Hi,

First of all, thank you so much for all your responses.

When I step up to take this position, I already knew that there are a lot
of problems, and they might not even be solved without major change(s) of
the floor plan, but I still want to do it.

Because no one else can, not saying they don't want to, but I can be
considered one of the most experience guy among our congregation that
know something about sound, equipment, and acoustic!

And yes, we don't actually call it a gym, we do call it a "Family Life
Center". So it is not only for a bunch of people playing ball games, but
actually can hold some functions there.

To sum up what I saw above, can I draw the below so called "conclusion":

1. Should use a lot of small speakers instead of a few pairs of large
monitor speakers, how small we are talking about? Because that concern
what kind of power amplifier we are going to use.

2. Sound-stage equipments should not cost a lot, I'll say, small
speakers, a few power amp., mixer console, CD-player, some nice
unidirectional mic. (by the way, what's mean by "true diversity
microphone").

3. The acoustic treatment is going to be the most costly consideration.
Any suggestion, other than tell me to back-off?

And no, not all churches have a lot of money in their bank account, we
spent what we think will benefit the most, after sincere praying by a lot
of people. And yes, we believe God owns everything, he can have a state-
of-the-art Gym./Family Life Center built in a slap of his fingers, but he
doesn't want to be that way, and we don't want to be that way. We want
everybody to get involve so that by the time the building is done, we can
praise the God and move one... That happened last time we had our main
building built.

Sorry for the long message, but since someone here brought it up, I feel
I have the responsibility to answer it.

Once again, thank you very very very much for all your responses, and
please keep on feeding me with ideas.

Panzzi

(by the way, what's meant by "true diversity
microphone").

It's not the mic that is true diversity, but the radio transmission & reception
system associated with a wireless mic. It means there are 2 radio signals being
sent from the transmitter. The receiver gets both & sends the stronger signal
to its audio output. Since wireless mics use frequencies that are easily
blocked or cancelled out through multiple path reception, it's best to have 2
signals to alleviate the likelihood of a signal dropout. True diversity costs
more, & provides much more reliable reception.



Scott Fraser

Panzzi,

The acoustic treatment is going to be the most costly consideration. Any
suggestion, other than tell me to back-off?

It doesn't have to be that expensive. And NOT treating the space will cost
even more in the long run as you buy ever more electronic gear in a futile
attempt to get decent sound.

/blatant commercialism on/

Visit my company's web site www.realtraps.com.

/blatant commercialism off/

--Ethan

"Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote in message
...
Panzzi,

The acoustic treatment is going to be the most costly consideration. Any
suggestion, other than tell me to back-off?

It doesn't have to be that expensive. And NOT treating the space will cost
even more in the long run as you buy ever more electronic gear in a futile
attempt to get decent sound.

/blatant commercialism on/

Visit my company's web site www.realtraps.com.


I have to agree with this, Ethan. So far everyone has jumped all over this
guy, even though he does not need an acoustician or an archietect to throw
up a few sheets of Sonex, which even though is not a 100% solution will
provide considerable benefits. As a matter of fact, Sonex will even help him
out a bit just to make the sale.

Actually, true diversity is in the reciever. Quite simply, there are two
antennas and the reciever has a circuit to chose which antenna has the
strongest signal. The different manufacturers have differences in how they
apply this principal. What it all boils down to is that when you are using a
true diversity wireless your reciever is always getting the strongest
possible signal it can. Beware the difference between "diversity" and "true
diversity". Some manufacturers stick two antennas on their reciever and call
it diversity. Only a true diversity reciever has the electronics to
distinguish between the stronger and weaker signals. It is also important
when buying multiple wirelesses to stay with the same brand and model or
series if possible.
Mike

"ScotFraser" wrote in message
...
(by the way, what's meant by "true diversity
microphone").

It's not the mic that is true diversity, but the radio transmission &
reception
system associated with a wireless mic. It means there are 2 radio signals
being
sent from the transmitter. The receiver gets both & sends the stronger
signal
to its audio output. Since wireless mics use frequencies that are easily
blocked or cancelled out through multiple path reception, it's best to
have 2
signals to alleviate the likelihood of a signal dropout. True diversity
costs
more, & provides much more reliable reception.



