The synergy horn has been around a long time before danley adapted it took praise for it. Which I do commend him for it.
But it is as far from a cool American product and never ever will be.
I will leave it at that.
U still ain’t got a clue and you can phone danley up and say hi I want to enquire about the square and the compass...
But it is as far from a cool American product and never ever will be.
I will leave it at that.
U still ain’t got a clue and you can phone danley up and say hi I want to enquire about the square and the compass...
Charlie's not gonna add anything to the discussion. should just ignore. Nice project patrick, looking forward to see how it measures!
I feel like I've been hearing this kind of thing for at least the half decade I've hung out around here, and I find it increasingly uncompelling. There's almost no market specifically for Chinese Danley copies, and I think the notion that Chinese people are just waiting eagerly for somebody on a forum somewhere to explain how they work is conceited at best and at worst leans heavily on some negative cultural stereotypes.
The cat is well out of the bag on Synergies and if there were going to be copies we'd have seen them by now.
Big Mouth Strikes Again
On page two of this thread, I took a layout like the DNA Sequence speaker, and I 'squeezed' the midbasses together. I did this to *widen* the horizontal directivity.
This is a bit tricky because we have two goals at odds with each other:
1) when you bring two speakers closer together, you get wider beamwidth
2) But when you bring them closer together, there's no room for a waveguide in the center
This paradox means that it's challenging to get wide beamwidth with a horizontal array. Which is well known; it's why MTM center channels are terrible.
I had an idea, and it seems to be working really well:
reduce the voltage to TWO of the four midbasses.
By reducing the voltage to half of the midbasses, you widen the beamwidth on ONE axis.
For instance, if we have two midbasses on the horizontal axis and two midbasses on the vertical axis, when we reduce the voltage of the midbasses on the horizontal axis, the beamwidth on the horizontal axis gets wider. And vice versa.
Here's some pics to illustrate this.
In this crossover, we have four midbasses. They're arranged exactly the same as the Donald North speaker; there are two midbasses on the X axis, two on the Y axis, and the entire array is rotated about 22.5 degrees.
In the crossover, I've put a resistor inline with two of the midbasses. I use this resistor in the crossover to vary the output level of half of the midbasses, the ones that are on the horizontal axis.
As I reduce the output of the midbasses on the horizontal axis, the beamwidth on the horizontal axis gets wider.
When reducing the voltage to the horizontal midbasses by 50%, it basically doubles the beamwidth.
Here's one way to think about this:
1) If you have an MTM and it's mounted vertically, the vertical beamwidth will be about 30 degrees(1) and the horizontal will be nearly 180 degrees.
2) If you have an MTM and it's mounted horizontally, the vertical beamwidth will be nearly 180 degrees and the horizontal will be about 38.7 degrees(1).
Now if you combine them, and adjust the voltage on half, you can get something in between: as wide as 180 degrees, or as narrow as 38.7.(1)
(1) note:
The beamwidth will be largely influenced by the spacing of the elements. I used 38.7 degrees as an example because many MTMs use single wavelength spacing, and single wavelength spacing yields a beamwidth of 38.7 degrees. Here's a table showing spacing versus beamwidth:
On page two of this thread, I took a layout like the DNA Sequence speaker, and I 'squeezed' the midbasses together. I did this to *widen* the horizontal directivity.
This is a bit tricky because we have two goals at odds with each other:
1) when you bring two speakers closer together, you get wider beamwidth
2) But when you bring them closer together, there's no room for a waveguide in the center
This paradox means that it's challenging to get wide beamwidth with a horizontal array. Which is well known; it's why MTM center channels are terrible.
I had an idea, and it seems to be working really well:
reduce the voltage to TWO of the four midbasses.
By reducing the voltage to half of the midbasses, you widen the beamwidth on ONE axis.
For instance, if we have two midbasses on the horizontal axis and two midbasses on the vertical axis, when we reduce the voltage of the midbasses on the horizontal axis, the beamwidth on the horizontal axis gets wider. And vice versa.
Here's some pics to illustrate this.
In this crossover, we have four midbasses. They're arranged exactly the same as the Donald North speaker; there are two midbasses on the X axis, two on the Y axis, and the entire array is rotated about 22.5 degrees.
In the crossover, I've put a resistor inline with two of the midbasses. I use this resistor in the crossover to vary the output level of half of the midbasses, the ones that are on the horizontal axis.
As I reduce the output of the midbasses on the horizontal axis, the beamwidth on the horizontal axis gets wider.
When reducing the voltage to the horizontal midbasses by 50%, it basically doubles the beamwidth.
Here's one way to think about this:
1) If you have an MTM and it's mounted vertically, the vertical beamwidth will be about 30 degrees(1) and the horizontal will be nearly 180 degrees.
2) If you have an MTM and it's mounted horizontally, the vertical beamwidth will be nearly 180 degrees and the horizontal will be about 38.7 degrees(1).
Now if you combine them, and adjust the voltage on half, you can get something in between: as wide as 180 degrees, or as narrow as 38.7.(1)
(1) note:
The beamwidth will be largely influenced by the spacing of the elements. I used 38.7 degrees as an example because many MTMs use single wavelength spacing, and single wavelength spacing yields a beamwidth of 38.7 degrees. Here's a table showing spacing versus beamwidth:
The cat is not out of the bag but if it were the Chinese would be all over it.
The Chinese are more interested in line arrays (more boxes!) and clones of better known western brands.
Patrick has had earl geddes speakers he has had danley synergy speakers as well as owning bill waslow designed synergy speakers and proclaimed a pair of Yamaha speakers were great.
He is a dog chasing its tail why try n copy a well proven point source design(s)..........
That are bound to fail, if he learned more about quarter wavelength interaction as well as anybody else he would find you are limited or rather can not go past that rule 🙂🙂
This is positive feedback😉
He is a dog chasing its tail why try n copy a well proven point source design(s)..........
That are bound to fail, if he learned more about quarter wavelength interaction as well as anybody else he would find you are limited or rather can not go past that rule 🙂🙂
This is positive feedback😉
And let us not forget that danleys design is for high output easily recreated in an home environment no need for high spl but the design remains the same.
Are not all the important bits in the patent. I see no reason to try to obscure design details.
There were re-entrant horns before Danley, but he got the tech all lined up properly.
dave
There were re-entrant horns before Danley, but he got the tech all lined up properly.
dave
An important point hertz is a measurement resulting from man made time.
Frequency however is a recurring mathematical phenomenon
That can not be divided by the second
Hence hertz is not quantifiable
If in doubt research Nikolas Tesla.
Danley who I have upmost respect for in his designs accidentally fell lucky but not without hard work and research as to why🙂
Frequency however is a recurring mathematical phenomenon
That can not be divided by the second
Hence hertz is not quantifiable
If in doubt research Nikolas Tesla.
Danley who I have upmost respect for in his designs accidentally fell lucky but not without hard work and research as to why🙂
Last edited:
If frequency is a recurring mathematical phenomenon, then why would its unit Hertz not be the same??
Of course they could be reverse engineered
One more conspiracy topic, and then "yes." I admire greatly what Danley (the man) has done in sharing his designs here and elsewhere. I also admire the DIY efforts of Patrick and others. But does anyone here really believe the Chinese couldn't reverse engineer a (say) SH-50 and discover the hidden details? So far as I know, DSL has been most secretive with the exact crossover slopes. But again, these could be deduced.
Having said that, again, credit to Danley and hobbyists for not "spilling the beans" about the exact details. It leaves a little mystery for us DIY folk.
Mere common sense would suggest that the main reasons that knock-offs of Danley tech haven't appeared are (1) still protected by Patent and (2) even if not, there are physical constraints, i.e. a big part of the design is directivity and you must have a waveguide of a certain diameter to get that. A speaker the size of a small refrigerator would be a hard sell to most homes, no matter how cheap.
One more conspiracy topic, and then "yes." I admire greatly what Danley (the man) has done in sharing his designs here and elsewhere. I also admire the DIY efforts of Patrick and others. But does anyone here really believe the Chinese couldn't reverse engineer a (say) SH-50 and discover the hidden details? So far as I know, DSL has been most secretive with the exact crossover slopes. But again, these could be deduced.
Having said that, again, credit to Danley and hobbyists for not "spilling the beans" about the exact details. It leaves a little mystery for us DIY folk.
Mere common sense would suggest that the main reasons that knock-offs of Danley tech haven't appeared are (1) still protected by Patent and (2) even if not, there are physical constraints, i.e. a big part of the design is directivity and you must have a waveguide of a certain diameter to get that. A speaker the size of a small refrigerator would be a hard sell to most homes, no matter how cheap.
I'm sure the Chinese or any other nation, could easily reverse engineer synergies without any need of info from any of us DIY'ers.
Read the patents, buy a few boxes, take some measurements...no big deal for any kind of major speaker manufacturer.
The passive xovers are nothing special either....they just take advantage of the excellent acoustic design.
Heck, they're not even optimal for SQ....I've heard straight from DSL how some home audio folks have replaced the passives with actives.
The passives are often optimal for commercial install however....
Which gets to the reason i think there haven't been synergy knockoffs showing up yet..... DSL's market doesn't at all appear to be about selling straight to end user /consumer (particularly home)
The big market for syns is clearly install,.... large scale install at that.
Are major installers/integrators going to purchase and install knockoffs?
And then there's the whole size/weight issue Soldermizer mentions, which helps preclude a straight-to-consumer market, even for smaller models.....
But lack of understanding or missing some secret sauce ain't what's precluding knockoffs 😉
Read the patents, buy a few boxes, take some measurements...no big deal for any kind of major speaker manufacturer.
The passive xovers are nothing special either....they just take advantage of the excellent acoustic design.
Heck, they're not even optimal for SQ....I've heard straight from DSL how some home audio folks have replaced the passives with actives.
The passives are often optimal for commercial install however....
Which gets to the reason i think there haven't been synergy knockoffs showing up yet..... DSL's market doesn't at all appear to be about selling straight to end user /consumer (particularly home)
The big market for syns is clearly install,.... large scale install at that.
Are major installers/integrators going to purchase and install knockoffs?
And then there's the whole size/weight issue Soldermizer mentions, which helps preclude a straight-to-consumer market, even for smaller models.....
But lack of understanding or missing some secret sauce ain't what's precluding knockoffs 😉
There's a difference between the Unity horn and the Synergy horn that isn't in the patent. It's never been disclosed online. From the posts I've read, only one person has figured it out. You can probably guess who (it's not me.)