[johnzm]

I am a big fan of Danny's designs, so much so in fact that every single system in my home has speakers with his magic touch. Because of this, I am posting in dannys forum with hopes that people who enjoy the same speaker qualities I do, can chime in (I hope thats okay, Danny)

lately I have been quite intrigued by the "synergy horn" design.




has anyone heard these types of design before? and does the super V give up anything in resolution or detail (or even naturalness of sound) over these?

I sadly have not had a chance to hear these, so I have no idea if this type of speaker is a good match for me, since i do not enjoy "klipsch sound".  so anything anyone has to add about the sound qualities would be very helpful.

[corndog71]

 
That crossover is a mess!

[Danny Richie]

That is not exactly an audiophile speaker. Those are just designed to be loud.

[JohnR]

That is not exactly an audiophile speaker. Those are just designed to be loud.

Actually, they are designed to have constant directivity down to a much lower frequency than any conventional "waveguide." Here is a helpful article:

http://redspade-audio.blogspot.com.au/2011/03/synergy-horn.html

[cujobob]

Reflections like that cannot be good for sound quality. I have read about them before and they're apparently not too bad...maybe for large venues they'd be a nice option.

[JerryM]

Actually, they are designed to have constant directivity down to a much lower frequency than any conventional "waveguide." Here is a helpful article:

http://redspade-audio.blogspot.com.au/2011/03/synergy-horn.html

Interesting. The performance advantages listed are intriguing, and note " when arrayed..."

I'd love to hear these with some really clean tubes.



I haven't got to hear this type of speaker before, but want to now. Super cool, johnzm. 

Have fun,

Jerry

[johnzm]

Danny,

have you heard them before? The more I read about them the more I like the qualities of the design. Extremely low distortion, great frequency response, constant directivity, a true point source to under 100hz. I do understand that most of the speakers of this type of design are made for large venue's but wouldn't those attributes also be very nice to have in a home environment as well?


Also, if anyone has heard them please chime in. I'd love to hear about what you thought of them

[Hank]

That crossover is a mess!

+1  Yep, they break the rule about inductor placement:  you should not be able to look through the center of an inductor coil and see another inductor.  That's the result of correct physical placement to avoid magnetic field interference.  I bet those speakers are very expensive - looks like a large labor content.

[Danny Richie]

They may have a constant directivity that is a little lower than most but that is not that big of a deal. The time domain aspect will be a mess. It reminds me of car audio. I'll just put woofers in my lower kick panels and tweeters in my dash. That will work right?

The spectral decay is likely to show some issues as well. The impedance curve would allow some internal resonances to show too. I'd need to see all of that before even considering it even for non-audiophile applications.

There is nothing about that design that would make me think "oh that might sound good". 

[stevenkelby]

I'll just put woofers in my lower kick panels and tweeters in my dash. That will work right?

Sorry for the OT post but I'll take this opportunity to ask as I'm fitting a stereo to my car soon. Hope it's ok!

Danny, would you suggest putting the tweeters down in the doors as close as possible to the mids, instead of in the corners of the dash/front door windows area?

[Danny Richie]

Sorry for the OT post but I'll take this opportunity to ask as I'm fitting a stereo to my car soon. Hope it's ok!

Danny, would you suggest putting the tweeters down in the doors as close as possible to the mids, instead of in the corners of the dash/front door windows area?

Rule of thumb is that you want the acoustics centers of your drivers to be less than the distance of the wavelength of the crossover point.  See chat here: http://www.soundoctor.com/freq.htm

For instance, if your crossover point is 2100Hz then you need your acoustic centers to be less than 6.5" apart. Closer is better and further apart than that really starts creating lobbing errors that can be too much to live with. 

[stevenkelby]

Fantastic, thanks for the info and link, much appreciated. That's what I'll do

[DS-21]

The time domain aspect will be a mess.

Danny, that's not what the measurements show. The time domain performance of the older Unities and newer Synergies is pretty spectacular.

There is nothing about that design that would make me think "oh that might sound good".

There is nothing about a 5-7" woofer combined with a tweeter loaded on a 180deg waveguide (i.e. flush on a baffle) that would make me think "oh that might sound good," either.

[Danny Richie]

Danny, that's not what the measurements show. The time domain performance of the older Unities and newer Synergies is pretty spectacular.

The tweeter is behind the mids (delayed in time) a good 6 inches or so and the mids are behind the woofers (delayed in time) a good 12 inches or so. Yet the time domain is spectacular? Have any step responses on this thing to show that? If you have a digital crossover then you might be able to dial in enough correction to fix that, but not with a passive crossover.

