Post by Denny Strauser<snipped>
Post by FlintOokay, so U2's 360 tour employs separate line arrays per instrument.
That does nothing to prove GD's rig was a true line array. That only
illustrates that U2 *may* have borrowed a rig deployment concept from
GD, and married it >to< line array technology. It does NOT prove the
Dead's Alembic built "Wall of Sound" was any "line array".
What constitutes a line array?
An effective line array (one that couples the drivers to act as one)
Essentially, I suppose, even if a tad overly simplistic, and in the
broadest sense, but rather biased in favor of line source system
topology and exclusive of the general trend of today's line arrays
that are ever marching more towards the point source school of thought
of line array theory.
Post by Denny Strauserrequires that the drivers or horn mouths constitutes 80% of the width
of the cabinet. Any less & they do not effectively couple & have phase
canceling & comb filtering.
The Wall Of Sound fits this definition. The vocal cluster does this in
two planes.
The vocal cluster was only one cluster of the Wall of Sound, and by
most accounts I've heard from those who actually heard it, it sucked
on the vocals, but are we talking about >just< the vocal cluster, or
the whole wall of sound here?
The Wall of Sound fits only >one< parameter of a line array, as
compared to the other parameters it violates or ignores, the biggest
one that come to mind is directivity/placement of the most important
bandbass range for vocals (of which sounded bad by most reports I've
heard about it).
The WoS was a novel approach, with ll clusters, 4 of which were
separate stack clusters, 1 for each string of Phil Lesh's bass, phase
cancelling dual vocal mic scheme, etc. The claim was made, however,
that this system pioneered industry standard practices - "top to
bottom" was the phrase I believe you used. The truth is, much of
their experimentation has long since been dropped and in very little
use, except possibly as lessons learned as to what >NOT< to do in
sound system integration/operation. In that sense, they were more
like Edison's 1000 failures in inventing the light bulb.
The point is as awesome as their rig was, it was also chock loaded
with flaws and problems (hence failures), which in addition to its
cost of operation, is why they only used it briefly (one tour in 74,
from what I remember, IIRC). Citing U2's 360 tour to support the
notion of the dead's WoS as being trend setting is little more than a
wobbly horse with weak legs. A nostalgic throwback, perhaps, but an
industry trend setting standard?
I think not...
Post by Denny StrauserPost by FlintQuit conflating subjects here with selective distortion,
misrepresentation, historic revisionism, or simply faulty memory
due to a bad batch of LSD so typical of dead heads...
I saw much of the Wall Of Sound in 1973 at Watkins Glen, although the
full system was said to be debuted in 1974. My buddy & I were probably
the only sober attendees. I hated the Grateful Dead's & The Band's sts
because I was a rock & roller, and those bands sounded too country for
my tastes. I went to see the Allman Bros.
I think I would have done the same. :) I was never a big Deadhead or
The Band fan myself.
Post by Denny StrauserPost by FlintPost by Denny StrauserPost by FlintPost by Ron CapikIn the least you gotta give them credit for experimentation.
\>
Post by FlintYeah, that they did indeed do: *experiment*. That, or maybe they were
just competing with Kiss at the time, I dunno ;-P
Kiss was in high school when the Grateful Dead were cutting edge of
sound technology. The Dead's experiments are now the standard sound
technology .... from top to bottom.
<snipped>
Post by Flint2> The "Wall of Sound" was built >for< them by Alembic, Inc. and NOT by
their original soundman, "Bear" Stanley who was with them in 60's.
Furthermore, the "Wall of Sound" didn't really come into fruition until
right around the same time Kiss first came on the scene.
Bear paid for the system, and you can be sure he had input into its
design, as did John Meyer.
Uhmmm, apparently, Bear was in >jail< when Alembic came into the
picture. (See below)
Post by Denny StrauserPost by Flint"Concert sound systems
The Wall of Sound was an enormous sound system designed specifically for
the Grateful Dead.[47][48] The band was never satisfied with the house
system anywhere they played. After the Monterey Pop Festival, the band's
crew 'borrowed' some of the other performers' sound equipment and used
it to host some free shows in San Francisco.[49] In their early days,
soundman Owsley "Bear" Stanley designed a public address (PA) and
monitor system for them. Bear was the Grateful Dead's soundman for many
years; he was also one of the largest suppliers of LSD.[50] Stanley's
sound systems were delicate and finicky, and frequently brought shows to
a halt with technical breakdowns. After Stanley went to jail for
manufacturing LSD in 1970, the group briefly used house PAs, but found
them to be even less reliable than those built by their former soundman.
In 1971, the band purchased their first solid-state sound system from
Alembic Inc Studios. Because of this, Alembic would play an integral
role in the research, development, and production of the Wall of Sound.
