3/13/13

Live Sound: Electronic Versus Physical: An Analysis Of Shaping Array Directivity - Pro Sound Web

Electronic Versus Physical: An Analysis Of Shaping Array Directivity

Electronic modification of an arrays directivity is not always a substitute for good old mechanical arranging or aiming. Here's a look at the differences
January 26, 2012, by Joe Brusi Modifying the directivity characteristics of loudspeaker arrays through electronic delay has become increasingly popular. Whereas 20 years ago the only option was expensive dedicated digital delay units, and a few years later the original BSS Omnidrive was a luxury, the advent of inexpensive digital processing has changed the game. The design of complex arrays using a relatively high number of processing channels, as required to electronically modify the directionality of an array, is now affordable and widely implemented. However, virtual (electronic) modification of an arrays directivity is not always a substitute for good old mechanical arranging or aiming, as the two methods have widely differing radiation characteristics off-axis (i.e., to the back and sides). Lets look at the differences in the two approaches, how they differ across a number of array types, and suggest applications where each of them should be used with subwoofers. Arrival Times The reason why physically moving a loudspeaker backward is different from delaying it electronically may not be intuitively obvious, but is easily shown graphically. Figure 1a shows two loudspeakers (A and B) located left and right at equal distance from both a listener positioned in front and another listener positioned behind. Leaving aside subtleties such as the location of the time origin of the loudspeakers, since it does not influence the basic concept being discussed here, sound from loudspeakers A and B will arrive at the same time to both listeners.
Figure 1: Loudspeakers equidistant to listeners (1a); loudspeaker B moved back (1b); and loudspeaker B electronically delayed (1c).

If we move back loudspeaker B (Figure 1b), then loudspeaker A is closer to the front listener, so sound reaches that listener earlier. Behind the loudspeakers, of course, the opposite occurs.

If we return the loudspeakers back to their original positions, and then apply electronic delay to loudspeaker B (shown in Figure 1c as a diverted path length to the listeners), we see that the output of loudspeaker A arrives earlier than B in both cases (in front and behind). Thus, it is graphically clear that physically moving enclosure B produces a significantly different result
www.prosoundweb.com/article/print/shaping_array_directivity 1/5

3/13/13

Live Sound: Electronic Versus Physical: An Analysis Of Shaping Array Directivity - Pro Sound Web

to electronically delaying it. Focus On The Effect Lets now look at the implications within the context of a vertical array of loudspeakers, and predict the coverage of a column of omnidirectional sources. I often prefer to display results via polar plots, because with plane mappings its often difficult to understand the behavior at distances other than those close to the system being modeled. Also note that Ill use mostly omnidirectional sources instead of real-world sources (with a certain degree of attenuation at the back, i.e., not perfectly omnidirectional) to focus on the effect that the arrangement is causing on the directional response of a single loudspeaker. In Figure 2a and 2b, we have physically tilted a 12-element array that is 23 feet (7 meters) long downward by 30 degrees. The front part of the radiation points down 30 degrees, and the back part points up 30 degrees, while left and right (i.e., 90 degrees to the sides) are pointing straight, as if the array had not been tilted at all. Figure 2a shows a three-dimensional directivity balloon resembling some sort of flying saucer at an angle, while Figure 2b shows polar plots for the third octave bands between 80 and 160 Hz (the main lobe gets narrower as frequency increases). In Figure 3a and 3b, the sources are delayed so that the main radiation is (electronically) steered 30 degrees down (by applying increasingly larger delay times from top to bottom). The balloon looks a bit like a fat cone, showing that the 30-degree downward angle is taking place all around the array, not just in front of it. This behavior is emphasized by manufacturers of electronically controlled (digitally steerable) column loudspeakers, correctly emphasizing that the use of their products yields better coverage than a single, down-tilted conventional enclosure. Pointing Lobes To provide another example illustrating the differences between mechanical tilting and delay steering, we modeled one of each in a room, this time using loudspeaker data with realistic nonperfect omnidirectionality.
Figure 3: 3D balloon for array w ith delay steering at 100 Hz (3a); vertical polars for array w ith digital delay steering at 80, 100, 125 and 160 Hz (3b). Figure 2: 3D balloon for mechanically tilted array at 100 Hz (2a); vertical polars for mechanically tilted array at 80, 100, 125 and 160 Hz (2b).

The resulting pressure maps have been plotted onto the walls as well as the floor, and weve also drawn lines, at different horizontal angles, that represent the direction in which the main lobe is pointing. In Figure 4a (mechanical), the lines follow the shape of a disk, which means that some of the lines are pointing to the walls, and the mapping indeed shows that significant SPL is being radiated towards the walls. In Figure 4b (electronic), the lines form a cone and sound is mostly focused on the floor. The 125 Hz octave band was used for the room predictions; while it is probably somewhat unrealistic of typical subwoofer bandwidth, the narrower coverage is helpful to exaggerate the effect for clarity.
Figure 4: Room mapping of mechanically tilted array (4a) and an electronically steered array (4b), both at 125 Hz.

It can also be seen that the covered area is roughly rectangular for the mechanical case and rounder for the electronic one. (Some may recognize the CADP2 graphics. What a beautifully elegant piece of software that was! RIP.)

Exploring Arcs From the explanation earlier in this article, we can guess that an electronic arc (where input signal is increasingly delayed as one goes from the center to the edges of the array) will display identical front and rear radiation for omnidirectional sources.
www.prosoundweb.com/article/print/shaping_array_directivity 2/5

3/13/13

Live Sound: Electronic Versus Physical: An Analysis Of Shaping Array Directivity - Pro Sound Web

A physical arc, in the far field, also provides symmetrical front and rear behavior but - at close distances, rear levels will be higher. This is because circular arc sources arrive simultaneously at the circles center, i.e. the arrays virtual origin. Accordingly, physical arc best practices should avoid any arc that displays an inconvenient center, particularly at center stage. Figure 5a, 5b and 5c present polars for a physical arc of eight subwoofers spanning 120 degrees with a radius of 10 feet (3 meters). In the near field (Figure 5a), the buildup of sound pressure at the back can be observed, with the array being an average of around 6 dB less sensitive at the front for theoretical omnidirectional sources (though this number changes widely with frequency as seen on the plots). This translates approximately to the same level back and front for a typical real-life subwoofer (with a certain degree of directionality). Also, in the near field, the rear pattern is narrower at the back.

Figure 5: Horizontal polars for six-element physical arc in the near field (5a); mid field (5b); and far field (5c).

As we get farther from the array though (Figure 5b), the polars become symmetrical, with the same levels being radiated to the back and front. This was calculated at a distance of 98 feet (30 meters) from the center of the array. Figure 5c shows the far-field results, made up of equidistant enclosures that would virtually follow the same arc as the physical arc above. Unlike the physical arc, the electronic version shows the same levels back and front both up close and far away from the array. In general, an electronic arc is preferred because it does not suffer from pressure build-up behind the array, and it requires less space in front of the stage.
Figure 6: Side view of stage show ing the difference betw een mechanically aimed arrays (6a) and electronically steered arrays (6b).

And unlike array steering, where each element requires a different delay time, we can use an even number of elements, so that pairs can share the same delay, meaning one amplifier channel can power two boxes if needed.

Given todays prices, an extra DSP unit dedicated to subs does not seem too much of a luxury. Mathematically, calculating required delay times for a straight line array of equally spaced boxes may be complicated. However, a piece of string can be used to mark a circular arc on the floor as physical reference for measuring virtual distances for pairs of subs. Case Study A: Flown array of subwoofers on an open-air concert. When flying a subwoofer array, if the array is mechanically tilted, the rear radiation lobe will point upward (Figure 6a) and minimize trouble. Yet it might be tempting to go with a clean hang and implement electronic steering, in order to digitally down-aim low-frequency (LF) radiation.

Figure 7: Top view of stage show ing the difference betw een mechanically aimed arrays (7a) and electronically steered arrays (7b).

Doing this, however, means that corresponding rear radiation will also be aimed downward, presenting potential noise problems with nearby housing, as shown in Figure 6b. Case Study B: Opening up left-right subwoofers. Invariably, when left and right subwoofers are used, interference creates the notorious power alley, where LF system response is audibly louder. Additionally, bass coverage is not uniform since interference patterns change with frequency. One way to minimize left-right interference is to aim subwoofer arrays away from each other in order to reduce overlap. If we aim the array physically (Figure 7a), the back radiation lobe will point to the stage, increasing LF spill (again, the extent of this will be reduced through the use of cardioid subs, be it off-the-shelf cardioid models or array elements made up of a cardioid arrangement).
www.prosoundweb.com/article/print/shaping_array_directivity 3/5

3/13/13

Live Sound: Electronic Versus Physical: An Analysis Of Shaping Array Directivity - Pro Sound Web

However, if electronic steering is used (Figure 7b), the back lobe will point away from the stage. This is actually the same as Case Study A, except for the fact that we are dealing with horizontal, not vertical, coverage. Case Study C: 360-degree subwoofer array. Certain arena applications might call for 360-degree horizontal subwoofer coverage, as well as some degree of downward firing toward the seating. Achieving this with mechanical aiming is just plain impossible, but it can be accomplished through the electronic realm. The suggested design makes use of a somewhat unusual configuration. Since real subwoofers are not entirely omnidirectional (a typical 18-inch subwoofer box may show 4 to 6 dB less at the back relative to the front), to achieve the same level at both back and front, we use a face-to-face deployment. And it might seem a bit counterintuitive, but a physically phase-aligned pair can also be achieved if the correct spacing is used between the two. To avoid flying too much weight, we could alternate every other element in the array as seen in Figure 8, an arrangement that also minimizes obstructions to the expansion of the wavefront.
a flow n 360-degree This two-column arrangement with electronic steering array. would generate the directivity balloon seen in Figure 3a (except that the sides would be slightly squashed), with the horizontal and vertical polars that can be seen in Figure 9. Figure 8: 3D view of

As with any low-frequency array, a longer array generates a narrower radiation pattern, which means that different venues would require different lengths to suit their geometry.
Figure 9: Horizontal and vertical polars of 360-degree array at 100 Hz.

From the point of view of level consistency, the arrangement in Figure 8, with real non-perfectly omnidirectional sources, would send slightly less SPL to the sides (in our case, around 3 dB less for a real single 18-inch front-loaded subwoofer), which would be desirable on a rectangular arena to compensate for the difference in distance to the closest and farthest tiers.

On the other hand, given the uniform downward profile, this configuration would be ideally suited, angle-wise, for circular venues such as a bullfighting ring or a Mexican Palenque. Watch That Space As we know from line array laws there is a maximum spacing between sources for any given frequency. If that spacing is exceeded, the array loses the ability to control directivity, with higher frequencies showing lobes at the wrong angles and eventually losing directivity control. This is even more so for an electronically steered array, which requires a tighter element density. Figure 10a shows a three-dimensional representation of the directivity balloon of an electronically steered array with excessive spacing (4.5 feet). A significant top lobe can be seen that will surely create reverberation issues at that frequency in an indoor venue. Figure 10b presents 80 to 250 Hz one-third octave polars for the same array where the three highest frequencies have gone haywire across the top part of the curve.
Figure 10: 3D balloon for 6 element array w ith delay steering at 160 Hz (10a); Vertical polars for a sixelement array w ith delay steering (10b) and w ith mechanical aiming (10c) at 80, 100, 125, 160, 150 and 250 Hz.

In contrast, a mechanically tilted array of subs (Figure 10c) with the same spacing only shows misbehavior at 250 Hz, which corresponds to a wavelength that correlates roughly to the spacing between sources, so its no surprise. Jos (Joe) Brusi is an independent electroacoustical consultant. And thanks to Joan La Roda for
www.prosoundweb.com/article/print/shaping_array_directivity 4/5

3/13/13

Live Sound: Electronic Versus Physical: An Analysis Of Shaping Array Directivity - Pro Sound Web

the field phase measurements of the alternate face-to-face subwoofer configuration.

Return to article
Electronic Versus Physical: An Analysis Of Shaping Array Directivity http://www.prosoundweb.com/article/shaping_array_directivity

www.prosoundweb.com/article/print/shaping_array_directivity

5/5