There is nothing about a 5-7" woofer combined with a tweeter loaded on a 180deg waveguide (i.e. flush on a baffle) that would make me think "oh that might sound good," either.

You might be in for a big surprise. If you think I might get a big surprise from these drivers mounted in a bull horn then please enlighten me.

And if anyone would like to bring one by I will be glad to measure and test it for you (FOR FREE).

[johnzm]

The tweeter is behind the mids (delayed in time) a good 6 inches or so and the mids are behind the woofers (delayed in time) a good 12 inches or so. Yet the time domain is spectacular? Have any step responses on this thing to show that? If you have a digital crossover then you might be able to dial in enough correction to fix that, but not with a passive crossover.

You might be in for a big surprise. If you think I might get a big surprise from these drivers mounted in a bull horn then please enlighten me.

And if anyone would like to bring one by I will be glad to measure and test it for you (FOR FREE).

I dont mean to ruffle anyones feathers, but I am glad there is more participation in the thread than just me. I dont know nearly enough to contribute, except that there are alot of things that look nice on paper. I would assume the crossover is a mess, because it has alot of correction in the time domain Danny is talking about? or am I wrong?   

A few of the home brew copys of this speaker people are mentioning the use of digital x overs for simplicity.


there is some measurements of the horn on their pdf

http://www.danleysoundlabs.com/pdf/danley_tapped.pdf

I am assuming that the group delay is not applicable to what Danny is looking for, is it?

[DS-21]

The tweeter is behind the mids (delayed in time) a good 6 inches or so and the mids are behind the woofers (delayed in time) a good 12 inches or so. Yet the time domain is spectacular? Have any step responses on this thing to show that? If you have a digital crossover then you might be able to dial in enough correction to fix that, but not with a passive crossover.

Take it up with Tom Danley. He's shown measurements that do your step response one better: the speakers pass a square wave.

You might be in for a big surprise.

Nope.

I like the sound of high-fidelity speakers, not speakers that throw a mushroom cloud of midrange energy into the room like typical "High End" speakers. And all speakers designed along the model I discuss above ("5-7 [inch] woofer combined with a tweeter loaded on a 180deg waveguide") will do that. It's simple physics: the woofer narrows in directivity with increasing frequency, and the tweeter blasts wide open at the bottom of its passband.

[dwk]

The tweeter is behind the mids (delayed in time) a good 6 inches or so and the mids are behind the woofers (delayed in time) a good 12 inches or so. Yet the time domain is spectacular? Have any step responses on this thing to show that? If you have a digital crossover then you might be able to dial in enough correction to fix that, but not with a passive crossover.

As DS-21 points out, you're jumping to incorrect conclusions. The entry points for the mids are placed 1/4 wave at xover from the throat. The asymmetrical xover slope coupled with the inherent bandpass nature of the mid mounting arrangement results in a linear-phase / time coherent xover.  The same principle is at play in the mid-to-woof xover.  Tom has posted measured results showing the passing of a square wave over a decade of bandwidth (beyond that the inherent bandwidth of the speaker starts to distort the square wave)
 The result is that these really do operate like a single point source with basically constant directivity over most of their bandwidth.  Not other setup that I've seen manages to accomplish that.

You might be in for a big surprise. If you think I might get a big surprise from these drivers mounted in a bull horn then please enlighten me.

Well, if you look at the engineering honestly rather than jumping to conclusions, I think you'll find one of the more interesting and elegant designs that is out there.  If there is a fault with them, it's that mouth termination could be better and my result in diffraction.

These definitely are designed for pro applications, but I used a version of the simpler design as my main speakers for a while (Yorkville U15). With a bit of judicious EQ, they were eminently capable of high-end performance, and the true Danley designs are most assuredly substantially better.  As you apparently experience with your co-ax drivers, not everything designed for 'pro' use should be rejected out of hand.

[dheming]

Recently I got a chance to hear these exact speakers (SH50) here in the Bay Area at a local dealers house.  Unfortunately the room he had them set up in was completely untreated and had a huge glass sliding door off to one side: reflection city.  He had the passive version of these and the amps that were driving them were surely not audiophile grade by any means.  Plus he played them super loud and within minutes of the demo I got that special feeling in my ears.  So not really the ideal demo situation.

That being said, on the plus side they had an excellent level of detail.  I was also impressed at how coherent they sounded.  Pattern control was very tight, just like I've read about online.  However they did not image very well at all, at least in that setup.  That was perhaps the biggest surprise for me that day.  For home theater or 2 Ch use the new SM series would be a better way to go IMO since they are significantly smaller and have better HF response. 

Speaking of which the SM96 has been on my radar for a while now.  The beautiful thing about it is that it could be used for multiple purposes: 2 Ch audiophile rig, as a monitor for mixing and maybe mastering, and as part of a small sound reinforcement system for doing small to medium gigs.  There are not many other speakers out there I can say that about.  There is a company here that rents Danley gear, perhaps spending a weekend with a pair would be the way to go.

[Danny Richie]

Take it up with Tom Danley. He's shown measurements that do your step response one better: the speakers pass a square wave.

I am not seeing anything from that link that shows a step response, a square wave, or even individual driver responses to allow one to see any phase relationship data. A spectral decay or impedance curve would be nice too.

What I do see is drivers with physical offsets that are clear time delays. I also see a picture of a crossover on one of these speakers that uses a very poor quality level. Electrolytic caps and sand caste resistors are certainly not something that anyone would choose for a speaker if sound quality was an objective. The same can be said for the use of iron core inductors (also pictured) for ranges above 200Hz. And I don't know if the picture of the crossover is one designed by or assembled by Mr. Danley, but whoever assembled them lacks a basic understanding of how inductors in a crossover must be oriented.

I like the sound of high-fidelity speakers, not speakers that throw a mushroom cloud of midrange energy into the room like typical "High End" speakers.

Just so that we understand where you are coming from, would you care to share with us what you consider a high-fidelity speaker?

And all speakers designed along the model I discuss above ("5-7 [inch] woofer combined with a tweeter loaded on a 180deg waveguide") will do that. It's simple physics: the woofer narrows in directivity with increasing frequency, and the tweeter blasts wide open at the bottom of its passband.

What you are really getting at is that you are correlating a speakers off axis behavior with its power response or room response. And that is a valid correlation. Off axis behavior does directly effect a power or room response. But then again so do a lot of other things. The room itself (by far) can be a huge contributing factor to good or bad in room responses. It is part of the system as well, and its size and treatment level should be considered as well as the design of the speakers.

Still it is not hard to get a very consistent in room response from a typical boxed speaker design. And it is not hard to get a very consistent off axis response either. I focus on off axis behavior in all of my designs.

However, as important as off axis consistency might be one cannot focus only on that aspect and disregard driver quality or crossover quality. No matter how good the design may be in one aspect you are still limiting your end goal of true performance if the drivers were meant to be used in car audio or pro audio applications where objectives are often far from that of high end audio. 

[Danny Richie]

As you apparently experience with your co-ax drivers, not everything designed for 'pro' use should be rejected out of hand.

Yep, some of them are indeed very good. I am very impressed with the P-Audio driver that we use in the Super-V. Honestly though I have found few that are close.

Okay let's step back a minute an assume that what you say is correct and make a comparison.

The entry points for the mids are placed 1/4 wave at xover from the throat. The asymmetrical xover slope coupled with the inherent bandpass nature of the mid mounting arrangement results in a linear-phase / time coherent xover. The same principle is at play in the mid-to-woof xover.

My Super-V uses the P-Audio BM12CX38 driver. It is a coaxial design and the tweeter is offset about 2" from the voice coil of the woofer. So the tweeter is delayed in time slightly compared to the woofer. The crossover point is 1kHz. So at the crossover point the the driver offset is about 1/8th of the wavelength, or about 45 degrees of phase rotation. The crossover is an asymmetrical design (electrically) that yields matching acoustic slopes. The crossover does have some time delayed effects but does not create such a shift that it becomes linear-phase or time coherent (nor could it).

Now the tweeter in this Danley designed horn looks like it is about 6 inches back from the mids. You say it is 1/4 wave off (mids to the throat). Okay that would be about 4" back from the mids if the crossover point is at 1kHz. That's 90 degrees of phase rotation at 1kHz or half way from being out of phase. However, it is stated to be linear-phase / time coherent. Really? So pardon me for jumping to an obvious conclusion. Maybe you can explain how that monstrosity of a crossover is going to compensate for all of that physical driver offset.

If in fact is is time coherent then what would the effects of that be? Well all room reflections aside it should image very well as all would have perfect time arrival. If this is the case then how was the imaging dheming?

However they did not image very well at all, at least in that setup.

Funny thing is that the imaging is also greatly effect by the capacitors used. Capacitors store and release energy. Some are quite fast and cause little time delay smearing. Sonicaps are really good in that regard, and many report upgrading to them greatly improved imaging. Other caps like Electrolytic caps are really bad in that regard. They store and release energy very slowly by comparison. This causes time delay smearing.

So it strikes me as odd to boost of a speakers performance in an area like being phase coherent then use caps that smear the time domain signal.

RMAF is a nice venue to show of a design, especially something that is a patent pending design. Maybe Mr. Danley would like to exhibit there this year to show off this design. I await my surprise.