Scott Fraser

"Panzzi" wrote in message
19...


1. Should use a lot of small speakers instead of a few pairs of large
monitor speakers, how small we are talking about? Because that concern
what kind of power amplifier we are going to use.

For multiple speakers you would probably want to go with a 70 volt system,
that way you can run as many speakers as you want. Many power amplifiers are
available with a 70 volt output. Many brands of speakers (EV, and DAS among
them) are available with 70 volt wiring.

"Panzzi" wrote ...
When I step up to take this position, I already knew that
there are a lot of problems, and they might not even be
solved without major change(s) of the floor plan, but I
still want to do it.

Without knowing more details, generally, floor plan changes
are not nearly as important as the angles and reflectivity
(reberberance) of the surfaces (walls, ceiling, floor, etc.)

Because no one else can, not saying they don't want to,
but I can be considered one of the most experience guy
among our congregation that know something about sound,
equipment, and acoustic!

I find it extremely troubling that you are not getting acoustic
advice from your architect. [At least I haven't seen information
in your postings about this!] If your architect doesn't have
the acoustics experience (alas most don't), he/she should hire
a consultant who DOES. I can guarantee that it will cost less
to do this up front than it will cost to try to fix with lots of
expensive equipment after the fact! THIS IS CRITICALLY
IMPORTANT!!! IS THAT CLEAR?

And yes, we don't actually call it a gym, we do call it a
"Family Life Center". So it is not only for a bunch of people
playing ball games, but actually can hold some functions there.

The point is not what you call it, but what it actually *IS*.
If it is a big, highly reverberant box, then calling it a "gym"
will properly describe it to most audio/acoustical type
people. Has nothing to do with how you actually use the space.

Among yourselves you can *call* it anything you like, but you
will get best response by *describing* it honestly and accurately.

1. Should use a lot of small speakers instead of a few
pairs of large monitor speakers, how small we are
talking about? Because that concern what kind of power
amplifier we are going to use.

Nobody whose advice you would fine valuable would make
such a shot-in-the-dark guess with so little information.

The first solution would be to design the structure and surfaces
to minimize the reverberation. YOU SHOULD SOLVE THE
PROBLEM ACOUSTICALLY BEFORE EVEN CONSIDERING
ANY ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT! This is where your
architect (and acoustics consultant) will have the most
benefit. A good acoustic consultant should also be able
to give you a reasonable ballpark range of budgets (overall
total) for sound reinforcement systems of various complexity.

2. Sound-stage equipments should not cost a lot, I'll say,
small speakers, a few power amp., mixer console, CD-player,
some nice unidirectional mic. (by the way, what's mean by
"true diversity microphone").

"Diversity" refers to a type of multi-antenna receiver for
wireless microphones. You should avoid wireless mics
unless ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. You will ALWAYS
get better quality from a wired microphone even when it
costs less than wireless. Especially if you are on a budget.

3. The acoustic treatment is going to be the most costly
consideration. Any suggestion, other than tell me to back-
off?

Back off from what? The better you work out the acoustic
issues, the less it will cost to provide sound for the *entire
lifetime* of the building (through *many* generations of audio
equipment).

Most people who have been through exactly what you-all
are doing will tell you that you will always end up spending
more to work around your acoustic problems than it would
have cost to avoid them in the first place. Remember that
a significant (perhaps PRIMARY!) function of this space
is to be able to hear and understand the spoken word! It is
tragic that so many churches ignore this fundamental fact.

And no, not all churches have a lot of money in their bank
account, we spent what we think will benefit the most, after
sincere praying by a lot of people.

Select an acoustic consultant as you would conscientiously
select any other professional. Look around at other buildings
of similar size/design and ask who the acoustical consultant
was. When you have a few to chose from, ask for references
and follow up with them. To do any less would be a dereliction
of your stewardship of the church's resources.

Did you say where you are? Some people here might know
some acoustic consultants they might refer. Note also that
this newsgroup (news:rec.audio.pro) is mostly a RECORDING
newsgroup. The newsgroup for REINFORCEMENT is called:
news:alt.audio.pro.live-sound and there is at least one
consultant there who specializes in churches.

"Richard Crowley" wrote in news:104832b9i7fdg67
@corp.supernews.com:

Did you say where you are? Some people here might know
some acoustic consultants they might refer. Note also that
this newsgroup (news:rec.audio.pro) is mostly a RECORDING
newsgroup. The newsgroup for REINFORCEMENT is called:
news:alt.audio.pro.live-sound and there is at least one
consultant there who specializes in churches.

Richard, I went there, post my question, and the feedbacks are... less
encourage. I feel sorry that I interrupt their normal routine.

Anyway, thanks for your suggestion.

Panzzi

"Panzzi" wrote in message
21
"Richard Crowley" wrote in news:104832b9i7fdg67
@corp.supernews.com:

Did you say where you are? Some people here might know
some acoustic consultants they might refer. Note also that
this newsgroup (news:rec.audio.pro) is mostly a RECORDING
newsgroup. The newsgroup for REINFORCEMENT is called:
news:alt.audio.pro.live-sound and there is at least one
consultant there who specializes in churches.

Richard, I went there, post my question, and the feedbacks are... less
encourage. I feel sorry that I interrupt their normal routine.

Yes, alt.audio.pro.live-sound can be like a tight little group that is
kinda focussed inward. I just about fell off my chair just lately when they
handled a question about clicks and pops when recording on a laptop.
However, there are a number of people there who have hand-on experience with
church sound.

Here's some church sound web sites:

http://www.jdbsound.com/ - "It is often stated that every church purchases
at least three sound systems. The first is the one obtained from the lowest
bidder when the building is erected. The second is installed by the "expert"
in the congregation. The third is the one designed, installed, and adjusted
by a carefully chosen team consisting of a professional acoustical
consultant, sound contractor, and a representative of the purchaser-owner
gifted with an understanding of his need and capable of working creatively
with the consultant and sound contractor. "

http://www.prosoundweb.com/install/church_talk/

http://www.victorious.org/soundsys.htm

http://www.church-acoustics.com/index-main.html

http://www.allchurchsound.com/

http://www.homestead.com/quietvoicea...o_Gallery.html

"Panzzi" wrote ...
Richard, I went there [a.a.p.l-s], post my question, and the
feedbacks are... less encourage. I feel sorry that I interrupt
their normal routine.

The response you got there was that they couldn't add much
to what you have already heard here. Your room shape and
composition (concrete tilt-up) are practically the worst
possible acoustic conditions, and your $7K equipment budget
seems very thin and arbitrary. And your apparently ZERO (?)
acoustics budget seems tragic. If this is your situation, so be it.
But the building committee must hear the harsh truth about
those choices on ingelegibility and budgets.

The "normal routine" of those guys over on a.a.p.l-s involves
dealing with this kind of problem more often than they would
care to. And previous experience indicates that you will try
to cheap it out and suffer for years with bad sound and throwing
good money after bad trying to solve it after the fact with
kludgy temporary measures.

I certainly don't want to be negative, but many people here
(and there) have been down this road ahead of you. If you
don't spend an appropriate part of your budget on acoustic
control you will never achieve good, intelligable speech
reinforcement and music will always sound "muddy"
no matter how much you spend on speakers, amps, and
microphones, etc. You really seem to be in over your head,
and in need of professional (acoustic!) assistance. To
advise anything else would be irresponsible. Please re-
assess your approach to this. Contact me via e-mail if you
don't want to discuss in public. Remove the digit from
my email address.

Romeo,

he does not need an acoustician or an archietect to throw up a few sheets
of Sonex

Yes, though the type of treatment I had in mind is noticeably better than
Sonex! :-)

--Ethan

"Romeo Rondeau" wrote in
message

though he does not need an acoustician or an
archietect to throw up a few sheets of Sonex, which even though is
not a 100% solution will provide considerable benefits. As a matter
of fact, Sonex will even help him out a bit just to make the sale.

We had a local church that took that approach, and actually threw up so much
sound absorbing material that they turned their gym-based sanctuary into the
sonic equivalent of a crypt. The good news is that they are just finishing
up a new, built-from-scratch sanctuary, with professionally-designed
acoustics.

I don't think that it took much of a hard sell to get the expense for
professional acoustician's services covered, the third time around.

every thing richard says is true
I also have to add that some of us
actually are experianced and can guarentte a design meets its goal
but we also make our living doing this and can not do it for free just
beacuse it is on the net
if you'd like to hire a consultant, designer, contractor
by all means request that
if you want a desingers skills for free you will get what you pay for
the only system designers i know that give away thier efforts are making
much more than thier advice is worth
George

Richard Crowley wrote:
those choices on ingelegibility and budgets.

'ingelegibility'?

Somehow, although I don't know what it means, I feel like this
word is a word that describes itself. It is totally ingelegible.

- Logan

"Logan Shaw" wrote in message
...
Richard Crowley wrote:
those choices on ingelegibility and budgets.

'ingelegibility'?

Somehow, although I don't know what it means, I feel like this
word is a word that describes itself. It is totally ingelegible.

LOL! :-))
Spell-check doesn't work unless you click the button!

Panzzi wrote in message . 119...


3. The acoustic treatment is going to be the most costly consideration.
Any suggestion, other than tell me to back-off?

I am not a acoustical engineer and if I'm wrong I hope someone will
correct me.

I used to attend a church that would use their gym for special
concerts. Most of the time the regular worship room had enough
capacity. When they had a special event such as a play or concert
they would hold it in the gym. They had a nice stage attached to the
gym.

Here is what they did:

In the back of the stage they stored a BIG carpet. They would carry
this big carpet to the gym floor and unroll it. It covered almost 3/4
of the gym. This would deaden the floor reflection and also prevent
damage to the gyms wooden floor. They also hung huge carpets from the
back and side walls of the gym. They used a winch system to lift
these carpets up.

The carpet was a hassle to set up but it was fun for the volunteers.
It was another form of fellowship. It made people feel great. It
only took about an hour to set up.

I wish the best to your congregation.

IR

Panzzi wrote in message . 121...
"Richard Crowley" wrote in news:104832b9i7fdg67
@corp.supernews.com:

Did you say where you are? Some people here might know
some acoustic consultants they might refer. Note also that
this newsgroup (news:rec.audio.pro) is mostly a RECORDING
newsgroup. The newsgroup for REINFORCEMENT is called:
news:alt.audio.pro.live-sound and there is at least one
consultant there who specializes in churches.

Richard, I went there, post my question, and the feedbacks are... less
encourage. I feel sorry that I interrupt their normal routine.

Anyway, thanks for your suggestion.

Panzzi

I'm reposting the below here to increase the chance of it being seen
by the O.P. before it's too late:


If it isn't too late, beg and plead the church council to suspend
proceedings immediately until you can get someone on the design team
that knows how to make a sanctuary sound good and give them the
authority to override an architect that only knows how to make it look
good.
MacLuhan said that the medium is the message but in a church,
mosque, or synagogue the message is the message. No matter how
beautiful the room or how majestic the pipe organ sounds, if the words
of the songs, prayers, and sermons aren't intelligible to everyone
there you might as well use the property for a bowling alley.
I'm coming up on the 1 year anniversary of being drafted to
volunteer to run a (Baptist) church sound system in a sanctuary that
was designed and built (while I wasn't around) with almost no thought
given to sound until after it was nearly finished. As a result they
have a very visually lovely echo chamber. The reverb time is
something like 6 seconds. The standing wave situation is such that I
can feed a single tone into the house speakers and if I walk up the
center aisle quickly it sounds like a Leslie cabinet. It's not
because we don't have decent equipment, it's because the acoustics are
so horrid, and that's because there wasn't somebody involved from the
very beginning that knew what kind of pitfalls to avoid.
The better the acoustics of the room the less you'll need to spend
on sound reinforcement.
If you think I might be able to help get the message through to the
powers that be email me at with your phone
number.