Speakerplans.com Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > General > General Forum
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - extremely high efficiency
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

extremely high efficiency

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 234
Author
Message
MarjanM View Drop Down
Old Croc
Old Croc
Avatar

Joined: 10 February 2005
Location: Macedonia
Status: Offline
Points: 7810
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MarjanM Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 May 2023 at 8:21pm
Toasty, two things.

First, you aint old :)
Second, 50x60m is 3000m2. Using the formula of 4.7 people per sqm that is way more than 3-4000 people ;)

Third :) We miss you!

Marjan Milosevic
MM-Acoustics
www.mm-acoustics.com
https://www.facebook.com/pages/MM-Acoustics/608901282527713
Back to Top
Besa View Drop Down
Registered User
Registered User


Joined: 04 June 2018
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 49
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Besa Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 May 2023 at 8:24pm
So Danley can cover 12-14k ppl crowd with a couple of j7/j8? 
That’s astonishing. Seriously. 

Back to Top
Xoc1 View Drop Down
Registered User
Registered User


Joined: 15 October 2012
Location: Devon UK
Status: Offline
Points: 397
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Xoc1 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 May 2023 at 10:10pm
Originally posted by toastyghost toastyghost wrote:

Coming out of retirement despite myself because the bullshit around here has piled up so high that I can smell it from my cosy little hideaway.
Anyway, back to yer bickering.
Hi Kyle. Good to know your still around, and prepared to rise above the stench.
Back to Top
Phil B View Drop Down
Old Croc
Old Croc
Avatar

Joined: 21 November 2004
Location: Melbourne
Status: Offline
Points: 2322
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Phil B Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 May 2023 at 11:42pm
Kyle !

I'll concur with the fellow SPers and I thought your quote was going to be Captain Willard from Apocolypse Now ... " Oh man...the bullshit piled up so fast in Vietnam, you needed wings to stay above it."

And you ain't old yet fella...

.p.

Mostly harmless.... except if catering is shut.

Solar Sound System Shennanigans..http://diyhifi.biz/
Back to Top
Earplug View Drop Down
Old Croc
Old Croc


Joined: 03 January 2012
Location: Europe
Status: Online
Points: 7199
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Earplug Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 May 2023 at 7:09am
With age, comes wisdom.

That's my excuse, anyway.   LOL  LOL  LOL


Earplugs Are For Wimps!
Back to Top
Bams View Drop Down
Young Croc
Young Croc


Joined: 08 April 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 622
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bams Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 May 2023 at 7:48am
So...we can all stop with this nonsense since we lured Kyle back from retirement ?  ;) 
Back to Top
fudge22 View Drop Down
Registered User
Registered User


Joined: 26 July 2022
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 65
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fudge22 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 May 2023 at 9:45pm

Quote Coming out of retirement despite myself because the bullshit around here has piled up so high that I can smell it from my cosy little hideaway.

It might be worth checking your shoes.

Quote So that's a measured maximum SPL and oh look, they included a repeatable measurement standard too! Yes, the M-Noise test method is an AES standard.

To copy and paste from M-Noise’s procedure page:

Quote Verify the MNoise file used for testing is unaltered from the original by performing a checksum of the downloaded .wav file (SHA or MD5) and compare to the checksum value listed at MNoise.org.

Put a calibrator on the SPL microphone and document that the microphone reads the correct SPL (most calibrators produce 94 dB).

Look up the maximum electrical input and output voltages of all the audio devices used to ensure the loudspeaker can be driven to its maximum linear output, typically at least +18 dBu, and sometimes as much as +24 dBu. For example, if the playback device produces a maximum of +16 dBu and the maximum input to the loudspeaker system is +24 dBu, insert a device between them to add 8 dB of gain. Do not change this gain during the procedure.

Document the audio devices used, their settings, and the signal path between them.

Document the loudspeaker position and the SPL microphone position.

It also states:

Quote “Document”: when used as a verb in this procedure means to record information in some way such that an audio professional who has access to the “documents” could replicate the procedure and get the same results. For example, “documenting” the microphone position could mean making a drawing, taking a picture, or writing a description in the notes field of a stored trace.

Here is a link to the page I quoted.

https://m-noise.org/procedure/ - https://m-noise.org/procedure/

I may have missed it, but I don’t see any documentation regarding the measurement procedure on the Danley website. Yes M-Noise is a recognised standard, but anyone can download the audio file and truthfully claim to have measured their device using the M-Noise signal. Without the documentation it doesn’t conform to the standard, which as you say is about repeatability. Without the set-up documentation how can you repeat the measurement? If anyone has a copy or link to Danley’s documentation I would be interested to see it.

If the figures are accurate, it is good news for the home constructor, because it shows that a simple calculation can get you quite close.

Quote Sounds like a pretty good measure of overall efficiency to me. If you can cover the audience with a box that occupies a tenth of the truck pack volume, uses a third of the number of amplifier channels, and in half the weight of the equivalent 12-deep hang of a mid-format line array system, is that not a more efficient way to do the gig?

If you notice the last part of my statement that you quoted I said “unless by efficient you mean highest output from smallest box.” Generally, in engineering, this is not what is meant by efficient.

Quote All the fancy images about line arrays and bodies

Could this be what is affecting your olfactory system. The images might look pretty, the information is probably correct, but it is the answer to a different question. In the context of this thread, comparing the Danley system to a large line array it is irrelevant. The original poster was asking about designing and building an efficient system, not whether a Danley system is comparable to a12 a side d&b KSL.

Quote On the subject of flying things, it's worth noting that all of the array modelling is built on the basis of there not being a reflective/absorptive ground plane and audience, aka free-field conditions. If you simulate an array that's too low to the ground, it won't behave like the maths suggests. Not only are you pasting the poor bastards in the front row with brute force SPL while the people at the back can barely hear the vocals, you're going to cause more off-site noise issues more quickly like this. Hard to discuss the finer details of this approach on a site when the noise police just need you to STFU before Doris calls the council, of course.

I think that it is a reasonable assumption that anyone asking how to design a speaker cabinet, on this forum, is unlikely to be deploying their resulting work at a height sufficient to ensure free-field conditions. If this is the case then you agree that your calculations are irrelevant.

As the original poster has not returned since his three initial posts, perhaps he has found a solution to his question or got bored and moved on to some new project. If he is reading this perhaps he can let us know.

Back to Top
godathunder View Drop Down
Old Croc
Old Croc


Joined: 19 July 2004
Location: wicklow
Status: Offline
Points: 1833
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote godathunder Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 May 2023 at 10:02am
Originally posted by fudge22 fudge22 wrote:

If you notice the last part of my statement that you quoted I said “unless by efficient you mean highest output from smallest box.” Generally, in engineering, this is not what is meant by efficient.



ĭ-fĭsh′ənt

adjective

  1. Acting or producing effectively with a minimum of waste, expense, or unnecessary effort.
  2. Acting directly to produce an effect.
  3. Causing less waste or requiring less effort than comparable devices or methods. Used in combination.
in common usage I think efficiency is a useful term to describe the effectiveness of a tool or method.

in engineering terms efficiency is a percentage and requires comparison of measurements using the same terms - eg: watts out/watts in = %efficiency

comparisons such as box size:acoustic power are expressed as efficacy which is more an attempt to express satisfaction numerically

So would it be more satisfactory to your inner enginner if we described the danley box as an efficacious tool?

LOUDER THAN LOUD
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 234

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.06
Copyright ©2001-2023 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.