# Is this level of equipment appropriate



## JChenault (Jan 22, 2010)

I am serving as chairman of a building committee for a theatre renovation. As such I need to be part of making some decisions about a new sound system. I know little about current sound equipment and am trying to find out of our consultants recommendation is over the top or not.

We are a large community theatre that does only musicals - annual budget around one million. The house is a converted movie theatre that currently seats 379. ( 399 after the renovation). Part of the renovation is to put in an orchestra pit and re-work the sound system. We currently use wireless mikes and expect to continue to do so.

The proscenium arch in the renovated space will be 32 feet wide. The auditorium is 60 feet wide side wall to side wall. We expect to do some scenes on the apron which will be 45 feet wide.

Our primary desire is for reinforcing singing. Some sound effects, but that is not what we are designing for. The consultant is suggesting:

A new 32-channel, Left / Center / Right (LCR) digital mixing console
located in the performance space will be provided and will connect all input locations into the speakers. The digital console will allow for simple preset “scene” setup and recall to specific mixer configurations for consistency of use and for rapid recall of settings during a performance. The mixing console will connect to the house sound system via multi-pin connectors (CIP’s) and associated short length (15’) of multi-pin to fan snake cable.

A new LCR speaker system is to be provided to allow for realistic reproduction of speech, music and program content and to allow for cogent sound reproduction localization of the stage panorama through the speaker system. In addition, a 4- channel effects / monitor sound system with portable speakers is provided to allow for stage foldback (monitoring) of audio content and for sound effect playback.​
My questions:

With this size of theatre do we really need a LCR speaker cluster?
How would an operator be able to do a live mix of voices and also pan output appropriately? Would he simply select where the sound comes from, or are we trying to map each microphone to a separate speaker?
Is the preset concept really useful or is it just something to spend money on.
Our sound operators are usually volunteers who have learned on the job. Is this kind of console adding too much complexity to the operation or is a higher end console going to be simple to use.

Thanks in advance for the feedback. Apologies if this has been covered in the past.


----------



## mbenonis (Jan 22, 2010)

Has your consultant specified any wireless microphone systems? I'd be happy to look that over for you.


----------



## Footer (Jan 22, 2010)

The digital console is standard with just about any install anymore. I don't think anyone is installing an analog console unless it is requested. I have used a many digital consoles and have had 13 year old students to 70 year old men running them without a problem. 32 channels sounds about right for a midsized musical with a pit orchestra. Having scenes is just as useful as lighting cues however its not a set it and forget it operation like lighting is. You still have to listen and be an active part of the show. However, the presets will get you where you need to start out. 

I have 4 foldback/point source channels on my stage and we don't do any any reinforcement, its just playback. Four channels is actually the minimum as far as I am concerned. 

As far as the "paning" thing goes. No one does that. Usually you want vocals primary coming out of your center cluster and you use your L/R/Front fills for fill. 

I would push for a mic package to get added. I would also push for a good wireless system to be added. Both of those things typically get left off. 

Overall, I don't think you are getting shafted. I think you are getting the system you need to have and that you guys will grow into. It might be 10x as much as what you had before, but it will be what you need in the future.


----------



## JChenault (Jan 22, 2010)

Footer.
Thanks for the feedback - just the kind of info I was looking for.

The quotes were just an excerpt from the narrative from the consultant. It goes on to suggest 12 new wireless mikes ( not enough IMHO) stage mikes, etc. I did not want to post too much info to the board to reduce reading fatigue. If you are interested I will be happy to share the entire doc.

John


----------



## Kally123 (Jan 22, 2010)

Hey JChenault

I am the Sound engineer at a 900 seat theater. We just awarded the bid for a complet overhaul of our sound sytem. And there is not much difference in the gear specified for us. Our Digital board has a few more inputs but it is digital and we are also going with LCR set up with some Delays for the balcony and front fill. 

As others have asked I would be inclined to ask what is the average size of the cast? What wireless sytems have been proposed? 

But as it stands I think your consultant is on the right track as long as the brands of gear that he is proposing is quality stuff. 

Has he also done a complete tour of your facility and included; if needed upgrades to power supply, power supply isolation, paging/com system?


----------



## gpforet (Jan 22, 2010)

Most musicals I have designed sound for (West Side Story, The Music Man, TheWiz) in spaces like yours have functioned fine with 12 channels of wireless. If you are located in a Metro area, you may considering renting additional channels when needed. The major problem I have experienced with a pit is getting the stage actors volume over the top of the orchestra. This has never been a limitation of the system but more an issue of gain before feedback and it may be worthwhile to consider ways of treating the orchestra pit acoustically to control volume.


JChenault said:


> Footer.
> Thanks for the feedback - just the kind of info I was looking for.
> 
> The quotes were just an excerpt from the narrative from the consultant. It goes on to suggest 12 new wireless mikes ( not enough IMHO) stage mikes, etc. I did not want to post too much info to the board to reduce reading fatigue. If you are interested I will be happy to share the entire doc.
> ...


----------



## museav (Jan 22, 2010)

Did you ask your consultant to explain what they proposed? Many selections are not just a matter of simply being appropriate in general but rather of being appropriate for the specific application. There are often very specific comments made about the use or users that can lead to a designer selecting or rejecting certain approaches.

