khachai44
New Member
Making line array theory work in the real world inevitably introduces compromises that deviate to a degree from the desired ideal behaviour.
I believe the argument for divergence shading has significant merit. I'm not entirely convinced it's as big an issue as is implied in white papers written by advocates such as Dave Gunness, due to other compromises inherent in most implementation of loudspeaker arrays. There is considerable debate over the issue, but I'm not qualified or sufficiently conversant with the technicalities to summarize it here!
Aside from the issues around imperfect summation from differing sound pressure levels, one real world practical benefit of divergence shading over amplitude shading, is that fewer separate processing and amplifier channels are required - the same amplitude is sent to the downfill elements as is sent to the boxes above, in order to ensure the neighbouring sound pressure levels are equal. Hence in an array of cabs where one pass band has a resistance of 16R, one http://amthanhthudo.com/loa-line-array processor and amp channel could feed up to 8 boxes - a helpful practical benefit similar to many other points of view that favour line arrays in general.
Another benefit is scalability - where by adding additional identical inventory, providers can scale up according to changing coverage requirements.
The predictable sightline impact allows them to easily be factored in to set designs.
Many significant attractive line array qualities have nothing to do with the much-hyped inverse square law-beating properties of an idealized line source.
I agree that line arrays are a useful tool to have, but I don't believe they've become so popular due to their sound quality. Their primary benefits are related to the many and varied logistical costs associated with large scale sound reinforcement.
I believe the argument for divergence shading has significant merit. I'm not entirely convinced it's as big an issue as is implied in white papers written by advocates such as Dave Gunness, due to other compromises inherent in most implementation of loudspeaker arrays. There is considerable debate over the issue, but I'm not qualified or sufficiently conversant with the technicalities to summarize it here!
Aside from the issues around imperfect summation from differing sound pressure levels, one real world practical benefit of divergence shading over amplitude shading, is that fewer separate processing and amplifier channels are required - the same amplitude is sent to the downfill elements as is sent to the boxes above, in order to ensure the neighbouring sound pressure levels are equal. Hence in an array of cabs where one pass band has a resistance of 16R, one http://amthanhthudo.com/loa-line-array processor and amp channel could feed up to 8 boxes - a helpful practical benefit similar to many other points of view that favour line arrays in general.
Another benefit is scalability - where by adding additional identical inventory, providers can scale up according to changing coverage requirements.
The predictable sightline impact allows them to easily be factored in to set designs.
Many significant attractive line array qualities have nothing to do with the much-hyped inverse square law-beating properties of an idealized line source.
I agree that line arrays are a useful tool to have, but I don't believe they've become so popular due to their sound quality. Their primary benefits are related to the many and varied logistical costs associated with large scale sound reinforcement.