Re: SH-50 array eq.
Kinda like the way a large format line array works huh?
~;-)~:wink:
Mac
ps. I couldn't resist.
Kinda like the way a large format line array works huh?
~;-)~:wink:Mac
ps. I couldn't resist.
SH-50 array eq.
- Thread starter Helge A. Bentsen
- Start date
Re: SH-50 array eq.
Kinda, yes - but on a line array you also hear multiple boxes at wavelengths that are very small. That's the problem.
Kinda like the way a large format line array works huh?
Mac
ps. I couldn't resist.
Kinda, yes - but on a line array you also hear multiple boxes at wavelengths that are very small. That's the problem.
Re: SH-50 array eq.
Are you implying that you don't with 2 SH-50s stacked? Does the HF not make the entire 50º vertical coverage? I think it does, so you hear both boxes everywhere but a small zone at the edges of coverage.
Mac
Are you implying that you don't with 2 SH-50s stacked? Does the HF not make the entire 50º vertical coverage? I think it does, so you hear both boxes everywhere but a small zone at the edges of coverage.
Mac
Re: SH-50 array eq.
Sure, if you array them on top of each other.
But the section of Ivan's post that you quoted, was after he wrote: "However when you array them side by side" and thus pertaining to the SH50s when arrayed the way they were designed to.
EDIT: Sorry, got confused around the posts - you're right, he wrote that about stacking two on top of each other. In that case: Yes, that would be kinda like a line array...but then we are discussing it as a non-optimal solution that can nontheless be useful. Kinda like a line array
Sure, if you array them on top of each other.
But the section of Ivan's post that you quoted, was after he wrote: "However when you array them side by side" and thus pertaining to the SH50s when arrayed the way they were designed to.
EDIT: Sorry, got confused around the posts - you're right, he wrote that about stacking two on top of each other. In that case: Yes, that would be kinda like a line array...but then we are discussing it as a non-optimal solution that can nontheless be useful. Kinda like a line array
Last edited:
Re: SH-50 array eq.
In my experience, any live sound that is not a high quality installed system is non-optimal. We do the best we can.
Mac
Sure, if you array them on top of each other.
But the section of Ivan's post that you quoted, was after he wrote: "However when you array them side by side" and thus pertaining to the SH50s when arrayed the way they were designed to.
EDIT: Sorry, got confused around the posts - you're right, he wrote that about stacking two on top of each other. In that case: Yes, that would be kinda like a line array...but then we are discussing it as a non-optimal solution that can nontheless be useful. Kinda like a line array
In my experience, any live sound that is not a high quality installed system is non-optimal. We do the best we can.
Mac
Re: SH-50 array eq.
A common setup around here for these sizes of gigs are three D&B Q1 over three Q-subs. It's a line array. It gets loud. It sounds like s**t compared to sh-50s, but it will probably be louder. And it will scale better for larger gigs. If I move into bigger gigs I'll have to consider some SH-46
That said, I suspect a bit of perceived loudness is lost in the SH-50s due to their SQ. They sound good even after I hit the RMS-limiter in my PLM14k. In a visiting engineers words: "You can hear anything you do on the mixer". But that lack of distortion is sometimes troublesome, visiting engineers complain about a lack of loudness because it doesn't fell like it's loud. 100 dBA doesn't feel like 100dBA on other speakers. I like it, but I'll probably need to bring a dB-meter to prove my point.
And having done a lot of shows on a LS9 around the world, I think it's funny using it on my speakers. It's probably the most disliked desk around here, but you can make really good sounding shows on it when you have a good speaker system. I'm guessing that's because you're not fighting the speakers, they just translate your modified electrical signals to music.
I wonder how many times people have put the blame on the mixing desk rather than at the speakers.
A common setup around here for these sizes of gigs are three D&B Q1 over three Q-subs. It's a line array. It gets loud. It sounds like s**t compared to sh-50s, but it will probably be louder. And it will scale better for larger gigs. If I move into bigger gigs I'll have to consider some SH-46
That said, I suspect a bit of perceived loudness is lost in the SH-50s due to their SQ. They sound good even after I hit the RMS-limiter in my PLM14k. In a visiting engineers words: "You can hear anything you do on the mixer". But that lack of distortion is sometimes troublesome, visiting engineers complain about a lack of loudness because it doesn't fell like it's loud. 100 dBA doesn't feel like 100dBA on other speakers. I like it, but I'll probably need to bring a dB-meter to prove my point.
And having done a lot of shows on a LS9 around the world, I think it's funny using it on my speakers. It's probably the most disliked desk around here, but you can make really good sounding shows on it when you have a good speaker system. I'm guessing that's because you're not fighting the speakers, they just translate your modified electrical signals to music.
