Hi Tom,
Good to hear, looks w're on the same line and both happy with the results.
Still puzzels me WHY this setup is not considered way more often. Well, one reason would be that it just doesn't look impressive, LOOK Mah, We have 500 kilo's of old wood and it srcreams like hell (yep sounds crap most o the times).
I STILL find it sexy to see such "little" boxes blowing them out of their shoes.
Every time I give a demo, the guys ask me (including the owner of the facility) "Hey Frans, when is you truck coming..." Wel , there isn't any truck, the complete PA (6kW) fits is my audi A4 avant, or any other station wagon. OR, "Where is the PA Frans??". My answer is (fooling around) "well, your almost standing on it.."
You're talking;
- 2 (or) 4 subs
- 4 Tops
- 4 19" amps
- 2 - 6 monitors
- 24 channel digital mixer
- 16 mikes and stands
- 2 Pole stands
- LOTS of cable
- 1 bottle of coke (sugar free)
Kind regards,
Frans
Good to hear, looks w're on the same line and both happy with the results.
Still puzzels me WHY this setup is not considered way more often. Well, one reason would be that it just doesn't look impressive, LOOK Mah, We have 500 kilo's of old wood and it srcreams like hell (yep sounds crap most o the times).
I STILL find it sexy to see such "little" boxes blowing them out of their shoes.
Every time I give a demo, the guys ask me (including the owner of the facility) "Hey Frans, when is you truck coming..." Wel , there isn't any truck, the complete PA (6kW) fits is my audi A4 avant, or any other station wagon. OR, "Where is the PA Frans??". My answer is (fooling around) "well, your almost standing on it.."
You're talking;
- 2 (or) 4 subs
- 4 Tops
- 4 19" amps
- 2 - 6 monitors
- 24 channel digital mixer
- 16 mikes and stands
- 2 Pole stands
- LOTS of cable
- 1 bottle of coke (sugar free)
Kind regards,
Frans
Last edited:
Hi Frans,
I'm sorry to hear you were not well. Good health is the most important thing in life and easy to take for granted. I hope you are feeling good.
Thanks for your very informative reply. I agree its time to build.
Best regards
Ed
I'm sorry to hear you were not well. Good health is the most important thing in life and easy to take for granted. I hope you are feeling good.
Thanks for your very informative reply. I agree its time to build.
Best regards
Ed
There's a lot of bizarre theory in this thread. There seems to be some confusion between pattern control and off-axis response, and some misunderstanding of coaxials.
For a PA, you want even off-axis coverage. The evenness of horizontal off-axis coverage is critical. HF tends to beam, especially from large sources necessary to get the kind of SPL for PA's. LF tends to be omnidirectional. If you don't do something about this, you will get a lot of bass off-axis, and insufficient treble. The PA will only sound good for the very small portion of the audience that is on-axis, and everywhere else it will sound boomy and muddy.
Chasing even horiztonal off-axis coverage has been one of the major goals of PA design through the 20th century. It can be approached by either trying to control the LF pattern (with large horns or dipoles), or by trying to spread the HF pattern. In the beginning, with conical and exponential horns, HF was narrow. The sectoral horn made some improvement. The (Keele) Constant Directivity horn, and later bi-radial versions were probably the most important advancement in this area. Later, the line-array (the latter incarnation of it that began in the 90's and continues the present day) were effective in scaling wide horizontal coverage up. But having a wide pattern isn't the same as having an even pattern.
The CD horn and the line array meant that for the first time we had all the frequencies out over the audience area, but that doesn't mean the coverage was even.
Response does not typically drop evenly off-axis. Patterns tend to have lobes in them. When the drivers have different axis (like a two-way cabinent with horn above a woofer) they also create interference and comb filtering. That means you have areas of off-axis coverage that have some frequencies above or below where they are in adjacent areas.
A typical horn-over-woofer cabinet or a line array have wider full-range coverage pattern than what we had decades ago, but they typically have very poor off-axis response.
In most indoor PA deployments, a wide horizontal pattern (such as that which is common for line arrays) just sprays SPL onto reflective walls and lowers the direct-to-reflected ratio, creates standing waves, and basically makes the worst of the indoor space's acoustics which more often than not leave a lot to be desired, especially when it's a space not designed for the PA, but one into which the PA has been brought temporarily for an event. Therefore horizontal pattern control is critical to indoor PA.
The vertical pattern is used to cover the depth of the audience. Line array design focuses on narrow vertical patterns for "long-throw," but they do poorly at vertical off-axis response.
For the same reason vertical pattern control is critical to covering the depth of the audience, vertical off-axis response is critical to doing it well.
To date, the simplest solution to even off-axis response is coaxial drivers. Nothing comes close to producing the evenness of off-axis coverage. The only technology I'm aware of that even comes half-way is Keele's "Constant Beamwidth Transducer" technology (CBT), which uses an arc segment of a sphere to provide very even horizontal off-axis coverage. But actual implementations of it still mostly fail on the vertical axis.
