Is it possible to cover the whole spectrum, high SPL, low distortion with a 2-way?

In the context of brute force FIR phase correction I don't believe there is any way to discriminate between correcting phase wrap caused by the crossovers Vs that caused by non coincident drivers. I'd happily correct for the former but not the latter if possible.

Agreed, but in the example quoted, the non-coincident driver spacing did not change.
 
In the context of brute force FIR phase correction I don't believe there is any way to discriminate between correcting phase wrap caused by the crossovers Vs that caused by non coincident drivers. I'd happily correct for the former but not the latter if possible.

In the context of brute force FIR, I totally agree..if you are meaning brute force applied globally to the entire input.

The crossover is the crossover...it has it's own phase wrap. It can either be corrected or replaced with a linear phase crossover of same type and order.
Either solution requiring FIR. Or simply lived with..


The physical distance between non coincident driver is a constant delay.
Sure, it displays "phase wrap", but it is a wrap that is linear when plotted on a linear freq graph.
Personally, I don't think it's even helpful to consider it phase wrap; it's just a constant delay.

Since crossover wrap is not linear on a linear freq graph (or any graph), there isn't any way crossover phase wrap and non coincident delay can combine in constructive complementary fashion.

Setting delays to offset physical distances is a big win imo/ime, especially if the speaker was designed with 1/4WL or less spacing between drivers at xovers. Hey, synergies work, huh ?:)



I know you get all that...I'm just expound for those following along.
BTW, i've gone through the entire a.for.aura slideshow several times...and probably will a few more :D
Wow ..beyond awesome...downright inspirational !!!!
 
Are you sure its a "sidechain" limiter? and not just a multiband limiter?

I don't fully know what a multi band limiter is, or rather how they work, so I can't really say.
The few multi-band limiters I skimmed seemed to split the spectrum into sections via crossovers, apply limiting to each section, and then sum back together. Maybe my impression is incorrect???? (No studio experience.)

What I call my 'sidechain limiter' doesn't split the spectrum into sections...no crossovers are used, so no sections to sum back together.
Limiter keys off main signal sidechain lowpassed at about 110Hz so it doesn't inappropriately key off mains signal, and applies EQs progressively as level increases.
I can dial in any shape frequency dependent reduction I like !

Is that how any of the multi-bands out there work?
 
lol Dynamic Eq, and side chain limiting are not the same thing! lol Setting up a dynamic eq for general listening is easy, but it also depends on what options you have. I don't like this type of processing for listening but thats just me. One of my fav and most useful tools in the studio environment is the Dynamic Eq ,I am very familiar with it. Dynamic eq or wide band compression would be an attempt to keep diverse material at the same level or play the material louder than otherwise acceptable...oorrr protecting a driver from overloading BUT I personally would never want to not hear the original signal as intended by the people who produced it. I use a limiter and almost neutral voice/room eq and thats is it. There's an indicator to show when limiting/clipping is happening. Compression on the master signal is like putting ketchup on your Prime Rib lol.

markl sounds like you are side chaining with a dynamic eq?


Are you searching for vst plugins? Make sure you use Dynamic EQ and not Multiband compression, Dynamic Eq is better and more transparent. Multi band compression splits the signal and then sums it back, Dynamic does not. A dynamic eq can do everything a multi band compressor can and more....depending on which one you are talking about of course lol... Dynamic Eq causes the same amount of phase shift a regular eq does, but it only happens when activated by signal over threshold. MultibandComp is like throwing a bunch of rhigh pass and low pass filters to create channels to which we by boost or attenuate or compress or expand. Like I said, you can do all those things with a modern Dynamic eq, and more, while it being more transparent.
 
Last edited:
Multi-band limiter is it then...I have one. Waves L316 plugin. If yours is applying an eq curve that you made, and doing so as opposed to signal crossing the threshold, thats Dynamic EQ....ok I forget to explain, that modern Dynamic EQ have the options for compression/limiting for each band, built in them, nowadays. Also, if the curve you made is actually applying limiting instead of eq, its a multiband limiter lol...sounds like you threshold is reading off the wide band...you aren't going to want that. Sounds like you need a manual for the product of which you are using lol.
 
Last edited:
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
Well to me the process described by Mark is a dynamic eq but... as you have access to a modular environnement it can be a morph between different things. I love modular, being synthesizer, effects or other.
That said be ready to spend time and deal with non musical results till...magic happen. ;)

I differ from your opinion wrt multiband dynamics/ dynamic eq Camplo. For me they do different things and are not fully interchangeable. But we all do have different use of tools and what works for one doesn't for others.

I've been lucky to have access to Tc M5000 and M6000, some Dbx Quantum ( highly underrated multi band processor. The M/S matrix and stereo widener are great. Weird to use the compressors/limiters/expanders/gate as they are not labeled as usually seen. Must use your ears when tweaking), Weiss compressor, etc, etc,...
All are great units very powerfull but you have to know when and why use them. They might be difficult to dial in and defining the bands freq is of very great importance.

Mark if you want to try a multiband in same quality range that those processors (but in vst) :Flux Alchemist.
That said you might do more harm than good with this. You've been warned. ;)

About what you want to do, some sidechain manipulation over a compressor should do nicely. I don't find limiting really adapted to low end contents. Or i prefer a ( good) tape recorder for that. Tape is the perfect compressor/limiter: no time constant and it add harmonic generation. With the good style of music it just shine over digital. ;)
 
Last edited:
Sounds like you need a manual for the product of which you are using lol.

Lord do I need a manual ! Only problem is I'd have to write it ,LoL

I put this limiter together with modular components (in q-sys) like krivium suggests.
The components are peak limiters triggered by sidechain inputs, and a funky combinations of EQs and inverse signals, then recombined, and some more combining/opposing logic controlled by the peak limiter..
 
