Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
I need a crossover that can feed two sets of these:
24 views
Skip to first unread message
ckoz...@snet.net
May 23, 2012, 11:25:20 PM5/23/12
to
http://www.adorama.com/images/300x300/VDMASPM200.jpg (just an example for illustration!)
But most x-overs have only ONE sub-out, and I want FULL stereo from both the bottoms and the tops in that picture.
Does such a x-over exist?
-ChrisCoaster
But most x-overs have only ONE sub-out, and I want FULL stereo from both the bottoms and the tops in that picture.
Does such a x-over exist?
-ChrisCoaster
Gareth Magennis
May 24, 2012, 5:15:11 AM5/24/12
to
<ckoz...@snet.net> wrote in message
news:42a682b7-be45-4ac3...@googlegroups.com...
drive something like your picture, you just need to use the 2 x 2-way
section, i.e. Bass and Mid/High.
If you want an extra Sub, in addition to the 2 Bass Bins in the picture
(which are not Subs, they are Bass Bins), you would power this in mono from
the dedicated Sub output.
Gareth.
Gareth Magennis
May 24, 2012, 5:24:59 AM5/24/12
to
"Gareth Magennis" <sound....@btconnect.com> wrote in message
news:Ts-dnXHPwaiyYSDS...@bt.com...
Most crossovers I suspect will give you 2 x 2 outputs which can be
configured to drive such a system in the picture - one output per side for
the Bass/kind of a sub, the other for the Mid/High sattelite box, which has
its own built in crossover to separate the mids and highs, so you don't need
the electronic crossover to do this.
The extra mono Sub output is there to drive (an) additional Sub(s) which may
go much lower than the 2 bass bins, should you require more low
frequency/extension.
Gareth.
Rupert
May 24, 2012, 4:11:31 PM5/24/12
to
On May 23, 8:25 pm, ckozi...@snet.net wrote:
> http://www.adorama.com/images/300x300/VDMASPM200.jpg(just an example for illustration!)
There is no reason to run stereo subs unless you're crossing over at a
relatively high frequency. Mono subs are the way to go 99% of the time.
> http://www.adorama.com/images/300x300/VDMASPM200.jpg(just an example for illustration!)
>
> But most x-overs have only ONE sub-out, and I want FULL stereo from both the bottoms and the tops in that picture.
>
> Does such a x-over exist?
>
> -ChrisCoaster
http://www.dbxpro.com/223xl/
> But most x-overs have only ONE sub-out, and I want FULL stereo from both the bottoms and the tops in that picture.
>
> Does such a x-over exist?
>
> -ChrisCoaster
There is no reason to run stereo subs unless you're crossing over at a
relatively high frequency. Mono subs are the way to go 99% of the time.
Steve M
May 24, 2012, 8:05:57 PM5/24/12
to
"Rupert" wrote:
> http://www.dbxpro.com/223xl/
> There is no reason to run stereo subs unless you're crossing over at a
> relatively high frequency. Mono subs are the way to go 99% of the time.
>
I also agree on the DBX X/O. Economical and does the job.
I own three of the 234 XL.
--
Steve McQ
ckoz...@snet.net
May 24, 2012, 8:11:18 PM5/24/12
to
Thanks Gareth! Rupert & Steve, repeat 100x: "Yes, we can"!
-CC
-CC
Steve M
May 24, 2012, 9:16:42 PM5/24/12
to
<ckoz...@snet.net> wrote :
> Rupert & Steve, repeat 100x: "Yes, we can"!
>
Sure, you "can". But why would you bother?
>
There is nothing to be gained from running subs in stereo.
--
Steve McQ
ckoz...@snet.net
May 24, 2012, 9:51:29 PM5/24/12
to
When I do want stereo - I want it A L L in stereo! lol!
Rupert
May 24, 2012, 11:14:04 PM5/24/12
to
On May 24, 6:51 pm, ckozi...@snet.net wrote:
> When I do want stereo - I want it A L L in stereo! lol!
Why? There is no stereo directional information from the low
> When I do want stereo - I want it A L L in stereo! lol!
frequencies subs reproduce. For that reason, they run mono subs in
movie theaters, rock show, home theater, etc.
Denny Strauser
May 25, 2012, 12:43:26 AM5/25/12
to
On 5/24/2012 9:51 PM, ckoz...@snet.net wrote:
> When I do want stereo - I want it A L L in stereo! lol!
The only times I ever hears subs in stereo and appreciated it was at
> When I do want stereo - I want it A L L in stereo! lol!
Grateful Dead concerts. This is because the Dead had two drummers - one
drummer was fully panned left, and the other was fully panned right. And
when both kick drums hit hard in unison, the result was impressive.
But with a small system like yours, I'll agree with ever response you
got in this thread. Why? Those sub (or even low) frequencies are
omni-directional. Unless you are standing extremely close to the sub
cabinets, you cannot tell where the sound is coming from.
And, beyond that .... with such a small system, you'll need all the help
you can get in producing chest-thumping sub frequencies.
Many pro sound engineers want the subs sent from an Aux. They don't want
stereo subs. They want IMPACT!
Trust me. Forget your 'intellectual' bias. You got some excellent
advice. Chew on it. Digest it. Listen to those who have been in this
business for as long as you have been alive.
- Denny
ckoz...@snet.net
May 25, 2012, 1:30:05 AM5/25/12
to
On Friday, May 25, 2012 12:43:26 AM UTC-4, Denny Strauser wrote:
________________
Right now, queue up "Welcome to the Machine" by Floyd. Hear that ping-pong bass that starts after all the elevator effects? Can't get that with mono subs. ;)
Right now, queue up "Welcome to the Machine" by Floyd. Hear that ping-pong bass that starts after all the elevator effects? Can't get that with mono subs. ;)
Phil Allison
May 25, 2012, 2:38:52 AM5/25/12
to
<ckoz...@snet.net>
> Right now, queue up "Welcome to the Machine" by Floyd.
> Hear that ping-pong bass that starts after all the elevator effects?
It's a keyboard, a Moog maybe.
> Can't get that with mono subs. ;)
It would sound perfect with a mono sub.
There is very little deep bass involved and what you hear going "ping-pong"
would come through the stereo speakers.
Proving your wrong opinion with another wrong opinion is the stuff of
insanity.
... Phil
Bigguy2011
May 25, 2012, 5:21:58 AM5/25/12
to
Too much comb filtering and no real benefit.
You can have a stereo bass effect with a mono sub; the positional cues
come from higher frequencies.
G
Arny Krueger
May 25, 2012, 6:33:41 AM5/25/12
to
well as most modern amplifiers with full-function DSPs such as the Crown Xti
series can do this, no sweat.
A more conventional approach would be to just use 2 standard mono 3-way
analog crossovers,
Rupert
May 25, 2012, 1:44:24 PM5/25/12
to
On May 25, 3:33 am, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@cocmast.net> wrote:
> <ckozi...@snet.net> wrote in message
>
> news:42a682b7-be45-4ac3...@googlegroups.com...
>
> >http://www.adorama.com/images/300x300/VDMASPM200.jpg(just an example for
way crossovers? The setup he pointed to was a self powered 2-way top
with a sub. And his statement that *most* crossovers use a mono sub
out is false. Most, crossovers that have mono sum outputs for LF also
have separate channel outputs for LF as well as HF. The popular dbx
223XL is a perfect example.
> <ckozi...@snet.net> wrote in message
>
> news:42a682b7-be45-4ac3...@googlegroups.com...
>
> >http://www.adorama.com/images/300x300/VDMASPM200.jpg(just an example for
> > illustration!)
>
> > But most x-overs have only ONE sub-out, and I want FULL stereo from both
> > the bottoms and the tops in that picture.
>
> > Does such a x-over exist?
>
> A Behringer DCX 2496 and most competitive Loudspeaker Management Systems, as
> well as most modern amplifiers with full-function DSPs such as the Crown Xti
> series can do this, no sweat.
>
> A more conventional approach would be to just use 2 standard mono 3-way
> analog crossovers,
All he needs is a standard 2-way crossover. Why waste money on two 3-
>
> > But most x-overs have only ONE sub-out, and I want FULL stereo from both
> > the bottoms and the tops in that picture.
>
> > Does such a x-over exist?
>
> A Behringer DCX 2496 and most competitive Loudspeaker Management Systems, as
> well as most modern amplifiers with full-function DSPs such as the Crown Xti
> series can do this, no sweat.
>
> A more conventional approach would be to just use 2 standard mono 3-way
> analog crossovers,
way crossovers? The setup he pointed to was a self powered 2-way top
with a sub. And his statement that *most* crossovers use a mono sub
out is false. Most, crossovers that have mono sum outputs for LF also
have separate channel outputs for LF as well as HF. The popular dbx
223XL is a perfect example.
ckoz...@snet.net
May 25, 2012, 4:27:12 PM5/25/12
to
On Friday, May 25, 2012 1:44:24 PM UTC-4, Rupert wrote:
>
> All he needs is a standard 2-way crossover. Why waste money on two 3-
> way crossovers? The setup he pointed to was a self powered 2-way top
> with a sub. And his statement that *most* crossovers use a mono sub
> out is false. Most, crossovers that have mono sum outputs for LF also
> have separate channel outputs for LF as well as HF. The popular dbx
> 223XL is a perfect example.
