Hello,
Beside other issues like directivity, efficiency, shape of waves, it is commonly admited that because of their multiple drivers, line-arrays allow reducted distorsions.
So my question: if I use very good drivers (I think about accuton for exemple) well filtered in a conventional speaker, listened at average spl level (I would say 80-85dbs with 110dbs peaks...that's what was once mesured in my room), DOES a line-array let less distorsions to be heard?
Thanks.
Hubert
Beside other issues like directivity, efficiency, shape of waves, it is commonly admited that because of their multiple drivers, line-arrays allow reducted distorsions.
So my question: if I use very good drivers (I think about accuton for exemple) well filtered in a conventional speaker, listened at average spl level (I would say 80-85dbs with 110dbs peaks...that's what was once mesured in my room), DOES a line-array let less distorsions to be heard?
Thanks.
Hubert
I would say most likely yes, just consider the distortion of one midrange driver at few watts (assuming average sensitivity), than use ten of those drivers, each at 1/10 of power to produce the same spl...I believe distiortion will be noticably lower
offcourse the higher the spl, the bigger the difference in distortion between one driver and line array
offcourse the higher the spl, the bigger the difference in distortion between one driver and line array
crazyhub said:
It would probably be educational to look at both line array and linesource:
line array = closely spaced line of point source speakers
linesource = ribbon like continuous source. It possible to construct a midrange linesouce ribbon down to say 100Hz and a tweeter linesource ribbon up to 30Khz
It would probably be educational to look at both the distortion measured at say 0.5m and the distortion measured at say 4m.
Many distortion agruments against line arrays and linesources come from the difference in signal arrival time from the top of the array(line), the center of the array(line), and the bottom of the array/(line) to one single listening point 3-4m away. Some consider this a "smearing" distortion, others consider it creating a rich ambience.
Line array and linesource speakers have won several "best of show sound" awards, but also seem to create love/hate polarized opinions.
Are you interested in actually building a line array, or are you just exploring topics?
As the owner of a line array, I have to say that comparisons to point source systems are flawed. The operation and the experience is simply very different than a PS system. If you want a big point source, buy or build a point source.
Many of the stuff that might be hearable on paper in a point source, are not noticable in a line array. The smearing that was spoken of may sound good on paper but doesn't exist in listening experience. I have 30 tweeters per side. Each one only handles 3.3% of th total tweeter load. I have 17 mid ranges per side. Eac h o f these handles only 5.8 % of the total midrange load. Distortion? It cannot be heard.
Zarathu
As the owner of a line array, I have to say that comparisons to point source systems are flawed. The operation and the experience is simply very different than a PS system. If you want a big point source, buy or build a point source.
Many of the stuff that might be hearable on paper in a point source, are not noticable in a line array. The smearing that was spoken of may sound good on paper but doesn't exist in listening experience. I have 30 tweeters per side. Each one only handles 3.3% of th total tweeter load. I have 17 mid ranges per side. Eac h o f these handles only 5.8 % of the total midrange load. Distortion? It cannot be heard.
Zarathu
Linesource wrote:
Zarathu wrote:
soundstages in width and deepness? Could a linesource be adapted to a relatively small room? (my room is in an attic, under the roof with two slopes, so a good area but less volume than an average (in the height) room of the same area.
Thanks.
Obviously I had linesources in mind, sorry for my mistake.
Room will add a lot of bounces but regarding reduced spl losses I suppose less distortions as a result here too...
Curved shape can cancel these different time arrivals if drivers symmetrically placed from ears height, or?
Zarathu wrote:
I'm asking myself about the best choice for my next project...Why I thought about linesources?: because I want to keep the same clean and undistorded sound at high spl that I hear at average spl with my present 2.5-way (Modulus from Tony Gee + a big subwoofer). I very rarely heard such clean sounds from point-sources, almost always becoming relatively harsh at high spl. However, it's a difficult matter to know where come distortion from: room acoustic or drivers stress? If I had both systems in my room, it would be easy to know about!!!
Can you please point the differences out? Particularly: does image remain accurate in its size, growing with spl level? Also, do you get beautiful
soundstages in width and deepness? Could a linesource be adapted to a relatively small room? (my room is in an attic, under the roof with two slopes, so a good area but less volume than an average (in the height) room of the same area.
Thanks.
Although I'm not really a big fan of line arrays from a conceptual point of view (I prefer the KISS principle, and: optimize, optimize, Optimize!), I've just noticed one major advantage that linear arrays may have...
The 'dominant' wavefront is not just the on-axis response at 0 degrees, which is usually the one drawn on driver FR plots. It's an average of the sounds produced at a variety of angles between say: 0 and +-30 degrees. So, when the speakers are crossed over and equalized for a flat response, the acoustic power radiated into the room at other angles also has a much more even FR.
So-called point-source speakers can't be equalized in the same way because there's often very little correlation between the on-axis and off-axis responses.
Edit: ...which means that line arrays tend to be more cheap-speaker-friendly
, unlike point-source designs that rely on the frequency response being consistent across a variety of angles (difficult to do).
The 'dominant' wavefront is not just the on-axis response at 0 degrees, which is usually the one drawn on driver FR plots. It's an average of the sounds produced at a variety of angles between say: 0 and +-30 degrees. So, when the speakers are crossed over and equalized for a flat response, the acoustic power radiated into the room at other angles also has a much more even FR.
So-called point-source speakers can't be equalized in the same way because there's often very little correlation between the on-axis and off-axis responses.
Edit: ...which means that line arrays tend to be more cheap-speaker-friendly
, unlike point-source designs that rely on the frequency response being consistent across a variety of angles (difficult to do).ceramicMan wrote:
Zarathu wrote:
edit: you didn't answer my previous question: what are the main listening (heard) differences between point sources and linesources in image and soundstages?
As you see, I want to learn, not only to know without understanding.
Thanks.
yes, sure that the main difference between point-sources and linesources or line arrays is in this matter of directivity and amount of diffused energy in the room. However, even if difficult, a nice off-axis energy can be obtained on a point source with well choose drivers and correctly designed x-over.
I'm OK about the KISS principle (when possible), but can you explain what you reproach to line arrays or line-sources in a conceptual point of view?
Zarathu wrote:
why please?
edit: you didn't answer my previous question: what are the main listening (heard) differences between point sources and linesources in image and soundstages?
As you see, I want to learn, not only to know without understanding.
Thanks.
Line arrays are usually 6-8 feet tall. You have a sloping ceiling that goes to the floor. They radiate togetyher in a cylinder pattern. No studies have been done as to what they would sound like put in a slope. and since your room isn't square.......
As to the characteristics of arrays:
The major benefits are as follows:
1. Frequency response dips and bumps tend to smooth out. And because there are some many of the speakers, each speaker may have limited output in the upper treble or the lower bass, but all speakers put out something in those areas. If you put enough of them together you can actually get some decent response in the areas even if the individual speakers don't have much to give.
2. All arrays whether with really cheap speakers(49 cent for example) or expensive($49 for example) have decreased distortion. Decreased distortion increases airiness, openness etc. Power handling goes up dramatically. 32 dome tweeters might give you a 450 rms watt per channel protection.
3. All arrays have vastly increased dynamic range and increase sensitivity.
4. Size: One of the benefits of an array is the coupling of the speaker to the ceiling and floor.
5. They may not need a sub woofer, or even a woofer to play deep. A combination of 12 – 7 inch mid woofs have a huge amount of bass, with very low distortion.
6. Sound dispersion and sound stage. Arrays produce a level of sound stage and sound dispersion that just has to be heard to appreciated. Array sound presents in the near field
7. Because array sound represents in the nearfield(as opposed to the far field for all point source speakers), the concept of reflections from walls and floor is almost non-existent
8. Baffle compensation distortion is reduced to less than 1 db when the numbers of speakers in a line exceed 15.
Disadvantages.
1. They can be expensive. Even an inexpensive array is going to cost around $500 - 700 for the speakers, plus the building. An expensive one might cost as much as $2000 just for the multiple speakers, and the whole system a lot more when you add the amplification
2. They often require extra amplification and electronic crossovers since its hard enough to build a quality passive cross for a point source. Its harder for a passive design due to the high power that goes through them, and because if you are going to go to all this expense and time you might as well get the benefits of electronic crosses and not waste have of it on a passive.
3. The cabinetry is long and can often be a nightmare with the number of enclosures and holes that have to be cut.
As to the characteristics of arrays:
The major benefits are as follows:
1. Frequency response dips and bumps tend to smooth out. And because there are some many of the speakers, each speaker may have limited output in the upper treble or the lower bass, but all speakers put out something in those areas. If you put enough of them together you can actually get some decent response in the areas even if the individual speakers don't have much to give.
2. All arrays whether with really cheap speakers(49 cent for example) or expensive($49 for example) have decreased distortion. Decreased distortion increases airiness, openness etc. Power handling goes up dramatically. 32 dome tweeters might give you a 450 rms watt per channel protection.
