Print

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

[kevin kiefer]

Many of the uninformed detractors sound *a lot* like those people that derided the first line arrays when the whole world was still stacking up mountains of MT4's and KF850's.  I got scoffed at many times when flying the PA needed to wait 15 minutes while I put venue dimensions in my newfangled laptop. 

MLA is a cellular array, and shouldn't be listed next to line arrays on riders and specifications.  If the project needs MLA, there are no equivalent products from other manufacturers.  Not every project needs it, just like thousands of shows happened on stacked up conventional PA's after VDOSC came out.  However, lumping MLA in with other line arrays just isn't accurate.

There are also many companies out there with millions of dollars invested in line arrays that have a very vested interest in convincing engineers and others that their product "does the same thing" as MLA.  Or that "there's too much latency", "it doesn't rig as fast", or any of the other nonsense I hear on a daily basis. 

MLA systems are not line arrays, just like KF850's are not line arrays.  Therefore the comparisons have to be made in the proper context.  MLA is not easy or simple.  I've watched many seasoned professionals' eyes glaze over when you describe the technology.  It sounds like science fiction and a lot simply reject it out of hand as "impossible".  It's only "voodoo" when you don't understand it.

This is from a series of MLA videos Martin released.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cL96sSMzgg

Glad to help turn the lights on :-)

That's the frustrating part of frequently running into the uninformed opinion that MLA is "just using beam steering", or is "just a processed line array".  It is neither, Cellular Drive is a unique approach and is now a patented process.  It is not a form factor or a cabinet layout, it is a complete process that is different than anything that has been done before. 

That still does not make it the right choice for everything or a perfect solution by any means but it is a very powerful tool to understand and have in your toolbar.

Lee

[Yoel Farkas]

There are also many companies out there with millions of dollars invested in line arrays that have a very vested interest in convincing engineers and others that their product "does the same thing" as MLA.  Or that "there's too much latency", "it doesn't rig as fast", or any of the other nonsense I hear on a daily basis. 

What about the EAW Annya. is it another technology? i'm not a speaker designer, but as far i see it is even more sophisticated then the MLA. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxnE18mMMSk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBKHSsOW7mM

[Cailen Waddell]

Many of the uninformed detractors sound *a lot* like those people that derided the first line arrays when the whole world was still stacking up mountains of MT4's and KF850's.  I got scoffed at many times when flying the PA needed to wait 15 minutes while I put venue dimensions in my newfangled laptop. 

MLA is a cellular array, and shouldn't be listed next to line arrays on riders and specifications.  If the project needs MLA, there are no equivalent products from other manufacturers.  Not every project needs it, just like thousands of shows happened on stacked up conventional PA's after VDOSC came out.  However, lumping MLA in with other line arrays just isn't accurate.

There are also many companies out there with millions of dollars invested in line arrays that have a very vested interest in convincing engineers and others that their product "does the same thing" as MLA.  Or that "there's too much latency", "it doesn't rig as fast", or any of the other nonsense I hear on a daily basis. 

MLA systems are not line arrays, just like KF850's are not line arrays.  Therefore the comparisons have to be made in the proper context.  MLA is not easy or simple.  I've watched many seasoned professionals' eyes glaze over when you describe the technology.  It sounds like science fiction and a lot simply reject it out of hand as "impossible".  It's only "voodoo" when you don't understand it.

This is from a series of MLA videos Martin released.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cL96sSMzgg

Due respect - I've heard MLA, it sounds good, is a tool in the box.  It doesn't sound better or worse than a properly deployed line array to me, but perhaps I am a cretin .  Regardless I have been unable to have anyone explain to me in sufficient detail, how it does what it does.  It would appear at first blush to violate the laws of physics.  Obviously that's impossible, and what I think it is doing is making a series of compromises, using some very smart computing to make the least shitty series of compromises it can.  It has been suggested that in a previous thread that I really need to take a whole day class to properly understand it.  That's not in the cards.  But don't mistake my eyes glazing over for me not understanding.  My eyes glaze over because I've watched the videos and read the material, and I simply don't have a good enough understanding of what is going on to understand how this array does not have the same problems a traditional line array has.  So when there is fanboy'ing without discussion of the physics, I glaze over .

Point source physics are a bit easier to understand and have been around a while so I can tolerate the fanboys when they are right because I understand what's going on under the hood.

Of course Martin is under no obligation to convince me and I'm not going to buy one so it doesn't really matter whether I get it.  But I'm always going to think their claims are suspect until it's clear how/if they are able to do what the claim. 

I think that's what the heart of this thread is, understanding the physics of what's going on.  Unfortunately without the participation of some more company's engineers, we may not be able to have that level of discussion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lee Buckalew]

What about the EAW Annya. is it another technology? i'm not a speaker designer, but as far i see it is even more sophisticated then the MLA. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxnE18mMMSk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBKHSsOW7mM

It is absolutely another technology and Cellulat Drive is far more complex than Annya and Anna.

