Print

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

[Jim McKeveny]

To refine my observation: It appears the term-of-art "line array", which described the wideband response and engineering result of scalable loudspeaker platforms, is now freely tossed about in marketing-world for any device that exhibits line array characteristics in a small (typically HF) band of performance. Few applications are credibly enhanced with this Line-Array-Lite performance from 1.1khz - 2khz and up.

[Russell Ault]

Few applications are credibly enhanced with this Line-Array-Lite performance from 1.1khz - 2khz and up.

I've been pondering this a bit lately: couldn't this still be useful in more voice-focused situations? I feel like significant directionality at 2kHz and up might well reduce problematic reflections enough to provide intelligibility in challenging spaces, even if everything below that is still mud. Am I wrong about this?

-Russ

[Scott Helmke]

I've been pondering this a bit lately: couldn't this still be useful in more voice-focused situations? I feel like significant directionality at 2kHz and up might well reduce problematic reflections enough to provide intelligibility in challenging spaces, even if everything below that is still mud. Am I wrong about this?

This the market for high-tech column speakers, which most of the big manufacturers are making.  Basically a tall skinny box with a bunch of small drivers, maybe with a lot of DSP and individual amp channels.  Tight vertical directionality over the vocal range really does help reduce ambience and increase clarity.

[Keith Broughton]

I've been pondering this a bit lately: couldn't this still be useful in more voice-focused situations? I feel like significant directionality at 2kHz and up might well reduce problematic reflections enough to provide intelligibility in challenging spaces, even if everything below that is still mud. Am I wrong about this?

-Russ

I'm not sure I agree with this premise. The masking effect of the "mud" in the low mid will still be a problem.
I have a gig that is probably a textbook case for "worst reverberant/ reflective room ever!" and it's the mids and low mids that need taming.
A well designed, large format horn would be a better tool in this application as it would be directional at a wider range of frequencies.

[Tim McCulloch]

I've been pondering this a bit lately: couldn't this still be useful in more voice-focused situations? I feel like significant directionality at 2kHz and up might well reduce problematic reflections enough to provide intelligibility in challenging spaces, even if everything below that is still mud. Am I wrong about this?

-Russ

"Articulate high notes followed by a flubb of blubber in the low mids and lows; we cannot recommend this wine... er speaker system..."

Architects are not inherently kind to sound reproduction - they design spaces with prominent reflections, standing waves, enormous RT60s... and then complain when the sound system designer wants some absorption/diffusion, and pushes back on proposed loudspeaker selections and locations.  It takes pattern control (size) and correct placement to make sound systems "work" in difficult acoustic spaces.  Both tend to intrude on the architect's vision, making for Cranky Archy.

Absent that, the most frequently used tool is EQ, to reduce the amount of 'excitement' of room modes, but it's a crude tool to use on a permanent architectural problem.  Having nice HF penetration while the some deep notches were applied to the LMF/LF... or having nice HF penetration with the flubb of blubber...

d&b has their new GSL/KSL line arrays with cardioid LF.  I can tell you that how little comes off the back and sides of these arrays is amazing.  Pricey stuff, it is.

[Luke Geis]

I agree that the whole LA thing is very much bastardized. It started with CC arrays ( constant curvature ) trying to sell off as if it were an LA system and has now moved into tall, skinny multi-driver units that do exhibit improvements but are NOT an LA. Marketing is leading less than sharp buyers into believing they have an LA system and end clients don't know anyway, so as long as it looks like one and does what the vendor says it will, it may as well be one.

We say it all the time; a dash array does not a Line Array make. I.E. you MUST have a considerable # of elements ( speakers ) per cluster to begin to acquire usable and real LA characteristics. A typical 4 box hang may only exhibit LA characteristics from about 1khz up. So how can we believe that a tall, skinny vertical box that has maybe 4 drivers of small diameter is going to do any better than a typical PS 2 way speaker? It is all marketing.

The tall, skinny boxes are designed with wider horns and with the extra woofers can do some mid-range pattern control, but for the most part it is just designed and marketed so that you think it is a special speaker. There is nothing that can stop a vendor from making a 120* horn for its typical 2-way box except that the world has come to except 60* and 90* as being the standard. Make a different kind of box and you can make new rules. Most vertical array boxes use wider horns, but why? Because most LA systems use wider horns and you associate wider coverage to LA systems. A vertical array doesn't offer much better performance than your typical 2-way box and really only allows you a different format in which to sell to your end client.

Length is the only thing that can gain true directional control over frequencies. While smaller and greater # of drivers can do some beam steering, it doesn't address the length issue and you lose output potential. Compromises all around. You don't get one without the other. If you truly need pattern control, you either have to go fully horn-loaded ( which has a practical limitation as well ) or you have to go with a full-size line array ( 8 boxes or more per side ) to get it. Everything else is a marketing tool or a clever device to sell to your end client.

[Tim McCulloch]

I agree that the whole LA thing is very much bastardized. It started with CC arrays ( constant curvature ) trying to sell off as if it were an LA system and has now moved into tall, skinny multi-driver units that do exhibit improvements but are NOT an LA. Marketing is leading less than sharp buyers into believing they have an LA system and end clients don't know anyway, so as long as it looks like one and does what the vendor says it will, it may as well be one.

