Jay Mitchell and the power of flat response

[Dutch]

Okay, yeah, it's obvious now that I think about it (I think I was so focused on the significance of the "Hi-Res" qualifier in your answer that I didn't really catch the "Mono" part).

Are there any disadvantages to putting stereo effects post-cab?

Will not make any difference as long as you don't use the speaker distortion parameter. But this is off-topic.

 

[Dutch]

I'd like to try IEM, but I have a feeling I wouldn't like having something stuck in my ears... they'd fall out from heavy nodding and I like to hear what's going on outside of instruments (audience, etc).

There are solutions to most of these issues but, like pro monitors, they cost pro money.

 

[Dutch]

Enjoy the hole in your wallet!

At least thát will be easier to carry...

The wallet, not the hole...

 

[brain21]

My theory is, Jay figures if we're all a little afraid of being made to look stupid, he'll be able to spend his time discussing more interesting topics.

While I try not too, I have no problem looking stupid. I do it all the time!

 

[brain21]

brain21 - my post(s) was not directed at you nor anyone directly. It was an indirect observation. If it was directed at you, I'd either name you directly or quote you directly.

Thanks Scott. Just so you (and everyone) knows I wouldn't have a problem if your post were directed at me. I can take it though if I felt I were misunderstood or whatever I would certainly defend myself (as I did, just in case). But if someone said to me "Hey, now YOU are the one being the ass!" well, I would certainly have to consider it! People are going to disagree on whatever, and in threads like this, most of us are here to be educated. As long as its civil I have no problem being told I have everything wrong. Though I would hope that would be followed up with "this is why" even if its only at a high level.

I know that there are some people (and honestly, NONE that I've seen on this forum) that simply CAN'T be told that they are wrong, even if they are foolishly arguing black hole w/ Stephen Hawking! Just want you to know I'm not one of them. Or at least I really try not to be!

 

[brain21]

OK, so I have a question for Jay, and one for anyone who knows....

Jay, in the world of pro-sumer audio - I'm thinking from the QSC K12s up to the TurboSounds, Tannoy V12, etc. will these things get significantly cheaper over time? IOW, is there something like a Moore's Law that applies to pro-sumer and even high-end audio? Esp. w/ respect to coax speakers and enclosures? Or is it a case where say the manufacturing of the speakers remains pretty much constant over time (I guess due to the processes involved)? Or maybe even a case where it is enough of a niche market that lower manufacturing costs will translate to slightly increased profit margins rather than lower price to the consumer? For example, look at a wood speaker enclosure for these systems... there is obviously the internal engineering cost to design the enclosures, but the cost for cutting and assembling the wood I would guess is going to remain pretty much constant. I wouldn't expect these properly designed enclosures (unloaded) to change in price too much over time. Speaker design and manufacture, I have no clue. We do see sheaper speakers coming out every now and then that are as good as mre expensive speakers used to be, but *I* mostly see that in the lower-end (read cheaper to begin with) of the spectrum.


OK, my other question... I understand the reason for "designing sounds" on a 12" speaker (I'll get into studio reference monitors in a sec). The theory is that it will give you the most neutral starting point for any FOH system you run into. Sure, if the FOH is all 15's you might have too much bass. But if you designed on 15's and the place had 12" then you could have no enough bass, not counting anything that the sound guy might do to worsen or better that. Now Scott has mentioned that he designs sounds on his studio monitors (and emphasizes using good monitors and a PROPER setup). We also know that some have commented that running through a 15" FRFR setup gives them a more amp-like feel. So my question is, would it be a valid strategy to create your patch on studio monitors, so you have that neutral tone. Have that run out output 1 & 2 (in mono) , and then add some post EQ to say output 1 only to get the feel where you like it for your on stage monitor only? IOW, if I have say an 8" and feel like I need more thump to give me a more amp-like feel (or whatever). I would start with a neutral patch (as close as I could get it), and then tailor one of the outputs afterwards so that at least on stage I am getting whatever I feel I need/want to get the right feel on stage, understanding full well that what I am hearing on stage is not exactly what the audience hears, but having confidence in the fact that the output that goes FOH DOES have that neutral sound since the patch was initially designed to sound good that way? In the traditional guitar world, you dial up your amp to get a great sound on stage (hopefully) and you are then at the mercy of the house sound (is the mic good? Is it placed properly? Is the sound guy properly EQing you for the best sound ande fitting in the overall band mix properly). IOW, in the amp world, often you find yourself with house sound that doesn't match what you hear on stage (for better or worse). Clear as mud? What are the caveats and dangers of doing this?

And should those questions be in a different thread? If so, then tell me and I'll create a new one and delete this post or note that it was moved.

Thanks!

 

[Jay Mitchell]

is there something like a Moore's Law that applies to pro-sumer and even high-end audio?

No.

I understand the reason for "designing sounds" on a 12" speaker

Say what?

The theory is that it will give you the most neutral starting point for any FOH system you run into.

Uhh, no. Bandwidth is bandwidth. Quite a few 12" speakers have less low-frequency bandwidth than some 6.5" woofers. I have no idea where your "theory" comes from. I certainly didn't propose it, and it is demonstrably incorrect.

 

[xrist04]

OK, so I have a question for Jay, and one for anyone who knows....

Jay, in the world of pro-sumer audio - I'm thinking from the QSC K12s up to the TurboSounds, Tannoy V12, etc. will these things get significantly cheaper over time? IOW, is there something like a Moore's Law that applies to pro-sumer and even high-end audio? Esp. w/ respect to coax speakers and enclosures? Or is it a case where say the manufacturing of the speakers remains pretty much constant over time (I guess due to the processes involved)? Or maybe even a case where it is enough of a niche market that lower manufacturing costs will translate to slightly increased profit margins rather than lower price to the consumer? For example, look at a wood speaker enclosure for these systems... there is obviously the internal engineering cost to design the enclosures, but the cost for cutting and assembling the wood I would guess is going to remain pretty much constant. I wouldn't expect these properly designed enclosures (unloaded) to change in price too much over time. Speaker design and manufacture, I have no clue. We do see sheaper speakers coming out every now and then that are as good as mre expensive speakers used to be, but *I* mostly see that in the lower-end (read cheaper to begin with) of the spectrum.

This may really be a question of economics, of basic supply and demand. The demand curve for higher-end equipment will look different, because fewer buyers are in the market for that type of gear.

 

[Jay Mitchell]

This may really be a question of economics, of basic supply and demand.

Those elements are present, but there in an intrinsic difference between manufacturing devices which must perform work and have moving parts (e.g., automobiles, industrial equipment, loudspeakers) and devices which only process information. Sound reproduction equipment that is capable of any real degree of accuracy has not, in general, gotten cheaper over the years, certainly not in the way computers have.

 

[browlett]

Man - If I didn't know any better, I would have thought I stumbled into the forums at thegearpage.net. I had to check the top of this page to make sure.

 

[brain21]

No.

Say what?

Uhh, no. Bandwidth is bandwidth. Quite a few 12" speakers have less low-frequency bandwidth than some 6.5" woofers. I have no idea where your "theory" comes from. I certainly didn't propose it, and it is demonstrably incorrect.

It was discussed earlier in this thread, or possibly in another one. The discussion centered around the idea of creating patches (designing sounds) through your own equipment (collective "your" not as a pronoun for Jay Mitchell). IOW, why you would want to get a 12" powered speaker for your AxeFx rather than say a 15 inch that would alter your sound. I guess the theory was that the 12" was the happy medium between say a 15" or a 10" powered PA speaker.

IOW, this was for those who don't have a super high-end system - we need to create our patches on SOMETHING. The idea was mentioned (not by me either), and then in response Scott Peterson talked about creating them instead on properly setup studio monitors. Again, this might have been on a different thread here too, not necessarily this one.

No, the idea didn't come from you

 

[Jay Mitchell]

IOW, why you would want to get a 12" powered speaker for your AxeFx rather than say a 15 inch that would alter your sound.

Either stand to "alter your sound," and neither is preferable based solely on the nominal diameter of the woofer. This is knee-jerk thinking that does a disservice to people who might take it to heart.

I guess the theory was that the 12" was the happy medium between say a 15" or a 10" powered PA speaker.

The "theory," such as it is, is mistaken.

 

[brain21]

Either stand to "alter your sound," and neither is preferable based solely on the nominal diameter of the woofer. This is knee-jerk thinking that does a disservice to people who might take it to heart.

The "theory," such as it is, is mistaken.

OK, good. I had my own thoughts on it and kinda felt the same thing, but wasn't sure if my reasoning was wrong or right I figured that there were too many variables in the speakers/cabinets to be able to judge really (w/o actual test equipment), and as I believe you have stated, most of the published speaker specs and charts aren't really that helpful/accurate either.

 

[Lapo]

Hey Scott, Thanks for sharing, its very interesting to hear about your experiences and insights.I was curious to hear how the Frazier compared to the Atomic in terms of the 'in the room feel'. Ive heard that the atomic brings that pysical connection to another level so im interested to know how much of that feel a great speaker can produce. I was also curious what poweramp you were using and which Tannoy you had. Ive seen used T12s recently for 950 a pair and hear that they sound very good. Another affordable speaker Ive heard of that might be the improvement in tone your now looking for is the Phil Jones Pure Sound W10: Compact PA System Model W-10 AAD Speakers from Phil Jones | Phil Jones Pure Sound . Phil got a name for himself designing home hi fi speaker systems. He later devolped some very highly regarded bass amps (endorsed by Motown's Bob Babbitt) using 5 INCH SPEAKERS!, and some innovative, high fidelity PA systems. The passive W10's look very promising. $1500 a pair, 24 lbs each, and 180 degree dispersion. Theyre said to sound more like home hi-fi speakers than pa speakers and to have a nearly-subwoofer bass response. Though I cant upgrade speakers just yet (I need better acoustics first) Im keen to hear more impressions of these W10's. I could only find one (very favorable) review. Also, im not sure if your bi-amping your turbosound, but I just learned that it can be done, which would improve the sound. Biwiring and Passive Biamping Good Luck and keep us informed.

 

[srooijens]

I guess the theory was that the 12" was the happy medium between say a 15" or a 10" powered PA speaker.

Everyone should get what works for them but IMO 12" is pretty much the absolute MAXIMUM size that can still be somewhat decently crossed over to a horn in a 2-way system and smaller speakers have advantages that can be important. The happy medium I chose happened to be (a pair of) 8" speakers. I don't feel any lack of low end but if I did I'd add a 12 or 15" subwoofer to my system instead of getting bigger 2-way speakers.

YMMV but this works for me.

S.R.

 

[brain21]

The happy medium I chose happened to be (a pair of) 8" speakers. I don't feel any lack of low end but if I did I'd add a 12 or 15" subwoofer to my system instead of getting bigger 2-way speakers.

Which ones, and how is the volume on your 8"? From what I've heard, the 8" (QSC, FBT, EV, etc.) *might* not be loud enough for gigging levels of a loud, full band.

 

[Dutch]

Hey Scott, Thanks for sharing, its very interesting to hear about your experiences and insights.I was curious to hear how the Frazier compared to the Atomic in terms of the 'in the room feel'. Ive heard that the atomic brings that pysical connection to another level so im interested to know how much of that feel a great speaker can produce. I was also curious what poweramp you were using and which Tannoy you had. Ive seen used T12s recently for 950 a pair and hear that they sound very good. Another affordable speaker Ive heard of that might be the improvement in tone your now looking for is the Phil Jones Pure Sound W10: Compact PA System Model W-10 AAD Speakers from Phil Jones | Phil Jones Pure Sound . Phil got a name for himself designing home hi fi speaker systems. He later devolped some very highly regarded bass amps (endorsed by Motown's Bob Babbitt) using 5 INCH SPEAKERS!, and some innovative, high fidelity PA systems. The passive W10's look very promising. $1500 a pair, 24 lbs each, and 180 degree dispersion. Theyre said to sound more like home hi-fi speakers than pa speakers and to have a nearly-subwoofer bass response. Though I cant upgrade speakers just yet (I need better acoustics first) Im keen to hear more impressions of these W10's. I could only find one (very favorable) review. Also, im not sure if your bi-amping your turbosound, but I just learned that it can be done, which would improve the sound. Biwiring and Passive Biamping Good Luck and keep us informed.

Bold claims. Those look too good to be true... Usually they are.

Anybody feel really lucky? I am too curious.

 

[zslane]

I was curious to hear how the Frazier compared to the Atomic in terms of the 'in the room feel'. Ive heard that the atomic brings that pysical connection to another level...

If the Atomic is as linear as Tom suggests, then it should be very transparent (i.e., flat response), and shouldn't be doing anything on its own to add any kind of "in the room feel" at all. That's not the job of a sound reinforcement system, that's the job of the Axe-FX and the cab IR you employ.

Anyone care to explain how the Atomics have acquired this supposed reputation for adding "in the room feel"?

 

[Lapo]

Bold claims. Those look too good to be true... Usually they are.

Anybody feel really lucky? I am too curious.

Apparently hes gotten the subwoofer response from 10 inch speakers part down. I just realized his $10,000 LS1800 PA sysyem uses 10's in its subwoofers!

 

[xrist04]

If the Atomic is as linear as Tom suggests, then it should be very transparent (i.e., flat response), and shouldn't be doing anything on its own to add any kind of "in the room feel" at all. That's not the job of a sound reinforcement system, that's the job of the Axe-FX and the cab IR you employ.

Anyone care to explain how the Atomics have acquired this supposed reputation for adding "in the room feel"?

First we'd have to have a clearer definition of "in the room feel," in acoustic terms. How does one objectively measure this?