Post by: Joe Pieternella on May 05, 2016, 10:49:32 AM
Long time lurker around here. Never really felt the need to post since there are lots of People far more knowledgable than me around here.
Anyway. I saw something today on a morning stroll that kinda surprised me. Now I believe the owner of the sound company that did this might be on here too. So I hope he will chip in and maybe elaborate. I didn't take pictures however because i was in a bit of a hurry.
But here in Curaçao there will be a festival called the Blues seas festival. The thing that surprised me was to see a Line-array in use here. This is kinda what you expect these days at any festival (I can't remember the last one I attended without one). However this was a little different ; imagine a one way street with houses either side and every now and then there is a house "missing" inbetween. And at the back of where the house would be there is a stage. now this house is about 10 meters wide and deep. I saw dual hangs of 6-8 FBT boxes there. To me this situation has point-source written all over it or Point and shoot like someone here would like to say. Preferably center Hung. Now the stage height didn't really seem to permit this (point-source or "Line-array"). So it would seem to be compromised from the getgo.
Anyway the question is how would you deal with such a location. I would go with the point-source solution probably with a center clustered sub sys.
To be clear I am in no way saying this is a easy gig. The sea is maybe 5-10 meters behind the stage. We've got riders to deal with. And (the way I see it) the location forces you to comprimise (audio duh).
I will see if I can go back and take pictures later today
Post by: TJ (Tom) Cornish on May 05, 2016, 11:28:13 AM
Before I begin.Most likely reason is that was the gear the vendor owned. Some of the loudest anti-line array folks on the board primarily work in the install world where you can pick the perfect box for the situation out of a catalog. For the pro sound journeyman where every day is a new venue, a flexible "Lego" system that can be adapted for the situation du jour is often more attractive than owning many different point-source systems.
Long time lurker around here. Never really felt the need to post since there are lots of People far more knowledgable than me around here.
Anyway. I saw something today on a morning stroll that kinda surprised me. Now I believe the owner of the sound company that did this might be on here too. So I hope he will chip in and maybe elaborate. I didn't take pictures however because i was in a bit of a hurry.
But here in Curaçao there will be a festival called the Blues seas festival. The thing that surprised me was to see a Line-array in use here. This is kinda what you expect these days at any festival (I can't remember the last one I attended without one). However this was a little different ; imagine a one way street with houses either side and every now and then there is a house "missing" inbetween. And at the back of where the house would be there is a stage. now this house is about 10 meters wide and deep. I saw dual hangs of 6-8 FBT boxes there. To me this situation has point-source written all over it or Point and shoot like someone here would like to say. Preferably center Hung. Now the stage height didn't really seem to permit this (point-source or "Line-array"). So it would seem to be compromised from the getgo.
Anyway the question is how would you deal with such a location. I would go with the point-source solution probably with a center clustered sub sys.
To be clear I am in no way saying this is a easy gig. The sea is maybe 5-10 meters behind the stage. We've got riders to deal with. And (the way I see it) the location forces you to comprimise (audio duh).
I will see if I can go back and take pictures later today
Post by: Tim McCulloch on May 05, 2016, 11:34:19 AM
Most likely reason is that was the gear the vendor owned. Some of the loudest anti-line array folks on the board primarily work in the install world where you can pick the perfect box for the situation out of a catalog. For the pro sound journeyman where every day is a new venue, a flexible "Lego" system that can be adapted for the situation du jour is often more attractive than owning many different point-source systems.
Yeah, it's cheaper to own ONE rig that is wrong for the gig than it is to own TWO wrong rigs... ;)
Post by: TJ (Tom) Cornish on May 05, 2016, 11:49:27 AM
Yeah, it's cheaper to own ONE rig that is wrong for the gig than it is to own TWO wrong rigs... ;)Even with cursory observation of the pro sound business it's clear to see that it's a logistics business, and not a sound quality business. A company that has figured out how to quickly slam up one flexible (but non-optimal) system day after day with acceptable sound quality will make money and survive. A company with 10 choices of boxes that theoretically fit some venues better but doesn't use them often enough to have efficient logistics for each system won't.
Post by: Tim McCulloch on May 05, 2016, 12:25:11 PM
Even with cursory observation of the pro sound business it's clear to see that it's a logistics business, and not a sound quality business. A company that has figured out how to quickly slam up one flexible (but non-optimal) system day after day with acceptable sound quality will make money and survive. A company with 10 choices of boxes that theoretically fit some venues better but doesn't use them often enough to have efficient logistics for each system won't.
Believe me, Tom, I know. One of the things I've accomplished as a manager is to reduce the number of speaker system "flavors" we routinely use. It makes for more consistent deployment and training staff is easier.
Sometimes a product that is "wrong" might be "right" for reasons that aren't sonic. There is another thread about a mini line array that will probably be too short in most deployments. For what the buyer is going to spend there are likely better sounding products but will not meet his weight limit. If sounding less than stunning is acceptable but it gets the rig up in the air for better coverage it's probably a good trade off.
I've got a PA/lights/truss/lifts package that "works" because the DBTech T4 size/weight performs well enough and the clients like the look of the package. I think if we put up equivalent conventional PA boxes the clients would not like it as much. They're accustomed to seeing vertical speaker systems.
Post by: Joe Pieternella on May 05, 2016, 12:29:36 PM
Thats why I said we always have compromises. But having 60 boxes of any brand or type doesn't mean you should use all 60 right!?
I have had venues so narrow and reflective (other story) that the best solution was working with a single top over sub solution slightly toed in. i could have (just) done a LR deployment like everybody else did there but that sounded like....
Post by: Chrysander 'C.R.' Young on May 05, 2016, 12:44:40 PM
Post by: Doug Fowler on May 05, 2016, 12:45:52 PM
Believe me, Tom, I know. One of the things I've accomplished as a manager is to reduce the number of speaker system "flavors" we routinely use. It makes for more consistent deployment and training staff is easier.
Sometimes a product that is "wrong" might be "right" for reasons that aren't sonic. There is another thread about a mini line array that will probably be too short in most deployments. For what the buyer is going to spend there are likely better sounding products but will not meet his weight limit. If sounding less than stunning is acceptable but it gets the rig up in the air for better coverage it's probably a good trade off.
I've got a PA/lights/truss/lifts package that "works" because the DBTech T4 size/weight performs well enough and the clients like the look of the package. I think if we put up equivalent conventional PA boxes the clients would not like it as much. They're accustomed to seeing vertical speaker systems.
Products like db Tech T4 are a very good fit for companies in "move up" mode. There are a lot of options out there today. This, plus the low cost digital consoles make this a completely different market than even ten years ago.
I got some good advice 20 years from someone in a position to know. It doesn't work today ;-)
Here is what he said:
Regional sound company, here's the recipe.
1. A pair of 4Ks.
2. Some KF850s
3. Equal number of subs, SB850s most likely or SB1000 a very few years later.
4. Heavy monitors, 2" exit preferable.
5. Outboard package of "the usual suspects".
6. A Clair or Showco guy looking to get off the road and give him the reins.
That was when you only had a handful of viable choices. Look how far we have come.....
Post by: Brian Jojade on May 05, 2016, 12:48:37 PM
I've lost plenty a job because I don't run line array systems for the events I do. The jobs I am doing don't need them in any way, and my simple point source solution sounds as good, if not better than the tiny line arrays that get deployed, but I don't have a line array, so I'm not as good. Does it make sense? In the customer's eyes, it does, and that's who writes the check.
Post by: Art Welter on May 05, 2016, 12:48:51 PM
But having 60 boxes of any brand or type doesn't mean you should use all 60 right!?Joe,
If you are being paid to provide 60 boxes, you should provide 60 boxes.
If you are being paid for doing a good sound, use what you deem best in your inventory for the job.
Art
Post by: Chris Hindle on May 05, 2016, 12:57:03 PM
Many times, it comes down to "It's on the truck, put it up"
Thats why I said we always have compromises. But having 60 boxes of any brand or type doesn't mean you should use all 60 right!?
Just because some jumpers get "misplaced" doesn't mean everything gets powered up....
Post by: Stephen Kirby on May 05, 2016, 02:07:43 PM
And, to add to the fun, the home hi-fi audiophool folks are now making 'line arrays' all over the place. My last Parts Express catalog had an article on a home-brew line array cab replete with something like 32 dome tweeters.Actually you can trace the history of "line array" from Olsen's theory, to Argos columns in churches to home hi-fi long before L'Acoustics and the current SR fascination with the concept. Things like Beveridge electrostatics, and the Infinity Quantum Line Source go way back as line arrays. Not to mention tall planar speakers like Magnapan, Acoustat, Martin-Logan, etc. By being nearly floor to ceiling in their use environments, these actually were more line source than many SR products using the term. Things with rows of tweeters like the PE projects have been around since the '70s at least.
Post by: Mark Wilkinson on May 05, 2016, 02:18:54 PM
Actually you can trace the history of "line array" from Olsen's theory, to Argos columns in churches to home hi-fi long before L'Acoustics and the current SR fascination with the concept. Things like Beveridge electrostatics, and the Infinity Quantum Line Source go way back as line arrays. Not to mention tall planar speakers like Magnapan, Acoustat, Martin-Logan, etc. By being nearly floor to ceiling in their use environments, these actually were more line source than many SR products using the term. Things with rows of tweeters like the PE projects have been around since the '70s at least.
Yes ........and that Parts Express speaker has been around for a number of years...it's a Don Keele baby...http://www.xlrtechs.com/dbkeele.com/
...looks like he's got a partnership going with PE.
Post by: Joe Pieternella on May 05, 2016, 03:21:59 PM
I should add btw for a little perspective for your guys im 20 yrs old so i Don't have the experience you guys Do.. Most will probably have more experience
Post by: Dave Garoutte on May 05, 2016, 04:30:24 PM
10 foot crank-ups with a 10 degree tilt down.
PLENTY of volume, clarity and throw for the situation.
Someone came up and said he was amazed that a single box per side sounded so good.
The line array marketing: more is better.
Post by: Don T. Williams on May 05, 2016, 06:55:19 PM
Post by: Joe Pieternella on May 05, 2016, 09:56:17 PM
Problem is often times even when you supply the rider through mail, sometimes even after I advise them it is coming upon arriving often times staff isn't even aware we have a rider. Sometimes even after a confirmation that the venue received it.
Why this even matters is because everything I ask for in there has alternate suggestions and the three things I really want, I carry. The rider doesnt specify anything about the PA, Just the minimum amount of wedges needed and the ideal amount.
Experience mostly trumps "They did it this way at the club yesterday so it must work in your 360-degree arena" a lot of BE's seem to not get this.
Post by: Stephen Kirby on May 06, 2016, 02:33:41 AM
All of this makes me wanna build a box that looks like an line array outside with regular conponents inside. And make people wonder how my array sounds so well.You could take Peter Morris' DIY 3way and cut grooves in the side and put a bunch of grille frames on it and it would look about the size of a small 5 or 6" based dash but slay it in output. Not sure what would happen if you tried to fake a J arc at the bottom. ;)
I should add btw for a little perspective for your guys im 20 yrs old so i Don't have the experience you guys Do.. Most will probably have more experience
Post by: Lyle Williams on May 06, 2016, 07:58:43 AM
Post by: John L Nobile on May 06, 2016, 08:12:29 AM
+1 again on all the comments. It is getting tough to meet a rider if you don't have a line array, even if other configurations will work better. The BE (or whoever specs the the items on the tech rider) has probably never seen the venue. If you can talk to the BE and explain the venue, they will often accept your recommendation. Most BE's are pretty open to the suggestions from local sound suppliers that are very familiar with a venue, and appreciate those suggestions.
2 years ago we installed SH96HO's in the room and I gotta say, they were the best sounding boxes I've heard in the room. By far and I've rented a lot of boxes in there including some dash arrays. Ceiling is 18 ' at its highest.
A week after install a band comes in and the first thing the BE says is "Why didn't you get a line array?" This was before he even heard the system.
It sounded very good but with his LA attitude, he didn't like the system and apparently let people know.
Some people will never stop listening with their eyes.
I'm in an install situation. If I had a sound company I'm sure I'd have line arrays. With that kind of attitude, how would you survive without them?
Post by: David Morison on May 06, 2016, 08:16:16 AM
All of this makes me wanna build a box that looks like an line array outside with regular conponents inside. And make people wonder how my array sounds so well.
I think it's been suggested before that Danley should make up grilles for some of their boxes that make each one look like several vertically stacked sub-components, for precisely this reason ;D
Post by: Joe Pieternella on May 06, 2016, 09:08:30 AM
Anyway, I did look at that DIY 3-way box indeed as a replacement for half the boxes we own. Building it as a system with six of the cubo's All with grill-over-foam at the front so nobody would know what they were. Wouldn't really know how to make the grill segments without blocking the horn.
This started as a joke, but if I had the time and funds I would try it just for fun.
Imagine this:
Build the box straight front with a full grill but the foam in segments.
Grooves down the side
Fly points
Pole mount for the top over subs days
And an detachable(properely braced off course) "extension" box below it with the same grooves and foam segments.
Making the extension box look like the constant curvature array boxes should give a convincable J array look.
I think I Just got one off those ideas i will never fullfill.
Edit: Kind of a topic swerve this, but i kinda like where this thread is going.
Post by: Renard Hurtado on May 06, 2016, 10:17:15 AM
It is fashion and looks...............line array is like breast implants (most of the time)!
Renard from Curacao
Post by: Rick Powell on May 06, 2016, 07:20:00 PM
I think it's been suggested before that Danley should make up grilles for some of their boxes that make each one look like several vertically stacked sub-components, for precisely this reason ;D
They've already done it, sorta. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOEonMFBz7s
Post by: Ivan Beaver on May 06, 2016, 08:50:57 PM
First of all, there is nothing you can do in the horizontal. The horizontal is fixed. Putting up another line is going to cause interference in most cases.
I guess the scaleability would "assume" you could use 1 box for a small crowd (as long as evenness of coverage is no big deal due to the narrow vertical control) and 4 boxes for a little bit larger crowd (again giving up vertical coverage for everybody).
And then you could use 8 or 12 boxes for a larger crowd.
The thing is, is it not a matter of more boxes for the louder shows. The COVERAGE angle requires a certain number of boxes, no matter whether it is light Jazz or metal.
The whole idea that you use more boxes for louder shows is simply wrong. That is-as long as you care enough to provide equal sound to all the audience members. If that doesn't matter-then by all means use more cabinets for louder shows.
But for a given dollar figure and truck pack space and weight, you can have a couple of different good point sources (for different sized shows that will provide good even coverage) that you could keep on the truck, and get louder and sound better for less money AND have faster loadins/outs and setup time.
But it would not meet the "line array" requirement.
What I find funny is that most people insist on a line array-cannot tell what supposedly advantage a line array actually has. But since it is "popular", they must have it or somehow they are not "complete".
And when people start to give you the "advantages", they have NO understanding that the "line array" effect varies with freq, (causing different sound at different seats) they ignore all the "extra free sound" you get off the back side of the array, how when the line gets longer the energy to the sides increases causing more reflections and so forth.
But at least the drawings of how you are "supposed to believe" are pretty. Reality is different.
I guess the long lines help them feel more "manly"----
I personally can't wait for sound quality to matter again :)
Yes I am a little bit biased.
Post by: Joe Pieternella on May 06, 2016, 11:28:30 PM
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160507/de1decfce07aaef43d7ee8b728d6a7f6.jpg)
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160507/4025e9c2ce6b525379175827325dd91e.jpg)
Post by: Scott Holtzman on May 07, 2016, 02:37:22 AM
What I find "interesting" is the so called "scale-ability" of the line array.
First of all, there is nothing you can do in the horizontal. The horizontal is fixed. Putting up another line is going to cause interference in most cases.
I guess the scaleability would "assume" you could use 1 box for a small crowd (as long as evenness of coverage is no big deal due to the narrow vertical control) and 4 boxes for a little bit larger crowd (again giving up vertical coverage for everybody).
And then you could use 8 or 12 boxes for a larger crowd.
The thing is, is it not a matter of more boxes for the louder shows. The COVERAGE angle requires a certain number of boxes, no matter whether it is light Jazz or metal.
The whole idea that you use more boxes for louder shows is simply wrong. That is-as long as you care enough to provide equal sound to all the audience members. If that doesn't matter-then by all means use more cabinets for louder shows.
But for a given dollar figure and truck pack space and weight, you can have a couple of different good point sources (for different sized shows that will provide good even coverage) that you could keep on the truck, and get louder and sound better for less money AND have faster loadins/outs and setup time.
But it would not meet the "line array" requirement.
What I find funny is that most people insist on a line array-cannot tell what supposedly advantage a line array actually has. But since it is "popular", they must have it or somehow they are not "complete".
And when people start to give you the "advantages", they have NO understanding that the "line array" effect varies with freq, (causing different sound at different seats) they ignore all the "extra free sound" you get off the back side of the array, how when the line gets longer the energy to the sides increases causing more reflections and so forth.
But at least the drawings of how you are "supposed to believe" are pretty. Reality is different.
I guess the long lines help them feel more "manly"----
I personally can't wait for sound quality to matter again :)
Yes I am a little bit biased.
Ivan, you know I was thinking the other night when I was driving that your larger cabinets that have multiple drivers in the same range are utilizing the same physics just in a much more controlled manner and sharing a single waveguide.
What can't be discounted is the ridiculous emotion regarding line arrays. People get stupid. I was with a top engineer at the House of Blues here in Cleveland that has one of the worst sounding line array deployments I have ever heard. The damn thing hangs all the way down to the stage, it's either too loud or not loud enough yet universally it gets praised. I have asked people why they think it sounds good and they can't articulate it.
I really don't get it.
Post by: Ivan Beaver on May 07, 2016, 09:14:55 AM
Ivan, you know I was thinking the other night when I was driving that your larger cabinets that have multiple drivers in the same range are utilizing the same physics just in a much more controlled manner and sharing a single waveguide.Here is the DIFFERENCE many people don't get.
What can't be discounted is the ridiculous emotion regarding line arrays. People get stupid. I was with a top engineer at the House of Blues here in Cleveland that has one of the worst sounding line array deployments I have ever heard. The damn thing hangs all the way down to the stage, it's either too loud or not loud enough yet universally it gets praised. I have asked people why they think it sounds good and they can't articulate it.
I really don't get it.
Let's look at the Jericho series of cabinets. The drivers are arranged so that the WHOLE cabinet provides a curved wavefront. The drivers ARE NOT simply stacked up. And they are all on a single horn.
Trust me-A LOT of effort goes into getting the curved wavefront-like a pebble in a pond.
When you measure an ETC/impulse response, you get a single arrival-like a single driver would provide.
When you have a line array, EACH cabinet is producing a curved wavefront. When you stack these up, you have a bunch of different sources of sound.
This shows up in the ETC/impulse response. Instead of a point (like the Jerichos) you have a "plateau" of arrivals.
What this sounds like to the ear is a smearing of the sound. So on things like drums or other percussive instruments (like a piano), you don't get the "whack" that you do with the real instrument.
On picked instruments-especially things like mandolin, banjo, guitar etc, you don't get the sound of the pick on the string.
