Need more head room, long, narrow room

[Dick Rees]

Re: Need more head room, long, narrow room

Ron...

You are a minority of one on this, arguing for the sake of argument and really have nothing positive to contribute for the OP with the possible exception of requiring the rest of us to debunk your specious objections.

Welcome to the Iggy List...

 

[Ron Kimball]

Re: Need more head room, long, narrow room

Wow, bad hair day dude?

 

[Steve Garris]

Re: Need more head room, long, narrow room

I've found this thread very informative, and I don't think Ron is trying to stir the pot. Additionally, I'll add that Dick Rees has never steered me wrong. I think there is some merit to what Ron is saying to the OP about coverage at the back of the room. Until we know the ceiling height we're all speculating, right?

He did say that he "get's what you are talking about".

What's the Iggy list?

 

[Ron Kimball]

Re: Need more head room, long, narrow room

What's the Iggy list?

"Ignore List" - used by thin skinned blokes that ought not to be in the kitchen anyways ~;-)~:wink:. Nothin' wrong with having different opinions and experiences - thought we were here to chat about them. There's generally no perfect solution or one right answer - I'll still go with it bein' the hair LOL.

 

[Jay Barracato]

Re: Need more head room, long, narrow room

"Ignore List" - used by thin skinned blokes that ought not to be in the kitchen anyways ~;-)~:wink:. Nothin' wrong with having different opinions and experiences - thought we were here to chat about them. There's generally no perfect solution or one right answer - I'll still go with it bein' the hair LOL.

Well I have tried to explain how some forethought in system setup can pay off in better coverage/less reflections/better sound. My experience comes from working in genres where clarity trumps volume. Your response seems to be "No situation is perfect so why even try" support by some examples where bad sound seems acceptable.

Thanks for the lesson in mediocrity.

 

[Ron Kimball]

Re: Need more head room, long, narrow room

I only discussed how to get the sound to the back of the room as close to the same volume as at the front given the somewhat assumed limitations of the OP and in answer to the OP's request. I was clear that I wouldn't choose to do that in this situation - but that's no reason not to answer the OP question. Feel free to post your solution for getting equal SPL all the way to the back of the room with a pair of SOS ~:-D~:grin:.

 

[Jay Barracato]

Re: Need more head room, long, narrow room

I only discussed how to get the sound to the back of the room as close to the same volume as at the front given the somewhat assumed limitations of the OP and in answer to the OP's request. I was clear that I wouldn't choose to do that in this situation - but that's no reason not to answer the OP question. Feel free to post your solution for getting equal SPL all the way to the back of the room with a pair of SOS ~:-D~:grin:.

I did. You have spent 10 posts questioning it.

The only way to make the volume the same in two places without greatly changing the frequency response is to make the distances to the source the same.

The only way I know of to do that with a point source is to raise the box and then point it down.

The same thing I have now said repeatedly.

If anyone knows any other way that doesn't violate the laws of physics, let us know.

 

[Rob Timmerman]

Re: Need more head room, long, narrow room

I did. You have spent 10 posts questioning it.

The only way to make the volume the same in two places without greatly changing the frequency response is to make the distances to the source the same.

The only way I know of to do that with a point source is to raise the box and then point it down.

The same thing I have now said repeatedly.

If anyone knows any other way that doesn't violate the laws of physics, let us know.

A source with good off-axis frequency response (read consistent polar pattern with frequency) will have reduced intensity off axis without significant changes in frequency response. This can be used improve front to back uniformity by adjusting the source aim (and polar pattern in the case of arrays) to put the reduced intensity pattern on the closer listeners. This, I might add, is the way that most array systems function.

Oh, and with speakers on sticks, it's pretty difficult to get them high enough to put listeners out of the horn pattern. With a horn at 10' above the ground (possible with the Ultimate TS99) and a 45 degree nominal horn, a standing listener is in the pattern at 12' back assuming no downtilt. If you've got a room big enough to warrant that kind of height on your sticks, there's a decent chance you're also out of the horizontal pattern close to the stage in the center, and so should be thinking about frontfill anyway. With shorter stands and the bottom of the box at just above head height, you're in the pattern around 3' back.

