Comparing The Sound Quality Of Different Pro Audio Subwoofer Arrays

[@gravityfuzz]

Dave your use of language is top shelf. There are hardly wasted breaths or fillers just pure to the brain info with efficiency and grace. What a pleasure to hear your mind express. Thanks for sharing.

[@DaveRat]

So cool and thank you!

[@ambroselockerman1115]

I have a question. How would you do your sub arrays, say 4-6 boxes with low frequency elements and then very low frequency elements? How do you do array’s for both or what are some positional examples?

[@DaveRat]

The arrays are the same or can be and for sub lows the distances are bigger than for lows. Everything scales to the wavelength of the freq being reproduced

[@joshcatstream]

Dave, I made a poor remark on you awhile ago on reddit and got called out for it, rightfully so. I publicly apologized and you replied directly with some refreshing words. Gotta say I'm really glad I took a step back and dove more into the information you provide here. With that said, I just can't help but love seeing your enthusiasm around the 11:00 minute mark when you refer to looking at sound. It feels so great seeing someone get just as excited about sonic concepts as I do, it can be a lonely place out there for some folk. Anyway, take care!

[@DaveRat]

Thank you Josh, I really appreciate the comment and it makes me very happy to hear that my efforts are having a positive impact. Great to meet you and thank you for hanging out here!

[@laszlosokolai2858]

You are my mentor for pro audio. I had to take out the IEC power connectors and hardwired cords of the proper guage into all my amplifiers. I haven't had an amplifier failure since then. The IEC power connectors are THE number one cause of amplifier failures as they are only meant to carry 10 amps. The 20 amp IEC only carries 15 amps. The power lights don't dim on my amplifiers any more. If you don't believe me, put a volt meter between one of the lines and the corresponding connector in the amplifier and drive it at full power - 20 to 30 volt difference and drop between wall receptacle and power switch inside the amplifier!. I have 3 dozen Cerwin Vega CV-5000 amplifiers rated for 5,000 watts each. They came with 20 amp IEC's - i could not get the amplifiers to put out anything past 2,925 watts bridged at 4 ohms. When I hardwired 8 guage power cords into each of them - 6,600 watts bridged at 4 ohms, pulling 60 amps peak each amplifier.

[@SunilKaranjikar]

You're the man. This is an absolutely brilliant way to audition a system in some limited form. Thank you for this !

[@DaveRat]

Awesome and yes I hope to use it at some point perhaps for installs to demonstrate the differences between possible setups

[@mitjakostanjevec3202]

Genius :) It would be great to see and hear frequency responses for separate positions together in a video because now it's cluttered a bit at the end and it's hard to compare positions for each sub array config without jumping around in the video. Basically 7 sets of 4 frequency responses (0°, 30°, 60° and stage).

[@DaveRat]

I will look at doing more on this. It also gets really interesting with pink noise or frequencies that are not as low passed. Has then you can really hear the tonal differences and arrival times

[@jeffwitherell4272]

Dave, this is so genius. I love how you use the tools in a way that is unfathomable until you do it, then it seems so obvious

[@DaveRat]

Awesome and thank you

[@TimmyBerry-xg6hm]

Dave, u are very knowledgeable about everything you are talking about. You are the man !!!! I have been in bands and around live sound for 45 years of my 61 year life. You and I are definitely on the same page. I don’t claim to be on the same professional level that you are by any means. You are doing a killer job !!! Thanks man !!!! I appreciate it !!!!!

[@TheCB5]

Holy cow Dave, you're like the Gandalf of sound engineers. Your brain works different than the rest of us - all in a good way brother! Your ability to talk through how you've gotten to this level of analysis and the benefits of - very cool man.

[@DaveRat]

Fun and thank you

[@clintkaster6269]

Just want to say how much I enjoy these. As a small player (concerts mainly under 1500), it opens the door to some different thinking about setups and possible solutions when we run into problems.

[@DaveRat]

Cool cool thank you Clint!

[@MrNicknayme]

Absolutely brillant! Great way to “visualize”. I value punch a lot, and since we get used to a frequency ID, I’m more into having less perfect coverage but better punch, like with all subs together or on each side of the stage.

[@DaveRat]

👍🎛️🤙

[@66fitton]

Absolute GOLD!! First time I've ever "heard" pictures lol! Hat's off again for the Mad Rat!!!

[@DaveRat]

Thank You @66fitton

[@thunderfan747]

Good stuff Dave! Always interesting to see what your brain comes up with next.

[@DaveRat]

🤙👍🤙

[@stuartsmith5146]

Yes! +pink! Thanks a million, Dave!

[@DaveRat]

🎛️👍🎛️

[@dubdogstep]

i think this content is pure gold. very educational, very well showcased and very informative. Thank you for sharing!

[@peniku8]

Super cool practical sound demonstration! I didn't expect the different arrival times to be so audible. The flams don't sound so great. Kinda shines a light onto power-dense cabinets, since you're more flexible when you can get more SPL out of fewer subs. An M-Force center cluster will be quite loud and offer a very wide coverage. Sadly the SPL drop-off with distance is the greatest in that config, as is on-stage SPL. No free lunch! But it certainly helps with array ideas if you don't need at least x amount of subs to even hit the SPL target.