_______________
>
> All he needs is a standard 2-way crossover. Why waste money on two 3-
> way crossovers? The setup he pointed to was a self powered 2-way top
> with a sub. And his statement that *most* crossovers use a mono sub
> out is false. Most, crossovers that have mono sum outputs for LF also
> have separate channel outputs for LF as well as HF. The popular dbx
> 223XL is a perfect example.
ERRRR!! WRONG, NO selfpowered speakers in this rig. That picture was just a representation of what I'm running a pair of. I put only speakers/monitors out in the house, not volume controls or attenuators. Those stay at my post.
I will however look into that dbx 223XL.
Thanks,
-CC
Krooburg Science
May 25, 2012, 4:39:34 PM5/25/12
to
"REPRESENTATION" of your setup. WHAT ARE WE SUPPOSED TO THINK?? Be
specific if you want correct answers!!
xo
- K
Steve M
May 25, 2012, 4:59:32 PM5/25/12
to
"Krooburg Science" wrote:
But, I suspect he's a few sandwiches short of picnic when it comes to audio,
anyway.
--
Steve McQ
ckozi...@snet.net wrote:
> ERRRR!! WRONG, NO selfpowered speakers in this rig. That picture was just
> a representation of what I'm running a pair of. I put only
> speakers/monitors out in the house, not volume controls or attenuators.
> Those stay at my post.
>
> ERRRR!! WRONG, NO selfpowered speakers in this rig. That picture was just
> a representation of what I'm running a pair of. I put only
> speakers/monitors out in the house, not volume controls or attenuators.
> Those stay at my post.
>
ERRRR! WRONG! WE'RE NOT MIND READERS. You posted a link to a
"REPRESENTATION" of your setup. WHAT ARE WE SUPPOSED TO THINK?? Be
specific if you want correct answers!!
Yes. The OP should tell us exactly what gear he's using. Make, model #, etc.
"REPRESENTATION" of your setup. WHAT ARE WE SUPPOSED TO THINK?? Be
specific if you want correct answers!!
But, I suspect he's a few sandwiches short of picnic when it comes to audio,
anyway.
--
Steve McQ
Steve M
May 25, 2012, 5:03:14 PM5/25/12
to
<ckoz...@snet.net> wrote:
Besides, the stereo panning you hear is not in the range that a sub
reproduces in the first place.
You don't really have a clue. Do you?
Read Denny's last line, above. Are you over 45 years old? That is the number
of years I have
in doing this thing called "sound".
--
Steve McQ
> Denny Strauser wrote:
>> Trust me. Forget your 'intellectual' bias. You got some excellent
>> advice. Chew on it. Digest it. Listen to those who have been in this
>> business for as long as you have been alive.
>>
>> Trust me. Forget your 'intellectual' bias. You got some excellent
>> advice. Chew on it. Digest it. Listen to those who have been in this
>> business for as long as you have been alive.
>>
> ________________
> Right now, queue up "Welcome to the Machine" by Floyd.
>
Why in the fuck would I want to listen to that tired old boring crap?
> Right now, queue up "Welcome to the Machine" by Floyd.
>
Besides, the stereo panning you hear is not in the range that a sub
reproduces in the first place.
You don't really have a clue. Do you?
Read Denny's last line, above. Are you over 45 years old? That is the number
of years I have
in doing this thing called "sound".
--
Steve McQ
Richard Webb
May 25, 2012, 11:09:30 PM5/25/12
to
On Fri 2012-May-25 17:03, Steve writes:
>>> Trust me. Forget your 'intellectual' bias. You got some excellent
>>> advice. Chew on it. Digest it. Listen to those who have been in this
>>> business for as long as you have been alive.
>><snip>
>>> Trust me. Forget your 'intellectual' bias. You got some excellent
>>> advice. Chew on it. Digest it. Listen to those who have been in this
>>> business for as long as you have been alive.
> Right now, queue up "Welcome to the Machine" by Floyd.
> Why in the fuck would I want to listen to that tired old boring
> crap? Besides, the stereo panning you hear is not in the range that
> a sub reproduces in the first place.
you're right on both counts. Pink FLoyd, I always wondered
> Why in the fuck would I want to listen to that tired old boring
> crap? Besides, the stereo panning you hear is not in the range that
> a sub reproduces in the first place.
if that bunch of poseurs could actually do it when they
didn't have the multitrack tape and all the props. But,
what stereo panning you're hearing on that piece is all in
the midrange and elsewhere, not the subsonics that your
subwoof produces. Bass is omnidirectional.
But then, Steve Denny and others here arleady knew this, and that's waht they're telling you.
Regards,
Richard
... Remote audio in the southland: See www.gatasound.com
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet<->Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
Sean Conolly
May 26, 2012, 1:55:25 AM5/26/12
to
"Richard Webb" <Richard.We...@116-901.ftn.wpusa.dynip.com> wrote in
message news:14b_2012...@ftn.wpusa.dynip.com...
cancellation than anything. The wave lengths are too long to get any kind of
audible spread between the stacks.
Sean
message news:14b_2012...@ftn.wpusa.dynip.com...
> On Fri 2012-May-25 17:03, Steve writes:
>>>> Trust me. Forget your 'intellectual' bias. You got some excellent
>>>> advice. Chew on it. Digest it. Listen to those who have been in this
>>>> business for as long as you have been alive.
>>><snip>
>> Right now, queue up "Welcome to the Machine" by Floyd.
>
>> Why in the fuck would I want to listen to that tired old boring
>> crap? Besides, the stereo panning you hear is not in the range that
>> a sub reproduces in the first place.
>
> you're right on both counts. Pink FLoyd, I always wondered
> if that bunch of poseurs could actually do it when they
> didn't have the multitrack tape and all the props. But,
> what stereo panning you're hearing on that piece is all in
> the midrange and elsewhere, not the subsonics that your
> subwoof produces. Bass is omnidirectional.
> But then, Steve Denny and others here arleady knew this, and that's waht
> they're telling you.
Even if you did run the a 'stereo' singnal to the subs you'd get more
>>>> Trust me. Forget your 'intellectual' bias. You got some excellent
>>>> advice. Chew on it. Digest it. Listen to those who have been in this
>>>> business for as long as you have been alive.
>>><snip>
>> Right now, queue up "Welcome to the Machine" by Floyd.
>
>> Why in the fuck would I want to listen to that tired old boring
>> crap? Besides, the stereo panning you hear is not in the range that
>> a sub reproduces in the first place.
>
> you're right on both counts. Pink FLoyd, I always wondered
> if that bunch of poseurs could actually do it when they
> didn't have the multitrack tape and all the props. But,
> what stereo panning you're hearing on that piece is all in
> the midrange and elsewhere, not the subsonics that your
> subwoof produces. Bass is omnidirectional.
> But then, Steve Denny and others here arleady knew this, and that's waht
> they're telling you.
cancellation than anything. The wave lengths are too long to get any kind of
audible spread between the stacks.
Sean
Arny Krueger
May 26, 2012, 5:19:04 AM5/26/12
to
"Rupert" <foods...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0b86d9d3-561f-4fe8...@n5g2000pbg.googlegroups.com...
On May 25, 3:33 am, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@cocmast.net> wrote:
> <ckozi...@snet.net> wrote in message
>
> news:42a682b7-be45-4ac3...@googlegroups.com...
>
> >http://www.adorama.com/images/300x300/VDMASPM200.jpg(just an example for
> > illustration!)
>
> > But most x-overs have only ONE sub-out, and I want FULL stereo from both
> > the bottoms and the tops in that picture.
>
> > Does such a x-over exist?
>
> A Behringer DCX 2496 and most competitive Loudspeaker Management Systems,
> as
> well as most modern amplifiers with full-function DSPs such as the Crown
> Xti
> series can do this, no sweat.
>
> A more conventional approach would be to just use 2 standard mono 3-way
> analog crossovers,
All he needs is a standard 2-way crossover. Why waste money on two 3-
way crossovers?
Because he said he wants stereo.
> <ckozi...@snet.net> wrote in message
>
> news:42a682b7-be45-4ac3...@googlegroups.com...
>
> >http://www.adorama.com/images/300x300/VDMASPM200.jpg(just an example for
> > illustration!)
>
> > But most x-overs have only ONE sub-out, and I want FULL stereo from both
> > the bottoms and the tops in that picture.
>
> > Does such a x-over exist?
>
> A Behringer DCX 2496 and most competitive Loudspeaker Management Systems,
> as
> well as most modern amplifiers with full-function DSPs such as the Crown
> Xti
> series can do this, no sweat.
>
> A more conventional approach would be to just use 2 standard mono 3-way
> analog crossovers,
All he needs is a standard 2-way crossover. Why waste money on two 3-
way crossovers?
ckoz...@snet.net
May 26, 2012, 6:31:50 AM5/26/12
to
I'll admit Steve I don't know everything about audio, but I do know this: Floyd and the other great rockers of the '70s DIDN'T need to use "Auto Tune"! Exactly what do YOU consider "talent"?
Rupert
May 26, 2012, 12:36:00 PM5/26/12
to
On May 26, 2:19 am, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@cocmast.net> wrote:
> "Rupert" <foodste...@gmail.com> wrote in message
when using it as 2-way
> "Rupert" <foodste...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:0b86d9d3-561f-4fe8...@n5g2000pbg.googlegroups.com...
> On May 25, 3:33 am, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@cocmast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > <ckozi...@snet.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:42a682b7-be45-4ac3...@googlegroups.com...
