Small speakers for a church

[OddSocks]

Having been using and improving sound systems in churches since I was 16, I believe that a lot of "Experts" don't get church acoustics and situations.

 

The acoustics in churches are great for speech. It is what they were designed for, to propagate the sound of the preacher to the congregation. What churches are not designed for are sound systems http://www.blue-room.org.uk/public/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif.

 

Most churches are also strapped for cash and wont notice / appreciate spending loads of money on the best equipment. When you are fighting a blower for the organ and buzzing from the lighting and the old ladies nattering ( though they are the ones who will frown if a child makes any noise ), reducing your signal to noise ratio with microphones that cost ten times as much is a miss use of resources.

 

Also keep it simple, you might know what you are doing but it is very unlikely it will be you running the system all the time. One church I went to had a speaker just behind the desk, situated at the back of the church, running form a separate bus to the main feed. When I asked about it, I was told that other wise the operator could not hear the singers http://www.blue-room.org.uk/public/style_emoticons/default/blink.gif

 

I have always found that running multiple speakers at lower volumes helps tame the echo and feedback problems you have in churches. Sod the whole delay issue, no one will notice, unless you are in a cathedral.

[Stuart91]

The acoustics in churches are great for speech. It is what they were designed for, to propagate the sound of the preacher to the congregation.

 

I agree, many churches have excellent acoustics for the purposes that the original architects had in mind. There are two problems that I now see regularly:

People don't project as well as they used to. Preachers are used to being dependent on a sound system, so don't have the level required to fill a traditional building without reinforcement of some kind.

Many of these buildings have a "sweet spot" for the acoustics, typically the pulpit. Many clergy prefer not to use the pulpit, so are speaking from a position that isn't as advantageous. One unfortunate congregation had removed the pulpit and the snare drum was now in the perfect position to rattle the entire congregation.

 

Sod the whole delay issue, no one will notice, unless you are in a cathedral.

 

Really? :blink:

[timsabre]

I have always found that running multiple speakers at lower volumes helps tame the echo and feedback problems you have in churches. Sod the whole delay issue, no one will notice, unless you are in a cathedral.

 

Really don't agree with this. Yes people will be able to hear the bloke at the front but you lose all impression that they are speaking to you, you may as well be listening to the radio. I would argue that while people will not specifically think "oh there is no delay on these speakers" the effect of sound coming from all around is that there is a loss of focus on the person at the front. I would argue that (except in a massive building) a couple of well placed and well specified speakers at the front is much better than multiple small speakers.

 

I do agree with your point about buying expensive gear, though reliability tends to come with price and reliability is very important.

[OddSocks]

Sorry guys if I have offended you.

 

I know the whole delay issue is a good one but I so believe in keeping it simple. A number of times I have been asked to go up to the church because the system is not working, only to discover that the amp needs turning on, that someone else decided to turn off separately to the rest of the equipment http://www.blue-room.org.uk/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif. Adding delays to speakers adds delay units and amps all with there own switches.

 

I agree that there will be a bit of a loss in the fidelity of sound coming from the person at the front but hearing the message is so much more important than that I believe. Some would say loosing the focus on the person at the front is a good thing, but being married to one of them I get away with saying that ( so long as she does not read this http://www.blue-room.org.uk/public/style_emoticons/default/cool.gif)

 

Interesting about the well placed speakers at the front. I have found that I can often get 3-6db more sound at the back before feedback using multiple speakers which is so important when the local schools come in for Christmas.

 

As you say reliability and price do come together but often that has a much lower sweet spot than the Sonic quality one.

[timsabre]

Sorry guys if I have offended you.

 

No offence taken at all, free speech may be disappearing in many arenas but on Blue Room we are allowed to debate our different viewpoints!!

[Simon Lewis]

Mark,

 

Some good points there... and good to see that you're chasing the IoA Diploma! I'd agree that 'good sound' is a laudable goal, but would add that 'good' can be a difficult thing to agree on and is not synonymous with 'intelligible', or 'accurate' or 'fit for purpose'.... Also. many churches won't get past the law of diminishing returns on what we might consider to be professional quality.

