Another vote for Line Arrays...
JinMTVT,
First of all, I have to curse you for tempting me back into the HT world with your thread : ) Though I certainly don't consider myself an expert on these matters from a technical view point, I have been on a quest for the last year or two as I consider my next ultimate listening room and how much of it will be DIY versus purchased from others. If you are leaning towards line arrays, you must talk to Rick Craig at Selah audio as he is a great guy with some good experience and products in this area. For whatever it is worth, here are my thoughts on my journey as of late:
1) In a pure music contest, I think I would still be happier with point source designs, and would probably lean towards the approaches being discussed right now in Lynn Olson's thread "Beyond the Ariel". I don't rule out line arrays as contenders here, just that after hearing a few I am not sure they have what it takes to reach the very tip top of the pyramid for me.
2) I am not so sure I care about #1 above as much as I thought I did. My biggest concern as of late has now moved to doing both movies and music as much justice as possible without going crazy and/or bankrupt in the process.
3) I find the image specificity in Line Arrays to be just a bit funky. I think they image quite well, with a nice wide soundstage and some depth to go along with it, but there is a weird artifact I can't put my finger on that makes everything sound a bit larger than life, or just a tad different than they otherwise might have been in the original recording space, maybe it is just my brain setting a bias based on an expectation, but I swear I hear a very different presentation on arrays than I hear on point source speakers and in the area of imaging I am not sure it is for the better. But, having said that, my taste in music and listening finds no serious objection here, just something less than the best I have heard.
4) On virtually everything else I value, I hear a big difference in line arrays and all for the better, cleaner sound, no sense of driver strain at loud listening levels, fantastic dynamics and a sense of broader, more controlled driver response... all the things you would expect when sharing the load across 8-12 drivers instead of just one (and yes, to answer your question the reduction in distortion is very significant based on what I have read, but how that qualifies itself in the listening is surely different for everyone) and again, I am not so full of myself not to think that I may be simply hearing what I am expecting to hear based on all my reading here at this forum and others, but I have been into hi-fi for few decades, both my wife and I extensively involved in live music growing up, and neither of us performing as drones being led around by stereophile magazine over the years despite owning components that have met with great favor every now and then. Bottom line, I am very confident that a well done line array will shock most audiophiles in that they will hear a sound much closer to live music in many ways, especially if they enjoy the percussive snap and powerful dynamic waves found in many types of music. I personally get a big kick out of this "physicallity" of both the instruments and the recording/performng space, so the more I think about it the more I am inclined to pursue the line array approach further. You know how some reviewers describe the sensation of large amps getting vice like grip on the bass drivers in a speaker? I find myself feeling like line arrays allow amplifiers to get that kind of grip across the entire frequency spectrum, everything just sounds so effortless and limitless in its capabilities, like a very high performance car, you feel that you will never desire the outer limits of its performance, just content to keep it street legal and enjoy how well it exceeds your expectations.
5) Most importantly, I think there is real potential to leverage the wider sweet spot of a line array in a HT environment where you have concerns about speaker/screen placement. I know that there is some debate about this, but I am a believer in the cylindrical dispersion pattern of line arrays (also supported by the slower loss of SPL over distance, 3dB versus 6dB I believe, per meter or something like that, but anyways, the idea is that if you are closer to the left speaker than the right, the difference in SPL is much less between the two if you are within the distance where the array is still behaving as a true line array, thus the imbalance of the stereo effect is less so and the perception of a broader sweetspot a logical conclusion), but I think there is something to this and my wife and I are both convinced there is "more sound to go around" (I am declaring a trademark on this expression right here and now) with a good array and not having the center seat is a bit less irritating. I don't like screens up high off the ground, but then again I only have one row of seating to worry about. I like the idea of a roughly 8 to 9 foot wide screen that would be close to 5 to 5.5 feet tall including a typical black border area, sitting 1.5 to 2 feet off the floor, sitting 1.5 screen width distance away. I find this to be extremely comfortable for watching movies and thus leaves me no room for a center channel, which I have not missed in years since I have a very high quality pair of stereo floorstanders and normally just myself, wife and son watching a movie. I am seriously considering a fixed screen in my next house, with a line array built into the wall on each side of the screen, perhaps not entirely flush with the wall but instead angled a bit inwards so the drivers cross just in front of the listening seat to create as wide a listening area as possible, further negating the desire for a dedicated center channel. Add just one pair of good surrounds and an infinite baffle subwoofer and I think you have the potential to come very close to world class sound for both music and film, and a system that is comfortable to run at decent levels for hours at a time without any strain or any listening fatigue inducing distortion artifacts.
Just my two cents (with a dollar worth of typing...). And for the rest of technical types out there, most everything you may agree with I owe to Dr Griffin and Mr Craig, and everything you disagree with is no doubt related to my own lack of comprehension : ) Now, the issue on how to design/build a good line array, that is whole "nuther can o'worms..."
