James,  you said that “Romy seems sure that Line arrays will only work properly when used on the long dimension of the room”, still you do not defined what it “only work properly”. Wherever you put the woofers they will work – the question would be where they produces less alinearity and where will inflict more positive influence to imaging. I say that along a long wall.  The LF arrays along a long wall produce better (WAY better) imaging and crate less standing waves in a room. The expense of the pro false is fine but I see a little correlation with what we do in hoe audio. I personally was successful with arrays only across the long walls. As far as I know the none-moronic high-end companies that the make the LF line-array-like speakers came to the same conclusions - I mean the Dunlavy speakers and the Australasian Duntech. Anyhow, James it will be very sample to check. When you bring the arrays home try both long and short wall positions. Listening for the imagine and the looking of your TRA will clearly tell you what to do.

I do not agree with John Murray’s “In order to act as a line source”.  I do not know also how he can advise on a crossover point without having a whole picture what you do.  Also I very much disagree that LF channels care no stereo information. Perhaps if you build a LF resonator that sits below 20Hz with 4th order then it might be the case. But an auditable sound does care stereo. John illustration about the ears is correct but we do not perceive LF by ears.

Make an experiment and confirm for yourself. Take an playback the goes in it’s room down to 40Hz. Add to it a regular consumer subwoofer, crossed relatively sharply at 40H for instance. Place the subwoofer on the right. Then take a good stereo recording with an orchestra that position with all cellos and double bases are at extreme right from a conductor. Play the playback and get some reference. Not move the subwoofer on the left. Pay attention how higgledy misbalanced the Sound become. I mean everything is the same but you for whatever reasons feel very space-disoriented and you will have that feeling the something is not right. Try it, I did it many times. BTW, there is an irony in it. If you “get” that in the given recording the basses should be on the right then immoderate turn yourself back to the soundstage will give you a feeling of short relaxation….

As a "sound man" friend has often said, the idea with pro installations is to start with plenty of volume and go from there, using a "board" to equalize for desired effects.  And as you know, many if not most pro installations also use surround effects to suit.  Of course the "board" is not just for traveling shows, but it is generally used even in "fixed" installations, in concert venues and the like, with the sound pretty much tailored to each event.

Well, YMMV, but I have to say that, although it was "educational", I did not enjoy time spent with a multi-band equalizer.  Likely my OCD personality figured in, but I about drove myself nuts with the thing.

If I were so lucky as to have your "problem", I would seriously think about putting some kind of defeat-able casters (or something) under LF units, because you are probably going to want to move the units around for a while (maybe quite a while) as you get your system dialed in.

John obviously knows his business, but practically speaking you will in any case have to adjust your own Hi-Fi system to your own tastes, and a certain amount of flexibility may well turn out to be a blessing.  Again, YMMV, but I can't recommend the full-tilt "board" thing for hi-fi.

If you think you might want to try surround and/or minimal EQ, you might also track down Gordon Holt, who has stuck steadfastly with this for almost two decades now.  He is a longtime concert recordist, and he has written quite a lot on the subject as it relates to home hi-fi.

Best regards,
Paul S

op.9 wrote:

the horns come out of a rakk dac with lundahl LL1674 passive outputs the midbass use a behringer DEQ2496 (26cm delay) modified with passive outputs.

http://www.GoodSoundClub.com/TreeItem.aspx?PostID=775 

in particularly pay attention to the Jean-Michel Le Cléac'h comments. A few years ago I was bitching that DEQ2496 sound like crap and here was the Jean-Michel reply. I think he is in on something and could be very correct:

Hello,

If you just took the Behringer and put it in you system as you said I am not surprise that it sounded bad.
Did you put any attenuators (by example -20dB) or step-down transformers on the outputs in order that the ADC (if you use analog inputs) and the DAC could operate at their best? If you didn't I agree that your trial was disapponting.
When I first replaced my previous active Kaneda crossover, which one used discrete stages and was excellent with the BSS FDS388 I was really disappointed. The sound was dirty, noisy, harsh... then I measured how many volts RMS I had on the input: 80mV. This meant that I had +37dB digital noise added. Then I put step down transformers and attenuators on every outputs and feed the inputs at high level (attention to clipping!)this was the best crossover I ever possessed. Please notice taht I have also tarnsformers at the input and that the crossover input lines and output lines are balanced.
Many members of the discussion group in French of which I am moderator then did the same: putting attenuators or step-down transformers on the outputs and most of them report excellent sound. Did all of them are nuts and must also suffer your mockery?

Best regards,
Jean-Michel Le Cléac'h, Paris, France

I do not want to convert this subject into the DEQ2496 but I thigh that you might find the reference useful.

horny wrote:

… me too would like to achieve as good as possible violin reproduction without spending a fortune on exotic or vintage drivers.

I have voiced my frustrations about many contemporary compression drivers. People who manufacture horns today turn prays to BMS, TAD, 180-Sound, TOA, B&C, Radian, Eminence, Beyma, JBL, RCF and a few others, laying to themselves and others that they “modify” them, believing that their delusional tweaking of those divers make any serious difference in delivered sound. They pray to those drivers however not because they are OK but because they are the only drivers that are available commercially.

I do not like contemporary compression drivers as I feel they do not have necessary total quality. I have no idea where “tone” comes in compression drivers, well I have an idea but I can’t manage Tone intentionally. I have never also seen others able to produce Tone in compression drivers by request.

Sure, the vintage drivers are very much NOT free from problems; in fact they are much more complex in use then the contemporary drivers. Still, I feel that some (very few of them) vintage drivers are more fertile.  The exotic price that some vintage drivers have developed recently is certainly an ugly factor but first of not all of exotic and expensive drivers are worth to buy. Second the higher price for the vintage drivers is not a really a higher price if do not subscribe the BS fetish that many brainless Morons spread about the vintage drivers – with “right” driver do not look for anything else and it save a lot of money.

So, in the end I do suggest to try some “exotic vintage drivers” some of them do have merit. The biggest problem in vintage compression drivers is not the price but inability of people to provide true information about vintage drivers as many people who share information about vintage drivers mostly juts swell anxiety and fetish…

http://www.romythecat.com/TreeItem.aspx?PostID=4685

http://www.romythecat.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?postID=4014

http://www.romythecat.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?postID=2546

http://www.romythecat.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?postID=2694