EVM 18B vs EVX 180B
Tom Ginkel
blew one of them and have an EVX 180B, a beast of a speaker, that I could
use as a replacement. I'm only running 300 watts per sub and wonder if the
EVX monster is sensitive enough to balance with the other side. I know it's
a better speaker, but will it match up. Has it any other advantage other
than bestial power-handling capability?
Many thanks.
Phil Allison
"Tom Ginkel"
>
> I have some very nice compact subs that use one EVM18B for my club p.a.
** Any chance you can measure the box internal volume for us ??
Approximate value in litres or cubic feet will do.
Ported?
> blew one of them and have an EVX 180B, a beast of a speaker, that I could
> use as a replacement. I'm only running 300 watts per sub and wonder if
> the EVX monster is sensitive enough to balance with the other side.
** Fair question, as the EVM is quoted as 100dB/w/m = 4 dB more than the
EVX at 96 dB/w/m
> I know it's a better speaker, but will it match up.
** Likely not very well - the two drivers are rather dissimilar.
> Has it any other advantage other than bestial power-handling capability?
** EVM18B = X max of 3mm
EVX180 = X max of 5mm
Be warned, the " power handling " quoted in watts of most bass drivers is
largely an illusion. The ability to produce clean, high SPL, low frequencies
from a practical size box is the real issue - plus not burning out too
easily.
...... Phil
liquidator
"Tom Ginkel" <tgi...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:LEtIl.74144$DP1.20460@attbi_s22...
As Phil said, you provide no box details.
The two speakers are substantially different, and require different box
tunings.
All that said, most likely at moderate volume, it would work.
Push things and it is a different story.
But frankly, sounds like you blew one speaker and are about to do in
another...
It would be better to stick to tech stuff and drop useles words like
"monster".
Beastial is also not an audio term...
Tom Ginkel
The box is the TL505, 7.1 cf box listed in the EV "PA Bible" that I built
for the EVM 18Bs. It's inside dimensions are about 18.5 by 29 by 23 and I
built it in "step-down" mode with a total port area of about 30 sq in.
George's Pro Sound Company
>
>
> The box is the TL505, 7.1 cf box listed in the EV "PA Bible" that I built
> for the EVM 18Bs. It's inside dimensions are about 18.5 by 29 by 23 and I
> built it in "step-down" mode with a total port area of about 30 sq in.
>
>
I can not say how the two boxes will match up
but the evx worked fine in boxes like that
George
Eeyore
Tom Ginkel wrote:
What are you powering them with ?
Graham
liquidator
> for the EVM 18Bs. It's inside dimensions are about 18.5 by 29 by 23 and I
> built it in "step-down" mode with a total port area of about 30 sq in.
>
>
Should be OK. Just remember, if ya blow one...
Phil Allison
"Tom Ginkel"
>
> The box is the TL505, 7.1 cf box listed in the EV "PA Bible" that I built
> for the EVM 18Bs. It's inside dimensions are about 18.5 by 29 by 23 and I
> built it in "step-down" mode with a total port area of about 30 sq in.
>
** Long as the box frequency is between 35 & 50 Hz ( optimum is 42Hz )
both drivers will operate fine in a 195 litre cab.The 4 dB level difference
may be apparent.
The EVX will go a tad lower and produce more clean bass down low.
...... Phil
Rupert
The EVX is a very good sounding driving a well. I've been using them
for years in my subs and top boxes. They will have noticeably more
output compared to the EVM. I use the EVX180B in a larger cabinet with
a center tuning at 28Hz and they do a very good job of going that low
though there is a tradeoff in power handling. Only recently have
drivers come on the market that will outperform it for output and VLF
performance in live sound reinforcement.
Rupert
liquidator
"Rupert" <foods...@linkline.com> wrote in message
news:64486e79-4c4f-4093...@y33g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Only recently have
drivers come on the market that will outperform it for output and VLF
performance in live sound reinforcement.
That just plain is not true.
Phil Allison
"liquidator"
> "Rupert"
> Only recently have
> drivers come on the market that will outperform it for output and VLF
> performance in live sound reinforcement.
>
> That just plain is not true.
** JBL might have a claim in relation to their "vented gap" 15s and 18s
that have been around for a long time now.
.... Phil
liquidator
"Phil Allison" <phila...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:75kju0F...@mid.individual.net...
Beyma and BMS make bass drivers that make that EV look like a toy. As I am
sure others do...
It's a decent driver, but Rupert's claims about how good it is are just WAY
off.
Tom Ginkel
That's not a "technical term"! :-)
"liquidator" <mi...@mad.scientist.com> wrote in message
news:gt44om$24i$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
liquidator
> Hey liquidator......."toy"?
