EAW?

[lonewolf]

I'm tired of hearing about EAW. Yes, they sound good, but with efficiencies of 92db on touring equipment, I don't want to hear about it anymore. I looked up and down their line and was amazed to find that most of their touring stuff is so inefficient that I could use my computer's 100w/channel power amp on a pair of EV SX300s and BLOW MOST OF THEM AWAY--with a wider frequency response and the same range.

The only thing I can figure is that it takes SO MANY huge EAW speakers to get a concert SPL that they make great props.

So, here's to boat anchors.

....................../´¯/)
....................,/¯../
.................../..../
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨|¯\
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
..........''...\.......... _.·´
............\..............(
..............\.............\....

[HurricaneBob]

[lonewolf]

Bobby, is that guy for real? Does he do childrens' birthday parties?

[Dave]

Did I miss a discussion about EAW here or are you just venting from something else?

It seems like you are making a pretty broad, undefined statement here.

Dave.

[lonewolf]

Did I miss a discussion about EAW here or are you just venting from something else?

It seems like you are making a pretty broad, undefined statement here.

Dave.

You betcha. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

However, I wouldn't mind some discussion on the subject. It wasn't that broad of a statement. I basically said that most of EAW's touring line were very ineffecient. This would not include the LA series or some of their "smaller" stuff. By "smaller", I mean less than 200lbs. I'm not sure if they make anything under 100lbs.

[Dave]

However, I wouldn't mind some discussion on the subject.

Sounds like a good topic to discuss.

Do you think that the 1w/1m SPL rating is an important factor in touring system rigs?

I will not even to pretend to understand the complexities of large touring systems but it is an interesting topic.

Dave.

[lonewolf]

I took a 2nd look at EAW specs and there are some pretty efficient rigs there. I think I will retract that inefficient statement.

Sensitivity is a primary factor in system design any time you are matching up different frequency band cabs and drivers, (i.e. subs with 2-way cabs). It may be difficult to get power amps that will match up exactly with the cab specs and you need to be able to predict the output of each cab or driver under different power conditions, including maximum SPL. The idea is to get each component powered properly to put out the the same SPL relative to the other components.

Maximum ratings can be used for this, but you will get better results if you do an SPL analysis of the cabs. This can also aid in the selection of power amps for a system.

The sensitivity rating by itself is usually not enough to make precise matches. I like to break everything down to the 31-band level from the 1w/1m frequency response charts in the general frequency regions where I intend to use each cab. This can give you a better indication of crossover points and EQ requirements for the flattest overall system response.

When you array cabs, the SPL of the frequencies under around 400hz can significantly increase with the phenomenon known as acoustic coupling. Sensitivity analysis can help you to smooth this out as well. This would probably serve several existing systems out there where boominess is a problem.

[bassist_25]

Did I miss a discussion about EAW here or are you just venting from something else?

It seems like you are making a pretty broad, undefined statement here.

Dave.

You betcha. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

However, I wouldn't mind some discussion on the subject. It wasn't that broad of a statement. I basically said that most of EAW's touring line were very ineffecient. This would not include the LA series or some of their "smaller" stuff. By "smaller", I mean less than 200lbs. I'm not sure if they make anything under 100lbs.

It seems (IMO) that cabinets with high wattage handling are usually inefficient. I'd rather drive an efficient low-wattage cabinet and save my head room, than throw thousands of watts at a cabinet just to get it to sound up to par.

I come from the school that says that bigger isn't always better. My bass cabinet's loaded with neodymium speakers, and I love how easy it is to handle at the end of the night (the rack's a different story *LOL*). Of course, neos have a mid-range bump that some people might now like, but I'm a mid-range freak, so I'm in love with them.

It may be difficult to get power amps that will match up exactly with the cab specs and you need to be able to predict the output of each cab or driver under different power conditions, including maximum SPL. The idea is to get each component powered properly to put out the the same SPL relative to the other components.

I generally prefer to have a power amp that's rated higher than the cabinet. That way I can drive the cabinet to maximum output and still have plenty of headroom available. If given the choice between clipping a speaker and clipping a power, I'd rather clip a speaker (though it may be more difficult to detect speaker clipping since you have to go purely by your ears). I only look at RMS ratings when considering equipment.

[lonewolf]

I generally prefer to have a power amp that's rated higher than the cabinet. That way I can drive the cabinet to maximum output and still have plenty of headroom available. If given the choice between clipping a speaker and clipping a power, I'd rather clip a speaker (though it may be more difficult to detect speaker clipping since you have to go purely by your ears). I only look at RMS ratings when considering equipment.

