If transportability were a consideration I would build modules using the same number of drivers per module and then stack them according to the limitations of the venue. There would be a slight center-to-center difference between the ends of the modules and the drivers within the modules but, for flexibility, this setup would be hard to beat.
Honestly, my buddy’s acoustic 4pc that uses Turbosound column arrays that filled 10k sqft of space with clarity and poise. Off axis response was surprising......MUCH better that typical 2way mid high boxes. Now in fairness, the TS uses two 1” CDs along with 16 fullrange drivers......NOT IDEAL for home use but the upper midrange clarity from those fullrange drivers was the core of the performance.
That’s what has flip flopped me......
And I’m feeling that those larger 3.5” Vifas you used are the reason for the high performance bass response in yours......at least from your assessment and others who have experienced it.....
What’s your thoughts on the 2” Visatons I linked?
That’s what has flip flopped me......
And I’m feeling that those larger 3.5” Vifas you used are the reason for the high performance bass response in yours......at least from your assessment and others who have experienced it.....
What’s your thoughts on the 2” Visatons I linked?
I was saddened to see no x-max numbers. If the Visaton sheets are reliable I'd agree with you that the rising top end is a plus for array duty.
I always like to see an impulse response of the driver itself, as it is often telling of what makes up the top end of such a driver. In that regard the Viva/Peerless and Scan Speak drivers often excell there with a very clean IR/STEP results.
Lots of (full range) drivers tend to ring to reach those higher notes. I would not want to use drivers with a ringing top end in an array, as no amount of DSP is going to cure what you get. A simple FR plot can be somewhat smoothed and hide that part of the spectrum. An IR or ideally a waterfall plot showing the top end shows us much more.
In other words, have you seen any independent tests with extra information on these little drivers? We have seen the little SB drivers (used by Jim and nc535) that look very clean, though they come at a price-tag that grows fast in an array. But that's one I greatly appreciate.
I always like to see an impulse response of the driver itself, as it is often telling of what makes up the top end of such a driver. In that regard the Viva/Peerless and Scan Speak drivers often excell there with a very clean IR/STEP results.
Lots of (full range) drivers tend to ring to reach those higher notes. I would not want to use drivers with a ringing top end in an array, as no amount of DSP is going to cure what you get. A simple FR plot can be somewhat smoothed and hide that part of the spectrum. An IR or ideally a waterfall plot showing the top end shows us much more.
In other words, have you seen any independent tests with extra information on these little drivers? We have seen the little SB drivers (used by Jim and nc535) that look very clean, though they come at a price-tag that grows fast in an array. But that's one I greatly appreciate.
Hopefully a pro audio guy will chime in on this aspect. I'd think your band would either corner load the subs or use a cardioid stack in the small venue locations. In that case, home theater MSO and cardioid stack are the same thing in terms of equipment and design.
It's also possible improving on a CBT DML array would pay off for you in regard to sound reinforcement. It's much less expensive, solves room problems, and is extremely easy to transport. The downfall is no one has perfected them so there aren't any instructions to follow. If you have a vocalist they'd probably love it.
On the other hand, you could build a traditional DML panel by copying Tectonic. Godawful expensive to buy one from them because they do the empirical work for you but materials cost is cheap if you're willing to take on the tuning work.
Attachments
I cross my 2.5" SB65WAC25's to subs at 100 Hz. I found a huge difference in dynamics between first with no high pass, just the natural roll off (which wasn't good enough) and then increasing from 12 to 24 db per octave slope, which is great for my conservative playback levels. So if you are planning these for live venues, that bass module for 250 Hz and down is exactly what is needed. I wonder though if starting that high, a woofer array isn't called for. In simulation 6 or 8 Dayton DC200-8 8" woofers per side look awesome.
A few thoughts on drivers mentioned by mayhem13 and others.
I'm not a big fan of the Visaton FRS 5 X-8 even though it seems to be an acceptable driver for low cost arrays. But several specs peak my interest. The low power handling is short of what I come to expect for a line array (5/8 watts rated/max). That limits the ultimate dynamic SPL range that can be expected. No off axis responses are shown but the on axis performance is excellent. The excursion limits are not given by the manufacturer.
Someone mentioned the small 2 to 3.5" drivers from LaVoce as possible candidates. LaVoce offers a range of drivers which might be considered. They have robust power handling specs with reasonable unit prices. But several units exhibit rough frequency responses--especially off axis--which may concern some users.
On concern about comb lining with line arrays: CBTs do not suffer from comb line radiation compared with straight arrays. Don Keele routinely invites listeners to listen at a close 2 inch distance and then greater distances. No variation in loudness is heard as one moves along the height of the CBT.
I would recommend that the subwoofers to array towers crossover be in the 100 to 150 Hz area to assure better side to side imaging location for either straight or CBT arrays.
I'm not a big fan of the Visaton FRS 5 X-8 even though it seems to be an acceptable driver for low cost arrays. But several specs peak my interest. The low power handling is short of what I come to expect for a line array (5/8 watts rated/max). That limits the ultimate dynamic SPL range that can be expected. No off axis responses are shown but the on axis performance is excellent. The excursion limits are not given by the manufacturer.
