ProSoundWeb Community

Sound Reinforcement - Forums for Live Sound Professionals - Your Displayed Name Must Be Your Real Full Name To Post In The Live Sound Forums => LAB: The Classic Live Audio Board => Topic started by: Robert Lunceford on August 03, 2014, 09:19:59 PM

Title: The high cost of deploying a true line-array
Post by: Robert Lunceford on August 03, 2014, 09:19:59 PM
This is a spin-off from my previous topic "When is it a line-array?".
Tim McCulloch, Ivan Beaver, and Tom Danley all made the point that the length of the array was the critical factor in whether or not the speaker system performed as a line-array. Tim suggested that the length of the array should be at least 6 feet.
Let's take one of the sub-compact line array elements that was mentioned, the JBL Vertec 4886, and explore what the cost would be to deploy a system that would qualify as a true line array.
At a height of 7.8" for a single speaker, it would take (10) 4886 elements to make an array 6 feet in length. 20 elements for a L/R hang.
The only pricing I could find on the internet was for a little over $2900 for a single element.
$2900 X 20 = $58,000.
Now we have to figure out how many of the 4883 companion subs we would need to keep up with the arrays. We also have to add in the cost of the power amplifiers to power the system.

Other considerations to deploy the system include:
The cost of proper equipment to "fly" the arrays.
Cost to transport the system.
Time and labor to deploy the system.
Cost to insure the equipment and liability insurance.
How many amps will this system draw?

After all is factored in, I would estimate over $100,000 for a true sub-compact line-array.
There are a lot of small operations who would like to be riding on the line-array "band wagon" but it doesn't seem to be a practical system for smaller companies.

Title: Re: The high cost of deploying a true line-array
Post by: Tim McCulloch on August 03, 2014, 10:23:56 PM
I've said before (not recently, however) that we purchase vertical arrays by the foot/metre.  The price per unit of measure is defined by long term output and a couple other considerations.

The costs associated with flying are the same, conventional trap box or vertical.  Once you're at the point of doing big theaters and/or small arenas, you need to fly the rig regardless of array type.

Big ol' edit ps. - Robert, you indirectly hit on the real issue that the system owner is facing:  how do I expand my business capabilities?  Most of the time that means being able to do bigger audiences, where you can leverage crew (a 4 man crew can do 3000 seats or 20,000 seats) and scale hardware.  Doing taller and/or deeper venues require a whole different way of thinking about PA deployment if all one has done is ground stacking.  Once a company has hit the limit of what they can do with stacks, the "next level" is a mighty expensive step just for infrastructure, and again that's regardless of horizontal/vertical/diagonal with spiral candy sprinkles... er array "geometry".  At some point the speakers need to go in the air, and that's expensive and not at all suitable to compromise.  Then you need new amp racks or new AC distribution (or both), or a complete re-think about AC and signal distribution if you're using powered speakers.

This is all about buying into a completely new system as part of a significant upgrade to the purchaser's capabilities.  It's just easy to forget what comes along for the ride with the shiny new PA and consoles - the ones you buy because now your PA is "better" than your mixers ;) - racks, AC power, utility trunks, labor to put it all together plus training and education.  These additional costs are seldom considered the first time an owner does a big upgrade; hopefully the lesson is not forgotten by round 2.

Short edit pps. - I discuss "the next level" here:  https://soundforums.net/entries/460-The-Next-Level-the-Unicorn-of-the-production-business (https://soundforums.net/entries/460-The-Next-Level-the-Unicorn-of-the-production-business)  Note Jay Barracato's comment about +3dB$.
Title: Re: The high cost of deploying a true line-array
Post by: Lee Buckalew on August 03, 2014, 10:29:45 PM
This is a spin-off from my previous topic "When is it a line-array?".
Tim McCulloch, Ivan Beaver, and Tom Danley all made the point that the length of the array was the critical factor in whether or not the speaker system performed as a line-array.

That is not entirely the point they made.  It is the length of the array combined with the proximity of the acoustic centers of the drivers for each common band pass combined with the lowest frequency of interest.  The driver to driver distance is critical for proper acoustical summation in the band pass.  The length of the array overall is critical to LF control.  LF here is relative.  If you cross over your subs at 100Hz then an array of 11.5' should provide good LF control as long as the other criteria are met.  If you want control down lower then you need a longer array.

Lee
Title: Re: The high cost of deploying a true line-array
Post by: Ivan Beaver on August 04, 2014, 06:47:42 AM

Now we have to figure out how many of the 4883 companion subs we would need to keep up with the arrays.
In my opinion that is NOT the way to look at it.

I get asked all the time "How many subs does it take to keep up with XYZ tops?"

That is not the question.  The QUESTION should be "How many subs does it take to do the job in question?"

 The tops should be chosen FIRST for coverage needed and then output SPL needs.

Do you always run the tops at max output?  Yes some people do-others do not.

Also choice of music material/style makes a big difference on how many subs it takes.

How much louder do the subs need to be than the mains?  10dB-20dB or more?

Having subs capable of 30dB greater output than the mains is not uncommon. 

There is a HUGE difference in the cost of deployment between those different SPLs.

EDM takes many more subs than other styles of music.

And when you go outside-it takes at least twice (I prefer 4 times) the subs as indoors-to get the same "experience".

I know this is not the focus of the thread-but there is no "standard" as to the ratio of subs to tops.
Title: Re: The high cost of deploying a true line-array
Post by: TJ (Tom) Cornish on August 04, 2014, 07:32:28 AM
This is a spin-off from my previous topic "When is it a line-array?".
Tim McCulloch, Ivan Beaver, and Tom Danley all made the point that the length of the array was the critical factor in whether or not the speaker system performed as a line-array. Tim suggested that the length of the array should be at least 6 feet.
Let's take one of the sub-compact line array elements that was mentioned, the JBL Vertec 4886, and explore what the cost would be to deploy a system that would qualify as a true line array.
At a height of 7.8" for a single speaker, it would take (10) 4886 elements to make an array 6 feet in length. 20 elements for a L/R hang.
The only pricing I could find on the internet was for a little over $2900 for a single element.
$2900 X 20 = $58,000.
Now we have to figure out how many of the 4883 companion subs we would need to keep up with the arrays. We also have to add in the cost of the power amplifiers to power the system.

Other considerations to deploy the system include:
The cost of proper equipment to "fly" the arrays.
Cost to transport the system.
Time and labor to deploy the system.
Cost to insure the equipment and liability insurance.
How many amps will this system draw?

After all is factored in, I would estimate over $100,000 for a true sub-compact line-array.
There are a lot of small operations who would like to be riding on the line-array "band wagon" but it doesn't seem to be a practical system for smaller companies.
There is little doubt that line arrays are more expensive than some other systems.  Danley did a side by side with one of their large stadium horns - Genesis I think, vs a line array system and detailed the cost advantages of their system. 

However, I think you're latching a little too tightly to the idea of a "true line array" with X-number of boxes, etc.  The Meyer paper you linked to in your earlier thread pretty much debunks that idea entirely - there is no practical length of array where you get "true line array function" - meaning that the radiation pattern is cylindrical with respect to the audience plane.  There is no magic about 2 meters long, or any other number; only that as the array increases in length, pattern control extends lower - just like a "point source" system.  How low the pattern control needs to be held and to what extent (pattern control like everything else in audio is gradual - even a 3-box 4886 array has some control down to 300Hz - just not as much as it has at higher frequencies) is application dependent.

In the case of 4886/4883, the methodology is that pattern control is done via line length, and 4883 boxes are deployed in cardioid mode with the 300Hz crossover point, which provides low-frequency pattern control, if desired.

Every system has pros and cons, and applications where it is more suitable than others.  Vertical arrays are not the only solution, nor are they a magic bullet, however they can work pretty darn well in a lot of situations - even if they are not infinitely long.
Title: Re: The high cost of deploying a true line-array
Post by: Ivan Beaver on August 04, 2014, 08:24:42 AM
There is little doubt that line arrays are more expensive than some other systems.  Danley did a side by side with one of their large stadium horns - Genesis I think, vs a line array system and detailed the cost advantages of their system. 

.
We have all kinds of examples of fewer cabinets (and less cost) outperforming line array systems.

At this past Infocomm we had the owner of a company who has lots of "accepted on every rider" line arrays.

The year before last we covered a job in a large stadium for him (his gear was all rented out) and brought out 3 tops (2xJ1 and 1xJ3 and 4 TH812 subs).

This year he did the same event but brought out his own rig which was 36 tops and something like 18 or 24 subs-I don't remember

He is very proud of his system.  But he came up to me (and others) and told us the story that this year his system did not compare to the much smaller one we brought out.  He said at the far end (we had a single J1 pointed there) that his system was pretty much useless and just blowing around in the wind.  The true point sources don't do that.

He also said that we had much more low end.

He also said our system was much easier to deploy.

Just this past week I turned up a system for a 93,000 seat football stadium in which 5 cabinets covered around 90% of the seats.  The other 5 cabinets covered the area under the scoreboard and off to the extreme sides.

We were measuring 103-105dBA at the far seats 700'ish away.

BTW only 4 subs were used and were shaking seats at the far end-but that is a different story.

Currently line arrays have their place-are quick and easy to deploy (in most cases), but they are not the "end all" or the correct solution for many jobs.

I would argue that for most install jobs (and most portable jobs-outside of touring concert systems) a good point source is a much better solution. 

At least in terms of cost-physical size (ie blocking video screens)-sound quality-pattern control etc.
Title: Re: The high cost of deploying a true line-array
Post by: David Sturzenbecher on August 04, 2014, 01:50:53 PM
Isn't a "true point source" just as mythical as a "true line array" ?
Title: Re: The high cost of deploying a true line-array
Post by: Ian Mansfield on August 04, 2014, 02:01:38 PM

I would argue that for most install jobs (and most portable jobs-outside of touring concert systems) a good point source is a much better solution. 

At least in terms of cost-physical size (ie blocking video screens)-sound quality-pattern control etc.

Ivan, why do you say "outside of touring concert systems" ? Surely Jerichos could be easily deployed for this ?

 
Title: Re: The high cost of deploying a true line-array
Post by: Tim McCulloch on August 04, 2014, 02:28:12 PM
Ivan, why do you say "outside of touring concert systems" ? Surely Jerichos could be easily deployed for this ?

I like Tom and the guys, and I'll say that just as not every venue requires (or even benefits from) a vertical array, building a true array of non-vertical speakers and getting uniform coverage isn't trivial.  And in keeping with Robert's topic here, an inherent part of such designing is getting the speakers located at whatever point(s) in space as may be required.  This is where the infrastructure expenses come in:  hoists & controllers, wire rope slings, round slings, shackles, and the smarts to inspect your stuff and destroy it (sings, chains, etc) when it fails inspection.

I'll again assert that the cost issues are more associated with playing at a new, higher level and less about the "geometry" of the speaker system.
Title: Re: The high cost of deploying a true line-array
Post by: Ivan Beaver on August 04, 2014, 03:01:28 PM
Isn't a "true point source" just as mythical as a "true line array" ?
In theory a point source is infinitely small-produces all freq equally and radiates 360° at all freq.

Of course this is not what we want.  OK the first two items would be nice-but in most cases we do not want omni coverage.

So to have a particular pattern requires a horn.  To maintain that pattern down to a useable freq requires that horn to be large.  The narrower the pattern-the larger the horn has to be to work at the same freq.

All freq would be nice-but we are usually happy with most of the audio spectrum.

Small would be ideal-but that is not going to happen

Marketing says (and would like you to believe) that line arrays (line sources etc) produce a "can cut in half" type coverage.

But it you look at the data- you will see that is not at all what is happening.  There is a narrowing of freq to a very thin slice (varies with freq)-along with spurious lobes shooting out all over the place-up-down-behind etc that produce very erratic coverage.

Unless the line is very long-the on axis freq response will be very different from seat to seat-due to the varying rate of falloff with distance.

So yes-both are mythical.   But one is more "achievable" than the other.

However there are MANY (ie MOST) products that are "called" point sources-yet they are not.  They emit sound from different locations in space.  ie a woofer and a horn. 

The resultant pattern has lobes (like a line product) due to this spacing-around the crossover freq.  Products that have multiple locations of sound (woofer-mid-horn) have even worse lobing over a much wider freq range.

They may sound fine in one location-but as you move around in the pattern the sound changes.  This means different sound for different seats.  So which seat is right?

The one that pays the bills.  But does not every seat "pay the bills"?

Doesn't everybody deserve the same sound?
Title: Re: The high cost of deploying a true line-array
Post by: Ivan Beaver on August 04, 2014, 03:06:37 PM
Ivan, why do you say "outside of touring concert systems" ? Surely Jerichos could be easily deployed for this ?
Yes various Jerichos could be used for "tour sound"-with the right rigging hardware.

And then there is the whole "rider" issue-and that is a slow change.

Where the line arrays have the advantage is a fully developed rigging system that goes up quick and transports and stores nicely in a truck.

I can't anything yet-but there are things "in the works" that will challenge the current "status quo" of portable/touring sound. ;)
Title: Re: The high cost of deploying a true line-array
Post by: Art Welter on August 04, 2014, 05:01:52 PM
After all is factored in, I would estimate over $100,000 for a true sub-compact line-array.
There are a lot of small operations who would like to be riding on the line-array "band wagon" but it doesn't seem to be a practical system for smaller companies.
Robert,

Your estimate seems reasonable, but at an advertised price of only $15,600 for a complete true sub-compact line-array (78.75" long per side) with subs, racks, processing and tarps, using similar "point source" design technology as DSL, the system I presently have for sale used an example of "more for (a lot) less".

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/swap-meet/252064-complete-line-array-system-sale.html

The system also includes separately assembled wave guides offering a larger horn than anything I'm aware of other than DSL's Caleb, yet the entire speaker system fits easily in a small cargo van or 5 x 8 trailer.

Rigging would cost additional, though rigging is often not a practical choice when the budget and logistics of small operations are carefully considered. That said, having compared the above system ground stacked directly to a flown system of eight JBL 4889 large format line array per side, the lack of rigging did not prevent audience members commenting on the better sound and more even coverage my system provided  ;).

Art
Title: Re: The high cost of deploying a true line-array
Post by: Roland Clarke on August 04, 2014, 08:16:33 PM
I would add to the argument that although we all know the potential benefits of old style array systems and there is too much line array deployed irrespective of whether it is the best thing for the job or not, line arrays do have their benefits for deployment in that often they can be made to "fit" various different venues.  Doing this with standard trap boxes often requires several different types of boxes or much more custom rigging.  The other benefit that many of us are getting is the ability to get more even spl coverage, front to back.

I think that Ivan's view is very valid and certainly in terms of the type of product he is involved with, they probably offer a good or better alternative to just buying in a line array from one of the usual suspects.  Line arrays also do offer a level of configuration that isn't readily available using trap boxes and things like MLA are offering some further interesting options in terms of performance control.
Title: Re: The high cost of deploying a true line-array
Post by: Ivan Beaver on August 04, 2014, 08:52:16 PM
I would add to the argument that although we all know the potential benefits of old style array systems and there is too much line array deployed irrespective of whether it is the best thing for the job or not, line arrays do have their benefits for deployment in that often they can be made to "fit" various different venues.  Doing this with standard trap boxes often requires several different types of boxes or much more custom rigging.  The other benefit that many of us are getting is the ability to get more even spl coverage, front to back.

I think that Ivan's view is very valid and certainly in terms of the type of product he is involved with, they probably offer a good or better alternative to just buying in a line array from one of the usual suspects.  Line arrays also do offer a level of configuration that isn't readily available using trap boxes and things like MLA are offering some further interesting options in terms of performance control.
I hear statements like that all the time.  "Line arrays provide more even SPL front to back".

Well my goal (and achieved very well most of the time) is 0dB variation from front to back-give or take a couple of dB or less.

This is called system DESIGN and not "throwing up cabinets and hoping for the best".

With a well designed system the freq response and amplitude will be the same front to back. 

It is a BIG misconception that "point sources" are louder up front than back.  Yes for systems on a stick or just stacked up, but NOT in an installed system in which the same sound is expected for everybody in the venue.

I must admit that in some cases the low freq is a little bit louder up front-but not always.  Usually it is a limitation of the room and where the system could be placed (due to ceiling height). 
Title: Re: The high cost of deploying a true line-array
Post by: Robert Lunceford on August 04, 2014, 10:49:09 PM
However, I think you're latching a little too tightly to the idea of a "true line array" with X-number of boxes, etc.  The Meyer paper you linked to in your earlier thread pretty much debunks that idea entirely - there is no practical length of array where you get "true line array function" - meaning that the radiation pattern is cylindrical with respect to the audience plane.  There is no magic about 2 meters long, or any other number; only that as the array increases in length, pattern control extends lower - just like a "point source" system.

Hi TJ,
When I write, "true line array", I am referring to the practical and not the theoretical.

In my previous topic, Tom Danley wrote,
"The up side of the tiny line array is that they are mostly not a line array acoustically, they have less self interference and so one can achieve a more constant sound spectrum vs location more like a point source.   
Many have observed that the smaller the number of boxes one uses, generally the better it sounds, one can have a “perfect box” but when you stack 16 of them up, what do you have then?"

I find this very interesting. The fewer boxes, the better it sounds.
The problem is, when the speaker has a vertical dispersion of only 15 degrees, where can it be usefully used? Front fills, under balcony, spot fills would be good placements. But when you put 2 on a stick with only 15 degrees of vertical dispersion and an array height of only 16 inches, how large of an area can you realistically cover?
Title: Re: The high cost of deploying a true line-array
Post by: TJ (Tom) Cornish on August 04, 2014, 11:11:21 PM
Hi TJ,
When I write, "true line array", I am referring to the practical and not the theoretical.
??  I am not sure what you mean here?  What is your definition of practical?

In my previous topic, Tom Danley wrote,
"The up side of the tiny line array is that they are mostly not a line array acoustically, they have less self interference and so one can achieve a more constant sound spectrum vs location more like a point source.   
Many have observed that the smaller the number of boxes one uses, generally the better it sounds, one can have a “perfect box” but when you stack 16 of them up, what do you have then?"

I find this very interesting. The fewer boxes, the better it sounds.
The problem is, when the speaker has a vertical dispersion of only 15 degrees, where can it be usefully used? Front fills, under balcony, spot fills would be good placements. But when you put 2 on a stick with only 15 degrees of vertical dispersion and an array height of only 16 inches, how large of an area can you realistically cover?
Normally people complain about "too short" vertical arrays - your post is an interesting combination of ideas. 

Two 15 degree boxes can potentially be 30 degrees of coverage if splayed all the way, and 3 of them can be 45 degrees.  Those are indeed useful.  In the case of 4886, I find I rarely need or want 45 degrees of vertical coverage, and prefer shallower angles, which makes the HF combine better.  This is largely true whether I'm using 3 boxes or 8 - in my practical deployments, it seems that I usually want between 20 and 30 degrees of vertical coverage, based on my available trim height and throw requirements.

I agree with Ivan that in most permanent installs where one can go to the catalog and choose the right box for the room, a point source is preferable to a vertical array.  It will very likely be a less expensive system, and because flexibility of deployment isn't necessary, the right box for that situation will sound better than a Swiss Army knife adjustable vertical array.  Vertical arrays (IMO) have advantages in portable systems in that they can be configured differently for different rooms, and potentially the rigging and logistics are more desirable than a large point-source box.  An additional benefit is that line arrays look cooler and more impressive than point source systems, and right or wrong, this is a market benefit.

There are lots of different circumstances, and lots of different potential solutions with varying compromises. 
Title: Re: The high cost of deploying a true line-array
Post by: Tim McCulloch on August 04, 2014, 11:25:09 PM
Hi TJ,
When I write, "true line array", I am referring to the practical and not the theoretical.

In my previous topic, Tom Danley wrote,
"The up side of the tiny line array is that they are mostly not a line array acoustically, they have less self interference and so one can achieve a more constant sound spectrum vs location more like a point source.   
Many have observed that the smaller the number of boxes one uses, generally the better it sounds, one can have a “perfect box” but when you stack 16 of them up, what do you have then?"

I find this very interesting. The fewer boxes, the better it sounds.
The problem is, when the speaker has a vertical dispersion of only 15 degrees, where can it be usefully used? Front fills, under balcony, spot fills would be good placements. But when you put 2 on a stick with only 15 degrees of vertical dispersion and an array height of only 16 inches, how large of an area can you realistically cover?

Tom's post confirms my observation that "a whole bunch of smaller line array boxes" doesn't sound the same as fewer big boxes making up the same line length.

The answer to your question:  "about the same as you'd get with a similarly sized '90x40' cab."  You'd have 30° of vertical with 2 15° boxes.  How high you can get them up determines whatever "throw" you might accomplish.

While we can (and do) use single line array elements, or 2 or 3 on a stick, those uses are based on customer expectations and inventory availability.  If a client wants to give us extra money to have a "line array" and doing so will not create acoustic or coverage issues, we will happily take their money and design accordingly.  The opposite is usually the case - a client that thinks 6 Mackie 450s on sticks is right for a theater with 2 balconies.  Oy.
Title: Re: The high cost of deploying a true line-array
Post by: Peter Morris on August 05, 2014, 12:05:01 AM
Yes various Jerichos could be used for "tour sound"-with the right rigging hardware.

And then there is the whole "rider" issue-and that is a slow change.

Where the line arrays have the advantage is a fully developed rigging system that goes up quick and transports and stores nicely in a truck.

I can't anything yet-but there are things "in the works" that will challenge the current "status quo" of portable/touring sound. ;)

About time  :)  Although I have never heard any of your boxes, I'm sure they sound great; but from my perspective as a contrator most of your boxes are usless to me because of their size, weight, truck pack, storage, flexability etc.

Can't weight to see what you guys have done.
Title: Re: The high cost of deploying a true line-array
Post by: Scott Holtzman on August 05, 2014, 12:57:46 AM
Tom's post confirms my observation that "a whole bunch of smaller line array boxes" doesn't sound the same as fewer big boxes making up the same line length.

The answer to your question:  "about the same as you'd get with a similarly sized '90x40' cab."  You'd have 30° of vertical with 2 15° boxes.  How high you can get them up determines whatever "throw" you might accomplish.

While we can (and do) use single line array elements, or 2 or 3 on a stick, those uses are based on customer expectations and inventory availability.  If a client wants to give us extra money to have a "line array" and doing so will not create acoustic or coverage issues, we will happily take their money and design accordingly.  The opposite is usually the case - a client that thinks 6 Mackie 450s on sticks is right for a theater with 2 balconies.  Oy.

Interesting question on compact and subcompact.  Does anyone have any experience with a subcompact like the Vue AL-4?  Making a 10' line of 4" boxes would be a huge capital investment.  These don't seem to be positioned for smaller venues but when Live Sound does a roundup there seem to be quite a few competitors in this space.  Do the smaller drivers truly couple better?  I can imagine they are very accurate.

I don't have any business or application reason for asking this other than curiosity.

Title: Re: The high cost of deploying a true line-array
Post by: Ivan Beaver on August 05, 2014, 07:40:37 AM

Many have observed that the smaller the number of boxes one uses, generally the better it sounds, one can have a “perfect box” but when you stack 16 of them up, what do you have then?"


With ANY box, by ANY manufacturer, the few number of boxes will have a better sonic sound-simply due to less interference.

More boxes may have more bass and be louder-but will sound worse.

Hence the need for high output single boxes to cover the intended area.

When more than one box is pointed in the same coverage area-the sound is going to suffer-simple as that.

But I will admit that sometimes that is what is needed to get the SPL that is required.

Also it does not matter how good it sounds if it is not loud enough.

Title: Re: The high cost of deploying a true line-array
Post by: Ivan Beaver on August 05, 2014, 07:47:08 AM
About time  :)  Although I have never heard any of your boxes, I'm sure they sound great; but from my perspective as a contrator most of your boxes are usless to me because of their size, weight, truck pack, storage, flexability etc.

Can't weight to see what you guys have done.
Just curious as to your statements.

Truck pack-a large number of the cabinets (subs and tops) for portable situations are standard truck pack dimensions-at least in one dimension-sometimes all 3.  Do you have an example of some that are not?

Weight/size.  Have you considered how many of other products it would take to equal the same SPL output? and then considered the size and weight of "equal SPL".  You will find that the weight is pretty small then.

For example our J1 is around 800ish lbs.   But yet people push line array stacks off the truck that weigh more than that and it takes more of them to equal the output, and somehow the J1 is heavy?

I am not sure what you mean by "flexible" and "storage".  Can you explain a bit more?

Title: Re: The high cost of deploying a true line-array
Post by: David Sturzenbecher on August 05, 2014, 08:50:37 AM
Possibly that it's easier to move around 8 - 100lb boxes then 1 - 800lb box? Just a guess.
Title: Re: The high cost of deploying a true line-array
Post by: RYAN LOUDMUSIC JENKINS on August 05, 2014, 10:59:25 AM
Interesting question on compact and subcompact.  Does anyone have any experience with a subcompact like the Vue AL-4?  Making a 10' line of 4" boxes would be a huge capital investment.  These don't seem to be positioned for smaller venues but when Live Sound does a roundup there seem to be quite a few competitors in this space.  Do the smaller drivers truly couple better?  I can imagine they are very accurate.

I don't have any business or application reason for asking this other than curiosity.

Have used the AL4 and while it doesnt have much for lows the sound of vocals through it is pretty awesome.  We also just did an event a couple weeks ago with about 5000 people in attendance with four AL8s per side, ground stacked.  It sounded fantastic!  We had to cover an area approximately 150 feet wide by 200+ feet deep with a slight incline.  We had plenty of output and consistant sound quality throughout the area.  Didn't measure spl but it was pretty darn loud even in the back.  When you buy a system such as the AL4s and AL8s you are not just buying speakers.  It is a complete system with amps, made to work together for efficient setup and consistant sound.  They sell them in blocks of four with an amp. 
Title: Re: The high cost of deploying a true line-array
Post by: Ivan Beaver on August 05, 2014, 12:29:05 PM
Possibly that it's easier to move around 8 - 100lb boxes then 1 - 800lb box? Just a guess.
But if the 8 boxes are stacked on a cart-and you move the whole cart-what is the difference?

Of course some people like to compare the cost "Well one of your boxes costs so much more than one of ours".

FINE-If you want to play that game-then lets LISTEN to ONE of yours to one of ours-since every other comparison has been one for one.

To me it is the TOTAL cost/weight etc of investment-not a single piece.
Title: Re: The high cost of deploying a true line-array
Post by: Scott Holtzman on August 05, 2014, 12:48:09 PM
Have used the AL4 and while it doesnt have much for lows the sound of vocals through it is pretty awesome.  We also just did an event a couple weeks ago with about 5000 people in attendance with four AL8s per side, ground stacked.  It sounded fantastic!  We had to cover an area approximately 150 feet wide by 200+ feet deep with a slight incline.  We had plenty of output and consistant sound quality throughout the area.  Didn't measure spl but it was pretty darn loud even in the back.  When you buy a system such as the AL4s and AL8s you are not just buying speakers.  It is a complete system with amps, made to work together for efficient setup and consistant sound.  They sell them in blocks of four with an amp.

Ray familiar with the System Engine and the backing software.  Would you be willing to chat about the AL Series and your business experience with the folks at Vue?  If so should this be a public thread everyone can benefit from or something best done in private?
Title: Re: The high cost of deploying a true line-array
Post by: Robert Lunceford on August 05, 2014, 04:48:29 PM
The answer to your question:  "about the same as you'd get with a similarly sized '90x40' cab."  You'd have 30° of vertical with 2 15° boxes.

Hi Tim,
If this is true, I have had a great misunderstanding in regard to vertical dispersion of a line array.
I thought that if you stacked two boxes with a 15 degree vertical dispersion that they would maintain the vertical dispersion. If anything, I thought that the vertical dispersion would decrease.
As an example, the published spec for a single Bose 802II is a vertical dispersion of 100 degrees, for a stacked pair the vertical dispersion is 80 degrees.

So, if stacking two 15 degree vertical dispersion elements gives you 30 degrees of vertical dispersion,
what would the vertical dispersion be if you stacked 10 elements?
Title: Re: The high cost of deploying a true line-array
Post by: Tim McCulloch on August 05, 2014, 04:54:59 PM
Hi Tim,
If this is true, I have had a great misunderstanding in regard to vertical dispersion of a line array.
I thought that if you stacked two boxes with a 15 degree vertical dispersion that they would maintain the vertical dispersion. If anything, I thought that the vertical dispersion would decrease.
As an example, the published spec for a single Bose 802II is a vertical dispersion of 100 degrees, for a stacked pair the vertical dispersion is 80 degrees.

So, if stacking two 15 degree vertical dispersion elements gives you 30 degrees of vertical dispersion,
what would the vertical dispersion be if you stacked 10 elements?

At what frequency?  With what inter-box splay angles?
Title: Re: The high cost of deploying a true line-array
Post by: TJ (Tom) Cornish on August 05, 2014, 05:14:23 PM
Hi Tim,
If this is true, I have had a great misunderstanding in regard to vertical dispersion of a line array.
I thought that if you stacked two boxes with a 15 degree vertical dispersion that they would maintain the vertical dispersion. If anything, I thought that the vertical dispersion would decrease.
As an example, the published spec for a single Bose 802II is a vertical dispersion of 100 degrees, for a stacked pair the vertical dispersion is 80 degrees.

So, if stacking two 15 degree vertical dispersion elements gives you 30 degrees of vertical dispersion,
what would the vertical dispersion be if you stacked 10 elements?
Robert, it would be helpful for you to play with a line array calculator.  JBL's LAC is free with registration: http://jblpro.com/catalog/general/SoftwareRegistration

That will help answer a lot of your questions.
Title: Re: The high cost of deploying a true line-array
Post by: Art Welter on August 05, 2014, 06:19:46 PM
1)As an example, the published spec for a single Bose 802II is a vertical dispersion of 100 degrees, for a stacked pair the vertical dispersion is 80 degrees.
2)So, if stacking two 15 degree vertical dispersion elements gives you 30 degrees of vertical dispersion, what would the vertical dispersion be if you stacked 10 elements?
1) The Bose 802 uses small cone drivers, the dispersion is determined by the line length and "beaming", cone loudspeakers are roughly 90 degrees to the wavelength of the speaker diameter.
2) The vertical dispersion angle of the high frequency horn used in a line array determines the splay angle that can (should) be used. If the elements are wide vertical dispersion (15 degrees is relatively wide for a line array) and run "flat front", rather than curved as the horn design would dictate, the HF will have destructive interference anywhere but directly on axis, and to be on axis would require an infinite distance.

As Tim's questions indicate, the vertical dispersion would vary with frequency (and position), from virtually no vertical dispersion at high frequency to lobes that could be wider than the HF horn's nominal dispersion.
Title: Re: The high cost of deploying a true line-array
Post by: Peter Morris on August 05, 2014, 07:51:04 PM
Possibly that it's easier to move around 8 - 100lb boxes then 1 - 800lb box? Just a guess.

Exactly -- 800 lbs is way too much.

Running a sound company is probably more about logistics than sound.  Companies like L-Acoustics and d&b provide an excellent set of products and logistical solutions.

Danley not so much.
Title: Re: The high cost of deploying a true line-array
Post by: Ivan Beaver on August 05, 2014, 08:37:47 PM
Exactly -- 800 lbs is way too much.


Have you ever weighed a large cart of full size line arrays? 

If you have the same physical size of Meyer leo you have almost 900 lbs

And that is just the cabinet weight-not flyware etc.

But again it all depends on the types of jobs that you are doing.

If you are not doing large jobs-then yes the weight is a bit much.

You also have to look at what it would take to replace it-not just the individual weight.

Have you every moved around large cable trunks?  Like feeder cable or 56 pr snake cable?  800 lbs is light.

What about staging sections?  Those carts are also very heavy.

It depends on your frame of reference.

BTW we move the J1 around all the time with no issues.  No big deal-until you hit steps-but then steps would stop any large cabinet.

And you can put it on a "stick"with no problem.   It just has to be a large stick-and yes it has been done :)
Title: Re: The high cost of deploying a true line-array
Post by: Cailen Waddell on August 05, 2014, 09:04:36 PM

Have you ever weighed a large cart of full size line arrays? 

If you have the same physical size of Meyer leo you have almost 900 lbs

And that is just the cabinet weight-not flyware etc.

But again it all depends on the types of jobs that you are doing.

If you are not doing large jobs-then yes the weight is a bit much.

You also have to look at what it would take to replace it-not just the individual weight.

Have you every moved around large cable trunks?  Like feeder cable or 56 pr snake cable?  800 lbs is light.

What about staging sections?  Those carts are also very heavy.

It depends on your frame of reference.

BTW we move the J1 around all the time with no issues.  No big deal-until you hit steps-but then steps would stop any large cabinet.

And you can put it on a "stick"with no problem.   It just has to be a large stick-and yes it has been done :)

If we could roll out one speaker to each side of the stage at our amphitheater, hook a single motor to each box, connect the cable, and hit up...  Times all the events a rig goes in... Huge labor savings alone.

Who cares what it weighs.  That's what wheels are for.  If 4 guys can 4 corner it and push it then I am good. 
Title: Re: The high cost of deploying a true line-array
Post by: Peter Morris on August 06, 2014, 12:44:26 AM
If we could roll out one speaker to each side of the stage at our amphitheater, hook a single motor to each box, connect the cable, and hit up...  Times all the events a rig goes in... Huge labor savings alone.

Who cares what it weighs.  That's what wheels are for.  If 4 guys can 4 corner it and push it then I am good.

If you always have a loading dock, ramps, chain motors etc. then there is no problem, but I can guarantee that will not always be the case.
 
What if you can’t drive you truck up to the stage and you have to push the box over wet grass?

What do you do if you have to ground stack a 800 lb speaker box? Four guys lifting an 800 lb speaker box would breach my OHS regulations.  To be compliant I would need 10 – 14 guys and a matching number of handles on the box!

At my Sunday casual labour rate it would cost me $2640 ($55 per hour - minimum call 4 hours) for enough people to lift those boxes.

Then there is coverage, what if the +0 -40 degree vertical pattern of the J1 is not suitable. Is there an up-fill or down-fill box to match?
 
How do I rig it, there does not seem to be any information about the fly-ware, rigging equipment and safety factors etc. that I can find on the Danley site. (Please correct me if I’m wrong)

I looked at the gigs I have done recently - I’m only a small operator,  but they range from about 200 person corporate event to 8000 / 10000 seat arenas.  Then I looked at what boxes I would need from Danley’s range of products.

I would need lots of different Danley boxes, which starts to complicate the logistics, and cost advantages Ivan is talking about starts to disappear.

Provided the SPL requirements for the arena are not extreme I can do all of these with things like d&b’s V Series, Flex Array, JBL VTX20 etc.  If I need something bigger then I can use J series with V out fill, Flash Line with Flex and VTX25’s & VTX20’s.

Without getting into the line array verses the point source debate, to me this looks logistically much better than the solution Danley is offering so far.
 
Soooo back to my earlier statement … looking forward to seeing what Danley has come up with  :)
Title: Re: The high cost of deploying a true line-array
Post by: Cailen Waddell on August 06, 2014, 09:32:26 AM

If you always have a loading dock, ramps, chain motors etc. then there is no problem, but I can guarantee that will not always be the case.
 
What if you can’t drive you truck up to the stage and you have to push the box over wet grass?

What do you do if you have to ground stack a 800 lb speaker box? Four guys lifting an 800 lb speaker box would breach my OHS regulations.  To be compliant I would need 10 – 14 guys and a matching number of handles on the box!

At my Sunday casual labour rate it would cost me $2640 ($55 per hour - minimum call 4 hours) for enough people to lift those boxes.

Then there is coverage, what if the +0 -40 degree vertical pattern of the J1 is not suitable. Is there an up-fill or down-fill box to match?
 
How do I rig it, there does not seem to be any information about the fly-ware, rigging equipment and safety factors etc. that I can find on the Danley site. (Please correct me if I’m wrong)

I looked at the gigs I have done recently - I’m only a small operator,  but they range from about 200 person corporate event to 8000 / 10000 seat arenas.  Then I looked at what boxes I would need from Danley’s range of products.

I would need lots of different Danley boxes, which starts to complicate the logistics, and cost advantages Ivan is talking about starts to disappear.

Provided the SPL requirements for the arena are not extreme I can do all of these with things like d&b’s V Series, Flex Array, JBL VTX20 etc.  If I need something bigger then I can use J series with V out fill, Flash Line with Flex and VTX25’s & VTX20’s.

Without getting into the line array verses the point source debate, to me this looks logistically much better than the solution Danley is offering so far.
 
Soooo back to my earlier statement … looking forward to seeing what Danley has come up with  :)

Tim +1. For touring I agree.  I should of been clearer, our local amphitheater does about 50% self production.... Load in our own gear for every show.... 

I also look forward to what Danley is going to offer
Title: Re: The high cost of deploying a true line-array
Post by: Tom Danley on August 06, 2014, 09:19:28 PM
Isn't a "true point source" just as mythical as a "true line array" ?

Hi Guys
David asks “Isn't a "true point source" just as mythical as a "true line array" ?”

Well no. To use an optical analogy, a line source is a Cylindrical lens; a system which has a focal point in one plane that is infinitely far behind the source. With the wavelengths of light being so small it is easy to make a lens that is large enough for this to be a reality, spanning from ultra violet to infra red (a bandwidth wider than the visible spectrum).   A point source is like a convex lens, it has a focal point at a finite distance behind the lens.

Acoustically, one finds the line source must be infinitely long (about 40-50 wavelengths) to be an acoustic line source with the cylindrical dispersion which gives half the fall off that the inverse square law delivers.  For a point source, which expands in both planes, the size requirement is that it must be very small as to not have source directivity. The most common image people think for point source radiation is of a rock hitting a pool of water.  Just like the line source, there is a size relationship involved and by size I mean relative to the wavelength being produced and as opposed to “infinite” as in 40-50 wavelengths or more, the limit for a freely radiating point source is that the source must be less than about ¼ wavelength in size or less.

What we make are point sources which radiate a segment of spherical radiation and not the entire sphere.  They use multiple drivers too but they are always less than ¼ wavelength apart where they interact with each other and so like close coupled subwoofers, the sources all combine coherently into a single new radiation like that of a single driver.

The reason for a segment of a sphere is that IF one can produce a single lobe who’s shape is constant over a wide frequency band (constant directivity) , then as one moves off axis only the SPL falls but the spectrum stays the same.  This allows one to use the old time trick where one adjusts the mounting height and aiming angle so that the audience up close is on the underside of the lobe so that the SPL can be very nearly constant everywhere and the sound is essentially the same everywhere. 
In the system Clair bros  just installed at Penn state, they measured a variation of only + - 2dB throughout the stadium.

The issue with line arrays is that they do produce directivity but the sources all radiate independently as well.  The combination of a constantly changing acoustical size and the individual radiations results in a source that radiates a LOT of energy outside the lobe as well. While this is not often shown, what line arrays do here is shown in figure 8 here based on the measured results.  Note how much the radiation above and below the array changes with frequency.

http://www.danleysoundlabs.com/danley/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/line-array-paper.pdf

It is the self interference or interference pattern the arrays produce that makes them so sensitive to wind and limits their “usable throw” / working distance as well as makes them sound different if one moves their location.

Robert wrote “The problem is, when the speaker has a vertical dispersion of only 15 degrees, where can it be usefully used? Front fills, under balcony, spot fills would be good placements. But when you put 2 on a stick with only 15 degrees of vertical dispersion and an array height of only 16 inches, how large of an area can you realistically cover?”

Again the marketing of these arrays does not explain what actually happens, our span of hearing (20 to 20,000Hz) means that the wavelengths involved span a 1000:1 range in size and the upshot is that the perfect source 16 inches tall, the 15 degree pattern present up high widens to about 90 degrees at 850Hz as the frequency falls and continues to widen as the frequency falls. 

Clearly as one moves from within the pattern to outside of it, the spectrum changes dramatically  but if one had a constant directivity source, the spectrum stays essentially constant while the SPL changes, thus a wide band CD source can have a much more benign behavior, the trick is making one that is constant over a wide band and doesn’t have the interference patterns lobes and nulls.  The 11 foot length Tim mentions would give around a 90 degree vertical pattern (-6dB) at 100Hz if it were acoustically perfect.

Fwiw, the J1 has a VERY powerful low frequency section and a smallish CD horn at its center, the intention was one could do a large spaces without a subwoofer.    There are a number of outdoor stadiums that use one or two for the entire venue, even a few large Churches use a pair of them indoors.   
A   J-3 is a more powerful, smaller and a lighter box that is used with a separate subwoofer.   

While we have elected to focus on stadiums, that is because of the rider issues and the massive cumulative marketing of line arrays, not because one can’t do live sound with point sources.  With the stadium area, there are no riders and they already have concert style rigs installed to compare to side by side. 
By this football season, we will have sound systems in more than half of the 100,000 seat stadiums in the USA, not bad for essentially no advertising.

If you have headphones on your computer, there are a couple videos I took yesterday which might illustrate these point sources.  The first one is the playing field (1) J3 when they were fiddling with the subwoofer level so you can hear it with and without a sub (using the lf section of the Caleb for the sub), you can also hear the wind hitting the microphone on my canon vixia r300 so ignore that.
 
https://www.dropbox.com/s/c7xc3gi9dmcevhn/20140805135418.mts

https://www.dropbox.com/s/mxa64hkkhkk07vj/20140805133848.mts

Here are a couple with the whole system on (not using the single J3 field speaker)

https://www.dropbox.com/s/gwlxss1uxioi4mq/20140805115158.mts

At the 50 yard line (in the pattern of the side J3 and J4)

https://www.dropbox.com/s/1868goglj7k5n6f/20140805183020.mts

At 750 feet from the speakers (in the pattern of the Caleb);

https://www.dropbox.com/s/o0xlb17x8hhgekm/20140805120442.mts

All of the full range speakers fit behind the Hawkeye, there are 4 BC-415 subwoofers to the right side of them.  The result is a -3dB point below 30Hz and a comfortable operating level of 97dBa slow at 800 feet.

Here are a couple more from a few other stadiums.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/oyosfc3adc6j1du/20130723135350.mts

On a windy day at LSU with my daughter;

https://www.dropbox.com/s/dz224imtchuohi4/20130723145400.mts

A smaller J3 system;
https://www.dropbox.com/s/tnsw5mb4v5vdlwq/20120726122124.mts

Best,
Tom Danley
Title: Re: The high cost of deploying a true line-array
Post by: Peter Morris on August 07, 2014, 12:40:33 AM
Hi Tom,

I’ve been giving Ivan a bit of a hard time about the suitability of your boxes for contractor’s, so thanks for posting the impressive videos of the football stadiums. FWIW here is a video of one that I have done in the past – capacity 60000.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCqPa8_ZfiM

This was the actual match, and I had to supply a system for the entertainment before the main game started. The only place the speakers could be position was around the edge of the field. We had only 5 minutes to remove the entire system, and only 2 weeks notification to prepare for it.

I can also remember suppling a speaker system for an England V’s Australia cricket match (picture below take from the approximate speaker position).  The only place we could put the speakers was inside the steel lattice legs that supported the video screen.  We hung EAW KF 750s six or seven deep in a gain shaded (line ?) array; the tricky bit was manually passing each box through the steel lattice that made up the support structure and flying them one row at a time.

These are just a couple of examples of the logistical problems sound contractors face, and why we like 40 – 80 kg line-array boxes in 2014, even though they are not perfect.

What we all want is a light weight, flexible, saleable array that behave like a point source, without the 6dB loss over distance …  ;)
Title: Re: The high cost of deploying a true line-array
Post by: Marjan Milosevic on August 07, 2014, 07:14:47 AM
Hi Tom,

I’ve been giving Ivan a bit of a hard time about the suitability of your boxes for contractor’s, so thanks for posting the impressive videos of the football stadiums. FWIW here is a video of one that I have done in the past – capacity 60000.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCqPa8_ZfiM

This was the actual match, and I had to supply a system for the entertainment before the main game started. The only place the speakers could be position was around the edge of the field. We had only 5 minutes to remove the entire system, and only 2 weeks notification to prepare for it.

I can also remember suppling a speaker system for an England V’s Australia cricket match (picture below take from the approximate speaker position).  The only place we could put the speakers was inside the steel lattice legs that supported the video screen.  We hung EAW KF 750s six or seven deep in a gain shaded (line ?) array; the tricky bit was manually passing each box through the steel lattice that made up the support structure and flying them one row at a time.

These are just a couple of examples of the logistical problems sound contractors face, and why we like 40 – 80 kg line-array boxes in 2014, even though they are not perfect.

What we all want is a light weight, flexible, saleable array that behave like a point source, without the 6dB loss over distance …  ;)

Dont forget to add self levitating :-)
Title: Re: The high cost of deploying a true line-array
Post by: Peter Morris on August 07, 2014, 08:24:21 AM
Dont forget to add self levitating :-)

That should be easy for Tom to add to his speakers ... I think he has the patent on that   ;D
http://www.google.com.au/patents/US5036944
Title: Re: The high cost of deploying a true line-array
Post by: Mike Hedden on August 07, 2014, 08:41:56 AM
Hi Tom,

I’ve been giving Ivan a bit of a hard time about the suitability of your boxes for contractor’s, so thanks for posting the impressive videos of the football stadiums. FWIW here is a video of one that I have done in the past – capacity 60000.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCqPa8_ZfiM

This was the actual match, and I had to supply a system for the entertainment before the main game started. The only place the speakers could be position was around the edge of the field. We had only 5 minutes to remove the entire system, and only 2 weeks notification to prepare for it.

I can also remember suppling a speaker system for an England V’s Australia cricket match (picture below take from the approximate speaker position).  The only place we could put the speakers was inside the steel lattice legs that supported the video screen.  We hung EAW KF 750s six or seven deep in a gain shaded (line ?) array; the tricky bit was manually passing each box through the steel lattice that made up the support structure and flying them one row at a time.

These are just a couple of examples of the logistical problems sound contractors face, and why we like 40 – 80 kg line-array boxes in 2014, even though they are not perfect.

What we all want is a light weight, flexible, saleable array that behave like a point source, without the 6dB loss over distance …  ;)

The venue pictured here is similar to several stadiums we've done where a single J1 with lateral fills or two J1's do the job. Also while I certainly don't know the level's expected at a cricket game, our installs are American football demand the system can sustain 100+dBA.
Regarding the 3dB/doubling reference, there simply aren't any of the tour cabinets that exhibit this, certainly not over multiple octaves. 
The best real world example I can think of is our Penn State demo a few years back.  108K seats with a maximum coverage distance over 800'. At the time of our demo the existing system was a two year old VLA system installed by Clair Brothers.  Clair had high level personnel on site when we did our demo.  At the 800' listening position  we switched from a single J2 to the large VLA rig.  If there was 3dB/doubling going on at this distance the VLA should have been much louder but instead it sounded like the VLA rig took a giant step backwards.  The level was way down and and somewhat unraveled. The impression that demo made resulted in us doing a new system which will be premiered this season and if not more important, Roy Clair loves Danley!

Mike Hedden
Danley Sound Labs
Title: Re: The high cost of deploying a true line-array
Post by: TJ (Tom) Cornish on August 07, 2014, 08:58:03 AM
The venue pictured here is similar to several stadiums we've done where a single J1 with lateral fills or two J1's do the job. Also while I certainly don't know the level's expected at a cricket game, our installs are American football demand the system can sustain 100+dBA.
Regarding the 3dB/doubling reference, there simply aren't any of the tour cabinets that exhibit this, certainly not over multiple octaves. 
The best real world example I can think of is our Penn State demo a few years back.  108K seats with a maximum coverage distance over 800'. At the time of our demo the existing system was a two year old VLA system installed by Clair Brothers.  Clair had high level personnel on site when we did our demo.  At the 800' listening position  we switched from a single J2 to the large VLA rig.  If there was 3dB/doubling going on at this distance the VLA should have been much louder but instead it sounded like the VLA rig took a giant step backwards.  The level was way down and and somewhat unraveled. The impression that demo made resulted in us doing a new system which will be premiered this season and if not more important, Roy Clair loves Danley!

Mike Hedden
Danley Sound Labs
OK Danley crew - you've clearly made your point here, several times at least.  Your products are awesome when they're already hanging, but until you finish your world conquest and put a single box system in every venue, there are a few of us who will have to juggle logistical challenges that require a system that is not an 800lb monolithic block.   This was Peter's point, and reflects many others' reality as well.

I appreciate the technical insight of Tom and Ivan, but I think we can put the marketing rolodex away now.
Title: Re: The high cost of deploying a true line-array
Post by: Ivan Beaver on August 07, 2014, 10:43:09 AM
That should be easy for Tom to add to his speakers ... I think he has the patent on that   ;D
http://www.google.com.au/patents/US5036944
We should have one of those next year at Infocomm (June) in Orlando.

Many people have heard about it-but not experienced it in person (myself included).

So it should be fun to play with and do some "parlor tricks" with.
Title: Re: The high cost of deploying a true line-array
Post by: Ivan Beaver on August 07, 2014, 10:52:01 AM
there are a few of us who will have to juggle logistical challenges that require a system that is not an 800lb monolithic block.   This was Peter's point, and reflects many others' reality as well.


Danley only has 2 boxes that are 800lbs or more (not counting the Matterhorn). The J1 and the J5.

Most are waayyyyy less than that-including the ones used at most of the large stadium installs- and are much easier to move around.
Title: Re: The high cost of deploying a true line-array
Post by: Tim McCulloch on August 07, 2014, 10:53:39 AM
Danley only has 2 boxes that are 800lbs or more (not counting the Matterhorn). The J1 and the J5.

Most are waayyyyy less than that-including the ones used at most of the large stadium installs- and are much easier to move around.

Flying a Matterhorn would go faster and be easier than rigging Tommy Lee's "drum rollercoaster" on the current "Final Motley Crue Tour".
Title: Re: The high cost of deploying a true line-array
Post by: Ivan Beaver on August 07, 2014, 11:41:39 AM
Flying a Matterhorn would go faster and be easier than rigging Tommy Lee's "drum rollercoaster" on the current "Final Motley Crue Tour".
Didn't they do that back in the 80s also?

I know Keith Emerson did the "flying piano" back in the 70s.
Title: Re: The high cost of deploying a true line-array
Post by: Josh Millward on August 07, 2014, 11:58:38 AM
All of this speaks to what I have been thinking for a long time, The Danley J3 is a far more ideal loudspeaker for the live production business than the J1.

First of all, it weighs almost half of what the J1 weighs. It arrays nicely, and with a 60x40 pattern one or two a side would be suitable for an extremely large number of gigs.

If you were to couple a pair on each side of the stage with one of the truss rigs used to hang the line array loudspeakers, you could have a much better sounding and more flexible system.
Title: Re: The high cost of deploying a true line-array
Post by: Tim McCulloch on August 07, 2014, 12:44:20 PM
Didn't they do that back in the 80s also?

I know Keith Emerson did the "flying piano" back in the 70s.

This is different, it's actually on tracks, the riser lifts, makes the first drop, comes up a hill and then stops, reversing to get him back on stage.  It takes 9-14 hours to install just this gag, not including all the rest of the usual gig work.

When the show played here they used the "B rig gag" because someone in management didn't look at a map to see that it would take about 6 hours to get from Des Moines to Wichita and that leaving after 2am meant missing the 6am Wichita load in time... they arrived about 10am.

Title: Re: The high cost of deploying a true line-array
Post by: Peter Morris on August 07, 2014, 10:13:43 PM
Danley only has 2 boxes that are 800lbs or more (not counting the Matterhorn). The J1 and the J5.

Most are waayyyyy less than that-including the ones used at most of the large stadium installs- and are much easier to move around.

Hi Ivan,

Firstly - I’m not saying your boxes don’t sound great, I’m just saying that for most sound contracting companies they are not a good logistical choice.  Perhaps if you only do large scale touring work like Clair brothers, then large single special purpose boxes may make sense, but that’s only one small section of the market.

More to the point, I would love you guys to be able to provide a scalable, flexible solution whose size and weight matched most modern line arrays without the sonic comprises.  I would buy some, but until you do I don’t think your criticism of line arrays is valid.  They have just picked a different point on the compromise curve.  I’m sure many of the line array manufactures if they chose to make a single big box solution would be able to match what you guys have done.

Weight has dominated this discussion, so let’s look at it in more detail. Most companies require a box that can be “man” lifted. Practically it needs to be either a 4 person lift or a 2 person lift.  Occupational safety laws around the world in general limit the weight per person to around 30Kgs. That means a big box needs to be around 120kg maximum, a medium box 60 kgs and small box 30 Kgs.

Lets look at some large and medium scale line arrays that you don't seem to like:

Large
•   L- Acoustics K1 – 106 kgs
•   Turbosound Flashline – 102 Kgs
•   Adamson Energia  -  K15 80kgs  K12 – 60kgs
•   JBL VTX25 – 83 Kgs
•   d&b J series  - 60kgs
•   L- Acoustics K2 –  56 kg (can used ad down fill for K1)
•   EAW Anya – 130 kgs
Medium
•   d&b V series – 35kgs
•   JBL VTX20 – 40kgs
•   Turbossound Flex – 41 Kgs (can be used as down fill for Flashline)
•   Adamson Energia K12 – 60kgs

All of these fit my weight criteria and all have appropriate lifting points / handles except Anya which is a little bit on the heavy side. Interestingly Anya's weigh is not specified on her spec sheet, I found it mentioned in an interview with Dave Rat. I suspect EAW think she's a bit fat so they don’t mention it too often.

…and yes people stack them 3 or 4 high on a Dolly, but at some point someone will have to manually lift them.

Your J3 for example weighs 196 kgs and has 4 handles … 50kgs per person. Not acceptable under most safety laws around the world, but given it’s an install box and you can use a forklift no problem.

Soooo ….still waiting to see what you guys have come up with :) :)
Title: Re: The high cost of deploying a true line-array
Post by: Ivan Beaver on August 08, 2014, 07:43:51 AM
Hi Ivan,


Soooo ….still waiting to see what you guys have come up with :) :)
Let's just say there are some things "in the works" and "being considered".

I will not say anything else until things get more finished.

Don't expect to purchase them next month however
Title: Re: The high cost of deploying a true line-array
Post by: Tom Danley on August 08, 2014, 10:23:31 AM
Hi Ivan,

Firstly - I’m not saying your boxes don’t sound great, I’m just saying that for most sound contracting companies they are not a good logistical choice.  Perhaps if you only do large scale touring work like Clair brothers, then large single special purpose boxes may make sense, but that’s only one small section of the market.

More to the point, I would love you guys to be able to provide a scalable, flexible solution whose size and weight matched most modern line arrays without the sonic comprises.  I would buy some, but until you do I don’t think your criticism of line arrays is valid.  They have just picked a different point on the compromise curve.  I’m sure many of the line array manufactures if they chose to make a single big box solution would be able to match what you guys have done.

Weight has dominated this discussion, so let’s look at it in more detail. Most companies require a box that can be “man” lifted. Practically it needs to be either a 4 person lift or a 2 person lift.  Occupational safety laws around the world in general limit the weight per person to around 30Kgs. That means a big box needs to be around 120kg maximum, a medium box 60 kgs and small box 30 Kgs.

Lets look at some large and medium scale line arrays that you don't seem to like:

Large
•   L- Acoustics K1 – 106 kgs
•   Turbosound Flashline – 102 Kgs
•   Adamson Energia  -  K15 80kgs  K12 – 60kgs
•   JBL VTX25 – 83 Kgs
•   d&b J series  - 60kgs
•   L- Acoustics K2 –  56 kg (can used ad down fill for K1)
•   EAW Anya – 130 kgs
Medium
•   d&b V series – 35kgs
•   JBL VTX20 – 40kgs
•   Turbossound Flex – 41 Kgs (can be used as down fill for Flashline)
•   Adamson Energia K12 – 60kgs

All of these fit my weight criteria and all have appropriate lifting points / handles except Anya which is a little bit on the heavy side. Interestingly Anya's weigh is not specified on her spec sheet, I found it mentioned in an interview with Dave Rat. I suspect EAW think she's a bit fat so they don’t mention it too often.

…and yes people stack them 3 or 4 high on a Dolly, but at some point someone will have to manually lift them.

Your J3 for example weighs 196 kgs and has 4 handles … 50kgs per person. Not acceptable under most safety laws around the world, but given it’s an install box and you can use a forklift no problem.

Soooo ….still waiting to see what you guys have come up with :) :)

Hi Peter, all
At risk of being accused of marketing, I would point out the thread was about the cost involved.

About 10 years ago a loudspeaker driver engineer said to me “the line array fad has saved our Butt’s” and the reason is that for a given audience SPL, it actually requires more of everything to get the job done and that is great for everyone involved at the sales end of things. 
 
The reason is that to actually get “line source” behavior the way it is done now, requires that some or much of the energy from each source to be expended in self cancelation in the near field.   That same spatial interference pattern is what you hear when the wind blows, why they sound different everywhere, is what takes a single impulse fed to the system and transmogrifies it so it arrives at the listener as an impulse stretched out in time according to the various path lengths involved to each source.  In installed sound or the situations where fidelity matters, that is a big deal all by itself.

Also, the reason we don’t market to the live sound area IS because of mfr's riders and the mountain of marketing that would need to be scaled to overcome the “knowledge” about the line array so it is no surprise that the concept of drivers that add coherently into what appears to be a single driver’s radiation in time and space is a difficult concept.   

Yet, that single crossover less driver behavior is the object of the Synergy horn and why they don’t radiate an interference pattern of lobes and nulls, why they have such a large working distance and when it matters, sounds better as well.

Few live sound people would need the acoustic power of say 6 lab subs in one full range box, but if one did, that would be a J1.    In one of the video’s I linked, there was a single J3 covering the entire football field and 20 rows up the stands and that one box has a far larger working distance than a large line array and sounds the same everywhere and is comparatively immune to wind.   

In the scale of typical live sound use, a pair of sh46’s arrayed or an SH-96HO per side used (with separate subs) here and in Europe for EDM shows is probably the closest thing to the output of a typical array system.
Unfortunately, making a speaker that acts / measures /sounds like a single crossover-less driver does not lend itself to scalability like the line arrays where you simply use more and more.  This isn’t like lighting, it’s more like projecting an image,  there are very specific acoustic requirements that need to be met if one wants to avoid the problems of self interfering sources.  For installed sound in rooms, sound radiated to the sides, up and down and rear this is a real problem.  That greater directivity / less sound outside of the pattern and “sounds the same everywhere” is partly why Synergy horns have caught on there.   One might think of it like adding extra cylinders to an engine, you can design them in from the beginning but you can’t just tack more and more on to the crankshaft if you need more power.
That being said, Ivan had an idea that I think will work for a system which can be scaled but this isn’t a reality yet.
 Best,
Tom
Title: Re: The high cost of deploying a true line-array
Post by: Peter Morris on August 10, 2014, 09:26:21 PM
Unfortunately, making a speaker that acts / measures /sounds like a single crossover-less  driver does not lend itself to scalability like the line arrays where you simply use more and more.
That’s my point, and why we accept all the compromises of a line array, or perhaps more appropriately – a variable curvature array as L- Acoustics describes them.
Quote
That being said, Ivan had an idea that I think will work for a system which can be scaled but this isn’t a reality yet. 
I do actually understand the issues associated with “line-array” behaviour so I will be very interested to see what you guys come up with.
   
Peter
Title: Re: The high cost of deploying a true line-array
Post by: Tom Danley on August 10, 2014, 09:54:00 PM
Exactly -- 800 lbs is way too much.

Running a sound company is probably more about logistics than sound.  Companies like L-Acoustics and d&b provide an excellent set of products and logistical solutions.

Danley not so much.

Hi Peter
I am not sure you’re grasping the situation.
 
The J1 has the bass output of a large pile of 2-18 subs or about 6 or 8 lab subs and for some installations, that is what’s needed to cover a medium sized stadium with just one or two boxes.
A J3 is more powerful above the subwoofer range but is smaller and lighter AND array able without a seam.  Here is the first public demo of one (up on the lift, video take by an attendee)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MOG_sPejGA

Here is just ONE J3 and sub covering the playing field (for when they practice), yes it’s still bigger than a single line array box but it would take a pile of line arrays to do even this space and they wouldn’t sound like this .

https://www.dropbox.com/s/o0xlb17x8hhgekm/20140805120442.mts

Best,
Tom
Title: Re: The high cost of deploying a true line-array
Post by: Peter Morris on August 10, 2014, 11:58:19 PM
Hi Peter
I am not sure you’re grasping the situation.
 
The J1 has the bass output of a large pile of 2-18 subs or about 6 or 8 lab subs and for some installations, that is what’s needed to cover a medium sized stadium with just one or two boxes.
A J3 is more powerful above the subwoofer range but is smaller and lighter AND array able without a seam.  Here is the first public demo of one (up on the lift, video take by an attendee)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MOG_sPejGA

Here is just ONE J3 and sub covering the playing field (for when they practice), yes it’s still bigger than a single line array box but it would take a pile of line arrays to do even this space and they wouldn’t sound like this .

https://www.dropbox.com/s/o0xlb17x8hhgekm/20140805120442.mts

Best,
Tom

Sorry Tom,

I do think I grasp the situation – but you guys just keep talking about how loud, how far your boxes through and how much better they perform in the wind compared to a line-array. To me, that’s not too hard to do if you don’t have to really worry about size and weight.

You seem to ignore that some of us have to occasionally manually handle these boxes, sometimes we may need 60 or more degrees of vertical coverage, and the next day using the same equipment; because it’s in the truck and your 500 miles from home, 15 degrees.

Don’t get me wrong, although I have never heard your boxes, I do believe they are excellent, and I do understand your point about what happens when you can get a bunch of drivers to sum without interference and cancelation.  I would love to own some of your J3 and SH94’s, but in terms of logistics I don’t believe they would work for me. Maybe your new boxes will  :) :)
Title: Re: The high cost of deploying a true line-array
Post by: Scott Holtzman on August 11, 2014, 12:22:46 AM
Sorry Tom,

I do think I grasp the situation – but you guys just keep talking about how loud, how far your boxes through and how much better they perform in the wind compared to a line-array. To me, that’s not too hard to do if you don’t have to really worry about size and weight.

You seem to ignore that some of us have to occasionally manually handle these boxes, sometimes we may need 60 or more degrees of vertical coverage, and the next day using the same equipment; because it’s in the truck and your 500 miles from home, 15 degrees.

Don’t get me wrong, although I have never heard your boxes, I do believe they are excellent, and I do understand your point about what happens when you can get a bunch of drivers to sum without interference and cancelation.  I would love to own some of your J3 and SH94’s, but in terms of logistics I don’t believe they would work for me. Maybe your new boxes will  :) :)

Peter makes some great comments Tom.  As a businessman I think you are receiving very valuable feedback on market perception of your products.  If decisions were made solely on technical merit our inventory would look quite a bit different.

Keeping SKU counts down drives revenue up.  While we all love the large jobs that need the long throw and high SPL capability many of us exist day to day in clubs, churches, conventions and other corporate and political functions.  Having our inventory scale, even if it is not optimum simply makes business sense.

As an engineer I love your gear.  I am going to utilize one of your subs when I get my new home theater finished.  No convincing is necessary on the technical merits.  Just business and use cases.

I can only speak for myself, your presence in these forums, the candor of your responses and not taking personal umbrage at any comments is greatly appreciated.  I have personally benefited from your detailed technical responses.

Would love to spend some money with Danley.  I know you aren't going to engineer to a price point but to a market segment makes sense.  Also if you came up with some type of coop type program to place gear in rental inventories of qualified companies you could quickly seed these new products into the market.

Title: Re: The high cost of deploying a true line-array
Post by: Ivan Beaver on August 11, 2014, 08:20:16 AM
Sorry Tom,

I do think I grasp the situation – but you guys just keep talking about how loud, how far your boxes through and how much better they perform in the wind compared to a line-array. To me, that’s not too hard to do if you don’t have to really worry about size and weight.

You seem to ignore that some of us have to occasionally manually handle these boxes, sometimes we may need 60 or more degrees of vertical coverage, and the next day using the same equipment; because it’s in the truck and your 500 miles from home, 15 degrees.

Don’t get me wrong, although I have never heard your boxes, I do believe they are excellent, and I do understand your point about what happens when you can get a bunch of drivers to sum without interference and cancelation.  I would love to own some of your J3 and SH94’s, but in terms of logistics I don’t believe they would work for me. Maybe your new boxes will  :) :)
Not to be "argumentative- but lets consider this.

What product wold you recommend that can do a small event one day and then have a 800' throw the next? Just using more boxes?

Also there are quite a few examples of top level boxes that are being replaced by Jericho products because the performance is better.

These systems were already large-had more boxes-cost more and so forth but can not "keep up".  So do you think adding MORE boxes is the solution?

Have you ever experienced a "line array" that does not "blow around in the wind" at 800'?  No matter how many boxes?  The more you add-the bigger that problem gets.  Simply "adding more boxes" is NOT the solution.

Another question-what product do you suggest that can have a true 60 vertical coverage (without seams in the freq response in the seating area) one day and then 15 the next?  No matter how many boxes are used?

Sure you can if you choose to ignore what is really happening and just want to play with a few simple numbers-but that is not what happens in the real world.

There are many things that are "simple" if you choose to ignore the real world.

Just like the thread on Air absorption and processors having "air absorption compensators".  Do people REALLY think these processors can add 40dB or more boost AND their HF drivers not blow up in the process????????????

If they live in the world of "I have no experience in this but "believe" all you have to do is press this button and all problems go away" THEN SURE go ahead.

But when you have to actually make things perform the way the "simple numbers" say it will-it is quite a different story.





Title: Re: The high cost of deploying a true line-array
Post by: Peter Morris on August 11, 2014, 10:23:35 AM
Not to be "argumentative- but lets consider this.

What product wold you recommend that can do a small event one day and then have a 800' throw the next? Just using more boxes?

Also there are quite a few examples of top level boxes that are being replaced by Jericho products because the performance is better.

These systems were already large-had more boxes-cost more and so forth but can not "keep up".  So do you think adding MORE boxes is the solution?

Have you ever experienced a "line array" that does not "blow around in the wind" at 800'?  No matter how many boxes?  The more you add-the bigger that problem gets.  Simply "adding more boxes" is NOT the solution.

Another question-what product do you suggest that can have a true 60 vertical coverage (without seams in the freq response in the seating area) one day and then 15 the next?  No matter how many boxes are used?

Sure you can if you choose to ignore what is really happening and just want to play with a few simple numbers-but that is not what happens in the real world.

There are many things that are "simple" if you choose to ignore the real world.

Just like the thread on Air absorption and processors having "air absorption compensators".  Do people REALLY think these processors can add 40dB or more boost AND their HF drivers not blow up in the process????????????

If they live in the world of "I have no experience in this but "believe" all you have to do is press this button and all problems go away" THEN SURE go ahead.

But when you have to actually make things perform the way the "simple numbers" say it will-it is quite a different story.

Most people on this site do not want to throw 800ft!  They are doing concerts and festivals to about 200 to 300 feet! At which point I expect they would like the sound to stop to prevent issues with the noise police.  BTW this is where Martin’s MLA works so well.
 
FWIW I own Turbosound Flex Array . They will do from about 100 people (one box in point source mode) to about 10,000. They will easily cover 60 degrees … and yes it’s a compromise and I'm sure there are many other boxes that can do this just as well.

http://www.prosoundweb.com/article/turbosound_flex_array_from_three_sources_for_final_show_of_recent_ian_brown/

Title: Re: The high cost of deploying a true line-array
Post by: Mike Hedden on August 11, 2014, 12:11:21 PM
Most people on this site do not want to throw 800ft!  They are doing concerts and festivals to about 200 to 300 feet! At which point I expect they would like the sound to stop to prevent issues with the noise police.  BTW this is where Martin’s MLA works so well.
 
FWIW I own Turbosound Flex Array . They will do from about 100 people (one box in point source mode) to about 10,000. They will easily cover 60 degrees … and yes it’s a compromise and I'm sure there are many other boxes that can do this just as well.

http://www.prosoundweb.com/article/turbosound_flex_array_from_three_sources_for_final_show_of_recent_ian_brown/

This is what the media thought of my last show I did using Flex – a small amateur theatre production.  http://www.thebarefootreview.com.au/menu/theatre/119-2014-adelaide-reviews/987-the-sound-of-music.html they didn’t seem to notice any problems with the coverage.
Peter,
I understand due to locales its not an easy thing to say drop by sometime and we'll let you give a Jericho Horn demo.  You are how ever welcome whenever you're in the area as is anyone on this forum.  That said until that happens you simply won't be able to understand the experience.  Your assertion that anyone can build a product if they just put their mind to it i.e..,multiple drivers within a 1/4 wavelength of each other as well as the adjacent three way or four way bandpasses as well as getting proper broadband horn loading is detached from reality.  Tom's got dozens of aerospace patents as well as acoustic patents and he says the HF combiner in the J4/J5 is the toughest problem he's ever solved. 
To your venue sizes we understand most never encounter the venues we do on a regular basis.  We see that as a huge benefit in product development, i.e., we're doing venues few ever get asked to be in much less design the main system for so if we can get 110dBA at 800' and not liquify the folks directly below the mains, how hard is it for us to achieve that at 300'?. 
You can easily do the venues/gigs you describe with a combination of SH46 products or if you really want elegant and simple an SH96HO/SH64 or two per side . The article you reference is for a 20,000 seat venue which I believe is still larger than most on this site ever encounter.  As the article points out this "small" pa still deploys 20 tops per side and 30 subs.  A lot of gear to our way of thinking and most importantly a venue we could do with a fraction of the equipment but yield much better performance.

Mike Hedden
Danley Sound Labs, Inc.
Title: Re: The high cost of deploying a true line-array
Post by: Ivan Beaver on August 11, 2014, 12:14:14 PM
Most people on this site do not want to throw 800ft!  They are doing concerts and festivals to about 200 to 300 feet!
There are lots of smaller/lighter boxes that work well also.

But 300' is still QUITE a throw.

Most of the "line array" systems I have seen in applications like that have delay speakers out at about 150'.
Title: Re: The high cost of deploying a true line-array
Post by: Tom Danley on August 11, 2014, 12:20:50 PM
Most people on this site do not want to throw 800ft!  They are doing concerts and festivals to about 200 to 300 feet! At which point I expect they would like the sound to stop to prevent issues with the noise police.  BTW this is where Martin’s MLA works so well.
 
FWIW I own Turbosound Flex Array . They will do from about 100 people (one box in point source mode) to about 10,000. They will easily cover 60 degrees … and yes it’s a compromise and I'm sure there are many other boxes that can do this just as well.

http://www.prosoundweb.com/article/turbosound_flex_array_from_three_sources_for_final_show_of_recent_ian_brown/

Hi Peter
The thread was about “the cost” and while a constant directivity broad band point source approach does reduce the physical size of what’s needed as well as the cost (compared to the large arrays which are the other way to go in a stadium), it was perhaps a mistake to focus on size and sound quality in stadiums here since that is pretty far down in the important list in Live sound.
On the other hand, for these large “rooms”, the ONLY other choices ARE the concert style systems which are markedly inferior in coverage, sound quality and are more expensive, the choice of our approach use has often been as a result of a side by side comparison with them.
         
“To me, that’s not too hard to do if you don’t have to really worry about size and weight.”

It would seem you know some secrets that the manufacturers don’t know or aren’t willing to employ, or you have not heard what the stadium people have heard when they reject or replace that option.

“I would love to own some of your J3 and SH94’s, but in terms of logistics I don’t believe they would work for me.” 

True, unless you were doing sound in a stadium or needed to cover a huge throw with even coverage without delay rings, these would be overkill for 90% of concert use.   
 
The point here was that while we don’t peruse or make products tailored for live sound, when sound quality and directivity is a concern, there is a smaller, simpler, to the threads question, a less expensive way to get better sound than the arrays.   
For a throw of only 200-300 feet like you mention, a pair of smaler boxes or a single sh96ho per side with subs would probably be plenty (like is used in EDM now).  Even that box is heavier than one person can carry by themselves though and very few of our subwoofers can be carried by one person as well.

