[Doug S]

We're in the process of evaluating the current sound system in our church.
We are looking at upgrading our equipment for live performances, and trying
to figure out what pieces of our current equipment are sufficient and what
needs to be replaced.

We currently have two Shure 588SB mics and an Astatic 857L. Looking at the
specs for the Shure, it looks like a precursor to the SM58. I don't have any
information on the Astatic. When I called Astatic about the 857L, they told
me they didn't have any information on that particular microphone, but
suggested that it was probably similar to the CTM-44.

Any opinions on these mics would be appreciated.

Doug

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 03:02:03 GMT, "Doug S"
wrote:

We're in the process of evaluating the current sound system in our church.
We are looking at upgrading our equipment for live performances, and trying
to figure out what pieces of our current equipment are sufficient and what
needs to be replaced.

You're going to read more responsible, more thoughtful, and
"possibly" more useful advice as your thread progresses, but
you won't read any more realer (or is that "realerer"?)
than this:

Sound reinforcement is *impossible* in a church. Period.

Some will say that they've done it and lived to tell the
tale. I say, Bah and Fie! Show me the scalps!



But seriously, useful comments will require much more info.
How headworn-mic-averse are the principles? What kind of
speakers and where? These are the biggie issues, and they're
usually the deal-breakers.


And, you've picked the right place to ask. There're several
really and truly serious church SR guys right here. Just
get ready to answer some detailed questions. (! That's a
good thing)


All good fortune,

Chris Hornbeck
"It's for compatibility with 8-Track."
--scott

[Mike Rivers]

On Mar 11, 11:02 pm, "Doug S" wrote:
We're in the process of evaluating the current sound system in our church.
We are looking at upgrading our equipment for live performances, and trying
to figure out what pieces of our current equipment are sufficient and what
needs to be replaced.

We currently have two Shure 588SB mics and an Astatic 857L.

Given that as a starting point and your goal, I'd say that everything
needs to be replaced. Your mixer (if you even have one - I suspect
that there's an amplifier with high impedance mic inputs in a closet
somewhere) is almost certainly inadequate for live performance of
anything but a single preacher.

Make a list of everything you have and start by deciding what you can
salvage rather than looking at what you should upgrade.

[Doug S]

Thanks for the replies so far. I probably should have been a little more
specific. We are aware that most of the equipment will need to be replaced,
as it is set up more for "lecture hall" reinforcement than any type of
quality audio enhancement. I was specifically looking for opinions on the
microphones to see if they were something we could use in an upgraded
system, or are they just "speech" mics.

Doug

"Doug S" wrote in message
news:LIHBj.5401$Mp4.5061@trndny02...
We're in the process of evaluating the current sound system in our church.
We are looking at upgrading our equipment for live performances, and
trying to figure out what pieces of our current equipment are sufficient
and what needs to be replaced.

We currently have two Shure 588SB mics and an Astatic 857L. Looking at the
specs for the Shure, it looks like a precursor to the SM58. I don't have
any information on the Astatic. When I called Astatic about the 857L, they
told me they didn't have any information on that particular microphone,
but suggested that it was probably similar to the CTM-44.

Any opinions on these mics would be appreciated.

Doug

[Ty Ford]

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 23:02:03 -0400, Doug S wrote
(in article LIHBj.5401$Mp4.5061@trndny02):

We're in the process of evaluating the current sound system in our church.
We are looking at upgrading our equipment for live performances, and trying
to figure out what pieces of our current equipment are sufficient and what
needs to be replaced.

We currently have two Shure 588SB mics and an Astatic 857L. Looking at the
specs for the Shure, it looks like a precursor to the SM58. I don't have any
information on the Astatic. When I called Astatic about the 857L, they told
me they didn't have any information on that particular microphone, but
suggested that it was probably similar to the CTM-44.

Any opinions on these mics would be appreciated.

Doug



Audio-Technica AE5400. Enjoy!

Regards,

Ty Ford



--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU

[Scott Dorsey]

In article LIHBj.5401$Mp4.5061@trndny02,
Doug S wrote:
We're in the process of evaluating the current sound system in our church.
We are looking at upgrading our equipment for live performances, and trying
to figure out what pieces of our current equipment are sufficient and what
needs to be replaced.

We currently have two Shure 588SB mics and an Astatic 857L. Looking at the
specs for the Shure, it looks like a precursor to the SM58. I don't have any
information on the Astatic. When I called Astatic about the 857L, they told
me they didn't have any information on that particular microphone, but
suggested that it was probably similar to the CTM-44.

Any opinions on these mics would be appreciated.

The 588SB is indeed basically an SM58 with a switch, sold through sound
contractors. It's just as terrible as a regular SM58.

The 857L is also something Astatic sold only through the contractor market.
It was intended to be cheap and have a big presence peak, but it should
have more top end than the SM-58. Just about anything has more top end
than the SM-58.

If you are looking for higher grade microphones of a similar type, look
into the AKG D-880. They actually have top end, and are considerably more
directional, but still have that huge overblown SM-58 presence peak.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[geezer[_2_]]

well, I'd plan on replacing the mics. I'm probably a little
prejudiced, since I actually hate the sound of the SM58, and the 588sb
appears to be an even worse iteration of that basic design. If you're
serious about upgrading the system, plan on dumping all your current
mics. It won't cost very much, on a % of overall project cost, to get
much better mics. What you replace them with, will be a function of
budget and application.

-glenn


On Mar 12, 8:40*am, "Doug S" wrote:
Thanks for the replies so far. I probably should have been a little more
specific. We are aware that most of the equipment will need to be replaced,
as it is set up more for "lecture hall" reinforcement than any type of
quality audio enhancement. I was specifically looking for opinions on the
microphones to see if they were something we could use in an upgraded
system, or are they just "speech" mics.

Doug

[Arny Krueger]

"Doug S" wrote in message
news:LIHBj.5401$Mp4.5061@trndny02

We're in the process of evaluating the current sound
system in our church.

And your current entire equipment list is???

Tell us about the church, too.

We are looking at upgrading our
equipment for live performances, and trying to figure out
what pieces of our current equipment are sufficient and
what needs to be replaced.

What you have listed so far doesn't look hopeful.

We currently have two Shure 588SB mics and an Astatic
857L. Looking at the specs for the Shure, it looks like a
precursor to the SM58. I don't have any information on
the Astatic. When I called Astatic about the 857L, they
told me they didn't have any information on that
particular microphone, but suggested that it was probably
similar to the CTM-44.

Let's put it this way, SM58s cost less than $100 each, and they are
considered by very many to be a lot less than they want to work with. $300
is chump change for a sound system for even a small church that is starting
out.

If the rest of your system is at this level, it *all* needs to be put into
the round storage facility that many empty every week. The only thing for
which there could be any hope might the the speakers, as that is a
slower-moving technology. But I don't have a lot of hope for them, either.

[Arny Krueger]

"Chris Hornbeck" wrote in
message

Sound reinforcement is *impossible* in a church. Period.

I find this to be a pretty remarkable statement. IME most older churches are
using a lot of instruments and rooms that were designed to be used with no
electronics at all. Therefore, there is so much spill from acoustic
instruments and performers, that sound reinforcment is the *only* option.

[Scott Dorsey]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Chris Hornbeck" wrote in
message

Sound reinforcement is *impossible* in a church. Period.

I find this to be a pretty remarkable statement. IME most older churches are
using a lot of instruments and rooms that were designed to be used with no
electronics at all. Therefore, there is so much spill from acoustic
instruments and performers, that sound reinforcment is the *only* option.

I'm missing something here.

If you build a room with a good long reverb time and a clean reverb so that
it sounds good for acoustical instruments without electronics, you get a
room that does just that.

You may need a sounding board or a backplate around the pulpit in order to
deal with speech in a room with a long reverb time, though.

If you want to put electric instruments into a room like that, you have a
problem.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Chris Hornbeck" wrote
in
message

Sound reinforcement is *impossible* in a church. Period.

I find this to be a pretty remarkable statement. IME
most older churches are using a lot of instruments and
rooms that were designed to be used with no electronics
at all. Therefore, there is so much spill from acoustic
instruments and performers, that sound reinforcment is
the *only* option.

I'm missing something here.

If you build a room with a good long reverb time and a
clean reverb so that it sounds good for acoustical
instruments without electronics, you get a room that does
just that.

Conceptually, you're right as rain, Scott. Where it breaks down is that not
a lot of church sanctuaries were built with good acoustics, especially in
times just past.

For example, there are a tremendous number of church sanctuaries that were
built in the 1900s, following floor plans that were the limit of what
achitecture could do in the 1500s. IOW, long and skinny with flat floors,
high ceilings, and slab walls with shallow window openings.

You may need a sounding board or a backplate around the
pulpit in order to deal with speech in a room with a long
reverb time, though.

I've never seen that done in a protestant church, but it is an interesting
idea. I imagine it could be done by putting a chair with a high wide
backboard behind the pulpet, or insetting the pulpet into a wall.

If you want to put electric instruments into a room like
that, you have a problem.

IME, the problem starts when you shift away from using singers with
classically-trained voices, and lecturers with stentorian voices.

