Mr. Griffin's paper on line arrays will explain a lot more than wikipedia!
Here, you will find explanations of how the drivers interact with each other, and the reason for the height we want to achieve with line arrays along with the number of drivers regarding impedance.
This is a very good read: http://www.audioroundtable.com/misc/nflawp.pdf
Here, you will find explanations of how the drivers interact with each other, and the reason for the height we want to achieve with line arrays along with the number of drivers regarding impedance.
This is a very good read: http://www.audioroundtable.com/misc/nflawp.pdf
Thanks. Right now speaker behavior seems more difficult than the Special Theory of Relativity.
The size of the driver needs to be relatively small to get a coherent wave front. The smaller the better, but you need a driver that could pull off the entire frequency range, in other words a true full range driver. To have potential output down low it also needs to have a reasonable x-max figure.
I chose this 3.5" size because to me they seem the right size (the right mix of compromises) to be able to pull this off. They still have good extension at high frequencies, pretty good off axis performance, closely following the on axis output, to cover my needs. Enough drivers combined with useful x-max covers the low end. 25 of these 3.5" drivers equal the size of a 15" to 16" driver, but only with a x-max of the single driver unit. (2.55 mm on these little drivers, though x-mech or x-damage is higher)
Can you imagine me lying on the floor, watching my previous loudspeaker's 15" cone at just over comfortable SPL to see how much it moved?
(this picture let's you see my old loudspeaker on the left, see how much floor space I've won back? Made my Girl happy)
The concept of floor to ceiling makes smart use of the room they are in. The reflections of the floor and ceiling add as if the array was much taller. A shorter array will not act in the same manner. Get the length at least above ~ 70% of the ceiling height. That will rid you of two very important reflections perceived at the listening position. It's as if there are no floor and ceiling reflections. A big plus in my book!
Another thing I deemed important is a clean impulse response of the driver. As you'd get a sum of all drivers at the listening position you get a train of arrivals at very high frequencies where the driver spacing in the array is just too big to add coherently. Causing comb filtering at those high frequencies.
This comb filtering is real, but if it starts high enough it isn't noticeable at all in playing music. After playing with Car audio for a while where the reflections in that space cause huge comb filter problems, due to many close by boundaries that reflect, I wasn't worried it would deteriorate the sound. As long as it starts high enough not to be a problem. My Car sound was actually getting better than the sound in my room before I started this project. That is finally corrected though.
Look at this sketch to see driver spacing to your ear at a chosen listening distance:
A smaller driver would bring that limit up, but you'd need many more to get the same Sd (the usable area of the cone that makes the sound) to be able to play low enough. And usually they have even less x-max the smaller you go.
If the "base" driver response at those top frequencies is scattered already this problem will get worse and cause more time smear at those higher frequencies.
In my opinion to do this right you need valid processing to get the desired output. EQ is mandatory. Without it you get excessive output at ~ 200 Hz and a dropping FR curve above and below that. That part gets fixed either by using an equaliser, as most seem to choose or the use of FIR filtering. In my opinion the FIR filtering does a better job and allows you to play with fixing errors in time (in other words phase).
There's more to consider. I place my speakers close to walls, this helps to bring up the low frequencies due to the close by boundary but the size of these cones make them omni radiators at wavelengths bigger than their cone size. So they splash side walls with sound, creating early reflections. You have got to counter those early reflections or it will bring you a nice spacious effect but that effect will be the same on every recording that you play. Not good!
It will also be detrimental to the imaging, the phantom centre will get fuzzy.
You need to plan the room, I use big damping panels (mostly hidden from view) on the side walls that give me trouble. On one side I don't have a side wall so not much is needed there. Another solution would be to make the array sit tightly in the corner. Like ra7 did with his arrays: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/284371-corner-floor-ceiling-line-array-using-vifa-tc9.html
The enclosure will be smaller though, to get them as tight as possible in that corner and due to that the volume for each driver will be smaller. Making them less suitable to use at low frequencies. Ra7 plans on using multiple subs to handle the low end. That's probably why he started his thread at the Multi Way side of the forum. My preferred solution was to only use that small driver for all of the frequencies. I might experiment with subs one day but do not need it. I have usable output to 20 Hz (even lower) without running into trouble.
