But you never got anything useful out of your arrays. At least not in my book. Outside they don't stand a chance. Inside it's another story, it is where they were meant to be used. As a concept to work with the room.
But... it takes a bit of work and learning. I know you don't believe me, but I'm not violating any laws of physics here. You don't have to take my word for it, but prior investigation sure would have helped you figure it out.
They are "only" 3.5" drivers. That won't change. They "only" have about 2.5 mm linear excursion each. Also true. But working together, inside a room, they can do more than you give them credit for. There are limits, but get them to work with the room and they can be a lot of fun and they would surprise even you.
But you won't find it out the way you rushed trough that project and jumped to conclusions. Same goes for the top end. You can't believe there's more to it? Your FIR correction was all that was needed? Because it worked on the other speakers that are entirely different in what they need? Come on...
I've spend no less that 6 months trying to figure out what was happening and how to control that. I guess I'm slow. But if you had been in the room with me during the many experiments that I've done within that time, you wouldn't have believed the many different ways I could make them "sing".
Johnny's corner horns will be limited in volume per driver. What that means remains to be seen in measurements. But one thing is certain, you can't take em outside like any other speaker, get them dialed in and expect them to do well indoors. No way, no how!
If you believe that, you've never really understood the concept here.
But... it takes a bit of work and learning. I know you don't believe me, but I'm not violating any laws of physics here. You don't have to take my word for it, but prior investigation sure would have helped you figure it out.
They are "only" 3.5" drivers. That won't change. They "only" have about 2.5 mm linear excursion each. Also true. But working together, inside a room, they can do more than you give them credit for. There are limits, but get them to work with the room and they can be a lot of fun and they would surprise even you.
But you won't find it out the way you rushed trough that project and jumped to conclusions. Same goes for the top end. You can't believe there's more to it? Your FIR correction was all that was needed? Because it worked on the other speakers that are entirely different in what they need? Come on...
I've spend no less that 6 months trying to figure out what was happening and how to control that. I guess I'm slow. But if you had been in the room with me during the many experiments that I've done within that time, you wouldn't have believed the many different ways I could make them "sing".
Johnny's corner horns will be limited in volume per driver. What that means remains to be seen in measurements. But one thing is certain, you can't take em outside like any other speaker, get them dialed in and expect them to do well indoors. No way, no how!
If you believe that, you've never really understood the concept here.
Last edited:
The one thing that they're not fit for... go figure... At least in my book.
Do you know why you liked the CBT better? Did you figure it out? Honest question.
Based on what you said at the time I do have a pretty good idea.
Last edited:
Nope, but I've listened to a variety of setups to know what it can do.
You shouldn't... it will take a bit of time to learn what's happening. Then we can adjust it so we get them to work with the room. That's where their strength lies. They are different from most speakers, learn how to control that, inside the room. We will be limited in the bass, based on volume per driver and how much power we can put in there.
I've always put out another warning too: beware of parallel planes. There's one thing that works against arrays like these, that is parallel planes. If you caught my renderings from the last week, you'll notice a few huge damping panels. I've known from the start something like that would be needed, and I have typed it in a lot of times. You've got them in the corner, like ra7 and nc535, that's a little different too, but does not have to be bad. It has some advantages, and a few draw backs. We'll have to wait and see the measurements.
Take it easy and take your time. That can and will change everything you think of the arrays right now. Well, maybe except that smooth midrange part 😉.
Mark, I'm not sure what you mean by this- "And agreed, it's not just the low end. Highs are definitely veiled with a TC9 line, ime/imo."
Apologies if I misunderstood.
I hear them having basically the same "extension" as my horns...to my ears they don't sign off any sooner. If you mean they are just not as dynamic...I agree.
It is my understanding that a typical horn has a 10db advantage over a direct radiator. Properly designed they are "impedance transformers" meant to couple the low impedance driver with the high impedance air.
Direct radiators cant do that, but I figure corner loading can help.
Just to be clear with everyone- I never expected the lines to sound like the horns because they really CANT!!
Apologies if I misunderstood.
I hear them having basically the same "extension" as my horns...to my ears they don't sign off any sooner. If you mean they are just not as dynamic...I agree.
It is my understanding that a typical horn has a 10db advantage over a direct radiator. Properly designed they are "impedance transformers" meant to couple the low impedance driver with the high impedance air.
Direct radiators cant do that, but I figure corner loading can help.
Just to be clear with everyone- I never expected the lines to sound like the horns because they really CANT!!
I'd rather look at some measurements instead, so I won't reply to other posts about what they can and cannot do. Let's be constructive for a change. Let's learn something. Lets see what they can do! 😉
@Johnny: I'm hoping some others with experience with the MiniDSP are reading along. We'll have to be clever how we use the space it allows in FIR filters plus you could probably need help getting it working on your end.
Be prepared to take it slow. Work on it and be patient. Don't panic, don't rush and we'll build it up one thing at a time.
@Johnny: I'm hoping some others with experience with the MiniDSP are reading along. We'll have to be clever how we use the space it allows in FIR filters plus you could probably need help getting it working on your end.
Be prepared to take it slow. Work on it and be patient. Don't panic, don't rush and we'll build it up one thing at a time.
Last edited:
Thank you “wesayso”. A voice of sound and reason LOL. That’s just what I intend to do.
It’s funny that you mention large, reflective parallel planes. That is exactly what the two dominant walls of my room are.
In fact, I have already begun making panel absorbers for the left and right walls a couple days ago. You must have read my mind!
It’s funny that you mention large, reflective parallel planes. That is exactly what the two dominant walls of my room are.
In fact, I have already begun making panel absorbers for the left and right walls a couple days ago. You must have read my mind!
It really helps to see these speakers and the room as one "system" that we need to control. That way we get the rewards they can give.
Arrays are funny, different from other speakers. Take their strong points and work with it and you'll get the rewards. Good plan on the panels, did you see mine? I have panels at each first reflection point. Making it that much easier to dial in what I want out of them. Only 3 needed in my room. But it does make a huge difference.
Love that workshop! There's work going on in there 😀.
Arrays are funny, different from other speakers. Take their strong points and work with it and you'll get the rewards. Good plan on the panels, did you see mine? I have panels at each first reflection point. Making it that much easier to dial in what I want out of them. Only 3 needed in my room. But it does make a huge difference.
Love that workshop! There's work going on in there 😀.
I did eventually get to cleaning the shop up LOL.
How did you come up with the location of your first reflection points?
If I line up the center of the line and direction of woofers,
the first reflection point winds up at the rear 1/3 mark of the length of the room.
How did you come up with the location of your first reflection points?
If I line up the center of the line and direction of woofers,
the first reflection point winds up at the rear 1/3 mark of the length of the room.
Attachments
Basically the mirror trick, and confirming it with measurements.
Sitting at the sweet spot, I just looked at ever wall where I could see a mirror image of my arrays. (if a mirror were placed there 😉)
Sitting at the sweet spot, I just looked at ever wall where I could see a mirror image of my arrays. (if a mirror were placed there 😉)
Sorry for not being clearer about high freq comparisons...
I get the sense we are on the same page, because
I think both type speakers reach the same audible and measured high freq frequency response ....at least with with steady state tones.
Transient high frequency response is another animal ime/imo.
I think it's due to point source vs multiple sources, at high frequencies.
That's not a fair thing to say Ron, and really why does in your book even matter.
You don't know how much time i spent working with the lines that i didn't post about. Or how long i continued listening to them as a comparative system. Or how much i enjoyed them, both inside and outdoors.
I simply quit posting impressions because if they weren't 100% positive, i sensed they weren't achieving anything constructive.
Different type speakers are different...plain, simple fact.
All have strengths and weaknesses.
And I dare say i try a lot more types of builds than most folks.
I know you say to think of speakers and rooms as a system. I totally agree.
Have i ever told you how many rooms, and acoustics treatments, I've played with over the years, with different types of speakers....let me just say dozens, even a couple of rooms built with a clean sheet of paper dedicated to audio.
It's those experiences that have moved me to treasure outdoor sound so greatly.
You can work on a room and speaker setup forever....and then be instantly both overjoyed and dispirited...when you hear a truly good outdoor setup.
What i'm trying to say is, i have a great deal of experience at rather quickly assessing what speakers do well and what their tradeoffs are.
Please do not dismiss my findings about these line array differences, saying i didn't see it through.
You don't seem to be able to accept that i continued on with the line arrays beyond what you remember from past posts. Fair enough. I did stop posting about them.
I made many more measurements and tunings, both indoor and outdoor.
And got very nice sound and measurements, again both indoor and outdoor.
One thing i quickly realized through all the measurements, is FIR is less needed for a single full-range driver type array, than perhaps any other design.
Other than offering a linear phase xover to a sub, the only real advantage to using FIR was the very fine minimum phase tuning provided by an unlimited number of imbedded EQs.