3. All arrays have vastly increased dynamic range and increase sensitivity.
4. Size: One of the benefits of an array is the coupling of the speaker to the ceiling and floor.
5. They may not need a sub woofer, or even a woofer to play deep. A combination of 12 – 7 inch mid woofs have a huge amount of bass, with very low distortion.
6. Sound dispersion and sound stage. Arrays produce a level of sound stage and sound dispersion that just has to be heard to appreciated. Array sound presents in the near field
7. Because array sound represents in the nearfield(as opposed to the far field for all point source speakers), the concept of reflections from walls and floor is almost non-existent
8. Baffle compensation distortion is reduced to less than 1 db when the numbers of speakers in a line exceed 15.
Disadvantages.
1. They can be expensive. Even an inexpensive array is going to cost around $500 - 700 for the speakers, plus the building. An expensive one might cost as much as $2000 just for the multiple speakers, and the whole system a lot more when you add the amplification
2. They often require extra amplification and electronic crossovers since its hard enough to build a quality passive cross for a point source. Its harder for a passive design due to the high power that goes through them, and because if you are going to go to all this expense and time you might as well get the benefits of electronic crosses and not waste have of it on a passive.
3. The cabinetry is long and can often be a nightmare with the number of enclosures and holes that have to be cut.
crazyhub said:
Well, I like designs that tickle the brain cells by being clever or "smart-***" in some way. While floor-to-ceiling speaker arrays might do a great job in terms of sound quality, they seem unnecessarily grandiose. Their benefits seem to be mostly 'accidental' rather than painstakingly calculated.
And from a technical point of view, I'm not sure about the 'correctness' of having cylindrical wavefronts. If the idea is to trick the mind into hearing lots of imagery, then headphones might be a better option.
G'day Ceramicman,
If you are ever driving to Sydney, feel free to drop by on the way past and have a listen. I think that only by hearing a pair can you really understand !
There is a vast difference between them and a pair of headphones !!
Its just the effortless ease with which they do things. You don't need to play them loud , but you can, with absolutely no audible distortion. The stereo image is just all precisely placed in front of you. And the detail compared to other normal speakers is just magic (that may also be partly the open back thing with my line arrays).
If you are ever driving to Sydney, feel free to drop by on the way past and have a listen. I think that only by hearing a pair can you really understand !
There is a vast difference between them and a pair of headphones !!
Its just the effortless ease with which they do things. You don't need to play them loud , but you can, with absolutely no audible distortion. The stereo image is just all precisely placed in front of you. And the detail compared to other normal speakers is just magic (that may also be partly the open back thing with my line arrays).
Andy,
(you knew me as Marlboro on the other forums.)
I don't have open backs and the detail is astounding. I remember some time ago I was listening to Wynton Marsalis in his album where he played 7 trumpets all mixed together, along with a baroque orchestra run by Trevor Pinnock. I was thinking how I needed to enlarge the size of my woofer boxes. But then I found myself saying, "But if I do that then they'll obstruct sound from the harpsichord playing about 8 feet back to the middle right." And then i realized I wasn't listening to a real harpsichord only to a reproduction.
The sound stage on mine is like it would be in a real performance. In any real performance the performers are always up on a little stage. The width of the stage is far bigger than the 12 feet of the front of my room. And the depth of field is clearly anywhere from 10 feet to 30 feet depending on the recording.
I used to have a fine 3-way point source speaker set. But those were miniature speakers. I would have never confused them with having a real grand piano in my living room being played by Gary Graffman. I would never have been able to confuse listening to Bach's Tocatta in D for organ with the real thing in a church, but i can now. Any system i ever owned before would struggle with full organ, not my line array. It plays full organ effortlessly.
And the dynamic range....duh!! I'm continually amazed how incredible the detail is when playing softly, and how quickly and suddenly the transients can go from soft to loud or very loud.
So, what you say, Ceramic Man, is indicative of someone who has never actually heard a quality line array.
Zarathu
(you knew me as Marlboro on the other forums.)
I don't have open backs and the detail is astounding. I remember some time ago I was listening to Wynton Marsalis in his album where he played 7 trumpets all mixed together, along with a baroque orchestra run by Trevor Pinnock. I was thinking how I needed to enlarge the size of my woofer boxes. But then I found myself saying, "But if I do that then they'll obstruct sound from the harpsichord playing about 8 feet back to the middle right." And then i realized I wasn't listening to a real harpsichord only to a reproduction.
The sound stage on mine is like it would be in a real performance. In any real performance the performers are always up on a little stage. The width of the stage is far bigger than the 12 feet of the front of my room. And the depth of field is clearly anywhere from 10 feet to 30 feet depending on the recording.
I used to have a fine 3-way point source speaker set. But those were miniature speakers. I would have never confused them with having a real grand piano in my living room being played by Gary Graffman. I would never have been able to confuse listening to Bach's Tocatta in D for organ with the real thing in a church, but i can now. Any system i ever owned before would struggle with full organ, not my line array. It plays full organ effortlessly.
And the dynamic range....duh!! I'm continually amazed how incredible the detail is when playing softly, and how quickly and suddenly the transients can go from soft to loud or very loud.
So, what you say, Ceramic Man, is indicative of someone who has never actually heard a quality line array.
Zarathu
but seriously,
lets forget the "usual point source" loudspeaker system form and start over ..
what we want to to, is reproduce the recorded sound with the less compromises possible
since there exists different kinds of recordings,
we probably won't be able to reproduce the image of them all, so a compromise here has to be made.
( forget your room size, forget the budget here,
those are limitations that you are giving to urself..not accoustical limits )
We all know for a fact that using multiple drivers introduce some problems, and some advantages
lower distortion and more dynamics are a big big + if you ask me, if you can achieve ok to good quality sound with cheap drivers, imagine what can be done with super high quality drivers in the same system.
Then imaging and stereo reproduction,
well my guess is that depending on the recording,
there is no problem is cylindrical waves or nearfield listening, since the mastering guys are usually recording while listening in mostly nearfield boxes nah ?
and the less our rooms interacts with the sound, the more of the original signal fidelity is kept
no recording that i know of was made to predict room reflections ( musical recordings ) or the stereo image was recorded in such a way that it would be reproduced fidely within the confinments of a certain sized room
( since we know that most mastering studios use extensivly accoustical treatments at the back, and usually sit very close to their loudspeaker system while having a longer distance + attenuators at the back )
what do you guys think ?
lets forget the "usual point source" loudspeaker system form and start over ..
what we want to to, is reproduce the recorded sound with the less compromises possible
since there exists different kinds of recordings,
we probably won't be able to reproduce the image of them all, so a compromise here has to be made.
( forget your room size, forget the budget here,
those are limitations that you are giving to urself..not accoustical limits )
We all know for a fact that using multiple drivers introduce some problems, and some advantages
lower distortion and more dynamics are a big big + if you ask me, if you can achieve ok to good quality sound with cheap drivers, imagine what can be done with super high quality drivers in the same system.
Then imaging and stereo reproduction,
well my guess is that depending on the recording,
there is no problem is cylindrical waves or nearfield listening, since the mastering guys are usually recording while listening in mostly nearfield boxes nah ?
and the less our rooms interacts with the sound, the more of the original signal fidelity is kept
no recording that i know of was made to predict room reflections ( musical recordings ) or the stereo image was recorded in such a way that it would be reproduced fidely within the confinments of a certain sized room
( since we know that most mastering studios use extensivly accoustical treatments at the back, and usually sit very close to their loudspeaker system while having a longer distance + attenuators at the back )
what do you guys think ?
what do you guys think ?
Later tonight I will crank up my Megadeth DVD concert,
That One Night - Live in Buenos Aires (2007),
on my line array and I will have free front row tickets
to the event.
Crank the song "A Tout Le Monde"
A tout le monde
A tout les amis
Je vous aime
Je dois partir
There are the last words
Ill ever speak
Later tonight I will crank up my Megadeth DVD concert,
That One Night - Live in Buenos Aires (2007),
on my line array and I will have free front row tickets
to the event.
Crank the song "A Tout Le Monde"
A tout le monde
A tout les amis
Je vous aime
Je dois partir
There are the last words
Ill ever speak
So what kind of dvd thing do you have now, Thy?
Later in July we're going to buy either a 56 or 61 inch LED Samsung(HLT-5687S or HLT-6187S), with a new Oppo DVD 981HD upconverting player. Then we can do the same.
Although it will have to be either the Stravinsky's Ballet THE FIREBIRD or a James Taylor Concert.
Zarathu
Later in July we're going to buy either a 56 or 61 inch LED Samsung(HLT-5687S or HLT-6187S), with a new Oppo DVD 981HD upconverting player. Then we can do the same.
Although it will have to be either the Stravinsky's Ballet THE FIREBIRD or a James Taylor Concert.
Zarathu
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.