Talk:Wall of Sound (Grateful Dead)

message: Just curious if anyone knows specifically which shows were played with the WoS. I'm guessing 1973-02-09, and all of 1974 (1974-02-22 through 1974-10-20), but would like confirmation if anyone has it. -Tobogganoggin talk 01:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind - taken care of. -Tobogganoggin talk 08:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates played? 

message: Just curious, but if this was loud enough to reach out half a mile, and the band were stood right in front of it, how loud was it where they were stood?  Surely it was deafening for the band?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.250.190 (talk) 12:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  How loud? 

message: It was state of the art and the boys also had innovative and extensive electronics in their instruments (jerry, bobby phil etc).  I always thought it wasn't until the 80's that they became mega popular (and rich).  They must have been making some nice bank in the early 70's to afford all of those goodies, no?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalicious (talk • contribs) 01:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  How much did it cost at the time? 

message: I think a photo of this, and, if possible, one of the microphones, would be really great.  Anyone have one?
-Keith (Hypergeek14)Talk 13:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The image currently in the article is bizarre. For one, it is 90 degrees rotated and mirrored! The Wall of Sound was built out of scaffolding, and the scaffolding in this image is running sideways! Also, there was only one pair of vocal pods, and in this image there are four. Surely someone has a real, non-doctored photo to contribute. Here is an image of the real Wall of Sound: http://s682.photobucket.com/albums/vv181/Ibex2912/Vintage/Wall%20of%20Sound/?action=view¤t=2296990852_61cb0e4f84_o.jpg&newest=1 K8 fan (talk) 17:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  — Mudwater (Talk) 17:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Both the original image and the fixed image that was based on it have been deleted from Wikimedia Commons, and therefore from this article.  It turned out the original image was a copyright violation, as noted in this edit summary. — Mudwater (Talk) 00:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo 

message: The section at  Grateful_Dead#Wall of Sound  is quite long and detailed.  Seems like too much for the main article.  Most of that info would be better in this article, with a paragraph or two left in the main article to give some context.  
Please comment. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. — Mudwater (Talk) 00:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone ahead with the merge.  I've simply moved the entire Wall of Sound section from the Grateful Dead article, except for the first paragraph, into this article, as a new section called "History". That does the trick, but this article should now be refined further.  For example, some of the material might be redundant now that the merge has been done.  I might work on this if I get a chance, but any editor who is so inclined is encouraged to go for it. — Mudwater (Talk) 19:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for doing that.  I wanted to get to it but didn't find the time.  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge 

message: I have read an interview with John Meyer where he talks about the beamyness (sp?) of the wall of sound and how it was unexpected.  He mentions that it was this was not a surprise  years later as people started understanding line arrays.  I have looked for the quote on google and not found it.  Anyone see this quote?
Robert.Harker (talk) 21:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Line array 

message: The most powerful sound system aside about California Jam is rather dated.  54,000 watts of power is not a lot of power any more.  Just 28 3Kw amps.
Maybe we should delete it or change it to the most powerful sound system in the 1970's.
Robert.Harker (talk) 22:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most powerful sound system 

message: Article is now too repetitive.  All the material now under the History heading is repeated under the other headings.  There is also a factual conflict: was it two or three separate systems in use?  If anyone can clarify that, I'd be happy to clean up the duplications.  yoyo (talk) 06:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if there were two or three Wall of Sound systems, and I've found references either way.   says, "The Wall of Sound required two stages, which leapfrogged each other, alternating shows, so that as one was being set up, the other was traveling to the next show."  But, the article currently cites the Dick's Picks Volume 24 liner notes, which were written by Owsley Stanley.  That says, "We had three complete staging rigs and crews, one was being torn down, one was being erected and one was in use at any given time during the tour."  — Mudwater (Talk) 12:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed all the duplicated text now. I've also removed some text about another system, I'm not sure why it was included; there was no real comparison being made. I've also taken the liberty of condensing the article down to three paragraphs instead of four and simplified the final section to deal specifically with the Wall of Sound's 'retirement'. Double Happiness (talk) 19:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

text: I'm also worried by the 2-kits vs 3-kits discrepncy. Just guessing - maybe there were 3 sets of scaffolding, 2 sets of electronics ? --195.137.93.171 (talk) 20:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It could easily be a case of three sets of loudspeakers and scaffolding but only two sets of amplifiers, microphones, mixers and cabling. The three sets would help with the very time-consuming problem of erecting and striking the Wall. Just musing... Binksternet (talk) 21:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed clean-up 

message: More can be written about the retirement of the wall. I believe the curved array of bullet tweeters used for vocals ended up at McCune Sound in San Francisco, and was used by them as a center cluster for a number of concerts into the early '90s. Other elements must have gone other directions. Binksternet (talk) 20:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Great! It would be nice to flesh this article out, now the duplicated text has been hacked out by my own fair hand :D Honestly, I just tried to knock it roughly into shape by removing the repeated text, there is still work to be done here. I'm still not happy with the way the second paragraph begins with 'Moreover...' It's not the greatest way to begin a paragraph, is it? More refined adjustments would surely be welcome after my general tidy-up, so fill your boots, I say... Double Happiness (talk) 16:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have the references right now, but I can create some in early November this year by asking a question at the AES Convention in San Francisco. On Saturday, November 6 at 2:30pm, a panel discussion will be held regarding sound systems in the San Francisco area in the 1970s. Somebody on that panel will know details of what happened to the Wall's various elements. A recording of that panel discussion can serve as the reference. Binksternet (talk) 16:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retirement 

message: The root-mean square (RMS) value is not used as a measurement of electrical power; one measures RMS voltage or RMS current, but their product gives average power, as is implied by the linked article RMS. The requirement to state average power is also given in 16 CFR 432.2 (“rated minimum sine wave continuous average power output, in watts”). The operative word here is continuous; it was included in the rule to preclude games that were common in the 1960s and early 1970s. At that time, it was common for manufacturers to state amplifier power in terms of IHF (Institute of High Fidelity) “music” power, which allowed the use of an external power supply of unlimited size (and of course was not included with the amplifier ). Additional games included specifying peak music power ±1 dB into 4 ohms, so that ratings were utter nonsense. The inclusion of “RMS” power in many product specifications was probably a good-faith attempt to distinguish real values from nonsense, but one that nonetheless revealed that the writers knew not of what they spoke.
But the era of diddled amplifier specifications is long gone, so we no longer have need to rise up against the nonsense. I recommend that we simply say “a total of 26,400 watts of audio power”, and will make this change if there are no objections. JeffConrad (talk) 07:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds okay to me. — Mudwater (Talk) 11:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  “RMS” power 

message: Right now, the article says both in different sections. PaulHA2 (talk) 04:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, and there are references either way, as discussed above in the #Proposed clean-up section.  It seems that either Dennis McNally or Owsley Stanley was mistaken about this. — Mudwater (Talk) 12:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, then how about this: Something in the body of the article along the line of "the band toured with multiple versions of the Wall, leapfrogging each other in order to accommodate the time needed to set up and tear down the system..." and then a footnote that points out that one source say two, another three? PaulHA2 (talk) 23:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good.  Thanks.  I've enhanced your edits a bit, to put this question into the main text of the article, and to enhance the footnotes, including the actual quotes from McNally and Stanley. — Mudwater (Talk) 00:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent. Peace. PaulHA2 (talk) 00:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

text: I read the quotes before, and now I read them some more. McNally says "two stages", which is pretty ambiguous.  Stanley says "three complete staging rigs and crews".  That's a bit clearer, but not perfectly clear in my view.  But what you're saying -- that they had two or three sets of rigging, but only one set of speakers -- is plausible enough. — Mudwater (Talk) 01:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three leapfrogging systems or two? 

message: Just so it does not get lost.  I remember reading an in depth article about the matched pair microphones back in the 1970's.  I think it was Mix magazine but it could have been some other sound related magazine.  If someone wants to go to the library and dig it up.Robert.Harker (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bruel and Kjaer matched pair microphones 

message: ??I was surprised to see this article wasn't included:
Wall of Sound
written by Ron Wickersham — Alembic audio design engineer
 