Regards,
Greggo
JinMTVT,
First of all, I have to curse you for tempting me back into the HT world with your thread : ) Though I certainly don't consider myself an expert on these matters from a technical view point, I have been on a quest for the last year or two as I consider my next ultimate listening room and how much of it will be DIY versus purchased from others. If you are leaning towards line arrays, you must talk to Rick Craig at Selah audio as he is a great guy with some good experience and products in this area. For whatever it is worth, here are my thoughts on my journey as of late:
1) In a pure music contest, I think I would still be happier with point source designs, and would probably lean towards the approaches being discussed right now in Lynn Olson's thread "Beyond the Ariel". I don't rule out line arrays as contenders here, just that after hearing a few I am not sure they have what it takes to reach the very tip top of the pyramid for me.
2) I am not so sure I care about #1 above as much as I thought I did. My biggest concern as of late has now moved to doing both movies and music as much justice as possible without going crazy and/or bankrupt in the process.
3) I find the image specificity in Line Arrays to be just a bit funky. I think they image quite well, with a nice wide soundstage and some depth to go along with it, but there is a weird artifact I can't put my finger on that makes everything sound a bit larger than life, or just a tad different than they otherwise might have been in the original recording space, maybe it is just my brain setting a bias based on an expectation, but I swear I hear a very different presentation on arrays than I hear on point source speakers and in the area of imaging I am not sure it is for the better. But, having said that, my taste in music and listening finds no serious objection here, just something less than the best I have heard.
4) On virtually everything else I value, I hear a big difference in line arrays and all for the better, cleaner sound, no sense of driver strain at loud listening levels, fantastic dynamics and a sense of broader, more controlled driver response... all the things you would expect when sharing the load across 8-12 drivers instead of just one (and yes, to answer your question the reduction in distortion is very significant based on what I have read, but how that qualifies itself in the listening is surely different for everyone) and again, I am not so full of myself not to think that I may be simply hearing what I am expecting to hear based on all my reading here at this forum and others, but I have been into hi-fi for few decades, both my wife and I extensively involved in live music growing up, and neither of us performing as drones being led around by stereophile magazine over the years despite owning components that have met with great favor every now and then. Bottom line, I am very confident that a well done line array will shock most audiophiles in that they will hear a sound much closer to live music in many ways, especially if they enjoy the percussive snap and powerful dynamic waves found in many types of music. I personally get a big kick out of this "physicallity" of both the instruments and the recording/performng space, so the more I think about it the more I am inclined to pursue the line array approach further. You know how some reviewers describe the sensation of large amps getting vice like grip on the bass drivers in a speaker? I find myself feeling like line arrays allow amplifiers to get that kind of grip across the entire frequency spectrum, everything just sounds so effortless and limitless in its capabilities, like a very high performance car, you feel that you will never desire the outer limits of its performance, just content to keep it street legal and enjoy how well it exceeds your expectations.
5) Most importantly, I think there is real potential to leverage the wider sweet spot of a line array in a HT environment where you have concerns about speaker/screen placement. I know that there is some debate about this, but I am a believer in the cylindrical dispersion pattern of line arrays (also supported by the slower loss of SPL over distance, 3dB versus 6dB I believe, per meter or something like that, but anyways, the idea is that if you are closer to the left speaker than the right, the difference in SPL is much less between the two if you are within the distance where the array is still behaving as a true line array, thus the imbalance of the stereo effect is less so and the perception of a broader sweetspot a logical conclusion), but I think there is something to this and my wife and I are both convinced there is "more sound to go around" (I am declaring a trademark on this expression right here and now) with a good array and not having the center seat is a bit less irritating. I don't like screens up high off the ground, but then again I only have one row of seating to worry about. I like the idea of a roughly 8 to 9 foot wide screen that would be close to 5 to 5.5 feet tall including a typical black border area, sitting 1.5 to 2 feet off the floor, sitting 1.5 screen width distance away. I find this to be extremely comfortable for watching movies and thus leaves me no room for a center channel, which I have not missed in years since I have a very high quality pair of stereo floorstanders and normally just myself, wife and son watching a movie. I am seriously considering a fixed screen in my next house, with a line array built into the wall on each side of the screen, perhaps not entirely flush with the wall but instead angled a bit inwards so the drivers cross just in front of the listening seat to create as wide a listening area as possible, further negating the desire for a dedicated center channel. Add just one pair of good surrounds and an infinite baffle subwoofer and I think you have the potential to come very close to world class sound for both music and film, and a system that is comfortable to run at decent levels for hours at a time without any strain or any listening fatigue inducing distortion artifacts.
Just my two cents (with a dollar worth of typing...). And for the rest of technical types out there, most everything you may agree with I owe to Dr Griffin and Mr Craig, and everything you disagree with is no doubt related to my own lack of comprehension : ) Now, the issue on how to design/build a good line array, that is whole "nuther can o'worms..."
Regards,
Greggo
Just in case anyone would actually like to see my line arrays in my partially finished music room:
http://pub48.bravenet.com/photocenter/album.php?usernum=4095425731&album=48032
http://pub48.bravenet.com/photocenter/album.php?usernum=4095425731&album=48032
Dave,
I'm sure you will disagree with my statements herein since you have with everything else I said. Someone who believes that the finest speaker system in the world is a one speaker device running on 10 watts of power is surely not going to see any use in the "monster" system I use. But then again you will not be able to play Little Feat's DIXIE CHICKEN at full normal concert volume without any distortion at all on your system, and seamlessly switch to Michael Murray playing Bach's Toccata and Fugue in D minor on the organ, and close your eyes and believe that you are actually in the church where it was played. Unbelievable Realism.
