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: The Classic Live Audio Board => Topic started by: Randall Hyde on July 04, 2011, 03:39:51 pm

Title: JH90 Cost
Post by: Randall Hyde on July 04, 2011, 03:39:51 pm
While I'm sure it's in the "if you have to ask, you can't afford it..." category, I was just wondering what a Danley JH90 box costs.  IIRC, the specs call for something like six 3,000-watt amp channels for the subs, and umpteen thousand additional watts for the low mids, mids, and highs (i.e., a rack full of ITech 12000HD or comparable lab.gruppen amps). 

Just in the process of completing my first truly pro "A" system and thinking about what I need to save up my pennies for next.  A DSL SH46 array looks like fun, but maybe it would be smarter to go with a point source?
Title: Re: JH90 Cost
Post by: Mac Kerr on July 04, 2011, 04:05:22 pm
While I'm sure it's in the "if you have to ask, you can't afford it..." category, I was just wondering what a Danley JH90 box costs.  IIRC, the specs call for something like six 3,000-watt amp channels for the subs, and umpteen thousand additional watts for the low mids, mids, and highs (i.e., a rack full of ITech 12000HD or comparable lab.gruppen amps).


The low frequency section of the full range speaker is six 4Ω loads, or three 2Ω loads. It will require a lot of amplifier. Being a full range speaker, there aren't any "subs" in there.

Quote
Just in the process of completing my first truly pro "A" system and thinking about what I need to save up my pennies for next.  A DSL SH46 array looks like fun, but maybe it would be smarter to go with a point source?

Unless you can manage a 5' tall, 4' wide 700 pound speaker, yeah something else would be a better choice.

Mac
Title: Re: JH90 Cost
Post by: Doug Fowler on July 04, 2011, 04:42:30 pm
While I'm sure it's in the "if you have to ask, you can't afford it..." category, I was just wondering what a Danley JH90 box costs.  IIRC, the specs call for something like six 3,000-watt amp channels for the subs, and umpteen thousand additional watts for the low mids, mids, and highs (i.e., a rack full of ITech 12000HD or comparable lab.gruppen amps). 

Just in the process of completing my first truly pro "A" system and thinking about what I need to save up my pennies for next.  A DSL SH46 array looks like fun, but maybe it would be smarter to go with a point source?

J2 has been reduced to under 500 pounds and is passive.   Only one channel of amplification required.

Going wih this as your first pro PA is a really bad idea.

Going with SH46 is a much better idea.

Title: Re: JH90 Cost
Post by: Scott Helmke on July 04, 2011, 06:15:28 pm
We've got a pair, and while they do sound wonderful they are very limited in where you can use them.  Pretty much chain motor or forklift only, though you can barely (weight and size) put one on a Genie ST-20.   You'd never want to push one up a truck ramp.  So you're looking at wanting the application before you buy the boxes.  In our case we use them for university football games, and there's one place in the push from the truck where we have to use a block and tackle to pull them up a short ramp.

Amazing box... but if I was starting out I'd look for something more scalable.
Title: Re: JH90 Cost
Post by: kristianjohnsen on July 05, 2011, 07:57:13 am
While I'm sure it's in the "if you have to ask, you can't afford it..." category, I was just wondering what a Danley JH90 box costs.  IIRC, the specs call for something like six 3,000-watt amp channels for the subs, and umpteen thousand additional watts for the low mids, mids, and highs (i.e., a rack full of ITech 12000HD or comparable lab.gruppen amps). 

Just in the process of completing my first truly pro "A" system and thinking about what I need to save up my pennies for next.  A DSL SH46 array looks like fun, but maybe it would be smarter to go with a point source?

J2 has been reduced to under 500 pounds and is passive.   Only one channel of amplification required.

Going wih this as your first pro PA is a really bad idea.

Going with SH46 is a much better idea.

In terms of handling the boxes, it's not that much worse than wrangling a big FOH and a big monitors desk, so if the operation is set up to handle that on/off the truck, etc, I guess the speakers would be manageable, too.  Stacking/flying them is a whole 'nother matter, of course.
Title: Re: JH90 Cost
Post by: Chris Hindle on July 05, 2011, 08:21:16 am
Quote from: Doug Fowler [/quote

J2 has been reduced to under 500 pounds and is passive.   Only one channel of amplification required.

200 lbs lighter? Wow. I just hope they didn't leave out the "Magic Sauce"
Passive, thats gonna be a big mutha amp!
Title: Re: JH90 Cost
Post by: Randall Hyde on July 05, 2011, 05:33:02 pm


The low frequency section of the full range speaker is six 4Ω loads, or three 2Ω loads. It will require a lot of amplifier. Being a full range speaker, there aren't any "subs" in there.
Yes, the subs are in the JH90 cabinet, I'm well aware of that.

Quote
Unless you can manage a 5' tall, 4' wide 700 pound speaker, yeah something else would be a better choice.

Mac
Granted, you can move them out of the truck one at a time, but hanging 8 SH46 cabinets isn't going to be a *whole* lot easier.

I am quite aware of the weight and size of these monstrosities.  But as long as I'm dreaming about things I probably cannot afford, I may as well throw in a forklift as well :)


A bigger concern to me might be the the fact that they have a 90-degree coverage pattern and would probably be a no-go for crowds too close to the cabinet (with SH46 cabinets, at least you have the ability to aim the things).

While on the subject of the SH46 cabinets, another question I have is can you mix DSL cabinets, like the SH25, 46, and 50 in the same array (to hit different points in the crowd) or is this (my guess) a really bad idea because of phasing problems and the like?
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
P.S., I'd still like to know what one of these beasts (JH90) costs.
Title: Re: JH90 Cost
Post by: Randall Hyde on July 05, 2011, 05:41:21 pm
In terms of handling the boxes, it's not that much worse than wrangling a big FOH and a big monitors desk, so if the operation is set up to handle that on/off the truck, etc, I guess the speakers would be manageable, too.  Stacking/flying them is a whole 'nother matter, of course.

Well, my truck has a lift gate that would easily handle the weight. Though I'd probably be looking at a different truck if I ever got one of these things.

Again, this isn't something I'm planning on buying next week. I have a decent ground-stacked system that I'm finishing up right now that will let me handle about 3,000 people (outdoors). Just looking ahead to see where I want to go next.

Granted, flying the JH90 is going to be no easy task, but there is the benefit of only having to fly *one* of those puppies. With the appropriate truss system and rigging hardware, I'm assuming it will go up in equivalent or less time than flying a traditional set of line arrays.

My goal is to get to the point where I can handle 10,000 to 20,000 audience members.
However, as I've said already, this isn't something I'm going to need to do next week, or even next year. Just trying to decide how to save up my pennies and this is the first of many little bits of research I'll be doing to figure out which direction I'm heading.
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
Title: Lows vs subs
Post by: Mac Kerr on July 05, 2011, 05:44:50 pm
Yes, the subs are in the JH90 cabinet, I'm well aware of that.

You seem to have missed my point. The six 18" drivers are the low frequency part of the full range speaker, they are not subs. The four bands listed on the spec sheet are lows, mids, mid hi, and highs. Danley makes plenty of subs to add for extreme low end.

Mac
Title: Re: JH90 Cost
Post by: Doug Fowler on July 05, 2011, 05:55:08 pm
200 lbs lighter? Wow. I just hope they didn't leave out the "Magic Sauce"
Passive, thats gonna be a big mutha amp!

It has a 17 pound crossover :-)

I believe 4-6 Kw powers it well. Obviously Ivan or Tom could elaborate. I saw/heard it @ Infocomm.
Title: Re: JH90 Cost
Post by: Ivan Beaver on July 05, 2011, 08:46:43 pm
200 lbs lighter? Wow. I just hope they didn't leave out the "Magic Sauce"
Passive, thats gonna be a big mutha amp!
The origional JH90 weighed a lot less-closer to 500lbs.  BUt when we started to push it-the pressure of the low end was simply to much for the cabinet.

So over 200lbs of wood (outside went to 24mm birch) and a lot more bracing was added-in order to handle the low freq.

The J2 is designed to be more of a "mid high" box going from 100hz and up.  Athough the -3dB point is 50Hz.  So a lot less weight is needed.  You really should use subs with the J2.  With the JH90, the use of subs is optional-depending on how low you want to go.

But the J2 has a few more drivers than the JH90.  It has 42.  6 woofers-24 mids and 12 HF drivers.

The weight is likely to go up-because of the whole neo issue.  The drivers we used for the woofers has tripled in price over the last month or 2.  So we are looking at ceramic options-which weigh more-but are more readily available.
Title: Re: JH90 Cost
Post by: Ivan Beaver on July 05, 2011, 08:52:55 pm
While on the subject of the SH46 cabinets, another question I have is can you mix DSL cabinets, like the SH25, 46, and 50 in the same array (to hit different points in the crowd) or is this (my guess) a really bad idea because of phasing problems and the like?
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
P.S., I'd still like to know what one of these beasts (JH90) costs.
THe answer is yes and no.  If you do an array properly-with proper processing and setup skill/knowledge- you can use various models mixed as needed for DIFFERENT areas.

For the areas that are covered by more than one cabinet- you may have a problem-depending on how you handle it.

As a general rule-it is not a good idea to mix cabinets-unless you really know what you are doing.  You can end up with less sound-rather than more.

I stay away from money issues-so give your local rep  a call.  But remember, it is not just what a single cabinet costs-but rather what it would take to replace it costs.

http://www.danleysoundlabs.com/wheretobuy.html

Title: Re: Lows vs subs
Post by: Mike Hedden on July 06, 2011, 09:09:42 am
Yes, the subs are in the JH90 cabinet, I'm well aware of that.

You seem to have missed my point. The six 18" drivers are the low frequency part of the full range speaker, they are not subs. The four bands listed on the spec sheet are lows, mids, mid hi, and highs. Danley makes plenty of subs to add for extreme low end.

Mac
Point of clarification, the J1 (JH90) is flat to 40Hz and I do mean flat, not -10dB so it goes head to head with most rigs using external subs.  In Tom Danley's own words the J1 is capable of several thousand acoustic watts!  You really have to hear one of these out at several hundred feet to appreciate the bass that it generates.  The fact that we can add subs that will drop close to an octave lower and keep up affirms Mac's final point.

Mike Hedden
Danley Sound Labs, Inc.
Title: Re: JH90 Cost
Post by: Tom Danley on July 06, 2011, 01:47:12 pm
Hi Randall, all
I thought I might be able to add some to what Mike and Ivan have posted and explain a bit about what the JH-90 is /does as it is “unusual”. 
   
First, the design goal was to make a single coherent acoustic source that was powerful enough to do a reasonably large show with just one box per side.   We decided on a 90 degree wide coverage because most  commercial choices are already pretty far down at 45 degrees off axis when you’re in the upper octave or even a bit lower.   
Also, like the other Synergy horns, the acoustic sources add coherently as a result of being less than a quarter wavelength apart when combining.     

While that rule has been not exactly easy to follow with our other boxes, the real problem was how to combine multiple hf sources without producing an interference pattern (lobes and nulls), the issue being the wavelength at 20KHz being about 5/8 inch while the drivers are inches across, THIS was the thing that always limited how powerful a single source could be using this approach.

The layered combiner was the hardest part of the entire design and that part took four months to work out after making the casual comment that “I saw a way to do that” job.    It was much more difficult to work out than I had assumed and for a bit I was worried I would not get it laid out at all.

Ultimately, it worked as intended and was even very similar to what I had imagined when I shot my mouth off and said sure I think we can do it.      In the JH-90, there are three coax compression drivers which drive the combiner and from the exit is a wavefront which is the shape of what would have been produced by a single driver at the apex of the horn.  There is no self interference or cancelation like with a Y throat or manifold approach and one can combine more than three drivers if desired.

The other issue was that was very challenging was the low frequency section; the goal was to make the box strong enough so that separate subs would not be required in most cases.    Unlike many of our subs which have a low corner or knee this has a low corner consistent with the low corner on what is thought of as powerful pro sound subs.   
That is to say, the acoustic power of a pile of lab subs with a somewhat higher low cutoff.   
Given the largish size, it is possible to get a decent LF loading from one box and it was possible to make a very strong horn alignment with that.       
In use, one finds the LF section of the sound system is typically about +10dB or more over the rest of the ranges and so the LF section capacity is sized accordingly.    As Mike mentioned the max output for the lf section is several thousand acoustic watts, for a frame of reference, a subwoofer than can produce a 132dB tone is a source that is radiating about 100 acoustic Watts.

The acoustic power turned out to be an unexpected problem too, the first generation cabinets were flexing too much (3/4 baltic birch) and the lf section was missing several dB vs the prediction and so the cabinet was strengthened and braced extensively which resolved the missing energy issue and unfortunately boosted the weight up to where it is..

This would not be the ideal box for all uses to be sure, but in use they are producing 100dBA with music at 700 Feet and unlike most sound systems it sounds very nice, very hifi doing it.   
A fellow at the first demo said “it sounds like the world’s largest studio monitor” which has sort of stuck.

In use, there were several differences that I would like to say were an intended part of the design but one in particular was one I hadn’t even thought of.
Something like with a high density of room modes,  it is assumed that the interference pattern most all of the  modern “array” systems produce, is not audible and so high resolution response measurements are never taken and modeling software paints in nice colors instead so this isn’t visible..   

The root problem being that two acoustic sources only combine coherently into one new source when they are less than about ¼ wavelength apart.    At this condition, if you reversed one source, they essentially cancel each other out as well.     
With a larger spacing like a half wavelength or more, the sources radiate separately and produce an interference pattern which is evident in a pattern of lobes and nulls. With an interference pattern, one can reverse one of two sources and only the pattern of lobes and nulls change, not the total radiated power.
When you are outside with any crosswind, the interference pattern from those systems is immediately audible as the pattern is moved around even slightly by the wind.     By the same token, that same self interference is why even the smoothed frequency response shape changes as a function of distance from the system as the source size relative to distance governs the interference at that location.

The surprise with the JH-90 was that by radiating a single lobe without that self interference, there is VERY little change in the sound even in a strong crosswind.  This was not something I had thought of or “designed” into it, it just happens to be the case when there is only one homogeneous lobe, there isn’t enough difference from one place to another to hear when the wind moves the lobe around a bit or you move around in front of the speaker.  Maybe like the effect of wind blowing a lighting tower, one using a flood light as opposed to a projector with a moiré pattern.

The two other audible differences are that as a result of having only one origin, it radiates as a single point and so the frequency response does not change as a function of distance, only the loudness falls and at large distances there is hf air absorption.     
The other is that by having a large horn and no self interference, the SPL outside the horn pattern is much less than normal, while filling a stadium, one can stand behind the speaker and talk .   For those who have heard the pattern control of our smaller boxes, this is like that but larger and extending lower in frequency.

Lastly, MANY people at the last infocom were concerned that with a source this powerful, that one would be melting the faces off the people up close.      Marketing has taught many that the advantage of the line array is a slower fall off of the SPL but in reality, curving the line physically or electronically makes it into an astigmatic point source where the spl usually doesn’t fall off slower where the audience is.       
Marketing also teaches that the disadvantage of a point source is that it radiates like ripples in pond and while an omni directional point source does that, when one has directivity, the sound is projected more strongly in one direction than others but at any angle it still follows the inverse square law.   Due to dependence on self interference and incoherent addition, these modern array systems are a good way to sell lots of drivers, amplifiers, processors and cabinets however.

In the olden days, it was normal practice to fly a voice range horn overhead but then to aim them at the back row.  This took advantage of the shape of the bottom of the radiation lobe and by choosing the proper horn pattern and mounting location; it was possible to get a near constant SPL over a large room depth (as opposed to simple point source descriptors) and this by using a point source with directivity.

This old time simple approach cannot be used effectively with most modern full range speakers because even with a single cabinet at crossover they normally radiate a pattern of lobes and nulls and do not have anything like a consistent lobe shape.    Our other Synergy horns have found good use in installed sound partly because they do have a single lobe and this simple “trick” can be used effectively.       
That is also how a speaker like the JH-90 can be used in a large area and not melt the people directly under it, why the spl falls so fast as you move farther out of the pattern.

The reaction to the Jh90 was partly that it was heavier than I had intended.   While it is lighter than a stack of smaller boxes, it is still heavy for a single box and would squish your toes.   
Also, people had pointed out that we already make subwoofers (which seemed odd they would think I didn’t know that) so why not shave some of the weight and LF horse power off by making a box that was lighter but would be used with separate subs. 
That made it possible to use one giant horn instead of a mid / mid-high / high horn in the middle of the bass horn.     Using a variation on the combiner, we were able to make an even larger horn which avoids pattern flip and has a pattern control point down to about 330Hz.           
My goal here was to also make something somewhat more powerful than the jh-90 above the woofers and to that end, this box has 12 hf drivers and 24 mids driving the combiner section and should be about +6dB over the JH-90’s output.   I should say though that Pat Brown has not done the independent measurements on this one yet so this is still arm waving.

So far as use, most of the JH-90’s have been used in large venues like sports stadiums but I do know that a number of large concerts did use them in Poland, are installed now at Spodek arena, with  the most recent one being the Open-er outdoor festival.   
Most speaker companies supply speakers for concerts as that is the Glamour end of the business and attracts interest for installations, here while conceived for live use,  we were surprised even caught off guard how much demand there would be for stadium use and that after the one outdoor demo at infocom.     

There are rumors about doing the sound at a couple stages at a large music “fest” in the far south this fall so that would be a real concert test / demo closer to home.

As for coverage, one can add side or down fills if needed, they needed side fills for the JH-90’s at the 74,000 seat BYU stadium for the seats to the sides of the scoreboard and while the arrangement would in theory not be as seamlessly array able as many of our smaller boxes, there was still no audible seam when I walked the stadium.   
Sitting at the farthest seat at 700+ feet, I couldn’t help thinking “they should show movies through this”.  That system also has additional subs but I am not sure they are really needed.
Best regards,
Tom Danley
Title: Re: Lows vs subs
Post by: Randall Hyde on July 06, 2011, 03:49:47 pm
You seem to have missed my point. The six 18" drivers are the low frequency part of the full range speaker, they are not subs. The four bands listed on the spec sheet are lows, mids, mid hi, and highs. Danley makes plenty of subs to add for extreme low end.

Mac

Yup, missed that. Guess if you need anything below 47 Hz, you'll have to add even more. Yikes.
Title: Re: JH90 Cost
Post by: Randall Hyde on July 06, 2011, 04:09:48 pm
Hi Randall, all

   
First, the design goal was to make a single coherent acoustic source that was powerful enough to do a reasonably large show with just one box per side.   We decided on a 90 degree wide coverage because most  commercial choices are already pretty far down at 45 degrees off axis when you’re in the upper octave or even a bit lower.   
Interesting. I was under the impression that JH90s were designed to be a single mono point-source sound system, avoiding nulls and lobes as much as possible to achieve the hi-fidelity.




Quote
This would not be the ideal box for all uses to be sure, but in use they are producing 100dBA with music at 700 Feet and unlike most sound systems it sounds very nice, very hifi doing it.   
A fellow at the first demo said “it sounds like the world’s largest studio monitor” which has sort of stuck.
And that is what I am looking for.
95-100 dB at 800' without getting sued by the people in the front row (I do mostly outdoor concerts; it amazes my how many stupid parents will sit their kids down 6' from a pair of JBL SRX 725 cabinets. I always keep a box of ear plugs in stock and make sure they force the kids to wear them).




Quote
The two other audible differences are that as a result of having only one origin, it radiates as a single point and so the frequency response does not change as a function of distance, only the loudness falls and at large distances there is hf air absorption.
Yes, that is what I am looking for.
Despite the effort of flying one of these boxes in a portable setup, I suspect that the JH90 would be a heck of a lot easier to tune for the venue than a stereo line array.
   
Quote
The other is that by having a large horn and no self interference, the SPL outside the horn pattern is much less than normal, while filling a stadium, one can stand behind the speaker and talk .   For those who have heard the pattern control of our smaller boxes, this is like that but larger and extending lower in frequency.
And that would be cool, too. I hate having to wear earplugs in monitor world.




Quote
The reaction to the Jh90 was partly that it was heavier than I had intended.   While it is lighter than a stack of smaller boxes, it is still heavy for a single box and would squish your toes.   
Yeah, not to mention getting it up on the lip of a lift gate would be a bit of work :) I already struggle there with 400-lb stacks.

Quote
As for coverage, one can add side or down fills if needed, they needed side fills for the JH-90’s at the 74,000 seat BYU stadium for the seats to the sides of the scoreboard and while the arrangement would in theory not be as seamlessly array able as many of our smaller boxes, there was still no audible seam when I walked the stadium.   
Sitting at the farthest seat at 700+ feet, I couldn’t help thinking “they should show movies through this”.  That system also has additional subs but I am not sure they are really needed.
Best regards,
Tom Danley

Well, the other system I'd consider is 8 SH46 cabinets plus appropriate subs. Someone told me that such an arrangement (with some TH118s, IIRC) was still knocking in chests at 800'. My current system (JBL SRX) falls off to less than satisfactory in the LF department at about 300' (delay stacks are HF/MF only, no subs) so I'm looking to extend that a bit.

Obviously, whatever I wind up with, I'm probably going to have to fly it. Wanted to avoid that for as long as possible (and my next system is at least two years down the road, these are just the initial feelers I'm putting out to educate myself).
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
Title: Re: JH90 Cost
Post by: Frederik Rosenkjær on July 06, 2011, 05:44:50 pm
I've been toying with the thought of at some point buying a pair of JH90s as well - simply for the ease of only having to hook up and fly two cabinets (large ones, yes, but I think there are ways the can be done reasonably quick) and be done with it.

I currently have two SH46s (Randall: "8 x SH46?" - do you need 160 degrees coverage horisontally pr. side?)

Anyway - one thing that bugs me a bit is that I'm also currently torn between going with maybe 2 more SH46s (don't need more output than that) and thereby making the large rig something like 4 x SH46 + 2 x DBH218LC. Or something.

As of today I think I've decided to start building an army of LAB-Gruppen amps, starting with a PLM14000 I just tested today with my 2 x TH118s (up until now I've been using Yamaha TX5n's, which are not bad). The thing that bothers me is that it might not be optimal to use these amps for the Jerichos, should I decide to go that route, since the Jerichos AFAIK require the dedicated Danley processor, and then the internal DSP in the amps would be wasted and I'd not be able to use their AES/EBU-inputs, but instead I'll have to make a total of DA/AD/DA/AD/DA conversion between the console and the speakers, instead of just one DA conversion.

Is it at all possible to have the internal processors in the LAB (and/or Yamaha) amps do the processing for the JH90? Or is there something special besides regular delays and filters going on?
Title: Re: JH90 Cost
Post by: Randall Hyde on July 06, 2011, 06:41:21 pm

I currently have two SH46s (Randall: "8 x SH46?" - do you need 160 degrees coverage horisontally pr. side?)


No. But four of them gives me the option of a 2x2 array or a 1x4 (portrait) array on each side.
Mostly interested in punching deep with these guys.
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
Title: Re: JH90 Cost
Post by: Ivan Beaver on July 06, 2011, 07:56:27 pm
The thing that bothers me is that it might not be optimal to use these amps for the Jerichos, should I decide to go that route, since the Jerichos AFAIK require the dedicated Danley processor, and then the internal DSP in the amps would be wasted and I'd not be able to use their AES/EBU-inputs, but instead I'll have to make a total of DA/AD/DA/AD/DA conversion between the console and the speakers, instead of just one DA conversion.

