Print

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

[Mike Rayle]

One of the many highest priorities that our church has after moving into our building is to treat the rear wall acoustically.

The building is a fairly standard shape for a traditional denominational church.  Narrow and long.  We have two "columns" of pews and center and outside aisles.  The building seats around 300.
The ceiling is very high and peaked.

The issue we have is that we aren't a traditional denominational church.  Our style of worship is the more contemporary amplified style.  This building was built so that an unamplified voice from the center/pulput area can be heard fairly well anywhere in the building.

We had an expert come in and recommend acoustic absorption on the rear wall and also bass traps in the rear corners.

He recommended Perdue Acoustics http://www.perdueacoustics.com for the panels.

In an effort to cut costs, someone has done a bit of research on DIY panels using stiff fiberglass boards.  I have seen a few websites that describe how to make these.

My questions to you are.....

Have you gone through a project like this and what was your experience?  Have any of you used the Perdue product?  Have you used the DIY panel approach?  Were you happy with the results?

My biggest concern is that in an effort to save money on the front end, we get something that doesn't solve the problem and we end up having to spend the money on the back end anyway.

Thanks!!!
Mike Rayle

[Aaron McQueen]

We go our panels from here:

http://www.atsacoustics.com/

The standard sizes are cheap and you can get custom sizes.  The custom sizes are about twice the cost of the standard sizes. You can order a sample kit to see if you like them.

http://www.atsacoustics.com/item--Executive-Sample-Pack--sam plepack.html

We purchased the fire treatment.  Make sure it meats your local code, or you'll be taking them down when the fire marshal comes through.

[Brad Weber]

Did they recommend any particular panel thickness, total area of panels, mounting locations, etc.?  Any specific type of mounting, such as furred off the wall, or non-standard panels, such as impact resistant or low frequency tuned panels?

If they are basic 1" or 2" thick fabric covered, fiberglass panels, then there are probably a much larger number of options available.  Perdue Acoustics is one of the better known brands, the biggest difference between them and most other brands is that they use rockwool rather than fiberglass for the core in their panels.  If you want to compare other brands, look at the octave band absorption coefficients and make sure that you are looking at the same thickness, mounting and test procedure.  Testing done with the panels spaced out or with a Type E mounting with an airspace behind the panels can give higher ratings than panels that were tested butted together or as a direct applied Type A mounting, so sometimes what seem to be two equivalent products based on the numbers are not due simply to the details of the testing procedure used.

Unless you have some good finish carpenters and someone familiar with working with fabric on frames, I have seen few DIY panels that looked like manufactured panels.  It can be done, but can be more difficult than it seems and you usually get it all figured out just as you finish the last panel.

[Andrew Stoeber]

I made some DIY absorbers for behind our drums. They are great for our purposes. It cut 3-4 dB out in the room, and there is a big difference to the drummer without everything bouncing around so much back there. You can learn alot by reading stuff by Ethan Winer and around on forums, and it is a little cheaper if you do it yourself....you can also make custom size panels for your purposes.

Here are some pics of our project http://entertainment.webshots.com/album/561141897vDZTvE

We used 3" mineral wool and 2" rigid fiberglass...the project (for screws, wood, insulation, respirators, everything) cost us 160$. If you are just doing 2" rigid fiberglass and covering it in fabric, it would be alot cheaper. If you are just wanting to kill reflections then using mineral wool or fiberglass and covering them is no different than ordering pre-made panels.  The trick is finding an insulation supplier area that carries the stuff. There are some big chains like SPI and BWI that are around though.

Hope that helps...

Andrew Stoeber

[Bruce Burke]

I a church you want more diffusion than absorption. If you suck out too much, the congregation won't sing out.

You really need to contact Joe at his website:

http://www.jdbsound.com/

He has DIY plans for panels in his book that are for specifically designed for church acoustics. There is also a bunch of good info on his website.

You can also help your cause with the right speaker. From the building you have described, you may want to investigate the Electrovoice EVI series, which were specifically designed for rectangular rooms.

-Bruce

[Brad Weber]

Perhaps you missed this in the OP,

Quote:

The issue we have is that we aren't a traditional denominational church. Our style of worship is the more contemporary amplified style. This building was built so that an unamplified voice from the center/pulput area can be heard fairly well anywhere in the building. We had an expert come in and recommend acoustic absorption on the rear wall and also bass traps in the rear corners.

Some design and consulting firms like to assume that every church is the same and has the same needs and goals.  That way they can just skip any needs analysis and sell the same thing over and over.  The reality is that almost every church is unique and different both architecturally and in their needs and desires.  Mike's church hired someone to provide them recommendations for their specific situation, unless there is specific reason to question those recommendations, it seems inappropriate to do so.

