You're welcome
First off, nothing I said was meant to put you down or hurt you personally in any way. No offence meant but I did feel inclined to state a counter view.
I've written enough about that subject if anyone wants to look up that data, complete with measurements. So did a couple of other array owners, making it a bigger pool to browse through for anyone to make up their own mind.
The engineering gobbledegook was provided as a solid reference, it isn't anything new and serves as reference to those willing to dig into it.
I'm not making up anything new here either, I just think that some rules of thumb are pretty dangerous to use if they don't quite tell the whole story.
Which is the main reason for me to type down these responses.
The basics of what I'm saying are simple enough, just look at the sound path of each separate driver to your ear. For example, in a focussed array we can completely avoid the combing at a certain listening distance, even though the driver spacing did not change. But it only works at the center of that focussed array. That alone should tell you something about how this all works in real life.
Don Keely bends his (CBT) arrays in the opposite direction, which has it's own set of peculiarities. As we are virtually moving a lot of drivers in such an array further away from our ears, however there is shading involved and much more. He has a completely different goal with all that, backed up with more engineering gobbledegook. Highly worth reading too!
Just for your information, that avatar of mine is a short clip featuring David Lee Roth, some might know him as the lead singer of the Rock band Van Halen, and he is saying "Jump" in that short clip, it's from the Video of the song with the same name "Jump" which came out somewhere in 1984.
My Avatar is from an old puppet series: Dinosaurs, in which the lead company was called WeSaySo, it kinda stuck with me... Trivial data, I know
.No problem, just feel free to ignore me. It isn't meant for or at you anyway.
It's more of a: you say red, I see blue kind of thing. A different opinion, our readers can make up their own mind about it.
One thing you might want to explain is why active crossovers are so much better sounding than passive crossovers. That's even more bold than anything I have claimed so far.
Personally, I don't even use passive crossovers. In my humble opinion it still is just plain wrong as a blanket statement or as a piece of information to state: active is better than passive. Even though I prefer active myself, I'm sure that a competently designed passive crossover could do as well (some say better) in most cases. For me, personally I think they both can do an equally good job if they are used in the right manner.
Some corrections are only available to us in active solutions, like FIR filters that can bend time.
You didn't answer what I wrote down as an honest question:
Is your crossover slope following the LR 24 dB/octave acoustically? Or is it just the name of the chosen slope within your crossover devise.
Now why would I ask that? Many people reading along here still think that if they select a named crossover in their device or in a program, they actually have or are using the same thing the designer of that crossover slope intended.
While in reality all of the named crossovers are meant to describe the acoustical shape of the frequency response. For a 'selected' named crossover to work as advertised the frequency response would need to be flat of the driver you are using it on for at least 2 octaves (unless we use brick wall slopes) beyond the point where you want it to cross. This isn't a small deal. It will determine how one driver (or an array of drivers) hands over to the next driver (or array of drivers).
Usually there are extreme differences between what people think they have set or chosen and what the actual acoustical output is.
I just mention these things to make people more aware of these differences. So if they really want to know and/or learn more, they can start asking the right questions and as a forum we can help them get ahead.
When we do use crossovers as they are meant to be used, following the acoustical response, one will find out there are no big differences between a passive or an active crossover just as long as their frequency shape is the same.
I'm pretty sure you'll feel inclined to ignore this. I'm typing this down for those who are genuinely interested in the science behind those slopes. Why they work as advertised under these specific conditions.
"Don't assume, measure" would be my advise to people that would like to learn more about it. I do realise that's not everyone's cup of tea. Live and let live.
The tactic of spewing bold, false statements in order to elicit a response is not uncommon and he does it a lot
They aren't, of course. That's just another shaggy old audio myth that has the allure of "more advanced technology" to it. It's an easy intellectual trap.
Well I have used line arrays for much of my daily listening for some 15 years so I have learned a thing or two about them.
I also have had a DEQX Digital Calibration Processor for active 3-way crossovering for some 12 years. The DEQX can be calibrated (the entire set-up is based upon actual measurements) so you can account for amplitude, phase, and time errors plus room correction across the full frequency band. You can use crossovers that vary from 48 to 300 dB/octave linear phase slopes. A combination of FIR (Finite Impulse Response) and IIR (Infinite Impulse Response) filters can be used. In short the DEQX can correct for about any speaker error you can envision.
