I am a KZfaq fanatic. Can't fault others for not consuming the same media as you. You can't doubt your peers because they choose to not consume your best choice content. You shouldn't even really watch too much work stuff off with anyways unless u want to. It is known to increase stress to think too much of your work at home. I see your point. But really as any kind of professional should the lack of specific media consumption deemed to be of sufficient quality by yourself can't be a deciding factor in your beliefs based on this factor. Well maybe you're just joking i just realized now. But i would hope that people in general don't use such meaningless self imposed metrics. Anyways im a musician and watch these for education. I try to convey this knowledge to my fellow musicians but they just think I'm on drugs and hallucinating when i try to talk about axes and phase and distance and even just the concept of speakers needing to be higher than floor level. So, it could be worse! My buddy likes to lay his amp flat sometimes and I'm like dude it sounds like crap, why can't you like think about it and then we try to use logic and science to make it sound even better. Shrug idk lol. Ok...idk either then. People don't like physics. But they like concerts and movies. Because, they sound good. Because... of science! Thanks engineers.

It's all about having fun learning stuff so we can be better at our craft and become more valuable to our clients. It's just a big fun puzzle and a bunch of different ways to get to success

Cool cool and thank you

Thank you and yes! Not unlike automobile enthusiasts and professionals, emotional alliances run high and strong. I appreciate your positive comments and astute awareness! Thank you and best to you as well!

So cool and thank you Aama_ralte!

👍🎛️👍

👍🎛️👍

Yes, we do it as a norm for the lows mids and high and occasionally for subs. This concept is the basis for line arrays that are use for nearly every large concert.

This video is to help understand the concept that line sources can offer more volume consistency over distance than point sources are capable of. Coming up with practical and useful high quality deployments is what should be done after understanding the basic concepts shown here

🤙🎛️🤙

Very cool and there are some great setups that have been deployed. I kind of did this video to show the basis of why line arrays are popular for covering larger spaces. I did it with subs for simplicity but the same theory applies to mids and highs and this is the reason line arrays are so successful in festivals is their ability to have improved volume consistency for near and far listeners

HiFi line arrays are built to minimize room interactions (by designing a speaker with theoretical 0° vertical directivity, which means no floor or ceiling reflections). For absolute fidelity, a technical point source and room treatment (plus dsp room correction) would be prefered (the way it is done in the big mastering studios).

Trying to come up with "best" rather than looking at the various advantages of the different configurations may not be ideal As peniku8 commented, high frequency line arrays in home audio can be useful for controlling vertical dispersion and also help project high frequencies farther and more evenly into a space. Improved volume over distance is just one of the attributes of line sources that differ from point sources.

That will increase the vertical dispersion which I don't show in the video. I will ponder that. The main goal of this video was to show that line arrays and point sources have nearly identical frequency responses in the horizontal but line arrays offer an advantage of volume consistency over distance. Most people don't understand that line arrays can provide very accurate flat frequency responses and they're not degraded in there response versus point sources.

It's all about selecting the right tool over the job. Don't drive a dragster on surface streets, a limousine may not be the best choice for mountain roads, and a dune buggy is not going to do well at the drag strip

I'v heard setups where that's sounded great, and I've heard setups where they might as well have left them on the ground stage right and left like the rest of the chumps doing it wrong. Distance by itself doesn't cover mortal system tuning/configuration sins. The setups that I've liked all had the boxes hung in a line dead center, not incorporated into the top of the arrays.

@@jttech44 yeah based on my experience and research center hang dead center if it works for sightlines and rigging etc gets a great consistent result.

@@superkaboose1066 Yeah, like dave pointed out, having things farther away can improve things nicely. Some situations it's definitely not practical. Like on that bassnectar gig he did with the circle-o-subs, no way you could have flown all that in a line. Though, I'm now wondering what would happen if you flew the same config... I've already spent enough time in soundvision today though lol

@@jttech44 flying that rig would've messed with the cadioid configuration, since it's optimized to work for horizontal propagation. You would've needed to fly the cardioid elements lower (and adjusted the delays), so that the cancellation would've been directed at the stage, in which case now the audience area would become more unpredictable, since different parts of the audience would be at differeing angles to the main subs and the cardioid elements, causing differing frequency responses across the venue, which can't be corrected with EQ, unlike the original setup.

