Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Ivan Beaver]

Danny Baies wrote on Fri, 31 December 2010 20:22

In the situation we are with the speakers in church (because the EASE model shows something else) how much would impact that as far as acoustics. Do you guys have any opinion on how much would be involved to redo a EASE model based on what we have now and see if the acoustics are right or not. I do not have any knowledge in acoustics so therefore i cant talk any specific terms. Thanks and Happy New Year.

Apparently what you have is not right-or you would not be having the problems you are-or at least as great as you say you are.

Among the last things I would do is to have an EASE model made of your current setup.  That would involve getting up to the loudspeakers and measuring the aiming angles and so forth.

This alone could be a thousand dollars or more-depending on how the access to the loudspeakers would be made.

THEN you start with the model. The model could a simple coverage map and could take 30 minutes (once you have all the aiming angles) or a couple of weeks.  You can get all kinds of information out of a model.  And spend lots of time (and money) getting information that is of little use to you.

What I would do is to hire a KNOWLEDGEABLE person to come and take a look at the system-measure it etc.  It could be a simple alignment is all that is needed.  Or simple system operation.  Or it may involve a system redo-rehang the loudspeakers-rewire as needed-new system alignment etc.

My opinion is that spending money on a new model is a waste. The model does not tell you anything or tell you how to do something.  What it can do is to show the RESULT of what you put into the model. But if the system is not working properly, then why would you want to pay for a model to tell you what you already know.

[Danny Baies]

I was thinking the same but just wanted other opinions.

[Arnold B. Krueger]

Danny Baies wrote on Sat, 01 January 2011 01:22

In the situation we are with the speakers in church (because the EASE model shows something else) how much would impact that as far as acoustics. Do you guys have any opinion on how much would be involved to redo a EASE model based on what we have now and see if the acoustics are right or not. I do not have any knowledge in acoustics so therefore i cant talk any specific terms. Thanks and Happy New Year.

Here is a list of fairly recent church projects which you might "mine" for inormation about dssign costs from either the church or the contractor:

http://www.outrageproductions.com/projects/projects_1.htm

[Dick Rees]

Arnold B. Krueger wrote on Mon, 03 January 2011 09:05

Danny Baies wrote on Sat, 01 January 2011 01:22 In the situation we are with the speakers in church (because the EASE model shows something else) how much would impact that as far as acoustics. Do you guys have any opinion on how much would be involved to redo a EASE model based on what we have now and see if the acoustics are right or not. I do not have any knowledge in acoustics so therefore i cant talk any specific terms. Thanks and Happy New Year.   Here is a list of fairly recent church projects which you might "mine" for inormation about dssign costs from either the church or the contractor: http://www.outrageproductions.com/projects/projects_1.htm

AVE is the contractor on all those projects.  One of the guys in the company is a regular participant on the LAB side of the forums.  His name is Caleb Dick and you can contact him via a PM if you like.

DR

[Matthias Heitzer]

this system looks interesting. A VRX932 has a horizontal dispersion of 100

[Brad Weber]

Arnold B. Krueger wrote on Mon, 03 January 2011 09:05

Here is a list of fairly recent church projects which you might "mine" for inormation about dssign costs from either the church or the contractor: http://www.outrageproductions.com/projects/projects_1.htm

Although such information can often provide a good starting point, please avoid assuming that the costs or approach from one project will necessarily directly relate to another, even if they initially appear similar.  That may be particularly applicable here as addressing an existing system in an existing space can be quite different than dealing with a new facility and/or an all new system.

An aspect of dealing with existing systems that is often overlooked is the psychological aspect.  When people associate problems or less than satisfactory results with an existing system you not only often have to go 'above and beyond' in addressing those problems but it also can be more difficult to overcome that perception without there being some visually apparent changes to the system.  You might reaim the speakers, retune the system, rewire a few things and achieve a significant improvement in the system performance but will that improvement be perceived by the average church member to whom such changes may not be readily apparent?  There is no one right answer but I have had clients who wanted to make more dramatic changes than may have been necessary just so that the changes (and where the money went) were more apparent.

I did want to note two points in the information linked that stood out for me.  One was the focus on the relationship of the sound system and acoustics.  The other was the variety of sound systems, and especially speaker systems, that were apparently implemented for different applications.  And not just different brands but what seems to be totally different approaches as deemed appropriate for each particular application.

[Danny Baies]

Thanks to everyone for your input.

The approach we agreed to take is to improve the overall system as much as possible without spending money since that was not an option to take nor the idea to agree to the church's committee why do we have to redo a brand new system(Few people from the tech department stubborn that we have a good system without any knowledge about some aspect of sound engineering). But thats what happens we you have people talking about something that they have no clue about.

I took all the aiming angles of the speakers to see how is the sound distributed and totally to discover that the aiming was nowhere near towards the audience.

So we agreed to reinspect, retune, reaim.

[Dick Rees]

Danny Baies wrote on Mon, 03 January 2011 15:03

... we agreed to reinspect, retune, reaim.

Don't forget "regret" and "repent".

[Danny Baies]

Dick Rees wrote on Mon, 03 January 2011 15:25

Danny Baies wrote on Mon, 03 January 2011 15:03 ... we agreed to reinspect, retune, reaim. Don't forget "regret" and "repent".

Since i was not involved in the installation i "regret" that tey didnt do it right. I "repent" everyday because im not perfect.

[ProSoundWeb Community]