So, the proof is in the pudding, and I'm eating to the pudding.
The lower crossover to the woofers is at 165hz. The upper crossover to the tweeters is at 2600. The center to center distance is exactly 5 inches. This sets the upper limit to: 13560/5= 2712hz as the maximum crossover to avoid THE BEGINNING OF comb filter distortion. I'm under that limit. There are other theorists who may suggest other limits, but this one works in practice.
The midranges are designed by Sammi of South Korea. They were designed to sell for about 16 bucks a piece, but Sammi could NOT find anyone to buy a three inch widerange speaker at that price. They have copper voice coils, paper-fabric composite cones, and 3.3 Xmax and are pretty flat in FR in the range that I use them. Sammi unloaded them in the buyout market for quite a bit below market value. In the large group, they only have to handle 5.8 % of the total midrange volume per channel. Additionally they are placed in separate 4 inch by 23.5 inch PVC closed tubes stuffed with 4 lb/cu ft fiberglass. Closed tubes have some unusual features which augment clarity in speakers that I won't go into now, but I tested them in boxes and in my tube design, and verified the clarity myself and with to audio observers. This also makes a difference.
I am using Dayton Neo 20FA's. These tweeters are the only dome tweeter of any quality that I am aware are available in the USA which by cutting the flanges can get the center to center distance below 1 inch and closer to .9. This has to be done, and if you look closely at the photos you can see the tightness. The keeps comb filter distortion in the tweeters above an inaudible(for me) frequency of about 15,000hz.
The normal crossover for this tweeter when ONLY one is used is 3500hz. However, this is a generalized number for a 2nd order crossover of 12 db/octave slope. Mine is a 24 db L-R electronic crossover. And instead of letting just one carry the load, 30 of them are carrying the load. Discussion about this tweeter on the Parts Express Audio forum(Dayton is the brand name for PE), puts the tweeter as low as 2200 for a 48 db/oct slope, and easily do-able at 2600 for a 24 db slope when each one is only carrying 3% of the total frequencies. And of course, my crossovers are stable since they are electronics.
I am able hear distortion, combing or otherwise in speaker systems. I have nearly perfect pitch. I come from a musical family, and I used to play both the violin and the saxophone. My dad was a Julliard trained musician, playing all instruments but specializing in violin and viola, where he worked the Symphony and show circuits. My mother was a Soprano. My sister has a music degree in performance cello, my brother in law has one in organ performance and composition.
Over the years(I'm 58), I've had a number of speaker systems, some I bought and some I built. Nothing comes even remotely close to this one in reproduction of actual performances. And I go to actual performances. I have season tickets to the local symphony, a tier two symphony orchestra.
As I said, the proof is in the pudding:
When I designed and built my line array, I wanted to have the most realistic system possible with the ability to hit the volume levels and clarity of the actual performance.
I wanted to close my eyes and believe that I was in the concert hall with the performer 10 feet away. I was successful beyond my dreams. Last night I was listening to Renee Fleming singing "Summertime" from Gershwin's Porgy and Bess, and I could have sworn she was in front of me. Also I was listening to some Baroque trumpet with Wynton Marsalis in a small orchestral, and found myself musing that I couldn't enlarge my woofers beyond their present size because it would block the sound from the harpsichord that the sound image put about 10 feet back, and then I realized that there isn't any harpsichord in my music room.
At my age I deserve extreme realism from Credence Clearwater Revival to Renee Fleming singing Rachmaninoff's Vocalise to Andre Watts playing a solo grand piano sonata in my living room just for me! These speakers do it ALL and then some.
I know they wouldn't do it for you. But I don't much care are that.
Zarathu
I'm sure you will disagree with my statements herein since you have with everything else I said. Someone who believes that the finest speaker system in the world is a one speaker device running on 10 watts of power is surely not going to see any use in the "monster" system I use. But then again you will not be able to play Little Feat's DIXIE CHICKEN at full normal concert volume without any distortion at all on your system, and seamlessly switch to Michael Murray playing Bach's Toccata and Fugue in D minor on the organ, and close your eyes and believe that you are actually in the church where it was played. Unbelievable Realism.
So, the proof is in the pudding, and I'm eating to the pudding.
The lower crossover to the woofers is at 165hz. The upper crossover to the tweeters is at 2600. The center to center distance is exactly 5 inches. This sets the upper limit to: 13560/5= 2712hz as the maximum crossover to avoid THE BEGINNING OF comb filter distortion. I'm under that limit. There are other theorists who may suggest other limits, but this one works in practice.