The only way to get that with a line array cabinet would be to have SPECIFIC cabinets that are located in specific places in the array-which throws away the whole "scale-ability" side of things.
Regarding levels, here is a specific example. I was out at Toms place this week playing around with a number of different products. At one time we were using a J3-94, It is a 48" tall cabinet that is 36" wide and 30" deep. So about the size of just a couple of large format LA cabinets, but uses just 4 amp channels.
We were listening at 300'. Using wide dynamic "hi-fi" music, A weighted slow, we were averaging over 100dB continuous. So when you add in dynamic range of around 15dB, the peaks were over 115dB. The peak reading B&K decided not to work that day :(. Put this in a line array model and see how many cabinets it takes.
It sounded like a "hi-fi" speaker at that distance (and up close as well-just louder)
Just for grins, we turned the cabinet around the other way, and faced it towards one of our guys houses, that is over a mile away, straight line. The idea was to see if his wife could hear it.
She said she heard it really clear and it was pretty loud.
When we hit mute, we got a good number of clear reflections WAY out in time.
You can also tell how well a signal is "holding together" by the reflections.
If the reflections are clean, then the signal starting out is "together". If they are muddy, then the signal is not arriving at the reflection at the same time.
Just for grins I built a model of one of the "accepted on every rider" high output line arrays. With a mic at 300', 24 boxes was just shy of what we were measuring-using their maximum peak output calculation.
Now when you compare the cost of 24 of these boxes-the size-the hanging requirements, the costs etc, it should become clear that is not a good business decision-EXCEPT for giving the customer what they "think" they want.
I feel this will change in the near future as people start to understand that the line arrays are not what what they are cracked up to be.
But I do get the fact that as a business person you need to give the customer what they want-right or wrong.
But just as 15 years ago it was hard to "sell" a line array, the day is coming that that it will be turning around.
I will admit that line arrays were a big step forward in terms of sound quality vs what was provided before them. A pile of boxes that interfered with each other.
But now with better understanding and products, there is a better sonic solution as well.
Post by: Keith Broughton on May 07, 2016, 09:37:00 AM
Quote
I feel this will change in the near future as people start to understand that the line arrays are not what what they are cracked up to be.One can only hope this is true.
Post by: Tom Danley on May 07, 2016, 10:53:09 AM
Ivan, you know I was thinking the other night when I was driving that your larger cabinets that have multiple drivers in the same range are utilizing the same physics just in a much more controlled manner and sharing a single waveguide.
What can't be discounted is the ridiculous emotion regarding line arrays. People get stupid. I was with a top engineer at the House of Blues here in Cleveland that has one of the worst sounding line array deployments I have ever heard. The damn thing hangs all the way down to the stage, it's either too loud or not loud enough yet universally it gets praised. I have asked people why they think it sounds good and they can't articulate it.
I really don't get it.
Hi Scott
In addition to what Ivan said;
A more subtle factor is the difference between coherent addition, horn loading and destructive interference (sources more than about 1/3 wl apart).
When you have a line array, above the bass end, the source as are for the most part too far apart to add coherently (and the whole reduced fall off vs distance is because of destructive interference) so if you double the number of boxes, you raise the acoustic output by about 3dB.
If you take a true point horn like Ivan mentioned and double the hf, mids etc, you raise the output 6dB, not 3dB.
As a result, if one had 4 hf drivers like a J he mentioned, it would take about 16 of the same drivers in an array to produce the same spl (more actually because the array losses much more energy to radiation to the sides, rear etc) and it would produce a train of arrivals in time instead of a single event..
Best,
Tom
Post by: Steve Bradbury on May 07, 2016, 04:54:58 PM
Quote
When we hit mute, we got a good number of clear reflections WAY out in time.
You can also tell how well a signal is "holding together" by the reflections.
If the reflections are clean, then the signal starting out is "together". If they are muddy, then the signal is not arriving at the reflection at the same time.
Are there any academic studies (AES type papers) that explain this phenomenon? I have not seen any information regarding the use of reflections to determine the performance of the direct sound performance of a loudspeaker.
Instinctively, I would have thought, if nothing else, measuring the reflected sound would make it difficult to replicate measurements, thus rendering any empirical evidence somewhat suspect. It must also be a pain setting up sufficiently large and rigid surfaces to conduct the tests.
I'm quite curious to know how measuring the reflected sound yields more information than measuring the direct sound.
Post by: Ivan Beaver on May 07, 2016, 06:25:40 PM
This has been "known" in the Hi-fi world for years.
Are there any academic studies (AES type papers) that explain this phenomenon? I have not seen any information regarding the use of reflections to determine the performance of the direct sound performance of a loudspeaker.
Instinctively, I would have thought, if nothing else, measuring the reflected sound would make it difficult to replicate measurements, thus rendering any empirical evidence somewhat suspect. It must also be a pain setting up sufficiently large and rigid surfaces to conduct the tests.
I'm quite curious to know how measuring the reflected sound yields more information than measuring the direct sound.
What you do is go into another room and listen. You can hear the systems that are "holding together" better-because it is clearer in the other room.
Last fall I had an interesting opportunity.
It was a city wide festival in which the shut the city down and put fences up. There were 22 stages total. Some were in a park-others in clubs/small venues and others setup in city streets/parking lots etc.
On my stage we used 1 top per side. All the others used line arrays (multiple tops having mutliple arrivals).
We got complements during all 3 days about having the clearest sounding stage.
In many cases the same bands played on 3 or 4 different stages over the course of the event.
So you could compare the same band on different systems. THAT was really interesting :)
What I found interesting was walking through the alleys and streets to listen to the other stages.
You could EASILY hear differences when you were around the corner or on a different street than the stage you were hearing. Probably why we got so many compliments.
With the multiple arrivals, you could hear the music, but it sounded real distant and smeared.
On our stage, you could actually enjoy the music as it bounced around between the buildings.
Yes the HF got diminished but it was all "still there" and clear.
I am not aware of any papers on this, but I don't follow all the papers being written.
I doubt measuring the reflected sound will provide more information than the direct sound. At least useful information-since so much would depend on the type of reflection, how much direct is mixed in with it and so forth.
Post by: Joe Pieternella on May 07, 2016, 07:38:22 PM
I used to practice mixing on some widebands I took out of an old tv. They sounded awfull up close but every single time I left the room and listened from somewhere else the sound was so coherent (I didn't even know that word back then) especially noticable on voices. Often times better than in the room itself (room too small, wallpaper over concrete walls and sitting next to a Window, I learnt a lot from this).
I am wondering how much proper crossover design, time alignment and dispersion control in regular 2/3-way boxes affects this behaviour. Assuming single top per side systems here.
Post by: Ivan Beaver on May 07, 2016, 09:33:59 PM
When you have drivers that are separated in space, you can only get a "proper alignment" at one location.
I am wondering how much proper crossover design, time alignment and dispersion control in regular 2/3-way boxes affects this behaviour. Assuming single top per side systems here.
So the term "proper" can mean different things to different people.
Of course it depends on how far they are apart-the particular freq-the dispersion of the individual drivers and so forth.
When the drivers are separated, the polar patterns will start to "wander" due to these aspects.
Post by: Scott Holtzman on May 08, 2016, 06:40:55 AM
Here is the DIFFERENCE many people don't get.
That was a great explanation and I learned even more. However I must be point out I was saying that I don't understand the "public" reaction to line arrays. Be it musicians, patrons, parishioners et al the reaction is on this visceral emotional level i don't get. I have heard fellow lound level practitioners go on and on about how good something sounded and it could not have performed anywhere near their remembrance.
My comment about thinking about your designs is it would be wrong to call them a "closely coupled" array. As you mentioned you have full control over the interaction of the drivers and hence can optimize. To me, an educated consumer that's an advantage. How to market against this emotional attachment is why I connected these two statements.
You have reams of measured data and innumerable reference install as evidence that your approach wins on both economic and performance metrics. It should not be a hard sell.
Post by: Ivan Beaver on May 08, 2016, 08:45:09 AM
However I must be point out I was saying that I don't understand the "public" reaction to line arrays. Be it musicians, patrons, parishioners et al the reaction is on this visceral emotional level i don't get.To be honest-I think it is because it is sexy looking.
The girls want it and the guys wish they had it.
But that does not make it good or useful for the end result.
Post by: eric lenasbunt on May 08, 2016, 08:52:59 AM
To be honest-I think it is because it is sexy looking.
The girls want it and the guys wish they had it.
But that does not make it good or useful for the end result.
It is in large part that, because it looks awesome.
I have a trap system and a compact line array and the line array gets oohs and ahhhs while we are setting it up, the trap system gets "does that have to be there?"
We try to use the right system for the job, but people ALWAYS want the line array when aware of the option. As a provider unless it is a serious detriment to the event I am not going to argue with the customer to provide a smaller, cheaper system.
It's like lift kits and Raptor editions of pickups, doesn't make it a better tool, but I want to buy those, not the dually Ram that I really need. People like shiny and sexy, myself included.
Post by: Ivan Beaver on May 08, 2016, 09:11:45 AM
Be it musicians, patrons, parishioners et al the reaction is on this visceral emotional level i don't get.Something else to consider is that all the advertisement is for line arrays.
WHY? Because you get to sell more boxes and make more money for the same job.
The raw loudspeaker manufacturers also LOVE the line array fad. It enables them to sell more products to the cabinet builders.
But in terms of sonic quality LESS is more. The fewer number of sources you have-the better it is going to sound. NO question.
Awhile back I was filling out a questionnaire for a free subscription for one of the industry magazines.
One of the questions was "In the next 6 months do you plan on purchasing" A-Large format line array, B-Medium format line array, C-Small format line array, D-OTHER loudspeaker"
SO they break the line arrays down into 3 categories, but lump ALL OTHER loudspeakers (PA, paging-monitors-ceiling etc) into a single line?
WHY? Because they are trying to figure out how they should target the manufacturers for ads.
It is being shoved down the throats.
But not everybody cares about what it looks like. There ARE those that are more concerned with the actual performance.
Just look at all the Churches that have line arrays and the video screens are blocked? I am sure the video guys would much prefer something that doesn't look like a banana hanging in front of the screens.
Then there are many cases where a line array simply won't fit.
And other times there are weight limits on the structures that hold up cabinets. Something smaller and lighter will be better.
But if the visual is all that matters, then maybe a bunch of dummy cabinets is the way to go.
I will admit to "back in the day", taking out dummy PA cabinets just to give the promoter "the cabinet count" he was looking for. EVEN THOUGH I had done the same venue-same type of music many times before just fine.
But hey-he paid for it and did not know.
Post by: John L Nobile on May 08, 2016, 10:12:46 AM
I propose that people also hear with their eyes. Dummy guitar cabs, blinged out mics, flashy lighting etc. Sound is only one part of a concert. While it's at the top of our list, it's probably further down the chain for others.
And good sound is subjective and everyone's an expert. How many times have you been subjected to bad sound, buried vocals only to hear people comment on how great it sounded? I've mentioned to some of them that I couldn't hear the vox. Some said, you're right but I still liked it.
Sometimes I just feel like banging my head on a sharp object.
Post by: Jeff Lelko on May 08, 2016, 10:19:11 AM
They've already done it, sorta. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOEonMFBz7s
I'm actually very interested in this system for all the reasons mentioned, but that's another thread for another day!
Post by: eric lenasbunt on May 08, 2016, 10:20:08 AM
And good sound is subjective and everyone's an expert. How many times have you been subjected to bad sound, buried vocals only to hear people comment on how great it sounded? I've mentioned to some of them that I couldn't hear the vox.
I had this exact thing happen at one of my regular venues recently. I thought the BE mix was terrible but the patrons kept walking by giving thumbs up and "great sound" at intermission. I guess they liked it. I personally thought it was difficult to listen to, but I didn't buy a ticket, so who cares what I think...
Post by: John L Nobile on May 08, 2016, 10:32:19 AM
Now they'll only see an SH96HO a side and the 2 DBH218's will be under the stage and won't be visible.
I've lost big time on the visual. I know that it will sound better but people have much better memory for visuals. They won't remember what the other system sounded like.
Post by: Lee Douglas on May 08, 2016, 10:54:00 AM
... I am sure the video guys would much prefer something that doesn't look like a banana hanging in front of the screens.
Great. Now I really want a yellow line array!
How about a little line array 101? My understanding is that, given enough boxes, they can be great for horizontal pattern control and vertical shading. Obviously four boxes a side on a single amp isn't going to get you there. So when is a line array the right tool for the job?
Post by: Tim McCulloch on May 08, 2016, 11:06:28 AM
I had this exact thing happen at one of my regular venues recently. I thought the BE mix was terrible but the patrons kept walking by giving thumbs up and "great sound" at intermission. I guess they liked it. I personally thought it was difficult to listen to, but I didn't buy a ticket, so who cares what I think...
Not so much related to the system but the punters - if they're having a good time they'll overlook a surprising number of things but some *are* more sophisticated than others, like your thumbs up folks. They hear the difference between an awful mix and a decent and can separate that from the system itself.
As a system guy one of the best compliments I can get is "it sounds the same everywhere I listen."
While I understand Ivan's little rants about line arrays, it's important to keep things in perspective. Disclaimer: my last 20 years have been on "larger than Lounge" systems and venues but the concept, once beyond a single sound source, remains the same.
Most of the folks here weren't around to see and hear the Ye Olde Dayz® of live sound (hint - the PSW History of Concert Sound forum) , but the first "packaged" woofer-and-horn systems were considered a step up in deployment and (possibly) sound quality. Making more sound meant putting out more boxes. Transducer designs advanced for more output and power handling (now >400 Watts!) and the various sound companies built their own PA boxes that were deployed as "use more". The loudspeaker industry noticed and designed purpose-built high output touring/portable PA. Clair had the S4, ShowCo was on its way to the Prism system, EAW was selling KF850 by the ton. But all of them required multiple drivers in multiple boxes to cover the audience geometry, and aligning them (such as could be done) was a long and complicated process. First the RTA, and later SIMM and similar products contributed to better deployment of loudspeakers and the adjustments to their drive signals that improved intelligibility.
One needs to only look a photo of an arena-sized Prism system to see how much weight and size was reduced by line arrays, along with setup and take down time. And for all of the physics behind Ivan's criticism, properly deployed line arrays provided a better audience experience than the hanging mountains of trap boxes. It's been that way for almost 20 years now and what Tom Danley does is the current version of "the next thing". In the touring and portable market, whether or not it's the next *big* thing remains to be seen, but getting more & better sound in fewer trucks with a smaller crew will get artist and tour manager's attention... IF Danley can swing BE acceptance... and hence the need for a full demo rig.
I'd love to see & hear a Danley touring rig out on the road with a Band We've Heard Of®. That's a major capital commitment for a manufacturer to make on a market that buys comparatively little equipment but it's necessary to be a player in the market.
Post by: Tim McCulloch on May 08, 2016, 11:16:39 AM
Great. Now I really want a yellow line array!
How about a little line array 101? My understanding is that, given enough boxes, they can be great for horizontal pattern control and vertical shading. Obviously four boxes a side on a single amp isn't going to get you there. So when is a line array the right tool for the job?
Amplitude shading? Like driving segments of the array at different levels? Bob McCarthy talks about this a bunch (hint, check his blog).
Horizontal control is engineered into the box and whatever time-based manipulations the processing can achieve. There is a lot of low/low mids *behind* line arrays because of the way the box is designed - the LF at each end of the box. You build a little dipole array (like subs left & right) and get a power alley that is 90° to axis of the transducers. On axis it sounds very good but as you move off axis the tonality can change. When you reach the horizontal "cut off" point you'll find that not all line arrays have the same point for all the pass bands.
Post by: Steve Bradbury on May 08, 2016, 11:36:02 AM
Quote
This has been "known" in the Hi-fi world for years.
In the same way that perhaps colouring the edge of the baffle with a green felt pen might help too, or the use of directional, oxygen free, mains cables.
Being well known in the Hi-fi world just about covers everything.
Quote
I doubt measuring the reflected sound will provide more information than the direct sound. At least useful information-since so much would depend on the type of reflection, how much direct is mixed in with it and so forth.If this comment is correct then what you said before, that you can tell how a signal is holding together by the reflection, and so forth, makes no sense.
The sound from reflections is more likely to provide information about the surrounding environment than the actual sound source.
Basing your judgement of the quality of how it sounds outside the intended coverage area is pointless. The only time it becomes important is when spill is a problem, when less is better. It would be great if you could electronically steer where the sound goes.
Thanks for the additional anecdotal musings, but I’m not sure of their relevance. I live 12 miles from the venue of a festival known as V. If I am in the garden or walking the dog I can hear the PA not clearly, but it is 63,000 feet further away than the example you mentioned previously. The local council runs a music festival that is 1.5 miles from where I live we can hear that OK as we can the announcements made over the PA when the local school about 1000 feet away holds its summer fair. I don’t feel I can draw any conclusion of the relative merits or faults of any of these systems based on the sound in my garden.
Quote
When you have drivers that are separated in space, you can only get a "proper alignment" at one location.
If by proper you mean the signals arrive in phase and there is maximum summation, then your statement is wrong. Consider two sources separated by any distance you wish. Draw a line between the two sources and then bisect that line. The bisecting line can be extended to infinity and all points along it will be equal distance from the two sources. Assuming that the sources are radiating in phase the signals will sum constructively at all points along the line. In 3D space, rotate the bisecting line and you now have a disc where all points on the disc are equidistant from the sources. The frequency is irrelevant.
Quote
When the drivers are separated, the polar patterns will start to "wander" due to these aspects.
Can you explain what you mean by wander and aspects? Most loudspeakers and systems I have measured seem to have consistent polar patterns, whether good or bad, unless something is either physically or electronically altered.
Post by: Ivan Beaver on May 08, 2016, 11:56:52 AM
I'm actually very interested in this system for all the reasons mentioned, but that's another thread for another day!The whole thought process behind the Exodus was to give a line array "look" for those that just HAD to have it. While still maintaining everything Danley is about (a single source of sound and pattern control down low).
Post by: Ivan Beaver on May 08, 2016, 12:11:00 PM
Great. Now I really want a yellow line array!Let's assume a "perfect" line array.
How about a little line array 101? My understanding is that, given enough boxes, they can be great for horizontal pattern control and vertical shading. Obviously four boxes a side on a single amp isn't going to get you there. So when is a line array the right tool for the job?
In order for the "line array effect" to happen, the length has to be long relative to the wavelength.
This is measured in feet/meters and NOT the number of boxes.
If the line needs to be 15' long, then it takes however many boxes to be that tall. And remember that each box acts as its own independent source of sound-interfering with the other boxes.
The whole CONCEPT of line arrays is interference, NOT addition.
One of the things that happens as you start to add boxes is the pattern starts to get real strong in the middle of the line.
This causes the horizontal to get really loud on that plane. If you are above or below that plane off axis, it will sound TOTALLY different.
This was evidenced recently in a VERY high profile job that was awarded to Danley that will come "online" around this time next year.
The original design was many large lines of "accepted on every rider" large format line array.
The job is a kinda large stadium (75,000) and the line arrays were distributed around the seating.