>
> > >http://www.adorama.com/images/300x300/VDMASPM200.jpg(justan example for
> news:0b86d9d3-561f-4fe8...@n5g2000pbg.googlegroups.com...
> On May 25, 3:33 am, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@cocmast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > <ckozi...@snet.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:42a682b7-be45-4ac3...@googlegroups.com...
>
> > > illustration!)
>
> > > But most x-overs have only ONE sub-out, and I want FULL stereo from both
> > > the bottoms and the tops in that picture.
>
> > > Does such a x-over exist?
>
> > A Behringer DCX 2496 and most competitive Loudspeaker Management Systems,
> > as
> > well as most modern amplifiers with full-function DSPs such as the Crown
> > Xti
> > series can do this, no sweat.
>
> > A more conventional approach would be to just use 2 standard mono 3-way
> > analog crossovers,
>
> All he needs is a standard 2-way crossover. Why waste money on two 3-
> way crossovers?
>
> Because he said he wants stereo.
I haven't seen a contemporary crossover that wasn't stereo already
>
> > > But most x-overs have only ONE sub-out, and I want FULL stereo from both
> > > the bottoms and the tops in that picture.
>
> > > Does such a x-over exist?
>
> > A Behringer DCX 2496 and most competitive Loudspeaker Management Systems,
> > as
> > well as most modern amplifiers with full-function DSPs such as the Crown
> > Xti
> > series can do this, no sweat.
>
> > A more conventional approach would be to just use 2 standard mono 3-way
> > analog crossovers,
>
> All he needs is a standard 2-way crossover. Why waste money on two 3-
> way crossovers?
>
> Because he said he wants stereo.
when using it as 2-way
Steve M
May 26, 2012, 5:18:47 PM5/26/12
to
"Rupert" <foods...@gmail.com> wrote:
--
Steve McQ
Arny Krueger wrote:
>> Because he said he wants stereo.
>>
> I haven't seen a contemporary crossover that wasn't stereo already
> when using it as 2-way
>
Arny is talking out his ass, as usual. He's a fake.
>> Because he said he wants stereo.
>>
> I haven't seen a contemporary crossover that wasn't stereo already
> when using it as 2-way
>
--
Steve McQ
Denny Strauser
May 27, 2012, 3:06:45 AM5/27/12
to
On 5/26/2012 6:31 AM, ckoz...@snet.net wrote:
> I'll admit Steve I don't know everything about audio, but I do know this: Floyd and the other great rockers of the '70s DIDN'T need to use "Auto Tune"! Exactly what do YOU consider "talent"?
If you don't want mono subs, try this:
> I'll admit Steve I don't know everything about audio, but I do know this: Floyd and the other great rockers of the '70s DIDN'T need to use "Auto Tune"! Exactly what do YOU consider "talent"?
http://www.google.com/search?q=Grateful+Dead,+Wall+Of+Sound&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=QKt&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=TdHBT97pM6KA6QHX6rSxCg&ved=0CGQQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=670
It is the Grateful Dead's "Wall Of Sound" ....
The original line array. Every instrument has its own stacks of speakers.
- Denny
Flint
May 27, 2012, 10:17:22 PM5/27/12
to
fact. A 'line' array? That was no 'line' array, no how, no way.
--
MFB
Ron Capik
May 27, 2012, 10:32:46 PM5/27/12
to
==
Later...
Ron Capik
--
gregz
May 27, 2012, 10:52:08 PM5/27/12
to
only, and not necessarily good for pa. Added some kind of higher register
to the driver.
Other than that, never had a chance to study graphs.
Greg
Flint
May 28, 2012, 2:02:42 AM5/28/12
to
just competing with Kiss at the time, I dunno ;-P
--
MFB
Denny Strauser
May 28, 2012, 7:20:28 AM5/28/12
to
On 5/28/2012 2:02 AM, Flint wrote:
> On 5/27/2012 10:32 PM, Ron Capik wrote:
>> On 5/27/2012 10:17 PM, Flint wrote:
>>> On 5/27/2012 3:06 AM, Denny Strauser wrote:
>>>> On 5/26/2012 6:31 AM, ckoz...@snet.net wrote:
>>>>> I'll admit Steve I don't know everything about audio, but I do know
>>>>> this: Floyd and the other great rockers of the '70s DIDN'T need to
>>>>> use "Auto Tune"! Exactly what do YOU consider "talent"?
>>>>
>>>> If you don't want mono subs, try this:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.google.com/search?q=Grateful+Dead,+Wall+Of+Sound&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=QKt&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=TdHBT97pM6KA6QHX6rSxCg&ved=0CGQQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=670
>>>>
>>>> It is the Grateful Dead's "Wall Of Sound" ....
>>>> The original line array. Every instrument has its own stacks of
>>>> speakers.
>>>>
> On 5/27/2012 10:32 PM, Ron Capik wrote:
>> On 5/27/2012 10:17 PM, Flint wrote:
>>> On 5/27/2012 3:06 AM, Denny Strauser wrote:
>>>> On 5/26/2012 6:31 AM, ckoz...@snet.net wrote:
>>>>> I'll admit Steve I don't know everything about audio, but I do know
>>>>> this: Floyd and the other great rockers of the '70s DIDN'T need to
>>>>> use "Auto Tune"! Exactly what do YOU consider "talent"?
>>>>
>>>> If you don't want mono subs, try this:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.google.com/search?q=Grateful+Dead,+Wall+Of+Sound&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=QKt&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=TdHBT97pM6KA6QHX6rSxCg&ved=0CGQQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=670
>>>>
>>>> It is the Grateful Dead's "Wall Of Sound" ....
>>>> The original line array. Every instrument has its own stacks of
>>>> speakers.
>>>>
>>> A wall of sound - yes. A horizontal cluster array? Yes several in fact.
>>> A 'line' array? That was no 'line' array, no how, no way.
It was surely a line array system. It was a number of line arrays. Check
>>> A 'line' array? That was no 'line' array, no how, no way.
out U2's most recent world tour. Every instrument (Guitar, Bass, Drums,
Vocals) had its own line array. Do your home work.
>>>
>> In the least you gotta give them credit for experimentation.
> Yeah, that they did indeed do: *experiment*. That, or maybe they were
> just competing with Kiss at the time, I dunno ;-P
Kiss was in high school when the Grateful Dead were cutting edge of
> just competing with Kiss at the time, I dunno ;-P
sound technology. The Dead's experiments are now the standard sound
technology .... from top to bottom.
Denny
Arny Krueger
May 28, 2012, 9:47:19 AM5/28/12
to
news:4fb6a58b-80c2-4440...@oy3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
All true, but I read the requirement as being a 3-way stereo system.
No matter, the OP was a seriously simple requirement no matter how it is
read.
No matter, the OP was a seriously simple requirement no matter how it is
read.
Arny Krueger
May 28, 2012, 9:48:12 AM5/28/12
to
"Steve M" <mcstev...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:jprhbn$acb$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
unhappy people, is still alive. :-(
Steve M
May 28, 2012, 9:30:42 PM5/28/12
to
Did Arniiiiii say something? I have the moron on ignore, so his drivel only
shows when he's quoted by others.
--
Steve McQ
shows when he's quoted by others.
--
Steve McQ
Flint
May 28, 2012, 9:43:33 PM5/28/12
to
On 5/28/2012 7:20 AM, Denny Strauser wrote:
> On 5/28/2012 2:02 AM, Flint wrote:
>> On 5/27/2012 10:32 PM, Ron Capik wrote:
>>> On 5/27/2012 10:17 PM, Flint wrote:
>>>> On 5/27/2012 3:06 AM, Denny Strauser wrote:
>>>>> On 5/26/2012 6:31 AM, ckoz...@snet.net wrote:
>>>>>> I'll admit Steve I don't know everything about audio, but I do know
>>>>>> this: Floyd and the other great rockers of the '70s DIDN'T need to
>>>>>> use "Auto Tune"! Exactly what do YOU consider "talent"?
>>>>>
>>>>> If you don't want mono subs, try this:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.google.com/search?q=Grateful+Dead,+Wall+Of+Sound&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=QKt&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=TdHBT97pM6KA6QHX6rSxCg&ved=0CGQQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=670
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It is the Grateful Dead's "Wall Of Sound" ....
>>>>> The original line array. Every instrument has its own stacks of
>>>>> speakers.
>>>>>
>>>> A wall of sound - yes. A horizontal cluster array? Yes several in
>>>> fact.
>>>> A 'line' array? That was no 'line' array, no how, no way.
>
> It was surely a line array system. It was a number of line arrays.
> Check out U2's most recent world tour. Every instrument (Guitar, Bass,
> Drums, Vocals) had its own line array.
Ookay, so U2's 360 tour employs separate line arrays per instrument.
> On 5/28/2012 2:02 AM, Flint wrote:
>> On 5/27/2012 10:32 PM, Ron Capik wrote:
>>> On 5/27/2012 10:17 PM, Flint wrote:
>>>> On 5/27/2012 3:06 AM, Denny Strauser wrote:
>>>>> On 5/26/2012 6:31 AM, ckoz...@snet.net wrote:
>>>>>> I'll admit Steve I don't know everything about audio, but I do know
>>>>>> this: Floyd and the other great rockers of the '70s DIDN'T need to
>>>>>> use "Auto Tune"! Exactly what do YOU consider "talent"?
>>>>>
>>>>> If you don't want mono subs, try this:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.google.com/search?q=Grateful+Dead,+Wall+Of+Sound&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=QKt&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=TdHBT97pM6KA6QHX6rSxCg&ved=0CGQQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=670
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It is the Grateful Dead's "Wall Of Sound" ....
>>>>> The original line array. Every instrument has its own stacks of
>>>>> speakers.
>>>>>
>>>> A wall of sound - yes. A horizontal cluster array? Yes several in
>>>> fact.
>>>> A 'line' array? That was no 'line' array, no how, no way.
>
> It was surely a line array system. It was a number of line arrays.
> Check out U2's most recent world tour. Every instrument (Guitar, Bass,
> Drums, Vocals) had its own line array.
That does nothing to prove GD's rig was a true line array. That only
illustrates that U2 *may* have borrowed a rig deployment concept from
GD, and married it >to< line array technology. It does NOT prove the
Dead's Alembic built "Wall of Sound" was any "line array".
> Do your home work.
Quit conflating subjects here with selective distortion,
misrepresentation, historic revisionism, or simply faulty memory
due to a bad batch of LSD so typical of dead heads...
>>> In the least you gotta give them credit for experimentation.
> \>
>> Yeah, that they did indeed do: *experiment*. That, or maybe they were
>> just competing with Kiss at the time, I dunno ;-P
>
> Kiss was in high school when the Grateful Dead were cutting edge of
> sound technology. The Dead's experiments are now the standard sound
> technology .... from top to bottom.
>
> Denny
>
since you brought it up:
1> Kiss was definitely out of high school considering they started as
a band in late 72/early 73 during the Dead heyday. Prior to then,
Kiss members Stanley and Simmons were playing in 'Wicked Lester' (the
precursor to Kiss).
2> The "Wall of Sound" was built >for< them by Alembic, Inc. and NOT
by their original soundman, "Bear" Stanley who was with them in 60's.
Furthermore, the "Wall of Sound" didn't really come into fruition
until right around the same time Kiss first came on the scene.
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grateful_Dead:
"Concert sound systems
The Wall of Sound was an enormous sound system designed specifically
for the Grateful Dead.[47][48] The band was never satisfied with the
house system anywhere they played. After the Monterey Pop Festival,
the band's crew 'borrowed' some of the other performers' sound
equipment and used it to host some free shows in San Francisco.[49] In
their early days, soundman Owsley "Bear" Stanley designed a public
address (PA) and monitor system for them. Bear was the Grateful Dead's
soundman for many years; he was also one of the largest suppliers of
LSD.[50] Stanley's sound systems were delicate and finicky, and
frequently brought shows to a halt with technical breakdowns. After
Stanley went to jail for manufacturing LSD in 1970, the group briefly
used house PAs, but found them to be even less reliable than those
built by their former soundman. In 1971, the band purchased their
first solid-state sound system from Alembic Inc Studios. Because of
this, Alembic would play an integral role in the research,
development, and production of the Wall of Sound. The band also
welcomed Dan Healy into the fold on a permanent basis that year. Healy
would mix the Grateful Dead's live sound until 1993."
If anything, outfits like Clair Brothers and Showco pioneered much (if
not most) of standard sound technologies than the dead's early
experimentation's. It's also ironic you should use the phrase "top to
bottom" since Roy and Gene Clair pioneered the flown concert sound
system with their S4s, and the custom speaker rigging made for them by
ATM Flyware - which IS more of a "top to bottom" industry standard
than anything the dead's experimentation yielded.
There's my "homework". Now where's *yours* to back up your assertion
that the Wall of Sound is a true line array, and not just a
combination of a hung/stagestacked clusters with more of a horizontal
orientation based more on stereo imaging than point source
reproduction of today's line arrays.
-
MFB
Steve M
May 28, 2012, 11:10:27 PM5/28/12
to
"Flint" wrote:
> Quit conflating subjects here with selective distortion,
> misrepresentation, historic revisionism, or simply faulty memory
> due to a bad batch of LSD so typical of dead heads...
>
>
I saw The Dead for the last time around 1973. Girlfriend wanted to go and I
was comped.
Keith and Donna were in the band by then. I almost fell asleep. Except, that
woman kept
waking me up with her god-awful caterwauling.
--
Steve McQ
Denny Strauser
May 29, 2012, 1:10:45 AM5/29/12
to
On 5/28/2012 9:43 PM, Flint wrote:
<snipped>
An effective line array (one that couples the drivers to act as one)
requires that the drivers or horn mouths constitutes 80% of the width of
the cabinet. Any less & they do not effectively couple & have phase
canceling & comb filtering.
The Wall Of Sound fits this definition. The vocal cluster does this in
two planes.
> Quit conflating subjects here with selective distortion,
> misrepresentation, historic revisionism, or simply faulty memory
> due to a bad batch of LSD so typical of dead heads...
I saw much of the Wall Of Sound in 1973 at Watkins Glen, although the
full system was said to be debuted in 1974. My buddy & I were probably
the only sober attendees. I hated the Grateful Dead's & The Band's sts
because I was a rock & roller, and those bands sounded too country for
my tastes. I went to see the Allman Bros.
>>>> In the least you gotta give them credit for experimentation.
>> \>
>>> Yeah, that they did indeed do: *experiment*. That, or maybe they were
>>> just competing with Kiss at the time, I dunno ;-P
>>
>> Kiss was in high school when the Grateful Dead were cutting edge of
>> sound technology. The Dead's experiments are now the standard sound
>> technology .... from top to bottom.
<snipped>
design, as did John Meyer.
I would suggest that Meyer Sound Laboratories & Ultra Sound were much
more advanced than Clair. MSL were using trapezoid cabinets, while Clair
were using those huge S4 full-range square boxes even when other
companies were developing line arrays.
You should read the article that Pro Sound News did on the Dead's
Ultrasound/Meyer system in - if memory serves me correctly - the Aug '93
issue. To quote that article (from memory): "...the best sound system
that ever was, and possibly may ever be."
Absolute Sound also reviewed that sound system. This magazine is an
audiophile magazine for big spenders. They said that the Dead's sound
system rivals the best stereo systems, and can do it at 120db.
Clair definitely did some things right. Their monitor wedges are
considered some of the best that money can buy.
> There's my "homework". Now where's *yours* to back up your assertion
> that the Wall of Sound is a true line array, and not just a combination
> of a hung/stagestacked clusters with more of a horizontal orientation
> based more on stereo imaging than point source reproduction of today's
> line arrays.
I don't do my homework in Wikipedia. I've been doing it for decades.
And a line array is not a point source system.
If you want to see what a point source system looks like, check out:
http://getmad.com/ ... and look at the A-8 & A-9 arrays.
Cheers!
<snipped>
> Ookay, so U2's 360 tour employs separate line arrays per instrument.
> That does nothing to prove GD's rig was a true line array. That only
> illustrates that U2 *may* have borrowed a rig deployment concept from
> GD, and married it >to< line array technology. It does NOT prove the
> Dead's Alembic built "Wall of Sound" was any "line array".
What constitutes a line array?
> That does nothing to prove GD's rig was a true line array. That only
> illustrates that U2 *may* have borrowed a rig deployment concept from
> GD, and married it >to< line array technology. It does NOT prove the
> Dead's Alembic built "Wall of Sound" was any "line array".
An effective line array (one that couples the drivers to act as one)
requires that the drivers or horn mouths constitutes 80% of the width of
the cabinet. Any less & they do not effectively couple & have phase
canceling & comb filtering.
The Wall Of Sound fits this definition. The vocal cluster does this in
two planes.
> Quit conflating subjects here with selective distortion,
> misrepresentation, historic revisionism, or simply faulty memory
> due to a bad batch of LSD so typical of dead heads...
full system was said to be debuted in 1974. My buddy & I were probably
the only sober attendees. I hated the Grateful Dead's & The Band's sts
because I was a rock & roller, and those bands sounded too country for
my tastes. I went to see the Allman Bros.
>>>> In the least you gotta give them credit for experimentation.
>> \>
>>> Yeah, that they did indeed do: *experiment*. That, or maybe they were
>>> just competing with Kiss at the time, I dunno ;-P
>>
>> Kiss was in high school when the Grateful Dead were cutting edge of
>> sound technology. The Dead's experiments are now the standard sound
>> technology .... from top to bottom.
> 2> The "Wall of Sound" was built >for< them by Alembic, Inc. and NOT by
> their original soundman, "Bear" Stanley who was with them in 60's.
> Furthermore, the "Wall of Sound" didn't really come into fruition until
> right around the same time Kiss first came on the scene.
Bear paid for the system, and you can be sure he had input into its
> their original soundman, "Bear" Stanley who was with them in 60's.
> Furthermore, the "Wall of Sound" didn't really come into fruition until
> right around the same time Kiss first came on the scene.
design, as did John Meyer.
more advanced than Clair. MSL were using trapezoid cabinets, while Clair
were using those huge S4 full-range square boxes even when other
companies were developing line arrays.
You should read the article that Pro Sound News did on the Dead's
Ultrasound/Meyer system in - if memory serves me correctly - the Aug '93
issue. To quote that article (from memory): "...the best sound system
that ever was, and possibly may ever be."
Absolute Sound also reviewed that sound system. This magazine is an
audiophile magazine for big spenders. They said that the Dead's sound
system rivals the best stereo systems, and can do it at 120db.
Clair definitely did some things right. Their monitor wedges are
considered some of the best that money can buy.
