Infocomm???

Re: Infocomm???

brian maddox said:
I cherry picked this last sentence to expand on a little. Sorry if it goes OT...

I've worked as a live sound engineer at the varsity level now for at least a couple of decades. I've done quite a lot of entertainment, but have lately moved to almost exclusively corporate events. In the process of doing this for a pretty long time i have acquired a fairly extensive knowledge base regarding how sound works. I'm not at the level of several of the system tuners that frequent these forums, but i certainly understand all the principles involved.


1. There can never be feedback


This has the consequence of elevating Sound guys [like myself] who excel at people skills and have good attention to detail over guys with amazing technical understanding that do NOT have these skills. And that can lead to a good number of 'Professional Sound Engineers' who really don't understand the basic principles of sound.
Click to expand...
But a simple understand of things like wavelength and phase can help reduce the possibilities of feedback.

A system that has a smooth phase response will have less tendency to feedback, and it will also sound clearer-so less gain is needed-so again less of a chance for feedback.

Something most people don't get is that wavelenght has SIZE and it takes SIZE to control it.

Speakers with small horns will NOT "keep the energy off the wall or direct the sound where you want it". They will simply spray the sound everywhere-NO MATTER what the specs say. Usually the specs on pattern size is only for the top octave or two. Not down in the vocal range-where most feedback occurs.

I bet if you asked most audio professionals how large 100 or 1KHz is-they would not even have a clue or a wild guess.

So they would not have any idea how large of a horn it takes to control those wavelengths.

The interesting thing I found out this last week is the LARGE number of people who have no idea what a line array is-what it looks like (other than a vertical stack) and even less what the basic principals are.

It seems as if you are considered a "professional" if you can hook up the gear and get sound to come out.

And what is even SCARIER is the number of "designers" who don't understand the basic principals.
 
Re: Infocomm???

I understand phase and wavelength but not how to get the boss to not walk in front of the speakers on sticks with his wireless mic.... :-(

@Ivan... We know you get it, expecting everybody to get it is like Sisyphus rolling that rock up the hill. not going to happen.

Figure simpler ways to communicate the features, advantages, and benefits to the meat with the money.

JR
 
Re: Infocomm???

Ivan Beaver said:
You have to look at the size of the wavelengths involved.

Both of the full range boxes are well within 1/4 wavelength of the sub cabinets in the range of their operation.

And due to the pattern control of the full range boxes (something the industry has seem to forgotten), the level from one box is greatly reduced in the coverage area of the other box. So the interference is GREATLY reduced because the levels are not the same.

You also do no have to use both full range cabinets. You could use 1 or the other. It just depends on the size show that is being done. In most cases just a single would be fine.

Of course if you want to use just a single cabinet-we have plenty with much greater output-the Jericho line up. And more to come.
Click to expand...

Yes but … the top and bottom boxes are not within a quarter of a wavelength over most if not all of their operating range. At some point you will hear the output of both boxes otherwise there will be a hole in the coverage pattern.

What if you need more horse power or a wider coverage, how and where do you add extra boxes? The answer is not to use a Jericho, its not scalable and its too big and heavy.

In simple terms, as soon as you make your array scalable, you have the same problem as everyone else. That’s not to say you can’t build a better mouse trap. :)~:-)~:smile:
 
Re: Infocomm???

Peter Morris said:
Yes but … the top and bottom boxes are not within a quarter of a wavelength over most if not all of their operating range. At some point you will hear the output of both boxes otherwise there will be a hole in the coverage pattern.

What if you need more horse power or a wider coverage, how and where do you add extra boxes? The answer is not to use a Jericho, its not scalable and its too big and heavy.

In simple terms, as soon as you make your array scalable, you have the same problem as everyone else. That’s not to say you can’t build a better mouse trap. :)~:-)~:smile:
Click to expand...
Agreed that the top and bottom boxes are not within 1/4 wavelength over most of the freq range.