I found the TC9 array didn't need FIR to measure and sound great, especially given that integration with a sub worked best with a quite shallow xover
(due to needing a higher xover freq because of the relatively higher low end rolloff point of the TC9s)
I was very happy using either FIR or just IIR tuning; not hearing or measuring significant differences across multiple positions.
I knew you were heavily into DRC, having tried to point me in that direction several times, away from the FirDesigner i use. And would most likely do so again if i voiced any tradeoffs.
Frankly, i doubt there is any difference in the results of a quality FIR generator, beyond the level of expertise we have with whatever particular software we are using.
It made no sense to me at the time, to post those further experiences.
One thing i realized through all the listening comparisons, is that i could not expect to achieve the dynamic focused sound of the CD/horn with the line, nor could i expect to achieve the smooth patterning of the line with the CD system.
No amount of measurements and tuning can change that basic natural difference in their sound, ime/imo.
I won't belabor this further and muck up this thread.
Couldn't help chiming in when i saw johnnycamp5's reaction to the differences he's hearing.
So no, i see no reason to give another try to something i feel i've fully explored.
If i were going to delve into lines again, it would probably be either multiple lines of tiny, mid, and large drivers.....
OR....putting a CD/wave guide in the middle of a line like is currently being discussed in other threads ...
Hey, case in point....if the lines can muster the dynamics of a CD/waveguide system, what's the point in exploring those type sims ? 😉
Mark.
Please chime in as much as you’d like. Your impressions of the differences in sound are aligned with mine (so far).
Of course I’ve only just begun, so take my subjective opinions with a grain of salt. I am willing to invest quite a bit of time to get them to sound more to my liking… but six months! 😕
I kid!
Even though I expected them to sound like different animals, I certainly expected more “punch and drama” than what they’ve got now.
Comments from ra7 about his subjective comparisons of sound, going back and forth between his VOTT’s and his corner arrays sold me.
He’d mentioned how his TC9 arrays had much better “mid bass”.
Well…from my short comparison between my horns and lines, my experience is just the opposite.
In fact it makes me fear something may be wrong with his Altec VOTT’s.
IME big horns like that should punch your face in.!! Mine do!!
Again, I have a long way to go, and will keep goofing/learning with REW…
Also I’m moving ahead on the four large broadband panel absorbers.…
Could you please point me in the direction of the thread about a CD horn centered in a vertical line array? Sounds interesting and I’ve always wanted to try it!!
P.S.- i’ve also built more rooms/studios, bass traps, panel absorbers, and loudspeakers than I care to admit!
Please chime in as much as you’d like. Your impressions of the differences in sound are aligned with mine (so far).
Of course I’ve only just begun, so take my subjective opinions with a grain of salt. I am willing to invest quite a bit of time to get them to sound more to my liking… but six months! 😕
I kid!
Even though I expected them to sound like different animals, I certainly expected more “punch and drama” than what they’ve got now.
Comments from ra7 about his subjective comparisons of sound, going back and forth between his VOTT’s and his corner arrays sold me.
He’d mentioned how his TC9 arrays had much better “mid bass”.
Well…from my short comparison between my horns and lines, my experience is just the opposite.
In fact it makes me fear something may be wrong with his Altec VOTT’s.
IME big horns like that should punch your face in.!! Mine do!!
Again, I have a long way to go, and will keep goofing/learning with REW…
Also I’m moving ahead on the four large broadband panel absorbers.…
Could you please point me in the direction of the thread about a CD horn centered in a vertical line array? Sounds interesting and I’ve always wanted to try it!!
P.S.- i’ve also built more rooms/studios, bass traps, panel absorbers, and loudspeakers than I care to admit!
Thanks John,
I enjoy the big punch sound too!
Hells bells, sometimes when i'm really crankin some of today's music (with too much wine in me perhaps) it sounds so dynamic i wonder if air can be ripped in two 😛
Here's a link to some really neat stuff the guys are doing. Full range line array for wall or corner placement
nc535, along with fluid, wesayso and others keep looking at ways to build compound lines and/or fractal arrays. whole thread is worth reading.
I enjoy the big punch sound too!
Hells bells, sometimes when i'm really crankin some of today's music (with too much wine in me perhaps) it sounds so dynamic i wonder if air can be ripped in two 😛
Here's a link to some really neat stuff the guys are doing. Full range line array for wall or corner placement
nc535, along with fluid, wesayso and others keep looking at ways to build compound lines and/or fractal arrays. whole thread is worth reading.
Mark I feel that I might be able to see both of your and wesyaso's points and offer something that might bridge them, I'm responding to your points below as I think these are the most relevant. I respect and admire both of you for different reasons so I don't like to see you at odds 🙂
Inside DRC on a line array really is a step in the right direction and it is the ability to equalise in both time and frequency based on a frequency dependant windowed response. The tweakability of that process and the effects those changes can have is what takes time and can take a nice or great sounding system up a notch.
