[genericaudioperson]

Hello,

If you were to lightly amplify an acoustic ensemble using a condensor
mic or two, could you use a Magnepan planar speaker?

I saw these: http://www.magnepan.com/model_MMGW

I'm wondering if a pair off to the sides or a even single center
channel in front could work (it's curved). If the stage is a few feet
up, the Magnepans could sit sideways and be tilted slightly up. It
would be like a "row of sound" instead of a wall of sound.

It's kind of funky and wierd. But I'm working on the idea of a high
resolution condensor mic or two and a hi-fidelity speaker setup.
Instead of a bunch of SM-57's, noise all over the place, distorted
power amps, and overhyped sound that damages the listeners' ears.
Kind of like you are trying for a purely acoustical experience, but
you want it about 30% louder.

[Romeo Rondeau[_4_]]

genericaudioperson wrote:
Hello,

If you were to lightly amplify an acoustic ensemble using a condensor
mic or two, could you use a Magnepan planar speaker?

I saw these: http://www.magnepan.com/model_MMGW

I'm wondering if a pair off to the sides or a even single center
channel in front could work (it's curved). If the stage is a few feet
up, the Magnepans could sit sideways and be tilted slightly up. It
would be like a "row of sound" instead of a wall of sound.

It's kind of funky and wierd. But I'm working on the idea of a high
resolution condensor mic or two and a hi-fidelity speaker setup.
Instead of a bunch of SM-57's, noise all over the place, distorted
power amps, and overhyped sound that damages the listeners' ears.
Kind of like you are trying for a purely acoustical experience, but
you want it about 30% louder.

First off, if you're miking an "acoustic ensemble" with SM57's, you're
on the wrong path. Second, if there's noise all over the place, your
gain staging is wrong, if your power amps are distorting they aren't big
enough for the job, if your sound is overhyped you are either using
crappy speakers or doing something wrong on your EQ and if it damages
people ears, turn the damn thing down :-) Are you trying to re-invent
the wheel?

[Sandeep Kumar]

On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 11:54:58 -0800 (PST), genericaudioperson wrote:

Hello,

If you were to lightly amplify an acoustic ensemble using a condensor
mic or two, could you use a Magnepan planar speaker?

I saw these: http://www.magnepan.com/model_MMGW

I'm wondering if a pair off to the sides or a even single center
channel in front could work (it's curved). If the stage is a few feet
up, the Magnepans could sit sideways and be tilted slightly up. It
would be like a "row of sound" instead of a wall of sound.

It's kind of funky and wierd. But I'm working on the idea of a high
resolution condensor mic or two and a hi-fidelity speaker setup.
Instead of a bunch of SM-57's, noise all over the place, distorted
power amps, and overhyped sound that damages the listeners' ears.
Kind of like you are trying for a purely acoustical experience, but
you want it about 30% louder.

I wouldn't but mostly because home speakers, and especially speakers like
Magnaplaner are not designed for SR applications.
One dropped live mic or a singer with excessive 'plosives or a good
feedback loop could end up damaging them.

I kind of understand what you are trying to do and I call it the "Altec
Lansing Phenomena" which is basically a poorly set up horn loaded PA system
blasting distorted, peaky sound, out into the audience.

I lived through the 70's listening to stuff like that and it drove me
crazy.

You are trying to get more of a "hif fi" sitting in your living room effect
I am assuming?

Modern SR systems are eons better than even those from a decade or two ago
and if set up properly can sound very nice.
Along those lines, try the JBL Eon or one of the clones.

Just my 2 cents.

[genericaudioperson]

You're misunderstanding me. I'm saying *rather than go down the
typical path* of close-miked SM57's and high-volumes, I'd like to
build a SR environment that has more high fidelity and lower sound.

YES, I'm trying to reinvent the wheel. It's been done before. Tires
used to have inner tubes.

[genericaudioperson]

To be perfectly clear, I'm starting from a clean slate. Not a single
piece of gear is loaded. Since I don't have hi-wattage gain staging
and slamming rock bands for this environment, I'm looking to use that
to advantage. Like, wouldn't a C-12 running into an HV-3 into a Pass
Labs amp into a set of B&W 802's sound quite nice if you could get
away with it? It would surely sound better than an SM57 into a Yamaha
combo mixer into a standard $300 mobile DJ speaker. Obviously, that's
not a fair comparison. But I'm trying to draw a clear distinction.

[Richard Crowley]

"genericaudioperson" wrote ...
You're misunderstanding me. I'm saying *rather than go down the
typical path* of close-miked SM57's and high-volumes, I'd like to
build a SR environment that has more high fidelity and lower sound.

