[Danny ~~_/) ~~_/) ~~_/) ~~]

There are some systems I have seen where a church will check out
personal monitoring for elderly/hard of hearing folks. I assume there
is one transmitter and several monitors - Who makes them and what
should be looked for in them to make it work for everyone?

This will be used in a church that is 5 miles from a regional airport
and not really near anything active for fire/police. The distance
needed for transmitting is only 100 feet or less and I don't think
audiophile quality is any issue at all. Talking voice is the main
focus.

Thanks for your thoughts

[geoff]

Danny ~~_/) ~~_/) ~~_/) ~~ wrote:
There are some systems I have seen where a church will check out
personal monitoring for elderly/hard of hearing folks. I assume there
is one transmitter and several monitors - Who makes them and what
should be looked for in them to make it work for everyone?

This will be used in a church that is 5 miles from a regional airport
and not really near anything active for fire/police. The distance
needed for transmitting is only 100 feet or less and I don't think
audiophile quality is any issue at all. Talking voice is the main
focus.

Thanks for your thoughts

In-ear monitoring should be superfluous. A little divine intervention would
do the trick, and additionally convince a lot of doubters.

Actually, seriously, I think many elderly would be disorientated,
distressed, and confused with IEMs.

geoff

[Scott Dorsey]

geoff wrote:
Actually, seriously, I think many elderly would be disorientated,
distressed, and confused with IEMs.

I know I get that way when I go to some churches, even without them.
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

In article ,
Danny ~~_/) ~~_/) ~~_/) ~~ wrote:
There are some systems I have seen where a church will check out
personal monitoring for elderly/hard of hearing folks. I assume there
is one transmitter and several monitors - Who makes them and what
should be looked for in them to make it work for everyone?

There are IR systems, RF systems, and the loop.

The Sennheiser IR system is very popular. But, a lot of people won't wear
the headsets because they don't want people to know they are hard of hearing.

The induction loop requires minimal equipment but it requires more careful
engineering. It relies on the users having hearing aids with pickup coils
that can pick up the induced magnetic field from the loop. Since many
people have hearing aids that are fairly concealable they are more apt to
use them. But, this means people without hearing aids are out of luck.
--scott

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

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

Scott Dorsey writes:
There are IR systems, RF systems, and the loop.

RIght, and depending on the mission more than one type might be needed.

The Sennheiser IR system is very popular. But, a lot of people
won't wear the headsets because they don't want people to know they
are hard of hearing.

I have worked with one organization who lends receivers to
the hearing impaired during their national conventions.
sOme theaters, etc. do this as well.

The induction loop requires minimal equipment but it requires more
careful engineering. It relies on the users having hearing aids
with pickup coils that can pick up the induced magnetic field from
the loop. Since many people have hearing aids that are fairly
concealable they are more apt to use them. But, this means people
without hearing aids are out of luck.

WHich is why there needs to be some careful consultation
with the church before a system is chosen. INduction loops
can be fun especially if the church is one of those that's
gone to the electric praise band instead of the organ and/or piano with choir.

Many folks who otherwise use hearing aids have the special
receivers that are used for descriptive audio for blind
folks, and audio reinforcement for the hearing impaired as
well. I'd suggest the church first consult its members with hearing impairments, and local professionals. Local
audiologists can tell the church if many in the community
have the special radio receivers, etc.

Regards,
Richard
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet-Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

[g]

On May 15, 3:49*pm, "Danny ~~_/) ~~_/) ~~_/) ~~"
wrote:
There are some systems I have seen where a church will check out
personal monitoring for elderly/hard of hearing folks. I assume there
is one transmitter and several monitors - Who makes them and what
should be looked for in them to make it work for everyone?

This will be used in a church that is 5 miles from a regional airport
and not really near anything active for fire/police. The distance
needed for transmitting is only 100 feet or less and I don't think
audiophile quality is any issue at all. Talking voice is the main
focus.

Thanks for your thoughts

Some years ago I recalling ir system in a symphonic hall.
I was also checking out hearing aids when getting hearing test, pretty
small!!!

Greg

[Arny Krueger]

"Danny ~~_/) ~~_/) ~~_/) ~~" wrote
in message

There are some systems I have seen where a church will
check out personal monitoring for elderly/hard of hearing
folks. I assume there is one transmitter and several
monitors - Who makes them and what should be looked for
in them to make it work for everyone?

This will be used in a church that is 5 miles from a
regional airport and not really near anything active for
fire/police. The distance needed for transmitting is only
100 feet or less and I don't think audiophile quality is
any issue at all. Talking voice is the main focus.

We have had a Williams Research RF-based hearing assistance system in
service for about a decade, and its clients seem to be very happy with it.
Same ask me why their own hearing aids can't work as well. At least one has
bought 2 more receivers for it just because they want everybody who needs it
to be able to use it. Several have bought their own recievers.

In some countries the law requires that personal hearing aids be able to
receive from a electromagnetic loop system, and that usually becomes a
preferred path. Not true in the US.