The DIFFERENCE is that they are covering different physical areas, and because of the large horns, there is very little interference in the other cabinets "zone". So the sound is MUCH clearer than if you have multiple cabinets covering the same area.

Yes in the area where they "converge" there will be a little bit of overlap-but since each source is "correct" (a single arrival), there is much less interference than when you use boxes that have a lot of "self interference", combined with another box that has a lot of "self interference" 9which when summed together really starts to tear apart the sound).

So for a small area of the audience there is a small compromise-not the entire audience area like you get when you use a typical "line".

I really love how people use the term "scaleable" when talking about line arrays. They are NOWHERE nearly as truly scaleable as people think.

If you need a 60* vertical coverage pattern-how many boxes is it going to take? Not 1 or 2.

And as you go up in numbers, you get summation down in the bottom octave-but very little in the upper octaves, and the more boxes you add, the worse the sound quality gets.

You have different product models for different output levels, the same as with Danley.

What REALLY happens with the sound is often VERY DIFFERENT that what people "think" is happening.

Such as the whole "a line array has a move even coverage front to back". If you use a good quality single point source, at the same heigh, you actually get a more even SPL coverage front to back and MUCH more tonal consistency with a smaller-less expensive product.

We have had MANY cases/stories in which the owners/users of very popular line arrays tell us stories in which a large line arrays (that are considered "the best there is") has been either directly compared or used in the exact same configuration, and the Jerichos have greatly outperformed it. Some even laugh at their own systems-(that they have a huge amount of money invested in) when the Jerichos do the same job-and are smaller-lighter-less expensive etc.

The whole idea that a "line array" "throws" the sound further, could NOT be further from the truth. REAL WORLD examples, testing, side by side comparisons etc prove other wise in every single case.

But as long as people want to "believe", and not actually LISTEN, then I guess the "fallacy" will continue. Just keep drinking the Kool aid--------------

Oh well. We will continue to do what we do, and maybe some people will come around and actually test and listen, and not just believe the marketing.

I heard a demo last week that I REALLY wanted to yell BS to what was being said-but I held my tongue-it was not my demo or place to question.

They were shoveling out large amounts of crap that is TOTALLY 100% BS. But until people question it, they will continue to do so-hoping that people will simply swallow it. But because they are "XYZ" company, most people just blindly accept it as "fact".

LISTEN PEOPLE LISTEN-MEASURE-QUESTION whether or not it actually makes SENSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is AUDIO. It is SUPPOSED to be about the SOUND!!!!!!!!!!!

REMEMBER why you got into audio. It was because you were MOVED in some way. Let's bring realism and reality back to the industry.

Getting off soap box for now
 
Re: Infocomm???

Ivan Beaver said:
Agreed that the top and bottom boxes are not within 1/4 wavelength over most of the freq range.

The DIFFERENCE is that they are covering different physical areas, and because of the large horns, there is very little interference in the other cabinets "zone". So the sound is MUCH clearer than if you have multiple cabinets covering the same area.

Yes in the area where they "converge" there will be a little bit of overlap-but since each source is "correct" (a single arrival), there is much less interference than when you use boxes that have a lot of "self interference", combined with another box that has a lot of "self interference" 9which when summed together really starts to tear apart the sound).

So for a small area of the audience there is a small compromise-not the entire audience area like you get when you use a typical "line".

I really love how people use the term "scaleable" when talking about line arrays. They are NOWHERE nearly as truly scaleable as people think.

If you need a 60* vertical coverage pattern-how many boxes is it going to take? Not 1 or 2.

And as you go up in numbers, you get summation down in the bottom octave-but very little in the upper octaves, and the more boxes you add, the worse the sound quality gets.

You have different product models for different output levels, the same as with Danley.

What REALLY happens with the sound is often VERY DIFFERENT that what people "think" is happening.

Such as the whole "a line array has a move even coverage front to back". If you use a good quality single point source, at the same heigh, you actually get a more even SPL coverage front to back and MUCH more tonal consistency with a smaller-less expensive product.

We have had MANY cases/stories in which the owners/users of very popular line arrays tell us stories in which a large line arrays (that are considered "the best there is") has been either directly compared or used in the exact same configuration, and the Jerichos have greatly outperformed it. Some even laugh at their own systems-(that they have a huge amount of money invested in) when the Jerichos do the same job-and are smaller-lighter-less expensive etc.

The whole idea that a "line array" "throws" the sound further, could NOT be further from the truth. REAL WORLD examples, testing, side by side comparisons etc prove other wise in every single case.

But as long as people want to "believe", and not actually LISTEN, then I guess the "fallacy" will continue. Just keep drinking the Kool aid--------------

Oh well. We will continue to do what we do, and maybe some people will come around and actually test and listen, and not just believe the marketing.

I heard a demo last week that I REALLY wanted to yell BS to what was being said-but I held my tongue-it was not my demo or place to question.

They were shoveling out large amounts of crap that is TOTALLY 100% BS. But until people question it, they will continue to do so-hoping that people will simply swallow it. But because they are "XYZ" company, most people just blindly accept it as "fact".

LISTEN PEOPLE LISTEN-MEASURE-QUESTION whether or not it actually makes SENSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is AUDIO. It is SUPPOSED to be about the SOUND!!!!!!!!!!!

REMEMBER why you got into audio. It was because you were MOVED in some way. Let's bring realism and reality back to the industry.

Getting off soap box for now
Click to expand...

Ivan – I didn’t mention line array, I just said scalable, and scalable is what most hire companies want.

For various reasons, they want speakers or building blocks that are typically less than 100Kgs for a large rig.

The question I asked was - what do you do when you need more than one long throw, two bass bins and a short throw box on the bottom, how do you scale the Exodus beyond that, and how do you increase the coverage angle?

Mike does say in your video clip “really in short it[Exodus] has limitless applications” so it’s a reasonable question.:)~:-)~:smile:
 
Re: Infocomm???

Peter Morris said:
Ivan – I didn’t mention line array, I just said scalable, and scalable is what most hire companies want.

For various reasons, they want speakers or building blocks that are typically less than 100Kgs for a large rig.

The question I asked was - what do you do when you need more than one long throw, two bass bins and a short throw box on the bottom, how do you scale the Exodus beyond that, and how do you increase the coverage angle?

Mike does say in your video clip “really in short it[Exodus] has limitless applications” so it’s a reasonable question.:)~:-)~:smile:
Click to expand...
As far as weight-I will put forth the following argument. Several of the new "Super special latest tech natural best we ever did" cabinets weight a good bit more than your 100Kg number.

And nobody would think of doing a decent sized show with 2 or 3 per side. So the TOTAL WEIGHT (REMEMBER that these are NOT handled one at a time-but rather 4 or 5 high on a cart) is much more than the Jericho products.

When pushing around a cart-it does NOT matter how many boxes are on it-simply the TOTAL weight

So the weigh somebody is pushing around is more-the total truck weight is more resulting in less gas mileage and the size is larger-resulting in less truck space for other gear. It is the total that should be considered-not the individual (unless the boxes are handled individually) which almost none of the line array cabinets are-except on the very small scale-but then we would not be talking Jerichos and such.

If you need greater vertical angle, you can add additional boxes. The difference between using the Synergy horn (which the Exodus is based on) and other boxes that don't have a large horn, is that that the synergy products will not interfere with each other (anywhere near as much as boxes with small or no horns). The line arrays will actually NARROW the pattern, rather than widening it. You may be "pointing the box at one area-but due to the lack of pattern control, you are actually increasing the loudness in a totally different area. So you "fixed" one problem-but made others WORSE. You HAVE to look at more than 1 seat at a time.

Putting the energy where it needs to go greatly reduces interference/reflections etc.

It is much more a simple "point and shoot" rather than a complex interference pattern.

That is basic sound system design.

I am sure Mikes intent was not to suggest that Exodus could be used for any and every situation, but rather that there are very different applications that it is easily adaptable to that give it a very wide range of usage.

