Sound Reinforcement - Forums for Live Sound Professionals - Your Displayed Name Must Be Your Real Full Name To Post In The Live Sound Forums > Audio Measurement and Testing

Phase-aligned overlap??

(1/3) > >>

Nathan Riddle:
What is: "Phase-aligned overlap"


--- Quote ---Clark also applied a personal engineering touch to the flown arrays. “One of the techniques that I’ve pioneered is what I call a ‘phase-aligned overlap,’ which ends up being a dynamic crossover point between the mains and the subs,” he explained. “What that does is create an overlapped set of frequencies that the mains and the subs work together in. As long as they’re phase-aligned in that overlapped set of frequencies, it doesn’t matter the relative level between the mains and the subs—wherever they are matched in level, it’s phase aligned.”
--- End quote ---

-http://www.soundandcommunications.com/array-of-hope/

Beyond my desire to throw up [trying to get over that] at the mention of Bose (and yes I've read the threads on their professional products being actually 'professional).

Isn't that what a normal crossover/phase alignment with subs/mains do?

Will Knight:
Good question.  If it's "aligned", there shouldn't be any overlap.  I would imagine it's "not-aligned" if there is any overlap.   :-\

Nathan Riddle:

--- Quote from: Will Knight on October 11, 2017, 03:29:56 PM ---Good question.  If it's "aligned", there shouldn't be any overlap.  I would imagine it's "not-aligned" if there is any overlap.   :-\

--- End quote ---

Perhaps my semantics is wrong. But I'm thinking the frequency response of both the sub & main isn't a hard wall cuttoff at the xover point which is why he says "overlapped set of frequencies that the mains and the subs work together in."

He then says "As long as they’re phase-aligned in that overlapped set of frequencies, it doesn’t matter the relative level between the mains and the subs" which is correct given my understanding of phase alignment, the level/magnitude of the frequency doesn't affect the phase alignment only the relative phase response can effect the frequency response.

But then he says: "wherever they are matched in level, it’s phase aligned.” I think I get what he's trying to say, but that is flat out wrong. Just because level (magnitude) is the same doesn't mean something is in phase (relative).

Lastly, I'm really confused about the "dynamic crossover point" he refers to. Is there an actual concept for this. The only 'dynamic' xover I know of is improperly done aux subs...? Maybe dynamic xover based upon input level?

Mac Kerr:

--- Quote from: Will Knight on October 11, 2017, 03:29:56 PM ---Good question.  If it's "aligned", there shouldn't be any overlap.  I would imagine it's "not-aligned" if there is any overlap.   :-\

--- End quote ---

How do you have adjacent pass bands that do not overlap?

Mac

Mark Wilkinson:

--- Quote from: Nathan Riddle on October 11, 2017, 04:19:00 PM ---Perhaps my semantics is wrong. But I'm thinking the frequency response of both the sub & main isn't a hard wall cuttoff at the xover point which is why he says "overlapped set of frequencies that the mains and the subs work together in."

He then says "As long as they’re phase-aligned in that overlapped set of frequencies, it doesn’t matter the relative level between the mains and the subs" which is correct given my understanding of phase alignment, the level/magnitude of the frequency doesn't affect the phase alignment only the relative phase response can effect the frequency response.

But then he says: "wherever they are matched in level, it’s phase aligned.” I think I get what he's trying to say, but that is flat out wrong. Just because level (magnitude) is the same doesn't mean something is in phase (relative).

Lastly, I'm really confused about the "dynamic crossover point" he refers to. Is there an actual concept for this. The only 'dynamic' xover I know of is improperly done aux subs...? Maybe dynamic xover based upon input level?

--- End quote ---

I'm guessing the following is the quote you're referring to....yes?

 “One of the techniques that I’ve pioneered is what I call a ‘phase-aligned overlap,’ which ends up being a dynamic crossover point between the mains and the subs,” he explained. “What that does is create an overlapped set of frequencies that the mains and the subs work together in. As long as they’re phase-aligned in that overlapped set of frequencies, it doesn’t matter the relative level between the mains and the subs—wherever they are matched in level, it’s phase aligned.”

My take is that he's just making some of his own definitions.....

and that his idea of a 'dynamic crossover point' might be better described as a 'dynamic crossover range'.
A range of frequencies where phase traces overlap,  within which the x-over freq may be moved up or down, without effecting phase.

And I think his phrase "wherever they are matched in level, it's phase aligned" is meant to say "whatever the relative levels are, subs and mains are still phase aligned"

If my interpretations are correct, I have to agree with him......as long as the phase overlap extends far enough to accommodate summation through the critical region.

This have been a really neat finding for me recently. 
I put a fader on each driver on a 4-way system, to be able to control each driver's level independently.
With the 4-way system fully phase aligned, I was surprised to find I could move  any of the sliders quite a bit, and not change the phase curve.

Best damn eq I've ever found or heard.  Subs span about 2 octaves, Mid about 3 octaves, HF about 3, and VHF about 2.
Sounds so natural moving them up or down, and much easier to dial in than using low and high shelving normally used for system voicing.
I almost can't find a recording that can't be made to sound balanced tonally in pretty short order.
Only caveat I've found so far is use of faders...

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page