Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Brad Weber]

I was mistaken about the DSP.  It is a P4800 which is 4x8.  We have 2 - DFR-22's which are used for other purposes.  My error in the model.

That makes more sense.

The sides were originally added to give a slight fill to the far corners.  We never really intended it to be a "stereo" system at all but on account of the Midas, we can use its features to pan specific instruments towards one side or another.

What actually happens when you do that is not just a factor of the mixer but also of the coverage from the speakers, how the system is wired and how the DSP is programmed.  Have you walked the room and listened to what happens with speech and music sources when you start panning those sources?  Does it sound the same everywhere or do some locations hear something different than what you hear at the mix position?

[mark ahlenius]

That makes more sense.
What actually happens when you do that is not just a factor of the mixer but also of the coverage from the speakers, how the system is wired and how the DSP is programmed.  Have you walked the room and listened to what happens with speech and music sources when you start panning those sources?  Does it sound the same everywhere or do some locations hear something different than what you hear at the mix position?

Hi

from the FOH position (which is centered in the very back of the room) you can hear the pan so to speak.  But just like any "stereo" mix, it only sounds the best when you are in the center.

I always walk my mixes - during the practice because most rooms sound a bit different than in the FOH position.  I work to get a good balance of all instruments  and vocals that way.  As for walking the room when I've panned something, its great if you are on that side to where its panned or toward center, but when you go to the opposite side, you lose the level (of course).  Hence unless its a really simple grouping of instruments, I rarely do much panning.

Speech sounds very good, esp if the eq on the strip is set properly.  Music is pretty good - but really depends on the mix and complexity of the band/worship team.  IMHO - the more there are up on stage vocals plus mutiple guitars - the worse it sounds.  I think that I mentioned it before - but if I could get the guitarist to get rid of distortion (for the most part), I would,  Just my opinion.

I am intrigued about getting the "image" of the sound down closer to the stage.  I would see a couple of options here;  1) putting some wedges on stage to fill in the gap, or 2). thinking about dropping the height of the center cluster down say 10' or so to bring the image close to the vocals.

thanks again everyone - all great things to be thinking about.

'mark

[g'bye, Dick Rees]

Hi
 thinking about dropping the height of the center cluster down say 10' or so to bring the image close to the vocals.

Take a moment to think about the other result of lowering the speakers.  As they are now deployed, there is (X) distance to the listeners in the front row and (X') distance to the back row.  By lowering them you will change the overall ratio of sound making it louder at the front than the back.  IOW, if you lower it 10 feet, it will be about 10 feet closer to the nearest listeners while the distance to the folks in the back will remain relatively the same.

This may or may not help.

[Brad Weber]

I am intrigued about getting the "image" of the sound down closer to the stage.  I would see a couple of options here;  1) putting some wedges on stage to fill in the gap, or 2). thinking about dropping the height of the center cluster down say 10' or so to bring the image close to the vocals.

It used to be fairly common when addressing speech with distributed or pew-back type systems to incorporate one or more 'localization' speakers at the normal 'talker' locations and then delay the reinforcement speakers to be 10-15ms or so behind the sound from the localization speaker(s).  The reinforced sound provided the intelligibility while the localization speakers provided the, not surprisingly, localization.
 
I agree with Dick that lowering the center cluster is likely to adversely affect the related coverage.  It may also reduce the potential gain before feedback of the system since you would be moving the speakers closer to the microphones.

[mark ahlenius]

It used to be fairly common when addressing speech with distributed or pew-back type systems to incorporate one or more 'localization' speakers at the normal 'talker' locations and then delay the reinforcement speakers to be 10-15ms or so behind the sound from the localization speaker(s).  The reinforced sound provided the intelligibility while the localization speakers provided the, not surprisingly, localization.
 
I agree with Dick that lowering the center cluster is likely to adversely affect the related coverage.  It may also reduce the potential gain before feedback of the system since you would be moving the speakers closer to the microphones.

Yes I see.  You both make a really good point about this and it was just a thought.  I was going to bounce it off the guy who designed the speaker placement and room acoustics first before ever trying such a change.  I am going to have him run his measurement gear on the system to insure its running properly, and that we are not getting any artifacts from aging amps, etc.

This morning as I sat out the audience in church,  noted that while I could detect that the sound image of the pastor was above him, it did still sound natural to me.  Which brings me back again to what I think may be just mix issues.

Thanks again all,

It's been educational.

Mark

[Taylor Phillips]

I hadn't thought about the lack of stage volume contributing to the lack of 'intimacy' before, but I think that does make a lot of since.  I've never been one to fight to completely eliminate stage volume completely like a lot of other sound guys because I've always thought the result sounded unnatural.  Rather, my goal has always been to keep things manageable.  Anyway, I think I can say conclusively after all this discussion that your issue is not EQ or speaker quality, but stage set up and perhaps the mix.  I would think people would notice the unnaturalness of a silent stage less with a good mix in the house.  I don't think I would entertain the idea of lowering the center cluster of speakers.  I think the ideas the others mentioned about the delay, front fills, or wedges would be a much better place to start. 

[Luke Geis]

Some call the effect of delay from source to reflection the precedence effect, but it's also know more accurately as the HAAS effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haas_effect

In a nut shell and individual will perceive the first source they hear as the focal point. The reflected sound can be several db louder and the initial sound source heard will still be perceived as the source. This assumes of course that the reflected sound is heard after the actual source.

Adding delay to the PA can bring it in behind the performers. It's how much delay that is used that can make the effect occur. It takes between 5-30ms of system delay behind the performers to acquire the effect. Doing so should make it sound as if the performers are creating the volume. It is a really neat effect and can really draw people in. When standing in th audience you hear the instruments quite loud and it seems as if the volume is coming from the stage more so than the speakers. Different in every scenario of course and YMMV. It's something that takes some critical listening to really nail it down. A couple ms difference can really lock something in or make it start to sound distant again. This is why delay on every input is such a nice feature of some desks. You can do this effect on a per instrument basis!

[Brad Weber]

Some call the effect of delay from source to reflection the precedence effect, but it's also know more accurately as the HAAS effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haas_effect

In a nut shell and individual will perceive the first source they hear as the focal point. The reflected sound can be several db louder and the initial sound source heard will still be perceived as the actual source.

Technically, the Hass Effect is a subset of the precedence effect and relates greatly to precedence and localization being maintained even if the later arrival is up to 10dB greater in level than the direct sound as long as the time arrival difference is between 10ms and 30ms.  This is important for audio systems as you are often dealing with delays or fills that are higher in level than the direct sound but can still maintain precedence as long as the direct sound is within 10dB and leads the delayed sound by typically 10ms to 20ms.

[ProSoundWeb Community]