For example-a single XD96 can cover quite a large crowd with a single box per side. Or it could be used in a smaller room and still not take up very much space.

Since the XD96 and 62 are both truly full range boxes, in many applications they can be used without a sub (the first install was in a football stadium without subs and they provide plenty of bass for that).

The XD62 (because of its extra strong mid and HF) could be used as a pair for a typical football field (stacked and splayed so each one is pointed towards the bleachers on the side) and no sub would be needed, but could be added if extra bass is desired. But there would be a good bit of bass without the sub.

A single XD62 could be used to cover a balcony (without having to use multiple boxes to get some sort of pattern control down in the vocal range). This save both money-weight-amps-size etc.

You could just fly the 96 and the 62 and put some subs on the ground.

Because the male/female large interlocking skids, you can ground or stage stack them and they "lock together" without any pins.

But if I needed a high output box that needed to "throw" 700', I would be looking at a different product. But the Exodus products could be used-just with a reduced SPL.

The sound would still hold together and not fall apart (like the interference systems), so the actual sound quality would still be good-just not as loud.

And when used outdoors, the sound will not "blow around" like line array products. Yes if the wind gets strong enough you can hear it "move around", but the line arrays would be useless at that point. We don't say it is immune to wind-just much more resistant.

This was evidenced a year ago down in Miami where the south beach hotels all had stages facing the ocean and a strong breeze was blowing. The other hotel owners came to the guys at the Jericho stage and asked how come the sound at our stage was not being blown around like it was at their stages (that all had line arrays).

It is because it starts as a single source-and simply holds together better over distance and is not as affected by the temp gradients in the air like a line array.

Here is a simple little test to do. Take a pair of single driver full range speakers (really cheap $10 ones will work just fine)

Put one on top of the other and run some pink noise through them. Have someone move one of the back just a couple of inches.

You can hear all sorts of combfiltering going on as the distance changes. This is the same thing as having different sources arrive at your ear at different times (a line of drivers).

If you can't hear this-may I suggest lighting as a career choice----------------------

Does it matter? To us it does. Others really don't care about the sound quality-so "it depends".
 
Re: Infocomm???

Peter Morris said:
Ivan – I didn’t mention line array, I just said scalable, and scalable is what most hire companies want.

For various reasons, they want speakers or building blocks that are typically less than 100Kgs for a large rig.

The question I asked was - what do you do when you need more than one long throw, two bass bins and a short throw box on the bottom, how do you scale the Exodus beyond that, and how do you increase the coverage angle?

Mike does say in your video clip “really in short it[Exodus] has limitless applications” so it’s a reasonable question.:)~:-)~:smile:
Click to expand...

Hi Peter,

I see what you're getting at. I don't think the Exodus line is being pitched as an end all, be all solution. It's just another tool in the toolbox. I think DSL is targeting the small to mid-sized provider and coming up with a solution that should be a big step up in quality and output from the typical SRX/QRX or VRX type boxes used in that space. To me, it's not going to be capable of scaling to cover a large shed/stadium (unless you break it into a distributed setup). DSL has great products but they still can't be the physics involved.

Your DIY mid/high design is one of the most interesting designs that I have seen as of late--and looks to be incredibly capable for regional players.

Jeff
 
Re: Infocomm???

Jeffrey Knorr said:
Hi Peter,

I see what you're getting at. I don't think the Exodus line is being pitched as an end all, be all solution. It's just another tool in the toolbox. I think DSL is targeting the small to mid-sized provider and coming up with a solution that should be a big step up in quality and output from the typical SRX/QRX or VRX type boxes used in that space. To me, it's not going to be capable of scaling to cover a large shed/stadium (unless you break it into a distributed setup). DSL has great products but they still can't be the physics involved.



Jeff
Click to expand...
Jeff- you are totally correct. The "form factor" is something that people like-so that is why it is arranged like it is. you have NO IDEA how many people were calling it a line array and saying that Danley was "selling out".

It is a great sounding mid level type product.

Nobody makes one product for every level.

Heck just look at all the different sizes of line arrays offered by the different manufacturers.

IF it was TRULY SCALEABLE (as many people claim), then they would just need one model and use more of it. But they have many different models.

I should be able to use 1 for a 50 person wedding and then more to do 20K outside EDM. I don't think so-------

So somehow it is fine for them to offer different products of different sizes, but somehow "Danley" is expected to provide 1 product that can cover everything. Seems like a different set of standards to me----------
 
Re: Infocomm???

TJ Cornish said:
So for those of us who didn't make it to Infocomm and who want more/accurate information than the lame PSW article had, is there anywhere else to get more information?
Click to expand...
We are getting "stuff" (data/spec sheets etc) together-along with a pile of other "projects".

We will get more information out shortly. Just hang on a little bit.

I will be doing a local gig/small festival with the system in a couple of weeks. I will get some recordings to post as well.
 
Re: Infocomm???

To Ivan

Looooooong time ago I asked you a simple question, to which you never answered - perhaps you never received it or you did and your answer got lost in "bit space"
That question was about a CELLO on stage in a "good room" - now a cello does not have even polar-pattern ( no instrument does ) - and so the sum of reflections and direct sound must be different to observers in different location in that fine room - correct ???
That time the question was about "long tall speakers" and polar patterns and directivity - yes , we know they are fine in some aspects, and then not so fine in others - and you never answered it - I thought then - and right now seeing you having time to debate - that you simply did not have any interest to answer to my question. Because my question "did not fit"...

Correct if I am wrong.

Please do not misunderstand me - I have a pair of Danley-designed Servodrive subs - love them - have a friend with Danley Tapped horn subs - liked them very much last time working with them -
BUT - are you so eager now, because of something "does not fit" ?
Pardon for not so precice expressions of my writing, but my mother tongue is finnish and I studied english only three years in school ...
Intention is to be good and supporting - not offending !


Just relax
 
Re: Infocomm???

Large concerts were original done with huge arrays of point source boxes like Clair’s S4 or Turbosounds TMS3’s. The comb filtering, acoustic performance and weight was awful.

Then L-Acoustic introduced the V-Dosc. They needed less than half the number of boxes, the boxes were smaller and lighter, the comb filtering was greatly reduced and things started to sound quite good.

The first time I saw V-Dosc was with Metallica, I can remember being blown away with the size of the rig and that in about 15 to 20 minutes two people had the rig on the ground ready to be loaded into the truck … and there was one less truck needed!

Line arrays still have a lot of issues, but if you look at something like d&b’s J series its light enough for 2 people to pick up and you can use it for audience ranging from 1000 to 20000.

What Danley has done is put a lot more of the components into one box, not difficult when you think about it – Done correctly this approach minimizes the acoustic problems and reduces the total weight of the system … just as Ivan said.

The cost is reduced flexibility, and the weight of the individual boxes can be as much as 720 lbs in Danley’s case! For most hire companies this is not an acceptable compromise.

In simple terms there is cost for scalability and flexibility. The issue I have is that Danley does not offer a solution with these attributes, (and by that I don't mean line array) yet is so unremittingly critical of manufactures that do.

Back on topic - did anyone get a chance to have a look at Avids S6L or Allen & Heaths dLive … what did you think?
 
Last edited:
Re: Infocomm???

One of the best shows I have ever heard was on a S4 rig , with a Clair flip up console and Clive Franks mixing.. To this day, comb filtering and all.
 
Re: Infocomm???

Timo Ulkuniemi said:
To Ivan

Looooooong time ago I asked you a simple question, to which you never answered - perhaps you never received it or you did and your answer got lost in "bit space"
That question was about a CELLO on stage in a "good room" - now a cello does not have even polar-pattern ( no instrument does ) - and so the sum of reflections and direct sound must be different to observers in different location in that fine room - correct ???
That time the question was about "long tall speakers" and polar patterns and directivity - yes , we know they are fine in some aspects, and then not so fine in others - and you never answered it - I thought then - and right now seeing you having time to debate - that you simply did not have any interest to answer to my question. Because my question "did not fit"...

