6/8/2017 SIM3 Optimization & Design Seminar at UC Irvine — Bob McCarthy

Home About Training Seminars Past Seminars The ABC’s of Line Array Tuning Publications Portfolio

Contact Archives

SIM3 Optimization & Design Seminar at UC

Irvine
june 29, 2010 by bob mccarthy 9 comments

We just completed a 4-day SIM3 training seminar in the south side of southern California. UC Irvine is
located very near the ocean, which makes one wonder how folks could study when the surf’s up. It is a
right next to John Wayne Airport. Naturally I ew in and out of LAX, and drove the hour down to the o
airport. Why? Because I live in St. Louis, which USED to be an aviation town (ever heard of Charles
Lindbergh, McDonnell Douglas or TWA? – all just museum stuff now.).

Measuring, measuring, measuring

We had a good sized class of 19, including grad students and professors from UCI, some engineers for
Creative Technologies ( a rental house specializing in corporate), some freelancers and two special gue
Daniel Lundberg  and Jamie Anderson. There were 3 people (not including Jamie) who had attended m
http://bobmccarthy.com/sim3-optimization-design-seminar-at-uc-irvine/ 1/19
6/8/2017 SIM3 Optimization & Design Seminar at UC Irvine — Bob McCarthy

seminar previously and were returning. This is, for me, the highest honor and I am very grateful for th
support of Will Nealie (whose photos are shown here), Chuck Boyle and Szilard Boros.

The Venue

We were fortunate to get to do the seminar on the stage of the 300 seat Claire Trevor Theater. This all
us to measure rst in the controlled circumstance of the near- eld on stage and then work our way ou
the house. As an added bonus we were allowed to measure (and re-design and retune) the house syste
which had an up-to-date line array type system of 8 x Meyer M1-Ds.

The class moved along very smoothly. We covered LOTS of ground and the acoustics of the hall were v
favorable so that students could get a look at what real systems can do in a good hall.

The class progresses in complexity over the 4 days, beginning with measuring a processor, then on to
eld single speaker, adding a subwoofer , near eld arrays, distributed arrays and then out in the hous
where we design a full system and tune it. All the while the progression of complexity is underscored b
theory behind the data. The number one focus point of a SIM3 seminar is understanding what the data
and WHY they data says that. Proper diagnosis must ALWAYS come before treatment, and all treatmen
need follow-up testing. If they don’t work then get started on a new diagnosis. SIM school tunings are
rehearsed so when something shows up on the screen, we all are seeing the data for the rst time. The
always surprises and this was no exception.

In the course of the tuning here we found that our original design had too much coverage for the room
had gone to MAPP On-line or even used a simple protractor on the plan view of the room this could ha
been seen in advance. But PURPOSELY we did not use those tools to nd the answer. It is better for th
learning process to see how unkowns can be decoded by the analysis methods. The “Main” array was 2
UPJ-1P in a coupled point source, located at the house left stage edge. Our goal was to cover evenly ac
the room – a straight horizontal line along the 3rd to last row. As we measured the 1st speaker across t

http://bobmccarthy.com/sim3-optimization-design-seminar-at-uc-irvine/ 2/19
6/8/2017 SIM3 Optimization & Design Seminar at UC Irvine — Bob McCarthy

row we could see that it cover ALMOST the entire width…. almost. Adding the 2nd speaker was WAY to
much, leaving it off, left us 4 seats short of the aisle. Conclusion: Our design was awed. (This made it
like a REAL gig except that the designer’s ego was not at stake).

 It is much better (as a learning experience) to use the SIM 3 Analyzer to prove the design was wrong a
force us to consider the optimization options that had the highest prospect for success. If only we cou
wave a magic wand an turn this 80 degree speaker into a 50 degree speaker!  Oh….. WE CAN!     In this
we rotated the UPJ-1P horn on the 1st speaker (they are 80×50 rotatable) so that we got 50 degrees of
horizontal coverage for the “A” speaker (the longer throw). This covered enough of the room to make a
successful, smooth transition to the B speaker. Then we added the “B” speaker – too wide again until w
rotated its horn as well. The end result was even coverage across the straight line  of the 3rd to last ro
within 1 dB.  The process involved measuring on axis, at crossover and off axis until the splay angles w
optimized, the eq’s set (individually and together), levels set and delayedso they were phase-aligned at
crossover. Then we added the subwoofer to the array in both an overlapping and non-overlapping mo
(different delays were needed for this). Finally we added a small delay speaker to extend the coverage e
into the corner. We even took a few minutes to show the effects of adding excess delay (the side effect
the Haas Effect) and watched as the coherence and combined level at the delay location became worse
if the delay speaker had been turned off. This is always an eye-opening moment at my seminars. 

