Hey there all, like many others I'm a bit of a lurker on this forum and have been interested in diy audio and the likes for several years, but haven't really posted much on here as of yet.
I heard about the Danley horns a while ago and as time has gone by curiosity and a growing knowledge of the related technologies and design theory has led to the inevitable - me wanting to build one 😀 (sort of). I've had a small pa system going for parties and small events and feel like designing some hornloaded mains for it (the subs are horns and I will soon be building some hybrid horns for kicks, so may as well match the rest)
Now I recognise that one of the inherit benefits of the synergy design is that it operates as a point source radiator, and that would be lost with a line array adaptation, but I suppose humour the thought and just assume that I want to build one out of curiosity (I do).
I'm not sure how one would go about it, but would a "linear wavefront synergy" or whatever you'd call it work? As in a synergy with multiple midrange drivers stacked vertically along a waveguide with paraline'd compression drivers and an effective wavefront expanding only on the horizontal plane? I'm assuming that what I'm saying makes sense, but feel free to tell me if it doesn't..
The way I see it I'd like to try and incorporate the use of a shared waveguide to ensure cohesive horizontal coverage, the use of acoustic bandpass enclosure design to minimise HD, the ability to combine multiple drivers acoustically to increase sensitivity and spl, the use of an acoustically large wavefront for higher frequencies to increase nearfield response throw and the tight vertical directivity control offered by line arrays.
I have two dbx driverack 260s (6 outputs each) available for time alignment, phase control, eq and everything else, so I have plenty of control over a lot of variables in the digital realm, which should allow for flexibility in the design phase. I also have a passion to learn and understand horn design, and have played around with hornresp in the past, however would have no idea how to model such a thing in the program. I would however assume that for the sake of modeling the expansion could be seen as a 2 dimensional problem which would simplify things.
I know this is probably not the easiest way to build a set of pa mains that will do such a job, however I guess I'm just the type to experiment, and I have measurement gear and time (due to covid) to muck about to find what works and what doesn't. I suppose I can help with the collective knowledge on synergy systems as well, so that can't be a bad thing right?
Thanks in advance, Campbell
I heard about the Danley horns a while ago and as time has gone by curiosity and a growing knowledge of the related technologies and design theory has led to the inevitable - me wanting to build one 😀 (sort of). I've had a small pa system going for parties and small events and feel like designing some hornloaded mains for it (the subs are horns and I will soon be building some hybrid horns for kicks, so may as well match the rest)
Now I recognise that one of the inherit benefits of the synergy design is that it operates as a point source radiator, and that would be lost with a line array adaptation, but I suppose humour the thought and just assume that I want to build one out of curiosity (I do).
I'm not sure how one would go about it, but would a "linear wavefront synergy" or whatever you'd call it work? As in a synergy with multiple midrange drivers stacked vertically along a waveguide with paraline'd compression drivers and an effective wavefront expanding only on the horizontal plane? I'm assuming that what I'm saying makes sense, but feel free to tell me if it doesn't..
The way I see it I'd like to try and incorporate the use of a shared waveguide to ensure cohesive horizontal coverage, the use of acoustic bandpass enclosure design to minimise HD, the ability to combine multiple drivers acoustically to increase sensitivity and spl, the use of an acoustically large wavefront for higher frequencies to increase nearfield response throw and the tight vertical directivity control offered by line arrays.
I have two dbx driverack 260s (6 outputs each) available for time alignment, phase control, eq and everything else, so I have plenty of control over a lot of variables in the digital realm, which should allow for flexibility in the design phase. I also have a passion to learn and understand horn design, and have played around with hornresp in the past, however would have no idea how to model such a thing in the program. I would however assume that for the sake of modeling the expansion could be seen as a 2 dimensional problem which would simplify things.
I know this is probably not the easiest way to build a set of pa mains that will do such a job, however I guess I'm just the type to experiment, and I have measurement gear and time (due to covid) to muck about to find what works and what doesn't. I suppose I can help with the collective knowledge on synergy systems as well, so that can't be a bad thing right?