The Grateful Dead Sound System The Grateful Dead sound system is really 11 independent systems or channels. The source of sound are located behind and above the performers so they hear what the audience hears. Only one source location for each channel is used to cover the entire hall and the music is clearer both on stage and in the audience. The stereo effect is very satisfying and natural to persons all over the hall. Intermodulation distortion between instruments is of course non-existant. Excessive reverberation and echos often impair the sound quality when performing in sports arenas. These buildings often sound worse than simple observation of reverberation times might indicate due to troublesome wall surfaces creating echoes. Conventional systems which have multiple sources for each sound add additional delays. The result is a confusing sound which causes the musicians and sound system operators to turn up the level in an effort to overcome this muddle of sound by the limiting effect of the ear. The Grateful Dead system with its single source for each instrument projects clear sound farther back into these cavernous nightmares, and since the sound from each instrument comes from a different direction, the echoes are more diffuse and therefore less objectionable. Conventional systems are set up low to the ground and the major energy is projected straight back where it strikes the rear wall and is reflected back to the musicians with a delay approaching a half-second. Extremely high stage monitor levels are required to overcome this echo and musicians often comment that they can't hear well but that the high level hurts their ears. The low angle of aim also causes additional reflections from side and front walls which detract from clarity in the audience area. In the Dead's system the source of sound is higher and aimed down. The original sound is partly absorbed by the audience and the first reflection from the real wall is directed down into the audience for further absorption. In this way, the apparent reverberation is substantially reduced, and this effect is significant when the only absorptive material in a reinforced concrete enclosure is the audience. Conventional monitor systems may not be aimed at any absorptive surface and may operate only four to six dB lower in radiated energy than the house system. This can cause a substantial increase in the apparent reverberation of a hall with a reflective ceiling. Conventional systems sometimes sound satisfactory in these halls when reproducing recorded music at intermissions with the stage monitors turned off, but sound confused and jumbled during the live portions of the program. The Dead's system has no comparable monitoring energy and avoids this increase in reverberation. Conventional systems suffer from an interference effect due to path differences between sources carrying coherent information. Since the effect is fixed, a "filtered" quality is imparted to the sound instead to the sound instead of the swishing phasing sound used in recordings as a special effect. In outdoor concerts however, the swishing effect is very audible due to differing path lengths caused by changes in atmospheric conditions. In either case, the effect is detrimental and in the Dead's system, the single source for each instrument gives very pleasant "acoustic" or natural sounding music. To assure good articulation and naturalness the vocal system is designed along the lines of establishing good practice for sound reinforcement systems. But for the instrument systems. deviations are desirable in certain cases for musical reasons. Many acoustic instrument are not designed to give good coverage to every seat in the house but an orchestra sounds good in a symphony hall. In the Dead's system, the array for each instrument is experimentally adjusted to achieve the musical effect the performers desires. We found the piano system to need conventional standard coverage, and its array resembles the vocal system. For the guitars a more a more reverberate sound is desired, and energy is directed around the hall, artificial reverberation is added and digital time delay is used in certain compositions to change the sound of the instruments. In the mid bass region, the halls are generally muddy and here we have used a more directional array than is usual for the bass guitar and have achieved a very clear, distinct bass sound. Parts of the system are also used with electronic music synthesizers in conjunction with the bass guitar and a digital computer "an organic artificial musical intelligence." When work on the system resumes, many interesting directions are under consideration. The availability of low cost delay electronics makes it possible to design a phased array where the energy form the source can be aimed by adjusting controls. We now use physical tilting of the entire array but the sheer bulk of the system makes the cost of this operation prohibitive for every performance. The ability to electronically direct the sound would make a better adaptation of the system to every situation. The possibility to dynamically change the directionality as a musical effect is interesting. The design of multi-way arrays for the guitars and bass is contemplated. Additional channels for voice and drums will be added to further carry out the separate source approach. Improvements will be made to the drum system pickup with microphone development and exploration of accelerometer transducers. The work with computer assisted and synthesized music will continue. The system represents the efforts of many people. I would particularly like to recognize Owsley "Bear" Stanley whose intuition we have followed and who is the essential catalyst for the system's development. Also, John Curl contributed elegant electronics designs and Rick Turner of Alembic, and Dan Healy and the Grateful Dead Road Crew who worked so hard to make the system realizable. The whole system operates on 26,400 Watts of continuous (RMS) power, producing in the open air quite an acceptable sound at a quarter of a mile and a fine sound up to five or six hundred feet, where it begins to be distorted by wind, A sound system could get the same volume from half as much power, but it wouldn't have the quality Note: the amplifiers used were all identical dual channel 300 watts per channel solid state type with matching transformers except for one each in the vocal and drum system which were Tube type at 350 watts, and operated the tweeters. The Vocal System The signals from each of the vocal microphones are brought together by a differential summing amp, where phase purity can be regulated and hence the transparency of sound maintained. From there the combined signal goes to a crossover which divides the frequency range into four band (High, Upper Mid, Lower Mid, Low). The signal in each band is then separately amplified by MacIntosh 2300 amps fed to JBL 15 inch, 12 inch, 5 inch or Electrovoice tweeters.
And for the record I am quite certain that the actual design and use of the out of phase dual mics and probably their actual build should be credited to carl countryman  -= ziphler
ziphler 23:51, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  From one of the horses' mouths