Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jeff Babcock" data-source="post: 22618" data-attributes="member: 46">Re: Coaxial Wedge CollaborationValid points for sure.....I&#039;ll spare you from sharing what I think of fitz&#039;s monitor designs.&nbsp; Suffice it to say that I do not have any desire for those &quot;features&quot; in a wedge.Regarding wide off axis response - while in some circumstances this is desirable, I often personally am in situations where there at least 4 or more monitor mixes, often in fairly cramped stages with fairly loud stage volumes.&nbsp; Mic bleed is often a concern that must be dealt with.&nbsp; In those cases somewhere in the 60 to 80 degree range is plenty wide for me.&nbsp; If some muso is a &quot;wanderer&quot;, I&#039;d&nbsp; rather have to run 2 wedges than have one that&#039;s too wide.&nbsp; Given that the box size is not huge, an extra box shouldn&#039;t be a big concern most of the time.But that&#039;s just me and my usage is not necessarily representative of others....Also, personally if I were to use this wedge, it would always be bi-amped.&nbsp; The passive crossover would be something I&#039;d only use very occasionally, so if I were to build these wedges, it would be something I might choose to omit myself.&nbsp; I expect that designing a high quality passive crossover would be tedious and expensive to do &quot;right&quot;.&nbsp; Someone like Curtis List (Too Tall) could likely assist in this.&nbsp; Of course it could always be looked at as an afterthought, design around DSP first and then worry about a passive option later.&nbsp; It might hamper consistency between biamp and passive performance, but I guess it depends on how much of a priority that consistency would be for folks.&nbsp; I&#039;ll leave that for others to decide, because my opinion matters little in that regard.Agreed re the need to avoid turning this box into a &quot;jack of all trades, master of none&quot;.&nbsp; It&#039;s primary focus should be a wedge.&nbsp; If it can be easily used for SOS/fill applications, great, but not at the expense of its primary goal.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jeff Babcock, post: 22618, member: 46"] Re: Coaxial Wedge Collaboration Valid points for sure..... I'll spare you from sharing what I think of fitz's monitor designs. Suffice it to say that I do not have any desire for those "features" in a wedge. Regarding wide off axis response - while in some circumstances this is desirable, I often personally am in situations where there at least 4 or more monitor mixes, often in fairly cramped stages with fairly loud stage volumes. Mic bleed is often a concern that must be dealt with. In those cases somewhere in the 60 to 80 degree range is plenty wide for me. If some muso is a "wanderer", I'd rather have to run 2 wedges than have one that's too wide. Given that the box size is not huge, an extra box shouldn't be a big concern most of the time. But that's just me and my usage is not necessarily representative of others.... Also, personally if I were to use this wedge, it would always be bi-amped. The passive crossover would be something I'd only use very occasionally, so if I were to build these wedges, it would be something I might choose to omit myself. I expect that designing a high quality passive crossover would be tedious and expensive to do "right". Someone like Curtis List (Too Tall) could likely assist in this. Of course it could always be looked at as an afterthought, design around DSP first and then worry about a passive option later. It might hamper consistency between biamp and passive performance, but I guess it depends on how much of a priority that consistency would be for folks. I'll leave that for others to decide, because my opinion matters little in that regard. Agreed re the need to avoid turning this box into a "jack of all trades, master of none". It's primary focus should be a wedge. If it can be easily used for SOS/fill applications, great, but not at the expense of its primary goal. [/QUOTE]

Verification