[Scott Dorsey]

Arny Krueger wrote:

You may need a sounding board or a backplate around the
pulpit in order to deal with speech in a room with a long
reverb time, though.

I've never seen that done in a protestant church, but it is an interesting
idea. I imagine it could be done by putting a chair with a high wide
backboard behind the pulpet, or insetting the pulpet into a wall.

The sounding board on top is part of the traditional Anglican design.
Here's the one at our local old Episcopal church:
http://photos.igougo.com/pictures-ph...on_Church.html

The backboard is still more effective at improving directionality of the
speaker, but it's a lot more clumsy. You will see them often in older
Anglican and Lutheran churches, though.

If you want to put electric instruments into a room like
that, you have a problem.

IME, the problem starts when you shift away from using singers with
classically-trained voices, and lecturers with stentorian voices.

Agreed. And too many choir directors believe that more voices will
compensate for voices that can't project.

The case of Catholic churches is a totally different one too; most of the
ones designed before Vatican II weren't intended for voice intelligibility
because that wasn't important in the service. But now it is.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Dave O'Heare]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...

The case of Catholic churches is a totally different one too; most of the
ones designed before Vatican II weren't intended for voice intelligibility
because that wasn't important in the service. But now it is.


Scott, may I cite you as an authority? That is *exactly* what I've been
telling people at a spot I work at moderately regularly, and I'm not sure
they believe me.

I've been doing sound in a recently-deconsecrated church, and it's a bear.
Tall arched ceiling (around 40' at a guess), better than 50' wide, and about
120' long, plus the sanctuary (add another 40' to the length, give or take),
built in late 1880s. See http://www.stbrigidottawa.com/id19.html for some
pics.

And *everybody* is going "Oh, aren't the acoustics great in here!" Argh.
Well, not everybody. The DJs last weekend arrived, looked at the place,
looked at me, shook their heads and went "Boy, I bet you have LOTS of fun
here." (They thanked and congratulated me at the end of the night :-)

So -- low volume, delay speakers 40' out from the mains, no low end in the
monitors, and everybody's happy. Except for the band who set up in the
sanctuary and tried to jam with the organist who was in the choir loft at
the back of the church. (Mind you, the Casavant didn't need any
reinforcement at all :-)

Dave O'H
oheareATmagmaDOTca

[Arny Krueger]

"Dave O'Heare" wrote in message


"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...

The case of Catholic churches is a totally different one
too; most of the ones designed before Vatican II weren't
intended for voice intelligibility because that wasn't
important in the service. But now it is.

When the priest is speaking in Latin, what would voice intelligibility mean
for most of us? ;-)

Scott, may I cite you as an authority? That is *exactly*
what I've been telling people at a spot I work at
moderately regularly, and I'm not sure they believe me.

IME, the architecture of most catholic churches of the era would bear you
out.

I've been doing sound in a recently-deconsecrated church,
and it's a bear. Tall arched ceiling (around 40' at a
guess), better than 50' wide, and about 120' long, plus
the sanctuary (add another 40' to the length, give or
take), built in late 1880s. See
http://www.stbrigidottawa.com/id19.html for some pics.

And *everybody* is going "Oh, aren't the acoustics great
in here!"

Acoustics for what?


That's the key.

http://www.acousticalsolutions.com/e...verb_Times.pdf

[cedricl]

On Mar 12, 5:40*am, "Doug S" wrote:
Thanks for the replies so far. I probably should have been a little more
specific. We are aware that most of the equipment will need to be replaced,
as it is set up more for "lecture hall" reinforcement than any type of
quality audio enhancement. I was specifically looking for opinions on the
microphones to see if they were something we could use in an upgraded
system, or are they just "speech" mics.

Doug

"Doug S" wrote in message

news:LIHBj.5401$Mp4.5061@trndny02...

We're in the process of evaluating the current sound system in our church.
We are looking at upgrading our equipment for live performances, and
trying to figure out what pieces of our current equipment are sufficient
and what needs to be replaced.

We currently have two Shure 588SB mics and an Astatic 857L. Looking at the
specs for the Shure, it looks like a precursor to the SM58. I don't have
any information on the Astatic. When I called Astatic about the 857L, they
told me they didn't have any information on that particular microphone,
but suggested that it was probably similar to the CTM-44.

Any opinions on these mics would be appreciated.

Doug

Every mic that works can be used somewhere. You might use them in a
dedicated system that calls the performers from backstage. You could
use them to make "house announcements" to the lobby to get the
audience in. I wouldn't consider them as part of your regular
inventory for an updated sound system, but, any mic that works can
find a home doing something useful.

[RD Jones]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
The case of Catholic churches is a totally different one
too; most of the ones designed before Vatican II weren't
intended for voice intelligibility because that wasn't
important in the service. *But now it is.