When matching amps & cabs for P.A. you will get maximum headroom if you match a power amp's rms value to the cabinet's peak value. With pro equipment, that's usually 4 times the rated rms power of the cab.
Of course, you must be careful to set the amp output so that its normally running at the cab's rms and only the peaks reach the amp's rated output.

That is not the case for instrument amps & speakers, especially bass rigs, because the dynamics are different. What you are doing is right, but you don't want the amp's rms rating to be much more than 1.25 x the cabinet rating.

I just bought a Celestion Century G12 neodymium guitar speaker cheap on eBay. It is hard to describe how good it sounds. The 1st thing that came to mind was Jimmy Page + Les Paul + 4 Marshall stacks, except that it was just me and a Flying V and a little Boogie Thiele cab. At 4lbs., It is 4 times louder and much clearer than the Boogie Celestion 90 in the other cab. 4lbs! At $200 a pop, they aren't cheap, but I keep watching eBay. I'd like to get 4 of them and an empty Marshall MG412 cab.

[Ron]

I'm tired of hearing about EAW. Yes, they sound good, but with efficiencies of 92db on touring equipment, I don't want to hear about it anymore...

IMO, efficiency is the worst way to rate the worthiness of any speaker. Sound quality will always be king, at least to me. Shouldn't you rate a speaker on how good it sounds as opposed to the maximum volume level that it can reach?

The sensitivity rating by itself is usually not enough to make precise matches. I like to break everything down to the 31-band level from the 1w/1m frequency response charts in the general frequency regions where I intend to use each cab. This can give you a better indication of crossover points and EQ requirements for the flattest overall system response.

I trust my ears a lot more than I trust any manufacturer's spec sheet, especially 2-axis frequency response charts. Did you ever play with a computer RTA with capture capabilities like the manufacturers use? You could sit all day capturing screens and never see the same 2 axis response graph twice. The manufacturers know this and will capture multiple response graphs and publish the one that looks the best.

I also find a flat frequency response very irritating to listen to. Our ears are naturally sensitive in the 400Hz to 2KHz range, so getting a flat frequency response through an RTA or other means is going to make the overall sound bland and boring, with the highs and lows masked by midrange. What I find works best is not a flat line, but a response curve with no more than a 3dB variation from octave to octave.

In speakers with a high efficiency rating, I find that the peaks that give it the high efficiency rating usually have to be cut with an eq because they color the sound too much, so the high efficiency rating is negated anyway.

I generally prefer to have a power amp that's rated higher than the cabinet. That way I can drive the cabinet to maximum output and still have plenty of headroom available. If given the choice between clipping a speaker and clipping a power, I'd rather clip a speaker (though it may be more difficult to detect speaker clipping since you have to go purely by your ears).

It is definitely a good thing to have a power amp that is rated higher than the cabinet. The things that kill speakers are the short DC pulses that live at the clipped off peaks of an audio waveform. During these DC pulses, the driver is magnetically locked at a stand-still with a voltage applied to it's coil, sort of like a mini toaster.

If the speaker driver is constantly in motion, but with a higher than recommended AC audio applied, (the scenario if you give a speaker unclipped audio exceeding it's power rating), then your chances of failure are much, much lower than what you would see from a clipped amplifier.

If, however, you do reach the physical limits of the driver, you will know it right away, as it will make a loud crack as the voice coil bottoms out against the magnet assembly. Once this happens, it's just a matter of time until eminent failure. The voice coil will be deformed from the bottoming out, and will either get stuck on the pole piece and burn up, invert the cone as the spider fails on the next excursion, or get that terrible scratching sound at low volumes as the deformed voice coil scrapes along the magnetic gap.

Extended pole pieces in a driver will help prevent the bottoming out and raise the power handling capacity, but that demands that the spider and surround of the driver be built of more rugged materials, which usually means that they are heavier and less flexible, resulting in a loss of efficiency. When this happens though, the lost efficiency is usually countered by lower damping factor (the 'Q' of the driver) because of the stiffer material, making the driver capable of a lower frequency response from a smaller enclosure.

All of these contributing factors make each speaker unique, and make selecting a speaker from specs alone very difficult and a waste of time IMO. Listening will always be the only way to ensure happiness with a speaker purchase.

EAW's, like any speaker on the market, can sound very good or very bad. Correct placement in the room is critical, and if that's right, dialing the system in becomes much easier. The rest of the quality rests on the shoulders of the band and the soundman.

