ProSoundWeb Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6   Go Down

Author Topic: Looking to simplify - options for a modular SOS system that sounds fantastic  (Read 4383 times)

Scott Holtzman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6411
  • Ghost AV - Avon Lake, OH
    • Ghost Audio Visual Systems, LLC

Hi Doug,Jay,Corey,and all.

I have not had the Captivator + IG4T wide open yet.
Iím in clubs and small theaters. Outside is about the only
situation I can think of where I might need that much volume.

To answer Dougís question, I guess Iíd assume the sub would fart out
before the top, but with the Captivator, Iím not so sure.
Itís pretty punchy and tight, and plenty loud.

Iím just a bass player with a PA, so Iím way over my head with the
measurements and all. So take my 2 cents with a grain of salt.
The IG4T sounds rounder, and more pleasant,than the DZR 12.
The sound seems less focused, more all around. Sort of like a gig with
everyone on those Bose sticks.
But remember, Iím listening to break music, before the gig, during set up,
and hearing what I can, during the gig,after I set it and forget it!

Mark, I agree the price for the IG4Ts over the DZRs might not be justified.
I donít think they are twice as good as the Yamahas.
But they both are in a unique niche, not quite pro level, but not Guitar Center either.

Form function,size, weight, and sound, all work for me.
Iím amazed at how good the bass sounds, in both really, but especially the DZR12.
I can get the IG4T above an audienceís head easily. If I start running sound for others,
the combination of 2 IG4T a side seems like a winner. That would be LOUD!

But back to Coreyís original point.
Doubt either of these get you into SM80/TH18 territory,
but for backyard party gigs, heck yea!
The Yamaha sub is probably fine, 15 or 18. Not knocking it, but havenít heard it.
Db Technology probably has great subs too. Doubt itís at Meyer level, but still?

Funny, I have never heard or seen an RCF product yet. Love to !

There is a old Meyer rig on Craigslist in MN for $3,000.00.
4 subs, 9 tops, riggings and 3 processors. No amps, if anyone is interested.
Thanks!


Would you mind providing a link?  I could not find the Meyer gear. Thanks
Logged
Scott AKA "Skyking" Holtzman

Ghost Audio Visual Solutions, LLC
Cleveland OH
www.ghostav.rocks

Corey Scogin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1227
  • Birmingham, AL, US

I have the IG4T, the DZR 12 and the DZR 10, and the Captivator 2 12.

I think the ďhigh end columnĒ sounds just as good as the 1 12 plus horn.

I should have been more specific. By "'high end' column", I wasn't referring to the IG series or anything with a horn. I was referring to the array-of-small-speakers setups that are on the top end of that spectrum: RCF EVOX 12, FBT CS1000, etc.
Logged

Brian Bolly

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 574
  • Homeward Bound

Edit: I may have misread your question. When I realized the double stack was unstable I looked at the Single speaker and Double Stack with no Impulse or set delay to peak if you will so this is yes with no alignment between reference and source.  I was at first thinking you were talking about the phase relationship between the single speaker and stacked speaker. I left my reply anyway.


This mostly answers my question.  So your delay time was not set properly, therefore the phase response shown in the traces is not correct - got it. 

I did pull the EASE GLL files to look out of sheer curiosity, and there is the phase wrap at the crossover so it's marginally better than what is shown in your traces.  Interestingly, the GLL for the IG4T shows a HF response (from the crossover on up) that looks a lot like your screen shot with about a half dozen phase wraps in the HF.  Which leads me to believe that either the GLL was not created properly, or it really is that bad.


Quote
The horns centers are roughly 4 inches or so apart even when coupled so there is bound to be a timing issue in relation to microphone placement.

I would argue this point.  If you have the speakers stacked as you described (top one inverted), you should easily be able to position the mic in the vertical domain so that the mic is at the acoustic center between speakers, and the offset is 0 ms when either speaker (or both speakers) are turned on if the delay finder is set accordingly.


Quote
Take any 15 inch and Horn speaker and set another exact same speaker on top of it upside down coupled like the IG2T's and look at what you get. ( I have ) you won't get this kind of phase / magnitude coupling. At least with all the ones I have tried. As with everything in life there is trade offs for every design. At this price point they couple well and sound great doing it.