The midranges are designed by Sammi of South Korea. They were designed to sell for about 16 bucks a piece, but Sammi could NOT find anyone to buy a three inch widerange speaker at that price. They have copper voice coils, paper-fabric composite cones, and 3.3 Xmax and are pretty flat in FR in the range that I use them. Sammi unloaded them in the buyout market for quite a bit below market value. In the large group, they only have to handle 5.8 % of the total midrange volume per channel. Additionally they are placed in separate 4 inch by 23.5 inch PVC closed tubes stuffed with 4 lb/cu ft fiberglass. Closed tubes have some unusual features which augment clarity in speakers that I won't go into now, but I tested them in boxes and in my tube design, and verified the clarity myself and with to audio observers. This also makes a difference.
I am using Dayton Neo 20FA's. These tweeters are the only dome tweeter of any quality that I am aware are available in the USA which by cutting the flanges can get the center to center distance below 1 inch and closer to .9. This has to be done, and if you look closely at the photos you can see the tightness. The keeps comb filter distortion in the tweeters above an inaudible(for me) frequency of about 15,000hz.
The normal crossover for this tweeter when ONLY one is used is 3500hz. However, this is a generalized number for a 2nd order crossover of 12 db/octave slope. Mine is a 24 db L-R electronic crossover. And instead of letting just one carry the load, 30 of them are carrying the load. Discussion about this tweeter on the Parts Express Audio forum(Dayton is the brand name for PE), puts the tweeter as low as 2200 for a 48 db/oct slope, and easily do-able at 2600 for a 24 db slope when each one is only carrying 3% of the total frequencies. And of course, my crossovers are stable since they are electronics.
I am able hear distortion, combing or otherwise in speaker systems. I have nearly perfect pitch. I come from a musical family, and I used to play both the violin and the saxophone. My dad was a Julliard trained musician, playing all instruments but specializing in violin and viola, where he worked the Symphony and show circuits. My mother was a Soprano. My sister has a music degree in performance cello, my brother in law has one in organ performance and composition.
Over the years(I'm 58), I've had a number of speaker systems, some I bought and some I built. Nothing comes even remotely close to this one in reproduction of actual performances. And I go to actual performances. I have season tickets to the local symphony, a tier two symphony orchestra.
As I said, the proof is in the pudding:
When I designed and built my line array, I wanted to have the most realistic system possible with the ability to hit the volume levels and clarity of the actual performance.
I wanted to close my eyes and believe that I was in the concert hall with the performer 10 feet away. I was successful beyond my dreams. Last night I was listening to Renee Fleming singing "Summertime" from Gershwin's Porgy and Bess, and I could have sworn she was in front of me. Also I was listening to some Baroque trumpet with Wynton Marsalis in a small orchestral, and found myself musing that I couldn't enlarge my woofers beyond their present size because it would block the sound from the harpsichord that the sound image put about 10 feet back, and then I realized that there isn't any harpsichord in my music room.
At my age I deserve extreme realism from Credence Clearwater Revival to Renee Fleming singing Rachmaninoff's Vocalise to Andre Watts playing a solo grand piano sonata in my living room just for me! These speakers do it ALL and then some.
I know they wouldn't do it for you. But I don't much care are that.
Zarathu
Seems you have made some good design choices given your goals...
What kind of amps?
How big is your room and how far away are you listening?
dave
What kind of amps?
How big is your room and how far away are you listening?
dave
Zarathu said:
This is a fairly well established 1/2 wave TL. Probably the most prominant example being the B&W Nautilus. These work best if the damping gets progressively denser as you approach the end of the line.
You tubes are, in theory anyway, a little short for their XO point, but probably sufficient given the high stuffing density -- did you also try them open ended (that would take the tuning down an octave and resuce the pressure in the line.
dave
I subscribe to the Richard Clarke amplifier test process. You may be somewhat aware of Richard Clarke. He has a $10,000 prize available to anyone who can tell the difference between amps in an A-B test more than 14 times out of 20, available but not taken since 1995. The amps are set electronically so that the stronger of the two amps is limited to the power of the weaker of the two amps. The power supplies are matched so that its only the amplifier section that is compared. The person can change back and forth at will. While people have argued with him, no one has ever been able to consistently tell the difference.
Clarke doesn't say that a cheaper amp is better than a Krell or Crown for example. there are lots of reasons why they are better, specs and durability not withstanding. he just says that people can't hear a difference between the amp sections of one of those and say a Kenwood power amp.
I have three different amps. I'm partial to 1980's vintage machines. I'm using a Sherwood 60 watt per channel amp for the tweeters. I'm using a 150 wt/ch kenwood amp for the midranges, and I'm using a DJ Linear Tech discrete transistor stage 350 w/ch amp for the woofers. The last is of less quality than the others but great for handling just the bass below 165. It never even gets warm.
At full volume levels(level at which louder would actually hurt my ears), but without signal to the speakers there is no sound coming out of the speakers(hiss or ffffff or anything like that).
I'm using a kenwood very simple C-1 basic amp, which has great specs.
None of the amps are putting out anywhere near full power, and of course with efficiencies of 93-woofers, 96- midranges, and 108- tweeters, they don't have to. But for all of them there is that substantial reserve power. And of course, because of tri-amping, no transient in one line has any impact at all on the others. As you know, often a powerful clipped bass transient will drive the midrange and tweeter frequencies into clipping also. But with the efficiencies of the lines and the power of the amps, there is no clipping--- EVER.