The models by the original design firm showed that there were HUGE horizontal thin paths of sound which were interfering with seats well outside of the intended coverage of the arrays.
If all you are concerned with is the on axis response, then fine-but there are MANY other areas that SHOULD be considered as well.
The job was awarded to Danley because the models (different types were used, using both systems in each model) showed better coverage, better intelligibility, and when listening to the auralizations you could hear the difference.
Post by: Tom Danley on May 08, 2016, 12:45:16 PM
Not so much related to the system but the punters - if they're having a good time they'll overlook a surprising number of things but some *are* more sophisticated than others, like your thumbs up folks. They hear the difference between an awful mix and a decent and can separate that from the system itself.
As a system guy one of the best compliments I can get is "it sounds the same everywhere I listen."
While I understand Ivan's little rants about line arrays, it's important to keep things in perspective. Disclaimer: my last 20 years have been on "larger than Lounge" systems and venues but the concept, once beyond a single sound source, remains the same.
Most of the folks here weren't around to see and hear the Ye Olde Dayz® of live sound (hint - the PSW History of Concert Sound forum) , but the first "packaged" woofer-and-horn systems were considered a step up in deployment and (possibly) sound quality. Making more sound meant putting out more boxes. Transducer designs advanced for more output and power handling (now >400 Watts!) and the various sound companies built their own PA boxes that were deployed as "use more". The loudspeaker industry noticed and designed purpose-built high output touring/portable PA. Clair had the S4, ShowCo was on its way to the Prism system, EAW was selling KF850 by the ton. But all of them required multiple drivers in multiple boxes to cover the audience geometry, and aligning them (such as could be done) was a long and complicated process. First the RTA, and later SIMM and similar products contributed to better deployment of loudspeakers and the adjustments to their drive signals that improved intelligibility.
One needs to only look a photo of an arena-sized Prism system to see how much weight and size was reduced by line arrays, along with setup and take down time. And for all of the physics behind Ivan's criticism, properly deployed line arrays provided a better audience experience than the hanging mountains of trap boxes. It's been that way for almost 20 years now and what Tom Danley does is the current version of "the next thing". In the touring and portable market, whether or not it's the next *big* thing remains to be seen, but getting more & better sound in fewer trucks with a smaller crew will get artist and tour manager's attention... IF Danley can swing BE acceptance... and hence the need for a full demo rig.
I'd love to see & hear a Danley touring rig out on the road with a Band We've Heard Of®. That's a major capital commitment for a manufacturer to make on a market that buys comparatively little equipment but it's necessary to be a player in the market.
Hi Tim
I hope no one got the impression that the checkerboard or wall of sound systems were better than the line array, heavens no. Back at Intersonics (I was able to slip in some loudspeaker work along with my real job) the Servodrive subs were on tour with some big bands and the sound company was so pleased they invited us to a show and got us a center skybox for U-2.
There were if I remember 74 S-4 type boxes per side (and 12 of our subs) so it was a thrill to hear. My world was pretty much below 100Hz and above 20KHz (the latter, acoustic levitation stuff) but I was stunned how few words one could understand and a little bit too thinking about the 12 horn loaded subs that shook the room at low frequencies and all it took above that.
For me, that night was a turning point mentally, after a Synaudcon class in the 90’s it dawned on me that the same interference issues that made the levitation systems work, were part of the reason the sound of one box could be great but a pile is not as good and it turned out the Hopkins Stryker equation common in the science driven end of installed sound was not yet applied into live sound thinking .
Not that it was simple to do, it took 17 years of build, measure, theorize and repeat to get where we are now at work.
We have had a couple meetings where we debated doing marketing too, I guess it’s partly what marketing represents to me is partly why we do so little. Reality is, if you want to buy say wood preservative, it turns out the brand most think of first, the most popular is near the bottom in performance and that is what good marketing does.
The down side is you can demonstrate side by side and then have replaced the sound systems in 4 of the 10 largest 100,000+ seat stadiums (I think more than any other single speaker company) with 2 more next season, supplied very large venues with high quality sound in Orlando and no one (well nearly) in live sound knows what you do or why.
We have a Monday morning meeting every week and I think It’s time to propose we figure out how to do exactly what you suggested. Most of the FOH guys I used to know have retired or worse but one of them is still active; I think will drop him a note.
Best,
Tom
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on May 08, 2016, 01:17:07 PM
There is no doubt, (or shouldn't be) that you can spank the current touring SOTA, but like a chicken-egg, conundrum they won't buy systems just to listen to them, so the buy-in involves putting out one or more free systems just to get exposure.
I recall trying to console my loudspeaker product manager when he realized he had zero chance of Peavey providing him with such a promotional budget, to just be on the same playing field. (Years after I left I notice some promotional PV systems out with small shows).
I think Danley is on a good path already, and it's just a matter of time before some big act plays a large stadium and their sound system gets embarrassed by the Danley house system. 8)
Keep up the good work.... Fixed install is the far larger market. Follow the real money.
JR
Post by: Keith Broughton on May 08, 2016, 01:39:51 PM
Good point Tom! The line array has made deployment of large sound systems much easier.
I hope no one got the impression that the checkerboard or wall of sound systems were better than the line array, heavens no.
Tom
When you have to be in and out in a day doing arenas or stadiums, the line array can be a life saver.
The problem is that they are now being requested for use in such small applications that a smaller, less expensive "point and shoot "box would do just as well or better.
The line array does NOT necessarily make a good sonic solution. A 3 box "line array"?...give me a break!
This is the "itis" part of the post title.
Just because a large array system might be the best logistical solution for large venue tours, a scaled down version isn't necessarily a good solution to a smaller situation.
Sure, the client may ask for one, just as they may ask for a Mecedes Benz, but they have to back up that request with the appropriate money and I don't see that in the smaller market. After all, if you run a sound BUSINESS, ROI is a factor you need to have in mind.
It's not reasonable to expect the supplier to spend lots more money on a "required" product if, as the user, you are not prepared to pay the extra rental cost.
As I see it, it's D and B spec on VRX money. ::)
Post by: eric lenasbunt on May 08, 2016, 01:44:37 PM
Let's assume a "perfect" line array.
In order for the "line array effect" to happen, the length has to be long relative to the wavelength.
This is measured in feet/meters and NOT the number of boxes.
If the line needs to be 15' long, then it takes however many boxes to be that tall. And remember that each box acts as its own independent source of sound-interfering with the other boxes.
The whole CONCEPT of line arrays is interference, NOT addition.
One of the things that happens as you start to add boxes is the pattern starts to get real strong in the middle of the line.
This causes the horizontal to get really loud on that plane. If you are above or below that plane off axis, it will sound TOTALLY different.
This was evidenced recently in a VERY high profile job that was awarded to Danley that will come "online" around this time next year.
The original design was many large lines of "accepted on every rider" large format line array.
The job is a kinda large stadium (75,000) and the line arrays were distributed around the seating.
The models by the original design firm showed that there were HUGE horizontal thin paths of sound which were interfering with seats well outside of the intended coverage of the arrays.
If all you are concerned with is the on axis response, then fine-but there are MANY other areas that SHOULD be considered as well.
The job was awarded to Danley because the models (different types were used, using both systems in each model) showed better coverage, better intelligibility, and when listening to the auralizations you could hear the difference.
I REALLY hope this is the project down here in the Florida sunshine I am hearing about. I can't tell you how amazing the rumors are sounding. If it's not supposed to be talked about I will gladly delete ;)
Post by: Ivan Beaver on May 08, 2016, 01:52:24 PM
Agreed.
As a system guy one of the best compliments I can get is "it sounds the same everywhere I listen."
While I understand Ivan's little rants about line arrays, it's important to keep things in perspective. Disclaimer: my last 20 years have been on "larger than Lounge" systems and venues but the concept, once beyond a single sound source, remains the same.
Most of the folks here weren't around to see and hear the Ye Olde Dayz® of live sound (hint - the PSW History of Concert Sound forum) , but the first "packaged" woofer-and-horn systems were considered a step up in deployment and (possibly) sound quality. Making more sound meant putting out more boxes. Transducer designs advanced for more output and power handling (now >400 Watts!) and the various sound companies built their own PA boxes that were deployed as "use more". The loudspeaker industry noticed and designed purpose-built high output touring/portable PA. Clair had the S4, ShowCo was on its way to the Prism system, EAW was selling KF850 by the ton. But all of them required multiple drivers in multiple boxes to cover the audience geometry, and aligning them (such as could be done) was a long and complicated process. First the RTA, and later SIMM and similar products contributed to better deployment of loudspeakers and the adjustments to their drive signals that improved intelligibility.
The line arrays area BIG step forward from the "pile them up" systems of the past.
At least the Prism system attempted to use multiple different types of boxes in the array to gain some usefull control. Everything else was just "more is better".
Here is my take on why line arrays took off.
Let's use a bit of history. When line arrays were starting (around the turn of the century), measurement systems and DSPs were becoming more common. Both were pretty rare before then.
Also the Internet and the sharing of information was coming around.
Also the driver industry was getting better adhesives for drivers.
So we had better drivers-better knowledge, better ways to measure and better ways to share information.
A little sideline. For what it is worth, Danleys first products designed via the internet.
I would measure-send data to Tom, he would design, send that to me, I would build, send measurements and back and forth we went until we arrived at a final product.
And Tom had NEVER heard it-yet the design was done. You could not do that years earlier.
So overall things were primed for better loudspeakers.
Also there was a lot more actual engineering that went into the line arrays. Previously it was mostly-"shove speakers in boxes and hope it worked" type of thing.
Now things were actually designed better.
But then marketing go a hold of some of the basic concepts and tended (still does) to "stretch" some of the ideas and sold them to the public.
Loudspeaker driver manufacturers jumped at the chance to greatly increase driver sales.
But it is important to understand what is really going on in the overall performance-NOT just on axis, but in every seat. This is one of the reasons it sounds different at different seats. The VERY thing that was originally "sold" (3dB/doubling) is the very thing that makes the response different at different seats. ESPECIALLY for short to medium length arrays-which is most of them being used.
So yes-we have come a long way. But we are not at the end.
Post by: Ivan Beaver on May 08, 2016, 01:55:19 PM
I REALLY hope this is the project down here in the Florida sunshine I am hearing about. I can't tell you how amazing the rumors are sounding. If it's not supposed to be talked about I will gladly delete ;)This particular one is not in FL, but there ARE a number of large projects in FL that will be going in very soon. Stadiums, arenas, and theme parks.
You are probably talking about one of those ;)
Post by: Ivan Beaver on May 08, 2016, 02:02:34 PM
In the same way that perhaps colouring the edge of the baffle with a green felt pen might help too, or the use of directional, oxygen free, mains cables.Yes the hi-fi world is full of BS, bu there is a lot of good knowledge there.
Being well known in the Hi-fi world just about covers everything.
If this comment is correct then what you said before, that you can tell how a signal is holding together by the reflection, and so forth, makes no sense.
The sound from reflections is more likely to provide information about the surrounding environment than the actual sound source.
Basing your judgement of the quality of how it sounds outside the intended coverage area is pointless. The only time it becomes important is when spill is a problem, when less is better. It would be great if you could electronically steer where the sound goes.
Thanks for the additional anecdotal musings, but I’m not sure of their relevance. I live 12 miles from the venue of a festival known as V. If I am in the garden or walking the dog I can hear the PA not clearly, but it is 63,000 feet further away than the example you mentioned previously. The local council runs a music festival that is 1.5 miles from where I live we can hear that OK as we can the announcements made over the PA when the local school about 1000 feet away holds its summer fair. I don’t feel I can draw any conclusion of the relative merits or faults of any of these systems based on the sound in my garden.
If by proper you mean the signals arrive in phase and there is maximum summation, then your statement is wrong. Consider two sources separated by any distance you wish. Draw a line between the two sources and then bisect that line. The bisecting line can be extended to infinity and all points along it will be equal distance from the two sources. Assuming that the sources are radiating in phase the signals will sum constructively at all points along the line. In 3D space, rotate the bisecting line and you now have a disc where all points on the disc are equidistant from the sources. The frequency is irrelevant.
Can you explain what you mean by wander and aspects? Most loudspeakers and systems I have measured seem to have consistent polar patterns, whether good or bad, unless something is either physically or electronically altered.
You can believe it or not, and judge whether it is important or not, but how well a signals sounds after it has been bounced around, IS an indicator of how well it started out. But not certainly not a "spec".
OK, it is not just one seat-but nowhere near most or many of the seats.
I would argue that most loudspeakers polar patterns are FAR from consistent.
You will not only see lobing and narrowing at different freq, but also around crossover you will see the pattern start to shift up or down instead of straight ahead.
Post by: Doug Fowler on May 08, 2016, 02:26:15 PM
I worked that band a number of times at festivals. When V-DOSC came along (and changed EVERYTHING), now BE is mixing on a PA on which you can actually hear minute EQ adjustments. Guess what? The mix went from "no prob" to "oh shit, this kinda sucks" overnight.
And that is not a unique story.
V-DOSC was a quantum leap and an industry game changer, right up there with DSP processing and digital consoles. And KF-850.
The first KF-760 concert was at the old Foxboro Stadium. I was there with the factory guys, and the local crew as well some sound company guys laughed their asses off at that skinny line of 16 boxes. Gunness did some stuff to it, Jamie Anderson tuned it, and not only was it plenty loud, only one BE touched the graphic EQ that day. And I mean real headliners, Aerosmith, The Cult, Green Day, Live, Marilyn Manson, etc. BTW it was relative dead silent behind the PA, eerily so. The LF section of 760 was horn loaded, and a line of 16 made a surprising amount of bass.
Ultimately 760 failed in the long term because the presets were not locked down, and we know what happens in that situation.
FWIW The Cult slayed the audience, but the Green Day kids didn't even realize it.
Post by: Joe Pieternella on May 08, 2016, 03:14:40 PM
Outdoor gig, mostly spoken word, background music, some tape acts and a small middle eastern band.
40 x 40 mtrs main coverage area.
Stage is one of those garden party-tents. Ground is made up of the street tiles we have in Holland(next year I'll at least bring some carpet).
He told us, he doesn't know a lot about sound. But he knew Line-arrays work great outdoors. So he figured he would get one.
A little constructive criticism and a post date call made him happy and got the next annual gig back we lost because we didn't have a L-A even though he said he never had it sound so good. Now this aint saying much, previous years they had a DJ that happened to own a mixer and mixed the band standing next to them on stage behind his speakers, no wedges.
Kicker is they didn't even leave enough space for the 18“/15“/2“ combo either side. Even though we asked for roughly a meter either side knowing you always seem to get less.
As a non profit organisation used to paying a local DJ, the first time was maybe even less than JRX money.
Post by: Keith Broughton on May 08, 2016, 04:00:42 PM
This particular one is not in FL, but there ARE a number of large projects in FL that will be going in very soon. Stadiums, arenas, and theme parks.Ivan...I'm looking for a reason to ride my bike this summer...(nudge, nudge) :D
You are probably talking about one of those ;)
Post by: Ivan Beaver on May 08, 2016, 05:07:00 PM
To add to all this, I recall a quite huge band in the 90s who always had a large 850 rig. The mix was good enough, for sure.Yeah-that is part of the problem with an accurate system.
I worked that band a number of times at festivals. When V-DOSC came along (and changed EVERYTHING), now BE is mixing on a PA on which you can actually hear minute EQ adjustments. Guess what? The mix went from "no prob" to "oh shit, this kinda sucks" overnight.
And that is not a unique story.
When the system is "messed up" (and that can be from alignment-to deployment-to distortion etc), it will tend to cover up a lot of mistakes or "bad things" on the incoming signal.
But with a more accurate system, you hear the "problems" with poor performances.
BUT-on the bright side-when you have good quality signals, it sounds REALLY REALLY good.
So accuracy is really a double edged sword.
I did a demo once for a large DJ venue.
The problem they said was that the national act DJs would love it. HOWEVER, the local DJ (who played there and used the cheapest files he could download and sounded like crap) would sound bad.
The idea to get him to use better files just seemed "ridiculous". They wanted a system that would cover up his bad files and just be "ok" for the nationals.
Ya just never know----------
Post by: eric lenasbunt on May 08, 2016, 06:11:51 PM
This particular one is not in FL, but there ARE a number of large projects in FL that will be going in very soon. Stadiums, arenas, and theme parks.Theme park is what I'm excited about. Heard Jerichos and "world's largest surround sound" in the same sentence
You are probably talking about one of those ;)
Post by: Steve Bradbury on May 08, 2016, 06:17:57 PM
Quote
The whole CONCEPT of line arrays is interference, NOT addition.
Without addition you don’t get interference so really you should replace the NOT with AND. The whole CONCEPT of line arrays is summing or the addition of multiple sources.
In an attempt to prevent people who don’t understand these things simply replying to tell me that I obviously don’t understand these things, I’ll explain, and then they can tell me where I have gone wrong.
To keep things simple, consider two sources and set them to be radiating in phase and with equal amplitude A. I’ve positioned these at a distance + and – d from the origin, on the z axis. Now consider a point at some distance r from the origin and above the xy plane.
(http://i66.tinypic.com/k1wbux.jpg)
The pressure at r caused by the source at +d is
(http://i68.tinypic.com/339hwye.jpg)
r- is simply the distance from the source +d to r and as shown calculated by Pythagoras.
(http://i67.tinypic.com/e19d1y.jpg)
The pressure at r due to the source at -d is
(http://i66.tinypic.com/24c7582.jpg)
Again, r+ is the distance from the second source to r.
The total pressure at r is SUM of the two individual sources, you ADD them together as in addition.
(http://i68.tinypic.com/sf9vdt.jpg)
Where r is much greater than d it can be shown that the path length difference can be simplified and written in terms of r and the sine of the angle θ (This is just mathematics so I’ll skip how it is derived)
(http://i63.tinypic.com/24cxont.jpg)
If we substitute this into the pressure equation above, we get a pressure
(http://i67.tinypic.com/24n37z9.jpg)
In the far field, the dsinθ/r in the denominator will be small and can be ignored. The above can therefore be approximately reduced without too much compromise to
(http://i67.tinypic.com/2i1z6nt.jpg)
K is the wavenumber, so as the wavelength increases and becomes large relative to K the trigonometric value tends to 1 and the pressure is 2A/r. Also where θ is zero the amplitude is a maximum, again 2A/r.
This equation also shows us that the maximum variation in pressure amplitude is when sin θ has a value of 1 (θ = PI/2). It also predicts that when both θ and Kd = PI/2 the pressure is equal to zero.
By varying the values of both Kd and θ it is possible to plot polar diagrams.
And by taking the log of any pressure relative to the maximum pressure you can plot SPL. In dB relative to the on axis SPL.
Interestingly, and a subject that came up in another thread about the half space effect didn’t work, the above predicts the results measured. If you start off with a single source positioned a distance d above a ridged boundary (say the ground) Using a technique called method of images, the results of the problem can be calculated by removing the boundary and substituting an image source. The problem then becomes exactly the same as the one above. As shown, any position on the z = 0 plain is calculated using θ = 0 which gives a maximum, irrespective of how high the source is above the ground, which agrees with the measurements that were given in the thread.
For a line source, you derive an equation for a very small element of the line and then calculate the sum along the length of the line by intergrating.
