Print

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

[John Roberts {JR}]

Hi
Theoretically we can’t hear changes in height based on two ears spaced horizontally.  Obviously we can hear this however and the reason is within the LEDR files I had linked.     The reason is that one’s outer ears change the frequency response shape as a function of height (pina responses) and we have learned to interpret all those changes not as moving peaks and notches but as height information.  In that LEDR demo i linked, Doug’s process moved those peaks and dips around which makes the sound “sound like” it’s moving about and up and down.

Part of what makes audio so challenging is that our ears do so much automatically and without our awareness that it makes getting to the bottom of things difficult.  For example, in constructing the ”3d stereo image” we hear normally, our ears seek information and tries to reject noises. This is how the cocktail effect works where one can understand a conversation across a noisy room while only hearing little snippets of sound.  Evaluating loudspeakers there is a similar thing except in reverse, we reject the flaws, often without being aware of them. 

Grab a measurement mic and a set of good headphones and listen to the mic in mono and get used to friends talking or normal familiar sounds with the can’s on.  THEN, play a good recording through one loudspeaker and it’s much easier to hear it’s flaws when the automatic stereo perception process is bypassed. 
The funny thing is when you go on to record a loudspeakers output you are doing part of a generation loss test / recording and very clearly loudspeakers become the weakest link in the chain, rarely will you find one that is listenable after just 2 or 3 generations and most less.
Best,
Tom

What TD said,,,

Note this outer ear pinna transform is the basis for the classic studio sound effect called "(reel) flanging", where a short varying delayed version of a signal gets summed back in to interfere constructively and destructively. This creates moving bumps and notches (comb filter) in a sound that we interpret as the sound source moving. (Used on "Itchycoo Park" recording, before some of you young pukes were born).   

JR

[Lee Buckalew]

The MLA system sounds very interesting and I'd love to hear it but what kind of price point are we looking at and what's the minimum # of boxes you can use to make it work?

Price point for each MLA variant is typically right in there with a comparable Meyer, D&B, L'Acoustics, etc. although with MLA you get all of your DSP built in (both for creation of the MLA effect or EEQ and for system fine tuning/alignment).  Often I have found that MLA is more cost effective than other similar level options once you consider all of the factors.  It's consistently below Meyer and often below JBL VTX.

As far as a minimum number of boxes, it depends.  You really need to model it and see if you can achieve your wanted result.  The fewer the number of cells working together the lower the chances, the more compromise.

I have modeled and heard effective arrays (effective for that systems designed task) of MLA-C with as few as 3 cabinets.  Obviously the LF directivity suffers.  I have an installation near me of 5 boxes a side (plus 4 DSX sub bass, ground stacked) in a 1500 seat room that routinely has national acts through it with almost never a request for any change to system EQ or processing (yes, they do it at their end).  They do have presets that are recalled for various seating configurations from flat floor to seating risers in the back that puts top row ear height around 12' off the floor, to changes for MMA when the stage is seated and the ring is against the face of the stage.  In this case the same System EQ is used for all presets due to the way the EQ is applied inside VUENet (the control software interface), you could choose to use wholly different eq's for each preset if you wanted to.

MLA Mini is built in blocks of 4 with a single bass module (MSX) for each block, that bass module houses all the amplifier channels (9per block of 4 + bass) and DSP. 
It is configurable down to a single MSX and a block of 4 Mini's as a speaker on a stick, flown together with bass module above the mains, flown mains with ground stacked bass, flown side by side or front and back.  With this small of a system you can still achieve reasonable variations in front or rear cut off points but you can dramatically change your SPL profile inside the audience area.  With MLA Mini you can use only 1 block of 4 as speaker on a stick above a an MSX module, you can ground stack, on the MSX module(s) or separately up to 2 blocks of 4 Mini with 2 MSX modules.  You can fly up to 4 MSX modules and 4 blocks of Mini but only up to 3 bass modules and 3 blocks of 4 from a single array frame, larger deployment requires flying side by side or front and rear.

I see few reasons to attempt small deployments of full size MLA with the exceptions being specialty applications like sideline carts for NFL stadium use.

One really nice thing about the system is that any iteration can be modeled in Display and viewed for its SPL and frequency response at all points along the cutting plane, both the audience area and the non audience area, throughout the entire venue at once.  You don't choose a frequency or range of frequencies to average and model, you model it all together at a 1/3 meter resolution in the audience area and 1 meter resolution in the non audience area.  This lets you make choices and see the overall results of those choices throughout the venue in both SPL and frequency response deviation all at once, without having to compare different frequencies or frequency ranges on separately displayed results.  This is very easily accomplished prior to deploying the system.  Also remember that the model is within 1dB of the actual result so it is very easy to know what you can expect.

Another plus here is that, once the system is deployed, you can leave your cabinet height and angles alone but change taper of the SPL in the audience area or make other changes, store those changes as a new system preset and apply them.  You can even recall those presets during a production if needed (think coverage changes for a long walkway to a center stage area in an arena that is only used for certain songs).

Also, the same control software, VUENet, not only functions for the 3 MLA variants and their subs but also for a number of other self powered, self processed boxes that may be utilized for various fill needs or stand alone.  It's all an integrated system.  These other cabinet options do not have the premium price point of MLA.  These include the new line of CDD-LIVE which are very cost effective and very high performance.

O.K., more than you asked for but trying to give a more complete picture.

Lee

[Steve Bradbury]

Steve's attitude is not one of someone 'seeking the truth' or even one who is capable of an open dialogue. Not in this thread nor any other that I've seen him involved in.

Not wanting to seek the truth, or engage in open dialogue, is to adopt the attitude that “I don’t care what you wrote, I can’t even be bothered to read it because I have already decided it is wrong because you disagree with me”. How do you read that into what I have posted?

If you wish to seek the truth, then why do you not engage in open dialogue? Explain where I have gone wrong, rather than just criticise. If what I have written disagrees with what you believe, or upsets your ideas of how the world is, then provide some reasoned explanation of why you are right and I am wrong. If you are not prepared to do that then you are the one incapable of open dialogue.

With all my claims, I have been specific, open and I have provided either theoretical or empirical evidence to back up what I say. When someone bothered to question what I wrote, and say what they thought I had missed, I took the time and effort to try and explain that the theory I presented didn’t miss anything. How is that not engaging in dialogue?

The reason I am wrong seems to be down to the fact of whose claims I am questioning rather than what I am questioning. Additionally, some of those trying to belittle what I have written have a financial incentive to do so.

If this is supposed to be a forum that reveres science and learning, why has no one asked why it should work or not work, and is there any possible way a small device can maintain directivity below frequencies you would expect it to be lost (the answer is yes)? No one seems to care or be in the least bit curious. Everyone just seems to want a neat simple solution and not bother with how and why.

The solution to this problem seems to be that I am missing the magic. If that is the case then there is not much more to say, except that once the magic is out of the bottle it will be hard to put back in.

So the next time someone criticises any design or product, arguing it can’t possibly work, it might be that the detractors are missing the magic.

http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina17.htm

That's what I was getting at. He turned me off the moment he posted a link to calculus for dummies. That's not dialog, that's name calling.

If you want to discuss physics you need to understand mathematics. Based on the responses here, no one has given any indication that they do. I’m not saying that they don’t, just that there is no evidence of it.

The book linked to, is a great introduction to the subject. I knew two university lecturers, both doctors and one a professor, who used other books from this series on their first year reading lists because they considered them better than most other introductory books.

If you personally don’t want to increase your understanding of a subject, that is OK with me, but then don’t enter conversations trying to give the impression that you understand what is being discussed.

Anyone who wants understand and discuss acoustics can’t get away from maths. Mathematics is the language of science and engineering. So just as it would be useful to speak French if you wanted to live in France, it helps to speak the language of science if you want to talk about it.

[John Chiara]

Not wanting to seek the truth, or engage in open dialogue, is to adopt the attitude that “I don’t care what you wrote, I can’t even be bothered to read it because I have already decided it is wrong because you disagree with me”. How do you read that into what I have posted?

If you wish to seek the truth, then why do you not engage in open dialogue? Explain where I have gone wrong, rather than just criticise. If what I have written disagrees with what you believe, or upsets your ideas of how the world is, then provide some reasoned explanation of why you are right and I am wrong. If you are not prepared to do that then you are the one incapable of open dialogue.

With all my claims, I have been specific, open and I have provided either theoretical or empirical evidence to back up what I say. When someone bothered to question what I wrote, and say what they thought I had missed, I took the time and effort to try and explain that the theory I presented didn’t miss anything. How is that not engaging in dialogue?

The reason I am wrong seems to be down to the fact of whose claims I am questioning rather than what I am questioning. Additionally, some of those trying to belittle what I have written have a financial incentive to do so.

If this is supposed to be a forum that reveres science and learning, why has no one asked why it should work or not work, and is there any possible way a small device can maintain directivity below frequencies you would expect it to be lost (the answer is yes)? No one seems to care or be in the least bit curious. Everyone just seems to want a neat simple solution and not bother with how and why.

The solution to this problem seems to be that I am missing the magic. If that is the case then there is not much more to say, except that once the magic is out of the bottle it will be hard to put back in.

So the next time someone criticises any design or product, arguing it can’t possibly work, it might be that the detractors are missing the magic.

http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina17.htm

If you want to discuss physics you need to understand mathematics. Based on the responses here, no one has given any indication that they do. I’m not saying that they don’t, just that there is no evidence of it.

The book linked to, is a great introduction to the subject. I knew two university lecturers, both doctors and one a professor, who used other books from this series on their first year reading lists because they considered them better than most other introductory books.

If you personally don’t want to increase your understanding of a subject, that is OK with me, but then don’t enter conversations trying to give the impression that you understand what is being discussed.

Anyone who wants understand and discuss acoustics can’t get away from maths. Mathematics is the language of science and engineering. So just as it would be useful to speak French if you wanted to live in France, it helps to speak the language of science if you want to talk about it.

Just to be curious...do you run into the attitude with people outside this forum. I find it runs in patterns.

[Keith Broughton]

it helps to speak the language of science if you want to talk about it.

It also helps to listen first (run an experiment), before you speak.(show why it does what it does)
I have made the effort to listen to, and mix on some Danley products, and while I may not be able to show the maths on why, it sure sounds better to me.
After all, most of us are in the SOUND business.

[Jay Barracato]

Wave addition does not apply to two coupled sources that are close enough together to both do work on the same mass of air at the same time.

Therefore, the math you posted does not apply.

I gave you the explanation based on the fluid properties of air above.

No one commented.

By the way, sound is a side gig for me. The full time gig requires a complete understanding of wave mechanics, field theory, and multidimension calculus.

Any model is only as good as the input and the parameters for which it was designed. Applying mathematics, no matter how simple or complicated, in a way that isn't applicable isnt going lead to any deeper understanding.

If you want to investigate the path that led to my understanding, I think the clue is in the cohesion of air.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[John Roberts {JR}]

The people who think they know it all can really be irritating to those of us who do.....   

(kidding if you don't understand emoticons).

JR

[John L Nobile]

Price point for each MLA variant is typically right in there with a comparable Meyer, D&B, L'Acoustics, etc. although with MLA you get all of your DSP built in (both for creation of the MLA effect or EEQ and for system fine tuning/alignment).  Often I have found that MLA is more cost effective than other similar level options once you consider all of the factors.  It's consistently below Meyer and often below JBL VTX.

O.K., more than you asked for but trying to give a more complete picture.

Lee

Thanks for taking the time for the detailed answer. I'd really like to give them a listen. Your description tells me that they're a very good sounding and extremely versatile system that's also relatively easy to setup and hang.
The price point puts them in the big leagues but they sound like they could be at the lower end when you consider that processing is included.
I'll definitely be looking at the smaller system if and when another install comes up.

[Peter Morris]

Thanks for taking the time for the detailed answer. I'd really like to give them a listen. Your description tells me that they're a very good sounding and extremely versatile system that's also relatively easy to setup and hang.
The price point puts them in the big leagues but they sound like they could be at the lower end when you consider that processing is included.
I'll definitely be looking at the smaller system if and when another install comes up.

In 2016 the price of the MLA looks quite good next to its competitors as I have just found out.

I have quite a reasonable collection of Powersoft K6/8/10’s and Lake LM 26 processors, but every manufacture of rider accepted speakers  is demanding I buy their rebadged amplifiers and processors and will not sell me the speakers separately.
 
It’s makes changing speaker systems very expensive when you have to factor in amplifiers and processors as well … accordingly the price of the MLA is very competitive.

[Jean-Pierre Coetzee]

There was an article posted some time ago, will try and find it later today showing that a correctly setup line array performs just as well if not better than the MLA system at rejection past a certain point as well as rejection to the rear, MLA is making claims that other line array manufacturers aren't and claim it's something special, not saying that the MLA isn't great, its a good box at a decent price point but DnB uses a very similar principle for the arrays and guys like Lacoustics and Meyer use other methods of achieving the same thing. In the end deploy the correct system correctly and you will get the results that you want.

It's impossible for me to hear danleys boxes because there are none in South Africa that I know of but I have hear DnB, Meyer and Lacoustics boxes and I know which is a clear favorite for me at this point, I've been shown predictions for our room from Martin and both Meyer and Lacoustics can show me predictions that look very similar without claiming to be something special.

[ProSoundWeb Community]