When wesayso says you didn't take the time to take them as far as possible, he really means you haven't used DRC and taken the time to set that up to your liking.
As above I don't disagree but it can be made better by using the right kind of FIR process. An FIR filter is just a bunch of coefficients, but what process was used to generate those coefficients is what sets them apart from each other.
As one of the only other people to measure my arrays outdoors as well as in I would agree that nice sound is achievable in both without too much effort. What I was not able to do successfully was to measure outdoors and have that translate to the most successful tuning indoors. The two were entirely separate. This was frustrating to me as I really wanted to be able to measure outside and EQ it based on that.
I don't mean this in any negative way but what you are doing with FIR designer is not the same as what wesayso is doing with DRC, they both use FIR filters but they are world's apart in how they operate.
Inside DRC on a line array really is a step in the right direction and it is the ability to equalise in both time and frequency based on a frequency dependant windowed response. The tweakability of that process and the effects those changes can have is what takes time and can take a nice or great sounding system up a notch.
When wesayso says you didn't take the time to take them as far as possible, he really means you haven't used DRC and taken the time to set that up to your liking.
As above I don't disagree but it can be made better by using the right kind of FIR process. An FIR filter is just a bunch of coefficients, but what process was used to generate those coefficients is what sets them apart from each other.
This does not surprise me either and to me illustrates my point that if used as a fine grained IIR equaliser the differences may not be so apparent.
Does what I have written above help to demonstrate why I don't think this is true?
I think this is entirely true, but I think you have to be very careful when comparing listening experiences as describing sound and attributing a cause to it can be a game of Russian roulette.
Very nice post Fluid, thank you! you are the gentlemen as always 🙂
I totally had the same experience that outdoor tunings couldn't transfer to indoors. Not even close really. It was a nice lesson in speaker room interactions.
I really don't think DRC and FirDesigner are much apart. FirD also has frequency dependent implementation.
And like you say, in the end it's just a set of coefficients, and how well they were constructed.
I believe knowing how to use whatever program we are using is more important than which program.
Heck, that said, i believe knowing which measurement or measurements' average to work with, is much more important still.
Agreed with the Russian Roulette danger in comparisons and ascribing the cause of the differences.
i just replied to wesayso in a nice PM exchange, where said I think the comparisons i posted are accurate, as much based on physics as hearing.
But i apologize for not expressing them more as 'my' experience.
Also, pls note i have not bombarded any of the many other line array threads with my take here.
I posted to John's thread because i think i share the comparison experience he describes.
Cheers !
I totally had the same experience that outdoor tunings couldn't transfer to indoors. Not even close really. It was a nice lesson in speaker room interactions.
I really don't think DRC and FirDesigner are much apart. FirD also has frequency dependent implementation.
And like you say, in the end it's just a set of coefficients, and how well they were constructed.
I believe knowing how to use whatever program we are using is more important than which program.
Heck, that said, i believe knowing which measurement or measurements' average to work with, is much more important still.
Agreed with the Russian Roulette danger in comparisons and ascribing the cause of the differences.
i just replied to wesayso in a nice PM exchange, where said I think the comparisons i posted are accurate, as much based on physics as hearing.
But i apologize for not expressing them more as 'my' experience.
Also, pls note i have not bombarded any of the many other line array threads with my take here.
I posted to John's thread because i think i share the comparison experience he describes.
Cheers !
I want to post a few thoughts here, based on what we have so far...
Your setup is highly symmetrical. This can be both a blessing and a curse. What I mean by that is that if one side has a problem at a certain frequency due to room geometry, the other side will most likely have the same problem at that same frequency. If all is well, it will be like that for both sides. Measurements will confirm what we have to work with.
A corner array will have a sharp corner on both sides of the baffle, both are at an equal distance to the driver, they 'could' be seen as a parallel plane, planes like that I've been warning for.
While it seems like a good idea, using the corner, we can't get the array drivers far enough into the corner without 'some' drawbacks. It may not be a big hurdle, but it is a reflection/diffraction issue that is equal distance to all the drivers. And as such will probably show up in measurements.
The lower frequency limit will be hard to predict, but EQ will partially be limited by the enclosure (inside volume) size.
As kick is most pronounced between 100-200 Hz, getting the FR right in that frequency band (and on time) is important. If subs can play that high to help out, you'll be closer to a solution.