Beyond that, it is not just the system concepts and equipment models but also the system design and implementation that affects the end result. An LCR speaker system may generally be preferable for theatrical applications, however a poorly designed, installed and/or tuned LCR system may not be as good as a well designed, installed and tuned mono center cluster system.

FWIW, the size of the theater often has nothing to do with the general system concepts. It may affect what speakers are used, how much amplification is needed, etc. but things like the general speaker system concept or the number of inputs needed to support certain performances or functions may be the same regardless of the venue size. And example that may make you feel more comfortable, I just met today with the Architect and other designers on a Community Center project that includes an under 300 seat theatre that will probably be an LCR speaker system, with under balcony fills and perhaps some form of multi-channel surround as well, and will almost certainly have a digital console. Those choices had nothing to do with the size of the venue and everything to do with the functions and users they want to support along with the quality desired.

In my experience 12 wireless mics is plenty for most community theatres unless you already have a specific need for more on a routine basis. You might design the system to handle more than 12 but the issue usually becomes how many are used on a regular basis such that the cost, maintenance, etc. can be justified. Just look at the recent 700MHz spectrum changes, would you want to be having to replace a dozen wireless mics that you rarely use? Or could you rent additional wireless or simply use wired mics in many cases?


----------



## MNicolai (Jan 22, 2010)

It sounds like they're setting you up for a Yamaha LS9-32 or equivalent. Even though that may not be what you'll end up getting, I'm going to use that as my frame of reference because that's what I'm familiar with.

The LS9 is a good, solid mixer, with lots of built-in features. I would never simply sit a volunteer down in front of it and expect them to know how to use it, because every application will have a different way they setup the mix groups and matrices, but the learning curve isn't too bad when some time is put into familiarizing people with it. _If_ that is the mixer they're getting you, Yamaha even has some great online tutorial videos your volunteers could use. Overall, I think it's a mixer you'd be pleased with.

You're not really spending any extra money on getting a mixer with presets versus one without. That allows the mixer to be used like a light console, where you set the levels for each of your scenes, store the presets, and recall them when the show starts. If you don't use that feature, you can just operate the console just as you would. If you do lots of shows where there are a lot of wireless microphones and as soon as the scene changes, you need to have an entirely different setting for which mic's are on and which are not, then having the ability to use scenes can be pretty useful.

Even with LCR, you don't really have to spend a lot of time worrying about where the voices are coming from out of the speakers. Typically what you'll do is put a little more music into your side fills and voices more into your center cluster. With the LS9, you can mix in Mono mode, which lets you put your entire signal into the center cluster (or not, your choice), and allows you to pan between L and R like normal. If you mix in LCR mode, then the default setting is 50%, which is balanced between L/R and C, and then mixing towards 100% puts it more into C, and 0% puts it more into L/R (or vise versa, I forget which exactly it is).

LCR isn't a big deal. Just because you have a center cluster, doesn't mean you need to spend lots of extra time setting up your mix for it. If your install is setup well the first time, then getting into mixing LCR is added feature for the sound operator that wants to precisely tune the mix. A volunteer who doesn't want to worry about setting up an LCR-specific mix, really shouldn't have to worry about it. I leave almost all of my mic's at a default 50% and then just pan my canned music a little more carefully.


----------



## SHARYNF (Jan 22, 2010)

It is important to quickly get beyond the general design and to the specific equipment that is going to be used. The devil is in the Details

I have seen A couple of approaches where depending on the height a Line Array hang on the two sides might also work

Do you have a Balcony? what is the overall height of the venue, how high is the Proscenium arch? height above that? You have a fairly wide venue to the width of the stage so again possibly a hang on either side might work better than a center cluster. Again a good designer should be able to go over the thinking in their recommendations. I have seen a lot of designs start with the stand LCR and then upon more careful analysis move to a LR 

Any Idea what the budget for the audio equipment side of things will be?

Sharyn


----------



## museav (Jan 23, 2010)

SHARYNF said:


> It is important to quickly get beyond the general design and to the specific equipment that is going to be used. The devil is in the Details


I agree abut the devil being in the details but disagree vehemently about it being important to get into the details of the equipment quickly. Some of the worst projects I've had were a result of focusing on specific products too early in the process.

My approach is to spend as much time as needed to get a good definition of what the system needs or is expected to do. Then develop a system concept to support the functionality and performance defined. Then plan for the infrastructure to support that concept. Only then do you really need to start thinking about actual equipment details. I'm not saying you may not have some ideas in mind long before then and considerations like rider compatibility may be part of the functional requirements defined but it usually comes down to focusing first on what is going to define a successful result.


A couple of details on some of the comments. I'm not clear whether a "LR" speaker system is referring to a stereo/two channel system where the speakers on both sides cover the entire listener area or an exploded mono cluster system where the speakers on each side cover different parts of the listener area. Since speech intelligibility and localization are usually a high priority in those applications, I typically avoid two channel/stereo systems for most theatrical applications.

The left and right channels in an LCR system are not side fills. In a proper LCR system the speaker(s) for each individual channel properly cover the entire listener area. And as you pan a source it pans from left to center to right. This requires a mixer that supports a true LCR mix. One variation on this is a stereo plus center mono system which also uses three speakers groupings each covering the entire listener area, however in this case sources are assigned to either the center mono cluster as a mono source or to the stereo left/right system and panned between left and right. This approach can be handled via a console with subgroups or with master stereo and mono/center mix buses. Another variation would be a three component exploded cluster, which would have left, center and right speakers grouping but with each grouping covering a separate section of the listener area (and thus where the term "side fill" may be more applicable for the left and right components). This would be a mono mix. So just having three speakers or speaker arrays does not make a system LCR, LCR is a more general concept for how the entire mix and speaker system work.

FWIW, it is never possible to have a source in both the left and right channel in a true LCR system and the LS9 needs you to work two controls simultaneously (from panned left and all L/R to panned center and all center to panned right and all left/right again) to try to mimic true LCR mixing. However that approach does provide a good way to implement a stereo plus center mono system with great flexibility.

Line arrays are the right solution for some spaces but not for nearly as many as end up with them. Wihtout knowing more about the space it is difficult to say of they would be a good idea or not in this case. But other than verifying that the concept proposed can be made to work, the specific speaker system locations and components should not really be a factor until after the general concept is defined and approved.

And I think that where they are in the process may be where there is some confusion. The language quoted sounds very much like it is from a Program Report or Needs Analysis, a document where the functional requirements and proposed concepts are delineated in order to provide a basis for review and approval before proceeding into any detailed design. The intent of such a document is for the Consultant to say "Here is what we understand you want the system to do and how we plan to accomplish that" before they start investing effort on the detailed system design. This is also why it is important to discuss this with your Consultant. You need to all be on the same page, if there are misunderstandings, misinterpretations or errors now and they are not addressed, they will follow through the rest of the project.


----------



## SHARYNF (Jan 23, 2010)

I don't disagree with Brad but here is perhaps a slightly different take on this

What I see is that the situation is a lot further down the process, and that what is being produced is a proposed bid document. The wording, again this is subject to interpretation is more like a spec that someone has an idea what folks are going to bid on, vs a needs document out of the program stage

At the program stage the wording for instance would be "the here needs to be a system that provides left right and center" 

Again, I absolutely agree at the PROGRAM stage you need to get the requirements down so a proper design can be done, BUT IF I am correct and this is way post Program stage and is part of a bid pack proposal stage, then I think understanding more specific equipment is going to be important


My comments on LR system is a mono system, where the speaker system is on stage right and left, and does not have a center fill 


Brad does this sort of work all the time, so he might have the more accurate interpretation of where in the design you are. I am coming more from the review end of the equation where I have been asked to look over what is being put in the bid pack and to look at design tradeoff recommendations


I do think that some of the questions I raised

Height of proscenium, height of the ceiling, balcony or no etc would be usefull 

How is the acoustics in the room, are there any problems that are going to need treatment? What is the Budget and how is it beeing split up. A orchestra pit with a lift being added to an existing structure is not an inexpensive project. 

Sharyn


----------



## museav (Jan 23, 2010)

Sharyn is right and it would help to know where in the process you are. The text quoted from the Consultant sounds very much like what I would typically issue in a Program Report. However, on my projects that same language would also be included in the Specifications, but it would be in Section 1 (Section 1 is 'General', Section 2 'Equipment' and Section 3 'Execution' in a standard three-part CSI Specification) as part of the Project Description, a place used to make the overall goals defined earlier in the project a part of the work being bid on. In order to provide direct continuity in having the goals defined up front follow through the entire project I often quite literally cut and paste the relevant parts of the Program Report into the Project Description in the Specifications. However that does not mean that this is how every Consultant approaches every project and while formal Bid Documents should include information like this to define the general intent, they should indeed also go into much more detail.

The inverse of this would be situations where the documents used to obtain bids are an equipment list with little or no definition of the overall functionality or performance for the system. That has the potential result of getting the details right while totally missing on the 'big picture'. The best result is when the Bid Documents define both the overall and specific expectations.

Another possibility is where the Consultant develops a detailed Technical Request for Proposal for design/build services. In that case the Contractors are bidding on both designing and building the systems and the Consultant's role is not actually designing the systems but rather to assist the Owner in providing sufficient information for the Contractors to provide responsive bids. Basically trying to make sure that everyone bidding is bidding based on the same information to allow competitive bidding and that the information used for bidding sufficiently defines the desired results.

So as you can see, whether the language provided is the entire description or only the 'big picture' part of a more encompassing description can depend on the approach used and where you are in the process.


To address the specific questions:


JChenault said:


> With this size of theatre do we really need a LCR speaker cluster?


As already noted, it is typically the use and functionality, not the size of the space or the number of seats, that determines the general speaker system approach used. The same concept applies to the number of system inputs and outputs, quantity of wireless mics, etc., it is the use, not the room, that defines many of the basic system requirements. It is accommodating those goals within the actual space that is a major part of the actual system design effort and may lead to some compromises.


JChenault said:


> How would an operator be able to do a live mix of voices and also pan output appropriately? Would he simply select where the sound comes from, or are we trying to map each microphone to a separate speaker?


With the true LCR system you simply pan where you want it, keeping in mind that the perceived imaging probably differs some throughout the audience (an issue sometimes leading to cross-matrix LCR systems and other more complex approaches).


