Talk:Sound reinforcement system

Article merged: See old talk-page here

merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The decision was to RETAIN BOTH sound system and public address.

There is a bit of a discussion in public address about the proposed merge. If no more objections are made in a week or so i'll try to proceed with the merge as soon as I have time. That can be anywhere between just then, and over a month. Martijn Hoekstra 09:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

signal path

In terms of signal path, the definition there might be a little limiting. One could just say:

• Electronic sound signal source (instrument, mic, cd, computer, etc.) is plugged into an amplifier.
• The amplifier is plugged into speakers
• You hear the speakers.

You can put whatever you want in with the amplifier stage. Also, on some smaller PA systems the amp and the speaker are in the same cabinet which further simplifies things. Bainz 18:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• One of the better ways I've seen of putting what is in a PA system is

• • sources
  • routing, processing and mixing (console, fx, etc, or a simple cable)
  • amplifying (in a mixer, in a cab, in a separate amp)
  • er.. transducin'? What ever the speakers do 67.68.154.63 06:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget that a competent Audio Engineer will have at least a general idea of the signal flow going on inside of the gear he is using. The signal flow within a console certainly should be well known by the engineer mixing on it. --PM - PhilyG ^talk 21:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The head-worn type was first used in new gathering applications

I didn't correct this since I'm not 100% sure, but I guess this should be news gathering applications? 213.235.241.220 10:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Too Long

This article is too long winded for an encyclopedia, there is too much detail that should be covered in other articles, for example, noise gates, limiters, eq, etc should be covered in their respective pages with only a brief mention of use in a sound system, let the nuts and bolts of the "system parts" be described elsewhere. The tone also reads like a tutorial. DCwom 18:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Needs to be trimmed, with links to further detail. Binksternet 19:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I have done some major trimming and rewriting of this section. Any better or is the general consensus that it is still too long? It may be tough for someone who knows nothing about audio to have no small explanation of each component without going to the article for each one. --PM - PhilyG ^talk 01:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I no longer think it's too long due to the fact that it is more coherent and relevant. Good work! Binksternet (talk) 07:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

SR loudspeaker

I agree that the article is to long, but I have just fleshed out (added) a medium size chunk to the Loudspeaker section on history of design. I looked around, but Loudspeaker does not seem like a better choice. Maybe a new article on Sound reinforcement loudspeaker?

Robert.harker (talk) 09:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, couldn't hurt to have that specific application covered. There would necessarily be a lot of overlap with the loudspeaker, loudspeaker enclosure, horn speaker, subwoofer, constant voltage speaker system and speaker driver articles but your proposed article could cover poorly-addressed areas such as rigging practices and prediction software. Binksternet (talk) 16:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Reordering applications

I do not thing the order of the applications makes logical sense. It jumps around. I propose a new order:

• Rental systems
• Live music clubs
• Touring systems
• Church sound
• Classical music and opera
• Lecture halls and conference rooms
• Sports sound systems

If no one objects with in a week, I will go ahead and do it

Robert.harker (talk) 09:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

As I have been doing a lot of work on this article recently, I have rearranged the applications per your order. Good call. --PM - PhilyG ^talk 01:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

B-Class?

What are the opinions of other editors about this article's validity as a B-Class article? If the general consensus is that the article is not ready, what can be done to get it to this level? I think that it is at least close to being that thorough. Perhaps in need of more consistency? Comment away please. --PM - PhilyG ^talk 21:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It's absolutely B-Class right now. Moving toward GA-Class, I think the long list of references needs to be pruned until only the ones used in the article remain. Binksternet (talk) 04:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge revisited

I've got some questions about the 2006 decision to leave PA and SR as separate articles. See Talk:Public address#Merge revisited --Kvng (talk) 15:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Other papers list too long??

Is it just me or is the list of other papers on sound reinforcement too long?? Moreover, many of the articles are from the 1960s and some even from the 1930s. I think some papers may be too dated. I think this list could be trimmed.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 00:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The list may be too long. But as to the relevancy of papers written in the 1930's, David Scheirman from JBL Pro once pointed out to me that most of the important audio research was done by Harry Olson and his team back in the 1930's at Bell Labs. Take a look at his patents and papers. Using line arrays as an example. He invented them. His basic research covered most of the current concepts that are in use today. His equations are the same basic equations that are used today. Why else are there so few patents that significantly impact the line array market.Robert.Harker (talk) 06:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't assume it is too long. We should have some sort of criteria for inclusion here though. ~KvnG 02:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Lede pic

The lede pic is a great pic...but I think it would be nicer if we had one where the speakers were visible. I'll check on Wikimedia Commons and propose some potential replacements that show the speakers better.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 22:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

...I didn't find one either. WP:PDI may be useful. ~Kvng (talk) 14:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)