PA Cab Shootout

[JapanAxe]

I was going to bring a reel-to-reel tape recorder and a selection of high-end mics but I couldn’t because I don’t have any of those things!

 

But seriously although I could hear differences between one PA system and the next, I would struggle to put into words what they were. I could happily use any of those systems on a gig tbh, either solely for vocals or for other stuff too.

[Richard R]

To answer the question @Chienmortbb dare not ask.

 

The Pro had a slightly rubberised outer case. Over time and use I managed to get marks on it that wouldn't come off, so I used the alcohol wipes I use to clean bass strings and wiped the case clean. DO NOT EVER DO THIS! 

 

It cleaned the marks, but then softened the stuff they had put on the case and it went really sticky and unpleasant to touch. i couldn't remove it with scraping so I had to dismantle the thing and soak the affected parts in meths*.

 

All ready to go back together now.

 

 

 

Edited October 16 by Richard R
* Stop sniggering at the back Stub Mandrel!

[Stub Mandrel]

1 hour ago, JapanAxe said:

I was going to bring a reel-to-reel tape recorder and a selection of high-end mics but I couldn’t because I don’t have any of those things!

 

I was going to bring my innovative new Fender, but then I realised it was a reissue of a 60+-year-old model.

[stevie]

The first thing to say is that there is noticeable HF rolloff on the recording compared with the live sound. Also, the bottom end was very dependent on where you were standing in the room. I initially stood a few feet to the right of the camera and everything sounded boomy. Once I realised I was standing in a node, I moved back a bit and the balance was better, although still not great.

 

On the first track, the 310 system sounded very spitty and edgy - unpleasantly so. However, this is not reflected in the recording - nor is it how I remember hearing the 310s on previous occasions. The 745 seemed to reproduce the attack and body of the guitars better than the other systems, but the vocals sounded more natural through the Evox. I heard an annoying chesty resonance on the 745s during the demo that I didn't hear on the recording.

 

The guitars and vocals sounded thin on the Wishbone Ash track through the 310 system. The 745 sounded more integrated than the others and, again, reproduced the guitars with more body and attack. I couldn't listen past the boom on the Evox on that track, but it did manage to reproduce the gnarly tonality of the bass guitar better than the others.

 

My takeaway from this is that, despite the benefits of the bass and top cab configuration, it's not easy to get the balance right and very easy to end up with a sound that overemphasises the bass.

Edited October 18 by stevie
corrected Wishbone Ass

[Chienmortbb]

1 hour ago, stevie said:

My takeaway from this is that, despite the benefits of the bass and top cab configuration, it's not easy to get the balance right and very easy to end up with a sound that overemphasises the bass.

Whenever I am not gigging, I watch an "act" every Saturday at the Wheeltappers, and invariably the "Solo Singers" use the miniature line array plus sub arrangement. Again, invariably,the bass thumps out in an unpleasant way. IT reminds me of when my mum got her first Colour TV. The Colour ( Saturation) was turn up as high as it goes. I worked in the broadcast industry at the time and tried to explain that it did not look natural, her reply was, " I paid for colour and I will have as much as I can".

[Chienmortbb]

Of course the Zoom has  excellent mics and would have made a better recording  and as far as I know has no HPF. I could  have also brought an electret microphone and either my CQ20 digital mixer or Focusrite Scarlet + PC. However the Zoom seemed the easy option doing audio and video together.

 

Had it been a gig, I would have had belt and braces but maybe next year?

[Stub Mandrel]

6 hours ago, Chienmortbb said:

IT reminds me of when my mum got her first Colour TV. The Colour ( Saturation) was turn up as high as it goes. I worked in the broadcast industry at the time and tried to explain that it did not look natural, her reply was, " I paid for colour and I will have as much as I can".

 

My dad rented out TVs in the 70s, and that was what most people wanted back then. Perhsps because real life was monochrome...

[Chienmortbb]

3 hours ago, Stub Mandrel said:

 

My dad rented out TVs in the 70s, and that was what most people wanted back then. Perhsps because real life was monochrome...

Scruples my Pink bell bottomed loons were a lot more colourful than anything I own now. 

[Chienmortbb]

On 15/10/2024 at 11:46, Chienmortbb said:

There will be an HPF on the phone and YouTube will add some compression. As I was stood behind the phone/camera I can say that what I heard on the video was quite close to what went on in the hall. My other comments, the ART 310s were a long way apart and it did notice when walking around the room,  The ART745s were better than the EVOX "Sun ob a stick" and the ART 310s but the difference was not as much as I expected. The EVOX was very close to the 745 and based on this short shootout, was probably the best "tea chest bass" system I have heard. To clarify I have heard Bose, Yamaha, LD Systems and all three have a nasty mid range that spoil the vocal sound, although this could be the wetware and/or crappy wireless mics in use.,rather than the system. YMMV

I have had a detailed listen again with my bestist headphones wired (they are either wired or Bluetooth). First listening was on BT and that limits the LF slightly..