[lonewolf]

IMO, efficiency is the worst way to rate the worthiness of any speaker. Sound quality will always be king, at least to me. Shouldn't you rate a speaker on how good it sounds as opposed to the maximum volume level that it can reach?

Sound quality? What measurement is that in? You will have to look far and wide to find a bad sounding cab from the top tier companies. So, sound quality being roughly equal, what's next in line? Output.

Remember the context of my post...designing a system at the cabinet level, not tweaking a room or buying specific drivers. This is meant for selecting cabs & amps, not running them. You don't want to match up a 140db sub with a 124db cabinet. You also don't want to have to EQ certain frequencies 12db to get to 0db. None of my comments have anything to do with tweaking a room.

The last time I looked, EAW doesn't make their own components and are no longer using the RCF components that made them great.

If you had a choice of two sets of main speakers, each with the same quality sound and 132db output, one set weighs 200lbs and the other 500lbs...which one will you choose?

[Dave]

If you had a choice of two sets of main speakers, each with the same quality sound and 132db output, one set weighs 200lbs and the other 500lbs...which one will you choose?

It would depend on what you are doing. If you needed a flyable cabinet you might not have a choice. That kind of construction and hardware adds a lot of weight.

Real pro level equipment is heavy. It has to be very rugged.

I do realize that this may be out of the scope of this thread.

Dave.

[lonewolf]

If you had a choice of two sets of main speakers, each with the same quality sound and 132db output, one set weighs 200lbs and the other 500lbs...which one will you choose?

It would depend on what you are doing. If you needed a flyable cabinet you might not have a choice. That kind of construction and hardware adds a lot of weight.

Real pro level equipment is heavy. It has to be very rugged.

I do realize that this may be out of the scope of this thread.

Dave.

Actually, Dave, that is the crux of this thread, and I think this applies even more to permanent installs than portable rigs.

In this case, the 200lb stuff is flyable, arrayable and as rugged as anything made.

Real pro level equipment was heavy in 1985. Not all of it is heavy in 2005. Some manufacturers have made that happen and some haven't. EAW happens to be in the latter category.

[Ron]

Sound quality? What measurement is that in? You will have to look far and wide to find a bad sounding cab from the top tier companies. So, sound quality being roughly equal, what's next in line? Output.

That's sort of my beef, the sharp decline of the "art of listening" over the past couple decades. Everyone seems to be hung up on specs, loads of bass, high volumes, and blinky lights, while unmeasurable things like accuracy and imaging have fallen by the wayside. That really disturbs me because those subtleties are what bring out the magic in music... They are the human element, the stuff that gives you chills. They are the taste of filet mignon when everyone seems happy chowing down on hotdogs. Would you like some ketchup with your MP3's?

To tell the truth, I rarely hear any pro sound equipment that even comes close to my personal standard for sound quality. The most recent exception (surprisingly) are the new Bose line arrays. I've never had an affinity for Bose equipment, but those are the first products I've heard in a while that are pushing toward quality and actually making vocals the focus of their technology instead of kick drums. Don't get me wrong, I love a solid kick that you can feel, but if it comes at the cost of a clean vocal mix, I'll pass.

OK, my rant is over.

[songsmith]

On a somewhat related note, TJKelly got us a pair of those new Peavey molded trapezoidal boxes, PR15's, I think... A few years ago, I would have pooh-poohed anything made of molded plastic... these are similiar to the Quadra 15's... great sound, and when I went to put one on a stick the other day, I almost threw it across the room, it was so light. Granted, not something I'd use in a giant multi-cabinet array, but great for a bar band.-------->JMS

[lonewolf]

For me, using specs is just a guide for putting things together, and it has worked very well for me. It doesn't have anything to do with operating the equipment. I agree with you 100%, that is where the art comes in. I also 100% agree with you about the importance of the vocal mix and the ridiculous use of booming subs today (something that can be avoided by the proper use of specs). Another important aspect is headroom. That is the primary reason I look at the output of a system--not to get as loud as possible, but to have that headroom when needed. Assuming all the top tier stuff sounds as good (or bad) as one another and you've done your job getting the sound just right, the system with the most headroom available will probably do the best job.

There is one new piece of equipment that you should check out if you get the chance. The powered (biamped) EV SXa360. While maintaining amazing vocal clarity, it is much warmer sounding than its predecessors and yes, maybe a little louder. I did some RTA's on them and they were about as close to the vendor provided curve as I have ever seen. I haven't heard anything in pro audio that sounds any better, and at 36lbs and 24"x18"x12", nothing any smaller.

[Ron]

The 360's definitely look like a good product. One of the things that I like about the design is that they are using 12's instead of 15's. That's a big reason why they are warm sounding.

Why any company would ever put 15" woofers and 1" throat horns alone in the same cabinet is beyond me. Probably just marketing strategy along the "bigger is better" lines. Even with a 1 1/2" throat driver, a 2-way design is pushing the envelope when coupled with a 15. Neither is good at reproducing midrange without harshness, so the warmth just isn't there. I've heard some systems with 15's and 1 1/2" horns that were OK, but never anything that really grabbed my attention.

I also like a lot of headroom in a mix, and that relates to another thing that really bothers me... The most over-used component in pro-sound history... the compressor. Leave them for guitar rigs and singers who don't back off of the mic when they're belting it out. If it's on the mains it should barely touch the signal, and mainly it should be there as a limiter to protect the system in case of a mishap.

[tonefight]

On a somewhat related note, TJKelly got us a pair of those new Peavey molded trapezoidal boxes, PR15's, I think... A few years ago, I would have pooh-poohed anything made of molded plastic... these are similiar to the Quadra 15's... great sound, and when I went to put one on a stick the other day, I almost threw it across the room, it was so light. Granted, not something I'd use in a giant multi-cabinet array, but great for a bar band.-------->JMS

That's what we're using now, they are very nice speakers for the buck. Hell at that price you can have a spare in the van............. but it doesn't seem like you'll need it if ya use em smart

[lonewolf]

Those Peaveys should be just about indestructible as long as you feed them good clean power.

Ron, I'm glad you brought that up about compressors. I see some rigs with compressors inserted on every channel. Huh? What for? In most cases, all it does is squash the tone. I guess some people like to trim the after-ring on drums, but that also removes the ambience. Except for EQ, I don't like to process anything. Just a touch of 'verb and FX when called for.

I have been experimenting at practice with a different miking scheme for our drums. One EV ND868 bass drum mic and two Neumann KM84s for lack of a better term "sideheads". I was going to use a snare mic, but it was unnecessary and would only lead to snaregrain headaches (that's another peeve of mine). Instead of putting them overhead, I put a KM84 at each end of the drums, at a height just above the hi-hat, but below most of the cymbals. The ride is furthest from both, and the focal point of both mics. I dumped the mix to my computer and not only did everything sound well mixed, but all the natural ambience was there, without the extra drum ring you can get from close proximity miking. Just another example of good mics replacing the "need" for a compressor.

[songsmith]

Great point. Compressors came into favor in the 80's, which means music was played through PA's for 60 years without them... and if everybody squashes their drums, you get the Rockman Effect: in the mid 80's it was apparently city ordinance in big cities that guitarists had to plug into a Scholz Rockman ahead of their amp... everybody sounded so uniform, so even, so... boring and same.
This bluegrass kick I'm on has me wishing for the old days... a single mic on a stick for vocals and instruments, and maybe another wrapped in a red bandana wedged into the bridge of the upright bass... not loud enough for the crowd? SHUT UP AND LISTEN!
Sorry for the rant, you know I'm off the weed, right? ----->JMS

[bassist_25]

To tell the truth, I rarely hear any pro sound equipment that even comes close to my personal standard for sound quality. The most recent exception (surprisingly) are the new Bose line arrays. I've never had an affinity for Bose equipment, but those are the first products I've heard in a while that are pushing toward quality and actually making vocals the focus of their technology instead of kick drums. Don't get me wrong, I love a solid kick that you can feel, but if it comes at the cost of a clean vocal mix, I'll pass.

+ 1

I'm going to go off on a little rant here. As a bass player, I'm particular about bass tone. I'm actually known to dip bass strings in rubbing alcohol after they lose their "zing" in order to revive them. I would probaly switch strings every week if I could afford it.

As I said earlier, I'm a total mids freak. Mids are what gives bass its definition and helps it sit in the mix. I hear so many soundmen muddying up the bass mix. I blame this on three things: 1. People don't understand that the bass has more of a role than just filling sonic space. Just because there's a low-end drone happening doesn't mean it's good. 2. Too much emphasis on being able to "feel" the bass. Physically feeling the music is very cool, but it shouldn't come at a cost to sound quality. 3. The "Ampeg Sound" is ingrained in everyone's heads due to it being the standard bass sound of the past 50 years. I mean no offense to Ampeg players, but when I hear an Ampeg, I hear mud. I wonder if that's just a product of growing up in the era of SWR, Trace Elliot, and Eden, but I believe that if I grew up in the era of "vintage" equipment, I still would have probaly been playing Sunn, Fender, or Acoustic instead of Ampeg.

