# Fixing the sound of my kid's Cafe-Gym-Atorium



## gafftaper (May 31, 2011)

My kids go to a small school with your classic small gym that get's used for lunch, music recitals, and P.E. The room's probably 40' wide x100' long x25' high. It has concrete walls with a ring of glass windows way up at the top. The ceiling is fairly flat, with a slight arch... probably 3 or 4 feet rise to the centerline. It has that old ceiling tile that was installed in every classroom in the 60's (remember killing time in math class trying to count all the holes?). Nice hardwood floors. The hard surface reflections in this room seem to go on forever! 

There is a single cone speaker that must be 40 years old at one end with a barely functional amp to match. Most of the time they use the portable system which consists of a small speaker (Brand unknown) about the size of a Macke 350 which is powered by an all in one mixer/amp box (brand unknown). I think the only mic the own are Shure pg 48's... which they use for everything from solos to long distance choir mics. There is a LOT wrong with this system. 

The principle just told me she has about $1500 to spend. My thoughts are as follow:

1) I don't have enough money to even scratch the surface of the speaker, amp, dsp, mixer problem. I really want to do a good full installation... which is probably going to cost $7500-$10k to do it right. There are several parents who are contractors who I could team up with to do this project labor free. There is also a movement underway for a big capital improvement drive and this could be part of that project in a few years. 

2) I could address the microphone problem with this money, but I question if this improvement would even be noticed with the rest of the problems. I'm not sure that it's wise to throw my money after better mics when the system sucks and the reflections are so bad. 

3) I could buy a lot of heavy weight velour and have a team of moms make monstrous "banners" to hang on as much of that wall surface as possible. This would make an immediate impact on the reflection issues and make both the existing system and the future system sound better. 

Do banners seem the wisest move to you acoustics gurus? 

Anyone have a better idea how to spend this pot of money?

EDIT: Footer sent me a link to http://www.acousticalsolutions.com pointing out several cool products. These look great but doing the math I can cover 1000 square feet of wall surface with 20 oz velour with my $1500. With the cheapest product on that site (4'x8'x2" PVC pannels filled with fiberglass) I can only cover 480 square feet at my budget. What are your thoughts on the effectiveness of 1000 sq feet of velour vs. 300-500 sq feet of a professionally designed acoustic tile product? Is quality or quantity more important?


----------



## bishopthomas (May 31, 2011)

Are you sure altering the acoustics takes priority over replacing equipment? I have worked in many rooms similar to what you describe and, while not the most ideal space, it can work just fine. Can you give us more specifics on exactly what problem(s) you're trying to fix? If the sound coming out of the speakers is garbage then putting up acoustical panels will not be a solution. If you do go the afoustic treatment route, of course make sure you're looking at FR or IFR fabrics.

Also, PG48's aren't the best but they'll certainly work.


----------



## museav (May 31, 2011)

For a number of reasons, I typically look at some combination of wall and ceiling treatments for such spaces. The ceiling treatment is often a spray-on, hanging baffles, catenary or 'wave' baffles or some combination of these. The wall treatment is often something like one of these, http://www.kineticsnoise.com/interiors/pdf/sportsboardconform.pdf, http://www.kineticsnoise.com/interiors/pdf/ksp.pdf or http://www.kineticsnoise.com/interiors/pdf/knp.pdf.

While wall fabrics may help the acoustical performance is going to be dependent on a number of things such as the fabric itself, the fullness and the spacing off the wall. That performance is typically difficult to predict, one reason I generally stay with manufactured materials is having known known acoustical performance data upon which to base any analyses. Of course durability and fire resistance are also considerations for any potential treatment. However, you already noted the reality that $1,500 is not going to get you that much area of that type of wall or ceiling treatment.

Another factor can be how any acoustical treatments actually affect the sound system. Putting acoustical absorption higher on the side walls may reduce the general reverberance of the space but will it do anything for any potentially problematic discrete reflections to the listeners? What is fairly common in similar situations is to 'deaden' down the space only to then start noticing specific reflections and echoes that were previously masked by the general reverberance. A slap back echo off the rear wall may have been just one of many arrivals at a listener, get rid of some of those but not the slap back and it may start becoming more apparent. So the issue becomes not just what materials you use but where they are located.

I'd also be careful of the existing ceiling, chances are it is not an issue but your reference to 1960's acoustical tile reminded me that acoustical ceiling tiles containing asbestos were once common, if the existing tiles do contain asbestos and you start doing anything with the ceiling that disturbs those tiles then you may get into needing to address asbestos abatement. That can quickly kill a budget. On the other hand, it can also sometimes justify the cost to do something to replacing the tile out of some other budget and in that process allow you to do something that may be more acoustically effective.


----------



## gafftaper (May 31, 2011)

bishopthomas said:


> Are you sure altering the acoustics takes priority over replacing equipment? I have worked in many rooms similar to what you describe and, while not the most ideal space, it can work just fine. Can you give us more specifics on exactly what problem(s) you're trying to fix? If the sound coming out of the speakers is garbage then putting up acoustical panels will not be a solution. If you do go the afoustic treatment route, of course make sure you're looking at FR or IFR fabrics.
> 
> Also, PG48's aren't the best but they'll certainly work.


 
My feeling is the acoustics takes priority because I can't really fix any other issue for $1500, but I can at least begin to address acoustics. But again that's why I posted this here to get other opinions. 

I'm not sure how I can be more specific. The built in system is toast. The existing portable system might be okay if the acoustics could be fixed. It's not spectacular but it's a functional little setup that would sound okay in a dead room. We definitely need some microphone upgrades, most notably we need some choral mics for those music recitals. Using two pg 48's to try to pickup a group of 25 kindergarten kids singing is just a joke. As I said I can use this $1500 to fix the mic problems however I'm not convinced it will make a difference if we can't get the reflections under control. 

Clearly it's a chicken or the egg scenario.


----------



## derekleffew (May 31, 2011)

gafftaper said:


> My kids go to a small school with your classic small gym that get's used for ...
> 
> Anyone have a better idea how to spend this pot of money? ...


Send your kids to a different school? 

"A multi purpose space is a no purpose space." --George Izenour, (NOT!)

"Wow, this school IS nice; their gym and auditorium are two different rooms!"--Lisa Simpson


----------



## gafftaper (May 31, 2011)

Don’t worry Derek, the first thing I did was pull in some favors to move the spring musical to the nearest real theater.


----------



## LXPlot (May 31, 2011)

Maybe you might try to do some repairs on the amps and speakers? With 1500USD, you certainly couldn't buy quality new equipment, but you might be able to get some repairs done on the old stuff to get it back into working condition.

For that price, you might even be able to purchase the start of some decent used stuff if that might help, assuming that Washington schools are allowed to.

But I'm just a HS Student, so take anything I say with a grain of salt.


----------



## BillESC (May 31, 2011)

Gaff, you could get a lot more coverage going with Commando Cloth instead of velour.