The arrays could handle about 240 watt before they run out of steam. My amplifier, a big old heavy beast, only puts out ~ 100 watt/channel. So that will be the first thing running out of headroom. It's a Pioneer A 757 Mark II
(not mine but to give a reference, a 20 Kg beast, last of it's kind)
So to recap; you need many small drivers with huge x-max that are as clean as a whistle and performs well enough off axis. Not that many to choose from if you start to look for that. My chosen Viva TC9 FD18-08 is one of few Í have found that ticked all my boxes and it's very affordable. So it will be hard to beat.
(3D model of the Vifa I made to help out in the design stage)
After this is all said and done, look a few pages back to see all the advantages of line arrays. They do have quite a few of them compared to just about any design I know. At least that's how I still look at it after completing this project.
But be careful, don't just slab 25 drivers in a long enclosure and call it a day. Everything matters! I've had these arrays apart 2 times before they did what I wanted them to do. Changing baffle damping was a big example of that.
Taking your time helps. I did notice perceval jumping in with a few hints.
Slowly read this thread over a few days, it will tell you a lot about what I was doing and why. It may also give you the impression that I am a lunatic. That could still be true
.
I just noticed: 299.998 views on this thread! I'm humbled, that can't be all me.
I chose this 3.5" size because to me they seem the right size (the right mix of compromises) to be able to pull this off. They still have good extension at high frequencies, pretty good off axis performance, closely following the on axis output, to cover my needs. Enough drivers combined with useful x-max covers the low end. 25 of these 3.5" drivers equal the size of a 15" to 16" driver, but only with a x-max of the single driver unit. (2.55 mm on these little drivers, though x-mech or x-damage is higher)
Can you imagine me lying on the floor, watching my previous loudspeaker's 15" cone at just over comfortable SPL to see how much it moved?
(this picture let's you see my old loudspeaker on the left, see how much floor space I've won back? Made my Girl happy)
The concept of floor to ceiling makes smart use of the room they are in. The reflections of the floor and ceiling add as if the array was much taller. A shorter array will not act in the same manner. Get the length at least above ~ 70% of the ceiling height. That will rid you of two very important reflections perceived at the listening position. It's as if there are no floor and ceiling reflections. A big plus in my book!
Another thing I deemed important is a clean impulse response of the driver. As you'd get a sum of all drivers at the listening position you get a train of arrivals at very high frequencies where the driver spacing in the array is just too big to add coherently. Causing comb filtering at those high frequencies.
This comb filtering is real, but if it starts high enough it isn't noticeable at all in playing music. After playing with Car audio for a while where the reflections in that space cause huge comb filter problems, due to many close by boundaries that reflect, I wasn't worried it would deteriorate the sound. As long as it starts high enough not to be a problem. My Car sound was actually getting better than the sound in my room before I started this project. That is finally corrected though.
Look at this sketch to see driver spacing to your ear at a chosen listening distance:
A smaller driver would bring that limit up, but you'd need many more to get the same Sd (the usable area of the cone that makes the sound) to be able to play low enough. And usually they have even less x-max the smaller you go.
If the "base" driver response at those top frequencies is scattered already this problem will get worse and cause more time smear at those higher frequencies.
In my opinion to do this right you need valid processing to get the desired output. EQ is mandatory. Without it you get excessive output at ~ 200 Hz and a dropping FR curve above and below that. That part gets fixed either by using an equaliser, as most seem to choose or the use of FIR filtering. In my opinion the FIR filtering does a better job and allows you to play with fixing errors in time (in other words phase).