YES, I'm trying to reinvent the wheel. It's been done before. Tires
used to have inner tubes.

But the likes of very accurate sounding speakers (as you have provided
examples yourself) tend to be weak in areas like: power handling,
ruggedness (both electrical and mechanical), polar pattern control, etc.
All of which are very desirable for sound reinforcement systems.

It is probably not impossible to create such speakers. But likely not
at a price that would make them commercially viable, particularly
given the seeming lack of interest by most acts and/or SR vendors.

Have you heard of the Grateful Dead's "wall of sound" experiment?
They were trying to re-invent the wheel, too, and it makes for good
historical reading.

[Mike Rivers]

genericaudioperson wrote:
To be perfectly clear, I'm starting from a clean slate. Not a single
piece of gear is loaded. Since I don't have hi-wattage gain staging
and slamming rock bands for this environment, I'm looking to use that
to advantage. Like, wouldn't a C-12 running into an HV-3 into a Pass
Labs amp into a set of B&W 802's sound quite nice if you could get
away with it?

You're not going to get very much amplification from a system like that.
Why not just play a smaller venue with no amplification at all? Wouldn't
that sound good? Need to make more money? Play two shows. Without sound
equipment and a sound crew, the cost would be about the same.


--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[genericaudioperson]

The power requirements are modest, and the ruggedness is not a factor
(it's for occasional use). So then could a more hi-fidelity setup be
possible?

You brought up an intersesting concept of "polar pattern control". Is
there a speaker that you can adjust this? Or are you talking about
cone drivers being more directional and thus less likely to interact
with the microphone? That would be wild if you set a speaker to be a
figure 8 or an omni with a switch.

Actually, the Magnepans or electrostatics are like figure 8's. So if
you had these to either side of the cardioid microphone about 10 feet
on either side, then the mic would be in the "null" of the speakers.
So it shouldn't have much interaction with them. And then the
backward sound of the speakers would work as monitors in a way.

The magnepans sell for $300 a pair. That buys you one cheap mobile
DJ cabinet at guitar center. I would have to imagine the Magnepans
would sound better. Fragile, yes. But better. I just don't know
what unintended feedback nightmares or microphone placement
limitations it would produce.

I remember hearing a set of Magnepan 3-point-somethings and I loved
the giantness of it. Not so much the loudness. But that the piano
sounded 5 feet big instead of 1 1/2 feet big.

It also has a nice abstract sculpture idea. So if you walk in
expecting to see big clunky speakers, and then you see these peculiar
minimalist rectangles.

[RDOGuy]

On Nov 29, 4:36*pm, Sandeep Kumar wrote:

One dropped live mic or a singer with excessive 'plosives or a good
feedback loop could end up damaging them.

Right there is the bottom line, OP. Speakers intended for home use
are designed specifically for the playback of recorded material. That
means there are no surprises - the program material has already been
compressed and limited. Sound reinforcement is all about surprises.
Your concept is good in theory... but in practice, it will be a
disaster waiting to happen.

[Misifus[_2_]]

Sandeep Kumar wrote:


I kind of understand what you are trying to do and I call it the "Altec
Lansing Phenomena" which is basically a poorly set up horn loaded PA system
blasting distorted, peaky sound, out into the audience.

I lived through the 70's listening to stuff like that and it drove me
crazy.

Gee, when my band got some A7's in 73, I really liked 'em.

-Raf

--
Misifus-
Rafael Seibert

Photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/rafiii
home: http://www.rafandsioux.com

[genericaudioperson]

That's interesting. A big unintended spike in sound. Even with a
limiter as a catch-all, there still could be some issue with a wire
getting stepped on and a sudden electronic burst of sound.

So if a setup has the luxury of low-gain and mostly acoustic
performance, what is the best strategy to get the best sound? It
seems like there must be some sensible middle ground between fragile
electrostatics and caveman anvil PA stacks. Maybe a set of studio
monitors like DynAudio or Genelecs. It can't just default to JBL
cabinets. There must be another river somewhere.

[Jenn[_3_]]

In article ,
Misifus wrote:


Gee, when my band got some A7's in 73, I really liked 'em.

-Raf

You must have been play in D major a lot!
;-)

[hank alrich]

genericaudioperson wrote:

You're misunderstanding me. I'm saying *rather than go down the
typical path* of close-miked SM57's and high-volumes, I'd like to
build a SR environment that has more high fidelity and lower sound.

What is the size of the audience you intend to cover?

YES, I'm trying to reinvent the wheel. It's been done before. Tires
used to have inner tubes.

