Print

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

[Justin Myers]

I suppose you could use any DSP ... but it would probably be difficult to dial in the exact settings.  As I recall the crossover uses Bessel filters and the "electrical" filter looks nothing like the resulting "acoustic" result.  The VSX units are inexpensive and you can download and drop in the presets so there's really nothing you have to do.  Once it's there you don't need to change anything so it shouldn't matter whether or not you think the UI is difficult to work with.

Yeah, I know what you mean after having a look at the factory presets for the Versarray. There are a lot of tweaks.
The Itechs do have Bessell filters. I also wouldn't mind seeing what the Brickwall FIR filters would be like at the mid/hi crossover point.
If I did get a VSX, I would be adding another 2 analog/digital conversions. Unless I got rid of the Itechs but I really like their limiters.

Justin,

You can't expect it to be remotely the same. You will have to do a TF by hand and build new presets in your device of choice.

http://www.soundforums.net/live/threads/14-DSP-Tower-of-Babel?p=6766&viewfull=1#post6766

Article is forthcoming, probably the next issue of FOH magazine and then it will be posted on SFN as well.

Cheers Bennett, will give it read.

[Tim McCulloch]

Yeah, I know what you mean after having a look at the factory presets for the Versarray. There are a lot of tweaks.
The Itechs do have Bessell filters. I also wouldn't mind seeing what the Brickwall FIR filters would be like at the mid/hi crossover point.
If I did get a VSX, I would be adding another 2 analog/digital conversions. Unless I got rid of the Itechs but I really like their limiters.
Cheers Bennett, will give it read.

What you seem to be overlooking is that various DSPs render filters differently even when they have the same topology and slopes.... sometimes even among units from the same manufacturer.  That was Bennett's point - that you can't just plug in an 18db/oct Bessel filter in another device with any assurance that it will be the same as on the native processor the settings were developed on.

I wouldn't worry about another set of AD/DA conversions in this instance.

In general, what is lacking in the Versarry presets is adequate handling of array curvature, which is why Peavey recommends using very small angles, the flatter the array the better.  The granularity of processing and power needed to make it perform like bigger named small vertical arrays negates the savings of buying Peavey, IMNSHO.

I'm not a Peavey basher by any means, and when I first started looking at the VR I *really wanted* to like it.  For some applications it's still a very acceptable product but for the types of gigs we do and the venue geometry we have to cover it fell far short.

Marty McCann is one of the good guys and will assist you in every way he can.

Have fun, good luck.

Tim Mc

[Justin Myers]

Hi Tim,

I see Bennetts point after reading his posts comparing DSPs. Was surprised in the findings, so much variation. Looking forward to the full article.

What do you mean it falls down in handling array curvature?

Justin

[Tim McCulloch]

Hi Tim,

I see Bennetts point after reading his posts comparing DSPs. Was surprised in the findings, so much variation. Looking forward to the full article.

What do you mean it falls down in handling array curvature?

Justin

Well, that's not quite what I said.  In our case the processing wasn't the limitation; SPL and coverage requirements exceeded the VR112's capabilities.

As for processing, it's not a fatal flaw, as other arrays exhibit the same physics (but to lesser impact) - but to "do it right" will require more processing than a single VRX26 will provide (stereo rig presumed) and more amp channels, too.  It's to implement some array compensation.

Somewhere on Peavey's website *was* a document that detailed the amount of compensation (level & EQ) necessary as inter-box angles increased.  It was revealing, but Peavey had the honesty and thoroughness to post it... and I don't doubt that any system owner that followed it would have a more consistent sounding Versarray rig than the ones I've heard.  All vertical arrays benefit from compensation, but some require less (much less) than the VR.  Bob McCarthy discusses compensation in his book and Mark Ureda does the math in his AES paper on "J and Spiral Arrays" (find at jblpro.com).  The VR performs most consistently when it has a relatively flat (2° between boxes, max) hang at low trim for audiences on a single plane.  It will be louder up front than a "J" array but will be tonally more consistent than a Versarray hung in J without compensation.

The primary limitation of the Versarray is also its primary attraction: the ribbon HF.  This rig really shines on gigs that don't need extreme output, where the ribbon will be safe when crossed lower.  When your SPL needs go up, so does the recommended xover point.

If you're already committed to the VR112, have at it.  You know your market and clients (I hope) and this compact rig could well be a profit center for you.  There is a LABster in Mississippi with a decent-sized VR rig, perhaps he will contribute his experiences (my memory is that he considers it money well spent, so far).

Have fun, good sound.

Tim Mc

ps. When I said "was" about the compensation chart, it's because I can't find it on their site.  I'm probably looking in the wrong place... but I downloaded the pdf 3 or 4 years ago to a now-crashed drive.

pps.  The VR218 subs rock.

[ProSoundWeb Community]