There's more to consider. I place my speakers close to walls, this helps to bring up the low frequencies due to the close by boundary but the size of these cones make them omni radiators at wavelengths bigger than their cone size. So they splash side walls with sound, creating early reflections. You have got to counter those early reflections or it will bring you a nice spacious effect but that effect will be the same on every recording that you play. Not good!
It will also be detrimental to the imaging, the phantom centre will get fuzzy.
You need to plan the room, I use big damping panels (mostly hidden from view) on the side walls that give me trouble. On one side I don't have a side wall so not much is needed there. Another solution would be to make the array sit tightly in the corner. Like ra7 did with his arrays: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/284371-corner-floor-ceiling-line-array-using-vifa-tc9.html
The enclosure will be smaller though, to get them as tight as possible in that corner and due to that the volume for each driver will be smaller. Making them less suitable to use at low frequencies. Ra7 plans on using multiple subs to handle the low end. That's probably why he started his thread at the Multi Way side of the forum. My preferred solution was to only use that small driver for all of the frequencies. I might experiment with subs one day but do not need it. I have usable output to 20 Hz (even lower) without running into trouble.
The arrays could handle about 240 watt before they run out of steam. My amplifier, a big old heavy beast, only puts out ~ 100 watt/channel. So that will be the first thing running out of headroom. It's a Pioneer A 757 Mark II
(not mine but to give a reference, a 20 Kg beast, last of it's kind)
So to recap; you need many small drivers with huge x-max that are as clean as a whistle and performs well enough off axis. Not that many to choose from if you start to look for that. My chosen Viva TC9 FD18-08 is one of few Í have found that ticked all my boxes and it's very affordable. So it will be hard to beat.
(3D model of the Vifa I made to help out in the design stage)
After this is all said and done, look a few pages back to see all the advantages of line arrays. They do have quite a few of them compared to just about any design I know. At least that's how I still look at it after completing this project.
But be careful, don't just slab 25 drivers in a long enclosure and call it a day. Everything matters! I've had these arrays apart 2 times before they did what I wanted them to do. Changing baffle damping was a big example of that.
Taking your time helps. I did notice perceval jumping in with a few hints.
Slowly read this thread over a few days, it will tell you a lot about what I was doing and why. It may also give you the impression that I am a lunatic. That could still be true
.I just noticed: 299.998 views on this thread! I'm humbled, that can't be all me
.Attachments
Last edited:
hey wesayso
The right speaker is right next to the wall? arent you concern about the wall right next to it. it seems if you could simply forward the speaker 1 feet that side wall wouldnt be in the way...
I'm not sure I understand why you think having many drivers remove the problematic ceiling-floor reflections though. care to explain?
Ive tried to find measurements at the listening position unsmoothed. do you have those.
congrats on that build!
The right speaker is right next to the wall? arent you concern about the wall right next to it. it seems if you could simply forward the speaker 1 feet that side wall wouldnt be in the way...
I'm not sure I understand why you think having many drivers remove the problematic ceiling-floor reflections though. care to explain?
Ive tried to find measurements at the listening position unsmoothed. do you have those.
congrats on that build!
Hello youknowyou,
It's past the wall actually, and I've checked my measurements to see if it was detrimental, it's not. Moving the speakers forward would get me in trouble with my girl. The front of the baffle is 50 cm from the wall behind it. Plus I promised my girl: no more damping panels... There's a huge panel behind that curtain on the left. On the right side I suffer more from a gas heater in front of that wall (chimney actually) about half a meter from the array. But like I promised: no more damping panels.
The stereo is no longer in that spot next to the array. The right side now mimics the left side with the stool etc.
Dig up some theory on line array behaviour and you'll see why I know I'm right about that. It's not the many drivers, it's the floor to ceiling array of many drivers. Lots of theory on this but I'd look for posts from speaker dave and his paper on array behaviour for a flying start. They were written when he was working for McIntosh and are attached to one of his older posts. My measurements further reassured me in that believe.
Of coarse I have them, but I have no idea why you would want to see those. Do you really believe we actually hear a 500 ms unsmoothed window at the higher frequencies? How are we ever going to hear something useful if we did! In a way, the frequency dependant window comes much closer to what we actually hear. They are not smoothed, though the band passing used to create them does tend to smooth them out.
Honestly I see no point in posting unsmoothed, ungated 500 ms windows. Certainly not ones taken in a living room. The closest you'll get from me is in this thread where I posted unsmoothed plots gated 7 ms (gated until after a back wall reflection in my room at ~6.3 ms, but to comply with the subject at hand): http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/285628-apl-tda-acoustic-loudspeaker-analyzing-software.html. Normally I wouldn't even post that. I'd gate before the first big reflection.
A 500 ms ERB smoothed result looks like this:
Thank you very much!
Thank you, glad to hear my build thread may serve as an inspiration for you.
Last edited:
hi wesayso,
ill look out more about the theory of reduce reflection of line arrays. I find myself more and more passionate about room treatment nowadays.
I guess the only way to know if theory is right or not is to try it and install a panel right on the first reflection point of the ceiling and floor. nothing better then to try it. IMO, for people concern of aesthetic, ceiling panels are the less intrusive. you can even make them so they actually increase the aesthetic of a room.
ill look out more about the theory of reduce reflection of line arrays. I find myself more and more passionate about room treatment nowadays.
I guess the only way to know if theory is right or not is to try it and install a panel right on the first reflection point of the ceiling and floor. nothing better then to try it. IMO, for people concern of aesthetic, ceiling panels are the less intrusive. you can even make them so they actually increase the aesthetic of a room.
Last edited:
Like I said, nothing to worry about from floor or ceiling... I have done tests
Ssssssttt, don't tell my girl!
There is no substitute for good room treatment. You can get the best speakers in the world into your room. But without any regards for the room behaviour you'd still loose out. DSP cannot treat or counter all of that. I use FIR processing more as a speaker correction tool than room correction. I could still use a bass trap for my 60 Hz "issue" on the left side. Not going to happen though.
If you want to see what a really good room can do, hop on this thread: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full-range/273971-group-delay-questions-analysis-9.html#post4328409
Follow the link to Gearslutz and read it all. Best measurements I have ever seen taken in a room are linked in the thread about group delay. Very impressive. But hardly a living room.
Ssssssttt, don't tell my girl!
There is no substitute for good room treatment. You can get the best speakers in the world into your room. But without any regards for the room behaviour you'd still loose out. DSP cannot treat or counter all of that. I use FIR processing more as a speaker correction tool than room correction. I could still use a bass trap for my 60 Hz "issue" on the left side. Not going to happen though
.If you want to see what a really good room can do, hop on this thread: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full-range/273971-group-delay-questions-analysis-9.html#post4328409
Follow the link to Gearslutz and read it all. Best measurements I have ever seen taken in a room are linked in the thread about group delay. Very impressive. But hardly a living room.
Last edited:
hi
I cannot agree more with room treatment and its importance. Ive became more and more interested by room acoustic seeing how much it added to my system to treat my room.My first reflection panels added so much depth to my soundstage, no other equipment could have giving me such increase in performance!
Im not sure how far your listening position is from the arrays, but the rockwool is not at the first reflection points and the thickness is way to thin to have any major impact. many recommend at least 4 inch thick (I use 10.5 inch myself) for first reflection panels.
If I may suggest, when you GF is not home, place the absorption on the ground at the first reflection points (exactly in between the sweet spot and the front baffle). Youll know very fast if it increase SQ
Thinking about this, since your array is 7 feet tall, you would need to have the first reflection panels also of about 8 feet. not very WAF lol
I'm aware of amazing Jim's room. im getting there slowly and slowly. Im about to install my ''cloud''.
cheers
I cannot agree more with room treatment and its importance. Ive became more and more interested by room acoustic seeing how much it added to my system to treat my room.My first reflection panels added so much depth to my soundstage, no other equipment could have giving me such increase in performance!
Im not sure how far your listening position is from the arrays, but the rockwool is not at the first reflection points and the thickness is way to thin to have any major impact. many recommend at least 4 inch thick (I use 10.5 inch myself) for first reflection panels.
If I may suggest, when you GF is not home
, place the absorption on the ground at the first reflection points (exactly in between the sweet spot and the front baffle). Youll know very fast if it increase SQThinking about this, since your array is 7 feet tall, you would need to have the first reflection panels also of about 8 feet. not very WAF lol
I'm aware of amazing Jim's room. im getting there slowly and slowly. Im about to install my ''cloud''.
cheers
Last edited:
Believe me, look up line array behaviour .
I actually want/need that floor and ceiling reflection! (strange huh?)
Have you read: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full-range/242171-making-two-towers-25-driver-full-range-line-array-169.html#post4589772?
It's working pretty good for me!
.I actually want/need that floor and ceiling reflection! (strange huh?)
Have you read: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full-range/242171-making-two-towers-25-driver-full-range-line-array-169.html#post4589772?
It's working pretty good for me!
Last edited:
IME, first reflection within 20ms are always terribly detrimental. The more I treat the first reflections, the more it becomes obvious how detrimental they are. since now I have side walls and back wall and floor treated, I can hear the reflection from the ceiling quite clearly
but maybe line arrays do something I dont understand to eliminate standing waves.
Best try it and see for yourself since you already have the rockwool... You unfortunately cannot draw any conclusions from the experiment you did (to place the panels on your arrays) as they are not at the first reflection point!
but maybe line arrays do something I dont understand to eliminate standing waves.
Best try it and see for yourself since you already have the rockwool... You unfortunately cannot draw any conclusions from the experiment you did (to place the panels on your arrays) as they are not at the first reflection point!
Last edited:
That test was done for an entirely different reason which led me to operate on the arrays and change my baffle damping. But how do I get you to read up on line array behaviour?
I agree on the clean 20 ms, I actually willingly introduce later reflections after 20 ms.
Got to go now, do read up though, might be interesting! I promise...
I agree on the clean 20 ms, I actually willingly introduce later reflections after 20 ms.
Got to go now, do read up though, might be interesting! I promise...
I'm on it
but ant seem to find much. is this what you are refering to https://www.jblpro.com/ProductAttachments/AES_Ureda_Analysis_of_Line_Arrays.pdf
yes, we definitely want reflection of over 30ms, its just the early reflection (within 20ms-25ms) that we dont want
youknowyou needs to read a bit from my Near Field Line Array White Paper wherein I describe how in a home a line array, such as wesayso's, is operating in the near field. So far field thinking will not suffice.
In my NFLAWP I describe the situation wesayso has mentioned in his experiences. Note Figure 2 from my WP on how the array vertical radiation flows perpendicular from the line while in the near field (use the equation and graph I give to compute your near to far field radiation distance). The sound flows parallel to the plane of the ceiling and floor in the near field and very little energy bounces off the ceiling and floor. Only as the sound extends farther into the room do you exceed the near to far field transition point and sound begins to reflect from the ceiling and floor. Later in my WP I show the floor and ceiling reflections that extend the near field to lower frequencies.
http://www.audioroundtable.com/misc/nflawp.pdf
In my NFLAWP I describe the situation wesayso has mentioned in his experiences. Note Figure 2 from my WP on how the array vertical radiation flows perpendicular from the line while in the near field (use the equation and graph I give to compute your near to far field radiation distance). The sound flows parallel to the plane of the ceiling and floor in the near field and very little energy bounces off the ceiling and floor. Only as the sound extends farther into the room do you exceed the near to far field transition point and sound begins to reflect from the ceiling and floor. Later in my WP I show the floor and ceiling reflections that extend the near field to lower frequencies.
http://www.audioroundtable.com/misc/nflawp.pdf
Jim,
I glanced through your paper. While it is obvious that reducing c-to-c distance will reduce comb-filtering, in practical floor-to-ceiling lines at practical listening distances, the comb-filtering is pushed up to very high frequencies. I measured my floor to ceiling line array that uses 3.5" TC9 drivers. Here is a measurement at 3 ft, 6 ft, and 12 ft away from the array and at 36 inches off the floor. Clearly, at 3 ft there is significant comb flitering, but as you move away from the array, the c-to-c distance between two drivers from the perspective of the measurement point is very small, and as a result, the phase shifts are proportionally small even at high frequencies. By 12 ft, the comb filtering begins at 16 kHz, i.e., very high.
More measurements can be found here:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mult...line-array-using-vifa-tc9-13.html#post4584857
Hi Wesayso!
I glanced through your paper. While it is obvious that reducing c-to-c distance will reduce comb-filtering, in practical floor-to-ceiling lines at practical listening distances, the comb-filtering is pushed up to very high frequencies. I measured my floor to ceiling line array that uses 3.5" TC9 drivers. Here is a measurement at 3 ft, 6 ft, and 12 ft away from the array and at 36 inches off the floor. Clearly, at 3 ft there is significant comb flitering, but as you move away from the array, the c-to-c distance between two drivers from the perspective of the measurement point is very small, and as a result, the phase shifts are proportionally small even at high frequencies. By 12 ft, the comb filtering begins at 16 kHz, i.e., very high.
More measurements can be found here:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mult...line-array-using-vifa-tc9-13.html#post4584857
Hi Wesayso!
Thanks Wesayso for your post and explanation. Will have to read entire thread- is there a feature that will
"download thread as PDF"
How does an amplifier handle 25 speakers - are they in parallel or series or a combination?
Nice work, nice speakers and you are keeping everyone happy.
Actually, any future living room system for me will look exactly like my wife wants it - I will have to work within the limitations.
This one seems nice - flat speakers with artwork. Try to fit an array here. Or maybe an in-wall array with wall covered grille cloth? Will it work?
Monitor Audio SoundFrame
"download thread as PDF"
How does an amplifier handle 25 speakers - are they in parallel or series or a combination?
Nice work, nice speakers and you are keeping everyone happy.
Actually, any future living room system for me will look exactly like my wife wants it - I will have to work within the limitations.
This one seems nice - flat speakers with artwork. Try to fit an array here. Or maybe an in-wall array with wall covered grille cloth? Will it work?
Monitor Audio SoundFrame
Hi wesayso.
I hope you don´t mind me saying this:
I admire your attention to details and I do believe all the work you have done results in a better speaker. BUT for all those that are following this thread I have to say that you can build a line array with the Vifa TC9 a lot simpler. Roger Russel from MacInthosh were actually the first to use the TC9 in such an array, but with far simpler enclosure and an analog equalyzer.
I have build an array myself, and I would say, when reading the comments to Wesayso´s arrays, you can get 95% of the way with a lot less effort.
I only say this to not disencourage people to build these arrays, as you will get a REALLY High End loudspeaker knocking the socks of nearly everything else, without going all-in like Wesayso. I am sure Wesayso´s are performing better than mine, but marginally so.
Another thing that puzzles me a little:
Do you think you are using the best equipment to drive these speakers?
IHMO these arrays really can tell the difference between a good amplifier and a great one. You don´t need much power to drive them, but the quality of the amp is clearly evident. I have thrown all kind of amps @ these arrays: OTL tube, hybrid tube/MOSFET, Class A SS and MOSFET, class AB SS and MOSFET. And the same holds true with source equipment...
I hope you are taking this up in a positive way, as I am full of admiration of your dedication and knowledge.