 

So have I changed my mind?Yes and no. There is no doubt that the sub  on the floor for both the EVOX and the ART 310s caused a boominess and you can hear that even when @Phil Starr was speaking.  Despite our unscientific attempts at equalising the volume, I think the ART 745s were  louder. This will give them an unfair advantage as we like louder. Also the stands meant that the lower end of the ART745s was not so low or so boomy.

 

The EVOX is better than any of the other "stick" systems that I have heard but I still preferred the ART 745s for it's mid-range (we do need a short name that is not derogatory for these systems*). Of course the extra volume of the ART745s might be masking that. I should add that these comments are based on the YouTube sound. I will go back and listen to the original soon.

 

I would really like to do the excercise again with under more controlled conditions.

 

 

 

[Woodinblack]

1 hour ago, Chienmortbb said:

I would really like to do the excercise again with under more controlled conditions.

 

Would be good, but no often you get access to some hall and a lot of speakers!

[Dan Dare]

I notice that Phil stated above that no eq was used on any of the systems and several have commented that the separate sub caused boom. In a real world situation, surely one would employ eq to address issues such as this? We aren't hi-fi flat earthers, after all. I say that as someone whose hi-fi has no tone controls/eq, but I wouldn't dream of running my PA flat. None of the rooms/spaces I play in are acoustically perfect (many are downright dire) and I suspect that applies to pretty well all the gigs any of us does. In a perfect world, one might be able to run things flat(ish), but I've never encountered an acoustic space that good. I'm also using mainly dynamic, PA/live use mic's, which have anything but a ruler flat response.

 

I run a sticks and subs PA and find I always have to roll the subs off by 2 or 3 db, as well as setting HPFs at around 40hz to keep the low end tight. I also do as Dave Natale recommends and pull back the pain frequencies - 160hz and 2.5khz - by as much as 12db (with more gradual roll-off on adjacent frequencies) and play around between 5 and 10 khz to remove grit and spit. The pattern of faders on the graphic or settings on the DSP can look a bit extreme, but we don't (or shouldn't) listen with our eyes.

Edited October 19 by Dan Dare

[Phil Starr]

On 19/10/2024 at 09:27, Chienmortbb said:

I would really like to do the excercise again with under more controlled conditions.

@Woodinblack@Chienmortbband @scrumpymike will all know we've been talking about doing this for a while but life and music gets in the way of finding time and a place to do this properly. Taking them to the bass bash was a compromise from the start but I hope it was useful. I was also very aware from on-stage that this was also meant to be entertaining for a group of people more interested in bass than PA. I didn't want to lose the audience so I had to keep it reasonably short. Personally I could have happily spent all day on the PA with all the kit we had there. Obviously setting everything flat on the eq was 'fair' but I had a full 1/3octave graphic available and it would have been more 'real life to have used it to tune each system to the room. I'd like to have been able to get the best out of each system. It would have been great to compare the systems at full volume and I had other speakers there which didn't make the shoot out.

[Woodinblack]

Yes, adding EQ to the sound, although you could then tune everything to the strengths is not really the point, if anything the opposite of the point, it is to show where you start and how they compare flat. 

[Dan Dare]

"Flat" is very much a notional concept, though. No piece of equipment, especially if it is built to meet a certain price point, is truly "flat". Even if eq is bypassed, there are limitations imposed by the room acoustics and shortcomings in the equipment itself.

 

Perhaps if one is shopping at d&b Audiotechnik prices, these might not be so much of an issue, but for real world use by ordinary people (i.e. us), there is no such thing as "flat". No instrument is "flat". No microphone or instrument pickup is "flat". So even if you feed a truly "flat" system with a coloured signal from those mic's or pickups, you will get out what you put in, which won't be "flat". If the colourations in a faithfully rendered signal clash with the acoustics of the room, you are going to need to correct that via eq.

 

If you play recorded music through a system, you are hearing the eq applied at mastering stage in the room where the mastering took place. It may well not suit the space you are in. Again, you need to correct via eq.

 

Manufacturers try their best, within the limitations of budget and technology, to maximise the performance of the equipment they make. However, they test in anechoic conditions, which we never encounter in reality. They have to. Were they to test in a notional "typical room" and set gear up to work best in that environment, it would probably sound worse in conditions unlike the "typical room", because every space is different acoustically. Acoustic conditions in the same space can vary over time, according to how many people are in the space (lots of soft bodies soak up certain frequencies and reduce the volume of free air in a room), temperature, humidity and so on.

 

The DSP on my PA has a variety of starter acoustic profiles, ranging from nominally flat, through settings for reverberant spaces and so on (there is even one for tents/marquees). They are handy to get you part of the way, but you need to tweak them further to suit the space you are in.

Edited October 20 by Dan Dare

[Al Krow]

1 hour ago, Woodinblack said:

Yes, adding EQ to the sound, although you could then tune everything to the strengths is not really the point, if anything the opposite of the point, it is to show where you start and how they compare flat. 

 

I get what you're saying, but you also then need a neutral venue to make it a fair comparison? A boomy venue/stage is not going to favour a set up with subs and a lack of bodies in the audience is also going to have a big impact, both of which @Dan Dare is correctly getting at needing to adjust for with his post above? So maybe it makes sense to correct for these factors and then simply share what adjustments have been made (and also remember your Zoom recorders too 😊?) But totally appreciate lack of time to get that all done on the day.

 

I think the key takeaway for me is that all 3 set ups can potentially work really well, which is worth knowing in any event!

[Woodinblack]

55 minutes ago, Dan Dare said:

"Flat" is very much a notional concept, though. No piece of equipment, especially if it is built to meet a certain price point, is truly "flat". Even if eq is bypassed, there are limitations imposed by the room acoustics and shortcomings in the equipment itself.

 

I thought that went without saying - maybe flat is a bad choice of words. I mean the same signal going to all systems without changing the eq for each system. But as Al says, it isn't an ideal environment for certain systems but if you started to make it ideal for the systems, you aren't really showing what they do, you are just showing what they can be set to do - and maybe with enough time, that is also a valid test, but it isn't the test that was being run.

Maybe if we had a large concrete empty parking lot to test them in it would have been easier! 

[Dan Dare]

40 minutes ago, Woodinblack said:

if you started to make it ideal for the systems, you aren't really showing what they do, you are just showing what they can be set to do

 

Agreed and this is the important point. I want to know what a piece of gear can be set to do, how well it can cope with varying situations, etc. How it sounds "flat" is of little value, as I am unlikely to ever use it that way.

 

When I bought my bass head, I didn't choose it on the basis of how it sounded "flat". I tried it with the actual cabs I use and experimented to find out how well it could be made to work with them. I did the same when auditioning PAs. I bought the PA I own because it is versatile and has very good onboard signal processing, enabling me to get a good result in a wide variety of environments.

 

The problem with comparative tests such as the one above is that they can create a false impression of how equipment performs. Several have commented, for example, how the separate sub is "boomy", "muddy", etc. Given that it is on the floor, it isn't really a surprise that it will be more bass heavy due to coupling and boundary reinforcement. A box on a pole, by comparison, may sound cleaner. However, with proper adjustment, the separate sub could well prove to be superior if both it and the box on the pole are set up to perform to their full potential. The separate sub may have more to give.

 

It's well known that some manufacturers will configure equipment to have showroom appeal, so it sounds good off the bat when set notionally "flat". The implication is "if that's how good it is flat, just imagine how good it will be with some tweaking". The truth could be that it's doing about as well as it can and has relatively little potential to give much more.

[scrumpymike]

10 hours ago, Phil Starr said:

@Woodinblack@Chienmortbband @scrumpymike will all know we've been talking about doing this for a while but life and music gets in the way of finding time and a place to do this properly. Taking them to the bass bash was a compromise from the start but I hope it was useful. I was also very aware from on-stage that this was also meant to be entertaining for a group of people more interested in bass than PA. I didn't want to lose the audience so I had to keep it reasonably short. Personally I could have happily spent all day on the PA with all the kit we had there. Obviously setting everything flat on the eq was 'fair' but I had a full 1/3octave graphic available and it would have been more 'real life to have used it to tune each system to the room. I'd like to have been able to get the best out of each system. It would have been great to compare the systems at full volume and I had other speakers there which didn't make the shoot out.

I found the way you did it really useful as it clearly demonstrated the relative differences. Thanks again for doing it Phil.

[Stub Mandrel]

9 hours ago, Dan Dare said:

"Flat" is very much a notional concept, though. No piece of equipment, especially if it is built to meet a certain price point, is truly "flat". Even if eq is bypassed, there are limitations imposed by the room acoustics and shortcomings in the equipment itself.

 

Perhaps if one is shopping at d&b Audiotechnik prices, these might not be so much of an issue, but for real world use by ordinary people (i.e. us), there is no such thing as "flat". No instrument is "flat". No microphone or instrument pickup is "flat". So even if you feed a truly "flat" system with a coloured signal from those mic's or pickups, you will get out what you put in, which won't be "flat". If the colourations in a faithfully rendered signal clash with the acoustics of the room, you are going to need to correct that via eq.

 

If you play recorded music through a system, you are hearing the eq applied at mastering stage in the room where the mastering took place. It may well not suit the space you are in. Again, you need to correct via eq.

