Log in
Register
Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Featured content
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
News
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Features
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Install the app
Install
Reply to thread
Home
Forums
Pro Audio
Varsity
Endfire sub array under a stage
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dan Mortensen" data-source="post: 106506" data-attributes="member: 2826"><p>Re: Endfire sub array under a stage</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I mean that the sub impact at the back of the field was greater in this configuration than with the stacked boxes. </p><p></p><p>No, I did not measure that. </p><p></p><p>Yes, all of my crew, who have been present at this series for years, agreed that it was better in every way than our other arrays.</p><p></p><p>Edit: In remembering what I was thinking a couple months ago, what I decided was the reason it was sounding so much better was that all six of the boxes were on the ground and benefitting from the ground coupling, whereas only two were benefitting in the stacks, while four had varying degrees of distance from the ground.</p><p></p><p>We had tried a horizontal line of subs previously, in both a cardiod array (four front-firing and three rear- ) and with all forward facing, but found that the horizontal coverage (width) was nowhere near what we needed. The curving and delaying we were capable of helped, but was still not enough. </p><p></p><p>The vertical stack of three boxes gave the width coverage, but not only was it wide it was circular. Reversing and delaying one of the boxes in the vertical stack doesn't work so well with the Bag Ends; my theory is that because it's a sealed cabinet, the sides flex a bit from each in and out driver movement, generating some sound. I could be wrong, but the Bag Ends have more off-axis response than my Meyer ported subs and port vs. no port is the only thing I can think of to explain that difference.</p><p></p><p>I did mess around with MAPP predictions of doing the endfire, but only with all six subs grouped together in one cluster (three rows of two subs). The earlier thread talked about having a single cluster and it working fine, but I think their hangs had more low end than mine (Melodies), because it didn't work to have all the subs in the middle of the stage width or on one side. We on the spot divided them into two arrays of 3, and decided that worked fine and didn't worry about it again. All of the BE's were fine with the sub sound.</p><p></p><p>And I didn't pay any attention beforehand to whether or not the overall output was increased or decreased; the first priority was to decrease the rear throw without significantly decreasing the side coverage, and we did that, with the bonus of perceptually more even coverage front to back.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dan Mortensen, post: 106506, member: 2826"] Re: Endfire sub array under a stage I mean that the sub impact at the back of the field was greater in this configuration than with the stacked boxes. No, I did not measure that. Yes, all of my crew, who have been present at this series for years, agreed that it was better in every way than our other arrays. Edit: In remembering what I was thinking a couple months ago, what I decided was the reason it was sounding so much better was that all six of the boxes were on the ground and benefitting from the ground coupling, whereas only two were benefitting in the stacks, while four had varying degrees of distance from the ground. We had tried a horizontal line of subs previously, in both a cardiod array (four front-firing and three rear- ) and with all forward facing, but found that the horizontal coverage (width) was nowhere near what we needed. The curving and delaying we were capable of helped, but was still not enough. The vertical stack of three boxes gave the width coverage, but not only was it wide it was circular. Reversing and delaying one of the boxes in the vertical stack doesn't work so well with the Bag Ends; my theory is that because it's a sealed cabinet, the sides flex a bit from each in and out driver movement, generating some sound. I could be wrong, but the Bag Ends have more off-axis response than my Meyer ported subs and port vs. no port is the only thing I can think of to explain that difference. I did mess around with MAPP predictions of doing the endfire, but only with all six subs grouped together in one cluster (three rows of two subs). The earlier thread talked about having a single cluster and it working fine, but I think their hangs had more low end than mine (Melodies), because it didn't work to have all the subs in the middle of the stage width or on one side. We on the spot divided them into two arrays of 3, and decided that worked fine and didn't worry about it again. All of the BE's were fine with the sub sound. And I didn't pay any attention beforehand to whether or not the overall output was increased or decreased; the first priority was to decrease the rear throw without significantly decreasing the side coverage, and we did that, with the bonus of perceptually more even coverage front to back. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Pro Audio
Varsity
Endfire sub array under a stage
Top
Bottom
Sign-up
or
log in
to join the discussion today!
