Mr. Bates, your focused arrays...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
#41
Scottmoose said:
In which sense do you mean a 'normal line array'?

Hmm. Last I checked, the point of a nearfield array, i.e. one where you remain within the Fresnel zone, is that they are extremely directional vertically, to the point where you can sit, stand, lie flat on the floor or whatever, and the sound does not change. Essentially, you only hear what is at ear-height, the precedence effect suppressing the later-timed signals, even if they are at a higher amplitude. As it happens, that's why nearfield arrays provide vile impulse responses: the measurement gear doesn't generally take this into account. If you find some that does (don't ask me, I've no idea if any exists), it would look rather different.

A focused array like the one here, by definition, is focused onto a particular point, or moderately sized area. Unlike a nearfield array, by definitition, the sound will significantly change if you move away from that point / zone. Different strokes for different folks. Or the same -I like both types, for different reasons. As has been said, a focused array is essentially a ruddy great big point-source created in a somewhat esoteric fashion. And why not? Makes life interesting.
Click to expand...

Absolutely correct. My conclusion from experimenting with different arrays and other sound sources confirms that. I still heard nothing better than straight line array, no matter how boring such design looks.
 
#43
Melo theory said:
Hey frank.
Those drivers are the tang band 4" titanium cones. I think they are awesome.
That last photo is a vector drawing of something I was thinking of building. Its a straight line array, using full range drivers. They are positioned firing sideways into acoustic lenses in order to simulate an omni pattern. I wanted to try this to see if it will resolve the problem of comb filtering do to CTC spacing. Also, it being an omni source will have an even - in - room power response. (no BSC filter)
Click to expand...

I am going to use 3 rows for similar result.
 
#46
adason said:
would not CBT be superior to straight and focused array?
Click to expand...
I don't see how one would be superior to the other. I think they are for different uses.
A focused array is really great if you are willing to sit at the intended distance and stay seated 😀 no crossovers and a near point source presentation.

A straight array is good for even coverage and a big, exciting type of presentation.

The CBT array is good for even coverage and a near point source presentation.

I think a focused array is best if you are willing to sit in 1 spot, they have a very exacting sound....you can pick out every detail.
Straight arrays are great for that front row concert sound.
I haven't heard the CBT's so I can't comment.
 
#48
"I don't see how one would be superior to the other. I think they are for different uses."

well I do...
CBT eliminates one small sweet spot of focused array (I see that as disadvantage of focused arrays) yet it has perfect transient response because it simulates point source (definite advantage over straight array to me)

different uses? what do you mean? speakers have different uses for sure, some are bookshelfs for computer, some are HiFi for domestic use, some are for PA and so forth, but I thought we are all talking about the same thing, the best sound possible in home environment
 
#49
adason said:
"I don't see how one would be superior to the other. I think they are for different uses."

well I do...
CBT eliminates one small sweet spot of focused array (I see that as disadvantage of focused arrays) yet it has perfect transient response because it simulates point source (definite advantage over straight array to me)

different uses? what do you mean? speakers have different uses for sure, some are bookshelfs for computer, some are HiFi for domestic use, some are for PA and so forth, but I thought we are all talking about the same thing, the best sound possible in home environment
Click to expand...

Well, I would use a focused array for critical listening.
I would use a straight array for a party or gathering, where I need even coverage.
I would suggest that the CBT could be used for both but probably isn't as good as either for these purposes.
I'm only speculating on the CBT, I have not heard them. I'm just going on my humble theory.
But what you are saying is that 1 way is the best.....I'm sure you know better than to make that statement.
 
#50
Melo theory said:
Well, I can't really picture what you mean.
Like this?
Open Baffle Line Array Speakers
Click to expand...

Oh no. Just 3 straight vertical rows of drivers. One central column and 2 wings, with drivers on wings for wider dispersion horizontally and open back, so reproduced reverberation does not sound like a mix from the sounding point, and blends with room reverberation fooling imagination as if there are no two different environments, the bigger one inside of the smaller one.
 
Last edited:
#55
actually, my focused array does pretty well in the standing test or way off axis.

I think the cone of the 4" titanium is flatter than my 4" bamboo, having better dispersion.

To me the cbt has crossovers (not what I was looking for).
And the attenuation for drivers further away doesn't reduce the excursion like having all of the drivers run wide open.
But for equal coverage everywhere, I'd imagine it is the cat's meow.

I feel most 2 ways (given even 1/2 of the cone area) have less gargling (distortion) than even the larger full range drivers. Simple FM, or bass modulating the highs. Some people it bothers, others look past.

And I'm betting a 6db crossover (time aligned too) 2-way (6.5") would be better than 8" full range driver run wide open.
Cleaner, and better dispersion (horizontally anyways).

Blasphemy, I know.

Norman
 
Last edited:
#59
Yep, I've had a couple through here briefly. The FR isn't great, especially off-axis, the units I looked over didn't seem to behave according to the advertised data, suggesting to me they've got fairly broad production tolerances and I don't much care for 4in drivers with whizzer cones. I'd probably look toward some of the 4in Tang Bands or the MA CHR-70.3.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom