B&C ME464

Jan 19, 2011
957
51
28
40
Oslo, Norway, Norway
drbentsen.no
I don't disagree ... but what is the practical solution?

The question I keep asking is - would this work as part of my hire inventory, or would I be saying ... it sounds fantast but ... and use another box because it easier, less truck space, less weight, less labour, etc. etc.

Its 22.64" wide, allow another 1.5" for the box walls = 24" ... not a good dimension for a truck pack which are normally based around a 90" truck (4 x 22.5")

Still not sure what the answer is - BUT - I still want some :)
I'm not sure truck pack is that important here.
Don't get me wrong, if you're bringing 16 boxes to a gig, it's important :)

But I see a speaker like this more aimed at gigs where you bring 4x 2x18", two mains and a pair of front fills.

IME this kind of gigs is currently served with groundstacking 3-4 line source elements. They're easier to handle on their own, but you spend a bit of time rigging them. Flying them takes even more time. If one could make a box that's manageable for two persons to lift on top of a pair of dual 18" you save a lot of setup time. I always wanted EAW to make a road version of QX5, I've done a couple of gigs with that ground stacked, it's a killer solution in terms of audio quality and SPL, but it's an install box so no handles, need to make some kind of cradle for it etc. Not very practical.

I could be wrong, truck pack is too important and that there is no marked for a box like that.
On the other hand, I did a multi location gig for a production company before everything was shut down. For one of the stages they brought out their old rig, 2xKF750 over 2xSB750 a side. In about the same time as three persons could level out and erect a pair of small towers to fly 4 line source elements, we had gotten the PA in place and had started laying down speaker cables.
 

Peter Morris

Senior
May 8, 2011
1,042
137
63
Australia
Helge,

I agree with you about the EAW QX5 and have often thought the same. I also understand your point about a quick ground stack PA; hence my reference to the Renkus Heinz ST range in post 36. The other one is Tannoy’s VQ 60 / 100 which uses a BMS 4594 (I think) https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/27192424/vq-100-tannoy

The problem with a ground stack solution is getting the horn up high enough. This is more important than the advantages of a MTM design in most situations.

In this case you will be able to operate the horn from about 450Hz up and most of the spectrum where you need a flat phase point source behaviour will be easily achieved, coming from a single horn, so having a separate LF/MF enclosure will be fine.

To me owning a PA company, boxes need to meet a rider spec, and where they don’t need to meet a rider spec they have to fill a need.

This is what I have –
  • Small show – double 10” with HF950 / 4594He + a single or double 18”
  • Medium show – PM90/60 with double 21” or double 14” with 464 + double 21”
  • Large Shows – Adamson S10 or Danley J7 (modified 3 way) with S119 subs. The J7’s also serve as delay speaker
  • What I call a “Throw and go PA” - double 15” (reflex) + BMS 4592 on a EV HP940. This can be stacked directly on a double 18” or 21” sub for FOH or side fill (with or without a sub) or used as a nice drum fill. I think the DCX462 would be even better in this box,
…… anyway back to the 464 horn.

The solutions I keep coming back to is a slot or horn loaded / reflex double 15” MTM design. This would be a reasonable size and weight and would be easy to make. You could make it a trap design so it would truck pack by stacking one forward one backwards.

The other solution is just designing a separate low mid bin, more or less a kick bin that's usable to about 500Hz and stack the horn on top – you could make it as one box if you wanted.

This is what I get with the double 15" MTM design idea - its at the program rating of the drivers and the light grey is the PM90 - The box should be ABOUT 1150 high, 600 wide, 700 deep and trapezoidal in shape, no fancy curves and relatively simple to construct. You should be able to cross it at 80Hz. With full power without Xmax issues from 100Hz.
 

Attachments

  • 464 vs PM90.jpg
    464 vs PM90.jpg
    51.1 KB · Views: 44
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Helge A. Bentsen
Jan 19, 2011
957
51
28
40
Oslo, Norway, Norway
drbentsen.no
Did a first run today, initial results sounds promising. Made a fairly simple XO to the mid/high-horn at 530hz, some eq and a couple of all-pass filter and it was "flat-ish" from 80hz and up. Realized that measuring and developing a speaker from start is a different ball-game than tuning a sound system. Tried tuning the horn 2-way active, sounded worse than with the stock BMS crossover for that driver. Learned a few things, probably a lot more to learn about this.
Need to get it outdoors or in a better room for more fine-tuning, but it sounded ok and measured ok in here.
 

