Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Helge A. Bentsen" data-source="post: 74037" data-attributes="member: 263">Re: Thoughts on old EAW KF gearI&#039;m not going to argue about what&#039;s the best solution for a given application, but I&#039;d like to chime in with my $0.02.For a number of shows I&#039;ve deployed one SH-50 a side covering the main part of the audience instead of deploying two, despite it&#039;s &quot;low&quot; horizontal coverage compared to the requirements at these shows. I found that I gained clarity and could bring the general level down using frontfills and outfills to cover the first rows where the mains didn&#039;t cover compared to using two Sh-50s a side. There will of course be transitions between the various boxes, but they tend to be more local than other issues in acoustically challenging spaces.I believe this is because I put out less energy into the room and as a bonus move parts of the audience closer to the source with this approach, but I could be mistaken.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Helge A. Bentsen, post: 74037, member: 263"] Re: Thoughts on old EAW KF gear I'm not going to argue about what's the best solution for a given application, but I'd like to chime in with my $0.02. For a number of shows I've deployed one SH-50 a side covering the main part of the audience instead of deploying two, despite it's "low" horizontal coverage compared to the requirements at these shows. I found that I gained clarity and could bring the general level down using frontfills and outfills to cover the first rows where the mains didn't cover compared to using two Sh-50s a side. There will of course be transitions between the various boxes, but they tend to be more local than other issues in acoustically challenging spaces. I believe this is because I put out less energy into the room and as a bonus move parts of the audience closer to the source with this approach, but I could be mistaken. [/QUOTE]

Verification