Danley

[Caleb Dueck]

Would a Danley "constant curvature" product like L'acoustics ARCS be a good compromise of what people think they need and what they actually need?

SH46 is kind of close already. How "weak" do you make the low mids, IE what is the ideal number to sum to flat? How important is overall size and cost? What does that offer that a single, high output box with the same total dispersion can't do better?

I would love to see a constant curvature version of the J3, just for fun.

 

[Ivan Beaver]

Re: Danley

SH46 is kind of close already. How "weak" do you make the low mids, IE what is the ideal number to sum to flat? How important is overall size and cost? What does that offer that a single, high output box with the same total dispersion can't do better?

I would love to see a constant curvature version of the J3, just for fun.

That is one of the "interesting" aspects of design for an arrayable product.

How flat do you make a single box vs an array of cabinets?

For example-Toms original design for the SH50 had a higher sensitivity. But I talked him down to the current sensitivity.

WHY? The original was designed to be flat with 2 boxes (giving a more conventional 100x50 pattern). But I felt that a single box should be flat-so that is the way we went.

This is a double sided sword-so to speak. With a single box-the flat response is a really nice sounding cabinet. And hence the popularity of the cabinet in Hi-fi/studio situations (as well as standard PA situations). It would not be as popular (my opinion) if the low end was reduced so as to sum together flat when used as a pair-except in the multiples or with subs)

So when used in a pair-you have to "throw away" the extra low end that comes from the summing together of the low end where the boxes lose their pattern control.

So what happens to the specs is interesting as well. The max output really doesn't change-but as the sensitivity goes down-the power capacity goes up, the low freq cutoff goes lower and so forth.

You end up trading one spec for another. You can't get all of the "good specs" at the same time.

For example the SH46 was intended to be a louder cabinet-and with the narrower horizontal pattern-it was intended that at least 2 boxes would be used to make a "system". So the mids/highs were "loosened up" a bit (ie made louder due to their inherent higher sensitivity) so that the lows would sum together for a flat response.

It was also "assumed" that the SH46 would be used with subs-so the low freq extension does not go as low as some other cabinets.

Some cabinets are designed as "stand alone full range" and others are designed to be used in multiples and/or with subs.

How far do you "pull down" the mids/highs to match the lows depends on the low freq extenion needed/desired.

As as usual-it depends------------------------

 

[Jason Raboin]

Re: Danley

We were talking about the live music world, so rarely would there be a system deployed without subs. I look for my "tops" to be "flat" to 80 hz. If I'm doing spoken word or solo acoustic I don't need subs but I also don't need 50 hz.

When I mentioned ARCS, I was actually picturing the ARCS Wide and Focus products, which are pole mountable, array vertically or horizontally, and clamp to a truss. They seem, on paper at least, a very versatile box.

I would want to be able to turn up the boxes as you moved up the array to achieve more even front to back SPL. Is that a bad Idea? I know it is generally frowned upon with a line array, but with a traditional array I figured it could work.

As to the question of how many boxes to make "flat", I don't see why you have to choose. I get that you are going to lose something, but with the DSP available today, why couldn't you just have a 1/2/3 setting in a processor? Meyer has M Series Array Correction, D&B has CPL adjustment.

To take it a step further, I am really interested in the Martin MLA Mini concept, which houses amps and DSP to power up to 4 tops and 1 sub in the sub enclosure. It would be great to have a sub hub that powered a couple of top boxes.

 

[Brad Weber]

Re: Danley

It is interesting that not just Danley but also other manufacturers such as Renkus-Heinz and Tannoy seem to have found success and acceptance in the install world and that almost seems to sometimes work against them in the live sound or tour sound markets. I find that the views of such systems by many tour/portable users and techs are more to their ignorance or preconceptions of them than being from any actual experiences. It's almost as though some view their being 'install' speakers as making them inherently unacceptable for 'live sound' use even though the two applications are not mututally exclusive and often converge.

 

[John Roberts]

Re: Danley

It is interesting that not just Danley but also other manufacturers such as Renkus-Heinz and Tannoy seem to have found success and acceptance in the install world and that almost seems to sometimes work against them in the live sound or tour sound markets. I find that the views of such systems by many tour/portable users and techs are more to their ignorance or preconceptions of them than being from any actual experiences. It's almost as though some view their being 'install' speakers as making them inherently unacceptable for 'live sound' use even though the two applications are not mututally exclusive and often converge.

I don't know that this is true but if it is so what? The install business is so much larger than live touring sound that it would be silly to dismiss the whale to pursue the minnow.

I don't completely understand the economics of carrying sound systems from gig to gig, while fixed instal sound is generally targeted to deliver voice and low level background music. If the concert business matured to the state that these costs ever get managed I would expect to see more permanent systems.

The physics is the same and both businesses are not trivial to break into, if I had to pick just one, it wouldn't be the minnow.

JR