[@DaveRat]

When I was touring I found that the best sounding sub arrays was having high power end fire array on each side of stage pointed outward. It gave me two very distinct power sources that were very punchy. And then a few subs across the front at low volume just to fill in. Then making sure not to put any instrument at an equal volume into both sides. So run the base heavy on one side and the kick heavy on the other side that way it reduces all that doubling increases the coverage smoothness and everything you hear is clear and punchy

[@c051ne]

@@DaveRat thanks for that explanation

[@DaveRat]

👍🤙👍

[@DaftFader]

Always fascinating stuff Dave! Thanks.

[@DaveRat]

👍🤙👍

[@djgrabsudjgrabso6553]

I love your videos. I decided to support your channel. There is very important information on it. On a daily basis, he works as an FOH engineer and sound engineer. In the summer season (open-air concerts) I do various tricks with bass settings. Come to Poland 😁.

[@DaveRat]

Wonderful and welcome! Also there is a telegram channel for members where we discuss topics and I answer questions and you can chat with other channel members as well. The link is posted on the dashboard well I announce the member chats and I will repost a link soon

[@djgrabsudjgrabso6553]

@@DaveRat Great. Thank you for the information. Let's be in touch.

[@DaveRat]

🎛️🤙🎛️

[@dippo_13]

Very fascinating stuff!! It’s a great representation on what to expect in real life instances. I do appreciate the out of the box thinking and coming up with a way where you can both visualize and hear the frequency and dB drops!!

[@DaveRat]

👍🎛️👍

[@soundasylumlive4421]

Excellent Video! I was hoping for a rock solid revelation but I am afraid we are back to, "It All Depends". Can't wait for the next video Dave.

[@DaveRat]

Yes, I believe if there was a simple solution we would have implemented it a long time ago.

[@mabrystudios5880]

Totally great pattern response & explanations

[@DaveRat]

🤙👍🤙

[@tudorgheorghe4532]

David ! Please promote this ! From the bottom of my heart ! Please use the correct terms .Audio quality is not sound quality.It might sound ,wierd but sound engineering is. Huge! For what you do please refaire to audio quality.I do not know very wellif you are musically train ,just want to mark that sound quality or should mark qualities refairs to the character of sound in general like certain qualities that all sounds have.You are a living legend and many apprentices watch your great videos ! Some of them might be attempted to copy that .Thank you for your hard work and your intense expertise you put on your work!❤

[@superkaboose1066]

Loved this, so cool to see it and hear it at the same time. Possibility of showing exactly how you set this up?

[@DaveRat]

I thought I did that or at least explained it. What parts are you missing?

[@superkaboose1066]

@@DaveRat Just unsure how you matched the sound vision data to your output into the console? does Soundvision have a setting to output audio? or are you taking the delay data based off each listening position for each sub and running those delays into the XTX creating the output? This seems so powerful, just can't seem to get my head around how you get the data from SV outputting audio. Thanks!

[@DaveRat]

Yeah, I mouse click a listening position in sound vision delay mode and a dialog pops up that gives the db levels and time delays of all sources that are active. I copy down that data and the input the data for each sub into a separate channel. So if the datq says Sub 1 - 102.3 db 93ms Sub 2 - 103.5 db 91ms Sub 3 - 101 db 95.3 ms Sub 4 99 db 98 ms I would then set console channel 1 to +2.3 db and 93 ms Channel 2 to +3.5 db and 91ms And so on Then I assign those 4 channels to a subgroup and then run the same signal into those 4 channels and when I PFL that subgroup we hear what the summations or those times and levels sounds like

[@superkaboose1066]

@@DaveRat ah perfect, yep that makes total sense now. Thanks heaps! This is so helpful, will definitely be testing with my venues system. 🤙

[@Arthur-ke9vz]

Damn, you’re the greatest! Greetings from Raleigh!

[@DaveRat]

Awesome! Done many fun shows there!

[@chickenpotpie4045]

Wow! To say I learned a lot would be the understatement of the century, thank you so much for this!

[@RamonSmithMusic]

I love this!! I want to hear music material on these positions. What phasing problems we care about should depend on the music we want to reproduce. I think i have to recreate this ....

[@DaveRat]

🎛️🤙🎛️

[@pr35t0n]

Thank you good sir for the knowledge drop! You made the Cardioid effect tangible!!

[@bdg77]

Excellent demo! I learned a lot!

[@DaveRat]

🤙👍🤙

[@timogletree8754]

Valid question & cool exercise. Major caveat with any modeling is assuming there's no interference from nearby boundaries. Outdoors or large venue the predictions are probably pretty valid. Inside a theater or mid size performance hall the architecture and room dimensions play a major role that can be difficult to predict but should certainly be considered in design approach to minimize. The other thing to consider is what these arrays do perceptually to the transient. This gets me thinking though... you could do the same thing but use each channel for a single box in the array. Then you could put a recorded sound through it and compare how they sound relative to a kick, or sustained tone ie bass, keys.

[@DaveRat]

Agreed, predictions are similar to car specifications. The horse power, top speed and torque don't take into account road conditions. But it understanding the capabilities of a a config helps us decide which system or car has the highest probability of being optimal

[@michaelmuller5894]

Hello Dave, loved the Demo. Just one quick question: Would it be possible to add another listening point in future videos? One between Foh and the 1st audience point you marked. Directly beneath the powerlane. I'd be very curious about that example. Thanks again for all the great content you put out for us to enjoy.

[@DaveRat]

Since the time offsets are relative, the wider cardioid and end fire setups create a similar sound to what it would sound like standing closer to the stage if you had the narrower setup.