It needs to be right at the listening spot. (pick a listening spot where you want to measure, equal distance to both arrays)
The wider listening area will benefit from a good spot curve at LP, if the reflections in the room can be somewhat controlled. If we can't control the reflections sufficiently, a multi-point measurement might start to make sense.
My personal best/most favorite correction has always been based on a single point measurement at equal distance to both drivers. But I've worked at creating a reflection free (well, free? reflection reduced) zone of about 10 to 15 ms. This was a personal goal though. It fits my taste in music (mostly recorded in Studio etc.).
This may or may not be to your liking, absorbing that much (relative early) energy. I do introduce later energy to make up for it, with a virtually generated "Haas kicker". I'm in a small room, I would wish it was larger, this way I can make believe it is larger/better behaved than it truly is.
(As Toole once said: it's easier to make a small room sound large than it is to make a large room sound small)
Your room strikes me as 'bigger', more room behind listening position(s), other possible solutions might be available. (Passive Haas kicker?)
Your setup is highly symmetrical. This can be both a blessing and a curse. What I mean by that is that if one side has a problem at a certain frequency due to room geometry, the other side will most likely have the same problem at that same frequency. If all is well, it will be like that for both sides. Measurements will confirm what we have to work with.
A corner array will have a sharp corner on both sides of the baffle, both are at an equal distance to the driver, they 'could' be seen as a parallel plane, planes like that I've been warning for.
While it seems like a good idea, using the corner, we can't get the array drivers far enough into the corner without 'some' drawbacks. It may not be a big hurdle, but it is a reflection/diffraction issue that is equal distance to all the drivers. And as such will probably show up in measurements.
The lower frequency limit will be hard to predict, but EQ will partially be limited by the enclosure (inside volume) size.
As kick is most pronounced between 100-200 Hz, getting the FR right in that frequency band (and on time) is important. If subs can play that high to help out, you'll be closer to a solution.
It needs to be right at the listening spot. (pick a listening spot where you want to measure, equal distance to both arrays)
The wider listening area will benefit from a good spot curve at LP, if the reflections in the room can be somewhat controlled. If we can't control the reflections sufficiently, a multi-point measurement might start to make sense.
My personal best/most favorite correction has always been based on a single point measurement at equal distance to both drivers. But I've worked at creating a reflection free (well, free? reflection reduced) zone of about 10 to 15 ms. This was a personal goal though. It fits my taste in music (mostly recorded in Studio etc.).
This may or may not be to your liking, absorbing that much (relative early) energy. I do introduce later energy to make up for it, with a virtually generated "Haas kicker". I'm in a small room, I would wish it was larger, this way I can make believe it is larger/better behaved than it truly is.
(As Toole once said: it's easier to make a small room sound large than it is to make a large room sound small)
Your room strikes me as 'bigger', more room behind listening position(s), other possible solutions might be available. (Passive Haas kicker?)
I think those are good observations, and they actually describe my listening room very well.
Your description of more absorption upfront is something that I did when the whole system was upstairs (minus the arrays) in an identical size room (aside from a lower, drywall ceiling).
There is lots of literature on this system of room treatment “LEDE” (live end dead end). It can be a great solution to the inevitable, in room “boundary interference”.
Lots of newbies and youngsters dismiss it, because it was discovered many decades ago.
Therefore it must be old, outdated technology 😂
I have not set up a LEDE in my existing listening room yet, because I wanted to hear the room/loudspeaker combination with the entire ceiling being absorbent.
In some ways, I think this room does sound better than the last one, but the two massive, parallel planes of concrete are definitely doing some damage.
I’m in the process of building four panel absorbers now. They are stained and polyurethane.
Now they just need to be assembled and installed.
They measure 5 feet high by 2 feet wide by 4 inches thick.
Your description of more absorption upfront is something that I did when the whole system was upstairs (minus the arrays) in an identical size room (aside from a lower, drywall ceiling).
There is lots of literature on this system of room treatment “LEDE” (live end dead end). It can be a great solution to the inevitable, in room “boundary interference”.
Lots of newbies and youngsters dismiss it, because it was discovered many decades ago.
Therefore it must be old, outdated technology 😂
I have not set up a LEDE in my existing listening room yet, because I wanted to hear the room/loudspeaker combination with the entire ceiling being absorbent.
In some ways, I think this room does sound better than the last one, but the two massive, parallel planes of concrete are definitely doing some damage.
I’m in the process of building four panel absorbers now. They are stained and polyurethane.
Now they just need to be assembled and installed.
They measure 5 feet high by 2 feet wide by 4 inches thick.
