No, I didn't screen them, except I took the time to run impedance tests on each of them to make sure all behaved as they should. Small differences were present.
I also spend a considerable amount of time to make sure the impedance of the damping in the cabinet was as expected. Without wiggles. It took several tries to get it where I wanted it. First with a single driver in a test cabinet, then with the arrays as a whole. In hindsight I should have used a different wiring scheme.
I may alter it at some point if or when I have enough time to do so.
I have 5 drivers in series x 5 parallel, next time I'd do 5 parallel wired, 5 series.
For info I have hunted down many sources to get to see the data I wanted. Sites like Zaph, German HiFi test sites and magazines etc.
I have been in research for a total of 1.5 years before actually building anything. It wasn't a spur of the moment thing for me (lol)
In that time I have read just about anything I could find on several subjects to prepare my build. Drivers, FIR processing etc.
I ran small tests on a couple of things with the speakers I had at that time. (Dirac's automated FIR etc)
It's save to say I was prepared, but also had backup plans should some parts of the process fail.
Backup plans like (frequency dependent) shading, using tweeters etc. I never needed to go there. I don't want or feel the need to go there anymore.
If I lived big, big room, lots of space, no spouse, I would probably have ended up chasing (rather large) Synergy speakers.
But with my specific set of compromises, space, spouse, this was the best concept I could come up with.
No regrets though. None at all.
I also spend a considerable amount of time to make sure the impedance of the damping in the cabinet was as expected. Without wiggles. It took several tries to get it where I wanted it. First with a single driver in a test cabinet, then with the arrays as a whole. In hindsight I should have used a different wiring scheme.
I may alter it at some point if or when I have enough time to do so.
I have 5 drivers in series x 5 parallel, next time I'd do 5 parallel wired, 5 series.
For info I have hunted down many sources to get to see the data I wanted. Sites like Zaph, German HiFi test sites and magazines etc.
I have been in research for a total of 1.5 years before actually building anything. It wasn't a spur of the moment thing for me (lol)
In that time I have read just about anything I could find on several subjects to prepare my build. Drivers, FIR processing etc.
I ran small tests on a couple of things with the speakers I had at that time. (Dirac's automated FIR etc)
It's save to say I was prepared, but also had backup plans should some parts of the process fail.
Backup plans like (frequency dependent) shading, using tweeters etc. I never needed to go there. I don't want or feel the need to go there anymore.
If I lived big, big room, lots of space, no spouse, I would probably have ended up chasing (rather large) Synergy speakers.
But with my specific set of compromises, space, spouse, this was the best concept I could come up with.
No regrets though. None at all.
Last edited:
I've said a couple of times: you better like the driver you use as you will get it back on steroids. Its warts will be magnified.
I'm assuming the alternate wiring scheme produces lower power variance across the drivers once you include variations in the drivers electrical characteristics (Re, Le). That would show up in a sensitivity analysis or even MonteCarlo simulations.
I can always judge how satisfied I am with something by how long it takes before I change it. You've had your LAs for awhile now
Last edited:
Yes indeed. It has not crossed my mind to build something else.
They passed the test of time. I keep playing around with them. Most of that is just balance, as thats so influential to what we hear. Balance between phantom center and sides, balance between direct and reflected sound (its virtual reflections for me with ambient speakers, timed later than any real reflections would arive in my relatively small room). Its fun to play with. Perception is a strange phenomenon.
They passed the test of time. I keep playing around with them. Most of that is just balance, as thats so influential to what we hear. Balance between phantom center and sides, balance between direct and reflected sound (its virtual reflections for me with ambient speakers, timed later than any real reflections would arive in my relatively small room). Its fun to play with. Perception is a strange phenomenon.
I wonder how many people who make line arrays use passive crossovers vs active crossovers---if they are using more than one line in the array. I have this feeling that unless your speakers are absolutely top notch they will sound much worse due to the difficulties of a passive crossover system.
So it reality it MAY BE the passive crossover system that is amplified badly in a multiple speaker design. When these are designed, rarely does the builder talk about the amplifiers and the crossover system. It like going to the doctor, who never ever asks you what you are eating.
And of course, if you are using a one wide range speaker in your line array rather than a 3 way, which I do and wesayso does not, then you absolutely must use the best possible speaker you can find, because the badness of the frequency response at the tweeter and bass ends will do you in(and the comb filter distortion hearable if you are under the age of 50, which cannot be equalized away). This is not the case when you are selecting a different tweeter, a different mid woofer, and a different sub woofer and when you are crossing them at 24 db L-R electronically.
So it reality it MAY BE the passive crossover system that is amplified badly in a multiple speaker design. When these are designed, rarely does the builder talk about the amplifiers and the crossover system. It like going to the doctor, who never ever asks you what you are eating.
And of course, if you are using a one wide range speaker in your line array rather than a 3 way, which I do and wesayso does not, then you absolutely must use the best possible speaker you can find, because the badness of the frequency response at the tweeter and bass ends will do you in(and the comb filter distortion hearable if you are under the age of 50, which cannot be equalized away). This is not the case when you are selecting a different tweeter, a different mid woofer, and a different sub woofer and when you are crossing them at 24 db L-R electronically.
Last edited:
I don't want to alarm you, but as long as we hear with two ears, we get comb patterns as an input. Further more, a row of tweeters is still going to make comb patterns at the listening position. It isn't as simple and straight forward as what you state here.
