This website uses cookies to manage authentication, navigation, and other functions.

By using our website, you agree that we can

place these types of cookies on your device.
View Privacy Policy View e-Privacy Directive Documents View GDPR Documents I agree I decline

HOME DESIGN & TUNE SOUND SYSTEMS EDUCATION ABOUT MERLIJN VAN VEEN

Home > study hall > To delay, or not delay, that’s the question

TO DELAY, OR NOT DELAY, THAT’S THE QUESTION

STUDY HALL

Published: 26 February 2016

PODCASTS

An article in response to a series of

CALCULATORS
ProSoundWeb forum posts questioning the
necessity of delay speakers.
SEMINAR FILES

The default argument in favor of delay speakers PUBLICATIONS

appears to be level restoration. The default
objections are timing issues and sonic EDUCATION (OLD PAGE)
perspective distortion.
figure 1 LINKS

This article attempts to explore some serious but

often overlooked advantages of delay speakers
beyond plain level restoration.

The venue is this example originates from an actual PSW post and is a small house of
worship (figure 1). The original poster was looking for feedback from the forum members
regarding the best approach for designing a suitable sound system with limited means.

A stereo approach was quickly discarded by most, including the original poster, but some
ambiguity remained regarding a center (mono) or dual-mono approach. Both with or
without delay speakers. This article will investigate the dual-mono approach with delay
speakers.

Before moving on, a brief estimation of the acoustics is performed using traditional
geometrical-acoustic methods like Sabine’s equation and %ALcons in an attempt to get
some order of magnitude.

Supposedly the walls and ceiling where

constructed of drywall (aka gypsum or
Sheetrock®) with virtually no MF and HF
absorption. Stage and floor are covered with
carpet. According to figure 2 this puts the
estimate reverberation time somewhere between
0.6 seconds at best and 1.6 seconds at worst,
occupied or empty venue respectively.

According to Victor Peutz, the inventor of

%ALcons (vocal-centric), this low reverberation
time of 1.6 seconds or less, should limit the
figure 2
percentage loss of consonants, vital for
intelligibility, to 15% or less. Provided there’s 25
dB of signal to noise ratio or more. In other
words, if you speak up you should be intelligible (without aid) under these circumstances.

For the remainder of this article some familiarity with Bob McCarthy’s design concepts is
assumed.

A section view of the venue (figure 3) shows a 5.6

: 1 range ratio (15 dB of level variance front to
back) for a speaker placed downstage at the
“highest” possible position. This is a clear
warning sign telling us that a single speaker
approach (2 : 1 range ratio or 6 dB at most) is not
viable.

figure 3
At least 4 to 5 speakers in an asymmetrical
coupled point source configuration or a dash
array (line array of 6 speakers or less) would be
required to deal with this kind of asymmetry in the vertical plane. Both solutions are
beyond the scope of this article, the available physical space and budget. Regardless
subdivision is highly recommended.

A single speaker of sufficient vertical coverage could cater the entire audience but would
also excite the venue more. Causing degraded performance in the back of the venue, due
to nearby low absorbent boundaries introducing strong reflections. Simultaneously the
low end of a “medium” format speaker wouldn’t be able to keep up with the directional
behavior of the mid and high frequencies, causing tonal variance front to back in excess
of 6 dB.

Figure 4 shows a single modest coverage 50°

speaker aimed at back. Its front to back level
drop is 9 dB (15 dB of range - 6 dB of angular
attenuation) and it’s overshooting the beginning
of the audience. Figure 5 shows the low end of
the same speaker and its decreased directivity
results in a 15 dB loss (15 dB of range and no
angular attenuation) front to back. These different
figure 4
loss rates are responsible for tonal differences.

Currently level restoration of at least 3 dB in the

back is required, the most common argument in
favor of a delay speaker, to place the entire
audience within 6 dB of level variance or less.

Figure 6 shows a section view of this approach.

The mains have been titled down to limit their
custody to the first half of the audience with a 2 :
1 range ratio, reaching down to the 2nd row. A figure 5
delay speaker will take care of the second half of
the audience, also with a 2 : 1 range ratio.

Figure 7 shows a plan view of all 4 speakers in

their translated positions. Translation is required
to align the propagation planes of the speakers
(diagonals from section view) to the 2D plan view
drawing plane of the prediction software. The
rectangular aspect ratios of their respective
designated coverage areas suggest a 60° figure 6
speaker in the horizontal plane is the ideal
candidate for the dual-mono approach.

Figure 8 shows the gaps (if any) at the 2nd row,

marking the beginning of coverage for the mains.
Using McCarthy’s “lateral multiplier”, we can
determine the lateral width of coverage at a given
distance for a given coverage angle. Our 60°
speakers would leave a 6 feet center gap,
situated conveniently in the aisle separating the
figure 7
audience. Nothing to worry about. At the outer
edges of row 2, gaps of 3 feet are to be
expected.

The original poster considered resorting to Martin

Audio CDD12 speakers with asymmetrical horns
in the horizontal plane ranging from 60° in the top
to 110° in the bottom. The latter would nicely
close the gaps as illustrated by the black dashed
triangles in figure 8.
figure 8
Row 1 would benefit from front-fills (figure 9) with
the added advantage of lowering the sonic
perspective in the vertical plane. Asking the
mains to cover this row would require a
disproportional down-tilt to favor a minority of the
audience and sacrifice the macro-solution.

Figure 10 shows the essence of this article and

often overlooked necessity for delay speakers. A
single speaker, with respect to its reflected sound figure 9
of a non-absorbent rear wall, can only maintain its
level dominance in the first half of the audience.
Beyond that milestone, the decreasing difference
in path length between direct and reflected sound
will result in increasingly more audible comb
filtering. We can’t expect the main speaker to
reach the last row and magically avoid the rear
wall.

The venue in this article supposedly has a

figure 10
virtually non-absorbent rear wall, putting the
second half of the audience in increasing danger.
This can be experienced as strong tonal
coloration, spatiality or discrete echo perception
depending on the delay of the reflected sound
which has a different outcome for different
frequencies.

For each frequency cancelled by the reflected

sound, all that’s left is background noise. As a
consequence, increased comb filtering results in
reduced signal to noise ratio and decreased
figure 11
intelligibility. On our analyzers this will manifest
itself as a decrease in overall coherence (figure
11).

The forward-positioned delay speaker has a

different geometrical relation to that same rear
wall and the increased down-tilt introduces
angular attenuation into the of-axis reflected path
(figure 12). Therefore, the delay speaker will
exhibit improved D/R (direct-to-reverberant ratio)
that benefits the compromised main speaker figure 12
while simultaneously restoring level and reducing
tonal variance.

The angle of incidence of the delay speaker with

respect to the main speaker will determine the
rate at which main and delay tear apart in terms
of time (figure 13). Evidently a properly delayed
delay speaker placed in-line with the main
speaker, will remain time aligned over distance.
Main and delay opposing each other will exhibit figure 13
the greatest rate of increasing misalignment over
distance.

When choosing the correct position for the delay speaker the coverage, level and tonal
variance should be carefully balanced against the improved D/R of a more forward
position in exchange for reduced “synchronicity”.

If room treatment is not an option (figure 10) than delay speakers are a viable option for
improving D/R in the most vulnerable part of the audience.

To make the delay speaker as inconspicuous as possible make sure:

equally loud at most

arrives on time

The Haas or precedence effect requires a differential system to detect an offset in

arrival times. A system we do not possess in the vertical plane. Over-delaying will
result in an audible and measurable degradation, less efficiency and artifacts
ranging form strong tonal coloration to possibly discrete echo perception
depending on the program material.

sounds the same

Typically there’s way less air between delay speakers and the audience than there’s
between the mains and the audience. The main speaker has suffered a bigger HF
penalty than the delay speaker. The latter therefore should be made equally dark.
 Alternatively, the mains could be made brighter as long as it doesn't make things
worse in the front of the audience.

shelve the low-end

Most mains will have suffered a substantial amount of low frequency buildup in the
back of room. Shelving out some low end in the delay speaker will reduce tonal
variance and simultaneously reduce LF backwash for the audience in front of the
delay speaker.

Figures 14 and 15 show the differences between

both approaches with boundaries enabled.
Notice the reduced comb filter in the back of the
audience.

Proper deployed delay speakers will:

restore level (which isn't always required)

figure 14
decrease tonal variance
improve D/R
reduce comb filtering
improve SNR
improve coherence
improve intelligibility

figure 15

This article is also featured in the February 2017 edition of Live Sound International
magazine.

Time Sensitive MVV LSI 1702

Hannover | Germany | info@merlijnvanveen.nl

Copyright © 2021 Merlijn van Veen. All Rights Reserved.
Terms of Use (Dutch) Privacy & Cookies (Dutch)