D&B C7 Technik

[maasai]

Hi Guys,

 

I've hired a venue to put a Techno Club night on, the capacity is 500.

 

The venue has a D&B C7 AudioTechnik installed, but I have never heard this in action before, can someone please tell me if this system is any good?

 

If not I will have to hire a more powerful system.

 

Thanks in advance

Rob

[Stuart91]

Very few people would complain about encountering a properly set up C7 rig.

 

Do the venue give you any idea of what the complement of cabinets is? C7 recommended rig is two subs to one top cabinet. For techno, B2 subs would be an advantage.

 

If you have a budget to hire in, then supplementing the rig with more subs would be more cost effective than bringing in an entire new rig from scratch.

[mackerr]

The venue has a D&B C7 AudioTechnik installed, but I have never heard this in action before, can someone please tell me if this system is any good?

 

The d&b audiotechnik C7 is a legacy system, but was very good sounding. You need to find out from the venue how many of each type of box they have, the C7 is the 70ºx40º full range cabinet and usually has at least 1 C7 sub per top, the B2 is the extra low frequency sub you may want to add if they don't have them already.

 

http://www.dbaudio.com/en/systems/category/series/detail/heritage/c-series/c7-top-loudspeaker.html

http://www.dbaudio.com/en/systems/category/series/detail/heritage/c-series/c7-subwoofer.html

http://www.dbaudio.com/en/systems/category/series/detail/heritage/c-series/b2-subwoofer.html

 

Mac

[TonyMitchell]

C7 is very nice and for many applications two or four stacks can provide a complete FOH solution - high quality and very loud if need be. A "stack" of C7 is two subs and one fairly wide dispertion top, as per Mac's specs above. C7 plays lower than C4 and the two subs put the top at a useful height. However for the genre you mention, I'd definitely add B2s for the extra LF rumble . If you're unfamiliar with d&b audiotechnik, it is a proprietory system thus you can only use d&b amplification with the cabinets. You should be able to hire a pair of B2, a D12 amplifier & cables for less than £200/day and the whole rig should do your night proud.

 

 

 

[maasai]

Thank you very much for your response's, much appreciated.

 

You have given me some confidence that the system will do the job, I'm going to try and book a sound check a week before the gig.

 

 

The current setup is 2 x Subs per top cabinet.

 

Same as picture attached.

 

Thanks

Rob

http://www.concert-systems.com/shopimages/products/normal/IMG_0864%20smaller.jpg

 

[RichM]

That will sound great. But as others have said, maybe look to hire in a couple of B2's to give a bit more bottom end.

[Solstace]

B2's? "A bit" more bottom end?? ;)

 

Last time I encountered even just one of those things strapped onto the bottom end of an installed D&B system, we had to stick a limiter and a notch EQ on it to stop it (and our engineers) doing visible damage to the ceilings of the room itself and an adjoining porch!

 

Back to the subject in hand, a pair with a standard C7 rig for techno/electronica sounds about the right ratio. In that config, jaded and faded memory tells me the B2's should be in "Infra" mode; otherwise things get flabby! That ring a bell with others here?

[TonyMitchell]

In that config, jaded and faded memory tells me the B2's should be in "Infra" mode; otherwise things get flabby! That ring a bell with others here?

 

 

Correct, the same as when using them under Q subs.

 

 

 

 

[csg]

the last thing you need for Techno is the B2, it is simply too slow ( high group delay, giving that "fat" sound). The C7 subs are much tighter sounding than a B2, but most people playing Techno with any degree of seriousness would be looking at systems with much better transient response than the C7 system, and particularly the B2 has at the bottom end of its range. Great for drum and bass, but not for Techno.

 

The C7 top on the other hand should keep you happy.

[GC1971]

I second that. You want the thump not wallow. Get more c7 subs if needed not b2s.