We say it all the time; a dash array does not a Line Array make. I.E. you MUST have a considerable # of elements ( speakers ) per cluster to begin to acquire usable and real LA characteristics. A typical 4 box hang may only exhibit LA characteristics from about 1khz up. So how can we believe that a tall, skinny vertical box that has maybe 4 drivers of small diameter is going to do any better than a typical PS 2 way speaker? It is all marketing.

The tall, skinny boxes are designed with wider horns and with the extra woofers can do some mid-range pattern control, but for the most part it is just designed and marketed so that you think it is a special speaker. There is nothing that can stop a vendor from making a 120* horn for its typical 2-way box except that the world has come to except 60* and 90* as being the standard. Make a different kind of box and you can make new rules. Most vertical array boxes use wider horns, but why? Because most LA systems use wider horns and you associate wider coverage to LA systems. A vertical array doesn't offer much better performance than your typical 2-way box and really only allows you a different format in which to sell to your end client.

Length is the only thing that can gain true directional control over frequencies. While smaller and greater # of drivers can do some beam steering, it doesn't address the length issue and you lose output potential. Compromises all around. You don't get one without the other. If you truly need pattern control, you either have to go fully horn-loaded ( which has a practical limitation as well ) or you have to go with a full-size line array ( 8 boxes or more per side ) to get it. Everything else is a marketing tool or a clever device to sell to your end client.

It's all about length and either you have it or you don't, and that only accounts for what happens in one axis.  More than 8ft, preferably 12ft no matter how many/few elements it takes.

[John L Nobile]

It's all about length and either you have it or you don't, and that only accounts for what happens in one axis.  More than 8ft, preferably 12ft no matter how many/few elements it takes.

Most rooms I do sound in don't have that kind of height for speakers. I guess that's why 4 box arrays exist.

And is it just me or does anyone else find 8 - 12 box arrays hanging from the proscenium of a nice theatre look out of place?

[Caleb Dueck]

I've been pondering this a bit lately: couldn't this still be useful in more voice-focused situations? I feel like significant directionality at 2kHz and up might well reduce problematic reflections enough to provide intelligibility in challenging spaces, even if everything below that is still mud. Am I wrong about this?

-Russ

I also disagree with this.  When designing installed systems, it's much easier to get the 1/2/4 kHz region even across the seating area than the 250Hz-ish region. 

Play with the side view of any line array software, EASE Focus for example since it's free.  As Tim mentioned, the array is a single array, not a collection of point source boxes pointed at specific seating areas.  The low-mids especially are all about total array length.  Getting an array to work is balancing the lows, mids, and highs coverage so it's not only as close to the same SPL but also the same frequency at all seats. 

With point source and trap boxes (they aren't quite the same, yes I'm getting old and grumpy) - it's much easier to have the 1kHz on up dispersion taken care of, due to the smaller horn size required.  Horn loading the low mids to keep them in check takes a lot more size, and not many speakers horn load the low mids properly.  Look at how many horn loaded main speakers start to fall apart (SPL efficiency as well as pattern control) above the mains-to-subs crossover point. 


So many marketing departments need to be smacked around something fierce, 'line array' should not be the Midas term for any speaker/array that is taller than it is wide!

[Robert Healey]

I also disagree with this.  When designing installed systems, it's much easier to get the 1/2/4 kHz region even across the seating area than the 250Hz-ish region. 

Play with the side view of any line array software, EASE Focus for example since it's free.  As Tim mentioned, the array is a single array, not a collection of point source boxes pointed at specific seating areas.  The low-mids especially are all about total array length.  Getting an array to work is balancing the lows, mids, and highs coverage so it's not only as close to the same SPL but also the same frequency at all seats. 

With point source and trap boxes (they aren't quite the same, yes I'm getting old and grumpy) - it's much easier to have the 1kHz on up dispersion taken care of, due to the smaller horn size required.  Horn loading the low mids to keep them in check takes a lot more size, and not many speakers horn load the low mids properly.  Look at how many horn loaded main speakers start to fall apart (SPL efficiency as well as pattern control) above the mains-to-subs crossover point. 


So many marketing departments need to be smacked around something fierce, 'line array' should not be the Midas term for any speaker/array that is taller than it is wide!

I mostly agree with the comment that we are talking about music systems here - you can get intelligible but not high-fidelity voice reproduction with 1kHz-4kHz coverage and a steep rolloff for things like paging; however, there is another consideration when discussing low-mid performance in an installed system that has to do with acoustics - many rooms fall apart around below 250 due to insufficient low-frequency sound absorption. 250 is the frequency where traditional absorptive products (2" fabric wrapped fiberglass panels, for instance) start to become ineffective. If you did not have any say in the acoustics and are unlucky, the room may have 1" panels which are ineffective below 500 Hz.

Most research in acoustics is focused on classical music where a rise in bass absorption is acceptable and sometimes desirable ("warmth"). Recently there has been some high-quality papers from Europe showing that for modern music to sound great, you need to control RT to as low a frequency as you possibly can. This often requires innovative design solutions out of reach for the typical bar or even small venue. Many venues for rock and other modern music in the US are converted movie theaters from the 1920's-1940's which had very different acoustics design goals to modern music.

[ProSoundWeb Community]