>
> That's not a "technical term"! :-)
>
It does however communicate the point. And can you tell me how an
incorrectly spelled "beastial" communicates the box info required to answer
the original question?
Sorry- you ain't funny, just dumb.
Tom Ginkel
You really should get your mind out of the gutter there guy! Maybe a trip
to the library and a glance at Webster could help....check definition 1.
Maybe you also should scan your Spellcheck. ONE of ours isn't working.
Gotta get out of the house once in a while dude. One tends to get cranky!
I'm sorry that my unfortunate phrasing pissed you off. I know that some of
the guys on this NG are world-class sources of knowledge, and I'm always
grateful when they take the time to respond to my nowhere-class questions.
I thought that was what was done here.
Perhaps when you find the next question unworthy of your response you could
just ignore it instead of pissing on the questioner.
"liquidator" <mi...@mad.scientist.com> wrote in message
news:gt601o$9tg$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
liquidator
> Tsk..tsk!
>
> You really should get your mind out of the gutter there guy! Maybe a trip
> to the library and a glance at Webster could help....check definition 1.
> Maybe you also should scan your Spellcheck. ONE of ours isn't working.
>
> Gotta get out of the house once in a while dude. One tends to get cranky!
>
> I'm sorry that my unfortunate phrasing pissed you off. I know that some
> of the guys on this NG are world-class sources of knowledge, and I'm
> always grateful when they take the time to respond to my nowhere-class
> questions. I thought that was what was done here.
>
> Perhaps when you find the next question unworthy of your response you
> could just ignore it instead of pissing on the questioner.
>
>
OTOH you could grow a brain and start learning...nah, ain't never gonna
happen, you'd rather blame others...
Sorry if I have a short fuse for people who act like 13 year old DJ's. I
just don't think much of people with medium quality gear who'd rather brag
than learn.
George's Pro Sound Company
> Tsk..tsk!
>
> You really should get your mind out of the gutter there guy! Maybe a trip
> to the library and a glance at Webster could help....check definition 1.
> Maybe you also should scan your Spellcheck. ONE of ours isn't working.
>
> Gotta get out of the house once in a while dude. One tends to get cranky!
>
> I'm sorry that my unfortunate phrasing pissed you off. I know that some
> of the guys on this NG are world-class sources of knowledge, and I'm
> always grateful when they take the time to respond to my nowhere-class
> questions. I thought that was what was done here.
>
> Perhaps when you find the next question unworthy of your response you
> could just ignore it instead of pissing on the questioner.
>
>
service is easy to obtain
I use almost exclusivly the RCF L 300 and 800series woofers, except in my
eaw la 400, the factory fitted emenience ROCK
effecient, tough as bricks.
the evm is lowend junk in todays market, not really better than a peavey
black widow, I would say not even as good
george
Tom Ginkel
"George's Pro Sound Company" <bm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:NN2dnT5TD-9hn2rU...@earthlink.com...
Rupert
> Thanks to those who gave some advice. I learned a lot.
>
> "George's Pro Sound Company" <bm...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:NN2dnT5TD-9hn2rU...@earthlink.com...
>
>
>
> >news:SmwJl.674581$yE1.444458@attbi_s21...
> >> Tsk..tsk!
>
> >> You really should get your mind out of the gutter there guy! Maybe a
> >> trip to the library and a glance at Webster could help....check
> >> definition 1. Maybe you also should scan your Spellcheck. ONE of ours
> >> isn't working.
>
> >> Gotta get out of the house once in a while dude. One tends to get
> >> cranky!
>
> >> I'm sorry that my unfortunate phrasing pissed you off. I know that some
> >> of the guys on this NG are world-class sources of knowledge, and I'm
> >> always grateful when they take the time to respond to my nowhere-class
> >> questions. I thought that was what was done here.
>
> >> Perhaps when you find the next question unworthy of your response you
> >> could just ignore it instead of pissing on the questioner.
>
> > the evx is a ok woofer, not great, and overpriced
> > service is easy to obtain
> > I use almost exclusivly the RCF L 300 and 800series woofers, except in my
> > eaw la 400, the factory fitted emenience ROCK
> > effecient, tough as bricks.
> > the evm is lowend junk in todays market, not really better than a peavey
> > black widow, I would say not even as good
> > george
I guess I am a little behind the times ;-) It was a top notch driver
though when it was introduced and held it's own for quite some time.
It's still very good IMHO. But most importantly, it works very well in
my particular boxes which is key. A lot of the other drivers mentioned
have been tested in my subs over the years in a quest for better
performance by the maker. And while they worked fine, they didn't have
a significant enough improvement to warrant a full inventory change of
the drivers for several hundred boxes. That said, there is a newer neo
RCF 18 that is likely to warrant the change. Unfortunately it also
requires a much larger amp and different processing, so it will be an
expensive venture. But the upgrade in performance is significant I'm
told.
Rupert
George's Pro Sound Company
And while they worked fine, they didn't have
a significant enough improvement to warrant a full inventory change of
the drivers for several hundred boxes.
how many systems do you send out to justify a inventory of "several
hundered" subs?
even Clair Bros. does not keep "several hundred" subs
on any one continent
to me "several hundred" is at least 300 more likely 600 or 700, as 200 would
be a couple of hundred
George
Rupert
wrote:
I don't have the several hundred subs, the sound company that built
the subs I own does. They have several arena/stadium size rigs and
several smaller ones so they have built up an inventory of ~300 subs.
On the big gigs they're using up to 48 double 18" subs for the main
array. The 3 driver types used in the past and currently would be the
EVX180B, the TAD TL1801, and the McCauley 6174. They're all good
drivers but with noticeably different characteristics. The EV's are
best overall compromise in performance in terms of output vs. low
extension, with the McCauley going lower but not as good sounding and
the TAD with the best sound overall but doesn't go as low. The newer
RCF has the great sound characteristics of the TAD and EV along with
the low frequency extension of the McCauley has the potential to
reduce the number of boxes required for the big shows as they're
approaching horn-loaded sub levels but with the often desired
characteristics of a front loaded reflex box.
Rupert
George's Pro Sound Company
On Apr 28, 10:40 am, "George's Pro Sound Company" <bm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> And while they worked fine, they didn't have
> a significant enough improvement to warrant a full inventory change of
> the drivers for several hundred boxes.
>
> how many systems do you send out to justify a inventory of "several
> hundered" subs?
> even Clair Bros. does not keep "several hundred" subs
> on any one continent
> to me "several hundred" is at least 300 more likely 600 or 700, as 200
> would
> be a couple of hundred
> George
I don't have the several hundred subs, the sound company that built
the subs I own does. They have several arena/stadium size rigs and
several smaller ones so they have built up an inventory of ~300 subs.
On the big gigs they're using up to 48 double 18" subs for the main
array.
I guess it is time for a upgrade
24 subs like the meyer 700P's(12 a side) can THROB a 100,000 folks
cut you ac service, trucks,labor,wiring,recones by 1/2 the savings would
easily pay for proper subs
george
george
Rupert
wrote:
> "Rupert" <foodste...@linkline.com> wrote in message
Actually, I'm not a big fan of the 700's, rather have the 650's sound
wise The 700 have a lot of rumble but don't seem to have as much punch
as the 650s. Personal taste of course. As for 'proper subs', the subs
I have are world class and are in current use for tours by many top
acts world wide. I agree they don't have the output of some of the
newer high output subs, but they sound fantastic. The main reason they
don't have as much output as they could in their current
implementation is that they're tuned to reach down into the low 20Hz
region. That means reduced power handling by the drivers so total
output is reduced compared to the same driver either in a another box
or even in the same box but with a high pass filter that rolls off
below say 40Hz. It's a trade-off of LF extension vs. output, but it's
really worth it if that's what you're after. Yes, it means more boxes
for the large gigs. Even still they have more than enough output for
my personal use at this time. That said, the RCF driver should give
them the output to match current high output offerings whilst
maintaining the sound characteristics and LF extension that have made
them popular with those top acts' ME's.
Rupert
George's Pro Sound Company
and evertything I am aware of is you need to INCREASE power handleing to get
lower cutoffs, not decrease,I believe you mis spoke
George
Rupert
wrote:
While you are correct that a driver needs to posses increased power
handling to achieve lower cut-off, I didn't misspeak. Whenever any
driver is run at the limits of it's low frequency capability, it has
reduced power handling capability due to the extra excursion required
to reproduce those frequencies compared to if it was in a box that had
a higher tuning and cut-off frequency. If the box was designed with a
tuning around 45Hz or even say 40Hz, it would handle more power and be
capable of more output than it does with a center tuning of 32Hz and
low cut-off of 20Hz. Your implication that these subs are not decent
is false.