If one were to take two speakers of the same mfg and model ó regardless of driver complement ó invert the top one and stack them together with a mic placed at the acoustical center between the two speakers in the vertical domain, one should expect that they would sum in magnitude, even though the HF is/are likely overlapping by some number of degrees.  If not, you have one of two problems: 1) The mic is not on the acoustical center between speakers and therefore you have a time arrival offset from one speaker; or 2) At least one speaker is broken.

Example: Attached screen shot, no trace smoothing.  MAPP XT prediction of 2x UPA-1P with the mic at the acoustical center vertically, and at some distance horizontally.  One box (RED trace) and both boxes (BLUE trace).  Since the mic is at the acoustical center between speakers, the phase trace for both is nearly identical to a single enclosure, and the magnitude sums nicely.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2021, 03:06:18 AM by Brian Bolly »
Logged

Russell Ault

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1380
  • Edmonton, AB

{...} This mostly answers my question.  So your delay time was not set properly, therefore the phase response shown in the traces is not correct - got it.  {...}

Looking at the posted traces I don't think there's anything improper or incorrect about the delay compensation used; they're just not set in a way that's typically used for a whole-system measurement (which Douglas mentioned in his post). A measurement with no delay compensation (which is what I would consider to be improper, since it yields no actionable data and often causes coherence issues) will have a phase trace that only lags, but clearly that's not what's happening here.

Delay-finders latch on to the loudest-per-frequency (as opposed to -per-octave) sounds which (because sound is perceived logarithmically) is basically always the HF. The phase trace of a measurement using the delay finder for compensation will almost always be in-time in the HF and lagging as the frequency drops (typically due to the effects of various high/low-pass filters of some kind). This is useful for checking the phase compatibility of speakers for arraying. Plus, displaying a given time offset takes fewer wraps in the LF than it does in the HF (because phase wraps are linear but phase traces are displayed logarithmically), which means that traces that are in-time in the HF tend to look "prettier".

The phase trace in the posted measurements clearly has delay compensation set because it is in time at ~350 Hz, lagging below and leading above. Pushing the in-time frequency this low (or even lower) can be both proper and correct if one is most concerned about phase interactions at those frequencies (as, for example, one is when time-aligning mains to subs).

{...} I did pull the EASE GLL files to look out of sheer curiosity, and there is the phase wrap at the crossover so it's marginally better than what is shown in your traces.  Interestingly, the GLL for the IG4T shows a HF response (from the crossover on up) that looks a lot like your screen shot with about a half dozen phase wraps in the HF.  Which leads me to believe that either the GLL was not created properly, or it really is that bad. {...}

Phase is just time, and in the HF (where periods are in the sub-millisecond range) it doesn't take much time one way or the other to add phase wraps. Moreover, describing the phase response of a DUT in isolation as "bad" almost certainly misses the point: above a certain (low) frequency humans almost certainly can't hear phase offset (or time smear), soóall else being equalóthe measured phase response of the HF of a speaker is pretty meaningless. The only reasons to care about speaker phase response are (a) because you're trying to make two speakers work together (i.e. an array) or (b) because you're actually hearing problems with what's coming out of the speaker and you're trying to gather as much information as possible to help determine why that might be.

-Russ
Logged

Andrew Olsen

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8


Would you mind providing a link?  I could not find the Meyer gear. Thanks
https://minneapolis.craigslist.org/dak/msg/d/saint-paul-meyers-sound-speaker-system/7320321938.html

4 USW-1 (2 15Ē subs)
9 UPA-1C ( 2way 12Ē tops)
2 M1-A
1 B-2EX
16 Rigging frames for tops
Logged

Russell Ault

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1380
  • Edmonton, AB

https://minneapolis.craigslist.org/dak/msg/d/saint-paul-meyers-sound-speaker-system/7320321938.html

4 USW-1 (2 15Ē subs)
9 UPA-1C ( 2way 12Ē tops)
2 M1-A
1 B-2EX
16 Rigging frames for tops

That's not a lot of processors for that many speakers (although I do know someone who's had success rolling their own UPA processing in a modern-day DSP, based off of M1-A measurements).