Now for active speaker crossover work you can purchase a new DEQX unit (current units can cost up to $6000) and have the above capabilities and more. Or for a two-way system consider buying a miniDSP 2x4 HD DSP unit for $205 and have nearly that much capability. That much money is less that most guys spend for their passive crossover components with far less assurance of success.
Also Wesayso has used several computer based correction software methods to explore improvement and correction of his array for very little cost. This is another tool to ease the speaker improvement burden for minimal money.
No longer do we have to suffer through the past tedious crossover processes to improve our projects.
I also have had a DEQX Digital Calibration Processor for active 3-way crossovering for some 12 years. The DEQX can be calibrated (the entire set-up is based upon actual measurements) so you can account for amplitude, phase, and time errors plus room correction across the full frequency band. You can use crossovers that vary from 48 to 300 dB/octave linear phase slopes. A combination of FIR (Finite Impulse Response) and IIR (Infinite Impulse Response) filters can be used. In short the DEQX can correct for about any speaker error you can envision.
Now for active speaker crossover work you can purchase a new DEQX unit (current units can cost up to $6000) and have the above capabilities and more. Or for a two-way system consider buying a miniDSP 2x4 HD DSP unit for $205 and have nearly that much capability. That much money is less that most guys spend for their passive crossover components with far less assurance of success.
Also Wesayso has used several computer based correction software methods to explore improvement and correction of his array for very little cost. This is another tool to ease the speaker improvement burden for minimal money.
No longer do we have to suffer through the past tedious crossover processes to improve our projects.
Well, wesayso's "teachings" usually come with a bunch of on-hand, in-situ measured data, showing graphs of what is actually happening electrically and acoustically, then layout the plain simple measured facts.
Yours are to mention you read it somewhere online, go find it.
That's the best you learned in 13 years?
You make it so easy to pick a side here.
I have a line array
Been using the pair for the past 5 years in my garage. It is a 3-way array because my initial stab at it as a 2-way did not work properly--redesign and rebuild to a 3-way and it works better.
Is it the bestest most ubertastic speaker I've ever heard? No, but I didn't build it to be such considering it is used in acoustic hell--a garage. My reason to build it was to hear what they do, severely limit floor/ceiling bounce, have a very wide dispersion because I do projects in the garage and offer high efficiency for BBQs and such.
The good news is it works, the 3-way uses 12 five inch woofers (sealed) 20 three inch midranges and 48 small dome tweeters in each 6 foot vertical array. They use passive 12dB/Oct crossovers LR down at 350Hz and a bessel at 6KHz to the tweets. Getting a total of 80 drivers in each speaker to actually work was a challenge, I do a bit of EQ at 1.5KHz (cut) and boost the tweets at +6dB at 15KHz. They crossover to subs actively at 80Hz although I can EQ them to go much lower if I like.
My ceiling is 10 feet and when the arrays are placed on the subs, the system stands at 7 feet 10 inches tall. I tried them in my house with 8 foot ceilings and they sounded better, partially because they are at slightly higher than 75% of the floor/ceiling distance and my room is very absorbant unlike the hard surfaces of the typical garage.
The wide band mids at 350Hz to 6KHz work well, no issues with any distortion, overdriving or anything and they can take heavy abuse. I set the limiter to around 220 watts at 6 ohms (woofer impedance) and have not had a single reliability issue in the past 5 years. It helps to solder hundreds of connections, if you lose a connection you lose an entire segment, not just the one driver.
My in house system is a home theater, can't use line arrays there for several reasons. I need a horizontal center because I use a conventional flat screen so that knocks out line arrays. Since multi-channel systems tend to use point source during mastering, since the format is very specific with multiple channels (and Atmos) to make my life easier I use point source. Never mind that my wife would shoot me if she saw line arrays all over the living room--my arrays are garage bound for life.
Love the larger than life wall of sound that the line arrays provide. If I am running classical, concert recordings or other things that are naturally BIG...they work very well. Granted, listening to a wall of sound when it is a solo artist with a single instrument is rather...odd. To counter that, I just avoid solo artists type material and generally use music that is much more complex and have a brew or two out in the garage. They are very good for parties, they look imposing, it is obvious you can't pick them up at best buy and nobody has claimed theirs is better!