Rupert
George's Pro Sound Company
a higher tuning and cut-off frequency. If the box was designed with a
tuning around 45Hz or even say 40Hz, it would handle more power and be
capable of more output than it does with a center tuning of 32Hz and
low cut-off of 20Hz.
you would neverput a speaker with a 20 hz cut off in a 45 hz boz, it would
not work properly
neither would you put a 45 hz speaker in a 20 hz box, it would not work
properly
you subs, like mine(ancient full horn loaded bh800's) were decent a while
ago
sure they sound gooodbut they cost (Lots)of extra money to continue useing
them
when you need 2x the box, truck pack ac service, labor and maintence costs,
the only thing those subs are is paid for.
Your implication that these subs are not decent
is false.
they stopped makeing you money a long time ago
I would not need CDL trucks ifI were to upgrade my subs
when you need 48 of one sub to do what 24of another sub can do, the first
sub is no longer a valid choice
I understand this intamatly as I struggle with this same problem, only I
don't have some sort of ego issue admitting my subs are no longer earning me
money, they are a liability,as your subs clearly are
it isn't brain rocketry to see all the ways a modern sub could pay forit
self , I would buy new myself but I committed to a 3 year fianced plan for
new tops and monitors and will not have 50K$ to committ to the next
upgrade(subs) until 2012
george
Rupert
Rupert
wrote:
> to reproduce those frequencies compared to if it was in a box that had
> a higher tuning and cut-off frequency. If the box was designed with a
> tuning around 45Hz or even say 40Hz, it would handle more power and be
> capable of more output than it does with a center tuning of 32Hz and
> low cut-off of 20Hz.
>
> you would neverput a speaker with a 20 hz cut off in a 45 hz boz, it would
> not work properly
> neither would you put a 45 hz speaker in a 20 hz box, it would not work
> properly
Yes yes, I do understand how T/S parameters work in relation to box
size and tuning. There is a range that all drivers can operate in and
there are choices and trade-offs that can be made: run the driver with
a lower tuning and get less maximum output or run the driver with a
higher tuning and get more maximum output but the box won't go as
deep. It's simple. The EVX-180B on the other drivers I mentioned all
operate well with the lower tuning though they are also used in boxes
with higher tuning as well. And regardless of the box tuning, if you
implement a high pass filter that's higher than the box tuning, the
driver(s) will handle more power and give you more output if you use a
bigger amp.
>
> you subs, like mine(ancient full horn loaded bh800's) were decent a while
> ago
> sure they sound gooodbut they cost (Lots)of extra money to continue useing
> them
>
> when you need 2x the box, truck pack ac service, labor and maintence costs,
> the only thing those subs are is paid for.
It's true you need truck space and people to move 'em. But when
they're specifically requested, you give the client what they want.
They pay for it.
>
> Your implication that these subs are not decent
> is false.
>
> >they stopped makeing you money a long time ago
> >I would not need CDL trucks ifI were to upgrade my subs
>
> when you need 48 of one sub to do what 24of another sub can do, the first
> sub is no longer a valid choice
> I understand this intamatly as I struggle with this same problem, only I
> don't have some sort of ego issue admitting my subs are no longer earning me
> money, they are a liability,as your subs clearly are
> it isn't brain rocketry to see all the ways a modern sub could pay forit
> self , I would buy new myself but I committed to a 3 year fianced plan for
> new tops and monitors and will not have 50K$ to committ to the next
> upgrade(subs) until 2012
You're making assumptions George. I have a modest rig and the subs
were paid for a long time ago and still make me money with good ROI.
They continue to pay for themselves many times over. They require no
further enhancement by me at this time and are more than powerful
enough for the shows I do and don't occupy an inordinate amount of
truck space. If and when they do need to be upgraded, it will still be
less costly to put the new drivers in the box and get the bigger amps
than to buy new subs and they will still be very rider friendly. They
will have >6dB more output with the upgrade allowing half the number
of boxes if need be. It's not an issue of ego. It's an issue of value
and performance. It's not costing me money to keep them they way the
are right now and they are still making me money. Capital outlay is
not necessary. And frankly, they're better sounding subs than most of
the off the shelf product out there.
Rupert
liquidator
> Thanks to those who gave some advice. I learned a lot.
>
All's well that ends well.
We got started off on the wrong foot...I just have heard so many "Wow, man!"
descriptions of gear...I'd rather just stick to discussing what it does...I
did audio for a living, not as a hobby. You HAVE to be serious about
it...how serious you are is often how much you make.
liquidator
Rupert
Take a look at this critter...
http://bmspro.com/18N860.bms_18n860_neodymium_woofer.0.html
That is 1500 AES not peak...
and about triple the EV's Xmax...
The EV ain't bad, it just isn't and never was top of the heap.
Phil Allison
"liquidator"
> Take a look at this critter...
>
> http://bmspro.com/18N860.bms_18n860_neodymium_woofer.0.html
>
> That is 1500 AES not peak...