-Russ
Logged

Mark Wilkinson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1064



Delay-finders latch on to the loudest-per-frequency (as opposed to -per-octave) sounds which (because sound is perceived logarithmically) is basically always the HF. The phase trace of a measurement using the delay finder for compensation will almost always be in-time in the HF and lagging as the frequency drops (typically due to the effects of various high/low-pass filters of some kind). This is useful for checking the phase compatibility of speakers for arraying. Plus, displaying a given time offset takes fewer wraps in the LF than it does in the HF (because phase wraps are linear but phase traces are displayed logarithmically), which means that traces that are in-time in the HF tend to look "prettier".



Hi Russ, don't mean to dropping into to much tech that ain't about the thread. 
But I don't think that's how delay finders work, ala Smaart, Arta, REW....the ones i know. I don't think they latch onto loudest-per-frequency.
They all seem to work to find an impulse peak....which is a summation of the highest energy received at a point in time from all contributing frequencies voting.
And a key point is it is a summation where each freq gets a vote. So 19k to 20k gets 1000 votes. Just like 20Hz to 1020 Hz gets only a thousand votes. Politics even in FFT voting, Lol.
(But you know all that...just going on for others who maybe don't.)

The thing is, that took me along time to see, is the highest energy received once we are below the VHF/HF range where voting is so linearly skewed, is where magnitude is flat.
It's just the way it sums up, the way the math integrates. The way the impulse peak votes add up.  That's where the delay finder is.

If this is incorrect, hopefully the guys from RA (or any of the myriad others smarter than me), will set it straight.


To go back OT...my pair of UPA-1p's and whatever subs, has easily been my simplified solution (when audience size fits)
Heavy bastards though, X-40 looks much nicer.
Logged

Russell Ault

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1380
  • Edmonton, AB

Hi Russ, don't mean to dropping into to much tech that ain't about the thread. 
But I don't think that's how delay finders work, ala Smaart, Arta, REW....the ones i know. I don't think they latch onto loudest-per-frequency.
They all seem to work to find an impulse peak....which is a summation of the highest energy received at a point in time from all contributing frequencies voting.
And a key point is it is a summation where each freq gets a vote. So 19k to 20k gets 1000 votes. Just like 20Hz to 1020 Hz gets only a thousand votes. Politics even in FFT voting, Lol.
(But you know all that...just going on for others who maybe don't.)

The thing is, that took me along time to see, is the highest energy received once we are below the VHF/HF range where voting is so linearly skewed, is where magnitude is flat.
It's just the way it sums up, the way the math integrates. The way the impulse peak votes add up.  That's where the delay finder is. {...}

Man, I'm on a roll today. "Loudest-per-frequency" was definitely a poor choice of terminology on my part.

What you've just explained there is what I was trying to say (but failed): delay finders will always track to being in-time with the HF because the top octave being measured contributes as much to the calculation of the impulse peak as all the rest of the frequencies being measured combined. Thus, we've become accustomed to looking at phase traces where the HF is in-time and the LF is lagging, but the only inherent superiority of this data view is the ease of coming up with a (useful) delay compensation value.

-Russ
Logged

Douglas R. Allen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1347

   I had an IG2T out so I did a quick measurement. I'll try to look at a IG4T when I get the chance.  Basic DBX $99 Dollar RTA microphone. Mic was 3 feet back and I put it 1/2 between the horns throat center and the center of the 8 inch driver just below it. 1/2 between the 2 centers of these drivers.  Delay time ended up being 10.63ms to align Smaart at 10 khz which I felt was fine as I have 6 ms of delay set in the IG2T to get it in alignment with the subs I use. The IG2T had a 120hz internal crossover set in it.

   The COH looked good enough for this measurement up until the highest of frequencies where I believe the DBX struggled with what is maybe a 20hz High cut filter or simply the limit of the horn as well as the below 63hz or so but of course it was 24db's down do to the 120hz built in low cut filter I was using.

   There is as seen 1 phase wrap at around 900hz or so but I have measured worse than this. It can't compete with a SM80 for sure but still not that bad overall. It really does sound good.  I hope this covers what you where looking for.

   Kindest Regards;
   Douglas R. Allen

   Edit: Crossover in the IG2T is 1900hz and the IG4T is 1100hz.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2021, 02:45:38 PM by Douglas R. Allen »
Logged

Yoel Klein

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 63

Hi folks,
Great advice and knowledge from everyone.

I still feel I want to write my take on it. Why? Because I know some stuff that others will for sure benefit.

