System design and alignment stratergies to achieve image shift.

[PhillipIvanPietruschka]

The systems and sub systems I typically design and align are usually done so with the intent of achieving even spectral and spl coverage of the audience. Substantially borrowing from the techniques and stratergies Bob teaches in his classes and book.

In the theatre systems I often work with, there may be multiple systems covering the same audience area to achieve a particular imaging effect. I am interested to hear peoples design/alignment stratergies for these sorts of situations.

A few assumptions to guide the discussion.

We are doing this because either we cannot place speakers where we want them to go, so they end up either side of (or above and below the intended source). Or we are doing it because the speaker system we can place there is incapable of adequate SPL, Bandwidth, etc. Or has other nontrival short commings, such as excessive level on stage.

The two of more subsystems being aligned have substantially similar coverage areas, and SPL gradients.

The (electronic) relationship between the subsystems is invariant once the system is aligned. Unlike say stereo pan pot imaging.

The program material is fidelity critical (of course), which is to say human voice rather than say sound effects perhaps.

So with that all out of the way, Im curious to hear what stratergies you find fruitfull, etc etc.

best,
phillipivan.

[pepe ferrer]

Hello Philip,
We were working for some time for musical theater, and I'll try to explain our experience, although sometimes I'm lost in translation

We are doing this because either we cannot place speakers where we want them to go, so they end up either side of (or above and below the intended source). Or we are doing it because the speaker system we can place there is incapable of adequate SPL, Bandwidth, etc. Or has other nontrival short commings, such as excessive level on stage.


Normally for the directors of theater, is much more important for them, scenery, lighting and end of all sound.
But we if we could we developed the system in LR for music and a central cluster for the voices, they were able by themselves to cover the entire area instead listen.and from here we were developing the subsystems.

The main system as it is not needed no adjustments related signal between them, this allowed us to have a voice in mono, and to center on the stage we were using a line of frontfill, which is aligned with the central cluster.


The two of more subsystems being aligned have substantially similar coverage areas, and SPL gradients.


We always used the same concept in the system covering the same area, align at the point where these were the same level.
our question was always to use delays and cons that alignment, but basically served to recover the loss of HF by distance and lined up against the main cluster, so the whole system were still voices in mono and stereo system for music


The (electronic) relationship between the subsystems is invariant once the system is aligned. Unlike say stereo pan pot imaging.

Once aligned around the mono system, which was responsible for the voices and adjusted all levels between them, we do not we modified the processor.

Obviously, the Subs were aligned with the LR system and these in the alignment process were worked independently, as the stereo music signal, was partly related and unrelated.

[Ben Clarke]

Assuming you're talking about performer localisation?

This is awesome stuff....

http://www.tta-sound.com/