Coaxials remain the leading solution to off-axis coverage. There are really two schemes to achieve a coaxial source. The first is loading a compression driver into the back of a woofer. B&C are probably the leaders in producing high-end coaxial drivers. Fulcrum is probably the leader in implementing them into a finished product.
The other method is multiple-entry horns. This is where multiple woofers and compression drivers load a single horn. Danley is the leading provider for this type of product.
Most PA are not focused on fidelity, but on simply producing high SPL over a large area. That's why line arrays continue to lead at large venues, and horn-over-woofer two-ways continue to lead in the portable PA/DJ market. It has nothing to do with good off-axis coverage or fidelity.
For PA-level SPL, a more Hi-Fi solution than these coaxial designs, and possibly the CBT, is simply unheard of because the off-axis response of anything else is poor.
For a PA, you want even off-axis coverage. The evenness of horizontal off-axis coverage is critical. HF tends to beam, especially from large sources necessary to get the kind of SPL for PA's. LF tends to be omnidirectional. If you don't do something about this, you will get a lot of bass off-axis, and insufficient treble. The PA will only sound good for the very small portion of the audience that is on-axis, and everywhere else it will sound boomy and muddy.
Chasing even horiztonal off-axis coverage has been one of the major goals of PA design through the 20th century. It can be approached by either trying to control the LF pattern (with large horns or dipoles), or by trying to spread the HF pattern. In the beginning, with conical and exponential horns, HF was narrow. The sectoral horn made some improvement. The (Keele) Constant Directivity horn, and later bi-radial versions were probably the most important advancement in this area. Later, the line-array (the latter incarnation of it that began in the 90's and continues the present day) were effective in scaling wide horizontal coverage up. But having a wide pattern isn't the same as having an even pattern.
The CD horn and the line array meant that for the first time we had all the frequencies out over the audience area, but that doesn't mean the coverage was even.
Response does not typically drop evenly off-axis. Patterns tend to have lobes in them. When the drivers have different axis (like a two-way cabinent with horn above a woofer) they also create interference and comb filtering. That means you have areas of off-axis coverage that have some frequencies above or below where they are in adjacent areas.
A typical horn-over-woofer cabinet or a line array have wider full-range coverage pattern than what we had decades ago, but they typically have very poor off-axis response.
In most indoor PA deployments, a wide horizontal pattern (such as that which is common for line arrays) just sprays SPL onto reflective walls and lowers the direct-to-reflected ratio, creates standing waves, and basically makes the worst of the indoor space's acoustics which more often than not leave a lot to be desired, especially when it's a space not designed for the PA, but one into which the PA has been brought temporarily for an event. Therefore horizontal pattern control is critical to indoor PA.
The vertical pattern is used to cover the depth of the audience. Line array design focuses on narrow vertical patterns for "long-throw," but they do poorly at vertical off-axis response.
For the same reason vertical pattern control is critical to covering the depth of the audience, vertical off-axis response is critical to doing it well.
To date, the simplest solution to even off-axis response is coaxial drivers. Nothing comes close to producing the evenness of off-axis coverage. The only technology I'm aware of that even comes half-way is Keele's "Constant Beamwidth Transducer" technology (CBT), which uses an arc segment of a sphere to provide very even horizontal off-axis coverage. But actual implementations of it still mostly fail on the vertical axis.
Coaxials remain the leading solution to off-axis coverage. There are really two schemes to achieve a coaxial source. The first is loading a compression driver into the back of a woofer. B&C are probably the leaders in producing high-end coaxial drivers. Fulcrum is probably the leader in implementing them into a finished product.
The other method is multiple-entry horns. This is where multiple woofers and compression drivers load a single horn. Danley is the leading provider for this type of product.
Most PA are not focused on fidelity, but on simply producing high SPL over a large area. That's why line arrays continue to lead at large venues, and horn-over-woofer two-ways continue to lead in the portable PA/DJ market. It has nothing to do with good off-axis coverage or fidelity.
For PA-level SPL, a more Hi-Fi solution than these coaxial designs, and possibly the CBT, is simply unheard of because the off-axis response of anything else is poor.
Hi Calvena,
True, coaxials are OK in stage monitors, keep them small and phase coherent.
That's why we shifted the discussion to Column arrays, as the most simple PA setup. A simple but effective way to control horizontal and vertical dispersion.
kind regards,
Frans
True, coaxials are OK in stage monitors, keep them small and phase coherent.
That's why we shifted the discussion to Column arrays, as the most simple PA setup. A simple but effective way to control horizontal and vertical dispersion.
kind regards,
Frans
Column arrays have horrible, maybe the worst off-axis response.
But on the other subject, do they have good pattern control? Not really. They have a wide horizontal pattern, which is good for outdoors. Indoors it causes too many reflections and sprays SPL where it is undesirable. If you need a narrow horizontal pattern to avoid this in an indoor space, the column array is not the right choice. They do have a narrow vertical pattern, which can be used to advantage. Outdoors, it focuses more of the acoustic energy on the audience, and can "throw" longer distance. Indoors, it avoids excess reflections off floors and ceilings. Many indoor PA's have the FoH speakers to the sides of the stage, near the side walls, because it's usually not desirable to have a column array center-stage. With the wide horizontal pattern of the column array standing near the side wall, the result is very poor.
Any pattern control that column and small line arrays have is in the mid and high frequencies. The arrays simply aren't physically large enough to control the lower frequencies. Since this thread is about compact PA's, I assume we're not talking about 18' long line arrays.
The coaxial horn is going to control the pattern to a lower frequency for a given size than a line array. It is more compact for a given amount of control.
Coaxials are not just good for monitors. Look at the Danley Jericho series. They easily cover stadiums. They're phase coherent, they have excellent off-axis response, and the pattern control extends to the bass frequencies.
Now the only way I know of to extend pattern control down to the low frequencies without a very long line array or large horn is with a dipole. The one form of a dipole that is commonly used in PA's is the cardioid subwoofer array (being the sum of a monopole and dipole).
The L'Acoustics X-series and the P-series are other good examples of high-end coaxials besides the Fulcrum and Danley. I can't think of a column array from any high-end vendor. The L'Acoustics Syva looks column-like, but described as using DOSC waveguides in a J-shaped progressive curvature. It's new and unknown, but it could be good where wide-dispersion is needed (they say it's 140 deg. horizontal). So that means center-stage, away from the side-walls.
But on the other subject, do they have good pattern control? Not really. They have a wide horizontal pattern, which is good for outdoors. Indoors it causes too many reflections and sprays SPL where it is undesirable. If you need a narrow horizontal pattern to avoid this in an indoor space, the column array is not the right choice. They do have a narrow vertical pattern, which can be used to advantage. Outdoors, it focuses more of the acoustic energy on the audience, and can "throw" longer distance. Indoors, it avoids excess reflections off floors and ceilings. Many indoor PA's have the FoH speakers to the sides of the stage, near the side walls, because it's usually not desirable to have a column array center-stage. With the wide horizontal pattern of the column array standing near the side wall, the result is very poor.
Any pattern control that column and small line arrays have is in the mid and high frequencies. The arrays simply aren't physically large enough to control the lower frequencies. Since this thread is about compact PA's, I assume we're not talking about 18' long line arrays.
The coaxial horn is going to control the pattern to a lower frequency for a given size than a line array. It is more compact for a given amount of control.
Coaxials are not just good for monitors. Look at the Danley Jericho series. They easily cover stadiums. They're phase coherent, they have excellent off-axis response, and the pattern control extends to the bass frequencies.
Now the only way I know of to extend pattern control down to the low frequencies without a very long line array or large horn is with a dipole. The one form of a dipole that is commonly used in PA's is the cardioid subwoofer array (being the sum of a monopole and dipole).
The L'Acoustics X-series and the P-series are other good examples of high-end coaxials besides the Fulcrum and Danley. I can't think of a column array from any high-end vendor. The L'Acoustics Syva looks column-like, but described as using DOSC waveguides in a J-shaped progressive curvature. It's new and unknown, but it could be good where wide-dispersion is needed (they say it's 140 deg. horizontal). So that means center-stage, away from the side-walls.
Last edited:
I want to clarify my comments are not directed at any person's DIY project. I don't mean to criticize anything like that. My commentary probably belongs on page 1 when general theory was open for discussion. It is just pure conjecture from the proverbial "armchair." If this has left the brainstorm stage, then my comments are not helpful and I don't intend any insult.
Hi Calneva,
It is not received like personal, we have this forum to exchange opinions, show what we can bring to the table and help out.
I will however challenge you, to bring out the best 😀
kind regards,
Frans
It is not received like personal, we have this forum to exchange opinions, show what we can bring to the table and help out.
I will however challenge you, to bring out the best 😀
kind regards,
Frans
Columns or di-poles - Choices, choices....
Hi Calneva,
Interesting comments, lets go by them 1 by 1. As stated, no insults here... 🙂
But first, this is supposed to be a BRAINSTORM on what a DIY Compact HiFi Pa would consist of and maybe even HOW to build it. Your input may come in handy here. Now, that’s a lot of requirements in some simple words and can only result in trade-offs (as any system is).
So, breaking it down;
1 - DIY - Almost anybody should be able to build it.
2 - Compact - generic verb, but I would read this as “don’t require big vans to carry it”, “Easy to setup, doesn’t require tons of muscles” & “Doesn’t take much floor space”.
3 - HiFi - I would narrow this down to “Have a HiFi-ish sound character”, but it would not replace a home HiFi set (would come close though), will NOT come close to High End HiFi.
So if we would brainstorm on these requirements, what would be a set of characteristics this PA needs to address?
Simple to build, readily available components, SMALL, Light weight, Easy to install, Loud enough, wide frequency response, Flat response, Rigid & affordable. Just to name the most evident for a PA. These requirements are not (yet) smart but we all have a generic notion of what is meant here.
