Why are lectures so !#¤%"%/"¤%/¤"&/%&/ loud [Archive]

Arny Krueger

August 25th 09, 09:37 PM

"George's Pro Sound Co." > wrote in message
m
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Peter Larsen" > wrote in message
>> k
>>> Hi Guys,
>>>
>>> after passing through a bookkeeping school dimission
>>> today I felt some discomfort in the ears. Went back with
>>> the Nokia ready and armed: 94 dB SPL (linear) for a
>>> simple one person speech. In my version of the world
>>> that is at least 14 dB too loud. And 4 EV sx300's in a
>>> room that a skilled vox artist could "do" unaided, just
>>> a 400 seater, albeit with a tall ceiling.
>>
>> Been in similar places and suffered similarly.
>>
>> We all know that the problem is the nut behind the
>> volume control.

>> I carry earplugs when I anticipate problems like that.

>> FWIW, its probable that the 4 SX300s were recommended
>> and installed by a professional installer. Probably
>> something about what the traffic will bear.

> Generally for 400 folks the deployment of 4 speakers is
> to reduce volume , by making coverage more even
> it eliminates the REALLY LOUD up front situation when
> used properly

Well yes, "used properly". That's a big caeveat.

Most lecture halls I've been in with 400 seats were so live that a good loud
unassisted voice could do the job. OK, so we put in a system for lecturers
who don't have stentorian voices.

Most lecture halls I've been in with 400 seats had such a high ceilings that
at most 2 speakers properly installed would give proper distribution. Maybe
the hall has a low ceiling.

For spoken word, 4 SX300s would be overkill in the typical large lecture
hall. I could do just the sermon at church, which seats about 500, with one
properly mounted SX100 or ZX-1 by taking advantage of the high ceiling.

Mike Dobony[_2_]

August 25th 09, 09:55 PM

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 15:14:23 +0100, Peter Larsen wrote:

> Hi Guys,
>
> after passing through a bookkeeping school dimission today I felt some
> discomfort in the ears. Went back with the Nokia ready and armed: 94 dB SPL
> (linear) for a simple one person speech. In my version of the world that is
> at least 14 dB too loud. And 4 EV sx300's in a room that a skilled vox
> artist could "do" unaided, just a 400 seater, albeit with a tall ceiling.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Peter Larsen

Skilled or powerful? I only know of 1 or 2 presenters who have a powerful
enough voice to speak unaided to 400 people unaided in a room without
straining.

George's Pro Sound Co.

August 25th 09, 09:56 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "George's Pro Sound Co." > wrote in message
> m
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Peter Larsen" > wrote in message
>>> k
>>>> Hi Guys,
>>>>
>>>> after passing through a bookkeeping school dimission
>>>> today I felt some discomfort in the ears. Went back with
>>>> the Nokia ready and armed: 94 dB SPL (linear) for a
>>>> simple one person speech. In my version of the world
>>>> that is at least 14 dB too loud. And 4 EV sx300's in a
>>>> room that a skilled vox artist could "do" unaided, just
>>>> a 400 seater, albeit with a tall ceiling.
>>>
>>> Been in similar places and suffered similarly.
>>>
>>> We all know that the problem is the nut behind the
>>> volume control.
>
>>> I carry earplugs when I anticipate problems like that.
>
>>> FWIW, its probable that the 4 SX300s were recommended
>>> and installed by a professional installer. Probably
>>> something about what the traffic will bear.
>
>> Generally for 400 folks the deployment of 4 speakers is
>> to reduce volume , by making coverage more even
>> it eliminates the REALLY LOUD up front situation when
>> used properly
>
> Well yes, "used properly". That's a big caeveat.
>
> Most lecture halls I've been in with 400 seats were so live that a good
> loud unassisted voice could do the job. OK, so we put in a system for
> lecturers who don't have stentorian voices.

and for the DVDs that are not very loud at all, and for life saftey
situations, though rare are very important
>
> Most lecture halls I've been in with 400 seats had such a high ceilings
> that at most 2 speakers properly installed would give proper distribution.
> Maybe the hall has a low ceiling.

Peter stated it was high, but this is a judgment thing arnii, without a
detailed spec, including seating material, floor coverings,drapery, on the
room, everything is speculation
>
> For spoken word, 4 SX300s would be overkill in the typical large lecture
> hall.

lecture halls are multi use rooms, and they include multi media
presentations that REQUIRE a sound system
don't get out much do you arnii?

I could do just the sermon at church, which seats about 500, with one
> properly mounted SX100 or ZX-1 by taking advantage of the high ceiling.

I could do it with no speaker
as a acoustic musician I know how to project
but how high is high, how big is 400 seats? you are grasping straws looking
for a way to defend your idea that 4 speakers were sold and installed
because some guy found a sucker and decided to line his pocket by over
specing the room
you have nothing to establish that position on

while I am a professional installer and can definitivly state that a
distributed system when used properly will reduce the overall spl compare to
a single source
But unlike you
I DON"T KNOW how this room ism or the skill of the ops

I would think 4 speakers are too few for 400 seats
but I would not use sx300 for that application either, I( would use
something much smaller and most likely 8 to 12 of them

probably for spoken word I would default to the jbl contractor in ceiling 4
inch units
George
>
>

Peter Larsen[_3_]

August 25th 09, 10:00 PM

George's Pro Sound Co. wrote:

> Generally for 400 folks the deployment of 4 speakers is to reduce
> volume , by making coverage more even

That was how they were set up, a pair up front an another pair halfway down
the lenght of the room. If they had been really pro both pairs had been
delayed and inaudible, but I reckon it was the schools janitorial staff who
had made the deployment.

> it eliminates the REALLY LOUD up front situation when used properly
> but as with most things, once it get in the hands of the staff, all
> bets are off

Yes. But fortunately they had remembered to turn the bass uPP so that the
mic didn't sound lame and not done anything about the uPPPPer mid PPresence
PPeak of their not very good wireleZs handheld so that optimum CLARITY and
PPPPunch was maintained.

It will be interesting to see/hear how my new Thomann/AKG wireless headset
works ... I'll be doing horse show this weekend, 85 icelandic ponies. A
headset was not requested, but I happened to remember that 85 icelandic
ponies have approximately 140 horespower and 340 hooves ... and that it
might end up being practical to have the "talk guy" behind the horses or on
one of them.

Thomann screwed me btw. ... they had Senny 822's on offer, b-stock and their
webshop allowed the sale, but they had already been sold. Comments on their
trustworthyness as business partner was sent to them, imo it is their fault
that their webshop is broken and they should have sold me new mics or 825's
at the advertized prize.

> george

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

George's Pro Sound Co.

August 25th 09, 10:04 PM

>
> It will be interesting to see/hear how my new Thomann/AKG wireless headset
> works ... I'll be doing horse show this weekend, 85 icelandic ponies. A
> headset was not requested, but I happened to remember that 85 icelandic
> ponies have approximately 140 horespower and 340 hooves ... and that it
> might end up being practical to have the "talk guy" behind the horses or
> on
> one of them.

The staff at the last horse event I did loved my crown diffroid cm311's
headsets
George

Mike Dobony[_2_]

August 25th 09, 10:07 PM

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 16:05:59 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Peter Larsen" > wrote in message
> k
>> Hi Guys,
>>
>> after passing through a bookkeeping school dimission
>> today I felt some discomfort in the ears. Went back with
>> the Nokia ready and armed: 94 dB SPL (linear) for a
>> simple one person speech. In my version of the world that
>> is at least 14 dB too loud. And 4 EV sx300's in a room
>> that a skilled vox artist could "do" unaided, just a 400
>> seater, albeit with a tall ceiling.
>
> Been in similar places and suffered similarly.
>
> We all know that the problem is the nut behind the volume control.
>
> I carry earplugs when I anticipate problems like that.
>
> FWIW, its probable that the 4 SX300s were recommended and installed by a
> professional installer. Probably something about what the traffic will bear.

????????????????????????????????????????? What does that have to do with
volume control?

Peter Larsen[_3_]

August 25th 09, 10:14 PM

George's Pro Sound Co. wrote:

> The staff at the last horse event I did loved my crown diffroid
> cm311's headsets

I gambled that

the t.bone EWS/AKG C555 HEADSET SYSTEM

is gonna work well, also for storytelling, specs for the mic seems to make
sense and the radio thingie either works or is crap.

It was some USD 300 and there are good mailorder laws. I didn't want to risk
my Senny 413's, which is why I would have had a pair of 822's, got an 815
from the local gear pusher instead.

> George

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

George's Pro Sound Co.

August 25th 09, 10:15 PM

"Mike Dobony" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 16:05:59 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> "Peter Larsen" > wrote in message
>> k
>>> Hi Guys,
>>>
>>> after passing through a bookkeeping school dimission
>>> today I felt some discomfort in the ears. Went back with
>>> the Nokia ready and armed: 94 dB SPL (linear) for a
>>> simple one person speech. In my version of the world that
>>> is at least 14 dB too loud. And 4 EV sx300's in a room
>>> that a skilled vox artist could "do" unaided, just a 400
>>> seater, albeit with a tall ceiling.
>>
>> Been in similar places and suffered similarly.
>>
>> We all know that the problem is the nut behind the volume control.
>>
>> I carry earplugs when I anticipate problems like that.
>>
>> FWIW, its probable that the 4 SX300s were recommended and installed by a
>> professional installer. Probably something about what the traffic will
>> bear.
>
> ????????????????????????????????????????? What does that have to do with
> volume control?

nothing! it is arnii's way of taking a dig at pro audio installers
everwhere,

Peter Larsen[_3_]

August 25th 09, 10:16 PM

Mike Dobony wrote:

>> FWIW, its probable that the 4 SX300s were recommended and installed
>> by a professional installer. Probably something about what the
>> traffic will bear.