** The 1500W figure is a blatant fake - those damn Krauts are notorious
lairs.
An AES test on a sub woofer is meaningless, since it involves using broad
band pink noise.
The watts figure is not defined - so must be assumed to be watts peak.
> and about triple the EV's Xmax...
** The driver will take less continuos power than the EVX.
From the TS data, 75% of the voice coil hangs out * beyond the gap * so is
not being driven by magnetic force NOR being cooled by conduction.
Makes for a low efficiency and low power handling speaker.
OK for HT use, maybe.
.... Phil
Rupert
That other issue with a lot of these high power/high xmax drivers is
that while they can move a lot of air, they don't always sound that
good doing it. If the coil is leaving the gap's main magnetic field,
then it would make sense as the performance would become relatively
non-linear. The one being tested for the cabinets I have which will
replace the EV's are these:
http://www.rcf.it/products/view/tags/cone-drivers/lf18n451/neodymium-low-frequency-transducers
Reports are that this model works very well in that box and has
substantially more output then the EV while maintaining the overall
quality. With the larger diameter 4.5" voice coil, it seems the 1500
watts AES rating might be more viable than with a 4" model, but I
suspect that number doesn't hold operating near the 30Hz region which
seems to be the case with most if not all sub drivers.
Rupert
Phil Allison
"Rupert"
"Phil Allison"
> "liquidator"
>
> > Take a look at this critter...
>
> >http://bmspro.com/18N860.bms_18n860_neodymium_woofer.0.html
>
> > That is 1500 AES not peak...
>
> ** The 1500W figure is a blatant fake - those damn Krauts are notorious
> lairs.
>
> An AES test on a sub woofer is meaningless, since it involves using broad
> band pink noise.
>
> The watts figure is not defined - so must be assumed to be watts peak.
>
> > and about triple the EV's Xmax...
>
> ** The driver will take less continuos power than the EVX.
>
> From the TS data, 75% of the voice coil hangs out * beyond the gap * so is
> not being driven by magnetic force NOR being cooled by conduction.
>
> Makes for a low efficiency and low power handling speaker.
>
> OK for HT use, maybe.
>
That other issue with a lot of these high power/high xmax drivers is
that while they can move a lot of air, they don't always sound that
good doing it. If the coil is leaving the gap's main magnetic field,
then it would make sense as the performance would become relatively
non-linear.
** On the contrary - the coil being way longer than the gap depth ( 50mm v
12mm) allows it to move back and forth by up to 19mm while the drive *force*
remains constant.
In the case of the BMS driver, only 26 % or so of the coil is driven by
magnetic force at any time, but that percentage remains the same up to the
linear excursion limit.
However, un-driven parts of a voice coil are just *dead weight* AND having
areas not cooled by conduction to the pole pieces means the power rating of
a long coil is reduced a lot compared to a similar dia, short coil design.
..... Phil
liquidator
http://www.rcf.it/products/view/tags/cone-drivers/lf18n451/neodymium-low-frequency-transducers
Rupert
Rupert, you need to learn how speakers work.
The whole concept of that long coil is to keep the same nunber of turns in
the gap. You are the only one who said anything about the coil leaving the
gap...
liquidator
Good to get your take on this Phil, your responses usually prove accurate.
Odd, though, my experience with BMS is their ratings are quite
conservative..their HF drivers at least...
Perhaps a different fellow writes the LF spec sheets...
Arny Krueger
> That other issue with a lot of these high power/high xmax
> drivers is that while they can move a lot of air, they don't always
> sound that good doing it.
Interesting assertion since the alternative to high Xmax is low Xmax, and
low xmax drivers simply can't produce a lot of sound without doing the
loudspeaker version of amplifier clipping.
> If the coil is leaving the gap's main magnetic field, then it would make
> sense as the performance would become
> relatively non-linear.
There are basically two kinds of linear speakers - those with short voice
coils and long gaps, and those with long voice coils and short gaps.
The remaining two permutations are long coils and long gaps, which results
in the coil leaving the gaps magnetic field early on, and short coils and
short gaps which also result in the coil leaving the gap early on.
> The whole concept of that long coil is to keep the same
> number of turns in the gap.
Keeping the same number of turns in the gap bodes well for linearity.
The long coil which sacrifices efficiency for linearity, the longer the coil
gets.
The short voice coil in the long gap also tends to keep the same number of
turns in the gap. The problem is that creating the long gap takes a lot of
magnet.
Rupert
> "Rupert" <foodste...@linkline.com> wrote in message
>
> news:2eaeb3e5-4c94-4138...@u39g2000pru.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 28, 7:28 pm, "Phil Allison" <philalli...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "liquidator"
>
> > > Take a look at this critter...
