So I had accepted an offer to purchase a used set Pair of SH-50's and a SH69 for center duties. Long story short buyer backed out and sold them to another. So then I began thinking new.
Caveat: I am an inexperienced no knowledge hack. I am not capable of this project myself.
Then I began to think about the compromises made for the intended purpose, PA/large venue high output. My use would be for music(primary focus) and HT. Could the design be improved upon as far as SQ is concerned.
Waveguide:
Im thinking of a SH60 like waveguide(to extend the waveguide control a little lower as opposed to the SH50?) perhaps improved a bit in the transitions of drivers into the waveguide, and in the corners of the waveguide we could smooth them a bit and curve the inside corners of the waveguide to reduce diffraction?
Crossover: must use a form of DSP
Drivers:
Compression: Perhaps something like a Radian Be, TAD, still utilizing a version that handles high output as they may see an occasional event.
ie)Radian 951BePBRadian 95BePB High Frequency Beryllium Diaphragm Compression Drivers - Radian 951BePB - Radian 951BePB lightweight neodymium 1.4" high frequency compression driver that handles 100 watts RMS. Radian 951BePB 1.4" high frequency compression driver with
MidRange: ATC sm75-150?(may be to large to maintain the necessary 1/4 wave length mounting.
Low End: perhaps extended quite a bit lower than the SH50/60. Acoustic Elegance?
I have to run for now. Looking for input on this ill conceived journey.
Be Well
Caveat: I am an inexperienced no knowledge hack. I am not capable of this project myself.
Then I began to think about the compromises made for the intended purpose, PA/large venue high output. My use would be for music(primary focus) and HT. Could the design be improved upon as far as SQ is concerned.
Waveguide:
Im thinking of a SH60 like waveguide(to extend the waveguide control a little lower as opposed to the SH50?) perhaps improved a bit in the transitions of drivers into the waveguide, and in the corners of the waveguide we could smooth them a bit and curve the inside corners of the waveguide to reduce diffraction?
Crossover: must use a form of DSP
Drivers:
Compression: Perhaps something like a Radian Be, TAD, still utilizing a version that handles high output as they may see an occasional event.
ie)Radian 951BePBRadian 95BePB High Frequency Beryllium Diaphragm Compression Drivers - Radian 951BePB - Radian 951BePB lightweight neodymium 1.4" high frequency compression driver that handles 100 watts RMS. Radian 951BePB 1.4" high frequency compression driver with
MidRange: ATC sm75-150?(may be to large to maintain the necessary 1/4 wave length mounting.
Low End: perhaps extended quite a bit lower than the SH50/60. Acoustic Elegance?
I have to run for now. Looking for input on this ill conceived journey.
Be Well
Ok then, care to elaborate?.. So this design can not be improved upon with a design focus centered on sound quality vs cost/performance trade-offs? Ok, then lets try and retain the SQ of the current design and improve the HF(slightly, just past 20khz flatten it out a little) and LF extension.just noticed you are a Hoosier, grew up in Russiaville(small town outside of Kokomo) myself.
Last edited:
Any design can be improved upon with enough attention to details, and enough time and money for experimenting with drivers and cabinet changes.
If, as you say, you are an inexperienced no knowledge hack, not capable of this project yourself, you probably can't beat used DSL product.
Using DSP allows for far easier changes- for instance smoothing the throat can eliminate some diffraction and smooth upper response, but if a passive crossover was designed for a more abrupt transition, it won't be right after the "improvement".
Any changes you do make (if they are improvements) will be incremental, and if good 20kHz response is high on your priorities, 1" exit rather than 1.4" would be better.
I use 1.4" exit drivers with 3" diaphragms, which allow going 3 way from tapped horns to offset horn 8", to Paraline HF.
Without DSP, I'd still be messing with passive crossover six years after the build, with basic DSP I can get the response as smooth as the DSL passives, even though the Paraline response is a bit ragged compared to a conical horn.
If I could get by with just a single HF, and could lift a 90 x 45 type cabinet by myself, probably would do a quad 8" & 1.4" B&C loaded Synergy.
But at 57 years old, "bite size" 50 pound cabinets (could be 30 lbs if I had the $$ for neo) are as much as I want to lift over my head 🙂.
Art
Last edited:
Certainly any "improvements" would be incremental, Tom's design is excellent as it is. Why bother with an attempt at a severely flawed design...