[@Quicknessband]

Awesome! Love this. For my money I would roll with the delayed spaced 4 and play with the trim/sends a little to enhance power alley a little if needed. Thanks for this Dave! Love these videos!

[@DaveRat]

🤙🎛️🤙

[@MaidLucy]

Very interesting to see and listen to! Thanks for the explanation

[@DaveRat]

👍🤙👍

[@InfraSchall18]

Hi, new viewer here. I've been on KZbin forever but this is my first encounter with your channel and you definitely have a new sub. I worked in live sound reinforcement for 10 years in the 90s and early 2000s but sub arrays were never much of a topic as the events were, for the most part on the smaller side and where it wasn't needed. This was fascinating and I love your solution for how you moved from visual to audio to summing, etc. just great stuff. You explanations are informative, concise and to the point...just everything that makes a video qualitatively good came together here and I can't wait for the upcoming continuation. Top notch work. 👍 Godspeed.

[@DaveRat]

Awesome thank you and great to meet you!

[@6sensory]

What an EXCELLENT tool you've made! If you could mouse /pen the screen and hear anywhere... Very cool Sir

[@FathomSoundProAudio]

This method is so incredibly useful! Are those sound pulses found within/built into SoundVision? If so, I am even more excited to dig into this software.

[@DaveRat]

It's a bit tedious to do. Once you set up your subarray then you need to select your listening measurement positions. Then in sound vision you can click on the screen at that position and it'll give you the DB level and time delay of each source arriving at that listening position. I wrote all that information down and then input The data on each source for that listening position into a channel. It took some time to do and patience. The pulse I used was from a SCV phase tester. But you can create a post with the post generator to something very quick and broadband.

[@FathomSoundProAudio]

@@DaveRatAhhhh, ok. I think I’m getting closer to understanding your method here. To confirm, are you using a recorded kick (or kick sample), playing on a mixer channel (which sort of take the place of each subwoofer cabinet in Sound Vision), and adjusting channel gain & delay to match the data for each mic/listening position? Am I getting close? Sounds like you’ve found a really clever method to experience how an elaborate deployment may sound without unloading a single box - and that seems incredibly convenient/helpful/useful/invaluable. Thank you yet again for sharing your methods with all of us!

[@DaveRat]

Exactly. Each channel is timed and level adjusted to act as a single subwoofer.. So for a 4 sub array and a certain listen position, you need 4 lcahnnels, then another 4 channels for next listening position and so on. And a different 4 channels to simulate a different array. So each array/listen position needs 4 channels for a 4 sub array. 6 channels for a 6 sub array. Tedious but yes, you can compare the sounds of a sub array from various listen positions, or compare diff sub arrays from a certain listen position. Also by changing the low pass and high pass of the our output, simulate differing crossover setting sounds for each.

[@evevoxx2053]

Absolute Legend! comb filtering on the pink noise gonna be wild, cant w8^^

[@DaveRat]

👍🤙👍

[@biggbrass1]

Hey Dave, great video. Would love to see/hear a central(point source or end fire) cardioid array setup similar to the cardioid arrays you had in this videos examples but single source instead a source on either side. Thanks for all you do and cheers!

[@DaveRat]

Cool, the sound of the audio in the center of the room would be almost identical to a single point array as the mic doesn't know if it's coming from left or right. So the settings would be almost exactly the same for a single cardioid array versus equidistant between two cardioid arrays

[@jimhoffman9438]

i started getting into this and it's fun stuff. been using QSC Focus (or is it Ease?) for a local venue and it's been a learning experience for sure but cool when you see something work, then deploy it and actually hear it doing what you theorized.

[@DaveRat]

🤙👍🤙

[@debop69]

Love the background image. Analog stuff. Heritage!

[@jesusheras]

Fantastic video. My sincere congratulations for everything you do in the audio world. Very interesting conversation with the band engineer ... how very important. How would all this be heard, with that training that you propose in another video of Point Source? To what extent is it profitable to place the systems ..? How would we hold that pile of Sub? I think it is a very interesting approach ... for me the two great issues in the audio world are: the control of "the slightest difference of dB from the point close to the stage to the farthest." And "heat dissipation." A hug from Spain and thank you very much for every friend !!

[@josiahberry8743]

Cool video! Would love to see this done with 2 rows of subs in a centered end fire cluster and with each row of subs evenly spaced apart across the stage in an end fire configuration.

[@DaveRat]

That's a lot of programming!

[@charlie_changa]

wow! really awesome way to set up the test... smart!

[@DaveRat]

🎛️🔧🎛️

[@cgtbrad]

Pretty interesting demo! I'd be interested to see/hear this it with the very-common-these-days cardioid array on each side using arrays of 3 or 6 subs with one or two rearward facing respectively. I see it a lot with the Global vendor BT subs and also VTX rigs.

[@DaveRat]

Rearward facing or forward facing rear subs sound almost exactly the same from 60 Hz on down within a DB or so

[@cgtbrad]

@@DaveRat the clusters with one rearward facing seem to be real common these days. I often wonder if the on-stage benefit is worth whatever negative effect it has on the pattern in front

[@DaveRat]

The direction is sub points does not make that big of a difference compared to the impact of summing to subsignals together. So having two subs pointed forward time aligned to the front sub we'll have almost the exact same sound in front and behind the sub array as one sub pointed forward and one sub pointed backwards that is also time aligned. This is very easily demonstrated in prediction software and I verified it with actual setups many times.