Of course, all this assumes an anechoic environment. In reverberant spaces, once you're in the reverberant field there is no further drop in level with distance.

 

[Max Warasila]

Re: Need more head room, long, narrow room

The only way to make the volume the same in two places without greatly changing the frequency response is to make the distances to the source the same.

The only way I know of to do that with a point source is to raise the box and then point it down.

The same thing I have now said repeatedly.

If anyone knows any other way that doesn't violate the laws of physics, let us know.

Hmmm… have you tried a flux capacitor?

--EDIT---

A source with good off-axis frequency response (read consistent polar pattern with frequency) will have reduced intensity off axis. This can be used improve front to back uniformity by adjusting the source aim (and polar pattern in the case of arrays) to put the reduced intensity pattern on the closer listeners. This, I might add, is the way that most array systems function.

Yes, well there is the issue that pattern control changes at different frequencies...

 

[Jay Barracato]

Re: Need more head room, long, narrow room

A source with good off-axis frequency response (read consistent polar pattern with frequency) will have reduced intensity off axis. This can be used improve front to back uniformity by adjusting the source aim (and polar pattern in the case of arrays) to put the reduced intensity pattern on the closer listeners. This, I might add, is the way that most array systems function.

Name 1 point source box that has the same off axis response at 90 degrees over 200-1000, 1000-2000, and 2000-4000 hz.

I have already said putting the audience area directly in front of the stage off axis is a poor compromise in my mind as the frequencies you lose are the ones needed there the most.

How an array is steered has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.

 

[Dick Rees]

Re: Need more head room, long, narrow room

Time for a return to the next to the last sentence in the OP:

"I really just want the person standing at the mix desk to find their desired volume before the master fader reaches unity."

This might be accomplished with a single delay speaker pointed at the mix position...

If Lisa is still around and not grossed out, I'd love to know the ceiling height and the location of the mix position within the dimensions of the room.

 

[Ron Kimball]

Re: Need more head room, long, narrow room

I think we work in different worlds LOL. I've looked at getting taller stands but can't quite figure out how those TS99 stands work - can you actually mount a PRX615 on one with a balanced tilter attached and get it to full extension by yourself safely? Usually the tall rooms I work have an actual stage so I gain the height that way. I have no desire to step into the world where you need crew, trucks, genie lifts, and such.

Going back to the OP, she describes a 200 cap room of possibly 4000+ sqft, something ain't right with that math. Even with round tables it would be more like 400 cap, no? If a bar/club twice that 8O~8-O~:shock:.

And the whole thread is silly anyways - no way are a pair of 615 over subs not loud enough to hurt you at 10 meters. I'm still recovering from a dumbarse gig I did a month ago - RCF310a's at 20 feet NOT tilted down and toed away from me measuring 115dBC slow from my seat (stoopid loud drummer, only kick mic'd). I was hired and paid solely by the lead singer as he wanted his last gig with those guys to not suck LOL - they were never able to get the vocals over the band themselves. First time I dug out the SPL meter in a couple years as I couldn't believe what my ears were telling me x(~:dead:. I'm really pissed I was involved in subjecting folks to that - I stopped mixing bands that I needed earplugs for a couple years back (and didn't have them with me).

 

[Ivan Beaver]

Re: Need more head room, long, narrow room

A source with good off-axis frequency response (read consistent polar pattern with frequency) will have reduced intensity off axis. This can be used improve front to back uniformity by adjusting the source aim (and polar pattern in the case of arrays) to put the reduced intensity pattern on the closer listeners. This, I might add, is the way that most array systems function.

The problem is finding loudspeakers that actually have a "consistent polar pattern with freq". Most products simply don't have a horn large enough to provide the same pattern.