All are great units very powerfull but you have to know when and why use them. They might be difficult to dial in and defining the bands freq is of very great importance.

Mark if you want to try a multiband in same quality range that those processors (but in vst) :Flux Alchemist.
That said you might do more harm than good with this. You've been warned. ;)

About what you want to do, some sidechain manipulation over a compressor should do nicely. I don't find limiting really adapted to low end contents. Or i prefer a ( good) tape recorder for that. Tape is the perfect compressor/limiter: no time constant and it add harmonic generation. With the good style of music it just shine over digital. ;)

Thx again krivium...all this is new to me ..will try to digest, and also check out Flux Achemist....
 
It's kind of cool to see different fields of expertise converge in this thread.
For dynamic EQ, I have primarily used Ozone and started fiddling with DMG EQuilibrium recently.
Many of these Mastering-grade EQ vsts require lots of studying and experimenting.
As with loudspeaker processing, all the phase related aspects apply, FIR versus IIR, linear vs. non-linear etc.
TDR Nova GE and Sonnox Oxford Dynamic EQ plug-in for UAD hardware and Apollo interfaces are interesting too, but I detest dongles and hardware restricted software.
 
Last edited:
In an anechoic chamber this is true, but in real rooms it is not. At a typical listening situation there is as much as or more energy in the reverberant field as there is in the direct field (this depends on the listening distance and room characteristics, etc., but seldom would the reverberant energy be negligible) To think that this energy does not affect the perception is simply naive.

There's no denying room characteristics for sure.

Speaking of perception, last weekend I visited an event at one of the best concert halls in my country as regards to room acoustics and sound reinforcement.

Some data (excluding stage dimensions):

Hall:
Purpose: Live music & dance.
Capacity: Standing = approx. 1900-2000, seated = approx. 700

Dimensions:
Hall: approx ≈ 50m wide x 25m deep.

Control:
D&B R1 Software
2 Lake - LM44 Digital audio processor

PA:
20x d&b audiotechnik J-12
8x d&b audiotechnik V-8
12x d&b audiotechnik J-Sub
2x d&b audiotechnik T-10
2x d&b audiotechnik V7P
13x d&b audiotechnik D80 amps

Main PA:
10x J-12 flown per side
6x J-Sub Under stage per side

Outfill:
4x V-8 flown per side

Infill:
1x V7p per side stacked on stage

Speakers amplified by d&b audiotechnik D80 Amplifiers


For this hall, line arrays of l'Acoustics and Adamson were tested before it was decided on d&b.

The size of this room is more or less comparable to the theater featuring the Danley Jericho J1s + array of tapped horn subs, I reviewed previously.
In itself it's quite amazing the output of those 2 Jericho J1's is equivalent to a considerable amount of (expensive) line array modules.

But that's not all. Whereas line arrays may sometimes be preferred for live sound, due to beam steering and other available technologies - in this case d&b Array Processing, I much prefer the point source nature of the Danleys for electronic music.
Line arrays won't provide the "holistic intimicy" of the Danleys. It's the clear window (in)to the production(room)-trick that only point source systems seem to pull off.

Don't let me be misunderstood, d&b audiotechnik gear is top notch and I bet many visitors would actually prefer it to the Danley system. Most people, spoiled by soundbars and homepods, are unable to differentiate between point source and arrayed cabs. Instead they judge by SPL across the room and the general nature of the system > harshness, amount of bass etc.

In the same building there's another, even larger concert hall as well as a smaller (club)room. The latter is also fitted with d&b gear (tops with subs). My friends and I prefer this room to the bigger hall for electronic music.
 

Attachments

  • Screen-Shot-2018-02-09-at-11.19.30.jpg
    Screen-Shot-2018-02-09-at-11.19.30.jpg
    115.8 KB · Views: 311
  • Ronda-General_Small.jpg
    Ronda-General_Small.jpg
    236.7 KB · Views: 320
  • db_j_system_array_small_v2__43560.1575390759.1280.1280.jpg
    db_j_system_array_small_v2__43560.1575390759.1280.1280.jpg
    133.4 KB · Views: 311
Last edited:
Administrator
Joined 2004
Paid Member
Interesting. :up: D&B are becoming very popular, and for good reason. I used Meyer Sound for years and the joke used to be "Meyer. You can buy a better speaker, but you can't pay more for it." I think D&Bs motto might be "And you thought Meyer was expensive." :D

That said, the D&B do sound good and are super easy to use. The first time we set it up in a large space (19000 sq meters) the client was not happy that we had tuned the PA without him, since he had requested to do it himslef. The look on his face when we told him we hadn't touched the EQ, the system was flat, was priceless.

Still, I know front of house engineers who prefer L'Acoustic because they find D&B a little edgy, harsh. Great for Rock and Roll. Even so, most of the big new systems are much smoother than they used to be, it's quite noticeable. It starts to come down to personal preference.
 
It's kind of cool to see different fields of expertise converge in this thread.
For dynamic EQ, I have primarily used Ozone and started fiddling with DMG EQuilibrium recently.
Many of these Mastering-grade EQ vsts require lots of studying and experimenting.
As with loudspeaker processing, all the phase related aspects apply, FIR versus IIR, linear vs. non-linear etc.
TDR Nova GE and Sonnox Oxford Dynamic EQ plug-in for UAD hardware and Apollo interfaces are interesting too, but I detest dongles and hardware restricted software.

If VST is an option, Waves F6 is going to be hard to beat, can get for only $29 when on sale, Nova is cheap too, and has some options F6 doesn't but I feel F6 is the nicer one.
I have never seen a linear dynamic eq. This type of post processing is useful in making material louder.....and destroying the dynamics, as well as, transient information....lol