Tuning (and retuning ) the Line Array

Because the class moved along so quickly we had the luxury of extra time to take on the house system
system is made  available for students to re-design, re-hang, re-angle, re-tune, re-etc…….  This particu
con g had been speci ed by a student AMA (against medical advice) so the professors were quite inter
to see how it would look under the scope. The answer:  ________________________ at line.

The horizontal orientation was the most severe in-tilt I have ever seen (OK I am pretty new to this but
seen a FEW systems). It was such an inside job that the Left side of the PA missed most of the…………. le
side.  The mix position was in the very rear of the house right side. From a horizontal standpoint the le
speaker was pointed at the right wall IN FRONT of the mix position. If you are having trouble visualing
here is a pic to help.

http://bobmccarthy.com/sim3-optimization-design-seminar-at-uc-irvine/ 3/19
6/8/2017 SIM3 Optimization & Design Seminar at UC Irvine — Bob McCarthy

Horror-zontal aim points for the PA

So we measured and found that the left cluster was more than 6 dB louder on the house right than on
left. Obviously the speakers would need to be opened outward. 

Before- ONAX A vs OFF A - Off mic is near top row at the last seat on
house Left

We had, however, spent the previous 2-speaker tuning  focused on the horizontal plane interaction be
the pair. Here we had 8 boxes in the vertical plane– that is what we wanted to see – and we had 5 mics
running from top to bottom in a diagonal line where the speaker was pointed.  As it stood, nobody kne
what the current vertical angles of the cluster were. We had the 8 boxes wired in 3 zones 3-3-2 as an A
array. It was offered to bring down the array and see the angles – then we could play in MAPP and see
response…….NO, NO, NO. Much better to turn it on and see what we have. This way we can learn how
hunt down an array in the wild. We know these 3 subsytems are out there – but where?

I don’t recommend working on systems where you don’t know where the speakers are pointed, but it i
important to be able to nd where they actually ARE pointed – even if you have a piece of paper (or I-p
show you. The learning experience here was the process of nding. Here is a pic to get the idea of whe
mics were:

http://bobmccarthy.com/sim3-optimization-design-seminar-at-uc-irvine/ 4/19
6/8/2017 SIM3 Optimization & Design Seminar at UC Irvine — Bob McCarthy

Mic placement strategy

Terminology sidebar – ONAX (On Axis), X (Crossover), VTOP (Vertical top),VBOT (Vertical bottom).

Before we get to any tuning, we dummy checked each mic and speaker to make sure we had everythin
wired right. In the course of this we set the delay compensation for each mic and they ran from aroun
ms to 13 ms so we are looking at near seats that are around 12 dB closer (a ratio of 4:1) than the rear sea
The array will need to overcome this difference in proximity.   

So we began with just the upper system “A” on (the top 3 boxes). We compared Onax A, VTOP and XAB
positions. VTOP (around the mixer ) was a disaster. No HF, no coherence and the far side much louder
the near side.

Original angles - ONAX A vs VTOP

http://bobmccarthy.com/sim3-optimization-design-seminar-at-uc-irvine/ 5/19
6/8/2017 SIM3 Optimization & Design Seminar at UC Irvine — Bob McCarthy

UCI M1D R1 - VTOP A Solo -before EQ

Perfect mix area!!!!! XAB was down slightly from ONAX A so now we knew (vertically) where “A” was po
Too low.

Before- ONAX A vs XAB

The cluster was already very high so we can’t move it much.  The real answer would need to be getting
up-angle in the array. This would require some real-world rigging and this was not going to happen in
short time frame so it does not seem that we will fully solve the mix position.

Onward. We moved the ONAX A mic up and down a row and found that our original position had the m
level – we had found the center of A. We eq’d it and stored it as a reference level.