The band also welcomed Dan Healy into the fold on a permanent basis that
year. Healy would mix the Grateful Dead's live sound until 1993."
If anything, outfits like Clair Brothers and Showco pioneered much (if
not most) of standard sound technologies than the dead's early
experimentation's. It's also ironic you should use the phrase "top to
bottom" since Roy and Gene Clair pioneered the flown concert sound
system with their S4s, and the custom speaker rigging made for them by
ATM Flyware - which IS more of a "top to bottom" industry standard than
anything the dead's experimentation yielded.
I would suggest that Meyer Sound Laboratories & Ultra Sound were much
more advanced than Clair. MSL were using trapezoid cabinets, while
Clair were using those huge S4 full-range square boxes even when other
companies were developing line arrays.
In many respects, I quite agree. MSL was more advanced than Clair -
even Clair's own engineers would agree as I've personally heard some
them voice very similar sentiments decades ago. Having said that,
they did pioneer what *I* consider to be one of the most significant,
key developments in earlier concert sound reinforcement: getting the
sound >onto< the audience rather than the venue walls, with their
flown systems that everyone else quickly copied. Clair was pretty
quick to go to vertical line arrays themselves, however, but were a
tad late in utilizing trap designs (specifically) in this role,before
Meyer. I still remember their early "I" rigs using some of their
older S4's modified to be nothing more than 218" subwoofer arrays hung
along side their I arrays.
Post by Denny StrauserYou should read the article that Pro Sound News did on the Dead's
Ultrasound/Meyer system in - if memory serves me correctly - the Aug
'93 issue. To quote that article (from memory): "...the best sound
system that ever was, and possibly may ever be."
From '93? Quite a different era system than the early "Wall of
Sound" under discussion, no?
Post by Denny StrauserAbsolute Sound also reviewed that sound system. This magazine is an
audiophile magazine for big spenders. They said that the Dead's sound
system rivals the best stereo systems, and can do it at 120db.
Relative. The majority of the "best" sounded like crap compared to
today's systems, not to mention that audiophile magazine reviews were
often little more than highly subjective opinion pieces themselves.
Post by Denny StrauserClair definitely did some things right. Their monitor wedges are
considered some of the best that money can buy.
True, their AM wedges are still an industry standard to this day, but
Clair also did many things *wrong*. Hell, back then >everybody< did.
They were some of the "Edisons" of their industry, however.
And just like Watson did, they too had many failures before hitting on
their successes. Clair's successes are largely >timing< related as
well as technological. They were simply in the right place at the
right time with key artist accounts, and they've maintained there
industry position despite the rest of the industry that grew up around
them and saturated their markets. Clair has survived and even grown
by diversifying and becoming vertically integrated. A damn good thing
they did too, considering how former industry greats like EAW and
Midas got swallowed up by technologically inferior companies selling
their "drek" to the masses :(
Post by Denny StrauserPost by FlintThere's my "homework". Now where's *yours* to back up your assertion
that the Wall of Sound is a true line array, and not just a combination
of a hung/stagestacked clusters with more of a horizontal orientation
based more on stereo imaging than point source reproduction of today's
line arrays.
I don't do my homework in Wikipedia. I've been doing it for decades.
I could get all petulant, and demand proof, but I will take your word
for it. I thought you were asking for some sort of cite to backup my
point.
Wikipedia is a somewhat more useful tool for this than some nebulous
standard of insisting on someone doing their "homework", an illogical
requirement since no time machines exist as of yet. Having said that,
I've been 'doing it for decades' as well, but I *will* still use
Wikipedia.
Post by Denny StrauserAnd a line array is not a point source system.
I didn't say it automatically was, but the truth is 'point source' is
something of the holy grail goal of line arrays. My point was that
the Wall of Sound never even >attempted< this approach - it simply
wasn't a design parameter of priority. A simple observation of the
plethora of photos of it clearly show that much. The smearing must
have been awful, almost as bad as the comb filtering of an array of
even Clair's S4's were. Truth is, no system can be purely point
source, but more of today's line arrays definitely can be much closer
to this (even if only virtually). The WoS simply did not attempt
this, period.
Post by Denny Strauserhttp://getmad.com/ ... and look at the A-8 & A-9 arrays.
Cheers!
These definitely count as point source, no doubt. Thanks for the
link, BTW. I'm kind of partial to some of the stuff Tom Danley has
been churning out however, although he too is often mistakenly
credited for inventing his "summation aperture" technology. He may
hold patents, but I suspect a challenge to some of these could be
successfully waged given that others have worked on (and even received
patents for) similar technologies prior to his. It amazes me to this
day that Yorkville actually >paid< Danley for a license of this design
in their Unity series. :/ I suspect they only did so more for
marketing reasons than any real legal obligation to do so.
--
MFB
(just an example for illustration!)
(just an example for illustration!)