The listening is in the nearfield, that's why they are called Nearfield Line Arrays. The nearfield is smallest for the tweeter line which is about 9 meters. I listen at about 8.5 meters to stay within the nearfield for the tweeters. This is also the distance we need to be to see the 50 inch Plasma TV that will go in the center early in August. The room is 12 x 16 x 8 feet high. Ceiling will be ,but currently isn't, acoustic ceiling tile. Walls are plasterboard, and books and pictures, floor is concrete with rugs over it.
I haven't bothered to measure yet, but when I do I will be using a calibrated Apex 220 mic with Fuzzmeasure on my Mac. I can make modifications to the FR by using a 2/3 octave Constant Q DOD equalizer. Its not currently in the loop.
Does this help with your questions........?
Its a very different system than you use, but it covers my design goals for full realism in a way that I've never experienced on any other system I've listened to.
And now its not for my two hours of listening time.
Zarathu
Clarke doesn't say that a cheaper amp is better than a Krell or Crown for example. there are lots of reasons why they are better, specs and durability not withstanding. he just says that people can't hear a difference between the amp sections of one of those and say a Kenwood power amp.
I have three different amps. I'm partial to 1980's vintage machines. I'm using a Sherwood 60 watt per channel amp for the tweeters. I'm using a 150 wt/ch kenwood amp for the midranges, and I'm using a DJ Linear Tech discrete transistor stage 350 w/ch amp for the woofers. The last is of less quality than the others but great for handling just the bass below 165. It never even gets warm.
At full volume levels(level at which louder would actually hurt my ears), but without signal to the speakers there is no sound coming out of the speakers(hiss or ffffff or anything like that).
I'm using a kenwood very simple C-1 basic amp, which has great specs.
None of the amps are putting out anywhere near full power, and of course with efficiencies of 93-woofers, 96- midranges, and 108- tweeters, they don't have to. But for all of them there is that substantial reserve power. And of course, because of tri-amping, no transient in one line has any impact at all on the others. As you know, often a powerful clipped bass transient will drive the midrange and tweeter frequencies into clipping also. But with the efficiencies of the lines and the power of the amps, there is no clipping--- EVER.
The listening is in the nearfield, that's why they are called Nearfield Line Arrays. The nearfield is smallest for the tweeter line which is about 9 meters. I listen at about 8.5 meters to stay within the nearfield for the tweeters. This is also the distance we need to be to see the 50 inch Plasma TV that will go in the center early in August. The room is 12 x 16 x 8 feet high. Ceiling will be ,but currently isn't, acoustic ceiling tile. Walls are plasterboard, and books and pictures, floor is concrete with rugs over it.
I haven't bothered to measure yet, but when I do I will be using a calibrated Apex 220 mic with Fuzzmeasure on my Mac. I can make modifications to the FR by using a 2/3 octave Constant Q DOD equalizer. Its not currently in the loop.
Does this help with your questions........?
Its a very different system than you use, but it covers my design goals for full realism in a way that I've never experienced on any other system I've listened to.
And now its not for my two hours of listening time.
Zarathu
Dave,
The tubes were designed to reinforce the frequency of about 150-160, not as a TL line. I looked at TL's but I really don't understand King's spreadsheets. I don't have a math degree like you(My son does in fact have a double BS in both math and physics, and is 1/2 way to a PHD in nuclear particle physics at Notre Dame University, and he gets his math abilities from me, not his mother.)
I wanted them as a sealed design. But you are right about the intensity of the Fiberglass stuffing---very dense, as per Vance Dickason research recommendations in his 6th edition book.
I never had any intention of using them open ended since I didn't want to lower the extension anywhere near the FS of 100.3. The system is designed as a three way with two woofers not a two way with a sub woofer. I don't believe in two way line arrays, and thus don't care much for those with 7 inch woofers and ribbon tweeters arrays. I don't think their transient response is a snappy as my combination 3 inchers and domes---my opinion of course, and they also have to put their crossovers right in the middle of the range most sensitive to the human ear---300-3000, which makes no sense at all to me(in this sense single speaker systems make some sense.)
I've even used the woofers up to 300hz and they do great, but the 34 mids do a nice job with really tight mid bass down to around 165hz. Much below that they start to get sloppy. I knew that ahead of time, so I haven't checked for sloppyness, i just set them above it.
Zarathu
The tubes were designed to reinforce the frequency of about 150-160, not as a TL line. I looked at TL's but I really don't understand King's spreadsheets. I don't have a math degree like you(My son does in fact have a double BS in both math and physics, and is 1/2 way to a PHD in nuclear particle physics at Notre Dame University, and he gets his math abilities from me, not his mother.)
I wanted them as a sealed design. But you are right about the intensity of the Fiberglass stuffing---very dense, as per Vance Dickason research recommendations in his 6th edition book.
I never had any intention of using them open ended since I didn't want to lower the extension anywhere near the FS of 100.3. The system is designed as a three way with two woofers not a two way with a sub woofer. I don't believe in two way line arrays, and thus don't care much for those with 7 inch woofers and ribbon tweeters arrays. I don't think their transient response is a snappy as my combination 3 inchers and domes---my opinion of course, and they also have to put their crossovers right in the middle of the range most sensitive to the human ear---300-3000, which makes no sense at all to me(in this sense single speaker systems make some sense.)