Knowing what I know now, would I stick with the same design? Well, building a version of the 25 full range towers would be much easier, much faster and less chaotic when it came time to wire them. I tried to make a fully passive line array and even tried super tweeters but EQ is required--might as well go full monty PEQ since it is required for use. Yes, I would use subwoofers because for party music outside on a nice summer day, 25 full ranges will end up being a pile of drink umbrellas.
People do mention the insanity of the things--if you want stealth they are the wrong design. Many people wanted me "to help build one" which in typical speak means I build and they watch because "You're the expert!" I explain the upsides, the downsides and the complexity of such a thing and after 5 years--scared everyone away. After 3 revisions and 18 months of hassle, don't want to build another pair as once is enough.
For people that really, really want to build such things--I recommend either the 25 tower build with the Tymphany drivers or use Faital Pro 3" neos if you plan to move them around. The Faital Pro drivers are more efficient, lighter in weight and more rugged if using them outside, transporting them around etc. Don't forget the PEQ and subs, rinse and repeat.
I love arrays for my intended use, if you want such things in your house make sure you are all in as they are different beasts all together. Although I've never tried it, mixing a left/right array with a horizontal center would not be a good idea for conventional multi-channel use. If you want array HT, make sure they are used vertically behind a screen. I do think line array surrounds would be a fun project to try, since surround is supposed to be more diffused and create a soundfield--might work very well. My wife strongly opposes that idea though--can't claim ignorance with the monsters in the garage. When I saw Don's CBTs, I asked the wife if it would look cool to hang them upside down from the ceiling as surrounds--sheath them in yellow fabric like a big banana? It would be interesting to hear how well that would work.
On a side note, my pair of subs use two 15" each in a push-pull, slot loaded configuration and they are ported tuned to 24Hz. No problems with a smooth blend with the small 5" sealed woofers likely because there are a dozen of them in each speaker.
If you are not quite sure if you like arrays or not, try to find a pair or rent some column speakers from a PA rental place. I know JBL makes a set of column array speakers but I would avoid the Bose version. They point the full ranges in two directions which is a different design that might turn you off from actual column line arrays.
Eminence came out with some new full ranges rated at 32 ohms. The idea is to make 8 driver boxes in parallel for a 4 ohm load. You could build four of them and run 8 ohms per side as they are rated to do 80Hz at 100 watts RMS per box--stacking two or three of them might be an option. Not sure how they sound but you can look at the designs and specs of those drivers when tested in 8 driver boxes in the tech sheets. Parts Express sells them at around $19.99 each so 16 per side would run $640 a pair. Another option if looking at different driver options.
Hope that helps!
Been using the pair for the past 5 years in my garage. It is a 3-way array because my initial stab at it as a 2-way did not work properly--redesign and rebuild to a 3-way and it works better.
Is it the bestest most ubertastic speaker I've ever heard? No, but I didn't build it to be such considering it is used in acoustic hell--a garage. My reason to build it was to hear what they do, severely limit floor/ceiling bounce, have a very wide dispersion because I do projects in the garage and offer high efficiency for BBQs and such.
The good news is it works, the 3-way uses 12 five inch woofers (sealed) 20 three inch midranges and 48 small dome tweeters in each 6 foot vertical array. They use passive 12dB/Oct crossovers LR down at 350Hz and a bessel at 6KHz to the tweets. Getting a total of 80 drivers in each speaker to actually work was a challenge, I do a bit of EQ at 1.5KHz (cut) and boost the tweets at +6dB at 15KHz. They crossover to subs actively at 80Hz although I can EQ them to go much lower if I like.
My ceiling is 10 feet and when the arrays are placed on the subs, the system stands at 7 feet 10 inches tall. I tried them in my house with 8 foot ceilings and they sounded better, partially because they are at slightly higher than 75% of the floor/ceiling distance and my room is very absorbant unlike the hard surfaces of the typical garage.
The wide band mids at 350Hz to 6KHz work well, no issues with any distortion, overdriving or anything and they can take heavy abuse. I set the limiter to around 220 watts at 6 ohms (woofer impedance) and have not had a single reliability issue in the past 5 years. It helps to solder hundreds of connections, if you lose a connection you lose an entire segment, not just the one driver.