Which 4" and 12" is used in the SH-50? The HF compression is a BMS 4550.
Would Danley himself choose the same drivers and horn terminations if not held to the chosen cost constraints?
Which 4" and 12" is used in the SH-50? The HF compression is a BMS 4550.
Would Danley himself choose the same drivers and horn terminations if not held to the chosen cost constraints?
IIRC, the 4" are Misco, the 12" are B&C.
Rounding the horn mouth termination may help in single unit response, but hurt in an array. Rounding the throat entrance more might improve response, but the small improvement may be mostly masked by the mid driver holes.
For the intended market, either improvement could easily be swamped by HVAC or crowd noise.
Given an unlimited budget, I'm sure DSL might consider other drivers, but tiny improvements (all the drivers used are very good quality for their pass bands) that price one out of a cost oriented market sector is not a good business plan.
Art
Last edited:
Nope, the 5 inch are celestion, the 12s are faital (i actually own a pair of sh50s so I am absolutely positieve about this)
In my opinion the 50s are the best passive pa speakers in the world (I have listened to/measured a lot of them throughout the years)
I use the 50s as a reference when judging new pa systems (part of my daytime job) and it is shocking how much better they are than everything else out there.
Combine them with hypex ncore amps and you have Some TRue magic!
I also compared them to the rest of the DSL line, and the 50s seem to be right in the sweetspot,they are just better than the rest.
So no, I do not think that you can improve them! (One exception, IF you could make a really smooth large waveguide, but this is usually not diy area)
I ordered a pair of the SM60Fs. They have a smoother waveguide (than the 50), but still no large mouth roundover. They don't go as low though, but that doesn't matter in my case as I will be using subs anyway.
Kessito, you are correct 4 - 5inch midrangers. If off the shelf from Celestion, most likely this one: Midrange - TF0510MR - Celestion - Guitar, Bass & Pro Audio Speakers A quick search did not reveal many contenders, maybe go to a 6" eminance Speaker Detail | Eminence Speaker?
Not sure about the faital though, picture of SH-50 innards halfway down page: has anyone ever heard one of these before?
The woofer in this crossover pick looks a lot like this B&C:B&C Speakers
All solid performers for sure. Maybe try out a Radain Be compression driver and a couple 12" that dig a little deeper...
Not sure about the faital though, picture of SH-50 innards halfway down page: has anyone ever heard one of these before?
The woofer in this crossover pick looks a lot like this B&C:B&C Speakers
All solid performers for sure. Maybe try out a Radain Be compression driver and a couple 12" that dig a little deeper...
as said, I am 100% sure about the faital, you are right about the B&C in the pic in the link, but this is an old pic, they probably upgraded to the faital in later production models. (mine are 2 years old).
Danley uses the eminence 6's in other models (ie J3), but please please read the whole "suitable midrange for synergy" thread, everything is lenghty discussed there (this is the reason for JLHs reaction)(will give you a nice evening read)
Danley uses the eminence 6's in other models (ie J3), but please please read the whole "suitable midrange for synergy" thread, everything is lenghty discussed there (this is the reason for JLHs reaction)(will give you a nice evening read)
Last edited:
Thanks, somehow missed that thread! Any idea which Faital 12"? They have several possible candidates it appears. One is rated to 1000w, maybe that one...
Last edited:
@kessito
Is this the thread you are referring to; http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/88237-suitable-midrange-cone-bandpass-mid-unity-horn.html?
Is this the thread you are referring to; http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/88237-suitable-midrange-cone-bandpass-mid-unity-horn.html?
My thoughts on the subject has been to start out with a SM60M and add a DIY beefy woofer segment with an enlargened horn with round overs. Maybe four 12" or 15". If that works, then add a more sensetive midrange, like the PHL 1020 (that would require a lot of skills and horn/ throat rework). Maybe a Hughes throat would be a advantage over the Danley "constant radius" corners in the SM60. Finally experiment with different CDs (18sound nsd1095n?) and DSP crossover. All in all this would be costlier than a Danley horn and asks A LOT of the designer. I don't expect anyone to do this, and the results would be uncertain.
Interesting thread with a lot of good info, its funny, as i have been looking at "better" drivers to use regardless of cost(for the moment) post #28 of the thread basically summed how I was thinking at the moment, I was thinking, well maybe Danley chose the best drivers for the design regardless of cost. Then only 28 posts into that thread..this:
I actually chuckled when I read it.