----------



## Nelson (May 31, 2011)

Can you be more specific about what is wrong with the existing system? I'm no expert, but it might not be that difficult to repair the current system. What kind of amp do they have? Just to be sure, have you checked the basics, such as connections and settings? I've had situations where folks have messed with settings that caused what seemed like serious issues. Once someone turned on a low pass filter on the main output of our system. I've also had people mess with the equalizer. 
Pictures of the current setup might help as well.

If the existing equipment is indeed faulty and repair is not practical, you could look at used equipment. I work in both tech and in the business office at my school, and we don't have any problem buying used equipment. Schools and states vary, of course, so check to be sure. I've been able to get decent results with very inexpensive, older equipment when budget was a hindrance. For instance, we can show movies with stereo sound in our auditorium thanks to a pair of monitor speakers and an old Realistic stereo amp I bought at a resale shop.

I know what ceiling you have because we have that in some of our classrooms (I also used to count the holes!). Ours is metal so there is no asbestos risk. However, asbestos might not be lurking too far away given the building's age.

-Nelson


----------



## museav (May 31, 2011)

Here's a quick summary of the acoustical properties of some drapery options and how they compare to some other materials, Theatrical Curtains and Acoustics. One important thing to note is the absorption at lower frequencies that are still relevant to speech and especially how that compares to materials such as 1" thick rock wool.


----------



## emac (May 31, 2011)

Is this school a Seattle Public School? Because if it is the asbestos should have already been inspected and a plan of action (or at least control) should have been formed for the building. Somewhere in the building there should be (at least from past experiences with SPS schools) a binder with Asbestos some thing plan on it. That should detail where the asbestos is, and what measures have been put in place to control or to remove it.


If you are in SPS I also have a contact at the central office that can supply ALL building plans for each school building. He is a great resource as I try and redo my space. I also might be able to suggest some places where you can get speakers/amps for free (or for very little) from the district.

PM if you want to get his info/other information on the district....


----------



## stagemanager1 (May 31, 2011)

gafftaper said:


> Do banners seem the wisest move to you acoustics gurus?
> 
> Anyone have a better idea how to spend this pot of money?
> 
> EDIT: Is quality or quantity more important?



[FONT=&quot]Hi Gaff. I am Chris - I have worked in sound and video for about 27 years, and have been involved in large scale events for the last 15 years. I do both live sound, and media system installation. Frequently - when we are in a big room with parallel walls - and mainly when there is a large flat back wall - we will rent a large curtain and hang it near the back wall. It really helps calm down the high frequency issue a lot. In your case - a typical "gymnatorium" - the high frequencies can wreak havoc on speech intelligibility. [/FONT]

Banners will help some. But as the site you mentioned states - thicker insulation provides better results. 

Can your contractor team help build acoustic panels? In my experience - 2" or 3" rigid fiberglass panels are the most common solution. You can buy the rigid fiberglass- cut them to 2'x4' or 4'x4', frame them with 3/4", and cover them with muslin. Put as many of those as possible between 8' up and the windows, and you will get a lot of benefit.

If you want to upgrade the mics - SM58s are only $100 each. Not the best for choir - but 4 of 'em will do a children's choir. It is the universal mic for a reason.

Quantity vs. Quality...... Hmmm. If you get enough *thick *curtain coverage - it will help - especially if you can get 2x or more area coverage than with sound panels. It only needs to come down to about 7' or 8' off the ground to give decent results.

I'm not an acoustician - just an experienced sound guy. I would personally get 4 SM58s, and figure out how to get $1100 worth of something on the walls. (google this: corning 703 - find the cheap imitation) If you use the panels - nail something to the wall that sticks into the panel and holds it while the liquid nails sets. But you have a lot of wall to cover.

Just my .02


----------



## Ric (May 31, 2011)

gafftaper said:


> My feeling is the acoustics takes priority ... SNIP...
> We definitely need some microphone upgrades, most notably we need some choral mics for those music recitals. Using two pg 48's to try to pickup a group of 25 kindergarten kids singing is just a joke. As I said I can use this $1500 to fix the mic problems however I'm not convinced it will make a difference if we can't get the reflections under control.
> .


 
As has been discussed in many threads, area micing a group is fraught with difficulties at the best of times. You're fighting an up hill battle already in a not ideal acoustical space, with a system that appears to be outdated, failing, & poorly designed for the purpose. 

To be blunt;New microphones in this situation will be a waste of money. Fix the problem with both the sound system & use some acoustic treatment first.

Acoustic panels while potentially solving the acoustics, are again probably a waste of money, especially in a room that is also used as a gymnasium. You want to have something that is hardy & durable that you're not going to mind if it gets hit with a basketball or volleyball...or loose shoe.. Curtains of some sort will be more likely to be visually appealing, as well as durable, and at a pinch can be taken down. Acoustic panels are unlikely to survive rough treatment, and if the room gets painted by someone with no knowledge of the function of the panels, will probably devalue their efficiency by painting them.

In this case it sounds like the basic sound system & speakers are what you should go for with the money, but also push the curtains, which could potentially come from either volunteers or ask a nearby facility/theatre if they have any old ones lying about. Here we've gifted old drapes to other smaller venues in the past.

Cheers,
Ric


----------



## gafftapegreenia (May 31, 2011)

"A multi purpose space is a no purpose space." --George Izenour, (NOT!)

My favorite comment on Izenour went something like, "Izenour was a genius architect, if only he hadn't hated the theatre".


----------



## fx120 (May 31, 2011)

New microphones would be pointless, like giving a guy with broken legs a new pair of shoes and expecting him to run a five minute mile. 

Treat the room acoustics. I just did an analysis of a "gymatorium" a few weeks ago of the space as it is now, and then again after the school had rented some pipe and heavy drape to define the "stage", and along the back wall behind the audience, as well as a few panels on the side walls. The difference was astounding and the data reflected the improvement we heard. 

The school has now budgeted about $2500 for new drape and acoustic tiles. I kind of shot myself in the ass on this one though, as they decided to go with purchasing drape instead of a new sound system from me 

If you've got the time to fiddle with it, you can download a demo of Smaart and take some IR measurments, save the WAV's and run them through Smaart Acoustic Tools (also a free demo) and generate some numbers for the space.


----------



## museav (May 31, 2011)

Ric said:


> Acoustic panels while potentially solving the acoustics, are again probably a waste of money, especially in a room that is also used as a gymnasium. You want to have something that is hardy & durable that you're not going to mind if it gets hit with a basketball or volleyball...or loose shoe.. Curtains of some sort will be more likely to be visually appealing, as well as durable, and at a pinch can be taken down. Acoustic panels are unlikely to survive rough treatment, and if the room gets painted by someone with no knowledge of the function of the panels, will probably devalue their efficiency by painting them.


Look at some of the products I linked, they make acoustical panels for just such applications and they're more durable and acoustically effective than drape, I've even used some in industrial and military spaces as well as prisons. Acoustical panels can also be mounted in a removable fashion if desired, I've worked on several gymnatoriums and black box theatres where we used wall treatments that could be moved to most effectively support different room configurations.

One of the factors that is often overlooked in quick analyses and site measurements is the effect of the audience. The absorption an audience, and air in very large spaces, represents can be quite significant An audience also provides diffusion, which in turn also increases the effective absorption. An example of the potential impact can be seen if looking at classical Reverberation Time based on the overall absorption in the space. An empty room may have X total amount of absorption while with an audience that may increase to 2X. So say you add another X amount of absorption, then for the empty room the total absorption would double and the reverb time halve, but for the room with people that same added absorption is just a 50% increase and the RT drops by just one third. The point is that the improvement one gains in areas such as general reverberance is typically going to seem more significant with the room empty than it will be with people in the room, which is the situation that really matters.

A corollary to this is that the same 'diminishing returns' effect applies to any treatments added. If you start with X absorption and add X additional absorption you then have 2X. But getting that same difference again would then require adding an additional 2X of absorption and 4X the next time and so on. In terms of general reverberation control you basically get the most 'bang for the buck' with the first bit of absorption added and each subsequent similar amount will have increasingly diminishing impact. That's why the most cost effective approach is often to first add absorption where it can provide the greatest benefit in aspects other than just general reverberance, that way you may be able to get the greatest benefit with the least material.

I'll also add that one common challenge is addressing slap back and other discrete specular reflections, flutter echo, room modes, etc. without also making a room too 'dead' or 'boomy'. Many times it is not just about adding large amounts of absorption but rather adding smaller amounts wisely and/or using treatments other than absorption.


----------



## Ric (May 31, 2011)

museav said:


> Look at some of the products I linked, they make acoustical panels for just such applications and they're more durable and acoustically effective than drape, I've even used some in industrial and military spaces as well as prisons. Acoustical panels can also be mounted in a removable fashion if desired, I've worked on several gymnatoriums and black box theatres where we used wall treatments that could be moved to most effectively support different room configurations.



Fair call Brad. I may have been a bit blunt in what I was trying to say. 

My point was more aimed at the low maintenance, low budget style of gymntoriums I've seen, and the type of care & maintenance they're given versus the cost of decent acoustic treatment. I was envisaging either foam style studio absorption, or dense, heavy rockwool stuffed panels, and the likelyhood of them being damaged by general Gym use. I wasn't aware that there were acoustic treatments that would suit that application ! 

Cheers,
Ric


----------



## gafftaper (Jun 1, 2011)

stagemanager1 said:


> [FONT=&quot]Can your contractor team help build acoustic panels? In my experience - 2" or 3" rigid fiberglass panels are the most common solution. You can buy the rigid fiberglass- cut them to 2'x4' or 4'x4', frame them with 3/4", and cover them with muslin. Put as many of those as possible between 8' up and the windows, and you will get a lot of benefit.


 
This is something I hadn't considered. We've litterally got an army of contractors and roofers who are happy to build stuff for free. I bet we could knock out dozens of them in a Saturday afternoon. Has anyone built them with positive results?


----------



## rwhealey (Jun 1, 2011)

Tectum is one example of a durable sound absorber - you've probably seen it before as it is quite common. Here is a picture.

It's made of wood and is very tough.


----------



## museav (Jun 1, 2011)

gafftaper said:


> This is something I hadn't considered. We've litterally got an army of contractors and roofers who are happy to build stuff for free. I bet we could knock out dozens of them in a Saturday afternoon. Has anyone built them with positive results?


DIY acoustical panels are pretty common and can be quite effective, however this really gets into the "doing something" versus "trying to achieve a goal" aspect. The acoustical performance of the panels is going to depend on many factors and details and since there is no testing of the panels to establish the resulting acoustical performance or characteristics, then you can't really account for any specific results. Basically, DIY acoustical panels will likely help, however the results would be very difficult to predict and thus they are not a practical approach to try to achieve any particular improvement or goal. Similar issues also apply to aspects such as flame spread and smoke created as even if the components are all properly rated, the panel assembly may not be tested and rated as an assembly or in that specific application.

I do have to say that having the panels starting at 8' A.F.F. would typically not be the most efficient application of them especially with ground stacked or pole mounted speakers. What will likely happen is that the overall reverberance of the room would probably decrease but the panels would be too high to impact on anything directly affecting the listeners or the speaker-to-listener paths. This is always a challenge in gym type spaces but wall panels are usually going to be most effective if applied where they directly impact the listeners, which typically means primarily at ear height and slightly above that.

If you try DIY panels there are some common tricks. For example, putting a panel on sleepers can increase the effective depth of the panel, for example a 1" thick panel mounted on 2x4 sleepers to create a 1-1/2" airspace behind the panel may acoustically perform more like a 2" thick acoustical panel. Or that being able to easily to breathe through or blow smoke through the covering fabric can help determine if the fabric is 'acoustically transparent' and thus won't negatively impact the acoustical performance of the core behind it.

I also wanted to address baffles and banners since they are a very common treatment in gym type spaces. There are several reasons for that with an important one being that both sides can be exposed to the space thus doubling the effective surface area. And since they are hanging in the space rather than mounted to reflective surfaces, they can also help break up as well as absorb sound. And since they are usually some distance from the people, the finish materials are often more utilitarian (and cheaper). However, with hanging treatments one does have to be very careful of the potential impact on lighting, HVAC and especially sprinkler systems.

Related story but some years ago part of my work included audio and acoustical consulting services for a client that built a large number of multi-purpose spaces. Apparently they mounted a number of competing 'impact resistant', fabric wrapped acoustical wall panels in an existing space and let a bunch of kids loose on them with basketballs, volleyballs, etc. and found that panels with a denser face material such as a perforated metal or plastic or a denser fiberglass board layer under the fabric fared best as they not only resisted damage from balls but also limited damage from sharper objects such as corners on chairs or table carts.


----------



## gafftaper (Jun 2, 2011)

Thanks everyone, lots of great thoughts there! I've got to determine more about the long term goals and intentions of the school. Judging the commitment to upgrading the existing equipment is an important factor to gauge as well.


----------



## FMEng (Jun 3, 2011)

Make sure that any cloth, drape, foam, or other material used to treat the acoustics has fire ratings. Fire Marshals get very curious about acoustic materials of any type, thinking they might contain the dreaded, flammable foam. If you don't you might wind up having to remove your hard work later.

The best way to handle it is to buy materials from a dealer that will provide fire testing documentation. Put a copy behind plastic on the wall in a janitor's closet, mechanical room, or someplace where the building staff can point to it during inspection.