My in house system is a home theater, can't use line arrays there for several reasons. I need a horizontal center because I use a conventional flat screen so that knocks out line arrays. Since multi-channel systems tend to use point source during mastering, since the format is very specific with multiple channels (and Atmos) to make my life easier I use point source. Never mind that my wife would shoot me if she saw line arrays all over the living room--my arrays are garage bound for life.
Love the larger than life wall of sound that the line arrays provide. If I am running classical, concert recordings or other things that are naturally BIG...they work very well. Granted, listening to a wall of sound when it is a solo artist with a single instrument is rather...odd. To counter that, I just avoid solo artists type material and generally use music that is much more complex and have a brew or two out in the garage. They are very good for parties, they look imposing, it is obvious you can't pick them up at best buy and nobody has claimed theirs is better!
Knowing what I know now, would I stick with the same design? Well, building a version of the 25 full range towers would be much easier, much faster and less chaotic when it came time to wire them. I tried to make a fully passive line array and even tried super tweeters but EQ is required--might as well go full monty PEQ since it is required for use. Yes, I would use subwoofers because for party music outside on a nice summer day, 25 full ranges will end up being a pile of drink umbrellas.
People do mention the insanity of the things--if you want stealth they are the wrong design. Many people wanted me "to help build one" which in typical speak means I build and they watch because "You're the expert!" I explain the upsides, the downsides and the complexity of such a thing and after 5 years--scared everyone away. After 3 revisions and 18 months of hassle, don't want to build another pair as once is enough.
For people that really, really want to build such things--I recommend either the 25 tower build with the Tymphany drivers or use Faital Pro 3" neos if you plan to move them around. The Faital Pro drivers are more efficient, lighter in weight and more rugged if using them outside, transporting them around etc. Don't forget the PEQ and subs, rinse and repeat.
I love arrays for my intended use, if you want such things in your house make sure you are all in as they are different beasts all together. Although I've never tried it, mixing a left/right array with a horizontal center would not be a good idea for conventional multi-channel use. If you want array HT, make sure they are used vertically behind a screen. I do think line array surrounds would be a fun project to try, since surround is supposed to be more diffused and create a soundfield--might work very well. My wife strongly opposes that idea though--can't claim ignorance with the monsters in the garage. When I saw Don's CBTs, I asked the wife if it would look cool to hang them upside down from the ceiling as surrounds--sheath them in yellow fabric like a big banana? It would be interesting to hear how well that would work.
On a side note, my pair of subs use two 15" each in a push-pull, slot loaded configuration and they are ported tuned to 24Hz. No problems with a smooth blend with the small 5" sealed woofers likely because there are a dozen of them in each speaker.
If you are not quite sure if you like arrays or not, try to find a pair or rent some column speakers from a PA rental place. I know JBL makes a set of column array speakers but I would avoid the Bose version. They point the full ranges in two directions which is a different design that might turn you off from actual column line arrays.
Eminence came out with some new full ranges rated at 32 ohms. The idea is to make 8 driver boxes in parallel for a 4 ohm load. You could build four of them and run 8 ohms per side as they are rated to do 80Hz at 100 watts RMS per box--stacking two or three of them might be an option. Not sure how they sound but you can look at the designs and specs of those drivers when tested in 8 driver boxes in the tech sheets. Parts Express sells them at around $19.99 each so 16 per side would run $640 a pair. Another option if looking at different driver options.
Hope that helps!
Last edited:
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
No experience with this kind of speaker but always felt that it was the approach to take when making use of a special offer from speaker supplier to buy large quantity of low cost drivers. Otherwise, if I wanted a very tall narrow speaker I would look at one of Scott's double mouthed BVR's.
Avebury A12P build
Avebury A12P build
As per Don's AES paper https://www.audioartistry.com/2-12 ...und Field of CBT Loudspeaker Line Arrays).pdf
the vertical polars of CBT are same at front or back. It means that a CBT could be either concave or convex and both would produce same polars.
