Need in/on ear monitoring for elderly church service?

[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."

[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

[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.

[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!

[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.

[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."

[Ty Ford]

On Sun, 15 May 2011 18:25:30 -0400, Owain wrote
(in article
>):

> On May 15, 8:49*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?
>
> Many of them are infra-red which means the signal doesn't go through
> walls, so you can use systems in different rooms without bleed-
> through. Some systems have two or more channels for audio description
> for blind people, or second language translation.
>
> Some hearing impaired people will require an output for a neck look so
> that they can use their own hearing aids on the T (telephone)
> position.
>
> You usually need a separate mix to go to the assistive listening
> system, so there is some congregation/background noise when the
> minister is not speaking, otherwise people can feel isolated.
>
> Sennheiser is a popular manufacturer.
>
> Owain
>

I've worked with a couple of these Ampetronics loop amps in churches. It may
be expensive to do the entire church, but you can do a section or two.

They do require hearing aids with T coils. Not all hearing aids have 'em.

http://www.ampetronic.com/

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=yWaPRHMGhGA

[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.

[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.

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

Danny writes:
<big snip>
>> right, but with pew back speakers the overall system level
>> doesn't have to be that ungodly loud, yet everybody can hear clearly. =A0=
>"~/> IF that's the goal I'd forget anything else.
d> 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.


That's the way to go. Be sure you build in appropriate
delays to each set of speakers. I think the congregation
will be pleased with the results.


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.

[Arny Krueger]

"Richard Webb"
> wrote in
message
> Danny writes:
> <big snip>
>>> right, but with pew back speakers the overall system
>>> level
>>> doesn't have to be that ungodly loud, yet everybody can
>>> hear clearly. =A0=
>> "~/> IF that's the goal I'd forget anything else.
> d> 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.
>
>
> That's the way to go. Be sure you build in appropriate
> delays to each set of speakers. I think the congregation
> will be pleased with the results.

Pew back speakers sound like a great idea until you run the wire and buy all
of the necessary infrastructure.

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

On May 17, 4:29*pm,
(Richard Webb) wrote:
> ARnie writes:
> >> That's the way to go. *Be sure you build in appropriate
> >> delays to each set of speakers. *I think the congregation
> >> will be pleased with the results.
> > Pew back speakers sound like a great idea until you run the wire and
> > buy all *of the necessary infrastructure.
>
> INdeed, but I don't think these folks are doing the praise
> band thing, at least most churches with a majority of
> elderly don't seem to in my experience.
> tHey could invest just as much in all those racks and
> stacks, which aren't going to improve clarity in such a
> room.
> I'd advocate for the pew back system. *TO get almost as good with conventional racks and stacks is going to require as
> much money.
>
> 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 is right. First of all it's a LCMS Lutheran church (think
Vatican 1 in english.) Second, the old folks sit about 5 feet from
where the little mixer is. This will work perfectly for them.

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

ARnie writes:
>> That's the way to go. Be sure you build in appropriate
>> delays to each set of speakers. I think the congregation
>> will be pleased with the results.

> Pew back speakers sound like a great idea until you run the wire and
> buy all of the necessary infrastructure.

INdeed, but I don't think these folks are doing the praise
band thing, at least most churches with a majority of
elderly don't seem to in my experience.
tHey could invest just as much in all those racks and
stacks, which aren't going to improve clarity in such a
room.
I'd advocate for the pew back system. TO get almost as good with conventional racks and stacks is going to require as
much money.



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.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Richard Webb wrote:

> I'd advocate for the pew back system. TO get almost as good with
> conventional racks and stacks is going to require as much money.

A good speech only alternative is distributed and delayed columns doing
200Hz to 10 kHz.

Those with a humumgous lot of money may do well with a single large tannoy
columna moderna digitalis, other manufacturers no doubt have equally costly
systems. I have however heard tannoy's demoed and it sounds tannoyesqe in a
good way. It could also be loud enough for leaving (i hadn't brought
earplugs, didn't think I'd need them to serious AES demo event) when
supporting the local gospel group in a danish "city sized" church, 600 to
1100 seater or so and large enough to be reverberant in a prohlematic way
for speech.