> There's my "homework". Now where's *yours* to back up your assertion
> that the Wall of Sound is a true line array, and not just a combination
> of a hung/stagestacked clusters with more of a horizontal orientation
> based more on stereo imaging than point source reproduction of today's
> line arrays.
And a line array is not a point source system.
If you want to see what a point source system looks like, check out:
http://getmad.com/ ... and look at the A-8 & A-9 arrays.
Cheers!
Rupert
May 29, 2012, 2:23:38 AM5/29/12
to
On May 28, 4:20 am, Denny Strauser <dsdennyso...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/28/2012 2:02 AM, Flint wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 5/27/2012 10:32 PM, Ron Capik wrote:
> >> On 5/27/2012 10:17 PM, Flint wrote:
> >>> On 5/27/2012 3:06 AM, Denny Strauser wrote:
> On 5/28/2012 2:02 AM, Flint wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 5/27/2012 10:32 PM, Ron Capik wrote:
> >> On 5/27/2012 10:17 PM, Flint wrote:
> >>> On 5/27/2012 3:06 AM, Denny Strauser wrote:
> >>>> On 5/26/2012 6:31 AM, ckozi...@snet.net wrote:
> >>>>> I'll admit Steve I don't know everything about audio, but I do know
> >>>>> this: Floyd and the other great rockers of the '70s DIDN'T need to
> >>>>> use "Auto Tune"! Exactly what do YOU consider "talent"?
>
> >>>> If you don't want mono subs, try this:
>
> >>>>http://www.google.com/search?q=Grateful+Dead,+Wall+Of+Sound&hl=en&cli...
> >>>>> I'll admit Steve I don't know everything about audio, but I do know
> >>>>> this: Floyd and the other great rockers of the '70s DIDN'T need to
> >>>>> use "Auto Tune"! Exactly what do YOU consider "talent"?
>
> >>>> If you don't want mono subs, try this:
>
>
> >>>> It is the Grateful Dead's "Wall Of Sound" ....
> >>>> The original line array. Every instrument has its own stacks of
> >>>> speakers.
>
> >>> A wall of sound - yes. A horizontal cluster array? Yes several in fact.
> >>> A 'line' array? That was no 'line' array, no how, no way.
>
> It was surely a line array system. It was a number of line arrays. Check
> out U2's most recent world tour. Every instrument (Guitar, Bass, Drums,
> Vocals) had its own line array. Do your home work.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> In the least you gotta give them credit for experimentation.
> \>
> > Yeah, that they did indeed do: *experiment*. That, or maybe they were
> > just competing with Kiss at the time, I dunno ;-P
>
> Kiss was in high school when the Grateful Dead were cutting edge of
> sound technology. The Dead's experiments are now the standard sound
> technology .... from top to bottom.
>
> Denny
The U2 systems was a "dual PA" setup where there were 2 sets of hangs
> >>>> It is the Grateful Dead's "Wall Of Sound" ....
> >>>> The original line array. Every instrument has its own stacks of
> >>>> speakers.
>
> >>> A wall of sound - yes. A horizontal cluster array? Yes several in fact.
> >>> A 'line' array? That was no 'line' array, no how, no way.
>
> It was surely a line array system. It was a number of line arrays. Check
> out U2's most recent world tour. Every instrument (Guitar, Bass, Drums,
> Vocals) had its own line array. Do your home work.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> In the least you gotta give them credit for experimentation.
> \>
> > Yeah, that they did indeed do: *experiment*. That, or maybe they were
> > just competing with Kiss at the time, I dunno ;-P
>
> Kiss was in high school when the Grateful Dead were cutting edge of
> sound technology. The Dead's experiments are now the standard sound
> technology .... from top to bottom.
>
> Denny
for each array that had instruments divided up between the 2 sets to
increase system clarity and reduce the IM distortion of the drivers
that happens when blending multiple instruments and vocals together.
The idea was originally pioneered for current rock shows using modern
line arrays by Dave Rat on the 2006 Red Hot Chili Peppers tour using
L'acoustics V-DOSC. The U2 i5 Clair system used for the 360 tour
borrowed this idea. So there is a pair of hangs for each array with
instruments divided up between them. Interestingly, Dave Rat got the
idea from the Wall of Sound. But back then, they didn't have the
technology to execute it as well as it can be done today.
http://www.ratsound.com/cblog/archives/2006/05.html
Flint
May 29, 2012, 4:33:38 AM5/29/12
to
On 5/29/2012 1:10 AM, Denny Strauser wrote:
> On 5/28/2012 9:43 PM, Flint wrote:
> <snipped>
>> Ookay, so U2's 360 tour employs separate line arrays per instrument.
>> That does nothing to prove GD's rig was a true line array. That only
>> illustrates that U2 *may* have borrowed a rig deployment concept from
>> GD, and married it >to< line array technology. It does NOT prove the
>> Dead's Alembic built "Wall of Sound" was any "line array".
>
> What constitutes a line array?
> An effective line array (one that couples the drivers to act as one)
Essentially, I suppose, even if a tad overly simplistic, and in the
> On 5/28/2012 9:43 PM, Flint wrote:
> <snipped>
>> Ookay, so U2's 360 tour employs separate line arrays per instrument.
>> That does nothing to prove GD's rig was a true line array. That only
>> illustrates that U2 *may* have borrowed a rig deployment concept from
>> GD, and married it >to< line array technology. It does NOT prove the
>> Dead's Alembic built "Wall of Sound" was any "line array".
>
> What constitutes a line array?
> An effective line array (one that couples the drivers to act as one)
broadest sense, but rather biased in favor of line source system
topology and exclusive of the general trend of today's line arrays
that are ever marching more towards the point source school of thought
of line array theory.
> requires that the drivers or horn mouths constitutes 80% of the width
> of the cabinet. Any less & they do not effectively couple & have phase
> canceling & comb filtering.
> The Wall Of Sound fits this definition. The vocal cluster does this in
> two planes.
most accounts I've heard from those who actually heard it, it sucked
on the vocals, but are we talking about >just< the vocal cluster, or
the whole wall of sound here?
The Wall of Sound fits only >one< parameter of a line array, as
compared to the other parameters it violates or ignores, the biggest
one that come to mind is directivity/placement of the most important
bandbass range for vocals (of which sounded bad by most reports I've
heard about it).
The WoS was a novel approach, with ll clusters, 4 of which were
separate stack clusters, 1 for each string of Phil Lesh's bass, phase
cancelling dual vocal mic scheme, etc. The claim was made, however,
that this system pioneered industry standard practices - "top to
bottom" was the phrase I believe you used. The truth is, much of
their experimentation has long since been dropped and in very little
use, except possibly as lessons learned as to what >NOT< to do in
sound system integration/operation. In that sense, they were more
like Edison's 1000 failures in inventing the light bulb.
The point is as awesome as their rig was, it was also chock loaded
with flaws and problems (hence failures), which in addition to its
cost of operation, is why they only used it briefly (one tour in 74,
from what I remember, IIRC). Citing U2's 360 tour to support the
notion of the dead's WoS as being trend setting is little more than a
wobbly horse with weak legs. A nostalgic throwback, perhaps, but an
industry trend setting standard?
I think not...
>> Quit conflating subjects here with selective distortion,
>> misrepresentation, historic revisionism, or simply faulty memory
>> due to a bad batch of LSD so typical of dead heads...
>
> I saw much of the Wall Of Sound in 1973 at Watkins Glen, although the
> full system was said to be debuted in 1974. My buddy & I were probably
> the only sober attendees. I hated the Grateful Dead's & The Band's sts
> because I was a rock & roller, and those bands sounded too country for
> my tastes. I went to see the Allman Bros.
The Band fan myself.
>>>>> In the least you gotta give them credit for experimentation.
>>> \>
>>>> Yeah, that they did indeed do: *experiment*. That, or maybe they were
>>>> just competing with Kiss at the time, I dunno ;-P
>>>
>>> Kiss was in high school when the Grateful Dead were cutting edge of
>>> sound technology. The Dead's experiments are now the standard sound
>>> technology .... from top to bottom.
> <snipped>
>> 2> The "Wall of Sound" was built >for< them by Alembic, Inc. and NOT by
>> their original soundman, "Bear" Stanley who was with them in 60's.
>> Furthermore, the "Wall of Sound" didn't really come into fruition until
>> right around the same time Kiss first came on the scene.
>
> Bear paid for the system, and you can be sure he had input into its
> design, as did John Meyer.
picture. (See below)
even Clair's own engineers would agree as I've personally heard some
them voice very similar sentiments decades ago. Having said that,
they did pioneer what *I* consider to be one of the most significant,
key developments in earlier concert sound reinforcement: getting the
sound >onto< the audience rather than the venue walls, with their
flown systems that everyone else quickly copied. Clair was pretty
quick to go to vertical line arrays themselves, however, but were a
tad late in utilizing trap designs (specifically) in this role,before
Meyer. I still remember their early "I" rigs using some of their
older S4's modified to be nothing more than 218" subwoofer arrays hung
along side their I arrays.
> You should read the article that Pro Sound News did on the Dead's
> Ultrasound/Meyer system in - if memory serves me correctly - the Aug
> '93 issue. To quote that article (from memory): "...the best sound
> system that ever was, and possibly may ever be."
Sound" under discussion, no?
> Absolute Sound also reviewed that sound system. This magazine is an
> audiophile magazine for big spenders. They said that the Dead's sound
> system rivals the best stereo systems, and can do it at 120db.
today's systems, not to mention that audiophile magazine reviews were
often little more than highly subjective opinion pieces themselves.
> Clair definitely did some things right. Their monitor wedges are
> considered some of the best that money can buy.
Clair also did many things *wrong*. Hell, back then >everybody< did.
They were some of the "Edisons" of their industry, however.
And just like Watson did, they too had many failures before hitting on
their successes. Clair's successes are largely >timing< related as
well as technological. They were simply in the right place at the
right time with key artist accounts, and they've maintained there
industry position despite the rest of the industry that grew up around
them and saturated their markets. Clair has survived and even grown
by diversifying and becoming vertically integrated. A damn good thing
they did too, considering how former industry greats like EAW and
Midas got swallowed up by technologically inferior companies selling
their "drek" to the masses :(
>> There's my "homework". Now where's *yours* to back up your assertion
>> that the Wall of Sound is a true line array, and not just a combination
>> of a hung/stagestacked clusters with more of a horizontal orientation
>> based more on stereo imaging than point source reproduction of today's
>> line arrays.
>
> I don't do my homework in Wikipedia. I've been doing it for decades.
for it. I thought you were asking for some sort of cite to backup my
point.
Wikipedia is a somewhat more useful tool for this than some nebulous
standard of insisting on someone doing their "homework", an illogical
requirement since no time machines exist as of yet. Having said that,
I've been 'doing it for decades' as well, but I *will* still use
Wikipedia.
> And a line array is not a point source system.
something of the holy grail goal of line arrays. My point was that
the Wall of Sound never even >attempted< this approach - it simply
wasn't a design parameter of priority. A simple observation of the
plethora of photos of it clearly show that much. The smearing must
have been awful, almost as bad as the comb filtering of an array of
even Clair's S4's were. Truth is, no system can be purely point
source, but more of today's line arrays definitely can be much closer
to this (even if only virtually). The WoS simply did not attempt
this, period.
> If you want to see what a point source system looks like, check out:
> http://getmad.com/ ... and look at the A-8 & A-9 arrays.
>
> Cheers!
link, BTW. I'm kind of partial to some of the stuff Tom Danley has
been churning out however, although he too is often mistakenly
credited for inventing his "summation aperture" technology. He may
hold patents, but I suspect a challenge to some of these could be
successfully waged given that others have worked on (and even received
patents for) similar technologies prior to his. It amazes me to this
day that Yorkville actually >paid< Danley for a license of this design
in their Unity series. :/ I suspect they only did so more for
marketing reasons than any real legal obligation to do so.
--
MFB
Denny Strauser
May 29, 2012, 6:25:33 AM5/29/12
to
refers to a total 360 degrees of staging. There were four sets of stereo
arrays.
- Denny
Denny Strauser
May 29, 2012, 7:16:13 AM5/29/12
to
On 5/29/2012 4:33 AM, Flint wrote:
<SNIPPED FOR GOOD REASON>
Please excuse my lack of diplomacy & tolerance. You have little or
absolutely no clue. I suggest you look for another line of income. I
apologize if I sound a bit like Phil Allison ......
<SNIPPED FOR GOOD REASON>
Please excuse my lack of diplomacy & tolerance. You have little or
absolutely no clue. I suggest you look for another line of income. I
apologize if I sound a bit like Phil Allison ......
Arny Krueger
May 29, 2012, 7:20:51 AM5/29/12
to
news:jq18s2$svs$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
Interesting Steve that just about the only you post, is to express your
undying hatred. You are obviously a very unhappy person. Sad,.
undying hatred. You are obviously a very unhappy person. Sad,.
Denny Strauser
May 29, 2012, 7:37:53 AM5/29/12
to
On 5/29/2012 4:33 AM, Flint wrote:
Snipped because this thread can be read in full ......
Do yourself a favor, Spend your last year's income to buy half a clue.
And save up the next year to buy the other half.
Denny Strauser
May 29, 2012, 8:48:15 AM5/29/12
to
On 5/29/2012 4:33 AM, Flint wrote:
It matters little what Flint wrote.
He obviously has little real-life experience.
Forgive my unusually short & pointed replies. But sometimes I just
cannot help myself.
- Denny
Audio1
May 29, 2012, 10:20:04 AM5/29/12
to
http://meyersound.com/support/papers/line_array_theory.htm
Audio1
May 29, 2012, 10:22:57 AM5/29/12
to
On 5/29/2012 4:33 AM, Flint wrote:
>...the general trend of today's line arrays that
> are ever marching more towards the point source school of thought of
> line array theory.
Good god, you *are* clueless.
> line array theory.
Krooburg Science
May 29, 2012, 3:18:11 PM5/29/12
to
> > The U2 systems was a "dual PA" setup where there were 2 sets of hangs
> > for each array that had instruments divided up between the 2 sets to
> > increase system clarity and reduce the IM distortion of the drivers
> > that happens when blending multiple instruments and vocals together.
There were TWO separate line arrays in each ARRAY with the instruments
divided up between each LINE ARRAY of EACH ARRAY. Make sense now?
Flint
May 29, 2012, 4:57:20 PM5/29/12
to
could enlighten me? After all, you and I haven't even held a
conversation before. Why do you feel a need to jump in mid thread
*now*? Is this some attempt to revive the MDST here in this NG, or
something?
--
MFB
ckoz...@snet.net
May 29, 2012, 5:24:36 PM5/29/12
to
Ohh FARTING SUITCASES look what I've started! I'm off to New Haven..
Flint
May 29, 2012, 8:47:09 PM5/29/12
to
that seems to have killed this ng over the past few years. Someone
disagrees with you, perhaps based on misinformation or a flawed
understanding, and some folks suddenly feel entitled to be arrogant
and condescending. I don't know what your "years" of experience
actually entails, but I see no reason for you to be insulting and
denigrating of mine. If I've mistakenly misspoke, simply provide a
site to reinforce your point and enlighten me instead of getting all
insulting and condescending.
--
MFB
Denny Strauser
May 30, 2012, 1:31:08 AM5/30/12
to
the facts speak for themselves. I know that my 30 years as a sound
engineer ... & another 14 years as a musician have thickened my skin &
lessened my patience. But I have done my homework. And I'm learning more
every day.
- Denny
Richard Webb
May 30, 2012, 1:32:25 PM5/30/12
to
On Wed 2012-May-30 01:31, Denny Strauser writes:
> OK. I'll apologize for my insulting & condescending tone. But I'll
> let the facts speak for themselves. I know that my 30 years as a
> sound engineer ... & another 14 years as a musician have thickened
> my skin & lessened my patience. But I have done my homework. And
> I'm learning more every day.
Indeed, ditto here.
> OK. I'll apologize for my insulting & condescending tone. But I'll
> let the facts speak for themselves. I know that my 30 years as a
> sound engineer ... & another 14 years as a musician have thickened
> my skin & lessened my patience. But I have done my homework. And
> I'm learning more every day.
I know Bob isn't one of the newbies, but I think this point
needs amplifying a bit. Often when a relative newbie comes
in and asks about something and is given the "you can't get
there from here" or similar response from us old farts he's
offended as much by the implied tone of our responses as
anything.
We often don't mean to offend, but you wouldn't believe some of the unrealistic expectations we bump up against from the
public, the musos, club/venue owners, etc. etc. Many of us
have done oru time and paid our dues using crap equipment,
or not quite the best. HEnce in the early days of this
group the mdst label came into existence for some of us.
For the uninitiated that might be here, mdst stands for
"million dollar snob team."
We may seem a bit standoffish or possibly curt in our
responses, but chances are we've been down the road you're
trying to travel before. Sometimes a bit of understanding
of basic science is required to grok why you can't get that
from here. Sometimes it's just impractical.
So please folks, try to grab the important stuff and let the rest go by you. oFten we don't mean to offend or put
somebody off.
Regards,
Richard
... Remote audio in the southland: See www.gatasound.com
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet<->Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
Steve M
May 30, 2012, 5:23:17 PM5/30/12
to
"Richard Webb" wrote:>
oFten we don't mean to offend or put
> somebody off.
>
Unless you're Phil Allison. He's patently offensive.
oFten we don't mean to offend or put
> somebody off.
>
--
Steve McQ
Denny Strauser
May 30, 2012, 11:33:09 PM5/30/12
to
On 5/29/2012 4:33 AM, Flint wrote:
> On 5/29/2012 1:10 AM, Denny Strauser wrote:
>> What constitutes a line array?
>> An effective line array (one that couples the drivers to act as one)
>
> Essentially, I suppose, even if a tad overly simplistic, and in the
> broadest sense, but rather biased in favor of line source system
> topology and exclusive of the general trend of today's line arrays that
> are ever marching more towards the point source school of thought of
> line array theory.
A line array is not point source. A point source appears to come from
>> What constitutes a line array?
>> An effective line array (one that couples the drivers to act as one)
>
> Essentially, I suppose, even if a tad overly simplistic, and in the
> broadest sense, but rather biased in favor of line source system
> topology and exclusive of the general trend of today's line arrays that
> are ever marching more towards the point source school of thought of
> line array theory.
one point. A line array comes from a vertical array which couples in the
vertical plane (and limits vertical dispersion). This allows the speaker
system to concentrate energy on the audience, & not spend those watts &
SPL bouncing that sound off the walls & ceiling (indoor shows) or into
the atmosphere (outdoor shows). The directional qualities of a sound
system is completely dependent on the size of the array & the
frequencies being reproduced.