 

Manufacturers try their best, within the limitations of budget and technology, to maximise the performance of the equipment they make. However, they test in anechoic conditions, which we never encounter in reality. They have to. Were they to test in a notional "typical room" and set gear up to work best in that environment, it would probably sound worse in conditions unlike the "typical room", because every space is different acoustically. Acoustic conditions in the same space can vary over time, according to how many people are in the space (lots of soft bodies soak up certain frequencies and reduce the volume of free air in a room), temperature, humidity and so on.

 

The DSP on my PA has a variety of starter acoustic profiles, ranging from nominally flat, through settings for reverberant spaces and so on (there is even one for tents/marquees). They are handy to get you part of the way, but you need to tweak them further to suit the space you are in.

 

Our vocalist has a reference mic he uses with the digital desk. We have to stay schtumm while the system puts out white noise on each and then both channels and automatically adjusts the system to match the room acoustics.

 

I am instinctively sceptical but it does seem to get good results.

[3below]

45 minutes ago, Stub Mandrel said:

 

Our vocalist has a reference mic he uses with the digital desk. We have to stay schtumm while the system puts out white noise on each and then both channels and automatically adjusts the system to match the room acoustics.

 

I am instinctively sceptical but it does seem to get good results.

Did the same at home for my 'low rent' Peavey speakers  (large room, no neighbours for 300m).  Never did it for the venue as above, getting the quiet time needed at the venue seemed to be asking too much. Despite that, with the rough and ready home DSP equalisation they worked remarkably well for pub and small venue jobs.

[Dan Dare]

1 hour ago, Stub Mandrel said:

Our vocalist has a reference mic he uses with the digital desk. We have to stay schtumm while the system puts out white noise on each and then both channels and automatically adjusts the system to match the room acoustics.

 

I am instinctively sceptical but it does seem to get good results.

 

The DBX Driverack does a similar job. There's a lower cost equivalent from Behringer and several other companies offer similar devices. They can be very useful, especially in awkward acoustic spaces. They frequency sweep the room and adjust the overall eq to compensate for anomalies. Makes set-up a lot easier.

[Phil Starr]

In my case 'flat' meant measured flat. We'd use RTA which is what you are describing to set everything objectively flat. You can only do that by measuring and a lot of digital desks have that built in. If not you can do it with a reference mic  and a laptop or one of the DBX/Behringer  type equalisers. Without getting into semantics or the real practical issues of achieving a flat response from speakers flat is not really a subjective thing, it's a matter of measuring.

 

It's easy to get carried away with tests like this and to take them too seriously but I'm a science teacher and I do try and control the variables and to give people all the information about variables I haven't controlled. In this case the speakers weren't all at the same height and were places next to each other so not all coming form the same position. As I've already said the sub with the 10's wasn't properly adjusted and was too loud compared with the tops. John  @Chienmortbb has pointed out that the RCF745's were louder on the midrange at least. We did try to measure the sound levels initially but the room was filling up and we didn't use test tones so that was of marginal utility.

 

One variable I completely let slip was a spectacular pratt-fall. I used a trolley to wheel the subs in and then lifted the 43kg subs onto the stage. In doing so I stepped back onto the trolley which shot away behind me and I fell and dropped the 43kg sub from shoulkder height onto my arm and shoulder. I have some spectacular bruises I think @scrumpymike was the only witness or I'd be a Tik Tok sensation 😂 It did mean I was a bit slow setting up.

 

 

So controls at 12.00 is a fair test in one sense but leaves some of the room variables in. I also tried, and was only partially successful in getting the volume levels equal. it gave people the chance to listen for differences in the way each system presented bass,drums vocals and so on. Some of the differences though were due to the room, which we could have controlled better with more time and proper measuring gear. More careful positioning or the subs would have helped, from my position on the stage there was a lot of boom which must have been audible FOH

 

In the end you can't take the conclusions too far but the people there will have a little bit more information to go on when buying PA. Even on the video differences weere obvious. All three systems would have been perfectly adequate for a band performing in what was a very decent sized village hall and all had advantages and shortcomings

[scrumpymike]

1 hour ago, Phil Starr said:

One variable I completely let slip was a spectacular pratt-fall. I used a trolley to wheel the subs in and then lifted the 43kg subs onto the stage. In doing so I stepped back onto the trolley which shot away behind me and I fell and dropped the 43kg sub from shoulkder height onto my arm and shoulder. I have some spectacular bruises I think @scrumpymike was the only witness or I'd be a Tik Tok sensation 😂 It did mean I was a bit slow setting up.

 

 

Scared the living daylights out of me at the time - I was so relieved to see you jump straight back onto your feet and carry on with that casual  'just a scratch' expression on your face. On reflection, it was up there with the best slap-stick comedy routines I've ever seen ☺️

 

As the saying goes, "All's well that ends well".