>
> > >http://bmspro.com/18N860.bms_18n860_neodymium_woofer.0.html
>
> > > That is 1500 AES not peak...
>
> > ** The 1500W figure is a blatant fake - those damn Krauts are notorious
> > lairs.
>
> > An AES test on a sub woofer is meaningless, since it involves using broad
> > band pink noise.
>
> > The watts figure is not defined - so must be assumed to be watts peak.
>
> > > and about triple the EV's Xmax...
>
> > ** The driver will take less continuos power than the EVX.
>
> > From the TS data, 75% of the voice coil hangs out * beyond the gap * so is
> > not being driven by magnetic force NOR being cooled by conduction.
>
> > Makes for a low efficiency and low power handling speaker.
>
> > OK for HT use, maybe.
>
> > .... Phil
>
> That other issue with a lot of these high power/high xmax drivers is
> that while they can move a lot of air, they don't always sound that
> good doing it. If the coil is leaving the gap's main magnetic field,
> then it would make sense as the performance would become relatively
> non-linear. The one being tested for the cabinets I have which will
> replace the EV's are these:
>
>
> Reports are that this model works very well in that box and has
> substantially more output then the EV while maintaining the overall
> quality. With the larger diameter 4.5" voice coil, it seems the 1500
> watts AES rating might be more viable than with a 4" model, but I
> suspect that number doesn't hold operating near the 30Hz region which
> seems to be the case with most if not all sub drivers.
>
> Rupert
>
> Rupert, you need to learn how speakers work.
>
> The whole concept of that long coil is to keep the same nunber of turns in
> the gap. You are the only one who said anything about the coil leaving the
> gap...
I'm aware how speakers work. What happened is I miss interpreted what
Phil said here:
"From the TS data, 75% of the voice coil hangs out * beyond the gap *
so is
not being driven by magnetic force NOR being cooled by conduction. "
I mistakenly mistook that to mean a large percentage of the coil was
traveling outside the gap as a whole and leaving bare former in the
gap (a problem with some designs) whereas it was actually long enough
to always be in the gap but never it's entire length. As Phil will
point out, I make those sorts of mistakes a lot. However, once
corrected on technical issues, tend never to forget them. Thanks for
the info from the both of you in any case.
Rupert
Tom Ginkel
I have been reading your posts and the responses and it's obvious you guys
have VAST knowledge of the subject, both technical and practical. It is
enjoyable hearing you guys go back and forth and it's obvious you have great
respect for one another. I have just enough knowledge to follow most of
your arguments and find them incredibly interesting, especially the
go-around regarding upgrading the subs and downsizing the setup. In my
little micro world, that's exactly what I was trying to find out about when
I made my ill-phrased post.
Keep posting! I'll keep reading.
"liquidator" <mi...@mad.scientist.com> wrote in message
news:gt8cc0$ff5$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
George's Pro Sound Company
> Likewise. No worries.
>
> I have been reading your posts and the responses and it's obvious you guys
> have VAST knowledge of the subject, both technical and practical. It is
> enjoyable hearing you guys go back and forth and it's obvious you have
> great respect for one another. I have just enough knowledge to follow
> most of your arguments and find them incredibly interesting, especially
> the go-around regarding upgrading the subs and downsizing the setup. In
> my little micro world, that's exactly what I was trying to find out about
> when I made my ill-phrased post.
>
> Keep posting! I'll keep reading.
>
>
Tom
I started off with complete junk boxes, basically the boxes you have but
loaded with what ever crap speaker i COULD FIND cheap
Then another sound company had some double 18's loaded with evm's for
sale cheap(600 ea)
I though they were THE SHIT
I bought 8 of them
so I was running 4 double 18's a side and convinced mysself, hey I got a
fuck load of boxes and speakers and big amps, so it has to be good
well experiance is the politically correct name we give to our mistakes
I then wanted a name brand box and a dealer friend was a rep for DAS and RCF
I sampled the two , I wouls have need well more than twice as many DAS's
18's to do was the RCF event 1018's did
I turned my double 18 boxes into wire trunks, sold the drivers and bought 8
of the rcf event series subs
those 4 driver per side BLEW AWAY the 8 driver double 18's I was running, I
cut my amp power by 1/2 reduced my truck pack by 1/2 decrease the needed ac
service by half
in short it was a win/win as the reduced amp count, truck size, ac
requirments,labor and maintence more than paid for the sub upgrade
and even though I was now running just 4 drivers a side my pa sounded 100%
better, it was louder, punchier,deeper lows, all because I moved from a box
that held speakers off the ground to a engineered product designed for great
sound.