@18Hurts
wow, a lot of driver you have build. must be a lot of time and money spend and patience too. this system must be make everyone happy listening. such a lot effort deserve to get maximum result. do you ever compare this system to your friend or family or maybe friend at this forum, how big is the difference? im curious before building this a lot of drivers , do you had compare by listening to other method like horn,planar,exotic,etc? and i know it must be hard to build this , but i want to know of staging of this speaker, how far?
wow, a lot of driver you have build. must be a lot of time and money spend and patience too. this system must be make everyone happy listening. such a lot effort deserve to get maximum result. do you ever compare this system to your friend or family or maybe friend at this forum, how big is the difference? im curious before building this a lot of drivers , do you had compare by listening to other method like horn,planar,exotic,etc? and i know it must be hard to build this , but i want to know of staging of this speaker, how far?
Yes, it was a pain to build but I was curious about line arrays so building one sure solved that issue! It was back around 6 years ago, stumbled across a line array build called "the velvet hammer" and at that time, neodymium drivers skyrocketed in price so manufacturers were dumping them cheap and switching to ferrite magnets. Picked up boxes of neo drivers for 90% off so figured it would be an opportunity for garage speakers. The issues in the garage was floor/celing bounce and I wanted a wide dispersion so I could walk around, sit down or stand and not have the sound change much.
After my third revision and second complete rebuild--I got close. Attemped to get full "passive" operation but the highs rolled off after 10KHz as they normally do. Went with a bullet supertweeter but it sounded weird and did not act like the 48 tweeter line so I went with a +6dB boost at 15KHz and that worked well enough. Also cut the mids at 1.5KHz and crossed them to subs at 80Hz.
They do sound much better in the house but that is obvious and I played around with them in my living room for a weekend. My wife banished them to the garage because you can't exactly hide something over 1.8 meters tall and 30cm wide.
If you decide to make tweeter lines, try to get them as close as possible together--I got them at 3.5cm center-to-center and that worked well up to 10KHz. Try to get the smallest yet most efficient tweeters you can, my tweeters are rated at 90dB 1w/1m and with 48 of them--no problems with EQ boosts, maximum output or distortion.
If I was going to do it again--I would of increased the size of the array from 1.8 meters to at least 2.3 meters--the height of them is room dependent. I placed them on push-pull slot loaded dual 15" subwoofers that are 50cm tall to get them off the floor and prevent reflections to my listening position around 3.4 meters back. It worked very well.
The furthest back I've listened to them is over 100 meters away--very good treble response and high output. The police informed me they are easily heard 500 meters away I've measured them at 116dB at 3 meters with around 200 watts per channel so they can get ear blistering loud--more than I need for my garage and work very well for BBQs and such.
The sound quality? Well, my home theater speakers have a clearer, more accurate sound but they are not in the garage either! Since each array weighs 45 KG and the subs that go with them weigh in at 80Kg--most people don't want to borrow them as the entire system weight is 250 KG.
Many people have commented on the sound, I get everything from better than Bose to one of the best sounding PA speaker systems my drummer buddy has heard. The thing one must remember is people hear with their eyes, they see something that big, that bizarre and for most--really cool looking they will expect it to sound good. Crank it up to full bore and you get the chest kick of the midbass, the massive wall of sound effect that line arrays perform and I always do a touch of mid and treble EQ to their tastes--adjust the subwoofers to what they like and go.
I consider it a win, it is good enough for me to stop messing with it--always a good sign. I could make it better but a line array improvement involves changing not one or two drivers but dozens of them--that will slow you down quickly! If I want to change the tweeters for instance, that is 96 drivers and hundreds of solder connections--and most likely a new bezel. That is not going to happen! The other thing is I can't change the height, those drivers are long gone so it is what it is.
As I've said, if I had to do it again--can't get those deals on drivers again so I would look seriously at wesayso's full range with DSP design and add subs. Cutting 25 holes with a hole saw would be far easier than building a 3-way array! The DSP allows custom configurations that will better match the drivers AND your room--a huge gain when riding the array dragon. As you have read, arrays really need PEQ no matter what the build so might as well get it to do the hard lifting.
They do have a very unique sound that is really different from point source type speakers. For my use, they work very well and I'm glad I went through the effort to build something so complex. At the minimum, when people see it they appreciate the efforts it took to make it happen, it's nice for others to acknowledge your work so you'll have that.
Good luck with what you decide to do, never know--you might be satisfied with the project and it could be what you like. At the minimum, get 8 drivers or more and throw together a small pair of monitors with 4 drivers each and although the array effect is not in play, you can get an idea what you are dealing with. Stack both speakers on top of each other in mono and you'll start to notice how the sound field changes. Play around with it and if you like what you hear, then go for it.
Good luck!
After my third revision and second complete rebuild--I got close. Attemped to get full "passive" operation but the highs rolled off after 10KHz as they normally do. Went with a bullet supertweeter but it sounded weird and did not act like the 48 tweeter line so I went with a +6dB boost at 15KHz and that worked well enough. Also cut the mids at 1.5KHz and crossed them to subs at 80Hz.
They do sound much better in the house but that is obvious and I played around with them in my living room for a weekend. My wife banished them to the garage because you can't exactly hide something over 1.8 meters tall and 30cm wide.
If you decide to make tweeter lines, try to get them as close as possible together--I got them at 3.5cm center-to-center and that worked well up to 10KHz. Try to get the smallest yet most efficient tweeters you can, my tweeters are rated at 90dB 1w/1m and with 48 of them--no problems with EQ boosts, maximum output or distortion.
If I was going to do it again--I would of increased the size of the array from 1.8 meters to at least 2.3 meters--the height of them is room dependent. I placed them on push-pull slot loaded dual 15" subwoofers that are 50cm tall to get them off the floor and prevent reflections to my listening position around 3.4 meters back. It worked very well.
The furthest back I've listened to them is over 100 meters away--very good treble response and high output. The police informed me they are easily heard 500 meters away
I've measured them at 116dB at 3 meters with around 200 watts per channel so they can get ear blistering loud--more than I need for my garage and work very well for BBQs and such. The sound quality? Well, my home theater speakers have a clearer, more accurate sound but they are not in the garage either! Since each array weighs 45 KG and the subs that go with them weigh in at 80Kg--most people don't want to borrow them as the entire system weight is 250 KG.
Many people have commented on the sound, I get everything from better than Bose
to one of the best sounding PA speaker systems my drummer buddy has heard. The thing one must remember is people hear with their eyes, they see something that big, that bizarre and for most--really cool looking they will expect it to sound good. Crank it up to full bore and you get the chest kick of the midbass, the massive wall of sound effect that line arrays perform and I always do a touch of mid and treble EQ to their tastes--adjust the subwoofers to what they like and go. I consider it a win, it is good enough for me to stop messing with it--always a good sign. I could make it better but a line array improvement involves changing not one or two drivers but dozens of them--that will slow you down quickly! If I want to change the tweeters for instance, that is 96 drivers and hundreds of solder connections--and most likely a new bezel. That is not going to happen! The other thing is I can't change the height, those drivers are long gone so it is what it is.
As I've said, if I had to do it again--can't get those deals on drivers again so I would look seriously at wesayso's full range with DSP design and add subs. Cutting 25 holes with a hole saw would be far easier than building a 3-way array! The DSP allows custom configurations that will better match the drivers AND your room--a huge gain when riding the array dragon. As you have read, arrays really need PEQ no matter what the build so might as well get it to do the hard lifting.
They do have a very unique sound that is really different from point source type speakers. For my use, they work very well and I'm glad I went through the effort to build something so complex. At the minimum, when people see it they appreciate the efforts it took to make it happen, it's nice for others to acknowledge your work so you'll have that.
Good luck with what you decide to do, never know--you might be satisfied with the project and it could be what you like. At the minimum, get 8 drivers or more and throw together a small pair of monitors with 4 drivers each and although the array effect is not in play, you can get an idea what you are dealing with. Stack both speakers on top of each other in mono and you'll start to notice how the sound field changes. Play around with it and if you like what you hear, then go for it.
Good luck!
With MiniDSP xo and Dirac Live, most challenges can be closed. We had good experience with shaded straight array with tweeter. This did not sound "larger than life", but still kept the large soundstage and better location of soloists. For the current system, a focused array, we do not sit or do measurements in the focus center. We rather place the listening seat at, - and do measurements and Dirac corrections where the imaginary focusing beam is about 60 cm - 1 metre height. Lot of engagement and fun.
Why?
