ProSoundWeb Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11   Go Down

Author Topic: Line vs Point Sources - Open talk  (Read 29986 times)

Mac Kerr

  • Old enough to know better
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7551
  • Audio Plumber
Re: Open talk
« Reply #90 on: November 18, 2017, 09:58:37 AM »

I may be the oldest person on this site and am slowing down quickly, but the oldtimers hasn't hit yet, and I can still remember back to a day

Ha! You may be one of the "older" guys on this site but you aren't the oldest. Dick Rees may have been the oldest but he has really retired from sound and I don't think he follows this site anymore. There are a few more in the over 65 crowd, including me, but I'll defer to your memory.

Mac
Logged

Alberto Escrina

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 81
    • STS Sound Touring Systems
Re: Open talk
« Reply #91 on: November 18, 2017, 11:51:18 AM »

Please tel me if I get "heavy" insisting on my former point of interest. I promess I will stop posting.
This point, as you can see reading my previous threats, is about that modern technology (we should make clear what modern means in terms of time but, Ok, we can handle that) has to be more to better operational features than to sound quality itself.
Exceptions might be measuring devices and softwares or acoustic prediction tools.
When we get in to sound systems, most of those features have to be with, "flexibility", "transportability", "scalability", networking, weight, size, easy rigging, etc, etc, etc.
Even extraordinary designs such as Enya and MLA (just two examples), that we all know have years and tons of research behind them, deal with sound distribution and not with sound "quality". Do they sound "better"? or are they just extraordinary tools? You tell me. I didn't heard them never, unfortunately.
Did you see that no one of you, the old warriors, didn't even make a mention of my MSL3 to line source sound quality and efficiency comment? Why my friends?
Ivan, I hope too that maybe one day accuracy and quality of sound will become important again.
Art deserves it.
Cheers.
Logged
Alberto Escriña
R&D for STS Sound Touring Systems
Buenos Aires,
Argentina

John Roberts {JR}

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17176
  • Hickory, Mississippi, USA
    • Resotune
Re: Open talk
« Reply #92 on: November 18, 2017, 12:19:29 PM »

Please tel me if I get "heavy" insisting on my former point of interest. I promess I will stop posting.
This point, as you can see reading my previous threats, is about that modern technology (we should make clear what modern means in terms of time but, Ok, we can handle that) has to be more to better operational features than to sound quality itself.
Exceptions might be measuring devices and softwares or acoustic prediction tools.
When we get in to sound systems, most of those features have to be with, "flexibility", "transportability", "scalability", networking, weight, size, easy rigging, etc, etc, etc.
Even extraordinary designs such as Enya and MLA (just two examples), that we all know have years and tons of research behind them, deal with sound distribution and not with sound "quality". Do they sound "better"? or are they just extraordinary tools? You tell me. I didn't heard them never, unfortunately.
Did you see that no one of you, the old warriors, didn't even make a mention of my MSL3 to line source sound quality and efficiency comment? Why my friends?
Ivan, I hope too that maybe one day accuracy and quality of sound will become important again.
Art deserves it.
Cheers.
I don't know if I'm an old warrior but I feel pretty old...

The discussion of different speaker system technology and approaches has been going on for years (decades).

Sound reinforcement is a business first and sound quality/accuracy can be secondary to that sometimes (just like everything in business).

In an ideal world new technology can do everything better and cheaper, but until then "there will be different horses for different courses."

JR
Logged
Cancel the "cancel culture". Do not participate in mob hatred.

Ivan Beaver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9534
  • Atlanta GA
Re: Line vs Point Sources - Open talk
« Reply #93 on: November 18, 2017, 12:43:07 PM »

Once again, and in the end, the right tool for the job will make all the difference in the world. Beating a square peg into a round hole won't work regardless of the size of the hammer, and hammering a point source system into a line array hole, regardless of size, may get sound to the crowd, but what are the losses when all is said and done.


People seem to forget what was happening almost 20yrs ago, when line arrays were first coming on the market.

There was a lot of resentment-that will never work-that will never be accepted-it is not on the riders-etc.

Yet the line arrays WERE a great improvement over the old "Stack 'em up" approaches.  DO NOT call those systems "point sources".  They were anything BUT point sources.

They were simple piles of boxes, each radiating its own pattern, and causing interference with all of the other boxes in even plane.

The line arrays coupled much better than those boxes, and reduced the planes of interference.

They were "accepted" because they sounded better, went up faster, were smaller etc.

Well times have been changing, and there are new tools on the market, that are being meet with the same "attitudes" that the line arrays did when they were the "new kids on the block".

Of course time will tell, but history has a way of repeating itself.

When something is demonstratively better, people will start to pay attention.

But when it "goes against the grain" of common thinking/understanding, it takes a lot longer to gain acceptance.

Just look at many things that are "common place" now, but were highly frowned up when first introduced-digital mixers, short duration high output amplifiers and so forth. 

I predict by the year 2020 or so, attitudes and opinions will start to change.  Many are already realizing that there are other/better approaches.

Change is hard.  It is much easier to "just be like everybody else and do what they do"
Logged
A complex question is easily answered by a simple-easy to understand WRONG answer!

Ivan Beaver
Danley Sound Labs

PHYSICS- NOT FADS!

Art Welter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2201
  • Santa Fe, New Mexico
Re: Open talk
« Reply #94 on: November 18, 2017, 01:13:11 PM »

Even extraordinary designs such as Enya and MLA (just two examples), that we all know have years and tons of research behind them, deal with sound distribution and not with sound "quality". Do they sound "better"? or are they just extraordinary tools? You tell me. I didn't heard them never, unfortunately.
Did you see that no one of you, the old warriors, didn't even make a mention of my MSL3 to line source sound quality and efficiency comment? Why my friends?
Ivan, I hope too that maybe one day accuracy and quality of sound will become important again.
Art deserves it.
Cheers.
Albert,

Yes I do ;^).

Having heard MSL3 many, many times, and compared other designs (some of them my own) in the same venues can say that there are many designs that have far more uniform coverage, both point source and line arrays. The Piezos used in the early MSL3 (and ShowCo's late 1970's designs) were fortunately discontinued, the extra hissing noises were not missed.
The "advance" of ferrofluid used in in the MSL3 insured no two systems sounded alike due to the differences due to contamination and viscosity, resulting in a "checkerboard" of tonality when multiple systems were combined on top of the uneven polar response.

From an efficiency standpoint, the 3 dB or so a short mid horn can gain can easily be overcome with power density with multiple drivers, and the better polar response of the two line array designs you mention (Enya and MLA) allow for more consistent results than clusters of point source units.

As far as sound "quality", vs sound "distribution", for the most part transducer and horn design has changed little in the 4+ decades we "old warriors" have been in the business- the main difference in "quality" comes down to the HF driver combiners, "choose your poison". "Quality" being similar, the big differences are in "distribution", seat to seat consistency. Properly designed line arrays properly deployed can do very well in dealing with the usual sound reinforcement problems- having a rapidly deployed system that can adapt to different venues on a daily basis and deliver seat to seat consistency and not get in the way of the damn video that people come to see.

Art
Logged

Lee Buckalew

  • Classic LAB
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1384
  • St. Louis, MO area
    • Pro Sound Advice, Inc.
Re: Open talk
« Reply #95 on: November 18, 2017, 02:18:10 PM »

Please tel me if I get "heavy" insisting on my former point of interest. I promess I will stop posting.
This point, as you can see reading my previous threats, is about that modern technology (we should make clear what modern means in terms of time but, Ok, we can handle that) has to be more to better operational features than to sound quality itself.
Exceptions might be measuring devices and softwares or acoustic prediction tools.
When we get in to sound systems, most of those features have to be with, "flexibility", "transportability", "scalability", networking, weight, size, easy rigging, etc, etc, etc.
Even extraordinary designs such as Enya and MLA (just two examples), that we all know have years and tons of research behind them, deal with sound distribution and not with sound "quality". Do they sound "better"? or are they just extraordinary tools? You tell me. I didn't heard them never, unfortunately.
Did you see that no one of you, the old warriors, didn't even make a mention of my MSL3 to line source sound quality and efficiency comment? Why my friends?
Ivan, I hope too that maybe one day accuracy and quality of sound will become important again.
Art deserves it.
Cheers.

As far as MLA, with which I have much more experience than Anya, the sound quality is at the forefront of the design.  A large part of the design goal was how to create a scalable, flexible deployment system that could create a specifically designed , cohesive coverage while minimizing delay requirements, etc. 

If you want to talk about the ability to accurately reproduce the input signal combined with even sound production across the listening space in a scalable package there is nothing from decades past that will hold up to what is currently available.

MSL3's can't hold a candle in accuracy to virtually any of the current top of the line.  They suffer significantly in terms of comb filtering problems due to all the lobing.  This can't be fixed electronically.  The cabinets simply cannot be arrayed so they do not create comb filters.  Heck, arrayed, not even a single cabinet can be used without significant comb filters.  The last time that I listened to MSL3's in an arena was about 5 months ago so I am not getting into the wayback machine to try and remember.

I cannot argue with someone liking the sound of the MSL3, that is a subjective test and is therefore an opinion.  I can objectively state that the sound is not accurate and can never be accurate, that is objective and it is a measurable fact.

I still fail to see where this is going as testing can easily show what is accurate and what is not.  Not all choices are based on objective accuracy.  I have had customers choose less accurate systems specifically because with more accurate systems their performances were too detailed.  They liked the sound being more masked, veiled, blended, etc.  in the end they preferred to have less detail and accuracy.  This is a legitimate choice for why they preferred one sound over another.  Form and function also dictate significantly what will be used in today's rental market. 

None of this goes to the discussions of now ancient Seegull sounding systems such as those that have been mentioned.  In their day they were an improvement.  By today's standards of accuracy and scalability they are a model or a Stanley Steamer.

Lee
« Last Edit: November 18, 2017, 05:15:39 PM by Lee Buckalew »
Logged
Lee Buckalew
Pro Sound Advice, Inc.

Ivan Beaver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9534
  • Atlanta GA
Re: Open talk
« Reply #96 on: November 18, 2017, 03:43:23 PM »

  Not all choices are based on objective accuracy.  I have had customers choose less accurate systems specifically because with more accurate systems their erformances were too detailed.  They liked the sound being more masked, veiled, blended, etc.  in the end they preferred to have less detail and accuracy. 
Agreed that not everybody likes accuracy-and not just for the sonic values.

We did a side by side demo with a much more expensive system.

They chose the other system-based on 2 factors.  The "sound team" (who wanted the other system because a particular artist had toured with it), convinced the leadership that the "less expensive" system would actually cost much more than the much more expensive system.

The reasoning was that the less expensive was much more responsive.  They said that they did not like the fact that when you made small changes on the tone controls that you could hear it.  They preferred to have to make large changes (on the more expensive system) in order to hear it.  That way amateurs would not be able to mess it up so bad.

They said that a more responsive system would require them to hire professional sound guys to operate it. So over a couple of years, having to hire a professional sound guy for every rehearsal and service would end up costing them much more money.

YES that is the truth, and the reasoning.

Hey-I don't make this stuff up !!!
Logged
A complex question is easily answered by a simple-easy to understand WRONG answer!

Ivan Beaver
Danley Sound Labs

PHYSICS- NOT FADS!

Lee Buckalew

  • Classic LAB
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1384
  • St. Louis, MO area
    • Pro Sound Advice, Inc.
Re: Open talk
« Reply #97 on: November 18, 2017, 05:13:45 PM »

Agreed that not everybody likes accuracy-and not just for the sonic values.

We did a side by side demo with a much more expensive system.

They chose the other system-based on 2 factors.  The "sound team" (who wanted the other system because a particular artist had toured with it), convinced the leadership that the "less expensive" system would actually cost much more than the much more expensive system.

The reasoning was that the less expensive was much more responsive.  They said that they did not like the fact that when you made small changes on the tone controls that you could hear it.  They preferred to have to make large changes (on the more expensive system) in order to hear it.  That way amateurs would not be able to mess it up so bad.

They said that a more responsive system would require them to hire professional sound guys to operate it. So over a couple of years, having to hire a professional sound guy for every rehearsal and service would end up costing them much more money.

YES that is the truth, and the reasoning.

Hey-I don't make this stuff up !!!

I have had very similar experiences.  One experience was a system that, when the pastors tracks were played on one system there was no audible hiss, on the other system there was.  When the track was stopped the hiss went away.  The system with no audible hiss from the track also had very poor HF performance, at least as demoed.  On top of that the bands tracks sounded "better" on the system with the poor HF.  The customer described the worse (by measurable standards) system as being "warmer" (with little HF there certainly is a "warm" sound).  It also cost more and had higher installation costs so, in the big picture, a larger percentage of budget was buying labor rather than equipment.  Also, the more costly system was only demoed by the manufacturer with a single cabinet even though there were going to be downfills and delays in the design so the demo of that cabinet did not represent the interactions that the customer would hear in their installation.

We were selling one system or the other so we won the demo either way.  Just an interesting observation on the psychology of some sound operators/musicians/???? fill in your blank here.

Lee
Logged
Lee Buckalew
Pro Sound Advice, Inc.

Peter Morris

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1467
Re: Line vs Point Sources - Open talk
« Reply #98 on: November 18, 2017, 06:32:00 PM »

I find it interesting that most of us got into the sound business because of "the sound"  and listening to music.

And yet it seems that sound quality is not all that important to many.

"Good enough" or "sounds OK to me" is just fine these days.

Maybe one day accuracy and quality of sound will become important again.

Ivan I suspect I am every bit as passionate about sound quality as you, but to stay in business some times that does not matter.

For example in a couple of weeks I start the "mad" Christmas season; I have a Christmas carols event for about 3000 - 4000 people on Friday, Saturday another one in a different city for 5000 - 6000, and then another one on Sunday  ... in a different city for about 6000 people.  These are all free community events with almost no budget.

For me its all about logistics, the gear has to come out of one as quickly as possible and be set up the next morning in another location ... its about whats quick and easy, whats I can fly that weighs less than 220 kgs, and what  fits in the truck and will get the job done.  I could hire another truck and load a second system, but the truck hire costs will blow the budget out to the point where the show would not be worth doing.

The following week I have another one ... 3 x J3-94's would be perfect but the system has to be carried down steep hill on hand carts and the J3's are just too heavy, and the customer wants a line-array ... once again its all about logistics and meeting the customers expectations  :(

« Last Edit: November 18, 2017, 06:57:39 PM by Peter Morris »
Logged

Helge A Bentsen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1766
  • Oslo, Norway.
Re: Line vs Point Sources - Open talk
« Reply #99 on: November 19, 2017, 01:28:54 PM »

One of the funny things you can do with a modern sound system is compensating for less than ideal speaker placements.

I did a theatre gig a while back without fly points for the touring system, so we grounstacked the system and adapted our coverage to the audience. Sounded amazing and the even level distribution we archieved with this less than ideal speaker placement was impressive.
Added bonus: teardown and loadout took 20 minutes for the whole audio system.

It would have been very difficult if not impossible  to archieve this using a ground stacked pointsource rig.

Pictures here:
https://www.facebook.com/lydsystemer/posts/10155866227614973
Logged

ProSoundWeb Community

Re: Line vs Point Sources - Open talk
« Reply #99 on: November 19, 2017, 01:28:54 PM »


Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11   Go Up
 



Site Hosted By Ashdown Technologies, Inc.

Page created in 0.035 seconds with 21 queries.