c
c



    
     
 
    
  

A loudspeaker array is a collection of loudspeakers that is assembled to achieve a coverage pattern that cannot be
achieved with a single device. Arrays are most commonly implemented to achieve a wide horizontal coverage pattern
from a position on or above the stage. The ³perfect´ array would be a collection of loudspeakers whose radiation pattern
was indistinguishable from a single (hypothetical) device that provided the needed pattern for the audience area.

Many attempts have been made to solve the horizontal coverage problem. These include:

ë The ³tight-pack´ array a collection of loudspeakers packed tightly

together to emulate a single loudspeaker ( ).

Figure 1: The ³tight-pack´

array.

ë The ³exploded´ array technically not an array, but a group of

devices that are separated by a sufficient physical distance large


Figure 2: The ³exploded´ enough to reduce the acoustic coupling between the devices ( 
array. ). Devices can be tilted at a downward angle.

ë The ³spherical´ array a group of devices with a common mouth

distance to a virtual point of origin, placing them on the surface of a
virtual sphere ( !).


Figure 3: The ³spherical´

array.

All of these side-by-side array topologies have merits if implemented properly. Let¶s take a look at some facts and myths
regarding the tight-pack and spherical arrays, and (hopefully!) provoke some thought about the horizontal coverage
problem.

The balloon plots in this article were generated using EASE 4.0. They represent the approximate response of an array
generated using the manufacturer-supplied EASE loudspeaker data. Since real-world loudspeakers are inherently more
complex than the EASE data representation, the simulations are ³best case.´ 

The best-case response of any horizontal array could be described

with the balloon plot of  ". The plot is of three 60-degree
horizontal devices arrayed side-by-side to provide a 180 degree
horizontal radiation pattern.


Figure 4: Idealized radiation

pattern.
 m
m##$%

Because a horizontal array attempts to achieve a wider

coverage pattern than can be achieved with a single device,
it makes sense to consider what such a coverage pattern


would be useful for. If the array is radiating equal sound

Figure 5: Optimum audience plane for a energy to all points within its horizontal pattern, then even
side-by-side array.
coverage is achieved only if all listeners in the horizontal
plane are at a similar distance from the array.

 &'( show the audience planes that can be covered

evenly with a side-by-side array. We will proceed with the
assumption that the goal of the array is to evenly cover one
of these audience area shapes.

Figure 6: Another optimum audience
plane for a side-by-side array.
Note that if the array were tilted (i.e. above the stage), the
audience plane would need to have the same tilt. Such an
audience plane is unlikely, so the ³exploded´ array is
normally used this application.
 ) shows the physical conflicts that occur when a
tight-pack configuration is attempted. If the acoustic
centers could be reconciled physically, then a coherent
wavefront could be achieved without the requirement of the
sum of the individual radiation patterns being 180 degrees
( *).
Unfortunately, such a localized acoustic center is not


possible for much of the spectrum in practice due to the

Figure 7: Yet another optimum audience
plane for a side-by-side array.
required physical size of transducers that can radiate
significant acoustic power. It is necessary to de-centralize
the components to a degree that doesn¶t require the devices
to occupy the same position in space. This process also
moves the acoustic centers, and our ³ideal´ array is no
longer ideal ( +).

The performance of a tight-packed array will depend on the

degree to which the designer is able to reconcile the acoustic
centers to a common point. Because a physical solution bec-
omes more difficult with increasing frequency (shorter wave-
lengths), the performance of tight-pack arrays will transition to


that of a spherical array at some frequency.

Figure 8: Ideal versus physically

realizable devices.
 c   shows the maximum physical distance bet-ween
acoustic centers of adjacent devices that allow in-phase
energy summation (less than one-quarter wavelength).

Table 1: Maximum physical distance

between acoustic centers of adjacent
devices.

The spherical array moves the acoustic centers out from a common
origin and uses a radiation pattern that minimizes the overlap bet-
ween adjacent devices.

Figure 9: In a dream world...

Figure 10: The real world: our

ideal array is no longer ideal.
   shows the ideal case, which would yield a ³dead´ zone in
the overlap area. In practice, the opposite happens, since all
loudspeakers spill some acoustic energy outside of their rated
coverage patterns. The result is a ³lobing´ three-dimensional
radiation pattern and an acoustic response riddled with comb filters
at any single listener position.

It is interesting to note that the number of lobes in the radiation

pattern is determined by the separation of the acoustic centers, not
by the coverage angles of the devices that form the array. Tighter
patterns can reduce the level differences between the peaks and
nulls, but they don¶t reduce the number of peaks and nulls. Array


performance is not judged by the absence of lobes, but by the

relative level difference between the peaks and the nulls.

Figure 11: Spherical arrays

move the acoustic centers out
from a common origin.

# c,c$
,  

  '- show the 3-D directivity balloons for several ³real
world´ array configurations for frequencies in the voice range. The
geometric origin is 1 meter for each array, a distance that is great
enough to remove the physical conflicts between the devices.

  shows an array of small sound columns that have the typical
broad horizontal pattern and controlled vertical pattern. The lack of
pattern control produces significant lobing at all but the highest


frequency considered. At this frequency, the lobing becomes so dense

that the response actually becomes smoother. Dense interference is a
common technique used by sound system designers. As the lobe
density is reduced (lower frequencies) the coverage becomes more
uneven.

Figure 12: Low-Q arrayed

on a sphere.
  ! shows the resultant radiation patterns when the column
loudspeakers are replaced with medium-format horns having a 60-
degree nominal horizontal coverage pattern in the 2 kHz octave band.
The coverage is much more even than in the previous example.

As with the previous array, these devices are positioned on the surface
of a sphere by using a common distance back to a ³virtual´ physical
origin. This arraying technique produces physically appealing arrays,
but unfortunately does not compensate for the fact that the acoustic


centers are not reconciled. As such, significant lobing is present in the

radiation pattern at the lower octave centers where the radiated pattern
is wider than the nominal coverage.

Figure 13: Arrayed on a

sphere.

 " shows the same configuration, but with the center
loudspeaker advanced physically by one foot. This makes the array non-
spherical, which (ironically) produces an improvement in the evenness
of coverage in the 500 Hz and 2 kHz balloons.

Figure 14: Center

loudspeaker advanced by
one foot.
  & shows the same configuration, but with the center device
delayed electronically in an attempt to ³compensate´ for the

1-foot advance. This demonstrates that the acoustic center of a device

is a physical characteristic and cannot be moved electronically. While a
delay can certainly alter the radiation pattern of the array, it is not a
direct substitution for the repositioning of a device.

Figure 15: Center

loudspeaker advanced one
foot and delayed .88
milliseconds.

.#/,m #/#.m 

Array performance can be improved by using devices whose directivity

holds up to a lower frequency. This means a physically larger
device. - shows the result of substituting large-format 60-
degree horns for the medium format devices in the previous figures.
The increased pattern control in the 1 kHz and 2 kHz balloons is
apparent. The bandwidths of these devices do not extend to 2 kHz, so
the high frequency response was achieved with additional devices,
coaxially mounted within the large-format horns.


Since using a larger format produces improved behavior, it is

reasonable to expect that this improvement could be extended to lower
frequencies if devices of sufficient physical size were used. Since the
acoustic wavelength doubles when frequency is halved, the required
size at 500 Hz would be twice that required at 1 kHz (8-foot mouth
size!).
Figure 16: Large-format
horn array with coaxial
high-frequency section.

The wide horizontal coverage problem is one of the greatest challenges for the system designer. There currently exists
no ideal solution, but there are certainly methods that work better than others. Some conclusions of this and other
studies are:

ë Pattern control is essential if the goal of the array is to emulate a single device.

ë Arrays of low-directivity devices should be avoided.

ë Arrayability is frequency-dependent. What works at one frequency may not work at another.

ë Spherical arrays are esthetically pleasing, but do not produce a common acoustic center.
ë Misaligning devices (either physically or electronically) may yield a frequency-dependent improvement in response.

ë Moving a loudspeaker produces a different result than delaying it.

ë Different array techniques should be used at low frequencies than at high frequencies (i.e. vertical line arrays).

Because architects and their clients insist on building rooms that are too wide to be covered with a single loudspeaker,
the wide horizontal coverage problem will be an ongoing one. This article should alert the designer and buyer alike to the
caveats of the horizontal array, and help them identify designs that provide an adequate level of performance for a given
application.