Anyone hear the "wall of sound"?


It was before my time but the Grateful Dead experimented with a system 35 years ago comprised of nearly 650 loudspeakers powered by 89 300-watt Mcintosh MC2300 amplifiers and and three 350-watt McIntosh MC3500 tube amps. Unlike traditional left-right P.A. systems, this behemoth gave each instrument its own vertical array, and vocals emanated mostly from a center honeycomb cluster above the band.

Vocals, lead guitar, rhythm guitar, and piano each had its own channel and speaker array. Phil Lesh's bass guitar was piped through a quadraphonic encoder that sent a separate signal from each of the four strings to its own channel and set of speakers. Another channel amplified the bass drum, and two more channels carried the snares, tom-toms, and cymbals. Because each speaker carried just one instrument or vocalist, the sound was reportedly exceptionally clear and free of intermodulation distortion.

It projected high quality playback at six hundred feet with acceptable sound & projected for a quarter of a mile without degradation or delay speakers. Speakers sat behind the band so it was the monitors. It filled 4 semi trailers.

I find modern computerized eq and pa systems, for the most part, blow away the mostly muddy sound I remember from the late 70's and 80's (except for really good halls). I am too young to have heard the wall. Any A-goners remember the sound?
stearnsn
Thank you for this explanation Slipknot. It sounds much more realistic than the DMB buying the famous "wall". Is there any reference article on the composition of the Wall and anything in particular regarding the Fender speakers. If it is true that they used them I would be curious to know which Fender labled drivers they used.
I don't know of any band using a big or in this case ginormous sound system made from home audio components. Professional sound systems vary but are largely not used by audiophiles not because of the size or even expense but because of many accounts reporting they just don't sound very good.
The touring gear must be portable and durable. I am not at all aware of why these requirement may be a true obstacle in designing equipment that sounds good. The studio is a less harsh enviroment. Several pieces of equipment are highly desirable and legendary I think a JBL monitor which is named by a number 24### is such a piece. I have noted that other "near field monitors" in particular, seem to cross over to the home audio market.
I don't know why we are not using the incedibly inexpensive 1000W + amps I see advertised in the pro music e mails I never asked for and don't play music on anything other than stereos> Why not have 4 or 5000 watts to get some truly dynamic sound out of the new standard size 6.5 inch woofer . I don't know if they need a high voltage power line so maybe it just can't be done without a dedicated mains panel or having to the outlet used by the dryer It is one hell of a weird plug and huge. Setting up a system close or in the same area you wash clothes in may be hard and room treatments will be needed.
In my limited view the Pro Audio requirements are far different from Home Audio Reguirements. Most pro gear is designed far different from Home gear. Most Home gear is designed not to resonate. Most Pro gear is actually encouragedt to induce distortions. From pedals, Heads, cabinets etc.. Also most pro Audio is designed to be mounted in roll around racks. They also tend to be designed to withstand the rigors of being abused on the road and in many cases they can simply swap out output transistors without Elecrically realigning the entire amp. A regular Roadie can handle most repairs of Pro Audio gear. Their ability to handle the rigors of the road and ease of maintence seem to be opposed to how home gear is used.

my .02 cents
Mechans writes:
> Why not have 4 or 5000 watts to get some truly dynamic sound out of the new standard size 6.5 inch woofer .

You'll run into mechanical limits before you get to even 1000 Watts.

If you do want the head room, larger more sensitive speakers are a better way to get there since they won't suffer from thermal compression.
Hi, I heard this system many, many times. It really was special and had a unique sound unlike anything else I have heard. It sounded more like a huge stereo than a PA. I have worked my whole life in the pro audio world and that one system still stands out among people who work with live sound. An interesting thing was how they were able to use microphones in front of all of those speakers. Usually, you would not do that as you would get lots of feedback. Eac "mic" was actually two mic's that were right next to each other, just slightly offset, and wired in opposite polarity to each other. By wiring them 180 degrees out of phase, they cancelled each other out. This affected all sound other than a sound that was substantially higher in level in one mic. This required the band members to practically put their mouths on the mic when they sang. They sang only into one of the two mics. It was a great idea that really worked well! Of course the requirment to be on the mic was impractical for most bands. When Phil Lesh hit those low notes, this system was something to be remembered. During the following decades, now and then you would come across pieces of that old "wall of sound"