Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ivan Beaver" data-source="post: 117718" data-attributes="member: 30">Re: Sub arrays for even front to back coverageThe basic issue is distance.&nbsp; The distance to the furthest listener does not change (enough to be considered) whether the subs are flown or on the ground.But the distance to the closest listeners changes quiet a bit (depending on height) between ground and flown.So the rear SPL stays the same-the only thing you can do is to try to reduce the near SPL-so they are more balanced.This can be done in a couple of ways- Get them up high- or try to do a directional array by spacing the subs so that most of the energy is going towards the rear of the room and less is on the close people.It is not just a matter of what the array &quot;looks like&quot; but also rather how it is processed.It is one thing to complain about something-and then quite another to start putting restrictions on what can and can&#039;t be done to try to fix it.It is all a matter of compromise.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ivan Beaver, post: 117718, member: 30"] Re: Sub arrays for even front to back coverage The basic issue is distance. The distance to the furthest listener does not change (enough to be considered) whether the subs are flown or on the ground. But the distance to the closest listeners changes quiet a bit (depending on height) between ground and flown. So the rear SPL stays the same-the only thing you can do is to try to reduce the near SPL-so they are more balanced. This can be done in a couple of ways- Get them up high- or try to do a directional array by spacing the subs so that most of the energy is going towards the rear of the room and less is on the close people. It is not just a matter of what the array "looks like" but also rather how it is processed. It is one thing to complain about something-and then quite another to start putting restrictions on what can and can't be done to try to fix it. It is all a matter of compromise. [/QUOTE]

Verification