----------



## gafftaper (Jun 3, 2011)

FMEng said:


> Make sure that any cloth, drape, foam, or other material used to treat the acoustics has fire ratings. Fire Marshals get very curious about acoustic materials of any type, thinking they might contain the dreaded, flammable foam. If you don't you might wind up having to remove your hard work later.
> 
> The best way to handle it is to buy materials from a dealer that will provide fire testing documentation. Put a copy behind plastic on the wall in a janitor's closet, mechanical room, or someplace where the building staff can point to it during inspection.


 
Thanks, that's a great idea!


----------



## SHARYNF (Jun 6, 2011)

I had a similar type venue and Brad's comments make a lot of sense. I did find that by making deflection panels for the ceiling (I used lanai on 1X6 boards cut to a curve) backed with Dense Fiber Glass hung so reduce the ceiling height and deflect, and Making a series of 4x8 panels that were hinged in the middle filled with 4 inches of Fiberglass and then positioned around the rooms ln a protruding triangle shape so that the not only were absorbing but also reduced the flat surfaces. In addition Banners made of commando cloth worked. Being able to hang and move the surfaces and treatments did work. Granted as Brad said the results are un predictable since these are DYI but for not a lot of money you can make a considerable improvement. IN addition, some of the options are to make sure the speakers are high up tilted down to the audience to reduce some of the reflection, and also side fill speakers with proper delay and again high up tilted down can also help

Sharyn


----------



## gafftaper (Jun 6, 2011)

Thanks Sharyn, Permanent installation of some speakers way up pointed down are definitely on my long term list of needs.


----------



## chausman (Jun 6, 2011)

I'm just curious, if the purpose of the curtains/acoustic tiles is to absorb sound, wouldn't that mean that lone 40+ year old speaker must work harder to fill that room to the point were everyone can hear?


----------



## rwhealey (Jun 6, 2011)

chausman said:


> I'm just curious, if the purpose of the curtains/acoustic tiles is to absorb sound, wouldn't that mean that lone 40+ year old speaker must work harder to fill that room to the point were everyone can hear?


 
Not exactly. The people in the audience should still be getting the same amount of direct sound they were getting before, just less reflected sound, which arrives later than the direct sound and therefore causes problems with intelligibility.


----------



## DuckJordan (Jun 7, 2011)

But it is a single speaker covering the gym... I could foresee increasing intelligibility in areas that are directly in the path of the speakers cone and the other area's become worse. Its a single speaker and not a distributed system in what sounds to be a fairly large room.

It may take some experimenting to find the best place to hang the curtains to still allow some reflection, but on the same note its about controlling the reflections not eliminating them.


----------



## gafftaper (Jun 7, 2011)

Well this thread is officially dead. I did some more research today and discovered that almost all the sound equipment belongs to the Music teacher who is retiring next week and taking it all with him. The school owns a pair of Peavy SP 5G speakers (with tripods) and has a pair of JBL SR 4725A speakers on "long term loan". So acoustic treatment is no longer in the budget. 

From my brief initial research it looks like both are pretty decent speakers (with the JBL's being better but heavier and power hungry). Any opinions on these speakers would be appreciated. 

I need to discuss the long term plans for system use with some people at the school before we start talking about amps and mixers.


----------



## museav (Jun 7, 2011)

DuckJordan said:


> But it is a single speaker covering the gym... I could foresee increasing intelligibility in areas that are directly in the path of the speakers cone and the other area's become worse. Its a single speaker and not a distributed system in what sounds to be a fairly large room.


How do you see it becoming worse in other areas?

This actually seems to reflect a trick sometimes used with predictive modeling like EASE in order to try to make a particular product look like a good solution. Stick a speaker in the room (perhaps with accurate modeling of the room and finishes, perhaps not), look at the total energy (with interference turned off) and show how nice the level and coverage looks. But what about the resulting Direct/Reverberant energy ratio, Intelligibility (STI or %ALCONS), interference, ITDG (Initial Time Delay Gap), Impulse Response, etc. that also impact the perceived quality of the sound in many applications? That is where the room shape and finishes can have the most impact and while adding absorptive surfaces may reduce the overall level slightly at some points, it tends can improve many of the other aspects for many applications.


----------



## gafftaper (Jun 7, 2011)

So moving from a discussion of acoustics to buying a small sound system. Question one for the school is do they want to just replace the current simple all in one system, in which case I can build a nice system for $1500 or do they want to upgrade to a larger more pro setup... possibly one that can be used with a future built in system or portable. 

I'm envisioning something like a 16 channel mixer, a big amp, EQ, CD player, build a nice rolling rack to keep it all in. You can roll it wherever you want and use with the existing speakers. Once a year there is a big fall festival on the school grounds, with a concert stage. Last year we paid a lot of money to rent a sound system. With this upgrade all I need to do is rent a couple of extra stage monitors and I'm good to go. If we can set aside a couple more grand in the future we can get a DSP and install some wall mount speakers in the gym to be the other half of the system. 

So:
I'm thinking something like: 
Mackie VLZ3 16x4 mixer $900
Crown XTi 4002 $1000
ART 31 Band EQ $330
Furman power conditioner M-8Lx $100
Numark MP103USB MP3/USB/CD player $200
2 SM58's, stands, cables, couple of cheap direct boxes, rack rail, wood for case... another $500ish
Total package around $3000

So suggestions to cutting costs? Obvious I would be consulting my favorite dealers for bid, I just jumped on Sweetwater to get some pricing to start with. I want to build something on a budget but decent quality. It will mostly be operated by students that I train or myself. Does that amp make sense? is it overkill? Do you have any favorite alternatives I should consider to these products? I'm just sort of picking stuff out of the air at this point without much research going into it, but this is the general idea of what I'm looking for. They told me they have $1500 to spend. So I'm going to be pushing my luck getting up to $3,000. 

Finally how do you feel about buying a good amp and using the existing speakers vs. buying a set of powered new speakers and dumping the old ones?


----------



## DuckJordan (Jun 7, 2011)

gafftaper said:


> So moving from a discussion of acoustics to buying a small sound system. Question one for the school is do they want to just replace the current simple all in one system, in which case I can build a nice system for $1500 or do they want to upgrade to a larger more pro setup... possibly one that can be used with a future built in system or portable.
> 
> I'm envisioning something like a 16 channel mixer, a big amp, EQ, CD player, build a nice rolling rack to keep it all in. You can roll it wherever you want and use with the existing speakers. Once a year there is a big fall festival on the school grounds, with a concert stage. Last year we paid a lot of money to rent a sound system. With this upgrade all I need to do is rent a couple of extra stage monitors and I'm good to go. If we can set aside a couple more grand in the future we can get a DSP and install some wall mount speakers in the gym to be the other half of the system.
> 
> ...


 
This is one of the situations where I would say get an amp, so upgrading to better speakers is cheaper in the future. Unless your going to be keeping the speakers for at least 6-8 years (average) and will need no upgrade or updating then you could go with active speakers. 