Quote
One of the things that happens as you start to add boxes is the pattern starts to get real strong in the middle of the line.
This causes the horizontal to get really loud on that plane. If you are above or below that plane off axis, it will sound TOTALLY different.
That is the whole point of using a line array. The aim is to increase directivity. It is supposed to be loud on axis but be quieter off axis. The advantage of keeping the elements of the array separate both physically and electrically (each has its own amp/dsp) is that it makes it possible to vary the directivity of the array.
Quote
For me, that night was a turning point mentally, after a Synaudcon class in the 90’s it dawned on me that the same interference issues that made the levitation systems work, were part of the reason the sound of one box could be great but a pile is not as good and it turned out the Hopkins Stryker equation common in the science driven end of installed sound was not yet applied into live sound thinking .
I’m not sure if there is more than one Hopkins Stryker equation, but the one I have come across with regards to acoustics is used to calculate the combined sound pressure due to the direct and reverberant sound. It has the basic form
(http://i63.tinypic.com/2hs97w3.jpg)
Where the first term in the brackets represents the direct sound and the second term the reverberant sound. If you look up the actual equation there will be a couple of modifiers included.
I’m not sure how this pertains to this thread or acoustic levitation. If there are any papers explaining how this is relevant I would be quite interested.
Quote
I would argue that most loudspeakers polar patterns are FAR from consistent.
You will not only see lobing and narrowing at different freq, but also around crossover you will see the pattern start to shift up or down instead of straight ahead.
Sorry, I misunderstood what you meant by wandering, which is why I asked for an explanation. I thought that you meant the polar patterns were changing with time. By consistent I meant that however many times you measure a device or system the results are the same, they don’t wander about.
I agree the directivity of some devices can vary across the frequency range.
Post by: Ivan Beaver on May 08, 2016, 06:26:00 PM
Theme park is what I'm excited about. Heard Jerichos and "world's largest surround sound" in the same sentenceI think it comes "on line" later this month.
There are also 12 BC218s there :) and some XD96s as surrounds.
Post by: Ivan Beaver on May 08, 2016, 06:30:33 PM
The "in phase" part, is the whole issue.
To keep things simple, consider two sources and set them to be radiating in phase
Unless the different radiating devices are within 1/4 wavelength, they will not be "in phase enough" to sum.
So the rest starts to fall apart once the devices are separated by that much.
When you have devices that are covering the same area-and separated by a distance, they can no longer be "in phase" at multiple locations due to the different arrival distances/times
Post by: John Chiara on May 08, 2016, 06:34:34 PM
Post by: eric lenasbunt on May 08, 2016, 06:47:55 PM
Be careful what you wish for. I've been out of the trenches for a while (this whole century), but large touring sound for years was a "pay to play" promotional loss leader. Not unlike how the microphones and guitars used on stage by popular musicians lead to many thousands of consumer imitators, the big dog sound systems are a tough market to crack, and established players will try to defend their turf.
There is no doubt, (or shouldn't be) that you can spank the current touring SOTA, but like a chicken-egg, conundrum they won't buy systems just to listen to them, so the buy-in involves putting out one or more free systems just to get exposure.
I recall trying to console my loudspeaker product manager when he realized he had zero chance of Peavey providing him with such a promotional budget, to just be on the same playing field. (Years after I left I notice some promotional PV systems out with small shows).
I think Danley is on a good path already, and it's just a matter of time before some big act plays a large stadium and their sound system gets embarrassed by the Danley house system. 8)
Keep up the good work.... Fixed install is the far larger market. Follow the real money.
JR
The problem is that until Danley gets some rider acceptability (aka big touring acts) then that severely limits their influence in the install market. For example my local PAC doesn't care in any way shape or form if Danley offers the best if their touring acts won't use it or will still want to bring in a line array. They are basically looking at D&B and Anya gear because it would be pretty well universally acceptable.
Maybe that is fine and this just isn't their clientele. After all, the church sound market is huge and a lot of that crowd is more open to a demo and real conversation in my experience.
Post by: Peter Morris on May 08, 2016, 07:00:07 PM
To add to all this, I recall a quite huge band in the 90s who always had a large 850 rig. The mix was good enough, for sure.
Looks like Danley and Pure Groove are bringing the 850 back ... and the phase cancelation ... and a system where half the sound energy is waisted, playing up into the clouds and annoying the neighbours.
Post by: Caleb Dueck on May 08, 2016, 07:00:52 PM
I still remember one client, great church, very honest. They admitted that a line array sounded "good enough", like many concerts they had attended, and had the visual form factor they had to have.
If fully horn loaded, coaxial point source were what clients were asking for, and line arrays were the harder/riskier sell..... This thread may have had a different title!
Post by: Ivan Beaver on May 08, 2016, 07:12:08 PM
Without addition you don’t get interference so really you should replace the NOT with AND. The whole CONCEPT of line arrays is summing or the addition of multiple sources.Yes, you do get some small addition, along with VERY DEEP cancellations.
They cannot sum well (across a wide freq range) due to physical spacing of the drivers.
This causes multiple arrivals, which is typical combfiltering.
This is EASILY seen by looking at an impulse response or ETC of a line array.
Instead of a single arrival in time (like drivers in phase) you get a plateau of arrivals.
The longer the line-the wider the plateau.
What this sounds like is a smearing of detail, lack of impact, dull sound and so forth.
Just like combfiltering-which it is.
But-like classic combfiltering, you really don't notice it-UNTIL you listen to something that doesn't have it. Then the sound comes alive and you easily hear the difference.
NO amount of eq is going to fix that-but many first reach for an eq trying to "make it" sound proper.
But you CANNOT fix time issues with eq.
Post by: Ivan Beaver on May 08, 2016, 07:25:44 PM
Looks like Danley and Pure Grove are bring the 850 back ... and the phase cancelation.There is a bit of difference between that setup and a 2x2 typical 3 way setup.
Since the Sh46 is a single source of sound, you have one arrival. With a typical 2 or 3 way setup you have multiple arrivals.
So yes when you vertically stack 2 SH46s (or any other array-able Danley product) you do get 2 arrivals.
But this is still much better than having a lot more arrivals as you would normally have. Since you have multiple products producing multiple arrivals, the total amount of interference is much greater than with 2 arrivals.
Is it as good as one of the higher output products? No.
I took some videos at the particular festival you posted. The main stage was a 18 tall per side "accepted on every rider" system. And NOT done by a small beginner company.
Granted the musical styles were very different, but so was the sonic difference.
Not only was the 4 per side a good bit louder, the sonic quality difference was HUGE. And not in a good way for the main stage.
I heard a number of people talking about how much better the smaller stage was.
Of course Danley (nor any other company) can control what people do with the systems.
You can find lots of messed up line arrays. But at least it had the right badge on it :) And that is all that seems to matter to some people--------- :( :( :(
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on May 08, 2016, 07:34:38 PM
The problem is that until Danley gets some rider acceptability (aka big touring acts) then that severely limits their influence in the install market.? Perhaps we're thinking about different install markets?
Quote
For example my local PAC doesn't care in any way shape or form if Danley offers the best if their touring acts won't use it or will still want to bring in a line array. They are basically looking at D&B and Anya gear because it would be pretty well universally acceptable.I already addressed this. It costs lots of promotional money to even be considered for touring. The classic chicken and egg, "I never heard of Danley, who is using them on tour now?"
Quote
Maybe that is fine and this just isn't their clientele. After all, the church sound market is huge and a lot of that crowd is more open to a demo and real conversation in my experience.Everybody wants to be up on stage, but there are a lot more speakers in the world, not up on stage. Lots of low hanging fruit to harvest with less effort and without all the (cool kids) marketing drama.
JR
Post by: Peter Morris on May 08, 2016, 07:47:09 PM
There is a bit of difference between that setup and a 2x2 typical 3 way setup.
Since the Sh46 is a single source of sound, you have one arrival. With a typical 2 or 3 way setup you have multiple arrivals.
So yes when you vertically stack 2 SH46s (or any other array-able Danley product) you do get 2 arrivals.
But this is still much better than having a lot more arrivals as you would normally have. Since you have multiple products producing multiple arrivals, the total amount of interference is much greater than with 2 arrivals.
Is it as good as one of the higher output products? No.
I took some videos at the particular festival you posted. The main stage was a 18 tall per side "accepted on every rider" system. And NOT done by a small beginner company.
Granted the musical styles were very different, but so was the sonic difference.
Not only was the 4 per side a good bit louder, the sonic quality difference was HUGE. And not in a good way for the main stage.
I heard a number of people talking about how much better the smaller stage was.
Of course Danley (nor any other company) can control what people do with the systems.
You can find lots of messed up line arrays. But at least it had the right badge on it :) And that is all that seems to matter to some people--------- :( :( :(
Ivan my point is simple – as soon as you start to add flexibility and scalability into the equation everyone has issues. All the major speaker designers understand that and all the phase cancellation issues you are talking about.
Your point source concept is correct; you just need to make it a bit lighter, scalable and flexible without introducing too many problems … and I’ll buy some :)
Post by: Dave Pluke on May 08, 2016, 08:01:21 PM
What's the deal with line arrays as side fill monitors? (most recently seen on footage from New Orleans Jazz Fest)
How does a non-flown array help in this case? Especially when stacked over subs?
Or, is this just a case of "it's what we have in the truck"?
Dave
Post by: Steve Bradbury on May 08, 2016, 08:08:18 PM
Quote
The "in phase" part, is the whole issue.
Unless the different radiating devices are within 1/4 wavelength, they will not be "in phase enough" to sum.
So the rest starts to fall apart once the devices are separated by that much.
When you have devices that are covering the same area-and separated by a distance, they can no longer be "in phase" at multiple locations due to the different arrival distances/times
Given that you have not pointed out any mistakes in the theory of my post yet still try to say that I am wrong, without any detailed explanation as to why, leads me to sort of assume you probably don’t understand fully what I wrote in my post.
The spacing has nothing to do with the phase. If I connect two loudspeakers to the same amplifier such that the cones move in the same direction at the same time they can said to be in phase. Whether they are placed next to one another or several metres apart they are still in phase. If you move them several hundred metres apart they are still in phase. I stated that they are in phase and of the same amplitude simply to set the initial conditions, which is standard practice.
For the purpose of calculating the total pressure, the separation is taken care of by the term d in the equation. K the wavenumber takes care of the wavelength and θ the angle off axis. Everything is in there.
Just for completeness, it is possible to calculate the combined pressure even if the two sources are not in phase. The maths would be slightly more complex, but is should be reasonably obvious from the equations I posted how you would go about it.
To reiterate and simplify things:
You stated “The whole CONCEPT of line arrays is interference, NOT addition.”
Your statement is wrong. Interference is caused by addition; it is not separate or different.
1 add 1 = 2
1 add -1 = 0
They are both additions. The concept and rules of how you calculate them are the same even if the result is different. My previous post showed how the total pressure from two simple sources can be derived from adding them together.
Your sig states physics not fads, so if you still disagree with me just show the physics which demonstrates that the total pressure at any point isn’t the sum, or addition, of the pressures of the individual sources which combine at that point.
Post by: Ivan Beaver on May 08, 2016, 08:14:48 PM
Everybody wants to be up on stage, but there are a lot more speakers in the world, not up on stage. Lots of low hanging fruit to harvest with less effort and without all the (cool kids) marketing drama.Yeah-the "tour" market is the sexy market.
JR
But-as you say-there is a MUCH LARGER market that is not the tour market.
In fact, with most loudspeaker manufacturers, around 60-70% of their business is installs.
But-also as you say, the question comes up all the time "Who's on tour with Danley"?
The funny thing is, most of the people saying this would not purchase a tour type system.
But it does bring "credit" to a name.
Several of the large companies give away systems to larger providers JUST to get the name out there for exposure.
It all depends on what game you want to play and how you want to play it.
On a side note. There is a 1200 ish seat venue a couple of hours from us that is a total Danley rig (that they purchased) that is doing all types of music from Rob Zombie and Slayer to nine inch nails to Willie Nelson and jazz.
I was talking to the production manager last week and he said it was getting interesting.
They had gone from "Danley-never heard of it" to " Cool, I've heard a lot about it" or "Can't wait to mix on it".
Post by: Ivan Beaver on May 08, 2016, 08:19:52 PM
Given that you have not pointed out any mistakes in the theory of my post yet still try to say that I am wrong, without any detailed explanation as to why, leads me to sort of assume you probably don’t understand fully what I wrote in my post.No, I did not read or go through your whole post since the BEGINNING is wrong.
The spacing has nothing to do with the phase. If I connect two loudspeakers to the same amplifier such that the cones move in the same direction at the same time they can said to be in phase. Whether they are placed next to one another or several metres apart they are still in phase. If you move them several hundred metres apart they are still in phase.
I am sorry, but you are wrong about the phase. At SOME location they will be in phase.
But as SOON as one distance is further than the other from a source, the phase WILL change.
You can easily see this on ANY measurement system that shows phase.
Lock in on the phase-then move the source and you will see the relative phase change.
So 2 sources arriving at different times WILL be out of phase-relative to each other-There is no question about this.
Post by: Ivan Beaver on May 08, 2016, 08:25:51 PM
Ivan my point is simple – as soon as you start to add flexibility and scalability into the equation everyone has issues. All the major speaker designers understand that and all the phase cancellation issues you are talking about.You should use the correct speaker for the job.
Your point source concept is correct; you just need to make it a bit lighter, scalable and flexible without introducing too many problems … and I’ll buy some :)
As I said earlier-if you were buy say 3 systems, A J3-94, Sh96HO and Sm80 main full range cabinets. And then buy the same "scaleable" system that would scale up the the J3-94, ALL of the Danley products would take up less room on the truck, cost less, be faster to set up, weigh less, use fewer amps-require a smaller distro etc.
So now you don't need a "Scale-able system", you have a wide range of systems on the truck and come out ahead in every way-except (for now) rider acceptability.
For Subs just use TH118s, and take more or less for a particular show.
Post by: Peter Morris on May 08, 2016, 09:53:59 PM
You should use the correct speaker for the job.
As I said earlier-if you were buy say 3 systems, A J3-94, Sh96HO and Sm80 main full range cabinets. And then buy the same "scaleable" system that would scale up the the J3-94, ALL of the Danley products would take up less room on the truck, cost less, be faster to set up, weigh less, use fewer amps-require a smaller distro etc.
So now you don't need a "Scale-able system", you have a wide range of systems on the truck and come out ahead in every way-except (for now) rider acceptability.
For Subs just use TH118s, and take more or less for a particular show.
A couple of points … at 420lbs the J3 is TOO HEAVY for one box, and 220lbs for the SH94HO is pushing the friendship.
A line-array's coverage is not fixed at 90 x 40 like your suggestion and the weight of each box is much more manageable. I can interchange the wave guides on my line-array to achieve 75 or 100 degrees horizontally and more or less whatever I want / need vertically. There is of course a price for that flexibility.
.... despite its weight, the J3 94 does look good :)
Post by: Bob Kidd on May 08, 2016, 10:29:45 PM
O.K. - just to throw a curve into the current conversation;
What's the deal with line arrays as side fill monitors? (most recently seen on footage from New Orleans Jazz Fest)
How does a non-flown array help in this case? Especially when stacked over subs?
Or, is this just a case of "it's what we have in the truck"?
Dave
Have seen a lot of the 2 to 4 array box's directly attached over subs in my area lately. I do think it's more of the visual perception of the client that this is high end quality.
Post by: John L Nobile on May 08, 2016, 11:47:35 PM
A couple of points … the 420lbs the J3 weighs is TOO HEAVY for one box, and 220lbs for the SH94HO is pushing the friendship.
A line-array's coverage is not fixed at 90 x 40 like your suggestion and the weight of each box is much more manageable. I can interchange the wave guides on my line-array to achieve 75 or 100 degrees horizontally and more or less whatever I want / need vertically. There is of course a price for that flexibility.
.... despite its weight, the J3 94 does look good :)
Maybe too heavy to travel with but not for an install. I've seen 3 concerts in the same 5k seat arena with a house LA and I have yet to be impressed. I've sat there and thought that a Jericho for farfield, SH96HO's for near field and SM80s for fills would be an improvement.
I'm not even convinced about the weight. 2 of us would carry a 310 pound Hammond up and down stairs. 6 stage sections must weigh more than a Jericho and I've pushed a few up and down truck ramps with 3 other guys. And don't get me started on feeder cable trunks.
Production is heavy. But as long as there's no stairs involved, I'd rather push 1 - 400 lb speaker than 4-100 lb ones. And as a bonus, the amp racks may be smaller, lighter and cheaper.
Post by: Scott Holtzman on May 09, 2016, 01:56:50 AM
Yeah-the "tour" market is the sexy market.
But-as you say-there is a MUCH LARGER market that is not the tour market.
In fact, with most loudspeaker manufacturers, around 60-70% of their business is installs.
But-also as you say, the question comes up all the time "Who's on tour with Danley"?
The funny thing is, most of the people saying this would not purchase a tour type system.
But it does bring "credit" to a name.
Several of the large companies give away systems to larger providers JUST to get the name out there for exposure.
It all depends on what game you want to play and how you want to play it.
On a side note. There is a 1200 ish seat venue a couple of hours from us that is a total Danley rig (that they purchased) that is doing all types of music from Rob Zombie and Slayer to nine inch nails to Willie Nelson and jazz.
I was talking to the production manager last week and he said it was getting interesting.
They had gone from "Danley-never heard of it" to " Cool, I've heard a lot about it" or "Can't wait to mix on it".
On the top 10 tour list 70% of the tours are running Claire boxes. They don't have to advertise to sell to themselves!
Post by: Keith Broughton on May 09, 2016, 06:14:42 AM
There is of course a price for that flexibility.And that compromise is sonic.
Kind of ironic that the "improvement" in use is at the cost of sound quality....in a sound system! ::)
Post by: Ivan Beaver on May 09, 2016, 07:30:25 AM
A couple of points … at 420lbs the J3 is TOO HEAVY for one box, and 220lbs for the SH94HO is pushing the friendship.I find it constantly funny how people say that "420lbs" is to heavy-YET they push line array carts around that weigh MUCH MORE than that-and "somehow" a single box is to heavy???????
A line-array's coverage is not fixed at 90 x 40 like your suggestion and the weight of each box is much more manageable. I can interchange the wave guides on my line-array to achieve 75 or 100 degrees horizontally and more or less whatever I want / need vertically. There is of course a price for that flexibility.
.... despite its weight, the J3 94 does look good :)
And when you consider that it takes several carts to equal the output of that single box, now the single box is very small and light.
I am sure that touring setups are NOT carrying line arrays 1 box at a time. They are stacked up on a cart and you push the cart around.
And the same thing goes for the SH96HO. It is light when you consider what it replaces in the line array world.
Sorry-but you are NOT changing the pattern of your line arrays by swapping out the horns.
At least not over very much of the freq range.
It is only affecting the top couple of octaves.
And when you go to a narrower horn, that control goes UP in freq-for a given physical size.
So the "idea" is a good one, but it only partially works, and NOT down in the area where it needs to.