[@tonygardner4077]

Thanks Dave ! wadda cool idea ... man i'd love a PFL button in soundvision ! maybe this will be a feature is years to come

[@DaveRat]

Yes I do think that predictions software may have some audio features at some point and I also think that the days of complex software like Sound vision being free are also numbered and probably related to that same and other similar advancement adventures

[@MrHotsen]

Amazing Vid! Thanks a lot!

[@MrHotsen]

It would have been interessant to see an average of the three audience probs for each config in smaart.

[@DaveRat]

👍🤙👍

[@valleywoodstudio7345]

excellent educator - thanks!

[@DaveRat]

🤙👍🤙

[@shangomensy7403]

wow this's great thanks you sir for this masterclass.

[@DaveRat]

👍🎛️👍

[@sesburada]

Thanks King for your important reviews

[@audeon_visual]

10:52 I'm confused at this point (in a good way). This all feels so frustratingly ethereal, fleeting, and hard to capture with objectivity, but I think you nailed it.

[@DaveRat]

🎛️🤙🎛️

[@weareallbeingwatched4602]

This is a highly scientific and correct analysis of why the subs go crunchy / vague / notchy. Would also suggest that a convolution reverb plugin would permit a sample-based method of listening to different arrays - set the gear up, generate an IR, then set it up in the next configuration, rinse and repeat. In fact, a top quality atmos-style 3d audio set of impulse response samples would be extremely useful for planning and training of different arrays and methods of mixing for them. Sampling an IR per-box might be correct, I'll certainly try this for venues I use regularly, especially to validate big changes to the install or the configuration. Then take the whole library of samples, slap it into an AI system and enable interpolation between the listening and playback points, and you're in business, and it's possibly patentable. Martin Audio (post corporate plasticworld takeover) have stuff like this working.

[@DaveRat]

Yes and also that adventure would well exceed my attention span. And I hope someone will be inspired to expand on the concept as I move on to new adventures

[@weareallbeingwatched4602]

@@DaveRat arup's SoundLab division have got the "experiencelab" auralisation suite, and that usually runs off a synthesised set of IRs drawn from a 3d model, so that spaces that don't exist yet can be tested, and that the virtual simulation can be compared against actual samples derived from the field installation. That runs off B format IRs, and something similar would be very suitable for a trade-show stand for a company like L'acoustic to demonstrate the differences in configuration and setup to customers.

[@DaveRat]

🎛️🤙🎛️

[@livemixpriyan]

Hey Dave, Could you please post how you setup those Cardioid (Narrow / Wide) and Endfire ( Narrow/Wide)?. Example Distance / Delay / Polarity etc. ? thanks a lot in Advance

[@DaveRat]

I'd need to go look but but for endfire if you delay the front box 5.33ms and space the grills 6feet apart it will work well. For cardioid, same setup but the rear is delayed 5.33ms and polarity reversed

[@jlwall]

Super Rad Dave! I felt like hearing and looking at the response in Smaart could lean us to wanting to come up with a coherence score ( how well is the response matching the original sound). On top of the volume loss in certain spots like 30 deg of Ax, the coherence degradation is what you hear and see, and can be computed pretty easily. Imagine if the SW used could create a coherence plot as well as a dB plot. That might start to show where things are going to start to sound un-natural. If you could further put an estimated seating/standing plan with density of listeners, you could rank and weight the average coherence the whole crowd hears, to numerically compare different configurations. Then you would consider optimizing the system to give the best overall average coherence, which is optimizing against tradeoffs. Like you said, your experience tells you 60% of the listeners are off axis.

[@DaveRat]

Sound vision does have a delay mode that shows you arrival time offsets but it's not intuitive and difficult to know what is seen will sound like. It is that correlation and the cast differences in the sound of the various incoherencies that is a challenge to conceal visually

[@1738028]

Just ignore the Thumbnail

[@eldermartins130]

I was just gonna say that😂

[@Aio-Project]

🍆

[@katielowen]

But he used my CT Scan 🍆😏

[@wrlightssounds3579]

Hahaha. It even colored green. Be professional bro, just music. Be professional. ❤

[@davidlopezakadidactic2344]

😂

[@andrewlodarski2452]

Cool idea. To make the prediction even better it would be interesting to implement the polar diagrams of the actual speakers, since even bass speakers are not perfect circular sources.

[@DaveRat]

Yes and that gets complex fast as the off axis freq response and phase versus distance would need to be modelled for each source vertically and horizontally . And then all the services in the room would destroy most of that validity fairly quickly. Even in sound vision the services are not modeled for reflectivity which are a huge factor for subwoofers All of that is well beyond my scope and attention span. This is meant to give people an idea of how the different configuration sound and a relatively simple method they can used to recreate the comparative sound of various subrepoofers arrays,

[@weareallbeingwatched4602]

@@DaveRat samples have an eminent suitability over simulations, and given the right cascade of sampled convolution responses and FEM/BEM simulations, it is feasible to "print" an IR which can be loaded into a reverb plugin, or make a "DSP chain" of responses. It isn't actually a complicated business, and IRs are a really useful tool for acoustic analysis and simulation. I wouldn't want to do without this method, and it's totally indispensable - modelling an instrument such as a grand piano from a database of IRs of dampers, strings, soundboard etc is practically feasible, and could be used to simulate the sound of the piano being put in a car crusher, or being played underwater, rather than just playing a sample per midi note with velocity. Deconvolution even permits processing out artefacts such as distortion or phase delay, which is frankly extraordinary. Very weird things become possible.