> Richard

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Richard Webb wrote:

> MIght be as well, if the room is there, and they're properly delayed.
> Chances are good they'll need to be flown as well. Hard to say, but
> I'd hazard a guess that those with moderate hearing difficulties
> normally would probably benefit even more from pew back speakers,
> which could operate at a lower

And architecturally they do not change the way the room is experienced.

> Richard

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

PEter Larsen writes:
>> MIght be as well, if the room is there, and they're properly delayed.
>> Chances are good they'll need to be flown as well. Hard to say, but
>> I'd hazard a guess that those with moderate hearing difficulties
>> normally would probably benefit even more from pew back speakers,
>> which could operate at a lower

> And architecturally they do not change the way the room is
> experienced.

WHich may be important for some as well. One of the biggest complaints I've seemed to hear after every church sound
upgrade in a traditional church is about those unsightly
speaker boxes. This is one reason I suggested them as
strongly to DAnny as well. Since they won't jump right out
and visually shout "loud sound reinforcement" at the old
folks they'll not even really notice the difference, until
you turn 'em off one Sunday <grin>.



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.

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

On May 20, 9:29*am,
(Richard Webb) wrote:
> PEter Larsen writes:
> >> MIght be as well, if the room is there, and they're properly delayed.
> >> Chances are good they'll need to be flown as well. Hard to say, but
> >> I'd hazard a guess that those with moderate hearing difficulties
> >> normally would probably benefit even more from pew back speakers,
> >> which could operate at a lower
> > And architecturally they do not change the way the room is
> > experienced.
>
> WHich may be important for some as well. *One of the biggest complaints I've seemed to hear after every church sound
> upgrade in a traditional church is about those unsightly
> speaker boxes. *This is one reason I suggested them as
> strongly to DAnny as well. *Since they won't jump right out
> and visually shout "loud sound reinforcement" at the old
> folks they'll not even really notice the difference, until
> you turn 'em off one Sunday <grin>.
>
> 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.

If you've never been to a Lutheran church you'd never believe it.
Change is the dirtiest word in the english language and I'm not
kidding. It's a joke really. We've got to figure out what the budget
is going to be and find the speakers but I think the speakers will be
able to be disguised well. One of the elders there is an excellent
woodworker and he's planning on making some kind of enclosure (or at
least as much as they can get covered) so you see wood and not
speakers.

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

On May 20, 10:20*pm,
(Richard Webb) wrote:
> DAnny writes:
> >"~/> *I've seemed to hear after every church sound
> >> upgrade in a traditional church is about those unsightly
> >> speaker boxes. =This is one reason I suggested them as
> >> strongly to DAnny as well. Since they won't jump right out
> >> and visually shout "loud sound reinforcement" at the old
> >> folks they'll not even really notice the difference, until
> >> you turn 'em off one Sunday <grin>.
> > If you've never been to a Lutheran church you'd never believe it.
> > Change is the dirtiest word in the english language and I'm not
> > kidding. It's a joke really. We've got to figure out what the
> > budget is going to be and find the speakers but I think the
> > speakers will be able to be disguised well. One of the elders there
> > is an excellent woodworker and he's planning on making some kind of
> > enclosure (or at least as much as they can get covered) so you see
> > wood and not speakers.
>
> Good plan, others can be as hidebound as well. *Grew up in
> such a church, and have been aprt of three sound system
> upgrades, all for the same reason. *Things are gradually
> changing in that church, more of the grandchildren becoming
> active, but I went through those battles. *OUr sanctuary
> wasn't near as large as the one you're dealing with however, so a box on each side did just fine, though there were the
> complaints about their appearance, then the same folks who
> complained about their appearance did the "its too loud"
> thing, even though it was spoken word only going through
> them, whilst others in the back said "nope leave 'em alone,
> in fact turn 'em up!" *TO which one heard the refrain "move
> down front then dammit!"
>
> Last upgrade was to cover entire building, auditorium
> upstairs, fellwship hall in the basement, and better
> amplification for the sanctuarry and a little better system
> tuning capability. *Again, thanks to a bequest to assist
> those with hearing difficulties. *I argued for and got most
> of what I thought we needed that upgrade, the final one,
> which is still in use 15 years later. *Only place where I
> lost the battle was on location of the mixer and
> amplification, the old pipe organ compressor closet in the
> basement. *<oh well> I got 'em tweaked and dialed in after a couple weekday sessions with nobody in the church, listening to signals while instructing somebody via a walkie talkie
> who was in the basement room <grin>.
>
> 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.