[Danny ~~_/) ~~_/) ~~_/) ~~]

On May 16, 7:52*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Danny ~~_/) ~~_/) ~~_/) ~~" wrote
in

There are some systems I have seen where a church will
check out personal monitoring for elderly/hard of hearing
folks. I assume there is one transmitter and several
monitors - Who makes them and what should be looked for
in them to make it work for everyone?

This will be used in a church that is 5 miles from a
regional airport and not really near anything active for
fire/police. The distance needed for transmitting is only
100 feet or less and I don't think audiophile quality is
any issue at all. Talking voice is the main focus.

We have had a Williams Research RF-based hearing assistance system in
service for about a decade, and its clients seem to be very happy with it..
Same ask me why their own hearing aids can't work as well. At least one has
bought 2 more receivers for it just because they want everybody who needs it
to be able to use it. Several have bought their own recievers.

In some countries the law requires that personal hearing aids be able to
receive from a electromagnetic loop system, and that usually becomes a
preferred path. Not true in the US.

This church is seriously suffering from sucky sound syndrome and has a
budget of a little less then nothing. The old folks refuse to sit
anywhere but in the back and the room is an pentagon wall and its 100%
brick for walls and floor with a big domed shape overhead that just
screws with sound. I think the reverb is louder then the source. The
combination is really the worst sound I've ever heard. ... I'm not
kidding about the old folks refusing to move closer. They wouldn't
consider moving 10 inches from where they have been sitting for 60-70
years and they all seem to sit at the back so they can get out if
their depends fill up.

I'm going to show them the various ideas presented by all of you - and
thanks. This is what happens in a small town where someone knows you
own a microphone. They want me to design a system for them when the
most I've done is to build a personal reenforcement/production studio.
(that was enough work and it was for ME!)


thanks for the help!

[Scott Dorsey]

Danny ~~_/) ~~_/) ~~_/) ~~ wrote:

This church is seriously suffering from sucky sound syndrome and has a
budget of a little less then nothing. The old folks refuse to sit
anywhere but in the back and the room is an pentagon wall and its 100%
brick for walls and floor with a big domed shape overhead that just
screws with sound. I think the reverb is louder then the source. The
combination is really the worst sound I've ever heard. ... I'm not
kidding about the old folks refusing to move closer. They wouldn't
consider moving 10 inches from where they have been sitting for 60-70
years and they all seem to sit at the back so they can get out if
their depends fill up.

Sounds like an application for delay rings to me, in that case.

You can't do anything about the flutter echo from the dome, but you
can get the speakers closer to the listeners so they hear more direct
sound and less reflected sound.

In extreme cases (big stone cathedrals for instance), pew back speakers
may be the only solution for good voice intelligibility.

I'm going to show them the various ideas presented by all of you - and
thanks. This is what happens in a small town where someone knows you
own a microphone. They want me to design a system for them when the
most I've done is to build a personal reenforcement/production studio.
(that was enough work and it was for ME!)

Tell them that PA systems don't make anything sound better, they just
make things sound louder. If the room sounds bad without PA, it will
sound worse and louder with PA.
--scott

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

[Danny ~~_/) ~~_/) ~~_/) ~~]

On May 16, 10:01*am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Danny ~~_/) ~~_/) ~~_/) ~~ wrote:



This church is seriously suffering from sucky sound syndrome and has a
budget of a little less then nothing. The old folks refuse to sit
anywhere but in the back and the room is an pentagon wall and its 100%
brick for walls and floor with a big domed shape overhead that just
screws with sound. I think the reverb is louder then the source. The
combination is really the worst sound I've ever heard. ... I'm not
kidding about the old folks refusing to move closer. They wouldn't
consider moving 10 inches from where they have been sitting for 60-70
years and they all seem to sit at the back so they can get out if
their depends fill up.

Sounds like an application for delay rings to me, in that case. *

You can't do anything about the flutter echo from the dome, but you
can get the speakers closer to the listeners so they hear more direct
sound and less reflected sound.

In extreme cases (big stone cathedrals for instance), pew back speakers
may be the only solution for good voice intelligibility.

I'm going to show them the various ideas presented by all of you - and
thanks. This is what happens in a small town where someone knows you
own a microphone. They want me to design a system for them when the
most I've done is to build a personal reenforcement/production studio.
(that was enough work and it was for ME!)

Tell them that PA systems don't make anything sound better, they just
make things sound louder. *If the room sounds bad without PA, it will
sound worse and louder with PA.
--scott

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

Scott, you're a genius. I think speakers in a few sets of seats might
fix everyone's issues. That never occurred to me.

[Scott Dorsey]

Danny ~~_/) ~~_/) ~~_/) ~~ wrote:

Scott, you're a genius. I think speakers in a few sets of seats might
fix everyone's issues. That never occurred to me.

Not my idea, I first saw them when my grandmother took me to Catholic
church in Pittsburgh when I was a little kid.