Hi Scott
“Peter makes some great comments Tom.  As a businessman I think you are receiving very valuable feedback on market perception of your products. “
Perhaps so, especially if we were trying to sell into live sound.   
   
Right now the focus is on large scale and installed sound where the large array system approaches are the norm, which are larger and more impressive looking, heavier, have limited usable throw, have less directivity and are audibly inferior and also (the subject of the thread) more expensive for a given SPL / audience size.     
 
While we do make smaller speakers which are often used in Churches and media rooms, it has been the larger venues like stadiums and arenas where side by side auditions with the other choices are fairly common that have been the growth area for us.   
For example, based on that acoustic performance, this fall we will be in more than half of the 100,000+ seat stadiums in the USA. 
   
Like I said before, we have not focused on live sound in part because of what people “know” and expect is a tall mountain to climb and a great deal depends on marketing and unfortunately where side by side comparisons and focus on sound quality are not high on the list.   
Good or bad, we are not a marketing based company but follow a physics / form follows function based approach and this may not be compatible given the marketing driven expectations in the live sound market.
 Best,
Tom
Title: Re: The high cost of deploying a true line-array
Post by: Tim McCulloch on August 11, 2014, 02:31:41 PM
While we do make smaller speakers which are often used in Churches and media rooms, it has been the larger venues like stadiums and arenas where side by side auditions with the other choices are fairly common that have been the growth area for us. 
Tom

I realize that DSL cannot make the installing contractors (when it's not a Danley project) meet a certain expectation, but I'll say that a particular arena installation of DSL products left me looking pretty silly when it didn't meet the expectations of non-athletic users of the arena.

Having heard many early DSL products I was very impressed; when those to whom I talked up the products heard the installation they just walked away, not smiling.  Not the fault of Ivan, Tom or Mike, but for all the hype (both from the salesman that sold this install and myself) it does not deliver.

It's a common problem, too many speakers aimed too many places, and some places with permanent seats are not in the coverage of any speaker at all.  Again, not the fault of Danley, but it's fucked up and their name is on it because the designer/installer doesn't badge the speakers or amps.
Title: Re: The high cost of deploying a true line-array
Post by: Tom Danley on August 11, 2014, 04:23:54 PM
I realize that DSL cannot make the installing contractors (when it's not a Danley project) meet a certain expectation, but I'll say that a particular arena installation of DSL products left me looking pretty silly when it didn't meet the expectations of non-athletic users of the arena.

Having heard many early DSL products I was very impressed; when those to whom I talked up the products heard the installation they just walked away, not smiling.  Not the fault of Ivan, Tom or Mike, but for all the hype (both from the salesman that sold this install and myself) it does not deliver.

It's a common problem, too many speakers aimed too many places, and some places with permanent seats are not in the coverage of any speaker at all.  Again, not the fault of Danley, but it's fucked up and their name is on it because the designer/installer doesn't badge the speakers or amps.

Hi Tim
Yeah it’s easy to get too focused on the technology (my end of it) and forget that the loudspeakers are only part of the chain and it doesn’t matter how good they are if they aren’t placed or pointed the right way or were the wrong choice for the job. 
Worse even when everything is right, one can still play a crummy mp3 through it.
In one of the recent large jobs, they found they had to go through and re-do about half of the program material because it sounded to bad compared to the other half.   
There are a lot of places for things to go sour and even some professionals are afraid to ask for help or advise even if it's free.
Best,
Tom
Title: Re: The high cost of deploying a true line-array
Post by: Ivan Beaver on August 11, 2014, 05:13:04 PM
I realize that DSL cannot make the installing contractors (when it's not a Danley project) meet a certain expectation, but I'll say that a particular arena installation of DSL products left me looking pretty silly when it didn't meet the expectations of non-athletic users of the arena.

Having heard many early DSL products I was very impressed; when those to whom I talked up the products heard the installation they just walked away, not smiling.  Not the fault of Ivan, Tom or Mike, but for all the hype (both from the salesman that sold this install and myself) it does not deliver.

It's a common problem, too many speakers aimed too many places, and some places with permanent seats are not in the coverage of any speaker at all.  Again, not the fault of Danley, but it's fucked up and their name is on it because the designer/installer doesn't badge the speakers or amps.
So what was the issue that they didn't like?

Coverage-SPL capability-sonic quality or something else.

I will say (as with all manufacturers of loudspeakers) there are installs that are just plain wrong and make the product look bad. 

Don't blame the product if it is not used properly.

I talked to somebody today who "inherited" an install and it seems as if the loudspeakers are not aimed properly and causing poor coverage.  A hot spot in the middle of the room and low level/freq response at FOH.

A manufacturer cannot control how the products are used once they get into the hands of the end user.
Title: Re: The high cost of deploying a true line-array
Post by: Steve M Smith on August 11, 2014, 05:17:16 PM
A manufacturer cannot control how the products are used once they get into the hands of the end user.

Sometimes equipment needs extra instructions: http://www.inkace.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/265x/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/d/a/danger_fuckwit.jpg


Steve.
Title: Re: The high cost of deploying a true line-array
Post by: Ivan Beaver on August 11, 2014, 06:53:34 PM
Sometimes equipment needs extra instructions: http://www.inkace.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/265x/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/d/a/danger_fuckwit.jpg


Steve.
Well you just put probably 80-90% of the "audio guys" out of work!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: The high cost of deploying a true line-array
Post by: Tim McCulloch on August 11, 2014, 07:42:39 PM
I smell lawyers.  Never mind.
Title: Re: The high cost of deploying a true line-array
Post by: Peter Morris on August 11, 2014, 07:59:18 PM
   
Like I said before, we have not focused on live sound  in part because of what people “know” and expect is a tall mountain to climb and a great deal depends on marketing and unfortunately where side by side comparisons and focus on sound quality are not high on the list.   
Good or bad, we are not a marketing based company but follow a physics / form follows function based approach and this may not be compatible given the marketing driven expectations in the live sound market.
 Best,
Tom

That’s my point, and it’s reflected in your range of speakers.
 
If you had focused on live sound I suspect your speaker range and design would be slightly different and more focused on some of the things I’m talking about.
Title: Re: The high cost of deploying a true line-array
Post by: Ivan Beaver on August 11, 2014, 08:24:00 PM
Uniformity of coverage and intelligibility of the spoken word, not the kind of "spoken" when a game announcer is yelling into a mic while the band plays.

The design is likely at fault or the installation is not according to the design; either way it was done by the same firm.  I've come to the conclusion that arenas have the same type of voodoo bullshit artists selling audio that too many houses of worship get sucked in by.
What is funny (sad really) is that I know of many customers who have somebody (either a design/build company or consultant) design a system and it does not work well.

So they live with a few years, then they hire THE SAME PEOPLE to redo the system-with the same type components.  I know of cases where the redo is WORSE than the original.

And in one case (no names will be mentioned) the customer is looking to hire the same company and same brand of products A THIRD TIME!!!!!!

I wonder who "does not get it" in this case :(

I am in no way defending the statement I am about to make-but this is exactly what Bose has suffered from.  Bad sound because the wrong product was installed properly.

And Peavey suffers to this day.  Because the products are inexpensive-they are often purchased by people who do not know how to use them

And the result is bad sound-and people blame the product-rather than the misuse of it.

Because (again sadly) in our industry you are often considered an "expert" if you can simply hook it up and make some kind of sound.    It does not have to be good-because you can always blame the gear for that ----------------------------

I'm sorry to hear about your situation.  There are quite a few arenas that are very happy with the coverage/intelligibility etc of the products.  But these were done right.
It is not really that hard.
Title: Re: The high cost of deploying a true line-array
Post by: Tim McCulloch on August 11, 2014, 08:39:29 PM
What is funny (sad really) is that I know of many customers who have somebody (either a design/build company or consultant) design a system and it does not work well.

So they live with a few years, then they hire THE SAME PEOPLE to redo the system-with the same type components.  I know of cases where the redo is WORSE than the original.

And in one case (no names will be mentioned) the customer is looking to hire the same company and same brand of products A THIRD TIME!!!!!!

I wonder who "does not get it" in this case :(

I am in no way defending the statement I am about to make-but this is exactly what Bose has suffered from.  Bad sound because the wrong product was installed properly.

And Peavey suffers to this day.  Because the products are inexpensive-they are often purchased by people who do not know how to use them

And the result is bad sound-and people blame the product-rather than the misuse of it.

Because (again sadly) in our industry you are often considered an "expert" if you can simply hook it up and make some kind of sound.    It does not have to be good-because you can always blame the gear for that ----------------------------

I'm sorry to hear about your situation.  There are quite a few arenas that are very happy with the coverage/intelligibility etc of the products.  But these were done right.
It is not really that hard.

The people that paid for this install are happy with the way it works for athletic events that are loud and noisy.  Some church services are like that, too, so I guess there's something for everybody.
Title: Re: The high cost of deploying a true line-array
Post by: Steve M Smith on August 12, 2014, 01:45:56 AM
Well you just put probably 80-90% of the "audio guys" out of work!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I found that last week... and just had to make some stickers!


Steve.
Title: Re: The high cost of deploying a true line-array
Post by: Ivan Beaver on August 12, 2014, 06:42:49 AM
That’s my point, and it’s reflected in your range of speakers.
 
If you had focused on live sound I suspect your speaker range and design would be slightly different and more focused on some of the things I’m talking about.
What a lot (most?) of people involved in "live sound" don't realize is that for most loudspeaker companies the "install" side of things accounts for around 70% or more of their business.

Yes it is not the "glamor" side of things. And it is "repeatable" business.

Take this for example.  If a manufacturer sells a system to a rental house they make a sale.  THat company may not make another large purchase for years.

But for an install company they do an install.  But to get more work they have to do another install. and another. 

This is really good for the manufacturers because it provides a stream of sales.

I am not saying one is better than the other-but you have to have steady income to stay in business and the install market provides that.

While the install side of the business is the current "focus", there is consideration for the live side.

But you also have to consider that there are different "sides" to the live side.

There are the local clubs,small/mid regional providers and then large scale touring.

The products for these markets vary greatly in size-cost-deployment and so forth.

What "you" consider perfect is not "perfect" for other people.

As usual -one size does not fit all.
Title: Re: The high cost of deploying a true line-array
Post by: Doug Fowler on August 12, 2014, 12:30:59 PM
I believe we are finished here.