> ????????????????????????????????????????? What does that have to do
> with volume control?

The setup looked very much like it was sold by the seller rather than bought
by the customer, because the proper setup had been 4 smaller boxes with an
8" unit.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

Peter Larsen[_3_]

August 25th 09, 10:21 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:

> Most lecture halls I've been in with 400 seats were so live that a
> good loud unassisted voice could do the job. OK, so we put in a
> system for lecturers who don't have stentorian voices.

It is an old library hall, so it is by design not extremely live.

> Most lecture halls I've been in with 400 seats had such a high
> ceilings that at most 2 speakers properly installed would give proper
> distribution. Maybe the hall has a low ceiling.

No, glass ceiling at some 35 foot above the floor.

> For spoken word, 4 SX300s would be overkill in the typical large
> lecture hall. I could do just the sermon at church, which seats about
> 500, with one properly mounted SX100 or ZX-1 by taking advantage of
> the high ceiling.

One speaker on a tall stick behind the speaker had been enough. There is a
fair amount of background city noise at the location, so aiding the vox is
an OK idea.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

Arny Krueger

August 25th 09, 10:33 PM

"George's Pro Sound Co." > wrote in message
m
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "George's Pro Sound Co." > wrote in
>> message
>> m
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "Peter Larsen" > wrote in message
>>>> k
>>>>> Hi Guys,
>>>>>
>>>>> after passing through a bookkeeping school dimission
>>>>> today I felt some discomfort in the ears. Went back
>>>>> with the Nokia ready and armed: 94 dB SPL (linear)
>>>>> for a simple one person speech. In my version of the
>>>>> world that is at least 14 dB too loud. And 4 EV
>>>>> sx300's in a room that a skilled vox artist could
>>>>> "do" unaided, just a 400 seater, albeit with a tall
>>>>> ceiling.
>>>>
>>>> Been in similar places and suffered similarly.
>>>>
>>>> We all know that the problem is the nut behind the
>>>> volume control.
>>
>>>> I carry earplugs when I anticipate problems like that.
>>
>>>> FWIW, its probable that the 4 SX300s were recommended
>>>> and installed by a professional installer. Probably
>>>> something about what the traffic will bear.
>>
>>> Generally for 400 folks the deployment of 4 speakers is
>>> to reduce volume , by making coverage more even
>>> it eliminates the REALLY LOUD up front situation when
>>> used properly
>>
>> Well yes, "used properly". That's a big caeveat.
>>
>> Most lecture halls I've been in with 400 seats were so
>> live that a good loud unassisted voice could do the job.

>> OK, so we put in a system for lecturers who don't have
>> stentorian voices.

> and for the DVDs that are not very loud at all, and for
> life saftey(sic) situations, though rare are very important.

OK

>> Most lecture halls I've been in with 400 seats had such
>> a high ceilings that at most 2 speakers properly
>> installed would give proper distribution. Maybe the hall
>> has a low ceiling.

> Peter stated it was high, but this is a judgment thing
> arnii, without a detailed spec, including seating
> material, floor coverings,drapery, on the room,
> everything is speculation

Yup.

>> For spoken word, 4 SX300s would be overkill in the
>> typical large lecture hall.

> lecture halls are multi use rooms, and they include multi
> media presentations that REQUIRE a sound system
> don't get out much do you arnii?

End of discussion because you still can't keep a civil tongue, George.

Richard Crowley

August 25th 09, 10:36 PM

"George's Pro Sound Co." wrote ...
> nothing! it is arnii's way of taking a dig at pro audio installers
> everwhere,

Yo, "Pro"(?) Your SNR has dropped below 3dB. plonk

Geoff

August 25th 09, 11:37 PM

Peter Larsen wrote:
> Hi Guys,
>
> after passing through a bookkeeping school dimission today I felt some
> discomfort in the ears. Went back with the Nokia ready and armed: 94
> dB SPL (linear) for a simple one person speech. In my version of the
> world that is at least 14 dB too loud. And 4 EV sx300's in a room
> that a skilled vox artist could "do" unaided, just a 400 seater,
> albeit with a tall ceiling.

Was it 'next door' in the Netherlands, by any chance ? They always talk too
loud, and stand too close !

geoff

Richard Crowley

August 26th 09, 02:58 AM

geoff wrote:
> Was it 'next door' in the Netherlands, by any chance ? They always
> talk too loud, and stand too close !

Different cultures have various notions of "personal space".

Phildo

August 26th 09, 03:02 AM

"Mike Dobony" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 15:14:23 +0100, Peter Larsen wrote:
>
>> Hi Guys,
>>
>> after passing through a bookkeeping school dimission today I felt some
>> discomfort in the ears. Went back with the Nokia ready and armed: 94 dB
>> SPL
>> (linear) for a simple one person speech. In my version of the world that
>> is
>> at least 14 dB too loud. And 4 EV sx300's in a room that a skilled vox
>> artist could "do" unaided, just a 400 seater, albeit with a tall ceiling.
>>
>> Kind regards
>>
>> Peter Larsen
>
> Skilled or powerful? I only know of 1 or 2 presenters who have a powerful
> enough voice to speak unaided to 400 people unaided in a room without
> straining.

Yet again you show how clueless you are.

Phildo

Phildo

August 26th 09, 03:56 AM

"Peter Larsen" > wrote in message
k...
> Hi Guys,
>
> after passing through a bookkeeping school dimission today I felt some
> discomfort in the ears. Went back with the Nokia ready and armed: 94 dB
> SPL (linear) for a simple one person speech. In my version of the world
> that is at least 14 dB too loud. And 4 EV sx300's in a room that a skilled
> vox artist could "do" unaided, just a 400 seater, albeit with a tall
> ceiling.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Peter Larsen
>
>
>

Arny Krueger

August 26th 09, 12:42 PM

"Peter Larsen" > wrote in message
k

> Arny Krueger wrote:

>> Most lecture halls I've been in with 400 seats were so
>> live that a good loud unassisted voice could do the job.
>> OK, so we put in a system for lecturers who don't have
>> stentorian voices.
>
> It is an old library hall, so it is by design not
> extremely live.
>> Most lecture halls I've been in with 400 seats had such
>> a high ceilings that at most 2 speakers properly
>> installed would give proper distribution. Maybe the hall
>> has a low ceiling.

> No, glass ceiling at some 35 foot above the floor.

>> For spoken word, 4 SX300s would be overkill in the
>> typical large lecture hall. I could do just the sermon
>> at church, which seats about 500, with one properly
>> mounted SX100 or ZX-1 by taking advantage of the high
>> ceiling.

That ceiling at church is plaster, and 27 feet up. We cover over 80% of a
long (120'), skinny (45') room within the 2:1 distance rule with just 1 JBL
CD horn (50 degree?). mounted that high.

35 feet would only be better.

> One speaker on a tall stick behind the speaker had been
> enough. There is a fair amount of background city noise
> at the location, so aiding the vox is an OK idea.

Agreed.

Depending on the room and the glass, one might even be able to mount the
speaker angled up into the glass ceiling, and then bounce the sound down
from there onto the seating area. If it worked, it would give better
dispersion from fewer speakers due to the greater throw distance. Just a
crazy idea that might work.

But of course Peter, its all moot because this room would appear to be out
of the control of any of us. :-(

George's Pro Sound Co.

August 26th 09, 12:58 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Peter Larsen" > wrote in message
> k
>
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>>> Most lecture halls I've been in with 400 seats were so
>>> live that a good loud unassisted voice could do the job.
>>> OK, so we put in a system for lecturers who don't have
>>> stentorian voices.
>>
>> It is an old library hall, so it is by design not
>> extremely live.
>>> Most lecture halls I've been in with 400 seats had such
>>> a high ceilings that at most 2 speakers properly
>>> installed would give proper distribution. Maybe the hall
>>> has a low ceiling.
>
>> No, glass ceiling at some 35 foot above the floor.
>
>>> For spoken word, 4 SX300s would be overkill in the
>>> typical large lecture hall. I could do just the sermon
>>> at church, which seats about 500, with one properly
>>> mounted SX100 or ZX-1 by taking advantage of the high
>>> ceiling.
>
> That ceiling at church is plaster, and 27 feet up. We cover over 80% of a
> long (120'), skinny (45') room within the 2:1 distance rule with just 1
> JBL CD horn (50 degree?). mounted that high.
>
> 35 feet would only be better.

and where are the EV that you are pumping +18 dB of sub info into arnii?
it also seems like you ought KNOW the coverage of your horn in order toi
correctly position it
Oh that is right, it is NOT correctly positioned, you have it bleeding into
the stage mics causing you endless feedback
>
>> One speaker on a tall stick behind the speaker had been
>> enough. There is a fair amount of background city noise
>> at the location, so aiding the vox is an OK idea.
>
> Agreed.

what is called for is either a properly distributed system or a small line
array
and while one can use a knife as a screwdriver
a screwdriver really is better

>
> Depending on the room and the glass, one might even be able to mount the
> speaker angled up into the glass ceiling, and then bounce the sound down
> from there onto the seating area. If it worked, it would give better
> dispersion from fewer speakers due to the greater throw distance. Just a
> crazy idea that might work.

I have not found adding reflections as a aid to speech reconition , well
ever
>
> But of course Peter, its all moot because this room would appear to be out
> of the control of any of us. :-(

except Peter , he could have asked, "Can you turn this down , please."

George
>
>

Phildo

August 26th 09, 01:42 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>>> For spoken word, 4 SX300s would be overkill in the
>>> typical large lecture hall.
>
>> lecture halls are multi use rooms, and they include multi
>> media presentations that REQUIRE a sound system
>> don't get out much do you arnii?
>
> End of discussion because you still can't keep a civil tongue, George.

Yet again Arny uses his latest pathetic cop-out because he's wrong and can't
admit it.

The only person you are fooling is yourself Arny.

Phildo

Phildo

August 26th 09, 01:46 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> Depending on the room and the glass, one might even be able to mount the
> speaker angled up into the glass ceiling, and then bounce the sound down
> from there onto the seating area. If it worked, it would give better
> dispersion from fewer speakers due to the greater throw distance. Just a
> crazy idea that might work.

More reflections would only serve to muddy the clarity and make speech
difficult to understand. You should read up on the Haas effect Arny. 20-40ms
can increase clarity, anything more than that will reduce it.

Yet again you show your complete lack of live sound knowledge and
experience.

Phildo

Arny Krueger

August 26th 09, 01:57 PM

"George's Pro Sound Co." > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Peter Larsen" > wrote in message
>> k
>>
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>>> Most lecture halls I've been in with 400 seats were so
>>>> live that a good loud unassisted voice could do the
>>>> job. OK, so we put in a system for lecturers who don't
>>>> have stentorian voices.
>>>
>>> It is an old library hall, so it is by design not
>>> extremely live.
>>>> Most lecture halls I've been in with 400 seats had such
>>>> a high ceilings that at most 2 speakers properly
>>>> installed would give proper distribution. Maybe the
>>>> hall has a low ceiling.

>>> No, glass ceiling at some 35 foot above the floor.

>>>> For spoken word, 4 SX300s would be overkill in the
>>>> typical large lecture hall. I could do just the sermon
>>>> at church, which seats about 500, with one properly
>>>> mounted SX100 or ZX-1 by taking advantage of the high
>>>> ceiling.

>> That ceiling at church is plaster, and 27 feet up. We
>> cover over 80% of a long (120'), skinny (45') room
>> within the 2:1 distance rule with just 1 JBL CD horn
>> (50 degree?). mounted that high.

>> 35 feet would only be better.

> and where are the EV that you are pumping +18 dB of sub
> info into arnii?

Inability to properly spell a simple nickname noted. Oh, its intentional,
and just another example of the writer's inability to be civil and
respectful even once in his life. :-(

Interesting how numbers get thrown around.

The +18 number is *not* representative of actual operation. It is being
presented here completely out of context. This has been explained a number
of times already but some people don't seem to be able to absorb information
very fast.

+18 dB represents the maximum peaking that one can do with one peak on any
of the recent Yamaha digital consoles. This is unfortunately something that
certain people who own said consoles, but who don't know their tools very
well, have recently denied was even possible. Of course they were proven
wrong, but far be it for a potentially embarrassing mistake like that by a
self-professed expert in all forms of live sound to slowed in their
self-destructive rush to judgment.

As has also been said several times, the peaking is combined with a nearby
high pass filter, so no way is the resulting eq +18 dB.

Anybody who knows something about audio knows that a dB number all by itself
is meaningless without a fairly complete knowledge of the context. In this
case the house curve, based on RTA analysis, is generally decreasing below
80 Hz. So, some of the electrical peaking at 35 Hz gets absorbed right in
the equalizer by the nearby roll-off, and even more of it gets absorbed in
following stages of amplification, equalization, and speakers.

> it also seems like you ought KNOW the
> coverage of your horn in order toi (sic) correctly position it

I didn't position it. It was professionally installed, and cannot be altered
without a 35' scaffold or by means of a rigger dropping the whole speaker
assembly, 2 large horns and 2 vented boxes with 15" drivers included.

> Oh that is right, it is NOT correctly positioned, you
> have it bleeding into the stage mics causing you endless
> feedback

The feedback always ends. ;-). The correct statement would be that if due
caution was not applied along the way, feedback immediately results if *any*
acoustical source is actually amplified. Because of the nature of the music,
significant amplification is needed by a relatively large number of
acoustical sources ranging from voices of teenaged girls to violins, violas
and cellos. Last week the new challenge was a recorder solo.

Because of the room and the existing professional installation that was
designed for a vastly different situation, a goodly amount of care is
required. Without the scenes and signal processing afforded by the digital
console, things could be very difficult without it.

>>> One speaker on a tall stick behind the speaker had been
>>> enough. There is a fair amount of background city noise
>>> at the location, so aiding the vox is an OK idea.
>>
>> Agreed.

> what is called for is either a properly distributed
> system or a small line array

Those would be options that need to be investigated with an open mind.

> and while one can use a knife as a screwdriver
> a screwdriver really is better

When one has only knives...

>> Depending on the room and the glass, one might even be
>> able to mount the speaker angled up into the glass
>> ceiling, and then bounce the sound down from there onto
>> the seating area. If it worked, it would give better
>> dispersion from fewer speakers due to the greater throw
>> distance. Just a crazy idea that might work.

> I have not found adding reflections as a aid to speech
> reconition , well ever

Wow, that one takes the cake. What would "reconition" be? Recognition?

I agree that adding reflections with the speakers is generally a bad idea.
Of course, take a long skinny room, add your typical small line array, and
you've got reflections up the ying-yang.

>> But of course Peter, its all moot because this room
>> would appear to be out of the control of any of us. :-(

> except Peter , he could have asked, "Can you turn this
> down , please."

Good point.

Joe Kotroczo

August 26th 09, 05:35 PM

On 26/08/09 12:58, in article
, "George's Pro Sound Co."
> wrote:

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...

>> Depending on the room and the glass, one might even be able to mount the
>> speaker angled up into the glass ceiling, and then bounce the sound down
>> from there onto the seating area. If it worked, it would give better
>> dispersion from fewer speakers due to the greater throw distance. Just a
>> crazy idea that might work.

WHAT?!?

That must be the single most stupid idea I've heard in this newsgroup.
(Apart from all the religion crap.)

--
Joe Kotroczo

William Sommerwerck

August 26th 09, 06:05 PM

>> Depending on the room and the glass, one might even be able to
>> mount the speaker angled up into the glass ceiling, and then
>> bounce the sound down from there onto the seating area. If it
>> worked, it would give better dispersion from fewer speakers due
>> to the greater throw distance. Just a crazy idea that might work.

> WHAT?!?

I don't see the idea as being /inherently/ stupid. (Hey, it made Amar a pile
o' loot.) If nothing else, it would improve the speakers' HF dispersion.

Scott Dorsey

August 26th 09, 06:32 PM

William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>>> Depending on the room and the glass, one might even be able to
>>> mount the speaker angled up into the glass ceiling, and then
>>> bounce the sound down from there onto the seating area. If it
>>> worked, it would give better dispersion from fewer speakers due
>>> to the greater throw distance. Just a crazy idea that might work.
>
>> WHAT?!?
>
>I don't see the idea as being /inherently/ stupid. (Hey, it made Amar a pile
>o' loot.) If nothing else, it would improve the speakers' HF dispersion.

In general, that's the last thing you need in a sound reinforcement
application... there is invariably too much dispersion already.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

William Sommerwerck

August 26th 09, 06:34 PM

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> William Sommerwerck > wrote:

>>>> Depending on the room and the glass, one might even be able to
>>>> mount the speaker angled up into the glass ceiling, and then
>>>> bounce the sound down from there onto the seating area. If it
>>>> worked, it would give better dispersion from fewer speakers due
>>>> to the greater throw distance. Just a crazy idea that might work.

>>> WHAT?!?

>> I don't see the idea as being /inherently/ stupid. (Hey, it made Amar a
>> pile o' loot.) If nothing else, it would improve the speakers' HF
dispersion.

> In general, that's the last thing you need in a sound reinforcement
> application... there is invariably too much dispersion already.

In other words... you want "column" speakers with deliberately reduced
vertical dispersion. I remember those when they first appeared in the Allied
Catalog 50 years ago!

George's Pro Sound Co.

August 26th 09, 07:28 PM

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
> "Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
> ...
>> William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>
>>>>> Depending on the room and the glass, one might even be able to
>>>>> mount the speaker angled up into the glass ceiling, and then
>>>>> bounce the sound down from there onto the seating area. If it
>>>>> worked, it would give better dispersion from fewer speakers due
>>>>> to the greater throw distance. Just a crazy idea that might work.
>
>>>> WHAT?!?
>
>>> I don't see the idea as being /inherently/ stupid. (Hey, it made Amar a
>>> pile o' loot.) If nothing else, it would improve the speakers' HF
> dispersion.
>
>> In general, that's the last thing you need in a sound reinforcement
>> application... there is invariably too much dispersion already.
>
> In other words... you want "column" speakers with deliberately reduced
> vertical dispersion. I remember those when they first appeared in the
> Allied
> Catalog 50 years ago!

yes ! but today we call them the new fangled line array
ign oreing the fact that they have been around 80 years
George
>
>

Ron[_11_]

August 26th 09, 07:33 PM

George's Pro Sound Co. wrote:
> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>>>>>> Depending on the room and the glass, one might even be able to
>>>>>> mount the speaker angled up into the glass ceiling, and then
>>>>>> bounce the sound down from there onto the seating area. If it
>>>>>> worked, it would give better dispersion from fewer speakers due
>>>>>> to the greater throw distance. Just a crazy idea that might work.
>>>>> WHAT?!?
>>>> I don't see the idea as being /inherently/ stupid. (Hey, it made Amar a
>>>> pile o' loot.) If nothing else, it would improve the speakers' HF
>> dispersion.
>>
>>> In general, that's the last thing you need in a sound reinforcement
>>> application... there is invariably too much dispersion already.
>> In other words... you want "column" speakers with deliberately reduced
>> vertical dispersion. I remember those when they first appeared in the
>> Allied
>> Catalog 50 years ago!
>
> yes ! but today we call them the new fangled line array
> ign oreing the fact that they have been around 80 years
> George
>>
>
>
At fledgling festivals over here back in the 60`s, Charlie Watkins used
to stack his 4x12 columns several high on their sides, he said they
worked better that way. Did he inadvertently invent the line array?