Correct if I am wrong.

Please do not misunderstand me - I have a pair of Danley-designed Servodrive subs - love them - have a friend with Danley Tapped horn subs - liked them very much last time working with them -
BUT - are you so eager now, because of something "does not fit" ?
Pardon for not so precice expressions of my writing, but my mother tongue is finnish and I studied english only three years in school ...
Intention is to be good and supporting - not offending !


Just relax
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, but I don't remember the question. Can you restate it?

Agreed that most instruments do not have a normal polar pattern. A cello is very different than a trumpet which is different than a voice.

THe closest thing to a "normal polar pattern" would be an instrument such as an electric guitar that uses loudspeakers that get narrower as they go higher.

If you were asking about playing back a recording of a cello, then it helps to have pattern control down low-so that you do not "add reflections of your own space" to the original recording.

Having a controlled dispersion (even pattern control) helps to preserve the original recording.

Your English is about 100,000 times better than my Finnish.
 
Re: Infocomm???

Peter Morris said:
FONT]

What Danley has done is put a lot more of the components into one box, not difficult when you think about it – Done correctly this approach minimizes the acoustic problems and reduces the total weight of the system … just as Ivan said.
Click to expand...

Actually this is a lot harder than people realize. Yes lows are easy, and mids are not that hard.

But when you get to the HIGH FREQ, it get MUCH HARDER REAL QUICK.

There have been various "schemes" over the years to get more HF. One of the more popular methods was the "quad" HF drivers that EV did back in the 80s. ALtec had one that combined 16 drivers all on a single tube.

Yes it got louder (but nowhere nearly as much as people would like), but the interference between the devices caused lots of cancellations-making it sound worse.

This is all due to the very short wavelengths involved and the combfiltering that results.

That is the fundamental idea behind the Jericho series. The different models in the Jericho line all represent different HF combining methods.
 
Re: Infocomm???

Riley Arbuckle said:
One of the best shows I have ever heard was on a S4 rig , with a Clair flip up console and Clive Franks mixing.. To this day, comb filtering and all.
Click to expand...

Here hear

i toured with 40 of em. You can't hear a comb if you are sitting still. If you are up and moving around a few feet you may be able, trained, to hear it happening. That is with music, the reason we are there. Sure if you honk out pink you can really hear it easy. The classic U tube video is the Jericho vs a Meyer Mina. You can hear the swishing in and out as the cameraman walked in and out of each cabs coverage angle. The Jericho is point source and that did not happen. Picked up some cancelation off the floor, normal stuff.

But I do not care what the math says, some of the best sounding concerts I've heard were S4's I know Gene was just trying to cram in all he could in a truck packable box, and he did it. It was not Danley by any stretch, but it did sound real good. And my memory isn't that bad that I remember it sounding so much better that many of the J arrays I've heard since.

I was looking forward to the SBH20 but now I have to check out the XD stuff.
 
Last edited:
Re: Infocomm???

Glenn Adams said:
Here hear

i toured with 40 of em. You can't hear a comb if you are sitting still. If you are up and moving around a few feet you may be able, trained, to hear it happening.
Click to expand...
NO, the notches in the combfilter are THERE when sitting still.

You hear DIFFERENCES in DIFFERENT comb filters when moving around.

I have had cases where "textbook" combfilters existed and fooled seasoned audio pros.

They did not pick it up as combfiltering-but rather lack of clarity etc. Some were saying it was the difference in mic preamps and such.

Combfiltering is not this "big ugly monster" that people think it is (and THINK they can pick out). It is a subtle "dulling" of the sound, that takes away the detail, clarity,finesse etc etc. It "sounds" like it could be fixed with eq, but it cannot. Simply boosting eq makes it sound "shrill" and does NOTHING to fix the problem.

You can't fix a TIME problem with eq.

You really don't realize it is there-until it is gone. THEN it gets better.
 
Top Bottom