Thanks in advance, Campbell
I put some thought into this idea a few months ago and my roadblock was the cost of so many compression drivers, even with a paraline helping with spacing, you still need a ton to keep spacing down. The other factor is that you can attain adequate spl with a single compression driver for most applications anyway, so paying for dozens just doesn't make sense. In the pa world they don't follow the spacing so strictly and array high frequency horns regularly, so for pa duty, it may be adequate to relax the spacing guidelines significantly. I would love to see this idea done. It would be an spl monster, but challenges are immense. Expect several prototypes and high likelihood of giving up on the idea. Do it anyway!
They can be arrayed, it's just a matter of going with the flow. Facing them all forward won't be optimal because the wavefronts are curved. They need to be positioned more like side touching side, where the compression tweeters are near each other and two 60x60 becomes one 120x60.
Or do you want the cylindrical wavefront?
Or do you want the cylindrical wavefront?
Imo, putting the two together doesn't make sense unless you have a large scale, long throw, flown high in the air, PA application.
In a synergy, the SPL constraint is inevitably the VHF, but you have to need a more powerful box than the the Danley SH96HO with it's single 1.4" CD, before multiple CD's are needed. And that's a 133dB cont / 139 dB peak .... 220lb box.
Do you really want something even bigger and heavier, for personal party PA?
I guess you could maybe manage size and weight by splitting a paraline-like HF/VHF section into a separate box, with another separate box for mids etc, but again why?
You'd lose all the synergy goodness.......
In a synergy, the SPL constraint is inevitably the VHF, but you have to need a more powerful box than the the Danley SH96HO with it's single 1.4" CD, before multiple CD's are needed. And that's a 133dB cont / 139 dB peak .... 220lb box.
Do you really want something even bigger and heavier, for personal party PA?
I guess you could maybe manage size and weight by splitting a paraline-like HF/VHF section into a separate box, with another separate box for mids etc, but again why?
You'd lose all the synergy goodness.......
I've thought about this and I think an array of more than a few comps would be excessive, especially as the near field response distance distance increases with frequency. I've thought about shading the upper response of the midrange drivers to ensure a consistent line length source relative to frequency (keeping the line length to 4xfreq for example throughout the line array's effective length), that way nearfield response will stay as linear as possible and nearfield throw will be kept to a consistent length.
I feel as though comb filtering reduction is the aim of the game here, and you can fight it by either making the line infinitely long (impossible) or by limiting the physical length between drivers (ideal being a point source of course). I'm thinking of trying something in between the two, by keeping line length consistent. I don't know if this will eliminate the effect, but I feel it will make it at least more consistent with frequency, and the shape/delay of the array may be able to help with that.
Hahahah, cheers mate, I'll give it a crack if out of nothing but boredom right now.
Yeah that's the idea, I don't suppose it will really throw a long way with the sort of sizes I will be building, but it's more out of concept, just to see how it behaves.
Cambell,
I re-built a line array from around 2000 to a Paraline system in 2008, worked quite well, sold it in 2014. Used Eminence 8" and EVDH1AMT drivers, Keystone subs below.
You could research the VTC Paraline systems to get the basic working concepts down.
Art
Attachments
You can gain the output of a Jericho-like box split into bite-size, easy to lift units, and not loose the virtual single point source effect.
I hear what you're saying, for me it's more of a budget constraint, I'd love to play with high end drivers, however I'm on minimal pay at the moment and have a lot of time. I don't really need the high end response as stated in your post, however the midrange response is a big area which I think this idea can help. The gento midranges used in the cosyne build and others look like a great option especially as they're on buyout special right now at parts express for $1:15 a piece.
I'd like clarify this is not going to be a massive 5m tall setup, more like in the range of 1-2m tall, small enough to move with a couple of people at most, and with good response for a couple hundred people at most. Yes, I could buy something that would probably work just fine than less that what I'd build this for, but I'd rather pay a little more for something I can build and be proud of. Think dollar to hour ratio, how little can I spend and how long can I draw the project out by experimenting? 😀
Also TBH I just think synergy horns look damn cool, and I think a line setup could be made to look very unique which is in my mind never a bad thing.
Last edited:
I really liked the keystone sub builds, in fact I happen to have four of the dayton 4" vc sub drivers you tested in them and have considered building them, but didn't because of the music tastes of my and my mates which tends to test the extension of any system (we play outdoors and on gene power at times, so sensitivity is crucial). However our current FLH's are enormous and I'm tossing up the Keystone and something a hell of a lot smaller (like the small ported boxes) for house parties and the like where total output and sensitivity can be sacrificed for size.
How did you design the line array effectively, trial and error?
Last edited:
Yes, at that time, I used about 35 years of trial and error.
I'd use a bit more simulation now, if I were going to do it again.
If you are going for maximum sensitivity on a budget for only 200 people (2meter apart..?) the Paraline approach is probably not the best.
I'm no expert on Hornresp, but from what I've seen I wouldn't know to simulate such a thing, don't suppose you know how?
Not sure what you mean by 2m apart?
But yeah, the highs certainly aren't the weak point in system that size, was mainly proposing the paraline as a way to smooth the response between the mids and comp. I suppose if all measurements are done in the farfield that can be eq'd away.
Very cool 🙂
I've built a few designs just for learning's sake too.
Will be following your effort...
(sometimes i think that over the years, Art has built something of everything ......awesome really )
1)My PC died about 6 months ago, have not used Hornresp since.
2) Covid 19 "social distancing" of 2 meters apart.
Covering an amount of "people" is a useless metric, sound systems provide a given SPL at a given distance, whether there are 200 or 2000 in that distance makes little difference other than reflectivity and crowd noise.
3) The driver compliment for my Paraline system consisted of two BC18SW115-4, 28 Eminence Alpha8, and 10 EVDH1AMT 3" diaphragm compression drivers. Each of the three bands would run out of headroom at roughly the same SPL with the usual pop/rock music compliment.
Not sure what you mean by proposing the Paraline as a way to "smooth the response between the mids and comp", the Paraline reduces vertical dispersion at high frequency, but "smoothness" is certainly not it's strong point.
Art
I've been thinking off making synergy line array with cheap 3" full range speakers with some cheap 6 or 8" woofers.
I would start with the bottom one at about 100°H and make the angle smaller the longer the array goes till about 50° or even smaller. Just like that p.audio 100/50 asymmetric horn.
They will not be overly loud tho.
I would start with the bottom one at about 100°H and make the angle smaller the longer the array goes till about 50° or even smaller. Just like that p.audio 100/50 asymmetric horn.
They will not be overly loud tho.
I can't imagine these speakers will see any action during covid, I'm simply building them during this time.
True, I was more as a rough guideline, however if a more defined metric is required then usual use would be in the range of 5-20m over a coverage angle of 90-120 degrees in an outdoor setting, with occasional halls or the likes being a possibility.
By smoothness I mean polar response/power response. On axis response wouldn't be helped in a significant way, however the tight vertical control offered by a line of midranges would in my mind not match well with the response offered by a normal horn/comp combo, leading to a jump in vertical dispersion at point of XO.
So maybe I should reword myself, I'm looking to use the paraline lense to smooth the vertical response transition between midrange drivers and HF drivers. I hope that makes sense?
Not sure what you mean by this? Why do you mention multiple "ones"? A line array has a single vertical coverage pattern determined by line length and frequency correct?
Professional line array also consist of a lot of small speakers above each other.
Likewise with the synergy horns but every one would have a smaller horizontal angle. But the you melt them together as one speaker of 1 meter.
It might look to silly since the bottom ones are short and wide but no very deep and the top one wel be long and deep.
Likewise with the synergy horns but every one would have a smaller horizontal angle. But the you melt them together as one speaker of 1 meter.
It might look to silly since the bottom ones are short and wide but no very deep and the top one wel be long and deep.
Ahh so you're talking about horizontal coverage, sorry, I assumed you meant vertical. I see what you're saying, and I'm assuming you're suggesting it as a way to increase power delivery at longer distances? However one thing that I would like to try and do is provide constant directivity over as broad of a range of frequencies as possible, which your approach would not provide. Additionally I would like to make the structure a single unit instead of multiple, partially for convenience and partially because I already have a modular pa for such uses.
You still have constant directivity but the difference in spl over distance will be much lower if the audience is rectangluar shaped. Outside this gives you a much better coverage off the audience.
By melding them together you get a single unit.