Ron

George's Pro Sound Co.

August 26th 09, 07:52 PM

>> and where are the EV that you are pumping +18 dB of sub
>> info into arnii?
>
> Inability to properly spell a simple nickname noted. Oh, its intentional,
> and just another example of the writer's inability to be civil and
> respectful even once in his life. :-(
>
> Interesting how numbers get thrown around.
>
> The +18 number is *not* representative of actual operation.

yes it is arnii, you stated you regularly add between 15 and 18 dB of lf
boost
and then defended it as if it were bunker hill

It is being
> presented here completely out of context. This has been explained a number
> of times already but some people don't seem to be able to absorb
> information very fast.
>
> +18 dB represents the maximum peaking that one can do with one peak on
> any of the recent Yamaha digital consoles. This is unfortunately something
> that certain people who own said consoles, but who don't know their tools
> very well, have recently denied was even possible. Of course they were
> proven wrong, but far be it for a potentially embarrassing mistake like
> that by a self-professed expert in all forms of live sound to slowed in
> their self-destructive rush to judgment.

again more spittle from the pigs mouth
I stated I never noticed what the maximum peak on my LS9 did , because I
never get near there
nor do I know the maximum speed my car can do
nor do I know how far the height you were dropped from to cause your brain
damage

> As has also been said several times, the peaking is combined with a nearby
> high pass filter, so no way is the resulting eq +18 dB.

contrary to what you stated earlier
which is it arnii, you can't rewrite google
do I have to pull it up for you?
>
> Anybody who knows something about audio knows that a dB number all by
> itself is meaningless without a fairly complete knowledge of the context.
> In this case the house curve, based on RTA analysis, is generally
> decreasing below 80 Hz. So, some of the electrical peaking at 35 Hz gets
> absorbed right in the equalizer by the nearby roll-off, and even more of
> it gets absorbed in following stages of amplification, equalization, and
> speakers.

absorbed? is this a room treatment or a electrical value?
why not base your mix on your ears
and RTA is just about useless for this application as it does not give you
phase information
if you are going to tune to a device, please choose the proper one
>
>
>> it also seems like you ought KNOW the
>> coverage of your horn in order toi (sic) correctly position it
>
> I didn't position it. It was professionally installed, and cannot be
> altered without a 35' scaffold or by means of a rigger dropping the whole
> speaker assembly, 2 large horns and 2 vented boxes with 15" drivers
> included.

35 feet of scaff., what is the problem ? worth years of feedback to avoid 2
hours effort? not only are you incompetent, you are lazy as well
and I thought you ceilng was 35 feet aff
the you most likely only need about 26 feet of scaff
that is 4 6'6" sections
hardly scaling Mt everest arnii
>
>> Oh that is right, it is NOT correctly positioned, you
>> have it bleeding into the stage mics causing you endless
>> feedback
>
> The feedback always ends. ;-). The correct statement would be that if due
> caution was not applied along the way, feedback immediately results if
> *any* acoustical source is actually amplified. Because of the nature of
> the music, significant amplification is needed by a relatively large
> number of acoustical sources ranging from voices of teenaged girls to
> violins, violas and cellos. Last week the new challenge was a recorder
> solo.

you sure do like to hear yourself blather on and on as if any of this is
even remotly challenging
>
> Because of the room and the existing professional installation that was
> designed for a vastly different situation, a goodly amount of care is
> required. Without the scenes and signal processing afforded by the digital
> console, things could be very difficult without it.

bull****. arnii, pure bull****
what on earth did people do before digital desks IYO?
I do dinner theaters with hundreds of scenes with just faders and mutes on
my lx7
scenes are only useful if you are doing the same thing over and over and
over again, but you tell us each day nothing is the same, so what good are
the scenes when everything changes every day?
you are a idiot arnii
>
>>>> One speaker on a tall stick behind the speaker had been
>>>> enough. There is a fair amount of background city noise
>>>> at the location, so aiding the vox is an OK idea.
>>>
>>> Agreed.
>
>> what is called for is either a properly distributed
>> system or a small line array
>
> Those would be options that need to be investigated with an open mind.
>
>> and while one can use a knife as a screwdriver
>> a screwdriver really is better
>
> When one has only knives...

sorry this is a commercial building, the sound system while not ideal would
suffice if some basic operator care was being used, it is not the solution I
would have sold, but there are lots of diffrent screwdrivers in this world
I would not fill a toolbox full of knives if I needed screwdrivers
I would have bought screwdrivers
>
>>> Depending on the room and the glass, one might even be
>>> able to mount the speaker angled up into the glass
>>> ceiling, and then bounce the sound down from there onto
>>> the seating area. If it worked, it would give better
>>> dispersion from fewer speakers due to the greater throw
>>> distance. Just a crazy idea that might work.
>
>> I have not found adding reflections as a aid to speech
>> reconition , well ever
>
> Wow, that one takes the cake. What would "reconition" be? Recognition?

I see even a pig stupid ass could reconize this.
by teh way spllenig deons't mtater as teh brain can rcenoize msot any
seplilng
>
> I agree that adding reflections with the speakers is generally a bad idea.
> Of course, take a long skinny room, add your typical small line array, and
> you've got reflections up the ying-yang.

depend on the horizontal dispersion and the acoustic treatment
it will still be less than a single reflex box on a stick
>
>>> But of course Peter, its all moot because this room
>>> would appear to be out of the control of any of us. :-(
>
>> except Peter , he could have asked, "Can you turn this
>> down , please."
>
> Good point.
>

Scott Dorsey

August 26th 09, 07:55 PM

William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
>
>> In general, that's the last thing you need in a sound reinforcement
>> application... there is invariably too much dispersion already.
>
>In other words... you want "column" speakers with deliberately reduced
>vertical dispersion. I remember those when they first appeared in the Allied
>Catalog 50 years ago!

Nowadays we call those "line arrays" and they have a lot less comb filtering
issues than the Bogen Sound Columns did. But the concept is the same and
it works out pretty well.

Problem is sometimes you want deliberately reduced vertical AND horizontal
dispersion.
--scott

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

Arny Krueger

August 26th 09, 07:56 PM

"Joe Kotroczo" > wrote in message

> On 26/08/09 12:58, in article
> , "George's
> Pro Sound Co." > wrote:
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>
>>> Depending on the room and the glass, one might even be
>>> able to mount the speaker angled up into the glass
>>> ceiling, and then bounce the sound down from there onto
>>> the seating area. If it worked, it would give better
>>> dispersion from fewer speakers due to the greater throw
>>> distance. Just a crazy idea that might work.

> WHAT?!?

> That must be the single most stupid idea I've heard in
> this newsgroup.

I guess you'll stop laughing if I use that approach to be the first sound
consultant to obtain good sound in the Crystal Cathedral after how many
tries? ;-)

>(Apart from all the religion crap.)

Does that include the anti-religion crap?

George's Pro Sound Co.

August 26th 09, 07:57 PM

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>>"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
>>
>>> In general, that's the last thing you need in a sound reinforcement
>>> application... there is invariably too much dispersion already.
>>
>>In other words... you want "column" speakers with deliberately reduced
>>vertical dispersion. I remember those when they first appeared in the
>>Allied
>>Catalog 50 years ago!
>
> Nowadays we call those "line arrays" and they have a lot less comb
> filtering
> issues than the Bogen Sound Columns did. But the concept is the same and
> it works out pretty well.
>
> Problem is sometimes you want deliberately reduced vertical AND horizontal
> dispersion.

I still have nightmares of the pewback system I installed
Worked great but was as labor intensive as anything I have done
George

George's Pro Sound Co.

August 26th 09, 08:03 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Joe Kotroczo" > wrote in message
>
>> On 26/08/09 12:58, in article
>> , "George's
>> Pro Sound Co." > wrote:
>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>
>>>> Depending on the room and the glass, one might even be
>>>> able to mount the speaker angled up into the glass
>>>> ceiling, and then bounce the sound down from there onto
>>>> the seating area. If it worked, it would give better
>>>> dispersion from fewer speakers due to the greater throw
>>>> distance. Just a crazy idea that might work.
>
>> WHAT?!?
>
>> That must be the single most stupid idea I've heard in
>> this newsgroup.
>
>
> I guess you'll stop laughing if I use that approach to be the first sound
> consultant to obtain good sound in the Crystal Cathedral after how many
> tries? ;-)
>
>>(Apart from all the religion crap.)
>
> Does that include the anti-religion crap?

there are no anti religious posts until the bible thumpers get thier groove
on
keep your god myth to yourself and there would never be anything here to
post "anti-religion" about
George
>
>

Arny Krueger

August 26th 09, 08:25 PM

"George's Pro Sound Co." > wrote in message
m
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Joe Kotroczo" > wrote in message
>>

>>> (Apart from all the religion crap.)
>>
>> Does that include the anti-religion crap?
>
> there are no anti religious posts until the bible
> thumpers get thier groove on

So Joe Kotrozo, who brought the issue of religion up this time is a
Bible-thumper?

LOL!

Phildo

August 26th 09, 09:23 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>>> 35 feet would only be better.
>
>> and where are the EV that you are pumping +18 dB of sub
>> info into arnii?
>
> Inability to properly spell a simple nickname noted. Oh, its intentional,
> and just another example of the writer's inability to be civil and
> respectful even once in his life. :-(

Respect has to be earned. You have done nothing to gain any respect and
everything to lose it.

> Interesting how numbers get thrown around.
>
> The +18 number is *not* representative of actual operation.

You told us you generally add 15-18db. Nice bit of backpedalling Arny.

> It is being presented here completely out of context. This has been
> explained a number of times already but some people don't seem to be able
> to absorb information very fast.

You ****ed up Arny. Admit it, learn from it and move on.

> +18 dB represents the maximum peaking that one can do with one peak on
> any of the recent Yamaha digital consoles.

And is also what you told us you use.

> This is unfortunately something that certain people who own said consoles,
> but who don't know their tools very well, have recently denied was even
> possible. Of course they were proven wrong, but far be it for a
> potentially embarrassing mistake like that by a self-professed expert in
> all forms of live sound to slowed in their self-destructive rush to
> judgment.

The only person who believes anything you say is called Arny Krueger. You
are fooling nobody.

> As has also been said several times, the peaking is combined with a nearby
> high pass filter, so no way is the resulting eq +18 dB.

Yet more excuses to try and cover up another FOH moment from Arny.

> Anybody who knows something about audio

That rules you out then,

> knows that a dB number all by itself is meaningless without a fairly
> complete knowledge of the context. In this case the house curve, based on
> RTA analysis, is generally decreasing below 80 Hz. So, some of the
> electrical peaking at 35 Hz gets absorbed right in the equalizer by the
> nearby roll-off, and even more of it gets absorbed in following stages of
> amplification, equalization, and speakers.

Then why add the +18db you claimed to do just a few posts back?

>> it also seems like you ought KNOW the
>> coverage of your horn in order toi (sic) correctly position it
>
> I didn't position it. It was professionally installed, and cannot be
> altered without a 35' scaffold or by means of a rigger dropping the whole
> speaker assembly, 2 large horns and 2 vented boxes with 15" drivers
> included.

Easy enough job. Would have cost a fraction of the money you wasted on that
desk of yours.

>> Oh that is right, it is NOT correctly positioned, you
>> have it bleeding into the stage mics causing you endless
>> feedback
>
> The feedback always ends. ;-).

Yeah, usually when the system is switched off.

>The correct statement would be that if due caution was not applied along
>the way, feedback immediately results if *any* acoustical source is
>actually amplified. Because of the nature of the music, significant
>amplification is needed by a relatively large number of acoustical sources
>ranging from voices of teenaged girls to violins, violas and cellos. Last
>week the new challenge was a recorder solo.

Any properly set up system would never act like that. You just don't know
how to use all the fancy toys you've wasted your church's money on.

> Because of the room and the existing professional installation that was
> designed for a vastly different situation, a goodly amount of care is
> required. Without the scenes and signal processing afforded by the digital
> console, things could be very difficult without it.

Nah, any decent engineer could get things right.

>>>> One speaker on a tall stick behind the speaker had been
>>>> enough. There is a fair amount of background city noise
>>>> at the location, so aiding the vox is an OK idea.
>>>
>>> Agreed.
>
>> what is called for is either a properly distributed
>> system or a small line array
>
> Those would be options that need to be investigated with an open mind.
>
>> and while one can use a knife as a screwdriver
>> a screwdriver really is better
>
> When one has only knives...

Very expensive knives that cost money which would have been much better off
being spent on other things.

>>> Depending on the room and the glass, one might even be
>>> able to mount the speaker angled up into the glass
>>> ceiling, and then bounce the sound down from there onto
>>> the seating area. If it worked, it would give better
>>> dispersion from fewer speakers due to the greater throw
>>> distance. Just a crazy idea that might work.
>
>> I have not found adding reflections as a aid to speech
>> reconition , well ever
>
> Wow, that one takes the cake. What would "reconition" be? Recognition?

Arny is desperate now he's resorting to spelling flames.

> I agree that adding reflections with the speakers is generally a bad idea.

You just told us in your previous post that it "might just work".

> Of course, take a long skinny room, add your typical small line array, and
> you've got reflections up the ying-yang.

Not if the line array was set up properly. You do know what the advantages
of a line array are don't you Arny? Sure sounds like you don't have a clue.

Phildo

George's Pro Sound Co.

August 26th 09, 09:24 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "George's Pro Sound Co." > wrote in message
> m
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Joe Kotroczo" > wrote in message
>>>
>
>>>> (Apart from all the religion crap.)
>>>
>>> Does that include the anti-religion crap?
>>
>> there are no anti religious posts until the bible
>> thumpers get thier groove on
>
> So Joe Kotrozo, who brought the issue of religion up this time is a
> Bible-thumper?
>
> LOL!

do you really live in the same vacuum that exists inside your head arnii?
George
>
>

Phildo

August 26th 09, 09:25 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> So Joe Kotrozo, who brought the issue of religion up this time is a
> Bible-thumper?

No, Joe is far too sensible and level-headed to be taken in by the religion
con. He's one of the most intelligent, well read and informed people I've
ever met.

> LOL!

People are laughing at you not with you Arny.

Phildo

Arny Krueger

August 26th 09, 10:19 PM

"George's Pro Sound Co." > wrote in message
m

> again more spittle from the pigs mouth

End of discusion George, because you can't be trusted to act like an adult.

George's Pro Sound Co.

August 26th 09, 10:24 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "George's Pro Sound Co." > wrote in message
> m
>
>> again more spittle from the pigs mouth
>
> End of discusion George, because you can't be trusted to act like an
> adult.

How many times are you going to promise us this
it is getting weary arnii
you say you are done yet you keep on posting your rubbish
george
>
>

Phildo

August 26th 09, 10:50 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "George's Pro Sound Co." > wrote in message
> m
>
>> again more spittle from the pigs mouth
>
> End of discusion George, because you can't be trusted to act like an
> adult.

Yet again you cannot counter any of George's points so choose to use your
latest cop-out. It was funny the first few times Arny, now it is just
pathetic. You are fooling nobody except yourself.

Phildo

Phildo

August 26th 09, 10:52 PM

"George's Pro Sound Co." > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "George's Pro Sound Co." > wrote in message
>> m
>>
>>> again more spittle from the pigs mouth
>>
>> End of discusion George, because you can't be trusted to act like an
>> adult.
>
> How many times are you going to promise us this
> it is getting weary arnii
> you say you are done yet you keep on posting your rubbish

Amazing how Arny claims to be a xtian yet one of the most basic
commandments is "Thou shalt not bear false witness" (don't lie) yet Arny
lies pretty much every time he posts.

If his god-myth is true then he is surely headed for the down elevator.

Phildo

Richard Crowley

August 26th 09, 11:03 PM

"Arny Krueger" wrote ...
> "George's Pro Sound Co." > wrote
>> again more spittle from the pigs mouth
>
> End of discusion George, because you can't be trusted to act like an
> adult.

Plonking trolls like that does wonders for your SNR.

Joe Kotroczo

August 26th 09, 11:11 PM

On 26/08/09 18:05, in article ,
"William Sommerwerck" > wrote:

>>> Depending on the room and the glass, one might even be able to
>>> mount the speaker angled up into the glass ceiling, and then
>>> bounce the sound down from there onto the seating area. If it
>>> worked, it would give better dispersion from fewer speakers due
>>> to the greater throw distance. Just a crazy idea that might work.
>
>> WHAT?!?
>
> I don't see the idea as being /inherently/ stupid. (Hey, it made Amar a pile
> o' loot.) If nothing else, it would improve the speakers' HF dispersion.

"(...) all reflections that reach the listener more than 50 ms after the
original signal are perceived as disturbing echoes."

"(...) short time reflections having a high coherence with the direct sound
may give rise to disturbing comb-filter effects."

<http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=GD5lGfU3UQgC&pg=PA72&lpg=PA72&dq=sound+r
einforcement+reflections&source=bl&ots=AMHbyBvY9b&sig=9UfRkodhZ4OkJDL-hlBLDo
njRkM&hl=en&ei=BpmVSpC3NIShjAfD3ujwDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4
#v=onepage&q=sound%20reinforcement%20reflections&f=false>

--
Joe Kotroczo

Michael Dobony

August 27th 09, 03:21 AM

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 22:16:48 +0100, Peter Larsen wrote:

> Mike Dobony wrote:
>
>>> FWIW, its probable that the 4 SX300s were recommended and installed
>>> by a professional installer. Probably something about what the
>>> traffic will bear.
>
>> ????????????????????????????????????????? What does that have to do
>> with volume control?
>
> The setup looked very much like it was sold by the seller rather than bought
> by the customer, because the proper setup had been 4 smaller boxes with an
> 8" unit.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Peter Larsen

That would be plenty big enough for a 400 person crowd indoors for
speaking. Personally I like 10" for speaking, 12 for mixed use. They could
also have been what someone had available to bring in for the event. I also
notice he can't explain himself. Personally, I don't see any reason SX500's
couldn't work well either. The mixer should still have a volume control and
so should the amps. OTOH, I know of a sound-tech wanna-be who claims you
need to turn teh amp gains to 0 when you start it up and set them to max
after it warms up, just like you start up a diesel at idle and keep it
reved up while driving. Personally, I don't make the connection between a
diesel rig and an amp. Maybe Arni was taught by the wanna-be?