Someone mentioned the small 2 to 3.5" drivers from LaVoce as possible candidates. LaVoce offers a range of drivers which might be considered. They have robust power handling specs with reasonable unit prices. But several units exhibit rough frequency responses--especially off axis--which may concern some users.
On concern about comb lining with line arrays: CBTs do not suffer from comb line radiation compared with straight arrays. Don Keele routinely invites listeners to listen at a close 2 inch distance and then greater distances. No variation in loudness is heard as one moves along the height of the CBT.
I would recommend that the subwoofers to array towers crossover be in the 100 to 150 Hz area to assure better side to side imaging location for either straight or CBT arrays.
The FR5 has a listed xmax of +/- 2mm and given the drivers are the same class I would suspect the same of the FR5X.
They do publish a directivity index up to 8khz where the FR5x is down 4db at 30 degrees which gives us enough to gleam how well they would perform.
The limited power handling concerns me and the 190hz Fs is bothersome.
They do publish a directivity index up to 8khz where the FR5x is down 4db at 30 degrees which gives us enough to gleam how well they would perform.
The limited power handling concerns me and the 190hz Fs is bothersome.
I'll toss a few cents in, from playing around with 24 TC9's in both straight and CBT. And maybe more applicably...from being into both home and PA.
Aah the tradeoffs....I believe CBT is best for home, but unusable for PA.
For PA, there's the obvious problem with the CBTs big backward-arc, real estate hogging form factor. But I don't see that as the knockout blow. The show stopper IME, is that the CBT's have a sonic origin that is a little below their center height. IOW, they are made for folks sitting, and we know in PA the importance of getting the sound origin above peoples head.
Don't get me wrong, I love the CBT...for in the home I do believe it's the best.. I'd just never try to do live or DJ with it.
If you can drive a straight line array in blocks, where you have the ability to amplitude shade the blocks, it is very easy to make the origin at the top of the array. My 7ft line so done, on top of a sub sounds 10ft tall. Delay section by section helps focus this apparent imaging to specific chosen distances. The more the blocks, the finer the control, the better the results will be of course.
An aside, I really wish I had the ability to try 24 driver stright line CBT mimicking.....although my bet is the CBT would still be the better CBT.)
I take it as a given we all understand center to center distances will determine how high in frequency the line acts as a line before it combs.
For me, I have to say the combing can be kinda pleasing, mellowing out less than righteous recordings. But when a track has tight slam, the combing kinda kills it. I find the CBT combs too, via measurements, but not as obvious to the ear as straight line.
And also taken as a given, that displacement = bass capacity, and no collection of small drivers is gonna give adequate bass for PA (or home either imho).
So, what would I do over? probably go for the smallest driver that I could afford for the 6-7-8ft array that can do down to 125-150 Hz without any EQ boost. And as always, sub the hell out it 😀
It's either that, or make separate lines for high and low, which might not be so bad if someone works it out for both home and live.
Two last quick mentions: the grills talked about are crucial for portability.
If you can transport the full length, I'd go for a big removable base plate.
I used a circular base about 28" dia I think, that used 5/16" allen head countersunk bolts through the bottom of the base plates, into t-nuts in the bottom of the line arrays, spread as far apart as possible for stability. Very easy to put base on or off, very stable even for kids around, and worked for both CBT and straight arrays.
Hope this helped 🙂
Aah the tradeoffs....I believe CBT is best for home, but unusable for PA.
For PA, there's the obvious problem with the CBTs big backward-arc, real estate hogging form factor. But I don't see that as the knockout blow. The show stopper IME, is that the CBT's have a sonic origin that is a little below their center height. IOW, they are made for folks sitting, and we know in PA the importance of getting the sound origin above peoples head.
Don't get me wrong, I love the CBT...for in the home I do believe it's the best.. I'd just never try to do live or DJ with it.
If you can drive a straight line array in blocks, where you have the ability to amplitude shade the blocks, it is very easy to make the origin at the top of the array. My 7ft line so done, on top of a sub sounds 10ft tall. Delay section by section helps focus this apparent imaging to specific chosen distances. The more the blocks, the finer the control, the better the results will be of course.
An aside, I really wish I had the ability to try 24 driver stright line CBT mimicking.....although my bet is the CBT would still be the better CBT.)
I take it as a given we all understand center to center distances will determine how high in frequency the line acts as a line before it combs.
For me, I have to say the combing can be kinda pleasing, mellowing out less than righteous recordings. But when a track has tight slam, the combing kinda kills it. I find the CBT combs too, via measurements, but not as obvious to the ear as straight line.
And also taken as a given, that displacement = bass capacity, and no collection of small drivers is gonna give adequate bass for PA (or home either imho).
So, what would I do over? probably go for the smallest driver that I could afford for the 6-7-8ft array that can do down to 125-150 Hz without any EQ boost. And as always, sub the hell out it 😀
It's either that, or make separate lines for high and low, which might not be so bad if someone works it out for both home and live.
Two last quick mentions: the grills talked about are crucial for portability.
If you can transport the full length, I'd go for a big removable base plate.
I used a circular base about 28" dia I think, that used 5/16" allen head countersunk bolts through the bottom of the base plates, into t-nuts in the bottom of the line arrays, spread as far apart as possible for stability. Very easy to put base on or off, very stable even for kids around, and worked for both CBT and straight arrays.
Hope this helped 🙂
- Status
- Not open for further replies.