Now as we all know, and you showed in your replies, there will ALWAYs be a trade-off. If we say “HiFi” and we want to reproduce say 25 Hz at 120 dB/1m IT WILL NOT BE SMALL. If we want “Simple to build” and we propose synergy horns, 90% of our target audience will exit.
SO, Brainstorm, what route will we take to design and build such a Compact HiFi PA? I opted for the column array, of which you (apparently..?) are not a big fan.
As to your comments (learning all the time is my trigger here);
1 - “Column arrays have horrible, maybe the worst off-axis response.” Please clarify. Off-axis response can be viewed as the pattern at a given angle from the central axis of the speaker. This could be horizontal or vertical. WHY would a column have the worst off-axis response and compared to WHAT. Horizontal off-axis behaviour is like a single driver, Vertical off-axis, as the result of its construction, roll of fast. But THAT is what we want, to avoid ceiling and floor reflections. It may, vertical, be “worst” of all speakers, but is designed intentionally and lets be honest, have you ever seen an audience hanging on the ceiling?
2 - Pattern control? “Not really”, is your conclusion, followed by the conclusion that they have “a wide horizontal pattern” and the have “a narrow vertical pattern”. SO they have pattern control, although maybe not to your liking! You end with PLACEMENT of the column. Agreed, if PLACEMENT is wrong, you beam into a wall. That, by its self has nothing to do with PATTERN control. If you NEED narrow horizontal pattern control, you have a challenge, but explain me WHY and WHERE you would need that, RELATED to the subject of this threat? You NEED to TOW-IN the columns (30 to 45 degrees) for correct coverage if placed against the side walls.
3 - Low frequency pattern control, correct, we don’t use the column for LOW frequencies here. I suggested 180 Hz x-over. Low frequency pattern control isn’t simple by itself RELATED to this topic, but could be done like cardioid subs. I don’t think that’s considered simple, also taking into account that it’s a temporary install of the PA. You don’t have hours to dail in your PA for a gig. AND this is NOT compact PA anymore, you need more subs (and amps and processing) to handle this correctly.
4 - Coaxial horn, have better pattern control than a line array related to its size. Agreed, but I am not talking about a line array? Coaxial horns are NOT compact if you want low frequency pattern control. SO, NO Coaxial Horns here (although I like them).
5 - Coaxials (drivers) are point sources and have NO pattern control by them selves. The Jericho is a HORN, LOADED WITH LOTS OF DRIVERS, and by the horn being able to do Pattern control. They are BIG and HEAVY and Expensive and Impossible (almost) to DIY, at least for most of us. Using a Coaxial for a Compact PA (topic here), would require it to be loaded to a (large) conical horn for pattern control. Using it plain in a (bass reflex) enclosure results in NO pattern control.
By the way, I’m not sure the Jericho line uses coaxials, but if they do, it’s combined with parallel lenses in the horn (VERY complex). I know the Synergy (SM60F & M) do, but they are BIG. You would have at least 2 SM60 (25 kilo’s each 50 x 50 cm). They go loud so you would need (tapped) horns for the low end. NOT a DIY solution, synergy is complex, BIG and heavy. So, NO coaxials for the PA?.
6 - A Dipole, which may be a good solution. Stacking columns is simple and adds to the pattern control. Stacking dipoles? It would be like a Line array, but how would that affect the pattern control. Is it still compact? Nice option though…
7 - “I can't think of a column array from any high-end vendor.”. Well, how about RCF, JBL, HK Audi, Electro Voice, Meyer Sound, Bose. Just to name a few. Ooh and ME, but I'm NOT high-end vendor.... 😀
Now if columns are that bad, WHY do you think these brands go into the column array solution? Danley has chosen for the complex horn solution, because they have the brains and the money. Some of their products can be considered columns though, like the SBH-10 which is a horn with a column of lenses.
As with ALL type of systems, the Column array has its own pro’s and con’s. Since it is a trade off system that can work in our benefit for this threat, I think it’s worth using it.
Sure, throwing lots of technology, effort and money could result in other choices, but I don’t think there are many options left here. It should be a DIY Compact HiFi PA.
My PA is just that, compact, easy to build, easy to handle, affordable, HiFi (35 Hz - 18kHz +- 3 dB), loud enough, expandable.
Calneva, I’d love to see your dipole solution on the table here.
kind regards,
Frans
Hi Calneva,
Interesting comments, lets go by them 1 by 1. As stated, no insults here... 🙂
But first, this is supposed to be a BRAINSTORM on what a DIY Compact HiFi Pa would consist of and maybe even HOW to build it. Your input may come in handy here. Now, that’s a lot of requirements in some simple words and can only result in trade-offs (as any system is).
So, breaking it down;
1 - DIY - Almost anybody should be able to build it.
2 - Compact - generic verb, but I would read this as “don’t require big vans to carry it”, “Easy to setup, doesn’t require tons of muscles” & “Doesn’t take much floor space”.
3 - HiFi - I would narrow this down to “Have a HiFi-ish sound character”, but it would not replace a home HiFi set (would come close though), will NOT come close to High End HiFi.
