or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › DIY Speakers and Subs › Danley DIY Synergy Horn kit
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Danley DIY Synergy Horn kit - Page 3

post #61 of 492
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrager View Post

Did you look at the link?

Crossover Frequency : 4722: 630Hz
4722N: 800Hz

For whatever reason they cross the passive version a little higher. Maybe because it can handle a little more power the higher up you cross.

With active XOs we can use steeper slopes and control the delay better so it would make sense that they can XO it lower then the passive version.
post #62 of 492
Thread Starter 
From the DTS-10 thread:

"Short answer is because we make true full range tops that don't need the mid bass assistance. The Synergy Horn alignment provides unparalleled performance with flat phase and magnitude much lower than most other manufacturers.
That being said, we have another announcement coming shortly that will probably require us to design a mid bass box as well

Mike Hedden
Danley Sound Labs, Inc."


Could be some exciting news in the future!
post #63 of 492
Quote:
Originally Posted by MKtheater View Post

My CD is the 2445.

That's right I remember this discussion. The 2445 is a 2" CD but you can look at the specs to understand high frequencies are not that good in measurements.

http://www.jblpro.com/pub/components/2445j.pdf

This is inherent to the larger CDs. The smaller the throat the better the high frequency response performs. > 1" directivity and overall control fall apart. Those are the facts not matter how good it sounds to anyone. I always refer to the my POV "BOSE has 100,000 happy owners" to say that audio is highly subjective and if someone is not listening for something very particular they will never care about any flaws.

NOTE: The BOSE point isnt saying JBL is like BOSE and no offense is intended whatsoever. Its just pointing out the fundamental subjective nature of audio overall.
post #64 of 492
Quote:
Originally Posted by penngray View Post

I get that, the SM60 is definitely a great szie but from 500Hz to 22KHz its really the Coax driver doing the work. If I have a 24" large waveguide and a BMS coax, I pretty much should get the same phase coherence and great SQ. Adding a Bass bin for everything under 500Hz gets me the rest (twin JBL 15").

Just trying to compare my next build to what this will offer. The difference between the two is the CTC issue of the woofer from 60Hz to 500Hz and how that effects the overall SQ.

I think you need to look into coax drivers a bit closer.... I don't think you'll get the results you expect/profess. Search for Tom's comments on coax drivers and why it doesn't work like that. Also just think about how a smaller point source in a wider throat creates lots of diffraction and HOMs, but that DSL's coax doesn't.
post #65 of 492
Quote:
Originally Posted by AudioJosh View Post

I think you need to look into coax drivers a bit closer.... I don't think you'll get the results you expect/profess. Search for Tom's comments on coax drivers and why it doesn't work like that. Also just think about how a smaller point source in a wider throat creates lots of diffraction and HOMs, but that DSL's coax doesn't.

Just because a loudspeaker is a coax, does not mean that it works like other coaxes. This oes for cone/driver combinations as well as driver/driver combinations. It is the rare combination of physical distance for the different sound paths that allows for a proper phase relationship in the end.

If the phase is to far off, you will not be able to get a good transition between the freq bands.

Amplitude yes, but phase plays a big part in how a loudspeaker "sounds".

Very very few manufacturers even publish a phase response. There is probably a good reason.
post #66 of 492
Quote:
Originally Posted by AudioJosh View Post

I think you need to look into coax drivers a bit closer.... I don't think you'll get the results you expect/profess. Search for Tom's comments on coax drivers and why it doesn't work like that. Also just think about how a smaller point source in a wider throat creates lots of diffraction and HOMs, but that DSL's coax doesn't.

I think HOM has nothing on phase coherence in terms of screwing up SQ. Not saying HOM isnt an issue, considering I follow all of the research Geddes has posted on HOMs. I just know we can not have it all. Im also still looking at just 2" CDs and I will listen to find out if HF issues.

Nothing against Danley, I love their products but they are not the only show in town. BMS builds quality CDs and I suspect the BMS Coax is a great CD too.
post #67 of 492
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivan Beaver View Post

Just because a loudspeaker is a coax, does not mean that it works like other coaxes. This oes for cone/driver combinations as well as driver/driver combinations. It is the rare combination of physical distance for the different sound paths that allows for a proper phase relationship in the end.

If the phase is to far off, you will not be able to get a good transition between the freq bands.