I own a pair of SM80ís and I had almost the same requirements about a year ago right here on PSW.

I have tested different Danley boxes in real environments. Not just a box in a pole with a $80 meter. But on a actual live paying jobs with a backup system in place should the test go not as expected.

The kind of events Iím talking about is Jewish events in BIGGEST Shuls (synagogue) in New York with LOTS of human flesh dressed with wool and fur coats (Rabbinical weddings) with bleachers on either side going up  18 -20 feet in hight.
The style music was all an event can call for. Speach, Polka style music mixed with hard rock for the upper verse of the song, and allot of content in the high frequencies, allot of crashes and symbols from a Korg Pa4x stressing the drivers to its max and EDM music for certain songs. Now add a group of vocal singers with a lead vocal and the SPL is testing the built in limiters on the DNA apms. 

So... the smaller One Man Band with a minivan also wanted the punch and SPL compared to lines of JBL or 6+ JBLís on sticks.

The overlooked candidate is a SM60F....  You guys have no idea how LOUD this box goes, and the low end was enough to leave the TH118ís in storage for smaller jobs. Gas wise its a bit less volume compared to the SM80ís but you can run it without a sub and no one would know. The SM60F has that extra tickle in the notes down at the 50ish frequencyís. I can testify that it sits comfortably at the peak level while still sounding clean. And Iím a clean freak...

Next surprise and overlooked box, is the.... Go2 8cx.... believe it or not I did an install (not a real install but rather a setup to be set up every time the same) with 2 Go2ís and no sub. they simply left one Go2 in closet... why bother bringing it out and plugging a cable when one Go2 is plenty loud. For about 30-50 people, One Go2 did it without any subs.  Donít ask me how.. I couldnít believe it either. Mr. Josh emailed me a PDF for the amplifier and limiter settings. I got an affordable QSC 300 watt amp and the ďsystemĒ is light enough for a 10 year old to setup.

I will finish with one final story. 
In one of the biggest Shuls in upstate NY, we use for mains J1ís or J6ís with a pair of BC415ís. Yah I know the J6 is too narrow for a Shul, but we needed the J1ís for outdoors and as long as we donít get J7ís the J6 made a fine job with precise angle hanging and rigging.

So, not to long ago, a major event was to take place in the big Shul. Since there are people who listen with their eyes, the decision was to RENT line arrays for that particular event so it LOOKED MASSIVE! 

A couple days before the event, was the Jewish holiday íPurimí. The request came last minute to turn on the big JBL arrays for a full force Purim dance. The guy who brought the arrays could not get them to produce sound quick enough with all the logistics involved. Even though all arrays were already hoisted and hooked up.

The grand Rabbi comes in and everyone is WAITING for the sound to come alive. But... for some reason (unknown to me) the complex system didnít turn on.  In an effort to save the night, We quickly grabbed my 2 SM80ís... crabbed a ladder and simple hung the 80ís underneath the Lowest box of the main LR arrays. Then we ran to the storage and grabbed a DNA20K amp with the 80ís preset in it, we grabbed a powered RCF double 21Ē sub that was already sitting on a dolly, and within minutes the entire Shul came alive! We quickly ran back to get some RCF powered fills and the event was on!!

People who came in to join the dancing after the ďcrisisĒ still believe that those huge arrays worked...  we closely monitored the DNA system engineer limiter and driver performance. Yes we pushed it like never before.

The event lasted for a couple hours with people coming and going taking shifts in dancing.

And That is - ladies and gentlemen - the Danley SM80ís.

Would I do it again and use the 80ís instead of the Jís? Nops. But would I do it with any other similar brand similar SPL box? NO! because a danley box pushing it to sit in the limiter would still sound loud and clean. No other box can do that at peak SPL.

So, my closing statement... when thinking about comparing SM80ís to similar size and specks RCF, EAW, etc. you should know your not comparing apples to apples. Take a look on the SM60F, you could place them vertically 2 at a side widening the coverage and adding another 3db with both boxes working as one source. This is what I call modular.

Forgive me if the article was so long..
« Last Edit: May 20, 2021, 03:56:08 AM by Yoel Klein »
Logged

ProSoundWeb Community


Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6   Go Up
 



Site Hosted By Ashdown Technologies, Inc.

Page created in 0.132 seconds with 22 queries.