Phildo

August 27th 09, 04:02 AM

"Joe Kotroczo" > wrote in message
...
> On 26/08/09 12:58, in article
> , "George's Pro Sound Co."
> > wrote:
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>
>>> Depending on the room and the glass, one might even be able to mount the
>>> speaker angled up into the glass ceiling, and then bounce the sound down
>>> from there onto the seating area. If it worked, it would give better
>>> dispersion from fewer speakers due to the greater throw distance. Just a
>>> crazy idea that might work.
>
> WHAT?!?
>
> That must be the single most stupid idea I've heard in this newsgroup.
> (Apart from all the religion crap.)

Oh there have been lots more. We had a guy try to tell us that Phonic OEM's
the mixwizard for A&H.

He wasn't the biggest idiot though. We've had someone try to tell us that
95% of mixing desks do not have PFL. Same idiot told us hemp rope wasn;t
safe for rigging, that he could set channel gains better using his ears than
by using the meters and he even believed FOH was backstage. Poor guy got
banned from PSW after just a few hours which caused a big thread on here
then a few months later he came back and tried to tell us:

a) he was never banned and that he left (lies)
b) that George and myself were banned from there (proven as lies by us
posting on there)
c) that George and myself, though banned, actually controlled the moderators
on PSW and had him banned

He even posted a few days ago that we kill xtians, despite both of us doing
free work to help out various religious groups, including xtians.

Yes Joe, we get some real idiots on here.

Phildo

Phildo

August 27th 09, 04:06 AM

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
>>> Depending on the room and the glass, one might even be able to
>>> mount the speaker angled up into the glass ceiling, and then
>>> bounce the sound down from there onto the seating area. If it
>>> worked, it would give better dispersion from fewer speakers due
>>> to the greater throw distance. Just a crazy idea that might work.
>
>> WHAT?!?
>
> I don't see the idea as being /inherently/ stupid. (Hey, it made Amar a
> pile
> o' loot.) If nothing else, it would improve the speakers' HF dispersion.

Anything over 50ms delay is perceived as an echo. While 20-40ms can actually
enhance vocal clarity, anything more than that just makes vocals less
intelligable. Given that sound travels at roughly 1 foot per second, firing
the speakers into the ceiling to bounce down to the audience will not only
create multiple delays but those delays will serve to muddy up the sound.

The idea *IS* inherantly stupid but then that's what we've come to expect
from Arny. The guy is clueless and all he's done is show he knows nothing
about live sound yet again.

Phildo

Phildo

August 27th 09, 04:11 AM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Joe Kotroczo" > wrote in message
>
>> On 26/08/09 12:58, in article
>> , "George's
>> Pro Sound Co." > wrote:
>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>
>>>> Depending on the room and the glass, one might even be
>>>> able to mount the speaker angled up into the glass
>>>> ceiling, and then bounce the sound down from there onto
>>>> the seating area. If it worked, it would give better
>>>> dispersion from fewer speakers due to the greater throw
>>>> distance. Just a crazy idea that might work.
>
>> WHAT?!?
>
>> That must be the single most stupid idea I've heard in
>> this newsgroup.
>
>
> I guess you'll stop laughing if I use that approach to be the first sound
> consultant to obtain good sound in the Crystal Cathedral after how many
> tries? ;-)

You will be laughed out of the building Arny.

You must keep us updated about this project, how you got the gig, what you
plan to do, how it works out etc. Will be most amusing to see your arrogance
come crashing to the ground when you in fact give them the worst sound
they've ever had.

Phildo

Peter Larsen[_3_]

August 27th 09, 04:51 AM

Michael Dobony wrote:

> That would be plenty big enough for a 400 person crowd indoors for
> speaking. Personally I like 10" for speaking, 12 for mixed use.

Smacksabtly, 12" twoway with a high x-over is - as is 15" mostly - likely to
be muddy, but they do offer larger sensitivity than the better sounding 10"
or 8". Most claims of piston range are idiotic, the piston range of an 8"
stops around 650 Hz. My Celestion boxes don't seem to mind .... some of the
time skilful designers DO make controlled cone breakup work, James Bullock
Lansing's designs are great examples, but my plastic Celestion boxes are the
best sounding plastic boxes I have yet heard

> They
> could also have been what someone had available to bring in for the
> event.

Yes, yes yes .... call Joes Rental, "OK, I have this EV rig doing nothing
right now" and that's what you get.

> I also notice he can't explain himself.

True, I did not call them and ask them to join in here, I also did not - by
intent and by ignorance - post their name.

> Personally, I don't
> see any reason SX500's couldn't work well either.

Agreed, but the 4 SX300 rig can do a big band voice assist or a 400 people
outdoor event.

> The mixer should
> still have a volume control and so should the amps.

Yes. Those SX300's are not the most efficient boxes out there, so it prolly
was turned way up.

> OTOH, I know of a
> sound-tech wanna-be who claims you need to turn teh amp gains to 0
> when you start it up and set them to max after it warms up,

That is a context issue, it is well known that systems can sound better
after a couple of hours of warm-up and loudspeakers after about 15 minutes
of use if unused for some time. But that is in another context, in this
context it is irrelevant.

> just like
> you start up a diesel at idle and keep it reved up while driving.
> Personally, I don't make the connection between a diesel rig and an
> amp.

It is preferred among audiophiles, but can become audiophoolery.

> Maybe Arni was taught by the wanna-be?

Michael, you have come a long way personally in the couple of years I have
read your posts here, but if you wanna get to the pro attitude towards and
respect for other people and their business then you gotta learn to stop
adding driveby's to a post that is not a part of the current melee between
the three newsgroup kids, each of them are on their known apparently nice
people and good mixers, but tney don't seem to mix very well when added to
the same blend. If you don't like to read someones post, then add that
person to your filter and move on sans the crappola.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

Peter Larsen[_3_]

August 27th 09, 04:55 AM

William Sommerwerck wrote:

>>> Depending on the room and the glass, one might even be able to
>>> mount the speaker angled up into the glass ceiling, and then
>>> bounce the sound down from there onto the seating area. If it
>>> worked, it would give better dispersion from fewer speakers due
>>> to the greater throw distance. Just a crazy idea that might work.

>> WHAT?!?

> I don't see the idea as being /inherently/ stupid. (Hey, it made Amar
> a pile o' loot.) If nothing else, it would improve the speakers' HF
> dispersion.

A proscenium would reduce the need for amplification, but the actual ceiling
is too high to do that job, see the images of the hall, the ceiling area
that is not glass is acoustic tiles, it was a library main hall and the
entire building is an example of smart building acoustics, including flutter
echo preventing waved walls in the corridors.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

Peter Larsen[_3_]

August 27th 09, 04:56 AM

Scott Dorsey wrote:

>> I don't see the idea as being /inherently/ stupid. (Hey, it made
>> Amar a pile o' loot.) If nothing else, it would improve the
>> speakers' HF dispersion.

> In general, that's the last thing you need in a sound reinforcement
> application... there is invariably too much dispersion already.

The least amount of acoustic energy from the fewest possible acoustic
sources is indeed likely to have the highest intelligibility.

> --scott

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

George's Pro Sound Co.

August 27th 09, 10:38 AM

each of them are on their known apparently nice
> people and good mixers,

well Peter I have never claimed to be agreat mix guy
I get the job done but my skill is owning a company and sound system design
and deployment
I hire great engineers when the time is needed for great mixing, hence
another reg from aapls will be with me for a week at the end of sept
I also hired Tim Perry, Dave D from PSW and Mike Gaster
Gaster is about as good as they come and I felt in awe at his abilities
but me, I am just the guy who know what needs to be done and gets the right
team and system together to do it
George

Arny Krueger

August 27th 09, 11:21 AM

"Peter Larsen" > wrote in message
k
> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>>> I don't see the idea as being /inherently/ stupid.
>>> (Hey, it made Amar a pile o' loot.) If nothing else, it
>>> would improve the speakers' HF dispersion.

>> In general, that's the last thing you need in a sound
>> reinforcement application... there is invariably too
>> much dispersion already.

> The least amount of acoustic energy from the fewest
> possible acoustic sources is indeed likely to have the
> highest intelligibility.

....but, you need coverage such that the mix of direct sound and reinforced
sound at every location is adequate and roughly in-time.

Arny Krueger

August 27th 09, 11:24 AM

"Joe Kotroczo" > wrote in message

> On 26/08/09 18:05, in article
> , "William
> Sommerwerck" > wrote:
>
>>>> Depending on the room and the glass, one might even be
>>>> able to mount the speaker angled up into the glass
>>>> ceiling, and then bounce the sound down from there
>>>> onto the seating area. If it worked, it would give
>>>> better dispersion from fewer speakers due to the
>>>> greater throw distance. Just a crazy idea that might
>>>> work.
>>
>>> WHAT?!?
>>
>> I don't see the idea as being /inherently/ stupid. (Hey,
>> it made Amar a pile o' loot.) If nothing else, it would
>> improve the speakers' HF dispersion.

