A testament to the DR200s

[BrentEvans]

A+B=A+B-C

T/A=0

B@A=B/2

A/2=0

A/2 = 1/2

Therefore - you got the gig.

Precisely.

[BrentEvans]

Indeed. For instance, while a DR280 / 36" T48 rig appears to provide the biggest bang for the buck, there's no room to scale down from that point. And sometimes, that versatility is what's required from the client or situation as noted.

This information is golden because people jumping into this field cold-turkey need to quantify just how powerful these cabs really are. For folks with no experience, I see (only from active posts on the forum) a propensity towards larger, fewer cabs; when in actuality, all the data point to groupings (if even required) of smaller cabs, as Bill has posted in the stickies.

The general mindset for many things is that bigger is better. There are other significant advantages to the larger number of smaller cabs, in addition to scalability. I can set up my whole system by myself in under an hour, and not be in too much of a hurry doing it. As was demonstrated Saturday, I can make on-the-fly adjustments without a lot of hassle. I doubt I could set up a 280 system by myself (back problems and all), nor could I have implemented the quick setup change without some help. This has a benefit - I can do things more cheaply, not having to hire help, which is a benefit to potential clients.

I'm not absolutely convinced that 280s are the most bang for buck, either. A 280 deluxe kit from Leland with standard driver (2512) and piezos is about $240. A similarly configured 200 kit with standard driver (Beta 8 ) and piezos is about $160 (or $320 for 2). The 280 takes at least half a sheet more 1/2" plywood than the 200, and a bit more 1/4". based on that, the materials costs of 2 200s seems like it would be pretty close to one 280 (someone correct me if I'm horribly wrong).

A single DR280 is 24" tall, but two DR200s are 36" tall, meaning that the near field is extended to a lower frequency, meaning deeper coverage with better response.


Sensitivity of 2 200s should also be roughly comparable to one 280, assuming a 6db boost with 2 200s over a single.


Seems like they're pretty close... and throw in the added portability and scalability - the 200s are very attractive.

That's not to say the 280s aren't a great cab... but as was said, they simply don't scale down as well.

[Bill Fitzmaurice]

What hasn't been mentioned is driver displacement, which is what limits low frequency output. DR200 65cc, DR250 147cc, DR280 330cc. That's a major consideration and seriously impacts the bang for the buck issue. You have to consider this along with all the other variables. I do agree that for the vast majority of users pick one cab model, adding as many as necessary for the largest gigs you do, but sizing the choice for the average gig you do.

[el_ingeniero]

What hasn't been mentioned is driver displacement, which is what limits low frequency output. DR200 65cc, DR250 147cc, DR280 330cc. That's a major consideration and seriously impacts the bang for the buck issue. You have to consider this along with all the other variables. I do agree that for the vast majority of users pick one cab model, adding as many as necessary for the largest gigs you do, but sizing the choice for the average gig you do.

I can believe that low frequency extension depends on driver displacement. From looking at the chart for the DR200 vs DR280 Brent put up, the DR280 is up 12 dB or so between 50 and 90 Hz. There's also that space between 600 and 900 Hz where the 280 is up 6db or more as well. But that's prolly more of a function of the horn length, right?

As far as driver displacement goes, until the power level takes you to Xmax, that extra displacement goes straight to SPL, right?, so 4 times the driver displacement means 4 times the SPL (+12 db) at the horn bandpass frequencies. Or am I missing something?

Also, the HF output on the DR200 slopes downwards from 6k up, while the DR280 output actually rises. That's with only 6 or 8 more piezos than the DR200? That's puzzling to me.

[BrentEvans]

As far as driver displacement goes, until the power level takes you to Xmax, that extra displacement goes straight to SPL, right?, so 4 times the driver displacement means 4 times the SPL (+12 db) at the horn bandpass frequencies. Or am I missing something?

Above a given frequency, you'll start hitting the thermal limits of the driver before you hit xmax. The 2512 is rated for 250 RMS / 500 Program. You'll exceed that long before the driver reaches xmax. Beta 8 is 225/450... so in both cases, power handling will limit you before xmax in all but the low mids.

This is why I high pass my 200s at 150hz with very steep slopes (at least 48db LR), but only for music sources. I let vocal mics pass through to the 200s full range, but they usually get the 100hz low cut filter enabled on the individual channels, which is a 12 db/oct slope. It sounds nice and full this way, and keeps vocal mics out of the subs.

[el_ingeniero]

As far as driver displacement goes, until the power level takes you to Xmax, that extra displacement goes straight to SPL, right?, so 4 times the driver displacement means 4 times the SPL (+12 db) at the horn bandpass frequencies. Or am I missing something?

Above a given frequency, you'll start hitting the thermal limits of the driver before you hit xmax. The 2512 is rated for 250 RMS / 500 Program. You'll exceed that long before the driver reaches xmax. Beta 8 is 225/450... so in both cases, power handling will limit you before xmax in all but the low mids.

This is why I high pass my 200s at 150hz with very steep slopes (at least 48db LR), but only for music sources. I let vocal mics pass through to the 200s full range, but they usually get the 100hz low cut filter enabled on the individual channels, which is a 12 db/oct slope. It sounds nice and full this way, and keeps vocal mics out of the subs.

Are you running the version of the 200s with the 2" port? It doesn't sound like you are.

Does the 100Hz low cut on vocals mean that you low pass the subs at 100Hz then? Seems like you'd be down quite a bit at 120 Hz ... maybe I'm not calculating it right.

For my application, there are a lot of intense male vocals. I'm not sure I like being down in prime baritone range, nor do I want to run my subs very far past 100 Hz, so I am plan on building 2 stacked pairs of 200s with the 2" x 1/2" port for the extra LF extension. As I understand it, at the frequency the port is tuned for, the cab becomes much more efficient and cone travel is reduced. There should be extra LF extension from coupling as well. That should let me high pass the ported 200s at 120Hz or
so.

[BrentEvans]

Are you running the version of the 200s with the 2" port? It doesn't sound like you are.

Yes, with the highest tuning (no tubes inserted).

Does the 100Hz low cut on vocals mean that you low pass the subs at 100Hz then? Seems like you'd be down quite a bit at 120 Hz ... maybe I'm not calculating it right.

For my application, there are a lot of intense male vocals. I'm not sure I like being down in prime baritone range, nor do I want to run my subs very far past 100 Hz, so I am plan on building 2 stacked pairs of 200s with the 2" x 1/2" port for the extra LF extension. As I understand it, at the frequency the port is tuned for, the cab becomes much more efficient and cone travel is reduced. There should be extra LF extension from coupling as well. That should let me high pass the ported 200s at 120Hz or
so.

It's not a simple crossover. Music sources are crossed at 150/48db LR, just like a "standard" setup. The steep crossover avoids imaging problems, even with the relatively high crossover frequency. This also allows me to feed the cabinets 300W each with no excursion (or distortion) problems since Bill said at 125hz, the excursion limit is reached at 98w. This gives me an additional 4.5db from power (measured) with no audible distortion. Vocal mics are fed to the tops only, but bypass the 150Hz crossover. I generally use a 100hz low cut filter on most voices, but if I get a baritone or basso I can lower this down as far as 40hz, or turn it off completely. It's mainly a de-popper, and works quite well. I've only come across 3 male voices that needed the filter lowered, and then it was to 80hz, just to add back some missing "body" from the voice.

I may not be doing all this the recommended way... but it works great.

[el_ingeniero]

Are you running the version of the 200s with the 2" port? It doesn't sound like you are.

Yes, with the highest tuning (no tubes inserted).

Does the 100Hz low cut on vocals mean that you low pass the subs at 100Hz then? Seems like you'd be down quite a bit at 120 Hz ... maybe I'm not calculating it right.

For my application, there are a lot of intense male vocals. I'm not sure I like being down in prime baritone range, nor do I want to run my subs very far past 100 Hz, so I am plan on building 2 stacked pairs of 200s with the 2" x 1/2" port for the extra LF extension. As I understand it, at the frequency the port is tuned for, the cab becomes much more efficient and cone travel is reduced. There should be extra LF extension from coupling as well. That should let me high pass the ported 200s at 120Hz or
so.

It's not a simple crossover. Music sources are crossed at 150/48db LR, just like a "standard" setup. The steep crossover avoids imaging problems, even with the relatively high crossover frequency. This also allows me to feed the cabinets 300W each with no excursion (or distortion) problems since Bill said at 125hz, the excursion limit is reached at 98w. This gives me an additional 4.5db from power (measured) with no audible distortion. Vocal mics are fed to the tops only, but bypass the 150Hz crossover. I generally use a 100hz low cut filter on most voices, but if I get a baritone or basso I can lower this down as far as 40hz, or turn it off completely. It's mainly a de-popper, and works quite well. I've only come across 3 male voices that needed the filter lowered, and then it was to 80hz, just to add back some missing "body" from the voice.

I may not be doing all this the recommended way... but it works great.

Ah, this is a live music situation.

I'm doing recorded music. Haven't gotten into live music (yet).

Do you handle recorded music the same way? Where do you lowpass your subs?

[BrentEvans]

Tops are high passed at 150 hz, 48db/oct. Subs are low passed at 125hz, 24db/oct. Bear in mind I'm using ported 15" subs right now, but this trick works well for taming the rising response of Titans or Tubas.

It doesn't matter whether it's live or recorded, I've done both. What's different than the "norm" about my system is I have the ability in SAC to choose whether or not a channel is sent to the crossover (tops and subs), or sent full range to the tops only, bypassing the crossover.