eventually my needs increased as I did more outdoor events to larger crowds
a friend had soome EAW bh800's he took in trade thathe did not have the
ambition of truck capacity to carry(the are 30 inches x 30 inches x 60
inches, the size of a refridgerator.
but being fully horn loaded they had effeciency somewhere around 102 dB/1
watt/1 meter, if my memory serves me, when set up at 4 a side the low cut
off was around 32
these things are beasts to transport and move but I can do 20,000folk with 4
drivers a side for bass on 4x 1000 watt channels of amp
the sound THROBS,I use Meyers MSL3a's (again 4 a side for most shows)
though I do use 6 a side sometimes, as you can see here
http://www.flickr.com/photos/28056464@N03/3113425098/
but I am trying to get away from this kind of heavy labor,truck intensive pa
, and always have my eye out for smaller more efficent ways
if you can't charge more , you got to work less hard
there is a limit to what I can charge so I am looking at ways to do the same
sound with smaller trucks, less amps, smaller feeder cable, smaller PD
and going to EAW la400's and a yamaha ls9/32, and smaller meyer upa1's on
scaffold
seen here
http://www.flickr.com/photos/28056464@N03/2616493903/sizes/l/
have really brought my labor/and truck expense per show way down
if I was starting today, I would find the most efficent way to do my job,
fuck the ego and my rig is bigger than you rig bullshit
I just am not impressed by piles of boxes, if you can do the job with less,
then do so
george
Rupert
wrote:
*snip*
> and going to EAW la400's and a yamaha ls9/32, and smaller meyer upa1's on
> scaffold
> seen herehttp://www.flickr.com/photos/28056464@N03/2616493903/sizes/l/
Don't the UPA-1 boxes have an 80 degree horizontal coverage horn on
them? Seems like a tight pack of 4 would have quite a bit of combing.
I'm not saying it didn't work ok, trap boxes have been overlapping
coverage and combing for ages, but by today's standards and with
what's available, there are better choices for a tight pack box
nowadays. One of my favorites is the L'Acoustics ARCS:
http://www.l-acoustics.com/fichestech/arcsgb.pdf
22 degrees of horizontal coverage, tight pack of 4 for 90 degrees of
coverage and they have a lot of output for their size. Very versatile
as you can use anywhere from 1 box to as many as you need to make a
circle with minimum box to box interference. And since it uses the
same waveguide design as the V-DOSC array, the highs are fantastic.
They use them for fills a lot with the V-Dosc (and now K1) array, but
they make a killer main system for smaller to medium size "pro" gigs.
Of course they're not cheap, but really high quality speakers never
are...
Rupert
George's Pro Sound Company
On Apr 29, 8:08 pm, "George's Pro Sound Company" <bm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
*snip*
> and going to EAW la400's and a yamaha ls9/32, and smaller meyer upa1's on
> scaffold
> seen herehttp://www.flickr.com/photos/28056464@N03/2616493903/sizes/l/
Don't the UPA-1 boxes have an 80 degree horizontal coverage horn on
them? Seems like a tight pack of 4 would have quite a bit of combing.
actually it doesn't, you can also ask Tim Perry who has mixed on the to
verify it is amazingly smooth, clear and articulate
I'm not saying it didn't work ok, trap boxes have been overlapping
coverage and combing for ages, but by today's standards and with
what's available, there are better choices for a tight pack box
nowadays. One of my favorites is the L'Acoustics ARCS:
http://www.l-acoustics.com/fichestech/arcsgb.pdf
22 degrees of horizontal coverage, tight pack of 4 for 90 degrees of
coverage and they have a lot of output for their size. Very versatile
as you can use anywhere from 1 box to as many as you need to make a
circle with minimum box to box interference. And since it uses the
same waveguide design as the V-DOSC array, the highs are fantastic.
i demo's a set of the ARCS, nice box but is no where as well known as the
Meyer,at least here in the stats
you say"Meyer" and discussions about if you PA ios pro level are over
lots of people have a vauge "I heard something about those" if you say
V-Dosc, if you say ARCS all you get is a dumb look. now where nearly as
rider, reputation friendly in my market
They use them for fills a lot with the V-Dosc (and now K1) array, but
they make a killer main system for smaller to medium size "pro" gigs.
Of course they're not cheap, but really high quality speakers never
nothing cheap about the meyers either
price really wasn't a deciding factor
the market in europe is open to many more choices, here in the states it
JBL, MEYER and EAW
those are the boxes everyone knows, everyone has, you can cross rent , every
rider accepts them
I would not choose a box I had to "sell" everytime I quoted a gig
george
are...
Rupert
Rupert
wrote:
> "Rupert" <foodste...@linkline.com> wrote in message
Yeah, the Meyer stuff is quite good. As far as line arrays go I do
like the EAW KF760/761 well enough. I would definitely take that over
any of the JBL stuff. JBL is popular, but IMO doesn't sound nearly as
good as Meyer MD or Milo series or even the EAW. I think the V-DOSC
and especially the new K1 system sound better than anything out
there. As far as L'Acoustics/V-DOSC, it seems to me to be very well
known in N. America, and of course world wide. It's requested often by
some of the largest acts in the country and worldwide. Plenty of sound
houses stock it and cross rent on a regular basis. Of course, you may
not be servicing that market in which case I understand your statement
about having to sell it to clients. It doesn't matter what you have if
people won't rent it because they don't recognize it. JBL is hugely
recognized which is a big plus and there's tons to cross rent all over
N. America. I just wish they made better sounding boxes. They're top
notch when it comes to driver manufacturing, but for some reason,
other companies seem to build better sounding boxes when using JBL
components. Back when EAW was using JBL drivers, the EAW boxes sounded
much better than anything JBL was putting out at the time - IMO...
Rupert
George's Pro Sound Company
Rupert
No v-dosc in my market
my average theater room is 1500 to 2500 seats
I am not doing 50,000$ /day stadiums
4000$/day is a good day
I am REGIONAL, only tour nationally as a briefcase
my bread and butter is local festivals (4-10,000 people/day)
so the buyers at my level are less informed than tour production managers
I would have gone JBL but they just sound like ass, meyer is miles above EAW
IMO
so for the market iserve I have the box that fits it, and make the best
sound
I do not like the V-dosc or any line array, I don't like the meyer line
array
I think line array is mostly marketing garbage for people that could not
understand how to use the much better sounding horn loaded trap boxes
george
liquidator
"George's Pro Sound Company" <bm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:teGdnTFSiJtb_WfU...@earthlink.com...
V-dosc.
In a few years something will replace the array.
Too many times arrays are used when they aren't the best solution. V-dosc
people have no clue what I just said..
Rupert
> "George's Pro Sound Company" <bm...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:teGdnTFSiJtb_WfU...@earthlink.com...
>
>
>
I wholly agree there are many situations where trap boxes would be a
better solution and that the use of line arrays is often "abused."
It's a 'right tool for the right job situation' and you do find people
using a hammer where a screwdriver would have been the proper tool, so
to speak. When it comes to line arrays in the proper application, I
find V-DOSC to be the best choice sound wise and I'm really looking
forward to checking out the K1 as it's suppose to be a major
improvement in coverage/clarity/output. When it comes to trap systems,
I tend to favor Nexo Alpha as it's so scalable and very powerful. You
can do a small ground stack to cover <1000 folks for a smaller gig one
day and then fly 16-24+ boxes a side the next day for a large arena.
Of course, I'll work with anything that's put in front of me, but we
all have our preferences. It's good to see that EAW has breathed new
life back into their older KF boxes with the new UX8800 processor and
the David Gunness "focusing" which is suppose to help with horn
aberrations. Haven't had a chance to hear that yet either but word is
that the KF's are like a new box compared to the previous processors
people used. Interesting times in pro audio...
Rupert
liquidator
I've just been through many cycles in audio- each supposedly the
ultimate...a few years later something better came along. It always does.
I like the Nexo stuff...even though I've only used it maybe half a dozen
times...
One of the biggest things in the line array is ease of setup...were it not
for that I don't think it would be half as popular.
Rupert
The lines do have remarkably good lower frequency pattern control
though which really can make a big difference, especially in venues
where you're trying to keep that gak off of walls and focused. Helps
outdoors too. Of course, line array theory only works in the lows and
low mids. As soon as the wavelengths get too small, there goes your
driver coupling with mids and highs. The articulation of the array
helps with that issue by allowing the interference in the upper boxes
for the longer throw where you do get some coupling and the combing
smooths out over the distance. Then you get minimized interference in
the lower boxes where the curvature is so the mids and highs have
minimal overlap. But I don't see how it will ever be fully addressed
unless someone can figure out how to make a high powered enough one
piece ribbon type driver. Even then...
Rupert
George's Pro Sound Company
piece ribbon type driver. Even then...
Rupert
watch this space , we are prototyping a propritariy ribbon device line
array product, it is in the beta test and manufacturing layout right now
george
Rupert
wrote:
Who's "we"? ;-) NDA I suppose...
Rupert