Understanding the advantages of the various configurations is often over looked or blurred by emotional alliances or marketing. Deploying arrays in optimal ways to accomplish the desired goals is the challenge. Understanding that line sources can accomplish improved volume/distance consistency over point sources is important knowledge. Never underestimate the ability of humans to screw even the best ideas up.

I believe it is the L-Isa version. May need L-Isa training but not sure

I must admit it's slightly enjoyable to see theoretical concepts interpreted as something that should be deployed in the literal sense. Hopefully they understanding of the concept wherein sources that have larger vertical dimensions are more capable of improved volume coverage consistency is being grasped.

Engineer prefers to use the "jenga" configuration. No jumping on stage please.

🤙👍🤙

I don't understand

If the arrival times were off you would get comb filtering and that would be readily visible in the frequency response. But as you can see the frequency response of the point source is identical or nearly identical to that of a line source. A point source is a pistonic point radiating outward, The line source is a pistonic line. . Everything is in phase and in time as long as the components making up the line source are extremely close together in relation to the frequency being reproduced Same thing applies to a point source, as long as all the components that are making up the point source are extremely close together in relation to the frequency being reproduced everything will work together.

@@DaveRat Ah! You reply to me and to @musiccritic8704 about cancelation makes complete sense. But if the column were to be flown 50-60 Feet up, cancelation and smearing of the dynamics would happen for the 15 Feet listening-position, right? (Man I love your videos.)

Two sub separated vertically would have summation and flat frequency response for a listener positioned at an altitude halfway between the subs. For listening on the ground they would be some calm filtering and you would see cancellations in the frequency response related to the distance between the subs The only way to stop that distance related frequency response issue is to stack the subs right on top of each other or very close and begin to form a line array or use a single sub

Yes and no, perhaps a clearer way to picture this is: When you are close you hear one sub, as you move farther you hear 2 then 3 then more and more so as you increase distance you also increase the amount of subs which counteracts volume losses over distance

I quit my job at Hughes aircraft testing missile systems to start a sound company when I was 18. My whole life is based on music not war. So the question may be better asked to another human than I

Sadly it has, and is used in even police applications for crowd control. Tech Ingredients did an amazing vid exploring it, and how to protect yourself from it if used on you.

​@@DaveRat❤

@@DaftFader not to mention the applications where the sound pressure levels are not the weapon itself but the information they carry, from the shouting armies to the lo-fi speakers used to blast demoralizing propaganda 24/7 across the enemies' tranches

@@duroxkilo Yeah that's a interesting way to look at it, but very true!

I have a code that unlocked features. . I believe it is the L-Isa version

Ah. Yes. I saw it at Ulf's laptop.. Hope it will be released for non Lisa users, too. Would live to have the probes AND import of the locations in NW!

*love

how can I get such a code?@@DaveRat

This is to demonstrate the concept of point source versus line array. Putting a single point source dead center or 100 ft in the air or a long line dead center is neither practical nor wise. Once you understand the concepts deploying them in useful ways is of the utmost importance.

Technically, a flown point source with directivity matching/optimized for the audience area could provide textbook perfect coverage. Practically this is not feasible for non-small venues/festivals, since a single speaker will not have enough output. Now something like the Caleb would do some noise, but it's a single speaker the size of a small-medium-ish line array using over 100 drivers...

The wind issue is solvable and we (rat sound) have designed and deploy wind clamps that keep the L-Acoustics line arrays stable and safe, no moving at wind speeds up to 50 MPH.

And this video shows that that concept of point sources being optimum to be in doubt and that line sources are more optimized for consistent coverage volume

@@DaveRat Depends on what you are optimizing for. Point source would still be optimal for fidelity. Would love to see what a huge line like this looks like on a waterfall plot, it has to be ugly.