[dbuckley]

B2's? "A bit" more bottom end?? ;) Last time I encountered even just one of those things strapped onto the bottom end of an installed D&B system, we had to stick a limiter and a notch EQ on it to stop it (and our engineers) doing visible damage to the ceilings of the room itself and an adjoining porch!

I note that D&B recommend four C7 subs to one B2. The B2 seems to have, on paper, a lot of output.

 

I know next to nothing about D&B other than I've heard it a bit, and it puzzles me why anyone would choose to use anything else other than for budgetary considerations.

[csg]

All D&B systems seem to have, on paper, a lot of output for their size / power handling / efficiency ( in terms of dB / 1w / 1m). This is due, in part, to the output offered by the system at full power, post DSP. The dynamic EQ used allows the system to deliver far higher SPL than could be offered without it - without damage occurring - perhaps at the expense of sound quality. For me, a system that has considerable changes in its sonic signature as it is turned up is not a desirable thing. Other factors, such as measuring SPL at the peak within the passband and using -5dB rather than the more common -3dB help too off course. Other than that, there is no magic going on with the raw box design or the drivers used ( where conversion efficiency HAS to come from).

 

An off shoot from the high SPL ratings offered, at least on paper, is that some less experienced operators assume that less rig will be fine as it is "loud enough on paper", where in reality, whilst the system will offer the published specs, it will sound extremely strained doing so. I have experienced countless examples of this, many with A list acts, and some extremely skilled engineers behind the desk, all with the same result, a strained, thin and aggressive sound that does nothing for the good name of the brand ( this includes the new systems such as V, driven by D80's)

 

Whilst I have a huge respect for the system engineering approach, the superb reliability and build quality, I view D&B as the SM58 of the PA world - always reliable, usually acceptable, but rarely offering the best sound quality out there. There is much better on offer from other people in at least this aspect.

 

C4 / C7 were in my opinion probably the pinnacle of the D&B systems before they went down the route of far too much DSP and ridiculous max SPL ratings, so going back to the original question, im sure that the C7 system used alone, without the B2 will give acceptable results. It will not however give you anything close to the best you could achieve.

[GC1971]

All D&B systems seem to have, on paper, a lot of output for their size / power handling / efficiency ( in terms of dB / 1w / 1m). This is due, in part, to the output offered by the system at full power, post DSP. The dynamic EQ used allows the system to deliver far higher SPL than could be offered without it - without damage occurring - perhaps at the expense of sound quality. For me, a system that has considerable changes in its sonic signature as it is turned up is not a desirable thing. Other factors, such as measuring SPL at the peak within the passband and using -5dB rather than the more common -3dB help too off course. Other than that, there is no magic going on with the raw box design or the drivers used ( where conversion efficiency HAS to come from).

 

An off shoot from the high SPL ratings offered, at least on paper, is that some less experienced operators assume that less rig will be fine as it is "loud enough on paper", where in reality, whilst the system will offer the published specs, it will sound extremely strained doing so. I have experienced countless examples of this, many with A list acts, and some extremely skilled engineers behind the desk, all with the same result, a strained, thin and aggressive sound that does nothing for the good name of the brand ( this includes the new systems such as V, driven by D80's)

 

Whilst I have a huge respect for the system engineering approach, the superb reliability and build quality, I view D&B as the SM58 of the PA world - always reliable, usually acceptable, but rarely offering the best sound quality out there. There is much better on offer from other people in at least this aspect.

 

C4 / C7 were in my opinion probably the pinnacle of the D&B systems before they went down the route of far too much DSP and ridiculous max SPL ratings, so going back to the original question, im sure that the C7 system used alone, without the B2 will give acceptable results. It will not however give you anything close to the best you could achieve.

 

D'oh.. Not sure what happened there it seems I posted your reply back.. Anyhow I was going to say nice reply but go on then what's better and why?