Amplitude yes, but phase plays a big part in how a loudspeaker "sounds".

Very very few manufacturers even publish a phase response. There is probably a good reason.

I think you misunderstood me. I didn't say otherwise. I was urging penngray to look into it a bit more closely. I get the premise behind the SM60x. I think it is quite clever.
post #68 of 492
Quote:
Originally Posted by AudioJosh View Post

I think you misunderstood me. I didn't say otherwise. I was urging penngray to look into it a bit more closely. I get the premise behind the SM60x. I think it is quite clever.


I understand the trade offs but HOM discussion is a read herring, Im not convinced that Danley has solved the Coax mystery more then BMS, B&C, etc. So much that other phase coherent designs are so inferior. I think Mark Seaton and his Catalysts using B&C coax understands the theories from his days with Tom Danley. Same with Jeff from JTR. The BMS Coax XOs way out of the HOM critical frequencies also so Im not sure your point about HOMs with the BMS is true...do you have measurements to support the theory. I guess we need to see the wavelets from the BMS measurements (re:diyaudio wavelet analysis)

Its the phase coherence issue that these design solve so Im not sure what your point about me looking into anything closer. That is what these designs do so well, its the point source idea. Ingenious? Sure, great patents too but not a huge amount of difference then JBL understanding the same premise with large horns handling most of the frequency range in a point source. I think its critical above 300Hz to 500hz more then full range. Its nice to do it full range but only Danley can offer it. Is there a huge difference?? No one can prove it in a controlled test.

Solving phase coherence is a far easier to measure and prove also. When Anyone can actually prove HOM dominance then its a real discussion until then its just years of Geddes, Danley, LeCleache, etc talking about hidden differences.

This is the same topic as when I said we needed a larger SEOS then a smaller one. XOs in the 1K Hz range = lower SQ (IMO), lower the XO out of the critical voice range and we have phase coherence and higher SQ.
post #69 of 492
FYI, you can buy the 4722 horn from JBL parts for less than $100/ea. You would then need to find a 1.5" CD to match with it. A BMS 4555 for ~$160 would work (it is better up top than the 2432H, but not as good down low). You could then use an active xover like the MiniDSP or DCX. I'd try around a 1khz cross and put an inductor on the bottom woofer to make it a 2.5way. Use some eq to lift the top end for This is a better setup for the home and pretty cheap to do. Being able to take measurements is necessary IMO...I also think it should be a prerequisite for participation in this forum.

Edit: I think I missed a few posts about the BMS coax discussion so my post may have been off. From what I've gathered, the BMS coax is not a panacea. I don't have direct experience with it though.
post #70 of 492
Quote:
Originally Posted by penngray View Post

Nothing against Danley, I love their products but they are not the only show in town. BMS builds quality CDs and I suspect the BMS Coax is a great CD too.

FWIW, it was a home system with the BMS 4590 (their ur-coax compression driver) that got me to realize that "horns" were high-fidelity after all.


Quote:
Originally Posted by penngray View Post

I understand the trade offs but HOM discussion is a read herring, Im not convinced that Danley has solved the Coax mystery more then BMS, B&C, etc.

Hmm. I was under the impression that the new Danleys used a 5" BMS coaxial driver, and one of the older ones uses an 8" B&C coaxial driver.

Quote:
Originally Posted by penngray View Post

That is what these designs do so well, its the point source idea.

Indeed. And for a modern multichannel system that's a huge boon, because one can mount all three speakers either above or below screen level (assuming something other than a front projector) due to the symmetrical power response.
post #71 of 492
Its nice to do it full range but only Danley can offer it. Is there a huge difference?? No one can prove it in a controlled test.

It is unfortunate you cannot simply hear the difference from your computer.
Actually one reason our sales have grown so well is because as one consultant put it nobody has anything that sounds or works like your products.
While that was in reference to much larger scale sound than the home, the reference certainly included all the traditional large companies, in a market where side by side comparisons are common.

Take a squint at the Portfolio where our products are used normally, what business we are in, there will be at least four more large stadiums with our systems running this fall too, then remember, we are 6 years old now.

In order to do something better than the other choices available to a system designer, one has to solve one or more problems he faces.
One of those so far as fidelity is presenting as close as possible to the same sound to as much of the pattern as possible, over as wide a frequency range as possible.