Lee

[Scott Holtzman]

Due respect - I've heard MLA, it sounds good, is a tool in the box.  It doesn't sound better or worse than a properly deployed line array to me, but perhaps I am a cretin .  Regardless I have been unable to have anyone explain to me in sufficient detail, how it does what it does.  It would appear at first blush to violate the laws of physics.  Obviously that's impossible, and what I think it is doing is making a series of compromises, using some very smart computing to make the least shitty series of compromises it can.  It has been suggested that in a previous thread that I really need to take a whole day class to properly understand it.  That's not in the cards.  But don't mistake my eyes glazing over for me not understanding.  My eyes glaze over because I've watched the videos and read the material, and I simply don't have a good enough understanding of what is going on to understand how this array does not have the same problems a traditional line array has.  So when there is fanboy'ing without discussion of the physics, I glaze over .

Point source physics are a bit easier to understand and have been around a while so I can tolerate the fanboys when they are right because I understand what's going on under the hood.

Of course Martin is under no obligation to convince me and I'm not going to buy one so it doesn't really matter whether I get it.  But I'm always going to think their claims are suspect until it's clear how/if they are able to do what the claim. 

I think that's what the heart of this thread is, understanding the physics of what's going on.  Unfortunately without the participation of some more company's engineers, we may not be able to have that level of discussion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Cailen, I don't claim to understand all of the physics but I have experience with flat panel radar arrays that shift a radar beam without having a moving driven element by altering the phase relationship between a bunch of emitters.  Since I see more in common with the physics of RF and antenna design to acoustics than I do dissimilarities I have to think that it is a valid comparison of the underlying physics.

And the cool thing is if I am wrong I will be corrected and learn something in the process.

[Keith Broughton]

It is absolutely another technology and Cellular Drive is far more complex than Annya and Anna.

Lee

But how much "different" can they really be?
I will admit to not knowing as much engineering as some members here but I did watch some of the product info on these systems.
Once the physical orientation of the drivers has been established, what adjustments can be made?
Basically, time/phase-EQ-level between sources are it, unless I am missing something. So the DSP and amplifier end of things are not all that revolutionary.
Of course, the apllication of the DSP modeling is quite important but it also looks like the pysical layout of components has become very critical to these types of systems.
The EAW info was more in depth and I grasp the concept better than with the limited info on Martin's Cellular Drive.
I do like the idea of not curving the array as EAW has done.
I understand that my comments only brush the surface of what is going on, and I am probably missing something here, but are these 2 systems really that radically different from each other?  Drivers organized a specific way then application of time/phase-EQ and level.
Is it the DSP/ amplifier configuration or the physical layout of components that really set them apart?
Certainly different from the average "line array"

Standing by for more education

[Merlijn van Veen]

Small side note on straight arrays. In general, any applied processing to a straight array radiates inherently symmetrical in the vertical plane. The directional properties of the individual enclosures and their transducers will determine the level of the frequencies that fire BOTH forward and rearward. Ultimately even really large speakers are rapidly becoming omnidirectional below 250 Hz which means that down tilting the frontal lobe by means of processing in general results in an equal amount of tilt and orientation in the rear lobe. Pointing that lobe and / or its rear wall reflected sound at the stage reducing GBF.


Verzonden vanaf mijn iPad met Tapatalk

[Keith Broughton]

Small side note on straight arrays. In general, any applied processing to a straight array radiates inherently symmetrical in the vertical plane. The directional properties of the individual enclosures and their transducers will determine the level of the frequencies that fire BOTH forward and rearward. Ultimately even really large speakers are rapidly becoming omnidirectional below 250 Hz which means that down tilting the frontal lobe by means of processing in general results in an equal amount of tilt and orientation in the rear lobe. Pointing that lobe and / or its rear wall reflected sound at the stage reducing GBF.


Verzonden vanaf mijn iPad met Tapatalk

A good point!
I was discussing this with a systems tech that was using time offset to steer the low mid pattern and I asked about the unintended rearward lobes that may be created. He didn't seem to care or wasn't willing to measure it.
Could be a real issue in some cases!
Begs the question as to what is happening at the back of these "steered" arrays.

[Merlijn van Veen]

Could be a real issue in some cases!
Begs the question as to what is happening at the back of these "steered" arrays.

Yep, now you have a great sounding system which you might not be able to turn up because it starts to feed back so you start killing those frequencies killing part of the art in the process...


Verzonden vanaf mijn iPad met Tapatalk

[Ivan Beaver]

Small side note on straight arrays. In general, any applied processing to a straight array radiates inherently symmetrical in the vertical plane. The directional properties of the individual enclosures and their transducers will determine the level of the frequencies that fire BOTH forward and rearward. Ultimately even really large speakers are rapidly becoming omnidirectional below 250 Hz which means that down tilting the frontal lobe by means of processing in general results in an equal amount of tilt and orientation in the rear lobe. Pointing that lobe and / or its rear wall reflected sound at the stage reducing GBF.


Verzonden vanaf mijn iPad met Tapatalk

That is something that most don't understand

If you take a normal line array or single source and tilt it down the rear lobe will go up in the air

When you take a steerable system an point the beam down the rear lobe will also go down at the angle that the front beams are steered

[ProSoundWeb Community]