I've even used the woofers up to 300hz and they do great, but the 34 mids do a nice job with really tight mid bass down to around 165hz. Much below that they start to get sloppy. I knew that ahead of time, so I haven't checked for sloppyness, i just set them above it.
Zarathu
Zarathu said:
Well, given that well over 50% of the quality of the amp is determined by the power supply you are really not testing much...
Something doesn't add up there 🙂
8.5 m ~ 28 ft which would have you listening from another room.
Well that we certainly agree on. Other than Chris i was the 1st FuzzMeasure user.
Yes thanx. As i said line arrays fascinate me, i just haven't heard one i could live with yet (the ESL based one maybe, but i'd have to throw ALOT of money at it)) -- that doesn't mean that one doesn't exist.
dave
power supply?
My power amps power supplies might be measured by their weight and the size of the caps, perhaps.
Both the Kenwood and the Linear Tech weigh a ton, and I could get more money than they are worth for the size caps they are using. They just don't make them like that anymore. Well they do.....but they cost a lot of money.
I had one other design goal: keep the cost under $1600 total.
By very careful design, the use of a lucky buy with a fabulous buy out 3 incher, and buying on Ebay I did.
Zarathu
My power amps power supplies might be measured by their weight and the size of the caps, perhaps.
Both the Kenwood and the Linear Tech weigh a ton, and I could get more money than they are worth for the size caps they are using. They just don't make them like that anymore. Well they do.....but they cost a lot of money.
I had one other design goal: keep the cost under $1600 total.
By very careful design, the use of a lucky buy with a fabulous buy out 3 incher, and buying on Ebay I did.
Zarathu
Zarathu said:
I did a bit of analysis myself... with ~1" tweeter-tweeter spacing, the tweeter array is pretty close to 3/4m high which, by Griffin's chart, gives a nearfield transition of ~10.3 ft at the XO so 8.5 ft gives you room to consider that the tweeter array doesn't have an infinitely fast rolloff.
dave
Attachments
JinMTVT said:Please guys lets keep this on HOME THEATER design ..
you guys can argue elsewhere as much as you want to..😀
It is... you are bein fed the subtelties of line arrays.
Not the best mixing studios. a lot of those monitor types are pretty harsh. They are more interested in consistency than fidelity a lot of the time. They are also, unfortunately, mixing with the lowest common denominator in mind.
If you want to play really loudly, really cleanly, then a line array or a very efficient pro level system might be best to consider. In the latter camp the 12" Tannoy installer boxes might be well worth considering.
For my needs (in my 24'x36'x12' (ave) space, my current Fostex bipoles with 5W monoblocks keep me happy -- a bit more subwoofer might be nice.
dave
more subtleties of line arrays
Dave and Jin,
Back from an evening of Gershwin, and Carly Simon singing the romantic oldies.....
I suspect that you might like my version of the line arrays better than the ones you've heard modeled after Rick Craig. We all follow Jim's research but we all don't have to do it the same way.
Knowing that you like TL's with one speaker in the center(from your website), there are characteristics of mine which more closely match this than the Rick Craig variety:
1. You have no crossover at all. But the significance here is that my system doesn't cross in the critical 300-2600 area. No burps or crossover struggles during that critical time. The craig variety uses a large 7 inch woofer and a ribbon tweeter which requires a cross between 1200 and 1600, right smack in the middle of the critical human hearing range. Artifacts in this area would be objectionable to people.
2. I use a deliberate three way and three amp system. I don't do the subwoofer mode which in my opinion compromises the the bass by breaking it up in its critical range for a crossover. Two way systems are not the best for point source speakers and there is no reason why they would be for line arrays. The three way amping allows me to choose three separate amps which are best in their range: one that handles the bass beautifully, one that is really best on the mid range, and one without a big or heavy transformer or a big capacitor which handles the limited demands of the tweeters with poise.
3. You can feel some connection to the tubes that I use which have similarities to TL's. Additionally, closed tubes eliminate odd ordered distortion and harmonics. While the remaining even ordered harmonics and especially distortion is normally harsher and less warm, its also not muddy in texture. If you have to have sound returning through to back of the speakers, you don't want it muddying the front radiation, you want it adding clarity. Using closed tubes does that. Also in tubes you can really pack the stuffing in tightly. You can't do that with a box because it would push up against the speaker itself. In a tube it pushes against the sides of the tube. You can also have a long direction for the back radiation to have to move before what's left returns to the speaker.
4. Finally, you may not like the sound of small ribbon or planar tweeters. They have a lot of clarity but some people find them overly harsh. Domes can be fast, but at the same time a bit softer. And when you combine 30 of them in a row they can be really fast since the dome itself only has to move a tiny bit(3%) in my case.
For all of these reasons, and more, you might actually like my version of the line array over the standard version.
And Jin, you should really consider a line array.
"Once you go array, you never go away."