I mentioned in this thread that I heard much of the WALL OF SOUND at
Watkins Glen with The Grateful Dead, The Band & Allman Brothers in 1973.
This was the first time that any concert used delay stacks. I was
between the stage & the first set of delay stacks.
As much advanced-thought that was put into this sound system ... one
thing that the system engineers didn't take into account was that low
frequencies are omnidirectional.
Where I was standing (between the stage & first set of delay stacks), I
heard all low frequencies (mostly kick drums) come from the stage, and a
few milliseconds later, from the first delay stacks behind me. This was
FUCKING ANNOYING! Live & learn ...
>> requires that the drivers or horn mouths constitutes 80% of the width
>> of the cabinet. Any less & they do not effectively couple & have phase
>> canceling & comb filtering.
>> The Wall Of Sound fits this definition. The vocal cluster does this in
>> two planes.
>
>
> The vocal cluster was only one cluster of the Wall of Sound, and by most
> accounts I've heard from those who actually heard it, it sucked on the
> vocals, but are we talking about >just< the vocal cluster, or the whole
> wall of sound here?
the early 90's, after I had been doing sound for a number of years. Even
those nights when the band completely SUCKED, I was still amazed at the
quality of sound. AMAZED!
If you have never heard that Ultrasound/Meyer system, you'll never have
another chance. I've heard soundboard & audience recordings of some same
shows. And the audience recordings sounded better than the soundboards.
Tell me what other soundman, sound company or band who can claim that
their audience recordings sound better than soundboard recordings.
- Denny
Flint
May 31, 2012, 1:22:28 PM5/31/12
to
On 5/30/2012 11:33 PM, Denny Strauser wrote:
> On 5/29/2012 4:33 AM, Flint wrote:
>> On 5/29/2012 1:10 AM, Denny Strauser wrote:
>>> What constitutes a line array?
>>> An effective line array (one that couples the drivers to act as one)
>>
>> Essentially, I suppose, even if a tad overly simplistic, and in the
>> broadest sense, but rather biased in favor of line source system
>> topology and exclusive of the general trend of today's line arrays that
>> are ever marching more towards the point source school of thought of
>> line array theory.
>
> A line array is not point source. A point source appears to come from
> one point. A line array comes from a vertical array which couples in
> the vertical plane (and limits vertical dispersion). This allows the
> speaker system to concentrate energy on the audience, & not spend
> those watts & SPL bouncing that sound off the walls & ceiling (indoor
> shows) or into the atmosphere (outdoor shows). The directional
> qualities of a sound system is completely dependent on the size of the
> array & the frequencies being reproduced.
... or in the case of horn loaded stuff, the size/geometry of the
> On 5/29/2012 4:33 AM, Flint wrote:
>> On 5/29/2012 1:10 AM, Denny Strauser wrote:
>>> What constitutes a line array?
>>> An effective line array (one that couples the drivers to act as one)
>>
>> Essentially, I suppose, even if a tad overly simplistic, and in the
>> broadest sense, but rather biased in favor of line source system
>> topology and exclusive of the general trend of today's line arrays that
>> are ever marching more towards the point source school of thought of
>> line array theory.
>
> A line array is not point source. A point source appears to come from
> one point. A line array comes from a vertical array which couples in
> the vertical plane (and limits vertical dispersion). This allows the
> speaker system to concentrate energy on the audience, & not spend
> those watts & SPL bouncing that sound off the walls & ceiling (indoor
> shows) or into the atmosphere (outdoor shows). The directional
> qualities of a sound system is completely dependent on the size of the
> array & the frequencies being reproduced.
horn(s) used, as with the Danley stuff I referenced earlier (and no,
I'm not saying these are line arrays - far from it!)
BTW, I didn't mean to conflate the two, as I understand the purpose of
line arrays, spherical and planar waves, tightly controlled
dispersions, pattern control, etc. My usage of 'point source' was
very sloppy, I suppose, and not technically accurate. Having said
that, I should clarify what I meant by 'point source' would have been
more accurately expressed with 'bandpass phase coherency', as I was
focusing more on the refined full range nature of today's line arrays
and their individual elements (& co-entrant bandpass designs). These
tend to be designed to provide better imaging and phase coherency, and
if designed/deployed properly, can even get closer to appearing to
originate from one point (even if mainly in spectral imaging), or what
I previously stated as 'virtually'(as though one draws a line out the
back from each of a curved line array's elements, and each of those
lines intersect at some virtual origin point behind the array) In
that regard, line arrays today are totally different animals than WOS
was largely vertically straight-stacked bandbass reproduction which is
why I originally took exception to it being called a line array. I
guess I'm just looking at the improved phase coherency and reduced
comb filtering designs of today as being as critical of a defining
parameter of a line array as well as its directional qualities.
Another factor I was looking at was the physical sound source
emanation point. WOS was largely vertically ground stacked , and my
understanding is that only the vocal cluster was suspended or truly
'flown', IIRC. This was obviously not the most optimal deployment(by
todays line array methodology) for a line array, and appears to have
been a horizontally curved array intended more or less for for
dispersive >coverage< rather than directivity (although it may have
been an improvement over other methods at the time.) I'd imagine it
blew away some those old Heil PA systems I used to hear, though. :)
By my sloppy usage of 'point source, I meant the same thing about the
A8-A9 systems you provided a link for. My understanding is that these
aren't truly point source either, but are actually >planar<
in nature (similar in principle to my old Magneplanar stereo
speakers), is this correct? If so I'd be real interested in hearing
this sound system...
>
> I mentioned in this thread that I heard much of the WALL OF SOUND at
> Watkins Glen with The Grateful Dead, The Band & Allman Brothers in
> 1973. This was the first time that any concert used delay stacks. I
> was between the stage & the first set of delay stacks.
>
> As much advanced-thought that was put into this sound system ... one
> thing that the system engineers didn't take into account was that low
> frequencies are omnidirectional.
Sounds like a textbook example of an 'Edison-esque' error.
> Where I was standing (between the stage & first set of delay stacks),
> I heard all low frequencies (mostly kick drums) come from the stage,
> and a few milliseconds later, from the first delay stacks behind me.
> This was FUCKING ANNOYING! Live & learn ...
of a gig I mixed where the keyboard player insisted on locating his
B3's Leslie cabinet on top of his synth speaker cabinet thus elevating
it so the Leslie's horn was at head height. Unfortunately, there was
a ceiling fan right in front of it but up about 1" over his head.
Unfortunately, the FOH mix position was up on a raised second level,
and guess where my head-level was? >Painful< to listen too...
>>> requires that the drivers or horn mouths constitutes 80% of the width
>>> of the cabinet. Any less & they do not effectively couple & have phase
>>> canceling & comb filtering.
>>> The Wall Of Sound fits this definition. The vocal cluster does this in
>>> two planes.
>>
>>
>> The vocal cluster was only one cluster of the Wall of Sound, and by
>> most
>> accounts I've heard from those who actually heard it, it sucked on the
>> vocals, but are we talking about >just< the vocal cluster, or the whole
>> wall of sound here?
>
> Let me say this: I heard the Dead about 25 times from the mid 80's to
> the early 90's, after I had been doing sound for a number of years.
> Even those nights when the band completely SUCKED, I was still amazed
> at the quality of sound. AMAZED!
>
> If you have never heard that Ultrasound/Meyer system, you'll never
> have another chance. I've heard soundboard & audience recordings of
> some same shows. And the audience recordings sounded better than the
> soundboards. Tell me what other soundman, sound company or band who
> can claim that their audience recordings sound better than soundboard
> recordings.
this...
Between the compromises/conflicts in goals of doing a decent live
mix for the audience and a recording (even with today's DAWs and
better tools) I suppose I find it a bit difficult to appreciate the
significance. I suppose after hearing countless (usually failed)
attempts at doing quality recordings in this manner, I've long since
given up even trying.
Note, I'm not saying what you've heard on that system wasn't good. I
never heard it, but the reports I've heard from those who did said the
vocal cluster was pretty lame. Maybe it was a bad mix or problems
occurring at that particular show, I don't know. I don't mean to
denigrate that system. My main contention about it was that as
innovative as it was, there was a lot wrong with it as well. It's
well known that that system (especially when the original soundman was
still with them) was constantly going wrong, and brought that show to
grinding halt on many occasion. While I suppose you view the
developments on that system that are in use to this day (which is why
I mentioned phase reversal on dual mics in order to reduce
feedback/instrument bleed, for example) I was looking more at a lot of
things that they also did that have long since been abandoned for the
most part, and are no longer 'top to bottom' practices. Like having
the mains located directly behind the performers being the most
significant (and yes, there are still exceptions to this, I know).
This was an example of a >FAIL<, IMHO. No, let me correct that - it
wasn't so much a failure, it was a discovery of a technique that
simply >doesn't< work. This is exactly what I meant about them being
'Edison-esque' in those days (BTW, I mistakenly typed 'Watson' earlier
when I meant Edison). In that regard, I suppose it can be said that
even in those early mistakes, something was still gained - knowledge
and experience.
BTW, on possibly somewhat related question: Who is to be credited with
the idea of phase reversal switches on mic inputs? (I really don't
know, although I've always been curious.)