[Charles Warwick]

Tops are high passed at 150 hz, 48db/oct. Subs are low passed at 125hz, 24db/oct.

Doesn't crossing that high lead to some sub localization problems? I mean, if you highpass the tops at 150hz and let the woofers take care of the <150hz content, the clustered woofers, being separated from the tops, are no longer well integrated since you could then more easily localize the sound of the subs apart from the tops.

Is crossing the DR200's that high what most people normally do? Or if you do a stack of them how much can you lower the x-over?

[el_ingeniero]

Tops are high passed at 150 hz, 48db/oct. Subs are low passed at 125hz, 24db/oct. Bear in mind I'm using ported 15" subs right now, but this trick works well for taming the rising response of Titans or Tubas.

It doesn't matter whether it's live or recorded, I've done both. What's different than the "norm" about my system is I have the ability in SAC to choose whether or not a channel is sent to the crossover (tops and subs), or sent full range to the tops only, bypassing the crossover.

and I suppose the crossover is in SAC, and you just run from the sound card directly into the amp?

What kind of laptop are you using for SAC? Does it need to be a beast, or will a typical $600 to $800 laptop do?

[AntonZ]

Depends on the number of channels and amount of processing you want to do. I have run SAC on a P4 - 2.8GHz and on a Pentium-M laptop at 1.7GHz. I run 16 channels max, two verbs on auxes, some EQ and dynamics, one monitor out. For modest channel counts this works (and my budget currently doesn't allow for more), but I wouldn't recommend it. Better to use a Core2 system, that will give you more headroom. No need for a beast though for a typical "weekend warrior".

If you want to know what it does on hardware that you have available, you may want to download the demo and run it on your onboard soundcard. Assign same input to multiple SAC channels, add channels and processing that seem realistic for your situation and see what the load does on your hardware.

[BrentEvans]

Doesn't crossing that high lead to some sub localization problems? I mean, if you highpass the tops at 150hz and let the woofers take care of the <150hz content, the clustered woofers, being separated from the tops, are no longer well integrated since you could then more easily localize the sound of the subs apart from the tops.

It hasn't been a problem. I think the combination of the 48db slope on the tops and the lower corner frequency on the subs kind of washes that out. I won't go any higher than 150 though. Further.. what I've found is that the majority of issues with imaging and subs comes from vocal mics, not music sources. We're only talking about a quarter octave of bandwidth between 125 and 150 here. The imaging issue comes from vocal mics popping in the subs, which is very apparent. By keeping them out of the subs, that is mitigated.

Is crossing the DR200's that high what most people normally do? Or if you do a stack of them how much can you lower the x-over?

I doubt it... but it works, and there's a method to the madness. Maybe it would be different with different subs. I'm sure I could cross over lower and get away with it... but it sounds great the way it is. It may change in a given venue... I tune every time I set up.. but it hasn't yet.

Tops are high passed at 150 hz, 48db/oct. Subs are low passed at 125hz, 24db/oct. Bear in mind I'm using ported 15" subs right now, but this trick works well for taming the rising response of Titans or Tubas.

It doesn't matter whether it's live or recorded, I've done both. What's different than the "norm" about my system is I have the ability in SAC to choose whether or not a channel is sent to the crossover (tops and subs), or sent full range to the tops only, bypassing the crossover.

and I suppose the crossover is in SAC, and you just run from the sound card directly into the amp?

The sound card feeds ADA8000 preamps, which have 8 mic inputs and 8 line outputs, all XLR. From thence to the amp.

What kind of laptop are you using for SAC? Does it need to be a beast, or will a typical $600 to $800 laptop do?

My SAC host is a custom rackmount PC. I used an Asrock GM31 based motherboard, with an E5400 processor, and 2 gigs of RAM. It handles 24 channels and 8 monitor mixes, comp and EQ on every channel, all speaker processing and EQ, and records multitrack, with under 50% CPU utilization. I can get it up to 80 or so by adding a bunch of AutoTune plugins... but I never do that.

[Sydney]

Is crossing the DR200's that high what most people normally do? Or if you do a stack of them how much can you lower the x-over?

Based upon how the response falls off, it would be prudent


as mentioned in this implementation

this trick works well for taming the rising response of Titans or Tubas.

Other scenarios require other approaches

AutoTune plugins... but I never do that

AutoTune - YUCK!

Syd

[BrentEvans]

AutoTune - YUCK!

I feel the same way... but I've used it on occasion when my voice was about gone due to illness. It really takes some getting used to, but used tastefully it can help. I don't put it in T-Pain mode.. just gentle pitch correction. There's one other singer I use it for regularly, because he has genuine pitch issues, but we're also working with him on ear training, and his goal is to get off of Autotune. He's one of the very very few people I've met who really can't sing but wants to learn badly enough to put the time into it. Because of this, I compromised and plugged Autotune in for him during church services. He's doing it for the right reasons.