Yes, but tubeless tires were not invented by people who weren't very
familiar with tires.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[hank alrich]

genericaudioperson wrote:

To be perfectly clear, I'm starting from a clean slate. Not a single
piece of gear is loaded. Since I don't have hi-wattage gain staging
and slamming rock bands for this environment, I'm looking to use that
to advantage. Like, wouldn't a C-12 running into an HV-3 into a Pass
Labs amp into a set of B&W 802's sound quite nice if you could get
away with it? It would surely sound better than an SM57 into a Yamaha
combo mixer into a standard $300 mobile DJ speaker. Obviously, that's
not a fair comparison. But I'm trying to draw a clear distinction.

Get something appropriate from Meyer Sound Labs. Your new wheel is
square in comparison. g

The concept of fidelity in SR is not a brand new one.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[Mike Rivers]

genericaudioperson wrote:
The magnepans sell for $300 a pair. That buys you one cheap mobile
DJ cabinet at guitar center.

How the mighty have fallen! The Magnepans that I remember from many
years ago were very high end audiophile speakers and I thought that was
what you were talking about. I can't imagine that $300 mobile DJ
cabinets are very "high fidelity." Have you actually listened to these
things? Do you know what you're talking about?


--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[[email protected]]

On 2008-11-29 said:
If set up properly, used within their limits and so forth they
could sound decent.
The Altecs mentioned could indeed sound good when properly
set up. USed them for years in their various iterations.
Easy to abuse in unskilled hands though.

They weren't as bad as the ElectroVoice clones though.
The name escapes me at the moment but they weighed a ton and a half.
Yah, the eliminator. I called 'em the abominator.

Now that was a truly horrible sounding PA speaker.
YEp, gimme the Altecs any time. I could work with those,
but used to work with one band that had the Eliminators and
no matter how hard I tried couldn't get them to sound good.



Richard webb,
replace anything before at with elspider

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
--- Benjamin Franklin, NOvember 1755 from the
Historical review of Pennsylvania

[RDOGuy]

On Nov 29, 9:53*pm, genericaudioperson
wrote:

It
seems like there must be some sensible middle ground between fragile
electrostatics and caveman anvil PA stacks. *Maybe a set of studio
monitors like DynAudio or Genelecs. *It can't just default to JBL
cabinets. *There must be another river somewhere.

Studio monitors are going to have the same problem; most of them are
simply designed to do a different job. What's the problem with JBL
cabinets, anyway? If your issue is specifically with JBL (which I
personally wouldn't understand... but to each his own) there are many
manufacturers of small, light, accurate PA speakers that would do your
job just fine.

And hey... watch it with the caveman remarks. Haven't you ever seen a
Geico commercial? :-)

[Jenn[_3_]]

In article ,
Charlie Olsen wrote:

On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 12:23:25 GMT, Mike Rivers wrote:

genericaudioperson wrote:
The magnepans sell for $300 a pair. That buys you one cheap mobile
DJ cabinet at guitar center.

How the mighty have fallen! The Magnepans that I remember from many
years ago were very high end audiophile speakers and I thought that was
what you were talking about. I can't imagine that $300 mobile DJ
cabinets are very "high fidelity." Have you actually listened to these
things? Do you know what you're talking about?

Wow! Did I misread his post!

I thought he was talking about the Maggies I used to know which were
electrostatic speakers, very delicate and very expensive.
I just assumed he left a 0 off the $300.

Magnepan has never made electrostatics, to the best of my knowledge.
They use ribbon and other planar technology. They still make the
expensive stuff, but now also make an inexpensive model, available only
online.

[[email protected]]

On Nov 29, 9:34 pm, Charlie Olsen wrote:
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 20:24:29 -0600, Misifus wrote:
Sandeep Kumar wrote:

I kind of understand what you are trying to do and I call it the "Altec
Lansing Phenomena" which is basically a poorly set up horn loaded PA system
blasting distorted, peaky sound, out into the audience.

I lived through the 70's listening to stuff like that and it drove me
crazy.

Gee, when my band got some A7's in 73, I really liked 'em.

-Raf

If set up properly, used within their limits and so forth they could sound
decent.
The problem was, people didn't do that and quite often the sound was ear
splitting with severe high frequency beaming.

Carefully set up and used with a proper amplifier and proper eq for the
venue, they could sound pretty reasonable.
They weren't as bad as the ElectroVoice clones though.
The name escapes me at the moment but they weighed a ton and a half.
Now that was a truly horrible sounding PA speaker.

The A7s were originally intended to be used BEHIND a movie screen,
thus the moniker
"Voice of the Theater". That would to some extent mitigate the HF
beaming. Every film mixing
studio used them in this fashion during that era. They were the de
facto standard well into the late 70s.

