SH-50 array eq.

[Helge A. Bentsen]

What, if any, do you use as array eq for a pair of Danley SH-50s?

I start with a low-shelf at 400 hz and roll off about -4.5 to -6 dB in the PLM depending on the venue. After that I tend to use whatever sounds right on the console output.

It just occurred to me that I arrived at that method a couple of years back and I've not paid attention to it since. Maybe there's a "better" way of doing it.

I'm in the process of building a set of stock presets for rig, so far it's been a from-gig-to-gig thing. I'd like to arrive at that point where I can send the rig out and tell the operator "load preset X". The system is four SH-50s powered off a PLM14000 and eight LABsubs powered with two FP6000Q and processed by a UX8800.


BTW: IME a FP6000Q is an excellent amp for LABsubs

 

[Ivan Beaver]

Re: SH-50 array eq.

The Sh50 has an interesting "beginning".

Toms origional "tuning" for the Sh50 was very different than it is now. Origionally the plan was to have a pair of cabinets produce a flat response. Since the cabinets start to lose pattern control around 300-350Hz (ish) the mids and highs had a higher sensitivity than they do now.

Since the cabinets would be losing pattern conrol (and it was assumed that generally a pair of cabinets would provide a decent coverage pattern (100x50)) the low end would combine well-as the drivers were close enough together.

I figured that the Sh50 would be used by itself quite a bit (as is done in home stereo and home theatre applications), and proposed that we "tame down the mids and highs" so that a sinlge cabinet had a flat response. So that is what we did.

Now this idea is both good and bad. It is great for the single cabinet applications (of which there are quite a few being used) and bad for a pair of SH50 applications-of which there are quite a few being used.

The problem when you use a pair is simply to much midbass. So you have to throw that away. I usually start by putting a great big "hole" in the eq about 1 oct wide and about 6-10dB deep (how deep really depends on how close the cabinets are to a boundary) around 225Hz. Sometimes I throw a few other notches around the "big one" to even it out a bit.

Your rolloff is basically doing the same sort of thing-getting rid of the midbass.

This gets rid of the mid bass "gak" that just gets in the way. Below 100hz we all like the additional bass-so I usually don't throw that away. Depending on the system (how it is used with subs and so forth-subs on an aux or crossover over to the mains) I high pass around 45Hz-100Hz.

For what it is worth-when the SH46 was made-we used Tom's origional approach. Figuring that the SH46 would only be used in multiples (unless used singly as a delay-in which the low freq would not be needed as much), the low end would sum (below the horns pattern control)-and figuring that the Sh46 would be used in applications that were typically louder than the SH50, the mids and highs were allowed to "run more free".

So when multiples were put together-the response would be a lot flatter than a single cabinet-without having to "throw away" some of the energy.

In every design-there are a lot of decisions/choices that are made-depending on the particular intended use of the cabinet. Sometimes- how the cabinets get used is very different than what was origionally intended-so some other "compensation" needs to be made for that application.

I hope that that helps somewhat.

 

[Steve Payne]

Re: SH-50 array eq.

I think as a speaker (system) designer, you have to shoot for flattest response for the smallest # of elements that might be deployed, which more often than not, is one. Also, in general, it is preferable to flatten a system by losing some energy than adding. The low mid energy buildup is a simple fact for us old dogs that remember the WBLA ("world before line array"). Danley and a few others have some great sounding latest generation point source system designs. With our Turbosound Aspect rigs it is a simple given that you reach over and dial back the low mid section at the processor as the away size grows. You just pick up some headroom for free. All good.

 

[Helge A. Bentsen]

Re: SH-50 array eq.

Thanks Ivan, I'll test your approach and compare it with my current solution

BTW: Do you use a different limiter setting for 2 vs 4 ohm operation? I currently run the same(63v rms) and haven't had any issues with the new crossovers.

 

[Ivan Beaver]

Re: SH-50 array eq.

Thanks Ivan, I'll test your approach and compare it with my current solution

BTW: Do you use a different limiter setting for 2 vs 4 ohm operation? I currently run the same(63v rms) and haven't had any issues with the new crossovers.

Assuming the amp does not run out of headroom (when run at 2 ohm), then the limiter settings would be the same.

They are based on VOLTAGE-not wattage. So when another cabinet is simply paralleled, the voltage going to both cabinets is still the same-until the amp runs out of "gas".

 

[Tim Weaver]

Re: SH-50 array eq.

The Sh50 has an interesting "beginning".

Toms origional "tuning" for the Sh50 was very different than it is now. Origionally the plan was to have a pair of cabinets produce a flat response. Since the cabinets start to lose pattern control around 300-350Hz (ish) the mids and highs had a higher sensitivity than they do now.

Since the cabinets would be losing pattern conrol (and it was assumed that generally a pair of cabinets would provide a decent coverage pattern (100x50)) the low end would combine well-as the drivers were close enough together.

I figured that the Sh50 would be used by itself quite a bit (as is done in home stereo and home theatre applications), and proposed that we "tame down the mids and highs" so that a sinlge cabinet had a flat response. So that is what we did.

Now this idea is both good and bad. It is great for the single cabinet applications (of which there are quite a few being used) and bad for a pair of SH50 applications-of which there are quite a few being used.

The problem when you use a pair is simply to much midbass. So you have to throw that away. I usually start by putting a great big "hole" in the eq about 1 oct wide and about 6-10dB deep (how deep really depends on how close the cabinets are to a boundary) around 225Hz. Sometimes I throw a few other notches around the "big one" to even it out a bit.

Your rolloff is basically doing the same sort of thing-getting rid of the midbass.

This gets rid of the mid bass "gak" that just gets in the way. Below 100hz we all like the additional bass-so I usually don't throw that away. Depending on the system (how it is used with subs and so forth-subs on an aux or crossover over to the mains) I high pass around 45Hz-100Hz.

For what it is worth-when the SH46 was made-we used Tom's origional approach. Figuring that the SH46 would only be used in multiples (unless used singly as a delay-in which the low freq would not be needed as much), the low end would sum (below the horns pattern control)-and figuring that the Sh46 would be used in applications that were typically louder than the SH50, the mids and highs were allowed to "run more free".

So when multiples were put together-the response would be a lot flatter than a single cabinet-without having to "throw away" some of the energy.

In every design-there are a lot of decisions/choices that are made-depending on the particular intended use of the cabinet. Sometimes- how the cabinets get used is very different than what was origionally intended-so some other "compensation" needs to be made for that application.

I hope that that helps somewhat.

Have you guys considered a biamp-able crossover that would allow soundco's to have a higher efficiency SH50 and tailor the low-mid response dependent on number of cabinets used? Even is the low mid section was still on a passive crossover you could run it on a different amp and have adjustability.

 

[Tim McCulloch]

Re: SH-50 array eq.

Have you guys considered a biamp-able crossover that would allow soundco's to have a higher efficiency SH50 and tailor the low-mid response dependent on number of cabinets used? Even is the low mid section was still on a passive crossover you could run it on a different amp and have adjustability.

I can foresee a number of system owners, operators and end users screwing this up in ways we've yet to imagine.

When l'Acoustic began what I thought of as a Don Quixote task - getting USA sound company owners and system engineers to embrace "black box" system controllers with non-alterable settings - I was very much in the camp of "screw them, I paid $400,000 for the rig and I'm entitled to use it any way I see fit." My understanding of the measurement, processing and deployment of line arrays was woefully ignorant and I have since come to understand much more.

Any SH50 owner/user who thinks he is capable of making crossover-type adjustments probably isn't. I think they'd be better served with some "rules of thumb" regarding the use of LF shelving filters to reduce the LF buildup from coupling... and interestingly that's what most "array length compensation" does for line arrays.

Just some thoughts...

 

[Caleb Dueck]

Also, the 'crossovers' in many Danley boxes aren't a simple xx dB slope at xx frequency style.

The closest would be offering to pay more for active/DSP versions with single/double/etc presets for array sizes.

 

[Tim McCulloch]

Re: SH-50 array eq.

Also, the 'crossovers' in many Danley boxes aren't a simple xx dB slope at xx frequency style.

The closest would be offering to pay more for active/DSP versions with single/double/etc presets for array sizes.

That's kind of where I was headed. Thanks for putting much more directly.

 

[Tim Weaver]

Re: SH-50 array eq.

The thing is, every thing on the web about SH50 vs. SH46 is that the 50 sounds better but gives up something in efficiency to the 46. If you have an extra 4 to 6 dB hiding in that cabinet (when used in multiples) then I would think that would be a boon to the SH50 sales. Offer a HT version if you want, but for the PA crowd I've heard it said several times "I love the SH50 but just needed the extra volume so I went with the SH46".

