Heads-up: SpaceStation keyboard amp is apparently back

[AnotherScott]

I can't see buying this, then having to bring a second amp/speaker system to make it sound good

Okay, but if you're resigned to bringing two speakers no matter what (because you've concluded that there's no single speaker that will give you great stereo sound), you could choose to compare your pair of QSCs to the combination of a single QSC plus the SS3. Each solution has its advantages over the other. i.e. if you were to replace one QSC with a SS, you might find quicker setup time (no tripods to carry in, set up, and lift speakers on to, and more confined wiring), smaller stage footprint, and better stereo sound spread throughout the listening area. But you'd lose specific stereo localization (for those in the sweet spot), and max volume.

 

I think it's also worth remembering that some people are content with the piano sound in their SS3. (And for that matter, there are also some who were not happy wth their piano sounds through the old QSCs!)

[Reezekeys]

That makes a ton of sense Al. I imagine the SSV3 is great for organ & Leslie. I probably would be tempted to bring one to add to my existing rig if I was doing a lot of organ stuff but I'm such a bad organ player that even if I had to do a lot of organ on a gig, having the SSV3 would only accentuate my crappy playing! That's my personal "value proposition", lol!

[Reezekeys]

I can't see buying this, then having to bring a second amp/speaker system to make it sound good

Okay, but if you're resigned to bringing two speakers no matter what (because you've concluded that there's no single speaker that will give you great stereo sound), you could choose to compare your pair of QSCs to the combination of a single QSC plus the SS3. Each solution has its advantages over the other. i.e. if you were to replace one QSC with a SS, you might find quicker setup time (no tripods to carry in, set up, and lift speakers on to, and more confined wiring), smaller stage footprint, and better stereo sound spread throughout the listening area. But you'd lose specific stereo localization (for those in the sweet spot), and max volume.

 

I think it's also worth remembering that some people are content with the piano sound in their SS3. (And for that matter, there are also some who were not happy wth their piano sounds through the old QSCs!)

Yes it's all a personal thing of course. And as you just pointed out, someone might choose to bring a SS3 to augment a higher-quality speaker instead of the other way around. I hadn't really thought of it like that, but I can see the truth to it. I would have to amend my statement you quoted above.

 

In my case, to daydream a little, if I were to go for the SSV3 I think I would still bring my two QSCs, and use an audio interface with two separate sets of stereo outputs one going to the two QSCs and one going to the SSV3. I might route the organ/leslie and other big-ass stereo effected stuff to the SSV3 and keep the AP and other less "stereo-ized" program material in the QSCs. BTW I don't normally use tripods for my speakers, I just set them up on small foldable stools behind me.

[MathOfInsects]

My point was that it should also sound good in mono.

 

Says you. That's not what it was designed for. And making it do so, adds cost. If this speaker cost a penny more, I wouldn't have bought it.

 

A vertical stack doesn't need to double the footprint.

 

Says you. For me "footprint" includes space in my car and cartage into and out of a venue. If the SS3 was sold as a two-speaker set, both the size of the SS3, even at its current price, I wouldn't have bought it.

[AnotherScott]

In my case, to daydream a little, if I were to go for the SSV3 I think I would still bring my two QSCs, and use an audio interface with two separate sets of stereo outputs one going to the two QSCs and one going to the SSV3. I might route the organ/leslie and other big-ass stereo effected stuff to the SSV3 and keep the AP and other less "stereo-ized" program material in the QSCs.

Yeah, that's pretty ideal. The idea of perhaps bringing a SS3 around JUST for organ may sound ridiculous, but in the old days, I brought a Leslie 122 around just for organ, and would have loved to have been able to bring an SS3 instead!

 

BTW I don't normally use tripods for my speakers, I just set them up on small foldable stools behind me.

Good for you, I hate tripods!

 

My point was that it should also sound good in mono.

 

Says you. That's not what it was designed for. And making it do so, adds cost. If this speaker cost a penny more, I wouldn't have bought it.