Since everything in this system is going to be run by trained people why not keep the things separate (also makes adjusting Amp levels easier to do since you don't have the amps in the speakers in possibly hard to get to areas.

Do a basic cost layout of building your own vs. buying a custom built road case. With as much as will be in it. it may be cheaper and possibly better built by someone who does custom cases for their business.

Just my 2 cents, I'm doing a sound gig early july that consists of active speakers in a situation where i won't be able to leave the console during the show, Makes figuring out problems difficult.


----------



## avkid (Jun 7, 2011)

Don't forget about Audiopile for your cables, rack and DI's.
Audiopile Pro Audio* Welcome to Audiopile


----------



## MarshallPope (Jun 7, 2011)

Depending on just how much of an issue cost is, and how many inputs you need, I have been fairly happy with the Yamaha mg166 series boards. They only have 8 mono and 4 stereo inputs, making them great for playback, but that could be an issue if you foresee needing more. My major complaint with the boards are their clunky mute buttons. One of these could save you $500-600, though.


----------



## museav (Jun 8, 2011)

gafftaper said:


> I need to discuss the long term plans for system use with some people at the school before we start talking about amps and mixers.




gafftaper said:


> So moving from a discussion of acoustics to buying a small sound system. Question one for the school is do they want to just replace the current simple all in one system, in which case I can build a nice system for $1500 or do they want to upgrade to a larger more pro setup... possibly one that can be used with a future built in system or portable.




gafftaper said:


> 2 SM58's, stands, cables, couple of cheap direct boxes, rack rail, wood for case... another $500ish


All the mics, stands, cables, case/rack, etc. for a fully functional system with a 16 channel mixer for $500 seems a little low but then this goes back to the other two comments as it is not real clear what the envisioned use and related needs are for the sound system. For example..

Is this an elementary school, middle school or high school?

What type of events are envisioned and are there known audio needs associated with those?

Was the existing system portable because that is what was desired or because it belonged to an instructor rather than to the school? Would it be desirable to have some components or capabilities of the system available at all times without requiring any significant setup or a trained operator?

Is there a permanent stage or a defined stage location?

Is the 'long term loan' arrangement for the JBL SR4725A speakers such that you can count on them always being available?

Is any cost above the $1,500 budget actually viable? Is $3,000 practical and if so, then might $4,000 or $5,000 or more also be possible?


I'm concerned of this turning into a situation where you are looking at it from the perspective of a comprehensive, long term solution while the administration may be thinking the $1,500 and look at any subsequent investment from the perspective that 'they just invested $1,5000 and now you want more?' Of trying to address the needs and results versus spending a certain dollar amount that does not reflect any specific needs or solutions. That's why I think that even with the limited budget and system involved here it is important to verify and document the goals before addressing any particular solutions.


----------



## gafftaper (Jun 8, 2011)

This is a small K-8 Catholic school. The primary use of this system is school assemblies with just one microphone. These may take place in several different locations so portability is key. Monday, for example, there was a big barbecue out on the playground with parents and kids. The sound system was used to make announcements and play music. 

The school owns the speakers. The music teacher owns the mixer/amp. The church, located across the street, owns the SM58's and cable. The music teacher has spent the last 20 years carrying mics back and forth for every event sometimes resulting in mics in the wrong location at a critical time. There is a permanent defined stage in the Cafe-Gym-Atorium but it's very poor (new curtains is an entirely different budget problem). This is where the ancient dead installed system hangs.

I spoke with the owners of the JBL's yesterday. Their oldest daughter is finishing pre-school with my son. They plan to have both of their kids attend the school all the way through and short of the husband "getting the band back together" (which seems very unlikely) they will stay at the school. 

The existing system was small and portable both for simplicity of operation, budget, and ease of use. The school has $1500 set aside, but I think $3,000 or a little more is in reach simply because they spend so much renting for those few events that require more than an all in one. 

Clearly the balance of simple to use all in one vs. the capacity of a real mixing console to reinforce a small stage concert is the critical point in all this. There is traction to buy a better system than an all in one because of the amount that is thrown away every year renting a better system for large events. Who will operate it? I know I was learning to run a 16 channel mixer in 5th grade. I can see myself training a team of tech kids to handle simple events and be my crew for more complex ones. 

As for the $500 for mics, I'm thinking $500 to just get us started with two mics and the cables needed to make that two mic system go. (We can still borrow extra from the church). I'm going to push them to try to squeeze another $1500 out of next year's budget to expand the mic collection (especially into getting some choral mics). 

$4000-$5000 might be possible at this point. I'm planning to put together a multi-level budget for them. $3000 get's you this, if you want choral mics it will cost you $X more, if you want to add a permanent setup in the gym it'll cost you $Y on top of that. My feeling is if done right, my "portable" kit above could in the future have a DSP added and roll into the gym and plug into the hung speakers and become the heart of an installed system. There will never be any sort of permanent mixing location in the gym anyway as it would have to be installed on the basketball court.


----------



## gafftaper (Jun 9, 2011)

So let's talk hardware:

I think these amps are in my price range and appear to be strong enough to handle those JBL SR4725A which are rated at 600W RMS. What do you think? I'm thinking that in terms of headroom, the XLS 5000D is probably the best choice. In terms of quality it's probably the QSC QLX, but it costs a lot more and has less headroom. On the other hand I can save a good deal of money with the Peavy or Yamaha options. But can they handle the JBL's? Thoughts on the best match for those speakers on a budget? Also if you think you have a better choice please share: 
Crown XLS 5000D 1100W @8 ohms $1000
Crown XTi 4002 650 W @ 8 ohms $1000
QSC QLX 3102 600W @ 8 ohms $1130
QSC PLX 1804 [email protected] @ 8 ohms $800
Peavy PV 3800 775W @ 8 ohms $830
Yamaha P 7000S 700W @ 8 ohms $750

As for mixers I'm liking these little rack mount options for a non-powered model. What do you think? 
Yamaha MG206C $640 (+$40 for USB model but I don't see a need for it in our application should I get it?) 
Mackie 1542 VLZ3 $650
In that same price range but not rack mountable but tempting. 
Allen and Heath ZED 24 $700

If I have to go with a powered amp I think the best choices are:
Peavey XR 1220 $1100 20 channels _a big plus_, 600W x 2 amp _4 ohms I think_, built in RTA and feedback kill _again is it any good?_ 
Mackie PPM1012 $1100 12 channels, 800W x 2 amp (not sure about this it says 800x2 but also says 800 mains & 800 monitors suggesting it's more like 400x4), 
Yamaha EMX5014C $730 14 channels, 500W x 2 amp 4 ohms
Yamaha EMX5016CF $1000 500W x 2 amp 4 ohms, 16 channels, built in feedback suppression (will it be useful?). 
Again what are your thoughts?