JChenault said:


> Is the preset concept really useful or is it just something to spend money on.


Most theatres really appreciate presets. As others have noted, they can be used much like lighting scenes but I also have many Clients using them as simple room presets to accommodate typical uses and events.


JChenault said:


> Our sound operators are usually volunteers who have learned on the job. Is this kind of console adding too much complexity to the operation or is a higher end console going to be simple to use.


That is a little difficult to answer as the console description given is very generic and could be fulfilled by quite a range of products. If your volunteers have only worked with analog consoles then a digital console may take a bit of getting used to. However, I'm finding more and more people with digital console experience, and more with only digital console experience, as many bands, churches, etc. are adopting them.

One thing to consider is that I find that digital console operation can often be broken into two parts. One of both the biggest advantages and biggest hurdles with digital consoles is that they are very flexible in configuration, thus someone has to have sufficient understanding to properly configure the console. However, once configured the operation can then be relatively straightforward. As a result, in many situation it is quite possible to have a limited number of people capable of programming the console with a larger number of operators who can run the console without necessarily knowing how to program it.

Other common advantages to digital consoles are that the onboard effects and processing can often replace racks of outboard equipment. And that this combined with the use of fader layers can result in a much smaller physical footprint, something that is often a consideration in renovations.


----------



## JChenault (Jan 23, 2010)

Thanks for all of the comments - let me see if I can answer some of your questions.

We are in the early stages of the project. Our schedule will be to do the renovation in summer of 2011. 

There is no balcony in the space. The current ceiling height of the space from the floor of the auditorium at it's lowest point ( IE next to the stage) is 20 feet. We are still working on exact stage height and proscenium size but the stage will be approximately 3 foot 4 inches above the floor, and the proscenium 32 feet wide by 13 feet tall. 

The document is closer to a program report than a design document. ( They call it a design narrative) The consultants came to the space and measured the acoustical properties. They looked at the preliminary plans our architect and us have come up with and have made some general comments re the physical space to make it better acoustically ( some of which we will do, and some of which we will not be able to do). 

Along with the architectural acoustics document, they included an overview of what they would recommend for equipment. They did include some suggested equipment as part of the document, but we are no where near any kind of bid process or installation as yet. ( For the gearheads among us, they are suggesting an Allen and Heath iLive-T series mixer, Telex intercoms, TOA HX-5 Speakers, and Sannheiser G2 100 wireless mikes. ) I interpret the purpose of the equipment list to give us a better idea of what they believe an appropriate system would cost. 

We do not anticipate using the acoustical consultant to bid on the project. They seem to be more comfortable with preparing the documents and supervising than installing.

Cast and orchestra size ranges from small of two orchestra and four cast up to 21 musicians and a cast of 20 to 30. 

I don't think we are ready to talk about specific equipment as yet. First we need to understand the architectural components of the project and balance off the needs of seats, acoustics, space on stage, lighting, etc. Once all of that gets sorted out we can start to look at manufactures gear - but we are just not there yet. I consider the consultants cut sheets only as ideas of the kinds of equipment they propose.

We have not as yet met with the consultants after their initial report - plan to do that in the next few weeks ( primarily for architectural acoustical issues as these seem to be a lot more intertwingled with every thing else).

So to summarize - we are early in the process, I am pretty happy with the consultants at this point. We have a number of conflicts to resolve ( For example, they want to make the pit so big that we would need a second exit for code reasons that would add substantially to the cost - and they want the pit opening to be enlarged taking out a row of seats, or several seats off of the stage). 

I was trying to get a sense of reasonableness of their proposal. The AV Equipment guy has tended to go a bit overboard in some of our discussions and I had some concerns that this might be happening here. What I am hearing is that the narrative sounds generally reasonable at this point in the process. I expect that when we get closer to selecting equipment I will be back for more advice.

Thanks to all.


----------



## mbenonis (Jan 24, 2010)

I'll speak with regard to wireless (and leave the other stuff to people far more qualified than I). Make sure your system designer understands the intricacies of wireless/RF installations. In particular, they should be able to tell you what kind of systems you need based on the space, proximity to broadcast transmitters, and other spaces nearby (especially gyms and football stadiums). They should also be able to talk about antenna type, feedline size, and antenna distribution (active or passive) They don't necessarly need to specify particular brands or models of equipment, but they should be able to point out whether (for example) you need directional antennas positioned closely to the stage or if a pair of omni whips on the antenna distributor is sufficient for your needs (and why). If they don't, start asking questions and come here for more answers as well.

Wireless can often be overlooked as a "drop in", but with more than eight systems it is critical that professionals design (and install) the system and get it right the first time. If not, you're going to have a world of headaches when you go to use it.


----------



## SHARYNF (Jan 24, 2010)

So Brad's take on where you are in the process is correct. Equipment comes later

Before dismissing the changes to the venue to improve acoustics and the size of the pit it might be interesting to post these recommendations here and see folks reactions.

Sharyn


----------



## Chris15 (Jan 24, 2010)

mbenonis said:


> I'll speak with regard to wireless (and leave the other stuff to people far more qualified than I). Make sure your system designer understands the intricacies of wireless/RF installations. In particular, they should be able to tell you what kind of systems you need based on the space, proximity to broadcast transmitters, and other spaces nearby (especially gyms and football stadiums). They should also be able to talk about antenna type, feedline size, and antenna distribution (active or passive) They don't necessarly need to specify particular brands or models of equipment, but they should be able to point out whether (for example) you need directional antennas positioned closely to the stage or if a pair of omni whips on the antenna distributor is sufficient for your needs (and why). If they don't, start asking questions and come here for more answers as well.
> 
> Wireless can often be overlooked as a "drop in", but with more than eight systems it is critical that professionals design (and install) the system and get it right the first time. If not, you're going to have a world of headaches when you go to use it.



It seems the consultant has touched on this... speccing G2s BUT this highlights that the consultant is out of touch. G2 is old news, G3 is the current thing...


----------



## museav (Jan 24, 2010)

Chris15 said:


> It seems the consultant has touched on this... speccing G2s BUT this highlights that the consultant is out of touch. G2 is old news, G3 is the current thing...


Keep in mind that at the point where this project apparently is an equipment list is likely more a place holder for budgeting purposes than a final equipment list. You know you need something like that item, but may determine the specific model later on when preparing the Bid Documents. It also can be months between when a Program document is created and when the the final Bid Documents get completed and it will typically be months or years between then and when the equipment actually gets ordered and/or things actually get installed, so it is not at all unusual for product versions or models to change from when some documents are created.

Mike, this also goes to your point. At the time a Consultant is designing a system there may be no building and it may be years before the systems will actually be operational. While there does need to be some reasonable level of design on the wireless systems, it may also require leaving aspects open enough to accommodate changes and field conditions. One typically has to balance providing sufficient detail to obtain the desired result with providing too much detail to accommodate the inevitable changes, the more the chances of relevant factors changing the more one must be able to accommodate those changes.

In fact it is dealing with things like it being months and years between when you first conceptualize, and have to budget, a system and when it actually gets bid and then even later starts being used that can be some of the greatest difficulties when working as part of a larger building project. As an example, I am currently part of a team bidding on a project where the design team will be selected at the end of this month. The Conceptual Design package would be due in just over 3 months however the Bid Documents aren't scheduled to be completed until 13 months after that and the construction isn't scheduled to be completed until over three years from now. Do you think some equipment models, assumptions and even laws may change between 3 months, 16 months and 38 months from now? But that's how things work on large construction projects.

Again, they may just be place holders and there may be good reasons for the selections but I do find the 100 series Sennheiser wireless mics and TOA HX-5 speakers a bit at odds with an iLive-T console. They are all good products but the speakers and wireless systems are perhaps more 'entry level' products compared to the console. I will suggest that unless the application is speech only, the TOA HX-5 would almost certainly require subwoofers, which may already be accommodated and simply were not mentioned.


----------



## fx120 (Jan 24, 2010)

Bah the HX-5's are awful speakers. At their rated power they are so distorted they're almost unlistenable. 
<end rant>

I too find it odd that they would specify a ~$18,000+ console to pair up with ~$800 speakers and $600 wireless microphones. Even at this stage in the design process it seems mismatched. 

Do you mind me asking what is the overall budget including installation for the audio portion?


----------



## museav (Jan 25, 2010)

fx120 said:


> Bah the HX-5's are awful speakers. At their rated power they are so distorted they're almost unlistenable.
> <end rant>


Like any speakers, they can be a good choice in the right application and a bad choice in the wrong one. However, $800 is actually very close to list price on the HX-5 so if you're looking at list prices then the comnparison is more like $22,000 to $30,000 for the console, $900 each for the wireless mics, and $800 each for the speakers. Unless there is some specific driving force behind the choice, you can see why the speaker slection sticks out.


----------



## fx120 (Jan 25, 2010)

museav said:


> Like any speakers, they can be a good choice in the right application and a bad choice in the wrong one. However, $800 is actually very close to list price on the HX-5 so if you're looking at list prices then the comnparison is more like $22,000 to $30,000 for the console, $900 each for the wireless mics, and $800 each for the speakers. Unless there is some specific driving force behind the choice, you can see why the speaker slection sticks out.



Perhaps there is an application the HX-5's would work well for, unfortunately none of the places I have ever seen them are it. I have had to start stocking the replacement drivers because some other company in town started putting them into every application they could think of, then disappeared leaving dozens of clients hanging.


----------



## museav (Jan 25, 2010)

There are people who have used the TOA HX-5 very successfully in some churches, smaller multipurpose rooms, etc. Of course all of those are also either speech only systems or used in conjunction with subwoofers. I think that people tend to look at the pictures of the HX-5 and think "line array", overlooking that the array is less than 22" high and 18" wide and intended to have a low frequency response limited to around 100Hz. I'm sure that many people do improperly apply the HX-5 but those results are then the fault of misapplication, not the product.


----------



## TimmyP1955 (Feb 1, 2010)

Your room sounds very similar to ours, which is ~55w x 65d x 22h (down front - the floor is 4 or 5 higher in back). (The room is MUCH too lively without treatment, which we don't yet have). Stage is ~4 high, 32w, 22d . We seat 386 + a couple of wheelchair areas.

We cover the room pretty nicely with a pair of U15, which give a nominal pattern of 100x50. They are stacked on the deck for the time being. Fidelity is very good for spoken word and vocals, and there's plenty of SPL capability should someone bring in an overly loud rock show. (There's also aux-fed subs under the center of the deck.)

Console is an LS9. An I-Live or SC48 would have been my first choice, but it was impossible to justify the additional expense given our other needs (acoustical treatment, additional lighting, ....).

Pics and info: H.J. Ricks Centre For The Arts


----------



## JChenault (Feb 1, 2010)

Sorry to take so long to reply - I've been in tech week.

Someone asked to see the acoustical document. I am attaching it. Interested in seeing what folks may have to say about it.

John


----------



## jkowtko (Feb 1, 2010)

A quick look through thedocs -- This sounds like the same config that was used to outfit the new Performing Arts Centers at two of our local high schools. A couple of comments:

* I can believe their recommendations on pit opening based on natural sound flow. However I've seen the pro houses start to close up the pit opening and close mic everything and send through the PA instead -- to get better control of final sound to the audience. If you think this may be preferred for some shows, see about getting a way reduce pit opening when needed.

* LCR main PA? I personally think they sound terrible, are set up for lecture but not for anything else. When all the sound comes from the ceiling, no matter which way to look at it it does not sound natural. A couple of notes here:
- The center cluster in my two schools does almost nothing but provide feedback to the mics. I can use it for little more than a low fill. Definitely not for vocals!
- the LR speakers are way too high, so I have to add front/side fills on the stage left and right, on tripod stands, to pull the sound down towards stage level. This results in a nice "wall of sound" coming from the stage. I would suggest that if the ceiling speaker config is chosen, that you also purchase L and R front/side fills to place on stage, with speaker stands, and designated return XLR jacks and properly grounded power outlets.
- flown subs were fine. I wasn't looking for awesome bass power in my shows, but even for the dance shows the bass came out pretty good so I didn't need to bring my own subs in.

* Where are the side fills on the side walls, and the rear fills on the rear walls? I'm surprised the audio company did not recommend these. JBL makes some standard speakers for this, they are useful for cinema and also to use as low fills (with delay -- but you have a digital board) for other types of performance.

* For the board, sure get the LS9 -- that's what they are specing without naming it.


----------



## museav (Feb 1, 2010)

jkowtko said:


> LCR main PA? I personally think they sound terrible, are set up for lecture but not for anything else. When all the sound comes from the ceiling, no matter which way to look at it it does not sound natural.


LCR mains is pretty much a standard for pro performance venues, I've had performance venue clients that probably would have fired me if I didn't plan on an LCR system. An important consideration here is that humans are much less discriminatory in vertical imaging and localization than they are in horizontal perception. The speakers being located over the proscenium opening does not imply ceiling speakers, which would be in the ceiling. 


jkowtko said:


> The center cluster in my two schools does almost nothing but provide feedback to the mics. I can use it for little more than a low fill. Definitely not for vocals!


That sounds like poor system design or improper implementation.


jkowtko said:


> the LR speakers are way too high, so I have to add front/side fills on the stage left and right, on tripod stands, to pull the sound down towards stage level. This results in a nice "wall of sound" coming from the stage. I would suggest that if the ceiling speaker config is chosen, that you also purchase L and R front/side fills to place on stage, with speaker stands, and designated return XLR jacks and properly grounded power outlets.


It is fairly common to use front fill to help the first few rows, and to allow minimizing spill from the mains on stage, but multiple sources as noted can cause issues from imaging varying throughout the listener area to combfiltering so it should only be used where the benefits outweigh those factors. Typically, you don't have to get too far back in the house before the path length difference and imaging issues become negligible compared to the benefits of having the speakers overhead.


jkowtko said:


> flown subs were fine. I wasn't looking for awesome bass power in my shows, but even for the dance shows the bass came out pretty good so I didn't need to bring my own subs in.


Flown subs have several advantages (coverage, alignment to mains, etc.) and don't have as much of a disadvantage as many think as the floor plane gain is already achieved by the audience being on that plane and thus putting the subs on that same plane does not really gain anything. The reasons to not fly subs are usually primarily related to weight, size or aesthetics.


jkowtko said:


> Where are the side fills on the side walls, and the rear fills on the rear walls? I'm surprised the audio company did not recommend these. JBL makes some standard speakers for this, they are useful for cinema and also to use as low fills (with delay -- but you have a digital board) for other types of performance.


Perhaps some terminology issues here. Side fills are usually used to provide 'fill' for seating to either side that may be out of the mains' coverage or may even refer to side fill monitors on stage. Similar to how balcony and under balcony fills relate to speakers covering those areas that might be outside the main speaker coverage. The side and rear speakers they and you are referencing would usually be considered surround or effects speakers and where budget is a factor it is quite common to use portable speakers for those purposes. I also would not use the board for any system processing including delay, I always recommend leaving the board effects and processing for performance specific use and separating the house system processing, just as they are proposing. While this has advantages in almost any application, it is a very important consideration for touring houses or anywhere someone might bring in a console and use it in place of the house console.


jkowtko said:


> For the board, sure get the LS9 -- that's what they are specing without naming it.


How does a 32 channel, digital console with scene recall specifically define an LS9? If you read the earlier posts you'd find that it is apparently an A&H iLive-T being recommended.


My comments:

I was surprised that neither document contained a discussion of the envisioned use and functionality for the space. I always try to define the goals used in developing the recommendations before making any recommendations as the two are (or at least should be) directly interrelated. Maybe that was addressed in a separate document earlier in the process, but the one issue that really jumps out in this regard is not knowing the balance of lecture, orchestral/symphonic and drama/musical performance use.keep in mind that my comments are without such information and thus have to be viewed in the context of not really knowing the goals.
I found it interesting that the acoustics report identified an excessively low reverberation time but then recommended absorption rather than diffusion to treat the rear wall. That may be the result of a cost consideration.
Is there a stage shell planned? There seemed to be much of the acoustics report geared toward orchestral performance but I did not see mention of a shell (orchestra supporting a musical is typically looked at differently than orchestral performance).
Carpeting under the seats is always a matter of debate. I often prefer to have it simply to cut down on the noise from toes tapping, people dropping things, etc. And acoustically it may make minimal difference, if all the seats are filled not much sound gets down there anyways. However, it can often be a cost and maintenance consideration.
The description of the intercom system references only speaker stations including for tech positions. While this probably makes sense for backstage, you'd normally use beltpacks and headsets for tech positions. It also references paging microphones being at the stage and control booth, do they mean master stations?
You had noted previously that the TOA HX-5 were suggested but the report references line array speakers and those are not line arrays. Without knowing more about the room it is hard to say if line arrays are appropriate or not but the section of the stage area on the acoustics report seems to indicate limited height above the proscenium.
Related to the above, because of the apparent height, it looks like there may have to be some careful coordination between the speakers and the ceiling reflectors recommended so that the reflectors do not cut off the pattern or otherwise negatively affect the speakers.
It looks like the only stage I/O defined is one plate to either side of the proscenium (each with 8 mics, 1 line level input and 4 monitor lines) along with a center stage floor box for a lectern. That at least seems rather limited, but may reflect some specific input or goal.
Support of up to 24 wireless mics in addition to the I/O noted seems to suggest something larger than a 32 input console or some form of patching that is not noted. However, it sounds like only one wireless mic is initially being provided.
You might want to consider including the stage wings, or at least a SM position, and the pit, for te conductor, in the video system destinations. Maybe the TD's office if there is one as well. And you might want to consider audio to go with that video, perhaps their thought is to use the Program functionality of the intercom system for that, however I personally prefer to separate audio distribution systems especially since the video apparently feeds the Lobby.
Speaking of Lobby, is anything planned to support pre-function events, intermission chimes, etc.? Maybe something to consider.
Again, all of these are simply questions to ask or ideas to consider, there may be good reason for what is presented that is simply not apparent or clear from the limited perspective possible here.


----------



## SHARYNF (Feb 1, 2010)

I typically look at what they company writes but also how they present them selves. I am sure that their selection is firmly decided but if you go to their website theater systems design is not really highlighted. IT is there, it is covered but I just get the subtle feeling that that is not their primary area of expertise. 

SSA Acoustics - Our Work


If you go thru the various projects the Arlington High School PAC seems to be the only really highlighted theater space.

if you contrast this to another firm I am familiar with you can see the difference

http://www.jsfarchs.com/projecttypes/entertainment/entertainment.html

This is not necessarily a major issue, but it would lead me to want to really investigate the recommendations. Personally I would have felt more comfortable with a real specialist in theater design instead of a more general firm. 

I guess I would want to get some references on other theater projects and try to use these to determine areas that you might want to really focus on getting it right. Talking with other theaters that used this firm for similar projects give you an incite on possible areas of weakness or strength. 

I would agree with Brad, there seem to be a few inconsistencies (line array vs recommended) but it is really impossible to just tell from a document independent from the facility. 

All this really is a blend of art/science and experience

Sharyn


----------



## JChenault (Feb 1, 2010)

musaev ( and others) 

To clarify - the space is for musical theatre ( at least 99 percent of the time). The company does 6 full stage musicals a year, and where appropriate has orchestras to match. This was briefly mentioned in the introduction "I_t is our understanding that the sole function of the space is to conduct musicals which include both orchestra and vocals_."


The pit opening will probably be smaller than they recommend. Given a choice between a large pit and smaller stage / less audience seating it is likely we will take the smaller pit. In a similar vein we will not be increasing the ceiling height for better reverberation. 

Since this is for musicals, there is no stage shell planned or desired.

Intercom and video feeds. I had not looked closely at their recommendations there as yet. Thanks for the heads up. 

The ceiling height in the auditorium is low. The distance from the top of the proscenium arch to the ceiling will be about four feet. 

Re stage IO - Given the planned use, it is unlikely that we will want too many on stage hard wired outlets. I expect that we may want a few more in the pit in case we need to amplify some of the orchestra. Again something to dig into after the architectural details are figured out. 

As I read other parts of the spec, they are suggesting we get 12 new wireless mikes. Not sure if they expect this to supplement the 12 to 18 we currently use or to replace them. 

Video feeds and lobby chimes. Again had not thought enough about these issues. Thanks for the comment. 

Sharyn - I understand you comments about experience. For a number of reasons we are committed to them.


----------



## fx120 (Feb 2, 2010)

Another core question:

If your planned console is going to be a 32ch desk, what are the considerations for hard lines run down to the deck? You say that there are plans to purchase an additional 12 channels of wireless on top of the 12-16 channels you already have. I have done a few rock concerts in spaces normally used for theatrical performance and found a severe lack of wired inputs because only 12 channels of inputs were specified to be dropped on to the stage (6 SL and 6SR) because they had "filled up" their board already with wireless. I would advise to run no fewer than 24 channels of copper from the mix position to the stage regardless of what the planned use is, they're cheap to put in now.

Even if you only plan on ever needing a few of these lines, they're worth having in the event that some day they're needed to run a show with a good number of on-stage wired devices. I helped out with a musical a few months back that had a full on rock band across the back of the stage, and the drum kit alone used 8 channels. 

The other option would to take advantage of the iLive's remote mix rack and locate that on stage with the wireless receivers and just run a single cat5e (preferably more) line back to the mix position. This way in the event that all 32 inputs are needed on stage for some reason it's a simple patch away.

You'll never hear someone complain because a system is "too flexible".


----------



## SHARYNF (Feb 2, 2010)

JChenault said:


> musaev ( and others)
> 
> Sharyn - I understand you comments about experience. For a number of reasons we are committed to them.



Didn't mean you have to change the company, BUT I do suggest that you still try to get a lot of additional references so that you can check out what went wrong what went right and use this as a guide. Many times when you check references a while after the fact you will be given information from the venue somewhat along the lines of "well at the time this looked fine BUT" or If I had it to do over again I would have" This tends to point out weaknesses in the firm and areas that you really need to be careful about

Like some of the on there comments, I would question the treatment of the rear wall, the equipment spec'd vs the comments line array, I would look carefully at the center cluster, vs side hangs vs the low ceiling height along with the addition of the reflector panel. While I agree with Brad a well designed system should not have feedback issues on the front of the stage, John's comments about what you can find in problems in existing installs can be quite true.

Personally when it comes to reverb times, I would rather have an ability to alter these values based on the performance. I have seen very effective traveling drapes placed on the catworks work to allow for control of the liveness/deadness of the space instead of specing to a single amount.

Even thought TODAY you are only doing musicals, this could and based on experience tends to change, so while you can focus on that, I would be careful about making too many tradeoffs against other uses. 

Ie the comments about hard lines from stage instead of mainly using wireless, size of the pit etc

Just some cautions
Sharyn


----------



## museav (Feb 2, 2010)

John,

You know better than anyone else what your needs and goals are. And I am not going to question your Consultant when they are much more familiar with the project and probably have a lot more insight into all the project requirements. I also realize that renovations have many considerations that are not present in new construction. However, I will reiterate a couple of points already made and then add three.

It is very unusual for focusing on just the current use to be a good idea. It is typically better to think of what might be done rather than just what is currently or has been done. A simple example, say you want to build a speaker or mic into a set piece or simply want four mics and stands on stage for a performance, with the stage I/O planned that seems to require running cables around the stage including across entry and exit paths. It sounds like this is a comprehensive renovation so it would be a great opportunity to accommodate future flexibility by things like adding additional conduit, boxes and connectivity now.

Think carefully about your I/O and the console. The Narrative Description calls for a four channel effects system and there is reference to an Owner Furnished laptop for effects and program audio, so that sounds like six channels of input for that source (four effects channels and stereo program). They call for a CD/MP3 player in the booth, so that is another two channels. Eight channels of mics and one line input one each side of the stage. A couple of mic inputs, a line input and stereo program in the stage floor pocket. That is a total of 31 wired inputs. Add 12 to 18 wireless to start with the possibility of up to 24 wireless mics and that results in a minimum of 43 inputs initially and up to 55 inputs (or more if you add any in the pit, etc.) that appear to be planned. Yet the plan is for a 32 channel console. Even if the laptop is only a stereo input, the floor box has only one mic and you do not add any other inputs, it appears that you are still going to have to incorporate a larger console or some type of patching system, which is not at all unusual for this type of venue. However, that would be a significant operational consideration and should be clarified. It also relates to the planned multipin connections for the console.

I am surprised to not see any diffusion apparently recommended for the pit. With the recommended absorptive rear wall treatment there seems to be little to support ensemble amongst the musicians.

Has their been any effort to verify that your existing wireless mics can be reused? While I understand that it may not be possible to assess the potential of reusing some existing equipment items until the design progresses further, you should be able to determine if any wireless mics can be reused or if some might be affected by recent changes in the related laws.

The AV systems overview talks about an automatic mode that includes projection and there is later reference to a center stage floor box for audiovisual presentations including "video" inputs and to video control and scaling in the booth, however I have not found any actual discussion of video projection or mention of a projector, screen, etc. From what the "video" inputs are to how it could affect the budget to how you have a center stage lectern location that doesn't interfere with the projected image, it might be nice to know what is actually planned.

There are many other things that are unusual such as the mix position in a booth, the multipin connections for what seems to be a fixed console, the DSP at the booth instead of the amp rack, etc., but there may be specific reasons for these.


----------

