Carrie Underwood Sub Woofer Array

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Carrie Underwood Sub Woofer Array

Ok, so I have a question that sorta belongs in the Jr area but is related to this discussion.
So, for us JV guys who don't fly stuff and don't have stages often with 6=4ft of clearance under them to center an end fired array like these but has the boxes and DSP, would it be a bad thing to locate the array sorta angled beside the stage?

This stuff fastinates me after doing one show a couple of years ago with a 6 box arc.
 
Re: Carrie Underwood Sub Woofer Array

Francesco Sgambellone said:
View attachment 714

This is the array that was used for the Godsmack tour. Bruce Reiter and Jeff Goode along with several other mixers can give you their thoughts on it's effectiveness. I personally loved it and would prefer this over any array shape I have ever used for sub . The coverage is amazing.
View attachment 714This is similar to the Carrie Underwood array. This is half as long but twice as high. And obviously in the air.

This is the array that was used for the Godsmack tour. Bruce Reiter and Jeff Goode, along with several other mixers, can give you their thoughts on it's effectiveness. I personally loved it and would prefer this over any array shape I have ever used for sub . The coverage is amazing. And you can blur your vision at 100 feet. I will not go into technical details here, but I can tell you how this started.
I had never used an array of this type. The goal was to get a more efficient array for the subs and to try to clean up the garbage onstage that is inherent in stereo stacked sub arrays. I was not sure if the flown array was going to have the kind of musical impact that I want for a heavy rock show. So I added the 4 subs per side on the ground and used them as a small centerfill pa. They were useful for putting the frontfill boxes on, because they never got turned on. The flown array had so much impact it was insane. But the band was asking if the low end was on. Perfect. The first time I had no points out in the house to fly the subs, they had to be stacked on the floor. The impact on the stage was huge. And not in a good way. Monitor mixes turned muddy, and the complaints started. This was from a heavy rock band that had gotten used to really good ear mixes because the pa wasn't interfering with the engineers job.

I think that non traditional sub arrays are going to be the way forward. The giant stack of low end boxes in front of the most expensive seats will be a thing of the past. And they should be if you really want to give everyone a good audio experience. It takes a little more work and you have to have some juice with the production to get them to agree to seeing this large thing there. And of course, listening to the local toolbags opinions about how subs were done in 1972.
Click to expand...

So i totally have Frank's back on the effectiveness of the flown sub array on that tour. The amount of true positive sub energy that could be introduced cleanly into any given room or shed was pretty phenomenal. Zero issue with runaway low frequencies as well, allowing high pass filters to be lowered to taste as opposed to being lowered for compensatory purposes. Hats off to Frank for that setup...in fact the rig as a whole was hard to beat...not too many PA systems out there that can touch a well tuned I-5 rig...

Jeff Good
 
Re: Carrie Underwood Sub Woofer Array

https://picasaweb.google.com/brucereiter/Subs#5579359198579435266

https://picasaweb.google.com/brucereiter/Subs#5579359416737125394

https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/qYUzEU1etJWQchr3ETtYKg?feat=directlink
qYUzEU1etJWQchr3ETtYKg


https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/KxbRyOtwll50Xeufx1GutQ?feat=directlink
KxbRyOtwll50Xeufx1GutQ




here are some pictures for reference. i thought the sound we got from this pa configuration was fantastic. the low end was "thumping" everywhere and there were no hot spots where the audience was getting pummeled by low end and no dead spots... frank did a great job eq'ing/aligning the rig every day so that jeff and i did not really need to do much to the rig to make it suit our individual taste and bands.
 
Re: Carrie Underwood Sub Woofer Array

Hey Randy,

I am really glad that you chimed in on this (being the guy who drove the pa).