When you have two subwoofers and place them close together, less than about 1/3 wavelength, they combine into one source, radiate equally in all directions and add coherently into one more powerful source. If you were to reverse one of them, they very nearly cancel each other out entirely.
As you increase the spacing they no longer add coherently but produce an interference pattern. For example at a 1/ 2 wavelength spacing, the two sources produce an interference pattern like a figure 8 when the polar pattern is viewed, two lobes and two nulls. AS one increases the spacing the number of lobes and nulls increases and because the addition is not coherent, reversing one source only alters the shape of the interference pattern, no cancellation global happens.

While this condition exists in most multi-way loudspeakers at least at crossover, it is addressed by careful aiming of the lobes and nulls at crossover so that at the listening position there is a minimum perturbation.
In a commercial sound speaker this is undesirable as it means the spectrum changes as a function of position left or right up and down etc. Remember ideally we want all the seats to get the same signal and you cannot do this with an interfering source.. Also ideally we want a constant directivity system with a high forward directivity to minimize room sound.

That means that if you going to have the horn confine the pattern, the sources have to all combine when the dimensions are small enough to allow coherent addition. AS a result, there are no lobes or nulls in the polar's and because the horns are as large as the enclosures, the pattern loss F is as low as possible.

Now, now of this sounds like it means squat in the living room except for one really big thing.

AS these got better and better, acting more like one single source and not spread out in time, a weird thing happened.
First, one can literally stick your head inside a horn like an SH-50 and the image never wavers from floating somewhere in front of you.
There is no distance required for the sources to mix, these radiate like one driver.
Next, if you play one speaker with a voice say, you can easily hear how what direction it is but as they got better, they got HARDER to hear how far away they were in depth. Not radiating that identity also meant that the stereo image was very strong, the strongest I have ever heard with speakers in a normal configuration and no trickery.

Now, none of this imaging stuff was art of the goal, in fact I didn't know what was happening at first. I developed the Synergy and earlier Unity horns while listening to music through them.

My goal was following Dick Heyser's insight on time arrival, to make one source from many. Part of that allowed a way to eliminate the phase shift normally associated with crossovers as well, truly resulting in one source much closer to occupying one instant in time over a broad frequency range.
As for what a coax driver does, that does depend, the B&C we used in the SH-100, one of our very first products works well but all of the possibilities so far as a driver that I looked at were unusable for one or more of several reasons. Most people are aware of the problems with edge diffraction or that tweeters should not have recesses and edges and such nearby.
They can picture that sound spreads out and that sound can re-radiate from anywhere there is a significant discontinuity.
The horn is a way to much more consciously deal with and control the surfaces of the sounds path as it radiates, to produce a simple part of a sphere.
Once the wave front is large enough relative to the wavelength, it can radiate freely without the horn walls.

The synergy horn then is a way to drive a single large CD horn, over a broad frequency band, without self interference, without the phase shift crossover normally produce. To the great degree it radiates a simple lobe of a single source with a high to back front to back energy ratio. It just turns out that this works very well for stereo imaging.

Obviously people have been plenty happy with prior art but coming up with an audibly better mousetrap has proven a good strategy in a market that has many well known giants .
As for a controlled test, well listen to a pair in stereo and you tell me what you hear.
Best
Tom Danley

"Sit down an listen, it's about the sound, it's why you got into audio"
post #72 of 492
Quote:
Originally Posted by penngray View Post

The BMS Coax XOs way out of the HOM critical frequencies also so Im not sure your point about HOMs with the BMS is true...

Dunno if this is what he meant, but I think it's that the throat is bigger than the tweeter diaphragm and thus a poorly coupled wavefront that will have all kinds of oblique reflections.
post #73 of 492
[quote=jpmst3;20190865]From the DTS-10 thread:
... we have another announcement coming shortly that will probably require us to design a mid bass box as well

Mike Hedden
Danley Sound Labs, Inc."[/i]

An SM60M kit fits that description.
post #74 of 492
[quote=jpmst3;20190865]From the DTS-10 thread:
... we have another announcement coming shortly that will probably require us to design a mid bass box as well

Mike Hedden
Danley Sound Labs, Inc."[/i]

An SM60M kit fits that description.
post #75 of 492
Quote:
Originally Posted by penngray View Post

That's right I remember this discussion. The 2445 is a 2" CD but you can look at the specs to understand high frequencies are not that good in measurements.

http://www.jblpro.com/pub/components/2445j.pdf

This is inherent to the larger CDs. The smaller the throat the better the high frequency response performs. > 1" directivity and overall control fall apart. Those are the facts not matter how good it sounds to anyone. I always refer to the my POV "BOSE has 100,000 happy owners" to say that audio is highly subjective and if someone is not listening for something very particular they will never care about any flaws.