Sorry to ask, but where are you going with a short 4-driver array?
Why not the Nola Brio clone with the TG9 instead?
Qualified to give advice
I believe Jim is very well qualified on the design of line arrays, I have read up on his work and am very impressed. If I was the original poster (or any DIY guy new to line arrays) I would spend a lot of time reading and understanding his published work. Also Wesayso has done a fantastic job of detailing his voyage of discovery into line arrays.
There are over 1 million members on this site and looking at the loudspeaker sections I "guestimate" for each single "qualified" line array designer there are over 1,000 (up to 5,000) supporters of the cheapest and simplest DIY designs "passive two way in an MDF box with a port"
With this kind of ratio I would suggest that this forum is not well suited to sourcing the best advice on line arrays. If you are serious about designing building a high performance line array Google for the best line array designers and contact them privately.... If you just want a good old debate ( heated or calm!) post away on here.
I believe Jim is very well qualified on the design of line arrays, I have read up on his work and am very impressed. If I was the original poster (or any DIY guy new to line arrays) I would spend a lot of time reading and understanding his published work. Also Wesayso has done a fantastic job of detailing his voyage of discovery into line arrays.
There are over 1 million members on this site and looking at the loudspeaker sections I "guestimate" for each single "qualified" line array designer there are over 1,000 (up to 5,000) supporters of the cheapest and simplest DIY designs "passive two way in an MDF box with a port"
With this kind of ratio I would suggest that this forum is not well suited to sourcing the best advice on line arrays. If you are serious about designing building a high performance line array Google for the best line array designers and contact them privately.... If you just want a good old debate ( heated or calm!) post away on here.
I'll bet he's going for a surround channel(s) in addition to his current curved array.
Surrounds are supposed to be diffused sound, 4 drivers will start to "beam" the sound, which is at the other end of diffused.
Well, i don't have the array anymore.
I was still needing output, it needed massive baffle step, and the 6" cube mini enclosures caused a big peak at 1khz. So jerky me sent it back in exchange for future labor, but that fell apart too.
Now I'm older and seeking the finesse that it produced.
And I'm getting antsy to do something that i haven't.
I had a pair of 3" on open baffle, magic at 6", but not enough output for me otherwise.
I've read from a few posts that a short flat array can be good so long as you stay in the vertical height of it.
I think 1' may be limit.
And a few on this forum really like the tg9 driver.
I'll add woofs at 6db filter later.
I was still needing output, it needed massive baffle step, and the 6" cube mini enclosures caused a big peak at 1khz. So jerky me sent it back in exchange for future labor, but that fell apart too.
Now I'm older and seeking the finesse that it produced.
And I'm getting antsy to do something that i haven't.
I had a pair of 3" on open baffle, magic at 6", but not enough output for me otherwise.
I've read from a few posts that a short flat array can be good so long as you stay in the vertical height of it.
I think 1' may be limit.
And a few on this forum really like the tg9 driver.
I'll add woofs at 6db filter later.
Last edited:
Indeed, a pair of 3" on OB will not do too well at parties music levels!
May I suggest going to an 8" FR on OB instead? That will give you a lot more output and meat on the sound, especially with some good 8" out there that are a lot more sensitive than most 3".
If you are worried about beaming and dropping high end, it would be easy to add a tweeter at something like 8kHz, with just a cap.
That way, you could add a real sub (or a pair) later to bring up the bottom end and cover pretty much everything.
But now, that would be far from the subject of this thread.
If you do decide on a short array instead, go at least with 9 drivers. It will give you more output, a wider vertical coverage, easy impedance load with drivers wired 3x3, and some play with the XO.... But you will need EQ .
May I suggest going to an 8" FR on OB instead? That will give you a lot more output and meat on the sound, especially with some good 8" out there that are a lot more sensitive than most 3".
If you are worried about beaming and dropping high end, it would be easy to add a tweeter at something like 8kHz, with just a cap.
That way, you could add a real sub (or a pair) later to bring up the bottom end and cover pretty much everything.
But now, that would be far from the subject of this thread.
If you do decide on a short array instead, go at least with 9 drivers. It will give you more output, a wider vertical coverage, easy impedance load with drivers wired 3x3, and some play with the XO.... But you will need EQ .
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.