[@DaveRat]

The beauty taking a simple and easy free adventure and turning it into an extremely expensive marketable product will always exist. And also any and everyone with even a cheap digital console and some free software can learn most of what we need to know by punching in some numbers to some channels and taking a listen

[@JalexanderLegge]

With the off axis measurements did you also adjust the gain for each sub to compenstae for distance?

[@DaveRat]

Yes of course. I used the dB level and time offset info provided by Sound vision for that specific point in space for each of the four independent sources. Soundvision is free software and you can download it and when you click on a service it will tell you the arrival time and level of all the sources impacting that surface while you're in The delay mode function

[@tomgordonuk1]

Very, very cool Dave! I just finished a festival in Zambia, Africa with a major R&B artist headlining. Used a d&b PA with cardioid subs throughout. After some experimentation I got a decent result on and off axis, but had to justify some decisions with production before getting approval. Had I seen this video beforehand I would have been able to present my case with a lot more confidence!

[@DaveRat]

👍👍👍 @tomgordonuk1

[@EscapeMCP]

Did you turn down the volume at the end of the video because you knew people would turn up their systems to hear the samples???? If so, nice work!

[@DaveRat]

Yeah, I did not want hurt the gear or the ear

[@VitoDemelas]

i love the video bu i have a question, how did you do the setup, because i want to do it with other subs array but i dont know how

[@ladjkaoz]

cool cool the RAT never rest... genius....

[@DaveRat]

🎛️🤙🎛️

[@klarstrup]

Good thumbnail dave thank you 😊

[@DaveRat]

👍🤙👍

[@alltehstuffs]

Timeless

[@Arthur-ke9vz]

Hey Dave. Once again massive love from Raleigh. How may I ask an involved technical question to you? Thanks, Arthur

[@DaveRat]

Hmmm, If I can answer quickly, I will do so here so the answer is public. If it requires a bunch of time or is not a public answer, then that is stuff would be more of a consulting gig.

[@Arthur-ke9vz]

@@DaveRat that’s what I was thinking. I have ultimate ears UE-18 ears for when I play live. Is there anyway to use those at home or on the go with some sort of Bluetooth device and better yet, someway to allow someone else to use their headphones ( wired or Bluetooth) to hear what I’m hearing?

[@Arthur-ke9vz]

@@DaveRat sorry, I know models and equipment, but am still just a musician.

[@Arthur-ke9vz]

@@DaveRat I’ll gladly pay for your expertise Dave.

[@slayerslayer7805]

Hi Dave, what are your thoughts about the frequency response and coverage in dependency of the impulse responce? I mean at the big festivals are mostly horizontal rows of subs, so that in the most areas the subs are not in phase to the tops. L-Acoustics for example prefer a classic left-right sub-setup to avoid that problem, but in that case you get big interference effects in the sub section. One way might be to mic every instrument with 2 mics, but the most technicans have those mic-setup.

[@YusefFajuri]

Hi Dave! Just wondering if u could help me with something related. Thinking on an array composed of a (pair) number of the following system group: 2x18" centered, 2x15" on top of 18"s and 4x10"speakers. CROSSOVER setings: 0-80Hz(18"s), 80-300Hz(15"s), 300-upHz(10"). Im so curious how different woofer sizes with that crossover settings will interact. My goal is to make each piece of equipment to reproduce the best band for them; 18"s will do the FRRR, 15"s the BMMM and speakers will have plenty of power to hit from the DMMM to the TSSS. Hope im being clear enough. Thks.

[@DaveRat]

Optimizing audio bands per speaker size is good. But also anything less that 2 octaves tends to create more problems than it solves. Start by dividing the audio spectrum into 2 octave divisions. High freq drivers can do more octaves than low drivers.

[@vazdaqui8513]

whats the name of the software you use to see the spl gradient?

[@DaveRat]

Soundvision

[@jjones7837]

Awesome thanks Dave!

[@DaveRat]

👍🎛️👍

[@avnut5517]

What great idea. Thank you!

[@DaveRat]

🎛️🤙🎛️

[@twdll]

Hey Dave, I was curious if you knew of anything like Soundvision that would work with car audio?

[@DaveRat]

Interesting and no. Sound vision is pretty much the premier modeling software to the best of my knowledge and there's a tremendous amount of money and research that has gone into it. With car audio and people doing it themselves I just don't see a revenue stream that would inspire someone to invest so heavily unless they could somehow corner the market on the products being installed.

[@twdll]

@@DaveRat Thanks. I was just wondering. I like the idea of mapping out the car and showing areas of concern regardin midbass or loss of midbass rather.

[@johnschalk1271]

Very cool video Dave. I'm a small operator and, when I play around with different sub configurations in MAPP 3D, the two that make the prettiest pictures are 3 subs, tight packed in the center of the stage, with the middle sub facing the stage, inverted in polarity and delayed. Five tight packed subs, with the 2nd and 4th in cardioid mode looks good too. Could you add one of those to your list? End fire arrays are not practical for me given the small spaces I'm usually working with and the likelihood that someone will come along and shove one of my carefully placed subs out of position :(.