With regards to consultants, of course we do have UK based consultants (by my definition, one who advises, designs and specifies [from a position of recognised expertise and competence] but does not sell or install). I 'd suggest though, that the vast majority of UK church installs are carried out by small, specialist companies. Some may indeed select the best approach for each situation, irrespective of speaker brand or topology, but sadly a large number take the same approach with almost the same gear in every venue. There can be an apparent lack of "design".

 

Simon

[Yorkie]

Poorly set up delays are worse than no delays; our building is in five or more acoustic zones and if the matrix feed to the delay processing gets fiddled with you can tell straight away.

 

The reverberant design of most traditional church buildings not only helps propagate un-amplified speech (no longer completely necessary) but it helps the congregation to sing up as they hear the singing around them. Too much acoustic treatment and you lose this sense of togetherness.

 

Re: system with loads of switches meaning that stuff gets turned off when it shouldn't- userfriendliness is just as important a part of the installation as getting the system sounding right- how many of us have run out of time and not quite labelled things sufficiently at times? I know I'm guilty. Why not have a hidden cabinet with the clever gubbins and a remote switch for a unit that powers it all on sequentially.

[sandall]

The acoustics in churches are great for speech.

Some are; some (I suspect an equal number) are appalling.

 

I would argue that (except in a massive building) a couple of well placed and well specified speakers at the front is much better than multiple small speakers.

.

Couldn't agree more

[haymere]

1498562128[/url]' post='552086']

Mark,

 

Some good points there... and good to see that you're chasing the IoA Diploma! I'd agree that 'good sound' is a laudable goal, but would add that 'good' can be a difficult thing to agree on and is not synonymous with 'intelligible', or 'accurate' or 'fit for purpose'.... Also. many churches won't get past the law of diminishing returns on what we might consider to be professional quality.

With regards to consultants, of course we do have UK based consultants (by my definition, one who advises, designs and specifies [from a position of recognised expertise and competence] but does not sell or install). I 'd suggest though, that the vast majority of UK church installs are carried out by small, specialist companies. Some may indeed select the best approach for each situation, irrespective of speaker brand or topology, but sadly a large number take the same approach with almost the same gear in every venue. There can be an apparent lack of "design".

 

Simon

 

Indeed Simon, the best position is if you do not have to make money out of it like I dont. I have a job as warehouse manager for a boutique sound and lighting company based in the North West of England and earn enough for me as a christian to be able to advise other christians without any financial imperative. The problem is that no independent consultant is truly independent because they do have a link to a brand salesman and an installer so are tied.

[Simon Lewis]

Just checking that I haven't slipped into an alternative reality here.... ;-)

 

 

The acoustics in churches are great for speech. It is what they were designed for, to propagate the sound of the preacher to the congregation.

If we are still talking about traditional Anglican churches, I'd suggest usually the opposite is true. Although there have been historically a few nods towards getting sound 'right', it's only after Wallace Sabine's work has there been any quantitative understanding of architectural acoustics.

Most of the older churches were still using Latin when they were built and that wasn't for the common person's consumption! Apart from the odd sounding board, whilst speech might be heard in a church, most incorporate features which degrade speech intelligibility. Therefore, speech may be propagated due to a diffuse reverberant field but it is likely not to be understood. Rate of speech production, enunciation, gender and native speaker are factors which increase intelligibility (so a trained speaker can make a better job in a reverberant space) but this is often in spite of the acoustics.

If speech is the thing of key importance, then yes, use the building shape and layout to promote strong lateral diffuse reflections, but the background noise level, mid band RT60 and early to late reflection ratio needs to be controlled (usually RT60 less than ~1.5s and audience ideally within the critical distance).

The typical Anglican church doesn't tend to comply!

Most large stone churches are very good for organ recitals, as the organist is happy with a 6 second RT60 and secretly wishes it was longer...

Whilst it's good to ensure proper source directivity, if it is not possible (due to very long reverberation time) to get the listener to sit in the direct sound field or any where near the critical distance, it's at that point a distributed sound system becomes more appropriate, or we introduce some level of trickery with beam forming/steering speakers.

