BillFitzmaurice.info

Have you guys seen this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ahkb8Nr ... re=related

We can only imagine having a BFM system of similar proportions and how much louder and more sensitive it would be! Surely we can pick better music too.

ryan222h wrote:Have you guys seen this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ahkb8Nr ... re=related

We can only imagine having a BFM system of similar proportions and how much louder and more sensitive it would be! Surely we can pick better music too.

My wife and I were in the Philippines to visit her family in July 2005 and they had a local DJ for her birthday party. All the boxes looked DYI and it was one giant stack probably 16' x 12'. It was quite fun watching the setup.

ehh... less is more.... nop... this is more!!

This looks like the guy needs to compensate something.

These rigs are designed to look massive, not sound great. A much smaller BF system, properly designed and deployed, could certainly blow that rig away in both sound quality and SPL. However, at a certain point it becomes a bit of a moot issue, as you reach the sensitivity barrier.

That said, a BF system of similar size in similar deployment would sound about the same. Cancellations, interference nodes, and sheer volume would see to that.

I think the camera phone dude filmed exactly the same as I would react. Just stand there looking back and forth trying to figure out why you would do this.

Bas Gooiker wrote:ehh... less is more...

and where is the close up of the power amps driving that masive cabs
i counted close to 70 subs

so i will drive 4 with a crown MA-5002 VZ who on the spec sheet is rated at 2kw at 4 ohms on stereo mode
so i hook up 2 cabs per channel

70/4 equals like to 17 or 18 amps , just for the subs
the full range and high cabs i dont know...
so at least those guys need to have 18 amps for the subs with the crown specs...

that i really doubt

maxo wrote: so at least those guys need to have 18 amps for the subs with the crown specs...

that i really doubt

The engineering knowhow that set up a setup like that would probably think it A-OK to run amps full bore at 2 ohms. That halves the amp count to 9. If they knew how to series-parallel wire (and had amps of sufficient voltage swing) the whole thing could be run on half that many (4 or 5 for subs). Technically, with some creative wiring and stupid powerful amps, you could run all of the subs on one or two amps.

BrentEvans wrote:

maxo wrote: so at least those guys need to have 18 amps for the subs with the crown specs...

that i really doubt

The engineering knowhow that set up a setup like that would probably think it A-OK to run amps full bore at 2 ohms. That halves the amp count to 9. If they knew how to series-parallel wire (and had amps of sufficient voltage swing) the whole thing could be run on half that many (4 or 5 for subs). Technically, with some creative wiring and stupid powerful amps, you could run all of the subs on one or two amps.

Personally
i prefer modular systems
in the case that some monkey misswire or short my cables i loose a couple of cabs
instead of the whole wall or half of it if i run only 1 or 2 amps
is better to have some boom than nothing at all in case of havoc
imho

maxo wrote: Personally
i prefer modular systems
in the case that some monkey misswire or short my cables i loose a couple of cabs
instead of the whole wall or half of it if i run only 1 or 2 amps
is better to have some boom than nothing at all in case of havoc
imho

I didn't say it was recommended... just possible.

BrentEvans wrote:

maxo wrote: Personally
i prefer modular systems
in the case that some monkey misswire or short my cables i loose a couple of cabs
instead of the whole wall or half of it if i run only 1 or 2 amps
is better to have some boom than nothing at all in case of havoc
imho

I didn't say it was recommended... just possible.

I just expressed my very own personal opinion
there is many ways to skin a cat
but your approach is very elegant