Do good pa systems date?

[GC1971]

Hmm.Ive been having a fairly heated discussion about this and have ended up thinking maybe I'm wrong.

Does a first rate pa still sound good?

I am of the head space that new (first rate) pa beats old pretty much hands down, I mean clarity throw and dispersion of say Q series is in a different league but subjectively it's hard to call isn't it?

New amps/crossovers/cabinets stuffed full of fancy drivers do indeed spank hard but as I've been reminded didn't old gigs (flash/flood or kf850) rock too?

This is based on the punters being in to the right focus obviously.

It's the same for headphones. I use hd25s and e5c for ears both of which I assume you can get much better modern equivalents, but can you?

Does anyone here use old point source pa and new mini line stuff on a regular basis? What's the difference like? Also do new ears sound massively better than old?

Ta

GC

[djmatthill]

Er ???

[paulears]

I think you mean fashion - as in for years home music system listeners, when given a graphic would set a smiley face, if they liked modern music, but classical fans would prefer flat, and some jazz addicts would set their own curves, just because they liked it, not because it was better.

 

I think Pas have always had the same thing. When we had the huge cabinets and odd looking HF boxes with big fins over the radiator, we had one sound - then Bose popped up with their sound, then we moved to the period of nasty HF with high powered Piezo HF, and then to full range boxes, then the add on sub boxes which seemed to be either untuned and just thuddy, or more musical but difficult to blend, now we have the reinvention of line arrays in both the stadium sizes and the micro pole versions.

 

At PLASA last year they had loads of systems, most rather expensive ones, being A/B demonstrated. The sound to me fell into the categories I listed above, and the 'sound' from each was very different - actually shockingly so. Each one I'd have been happy using on it's own, but the damn things were very different.

 

So I don't think the actual sound dates that much - it just changes. Individual systems age of course, but while spares last, they can be fixed. In the summer I work with lots of the old 60s/70s bands who still tour, as it's the only job they've ever had, and some still have their old Pas. The strange thing is that they give them the sound they've always had. I wonder if they'd actually sound authentic if they bought a brand new modern PA? Maybe not?

 

It's easier to get small systems that are good now, but I think psychology plays a big part in choosing a PA. Brand and size can be very important to everything apart from the sound.

 

My 10p's worth.

[i_hate_fisicks]

Technically speaking, new boxes should sound better than old ones. Technology improves: driver design, box design, array design etc. All adds up to make better systems than were available in the past. To take your KF850 example. A few years ago EAW released a new version with improved drivers - a better sounding box than they could make originally.

[paulears]

But what does "better' actually mean? The hi-fi industry have never been able to quantify it, and long ago discovered that dynamic range and frequency response did not work as expected.

 

Microphones and speakers never have flat frequency responses, so what are they improving? I guess efficiency, transient response and loads of technical aspects, but does it improve the sound? If it does, what exactly is happening?

 

Its the old Life the universe and everything question.

[GR1]

What were you drinking when you had the heated discussion? There is no answer to this ... every point of view can be right in certain circumstances.

[TonyMitchell]

I'm not sure that a 2014 top grade PA system necessarily "sounds" better than one of "back in the day".

However, what has significantly improved are the logistics, the aspects you can't hear...

Such as efficiency, weight, rigging, truck pack etc.

 

Let's look at an example, taking the d&b Q series that the OP mentioned (which is, incidentally 11 years old now).

A large Q system (2 hangs of 16xQ1) with Q7 fills, Q-SUBs and J-SUB reinforcement, as depicted in the examples within the Q-series manual, until recently needed 22 x D12 amplifiers, which is 66U of amplification, typically 3 racks of amps per side.

That same system can now run off 10 (or possibly less) D80 amplifiers, a total of 20U of amplification, definitely no more than one amp rack per side. The impact of that saving on warehousing, transport, labour is significant., but it is unlikely to make the system sound better.

[Bobbsy]

But what does "better' actually mean? The hi-fi industry have never been able to quantify it, and long ago discovered that dynamic range and frequency response did not work as expected.

 

Microphones and speakers never have flat frequency responses, so what are they improving? I guess efficiency, transient response and loads of technical aspects, but does it improve the sound? If it does, what exactly is happening?

 

Its the old Life the universe and everything question.

 

Exactly. "Better" is a totally subjective term. Yeah, they could aim for a totally flat response but (based on measurement mics) that's a very boring, sterile sound rarely perceived as good by anyone. Add to that the fact that everything changes as soon as you put the system into a specific room and better--in terms of sound quality--becomes as meaningless term.

 

However, modern gear is sometimes better in other ways--both amps and speakers have become significantly more efficient, allowing smaller packages to perform like bigger boxes from yesteryear. Similarly, dispersion control is tighter on some modern speakers, helping you to get the best out of a room (if you have the skills and budget to get the right gear. Lastly, modern materials can mean that you can get equivalent sound quality from cheaper boxes nowadays.