I actually chuckled when I read it.
This is where Danley differs from other manufacturers. The first priority of every Danley speaker is the best possible SQ for its intended purpose. Just because it is labeled as “PA" speaker doesn’t mean its not suitable for Hi-Fi use.
If you mess with any of the entry ports into the horn the crossover will have to be reworked. The Synergy is a speaker system, and any change will require changes elsewhere. You don’t want to change the mid-range ports because they are the size and shape they are so they will act as an effective acoustical bandpass filter. You don’t want to fill in the corners of the horn because that is where the mid-range ports are located. The mid-range ports are located in the corners because the acoustical pressure is lower there and this makes the entry port’s acoustical footprint smaller. Filling in the corners would result in more frequency response peaks and dips.
Using DSP is perfectly fine in a Synergy. Tom has commented on the sound of the DSP and passive models. There is vitually no difference. The room will have more impact than whether you go passive or active.
Complete waste of money. In addition, you should use a 1" compression driver because it results in a more favorable flare rate for the mid-ranges. Like I wrote above, the Synergy is a speaker system. Once these systems are EQed to the same response curve, there is no difference in SQ.
This driver lacks the required T/S parameters to be used in a Synergy horn. You really don't understand how a Synergy horn works.
Once again, a complete waste of money. High dollar woofers are high dollar for what they do up higher in their frequency response. In a Synergy the woofer never plays above 300Hz - 400Hz. This is why it’s a waste of money. I would never use AE, JBL, or Altec woofers in a Synergy because these drivers are better used in other applications. Not only does the Synergy design allow for less expensive drivers to be used, it actually performs better with inexpensive drivers because less expensive drivers tend to have more limited bandwidths. Bandwidth limited drivers make the crossover and driver layout much easier in a Synergy horn.
John
Thank you for your thoughtful response, I had began to come to that conclusion myself it became apparent, rather quickly, while trying to sort out some details myself. Specifically while looking for suitable/optimal midranges, of which their are not many available. We need a group buy on some specially built midranges and perhaps a compression driver as well?
Your conclusions became even more obvious when I began reading the thread that Kessito pointed me a few posts back. I read that thread over a couple days and my head still hurts!
I still think the synergy is open for some refinements, I think so resonances and tonal issues could be addressed? I would be interested to see if we could adapt an AMT like the Beyma TPL-150 or a Raal ribbon. I know that Patrick Bateman mentioned he had destroyed a similar device attempting to use it on a horn. He also mentioned a kind of sandwich configuration that may perhaps work? Maybe a pair of them on a "combiner" type implementation?
Lots of questions for which I have no answers. I myself have still yet to hear a DSL synergy horn, I plan to seek one out soon.
Thanks again for your contribution and dedication to the synergy sir! Truly amazing the level of technical knowledge that comes together in one place on this forum. I will be watching intently.
Thank you for your thoughtful response, I had began to come to that conclusion myself it became apparent, rather quickly, while trying to sort out some details myself. Specifically while looking for suitable/optimal midranges, of which their are not many available. We need a group buy on some specially built midranges and perhaps a compression driver as well?
Your conclusions became even more obvious when I began reading the thread that Kessito pointed me a few posts back. I read that thread over a couple days and my head still hurts!
I still think the synergy is open for some refinements, I think so resonances and tonal issues could be addressed? I would be interested to see if we could adapt an AMT like the Beyma TPL-150 or a Raal ribbon. I know that Patrick Bateman mentioned he had destroyed a similar device attempting to use it on a horn. He also mentioned a kind of sandwich configuration that may perhaps work? Maybe a pair of them on a "combiner" type implementation?
Lots of questions for which I have no answers. I myself have still yet to hear a DSL synergy horn, I plan to seek one out soon.
Thanks again for your contribution and dedication to the synergy sir! Truly amazing the level of technical knowledge that comes together in one place on this forum. I will be watching intently.
The key sentence in your post is
How can you even think about upgrades when you haven't even heard them before? 😕
What resonance and tonal issues are you referring to? Where did you get the idea there was resonance and tonal issues?
AMT can't be used in a Synergy because it makes the throat area too large to acoustically load the mid-ranges. Everything you have questioned has already been discussed and put to rest at least 4 or 5 times. Trust me when I tell you if there was a better way, then Danley would be doing it. The reason why he uses the components he uses is because it's the best solution out of all the options.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.