Additional speakers will degrade intelligibility (so the comment about fewer speakers being better is true in this context) but that's why a properly implemented distributed system should only address the small area of listeners and not spill to other areas.

 

This is not a call for a "dead" acoustic... room gain is still needed, and if the singing / music style is congregational, then enough reverb is needed to support that singing. The churches that are use contemporary music have the issue of modern amplified instruments playing in a reverb chamber.

[cedd]

Just worth pointing out that if you decide to go for multiple smaller speakers positioned down the church, you're going to need to budget for some system processing capable of handling the delays, and separate amp channels for each delay. There are plenty of decent speaker processors out there but my trusty old Behringer Ultradrive just keeps going strong.

 

Those additional costs of a distributed system may be something to trade off against a single cluster of better quality speakers that cost a bit more to buy and position but that do away with the additional amps and processing - more expensive speakers and rigging doesn't always mean a more expensive system.

 

I would second (and third and fourth) the suggestion of Thomann's Achat 104 and 204 speakers as a more budget-friendly alternative to E3's if you decide to look for multiple smaller speakers. They sound really nice for the price and come in white or black.

[Simon Lewis]

The reason why a single cluster of better quality speakers is rarely used as a design solution is the aesthetic impact and blocking of sightlines to the Chancel Arch / High Altar / Reredos / Stained Glass Window. If you ever check the (limited) guidance available from Council for the Care of Churches or individual dioceses, you'll find various bits of guidance, most of it limiting what can be done.

 

Here's the advice from the Ely Diocese (not untypical)

 

 

Speakers should not interfere with any architectural lines, carvings or sculptures and should never be placed on pillars, the capitals or the springing of the arcade.

Speakers should not be attached to stonework nor should they be within normal sight lines- they should be placed as high up as possible preferably at wall plate height.

Speakers should be fixed by means of screws into the mortar (not the stonework).

Wiring to speakers should be hidden from sight and follow the mortar lines and be painted the same colour as the stonework/mortar.

 

[sandall]

So providing the speakers are insecurely fixed & out of sight they'll be happy :(

 

E2A: It might explain some of "how on earth can that possibly work?" systems to be seen when looking round old churches.

 

Parish churches were built to keep a small congregation out of the rain. The Victorians rebuilt them to reflect the glory of God, as expressed through the wealth & "taste" of their benefactors. I'm not sure that "good sound" was much of a consideration in either case.

[Stuart91]

Indeed Simon, the best position is if you do not have to make money out of it like I dont.

 

It's difficult to build up the knowledge and experience required for this kind of work if you aren't doing it full time. I've been responsible for over 250 church installations, and I don't see how I could possibly have managed that in my spare time. Most of the consultants working with churches, both here and in the US, have at least some experience of installation / contracting work.

 

People need to be paid. It bugs me that audio is so often seen as something that should be done as a favour, rather than being a bon fide profession. Should architects be expected design church buildings for free? Would any church board agree that a couple of enthusiastic volunteers should specify and install the new central heating system?

[haymere]

1498646691[/url]' post='552113']

1498598989[/url]' post='552094']

Indeed Simon, the best position is if you do not have to make money out of it like I dont.

 

It's difficult to build up the knowledge and experience required for this kind of work if you aren't doing it full time. I've been responsible for over 250 church installations, and I don't see how I could possibly have managed that in my spare time. Most of the consultants working with churches, both here and in the US, have at least some experience of installation / contracting work.

 

People need to be paid. It bugs me that audio is so often seen as something that should be done as a favour, rather than being a bon fide profession. Should architects be expected design church buildings for free? Would any church board agree that a couple of enthusiastic volunteers should specify and install the new central heating system?

 

I do sound in a secular sense, to make money during the week as I am warehouse manager for a boutique sound & lighting company but have been on staff at Wigwam and been chief electrician at VME as well as having worked for Audioplan in London and the southeast. I also was on staff at Apple Sound in North Wales for a while installing conventional systems and noise masking, also ran a small building company for a while. I am in the fortunate position of having gained lots of experience but my mon-fri job paying my bills