> "(...) all reflections that reach the listener more than
> 50 ms after the original signal are perceived as
> disturbing echoes."

Therefore, it is a good idea to keep time delays over the major paths within
25 mSec or so of each other.

50 milliseconds = roughly 50 feet.

Agreed. But that does not make the idea presented above necessarily crazy.

> "(...) short time reflections having a high coherence
> with the direct sound may give rise to disturbing
> comb-filter effects."

Primarily of concern for micing, hence the 3:1 rule.

Arny Krueger

August 27th 09, 11:25 AM

"Peter Larsen" > wrote in message
k
> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
>>>> Depending on the room and the glass, one might even be
>>>> able to mount the speaker angled up into the glass
>>>> ceiling, and then bounce the sound down from there
>>>> onto the seating area. If it worked, it would give
>>>> better dispersion from fewer speakers due to the
>>>> greater throw distance. Just a crazy idea that might
>>>> work.
>
>>> WHAT?!?
>
>> I don't see the idea as being /inherently/ stupid. (Hey,
>> it made Amar a pile o' loot.) If nothing else, it would
>> improve the speakers' HF dispersion.
>
> A proscenium would reduce the need for amplification, but
> the actual ceiling is too high to do that job, see the
> images of the hall, the ceiling area that is not glass is
> acoustic tiles, it was a library main hall and the entire
> building is an example of smart building acoustics,
> including flutter echo preventing waved walls in the
> corridors.

Now that I see the pictures of the room, I have a lot less hope for my
"crazy idea". ;-)

George's Pro Sound Co.

August 27th 09, 11:52 AM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Joe Kotroczo" > wrote in message
>
>> On 26/08/09 18:05, in article
>> , "William
>> Sommerwerck" > wrote:
>>
>>>>> Depending on the room and the glass, one might even be
>>>>> able to mount the speaker angled up into the glass
>>>>> ceiling, and then bounce the sound down from there
>>>>> onto the seating area. If it worked, it would give
>>>>> better dispersion from fewer speakers due to the
>>>>> greater throw distance. Just a crazy idea that might
>>>>> work.
>>>
>>>> WHAT?!?
>>>
>>> I don't see the idea as being /inherently/ stupid. (Hey,
>>> it made Amar a pile o' loot.) If nothing else, it would
>>> improve the speakers' HF dispersion.
>
>> "(...) all reflections that reach the listener more than
>> 50 ms after the original signal are perceived as
>> disturbing echoes."
>
> Therefore, it is a good idea to keep time delays over the major paths
> within 25 mSec or so of each other.
>
> 50 milliseconds = roughly 50 feet.
>
> Agreed. But that does not make the idea presented above necessarily crazy.
>
>> "(...) short time reflections having a high coherence
>> with the direct sound may give rise to disturbing
>> comb-filter effects."
>
> Primarily of concern for micing, hence the 3:1 rule.
>
What is missing is there is not one reflection but thousands of reflection
each at diffrent arrival times
what you are doing is adding to the reveraration of the heard sound
this is not a way twards good speech reinforcment, though it is quite
effective with slow deep musical sounds
a lecture hall should be as dry as possible
delibertly adding reflections to a already big reverberant space use
primairly for lecture is simple stupid

you want the most direct sound at the lowest level in large space when
dealing with speech
hence a distributed system would be the default design

in a large churc with significat reverb of over 6 seconds I installed a
pewback system where no pone was ever about 2 feet from a speaker, playing
at around 70dB

there are ways to get clear coherent speech in large rooms
bouncing the sound off the ceiling is not one of them
George
>

George's Pro Sound Co.

August 27th 09, 11:56 AM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Peter Larsen" > wrote in message
> k
>> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>
>>>> I don't see the idea as being /inherently/ stupid.
>>>> (Hey, it made Amar a pile o' loot.) If nothing else, it
>>>> would improve the speakers' HF dispersion.
>
>>> In general, that's the last thing you need in a sound
>>> reinforcement application... there is invariably too
>>> much dispersion already.
>
>> The least amount of acoustic energy from the fewest
>> possible acoustic sources is indeed likely to have the
>> highest intelligibility.
>
> ...but, you need coverage such that the mix of direct sound and reinforced
> sound at every location is adequate and roughly in-time.
and how is this accomplished oh great one when you have direct sound
traveling 10 feet and your reflectd sound hitting the ceiling, side walls,
back , floor traveling hundreds of feet in its wandering path to the
listener
your reflected sound is the very recipe for bad speech reinforcment
go back to what ever rock you crawled out from other and stop saying stupid
****
george
>
>

George's Pro Sound Co.

August 27th 09, 11:57 AM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Peter Larsen" > wrote in message
> k
>> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>>
>>>>> Depending on the room and the glass, one might even be
>>>>> able to mount the speaker angled up into the glass
>>>>> ceiling, and then bounce the sound down from there
>>>>> onto the seating area. If it worked, it would give
>>>>> better dispersion from fewer speakers due to the
>>>>> greater throw distance. Just a crazy idea that might
>>>>> work.
>>
>>>> WHAT?!?
>>
>>> I don't see the idea as being /inherently/ stupid. (Hey,
>>> it made Amar a pile o' loot.) If nothing else, it would
>>> improve the speakers' HF dispersion.
>>
>> A proscenium would reduce the need for amplification, but
>> the actual ceiling is too high to do that job, see the
>> images of the hall, the ceiling area that is not glass is
>> acoustic tiles, it was a library main hall and the entire
>> building is an example of smart building acoustics,
>> including flutter echo preventing waved walls in the
>> corridors.
>
> Now that I see the pictures of the room, I have a lot less hope for my
> "crazy idea". ;-)

and us that actually understand sound called you on right off
imagine that
but thanks for admitting you were wrong
George
>
>

Phildo

August 27th 09, 12:12 PM

Phildo

August 27th 09, 12:16 PM

"Michael Dobony" > wrote in message
...
>OTOH, I know of a sound-tech wanna-be who claims you
> need to turn teh amp gains to 0 when you start it up and set them to max
> after it warms up, just like you start up a diesel at idle and keep it
> reved up while driving.

That's pretty standard practise. Seems the "wanna-be" knows more than you
do.

>Personally, I don't make the connection between a
> diesel rig and an amp.

You don't make a lot of connections.

> Maybe Arni was taught by the wanna-be?

The only person who teaches Arny is Arny. He thinks he is always right and
only takes attempts to teach him as personal attacks.

Phildo

Phildo

August 27th 09, 12:20 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Peter Larsen" > wrote in message
> k
>> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>
>>>> I don't see the idea as being /inherently/ stupid.
>>>> (Hey, it made Amar a pile o' loot.) If nothing else, it
>>>> would improve the speakers' HF dispersion.
>
>>> In general, that's the last thing you need in a sound
>>> reinforcement application... there is invariably too
>>> much dispersion already.
>
>> The least amount of acoustic energy from the fewest
>> possible acoustic sources is indeed likely to have the
>> highest intelligibility.
>
> ...but, you need coverage such that the mix of direct sound and reinforced
> sound at every location is adequate and roughly in-time.

Which it won't be if you carry out your lunatic idea of bouncing sound off
the ceiling.

Only time I have seen that work is at Madrid airport but then there is no
direct sound and the roof and sound system were designed specifically for
doing it that way.

Phildo

Phildo

August 27th 09, 12:21 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> Now that I see the pictures of the room, I have a lot less hope for my
> "crazy idea". ;-)

We told you that you were wrong as soon as you posted it. Thanks for
admitting we were right all along.

Phildo

Joe Kotroczo

August 27th 09, 01:23 PM

On 27/08/09 12:20, in article ,
"Phildo" > wrote:

(...)
>
> Only time I have seen that work is at Madrid airport but then there is no
> direct sound and the roof and sound system were designed specifically for
> doing it that way.

One assumes that there they designed the roof to be a proper acoustic
reflector, and that the sound source is a lot closer to the roof than to the
floor.

--
Joe Kotroczo

Scott Dorsey

August 27th 09, 02:23 PM

George's Pro Sound Co. > wrote:
>
>I still have nightmares of the pewback system I installed
>Worked great but was as labor intensive as anything I have done

Yes, but it's billable.

Pewback systems are very popular still in those old pre-Vatican II Catholic
churches, which were intended to sound impressive and where there was really
no need for vocal intelligibility. These days the requirements for the hall
have changed and the halls haven't, so they get the speakers as close to
the listener as possible.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Laurence Payne[_2_]

August 27th 09, 02:34 PM

On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 12:16:03 +0100, "Phildo" > wrote:

>>OTOH, I know of a sound-tech wanna-be who claims you
>> need to turn teh amp gains to 0 when you start it up and set them to max
>> after it warms up, just like you start up a diesel at idle and keep it
>> reved up while driving.
>
>That's pretty standard practise. Seems the "wanna-be" knows more than you
>do.

Right procedure, wrong reason.

Laurence Payne[_2_]

August 27th 09, 02:36 PM

On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 13:23:04 +0100, Joe Kotroczo >
wrote:

>> Only time I have seen that work is at Madrid airport but then there is no
>> direct sound and the roof and sound system were designed specifically for
>> doing it that way.
>
>One assumes that there they designed the roof to be a proper acoustic
>reflector, and that the sound source is a lot closer to the roof than to the
>floor.