----------



## chausman (Jun 9, 2011)

I personally love QSC's GX line. The GX7 is enough for those speakers. I've seen some good deals on them. And, for portability, the GX7 weighs 15.5 pounds. And, I have picked one up...its amazing. They have XLR, 1/4", and RCA inputs. And 1/4", SpeakOn, banana plugs, and binding posts for outputs. And, if you were to add subs, or use it with some, it has a built in crossover.


----------



## gafftaper (Jun 9, 2011)

QSC GX7 725W at 8 ohms for $600
Thanks Chase I missed that in my researching prices vs power because it was so cheap I wasn't even looking down below $700. Looks like an excellent option. 

Anybody see a reason to not go with the GX7? With the JBL's that's 125 watts of headroom... which isn't great but something. Anybody know that JBL SR4725A well enough to know how accurate that 600W RMS is?


----------



## museav (Jun 10, 2011)

gafftaper said:


> Anybody see a reason to not go with the GX7? With the JBL's that's 125 watts of headroom... which isn't great but okay. Anybody know that JBL SR4725A well enough to know how accurate that 600W RMS is?


First, a few nit-picky details. The GX amps, and many other amps, are rated at 1kHz, so unless you only run a 1kHz tone through them then the power in actual use will likely be less, say maybe closer to 625-650W than 725W. The SR4725A is rated 600W continuous, not RMS (there is no such thing as RMS Watts). The relationship of the amp power rating and speaker power does not define headroom, it defines the maximum crest factor the system can accommodate when providing the maximum average level the speaker can handle.

The 600W continuous rating of the SR4725A is probably just as accurate as for any speaker but it is based on a specific signal and certain test conditions that although intended to represent 'typical' use, may not represent all potential use that well. However, since the JBL's are potentially a temporary solution I would not worry too much about how the amp relates to them other than considering a) will it provide the output needed and b) with no system processing and K-8 student operators, will it help avoid potentially damaging a speaker that they don't own, probably isn't covered by their insurance and that they likely couldn't afford to replace? On either of those points you might want to look at providing a bit more power so that you can generate greater output and do so without pushing the amp too hard. Something like a 900-1,200W per channel rated amp might be preferred from that perspective but that almost certainly also becomes a cost factor. And in terms of the difference to which any additional cost may correpsond,the difference between say 650W and 1,000W is only 2.2dB, so potentially noticeable but not a real significant difference.

I would tend to go with a separate mixer and amp for three reasons. First, it allows more flexibility in selecting something that meets your needs for both the mixer and the amplifier. Second, if something fails you're more likely to be able to borrow or rent a mixer or amplifier that will work for you than a mixer/amp. Finally, similar to the second point, this provides much greater flexibility in terms of being used with different mixers, speakers, etc. if required for special events.

The one aspect I am still not sure about is the balance of the typical use and the special event use. I understand wanting to avoid having to rent equipment for some typical special events, but the trade-off seems to be additional complexity and wear and tear on the equipment for the more prevalent usage. I'd want to make sure that the people paying for the equipment and relying on it working clearly understand that there will be some setup and the need for an operator associated with any use of the system.

FWIW, I'd be careful with the assumption that the band getting back together won't likely happen as there are no real limits on when something like that can happen. Just last year I started playing on a semi-regular basis with a group that includes several of us who had not played for a number of years. Just about everyone who has been part of that is 50 or over and many have families, so you never know when the "we're getting the band back together" call may come.


----------



## gafftaper (Jun 10, 2011)

First off thanks for the lesson Brad. I consider myself a skilled board op, but nothing more in the sound world so your advice is greatly appreciated. You'll notice I don't post all that often in the sound forum, I mostly read and learn. 

So it sounds like something in the range of that Crown XLS 5000D (1100W @8 ohms) is probably a much better choice in order to avoid speaker damage. It's $400 more than the GX7, but that's not a deal breaker. When I initially saw the size of those speakers I was thinking I should shoot for something nearly double their rating. It's certainly good insurance against having to replace those speakers and being able to put out some big bass. 

As for the usage issue, I'm right there with you. I'm going to put together several package options and present them to the Principal and several other key people next week. The most important thing in that meeting is for me to get across that this isn't really a choice about saving money long term in rentals, it's really a question of if they want to deal with staffing events with someone who knows how to operate the equipment or not. At this point I'm planning on being around that school 9 more years so I can teach kids and staff how to use it and run the system at concert events, but I won't always be there. What if things go south and I decide to leave next year?

So back to gear questions:
1) Sound boards in the 16-20 channel $700 neighborhood: Mackie vs. Yamaha vs. Allen and Heath? I'm thinking that a rack mount mixer in something like a "Gig Rig" rack would be a good choice for ease of setup, storage, and portability if we go that route. Is A&H worth $300 more? 

2) I'm tempted by the new baby Presonus 16.0.2 digital as it doesn't cost that much more, but I'm afraid it's too complex. If I went that route could I pre-program a bunch of settings that would actually make it easier to use? Or am I just fooling myself thinking like that? 

3) Are there any opinions on Mackie vs. Peavey vs. Yamaha in powered mixers?


----------



## rwhealey (Jun 10, 2011)

gafftaper said:


> First off thanks for the lesson Brad. I consider myself a skilled board op, but nothing more in the sound world so your advice is greatly appreciated. You'll notice I don't post all that often in the sound forum, I mostly read and learn.
> 
> So it sounds like something in the range of that Crown XLS 5000D (1100W @8 ohms) is probably a much better choice in order to avoid speaker damage. It's $400 more than the GX7, but that's not a deal breaker. When I initially saw the size of those speakers I was thinking I should shoot for something nearly double their rating. It's certainly good insurance against having to replace those speakers and being able to put out some big bass.
> 
> ...


 
Do you really need that many channels? If you don't, consider an Ashly MX508 - it's less intimidating.


----------



## gafftaper (Jun 11, 2011)

I think the point is we either go big and get something that I can run a full band performance with or we just buy another all in one powered mixer and forget it.


----------



## gafftaper (Jun 12, 2011)

What do you think about putting a dbx Driverack PA+ instead of the Graphic EQ? It's quite a bit expensive, but I like the idea of being able to tune the room, program the Driverack and then leave it in charge of keeping everything in control while a kid operates the system.


----------



## rwhealey (Jun 12, 2011)

gafftaper said:


> What do you think about putting a dbx Driverack PA+ instead of the Graphic EQ? It's quite a bit expensive, but I like the idea of being able to tune the room, program the Driverack and then leave it in charge of keeping everything in control while a kid operates the system.


 
The Driverack PA+ only has 10ms of delay per output - not enough to do system alignment. It would suck to have to replace the processor when the speakers are redone if a semi distributed or distributed system is used.

Anybody know how much the Biamp Nexia units are? That might be a good choice, if they're cost effective.


----------



## DuckJordan (Jun 12, 2011)

rwhealey said:


> The Driverack PA+ only has 10ms of delay per output - not enough to do system alignment. It would suck to have to replace the processor when the speakers are redone if a semi distributed or distributed system is used.
> 
> Anybody know how much the Biamp Nexia units are? That might be a good choice, if they're cost effective.


 
I actually saw a demo of these units. Way overkill for this situation. Its also more designed for Conference centers and things such as a 70v system. There are better options out there than the Biamp systems.


----------



## chausman (Jun 12, 2011)

rwhealey said:


> The Driverack PA+ only has 10ms of delay per output - not enough to do system alignment. It would suck to have to replace the processor when the speakers are redone if a semi distributed or distributed system is used.


 
Yes it's only up to 10ms of delay, but are you (Gafftaper) planning on using it as a delay, or for acting as an EQ/crossover/feedback destroyer(we've all read about those though)/compressor that you could save different locations on where the system might be used? The DriveRack can also be use to save different locations so you don't have to go and reprogram it every time you use it. That seems like enough of a reason to get it for a schools portable system.

And, if you were planning on having a system where older students would use it, the Feedback destroyer (while people on CB may not like them) may be useful for newer ops, and a majority of the audience won't notice. And, it has compressors so you have less gear to haul around, and extra protection for newer ops as well.

IMO


----------



## gafftaper (Jun 12, 2011)

Chase nailed it. I don't care at about the delay or crossover. I was looking at it as a good quality 28 band EQ/RTA/Auto EQ/Feedback Destroy/Compressor/Limiter. The way I read the dbx propaganda, the driverack PA+ was designed for things like small bands moving from club to club (that may not have a very good engineer with them). The band can setup the system, let it tune the room, and walk away and play their music while the driverack pa+ monitors everything. 

Now I know that this thing is not even close to having a pro sitting at the console. And yes I know that feedback killers do not sound great and make engineers cringe. However, please go with me for a second and consider the pros and cons of using a feedback killer vs. a 5th grader with no trained supervision on site running school assemblies. By the way for you young folks, I was running a 16 channel mixer when I was in 5th grade so don't think I'm committing age discrimination here. The point is I had a supervisor who was there to help me if I got over my head. These kids often wont, but the driverack pa+ could be that supervisor. I'm thinking I could take the system around to the various locations in the school, program the driverack and then just train the kids to select the correct room on the menu and everything is set. Let it run all it's real time digital magic and I'm making it easier for them to not make mistakes.

I was originally looking at that ART 31 band EQ with the feedback analysis system that tells you which bands to adjust to remove feedback... again thinking this would help a young kid be a better technician. But that EQ is $300. For $200 more I can upgrade to the driverack pa+ and all that stuff is automated and the kid/or teacher doesn't have to touch it.

Thoughts? Do you like the idea of that ART 31 band EQ instead of the driverack?


----------



## chausman (Jun 12, 2011)

gafftaper said:


> Chase nailed it.
> 
> By the way for you young folks, I was running a 16 channel mixer when I was in 5th grade so don't think I'm committing age discrimination here.
> 
> Thoughts? Do you like the idea of that ART 31 band EQ instead of the driverack?


 
First off, thanks.

I first learned sound on a yammy 01v in third grade...wasn't the best at it either! (but I knew what I was doing)

I really like the idea of being able to save multiple venues and recall them later. I would love to get one for myself. For systems where relatively untrained ops, I am a big fan of digitized and simplified systems. (as in mostly preprogrammed)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## museav (Jun 12, 2011)

gafftaper said:


> Chase nailed it. I don't care at about the delay or crossover. I was looking at it as a good quality 28 band EQ/RTA/Auto EQ/Feedback Destroy/Compressor/Limiter. The way I read the dbx propaganda, the driverack PA+ was designed for things like small bands moving from club to club (that may not have a very good engineer with them). The band can setup the system, let it tune the room, and walk away and play their music while the driverack pa+ monitors everything.


Expanding the concept of automated operation, then why not buy an automixer and forego an operator? For a group on a budget the dbx PA+ can do okay for system tuning but relying on the PA+ alone, and especially on it doing things automatically, seems to have several potential considerations. For one, the general consensus seems to be to either avoid the AutoEQ function altogether or to use it just to get some starting point, but to not rely on it to give a desired result. Similar with the auto feedback destroyer, it may not be bad for a single mic use but since it's on the overall mix rather than an input or group, what might it do when you have multiple mics and music and EFX all mixed together? The DRPA+ is also not that user friendly for adjustments during use, it is much more a 'set and forget' device than one you'd want to have to be adjusting during a performance or event. An approach using both the ART and the PA+ with the PA+ setup for the system processing (EQ of the speakers, crossover if needed at any point, comp/limiter, etc.) that would not change between events and then using the ART for event specific tuning could be more effective.

This also seems to go back to the point of simple use. If the standard process for the system setup included configuring the processor you then require greater knowledge and time for every setup. My concern is not whether you could find some students who could handle it but that you would be creating a situation where you depend on having such a student, and their time, for every single use. Pull everything out, setup the speakers, run cables, adjust the PA+, set levels, etc. just for someone to make a few announcements, then take it all down and start over again for the next event. I know the budget probably prohibits this being done all at once but a concept where there is a permanent system with basic automixing for a few permanent mic inputs into which the mixer could then connect when required is often a better long term approach in similar situations. Something where the basic system could be setup and left and even a administrator could turn it on, plug in a mic and use it, but with the ability to also easily accommodate a mixer with it's own EQ, etc. for other events.


----------



## gafftaper (Jun 12, 2011)

You are so right about doing the complete system with an auto mixer Brad. The problem is we have three primary needs: A simple setup of one microphone in the gym, a three day festival once a year with a concert stage and a different band every hour, and a musical in the spring off campus. The truth is each event has completely different needs and to make every event happy is going to cost $15,000... not $1,500

Chase you were a lucky little kid getting to use an O1V in 3rd grade.


----------



## avkid (Jun 12, 2011)

gafftaper said:


> Chase you were a lucky little kid getting to use an O1V in 3rd grade.


 That sounds more like a tortured childhood to me.


----------



## dvsDave (Jun 13, 2011)

As far as speakers go, can I put forth a recommendation for the QSC K8 or K10 speakers? These speakers put out a sound that just belies their size. They have nice built-in mount points for install work and the clarity from the tremulous highs of a sweeping violin (mic'ed a world-class violist two weeks ago at church, he plays in the national orchestra, and is just jaw-droppingly good) to the deep, rich sounds of a 6 string bass. 

Best of all, the K8's are only about $600 a pop.


----------



## chausman (Jun 13, 2011)

avkid said:


> That sounds more like a tortured childhood to me.


 
Not to me!!! 

dvsDave said:


> As far as speakers go, can I put forth a recommendation for the QSC K8 or K10 speakers? These speakers put out a sound that just belies their size. They have nice built-in mount points for install work and the clarity from the tremulous highs of a sweeping violin (mic'ed a world-class violist two weeks ago at church, he plays in the national orchestra, and is just jaw-droppingly good) to the deep, rich sounds of a 6 string bass.
> 
> Best of all, the K8's are only about $600 a pop.


 
I really like the K series. I though they were a lot more then that though. must have been thinking about those jbl eons...


----------



## gafftaper (Jun 14, 2011)

Well we are pursing the full system upgrade listed above with the addition of two SRM 350's. The idea being that for a really simple setup, they can plug a mic into a SRM 350 and be good to go. While I can also use them as stage monitors for a full setup. They really listened to my concerns about the full system adding logistical complications that need to be considered. The SRM 350's seemed like a great solution to me. Now to get quotes and find the money. 

If you are a dealer and can cut me a deal, send me a PM.


----------



## jkowtko (Jun 18, 2011)

I've been running sound for the middle school winter and spring concerts (choir, string orchestra, band, guitar ensemble, jazz band, faculty rock band) for a few years now, and if you want to stay on budget you might want to consider doing what I'm doing:

* SRM450 speakers and speaker stands. I would not pernanently mount anything in a gym, and I think freestanding speakers give the best acoustic result, eliminating most wall-based reflections and keepin the sound source in the open. Self-powered is much simpler than speaker+amp, especially for a school with laymen and varying needs. I would not get the SRM350s ... they sound like crap compared with the SRM450 ... I've used both and would only buy the 450. I think they also sound better than Yamaha or JBL self-powered.

* If you have raised bleachers inthe gym, then your audience will be your acoustic buffer. I use nothing on the walls, position the speakers 15 feet from the edge of the audience seating area and point towards the center. Works great for me.

* I also have a center fill, using an Anchor AN-1000x ... bought it used for $100. I have another one I use for the choir monitor, so they can hear the piano.

* board: I am using my 01v96, but have also used analog here as well. For the school's budget I suggest starting small, such as a Mackie profx12, just so you can get some mics out there. It's a very inexpensive board at just under $250 new.

* mics: Those dynamics mics won't pick up any kid more than 4 inches away. I've used a bunch of Behringer C2s, and at $50/pr you cannot beat the price-to-quality ratio. The parents for the first time can hear their children singing in the choir, and the quality of those voices doesn't warrant anything better than a Behringer. And these condensors will pick up anything you point them at, regardless of distance. I also have some decent CAD mics that I will use when I want sharp pickup on percussion, but otherwise the cheap ones work just fine for the school.

* forget about compressor or GEQ unless you can find them cheap used. I pretty much run everything flat and work on mic placement to eliminate feedback due to resonance in the room. Having the digital board helps a lot, but you can manage without.

* FX is on your little Mackie board -- so you can make the gym sound like a concert hall (I have come close to it).

So, for $1500 or close to it:
* 2 SRM450 with stands ($1200)
* Mackie profx12 ($250)
* 2 pr Behringer C2s ($100)
* 4 GLS audio SM-57/58 knockoffs ($120)
* 10-pak GLS 50' XLR ($120)
* 10-pak sound stage boom tripod stands ($100)
* Behringer stereo DI for the video player ($30)

** GLS is Orange County Speaker. I have bought a ton of cables from them over time, nice clutch-based neutrik-like connectors, and have never had a bad cable or end. (other brands, have had several bad cables)

** The cheapo mic stands I bought as disposable, but after three years have had no breakages. One of my best investments yet 

If you like any of the above, I'll be happy to make suggestions for hte next tier of inexpensive add-ons to the kit. I have run anywhere from 14 to 24 channels for these concerts. I'm sure you could spend $10k for this school, but I think you can just as easily spend $2k with roughly the same result.

Thanks. John


----------



## techno89 (Jun 18, 2011)

Just to give you an idea of my high school's portable setup and I'm sorry if this is at the wrong time but I am just chiming into this now (usually in the lighting forum):

On a cart we have two Mackie unpowered speakers, Cable, Stands, and a Mackie All in one Mixer/Amp. We keep the Shure PGX24's in a secure area and bring them out as needed. 

In our auditorium, which is installed, we keep it very simple so the tech people don't need to get involved for assemblies. We have (in a closet) a small 8ch Mackie board, a QSC amp and a rack mount power switch (thing) to turn it all on off, and a shure mic receiver always hooked, (the asst principal keeps a mic) so they can walk in any time and have a wireless working and if they need anything past that than the tech people can get involved.


----------



## museav (Jun 19, 2011)

jkowtko said:


> * SRM450 speakers and speaker stands. I would not pernanently mount anything in a gym, and I think freestanding speakers give the best acoustic result, eliminating most wall-based reflections and keepin the sound source in the open.


Getting the sound to the listeners, or maximizing the direct energy, while avoiding reflections off the walls and ceiling, minimizing the indirect energy, is typically the goal for intelligibility. That often means getting the speakers up higher and aimed down at the listeners, something usually not possible with freestanding speakers. It also means using speakers with appropriate pattern control for the application (and hopefully a little more consistent pattern than the vertical pattern of the SRM450 which has some pretty significant variations in pattern as well as noticeable lobing in the speech frequencies).


jkowtko said:


> * If you have raised bleachers inthe gym, then your audience will be your acoustic buffer. I use nothing on the walls, position the speakers 15 feet from the edge of the audience seating area and point towards the center. Works great for me.


On the 'acoustic buffer', with portable speakers the people at the top of the stand are furthest from the speakers and thus to get good coverage would need to be close to on axis of the speaker coverage, meaning about half of the energy of the speaker would be hitting surfaces above the occupied stands. This is another aspect where flown speakers often provide a benefit as you can not only take more effective advantage of the speaker pattern but you can also reduce the differences in distance to listeners in a manner that allows for better coverage of the listeners with less energy hitting ther surfaces. And physically separated speakers with overlapping coverage can be less than ideal with mono sources due to the interactions of the two sources at the listeners.

They approaches employed seem to be making the best of a situation but are not necessarily how one how one would want to approach it if there were other options. 


jkowtko said:


> * board: I am using my 01v96, but have also used analog here as well. For the school's budget I suggest starting small, such as a Mackie profx12, just so you can get some mics out there. It's a very inexpensive board at just under $250 new.


It was mentioned that they're looking for a 16-20 channel mixer, so the ProFX12 would not seem to be a viable option and spending funds on equipment that may not be an effective solution is not necessarily good stewardship.

This seems to be a good example of the general issue of dealing with budgets based on something other than an appropriate solution. One approach to this situation is to purchase a system that meets the budget knowing that it will not provide the needed/desired functionality. Another approach is define a system that supports the desired functionality but to only purchase the portions of that which fit in the budget. A third approach is to define a system that supports the desired functionality and then try to find the money to implement it. The choice of which approach is the most effective and practical often comes down to whether the priority is functionality or budget or how much these two often competing aspects can be revised.


----------