YES, that is what "everybody wants" and the "marketing depts" would want you to believe (and many many people do), but it simply is not the case.

Sadly-pattern control is something that most of the industry has "forgotten".

And the other thing is how consistent is the pattern?

Attached is the pattern (from the manufacturer) of one of their popular products and the manufacturer (who shall remain nameless) is one of the most popular in the world.

So if you were to choose a pattern-which one would you choose to "best describe" it? I would not call it "consistent".

 

[Ron Kimball]

Re: Need more head room, long, narrow room

Time for a return to the next to the last sentence in the OP: "I really just want the person standing at the mix desk to find their desired volume before the master fader reaches unity."

I did question what that really means in an early post - were the speakers starting to limit? If so, how much? The implication is that someone is mixing with their eyes :?~:-?~:???:.

 

[Max Warasila]

Re: Need more head room, long, narrow room

I did question what that really means in an early post - were the speakers starting to limit? If so, how much? The implication is that someone is mixing with their eyes :?~:-?~:???:.

Actually, the implication is that she wants more headroom, I think. If I wrote that sentence, that'd be what I meant.

 

[Rob Timmerman]

Re: Need more head room, long, narrow room

Name 1 point source box that has the same off axis response at 90 degrees over 200-1000, 1000-2000, and 2000-4000 hz.

I have already said putting the audience area directly in front of the stage off axis is a poor compromise in my mind as the frequencies you loose are the ones needed there the most.

How an array is steered has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.

The Fulcrum RX599 is within 6dB of nominal frequency response over a 90 degree included angle out to about 6khz. As few manufacturers can be bothered to provide off-axis measurements on their datasheets, finding others to compare to is difficult. It's also worth noting that this type of behavior is also known as "poor pattern control" (par for the course for a box that size).

For well designed boxes, the off-axis behavior is similar in both the horizontal and vertical planes. Presuming that your audience isn't simply in a line on-axis with the loudspeaker, the compromises one makes to provide uniform sound (even of varying magnitude) over the entire audience area tend to account for the off-axis response of the loudspeakers or arrays in use.

Who said anything about array steering? I was simply pointing out that adjusting the polar pattern of a source (assuming the polar pattern is not frequency dependant to any significant degree) is a commercially used method of achieving uniformity without requiring all listeners to be equidistant from the source.

 

[Ron Kimball]

Re: Need more head room, long, narrow room

Good one Ivan and goes back to those who use their eyes (in this case 45x90 or whatever) spec to set their speakers. I'll often tweak the toe-in by walking up to the stage and finding the point at which the HF cuts off and trying to make that just in front of the stage if not using front fills (rarely appropriate in my world LOL). A surprisingly large number of the smaller narrow and long bar/clubs end up with a single top as the only way to steer away from the bar and also keep it off the walls. And why generate comb filtering when you don't need to? Fortunately I mostly stay away from the bands that care if it looks a bit "different" - those can hire the guy with the JRX double 15's over single 18's rig (run full range w/6dB internal choke for subs) for their 100 cap gigs LOL.

And yes Rob - Fulcrum Rulz ~:-D~:grin: ! Just not appropriate for what I do ~:-(~:sad: - too expensive and heavy.

 

[Rob Timmerman]

Re: Need more head room, long, narrow room

And the other thing is how consistent is the pattern?

Attached is the pattern (from the manufacturer) of one of their popular products and the manufacturer (who shall remain nameless) is one of the most popular in the world.

So if you were to choose a pattern-which one would you choose to "best describe" it? I would not call it "consistent".

Hard to tell based on those cherry-picked graphs. That looks like some bad behavior around a crossover point, but I'd guess that aside from that 2-octave window, the box is somewhat better behaved than is implied by the graphs.

 

[Ivan Beaver]

Re: Need more head room, long, narrow room

The Fulcrum RX599 is within 6dB of nominal frequency response over a 90 degree included angle out to about 6khz. As few manufacturers can be bothered to provide off-axis measurements on their datasheets, finding others to compare to is difficult. It's also worth noting that this type of behavior is also known as "poor pattern control" (par for the course for a box that size).