Often times during soundcheck, I'll play some slap lines. There's no time during a show where I slap, but slapping almost forces the soundman to add mids and highs. I've been pretty happy with what all the soundmen we've worked with have done with my bass. Most of them just leave it flat, which is what sounds best to my ears. Whenever we work with Mark Skero, he always asks me to open up my tone knob, which is something I love to hear a soundman say. It means that he's interested in making sure that everything I play is defined and cuts through the mix, rather than muddy and "sitting underneath the mix".

Our drummer uses a cool metal mallet pad on his kick drum. Not only does it sound flippin' cool as hell, but I don't think there is anything a person could possibly do to muddy up the kick drum mix.

I finally got to hear the Bose equipment a few weeks ago. I was at Curwensville and there was a band there called Harmonious Funk using a Bose system. It was outside, and I was very impressed. The system was very transparent sounding. It sounded like you were listening to your radio, only louder. That's pretty much my standard for judging sound; I like a clean and balanced mix. Though it looked like they may have been reinforcing the low-end with those self-powered Mackie subs. I didn't get up close enough to take a look.

[bassist_25]

everybody sounded so uniform, so even, so... boring and same.

In order words - Everyone sounded so "Boston".

[Ron]

Very cool, lonewolf. Mic placement is definitely a black art, and can really make or break a setup. High end mics are pretty much a necessity for a fantastic sounding mix IMO, but I've heard some really good mixes with nothing on stage but 57's and 58's. For that to happen though, the band has to have their stage sound right on the money.

Right on about the bass sound Paul. I've always been in search of the "piano sound" when it comes to bass. Too much bottom from 75-150Hz can kill the rest of the mix. Also, if there are any tuned ports in the bass rig or PA, plus there are no mids or highs in the mix to give the bass definition, you can get the old "one note" bass sound, which blurs everything, kills the dynamics, and can even make things sound out of key at times.

Here's a really cool quote from a review on my next set of home audio speakers, the VR4jr's from Von Schweikert Research. They use a pair of 7" drivers per cabinet in a 3 chambered transmission line, tuned at 25Hz. (23 Hz to 20 kHz, +/- 2dB)

... the smaller woofers won't hit 16 Hz organ pedals like the larger model, but you can shake your house with 23 Hz bass drum whacks! More importantly, the bass accuracy is incredible, with detail so transparent that listeners have sworn they could hear "the fingerprints of the upright string bass player as he plucked the catgut strings."

[Hannibal]

We started using a Martin Audio 4 way rig about 4 years ago. We used all CSS 3-way gear before that, and it was pretty decent stuff. But, the 4-way rig has a clarity across the entire range that I don't hear many places I travel. The subs are a single 18" in a 7 foot folded horn. The top box is all horn loaded with a 12" low mid, a 6.5" high mid, and a 1" high frequency compression driver. We have had a lot of compliments on the rig, and we can get loud when we need to, and still the vocals cut to the top when they are supposed to. Ask KYX or Wide Open about the rig. They have played through it before.

About microphones, better mics make a difference. The old standbys still work, but a few condenser mics in key places make a LOT of difference in the sound quality.

Remember, quality is like buying oats. Good quality oats cost money. Oats that have already been through the horse are a lot cheaper.

[bassist_25]

Right on about the bass sound Paul. I've always been in search of the "piano sound" when it comes to bass. Too much bottom from 75-150Hz can kill the rest of the mix. Also, if there are any tuned ports in the bass rig or PA, plus there are no mids or highs in the mix to give the bass definition, you can get the old "one note" bass sound, which blurs everything, kills the dynamics, and can even make things sound out of key at times.

Holy crap Ron, you're speaking my language now. I don't want to sound like I'm kissing ass here, but two local players that I think have godly tone are Jeff Clapper and Adam Zimmer (I know, Adam plays through an Ampeg cab and I hate Ampegs, but....). Everything about their tone is so defined. Every run they play cuts through the mix. I hate that when a bass player is tearing up some awesome runs and you can't even decipher them because they have that "BOOM! BOOM!" tone happening.

It's interesting about how you mention that that tone can sometimes make things sound out of key. I find that using a Sonic Maximizer really helps with cleaning up the out of sync frequencies.