And are we insisting that this situation might never arise rather more
accidentally?

Joe Kotroczo

August 27th 09, 03:03 PM

On 27/08/09 14:36, in article ,
"Laurence Payne" > wrote:

> On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 13:23:04 +0100, Joe Kotroczo >
> wrote:
>
>>> Only time I have seen that work is at Madrid airport but then there is no
>>> direct sound and the roof and sound system were designed specifically for
>>> doing it that way.
>>
>> One assumes that there they designed the roof to be a proper acoustic
>> reflector, and that the sound source is a lot closer to the roof than to the
>> floor.
>
> And are we insisting that this situation might never arise rather more
> accidentally?

We are insisting that an EV Sx300 pointed at a 35ft glass ceiling rather
than the audience will sound like excrement.

--
Joe Kotroczo

Richard Crowley

August 27th 09, 08:30 PM

"Scott Dorsey" wrote...
> George's Pro Sound Co. wrote:
>>I still have nightmares of the pewback system I installed
>>Worked great but was as labor intensive as anything I have done
>
> Yes, but it's billable.
>
> Pewback systems are very popular still in those old pre-Vatican II
> Catholic
> churches, which were intended to sound impressive and where there was
> really
> no need for vocal intelligibility. These days the requirements for the
> hall
> have changed and the halls haven't, so they get the speakers as close to
> the listener as possible.

The pewback system I designed and installed 25 years ago is
still going strong. I put the speakers in a continuous grille at
the top of the back because very few people can hear well
through their knees and shinbones.

The members of the congregation built the church under the
supervision of a contractor who was also a member. We did
it for something like 1/3 its finished valuation. I enlisted members
of the choir to do the installation of the 550 speakers. I taught
several of them how to solder, and then I personally inspected
and tested each row before it got buttoned up.

Phildo

August 27th 09, 09:06 PM

"Joe Kotroczo" > wrote in message
...
> On 27/08/09 12:20, in article ,
> "Phildo" > wrote:
>
> (...)
>>
>> Only time I have seen that work is at Madrid airport but then there is no
>> direct sound and the roof and sound system were designed specifically for
>> doing it that way.
>
> One assumes that there they designed the roof to be a proper acoustic
> reflector, and that the sound source is a lot closer to the roof than to
> the
> floor.

Exactly. Sources are in the trussing under the roof. That way each area of
the airport gets directed sound from only one source. Minimal reflections
from the big glass walls. One of the clearest sounding airports I've ever
experienced. It's pretty good as airports go, even down to the smoking
cubicles with vacuums to suck out the smoke. Much better than the UK where
you cannot smoke anywhere in the airport so if you are a smoker and have a
long layover you are totally stuck.

Phildo

Phildo

August 27th 09, 09:09 PM

"Laurence Payne" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 13:23:04 +0100, Joe Kotroczo >
> wrote:
>
>>> Only time I have seen that work is at Madrid airport but then there is
>>> no
>>> direct sound and the roof and sound system were designed specifically
>>> for
>>> doing it that way.
>>
>>One assumes that there they designed the roof to be a proper acoustic
>>reflector, and that the sound source is a lot closer to the roof than to
>>the
>>floor.
>
> And are we insisting that this situation might never arise rather more
> accidentally?

No design engineer/architect in his right mind would have speakers fire at
the roof unless that was exactly what he planned. The roof is designed as a
reflector to cover a certain area of the floor. Works extremely well but has
been VERY well designed. Pretty impossible this would ever happen by
accident. Are you saying that speakers would all move by themselves to point
upwards? Maybe in an earthquake where they weren't secured properly but I
think it's safe to say no, it would never happen by accident.

Phildo

Phildo

Michael Dobony

August 28th 09, 12:33 AM

On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 14:34:49 +0100, Laurence Payne wrote:

> On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 12:16:03 +0100, "Phildo" > wrote:
>
>>>OTOH, I know of a sound-tech wanna-be who claims you
>>> need to turn teh amp gains to 0 when you start it up and set them to max
>>> after it warms up, just like you start up a diesel at idle and keep it
>>> reved up while driving.
>>
>>That's pretty standard practise. Seems the "wanna-be" knows more than you
>>do.
>
> Right procedure, wrong reason.

so you think the gains should always be set to max?

Laurence Payne[_2_]

August 28th 09, 02:38 AM

On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 18:33:55 -0500, Michael Dobony
> wrote:

>On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 14:34:49 +0100, Laurence Payne wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 12:16:03 +0100, "Phildo" > wrote:
>>
>>>>OTOH, I know of a sound-tech wanna-be who claims you
>>>> need to turn teh amp gains to 0 when you start it up and set them to max
>>>> after it warms up, just like you start up a diesel at idle and keep it
>>>> reved up while driving.
>>>
>>>That's pretty standard practise. Seems the "wanna-be" knows more than you
>>>do.
>>
>> Right procedure, wrong reason.
>
>so you think the gains should always be set to max?

No, that's not what I said.

Phildo

August 28th 09, 11:10 AM

"Michael Dobony" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 14:34:49 +0100, Laurence Payne wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 12:16:03 +0100, "Phildo" > wrote:
>>
>>>>OTOH, I know of a sound-tech wanna-be who claims you
>>>> need to turn teh amp gains to 0 when you start it up and set them to
>>>> max
>>>> after it warms up, just like you start up a diesel at idle and keep it
>>>> reved up while driving.
>>>
>>>That's pretty standard practise. Seems the "wanna-be" knows more than you
>>>do.
>>
>> Right procedure, wrong reason.
>
> so you think the gains should always be set to max?

Yes, power amps should be set to max. Do you have no understanding of gain
structure?

Phildo

George's Pro Sound Co.

August 28th 09, 12:04 PM

"Phildo" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael Dobony" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 14:34:49 +0100, Laurence Payne wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 12:16:03 +0100, "Phildo" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>>OTOH, I know of a sound-tech wanna-be who claims you
>>>>> need to turn teh amp gains to 0 when you start it up and set them to
>>>>> max
>>>>> after it warms up, just like you start up a diesel at idle and keep it
>>>>> reved up while driving.
>>>>
>>>>That's pretty standard practise. Seems the "wanna-be" knows more than
>>>>you
>>>>do.
>>>
>>> Right procedure, wrong reason.
>>
>> so you think the gains should always be set to max?
>
> Yes, power amps should be set to max. Do you have no understanding of gain
> structure?
>
> Phildo

In concert sound rigs where amps are not easily accessable
there are solid reasons why all amps are not set automactl to max
esp in rigs without active crossovers
with passive crossover system the amp gains are where you set the balance
between subs and high packs
also QSC does not have a un ified sensitivity for thier amps, even within a
homogenic series
there by requiring you to tweek sensitivity in the feild via the "volume"
controls
given these are low end system but lots of readers here use this kind of
stuff
>
>

Michael Dobony

August 28th 09, 05:06 PM

On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 02:38:12 +0100, Laurence Payne wrote:

> On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 18:33:55 -0500, Michael Dobony
> > wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 14:34:49 +0100, Laurence Payne wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 12:16:03 +0100, "Phildo" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>>OTOH, I know of a sound-tech wanna-be who claims you
>>>>> need to turn teh amp gains to 0 when you start it up and set them to max
>>>>> after it warms up, just like you start up a diesel at idle and keep it
>>>>> reved up while driving.
>>>>
>>>>That's pretty standard practise. Seems the "wanna-be" knows more than you
>>>>do.
>>>
>>> Right procedure, wrong reason.
>>
>>so you think the gains should always be set to max?
>
> No, that's not what I said.

Yet you say it is the right procedure. Read George's response, set the
gains in the mixer and outboard processors and then bring the amp up to the
required setting. By maxing the amp you loose the proper gain structure
throughout the system.

liquidator[_2_]

August 28th 09, 07:12 PM

"George's Pro Sound Co." > wrote in message
...
>
> "Phildo" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Michael Dobony" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 14:34:49 +0100, Laurence Payne wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 12:16:03 +0100, "Phildo" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>OTOH, I know of a sound-tech wanna-be who claims you
>>>>>> need to turn teh amp gains to 0 when you start it up and set them to
>>>>>> max
>>>>>> after it warms up, just like you start up a diesel at idle and keep
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> reved up while driving.
>>>>>
>>>>>That's pretty standard practise. Seems the "wanna-be" knows more than
>>>>>you
>>>>>do.
>>>>
>>>> Right procedure, wrong reason.
>>>
>>> so you think the gains should always be set to max?
>>
>> Yes, power amps should be set to max. Do you have no understanding of
>> gain structure?
>>
>> Phildo
>
> In concert sound rigs where amps are not easily accessable
> there are solid reasons why all amps are not set automactl to max
> esp in rigs without active crossovers
> with passive crossover system the amp gains are where you set the balance
> between subs and high packs
> also QSC does not have a un ified sensitivity for thier amps, even within
> a homogenic series
> there by requiring you to tweek sensitivity in the feild via the "volume"
> controls
> given these are low end system but lots of readers here use this kind of
> stuff
>>
>>

Agreed with those exceptions, but crossovers are so damn cheap....I haven't
run a system without them since maybe the 70's.

May have spoke too soon, I helped set up a rental, but no subs involved.
AFAIK I still set the amp at max. That's been a while ago..I think an EV
mixer, amp and a couple on sticks for a bluegrass band...