, we're - we're feeling machines that happen to think. Peter Watts

Agreed it is not easy to compare (especially on paper with limited numbers and information) different types of products that are "measured/speced" in different ways.

We do demos all the time at our main office (both inside the demo room and outside in the parking lot).  Sometimes we go offsite to larger areas to do demos-depending on what is needed and being looked at and by whom.

We also WELCOME anybody to bring whatever product they want to hear in a fair side by side comparison.

We also have various demo systems around the country and the world.  But they may not be "in your backyard".

You can start here (in the US) by contacting your local rep to see about a local demo

http://www.danleysoundlabs.com/where-to-buy/

For people outside the US, you can contact jp@danleysoundlabs.com to see what might be near you for demo.
Title: Re: BC218
Post by: radulescu_paul_mircea on October 27, 2015, 03:36:17 pm
No need to derail a perfectly good Danley thread right :) ? Sometimes it's nice when threads stay germane to the topic at hand.  There should be some articles coming out soon.
Still waiting for details or an arcticle, you know
Title: Re: BC218
Post by: radulescu_paul_mircea on October 27, 2015, 03:40:45 pm
Agreed it is not easy to compare (especially on paper with limited numbers and information) different types of products that are "measured/speced" in different ways.

We do demos all the time at our main office (both inside the demo room and outside in the parking lot).  Sometimes we go offsite to larger areas to do demos-depending on what is needed and being looked at and by whom.

We also WELCOME anybody to bring whatever product they want to hear in a fair side by side comparison.

We also have various demo systems around the country and the world.  But they may not be "in your backyard".

You can start here (in the US) by contacting your local rep to see about a local demo

http://www.danleysoundlabs.com/where-to-buy/

For people outside the US, you can contact jp@danleysoundlabs.com to see what might be near you for demo.
I am from Europe, Romania. I will finally be able to instal a small setup in a Pub, made of a pair of SH-50 + 1*DBH218 for 300 sq meters . Hope it will be enough :))
Title: Re: BC218
Post by: Scott Holtzman on October 28, 2015, 02:39:36 am
I am from Europe, Romania. I will finally be able to instal a small setup in a Pub, made of a pair of SH-50 + 1*DBH218 for 300 sq meters . Hope it will be enough :))

Please share your story when the project is done.
Title: Re: BC218
Post by: radulescu_paul_mircea on October 28, 2015, 04:04:03 am
I will make a separate thread about it after I start installing
Title: Re: BC218
Post by: radulescu_paul_mircea on February 13, 2016, 09:01:04 am
Please share your story when the project is done.

In the end I went for 2 TH118 with 4 SM100 because of the small space and the fact that the client has settled to make a pub and not a club. Also because no one is at a distance grater than 5 meters from a speaker and an SPL of 100-105 dBc long term for no more than 4 hours in the weekend, this system will be used at a fraction of what it would be capable of. But this way I will end with flat resp from 29Hz ;)
Title: Re: BC218
Post by: Ivan Beaver on February 13, 2016, 11:56:12 am
In the end I went for 2 TH118 with 4 SM100 because of the small space and the fact that the client has settled to make a pub and not a club. Also because no one is at a distance grater than 5 meters from a speaker and an SPL of 100-105 dBc long term for no more than 4 hours in the weekend, this system will be used at a fraction of what it would be capable of. But this way I will end with flat resp from 29Hz ;)
This is exactly what system DESIGN is all about.

First you determine what the NEEDS are-then design a system around those needs.

What works in one situation is not correct for another.

From what you describe-you should be very happy with the system.
Title: Re: BC218
Post by: radulescu_paul_mircea on February 19, 2016, 02:02:13 pm
I will deffinetely be happy. I managed to separate two main areas and I can tune them separately, create a stereo field in each zone without to much interference. This will improve the perceived quality mainly during the day when this functions as a caffee&lounge.
Title: Re: BC218
Post by: radulescu_paul_mircea on February 19, 2016, 02:08:36 pm
Now back to the main topic here. I am starting to get the Hornresp program and also learning Akabak an as I was playing in them, I manage to squeeze 2*21 drivers inside the volume of the BC218 with (Very!!) good results, inluding volume for bracings, bracings, bracings and other stuff inside :) (because if I put two 21 Ipals with 2 of their modules it would deffinetely need them)
As I've seen the potential of the Ipal driver module combo in the K-array subs (god damn those subs are EXPENSIVE!!!!!!), outline, Martin Audio etc I am wonderring what would happen id Tom and his team would put theur minds togeter to try something like my sim
Title: Re: BC218
Post by: Ivan Beaver on February 19, 2016, 07:04:55 pm
I am wonderring what would happen id Tom and his team would put theur minds togeter to try something like my sim
Actually Tom has looked into using the IPAL in a horn.

He said the magnet is actually to strong and he could get more output using a less expensive driver.

Sometimes it is not the tool-but how it is used that makes the biggest difference.
Title: Re: BC218
Post by: radulescu_paul_mircea on February 20, 2016, 01:41:17 pm
Actually Tom has looked into using the IPAL in a horn.

He said the magnet is actually to strong and he could get more output using a less expensive driver.

Sometimes it is not the tool-but how it is used that makes the biggest difference.
It is strong. But so is the membrane and suspension. So one could use a little more compression. And also can alter the parameters a bit to be more suited to the task.