--
MFB
Flint
May 31, 2012, 11:28:48 PM5/31/12
to
On 5/30/2012 1:32 PM, Richard Webb wrote:
> On Wed 2012-May-30 01:31, Denny Strauser writes:
>> OK. I'll apologize for my insulting& condescending tone. But I'll
> On Wed 2012-May-30 01:31, Denny Strauser writes:
>> let the facts speak for themselves. I know that my 30 years as a
>> sound engineer ...& another 14 years as a musician have thickened
>> my skin& lessened my patience. But I have done my homework. And
>> I'm learning more every day.
>
> Indeed, ditto here.
>
> I know Bob isn't one of the newbies, but I think this point
> needs amplifying a bit. Often when a relative newbie comes
> in and asks about something and is given the "you can't get
> there from here" or similar response from us old farts he's
> offended as much by the implied tone of our responses as
> anything.
>
> We often don't mean to offend, but you wouldn't believe some of the unrealistic expectations we bump up against from the
> public, the musos, club/venue owners, etc. etc. Many of us
> have done oru time and paid our dues using crap equipment,
> or not quite the best. HEnce in the early days of this
> group the mdst label came into existence for some of us.
> For the uninitiated that might be here, mdst stands for
> "million dollar snob team."
>
> We may seem a bit standoffish or possibly curt in our
> responses, but chances are we've been down the road you're
> trying to travel before. Sometimes a bit of understanding
> of basic science is required to grok why you can't get that
> from here. Sometimes it's just impractical.
>
> So please folks, try to grab the important stuff and let the rest go by you. oFten we don't mean to offend or put
> somebody off.
Well said, Rich. Yes, I was a bit offended by Denny's response,
>
> Indeed, ditto here.
>
> I know Bob isn't one of the newbies, but I think this point
> needs amplifying a bit. Often when a relative newbie comes
> in and asks about something and is given the "you can't get
> there from here" or similar response from us old farts he's
> offended as much by the implied tone of our responses as
> anything.
>
> We often don't mean to offend, but you wouldn't believe some of the unrealistic expectations we bump up against from the
> public, the musos, club/venue owners, etc. etc. Many of us
> have done oru time and paid our dues using crap equipment,
> or not quite the best. HEnce in the early days of this
> group the mdst label came into existence for some of us.
> For the uninitiated that might be here, mdst stands for
> "million dollar snob team."
>
> We may seem a bit standoffish or possibly curt in our
> responses, but chances are we've been down the road you're
> trying to travel before. Sometimes a bit of understanding
> of basic science is required to grok why you can't get that
> from here. Sometimes it's just impractical.
>
> So please folks, try to grab the important stuff and let the rest go by you. oFten we don't mean to offend or put
> somebody off.
although I suppose I kind of asked for it with my sloppy terminology
usage.
After I went back and reread the thread and what I wrote, I can see
why Denny was put off by what I wrote initially because I believe he
sensed that I was denigrating WOS which he personally heard and
obviously still respects what was accomplished by it. For that I
apologize, as it was not my intention. I simply tend to view a lot of
older past technological efforts in a pragmatic sense, and like most
of the older coots here, I've seen technologies come (and go), and am
quick to recognize/assess technological failures. Of course, this is
done with 20/20 hindsight.
I should point out that I'm no 'newbie' either in this NG or in
real-life. I've been following this group for over 10 years almost
from its beginning, and I know Denny (and you) are both long time
posters here. I haven't posted here under >this< identity very long,
but I've been (intermittently) active under a couple of other
identities over the years as well, so it only >appears< as though I'm
a 'newbie'.
Having said that, I was a bit put off by Denny's curt tone (which he
has apologized for) and was a bit surprised by it as it hasn't been my
past observation of him here to denigrate others' experience with such
broad brush comments. I really didn't view him as a real MDST member
(or what it ultimately seems to have devolved into over the years),
and generally I found his insights to be quite informative, but it
simply seemed that the ugly head of the MDST mentality was starting to
resurface.
However, I can understand the older we all get and the longer we've
been doing this, it gets more annoying to deal with someone (myself
included) who comes in an awkwardly mispeaks. For that *I* apologize
to Denny and anyone else I may have offended.
Enough said?
--
MFB
Denny Strauser
Jun 1, 2012, 3:15:48 AM6/1/12
to
I did not recognize the name Flint. And Flint reminded me of the dozen
years that I've been in this NG. He also reminded me of the many times
that my posts were of the "Can't we all get along civilly?" kind of
post, which was often followed by a sudden decrease of dialog in this NG.
Although I was not a charter member of MDST (I have never owned a
million dollar sound system), I have had to deal with many riders which
stated "ABSOLUTELY NO Mackie, Peavey or Behringer." And sometimes I have
been left to deal with the fallout of sound companies, clubs & promoters
who ignored these demands.
Geesh! George Gleason was a founding member of MDST, & I've actually
been hired by George to be his A1 at a number of festivals. As ironic as
it seems - with 20/20 hindsight - George now actually owns a bunch of
Behringer & Mackie stuff for low level rentals. And I have two of his
AAPLS/MDST "Great Men Of Audio Science" tee-shirts.
Again, I apologize for becoming one of those I challenged in the past.
Funny how we sometimes become what we thought was wrong in the past.
..... or not .....
I'd like to thank Flint & Richard for bringing this to my attention.
- Denny
Peter Larsen
Jun 5, 2012, 8:48:43 AM6/5/12
to
Rupert wrote:
> On May 24, 6:51 pm, ckozi...@snet.net wrote:
>> When I do want stereo - I want it A L L in stereo! lol!
> Why? There is no stereo directional information from the low
> frequencies subs reproduce. For that reason, they run mono subs in
> movie theaters, rock show, home theater, etc.
In a live sound context I agree, but LFE is for mono effects and can not
reproduce an ambient sound field because proper rendering of out phase LF is
required for proper ambience rendering. However it has to0 be present in the
signal that is played back for the concern to apply and it had better NOT be
present in a live sound amplification context.
Kind regards
Peter Larsen
> On May 24, 6:51 pm, ckozi...@snet.net wrote:
>> When I do want stereo - I want it A L L in stereo! lol!
> Why? There is no stereo directional information from the low
> frequencies subs reproduce. For that reason, they run mono subs in
> movie theaters, rock show, home theater, etc.
In a live sound context I agree, but LFE is for mono effects and can not
reproduce an ambient sound field because proper rendering of out phase LF is
required for proper ambience rendering. However it has to0 be present in the
signal that is played back for the concern to apply and it had better NOT be
present in a live sound amplification context.
Kind regards
Peter Larsen
Peter Larsen
Jun 5, 2012, 8:50:54 AM6/5/12
to
Arny Krueger wrote:
> A more conventional approach would be to just use 2 standard mono
> 3-way analog crossovers,
For a top + bass bin combination?? - I do NOT think the illustrated system
is wired for three way.
Kind regards
Peter Larsen
> A more conventional approach would be to just use 2 standard mono
> 3-way analog crossovers,
For a top + bass bin combination?? - I do NOT think the illustrated system
is wired for three way.
Kind regards
Peter Larsen
Peter Larsen
Jun 5, 2012, 9:02:25 AM6/5/12
to
gregz wrote:
>> It is the Grateful Dead's "Wall Of Sound" ....
>> The original line array. Every instrument has its own stacks of
>> speakers.
>> - Denny
>> It is the Grateful Dead's "Wall Of Sound" ....
>> The original line array. Every instrument has its own stacks of
>> speakers.
> I always assumed aluminum domes on larger speakers were for
> instruments only, and not necessarily good for pa.
So for the guitar line(s) and the bass line that run full range they're on
the mark
> Added some kind of
> higher register to the driver.
Nah, puts more of into a small area for better dispersion, but at the cost
of some hideous delayed resonance issues and narrow response peaks. If
you're running a 15" to 800 Hz it may be preferable to get proper clarity on
vox humana but I'd rather just run to to 240 or 320 or less even.
> Other than that, never had a chance to study graphs.
Look at the image again, the wide band system is the voice array with 12",
5" and EV tweeters.
> Greg
Kind regards
Peter Larsen
Peter Larsen
Jun 5, 2012, 8:55:41 AM6/5/12
to
Flint wrote:
>> It is the Grateful Dead's "Wall Of Sound" ....
>> The original line array. Every instrument has its own stacks of
>> speakers.
>> - Denny
>> It is the Grateful Dead's "Wall Of Sound" ....
>> The original line array. Every instrument has its own stacks of
>> speakers.
>> - Denny
> A wall of sound - yes. A horizontal cluster array? Yes several in
> fact. A 'line' array? That was no 'line' array, no how, no way.
One line array pr. instrument sized for proper directivity index. Nothing
> fact. A 'line' array? That was no 'line' array, no how, no way.
secret, it is all in te db Magazine article about the system.
Kind regards
Peter Larsen
Peter Larsen
Jun 5, 2012, 9:10:26 AM6/5/12
to
Flint wrote:
> Essentially, I suppose, even if a tad overly simplistic, and in the
> broadest sense, but rather biased in favor of line source system
> topology and exclusive of the general trend of today's line arrays
> that are ever marching more towards the point source school of thought
> of line array theory.
A point source will drop its level 6 dB pr. doubling of distance. A line
> Essentially, I suppose, even if a tad overly simplistic, and in the
> broadest sense, but rather biased in favor of line source system
> topology and exclusive of the general trend of today's line arrays
> that are ever marching more towards the point source school of thought
> of line array theory.
array will within at least 10 times the line length drop with only 4 dB pr.
doubling of distance because it creates a columnar wave front rather than a
spherical wave front.
Kind regards
Peter Larsen
0 new messages