 

[Caleb Dueck]

Re: SH-50 array eq.

The thing is, every thing on the web about SH50 vs. SH46 is that the 50 sounds better but gives up something in efficiency to the 46. If you have an extra 4 to 6 dB hiding in that cabinet (when used in multiples) then I would think that would be a boon to the SH50 sales. Offer a HT version if you want, but for the PA crowd I've heard it said several times "I love the SH50 but just needed the extra volume so I went with the SH46".

There is an extra 4-6 dB 'hiding' in the cabinet - in the lows, but not the mids and highs. The SH-46 doesn't sound bad, it just needs a little extra EQ. The only weakness is that it needs a HF shelving filter boost to get to flat, which can rob headroom. Since so many prefer the sound of a 'tilted' frequency response anyway, the lower HF output isn't as bad as it seems. Unless you're throwing 150'+ in a dry desert with the crazy high HF air loss.

 

[Ivan Beaver]

Re: SH-50 array eq.

The thing is, every thing on the web about SH50 vs. SH46 is that the 50 sounds better but gives up something in efficiency to the 46. If you have an extra 4 to 6 dB hiding in that cabinet (when used in multiples) then I would think that would be a boon to the SH50 sales. Offer a HT version if you want, but for the PA crowd I've heard it said several times "I love the SH50 but just needed the extra volume so I went with the SH46".

THe MAX output would remain the same-whether or not the cabinet has a higher sensitivity.

With the cabinet the way it is-the mid and highs are padded down-allowing more power to be "applied".

If the sensitivity was higher-then there would not be as much "padding down"-and the power capacity would be less.

Same net result.

The SH46 has a stronger HF driver-hence one of the reasons it has a higher output. It also has a narrower pattern (less radiation area)-so the sensitivity is also higher.

 

[Frederik Rosenkjær]

Re: SH-50 array eq.

for the PA crowd I've heard it said several times "I love the SH50 but just needed the extra volume so I went with the SH46".

Let me be a voice to the contrary: I actually prefer the sound of the SH46 to the SH50. Not by much, but still. And I've read from at least one other person who felt the same way, though that was in a home hi-fi setting, where I'm using them in a PA setting. On my personal subjective list the SH96 is also ahead of the SH50 in pure sound. And again: these are subtle differences.

Disclaimer: I'm a Danley dealer.

 

[Ivan Beaver]

Re: SH-50 array eq.

Let me be a voice to the contrary: I actually prefer the sound of the SH46 to the SH50. Not by much, but still. And I've read from at least one other person who felt the same way, though that was in a home hi-fi setting, where I'm using them in a PA setting. On my personal subjective list the SH96 is also ahead of the SH50 in pure sound. And again: these are subtle differences.

Disclaimer: I'm a Danley dealer.

I had the house guy at a local metal club tell me after the show I brought a system in for (Sh46's Th115's)-"It was really loud-but just didn't have that "ice pick in the forehead-painful sound I like".

Everybody looks for different things in a loudspeaker. Some people use them like weapons-trying to inflict pain on the audience. I guess to each his own.

 

[John Halliburton]

Re: SH-50 array eq.

I had the house guy at a local metal club tell me after the show I brought a system in for (Sh46's Th115's)-"It was really loud-but just didn't have that "ice pick in the forehead-painful sound I like".

Everybody looks for different things in a loudspeaker. Some people use them like weapons-trying to inflict pain on the audience. I guess to each his own.

Looks like one more DSP preset to load into the Danley processors...

John

 

[Ivan Beaver]

Re: SH-50 array eq.

Looks like one more DSP preset to load into the Danley processors...

John

We had a studio guy ask us a couple of years ago if I could "copy" the sound of their favorite console monitors into our Sh100.

So I took one and measured it and built a preset into the cabinet. The other preset was our normal one.

When we took it back to him-he said I did a really good job of copying the sound-but there was no way I could make it sound as bad as theirs.

OUr job is to provide as clean a pallett as possible for the sound guy to "paint on".

It is better if you don't have to "fight" the sound system.

I have heard of people refer to different voicings such as "french-German-British-LA etc". Exactly what are the differences? Just wondering.

I prefer to let the engineer make it sound the way they want.

 

[Helge A. Bentsen]

Re: SH-50 array eq.

Update.

