Anyone hear the "wall of sound"?

The DMB purchased the Grateful Dead's final touring PA system in late 1995. This system was designed, sourced and built by Ultra Systems. This system was not the Wall 'o Sound.

The WoS was so large, complex, and costly to transport and maintain, it saw only a very limited life cycle. It would take an entire day (or more) to erect the scaffolding, arrays and de-bug the system prior to a show. At one point early on, Bear tried to convince the band that they really need two complete systems, in order to leap-frog over each other during tours. If you watch "The Grateful Dead Movie" shot during the Dead's October 1974 run,this was the swan song for the system, leading up to their hiatus from performing. Their self-imposed, slightly more than a year off, was the result of near financial ruin for the band, brought on by the Wall of Sound and an accounting scandal involving Mickey's father. When the band returned to performing live again, they did so without the Wall of Sound.

In addition to McIntosh amps, they also employed a number of Bob Carver's Phase Linear 400s. Jerry was partial to this amp in his guitar stack.

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

Here's a link to a diagram, description and photos courtesy of dozin.com.

The Wall of Sound

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.