We're always told to stay within a certain center to center distance with our drivers which has nothing to do with the comb pattern at listening distances. It's a good rule of thumb for designing multiways but the reality is way more complicated and different that these simple rules suggest.
Do I get comb patterns? Yes. But not where all the simple math that's usually used predicts it. And a large chunk of it is dismissed due to using FIR correction, which makes the array respond as if it were one large speaker.
Don't try to generalize. It just doesn't work that way. There are passive setups that are awesome. There are active setups that are awesome too. Reason for me to go active is simple. I need correction that passive cannot give me. But that doesn't rule out the quality that can be achieved in passive setups.
Whatever you use, it's how you use it that matters. Even if I called my thread the Two Towers, it doesn't mean I see it as "One Speaker to rule them all".
I get it that you're happy with your setup. So am I. Just don't jump to conclusions that you nor I can make.
I bet you haven't heard what a FIR corrected full range line array can do. I was below 50 when I build it (lol).
We're always told to stay within a certain center to center distance with our drivers which has nothing to do with the comb pattern at listening distances. It's a good rule of thumb for designing multiways but the reality is way more complicated and different that these simple rules suggest.
Do I get comb patterns? Yes. But not where all the simple math that's usually used predicts it. And a large chunk of it is dismissed due to using FIR correction, which makes the array respond as if it were one large speaker.
Don't try to generalize. It just doesn't work that way. There are passive setups that are awesome. There are active setups that are awesome too. Reason for me to go active is simple. I need correction that passive cannot give me. But that doesn't rule out the quality that can be achieved in passive setups.
Whatever you use, it's how you use it that matters. Even if I called my thread the Two Towers, it doesn't mean I see it as "One Speaker to rule them all"
.I get it that you're happy with your setup. So am I. Just don't jump to conclusions that you nor I can make.
I bet you haven't heard what a FIR corrected full range line array can do. I was below 50 when I build it (lol).
You need to make your argument with Jim Griffin’s original paper, which he has already recanted in regards to comb filtering, not me.
Roger Russell, says while you can measure all this, you cannot hear it.
There is so much discussion from one side to the other of measuring and listening to comb filter distortion its really hard to determine the reality. Whatever position on this one you want to take, you can find internet evidence to support your position.
I won’t argue(read that: discuss, if you wish) with you about it. I use Griffin’s first position in his paper. My tweeter array in the current system I’m building is 1 inch c-to-c, vertically. This means that according to that paper, comb filter distortion starts at about 13Khz. And so, even at my age I could technically hear this, since I can hear to about 16khz. However, if I don’t move up and down while listening, then I definitely will not hear it.
And then we have to wonder if we are talking about vertical combing or horizontal combing. My previous line array did not have the tweeter line and the mid range line close enough together to be perceived as one line at 2 feet or less. Buy the new one is less than three inches C-to-C. But then who listens at 2 feet to a line array?
And besides, there is the comb distortion from the room, though many people say that if you are listening in the nearfield in a line array you are in the field without reflections in the room.
More people with PhD’s in acoustics will chime in with their views and with measurements. But everyone agrees pretty much that you cannot equalize it away in an analog equalizer(some people do not). However, if you can do it or not with a digital one, that jury is still out.
Roger Russell, says while you can measure all this, you cannot hear it.
There is so much discussion from one side to the other of measuring and listening to comb filter distortion its really hard to determine the reality. Whatever position on this one you want to take, you can find internet evidence to support your position.
I won’t argue(read that: discuss, if you wish) with you about it. I use Griffin’s first position in his paper. My tweeter array in the current system I’m building is 1 inch c-to-c, vertically. This means that according to that paper, comb filter distortion starts at about 13Khz. And so, even at my age I could technically hear this, since I can hear to about 16khz. However, if I don’t move up and down while listening, then I definitely will not hear it.
And then we have to wonder if we are talking about vertical combing or horizontal combing. My previous line array did not have the tweeter line and the mid range line close enough together to be perceived as one line at 2 feet or less. Buy the new one is less than three inches C-to-C. But then who listens at 2 feet to a line array?
And besides, there is the comb distortion from the room, though many people say that if you are listening in the nearfield in a line array you are in the field without reflections in the room.
More people with PhD’s in acoustics will chime in with their views and with measurements. But everyone agrees pretty much that you cannot equalize it away in an analog equalizer(some people do not). However, if you can do it or not with a digital one, that jury is still out.
It (the combing) will move and vary with distance to the speaker. Just picture yourself standing with the ear right up to the tweeter line. Now visualize the distance from each tweeter element to your ear and make up your mind.
Now move 3 meters back and do that same game. That's basically what determines where and how we perceive combing from these arrays. Well, almost.
EQ-ing it out isn't what I'm doing, just to clarify that. What I'm doing is more along the lines of what is presented in this thread. A must read for anyone considering line arrays if you ask me.
By the way, so is the Jim Griffin paper.
Now move 3 meters back and do that same game. That's basically what determines where and how we perceive combing from these arrays. Well, almost
.EQ-ing it out isn't what I'm doing, just to clarify that. What I'm doing is more along the lines of what is presented in this thread. A must read for anyone considering line arrays if you ask me.
By the way, so is the Jim Griffin paper.
Last edited:
That’s an engineering thread. I got lost in the first page.
(Management has combined my original account (Zarathu) with the one I had to put together in October 2017 (Zarathu2) when I lost the password for the original, and was unable to reconnect it).
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.