If you have any mono sounds, you need something that sounds decent with them. And I'm not saying that you can't get a decent mono out of the SS3, but IF it really sounded awful with mono sounds, then I'd rather pay a penny more, if the alternative were to bring a second amp for my mono sounds.

 

A vertical stack doesn't need to double the footprint.

 

Says you. For me "footprint" includes space in my car and cartage into and out of a venue.

I'll give you that one!

[jazzpiano88]

I can't see buying this, then having to bring a second amp/speaker system to make it sound good

Okay, but if you're resigned to bringing two speakers no matter what (because you've concluded that there's no single speaker that will give you great stereo sound), you could choose to compare your pair of QSCs to the combination of a single QSC plus the SS3. Each solution has its advantages over the other. i.e. if you were to replace one QSC with a SS, you might find quicker setup time (no tripods to carry in, set up, and lift speakers on to, and more confined wiring), smaller stage footprint, and better stereo sound spread throughout the listening area. But you'd lose specific stereo localization (for those in the sweet spot), and max volume.

 

I think it's also worth remembering that some people are content with the piano sound in their SS3. (And for that matter, there are also some who were not happy with their piano sounds through the old QSCs!)

Yes it's all a personal thing of course. And as you just pointed out, someone might choose to bring a SS3 to augment a higher-quality speaker instead of the other way around...

Circling back to my original reply to you a couple of days ago (6/23), that was my point -- that there may be a market for a cheaper standalone side speaker that produces (L-R) and (R-L) from R,L inputs. That way you're not lugging around an SS just for the side capability when combined with, say, a single TT08A.

 

It'd be a 10" cube with a 100W powered driver open front and back. Has a volume control and a mono though (like the SS "sub" out) to go to the powered mono speaker of your choice.

[AnotherScott]

Circling back to my original reply to you a couple of days ago (6/23), that was my point -- that there may be a market for a cheaper standalone side speaker that produces (L-R) and (R-L) from R,L inputs. That way you're not lugging around an SS just for the side capability when combined with, say, a single TT08A.

 

It'd be a 10" cube with a 100W powered driver open front and back. Has a volume control and a mono though (like the SS "sub" out) to go to the powered mono speaker of your choice.

I like that idea. If it works in practice, I could easily see buying something like that to put under a K8.2 for example. It could conceivably be cheaper and lighter than a second K8.2, while also raising your 8.2 enough that you don't have to think about a separate stand for it, zero additional (stage!) footprint... easier to cart around and easier to place than a second 8.2, yet still letting you get away from that sense that all your sound is coming out of a box that you might otherwise get with just a single 8.2. Very much like putting an 8.2 on the existing SS3, but cheaper, lighter, and without the sense that you're unnecessarily paying for a bunch of redundant components (and I suspect that psychological sense is part of the problem some people have with the concept).

[Reezekeys]

It's a good idea but what kind of FR are you going to get from a small cabinet that's open on both sides? When you use microphones to record in a m-s configuration, the "side" mic normally has a figure-8 cardioid pattern, presumably responding to all frequencies, i.e., full-range, correct? I know, the "difference" audio in most program material is more likely to be ambience information possibly not needing a wide FR but can you definitely say that this "CPS speaker add-on" wouldn't benefit from having a wide FR? Too bad the person who may be most qualified to educate us on this is not able to post here (for reasons I understand, of course). There's probably some acoustic theory way above my pay grade I'm not aware of.

 

As I said a few posts up, there's a poor man's (or woman's) way to test this using a computer with an audio interface, an open-back guitar amp, and the free software I pointed to. Somebody get on it!

[J. Dan]

He explained early on in this thread that another component is the position of the side speaker relative to the front. Just stacking a couple cabinets is not the ideal scenario.

[AnotherScott]

It's a good idea but what kind of FR are you going to get from a small cabinet that's open on both sides?

The same kind it gets now. The SS3 uses a side-firing speaker open on both sides.

 

He explained early on in this thread that another component is the position of the side speaker relative to the front. Just stacking a couple cabinets is not the ideal scenario.

It may not be ideal, but it does seem to be a workable scenario, based on what some people are doing with the current SS3 and another speaker above.

[jazzpiano88]

It's a good idea but what kind of FR are you going to get from a small cabinet that's open on both sides?

The same kind it gets now. The SS3 uses a side-firing speaker open on both sides.

That's where I pulled the 10" cube dimension out of my ass (the 6.5" Eminence side channel driver looks to be mounted midway in the SS cabinet with each side's surrounding cabinet dimensions of 6" x 11" x 8")

 

I don't have the impression that side channel fidelity is a huge factor given the SS geometrical configuration and the fact that people complain loudly if it is pointed at them.

 

He explained early on in this thread that another component is the position of the side speaker relative to the front. Just stacking a couple cabinets is not the ideal scenario.

It may not be ideal, but it does seem to be a workable scenario, based on what some people are doing with the current SS3 and another speaker above.

Agree. With an independent side channel, you would really have the flexibility to either replicate the SS orientation or make infinite modifications.

 

I also would love to hear Aspen's comments on this crazy idea, but will have to ask him him directly.

[dbran]

I've often wondered what it would take to mod the SS3 with a switch that could shut off the main front-firing speakers, and leave only the side-firing one active. Then you would have the best of both worlds: if you're stacking it with another front-firing speaker, you could shut off the SS3's mono output, but if you're using the SS3 as your only amp, you turn it back on.

[Al Quinn]

Interesting thought. I asked the designer, Aspen Pittman, a similar question: how to wire a jack that would shut off the front speaker when an external speaker was connected. After some discussion we decided facing the front speaker into the floor achieved the same result with less effort.

[dbran]

Yeah. I've seen that approach demonstrated often here, but have yet to actually try it myself. There's something weird to me about putting the speaker on the floor, pointed at the floor. Does the front grill get dirty? Is it bad for the speakers to be trying to push air against the floor like that, or to be firing in a horizontal orientation rather than a vertical one? (I'll admit, that last one is a stretch). And just wasting all that power, amplifying a signal and producing sound that will end up going nowhere... seems wrong to me. I'd much rather just shut it off. Still, if this approach is Aspen-approved (and thanks for the reminder), then maybe I will give it a try.

 

Actually, now that I think about it, the even better way to do this would be to wire the SS's volume controls a little differently. There should be one volume control for the front main speakers, and a separate one entirely for the side-firing speaker. This is not the way the controls work currently: the LEVEL knob controls both the main and side-firing speakers, and then the WIDTH knob lets you make a second adjustment to just the side-firing one (but you can't raise it at all if the master LEVEL is set to zero). This effectively prevents you from ever having just the side-firing one working. It seems like this is harder to implement than my scheme of just one volume knob per speaker, but I'm guessing it was done to prevent people from inadvertently turning up only the side-firing, and then claiming that the amp sounds lousy (which it certainly would, on its own.)

[Doerfler]

There's something weird to me about putting the speaker on the floor, pointed at the floor. Does the front grill get dirty?

 

well, if the floor is dirty, then yes.

[elif]

Going through the matrix equations and assuming a perfect 1:1 mix in the SSV3, I think a side-only output could be achieved by driving the SSV3 with two new inputs, L' and R' such that:

 

L' = L - R

R' = R - L

 

Where L and R are the original inputs to the SSV3. This could be tested by using a capable mixer.

 

[cphollis]

The ultimate SSv3 mod in my book?

 

1. Upgrade side-firing 6" speaker to the best you can find.

2. Rewire connections so the main power amp now takes the difference signal and sends it to side-firing speaker.

3. Remove main front-firing speaker, and unneeded power amp for weight considerations.

 

Of course, trying this runs a pretty good chance of destroying your SSv3. But, given that I have two (long story) I'd be tempted to give it a shot if I knew what the hell I was doing.

 

Soldering irons scare me

[dbran]

There's something weird to me about putting the speaker on the floor, pointed at the floor. Does the front grill get dirty?

 

well, if the floor is dirty, then yes.

 

Aha! Just as I suspected...

[dbran]

Going through the matrix equations and assuming a perfect 1:1 mix in the SSV3, I think a side-only output could be achieved by driving the SSV3 with two new inputs, L' and R' such that:

 

L' = L - R

R' = R - L

 

Where L and R are the original inputs to the SSV3. This could be tested by using a capable mixer.