Our last *upgrade* was to add a mackie mixer and take out the tin cans
and kite string. The entire floor is brick. They ran the snake all the
way to the back wall and up 4 feet inside the wall to install a mackie
mixer. Now - that is 120 feet under a solid brick floor inside a
conduit that you'd never be able to pull through or feed, then a 90
degree angle and up 4 feet. The wall its in then feeds line out
another 300 feet through wall and ceiling to a room pretty much as far
away as you can get to feed the PV amp, then back to the mixer
conduit, back up to the front and then again in a T with 2, 90 angles
to the walls, then up 15 feet inside the walls to the speakers....
mind you, all of it is brick and this is Louisiana so anywhere there
is a whole, there is something living in it.

I'm just running a snake under some nice wood floor trimming that is
going to be put in at the wall/floor join and then back around to the
back. I swear I laughed when they old folks jaws dropped and asked why
they didn't do that 30 years ago when they built the new church. Oh -
I didn't mention that under they brick, there is a 6 was split
somewhere that 6 channels branch out and pop up out of the brick floor
at various points around the pulpits etc.

This is turning into a real experience.

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

DAnny writes:

>"~/> I've seemed to hear after every church sound
>> upgrade in a traditional church is about those unsightly
>> speaker boxes. =This is one reason I suggested them as
>> strongly to DAnny as well. Since they won't jump right out
>> and visually shout "loud sound reinforcement" at the old
>> folks they'll not even really notice the difference, until
>> you turn 'em off one Sunday <grin>.

> If you've never been to a Lutheran church you'd never believe it.
> Change is the dirtiest word in the english language and I'm not
> kidding. It's a joke really. We've got to figure out what the
> budget is going to be and find the speakers but I think the
> speakers will be able to be disguised well. One of the elders there
> is an excellent woodworker and he's planning on making some kind of
> enclosure (or at least as much as they can get covered) so you see
> wood and not speakers.

Good plan, others can be as hidebound as well. Grew up in
such a church, and have been aprt of three sound system
upgrades, all for the same reason. Things are gradually
changing in that church, more of the grandchildren becoming
active, but I went through those battles. OUr sanctuary
wasn't near as large as the one you're dealing with however, so a box on each side did just fine, though there were the
complaints about their appearance, then the same folks who
complained about their appearance did the "its too loud"
thing, even though it was spoken word only going through
them, whilst others in the back said "nope leave 'em alone,
in fact turn 'em up!" TO which one heard the refrain "move
down front then dammit!"

Last upgrade was to cover entire building, auditorium
upstairs, fellwship hall in the basement, and better
amplification for the sanctuarry and a little better system
tuning capability. Again, thanks to a bequest to assist
those with hearing difficulties. I argued for and got most
of what I thought we needed that upgrade, the final one,
which is still in use 15 years later. Only place where I
lost the battle was on location of the mixer and
amplification, the old pipe organ compressor closet in the
basement. <oh well> I got 'em tweaked and dialed in after a couple weekday sessions with nobody in the church, listening to signals while instructing somebody via a walkie talkie
who was in the basement room <grin>.

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.