I have a reasonable grasp on how the end fire array thing works. Although Bennett's article's are very interesting. What I am trying to get a grasp on is how the math around the spacing of the two rows and the horizontal coverage works. Are there some mathematical formulas that were used to get yourself in the ballpark for the horizontal coverage or is it simply a trial and error thing? Being someone who works for a regional sound company we don't get a series of shows to experiment on (generally) the trial and error approach tends to be to time consuming. Having said that we do work in a venue week after week, but even that tends to be guerilla audio most of the time.

TIA
John
 
An array model

This is a model of a 12 box sub array I worked up in GPA using the principle of 2 lines as a center cluster. I used a combination of spacing, gain, and delay. All the boxes are the same polarity. For this model i attempted to maximize the cancellation at 60hz.

A couple of things I noticed:

1. The cancellation to the rear varies pretty significantly with frequency no matter how I tweaked.

2. Below 50 hz the array had significant reward energy no matter what I did.

50 hz

50 hz.PNG

60 hz

60 hz.PNG

70 hz

70 hz.PNG

80 hz

80 hz.PNG
 
Re: An array model

The "problem" with end-fire is as you have seen, a different pattern at every frequency. However, you could also build a tighter array which would give you a much nicer looking pattern.

P.S. I usually do it by trial and error in prediction software, I am unaware of any software that allows simple optimization of end-fire arrays.
 
Re: An array model

Are those subs oriented as have been discussed, facing each other? Or do you have them facing away from each other? If you are correct, then I have been placing stuff in GPA backwards...
 
Re: An array model

Bruce,

I think Jordan was talking about the orientation of the subs in the prediction model, which I also thought might have been facing the wrong way. Certainly the real world example had them facing, as it should be!
 
Re: An array model

In my model they are facing each other. They are spaced 1 m on center, which I figure is pretty close to the width of an actual sub tightly packed. Packing them tighter actually consistantly produced more output in both forward and rearward directions.

Like Bennett suggested I did a lot of trial and error. What I am not sure of and would be interested to see is the three dimensional shape of the rearward lobe. If the rearward lobe could be steered upwards, that could also be used to create the distance which helps the reduction of sound. I was basically thinking 10 meters for the stage performers, so as I fiddled with the array parameters, I was looking at the cancellation at 10 meters to the rear of the array.


edit- There seems to be no difference in the model with the subs at +90 or -90 orientation. They seem to be treated as point sources that are completely omni.

edit #2- Ha got me. I guess things rotate differently in the Southern hemisphere but it appears that +90 points down and -90 points up, so the subs in my model were technically pointed opposite of the ones in the real life discussion.

The corrected model looks exactly the same:

60 hz
60 hz new.PNG


Does anyone know why I can only upload PNG files not JPG? And I seem to have lost the ability to put the file inline rather than the thumbnail.
 
Last edited:
Re: An array model

It may be because I didn't get the spacing exactly the same. I had to go in and rebuild the model. If I get a chance today I will try changing the number of boxes.
 
Re: An array model

Royce Covington said:
both of your 60hz models look similar, but not exactly the same.
the 'properly' oriented model appears to have a wider dispersion.

i am curious, however, if an 8-cell or 4x4 model would look better?

R~
Click to expand...

2x2 showed very little pattern control

4x4 shifted where the largest cancellation was to 45 hz and 90 hz

8x8 showed much higher levels all around but still had cancellation at 45, 60, and 80-100.

I compared these with the same delay/gain parameters but did not change the spacing.
 
Re: An array model

I know i jumped on this thread a little late but i ran some predictions with the boxes placed a little closer together and was able to get much better rear cancellation, however the gain in the front was not as great as what jay posted.

60hz
af8xuo.png
[/IMG]

70hz
15cbjph.png


80hz
balna.png


Im guessing that since my array was shorter that is why you dont gain as much volume in front
 
Re: Carrie Underwood Sub Woofer Array

Bennett Prescott said:
One would assume that if there was an array under stage right, there would also be one under stage right. There is no technical reason I can think of not to have a symmetrical array.
Click to expand...

Two rights don't make a wrong........ I'm assuming you meant stage left the second time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom