On the PSW main page, there's a story about two churches that recently upgraded their sound systems to Meyer Sound CAL steerable array speakers. One of them is First United Methodist Church of Tulsa, OK. I found what I believe is another article documenting the installation of the prior audio system in the very same church. CAL is described as replacing a prior system of "mismatched" column and point source enclosures. According to the prior article, the previous system was the EAW DSA product, their own Digitally Steerable Array, supplemented by MK8194 8" two-way point source speakers and a second pair of SB150 subwoofers.
The earlier article is here:
http://tfwm.com/cathedral-sound-echoing-the-aesthetics-not-the-signal/ The more recent article is here:
https://www.prosoundweb.com/channels/church/southwest-churches-equipped-with-meyer-sound-cal/ What stands out to me is that the more recent article describes the newer system as if it were "always" a problem. From the earlier article, it sounded like the church was quite happy with the "new" older sound system when it was first installed. What you don't get from stories like these are assessments of whether the dissatisfaction with the previous sound system was with the product, the installation locations chosen, or the overall system tuning. Also, you hear very little about venues like these deciding to take a second look at the equipment that is already installed, to see how it can be re-purposed. The EAW DSA columns are, I'm supposing, perfectly serviceable steerable columns similar to the Renkus Iconyx, Meyer CAL, and JBL AXYS products. And the delay speakers probably were not falling short in the area of pattern control and intelligibility. So why did this church pay Meyer-level money to re-do their existing system? Was it truly dissatisfaction? Gear-of-the-month syndrome? Or a more recognizable name?
Just food for thought.