[csg]

Well, off course I have to preface this with the thought that there is noting more subjective as "sound quality" but with my systems engineers hat on, I'm a firm believer that purity and simplicity is your friend when you are looking at dealing with sound waves. Anything that bends / folds / phase - shifts / distorts that wave can not be a good thing and no amount of DSP can fix the damage to the wave once it had been done.

 

The flip side to this simplicity, it becomes much harder to control the dispersion of simple systems so like everything in system design it becomes a balance of acceptable or less bad consequences. In an ideal world a simple direct radiating / straight horn loaded system using linear phase filters but in the real world that will never be practical for every circumstance.

 

The use of correctional DSP can be very useful to achieve a flatter response out of a smaller box. With modern FIR DSP like that on offer from the likes of Lake and Armonia, such DSP has few drawbacks. I personally draw the line at DSP designed to artificially increase the headroom ( mechanical or thermal) of a system requiring the dynamic use of filters and band pass limiters that significantly alter the sound of the system as it runs out of "natural" headroom and becomes more and more processed.

 

So, I for one would much prefer to take enough rig for the gig rather than relying on artificially inflated SPL ratings that frankly do not do anyone any favours other than the truck packers and tour accountants. I would also prefer a system that relies on a skilled engineer to achieve the best possible sound for a venue rather than a system that "knows best" and takes much of the control away from that engineer. Off course in the case that the engineer has mediocre skills, that could be a good thing, but surely that is not the best way to look at our industry?

I always find it astonishing that when discussing the often, frankly, disappointing sound of such systems, the system "engineers" state that it should sound like "that" as it is running on the manufacturer's presets. Where is the skill in that, or the desire to improve? Frankly I find it lazy.

 

As to what I prefer, well subjectively there is lots out there that I prefer to D&B, but as it is a subjective preference based on my on thoughts regarding system design and control as well as my personal preference of sound quality im not sure as to the value of those thoughts to other people.

[dbuckley]

The dynamic EQ used allows the system to deliver far higher SPL than could be offered without it - without damage occurring - perhaps at the expense of sound quality.

D&B were not the first to use dynamic EQ, nor will they be the last. The first I know of was Meyer with the UPAs, boxes which could go silly loud by sacrificing bottom end. As you note, its keeping the speaker within the mechanical limits. I've never heard a box that can reproduce a chainsaw like the UPA for just this reason. And, of course, even the Berry DCX has dynamic EQ in it, so now anyone who wants to can increase their apparent loudness by sacrificing frequency coverage.

 

Is this a good thing? Exceptions (like gunshots and chainsaws through UPAs) aside, what it usually means is, as you've noted, insufficient rig for the gig. When there is insufficient rig for the gig, is dynamic EQ a good tradeoff? I think it's better tradeoff than running the rig into the red, which is the "traditional" approach.

 

This use of clever engineering (or, perhaps, value engineering) to deliver "good enough" results when the going gets tough is not limited to complete systems; many modern amplifiers (and this includes well regarded amplifiers) cannot deliver power like the amps of yesteryear. Because amp manufacturers know about music, they make amplifiers that have a lot of short term output, which are perfectly acceptable delivering rock and roll with the clip lights flashing on the beat, but rapidly run out of steam if asked to deliver a full power sine wave. They argued that music didn't need full power sine waves, as music wasn't like that, which was sort-of true up until EDM proved otherwise.

 

Whilst I have a huge respect for the system engineering approach, the superb reliability and build quality, I view D&B as the SM58 of the PA world - always reliable, usually acceptable, but rarely offering the best sound quality out there. There is much better on offer from other people in at least this aspect.

 

I'm getting old now, and don't get out as much as I used to, and live in New Zealand, so there simply isn't the variety of kit available here that there is in Europe and the USA, but of those systems I have heard, nothing in my opinion surpasses the ability of D&B to deliver music, albeit I just don't go to stuff where the show ends up at 115dB. So I'm really curious to know what can be so much better than D&B. Certainly, every other system I've heard, which includes some pretty big names, has been less satisfying to me than D&B.