So if we would brainstorm on these requirements, what would be a set of characteristics this PA needs to address?
Simple to build, readily available components, SMALL, Light weight, Easy to install, Loud enough, wide frequency response, Flat response, Rigid & affordable. Just to name the most evident for a PA. These requirements are not (yet) smart but we all have a generic notion of what is meant here.
Now as we all know, and you showed in your replies, there will ALWAYs be a trade-off. If we say “HiFi” and we want to reproduce say 25 Hz at 120 dB/1m IT WILL NOT BE SMALL. If we want “Simple to build” and we propose synergy horns, 90% of our target audience will exit.
SO, Brainstorm, what route will we take to design and build such a Compact HiFi PA? I opted for the column array, of which you (apparently..?) are not a big fan.
As to your comments (learning all the time is my trigger here);
1 - “Column arrays have horrible, maybe the worst off-axis response.” Please clarify. Off-axis response can be viewed as the pattern at a given angle from the central axis of the speaker. This could be horizontal or vertical. WHY would a column have the worst off-axis response and compared to WHAT. Horizontal off-axis behaviour is like a single driver, Vertical off-axis, as the result of its construction, roll of fast. But THAT is what we want, to avoid ceiling and floor reflections. It may, vertical, be “worst” of all speakers, but is designed intentionally and lets be honest, have you ever seen an audience hanging on the ceiling?
2 - Pattern control? “Not really”, is your conclusion, followed by the conclusion that they have “a wide horizontal pattern” and the have “a narrow vertical pattern”. SO they have pattern control, although maybe not to your liking! You end with PLACEMENT of the column. Agreed, if PLACEMENT is wrong, you beam into a wall. That, by its self has nothing to do with PATTERN control. If you NEED narrow horizontal pattern control, you have a challenge, but explain me WHY and WHERE you would need that, RELATED to the subject of this threat? You NEED to TOW-IN the columns (30 to 45 degrees) for correct coverage if placed against the side walls.
3 - Low frequency pattern control, correct, we don’t use the column for LOW frequencies here. I suggested 180 Hz x-over. Low frequency pattern control isn’t simple by itself RELATED to this topic, but could be done like cardioid subs. I don’t think that’s considered simple, also taking into account that it’s a temporary install of the PA. You don’t have hours to dail in your PA for a gig. AND this is NOT compact PA anymore, you need more subs (and amps and processing) to handle this correctly.
4 - Coaxial horn, have better pattern control than a line array related to its size. Agreed, but I am not talking about a line array? Coaxial horns are NOT compact if you want low frequency pattern control. SO, NO Coaxial Horns here (although I like them).
5 - Coaxials (drivers) are point sources and have NO pattern control by them selves. The Jericho is a HORN, LOADED WITH LOTS OF DRIVERS, and by the horn being able to do Pattern control. They are BIG and HEAVY and Expensive and Impossible (almost) to DIY, at least for most of us. Using a Coaxial for a Compact PA (topic here), would require it to be loaded to a (large) conical horn for pattern control. Using it plain in a (bass reflex) enclosure results in NO pattern control.
By the way, I’m not sure the Jericho line uses coaxials, but if they do, it’s combined with parallel lenses in the horn (VERY complex). I know the Synergy (SM60F & M) do, but they are BIG. You would have at least 2 SM60 (25 kilo’s each 50 x 50 cm). They go loud so you would need (tapped) horns for the low end. NOT a DIY solution, synergy is complex, BIG and heavy. So, NO coaxials for the PA?.
6 - A Dipole, which may be a good solution. Stacking columns is simple and adds to the pattern control. Stacking dipoles? It would be like a Line array, but how would that affect the pattern control. Is it still compact? Nice option though…
7 - “I can't think of a column array from any high-end vendor.”. Well, how about RCF, JBL, HK Audi, Electro Voice, Meyer Sound, Bose. Just to name a few. Ooh and ME, but I'm NOT high-end vendor.... 😀
Now if columns are that bad, WHY do you think these brands go into the column array solution? Danley has chosen for the complex horn solution, because they have the brains and the money. Some of their products can be considered columns though, like the SBH-10 which is a horn with a column of lenses.
As with ALL type of systems, the Column array has its own pro’s and con’s. Since it is a trade off system that can work in our benefit for this threat, I think it’s worth using it.
Sure, throwing lots of technology, effort and money could result in other choices, but I don’t think there are many options left here. It should be a DIY Compact HiFi PA.
My PA is just that, compact, easy to build, easy to handle, affordable, HiFi (35 Hz - 18kHz +- 3 dB), loud enough, expandable.
Calneva, I’d love to see your dipole solution on the table here.
kind regards,
Frans
Just used the Beyma 10LW30-N/TPL150H combination last night for the first time and was very, impressed! It just gets louder and louder as you crank it up without any nasties at all. Clean, clean, clean.
Cheers, Carl.
Cheers, Carl.
Hi Carl,
Would you like to share the setup of your system. Looks like a bass reflex / horn approach. Nice drivers, NOT cheap I guess for the TPL 150 H? 😉 10" is a good choice for satellites / top cabinets.
Have you applied a (conical) horn?
What do you use it for?
Active or passive filtering?
Drawings / pictures?
kind regards,
Frans
Would you like to share the setup of your system. Looks like a bass reflex / horn approach. Nice drivers, NOT cheap I guess for the TPL 150 H? 😉 10" is a good choice for satellites / top cabinets.
Have you applied a (conical) horn?
What do you use it for?
Active or passive filtering?
Drawings / pictures?
kind regards,
Frans
Hi Frans,
The system started out by chance, when a pair of Beyma TPL150H units came up on ebay at a good price. (These have the square horn fitted). I had always wanted to try them but could not afford a new pair for testing. I then looked around for a midrange to suit, and the Beyma 10LW30M fitted nicely with apparently equally low distortion. I am using one per side but the final design will use two to match the HF sensitivity and give me 4ohms impedance. They are currently mounted in 20l boxes ported to 80Hz and crossed over at 80Hz and 2kHz.
There are currently two subs, centrally sited, driven in mono, each using a single B&C 18PZB100 in a 60l sealed cylindrical enclosure with the drivers reverse mounted to aid cooling and reduce power compression; again, these drivers chose me, being at the right price at the right time (£115.00gbp each - I have five in total). Please don't laugh, but a Behringer NU3000 bridged for the subs, EP2500 mids and Vector Audio DS260 for the HF. All cheap (seeing the trend now?) second-hand and driven by a DBX Driverack. I will post photos when I figure out how to!
I lent it to my friend for its first outing for his soul/funk disco in a local pub which is the type of venue I have in mind. The bass was a bit off in the long, narrow room, but the mids and HF were very pleasing and did not lose any detail or quality as it was turned up, remaining very, very clean. I have never heard compression drivers remain this controlled, but I have not yet tried my Radian 850PB 2" throat drivers at volume. Beyma's Air Motion Transformers really are a revelation and have probably spoiled me for life! I feel that they are audiophile quality and might possibly be the best HF unit currently available. It's a pity the price is so eye-watering and the output quite a way down on the 2" throat drivers. Total cost of the complete system as described is not quite £1200.00gbp and at moderate levels has excellent stereo imaging, useable bass extension to 25Hz, and very good transient response.
Plans are to build two more subs to achieve 4 ohms per channel (running the NU3000 unbridged) plus more headroom, plus the aforementioned extra 10LW30M per side in new cabs. Rather like your system, I want to keep it looking small and inadequate until it's cranked up and people go WWWHAT😱 I realise the design is a dead-end and cannot be uprated in terms of output, and with that in mind my next project will probably be a line array, the components of which can simply be replicated and the system grown ad nauseum.
Cheers, Carl.
Hi Frans,
I read one of your previous post about 25Hz at 120dB needing huge speakers. On paper, 8 of my B&C 18PZB100 each in 60l closed cabs should get there! Quite small but hideously inefficient, but hey, amplifier power is cheap these days.😉
Cheers, Carl.
PS. Group delay maximum 4ms. Try getting close to that with ported or horn loading.😀
I read one of your previous post about 25Hz at 120dB needing huge speakers. On paper, 8 of my B&C 18PZB100 each in 60l closed cabs should get there! Quite small but hideously inefficient, but hey, amplifier power is cheap these days.😉
Cheers, Carl.
PS. Group delay maximum 4ms. Try getting close to that with ported or horn loading.😀
HI Chris,
Would a gentle slope to -5dB at 80Hz really be that destructive?
Cheers, Carl.
I'm thinking about B&C 12FW64, DE400TN or DE550 with megaton A9090 horn. Should work and look decent.
Hey guys. I started this thread sometime last year. If your like me you probably have a crap-ton of projects and something always gets in the way with finishing things up. I put out some requirements for a PA system, compact and high fidelity. It might be tough to label any PA high fidelity. I have a pair of Bose 802's. They sound pretty good. There are all kinds of problems associated with the sound, but to my ear, they sound good. Not hi-fi but more like mid-fi. Volume or loudness they do not have. It can cover a small room pretty good, but when you get up there in volume I can hear distortion. My cabs are getting older and distortion is more pronounced now. Time to replace.
I want a cab that sounds even better. And louder. And has to be compact or light enough to setup yourself. I've read through some of the posts above. I don't want to get too off track with the goal. And as always there are a ton of opinions. I'm no speaker-building expert, but testing is in order.
I've settled on trying some things out. My first attempt is now back in progress - a dual 10-inch horn loaded cabinet that uses a BMS 4594 coupled to a RCF HF950 horn. I also made some room for a plate amp. I'm currently working on getting the horn pieces for the 10-inch driver cut. As far as weight i may be looking at 60 to 70 lbs. I'm still working through some design details as you can tell from the sketch.
View of horn for 10-inch drivers
I want a cab that sounds even better. And louder. And has to be compact or light enough to setup yourself. I've read through some of the posts above. I don't want to get too off track with the goal. And as always there are a ton of opinions. I'm no speaker-building expert, but testing is in order.
I've settled on trying some things out. My first attempt is now back in progress - a dual 10-inch horn loaded cabinet that uses a BMS 4594 coupled to a RCF HF950 horn. I also made some room for a plate amp. I'm currently working on getting the horn pieces for the 10-inch driver cut. As far as weight i may be looking at 60 to 70 lbs. I'm still working through some design details as you can tell from the sketch.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
View of horn for 10-inch drivers
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Hi there,
This MTM layout was pretty much the concept I had originally in mind, but quickly discounted it due to the lobing problems of the widely spaced 10s at crossover frequency, and I never built a prototype. What are you feelings on this aspect of the design?
Cheers, Carl.
This MTM layout was pretty much the concept I had originally in mind, but quickly discounted it due to the lobing problems of the widely spaced 10s at crossover frequency, and I never built a prototype. What are you feelings on this aspect of the design?
Cheers, Carl.
Hi guys,
Nice to see this topic firing up. I think it is fascinating to be able to design and build a PA on these requirements, although some of them are already available as a commercial product.
@ Carl, nice to here where you came from, nothing wrong with behringer nu3000 amps. A customer of mine uses the 6000 with my column based PA, works as should.
About the design of johnnyjo, popular setup d'apolite (used in PA - line array) and studio designs. I don't see sizes yet, but this would be the "satellite" on a pole, must be at least 80 - 90 cm high, 30 cm wide and 40- 50 deep. NOT exactly small 😱, should weigh heavy for single setup on a pole (usual issue with large boxes on poles), estimate 30 kilo's at least?. For the horn, there is NO compression on the 10 inch, why not a conical horn with 2:1 or 3:1 compression, a 10" can handle that with ease. ALSO, would make the horn a more simple construction.
@ Carl, you mentioned Line Array, because your current setup has its limitation to "grow" it if required. My first thoughts were, I don't like line arrays, they NOT small, you run into rigging **** and all that, EQ'ing could be a hassle.
BUT..... then the other day, as I was driving to work (independent IT consultant for a living
), I got this brainwave: 😀
1 - WHY NOT
2 - OK, the satellites need to be SMALL, light and HIFI
3 - The subs need to be small and would be able to deliver a punch.
SO, what about a satellite with 2x 6" drivers in a v-shape (90 degree) setting with a waveguide in the middle of it. The 6" would be the horn extension for the waveguide. We woud need to make a "cover plate" that will transform this into a synergy "the easy way". I will make a drawing / first sketch but hope you get an idea. Now with 2 x 6" @ 90 degrees and a 1" waveguide, the cabinet would be 30 cm wide, 17 cm high and about 25 cm deep. It would be able to handle 300 watts low-mid and 40- 60 watts high (> 5 kHz or so). BUT with the high efficiency of the waveguide (107 dB / 1m SPL), the power difference will be NO issue. It will hit around 125 dB for one waveguide, which is almost exactly the same level as the 10" @ 300 watts each.
It will weigh around 7 to 8 kilo per cabinet. A Line array stack of 8 of these would be 156 cm high, 30 cm wide and weigh around 60 Kilo's @ 2000 Watts HIFI!?! a 4 wire single cable will connect all of them to the dual amp.
SWEET or what?😛
AND THE SUBS? I came at 2 x 10" push pull bass reflex loaded, also v-shaped which would require a cabinet of 50 cm wide, 30 cm high and 45 cm deep @ 15 kilo's (estimate with 15mm plywood). They could handle 600 watts continuous @ 38 Hz tuning. So 4 subs would a (side by side in front of middle of stage) 50 cm high, 120 cm wide and handle 2,5 kW with ease (8 drivers / voice coils), also, acoustic coupling adding 12dB (16 times louder @ 4 x the power), all for free. You would run into the 130 dB...
A "simple" PA would be 2 or 4 subs and 2x 4 satellites on 2 poles. Easy to set up by one guy, fits in a normal car. We are talking a 5 kW HIFI (35 - 18 kHz +- 3 dB) PA here.😎 or what?
I had this setup designed (in my mind and a little check with BB Pro) with:
- Faital Pro 10PR300 for the subs
- Faital Pro 6FE100 for the low-mid
- B&C WG7 waveguides
It's a 3-way setup high-pass @ 38 Hz (12 dB, Q 1,2), crossed @ 120 Hz and 5 kHz.
AND, it's "affordable", 10" @ 150 euro, 6" at 30 euro, WG7 @ 75 euro (each).
I've added a quick check graph from BassBox 6 Pro @ 2kW (2 subs, 4 satellites).
Purple is subs, orange is satellites
WORK ON IT ? Yes / No..
kind regards,
Frans
Nice to see this topic firing up. I think it is fascinating to be able to design and build a PA on these requirements, although some of them are already available as a commercial product.
@ Carl, nice to here where you came from, nothing wrong with behringer nu3000 amps. A customer of mine uses the 6000 with my column based PA, works as should.
