When you're bored, show off your stuff!
Buzz Lightyear
Posts: 75
One of the main house systems at one of three clubs I'm maintaining...
There's Ev ZX fills too, I'll add those later. What's everyone else got?
There's Ev ZX fills too, I'll add those later. What's everyone else got?
0
Comments
DRA
Buzz...that's a nice rig..what did you use to make the page?
G
*rotf* I can well imagine that!
I would suggest highly compressed JPG's. That image is only like...50something Kb
G
They're passive...however unfortunately underpowered! The QsC 2502 at best is transferring the noise at just under 800w in the present structure. Honestly, they're tough, but are not very warm. The 218 is another beast of burden...with the 3602 bridged i cannot focus my eyes nor keep a steady heartbeat. I don't know why they have the Turbosounds. They're jenky! I borrowed two JBL VRX918S's ran off a Crown XS1200...I couldn't breathe.
Another venue has 4 of the Turbosound TXD118's ran off a Crown XS1200...hmmmmmmmm
:twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
G :shock:
These days, I'm all about the cardiac arrhythmias.
Fugue and Toccata in D minor, Lux Eterna, and select Pirates of the Caribbean tracks are amongst the heaviest of hitters. In the chord of E to what order?!
I'm just not liking these EV tops...the JBL SRX722s were so smooth. I'm at -12db on all just short of mids to take the shreek out and still too high.
~BZL~
\"boom, here comes the boom, ready or not, how you like me now?\"
That's interesting...everyone over at the PSW usually says that JBL is the harshest horn speaker...I do know that Mike Kovach measured some SRX722's and they couldn't even produce 12K at 3db down...nothing from there up and when pressed for a comment chose to ignore the clients protests...the JBL's went bye bye...and Danley Sound got the nod...One of the 722 even had the wrong driver in it, and when they got the right one.. it could do no better... and JBL specs those to 20Khz...Now that's down right crooked, lying advertising...
G
Is it lying if you believe it to be true? And, if you believe it to be true, when it's not, does that make you incompetent?
Some people say I'm apathetic and ignorant. I don't know what they mean by that, but quite frankly, I don't care.
DRA
There is NO truth in advertising on today's pro audio speakers... they can be made to spec any way you want, and there is no repercussions... even within the community...
To my way of seeing things, JBL, Bose, and EV are the WORST perpetrators of this ... \" We can make even a widget a prize\" and we continue to buy the crap just because it has the name...
:evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:
I have said all I will on this subject because it is so pervasive as to be insidious.. and the fact that the companies are \"beyond reproach\" flies in the face of the facts... but still nothing is EVER done...
G
In the order of \"daisy chaining\" or \"piggy backing\" multiple enclosures, what is the applied formula in determining line load?
Connections via Neutrik throughput to enclosure #1 to #2 to #3 as an example...
Average the impedence of all speaker and devide by the # of speakers.
(3) 8 ohm speakers in parallel.
Average: 8+8+8 = 24/3 = 8
Divide by 3: 8/3 = 2.67
-or-
(8+8+8)/3/3 = 2.67
-or-
Total ohms (sum) divided by the square of the # of cabinets.
(4) 8 ohm speakers in parallel.
8+8+8+8 = 32
32/4/4 = 2 or 32/16 = 2
DRA
Not sure how to figure those.
DRA
When a speaker is mounted into a box, and hooked up to an amp, dynamic forces inside the box cause the amp to see a lot more than resistance.. It's called impedance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_impedance
Gadget
1/(1/a+1/b+1/c......+1/x)
So if we have 2 x 8ohm load and a 4ohm load, the parallel impedance is
1/(1/8+1/8+1/4)=2ohms
Hope this make sense
Robbo
I guess it is indeed a small world after all
Thanks for the input...have a great day!
G
BTW did you see it was nearly 50 degrees BELOW ZERO here last night..... think I'll cut a hole in the ice big enough for my boat so I can go Ice fishing LOL ... OOPS that's probably around 3 FEET of ice at this point... :shock: Oh well.. maybe I'll just lay under a sun lamp and dream of a vacation to the outback... be well my friend...
Gadget
Stay cool...
G :oops:
Well it appears that I have the system at one of the problematic clubs dialed in. Laying the foundation with the basic gain structure with the DRPA and its' EQ and crossover capabilities really seemed to help add color and depth to the mains.
The one thing that I noticed when setting the gain structure with the pink noise track was that the track was not normalized to the same level as the other tracks on the CD. I reformatted the signal utilizing the signal properties tool in my burner program so I was able to achieve a signal level capable of raising the meters utilizing input trim to the point of clipping on the board.
Also, the lower end of the sound spectrum on the track was not equal to the midrange and higher frequencies it produced. What would be the reason for that to occur?
The other observation that I made after enabling all the other processor attributes in the DRPA was that after I had set the gain structure, I would enable the GEQ (which had been adjusted to lower shelf settings) was that the signal made visible by the amplifier meters dropped dramatically. Enough to the point where the signal level was not the same before enabling everything on the DRPA. This had dropped the sound level from the mains to a level that was not acceptable. I then made some minor gain adjustments on the amplifier along with gain levels in the DRPA crossover and with the mixer at a nominal level, the SPL from the mains was exceptionally loud and clear.
Soundchecking with one of the DJs that plays at the venue, we had determined at that point that the SPL was acceptable. Observing the input signal meters from the board on the DRPA and the output signal to the amp rack with music playing was:
Input meter was averaging +10dbu and peaking in the +15dbu, rarely clipping unless a track had been played that required adjustment via the MAC therefore reducing it back to the previously mentioned levels.
Output meters on the HIGH/MID were almost perfectly balanced living in the area of +5 ~ +10 dbu. The sub was averaging +5 dbu peaking around +10.
At what had been determined a quality level of sound (aka really !%&$ing loud) the amp meters were dancing in the -10dbu and gains on the QSC2502s were at this level throughout (however slightly higher on the sub QSC3602 due to the lower output signal level):
The big catch here is that the previous system tech (according to word around the campfire) was that they had done \"something\" to the system that was causing repeated failure of the EV tops and bottoms. I had noted that when I perused the program file being utilized prior to any adjustments, that neither EQ section was utilized nor was the soft limiter enabled. As well, all the gains had been at full clockwise.
I am hoping to make my new name better and heard by other venues by not blowing anything up or causing premature failure of the system by utilizing what talents I have and dialing in the systems to the point all they need is a good bath when they get dusty/dirty. This is somewhat old hat but in the years between, it's also new hat.
Thoughts? Questions? Comments?
~buzz~
Track 58: Pink noise 20 minutes. Double Mono - same signal on both Left and Right. This track allows you to set system EQ controls while using a high-quality omnidirectional test microphone and a software audio analyzer tool like SmaartLive, SIMM or SpectraFoo. Some experienced techs can EQ by ear with pink noise. You can also use pink with audio analysis programs to set delay times. And pink noise is helpful in setting bandpass levels on crossovers. This track has these power characteristics: Average RMS Power= -12.2dB. Max RMS Power= -8.77. Min RMS Power= -14.9dB. Peak Amplitude= -1.65dB
Good to hear your well on your way to solving the worlds problems one club at a time. Do you use the tools available in the FAQ? I hope you are not basing your system tuning on the DRPA Auto EQ.. because you know, an RTA based analyzer falls short in any number of departments...
G