And the whole idea of changing the vertical pattern comes with a serious price in terms of coverage. Yes some areas may get a bit more of some freq, but others are missing other freq or getting way to much of other freq.
Post by: Keith Broughton on May 09, 2016, 07:41:17 AM
I find it constantly funny how people say that "420lbs" is to heavy-YET they push line array carts around that weigh MUCH MORE than that-and "somehow" a single box is to heavy???????A cart of 4 RCF TTL55A speakers would be around 700+ Lbs, so you are correct.
It is a bit of a misnomer that a J3, at 420 Lbs is "too heavy"
If I were buying a new system, it would not be line array.
Post by: Peter Morris on May 09, 2016, 08:30:48 AM
Maybe too heavy to travel with but not for an install. I've seen 3 concerts in the same 5k seat arena with a house LA and I have yet to be impressed. I've sat there and thought that a Jericho for farfield, SH96HO's for near field and SM80s for fills would be an improvement.
I'm not even convinced about the weight. 2 of us would carry a 310 pound Hammond up and down stairs. 6 stage sections must weigh more than a Jericho and I've pushed a few up and down truck ramps with 3 other guys. And don't get me started on feeder cable trunks.
Production is heavy. But as long as there's no stairs involved, I'd rather push 1 - 400 lb speaker than 4-100 lb ones. And as a bonus, the amp racks may be smaller, lighter and cheaper.
In my part of the world if I allowed 2 people to lift 300lbs and there was an injury, the Occupational Health and Safety people would want to put me in jail.
Sure 400lbs is easy to push across a concrete floor, that’s how we normally carry our Flex array or our old KF750s … on dollies with about 300 – 400lbs of speakers on them … but too often they need to be manually lifted. This Sunday for example they will be load through a kitchen and manually lifted onto this stage … and as you could imagine, there are no rigging points.
On a Sunday I have to pay about $65 per hour with a minimum call of 4 hours per person ... so work that out for safely lifting a 200Kg box where I'm limited to about 30Kg per person for OHS reasons... I would never get the gig.
FWIW it will be about 1000 people in theatre mode with a balcony
Post by: Peter Morris on May 09, 2016, 08:35:13 AM
And that compromise is sonic.
Kind of ironic that the "improvement" in use is at the cost of sound quality....in a sound system! ::)
Yes absolutely ... but I'm running a business not a speaker contest.
Post by: Peter Morris on May 09, 2016, 08:49:20 AM
I find it constantly funny how people say that "420lbs" is to heavy-YET they push line array carts around that weigh MUCH MORE than that-and "somehow" a single box is to heavy???????
And when you consider that it takes several carts to equal the output of that single box, now the single box is very small and light.
I am sure that touring setups are NOT carrying line arrays 1 box at a time. They are stacked up on a cart and you push the cart around.
And the same thing goes for the SH96HO. It is light when you consider what it replaces in the line array world.
Sorry-but you are NOT changing the pattern of your line arrays by swapping out the horns.
At least not over very much of the freq range.
It is only affecting the top couple of octaves.
And when you go to a narrower horn, that control goes UP in freq-for a given physical size.
So the "idea" is a good one, but it only partially works, and NOT down in the area where it needs to.
And the whole idea of changing the vertical pattern comes with a serious price in terms of coverage. Yes some areas may get a bit more of some freq, but others are missing other freq or getting way to much of other freq.
The horn assemble for the Flex covers from about 550Hz up, so yes it does cover quite a few octaves.
Even better than the Flex is Coda’s ViRAY, the whole horn and low mid assembly is changed – very clever.
... and Outlines Mini Compass https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_slXlFQ2eo
Post by: Keith Broughton on May 09, 2016, 09:06:46 AM
Then you probably don't need a J3! There are other cabs that are in the 150 Lb range and less for an application like your's.
FWIW it will be about 1000 people in theatre mode with a balcony
The point is, 6 or 8 of the above mentioned RCF line array cabs would come in at 1000 Lbs and a single J3 would be half that and sound better.
You would not hand bomb 8 line array cabs any more than you would hand bomb the J3s.
As for running a business, most certainly that is a fact that has to be considered.
Many businesses operate on a product quality compromise to realize a decent profit and most clients seem happy with that.
It's not until they hear, see or use (see iPad) something better that they can make a well informed decision.
It is, in the end and aside from personelle and price, sound that the client is paying for.
Post by: Ivan Beaver on May 09, 2016, 10:22:35 AM
Are you talking about POLARITY here?
The spacing has nothing to do with the phase. If I connect two loudspeakers to the same amplifier such that the cones move in the same direction at the same time they can said to be in phase. Whether they are placed next to one another or several metres apart they are still in phase. If you move them several hundred metres apart they are still in phase. I stated that they are in phase and of the same amplitude simply to set the initial conditions, which is standard practice.
That is VERY VERY Different than phase.
2 speakers can be "in polarity" and completely out of phase (causing deep cancellations) depending on their location relative to the listener position.
All you have to do to make them out of phase is to move one of them so that its path to the listener is 1/2 wavelength longer or shorter than the other one.
Of course at some freq they could still be in phase-but out of phase at other freq.
Post by: Brandon Wright on May 09, 2016, 10:44:04 AM
One very good BE that I have a good working relationship with is already burnt on the idea though because last summer someone provided him with 4 SH46s a side for a show where we would've used a 16 box hang of X-Line. It isn't Danley's fault that he didn't have "enough rig for the gig" but they sure got blamed for it. Three of the 8 compression drivers were toast before the show was over.
Post by: Mark Wilkinson on May 09, 2016, 10:55:34 AM
Given that you have not pointed out any mistakes in the theory of my post yet still try to say that I am wrong, without any detailed explanation as to why, leads me to sort of assume you probably don’t understand fully what I wrote in my post.
The spacing has nothing to do with the phase. If I connect two loudspeakers to the same amplifier such that the cones move in the same direction at the same time they can said to be in phase. Whether they are placed next to one another or several metres apart they are still in phase. If you move them several hundred metres apart they are still in phase. I stated that they are in phase and of the same amplitude simply to set the initial conditions, which is standard practice.
For the purpose of calculating the total pressure, the separation is taken care of by the term d in the equation. K the wavenumber takes care of the wavelength and θ the angle off axis. Everything is in there.
Just for completeness, it is possible to calculate the combined pressure even if the two sources are not in phase. The maths would be slightly more complex, but is should be reasonably obvious from the equations I posted how you would go about it.
To reiterate and simplify things:
You stated “The whole CONCEPT of line arrays is interference, NOT addition.”
Your statement is wrong. Interference is caused by addition; it is not separate or different.
1 add 1 = 2
1 add -1 = 0
They are both additions. The concept and rules of how you calculate them are the same even if the result is different. My previous post showed how the total pressure from two simple sources can be derived from adding them together.
Your sig states physics not fads, so if you still disagree with me just show the physics which demonstrates that the total pressure at any point isn’t the sum, or addition, of the pressures of the individual sources which combine at that point.
Hi Steve, here is where I think you are making a mistake, in this post and in your "math post" earlier...
...You are missing the importance of phase because you trivialize the relationship between r and d in your math post.
Yes, the ratio tends to 1 over distance.
But the ratio isn't 1; and even minute distance differences have a great impact on summing..... given the speed of sound, the magnitude of cycles per second, and the fact there are 360 degrees of phase in each cycle.
I mean, do the math... use 1000hz at 100ft, with any reasonable real world d ....or whatever freq and distance you choose...
See how much time offset is involved. See how many degrees rotation that means at given freq. Run the numbers for summation vs phase ...
Post by: Doug Fowler on May 09, 2016, 11:43:42 AM
Looks like Danley and Pure Groove are bringing the 850 back ... and the phase cancelation ... and a system where half the sound energy is waisted, playing up into the clouds and annoying the neighbours.
Having used that very configuration I can tell you it's far, far better than 2 over 2 850s. Yeah, it's a point and shoot so some HF goes over the audience but so what? It sounds fantastic, holds up at distance, and could be easily powered with precisely four amplifiers. And they weigh 118 pounds each.
That configuration sums very well. In fact, if it were "something less" than 60 degrees nominally in the vertical it would scale quite well.
Of course, no one reading this has ever seen a line array aimed into the air outdoors ;-)
edit: in fact, it could be powered with 2 large amplifiers if you chose to. I would probably do one box per channel for redundancy, though.
Post by: Ivan Beaver on May 09, 2016, 12:42:09 PM
The horn assemble for the Flex covers from about 550Hz up, so yes it does cover quite a few octaves.Of course there is a bit of a difference between the response going down to a particular point and the horn actually having control down that low------
As any horn gets narrower, it MUST get larger to have control down to the same freq. NO way around it.
Post by: Keith Broughton on May 09, 2016, 01:03:56 PM
NO way around it.Pesky Mother Nature ;D ;D
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on May 09, 2016, 01:13:35 PM
Pesky Mother Nature ;D ;DFather physics.... a strict law maker.
Mother nature is more flexible.
JR
Post by: Doug Fowler on May 09, 2016, 01:18:58 PM
The whole thought process behind the Exodus was to give a line array "look" for those that just HAD to have it. While still maintaining everything Danley is about (a single source of sound and pattern control down low).
But the 60 degree horizontal spec is a deal breaker for portable system use IMO. Side hang would be required for most applications :-(
Post by: Brandon Wright on May 09, 2016, 02:06:19 PM
But the 60 degree horizontal spec is a deal breaker for portable system use IMO. Side hang would be required for most applications :-(
Nor am I confident that the Exodus system is an adequate replacement for a 12 - 16 box hang of line array du jour that we use so often on portable stages. But I think that one J3-64 for the far field hanging over one j3-94 for the near field would be perfectly adequate and at over 8 foot long would certainly look the part.
Post by: Ivan Beaver on May 09, 2016, 02:38:13 PM
But the 60 degree horizontal spec is a deal breaker for portable system use IMO. Side hang would be required for most applications :-(The 60* is a "long throw" cabinet with a lot of "giddy up" above 300Hz.
The 90* box is the "short/medium throw" box and works for most applications.
Agreed that side hangs would be required for wrap around or really wide seating areas, as with other arrays.
Post by: Steve Bradbury on May 09, 2016, 06:03:20 PM
Thank you for your comments and actually taking the time to think about what I wrote.
I’ll try and explain why the equation I derived covers what everyone seems to think I am missing.
(http://i67.tinypic.com/2i1z6nt.jpg/)
The first part, 2A/r, is pretty boring and what you would expect. The amplitude is inversely proportional to the distance, i.e. double the distance and the amplitude halves. You have two sources so with maximum summation the amplitude doubles, hence the 2A.
The second part of the equation cos(Kd sin θ) takes care of the distance between the sources and the angle that you move off axis.
K is the wavenumber 2PI/wavelength. Kd is essentially the ratio of the spacing to the wavelength
I didn’t explain this before, because I assumed, it seems wrongly, that some of the people discussing this thread understood acoustics and therefore wavenumbers. I’m increasingly coming to believe they don’t
On axis, θ = 0, so sin θ = 0 and therefore Kd sin θ = 0.
Cos 0 =1 which means that the amplitude is always a maximum on the axis whatever the value of Kd. I think most people would expect this.
When the wavelength is very large compared to d, the value Kd becomes very small, tending to 0. So Kd sin θ again tends to zero and the cosine tends to 1.
This is what we find with measurements. Where the wavelength is large compared to the spacing between sources, the radiation tends to that of a single spherical source but with double the amplitude.
Before continuing it will simplify things by working in radians. A radian is the angle subtended by an arc, on the circumference of a circle, whose length is equal to the radius. There are 2 PI radians in a circle and PI/2 radians in 90 degrees.
I assume everyone knows that cos 90 is 0, so if the value of (Kd sin θ) = PI/2 the total pressure becomes 0.
If we set θ to 90 degrees or PI/2, sin θ becomes 1. This is the axis joining the two sources which are 2d apart. If we now consider the situation where the spacing between the two sources is wavelength/2, the wavelength in terms of d is 4d.
At this wavelength the wavenumber becomes 2PI/4d
Kd is then simply 2PId/4d or PI/2
We set sin θ = 1 therefore (Kd sin θ) = PI/2 which gives a total pressure of 0
The equation accurately predicts a null at 90 degrees when the spacing is one half wavelength
Now remember the equation I have just used is derived from the addition of two sound sources, which brings us back to where we started. Ivan Beaver stated that:
Quote
The whole CONCEPT of line arrays is interference, NOT addition.
To which I replied
Quote
Without addition you don’t get interference so really you should replace the NOT with AND. The whole CONCEPT of line arrays is summing or the addition of multiple sources.
I hope some of you are not too blinkered to see that both the maximum and minimum amplitude points, plus all others in-between can be predicted by ADDING the amplitudes from the individual sources. What is described in this thread as interference is a result of addition.
The calculations for a line array are more complex, but the whole point is that the sources sum constructively on axis but destructively off axis. Another example of where we add sources together to control directivity is cardioid subs. It is all still addition.
With regards phase and polarity, I’m not going there, it is a stinking pile of doggy do that everyone thinks they understand, but few do. However, the situation I have described is a hypothetical one (I mentioned speakers only to try and make the situation easier to understand). My hypothetical sources don’t have any plugs, cables or connections, so how can they have a polarity reversed or otherwise?
I could have said that they were radiating 6 degrees, 25 degrees or even 179.999 degrees out of phase. Instead I choose an angle of 0 degrees which can be described as in phase. The fact that I stated they were radiating in phase has sod all to do with polarity and altering the distance between them doesn't change their phase either.
Post by: Josh Millward on May 09, 2016, 06:59:41 PM
I hope some of you are not too blinkered to see that both the maximum and minimum amplitude points, plus all others in-between can be predicted by ADDING the amplitudes from the individual sources. What is described in this thread as interference is a result of addition.
This is the crux of the issue. You are talking about adding another source and calculating the interference patterns that are generated when you do that. The point that Ivan was trying to get at is that if you select a true point source loudspeaker with the proper geometry to cover the desired audience plane to begin with, guess what happens? You don't get any interference... ergo, there isn't anything to add because you are using ONE point in space to generate the signal.
I think pretty much everyone here is in complete agreement that if you place two sources some distance apart, their outputs will mix. There will be addition. There will be subtraction (which is also addition). Together they will create an interference pattern. How bad this interference pattern is will be dependent on the bandwidths being produced, the distance between the sources, and any directivity that those sources may have.
The calculations for a line array are more complex, but the whole point is that the sources sum constructively on axis but destructively off axis. Another example of where we add sources together to control directivity is cardioid subs. It is all still addition.
The goal of the line array is to sum the output of all the devices to create a cylindrical wave front instead of the spherical wave front that is typical of a horn loaded loudspeaker. In some line array designs this works better than others. Unfortunately this is nearly impossible to do perfectly in the real world with typical hardware. There are a lot of widgets that gadgets that have been used to attempt better ways at doing it, however it seems that you are typically always left with massive lobes off the ends and back side of most line array systems. This is absolutely undesirable behavior and wasted acoustic output. This is easily observed in most modeling programs that allow you to look at the balloon radiation patterns of the line array you are assembling.
With regards phase and polarity, I’m not going there, it is a stinking pile of doggy do that everyone thinks they understand, but few do. However, the situation I have described is a hypothetical one (I mentioned speakers only to try and make the situation easier to understand). My hypothetical sources don’t have any plugs, cables or connections, so how can they have a polarity reversed or otherwise?
What you described in the thread, some five pages ago, was specifically driver polarity and you were calling it phase. You specifically commented that the cones in both sources move in and out together. This is polarity. This is not phase. You do not need to discuss a plug, cable, or connector; you have obviated all that by specifically stating that the cones move in and out together. So it doesn't really matter if someone hooked up a couple things backwards, the end result is still the same.
What does matter is your observation point (you know, where we actually do our listening), which is some distance away from the sources. If you fix that point of observation, like you have fixed your sources in space, you will have a specific distance from that observation point to each of your sources. Here is the important part: Those distances are not the same. The consequence of this is that you will receive the audio from one source out of time with the other source and thus experience all the interference that was being discussed earlier. Again, the nature of the interference is going to depend on the distance of the sources to each other and to the observation point.
Now, to make matters way worse, as you change the location of your observation point, the interference patterns will change completely because the observation point's relationship to the two sources has changed. To make this even more worse, consider that your number of sources is not two, but perhaps more like 24... you know 8 large format line array boxes with three compression drivers in each, attempting to sum the output of those drivers into the cylindrical wave front. The result is not pretty. It is what you hear when you are outside listening to a line array loudspeaker system and the wind blows through and seems to blow the sound around. This does not happen with a true point source.
I hope this thought exercise demonstrates that by far, the most simple thing to do is to simply not have more than one source. This effort would result in no interference patterns to worry about.
There is a better mousetrap available. People just need to experience it.
I could have said that they were radiating 6 degrees, 25 degrees or even 179.999 degrees out of phase. Instead I choose an angle of 0 degrees which can be described as in phase. The fact that I stated they were radiating in phase has sod all to do with polarity and altering the distance between them doesn't change their phase either.
Remember, they may be radiating in phase, but where the rubber meets the road here is the point of observation. There are very specific situations that must be met to make sure that at the point of observation the two sources are still in phase with one another. If your distance between each source and the point of observation is not the same, this condition is NOT met and your pretty concepts of addition are dashed upon the rocks of reality and thus devolve into complex patterns of wasteful interference.
Post by: Tom Danley on May 09, 2016, 08:10:40 PM
First, John Roberts, you have been a source of sage advice for a long time, please don’t take my comments about marketing the wrong way, I should have been more reserved. Perhaps it would be good to talk more privately about what we should do.
Peter and Steve raised a number of issues regarding directivity, addition and weight.
Steve,
You seem to be focused on something which has a number of names, most correctly Vector addition where the magnitude and phase of two signals governs the sum and your right to point out that one can add two signals and get zero as a sum (the intention in sound cancelation systems and cardioid subs).
More intuitively, one can use industry parlance and say this is constructive interference (where they add to a larger value) AND destructive interference (where the sum is less than that) and it is destructive interference which gives a line array that magic reduced fall off vs distance AND also is why it takes more drivers and Watts to make the same amount of sound you would get if they weren’t partially canceling each other out.
You seem to like math so consider the formula on page 25 here;
http://www.mp.haw-hamburg.de/pers/Ihl/CompA/PDF/6_CompA_radiation_of_sound.pdf
Now, when the source to source spacing is small (about ¼ wl or less) the power on the surface of the sphere forms a circle (as seen as a polar plot on paper) as it radiates evenly in all directions and the total radiated power is the intensity integrated over the surface of the sphere. As soon as you move the sources apart more than about 1/3 wl, the acoustic power falls because with that spacing or larger, one is making an interference pattern which consists of Lobes and Nulls and clearly there is less total energy on the surface of the sphere (or area under the curve as a polar pattern).
Interference patterns and how sound behaves was of great interest back in the Space Flight hardware days, this is one of my earlier inventions exploiting that when I was paid to be more a transducer and electronics guy rather than designing loudspeaker systems (my love). If you’re going to Infocomm (and if no one breaks it playing with it at the shop) it will be there so stop by and try it and say Hi..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=669AcEBpdsY
I am a horn guy, there I said it, they are nearly always the best way to get the most out of a driver but they are limited bandwidth devices, my quest starting about 16 years ago now was to figure out how to make a wide band horn who’s radiation balloon was that of a single driver with pattern no wiggles or anything at crossover. As horns have a “high pass” function related to their ability to transform acoustic impedance, the “light went on” when i realized that the expansion rate on a CD horn varied and that while the driver end was a very rapid expansion, further down it was more like a mid range and then woofer’s expansion rate. The thought was to couple into a large CD horn where the expansion rate was appropriate for the frequency, hence the locations for the mid and hf drivers AND in order to all combine into one radiation, they ALL had to be less than ¼ wl apart where they interacted. This way multiple drivers can be used for mids and lows and if you stay within the patent, they will all add and by measure appear to be one source. Part of that also was adding an acoustic low pass filter in front of each cone driver which greatly reduces harmonic distortion.
Even the largest of them, you can play music softly and walk up, move your head around, even step inside the horn and you never hear any source of sound other than the one floating in front of you somewhere.
You had asked about Hopkins stryker. Back in the old days, that was an attempt to quantify what governed intelligibility when designing a sound system. An easy explanation is here;
http://www.acousticworx.com/sound%20system%20design%20hopkins%20stryker%20formula.html
Like it says the direct field (basically the direct sound carries the intelligibility / articulation part) can be increased by
Increasing the loud speaker Q (its directivity or the difference between what is going forward compared to all the sound going other directions).
Move the listener closer to the source (accomplishes essentially the same thing)
Increase the room absorption (reduce the sound that was radiated outside the pattern by absorption)
REDUCE THE NUMBER OF SOURCES!!
Aim the loudspeaker AT the listener (minimizing the energy radiated where there aren’t ears).
Now, take a real acoustic modeling software like EASE (not array aiming software), build yourself a large line array with real data (some mfr’s have EASE data) and you will see a couple things, 1 that the longer the array is AND OR the more curved it is, the more energy is radiated to the sides, no matter what the individual box does. Also with resolution more like ones hearing, one can see a myriad of lobes and nulls which change greatly with frequency. This is because this is an interference pattern and if outdoors and the wind blows, you will hear the fine structure of this pattern as it moves around a little bit. These systems even though are much larger, also radiate a lot more energy in undesired directions than a single large cd horn.
EASE has a display for the “initial time gap” which shows the levels of sound coming from adjacent speaker system, this is very illuminating and really shows what’s happening.
Time, your math only deals with sine waves and music is mostly that BUT a very important part isn’t, consider what happens if you feed the system a single impulse? A record pop is an easy one to picture, a short impulse that has a distinct sound as a result but what arrives at your ears is a train of those impulses, each one delayed .883 ms per foot difference in path lengths relative to the first and the sound is nothing like the original and it can’t because the time information is lost..
Yes you can fix that perfectly in one place in the audience with dsp, but when all the sources radiate from one place in space to begin with, then dsp corrections show up everywhere out front and the record pop arrives as a single short event, like the input signal.
Peter, the J3 is way too much for a Church, even the J-1, a less powerful box, 1 does stadiums in the 30,000 seat range and two up to 50,000-75,000 seats. I don’t think you’re getting how powerful that J3 is. The J3 is what does most of the heavy lifting at larger stadiums and even then, just a few are used. What we measured the other day with one playing around was in the mid 100’s dBa slow with dynamic music far from sounding strained or limiting at a bit over 300 feet and yet far down in level below and behind and sides of it.
This level takes a good string of line array boxes, well more than 400lb and it wouldn’t sound anything like that or be as quiet outside the pattern.. A good sized Church like that one, the SH96’s are probably a much better fit.
Hope that helps
Tom
Post by: Peter Morris on May 09, 2016, 08:43:57 PM
Having used that very configuration I can tell you it's far, far better than 2 over 2 850s. Yeah, it's a point and shoot so some HF goes over the audience but so what? It sounds fantastic, holds up at distance, and could be easily powered with precisely four amplifiers. And they weigh 118 pounds each.
That configuration sums very well. In fact, if it were "something less" than 60 degrees nominally in the vertical it would scale quite well.
Of course, no one reading this has ever seen a line array aimed into the air outdoors ;-)
edit: in fact, it could be powered with 2 large amplifiers if you chose to. I would probably do one box per channel for redundancy, though.
I’m sure it’s better than 2 over 2 850s, but their weight of just 118 pound is really my point. That’s a good weight and Pure Groove in this case appears to have chosen a scalable solution with subs despite creating multiple arrivals. I’m sure it works well even though it’s not perfect. They could have used just 1 x J1 but I expect the small line array towers they appeared to have used or the roof system would not have supported the weight of a J1.
I have no argument that a well-designed point source avoiding multiple arrivals should sound better than a line-array which has multiple arrivals.
I believe hire companies want and need the speaker systems to be packaged in parts/boxes that are typically 200lbs or less. At that size the boxes can be manually handled with a small crew without breaking OHS laws. Perhaps this not an issue in the US, but it certainly is in many other countries.
Herein lays the problem, as soon as you start breaking any system into bits that are scalable and flexible the acoustic problems start. Almost every other manufacture other than Danley seems to be building their system in to what I would consider manageable bits whether it’s a point source or line array design, and I sure they are all aware of the compromises.
As I said in my first post – the J3 94 does look good; to me it’s almost a manageable size and weight at 190 Kgs ... at 160Kgs I would buy some :)
Post by: Ivan Beaver on May 09, 2016, 09:14:12 PM
We got in some samples of some midrange drivers that will reduce the weight a bit.
As I said in my first post – the J3 94 does look good; to me it’s almost a manageable size and weight at 190 Kgs ... at 160Kgs I would buy some :)
We will lose about 12Kgs AND gain 4dB in midrange output. Not that we need it, the balance is pretty good between all the bands.
If the weight is that big a deal, I am pretty sure we could lose another 20-30Kg on the woofer section.
We are still using ceramic magnets on both the mids and lows. So that is where the weight reduction is coming from- going to neo.
Post by: Steve Bradbury on May 09, 2016, 09:32:40 PM
Here is a link that might help.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Calculus-Dummies-Mark-Ryan/dp/0764524984 (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Calculus-Dummies-Mark-Ryan/dp/0764524984)
Post by: Peter Morris on May 09, 2016, 09:43:01 PM
We got in some samples of some midrange drivers that will reduce the weight a bit.
We will lose about 12Kgs AND gain 4dB in midrange output. Not that we need it, the balance is pretty good between all the bands.
If the weight is that big a deal, I am pretty sure we could lose another 20-30Kg on the woofer section.
We are still using ceramic magnets on both the mids and lows. So that is where the weight reduction is coming from- going to neo.
NOW we are talking ... Neo's all round and delete the passive crossover to save a bit more weight :) :) :) ...
Post by: Peter Morris on May 09, 2016, 09:59:03 PM
.... Peter, the J3 is way too much for a Church, even the J-1, a less powerful box, 1 does stadiums in the 30,000 seat range and two up to 50,000-75,000 seats. I don’t think you’re getting how powerful that J3 is. The J3 is what does most of the heavy lifting at larger stadiums and even then, just a few are used. What we measured the other day with one playing around was in the mid 100’s dBa slow with dynamic music far from sounding strained or limiting at a bit over 300 feet and yet far down in level below and behind and sides of it.
This level takes a good string of line array boxes, well more than 400lb and it wouldn’t sound anything like that or be as quiet outside the pattern.. A good sized Church like that one, the SH96’s are probably a much better fit.
Hope that helps
Tom
Tom I was not suggesting I wanted to use a J3 in that venue, but rather pointing out that at some point every contractor’s boxes have to be manually handled, and for me it this Sunday. BTW that’s not a church, it’s an old performance venue with a magnificent pipe organ … no loading dock, load in through the kitchen, no fly points and nowhere to park the truck or van ... and lots and lots of other constraints.
So much of what a live sound rental company does revolves around logistics. The Flexibility and scalability of you inventory is very important, just as important as sound quality.
In this respect I don’t think you do so well, however I understand that’s not your focus … and if I wanted to cover a football stadium form a single point you would be on the top of my list. I LOVE your synergy horn concept, just want it to be a bit more logistically friendly for my applications.
Post by: Peter Morris on May 09, 2016, 10:15:54 PM
Of course there is a bit of a difference between the response going down to a particular point and the horn actually having control down that low------
As any horn gets narrower, it MUST get larger to have control down to the same freq. NO way around it.
Yes but in most line-array designs they configure the mids and lows in a di-pole arrangement to control the pattern below the operating frequency of the HF horn. Generally the problem is stopping the low mid's pattern from being to too narrow.
Post by: eric lenasbunt on May 10, 2016, 12:01:58 AM
Thanks, the links that were provided for my benefit confirm that my theory was correct. Given that and because this thread seems to be turning into a Danley Labs promotion I’m done.
Here is a link that might help.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Calculus-Dummies-Mark-Ryan/dp/0764524984 (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Calculus-Dummies-Mark-Ryan/dp/0764524984)
Edited to remove unnecessary snark in response to unnecessary snark.
Post by: Rick Powell on May 10, 2016, 12:45:32 AM
Post by: Ivan Beaver on May 10, 2016, 05:52:50 AM
NOW we are talking ... Neo's all round and delete the passive crossover to save a bit more weight :) :) :) ...OK-I had a brain fart-Sorry. It hit me this morning. I was thinking about a different cabinet.
The J3-64 has ceramic magnets on the woofers. The J3-94 already has neo on the woofers.
There is no passive crossover in either cabinet. But both of them do have the Sentinel circuit that provides continuous-thermal and peak protection for the HF drivers.
Post by: Ivan Beaver on May 10, 2016, 07:23:49 AM
It's not every day that we are talking about $100k to $500k concert and stadium systems in the Lounge! :D :D :D Think I'll start a Mackie Thump thread in the Classic forum.But the exact same ideas concepts theories apply to a 4 box mini line array as compared to a single 12" coax
So it is relavent
And it also depends on which system you are talking about that costs that much
Some times the same amount of of sound is much less expensive. If you choose the right system
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on May 10, 2016, 09:58:58 AM
Thanks, the links that were provided for my benefit confirm that my theory was correct. Given that and because this thread seems to be turning into a Danley Labs promotion I’m done.I could have used that book back in high school when I first studied calculus back in the 60's... but you probably weren't serious.
Here is a link that might help.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Calculus-Dummies-Mark-Ryan/dp/0764524984 (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Calculus-Dummies-Mark-Ryan/dp/0764524984)
I don't need calculus to grok the trade offs in line arrays (while line array designers certainly do).
All loudspeakers involve some compromises, inspect, understand, and pick your poison.
JR
Post by: Jay Barracato on May 10, 2016, 11:15:18 AM
In the case of a discrepancy between the model and reality, reality wins. The empirically observed event trumps the model.
I continue to say that when considering multiple sources you need to separate the zone in which the drivers do work on the air and the zone where the waves propagate and the size of both zones is frequency and wavelength dependent.
Why is a front loaded sub with two drivers basically omni? How does a piston action in one axis create a wave in three dimensions?
Because the two drivers are not undergoing wave addition, both are doing work on the same mass of air at the same time.
Therefore; I think the answer likes in fluid mechanics.
A forward stroke of the piston creates a region of lower pressure. Air responds to that imbalance by molecules moving into that zone from all three directions. When the piston reverses direction, once again molecules move towards the imbalance from all three dimensions.
This is due to the cohesion of the air particles.
All of this is happening prior to the propagation of the wave, and is not described by wave addition.
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
Post by: Yoel Farkas on May 10, 2016, 01:37:42 PM
our congregation had recently placed an order for 2 j1's
the only issue i found most people has with this type speakers is the weight and size.
would it not be a good idea to cut the speaker in 3 parts (2 cuts). and not making them for 3 separate boxes, just it should be possible to taking it apart for travel and re-assemble it to form it back to the single point source.
those it make sense to you?
Post by: radulescu_paul_mircea on May 10, 2016, 02:06:59 PM
. As soon as you move the sources apart more than about 1/3 wl, the acoustic power falls because with that spacing or larger, one is making an interference pattern which consists of Lobes and Nulls and clearly there is less total energy on the surface of the sphere (or area under the curve as a polar pattern).
Hope that helps
Tom
What I don't understand is where that energy goes. The laws of conservation of energy and mass says clearly that in a closed system the total energy remaines the same.
So if one introduce X acoustic energy in the system where does that go if on the surface of the sphere there is less energy. From what I understand in that lobing pattern there are summation lobes where the acoustic power is more than 3 dB compared to each source and only then there could be cancelation lobes where the power is less. This way the total energy stays the same.
Post by: radulescu_paul_mircea on May 10, 2016, 02:39:24 PM
I have my own bussines here as an acoustics and audio equipment consultant and most of the times I go to clubs and venues to calibrate systems, improve positioning and set up the processors because it seems there are o many stupid guys who have no ideea what they are doing.
The thing is two weeks ago I used another point source speakerfor the first time, for a large tent packed with people, around 2-3k and 60*50 meters. The system was 2 KV2 vhd2.0 +1.0 + 4*vhd4.21+4*vhd1.21 and 4*2.16. The thing is I compared the sound from those speakers with a L A made with 8 Nexo per side a few days after and I can tell you the point source sounded so much better! I think everyone is agreeing a point source with no interference is always better than a bunch of sources with a hell of a pattern. That is for sure. So why not use only point sources? Because you have to go louder. Then you have to get a really BIG point source. Then you get it, but it is to heavy. So what will you do? Think. You either focus on getting the best sound no matter what, or you can compromise and then you are the same as the others and compete on the same market. There is a book with the title "Differentiate or die!!!" that I read so I made my choice ;)
As for weight concerns, the EAW Anya system uses so many principles that really work (from what I read) but as you probably know they weigh 173kg each, and one has to use minimum 6 a side and they go in a stack of 4 So...yeah.
What I am saying is for every solution, there is a problem ;) everyone has to choose theirs. I, for one, would use only point sources. If I needed more power, I would get a bigger one. If an array of 32 anya' s per side can weigh more than five tons, why wouldnt one use a single speaker like the Caleb? Or the VHD5.0?
BTW, I am a huge fan of the Anya speakers to. Haven't listened to them but neither the Jericho's so take my word for what it is...
Post by: Ivan Beaver on May 10, 2016, 02:56:40 PM
Have you ever looked at how much energy comes out the BACK SIDE of a line array?
What I don't understand is where that energy goes. The laws of conservation of energy and mass says clearly that in a closed system the total energy remaines the same.
So if one introduce X acoustic energy in the system where does that go if on the surface of the sphere there is less energy. From what I understand in that lobing pattern there are summation lobes where the acoustic power is more than 3 dB compared to each source and only then there could be cancelation lobes where the power is less. This way the total energy stays the same.
In many cases, it is as much as the front------------ Depending on freq.
Something to try. Take 2 identical subs and put them close to each other. Put one of them out of polarity.
Where does the energy go then?
Post by: Ivan Beaver on May 10, 2016, 03:09:49 PM
Altough I am a huge Danley fan and dealer, to many times the thread discussions transforms and derails to Danley speakers no matter what subject in this forum. This is true. There are so many other speaker brands for all sorts of clients. And most of the times the clients are not interested in sound quality, at least at first. So that is why there are times when other things have to come first like design, dimensions, weight, color :)...But when you compare the size of the point source vs the size-weight-cost of the same amount of SPL of line arrays, the point source is much lighter-smaller and cheaper.
I have my own bussines here as an acoustics and audio equipment consultant and most of the times I go to clubs and venues to calibrate systems, improve positioning and set up the processors because it seems there are o many stupid guys who have no ideea what they are doing.
The thing is two weeks ago I used another point source speakerfor the first time, for a large tent packed with people, around 2-3k and 60*50 meters. The system was 2 KV2 vhd2.0 +1.0 + 4*vhd4.21+4*vhd1.21 and 4*2.16. The thing is I compared the sound from those speakers with a L A made with 8 Nexo per side a few days after and I can tell you the point source sounded so much better! I think everyone is agreeing a point source with no interference is always better than a bunch of sources with a hell of a pattern. That is for sure. So why not use only point sources? Because you have to go louder. Then you have to get a really BIG point source. Then you get it, but it is to heavy. So what will you do? Think. You either focus on getting the best sound no matter what, or you can compromise and then you are the same as the others and compete on the same market. There is a book with the title "Differentiate or die!!!" that I read so I made my choice ;)
As for weight concerns, the EAW Anya system uses so many principles that really work (from what I read) but as you probably know they weigh 173kg each, and one has to use minimum 6 a side and they go in a stack of 4 So...yeah.
What I am saying is for every solution, there is a problem ;) everyone has to choose theirs. I, for one, would use only point sources. If I needed more power, I would get a bigger one. If an array of 32 anya' s per side can weigh more than five tons, why wouldnt one use a single speaker like the Caleb? Or the VHD5.0?
BTW, I am a huge fan of the Anya speakers to. Haven't listened to them but neither the Jericho's so take my word for what it is...
What I find REALLY FUNNY is that many people jump to saying that the Jerichos are to heavy.
Yet Danley makes MANY smaller point sources that are easily handled and will still out perform line arrays that are larger-heavier etc.
But they don't want to talk about those-just the big guys.
Just do some models with the SM80 and compare to typical mid sized line arrays and compare output.
The SM80 is easily handled by 1 person-goes on a crank stand-uses 1 amp channel etc. So it is not so big and heavy. Yet there is no way to put the equivalent line array on a crank stand.
Yes you need subs-but you need subs with the line arrays as well.
But somehow that doesn't matter-only that the Jerichos are to heavy.
BTW, there are MANY smaller shows that can be handled with lower output models ;) ;) ;) Not every show is a Jericho.
But if people want to complain about the weight, they ALSO need to complain about the weight and hassle of the 20 or more full size line arrays they need to bring out to the job.
Consider that you can simply push a J3-94 out of the truck-hook a motor to the flybar-plug in 1 cable and get it in the air. In a matter of just a couple of minutes it is hooked up and in the air.
Is that worth anything? In time savings? Maybe------
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on May 10, 2016, 03:21:06 PM
I am chomping at the bit to answer this, but I am not the speaker guru here.
What I don't understand is where that energy goes. The laws of conservation of energy and mass says clearly that in a closed system the total energy remaines the same.
So if one introduce X acoustic energy in the system where does that go if on the surface of the sphere there is less energy. From what I understand in that lobing pattern there are summation lobes where the acoustic power is more than 3 dB compared to each source and only then there could be cancelation lobes where the power is less. This way the total energy stays the same.
Yes I expect the energy into the room to be constant.
The difference may be in how the acoustic power is measured "at" the spherical boundary.
Did I mention I am not the speaker guy? But they seem busy defending the castle.
JR
Post by: TJ (Tom) Cornish on May 10, 2016, 03:33:22 PM
JBL 4886 can be put on a crank stand and a set of several boxes is powered by 1 amp channel. Your SM80 spec sheet lists 134dB as the max output of the SM80. 4886 has a max output of 136dB, and for my purposes, a more useful 110° horizontal pattern compared to the SM80's 80°.
Just do some models with the SM80 and compare to typical mid sized line arrays and compare output.
The SM80 is easily handled by 1 person-goes on a crank stand-uses 1 amp channel etc. So it is not so big and heavy. Yet there is no way to put the equivalent line array on a crank stand.
I know what you're going to say - Danley's numbers are real and conservative, other manufacturers' are suspect and probably overstated :)
I will be more interested in Danley mains when you guys invest some time in FIR processing for your boxes.
Post by: Jon Fu on May 10, 2016, 03:46:22 PM
Given that and because this thread seems to be turning into a Danley Labs promotion I’m done.
I've always noticed that there seems to be a double standard when it comes to Danley on these forums.
If you were to go off this forum alone, you'd probably believe that every other manufacturer has ulterior motives while Danley is the end-all-be-all of speaker brands. Line arrays bad, Danley boxes good - no exception to the rule.
Face it - Danley can't satisfy everyone's needs, and just because they don't address all the concerns outlined in this thread doesn't mean those concerns aren't valid.
Post by: radulescu_paul_mircea on May 10, 2016, 04:07:12 PM
Have you ever looked at how much energy comes out the BACK SIDE of a line array?I think the energy is there but it is use to move the air particle from one way to another but not creating any pressure so it does not make any sound. Think of the example given earliear in this thread with the piston. When that piston goes outwards, the air is pushed in all directions very fast so there is increased pressure in front of it. But if in that same instant there is a piston close enough (less than 1/3 wl) that goes inward the air will be sucked to it so all the mass of air will go in one direction. Then the other direction. So there is the energy. This explain why if i put two fullrange speakers face to face and I inverse the polarity of one, I will get cancellations until the wavelenght is to small and the drivers starts to create pressure
In many cases, it is as much as the front------------ Depending on freq.
Something to try. Take 2 identical subs and put them close to each other. Put one of them out of polarity.
Where does the energy go then?
Post by: radulescu_paul_mircea on May 10, 2016, 04:13:27 PM
Post by: radulescu_paul_mircea on May 10, 2016, 04:30:16 PM
I've always noticed that there seems to be a double standard when it comes to Danley on these forums.
If you were to go off this forum alone, you'd probably believe that every other manufacturer has ulterior motives while Danley is the end-all-be-all of speaker brands. Line arrays bad, Danley boxes good - no exception to the rule.
Face it - Danley can't satisfy everyone's needs, and just because they don't address all the concerns outlined in this thread doesn't mean those concerns aren't valid.
As far as I used or heard until now, Danley are really good. Best, in my oppinion. And I can say that what results you get in Direct in continous mode, you get in real life. If the Direct says you will get 114 dB cont at 50 Hz from a single TH118, that will happen. The only thing is the Program and Peak settings will not always apply because some subs will not go further without over excursion but the fullrange speakers will. I really really trust that simulator and it is extremely usefull and free.
Line arrays are bad. I don't really like any of them. L-Acoustics, Auraaudio, Coda,Martin MLA and some others are Ok but I work with Hi-Fi and studio monitor products really good ones, I listen often to live music and sometimes unamplified , and I know how it should sound but I never listened to a large PA to sound like that. Until I litened to a pair of SH46 with 2 th118 and after that to sm100 and after to SH96ho. They sound sooo good!!!!!
But sometimes it doesn't matter. No matter how good it sounds, some people don't care. For them if it is good enough it is...good enough :) so for them, what they pay for is what they get.
Post by: Ivan Beaver on May 10, 2016, 05:00:35 PM
I've always noticed that there seems to be a double standard when it comes to Danley on these forums.Nobody said line arrays are bad. They are certainly a marked improvement over the previous "pile 'em up" approach.
If you were to go off this forum alone, you'd probably believe that every other manufacturer has ulterior motives while Danley is the end-all-be-all of speaker brands. Line arrays bad, Danley boxes good - no exception to the rule.
Face it - Danley can't satisfy everyone's needs, and just because they don't address all the concerns outlined in this thread doesn't mean those concerns aren't valid.
But there are better sounding-more economical approaches.
We have been discussing the basic theories/concepts that govern the products.
If any other manufacturers wish to join in, they are free to. And if anything being said is wrong, then feel free to correct it.
Of course, until the patents expire you probably won't see more of this approach being used, although there is an increase in products that are being similar.
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. :)
Post by: Jay Barracato on May 10, 2016, 05:14:03 PM
I will have to test this because that would also mean the drivers when they cancel each out, will have bigger cone excursion with the same voltage input because there will be no air resistance....
Do not do this as a real world exercise.
This was discussed a number of years ago in syn aud con under this title " black hole sum".
It is a quick trip to blown drivers.
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
Post by: Alex Rigodanzo on May 10, 2016, 05:40:16 PM
Do not do this as a real world exercise.
This was discussed a number of years ago in syn aud con under this title " black hole sum".
It is a quick trip to blown drivers.
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
Good read...
http://www.prosoundtraining.com/site/synaudcon-library/black-hole-sum/#more-5044 (http://www.prosoundtraining.com/site/synaudcon-library/black-hole-sum/#more-5044)
Post by: radulescu_paul_mircea on May 10, 2016, 06:44:19 PM
Good read...Indeed a good read. Thank you very much. It saved a lot of time. I use hornresp and I saw the electric and acoustic impedance differences from using one vs multiple subs and I imagined the reverse could happen when one reverse the polarity. So it all turns into heat because we decrease the acoustic impedance.
http://www.prosoundtraining.com/site/synaudcon-library/black-hole-sum/#more-5044 (http://www.prosoundtraining.com/site/synaudcon-library/black-hole-sum/#more-5044)
Post by: Ivan Beaver on May 10, 2016, 07:09:26 PM
a more useful 110° horizontal pattern compared to the SM80's 80°.Of course if you want wider coverage (and smaller and lighter and less expensive) than the SM80, there is the Sm100.
It is 100* wide and pretty small.
Post by: Lee Buckalew on May 10, 2016, 07:19:26 PM
Line arrays are bad. I don't really like any of them. L-Acoustics, Auraaudio, Coda,Martin MLA...
I do need to point out that MLA is not a line array. It certainly can be used as one but, if you utilize it properly it is a complex directional point source. With the proper cabinet count and understanding what the Display software is telling you in its calculations you create a comb filter free listening plane. You do have to understand what the technology is telling you because the software will try to accomplish what you ask even if there are not enough elements to achieve the requested result. You, as the designer/engineer have to be able to tell what the Display results are telling you. The Display results have been shown to be accurate within 1dB (+/- 0.5) at a very high resolution.
Anya's size and weight were mentioned earlier. The size and therefore weight are required due to the choice to utilize a flat hang and utilize the technology in the manner that they do to create the vector summations to change the pattern. A flat hang requires far more drivers for effective interaction of the various FIR, delay, amplitude calculations than does utilizing a hang that is curved as the first step of creating the wanted coverage angle.
Each design choice creates a different set of compromises.
Lee
Post by: radulescu_paul_mircea on May 10, 2016, 07:26:12 PM
Of course if you want wider coverage (and smaller and lighter and less expensive) than the SM80, there is the Sm100.I heard, tested,measured and installed 4 SM100 and also directly compared to Void arcline 6 and the concluzion was that nobody belived me when I told them there is a single 8" coax driver and that it costs a bit more than half of those Void. Very good speaker and very acurate.
It is 100* wide and pretty small.
But comparing same weigh+ dimensions space, 2jbl vt4886 would have more SPL vs 1 SM100. But each JBL costs 3300 euro and will use double the amplifier powers and double the channels than Sm100. So many parameters to take into acount...
Post by: TJ (Tom) Cornish on May 10, 2016, 07:38:45 PM
I heard, tested,measured and installed 4 SM100 and also directly compared to Void arcline 6 and the concluzion was that nobody belived me when I told them there is a single 8" coax driver and that it costs a bit more than half of those Void. Very good speaker and very acurate.Not sure how you would use more amp channels for 4886 - they are up to 4 boxes on a single amp channel.
But comparing same weigh+ dimensions space, 2jbl vt4886 would have more SPL vs 1 SM100. But each JBL costs 3300 euro and will use double the amplifier powers and double the channels than Sm100. So many parameters to take into acount...
Post by: Tim McCulloch on May 10, 2016, 07:55:06 PM
Or another thread were industry professionals attack the tools of the trade?
Post by: radulescu_paul_mircea on May 10, 2016, 08:02:44 PM
Sm100 will have less SPL, probably 6 dB average, but will not suffer from comb filtering because is a Synergy horn, will need only 800watt/ ch/ speaker at 8 ohm... The thing is one have to compare apples to apples. And if we have to compare cost vs cost , in no way will compare those JBL with SM80 in output, quality, pattern control, nothing. Or 2 pairs of JBL vs 1 pair of SH46 ( which together with 2 TH118 sounded much better and louder compaired to a pair of Nexo Alpha E-F + B1-18, a litle bit more expensive than Danley). One has to select an equal ground to compare products.
I had to make a choice for a client who wanted to buy subwoofers but he didn't have any sort of targets ( not even budget) for me to even start looking. For what? Dual 21? Single 10? What music, what venue? Dimensions? What cost? Nothing..
Post by: TJ (Tom) Cornish on May 10, 2016, 08:10:38 PM
Sometime can we have another corporate love-fest with a different brand name?Hey - come on now - we're only up to 14 pages in this particular rehash thread. I can feel my opinions changing right about now...no wait - that's the Thai food.
Or another thread were industry professionals attack the tools of the trade?
Post by: radulescu_paul_mircea on May 10, 2016, 08:10:50 PM
Sometime can we have another corporate love-fest with a different brand name?Haha. To be sincere, we could. In fact we should.
Or another thread were industry professionals attack the tools of the trade?
I will shut up about Danley.
I was very pleased with how KV2 sounds and to get on track to the subject of the thread, in the space available VHD 2.0+1.0 downfill +2 VHD2.16 flown plus 2 VHD4.21 per side would give around 110 dB slow at 40 meters and would deffinately sound good.
Post by: Mac Kerr on May 10, 2016, 08:55:40 PM
Nobody said line arrays are bad.
Seriously? That is basically the theme of almost every post you've made for the past few years.
LOL
Mac
Post by: Ivan Beaver on May 10, 2016, 09:05:33 PM
Seriously? That is basically the theme of almost every post you've made for the past few years.Actually-if you were to look at my posts, you would find that by far most of my posts are NOT about that.
LOL
Mac
But those seem to be the ones that people like to remember. ::) ::) ::)
I have never said they were bad, but more like they are not what the marketing lead you to believe.
But that is the whole idea behind marketing. Making you believe you must have something-whether it is correct for you or not.
And when you can sell somebody more of something to do the same job-then so much the better----------
Post by: Mac Kerr on May 10, 2016, 10:25:18 PM
Actually-if you were to look at my posts, you would find that by far most of my posts are NOT about that.
But those seem to be the ones that people like to remember. ::) ::) ::)
I have never said they were bad, but more like they are not what the marketing lead you to believe.
But that is the whole idea behind marketing. Making you believe you must have something-whether it is correct for you or not.
And when you can sell somebody more of something to do the same job-then so much the better----------
So what are you saying here? It sounds to me like marketing says a product is good, and you say marketing is lying. How is that not you saying line arrays are not good?
Mac
Post by: Jon Fu on May 10, 2016, 10:32:32 PM
But that is the whole idea behind marketing. Making you believe you must have something-whether it is correct for you or not.
And when you can sell somebody more of something to do the same job-then so much the better----------
Come on. You can't blame marketing for everything. It serves a function whether you like it or not, and every manufacturer does it.
It also seems like you like to cite marketing as the only reason why a competing product is successful, or why it has potential proponents. You have to be more objective than that, considering the company you work for has also had its marketing claims challenged...
http://forums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/topic,156711.0.html
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on May 10, 2016, 11:37:16 PM
Actually-if you were to look at my posts, you would find that by far most of my posts are NOT about that.Not exactly... marketing and product management is about communicating FAB to the market (features advantages and benefits), then communicating customer wants from the market back to engineering to incorporate into future designs.
But those seem to be the ones that people like to remember. ::) ::) ::)
I have never said they were bad, but more like they are not what the marketing lead you to believe.
But that is the whole idea behind marketing. Making you believe you must have something-whether it is correct for you or not.
Quote
And when you can sell somebody more of something to do the same job-then so much the better----------I appreciated Ivan's bottomless willingness to inform. He is an asset to the community.
Just like everything else on the WWW, try to understand which side his bread is buttered on.
JR
Post by: Kevin Maxwell on May 11, 2016, 01:16:29 AM
Have you ever looked at how much energy comes out the BACK SIDE of a line array?
In many cases, it is as much as the front------------ Depending on freq.
Something to try. Take 2 identical subs and put them close to each other. Put one of them out of polarity.
Where does the energy go then?
You keep saying that about the sound off the back of the line array. That has not been my experience with line arrays at all. I have been impressed with how little sound comes off the back of them, except for the KF730 I could never understand why they designed them the way they did. I have heard many line arrays and in the setups and situations I heard them in I have not heard the problems you keep pointing out. I walked toward a line array (Adamson) and was surprised how clear it was along the whole path of my walk. And how consistent it sounded. This was outdoors. My experiences have been concerts and corporate work. One of them was in a stadium it was a big name act and I was working the show and had the opportunity to walk the room with a SPL meter and was surprised at how consistent in level and sound. It was the JBL8889 line array, a very long line but actually with this one I wasn’t a fan of the tonality of it. I had heard a demo of JBL line arrays a little bit before this show and the tonality in the demo was the same as in the concert. We did an event at Disney World using Masque sound and they brought vDosc when they first came out and they sounded great. And we have used dvDosc and had excellent results. Most of my experience with line arrays have been with what I think is the top of the line systems.
I very recently heard a d&b line array sound incredible and I walked the venue, an outdoor concert venue with an installed system. And I have heard the exact same system same venue with a different band and mix person and it sounded bad. I blame the mix person.
I would love to hear a GOOD demo of some of the Danley speakers I have only heard one demo and it was so harsh it hurt I had to walk out of the room and it was you Ivan doing the demo. The next up was some Fulcrum Acoustics speakers and they sounded great. Now different program material but I am pretty sure they were at the same level. I was expecting so much from the DSL and knew nothing about the fulcrum. Due to everything I had heard about the DSL and the theory behind them I had very high hopes for the Danley. I have talked to others that have had the same experience in a demo that I have had. I am still open to giving Danley another shot.
Post by: Ivan Beaver on May 11, 2016, 05:55:22 AM
. Very good speaker and very acurate.The best way to compare SPL and coverage is NOT to go by the "simple numbers" on the spec, but rather by putting the speakers into the simple to use models and put out mics and compare what is happening at different seats.
But comparing same weigh+ dimensions space, 2jbl vt4886 would have more SPL vs 1 SM100.
45 vs 68 is a bit of a difference in weight. But I agree- you have to make a comparison somewhere.
Post by: Ivan Beaver on May 11, 2016, 06:03:22 AM
You keep saying that about the sound off the back of the line array. That has not been my experience with line arrays at all. I have been impressed with how little sound comes off the back of them,I was not talking about the energy on the ground behind a line array.
The question I was responding to was the TOTAL energy of the array.
With a physically aligned array (typical line array) the rear radiation is different than an electrically steered array.
With a typical array the direction is 180* of the main beam.
So if the beam is aimed down, then the rear energy is aimed up (out the back) at the same angle.
With an electronically steerable system, the rear radiation is at the same angle also pointed down.
So if it is 45* down in the front it will be 45* down in the back.
Post by: Keith Broughton on May 11, 2016, 07:46:13 AM
I too would like to hear from a product specialist from another company that is building what we shall loosely called "coherent, phase aligned point sorce " speaker cabinets like the Danley products.
Bueller...
Bueller...
Not seeing anyone yet!
We end up at Danley due to the unique nature of the design and the fact thast someone (Ivan) is willing to engage in tecnical jousting.
I have taken the time to hear different products on more than 1 occasion and they have definately got someting interesting going on.
Post by: Frederik Rosenkjær on May 11, 2016, 08:23:32 AM
Post by: TJ (Tom) Cornish on May 11, 2016, 08:48:19 AM
For those tired of the Danley "love fest"...EAW qxi: http://eaw.com/portfolio_page/qx566i/
I too would like to hear from a product specialist from another company that is building what we shall loosely called "coherent, phase aligned point sorce " speaker cabinets like the Danley products.
Bueller...
Bueller...
Not seeing anyone yet!
We end up at Danley due to the unique nature of the design and the fact thast someone (Ivan) is willing to engage in tecnical jousting.
I have taken the time to hear different products on more than 1 occasion and they have definately got someting interesting going on.
I did a multi-day head to head shootout against the Danley SH60 and the EAW wins for sound quality, IMO. This is the basis for my comment about Danley needing to do some work on the DSP end of things.
On this particular demo day I heard the SH96HO, SH60, and SH46, powered by a Danley-provided amp rack. The demo was kind of a disaster. Among other things the Danley DSP had the wrong presets and/or wasn't working and/or was locked out. We ended up switching to a rack of ITech HDs that I provided after wasting an hour or more trying to get the Danley demo gear working.
Enter the EAW - load up the preset in the UX, type in the amp gain, boom. Instantly great sound. We spent about 4 hours tuning on the SH60 to get it to sound as smooth as the EAW, and we never did. Was the difference something physical? I don't know; all I can say is that the sum of the EAW system (speaker + UX DSP + minimal Smaart tuning) was significantly better than the sum of the Danley system (speaker + 4 hours of Smaart tuning).
Preempting Ivan's questions again - we listened in the same environment at the same time with the boxes in the same place in the room with every different genre of music we could think of. I had a pro-Danley bias going in, and in spite of that, the EAW was better at everything we threw at it. In every case the EAW box was smoother to listen to than the Danley.
I will say that the SH96HO is an amazing box. We decided it was physically too big for our room which was why we focused on the SH60, but I can see the SH96HO working for some situations really well.
Post by: Rick Powell on May 11, 2016, 08:51:03 AM
For those tired of the Danley "love fest"...
I too would like to hear from a product specialist from another company that is building what we shall loosely called "coherent, phase aligned point sorce " speaker cabinets like the Danley products.
Bueller...
Bueller...
Not seeing anyone yet!
We end up at Danley due to the unique nature of the design and the fact thast someone (Ivan) is willing to engage in tecnical jousting.
I have taken the time to hear different products on more than 1 occasion and they have definately got someting interesting going on.
I dunno. Fulcrum Acoustics is another company that has built their business around the point source model, though they go about it in a different way, and with highly regarded results.
Post by: Robert Healey on May 11, 2016, 11:36:38 AM
For those tired of the Danley "love fest"...
I too would like to hear from a product specialist from another company that is building what we shall loosely called "coherent, phase aligned point sorce " speaker cabinets like the Danley products.
Bueller...
Bueller...
Not seeing anyone yet!
We end up at Danley due to the unique nature of the design and the fact thast someone (Ivan) is willing to engage in tecnical jousting.
I have taken the time to hear different products on more than 1 occasion and they have definately got someting interesting going on.
There are plenty horn loaded coaxial point sources from nearly every manufacturer, mostly used and marketed towards the install world:
EV EVH
JBL PD500, PD700
EAW QX
D&B C Series
Fulcrum AH
Nexo Alpha
Post by: Brandon Wright on May 11, 2016, 11:42:28 AM
Enter the EAW - load up the preset in the UX, type in the amp gain, boom. Instantly great sound. We spent about 4 hours tuning on the SH60 to get it to sound as smooth as the EAW, and we never did. Was the difference something physical? I don't know; all I can say is that the sum of the EAW system (speaker + UX DSP + minimal Smaart tuning) was significantly better than the sum of the Danley system (speaker + 4 hours of Smaart tuning).
From here Danley needs to look at what EAW,Fulcrum, and every other major manufacturer have done with their processing and start moving that direction. Drop or minimize the passive crossovers and start offering blackbox fir tunings with real limiting. There is no question that they are 90% of the way there by greatly improving the physical alignments, but that last 10% really does matter.
Completely unrelated and pedantic, the grilles cut from a sheet held on with wood screws really bugs me. Do some custom perforations with machine screws and inserts like everyone else.
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on May 11, 2016, 12:16:59 PM
I recall before line arrays became all pervasive. I thought they were more of a fashion trend that would pass, but I was wrong, there was some actual there there.
LA by using multiple drivers in an array with steering could preferentially put SPL onto the seats, with less sound out of the pattern, for more effective and more efficient sound delivery. Speaker arrays were not remotely new, but the science and understanding about how to make the multiple sound sources work better together is the relatively recent development. Well done, LAs don't suck and are an improvement over the prior art. Unfortunately many are poorly done, and consumers lapse into a monkey see-monkey do, buying systems that look like LA, and mis-applying them (like the OP's question).
The LA was an important development and milestone for large scale loudspeaker development. Next comes Tom Danley's work with multiple drivers feeding a single horn. Another significant improvement to the SOTA. Then comes David Gunness' work with "focussing", using DSP to correct previously unfixed loudspeaker flaws.
I don't have a dog in this fight, and don't own any speakers that I need to defend my purchase decision. Yes Ivan doth protest too much about other manufacturers, and I regularly kid him about that. Don't chase him off because he is mostly arguing factual concerns that inform people, no matter how promotional it sounds.
We are lucky to live in a time with such a selection of high quality speaker systems to choose from. It wasn't very long ago that we didn't have these options.
JR
PS: I've done enough product demos over the decades to have my share of failures, and these fall under the category of sh__ happens. The power of a forum like this is we have so many professionals who have actually mixed on all of the subject speaker systems, so we can get multiple informed impressions, to weigh against negative outliers.
PPS: I expect there to be cross pollination between the best so things will only get better from here.
Post by: Keith Broughton on May 12, 2016, 01:16:59 PM
There are plenty horn loaded coaxial point sources from nearly every manufacturer, mostly used and marketed towards the install world:I'm not saying there are not other manufacturers making products like this.
EV EVH
JBL PD500, PD700
EAW QX
D&B C Series
Fulcrum AH
Nexo Alpha
The question is, where are the representatives from these companies on this forum?
Think of how much more interesting it would be if more people, like Ivan, contributed here.
The absence of those contributors results in the fact we end up comparing "other" speaker systems to Danley.
Post by: John L Nobile on May 12, 2016, 01:26:37 PM
But I think you're right. The reason it get's steered towards Danley is that Ivan responds and then some very happy users chime in.
If a JBL. Meyer etc rep chimed in I'm sure the discussion would go in their products direction.
Now let's get back to Danley lol
Post by: Nathan Riddle on May 12, 2016, 02:48:30 PM
If you're a manufacturer, you'd have to have a pretty thick skin to post regularly on this forum. I think Ivan's skin can stop a .22 lol
But I think you're right. The reason it get's steered towards Danley is that Ivan responds and then some very happy users chime in.
If a JBL. Meyer etc rep chimed in I'm sure the discussion would go in their products direction.
I agree with you there.
Personally, I'd prefer if different manufactures *technical* designers/engineers would chime in. Ivan isn't a rep, he's the guru behind the scenes. I'd like their guru's to tell us why their spec sheets are stated the way they are. Why they choose not to give or to give certain info.
Some back and forth about how they arrived at their designs & specifications would be insightful into their methodologies of approach.
Sometimes they might have a sound (logical) decision making thought process. "we designed this speaker cab to do this for our customers; realizing these limitations and coming up with a best of both worlds...etc."
Sometimes I think the truth might hurt a little when it's well... we don't design that kind of speaker because it would mean we would lose money...etc. Which is a VALID reason!
We're all here to make money at some level. Sure we might enjoy audio ( & the various aspects that relate to it) at the same time. But no one (outliers excluded) did anything (much) for free for an extended period of time without wanting some sort of compensation.
As with most things, balance is required to achieve the accurate truth behind a complex concept/situation.
Post by: Jonathan Johnson on May 12, 2016, 02:59:36 PM
Sometimes they might have a sound (logical) decision making thought process. "we designed this speaker cab to do this for our customers; realizing these limitations and coming up with a best of both worlds...etc."
Sometimes I think the truth might hurt a little when it's well... we don't design that kind of speaker because it would mean we would lose money...etc. Which is a VALID reason!
The problem that I see is that the marketing departments want to sell you the speaker you want to buy. If you have your heart set on a speaker that's not ideal for the situation but costs more than the speaker that IS ideal for the situation, will the sales rep tell you? Especially if it will work satisfactorily even though not ideally?
There's also often a disconnect between engineering and sales. Sales people tend to believe their products can do things the engineers didn't design for. I think it's partly because the sales people really don't UNDERSTAND all that engineering mumbo jumbo. They just want a spec sheet with a few numbers and a pretty plot. "This speaker will work perfectly for you if you play only 1 kHz test tones and your venue is shaped like a squashed balloon!"
If the customer was able to speak to the engineer, the product the customer ends up with may be something entirely different from what the salesman was ready to sell.
That's what I see setting Danley apart: the engineers are much more involved with the installation and application of the products.
Post by: Scott Holtzman on May 12, 2016, 03:27:15 PM
The problem that I see is that the marketing departments want to sell you the speaker you want to buy. If you have your heart set on a speaker that's not ideal for the situation but costs more than the speaker that IS ideal for the situation, will the sales rep tell you? Especially if it will work satisfactorily even though not ideally?
There's also often a disconnect between engineering and sales. Sales people tend to believe their products can do things the engineers didn't design for. I think it's partly because the sales people really don't UNDERSTAND all that engineering mumbo jumbo. They just want a spec sheet with a few numbers and a pretty plot. "This speaker will work perfectly for you if you play only 1 kHz test tones and your venue is shaped like a squashed balloon!"
If the customer was able to speak to the engineer, the product the customer ends up with may be something entirely different from what the salesman was ready to sell.
That's what I see setting Danley apart: the engineers are much more involved with the installation and application of the products.
I would not be surprised if Harman and MG have employee participation in online forums guidelines. Cisco sure does. Danley is a small company with a product that can stand on it's own merit. JBL makes car stereo speakers and million dollar line array boxes. They have to be festooned with bureaucratic bullshit.
I just spend a 3 month fight with JBL on why a PRX512 box had some piece of shit Eminence OEM driver instead of the speced driver on the parts list. Even after all the fighting I got the OEM driver and not what I paid for because of the production date of my speaker. You would never get that crap from Danley.
The awful truth is their are some small operator decision makers but nobody on her talking about million dollar line arrays in a position to sign a PO. Whoever is I bet has the full attention of all the players.
Post by: Tim McCulloch on May 12, 2016, 05:00:29 PM
I would not be surprised if Harman and MG have employee participation in online forums guidelines. Cisco sure does. Danley is a small company with a product that can stand on it's own merit. JBL makes car stereo speakers and million dollar line array boxes. They have to be festooned with bureaucratic bullshit.
Harman does. For as long as I can remember I've seen exactly 2 people from a Harman company respond here. Both were from Crown. Total posts between them? <20.
Quote
I just spend a 3 month fight with JBL on why a PRX512 box had some piece of shit Eminence OEM driver instead of the speced driver on the parts list. Even after all the fighting I got the OEM driver and not what I paid for because of the production date of my speaker. You would never get that crap from Danley.
The awful truth is their are some small operator decision makers but nobody on her talking about million dollar line arrays in a position to sign a PO. Whoever is I bet has the full attention of all the players.
Don't count on the latter unless you're signing 8-figure cheques. It used to be 6 figures.
Post by: Ivan Beaver on May 12, 2016, 05:08:01 PM
"Edited to remove non essential content"
Sometimes they might have a sound (logical) decision making thought process. "we designed this speaker cab to do this for our customers; realizing these limitations and coming up with a best of both worlds...etc."
Yes-sometimes designs may seem a bit weird-until you hear the choices that were made or the reasons why.
Here is a real life example.
In the first 10 years of Danley, Most designs were finished before Tom ever heard them. We sent files back and forth and LOTS of phone calls. He was living outside Chicago and we were in GA.
Anyway, when he sent me the crossover design, I built it and measured it.
He had designed it for a PAIR of speakers. So as a result, when you measure a SINGLE speaker, the low end rolls off where the pattern loses control.
So the pair would sum together at the lower freq while still maintain the separate mid/high signals due to the large horn. But the horn only works down to a certain point.
But if we used a single speaker on on the spec sheet, the REAL -3dB point would be in the 200ish range.
Even though the ACTUAL levels and rolloff would be the same as the current spec sheet.
So I convinced him to tune it so a SINGLE speaker would be much flatter. Basically what he did was to lower the sensitivity of the mids/highs to match the woofers output.
As a result of this, the product was accepted very well into the "hi-fi" market
If we had left it in the original design, that market would never have opened up to us.
HOWEVER-the down side is that when you put 2 of them together-as typical in a performance install situation, you have to kill all that extra low end to get it flat.
And while both versions would get the same loudness (one with higher sensitivity and lower power capacity-the other one opposite of that), you can easily argue that one design is better than the other-depending on the customer and their intended usage.
Which one is best? It depends---------- as usual.
It is all a matter of tradeoffs and every manufacturer makes them in one way or the other. Sometimes it is an engineering choice, other times a marketing choice.
Post by: Ray Aberle on May 12, 2016, 06:45:34 PM
Harman does. For as long as I can remember I've seen exactly 2 people from a Harman company respond here. Both were from Crown. Total posts between them? <20.
One's probably Kevin Gring.
Post by: Mac Kerr on May 12, 2016, 07:57:40 PM
If you're a manufacturer, you'd have to have a pretty thick skin to post regularly on this forum. I think Ivan's skin can stop a .22 lol
But I think you're right. The reason it get's steered towards Danley is that Ivan responds and then some very happy users chime in.
If a JBL. Meyer etc rep chimed in I'm sure the discussion would go in their products direction.
Now let's get back to Danley lol
Most manufacturers stick to the rules that prohibit them talking about their products unless answering a direct question about them. They are prohibited from bringing their products into a general discussion.
Mac
Post by: John L Nobile on May 12, 2016, 10:40:44 PM
Most manufacturers stick to the rules that prohibit them talking about their products unless answering a direct question about them. They are prohibited from bringing their products into a general discussion.
Mac
That's probably a good rule to follow for a large business. But I do find it refreshing and quite informative to hear from a manufacturer rep that seems to have the company's blessing. I could be wrong but it makes me feel that they have nothing to hide and that they want well informed customers.
I'd much rather discuss speaker systems with an engineer rather than a sales person. I feel like I'm getting facts rather than hype and talk. Are they biased? Of course but with enough right information, you're able to come to an informed decision.
Post by: Stephen Swaffer on May 12, 2016, 11:02:23 PM
I'd much rather discuss speaker systems with an engineer rather than a sales person. I feel like I'm getting facts rather than hype and talk. Are they biased? Of course but with enough right information, you're able to come to an informed decision.
And it would stand to reason that any good speaker engineer is employed by a manufacturer-not many likely doing that as a side hobby. A lot of Ivan's posts are talking design concepts-if your product is designed to capitalize on the concepts you feel are key, then arguing the advantages of your design indirectly argues for your product. I enjoy the informative discussion. But then, I am the kind of guy that reads the "Principles of operation" before the troubleshooting guide when trying to fix a problem.
Post by: Jon Fu on May 12, 2016, 11:44:08 PM
A lot of Ivan's posts are talking design concepts-if your product is designed to capitalize on the concepts you feel are key, then arguing the advantages of your design indirectly argues for your product.
Sure, but is it necessary to constantly disparage your competitor's products? Let your product stand on its own merit, but stop accusing other manufacturers of ulterior motives.
To me, that's classless but what do I know. Obviously I'm in the minority here, but the constant snide remarks are tiring.
Post by: Scott Holtzman on May 13, 2016, 01:22:56 AM
Sure, but is it necessary to constantly disparage your competitor's products? Let your product stand on its own merit, but stop accusing other manufacturers of ulterior motives.
To me, that's classless but what do I know. Obviously I'm in the minority here, but the constant snide remarks are tiring.
I have never seen Ivan disparage a competitors product in a post, never. The entire concept of line arrays, multiple point sources et al all the time.
I have also seen him comment some of his competitors implementation of arrays.
Post by: Keith Broughton on May 13, 2016, 06:54:53 AM
Sure, but is it necessary to constantly disparage your competitor's products? Let your product stand on its own merit, but stop accusing other manufacturers of ulterior motives.Where are you getting that POV?
To me, that's classless but what do I know. Obviously I'm in the minority here, but the constant snide remarks are tiring.
I have read many posts from Ivan about line array (and other speaker design) flaws but can't remember any that are directed at a specific manufacturer.
Even when speaking with him, at length, in the Danley shop, it was only when I brought up a specific brand name that he might comment on that design.
It's refreshing to run into someone that is keen on what they are involved with and willing to put out an opinion, clearly knowing that opinion will be contested, and stand behind it.
Thick skin, yep, but not thick headed ;D
It's unfortunate that other manufacturers may be limiting their engineers from commenting in this forum.
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on May 13, 2016, 09:53:08 AM
Sure, but is it necessary to constantly disparage your competitor's products? Let your product stand on its own merit, but stop accusing other manufacturers of ulterior motives.Everybody says their product, or their way is better, but it requires some context, like how or why is the different product better. This involves describing inferior technology unfavorably.
Quote
To me, that's classless but what do I know. Obviously I'm in the minority here, but the constant snide remarks are tiring.Being classy is not one of the rules here or most of us wouldn't be allowed to post. ;D
I often ask Ivan to be more specific when he is vaguely critical of a competitor, and he has even shared information along those lines with me privately, rather than publicly, avoiding conflicts.
If you have concerns about specific comments from Ivan, ask about them instead of attacking him personally. We are pretty strict here about factual statements.
JR
PS: In a previous lifetime I occasionally tried to herd cats on the internet, and 99% of that effort was playing defense, trying to counter misinformation. Not broadly attacking others
Post by: Stephen Kirby on May 13, 2016, 04:16:05 PM
Post by: Rick Powell on May 13, 2016, 06:14:29 PM
Large touring systems may take a bit more of a disruptive solution similar to some sort of modular Jericho system. It may not even be Danley that gets there first. But the concept is valid.
What is needed is a sound reinforcement version of Phineas J. Whoopee's "Three Dimensional Blackboard" that can be stretched to whatever dimension is needed.
Post by: Keith Broughton on May 13, 2016, 06:20:38 PM
What is needed is a sound reinforcement version of Phineas J. Whoopee's "Three Dimensional Blackboard" that can be stretched to whatever dimension is needed.A Nano Quantum Speaker.
Infinately small point source that is in 2 places at the same time ;D
Post by: Mac Kerr on May 13, 2016, 07:06:28 PM
Ivan is promoting a design concept, not a product.
That is fine, what is outside the boundaries are the ad hominem attacks on the veracity of all other manufacturers. It is not OK to imply that other manufacturers lie in their specifications.
Mac
Post by: Ivan Beaver on May 13, 2016, 07:39:42 PM
That is fine, what is outside the boundaries are the ad hominem attacks on the veracity of all other manufacturers. It is not OK to imply that other manufacturers lie in their specifications.There is a difference between telling lies and giving out specs that are no lying-but NOT telling the truth as the customer would like to "think" it means.
Mac
The difference be lying and deceiving can be quite large.
Yes product A might get that loud-but only over 1/3 of an octave-the rest of the response is 10dB lower.
But the customer "thinks" that the "maximum SPL" spec means that the WHOLE freq response can do that.
If you were to actually eq the response to be flat-it would not be able to get anywhere near the "maximum SPL" spec.
But people will use that "simple single number spec" to "believe" the usable SPL will be that-and purchase it over another product that does not appear as loud "on paper", but is an honest realizable number.
Just as one example. There are many more. But I won't go into those.
NO, not all manufacturers do this. But a large number of them (or at least the marketing departments) do.
Some of the biggest are the biggest "Deceivers" (notice I did not use liers) of them all.
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on May 13, 2016, 07:56:58 PM
There is a difference between telling lies and giving out specs that are no lying-but NOT telling the truth as the customer would like to "think" it means.Ivan we've been around this tree so many time I feel like I may melt into butter like the tigers in that old fable (that was disappeared from bookshelves decades ago because it wasn't politically correct :o).
The difference be lying and deceiving can be quite large.
Yes product A might get that loud-but only over 1/3 of an octave-the rest of the response is 10dB lower.
But the customer "thinks" that the "maximum SPL" spec means that the WHOLE freq response can do that.
If you were to actually eq the response to be flat-it would not be able to get anywhere near the "maximum SPL" spec.
But people will use that "simple single number spec" to "believe" the usable SPL will be that-and purchase it over another product that does not appear as loud "on paper", but is an honest realizable number.
Just as one example. There are many more. But I won't go into those.
NO, not all manufacturers do this. But a large number of them (or at least the marketing departments) do.
Some of the biggest are the biggest "Deceivers" (notice I did not use liers) of them all.
Show me the money (facts). As we have discussed previously, when you write your white paper about proper speaker specification and measurement techniques, you can include these lairs (I mean "deceivers") with thinly concealed sham identities. The best way to stop it is too shine some sun light on it.
My suspicion has always been that there isn't as much deception going on as you apparently believe.
Maybe just tackle one at a time, in your ongoing series of "how to properly measure loudspeakers". As long as you don't literally name names, and don't proffer any deception yourself, it should be a win-win for all but the purveyors of flaky specs.
Now get back to work... 8)
JR
Post by: Mac Kerr on May 13, 2016, 08:10:28 PM
Ivan we've been around this tree so many time I feel like I may melt into butter like the tigers in that old fable (that was disappeared from bookshelves decades ago because it wasn't politically correct :o).
Show me the money (facts). As we have discussed previously, when you write your white paper about proper speaker specification and measurement techniques, you can include these lairs (I mean "deceivers") with thinly concealed sham identities. The best way to stop it is too shine some sun light on it.
My suspicion has always been that there isn't as much deception going on as you apparently believe.
Maybe just tackle one at a time, in your ongoing series of "how to properly measure loudspeakers". As long as you don't literally name names, and don't proffer any deception yourself, it should be a win-win for all but the purveyors of flaky specs.
Now get back to work... 8)
JR
This. Find something else to talk about.