About the design of johnnyjo, popular setup d'apolite (used in PA - line array) and studio designs. I don't see sizes yet, but this would be the "satellite" on a pole, must be at least 80 - 90 cm high, 30 cm wide and 40- 50 deep. NOT exactly small 😱, should weigh heavy for single setup on a pole (usual issue with large boxes on poles), estimate 30 kilo's at least?. For the horn, there is NO compression on the 10 inch, why not a conical horn with 2:1 or 3:1 compression, a 10" can handle that with ease. ALSO, would make the horn a more simple construction.
@ Carl, you mentioned Line Array, because your current setup has its limitation to "grow" it if required. My first thoughts were, I don't like line arrays, they NOT small, you run into rigging **** and all that, EQ'ing could be a hassle.
BUT..... then the other day, as I was driving to work (independent IT consultant for a living
), I got this brainwave: 😀1 - WHY NOT
2 - OK, the satellites need to be SMALL, light and HIFI
3 - The subs need to be small and would be able to deliver a punch.
SO, what about a satellite with 2x 6" drivers in a v-shape (90 degree) setting with a waveguide in the middle of it. The 6" would be the horn extension for the waveguide. We woud need to make a "cover plate" that will transform this into a synergy "the easy way". I will make a drawing / first sketch but hope you get an idea. Now with 2 x 6" @ 90 degrees and a 1" waveguide, the cabinet would be 30 cm wide, 17 cm high and about 25 cm deep. It would be able to handle 300 watts low-mid and 40- 60 watts high (> 5 kHz or so). BUT with the high efficiency of the waveguide (107 dB / 1m SPL), the power difference will be NO issue. It will hit around 125 dB for one waveguide, which is almost exactly the same level as the 10" @ 300 watts each.
It will weigh around 7 to 8 kilo per cabinet. A Line array stack of 8 of these would be 156 cm high, 30 cm wide and weigh around 60 Kilo's @ 2000 Watts HIFI!?! a 4 wire single cable will connect all of them to the dual amp.
SWEET or what?😛
AND THE SUBS? I came at 2 x 10" push pull bass reflex loaded, also v-shaped which would require a cabinet of 50 cm wide, 30 cm high and 45 cm deep @ 15 kilo's (estimate with 15mm plywood). They could handle 600 watts continuous @ 38 Hz tuning. So 4 subs would a (side by side in front of middle of stage) 50 cm high, 120 cm wide and handle 2,5 kW with ease (8 drivers / voice coils), also, acoustic coupling adding 12dB (16 times louder @ 4 x the power), all for free. You would run into the 130 dB...
A "simple" PA would be 2 or 4 subs and 2x 4 satellites on 2 poles. Easy to set up by one guy, fits in a normal car. We are talking a 5 kW HIFI (35 - 18 kHz +- 3 dB) PA here.😎 or what?
I had this setup designed (in my mind and a little check with BB Pro) with:
- Faital Pro 10PR300 for the subs
- Faital Pro 6FE100 for the low-mid
- B&C WG7 waveguides
It's a 3-way setup high-pass @ 38 Hz (12 dB, Q 1,2), crossed @ 120 Hz and 5 kHz.
AND, it's "affordable", 10" @ 150 euro, 6" at 30 euro, WG7 @ 75 euro (each).
I've added a quick check graph from BassBox 6 Pro @ 2kW (2 subs, 4 satellites).
Purple is subs, orange is satellites
WORK ON IT ? Yes / No..
kind regards,
Frans
Attachments
Hi. I had this 2x8" V-slot blast too. Didn´t go seriously into it, but it would propably do. Why not. The problem is usually low end. Two PA 6" in small box will not play under 250Hz well. And you usually need to go 70Hz for decent home usage. That´s why it looks like no-go to me.
For the subs, we obviously have different feeling for what does it mean small.
I would use 18IPAL in 100ish l box (two pieces). That´s small. 15SW115@90l is tiny. Anything smaller looks like waste of money for what you get.
For the subs, we obviously have different feeling for what does it mean small.
I would use 18IPAL in 100ish l box (two pieces). That´s small. 15SW115@90l is tiny. Anything smaller looks like waste of money for what you get.
Hi Frans,
I'm liking the sound of that; there is a thread on another forum where a guy has built a TPL150H/8" ported enclosure for a line array - 8 per side! This guy must have deep pockets! I have no experience of the particular drive units you mention, but have played with the Faital Pro 5FE120 and found it to be very good.
Don't forget that 'twice as loud' to our ears requires about a 10dB increase in spl, so the 12dB increase you mention is only a little more than twice as loud, subjectively.
I haven't tried different crossover points to the subs, but played the system at 80Hz the other night. This appears to be the limit, after which localisation the subs could be a problem, according to general opinion. Something to experiment with though; PA and hifi can be quite different, but there definitely needs to be more PAFI out there.😉
I have yet to experiment with very small multiple subs, but have 16x Tannoy 8" and 32x Peerless 6.1/2" to play with one day!
Work on it? You bet!
Cheers, Carl.