 

I think you're right that there would be no output from the front in this case, because it would be amplifying L' + R' = 0.

 

But the side output that you would get would be:

 

L' - R' = 2L in one direction, and

 

L' + R' = 2R in the other.

 

As I understand it, this will not create the 3-D effect. It would no different than placing two normal stereo speakers back to back, which is not what the spacestation does. The "magic" of the SS3 is that the difference signal, L - R, is amplified and distributed around the room along with the summed mono L + R.

 

[elif]

I know of no equation for one direction of the side relative to the other (other than the phase is inverted). Here's how I did it:

 

[font:Courier New]M-S mic equations (k = mix ratio [0:1])

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

L = kM + (1-k)S

R = kM - (1-k)S

 

Assume perfect 1:1 mix, k = 0.5, solving for M & S:

 

M = L + R

S = L - R

 

Let SSV3 inputs be L' & R', then SSV3 M and S outputs are:

 

M = L' + R'

S = L' - R'

 

Let,

 

L' = L - R

R' = R - L

 

Then,

 

M = (L-R) + (R-L) = 0

S = (L-R) - (R-L) = 2L - 2R

[/font]

[jazzpiano88]

Going through the matrix equations and assuming a perfect 1:1 mix in the SSV3, I think a side-only output could be achieved by driving the SSV3 with two new inputs, L' and R' such that:

 

L' = L - R

R' = R - L

 

Where L and R are the original inputs to the SSV3. This could be tested by using a capable mixer.

 

I think you're right that there would be no output from the front in this case, because it would be amplifying L' + R' = 0.

 

But the side output that you would get would be:

 

L' - R' = 2L in one direction, and

 

L' + R' = 2R in the other.

 

As I understand it, this will not create the 3-D effect. It would no different than placing two normal stereo speakers back to back, which is not what the spacestation does. The "magic" of the SS3 is that the difference signal, L - R, is amplified and distributed around the room along with the summed mono L + R.

No, elseif had it right.

 

Right SS input R' = (R-L)

Left SS input L' = (L-R)

 

Front output = R'+L' = (R-L) + (L-R) = 0

 

Side speaker outputs are (forward and backward):

Forward: L'-R' = (L-R) - (R-L) = 2*(L-R)

Backward: R'-L' = (R-L) - (L-R) = 2*(R-L)

[Danny Linguini]

The ultimate SSv3 mod in my book?

 

1. Upgrade side-firing 6" speaker to the best you can find.

2. Rewire connections so the main power amp now takes the difference signal and sends it to side-firing speaker.

3. Remove main front-firing speaker, and unneeded power amp for weight considerations.

 

Of course, trying this runs a pretty good chance of destroying your SSv3. But, given that I have two (long story) I'd be tempted to give it a shot if I knew what the hell I was doing.

 

Soldering irons scare me

I'd love to try something like this, possibly using two side firing speakers out of phase instead of one, maybe coaxials to give the blossom effect even more clarity. I've even imagined protective 'doors' over the sides that open to act as built-in reflecting baffles in case there are no reflective surfaces nearby. Same L/R inputs and mono out as the SS to feed the mono 'center' speaker of your choice. It would be a fraction of the weight and allow so much more flexibility. The possibilities would be endless. But, and without actually seeing inside, I'd fear that everything is so integrated in there that there'd be no way to separate out the center channel components. I don't know, mine is sitting here doing nothing right now, so there'd be nothing lost to tear into it and do some investigating. I mean, it's just wires and stuff, right?

[Al Coda]

 

... Actually, I was using the SSV3 for jazz organ gigs (and still do). Plus I was using a pair of TT08As for jazz piano gigs. All of this was good but I struggled on rock, blues, and R&B gigs because I wanted great sounding AP and B3. What to bring?

 

Both !

 

but Im happy with my sound.

 

Never change a winning team.

 

A.C.

[Al Coda]

I'd love to try something like this, possibly using two side firing speakers out of phase instead of one,...

 

In the past and before the Spacestation series of cabs was designed, Aspen already had separate side firing cabs available.

I remember there was one using two speakers mounted face-to-face on a baffle in between.

There were also separate (rackmount ?) encoder/decoder units available.

I doubt all this was big success.

 

... maybe coaxials to give the blossom effect even more clarity.

 

I think the backside of the speakers is used and that is what doesn´t work w/ mid/hi drivers/horns.

At least in a cab using 2 speakers face-to-face (like mentioned above), the backside of the speakers seems to be in use only.

 

Now someone might explain why the opposite would be possible too, maybe using coax speakers,- and why Aspen never did.

 

I thought about all this many times because of interest and because I really wanted a compact single stereo speaker solution,- but at the end of the day, I came to the conclusion, that speaker design is best just only for the Stereo-FX return channels in a rig.

Leslie-sims, stereo chorus/flanger, stereo delays and reverbs, they all profit from that speaker design, but not all the other sounds.

P.ex.,- just only using my Minimoog D together w/ a (stomp-box) mono-flanger and mono-delay makes no sense w/ this speaker.

 

A.C.

 

[dbran]

Going through the matrix equations and assuming a perfect 1:1 mix in the SSV3, I think a side-only output could be achieved by driving the SSV3 with two new inputs, L' and R' such that:

 

L' = L - R

R' = R - L

 

Where L and R are the original inputs to the SSV3. This could be tested by using a capable mixer.

 

I think you're right that there would be no output from the front in this case, because it would be amplifying L' + R' = 0.

 

But the side output that you would get would be:

 

L' - R' = 2L in one direction, and

 

L' + R' = 2R in the other.

 

As I understand it, this will not create the 3-D effect. It would no different than placing two normal stereo speakers back to back, which is not what the spacestation does. The "magic" of the SS3 is that the difference signal, L - R, is amplified and distributed around the room along with the summed mono L + R.

No, elseif had it right.

 

Right SS input R' = (R-L)

Left SS input L' = (L-R)

 

Front output = R'+L' = (R-L) + (L-R) = 0

 

Side speaker outputs are (forward and backward):

Forward: L'-R' = (L-R) - (R-L) = 2*(L-R)

Backward: R'-L' = (R-L) - (L-R) = 2*(R-L)

 

Aha. Yes, this is exactly right. I should have double-checked before rushing to post. How embarrassing.

 

Very sorry about that, Elseif, and thank you and JazzPiano88 for taking the time to correct me!

[analogman1]

Anyone live in New York (pref Westchester) who is performing with one of these speaker setups? Would love to hear it!!!!

[MotiDave]

Does the side firing speaker really utilize two separate mixes (R-L, L-R) or is it a single R-L signal sent to the bidirectional speaker?

[Al Quinn]

No, the side speaker doesn't use two separate mixes. Rather is uses one R-L signal that is directed to either side by utilizing sound out of the front and the back of the side speaker (which projects these sounds to either side because the side speaker is mounted sideways). Due to physics sound out of the back of the side speaker is 180 degrees out of phase with the sound out of the front of the side speaker Alternatively stated, air is pushed exactly opposite out of the front and back of the side speaker. So the second mix you refer to is created by mechanical rather than electrical means.

[Synthaholic]

Ive been playing a nice gig where Im set up at one end of a long restaurant/bar, with all hard surfaces. Ive been using my JBL EON 510 pair, up on poles. This last time I brought my Spacestation, on top of my EV powered 12/horn. Big mistake. While it sounded great close to me I couldnt get enough volume for the other end of the room without turning up so much that my mic fed back and it was way too boomy and reflective. This is because the width of my setup space is basically 10-13 feet, so I couldnt get any distance from the Spacestation. It was right next to me. Oh, well. It was worth a try. Ill go back to the JBLs.

[AnotherScott]

I couldnt get enough volume for the other end of the room without turning up so much that my mic fed back

I think microphones are probably a poor application for a spacestation if you need much volume. The key to not getting feedback on a mic is controlling the directionality of the speakers/monitors, which you can't do on a spacestation that throws sound everywhere.