I tried Ivan's suggested eq settings, they worked out just fine. I didn't have the time to test them against my old settings because I did this at a gig, but I liked the end result. Also tried stacking my SH-50s on top of each other, my impression is that you gain a lot of forward SPL without sacrificing any noticeable amount of SQ. I've done similar setups in the past with other point source boxes and the SQ took a big hit. Not with the SH-50s though.

 

[Ivan Beaver]

Re: SH-50 array eq.

Update.

I tried Ivan's suggested eq settings, they worked out just fine. I didn't have the time to test them against my old settings because I did this at a gig, but I liked the end result. Also tried stacking my SH-50s on top of each other, my impression is that you gain a lot of forward SPL without sacrificing any noticeable amount of SQ. I've done similar setups in the past with other point source boxes and the SQ took a big hit. Not with the SH-50s though.

The reason is that the SH 50 ( and other danley products) work by generating a single source-ie a TRUE point source-NOT the box that are called "point sources-simply be3cause they are not a line array.

So when you put one of top of another-you only have 2 sources of sound.

If you take a "typical box" that has offset drivers producing 3 different origions of sound-then add another one on top-you have all sorts of different sources of sound-hence the sound quality going down.

What I have found out is that when you stack the Danley products and then listen-it sound really good with no "issues". When you turn the other box off-the sound level drops-obviously-and the sound gets a tad bit clearer. Not that the other sound bad by any means-not not as clear as a single cabinet.

However when you array them side by side-swith the side walls touching-and then you turn one off (assuming it is the one you are NOT listening to)- all you notice is that the bass is lower in level. This is because the horn is not large enough to provide a lot of control over the bass freq-so they are summing together. But becasue they are so close to each other-there is no interference.

Now this is outside without reflections. Of course inside when you turn off one box you will hear the reflections of the other cabinet in the room diminish.

Nobody (at least nobody who knows any better) will disagree that a single box will always sound better (sound quality-not quantity) than multiples-of any box type.

The problem has been that in many cases a single cabinet will not get loud enough or cover enough area to do the job properly. It doesn't matter how good it sounds-if you can't hear it. That is the reason we have been working on the very high output boxes-that still sound like our smaller boxes.

When you get 1000' or more away-it gets hard to get any kind of decent level-so you end up "piling up" boxes to get the level up-and then the sound quality goes down-but at least it can be heard. So why not have it sound better at the same time-this means without the interference of the multiple cabinets. That's the concept-with more on the way.

 

[Helge A. Bentsen]

Re: SH-50 array eq.

Thanks for sharing this and helping me with those eq settings

Another thing that impressed me was the amount of "throw" two sh-50s archived when stacked like that. This was a small outdoor festival in a street, and I had audience out to about 50m, but I had good SQ coverage out to the end of the street. Also, for some reason the perceived level differences between the back of the audience area and the front wasn't that bad. I have no measurements to back this up, but it felt like the level didn't drop off that much in the back and it kept a similar sonic character compared to the front.

Could this be because when you got up front you are moving into the coverage of a single cabinet?

SH-50s were on top of three labsubs with a caster board at the bottom, roughly 185cm from the ground up to the top of the labs.

 

[Ivan Beaver]

Re: SH-50 array eq.

Thanks for sharing this and helping me with those eq settings

Another thing that impressed me was the amount of "throw" two sh-50s archived when stacked like that. This was a small outdoor festival in a street, and I had audience out to about 50m, but I had good SQ coverage out to the end of the street. Also, for some reason the perceived level differences between the back of the audience area and the front wasn't that bad. I have no measurements to back this up, but it felt like the level didn't drop off that much in the back and it kept a similar sonic character compared to the front.

Could this be because when you got up front you are moving into the coverage of a single cabinet?

SH-50s were on top of three labsubs with a caster board at the bottom, roughly 185cm from the ground up to the top of the labs.

Part of the "magic" of the Danley designs is that because the sound starts out as a true single source-it hods together much better at a distance-than sound that starts out as seperate sources.

It is quite amazing to me to be at long distances 300-500M (not feet) away and it sound as if the vocals are 5-10M away. Truly "in your face".

Since the SH50 has a large horn-and the pattern is very consistant within the coverage pattern of the horn, when you get out of the pattern-the level drops VERY rapidly. It doesn't start to falloff in the highs-then the mids and then the lows as you walk the pattern. It is all there-and then it isn't (or greatly reduced anyway).

So as you would get close-you would only be hearing one box-at least from around 300Hz or so and up. The bass would still be equally heard out of both boxes-but at that point-the subs are probably overpowering you anyway.