For well designed boxes, the off-axis behavior is similar in both the horizontal and vertical planes. Presuming that your audience isn't simply in a line on-axis with the loudspeaker, the compromises one makes to provide uniform sound (even of varying magnitude) over the entire audience area tend to account for the off-axis response of the loudspeakers or arrays in use.

Who said anything about array steering? I was simply pointing out that adjusting the polar pattern of a source (assuming the polar pattern is not frequency dependant to any significant degree) is a commercially used method of achieving uniformity without requiring all listeners to be equidistant from the source.

But DOWN to what freq does it have essentially the same patterm. It is the LOW freq part of the control that really starts to fall apart.

The high freq is much easier to control.

I would argue that MOST loudspeakers are VERY VERY different in the horizontal and vertical behavior. This is dues to simple basic physics and the use of horns that are smaller in the narrower coverage pattern. Just a wild guess-but I wold say that at least 90% of all loudspeakers suffer from this basic "mistake".

A NARROWER coverage pattern has to be PHYSICALLY LARGER to have the same control down to the same freq as a wider coverage horn.

So let's assume the physical size of the vertical part of the horn is half that of the horizontal and assume that the horizontal coverage pattern is twice as wide as the vertical (kinda typical), then that means that the vertical pattern control will be lost TWO OCTAVES above the horizontal.

That is NO WHERE near the same "control".

Yes a "well designed" horn will lose the pattern at the same freq-but there are VERY VERY VERY FEW of those products out there. Yes they do exist and yes there are compromises in the "typical" horns, but the manufacturers REALLY HOPE that people don't understand this basic principal and don't look at the products and do a little bit of simple math to figure things out.

 

[Jay Barracato]

Re: Need more head room, long, narrow room

The Fulcrum RX599 is within 6dB of nominal frequency response over a 90 degree included angle out to about 6khz. As few manufacturers can be bothered to provide off-axis measurements on their datasheets, finding others to compare to is difficult. It's also worth noting that this type of behavior is also known as "poor pattern control" (par for the course for a box that size).

I am not sure what a 5 inch install speaker has to do with this discussion on SOS aiming but the RX599 is close to 10 db down above 2000 at 60 degrees and 12 db down at 90, nothing in their graphs supports "even frequency coverage" you are claiming for 90 degrees. When they claim a 90 degree coverage, that means to me 45 degrees on each side of the center line. Here is the pdf with the speaker specs:

http://www.fulcrum-acoustic.com/assets/pdf/Spec Sheets/Prod Spec, RX599 v2.pdf

For well designed boxes, the off-axis behavior is similar in both the horizontal and vertical planes. Presuming that your audience isn't simply in a line on-axis with the loudspeaker, the compromises one makes to provide uniform sound (even of varying magnitude) over the entire audience area tend to account for the off-axis response of the loudspeakers or arrays in use.

Who said anything about array steering? I was simply pointing out that adjusting the polar pattern of a source (assuming the polar pattern is not frequency dependant to any significant degree) is a commercially used method of achieving uniformity without requiring all listeners to be equidistant from the source.

Who said anything about array steering? I thought you did...

This can be used improve front to back uniformity by adjusting the source aim (and polar pattern in the case of arrays) to put the reduced intensity pattern on the closer listeners. This, I might add, is the way that most array systems function.

And from Ron

I'll often tweak the toe-in by walking up to the stage and finding the point at which the HF cuts off and trying to make that just in front of the stage if not using front fills (rarely appropriate in my world LOL).

I am not sure why you would be concerned with coverage in the horizontal and use the exact same argument I gave for the center coverage and reflections off the walls and ignore the same in the vertical. All I have been saying is to raise the speakers and use down tilt in addition to toe in to get the coverage. Anything you do to get coverage to the front of the stage is not going to move the back of the room out of the coverage pattern of any SOS speaker I am aware of.