I hope you don´t mind me saying this:
I admire your attention to details and I do believe all the work you have done results in a better speaker. BUT for all those that are following this thread I have to say that you can build a line array with the Vifa TC9 a lot simpler. Roger Russel from MacInthosh were actually the first to use the TC9 in such an array, but with far simpler enclosure and an analog equalyzer.
I have build an array myself, and I would say, when reading the comments to Wesayso´s arrays, you can get 95% of the way with a lot less effort.
I only say this to not disencourage people to build these arrays, as you will get a REALLY High End loudspeaker knocking the socks of nearly everything else, without going all-in like Wesayso. I am sure Wesayso´s are performing better than mine, but marginally so.
Another thing that puzzles me a little:
Do you think you are using the best equipment to drive these speakers?
IHMO these arrays really can tell the difference between a good amplifier and a great one. You don´t need much power to drive them, but the quality of the amp is clearly evident. I have thrown all kind of amps @ these arrays: OTL tube, hybrid tube/MOSFET, Class A SS and MOSFET, class AB SS and MOSFET. And the same holds true with source equipment...
I hope you are taking this up in a positive way, as I am full of admiration of your dedication and knowledge.
Hi Koldby,
Yes, with my statement that everything matters I didn't want to suggest you need to be as crazy as I am. What I meant by that, and probably best if I mention this is; take care in building your enclosure. Do what you can to reduce box resonances. Think about the shape to reduce diffraction. It does help to get better performance. So far I've seen measurements from 3 other line arrays. None have matched my arrays yet when you're watching the details.
So I do think a little bit of care goes a long way.
Same goes for processing, IIR can get you a highly enjoyable sound. I can give some hints how to get the best out of it.
FIR processing can get you a little further. Again with some care. You've got to look at what the room does first. You can't solve it all by processing.
While I'm convinced my amp is reasonable, I do wish to test others in the future. I just ran out of budget to try. I tried a lot, but am running out of time and money. I have many more ideas of things to test. In time I'll get to it I hope. I do know my DAC is of good quality. But the change in Asio buffer settings was important to get the best out of it. I'd love to try different topologies. My amp is one of the last true efforts from Pioneer to optimise sound quality. For example I'd like to try the "First One" amps, the bigger one with 160 watt/channel. I've been following the thread. I'd also love to try NCore, or a Pass Lab... Sadly, no budget left to play with...
I don't want to discourage anyone from building arrays. I also don't want to claim mine are the only way. Other solutions might be better actually. I tried to show you guys what these can do. For all of us to learn something about it.
I'm just saying: think about what you want. Put in some effort. It's worth it!
Yes, with my statement that everything matters I didn't want to suggest you need to be as crazy as I am. What I meant by that, and probably best if I mention this is; take care in building your enclosure. Do what you can to reduce box resonances. Think about the shape to reduce diffraction. It does help to get better performance. So far I've seen measurements from 3 other line arrays. None have matched my arrays yet when you're watching the details.
So I do think a little bit of care goes a long way.
Same goes for processing, IIR can get you a highly enjoyable sound. I can give some hints how to get the best out of it.
FIR processing can get you a little further. Again with some care. You've got to look at what the room does first. You can't solve it all by processing.
While I'm convinced my amp is reasonable, I do wish to test others in the future. I just ran out of budget to try. I tried a lot, but am running out of time and money. I have many more ideas of things to test. In time I'll get to it I hope. I do know my DAC is of good quality. But the change in Asio buffer settings was important to get the best out of it. I'd love to try different topologies. My amp is one of the last true efforts from Pioneer to optimise sound quality. For example I'd like to try the "First One" amps, the bigger one with 160 watt/channel. I've been following the thread. I'd also love to try NCore, or a Pass Lab... Sadly, no budget left to play with...
I don't want to discourage anyone from building arrays. I also don't want to claim mine are the only way. Other solutions might be better actually. I tried to show you guys what these can do. For all of us to learn something about it.
I'm just saying: think about what you want. Put in some effort. It's worth it!
Last edited: