Re: FIR filters
We've conversed about this before. I compared the SH60 to the EAW QX566i. Both boxes have the same pattern and physical size. Driver complement is different. We hung them side by side in the same room at the same trim height, pointing at 3 experienced audio engineers. The SH60 was powered by a Crown ITHD 12K, the EAW was processed by a UX8800 and powered by an amp that I don't recall - it may have been another ITHD12K, with the amp set to be flat and the correct focused preset for the EAW box in question.
We tuned and listened for 3 hours playing a large variety of music - gentle female-led material, up-tempo country, some Sting, Counting Crows, Mr. Mister, John Mayer, James Taylor, etc. In some tracks the difference was minimal; in others the EAW outdistanced the Danley box fairly significantly. We tried a number of objective (Smaart-measured) and subjective (trying to pick out what we thought the EAW was doing better and attempting to replicate on the SH60) measurements. There were three experienced sound engineers in the room doing the testing.
I was rooting for the Danley because I like the concept, I like the TH-118s I own, and the box was cheaper than the EAW product when processing was considered, but in the end the decision was unanimous - the EAW box was more pleasant to listen to with everything we threw at it.
Ivan, you're famously quoted as saying "It depends". We actively worked to remove as many "depends" factors. In this situation with the tools provided doing a head-to-head shootout, with the [significant] skill of the engineers present and significant time spent, we were unable to make the Danley perform as well as the EAW did nearly out of the box.
Could another engineer have done a better job? Very possibly, but that's exactly my point - in this one time and place, the Danley box was the loser at least partly because EAW had done the heavy lifting for us, making a better result easy to attain.
You may think I'm a Danley basher, but I'm not, and I've made a substantial investment in Danley equipment. My objection is the incredulity that your team sometimes gives the impression of that other methods and solutions might possibly be better than a Danley solution - i.e. if we didn't pick Danley we must be "listening with our eyes", or wanting some bizarre tonal curve that's beneath a Danley system. In this situation, I assure you that neither of those situations were the case. There were no suits to please, no egos to stroke, no corporate kickbacks to sway our objectivity; just 3 engineers passionate about audio trying to pick the system that sounded best in our space.