Attachments

  • 2020-11-30 15.56.53.jpg
    2020-11-30 15.56.53.jpg
    1.5 MB · Views: 62

Chris Burns

Freshman
Nov 13, 2016
39
3
8
Connecticut
Helge,

I agree with you about the EAW QX5 and have often thought the same. I also understand your point about a quick ground stack PA; hence my reference to the Renkus Heinz ST range in post 36. The other one is Tannoy’s VQ 60 / 100 which uses a BMS 4594 (I think) https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/27192424/vq-100-tannoy

The problem with a ground stack solution is getting the horn up high enough. This is more important than the advantages of a MTM design in most situations.

In this case you will be able to operate the horn from about 450Hz up and most of the spectrum where you need a flat phase point source behaviour will be easily achieved, coming from a single horn, so having a separate LF/MF enclosure will be fine.

To me owning a PA company, boxes need to meet a rider spec, and where they don’t need to meet a rider spec they have to fill a need.

This is what I have –
  • Small show – double 10” with HF950 / 4594He + a single or double 18”
  • Medium show – PM90/60 with double 21” or double 14” with 464 + double 21”
  • Large Shows – Adamson S10 or Danley J7 (modified 3 way) with S119 subs. The J7’s also serve as delay speaker
  • What I call a “Throw and go PA” - double 15” (reflex) + BMS 4592 on a EV HP940. This can be stacked directly on a double 18” or 21” sub for FOH or side fill (with or without a sub) or used as a nice drum fill. I think the DCX462 would be even better in this box,
…… anyway back to the 464 horn.

The solutions I keep coming back to is a slot or horn loaded / reflex double 15” MTM design. This would be a reasonable size and weight and would be easy to make. You could make it a trap design so it would truck pack by stacking one forward one backwards.

The other solution is just designing a separate low mid bin, more or less a kick bin that's usable to about 500Hz and stack the horn on top – you could make it as one box if you wanted.

This is what I get with the double 15" MTM design idea - its at the program rating of the drivers and the light grey is the PM90 - The box should be ABOUT 1150 high, 600 wide, 700 deep and trapezoidal in shape, no fancy curves and relatively simple to construct. You should be able to cross it at 80Hz. With full power without Xmax issues from 100Hz.

Peter I really love this build. Is this plot using a 15NDL88? How is lobing and driver to driver distances in the MTM? I was considering a double Eminence Sigma 18 build but it seems with the 15 it works quite well. How do you see directivity from the 15 up around the crossover point of 400hz (I assume this is your intended xover at 24db/oct?) mating with the 464? A modular stacked build of this design is perfect!!!!


Sent from my iPhone
 

Chris Burns

Freshman
Nov 13, 2016
39
3
8
Connecticut
I have in my pocession two 464 horns now. I will be testing them with the 4594s and will provide some data.

Just looking for feedback in a design, twin 18” high efficiency drivers (celestion or Eminence Sigma) crossed at 80hz -100hz in an MTM or MMT arrangemebt with the 464 or Twin 12” or 14” B&C NDLs under the 464? I have a pair of 14s which need a cabinet to call home.

I am also pretty interested in that Limmerhorn 15” waveguide in an MMT or MTM arrangement however not sure if I can source that here in the US.

Looking forward to this build. Thanks for the ideas.


Sent from my iPhone
 

Chris Burns

Freshman
Nov 13, 2016
39
3
8
Connecticut
Thanks!!


Sent from my iPhone

@Helge A. Bentsen

Do you know how one in the US can purchase their products? I like a couple of their designs.

Also how much gain vs direct radiator do you see on that 15” waveguide? Where do you see the gains? Really these drivers will only cover the 100-400hz soectrum, 2 octaves so if the gains live there on that waveguide thats perfect.

Thanks much


Sent from my iPhone
 

Chris Burns

Freshman
Nov 13, 2016
39
3
8
Connecticut
If I were to angle my two 14” drivers inward (opposing) by a few degrees to narrow the width of the cabinet with two drivers side by side, what consequence would this have on their performance? Pattern, etc? What considerations should I have? The angle would only be enough to reduce the width from 30” (11.81 cm) to 24-24.5” (9.45-9.84 cm)

Planned LP XO to the 464 is 300 - 450 so that being so low should help with any negative issues I would think.

Sent from my iPhone
 
Last edited:

Nicco Cerve

New member
May 1, 2020
1
0
1
24
Italy
Here's some CAD doodling from this weekend. This is 4x 12" drivers stuffed around a me464 and dcx464. The cost of the me464 along with the size of this thing is a deterrent. This is more box than I'd ever want to lug around. This is 44in tall, 25.5in wide and 23in deep. Or if you work in sensible units, that's 1.12m x 0.65m x 0.58m. Weight estimate is 140 lbs or 64 kg.

Hi Robert,
I have a really great interest in realizing this project for my sound system, do you have any more specs / 3d files aviable?
The 4x10'' version seem more promising to me too.
It's the perfect match for me, hope to hear from you.
Regards
 
Last edited: