ProSoundWeb Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 12   Go Down

Author Topic: "Multi cellular array" vs "Single Source array"  (Read 22487 times)

Roland Clarke

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 782
Re: "Multi cellular array" vs "Single Source array"
« Reply #10 on: July 21, 2016, 07:22:18 pm »

These are each utilizing very different technologies, more than just 2 different approaches here.  This is not something that lends itself to an internet discussion.  There are some very good technological white papers published with the AES regarding at least some of these.  If you are a member of the AES you should be able to access the archives.  For MLA technology look up papers by Ambrose Thompson. 
I am not sure who has published papers on EAW ANNYA and ANNA.  D&B is doing very little in the technology department compared to either EAW or Martin and are really still just a line array with some FIR applied (up to 6 max per cabinet if my information is correct) across the full range cabinet as I am understanding it. 
EAW and Martin have very different approaches to each as well. 


Lee

They might use very different technologies, but they are both owned by Loud technologies.
Logged

Lee Buckalew

  • Classic LAB
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1311
  • St. Louis, MO area
    • Pro Sound Advice, Inc.
Re: "Multi cellular array" vs "Single Source array"
« Reply #11 on: July 21, 2016, 07:46:43 pm »

They might use very different technologies, but they are both owned by Loud technologies.

Quite true although I do not see how that has any bearing on anything.  The R&D teams are independent, manufacturing is independent, etc. 

Lee
Logged
Lee Buckalew
Pro Sound Advice, Inc.

Steven Eudaly

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 405
  • Living the dream.
    • Headline Productions
Re: "Multi cellular array" vs "Single Source array"
« Reply #12 on: July 21, 2016, 09:07:58 pm »

D&B is doing very little in the technology department compared to either EAW or Martin and are really still just a line array with some FIR applied (up to 6 max per cabinet if my information is correct) across the full range cabinet as I am understanding it. 

d&b's ArrayProcessing is pretty interesting. Each box gets its own amp channel and each is processed differently from its neighbors in the array based on the system and venue design work done in ArrayCalc.

I attended a demo recently and we ran pink noise through each box in the line to show the difference in level and tonality when using ArrayProcessing. I was quite surprised at how much difference there was. It certainly did help with consistency throughout the venue.

Lee Buckalew

  • Classic LAB
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1311
  • St. Louis, MO area
    • Pro Sound Advice, Inc.
Re: "Multi cellular array" vs "Single Source array"
« Reply #13 on: July 21, 2016, 10:08:57 pm »

d&b's ArrayProcessing is pretty interesting. Each box gets its own amp channel and each is processed differently from its neighbors in the array based on the system and venue design work done in ArrayCalc.

I attended a demo recently and we ran pink noise through each box in the line to show the difference in level and tonality when using ArrayProcessing. I was quite surprised at how much difference there was. It certainly did help with consistency throughout the venue.

Yes, D&B is making some significant improvements to their line arrays but they are doing 1/1000 or less (literally) of the processing that MLA does.  D&B has a maximum of 6 filters (I believe that it is 6) spread across the full range cabinet, not divided by pass band and per driver as MLA has (6000 + or - filters).  The accuracy of the models and the resolution provided are also a night and day difference. 
They (D&B) are making improvements in the line array interactions of their systems but they still have a line array with line array interference patterns.  MLA is creating a single source of sound by creating a complex directional point source.  It does not behave as a line array. 

Lee
Logged
Lee Buckalew
Pro Sound Advice, Inc.

Roland Clarke

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 782
Re: "Multi cellular array" vs "Single Source array"
« Reply #14 on: July 22, 2016, 05:12:13 am »

Yes, D&B is making some significant improvements to their line arrays but they are doing 1/1000 or less (literally) of the processing that MLA does.  D&B has a maximum of 6 filters (I believe that it is 6) spread across the full range cabinet, not divided by pass band and per driver as MLA has (6000 + or - filters).  The accuracy of the models and the resolution provided are also a night and day difference. 
They (D&B) are making improvements in the line array interactions of their systems but they still have a line array with line array interference patterns.  MLA is creating a single source of sound by creating a complex directional point source.  It does not behave as a line array. 

Lee

This is true and I heard a very good deployment of MLA last year that sounded very good.  The reality is that even with 6000 filters you are still going to get comb filtering in any system that uses multiple drivers that are separated by space.  Too my knowledge, Danley Sound Labs are the only manufacturer of a point source, full range speaker.  KV2, although not a completely point source system, also have a lot of good subjective reports about their sound quality.  I have heard quite a few line array systems from various manufacturers where subjectively the sound was very good.  As is constantly mentioned, deployment and venue have a huge effect on the final sound, along with the performers.
Logged

David Sturzenbecher

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1566
  • So. Dak.
    • Sturz Audio
Re: "Multi cellular array" vs "Single Source array"
« Reply #15 on: July 22, 2016, 06:47:04 am »

Too my knowledge, Danley Sound Labs are the only manufacturer of a point source, full range speaker. 

Depends what your definition of "full range" is. Fulcrum Acoustics is another fine company that makes single source solutions.   


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Logged
Audio Systems Design Engineer
Daktronics, Inc.
CTS-D, CTS-I
AES Full Member

Helge A Bentsen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 731
  • Oslo, Norway.
Re: "Multi cellular array" vs "Single Source array"
« Reply #16 on: July 22, 2016, 07:09:09 am »

EAW QX5 is pretty close to full range and it's point source.
Logged

Keith Broughton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3102
  • Toronto
Re: "Multi cellular array" vs "Single Source array"
« Reply #17 on: July 22, 2016, 08:42:51 am »

Depends what your definition of "full range" is. Fulcrum Acoustics is another fine company that makes single source solutions.   


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I had a look on Fulcrums page and I don't see products that are horn loaded and exhibit good pattern control down to the sub 200 range.
Co- axials are not quite like the other products mentioned.
Logged
I don't care enough to be apathetic

Lee Buckalew

  • Classic LAB
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1311
  • St. Louis, MO area
    • Pro Sound Advice, Inc.
Re: "Multi cellular array" vs "Single Source array"
« Reply #18 on: July 22, 2016, 08:48:24 am »

This is true and I heard a very good deployment of MLA last year that sounded very good.  The reality is that even with 6000 filters you are still going to get comb filtering in any system that uses multiple drivers that are separated by space.  Too my knowledge, Danley Sound Labs are the only manufacturer of a point source, full range speaker.  KV2, although not a completely point source system, also have a lot of good subjective reports about their sound quality.  I have heard quite a few line array systems from various manufacturers where subjectively the sound was very good.  As is constantly mentioned, deployment and venue have a huge effect on the final sound, along with the performers.


Your statement contradicts itself.  Danley utilizes "multiple drivers that are separated by space".  Therefore, according to your statement, they must produce comb filtering but they claim that they do not.  I have never measured them to check (and I am not suggesting that they do not meet this claim) but here on this forum they are given the benefit of the doubt and they are believed when they say they do not.

On the defined listening plane MLA is eliminating comb filtering by creating correct vector summation of all driver interactions.  This is true from the smallest recommended deployment to the largest and does not change within recommended cabinet quantity or coverage angle changes.  All other systems, not just line arrays, that I am aware of (with the possible exception of ANNYA/ANNA which I do not know well enough to say) either inherently create comb filtering within each cabinet and/or create comb filtering as additional cabinets are added in order to create the desired coverage.  There are no other systems that have the modeled to measured accuracy and resolution that MLA has.  This does not mean that everyone will prefer it, that it is "the best", or that any of the MLA options are the best solution for every situation. 

I routinely come to the defense of MLA here on this forum because many who are talking about it here are accepting of Danley's claims without understanding what Tom is really doing and without measuring what is actually going on yet, at the same time they argue that MLA is simply a processed line array and it still creates the comb filtering interactions expected of a multiple driver, multiple box system even though they are not understanding what is really being done nor have they measured it.  Danley is doing some very impressive, amazing things with audio, Martin's MLA systems likewise are doing some very impressive, amazing things with audio.  Let's seek to understand what each is doing, how they are doing it, what the values and benefits, drawbacks and limitations are.   

Many systems can sound very good, even great.  The differences in listener perception for "it sounds really good" at the highest level often come into issues that are outside of the sound system and/or its deployment. 

Lee
Logged
Lee Buckalew
Pro Sound Advice, Inc.

Ivan Beaver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8809
  • Atlanta GA
Re: "Multi cellular array" vs "Single Source array"
« Reply #19 on: July 22, 2016, 09:27:29 am »


Your statement contradicts itself.  Danley utilizes "multiple drivers that are separated by space".  Therefore, according to your statement, they must produce comb filtering but they claim that they do not.
Yes-it is impossible to have more than 1 driver occupy the same physical space.

HOWEVER-it is possible to have multiple drivers enter into the same physical space-ie a horn, so from an audience perspective they ARE coming from the same physical space.

The "trick" is to get them do so across a wide freq range.

Simply put in pink noise into any system and walk around or get up close and move your head between the drivers/cabinets.

If you hear "swooshy swooshy" then you HAVE combfiltering.

That is EXACTLY how a guitar phase pedal works.  You simply have 1 signal delayed a little bit from the dry signal and you have notches in the response.  The "phaser" is also changing the delay time, which gives you the "Swirling" effect.

But it is NO different than 2 loudspeakers in different physical spaces.

BTW, a "different physical space" is defined as arrival times that are more than 1/4 wavelength at the highest freq of interest for a particular passband.  So subs can be further apart and still be within 1/4 wavelength


Combfiltering is quite easy to measure.  Just take a freq response measurement and make sure you have enough resolution.

Or take an ETC measurement. You will easily see the multiple arrivals.

Many people think that combfiltering is this big bad horrible sounding thing.  It is not.

When 2 people are talking in a normal room, there is lots of combfiltering going on.  Nobody dies or runs from the room.

HOWEVER-if the same 2 people were talking in a room that did not have reflections, the QUALITY of the sound would be better.

Many people hear combfiltering and "think" it is simply a loss of high freq or mid freq if far enough apart.

It is simply a series of notches (that look like the teeth of a comb when viewed on a LINEAR scale.

You CANNOT-not with all the DSP in the world fix time issues with eq.  You also cannot-no matter how much delay you use, fix a time issue in multiple places with drivers that are physically spaced.
Logged
A complex question is easily answered by a simple-easy to understand WRONG answer!

Ivan Beaver
Danley Sound Labs

PHYSICS- NOT FADS!
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 12   Go Up
 


Page created in 0.042 seconds with 21 queries.