All those churches were designed with phenomenally long reverb times in
the tens of seconds, since the mass was in Latin anyway and there was no
sermon anyone needed to listen to. So it was more important that it sound
big than it be intelligible.

Come Vatican II and all of a sudden people needed to hear what was going on
up there, and pew back speakers were about the only way to deal with the
acoustics in those halls. I think Atlas probably still makes some of the
things. Be sure to delay them sufficiently. RDL's RU-ADL2 is a favorite
for that sort of thing. It doesn't fail weirdly.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

Scott Dorsey writes:
This church is seriously suffering from sucky sound syndrome and has a
budget of a little less then nothing. The old folks refuse to sit
anywhere but in the back and the room is an pentagon wall and its 100%
brick for walls and floor with a big domed shape overhead that just
screws with sound. I think the reverb is louder then the source. The
combination is really the worst sound I've ever heard.
snip

You can't do anything about the flutter echo from the dome, but you
can get the speakers closer to the listeners so they hear more
direct sound and less reflected sound.

I'd do pew back speakers, that might be the only cure. I"ve seen too many churches do the multiple new sound systems,
all with the same goal, getting the old folks to hear
better. Sounds to me like that's your answer.

In extreme cases (big stone cathedrals for instance), pew back
speakers may be the only solution for good voice intelligibility.

YEp, and it sounds like this is one of those instances. I'd forget every other suggestion, especially all the talk from
folks who aren't familiar with hearing aid systems etc.
THese might be an eventual addition to the system, either an induction loop or something else, but I'd really suggest pew back speakers, even for that not so hard of hearing.

Tell them that PA systems don't make anything sound better, they
just make things sound louder. If the room sounds bad without PA,
it will sound worse and louder with PA.

rIght, but with pew back speakers the overall system level
doesn't have to be that ungodly loud, yet everybody can hear clearly. IF that's the goal I'd forget anything else.


Regards,
Richard
.... Remote audio in the southland: See www.gatasound.com
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet-Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

[Danny ~~_/) ~~_/) ~~_/) ~~]

On May 16, 7:42*pm,
(Richard Webb) wrote:
Scott Dorsey writes:
This church is seriously suffering from sucky sound syndrome and has a
budget of a little less then nothing. The old folks refuse to sit
anywhere but in the back and the room is an pentagon wall and its 100%
brick for walls and floor with a big domed shape overhead that just
screws with sound. I think the reverb is louder then the source. The
combination is really the worst sound I've ever heard.

snip

You can't do anything about the flutter echo from the dome, but you
can get the speakers closer to the listeners so they hear more
direct sound and less reflected sound.

I'd do pew back speakers, that might be the only cure. *I"ve seen too many churches do the multiple new sound systems,
all with the same goal, getting the old folks to hear
better. *Sounds to me like that's your answer.

In extreme cases (big stone cathedrals for instance), pew back
speakers may be the only solution for good voice intelligibility.

YEp, and it sounds like this is one of those instances. *I'd forget every other suggestion, especially all the talk from
folks who aren't familiar with hearing aid systems etc.
THese might be an eventual addition to the system, either an induction loop or something else, but I'd really suggest pew back speakers, even for that not so hard of hearing.

Tell them that PA systems don't make anything sound better, they
just make things sound louder. *If the room sounds bad without PA,
it will sound worse and louder with PA.

rIght, but with pew back speakers the overall system level
doesn't have to be that ungodly loud, yet everybody can hear clearly. *IF that's the goal I'd forget anything else.

Regards,
* * * * * *Richard
... * Remote audio in the southland: *Seewww.gatasound.com
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet-Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

Richard, Scott suggested that, I phone the people today and they love
the idea. That is what we're going to do in there and I'm sure it will
work perfectly. I really appreciate everyone's time. I love simple and
that really sounds perfect. Its the simple things that completely
elude me at times.

[Danny ~~_/) ~~_/) ~~_/) ~~]

On May 16, 7:52*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Danny ~~_/) ~~_/) ~~_/) ~~" wrote
in

There are some systems I have seen where a church will
check out personal monitoring for elderly/hard of hearing
folks. I assume there is one transmitter and several
monitors - Who makes them and what should be looked for
in them to make it work for everyone?

This will be used in a church that is 5 miles from a
regional airport and not really near anything active for
fire/police. The distance needed for transmitting is only
100 feet or less and I don't think audiophile quality is
any issue at all. Talking voice is the main focus.

We have had a Williams Research RF-based hearing assistance system in
service for about a decade, and its clients seem to be very happy with it..
Same ask me why their own hearing aids can't work as well. At least one has
bought 2 more receivers for it just because they want everybody who needs it
to be able to use it. Several have bought their own recievers.

In some countries the law requires that personal hearing aids be able to
receive from a electromagnetic loop system, and that usually becomes a
preferred path. Not true in the US.

Thanks for all the input. I think I get them set up now.