Next begins the search for B. We looked at the ONAX B mic and moved it up and down until we found
high-water mark. The level at B was stronger by about 3 dB (compared to A). It was also about 3 dB (70
closer. This made it obvious that the splay angles chosen for this array were wrong. How did we know?
job of the different splay angles is to create a matched level at different distances. Here we were seein
as we got closer, it got louder – the expected propeties of getting closer to a symmetric, non-
directional source, not one that is creating asymmetry in the vertical plane. We eq’d the B system and
reduced its level 3 dB.

Next up was the bottom two boxes, system “C”.  This system covered the front rows REALLY well. It wa
louder than at the back and we were still in the 4th row.  It got even louder up closer but we gave up.

http://bobmccarthy.com/sim3-optimization-design-seminar-at-uc-irvine/ 6/19
6/8/2017 SIM3 Optimization & Design Seminar at UC Irvine — Bob McCarthy

Before- ONAX A vs ONAX C

Conclusion: The cluster system needed to generate around 12 dB of level difference from top to bottom
actually achieved 3 or 4 dB.  Time for the cluster to come down and redesign the system.

Redesigning and retuning the Line Array

We have no drawings of the room. Not even a napkin sketch. The UCI internet is not getting through t
laptop. We are going to have to go it alone. 

This is what we know (a) the cluster is too low, we have more than enough angle to reach the bottom a
need 12 dB more level at the top than the bottom. This means that the splay angles for the C section ne
be at least 4x wider than the A section.

So how do you design a line array with no Manufacturer Of cial Line Array Calculator, no Mapp On-lin
drawings? We need to know the angle spread from top to bottom, and the difference in range from top
bottom. So we looked at the existing angles and found that the overall angle spread was 40 degrees. W
know that was more than wide enough. We know we have a 4:1 distance ratio.

So we need 35 to 36 degrees of spread – we have 8 boxes (7 splay angles) – the average splay angle will
degrees. (5 deg x 7 = 35 deg). We know the widest angle we can get for an M1D is 8 degrees. If we have
degrees at the bottom and 2 degrees at the top (a 4:1 ratio) we will approach our 12 dB range ratio. Add
up  (2-2)-3-(6-6)-(8-8) = 35 degrees. System A = is 3 boxes at 2 deg (a 6 deg speaker), 3 deg splay to sys
(a 12 deg speaker) and then on to C (a 16 deg speaker).  Here is a picture of the design in progress: Yes –
is the AS-BUILT paperwork under my hand.

http://bobmccarthy.com/sim3-optimization-design-seminar-at-uc-irvine/ 7/19
6/8/2017 SIM3 Optimization & Design Seminar at UC Irvine — Bob McCarthy

Calculating the splay angles based on range ratio

The new angles were put into the cluster and up it went – pretty much as high as it could reasonably g
(about a foot or two higher than before) and we resumed measuring. This went very quickly now. The c
point of each subsytem was easy to nd since they each were made up of a symmetric angle set. The c
of A was at cabinet #2, the center of B was at # 5 and the center of C was between 7 and 8. Each syste
eq’d separately and levels set. The level tapering needed to bring the lower systems into compliance w
and 3 dB respectively, a far cry from the 3 and 7 dB previously. The systems were combined – rst A &
then C was added and a very uniform frequency response and level was created over the space. The le
from front to back (back being the top row) was now 1 dB. The mix position still sucked – but we knew
could not save that without a rigger.

Reworking the angles

 First we looked at the ONAX A position, and EQ’d it. This will be our level/spectral standard going for

http://bobmccarthy.com/sim3-optimization-design-seminar-at-uc-irvine/ 8/19
6/8/2017 SIM3 Optimization & Design Seminar at UC Irvine — Bob McCarthy

The next step was to look at the response at the mix position. We expected that things would not be
improved much here since we were not able to aim the array up high enough to hit here……..and we w
not disappointed.  Well I mean we were not surprised.

After- A at ONAX A Compared to A at VTOP

After - Response of A solo at ONAX compared to B solo at ONAX B

http://bobmccarthy.com/sim3-optimization-design-seminar-at-uc-irvine/ 9/19
6/8/2017 SIM3 Optimization & Design Seminar at UC Irvine — Bob McCarthy

 The EQ applied is slightly different for A and B respectively. The difference is minor because both “spe
are comprised of 3 elements. The splay angle is different which creates a different summation gain of
the correct amount to compensate for the difference in distance.

After- A at ONAX A Compared to AB at ONAX A

Above – You can see the addition at A that occurs when B is added. The response shows no loss but th
varies with frequency. As frequency falls, the percentage overlap increases and the addition increases.
kHz the percentage overlap is so low that we see no addition. By contrast, at 125 Hz we see 6 dB additi
frequencies between show gain values between 0 and +6 dB. This is a great example of 3rd order speak
behavior.

After- AB at ONAX A and ONAX B

http://bobmccarthy.com/sim3-optimization-design-seminar-at-uc-irvine/ 10/19
6/8/2017 SIM3 Optimization & Design Seminar at UC Irvine — Bob McCarthy

After- AB at ONAX A ONAX B and XAB

After- HF ZOOM - AB at ONAX A ONAX B and XAB

 Above is a zoomed look at the uniformity of the HF levels.

Combined System A+B  EQ

Once A and B are combined we look at the LF region to see where the coupling was shared in both
directions. Frequencies that were boosted in all locations can be equalized by matched lters in the A
sections. In this case a 160 Hz lter was applied. Below we have a zoomed in comparison of before and
the AB Eq was added.

http://bobmccarthy.com/sim3-optimization-design-seminar-at-uc-irvine/ 11/19
6/8/2017 SIM3 Optimization & Design Seminar at UC Irvine — Bob McCarthy

After- AB at ONAX A -Combined system EQ

 The screen below shows how we have restored the Combined AB response to the same shape as our i
solo reponse.

After- AB at ONAX A -Combined system EQ compared to solo A EQ

 The AB sytem is now complete

http://bobmccarthy.com/sim3-optimization-design-seminar-at-uc-irvine/ 12/19
6/8/2017 SIM3 Optimization & Design Seminar at UC Irvine — Bob McCarthy

After- AB with combined EQ at ONAX A ONAX B and XAB

Combined System: Adding (AB) + C

Now that AB is complete we turn our focus to C. Speaker C (2 boxes) was EQ’d as a soloist and it’s level
match the ONAX A standard. The solo EQ response appears below.

After- C at ONAX C EQ and Level

The response below shows the full combined response ABC at ONAX A and C positions, giving us a cle
of the difference between top and bottom (not much!). The distance ratio between these two locations
around 8 dB!

http://bobmccarthy.com/sim3-optimization-design-seminar-at-uc-irvine/ 13/19
6/8/2017 SIM3 Optimization & Design Seminar at UC Irvine — Bob McCarthy

After- ABC at ONAX A and ONAX C - top to bottom compared

 Finally we sell the full system ABC at its 3 main locations.

After- ABC at ONAX A, B and C

Was this the best way to design a system? I would not recommend it, if you have the option of drawing
But in the end we still have to test it – and that is where the nal design comes from. In this classroom
setting we made the tuning process drive the design. What we learned from our data was translated in
updated design and this was then measured. The result was a winner. This process, in a few hours was
distillation of 25 years of work for me. Everything I I ever learned about design came from the process
trying to tune an existing design, and learning from it.

There are additional class photos which will be placed in the “Seminars” Page on the right of this blog
http://bobmccarthy.com/sim3-optimization-design-seminar-at-uc-irvine/ 14/19
6/8/2017 SIM3 Optimization & Design Seminar at UC Irvine — Bob McCarthy

and nally………………….

I did manage to bring home some good data from this tuning so I will add those to this post later. Soon
promise.

6o6

Share this:

Tweet Share 3  More

led under: alignment & design, analysis tools, fft analyzers, line array, live sound, point source array, speaker array
subwoofer array, training seminars, tuning techniques tagged with: eq, line array

Comments
Nathan Lively says:
June 30, 2010 at 4:39 am

Wow, I’m jealous. My SIM class was in a tiny room!

Reply

6o6 says:
June 30, 2010 at 9:47 am

Sorry Nathan,
It is great when we can do a class in a performance space instead of a traditional classroom/seminar space. We
trying to get out next Germany seminar booked into a performance space……………still hoping.

http://bobmccarthy.com/sim3-optimization-design-seminar-at-uc-irvine/ 15/19
6/8/2017 SIM3 Optimization & Design Seminar at UC Irvine — Bob McCarthy

Reply

Luis Pinzón Arroyo says:

August 27, 2010 at 3:34 pm

Me 2… my 6o6’s class was in an empty sh tank lled with noisy air conditioned.

Reply

6o6 says:
August 27, 2010 at 4:34 pm

Luis,
I thought it was a very FULL sh tank!

Reply

Luciano Nelli says:

July 1, 2010 at 10:12 pm

Thanks for sharing those twenty ve!

Reply

Joey Curran says:

July 8, 2010 at 7:41 am

Hi 606,

Regards the zoning (ABC), done to have greater control of processing, ie: delay level eq? If so was there suf cient
processing installed or did you have to supplement the existing install in order to arrive at the nished tuned syste

Reply

6o6 says:
July 8, 2010 at 11:22 am

Joey,
The system had enough exibility as it was installed so this made it easy. The speakers were all self-powered so
made the re-patch easy. Because this system was a teaching sound system, it was left exible for students to re
hang, re-patch and re-tune. Therefore our changing it did not upset anything. That was a great opportunity for
to be able to experiment without worrying out it being permanent.

Reply

Xavi Fortuny says:

August 21, 2010 at 7:09 am

http://bobmccarthy.com/sim3-optimization-design-seminar-at-uc-irvine/ 16/19
6/8/2017 SIM3 Optimization & Design Seminar at UC Irvine — Bob McCarthy

Hi 6o6,

When you are searching, in an array like this one, for the ONAX A, B or C, or when you are setting the levels
of the different zones (A,B, or C), do you look only the level of the HF (more or less, from 2Khz upwards) or
you look the level of the overall band spectrum?
And is it necessary, in an array like this one with so much overlap, to adjust the time settings in the XOVER AB and
XOVER BC ?
Thank’s for sharing with us your experience!

Reply

6o6 says:
August 27, 2010 at 5:01 pm

Xavi,
Nice to hear from you. Level setting is always tilted in favor of the HF response – whether it is ABC method with
line array or ABC method with single boxes. Level setting alwys works best in the parts of the frequency respon
can achieve isolation zone summation. In the case of a box with an HF horn the range can be several octaves – 2
and up like you say. In the case of line array boxes the the isolated freq range is much smaller – and varies with
quantity and angle. If “A” is 5 boxes at 1 degree, the isolated range will be small and high – perhaps no lower than
kHz. If “C” is 3 boxes at 8 degrees it is MUCH wider and the freq range where you will see the HF level atten ou
move a lot further down.
Delay setting at xover is applicable to the ABC method for single boxes. When you make ABC composites out of
multiple boxes (such as line arrays) then delay taper no longer applies. The reason is that the composite speaker
spread out over an area of multiple drivers. The time center is at the center of the composite set (e.g the 3rd bo
5) but the xover is between the bottom box of A to the top box of B – which is a VERY small amount of time.
already planning to make a post on this subject – with drawings – so this will help me to go forward on this.

Reply

Speak Your Mind

Name *

Email *

Website

Post Comment

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

http://bobmccarthy.com/sim3-optimization-design-seminar-at-uc-irvine/ 17/19
6/8/2017 SIM3 Optimization & Design Seminar at UC Irvine — Bob McCarthy

Notify me of new posts by email.

Buy Bob’s Book!

Search this website … Search

Top Posts & Pages

Interview On Sound Design Live

The ABC's of Line Array Tuning

Phase Alignment of Subs - Why I don't

use the impulse response

SIM3 Optimization & Design Seminar

at UC Irvine

Publications

Training Seminars

About

Portfolio

The third edition of Sound Systems:

Design and Optimization is here!

Tags

AES analyzer AVB cardioid

eBook EQ equalization
http://bobmccarthy.com/sim3-optimization-design-seminar-at-uc-irvine/ 18/19
6/8/2017 SIM3 Optimization & Design Seminar at UC Irvine — Bob McCarthy

FFT FFT analyzer lters

FOH Francois Bergeron Gibson
Johnny Smith HF impulse

response John Huntington LF

line array LONG macau
MAPP Mexico Meyer Sound Nathan

Lively NYC optimization

phase SB SIM Sound Design Live

subwoofer UCI
wavelength

   

Return to top of page © 2017 · Alignment & Design Inc. All Rights Reserved.

http://bobmccarthy.com/sim3-optimization-design-seminar-at-uc-irvine/ 19/19