Rock Band PA Suggestions
in [Live Sound]
|
From: George's ProSound Company on 6 Jul 2008 20:21 "Denny Strauser" <dennysound_comcast_net> wrote in message news:6bOdnSBmjpN1xezVnZ2dnUVZ_jGdnZ2d(a)comcast.com... > Eeyore wrote: >> Horn loading can cover a far wider bandwidth and be far flatter in >> response. >> They do need to be big to go low though. Like this for example. >> http://www.dancetech.com/aa_dt_new/pa/2X15-folded.cfm >> >> These are what I used to use. Couple two, side by side and it's -3dB @ >> 35Hz. >> http://www.rainbowmusicomaha.com/evwbinsubs12dualaltecpair888.jpg > > I used to have some W-cabs, as well. I really liked them. They're very > tight sounding. we use a ported w for lows and sealed 18's boxes for subs in our 5 way systems we also have ported 18's when we need the extra output (at 38Hz)at the expense of our 22 Hz output our sealed boxes obtain george
From: Eeyore on 6 Jul 2008 20:24 Denny Strauser wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > > Horn loading can cover a far wider bandwidth and be far flatter in response. > > They do need to be big to go low though. Like this for example. > > http://www.dancetech.com/aa_dt_new/pa/2X15-folded.cfm > > > > These are what I used to use. Couple two, side by side and it's -3dB @ 35Hz. > > http://www.rainbowmusicomaha.com/evwbinsubs12dualaltecpair888.jpg > > I used to have some W-cabs, as well. I really liked them. They're very > tight sounding. Most designs are unported (infinite baffle) and can be > driven hard with less likelihood (than ported cabinets) of causing > speaker damage from bottoming out the voice coil. Very true. > Good for a band who > does their own sound. > > > These were classics too > > http://www.martin-audio.com/specifications/oldproducts/DataSheet/ModularPAdatasheet.zip > > These bring back memories. I saw these in a few clubs in the '80's. They > sounded pretty good. I would say the best rig I have EVER heard used that system. That would have been in the late 70s. It was just so clean and loud. Modern speakers aren't a patch on them but do take up less space and weigh less. Graham
From: Denny Strauser on 6 Jul 2008 20:51 Eeyore wrote: > > Denny Strauser wrote: > >> Eeyore wrote: >>> Horn loading can cover a far wider bandwidth and be far flatter in response. >>> They do need to be big to go low though. Like this for example. >>> http://www.dancetech.com/aa_dt_new/pa/2X15-folded.cfm I saw a sound company back in the '80's who had some HUGE W-cabs. So huge, in fact, that each cabinet was built in two parts. One part held the speakers, and the other was a horn extension. They were attached with butterfly latches. Otherwise, you'd need a forklift to load it in the truck. >>> These were classics too >>> http://www.martin-audio.com/specifications/oldproducts/DataSheet/ModularPAdatasheet.zip >> These bring back memories. I saw these in a few clubs in the '80's. They >> sounded pretty good. > > I would say the best rig I have EVER heard used that system. That would have been in the late > 70s. It was just so clean and loud. Modern speakers aren't a patch on them but do take up > less space and weigh less. I got to mix on one of those Martin systems in the early '80's. It was amazing for that era. I was a greenhorn back then. If it was the best system you ever heard, I guess you never heard the Grateful Dead/Ultrasound/Meyer rig. I was one of those people who loved to hate the Grateful Dead until I heard that rig. I could go on-and-on about the GD's sound. But that's for another thread... -Denny
From: Eeyore on 6 Jul 2008 23:18 Denny Strauser wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > > Denny Strauser wrote: > > > >> Eeyore wrote: > >>> Horn loading can cover a far wider bandwidth and be far flatter in response. > >>> They do need to be big to go low though. Like this for example. > >>> http://www.dancetech.com/aa_dt_new/pa/2X15-folded.cfm > > I saw a sound company back in the '80's who had some HUGE W-cabs. So > huge, in fact, that each cabinet was built in two parts. One part held > the speakers, and the other was a horn extension. They were attached > with butterfly latches. Otherwise, you'd need a forklift to load it in > the truck. Sounds not unlike some ex-original Pink Floyd Cabs I once saw kicking around at Wembley Loudspeakers. People wanted to use smaller trucks by then. > >>> These were classics too > >>> http://www.martin-audio.com/specifications/oldproducts/DataSheet/ModularPAdatasheet.zip > >> These bring back memories. I saw these in a few clubs in the '80's. They > >> sounded pretty good. > > > > I would say the best rig I have EVER heard used that system. That would have been in > the late > 70s. It was just so clean and loud. Modern speakers aren't a patch on them > but do take up less > space and weigh less. > > I got to mix on one of those Martin systems in the early '80's. It was > amazing for that era. I was a greenhorn back then. I can remeber even the gig to this day. It was clear, clean, undistorted and loud. So clean that I hadn't realised 'til I turned to speak to my g/f and realised I had to shout, even though we were on the balcony ! > If it was the best system you ever heard, I guess you never heard the > Grateful Dead/Ultrasound/Meyer rig. I was one of those people who loved > to hate the Grateful Dead until I heard that rig. I could go on-and-on > about the GD's sound. But that's for another thread... Ah no, but I did see, Oh who was it ? The German early techno style band's rig which was not unsimilar. Kraftwerk ? 'We are the Robots' etc. Or was it Can ? Can't temember which now. Graham
From: sluggo on 7 Jul 2008 02:04
On Jul 6, 4:06 pm, "George's ProSound Company" <bm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > I will tell > you, the sound of the horn loaded subs takes some getting used to if > you're used to front loaded; they deliver a way better sounding, deep, > full bottom end, but not that in your face kick thump, at least not > with just one a side. I find they start limiting before the tops, but > HPFing them at 35 or 40 Hz seems to help gain some headroom on them, > with little audible loss... > > Mine cost just under $5000 with my 12% Canadian taxes. > > so sloggo what subs are you running that put out anything under 35 in any > quantity? > and what instrument is feeding them substantial sub 35 Hz signal? > george I realize that George and you're right. I guess I should clarify for my application... With the harder rock I'm usually mixing, I tend to boost 75Hz rather sharply on the kick to get some of that rock kick drum thump I mentioned. I started off doing it without a HPF below that boost and it was tending to make the USC1P's go into limit on every hit. I imagine what was happening was that the slope of that heavy 75Hz boost was extending down into that 35Hz range and eating up power on stuff that is really barely in the kick to boost anyway. When I started placing a steep HPF at 40 Hz, to better isolate that 75Hz boost, there was a dramatic increase in the headroom I now had available before limiting. I admit to being a relative newb, but I've been experimenting constantly with these relatively new subs to try and get more umph out of them and these are my observations to date... Any further advice is welcome. And I thought you filtered Google Group posts? ;-) |