Fidelity is a big term. And if in the concept of fidelity you include things like reducing room reverberation and the magnitude of indirect signals and the consistency of sound throughout a venue or space, or things like being able to project high frequencies over long distances such that the listening area has a more even frequency response, then it is highly probable that in most to many situations especially larger spaces, The point source would typically provide inferior fidelity. The manifestation of this plays out in the real world and can be witnessed by the proliferation of line arrays has the dominant method of sound reinforcement for medium and large format events. The sound quality we are able to achieve now with properly configured modern line arrays is an order of magnitude higher fidelity than what we were achieving with older point source systems. While there are some nice point source systems out there that sound quite good, The demand for deployability at large format events with smooth and even coverage puts them at a huge deficiency, hence the reason no major world touring artist performing large venues tours with a point source system

Somehow you missed the entire point of the video!. This has nothing to do with horn loaded or or with PA boxes that use line array sources and claim they are point sources. This has to do with the fact that increasing the vertical or horizontal dimension of a large array can offer improved volume consistency over distance that smaller sources and point sources cannot achieve. The whole point of this is to show that while super loud boxes like the Matterhorn may be fun and loud, they are the opposite of being optimal for covering large spaces with consistent sound volume even if flown 100 ft in the air.

@@DaveRat I was halfway joking, of course. Thing is, I am not joking about working on a 40ft tall point source sub that looks like a gigantic saxophone crossed with an air conditioning duct, for use outdoor in reggae shows - 40ft is the size of the unit, not the horn path. The joke is that I'm really not sure what'll happen with the directivity, and horn cabinets tend to "throw" considerably further than the data sheet might lead a person to believe. Omni is really unhelpful in so many ways, especially in terms of fall-off. The desired performance of the "building sized saxophone" is to achieve blistering stage volume and rapid fall-off over distance, and it's a very specific gadget for a very specific park. Very unlikely to be desirable for touring rigs - and deeply unhelpful in terms of portability. And yes, the design does indeed maximise the vertical dimension, and considers the ground loading. It is possible to design a cabinet with a vertically gigantic horn exit the size of a small house.

​​​​​@@DaveRat this thing of making arrays and shaping the wavefront is indeed all about the manifold. OK so now imagine a welded steel saxophone with all of the various 1/32nd octave node points where the "saxophone keys" go, but with loudspeakers (and electronic braking) whacked into it, and an algorithmic anti-resonance and anti-group-delay system (basic theory is hammer extra group delay removal content into the tube at the nulls and peaks). Basically a tapered horn with strategically placed separately controlled taps running on an eigenmode map of anti-resonance and group delay correction. The "secret sauce" being a large quantity of microphones set along the tube. It's a signal processing project, really, and all to do with directivity control per frequency and very narrow bandwidth digital filtering / wavelet transform. Very much a sort of Danley "sonic weapon" sort of idea. Mounts flat inside a 40ft iso container, and is winched upwards 90 degrees, on an integral hanging iron similar to a skip loader, so it stands up, and looks like a 40ft tall saxophone. It's a visual prop that works as a sound reinforcement tool, for very large headroom at low frequencies.

My question is what'll happen with directivity when we annihilate the standing waves, and the "virtual driver" or horn mouth exit has a measurable area of 14ft by 24ft, and is comprised entirely from air. I suspect it'll throw a plane wave, but it's frequency dependent. Certainly a small ensemble of horns, like a nuclear warning siren tower, that could be made programmable, like a sound field microphone. I also have some rather worrying ideas about how to redesign the driver and motor which come out of the power generation industry. There is not much cardboard in 21st century engines.