I wonder how many times people have put the blame on the mixing desk rather than at the speakers.
Re: SH-50 array eq.
If they don't like it and think it is the mixer-then in their mind that is the problem. Yet another person would listen to the same sound and blame it on the processor. A third would blame it on the speakers. Most likely it is the guy driving the whole thing.
We know it could "never" be the band!
It is often amazing on what blame-or praise- a particular "sound".
If they don't like it and think it is the mixer-then in their mind that is the problem. Yet another person would listen to the same sound and blame it on the processor. A third would blame it on the speakers. Most likely it is the guy driving the whole thing.
We know it could "never" be the band!
Re: SH-50 array eq.
I seem to remember (Ivan?) saying that SH50s working best stacked, as when side x side they suffer from pattern flip below a certain Hz range. ?
I seem to remember (Ivan?) saying that SH50s working best stacked, as when side x side they suffer from pattern flip below a certain Hz range. ?
Stack and splay, yes. Same reason the J3 physically looks opposite of the dispersion pattern, or why a vertical sub array has pattern control in the vertical plane.
Re: SH-50 array eq.
You are talkng about 2 entirely different things here. One is pattern flip and the other is coupling/interference.
First-the pattern flip-it doesn't matter how you stack them-vertically or horizontally- at some point (down pretty low) the pattern is not going to be the 100x50 for 2 cabinets. But this would be low enough that it wouldn't matter. This is because the box is square-with a wquare pattern-so that doesn't matter how they are stacked-the end result will be the same size. OK OK-If you array they side by side-tight packed as designed-the size will be a "wee bit" smaller-but not enough as to matter-or even begin to notice.
Whe they are hardpacked side by side-the interference will be less than when stacked verticallly.
HOWEVER we are also talking about different coverage patterns. If the cabinets are stacked vertically and splayed-then the interference will be less. But there will also be less output.
Sometimes you have to choose between quality and quantity.
The whole thing is because the sound starts out as a single source-there is less overall interference when you have 2 boxes covering the same area-than when you have multiple sources out of each box.
I remember years ago ( a couple of decades) there was a local 2500 seat arena I used to do all the time-with all different kinds of acts. I would normally take out 4 stacks per side (all 90° horns) The sound was "fine" and people were happy-interference and all.
Then I got a call for a wedding in the same room-and all they wanted to do was to cover the dance floor and budget was a real issue. So I brought out a single stack per side. Everything else in the system remained the same (console-mics-processing-amps etc).
Both my other engineer and myself exclaimed to each other how much more clear the sound was. VERY obvious. Now it wasn't as loud (didn't need to be) but sure sounded a lot better. It was then that a "light bulb turned on" about possible cabinet-cabinet interference.
There are a lot of things that "sound fine"-until you hear something better. Then it is hard to go back. McDonalds is fine for a lot of people-until they have eaten at a good steak house.
You are talkng about 2 entirely different things here. One is pattern flip and the other is coupling/interference.
First-the pattern flip-it doesn't matter how you stack them-vertically or horizontally- at some point (down pretty low) the pattern is not going to be the 100x50 for 2 cabinets. But this would be low enough that it wouldn't matter. This is because the box is square-with a wquare pattern-so that doesn't matter how they are stacked-the end result will be the same size. OK OK-If you array they side by side-tight packed as designed-the size will be a "wee bit" smaller-but not enough as to matter-or even begin to notice.
Whe they are hardpacked side by side-the interference will be less than when stacked verticallly.
HOWEVER we are also talking about different coverage patterns. If the cabinets are stacked vertically and splayed-then the interference will be less. But there will also be less output.
Sometimes you have to choose between quality and quantity.
The whole thing is because the sound starts out as a single source-there is less overall interference when you have 2 boxes covering the same area-than when you have multiple sources out of each box.
I remember years ago ( a couple of decades) there was a local 2500 seat arena I used to do all the time-with all different kinds of acts. I would normally take out 4 stacks per side (all 90° horns) The sound was "fine" and people were happy-interference and all.
Then I got a call for a wedding in the same room-and all they wanted to do was to cover the dance floor and budget was a real issue. So I brought out a single stack per side. Everything else in the system remained the same (console-mics-processing-amps etc).
Both my other engineer and myself exclaimed to each other how much more clear the sound was. VERY obvious. Now it wasn't as loud (didn't need to be) but sure sounded a lot better. It was then that a "light bulb turned on" about possible cabinet-cabinet interference.
There are a lot of things that "sound fine"-until you hear something better. Then it is hard to go back. McDonalds is fine for a lot of people-until they have eaten at a good steak house.