ProSoundWeb Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7]   Go Down

Author Topic: SM80M versus SM80...SOS use  (Read 5959 times)

Caleb Dueck

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1348
Re: SM80M versus SM80...SOS use
« Reply #60 on: September 05, 2019, 04:40:58 pm »

Just curious. I personally much prefer QSC than VRX.

I still haven't found a fixed angle array that sounds good.  JBL, QSC, even L'Acoustics. 
Logged
Experience is something you get right after you need it.

Taylor Hall

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 842
Re: SM80M versus SM80...SOS use
« Reply #61 on: September 06, 2019, 06:54:40 am »

I still haven't found a fixed angle array that sounds good.  JBL, QSC, even L'Acoustics.
Agreed. There is no one size/configuration fits all scenario for arrays of any size.
Logged
There are two ways to do anything:
1) Do it right
2) Do it over until you do it right

Randy Pence

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 462
  • Berlin, Germany
Re: SM80M versus SM80...SOS use
« Reply #62 on: September 06, 2019, 07:06:57 am »

You've got three boxes that can be used independently, theoretically you can use them separately in three systems or for different coverage. With one box, you're pretty well stuck with what you can cover/deploy.

How often do you use just one?
Logged

Helge A Bentsen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1093
  • Oslo, Norway.
Re: SM80M versus SM80...SOS use
« Reply #63 on: September 06, 2019, 01:57:41 pm »

I still haven't found a fixed angle array that sounds good.  JBL, QSC, even L'Acoustics.

Have you tried Clair Brothers KitCurve?

I ran into that last weekend, sounded and measured very good.
Iíve also had good results using EAW JFL213.
Logged

Mark Wilkinson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1035
Re: SM80M versus SM80...SOS use
« Reply #64 on: September 06, 2019, 03:47:08 pm »

Sometimes I wonder if the problem with fixed angle arrays is the price point they are built to, or rather the quality of the drivers at their price point.
 
With only a few boxes (not being a real line array),  it seems that they are basically trap boxes rotated 90 degrees......and that a fixed angle would make them work best, the same way regular traps array (or don't array:))
Logged

Caleb Dueck

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1348
Re: SM80M versus SM80...SOS use
« Reply #65 on: September 06, 2019, 07:20:54 pm »

Have you tried Clair Brothers KitCurve?

I ran into that last weekend, sounded and measured very good.
Iíve also had good results using EAW JFL213.

Never heard KitCurve, have heard JFL210.  It was setup and tuned by a fellow LABster and nothing jumped out as bad - but then again I didn't have anything to compare to, nor was I listening critically.  The VRX and KLA stood out as relatively awful, as in 'would never spec for an install', L'Acoustics has very uneven coverage (sounds great for half the people in the overall pattern, and muddy for the other half).  JFL stood out slightly as 'didn't obviously suck like the others'. 

Anything constant curve can do - a good primary box with under-hung down fill seems to do better.  For small applications - a single good speaker performs better than 2-3 mediocre speakers in an array. 
Logged
Experience is something you get right after you need it.

Luke Geis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2153
    • Owner of Endever Music Production's
Re: SM80M versus SM80...SOS use
« Reply #66 on: September 06, 2019, 11:37:24 pm »

I don't know, have you ever used an L'acoustics ARC's system? It will change your mind about point source arrayable boxes. I have used that system a couple of times and it has left a very good impression.

Agreed about the other cheaper alternatives. I can't stand the QSC, the VRX is close behind it and have seen a couple of others that didn't get my heart pounding either ( Mackie and D.A.S ). The problem isn't so much the concept behind the system, it's the cost vs. the typical use and the piss poor DSP control to make it work correctly.
Logged
I don't understand how you can't hear yourself

Caleb Dueck

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1348
Re: SM80M versus SM80...SOS use
« Reply #67 on: September 07, 2019, 01:11:42 pm »

I don't know, have you ever used an L'acoustics ARC's system? It will change your mind about point source arrayable boxes. I have used that system a couple of times and it has left a very good impression.

Agreed about the other cheaper alternatives. I can't stand the QSC, the VRX is close behind it and have seen a couple of others that didn't get my heart pounding either ( Mackie and D.A.S ). The problem isn't so much the concept behind the system, it's the cost vs. the typical use and the piss poor DSP control to make it work correctly.

WiFo in a vertical array is what I used, it was designed and installed and tuned by my former employer.  Walking the pattern horizontally - each hang had two "zones", you could EQ one or the other to sound OK but not both.  IE, half the audience heard muddy-ish sound. 

In a horizontal array, I've heard briefly JM-1P, ARCS II, and RCF TTP5A.  I couldn't say if the format was good or bad, but the indistinct mid-range inherent to a 15" 2 way trap box (IE, non point source) vs many other options at or under those price points kept them from being used on any installs.  I did a few speaker models over the years with them but never installed any. 

Oh, also heard a few EVA systems.  The variable horn patterns helped coverage but the sound was mediocre. 

With a true line array, the farther away you are from the array, the more boxes are mostly in phase, so higher SPL is offset by longer distance.  With a long throw/down fill "array" like Danley SH64 with SH95HO down fill - you have higher SPL and narrower pattern for long distance and wider pattern and different (tailored) frequency response for closer listeners.  With a constant curve array, you're stuck with only minor band-aids - broad stroke EQ and level shading. 

ARCS WiFo tries to move a little from constant curve to long throw/short throw, as does EVA and RCF's horn loaded install array.  Without the resolution of variable inter-box angles of an array - they fail vs a true line.  Without the broad SPL difference and between-box array adjustment of a long throw/short throw setup - they struggle vs those types of arrays. 

Add in to all this the relative lack of R&D vs line arrays or point source (not just trap box), and you're left with a tweener setup that can't deliver vs either of the other two options. Hence most are relegated to low price points that rely on the "it looks like a line array so it must be great" sales pitch.
Logged
Experience is something you get right after you need it.

Helge A Bentsen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1093
  • Oslo, Norway.
Re: SM80M versus SM80...SOS use
« Reply #68 on: September 07, 2019, 07:38:47 pm »

Ohh, Meyer JM1P. One of my all time favorite boxes.

IMHO the best constant curvature box.
Logged

ProSoundWeb Community

Re: SM80M versus SM80...SOS use
¬ę Reply #68 on: September 07, 2019, 07:38:47 pm ¬Ľ


Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7]   Go Up
 



Page created in 0.026 seconds with 25 queries.