On Mar 12, 3:00 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

When the priest is speaking in Latin, what would voice intelligibility mean
for most of us? ;-)

The congregation was expected to respond to the Latin prayers
_in Latin_. Intelligibility would be at least as important if not more
so.

rd

[Andre Majorel]

On 2008-03-12, Dave O'Heare wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...

The case of Catholic churches is a totally different one too;
most of the ones designed before Vatican II weren't intended
for voice intelligibility because that wasn't important in
the service. But now it is.

Scott, may I cite you as an authority? That is *exactly* what
I've been telling people at a spot I work at moderately
regularly, and I'm not sure they believe me.

I've been doing sound in a recently-deconsecrated church, and
it's a bear. Tall arched ceiling (around 40' at a guess),
better than 50' wide, and about 120' long, plus the sanctuary
(add another 40' to the length, give or take), built in late
1880s. See http://www.stbrigidottawa.com/id19.html for some
pics.

And *everybody* is going "Oh, aren't the acoustics great in
here!" Argh.

If it's anything like the churches we have here, the acoustics
are indeed great... For organ music. :-)

When priests speak in that peculiar nasal tone, I suspect
they're trying to put the articulation in the band in which the
reverberation time is shortest or something.

--
André Majorel URL:http://www.teaser.fr/~amajorel/
(Counterfeit: )
"I drink, I smoke, I gamble, I chase girls--but postal chess is
one vice I don't have." -- Mikhail Tal

[Laurence Payne]

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 14:51:17 -0700 (PDT), RD Jones
wrote:

The congregation was expected to respond to the Latin prayers
_in Latin_. Intelligibility would be at least as important if not more
so

You think so? I suspect then, as now, many of them just "knew the
tune" :-)

“Our Father, who art in Heaven, how didja know my name?”
“Give us this steak and daily bread, and forgive us our mattresses.”
“Lead a snot into temptation.”

[Paul Stamler]

"RD Jones" wrote in message
...
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
The case of Catholic churches is a totally different one
too; most of the ones designed before Vatican II weren't
intended for voice intelligibility because that wasn't
important in the service. But now it is.

On Mar 12, 3:00 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

When the priest is speaking in Latin, what would voice intelligibility
mean
for most of us? ;-)

The congregation was expected to respond to the Latin prayers
_in Latin_. Intelligibility would be at least as important if not more
so.

Perhaps, but by adolescence they probably knew the responses by heart and
only needed the barest hint what prayer was being said. The acoustics were,
however, great for Gregorian chant.

Peace,
Paul

[David@liminal]

Michael Forsyth's excellent book "Buildings for Music" deals with this
topic in detail. He makes an interesting reference to the fact that
when Christopher Wren was asked to build a number of new churches
around London at the beginning of the 18th century, it was emphasized
that the buildings should be small enough for the congregation to be
able to see and hear the preacher. He goes on to discuss the
modification of many existing churches in Germany of the same period,
remodeled to suit a changing requirements of the services held in
them. What is interesting about this is that these changes weren't
due only to changes in taste but theology. The musical implications
to this are obvious too; many of Bach's larger works such as B-minor
mass or St Matthew's passion were written for the Thomaskirche where
the faster tempi used and more rapid changes of harmony would have
been clouded by the acoustics of medieval architecture. For more up-
to-date discussion on similar changes in listening habits, Emily
Thompson's book "The Soundscape of Modernity", charts some similar
territory in the design of concert halls and other listening spaces in
the 20th century with some fascinating cultural insights into the
'drying up' of concert spaces through the latter part of the 20th
century as listeners became accustomed to the acoustic intimacy of
loudspeaker listening.

DP

[Arny Krueger]

"David@liminal" wrote in message


Emily Thompson's book "The Soundscape
of Modernity", charts some similar territory in the
design of concert halls and other listening spaces in the
20th century with some fascinating cultural insights into
the 'drying up' of concert spaces through the latter part
of the 20th century as listeners became accustomed to the
acoustic intimacy of loudspeaker listening.

There are multiple influences that favor rooms with shorter RTs. One is
greater use of conversational speech, speakers that speak from multiple
locations, and untrained speakers, another relates to the varying tempos of
Jazz, pop and rock, as well as the greater use of percussion and other
instruments with a lot of articulation.

IME a choir singing traditional (even ancient) religious music benefits the
most from very long RTs. A 45 minute lecture by a prof who is best known for
his writing and research, or perhaps a non-native speaker of English
benefits the most from short RTs.

If you're doing sound in a contemporary church, you might have both kinds of
acts on the same playbill, as it were. :-(