[Rob Warren]

WEll the reality is even "experts" or hired guns all do things
differently so I don't think the previous poster was "missing"
any info, I think he is just simply disagreeing with the treatment.

I think what we need is more information.  
What problems are happening?  Is it a delay / slap coming from the back wall?  Is it RT-60 factor? that meaning the room is too live and it's decay time is too long for contemporary worship.
Is it a certain frequency that is hanging in the room being a problem?  This all and a lot more is determined when treating an acoustical problem.  

Chances are it will take more than just the back wall getting treated.  Side walls and ceilings can be just as bad or worse.'

Also one last thing to remember.  When using these absorption panels make sure you don't absorb all the higher frequecies and leave all the low mids to rumbling around the room.  

[Brad Weber]

Rob Warren wrote on Wed, 14 November 2007 14:41

WEll the reality is even "experts" or hired guns all do things differently so I don't think the previous poster was "missing" any info, I think he is just simply disagreeing with the treatment.

Disagreeing based on what?  Have they been in the room?  Do they know the existing room finishes or any of the problems?  Your comments actually support the point, why would you disagree with someone else's recommendations without knowing any of the things you noted?  I'll assume that the person the church hired has been in the room and does know the situation better than us and I don't see anything in the recommendations noted that would make them seem obviously inappropriate, especially in light of Mike's comments regarding the room and services.

Quote:

The issue we have is that we aren't a traditional denominational church. Our style of worship is the more contemporary amplified style.

Quote:

I a church you want more diffusion than absorption. If you suck out too much, the congregation won't sing out.

This is what I ws referring to.  How does congregational singing relate to what was said was wanted?  If they are a contemporary church that relies heavily on the sound system then adding absorption is likely a very valid treatment while adding diffusion may have minimal benefit, especially given that the space "was built so that an unamplified voice from the center/pulput area can be heard fairly well anywhere in the building".  Combine this with a recommendation for a speaker that apparently someone thinks is the answer for any rectangular room regardless of dimensions or application (not the first time this has come up) and it seems like trying to apply a generic solution to a room for which it may not be appropriate.

FWIW, the book referenced is unavailable.

[Bruce Burke]

Brad Weber wrote on Wed, 14 November 2007 16:38

Rob Warren wrote on Wed, 14 November 2007 14:41 WEll the reality is even "experts" or hired guns all do things differently so I don't think the previous poster was "missing" any info, I think he is just simply disagreeing with the treatment. Disagreeing based on what?  Have they been in the room?  Do they know the existing room finishes or any of the problems?  Your comments actually support the point, why would you disagree with someone else's recommendations without knowing any of the things you noted?  I'll assume that the person the church hired has been in the room and does know the situation better than us and I don't see anything in the recommendations noted that would make them seem obviously inappropriate, especially in light of Mike's comments regarding the room and services. Quote: The issue we have is that we aren't a traditional denominational church. Our style of worship is the more contemporary amplified style. Quote: I a church you want more diffusion than absorption. If you suck out too much, the congregation won't sing out. This is what I ws referring to.  How does congregational singing relate to what was said was wanted?  If they are a contemporary church that relies heavily on the sound system then adding absorption is likely a very valid treatment while adding diffusion may have minimal benefit, especially given that the space "was built so that an unamplified voice from the center/pulput area can be heard fairly well anywhere in the building".  Combine this with a recommendation for a speaker that apparently someone thinks is the answer for any rectangular room regardless of dimensions or application (not the first time this has come up) and it seems like trying to apply a generic solution to a room for which it may not be appropriate. FWIW, the book referenced is unavailable.

Church sound involves more than being able to hear an unamplified voice from the pulpit or using a PA system to amplify electronic keyboards or play tracks.

[Brad Weber]

The correct environment is what the church wants it to be.  With few exceptions, the physical space and the church's goals and vision differ for each church.  Trying to impose a single standard or assuming that every church is the same ignores the reality that each church and even every space are unique.  In my opinion, providing recommendations without first identifying the actual requirements and expectations for that project does the church a disservice and is not good design.  Of course, many people apply the same criteria and solution to every project simply because this is easier and less effort than actually having to determine what is desired and/or because they don't really know what they are doing and this approach allows that.

Okay, we're not helping the OP here.  My point was simply that I don't believe that any of us have been in the space or talked to the church.  I assume the person that made the recommendations for them has.  We don't know who that person is or how they derived their recommendations, it may have been someone very qualified who performed a detailed analysis.  So unless there is some direct conflict between what was identified in the OP and what was recommended, then why contradict it?  Is it simply because it isn't what you did in another church?

[ProSoundWeb Community]