[Arny Krueger]

"genericaudioperson" wrote
in message

Hello,

If you were to lightly amplify an acoustic ensemble using
a condensor mic or two, could you use a Magnepan planar
speaker?

I saw these: http://www.magnepan.com/model_MMGW

Tiny little speakers based on a technology that needs to be relatively large
to create much SPL.

I'm wondering if a pair off to the sides or a even single
center channel in front could work (it's curved). If the
stage is a few feet up, the Magnepans could sit sideways
and be tilted slightly up. It would be like a "row of
sound" instead of a wall of sound.

As I read the spec sheets, these speakers can handle up to 40 watts (16 dB
above 1 watt) , and have a sensitivity of 88 dB/W at 1 meter. That gives
you 104 dB max a 1 meter, 98 dB at 2 meters, 92 dB at 4 meters, and 86 dB at
8 meters.

These numbers are critical since many acoustical ensembles are naturally
louder than the speakers you intend to use to *reinforce* them!


It's kind of funky and wierd.

Did you say counter-productive? ;-)

But I'm working on the
idea of a high resolution condensor mic or two and a
hi-fidelity speaker setup.

Hi fi amps don't sound any better than many of the very good pro audio amps.
There are a few hi-fi speakers that I might consider for doing SR. However,
some of the better SR speakers are pretty hifi, especially with the right
eq.

Instead of a bunch of SM-57's,

GMAB!

noise all over the place,

???????????????

distorted power amps,

Need not be relevant, even with amps designed for SR.

and overhyped sound that damages the listeners' ears.

That is up to the operator.

Kind of like you are trying for a purely acoustical experience,
but you want it about 30% louder.

I'll let you in on a couple of dirty little secrets:

(1) These are sold as hi fi speakers, but they are SR speakers in drag:

http://www.gedlee.com/Summa.htm

(2) Ev's ZX series speakers are sold for SR, but they are smooth enough to
be hi fi.

[Kalman Rubinson[_3_]]

On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 12:24:59 -0500, Charlie Olsen
wrote:

I thought he was talking about the Maggies I used to know which were
electrostatic speakers, very delicate and very expensive.
I just assumed he left a 0 off the $300.

Magnepans were NEVER electrostatic. They are planar magnetics.

Kal

[Scott Dorsey]

genericaudioperson wrote:

If you were to lightly amplify an acoustic ensemble using a condensor
mic or two, could you use a Magnepan planar speaker?

I saw these: http://www.magnepan.com/model_MMGW

Not really. The rear lobe becomes a problem if you do this. There are
panel systems that are unipolar out there, though.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Sandeep Kumar wrote:

I wouldn't but mostly because home speakers, and especially speakers like
Magnaplaner are not designed for SR applications.
One dropped live mic or a singer with excessive 'plosives or a good
feedback loop could end up damaging them.

Actually, the Maggies are remarkably rugged and hard to damage... I have
used them as control room monitors for years and they have taken a lot of
abuse from live patching and unexpected noise without any problem. But
they throw sound in both directions which is not acceptable for a PA
system where pattern control is paramount.

Modern SR systems are eons better than even those from a decade or two ago
and if set up properly can sound very nice.
Along those lines, try the JBL Eon or one of the clones.

They still have all the horn resonances that you get with that sort of
design. About the only way to avoid the horn resonances is to live with
wider dispersion, or use a ribbon tweeter like SLS, Alcons, and Stage
Accompany do.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

genericaudioperson wrote:
To be perfectly clear, I'm starting from a clean slate. Not a single
piece of gear is loaded. Since I don't have hi-wattage gain staging
and slamming rock bands for this environment, I'm looking to use that
to advantage. Like, wouldn't a C-12 running into an HV-3 into a Pass
Labs amp into a set of B&W 802's sound quite nice if you could get
away with it?

Maybe, but the C12 is terrible off-axis, and the 802s have a very wide
pattern. This is apt to cause nothing but trouble, even in a dry room.

There IS gear designed to do what you want, where a lot of time and
effort have been put into pattern control. On the low end you can start
looking at the Radian coaxial speakers, on the high end at the Stage
Accompany monitors. Consider the Schoeps Collettes with hypercardioids,
and don't forget a notch filters.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

In article ,
Charlie Olsen wrote:
On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 12:23:25 GMT, Mike Rivers wrote:

genericaudioperson wrote:
The magnepans sell for $300 a pair. That buys you one cheap mobile
DJ cabinet at guitar center.

How the mighty have fallen! The Magnepans that I remember from many
years ago were very high end audiophile speakers and I thought that was
what you were talking about. I can't imagine that $300 mobile DJ
cabinets are very "high fidelity." Have you actually listened to these
things? Do you know what you're talking about?

Wow! Did I misread his post!

I thought he was talking about the Maggies I used to know which were
electrostatic speakers, very delicate and very expensive.
I just assumed he left a 0 off the $300.

They are NOT electrostatic, they are magnetoplanar. It's a sheet of mylar
with a voice coil made of aluminum sputtered onto the surface, held in
a magnetic field by an array of bar magnets behind the diaphragm.

There is actually a bargain-basement Magnepan pair being sold... they are
very small and don't have much low end but they sell around $600 the pair.
I think they're called the MMG... the problem is that they don't have enough
area to get down very far in a big room, and the rear lobe of all of the
bipolars becomes a problem in a small room. They ain't no Tympani, that's
for sure.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message


They still have all the horn resonances that you get with
that sort of design. About the only way to avoid the
horn resonances is to live with wider dispersion, or use
a ribbon tweeter like SLS, Alcons, and Stage Accompany do.

This well-known authority, who designs his own speakers of this kind,
disagrees:

http://www.gedlee.com/downloads/Cum%20laude.pdf

"
The problem is that waveguides and compression drivers are well know to
produce
substantial coloration and perceived distortion. Dr. Earl Geddes of GedLee
LLC has
spent a lifetime on this later problem; how to make a waveguide and
compression driver
sound more natural - not harsh and offensive. This effort has paid off as
the first listen to
a Summa will show.

In 1991 Dr. Geddes gave the first in a long series of papers on the subject
of
waveguides. In it he defined how classic horns had significant failings in
their theoretical
foundations that led to serious shortcomings in their performance. He
proposed a new
theory, Waveguide Theory, which was free from these shortcomings. The
waveguides
that derive from his new theory are currently used in various forms
throughout the
industry. A notable result of the failure of horn theory is the failure to
predict and define
what have become known as Higher Order Modes (HOM). HOM are waves that do
not
travel down the axis of the device but instead propagate by bouncing off of
the walls -
much like the wave from a rock thrown in water would travel down a narrow
channel by
reflecting off of the sides. HOM generation is a serious drawback of horn
theory and a
significant limitation to their ability to sound natural.

Historically, CD was accomplished in a horn by using diffraction – a
significant
source of HOM. A narrow slit in the device forces the sound waves to
diffract into a
wide coverage angle which is then controlled with a basically straight sided
horn. The
downside of this approach is that the diffraction causes two problems. The
first is the
refection of energy from the diffraction slit back down the horn, which
creates a standing
wave resonance and its associated coloration, and the second is the
substantial amount of
HOM that are created at this slit.

So why are HOM so bad? It’s because they travel a path down the body of the
device
that is longer than the direct path. In essence HOM are a form of very very
early
reflections. The ear is an effective masker of problems in the frequency
domain (as MP3
techniques can attest) but it does not mask very well in the time domain. It
is very
sensitive to these internal diffractions and HOM and they are quite
perceptible. The rise
in this perception with level is what makes the horn sound like it is
distorting nonlinearly.
The HOM are in fact the reason that horns have their poor sonic reputation.
So how is the HOM problem solved in the Summa? This is done in two ways. The
first is to design a waveguide (using Dr. Geddes theories) that has a
minimum of HOM.
Dr. Geddes has proven that all contours generate HOM, but some more than
others. For
an axi-symmetric device, the Oblate Spheriodal (OS) waveguide can be shown
to be the
contour that generates the least amount of HOM, although HOM do still exist
even in an
OS waveguide.

Over the last several years Dr. Geddes has continued to work on ways to
further
reduce the HOM in his waveguides. This has resulted in the Refractive Sound
Plug or
RSP (™ and Patent Pending). This plug is made of very low density open cell
polyurethane foam. The idea is to absorb the HOM as they travel down the
waveguide.
Since the HOM travel a longer path in the device than the axial wave, the
HOM will
experience more sound attenuation in the foam than the axial wave. Further,
since all
waveguides have some reflection at the mouth (a large radius will reduce
this, but not
eliminate it) the RSP also helps to eliminate this standing wave. In essence
the RSP
allows only the desired direct wave to propagate freely and effectively
attenuates all other
waves. The result is a device that has significantly diminished all forms of
internal
diffraction, resonance and HOM. This allows for a sound as natural as any
piston source
yet possesses characteristics unobtainable by any piston type source.
"

[Scott Dorsey]

wrote:

The A7s were originally intended to be used BEHIND a movie screen,
thus the moniker
"Voice of the Theater". That would to some extent mitigate the HF
beaming. Every film mixing
studio used them in this fashion during that era. They were the de
facto standard well into the late 70s.

Right.

The problem is made worse because SOME people cranked the crossover
frequency on them up to reduce the chances of damage in a PA application,
and they used diaphragms that were intended for ruggedness and not for
sound quality.

I have heard A7s sound surprisingly good, after the cabinet was braced
both internally and externally to reduce resonances, the horns were covered
with sand-loaded tar, the dust filters were removed from the compression
drivers and the Radian aftermarket diaphragms installed, and the N-800
crossovers were replaced with sharper active crossovers and biamping.

The A7 will never be phase-coherent, but they are better if the horn
is located in the lower position rather than mounted on top of the
cabinet. And the A7 is still a lot better than the A5 in that department
because of the reduced distance between the acoustic centers of the drivers.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message


They still have all the horn resonances that you get with
that sort of design. About the only way to avoid the
horn resonances is to live with wider dispersion, or use
a ribbon tweeter like SLS, Alcons, and Stage Accompany do.

This well-known authority, who designs his own speakers of this kind,
disagrees:

http://www.gedlee.com/downloads/Cum%20laude.pdf

He has some points, and he identifies the fact that there are several
different problems to be dealt with. The nonlinearity of the compression
driver, for example, is unrelated to the resonance issues in the horn.

But.... I have heard his speaker demonstration and they still sound like
horns.

Things have got a lot better in the past decade, in great part due to
Geddes and Vanderkooy, but I still haven't heard a horn that doesn't sound
like a horn. The closest it comes is _still_ the Tannoy dual concentric
design, and that's pretty wide dispersion (and symmetric).
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message

In article
,
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message


They still have all the horn resonances that you get
with that sort of design. About the only way to avoid
the horn resonances is to live with wider dispersion,
or use a ribbon tweeter like SLS, Alcons, and Stage
Accompany do.

This well-known authority, who designs his own speakers
of this kind, disagrees:

http://www.gedlee.com/downloads/Cum%20laude.pdf

He has some points, and he identifies the fact that there
are several different problems to be dealt with. The
nonlinearity of the compression driver, for example, is
unrelated to the resonance issues in the horn.

IME, compression drivers can be very linear.

But.... I have heard his speaker demonstration and they
still sound like horns.

Is that bad or good? Speakers with constant directivity are always going to
sound different in the room, than speakers that have more traditional
directional characteristics (e.g. cones, domes, and planars).

Things have got a lot better in the past decade, in great
part due to Geddes and Vanderkooy, but I still haven't
heard a horn that doesn't sound like a horn. The closest
it comes is _still_ the Tannoy dual concentric design,
and that's pretty wide dispersion (and symmetric). --scott

I've always like Dual concentrics with the right outboard active crossovers.

[Scott Dorsey]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message

He has some points, and he identifies the fact that there
are several different problems to be dealt with. The
nonlinearity of the compression driver, for example, is
unrelated to the resonance issues in the horn.

IME, compression drivers can be very linear.

There's a nice paper from Vanderkooy on the issues. Turns out there are a
lot of problems having to do with nonlinearity of air, some of which are
related to phasing plug design. On top of which you have the linearity
issues with the diaphragm suspension and the need to have a constant
magnetic field across the whole range of travel.

And it turns out that these problems are actually much more audible than
the group delay issues, which surprised me a lot.


But.... I have heard his speaker demonstration and they
still sound like horns.

Is that bad or good? Speakers with constant directivity are always going to
sound different in the room, than speakers that have more traditional
directional characteristics (e.g. cones, domes, and planars).

It's bad. I want to not notice the speaker technology at all.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Paul Stamler[_2_]]

"genericaudioperson" wrote in message
...
Hello,

If you were to lightly amplify an acoustic ensemble using a condensor
mic or two, could you use a Magnepan planar speaker?

I saw these: http://www.magnepan.com/model_MMGW

I'm wondering if a pair off to the sides or a even single center
channel in front could work (it's curved). If the stage is a few feet
up, the Magnepans could sit sideways and be tilted slightly up. It
would be like a "row of sound" instead of a wall of sound.

I saw it done in an emergency. The room was a large chapel, seating 1100,
and the musician was Mike Seeger, playing solo with vocals and various
acoustic instruments. The Magneplanars were set about 6' in front of him,
driven by a hefty power amp.

For the people in the front 8 rows or so, it sounded good. The ones farther
back, from what I gather, couldn't hear squat. The problem was that the
engineer had to keep the volume quite low, because the sound coming off the
back of the Magneplanars (they're dipoles) would have caused feedback
otherwise.

Peace,
Paul

[genericaudioperson]

Thanks for the insights, Mr. Dorsey and everyone else.

That's an interseting concept that wider dispersion means less horn
resonance. I also never knew there is a unidirectional planar.

I'm not going to do the planars. While the posted reasons against
using them vary, the consistent theme is that everybody is
recommending against them. I trust the collective wisdom of this
group.

I remember seeing the Stage Accompany speakers at AES a number of
years ago. I rembember them sounding a lot better than the typical PA
cabinet. I had forgotten what the brand was. Thanks for the reminder!

[Arny Krueger]

"genericaudioperson" wrote
in message


I remember seeing the Stage Accompany speakers at AES a
number of years ago. I rembember them sounding a lot
better than the typical PA cabinet. I had forgotten what
the brand was. Thanks for the reminder!

Once the speakers are at a certain fairly attainable quality level, its all
about the setup and adjustment.

[PeterBaird]

Just typing in the word "Bose" makes me shudder, but I'm curious--has
anyone used or heard their L1 system in practice?

[Scott Dorsey]

genericaudioperson wrote:

That's an interseting concept that wider dispersion means less horn
resonance.

It doesn't necessarily. You can get some EV Eliminators with patterns that
are wide and sloppy and have lots of horn resonances too.

But, if you want narrow dispersion, and for PA applications you pretty much
always do, you will have to pay for that. And one of the ways we wind up
paying is by using big horns and living with the side effects. You can get
higher frequency directionality with ribbons and lower frequency directionality
with line arrays, but in every case there is a cost.

I also never knew there is a unidirectional planar.

Imagine a planar driver with a big sealed box behind it that absorbs the
rear wave. Or alternately an infinite baffle design with a planar mounted
inside your wall, with the rear wave going out into space and into the
backyard.

Koss and Janszen both made some electrostats in boxes like this.

Even a conventional cone speaker has a rear wave, but we put it in a box
and seal it up (or vent it to use the rear wave to our advantage).

I'm not going to do the planars. While the posted reasons against
using them vary, the consistent theme is that everybody is
recommending against them. I trust the collective wisdom of this
group.

I remember seeing the Stage Accompany speakers at AES a number of
years ago. I rembember them sounding a lot better than the typical PA
cabinet. I had forgotten what the brand was. Thanks for the reminder!

They are still around but they ****ed off all their US dealers by selling
direct at lower prices. Consequently they have no dealer network here
any longer, so it's hard to find them in this country.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

In article ,
PeterBaird wrote:
Just typing in the word "Bose" makes me shudder, but I'm curious--has
anyone used or heard their L1 system in practice?

Yes, they were discussed here extensively when they first came out. It is
worth going to google and doing a search on them. I didn't find them
horrible but I didn't see much point to them personally.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Eric B]

Dear Generic,
The short answer to your question is yes, but under very limited
conditions. Figure of 8 speakers have the essentially the strengths
and limitation that figure of 8 microphones do. They are generally
fairly accurate and even across a fairly wide dispersion angle (pick
up angle) and almost complete lack of output (pick up) at 90 degrees.
This 90 degree null is one of the beautites of figure of 8. As far as
I am aware, the Magnepans and all planar electrosatic speakers are by
nature, inefficient and fragile when compared to cone speakers and
tuned ported boxes. You would be well advised to have a good limiter
before the power amp and more watts available than you might think.
The fundamental problem with them for SR is what do you do with the
back wave? It is putting out of phase sound into the same room at
about the same level as the front wave. If you could have the back
wave going into another acoustic space they would be awesome. Perhaps
if backed up into a full coat closet, or better yet into another room.
If your listening space is large enough then anything is possible.
So, the limited circumstances... Low SPL, low intensity music.
Classical music, slight amplification, it could work. you would need
to use very good quality microphones positioned somewhat closer than
classical people usually like them. A good microphone for this job may
not be the same mic you would use for recording the same ensemble.
Frankly, the smoothness of the off axis rejection will be the first
determining factor in the quality of the amplification. Turn this
around and it says the off axis coloration of the microphone becomes
perhaps as important as the on axis sound. A careful use of the nulls
of the speakers and the nulls of the microphones might just work out.
What mics do you have? I presume you already have the planar
speakers. I am curious.
Eric Blackmer

[Scott Dorsey]

Charlie Olsen wrote:
On 2 Dec 2008 09:37:14 -0500, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article ,
PeterBaird wrote:
Just typing in the word "Bose" makes me shudder, but I'm curious--has
anyone used or heard their L1 system in practice?

Yes, they were discussed here extensively when they first came out. It is
worth going to google and doing a search on them. I didn't find them
horrible but I didn't see much point to them personally.

I actually found the Bose 802 to be good for one type of setting.
A church where the praise group is using TrAX or other pre-recorded music.

The thing about the Bose 802 is that, while it's pretty awful by objective
standards, it's about the ONLY inexpensive PA speaker system that isn't
horn-loaded.

The top end and bottom end are both very deficient but it _doesn't_ have
any horn ringing, and that's a plus in a lot of applications. Vocals through
the 802 are munged up a lot less than through most other stuff you can buy
at the MI store.

A stack of 2x2 on tripods, using the EQ and within the limits of the
amplifier actually sound quite nice if the board op knows what he is doing.

I used a pair in my keyboard rig (lounge lizard stuff) for years, but only
because they were easy to transport,rugged (the case) and at the time the
only real game in town.
I got decent sound out of them until the woofers fell apart due to foam
rot.

I wish somebody would make a good small rugged and cheap PA speaker system
with wide dispersion and no horn-loading, other than Bose. It wouldn't seem
to be all THAT hard to do.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[GregS[_3_]]

In article , (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Charlie Olsen wrote:
On 2 Dec 2008 09:37:14 -0500, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article
,
PeterBaird wrote:
Just typing in the word "Bose" makes me shudder, but I'm curious--has
anyone used or heard their L1 system in practice?

Yes, they were discussed here extensively when they first came out. It is
worth going to google and doing a search on them. I didn't find them
horrible but I didn't see much point to them personally.

I actually found the Bose 802 to be good for one type of setting.
A church where the praise group is using TrAX or other pre-recorded music.

The thing about the Bose 802 is that, while it's pretty awful by objective
standards, it's about the ONLY inexpensive PA speaker system that isn't
horn-loaded.

The top end and bottom end are both very deficient but it _doesn't_ have
any horn ringing, and that's a plus in a lot of applications. Vocals through
the 802 are munged up a lot less than through most other stuff you can buy
at the MI store.

A stack of 2x2 on tripods, using the EQ and within the limits of the
amplifier actually sound quite nice if the board op knows what he is doing.

I used a pair in my keyboard rig (lounge lizard stuff) for years, but only
because they were easy to transport,rugged (the case) and at the time the
only real game in town.
I got decent sound out of them until the woofers fell apart due to foam
rot.

I wish somebody would make a good small rugged and cheap PA speaker system
with wide dispersion and no horn-loading, other than Bose. It wouldn't seem
to be all THAT hard to do.
--scott

I have made some models with wide dispersion in mind. basically, a column
type system is about the only way to do it. You can use the DiAppolito
style MTM, say two 6'5 or 8 inchers with a tweeter in the middle. i have also
used 4- 5.25's with a tweeter between the top two. Still, a floor bass
unit must be used for a full range system. I made a system long ago
with a total of 8- 5.25's, 2 tweeters, and 4- 12 inchers. The 12's sat
in boxes on the floor with poles attaching the uppers.
For full loudness you pretty much have to go with a horn tweeter,
but I found one dome that defied its specs and played so loud I had
to pad it way down. It worked well in a MTM system I made and is used in a bar,
with its 6.5 inch flanking woofers. I had to replace a couple of the woofers, but
the tweeters are still playing just fine.

greg

[Johann Spischak]

"genericaudioperson" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ...
Thanks for the insights, Mr. Dorsey and everyone else.

That's an interseting concept that wider dispersion means less horn
resonance. I also never knew there is a unidirectional planar.

I'm not going to do the planars. While the posted reasons against
using them vary, the consistent theme is that everybody is
recommending against them. I trust the collective wisdom of this
group.

I remember seeing the Stage Accompany speakers at AES a number of
years ago. I rembember them sounding a lot better than the typical PA
cabinet. I had forgotten what the brand was. Thanks for the reminder!



I am sorry to post so late into this thread, but I think I can give some arguments to it.

First, our own experiences: One of our happy customer, a componist, whom music we have remastered, gave several university lectures about the sound of his CD in Zürich, Hong Kong University, Rotary Club of Singapore, National University of Singapore, Conservatory Recital Studio of the International Conservatory of Music and so on.

Everywhere was used Magnepan's 20,1 or 3,6 as loudspeaker. I was agreed to make demonstrations of my mastering technology only if open loudpeakers will used. The audience was everywhere fascinated. Check out this link,

http://scmapp.nus.edu.sg/events/details.asp?e_id=680

or look at his impressions with pictures on our website.

For bigger concerts you can use Magnetic Audio Devices, MAD

http://www.getmad.com/index.html

For my side, I can say, I am using opened loudspeaker systems since 1980, and as so many others, I could never bear the tipical distorsion of a box anymore.

Best regards
Johann Spischak