These are great concepts and all were considered and #1 & #2 are not relevant and #3 is demonstrated in the video. While cardioid can be very useful in reducing energy radiated rearward, it has no impact on the differential in near versus far volume levels. The same is true for increasing the size of a baffle, which may offer additional gain or directionality but will not change the differential of near versus far field sound levels. So you may be able to implement things that increase the volume level in the far field with various point source solutions but they will also increase the volume in the near field and not achieve a reduction in the differential of the volume in the far field versus the near field like a line array is capable of doing. I use point sources and line arrays and do not prefer one or the other as they both have their assets and issues. This info is to help understand that a line array is capable of reducing the volume discrepancy of near versus farfield sound while point sources do not inherently have this capability. As far as the multiple arrival time issue assumption, that concept is actually considered and shown. When there are multiple signal arrivals at differing times it will have a definitive impact on the frequency response and create comb filtering and/or variations in the frequency response unless if they are perf ctly time aligned for summation. And as you can see in the predictions the frequency responses of the point source versus the line array are practically identical for all the probe locations both on and off axis. Or looking at it the other way since there are no significant variations in the frequency response then there are no significant variations in arrival times of both the point source and line array in the horizontal domain. Yes there is more to the story in that in the vertical domain the line array will alter in frequency response (arrival time) more than the point source but the point source is incapable of maintaining volume over distance like the line array. This information can be useful for determining which system is optimum for the application.

@@DaveRat I think you missed the word “flown” under my first point. A flown cardio’s point source will naturally have less energy pointing downwards and backwards than forwards, and therefore it can lessen the difference in volume front to back. You didn’t include a cardioid flown point source in your video. Baffle gain is gained perpendicular to the baffle, and then less so the further off axis you go. A flown point source that measures 10 by 10 feet will have about 6db of baffle gain at 60hz. 90 degrees of axis it has zero baffle gain. Your software can’t simulate baffle gain, so the front to back difference of a flown point source will be larger than what your software will show.

Using the off-axis response of a cardioid setup to control near versus far volume levels introduces the multiple arrival time issue and alters the frequency response in negative ways which we are not seeing in the line array deployment. So that's a step backwards Furthermore, line arrays can also be set up in cardioid configurations to create that same effect so this is not a point seource versus line array concept. Using off axis cardioid to control volume over distance works with both line arrays and point sources in addition to that fine erase are able to offer much more control of volume over distance regardless of the configuration

@@DaveRat True, but again, your software can’t account for baffle gain, and baffle gain works both forwards and backwards, meaning that the subs in the back don’t have to have nearly as much output capability as the front subs to be able to properly attenuate the output backwards and downwards (as long as you make use of the baffle area of the back of the front subs). Let’s for the sake of the argument say that you have 5db of flat baffle gain. Then the subs in the back has to put out 5+5db less to properly attenuate the output from the subs in the front. So, the subs in the back run 5db less hot (the baffle gain backwards account for the other 5db), and the subs in the front have 5db of baffle gain forwards while the subs in the back have no baffle gain forwards (only backwards). So, the subs in the back put out 10db less forwards than the subs in the front do. This in turn means that the detrimental cardioid effect in the forwards direction get lessened when compared to a smaller cardioid point source solution. Line arrays can also be set up in cardioid, but the subs on the ground (as per your example), will be as loud close to the array with as without a cardioid configuration. Off to the side the cardioid line array will be more silent though, just as the flown cardioid point source will be, but both in the horizontal and in the vertical plane.

I think you might be overcomplicating and missing the core concept here. But first, I believe what you're referring to as baffle gain, is using a baffle so large that it creates a half space for frequencies relevant to the baffle size and above. The size of this to have an impact on low frequencies would be significant and perhaps in the tens or hundreds of feet depending on the wavelength of frequencies. If that's what you're talking about, then applying that to a point source or a line array would have a similar or the same effect so it's a wash if comparing the two source types. As far as cardioid line arrays and placing an identical line array behind the original line array versus cardioid point source and placing an identical point source behind the original point source All factors remain the same and the point source will maintain that 30 dB drop at 500 ft and the line source as in the example approach is a 14 dB drop over 500 ft. The only way that I know to reduce the volume drop with distance using point source type enclosures is to use incrementally more directional horns for the farther throw and less directional volume shaded horns for the near field. This vertical stack of varying dispersion point source horns, is basically emulating what a line array does naturally but has the downside of introducing transitional issues between the various horns, unlike a properly designed line array which maintains a coherent output as long as the drivers are positioned very close together in relation to the highest wavelength each driver reproduces

And if you want long throw and volume consistency over distance while maintaining quality audio and desirable frequency response, properly set up and designed line arrays have proven to be very effective