NOTE: The BOSE point isnt saying JBL is like BOSE and no offense is intended whatsoever. Its just pointing out the fundamental subjective nature of audio overall.

I know it does not measure better than the smaller CD's but all I said was while watching movies it is very hard to notice the difference in lack of high frequencies when comparing both.
post #76 of 492
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by noah katz View Post


An SM60M kit fits that description.

I am guessing it will be close to it at least, but probably a new design.
post #77 of 492
In case Tom is looking for a show of hands, count me in as interested!
post #78 of 492
Tom
I'm still listening to and loving my Unity Horns! If you come up with a Synergy DIY kit then I'm keen too!
post #79 of 492
Thread Starter 
This whole thing is waste of time, there simply is no way to match the dynamics of a BOSE cube.
post #80 of 492
I really hope it's not based off of the 'M' model. Doesn't play nearly low enough to match up with my DTS-10. I hope it's based off the 'F' model. I'm not about to have separate bass bins, besides, I just don't have the room.
post #81 of 492
Thread Starter 
Agreed. Something that does not extend down to AT LEAST 80Hz, preferably 60 is going to be a deal breaker for most.
post #82 of 492
That would be ideal, since the DTS-10 is a kit they should match it's performance with a smooth transition. We could have a full Danley theater kit.
post #83 of 492
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpmst3 View Post

This whole thing is waste of time, there simply is no way to match the dynamics of a BOSE cube.

Well, if it's better than a Bose, which I doubt, I'm in as well.
post #84 of 492
I'm iffy on the M as well...I hope it is based on the F (or at least the frequency extension of the F's).
post #85 of 492
Damn you DSL!!!

I swear I should just have my salary directly deposited into DSL's account. It would shave off the few seconds it already takes from going into my account and then into theirs.......GAAAAAAAHHHHH....




Forin
post #86 of 492
Agreed on the need to go down to 80 Hz.
post #87 of 492
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpmst3 View Post

Agreed. Something that does not extend down to AT LEAST 80Hz, preferably 60 is going to be a deal breaker for most.

I'm not sure I would close the door on that completely. In fact, something that plays to 200-300hz in the horn, but includes a passive crossover (or schematic) to integrate a midbass 15" below it would be good too. This might be a good way to compromise and get a Danley kit for a reasonable price and maybe 90% of the performance. I guess it would be similar to the Yorkville U15s but with the Synergy enhancements.
post #88 of 492
Thread Starter 
I suppose, but thinking from my perspective only, no matter what the kit will be pricey and if it requires adding more gear and more speakers, more money, etc if just does not sound as appealing as a wider solution.
post #89 of 492
Quote:
Originally Posted by MKtheater View Post

I know it does not measure better than the smaller CD's but all I said was while watching movies it is very hard to notice the difference in lack of high frequencies when comparing both.

Is definitely content dependant. Like you Im very happy with waveguide designs rolled off even before 15KHz. Even Geddes debates the need for > 15KHz.
post #90 of 492
Quote:
Originally Posted by noah katz View Post

Dunno if this is what he meant, but I think it's that the throat is bigger than the tweeter diaphragm and thus a poorly coupled wavefront that will have all kinds of oblique reflections.

Maybe but HOM is an unproven, unmeasurable discussion. Geddes believes he has solved it in a different way then Danley. Who is right? They both are

In the end audio can get bogged down in the mundane stuff that is mostly uncontrollable. I will state that phase coherence is 1000 times more important the the subtle HOM differences from top end drivers.

Phase coherence is the reason Danley designs are incredible (along with incredible dynamics and LOW, LOW distortion), it has little to do with the HOM discussion.

The only question remains is the IWATA-300 + BMS 4590P horn as good as what Danley will offer??
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: DIY Speakers and Subs
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › DIY Speakers and Subs › Danley DIY Synergy Horn kit