Print

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

[eric lenasbunt]

And good sound is subjective and everyone's an expert. How many times have you been subjected to bad sound, buried vocals only to hear people comment on how great it sounded? I've mentioned to some of them that I couldn't hear the vox.

I had this exact thing happen at one of my regular venues recently. I thought the BE mix was terrible but the patrons kept walking by giving thumbs up and "great sound" at intermission. I guess they liked it. I personally thought it was difficult to listen to, but I didn't buy a ticket, so who cares what I think...

[John L Nobile]

I'm expecting negative reactions in our new venue from repeat customers and BEs that have been there in the last few years. We've always rented from the same soundco who have provided an 8 box Verrtec /3 dbl 18 front loaded subs a side.
Now they'll only see an SH96HO a side and the 2 DBH218's will be under the stage and won't be visible.
I've lost big time on the visual. I know that it will sound better but people have much better memory for visuals. They won't remember what the other system sounded like.

[Lee Douglas]

... I am sure the video guys would much prefer something that doesn't look like a banana hanging in front of the screens.

Great.  Now I really want a yellow line array!

How about a little line array 101?  My understanding is that, given enough boxes, they can be great for horizontal pattern control and vertical shading.  Obviously four boxes a side on a single amp isn't going to get you there.  So when is a line array the right tool for the job? 

[Tim McCulloch]

I had this exact thing happen at one of my regular venues recently. I thought the BE mix was terrible but the patrons kept walking by giving thumbs up and "great sound" at intermission. I guess they liked it. I personally thought it was difficult to listen to, but I didn't buy a ticket, so who cares what I think...

Not so much related to the system but the punters - if they're having a good time they'll overlook a surprising number of things but some *are* more sophisticated than others, like your thumbs up folks.  They hear the difference between an awful mix and a decent and can separate that from the system itself.

As a system guy one of the best compliments I can get is "it sounds the same everywhere I listen."

While I understand Ivan's little rants about line arrays, it's important to keep things in perspective.  Disclaimer: my last 20 years have been on "larger than Lounge" systems and venues but the concept, once beyond a single sound source, remains the same.

Most of the folks here weren't around to see and hear the Ye Olde Dayz® of live sound (hint - the PSW History of Concert Sound forum) , but the first "packaged" woofer-and-horn systems were considered a step up in deployment and (possibly) sound quality.  Making more sound meant putting out more boxes.  Transducer designs advanced for more output and power handling (now >400 Watts!) and the various sound companies built their own PA boxes that were deployed as "use more".  The loudspeaker industry noticed and designed purpose-built high output touring/portable PA.  Clair had the S4, ShowCo was on its way to the Prism system, EAW was selling KF850 by the ton.  But all of them required multiple drivers in multiple boxes to cover the audience geometry, and aligning them (such as could be done) was a long and complicated process.  First the RTA, and later SIMM and similar products contributed to better deployment of loudspeakers and the adjustments to their drive signals that improved intelligibility.

One needs to only look a photo of an arena-sized Prism system to see how much weight and size was reduced by line arrays, along with setup and take down time.  And for all of the physics behind Ivan's criticism, properly deployed line arrays provided a better audience experience than the hanging mountains of trap boxes.  It's been that way for almost 20 years now and what Tom Danley does is the current version of "the next thing".  In the touring and portable market, whether or not it's the next *big* thing remains to be seen, but getting more & better sound in fewer trucks with a smaller crew will get artist and tour manager's attention... IF Danley can swing BE acceptance... and hence the need for a full demo rig.

I'd love to see & hear a Danley touring rig out on the road with a Band We've Heard Of®.  That's a major capital commitment for a manufacturer to make on a market that buys comparatively little equipment but it's necessary to be a player in the market.

[Tim McCulloch]

Great.  Now I really want a yellow line array!

How about a little line array 101?  My understanding is that, given enough boxes, they can be great for horizontal pattern control and vertical shading.  Obviously four boxes a side on a single amp isn't going to get you there.  So when is a line array the right tool for the job?

Amplitude shading?  Like driving segments of the array at different levels?  Bob McCarthy talks about this a bunch (hint, check his blog).

Horizontal control is engineered into the box and whatever time-based manipulations the processing can achieve.  There is a lot of low/low mids *behind* line arrays because of the way the box is designed - the LF at each end of the box.  You build a little dipole array (like subs left & right) and get a power alley that is 90° to axis of the transducers.  On axis it sounds very good but as you move off axis the tonality can change.  When you reach the horizontal "cut off" point you'll find that not all line arrays have the same point for all the pass bands.

[Steve Bradbury]

This has been "known" in the Hi-fi world for years.

In the same way that perhaps colouring the edge of the baffle with a green felt pen might help too, or the use of directional, oxygen free, mains cables.

Being well known in the Hi-fi world just about covers everything.

I doubt measuring the reflected sound will provide more information than the direct sound.  At least useful information-since so much would depend on the type of reflection, how much direct is mixed in with it and so forth.

If this comment is correct then what you said before, that you can tell how a signal is holding together by the reflection, and so forth, makes no sense.

The sound from reflections is more likely to provide information about the surrounding environment than the actual sound source.

Basing your judgement of the quality of how it sounds outside the intended coverage area is pointless. The only time it becomes important is when spill is a problem, when less is better. It would be great if you could electronically steer where the sound goes.

Thanks for the additional anecdotal musings, but I’m not sure of their relevance. I live 12 miles from the venue of a festival known as V. If I am in the garden or walking the dog I can hear the PA not clearly, but it is 63,000 feet further away than the example you mentioned previously. The local council runs a music festival that is 1.5 miles from where I live we can hear that OK as we can the announcements made over the PA when the local school about 1000 feet away holds its summer fair. I don’t feel I can draw any conclusion of the relative merits or faults of any of these systems based on the sound in my garden.

When you have drivers that are separated in space, you can only get a "proper alignment" at one location.

If by proper you mean the signals arrive in phase and there is maximum summation, then your statement is wrong. Consider two sources separated by any distance you wish. Draw a line between the two sources and then bisect that line. The bisecting line can be extended to infinity and all points along it will be equal distance from the two sources. Assuming that the sources are radiating in phase the signals will sum constructively at all points along the line. In 3D space, rotate the bisecting line and you now have a disc where all points on the disc are equidistant from the sources. The frequency is irrelevant.

When the drivers are separated, the polar patterns will start to "wander" due to these aspects.

Can you explain what you mean by wander and aspects? Most loudspeakers and systems I have measured seem to have consistent polar patterns, whether good or bad, unless something is either physically or electronically altered.

[Ivan Beaver]

I'm actually very interested in this system for all the reasons mentioned, but that's another thread for another day!

The whole thought process behind the Exodus was to give a line array "look" for those that just HAD to have it.  While still maintaining everything Danley is about (a single source of sound and pattern control down low).

[Ivan Beaver]

Great.  Now I really want a yellow line array!

How about a little line array 101?  My understanding is that, given enough boxes, they can be great for horizontal pattern control and vertical shading.  Obviously four boxes a side on a single amp isn't going to get you there.  So when is a line array the right tool for the job?

Let's assume a "perfect" line array.

In order for the "line array effect" to happen, the length has to be long relative to the wavelength.

This is measured in feet/meters and NOT the number of boxes.

If the line needs to be 15' long, then it takes however many boxes to be that tall.   And remember that each box acts as its own independent source of sound-interfering with the other boxes.

The whole CONCEPT of line arrays is interference, NOT addition.

One of the things that happens as you start to add boxes is the pattern starts to get  real strong in the middle of the line.

This causes the horizontal to get really loud on that plane.  If you are above or below that plane off axis, it will sound TOTALLY different.

This was evidenced recently in a VERY high profile job that was awarded to Danley that will come "online" around this time next year.

The original design was many large lines of "accepted on every rider" large format line array.

The job is a kinda large stadium (75,000) and the line arrays were distributed around the seating.

The models by the original design firm showed that there were HUGE horizontal thin paths of sound which were interfering with seats well outside of the intended coverage of the arrays.

If all you are concerned with is the on axis response, then fine-but there are MANY other areas that SHOULD be considered as well.

The job was awarded to Danley because the models (different types were used, using both systems in each model) showed better coverage, better intelligibility, and when listening to the auralizations you could hear the difference. 

[Tom Danley]

Not so much related to the system but the punters - if they're having a good time they'll overlook a surprising number of things but some *are* more sophisticated than others, like your thumbs up folks.  They hear the difference between an awful mix and a decent and can separate that from the system itself.

As a system guy one of the best compliments I can get is "it sounds the same everywhere I listen."

While I understand Ivan's little rants about line arrays, it's important to keep things in perspective.  Disclaimer: my last 20 years have been on "larger than Lounge" systems and venues but the concept, once beyond a single sound source, remains the same.

Most of the folks here weren't around to see and hear the Ye Olde Dayz® of live sound (hint - the PSW History of Concert Sound forum) , but the first "packaged" woofer-and-horn systems were considered a step up in deployment and (possibly) sound quality.  Making more sound meant putting out more boxes.  Transducer designs advanced for more output and power handling (now >400 Watts!) and the various sound companies built their own PA boxes that were deployed as "use more".  The loudspeaker industry noticed and designed purpose-built high output touring/portable PA.  Clair had the S4, ShowCo was on its way to the Prism system, EAW was selling KF850 by the ton.  But all of them required multiple drivers in multiple boxes to cover the audience geometry, and aligning them (such as could be done) was a long and complicated process.  First the RTA, and later SIMM and similar products contributed to better deployment of loudspeakers and the adjustments to their drive signals that improved intelligibility.

One needs to only look a photo of an arena-sized Prism system to see how much weight and size was reduced by line arrays, along with setup and take down time.  And for all of the physics behind Ivan's criticism, properly deployed line arrays provided a better audience experience than the hanging mountains of trap boxes.  It's been that way for almost 20 years now and what Tom Danley does is the current version of "the next thing".  In the touring and portable market, whether or not it's the next *big* thing remains to be seen, but getting more & better sound in fewer trucks with a smaller crew will get artist and tour manager's attention... IF Danley can swing BE acceptance... and hence the need for a full demo rig.

I'd love to see & hear a Danley touring rig out on the road with a Band We've Heard Of®.  That's a major capital commitment for a manufacturer to make on a market that buys comparatively little equipment but it's necessary to be a player in the market.

Hi Tim
I hope no one got the impression that the checkerboard or wall of sound systems were better than the line array, heavens no.  Back at Intersonics (I was able to slip in some loudspeaker work along with my real job) the Servodrive subs were on tour with some big bands and the sound company was so pleased they invited us to a show and got us a center skybox for U-2.
   
 There were if I remember 74 S-4 type boxes per side (and 12 of our subs) so it was a thrill to hear.   My world was pretty much below 100Hz and above 20KHz  (the latter, acoustic levitation stuff) but I was stunned how few words one could understand and a little bit too thinking about the 12 horn loaded subs that shook the room at low frequencies and all it took above that.   

For me, that night was a turning point mentally, after a Synaudcon class in the 90’s it dawned on me that the same interference issues that made the levitation systems work, were part of the reason the sound of one box could be great but a pile is not as good and it turned out the Hopkins Stryker equation common in the science driven end of installed sound was not yet applied into live sound thinking .   
Not that it was simple to do, it took 17 years of build, measure,  theorize and repeat  to get where we are now at work.

We have had a couple meetings where we debated doing marketing too, I guess it’s partly what marketing represents to me is partly why we do so little.  Reality is, if you want to buy say wood preservative, it turns out the brand most think of first, the most popular is near the bottom in performance and that is what good marketing does. 

The down side is you can demonstrate side by side and then have replaced the sound systems in 4 of the 10 largest 100,000+ seat stadiums (I think more than any other single speaker company) with 2 more next season, supplied very large venues with high quality sound in Orlando and no one (well nearly) in live sound knows what you do or why.                     

We have a Monday morning meeting every week and I think It’s time to propose we figure out how to do exactly what you suggested.  Most of the FOH guys I used to know have retired or worse but one of them is still active; I think will drop him a note.
Best,
Tom

[John Roberts {JR}]

Be careful what you wish for. I've been out of the trenches for a while (this whole century), but large touring sound for years was a "pay to play" promotional loss leader. Not unlike how the microphones and guitars used on stage by popular musicians lead to many thousands of consumer imitators, the big dog sound systems are a tough market to crack, and established players will try to defend their turf.

There is no doubt, (or shouldn't be) that you can spank the current touring SOTA, but like a chicken-egg, conundrum they won't buy systems just to listen to them, so the buy-in involves putting out one or more free systems just to get exposure.

I recall trying to console my loudspeaker product manager when he realized he had zero chance of Peavey providing him with such a promotional budget, to just be on the same playing field. (Years after I left I notice some promotional PV systems out with small shows).

I think Danley is on a good path already, and it's just a matter of time before some big act plays a large stadium and their sound system gets embarrassed by the Danley house system.   

Keep up the good work.... Fixed install is the far larger market. Follow the real money.

JR

[ProSoundWeb Community]