Is it at all possible to have the internal processors in the LAB (and/or Yamaha) amps do the processing for the JH90? Or is there something special besides regular delays and filters going on?
The issue is that there are differences between different processors.  And entering in the same numbers will often not end up with the same results. The phase response being the hardest part to get right.

There is nothing really "special" about the Danley processor-only that the settings/alignment is optimized for that particular DSP. 

Dialing in all the filters/delay/crossovers etc takes quite a while to do-at least to do right.  And doing it right is part of what gives the sound quality the JH's have. 

There is a possibility we may have some Lake settings (in the future)-but as of today we do not.
Title: Re: JH90 Cost
Post by: Mike Hedden on July 06, 2011, 09:27:07 pm
There is a possibility we may have some Lake settings (in the future)-but as of today we do not.
Due to our developing relationship with Lab Gruppen I can say we will have the Lake processing settings as an option but indeed it is a little down the road.

Mike Hedden
Danley Sound Labs, Inc.
Title: Re: JH90 Cost
Post by: Pascal.Pincosy on July 07, 2011, 07:53:52 pm
Due to our developing relationship with Lab Gruppen I can say we will have the Lake processing settings as an option but indeed it is a little down the road.
Easy enough to roll your own by taking a transfer function of the Danley processor settings and then duplicating it on the Lake...
Title: Re: JH90 Cost
Post by: Mike Hedden on July 08, 2011, 11:25:14 am
Due to our developing relationship with Lab Gruppen I can say we will have the Lake processing settings as an option but indeed it is a little down the road.
Easy enough to roll your own by taking a transfer function of the Danley processor settings and then duplicating it on the Lake...
I wouldn't use the words, "easy enough".  We've got a who's who list of analyzers TEF, EASERA,SMAART, H.P, etc. along with Tom Danley, Ivan Beaver, and Doug Jones, some of the most qualified analysis professionals in existence and they'll all tell you to get as picky as we do in the phase response is very time consuming.

Mike Hedden
Danley Sound Labs, Inc.
Title: Re: JH90 Cost
Post by: Ales Dravinec on July 09, 2011, 02:37:33 am
(explain, explain, explain, explain, teach, teach, inform, inform, inform, give away, give away,give away,...)
.
.
.
Best regards,
Tom Danley

Tom, thank you for excellent explanation.
One thing, however, really sticks out and makes me giggle :

Tom Danley - newbie (your profile status)

.
.
hilarious

With utmost respect

Title: Re: JH90 Cost
Post by: Pascal.Pincosy on July 10, 2011, 08:11:58 pm
Easy enough to roll your own by taking a transfer function of the Danley processor settings and then duplicating it on the Lake...

I wouldn't use the words, "easy enough".  We've got a who's who list of analyzers TEF, EASERA,SMAART, H.P, etc. along with Tom Danley, Ivan Beaver, and Doug Jones, some of the most qualified analysis professionals in existence and they'll all tell you to get as picky as we do in the phase response is very time consuming.
I'm not saying that it's easy to create settings from scratch. I've done that sort of thing many times and I'm well aware of how difficult and time-consuming it can be to get processor settings just right. But copying a response curve of a processor onto another manufacturers unit is usually pretty simple, as long as one is referring to basic crossover points, delay, and EQ. Obviously limiting is another story and one might have to make some significant financial sacrifices in order to get limiters set just right ;)
Title: Re: JH90 Cost
Post by: Kevin Tracy on July 14, 2011, 10:54:18 am
What is the cost of the complete J2
what is the cost of the JH90?
Title: Re: JH90 Cost
Post by: Kevin Tracy on July 14, 2011, 11:12:50 am
The origional JH90 weighed a lot less-closer to 500lbs.  BUt when we started to push it-the pressure of the low end was simply to much for the cabinet.

So over 200lbs of wood (outside went to 24mm birch) and a lot more
where can I demo the J2 or JH90
Title: Re: JH90 Cost
Post by: Ivan Beaver on July 14, 2011, 07:55:09 pm
where can I demo the J2 or JH90
Since we don't know where you are, the best thing is to contact your local rep    http://www.danleysoundlabs.com/wheretobuy.html
or the main office (770-535-0204) to see what you can arrange.