One other thing, it was commented on that the line array seems bigger than life. I disagree. When were you at any concert where the performers were not up on some kind of a stage, even if only a couple of feet? The bigness of the sound stage does that, and makes you feel so much more like you are actually there. And with movies your screen is already up at the level of the speakers, so it adds to the realism of movies.
All of this is my opinion, of course, and not to be construed as fact, only as fact as I see it.
Zarathu
Dave and Jin,
Back from an evening of Gershwin, and Carly Simon singing the romantic oldies.....
I suspect that you might like my version of the line arrays better than the ones you've heard modeled after Rick Craig. We all follow Jim's research but we all don't have to do it the same way.
Knowing that you like TL's with one speaker in the center(from your website), there are characteristics of mine which more closely match this than the Rick Craig variety:
1. You have no crossover at all. But the significance here is that my system doesn't cross in the critical 300-2600 area. No burps or crossover struggles during that critical time. The craig variety uses a large 7 inch woofer and a ribbon tweeter which requires a cross between 1200 and 1600, right smack in the middle of the critical human hearing range. Artifacts in this area would be objectionable to people.
2. I use a deliberate three way and three amp system. I don't do the subwoofer mode which in my opinion compromises the the bass by breaking it up in its critical range for a crossover. Two way systems are not the best for point source speakers and there is no reason why they would be for line arrays. The three way amping allows me to choose three separate amps which are best in their range: one that handles the bass beautifully, one that is really best on the mid range, and one without a big or heavy transformer or a big capacitor which handles the limited demands of the tweeters with poise.
3. You can feel some connection to the tubes that I use which have similarities to TL's. Additionally, closed tubes eliminate odd ordered distortion and harmonics. While the remaining even ordered harmonics and especially distortion is normally harsher and less warm, its also not muddy in texture. If you have to have sound returning through to back of the speakers, you don't want it muddying the front radiation, you want it adding clarity. Using closed tubes does that. Also in tubes you can really pack the stuffing in tightly. You can't do that with a box because it would push up against the speaker itself. In a tube it pushes against the sides of the tube. You can also have a long direction for the back radiation to have to move before what's left returns to the speaker.
4. Finally, you may not like the sound of small ribbon or planar tweeters. They have a lot of clarity but some people find them overly harsh. Domes can be fast, but at the same time a bit softer. And when you combine 30 of them in a row they can be really fast since the dome itself only has to move a tiny bit(3%) in my case.
For all of these reasons, and more, you might actually like my version of the line array over the standard version.
And Jin, you should really consider a line array.
"Once you go array, you never go away."
One other thing, it was commented on that the line array seems bigger than life. I disagree. When were you at any concert where the performers were not up on some kind of a stage, even if only a couple of feet? The bigness of the sound stage does that, and makes you feel so much more like you are actually there. And with movies your screen is already up at the level of the speakers, so it adds to the realism of movies.
All of this is my opinion, of course, and not to be construed as fact, only as fact as I see it.
Zarathu
Re: more subtleties of line arrays
The critical (telephone) band is 500-3kHz. Personally i think a crossover should be at least an octave out of that range.
Your tubes aren't similar to TLs, they are TLs. Since they are closed at the end they are half-wave lines and yours will have a fundemental resonance at ~290 Hz, The goal of a 1/2 wave TL is to completely absorb all enegy off of the back of the driver and as such should have a fundemental below the lowest frequency it needs to produce. You have stuffed the lines at a very high density which may give it better low frequency absorbtion, but also is likely to reflect high frequencies. Anything coming back thru the cone is a time smeared and distorted version of the signal.
Actually i'm not a big fan of domes... one of my favorite tweeters of all time and one that made an early impression on me was the Decca London (ribbon)
"Once you go array, you never go away."
Bipoles often get painted with the same comment... i agree that a realistic stage is a lot bigger than many think.
dave
Zarathu said:
The critical (telephone) band is 500-3kHz. Personally i think a crossover should be at least an octave out of that range.
Your tubes aren't similar to TLs, they are TLs. Since they are closed at the end they are half-wave lines and yours will have a fundemental resonance at ~290 Hz, The goal of a 1/2 wave TL is to completely absorb all enegy off of the back of the driver and as such should have a fundemental below the lowest frequency it needs to produce. You have stuffed the lines at a very high density which may give it better low frequency absorbtion, but also is likely to reflect high frequencies. Anything coming back thru the cone is a time smeared and distorted version of the signal.
Actually i'm not a big fan of domes... one of my favorite tweeters of all time and one that made an early impression on me was the Decca London (ribbon)
"Once you go array, you never go away."
Bipoles often get painted with the same comment... i agree that a realistic stage is a lot bigger than many think.
dave
You aren't interested in another set of eyes looking at your arrays? It isn't often you run across a set that has been as well thought out as yours. You'd think you would be interested in knowing as much about them as possible. I'm sure gaining understanding from the exercise.
Why does a closed tube eliminate odd harmonics? ... i need to dig into my references a bit deeper, but i thot that a pipe closed on both ends (or open both ends) produces all harmonics, and one open on one end just odd harmonics.
dave
I know what chocolate tastes like.
Dave,
I'll answer questions about it. I'm a big picture guy so I always have to have the whole big picture before I start any project. I research everything from the amount of stuffing to the cabinet shape to the speakers to the crossovers etc, and everything has to fit together in a cohesive whole, and it has to be based on some aspect of generally accepted theory and practice.
I'm actually quite surprised that anyone here is learning anything. I thought most people did that. I do know that some people buy a line array kit from somebody, and they actually know nothing at all.
Mine was built completely from scratch using research from many sources, but relying on Griffin for basic line array practice, and Rod Elliot for electronic crossovers and tri amping, and Vance Dickason for some other things, as well as learning the physics of Kundt Tubes from a number of on-line sources.
I have a lot of information, and a lot of opinions. And combining it all, I have a system that for me is so real that I think I'm in the performer's closest seat. This reality is when people disagree with me I really don't care. It like I'm busy eating chocolate, and someone comes up to me and says, "No that's not chocolate, it just looks like chocolate." What can I say to them when I'm busy savoring the chocolate on my tongue at that particular moment?
So, yeah, I'll answer any questions anyone wants, but dpeople shouldn't tell me that what I'm hearing is not what I'm hearing. People have done that already. I can taste chocolate when I'm eating chocolate.
Zarathu
Dave,
I'll answer questions about it. I'm a big picture guy so I always have to have the whole big picture before I start any project. I research everything from the amount of stuffing to the cabinet shape to the speakers to the crossovers etc, and everything has to fit together in a cohesive whole, and it has to be based on some aspect of generally accepted theory and practice.
I'm actually quite surprised that anyone here is learning anything. I thought most people did that. I do know that some people buy a line array kit from somebody, and they actually know nothing at all.
Mine was built completely from scratch using research from many sources, but relying on Griffin for basic line array practice, and Rod Elliot for electronic crossovers and tri amping, and Vance Dickason for some other things, as well as learning the physics of Kundt Tubes from a number of on-line sources.
I have a lot of information, and a lot of opinions. And combining it all, I have a system that for me is so real that I think I'm in the performer's closest seat. This reality is when people disagree with me I really don't care. It like I'm busy eating chocolate, and someone comes up to me and says, "No that's not chocolate, it just looks like chocolate." What can I say to them when I'm busy savoring the chocolate on my tongue at that particular moment?
So, yeah, I'll answer any questions anyone wants, but dpeople shouldn't tell me that what I'm hearing is not what I'm hearing. People have done that already. I can taste chocolate when I'm eating chocolate.
Zarathu
Re: I know what chocolate tastes like.
Even you should be learning something....
Did you ever read Taylor's seminal paper?
That is another way of exploring 1/2 wave transmission lines... BTW do you have the specs for the Sammi drivers?
I don't think anyone is telling you that... as a class speakers do such a poor job of the task they are given, 2 completely different speakers can be totally valid, and it only comes down to the end user as to which is best for them.
dave
Zarathu said:
Even you should be learning something....
Did you ever read Taylor's seminal paper?
That is another way of exploring 1/2 wave transmission lines... BTW do you have the specs for the Sammi drivers?
I don't think anyone is telling you that... as a class speakers do such a poor job of the task they are given, 2 completely different speakers can be totally valid, and it only comes down to the end user as to which is best for them.
dave
I don't believe that 2 different drivers can do different jobs and both be perfect ..
there is only 1 perfect solution ..and we ain't going to find it neway
Building line arrays with expensive drivers that would need to be 1.5m + high will get expensive very very fast
... and i won't settle for sub top performing drivers ..
i could though get drivers that perform very good a lower SPL since they would all be working alot less,
wich brings lowered $$$ drivers back in the picture
( since alot of the high end drivers aren't better than mid packs at lower spl ..they only tend to be able to go higher in spl before running into problems.. )
Dave: i like ur room drawing ..
coudl you explain the dimensions and choice of back and front angles ?
the back of the room could permit for a double door entrance ..wich would be aestetically pleasing for sure
why not use a larger front wich would permit more space for drivers and screen setup ?
Line arrays i think are interesting because of their dymamics and spl possibilities
but they aren't cheaper than the very best drivers
even when using cheap drivers of mid quality,
when u multiply by 10 or 15 it comes up pretty fast
what about using line arrays for surround ?
any problems with that ?
there is only 1 perfect solution ..and we ain't going to find it neway
Building line arrays with expensive drivers that would need to be 1.5m + high will get expensive very very fast
... and i won't settle for sub top performing drivers ..
i could though get drivers that perform very good a lower SPL since they would all be working alot less,
wich brings lowered $$$ drivers back in the picture
( since alot of the high end drivers aren't better than mid packs at lower spl ..they only tend to be able to go higher in spl before running into problems.. )
Dave: i like ur room drawing ..
coudl you explain the dimensions and choice of back and front angles ?
the back of the room could permit for a double door entrance ..wich would be aestetically pleasing for sure
why not use a larger front wich would permit more space for drivers and screen setup ?
Line arrays i think are interesting because of their dymamics and spl possibilities
but they aren't cheaper than the very best drivers
even when using cheap drivers of mid quality,
when u multiply by 10 or 15 it comes up pretty fast
what about using line arrays for surround ?
any problems with that ?