[@DaveRat]

Interesting and I tried to offer the information necessary for you to model it. Also when doing the subs pointed backwards it is the front subs that are delayed

[@florianh5040]

​@@DaveRati might be wrong, but can't you do both? Front facing subs delayed = "endfire" behavior = max db to audience; Back facing subs delayed = "gradient" behavior = min db to stage

[@DaveRat]

Yes, front subs delayed, no polarity reverse. Or back subs delayed and polarity reversed. If front subs are delayed and polarity reversed, the sound will focus rearward and cancelation maximized forward.

[@tudorgheorghe4532]

Do you still have the big Analog MIDAS from background?

[@Rararawr]

I would like to see 4 subs in the center in the kick and pink noise videos. I assume that would be the best sonically since its closest to a point source so it would be a good comparison of the tradeoff of quality for volume

[@DaveRat]

Yeah, it does cover well but also it tends to put alit of sound on stage and you lose the ability to sterao pan and create more dimension to the LF

[@RaymondSolo]

Is there enough resonating sub frequencies in a 3 or 4 piece Rock Band at a med or large sized club/bar with a basic drum-kit, 4-string bass Marshall guitar amp and singer to worry about frequencies below (more or less) 60 hertz?

[@DaveRat]

Adding lows below 60hz isound good as there tends to balance out the lack of those naturally

[@poodlelord]

Would love to see you explore high order quarter wave society designs for subwoofers as it is a way to get directional LF without using a cardioid setup.

[@zzink]

Not sure what you have been reading but those box designs follow the exact same laws of physics as every other subwoofer, what you see in this video also applies to all of the HOQS subs

[@DaveRat]

Subwoofer box designs can vary a bit in their directionality if they're horn loaded or if they have multiple places that sound radiates from. The super Sub design I did tends to be more directional than a direct radiating design due to the ports surrounding the central radiation of the driver and some rear panel vibration that tends to give a bit of cardioid pattern. But for all practical purposes the modeling of the various subs would be similar. In a more advanced model one would determine the location of the various sound outputs, the frequency response, the decibel level, and the time delays of arrival of the various source to a listening position and sum them together

[@weareallbeingwatched4602]

It would certainly be possible to design a "tapped horn" as an *array*@@DaveRat

[@Turntablist11]

What I would like to see, which probably can't be modelled confidently, is a combination of a sub stack large enough to have it's own boundary gain, and then with a sub behind in cardioid mode. A stack that is eight feet wide and four feet tall, built with four fairly commonly sized subs with 2*4 feet fronts, has a boundary gain of about 6db in the kick range, which means that we get 6db more going forwards, but also 6db less going backwards, giving us a back to front difference of 12db. Now, lets place a sub behind those four subs, and have that sub behind the first four fire into the backs of the stacked four. Since the boundary for the back sub is now the same size as for the four subs(duh), the sub in the back now gets the same boundary gain, but in the opposite direction. So, 12db more backwards than forwards. This now gives us an interesting configuration, where the boundary works in our favour doubly - both forwards and backwards. Let's for the sake of simplicity say that the four subs have an output capacity of 100db. Add 6db boundary gain forwards, and subtract 6db backwards. So 106db forward and 94db backwards. The sub in the back has 6db less power handling and 6db less sensitivity, giving it an output capacity 12db lower than the four subs, so 88db. Subtract 6db forwards and add 6db boundary gain backwards. So 82db forwards and 94db backwards. Forwards, you have 106db of direct energy, and 82db of delayed energy, which is so little that it doesn't actually affect the output overall. Be it in phase or out of phase, it won't really matter. Backwards, you have 88db of direct energy and 88db of delayed energy, which will maximally suppresses the output going backwards, when delayed and phase inverted. 90 degrees to the sides, you have no boundary effect neither forwards nor backwards, but the sub in the back has 12db less output than the four in the front, so whatever it does, it wont affect the signal to the sides considerably. Now, for best results you would have to EQ down the upper end of the sub in the back because the boundary effect is larger for shorter wavelengths, or, you could try a lower set LP filter. Aside from that, it should be fairly straightforward. Typical for cardioid setups is that the energy from the sub in the back somewhat ruins the quality of the signal going forward. What I have described will ruin that quality much less. You also only need one sub for the back of the cardioid setup for every four subs facing forwards, instead of one sub for every two facing forwards which is otherwise typical. This, Dave, this would be something to try out.

[@DaveRat]

Download soundvision and lay it out and it should model just fine. We model more complex setups than that quite often.

[@Turntablist11]

@@DaveRat I've tried it out in Danley Direct to the extent that I can, and it looks like it works out very well. The most directional option that they have is the one for two BC218 subs in 4pi, which is less directional than four 2*4' subs in 2pi. According to my boundary gain simulation software, I should see 12db difference in front to back output with two BC218s around 68hz, which is exactly what I see in Danley Direct as well. (Stacking up more subs in Direct doesn't make the stack more directional. An option in Direct has a measured directivity, and added subs seem to be acoustically transparent to the other subs that you model in the software, so I'm simply going with the biggest one with a measured directivity and use that as the base for my simulations.) So, adjusting my earlier math to 68hz instead, with a second pair of BC218 subs in the back facing backwards (to simulate the same boundary gain for the back subs), padded down 12db (to simulate the output of one quarter as many subs), delayed and inverted, and both with a crossover at 80hz, I see a notch of -34db precisely at 68hz. Above/below 68hz the boundary gain is larger/smaller so the output levels aren't as evenly matched in the back as at 68hz, but I still see an 8db difference front to back at 30hz, 10db at 40hz, 16db at 50hz, 22 db at 60hz, and a 17db difference at 80hz. Where it gets really exciting is of course when I adjust the LP filter for the sub in the back downwards to try of match the gradual effect of the boundary gain. When I do, I reach some crazy numbers in difference from front to back. When I set the filter (24db LR) for the front sub to 80hz and the back sub to 49hz, and have the back subs padded down to -3db instead of -12db (which means that the total reduction in output, filter and padding added up, is around 6db at 40hz and increasing to 15db at 80hz), I reach a difference of front to back output of 33db at 30hz, 37db at 40hz, 29db at 50hz, 27db at 60hz, 35db at 70hz, and 24db at 80hz. The average front to back difference is around 29db, and all this is with a stack that is less directional than four 2*4' subs in 2pi would be. Now, when I delay the subs in the software I delay them by exactly the sub front to sub front difference. This means that I haven't adjusted for the added difference in distance that the sound has to travel to just get around the subs, simply because the software doesn't account for it, so if I do I end up with the wrong delay. This is why I proposed a test in my previous post. DD can only get so close. Can soundvision simulate total boundary gain when stacking up subs, and/or does it see the subs as actual physical objects?

[@matijatatomirovic3351]

You are a genius!!!

[@DaveRat]

👍🤙👍

[@liammackenzie3150]

the best part of this guy is that he doesn't blink

[@DaveRat]

Many years of intense training to develop that skill

[@izzzzzz6]

On Wednesday i'll be building my stacks of Martin wavefront. just 4 modified WSX 2 at each side laying down mouth to mouth. With double 12's above those 2 each side and mid tops above those with 24x 1" drivers and 12x 6.5" mid drivers. I am probably going to put a Void double 15" in the centre on the longest delay i think. if i can fit it in. 20k of amps probably peaking around 10k in this event.

[@DaveRat]

🤙👍🤙

[@michaellawrence6673]

Why not also explore the response for center cluster and center flown?

[@DaveRat]

Well, maybe check out the point source vs line array subwoofer video I did.. I cover a wide variety of single array coverages. Also I have done quite a few other sub woofer vids covering a wide variety of sub arrays. That said, mono sub arrays do tend to look good in predictions but also are more limited in what they can do. In my opinion, one of the biggest issues with sub woofers on a separate send is that when moving subs to a separate send, many techs also go to a mono sub array rather than the stereo subs that are common with subs on left/right. This degradation to mono subs from stereo subs is a step backwards and moving to subs on a separate send is a step forwards. Stereo subs on a stereo separate send is the 2 steps forwards approach.

[@kevinpetit9886]

Great Video. 😃👍♥️

[@DaveRat]

👍🤙👍

[@dlcarburetor]

This is so cool

[@DaveRat]

🤙🎛️🤙

[@athopi]

Interesting graphic you thrust before us...

[@DaveRat]

👍🙈👍

[@jttech44]

What happens when you put these arrays in a room? Do any of them avoid becoming a mess? or is that always more of a "Sit your ass down with a SMAART rig and figure it out" kind of situation.

[@DaveRat]

The prediction software tends not to predict what happens with rumor reflections. And it does turn into a mess pretty quick. That said the goal and process remains similar or the same. Where in YouPoint energy where you want it to go and minimize it from going places you don't want it to go.

[@laughinginthe90s]

Maybe I'm missing something, but why are these all from the stage? couldn't you put one of these out a quarter of the way into the crowd, likit the time delay to a larger%

[@DaveRat]

Putting low frequency devices like subs in the middle of the audience creates a multitude of complexities. For small environments like living rooms in nightclubs subs can be placed around the perimeter of listening area For large venues it gets quite complex but can be done. For an example is the Sahara tent at Coachella where we deploy over a hundred subs in various locations that aren't not the stage as well as under the stage. But all that sad you can see and hear in this demo what happens when you're way off to one side with far away and close subs putting subs behind just doubles all of that

[@markkilpatrick7951]

I imagined the horizontal line array would have been the most efficient by using the ground boundary but it seemed like the vertical line array was way better

[@DaveRat]

Yes, the ground sort of doubles the vertical so the vertical line plus ground creates a very long line and the longer the line, the more constant the coverage level over distance

[@stephenstange4194]

Would be amazing if tools like Sound Vision and others could create console files with the scenes and groups configured for each of the listening positions. I realize each console’s show file format is different, so this is a unrealistic ask, but a guy can dream…alternatively, how about doing this in a DAW? They could pick a couple of the popular ones…

[@DaveRat]

Yeah, it was a lot of work doing it manually and I'm sure there's ways to simplify it.

[@peniku8]

The signal processing isn't so complicated, it could be done within the software itself fairly easily, from a developer point of view.

[@hernandariocaicedo5104]

gracias! muy interesante🤝

[@DaveRat]

🎛️🤙🎛️

[@SwirlingDragonMist]

Awesome!

[@DaveRat]

👍🤙👍

[@niklaskarlsson236]

Hi 🎉 If you have a closed arena with super wide audience and the speaker in the ceiling. Like a hockey game with only one long side with audience area(audience whide 120m and only 20deep,in a angle up seat area) What is your go to solution🤔? ❤🛠 (Do get even base and limited reflections back on the other side (60 m or so away) (Play area is 120 x60m)

[@DaveRat]

Oh my, for that you would be looking at trying to solve coverage issues more than anything and less worried about actual sound quality of the various arrays. Is this for concerts or for sporting events? The general rule for subs is to either create one cohesive source of one or many subs and alter its coverage through time alignment or to have multiple sources maximally spaced that minimally interact with each other by making those sources directional such that any overlap that does occur happens for people equidistant from the two sources overlapping

[@niklaskarlsson236]

@@DaveRat so :-) 👌👍, what you are saying is: A) spread the single sub's so that it consists of like 4pair x 18" quality subs, evenly spaced out (and they are in a delayd cardio sub config, each pair, tot 8 subs). Or do you mean: B) Have 8 x 18 subs evenly separated (that is sounding 360 degrees and interfering by the other side of the wall, reflecting) And I think that all of the solution above is going to be hotspots and walleyes (hot and cold areas), but is it the only way ("this is the way.." 🤭🎬📺) The pros that is needed to consider: the audience is fairly static in the listening places. Btw: Is it beneficial to point the subs to the audience of is it almost the same if the subs are placed on a beam pointing to the audience wall, I think of the fairly omnidirectional sound of the low frequency?

[@Russell_and_Rosko]

​@DaveRat so incredibly cool that you respond to questions. I'm a giant fan and I've been following for 10+ yrs (before finding the giant Foosball table, 2011ish). Sending my best, thanks for the videos!

[@DaveRat]

Awesome and thank you Russell and great to meet you

[@stephenfrancis303]

Is that a midas board behind you?

[@DaveRat]

Yes, H3000

[@dtroutmann]

Enlightening

[@DaveRat]

👍🤙👍

[@nortru]

Thank you Sir.

[@DaveRat]

🤙👍🤙

[@nugznmugz]

Awesome thank you

[@DaveRat]

🤙👍🤙

[@johnmorrison8618]

In this household we stan Dave Rat

[@DaveRat]

Honored and humbled

[@shaunfaesolar]

seems like e a massive oversight to me that you can't have reference tracks in these sound system prediction softwares and listen to a simulation of the results or see an eq curve as you move the listener / speakers etc around. Wouldn't be that difficult in computing terms

[@songyuliu6889]

Genius！！🎉🎉

[@DaveRat]

🤙👍🤙

[@tudorgheorghe4532]

How is called the software?

[@gavmurray7398]

awesome

[@DaveRat]

👍🤙👍

[@yo3429]

Top!

[@DaveRat]

🤙👍🤙

[@RAILWAY_FILMS]

I personally would choose sound quality over coverage. WHY? simple: not everyone will get the same "volume" but they will all get the higher quality ! ! ! doesn't really matter though. but quality-- for me also includes a factor which is how low can it go!!! and I mix for that.. my live mix doesn't even care about my studio mix.. I go for a very different mix live which isn't even realistic.. but it also depends on the genre. if the band is Metal, Hip Hop, or Reggae, I have a preconceived notion of what I want to hear and I don't even care about efficiency all that much as I am going for a "sound" and I expect everyone to crowd the stage anyways so lets bring the house down. On the other hand, if the show is rock, country, blues, or performing arts/musical/etc in those cases, now I am much more interested in efficiency, coverage, and the delivery/appearance etc. I also would try to give the gig away to someone else. For me : it's all about a certain sound I want to create.. and ? honestly, I haven't heard the sound done well in a large format. its okay but medium format and small format-- this is where I really enjoy the mix. but see I'm also a musician and I want stereo. I don't enjoy mixing mono as much. The only reason why is because it removes a whole dimension of my palette which is the stereo image. I can still get a sound which most people find equally impressive but people who truly know me will even come up and they will ask me: "you hate mixing mono don't you" and I have to just look at them in with no words or with some kind of facial response. I can definitely see the benefit of being able to use the cardioid subs but ?? you know, ticket sales and audience location would play a large factor in designing this.. for me, usually the audience is right there in the middle which makes my job simple. just rock hard.. I tend to like power alley for some crowds-- where the power out the back is a waste but-- the huge power up the middle hits the entire audience-- it's perfect for me. the other one I like is the more round footprint you showed.. sometimes if you have a nice circular audience wrapping around-- that would be ideal and focused for that shaped audience. but those ones with ear-lobes and long arms.. I am not a fan of those.

[@DaveRat]

The challenge is that having good sound quality for 25% of the audience and 75% of the audience not having enough low end or having big holes in the coverage is also considered bad sound quality. Sound quality and coverage are pretty much the same thing because any areas that aren't covered well have poor sound quality

[@RAILWAY_FILMS]

@@DaveRatwhich is why I always say, sound quality is directly proportional to budget

[@Lu_Woods]

I'd click 'like' 7 times if I could. take care ; )

[@DaveRat]

Awesome and thank you!

[@nankduggets9347]

huge!

[@marxman00]

In ears for the audience , its the future

[@DaveRat]

And just give up on subs and the adrenaline rhythmic connection they immerse the audience in?

[@marxman00]

@@DaveRat I love you dude and please dont take this as any disrespect for the totally awsome stuff you do, you are the best ..BUT whats happening ...I suggest we draw the sound plot on the floor or print a bass plan and sell the venue space accordingly. or we will still be trying to tap a nail in with an atom bomb forever, Perhaps the answer is not the problem , its the question thats the problem

[@DaveRat]

Amazing and beautiful sub coverage is not that hard to achieve, being distraught over seeing imperfections that may or may not be relevant and tossing the whole lot over it, seems a bit out of context.

[@marxman00]

@@DaveRat I respectfully agree and stand corrected, I was having an Atmos moment

[@DaveRat]

🎛️🤙🎛️