![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Grateful Dead was copied or moved into Wall of Sound (Grateful Dead) with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
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)
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)
If I recall correctly, the band members essentially heard only the lower speakers as the ones stacked above went over their heads. Not sure where I heard this - maybe the Grateful Dead Movie? -- 69.27.208.254 ( talk) 05:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Since the Wall was it's own monitor, only hearing lower speakers would not benefit the band. So I'm not sure what the right answer is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.145.110 ( talk) 04:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
The wall of sound could be likened to a chorus . A chorus of 200 singers instead of 20 doesn't produce a louder sound by the definition of loudness, just a great big sound if that makes sense. By not pushing any individual speaker and dedicating each one to a single voice , this is exactly what they accomplished. That system sounded absolutely incredible for that reason. It was a huge, clean sound and the word "loud" never came to mind even up front. ziphler 22:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ziphler ( talk • contribs)
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)
They have always been the top grossing live band, even in the 70's ziphler 22:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ziphler ( talk • contribs)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Right now, the article says both in different sections. PaulHA2 ( talk) 04:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
If you read the quotes, only the scaffolding used to build the stage was leapfrogged. Scaffolding is cheap compared to the rest of the gear. Robert.Harker ( talk) 18:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
the system was conceived & for the most part operated by owsley. if he said there were three, there were likely three, no? duncanrmi ( talk) 09:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
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)
??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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ziphler ( talk • contribs)
ziphler 22:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ziphler ( talk • contribs)
ziphler 00:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ziphler ( talk • contribs)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Grateful Dead was copied or moved into Wall of Sound (Grateful Dead) with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
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)
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)
If I recall correctly, the band members essentially heard only the lower speakers as the ones stacked above went over their heads. Not sure where I heard this - maybe the Grateful Dead Movie? -- 69.27.208.254 ( talk) 05:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Since the Wall was it's own monitor, only hearing lower speakers would not benefit the band. So I'm not sure what the right answer is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.145.110 ( talk) 04:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
The wall of sound could be likened to a chorus . A chorus of 200 singers instead of 20 doesn't produce a louder sound by the definition of loudness, just a great big sound if that makes sense. By not pushing any individual speaker and dedicating each one to a single voice , this is exactly what they accomplished. That system sounded absolutely incredible for that reason. It was a huge, clean sound and the word "loud" never came to mind even up front. ziphler 22:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ziphler ( talk • contribs)
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)
They have always been the top grossing live band, even in the 70's ziphler 22:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ziphler ( talk • contribs)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Right now, the article says both in different sections. PaulHA2 ( talk) 04:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
If you read the quotes, only the scaffolding used to build the stage was leapfrogged. Scaffolding is cheap compared to the rest of the gear. Robert.Harker ( talk) 18:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
the system was conceived & for the most part operated by owsley. if he said there were three, there were likely three, no? duncanrmi ( talk) 09:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
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)
??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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ziphler ( talk • contribs)
ziphler 22:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ziphler ( talk • contribs)
ziphler 00:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ziphler ( talk • contribs)