What a great question to ask! This was one of our most popular threads to date. There are lots of architects designing churches these days, but not all of them seek the advice of an experienced acoustician in the process. And the needs vary greatly depending on the type of worship service (contemporary or liturgical), the number of seats needed for the congregation, and many other factors. We think you'll have a great time reading the insights of our members on this important subject!
From: Randy Wells (Phoenix, AZ)
Subject: What is the ideal building?
Curt and all,
Question: We are getting ready to build a new facility
and I have been
showing our music minister different web pages and links on accoustical
engineering and what to do and not to do. I sent him this link
32 Ways to Make A Church Sound Confusing.
And he came back to me with this question? If so many rooms are not right...
then what is the ideal room shape for reinforced concert
sound?
Our worship does very little traditional style music. We don't
have
organs or traditional piano (we have digital). We are a contemporary
worship band. So given those factors what would be the ideal?
Thanks for your input beforehand,
Randy
Sound & Lighting Ministry
North Hills Church
Phoenix AZ
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jeff Alford (Jacksonville, FL)
Subject: What is the ideal building?
Randy wrote: What is the ideal building?
Someone once said, "Yes that could be done Technically, but I'm not technical.
That's a loaded question, but since you ask.
1. That is bigger than the number of people you have now. expect
growth.
2. If you like lots of bottom end, make sure you have enough room
to build some sizable bass traps to help control the low end.
3. A room with just a hint of reverb time of 2 sec, is not bad.
4. Go listen to as many churches, (even if you have to travel)
as you can. See how the pa system reacts in the room. Listen at
low volumes and loud .
5. This is not a technical list of the ideal building. But the
question you have asked is very open to opinion of which I'm sure
you will get a lot of.
Our building is a Fan shape, with a very low reverb time under 1.5 sec. seats 2650 on two levels, (the floor seats about 1950 with the remainder in the side ramps and balcony) we have a very, very contemporary band and music program. The P.A system is a custom JBL box, (4-15's 4-10's a 2 inch cd horn and 2 slots) there are three clusters with 2 set of the above at each. (One set aimed down and the other set at the balcony ) It's a little hard to describe, Curt has mixed here, maybe he could tell you.
At the peak of praise we have been known to hit 105 db at the mix but for only brief period's the crowds have been measured on a c weighting at a sustained level of 110 db on several occasion's which the pa is able to get up over that but we didn't try we just let it happen until they came down . When we get into worship it settles down to about 90 to 95 db. The room and PA really sounds good at this level , there are also 8 -18 inch subs on the floor. There are two 3600 vz six 2400 ma four 1200 ma on the house system, for those who are adding up the number of components vs. the number of amp channels I will go ahead and tell you it is under powered and some of the crown channels are running at or below 2 ohms. A great tribute to how good these amps are. They have been working this way for 5 years with not one bit of trouble . In fact we have another ten 2400ma's on the monitor system, none of them has ever failed. Sorry for the long wind. God luck his is the best
Jeff Alford
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim Brown (Chicago, IL)
Subject: Re: What is the ideal building?
On 10 May 98, Jeff Alford wrote:
<"2. If you like lots of bottom end , make sure
you have
enough room to build some sizable bass traps to help
control the low end.">
Bass traps are a band aid. Better that you should hire
a
good consultant and build a room that doesn't need a band
aid.
<"3. A room with just a hint of reverb time of
2 sec,
is not bad.">
For contemporary worship, 2 sec is much more than "a
hint
of reverb." Most praise bands are going to be pretty muddy
with drums and amps just coming off the platform, before
you even turn the PA on!
<"4. Go listen to as many churches, (even if you
have to
travel) as you can. See how the pa system reacts in the
room. Listen at low volumes and loud.">
And then what do you do? Copy their PA and their room?
I'm not sure I understand this advice, Jeff. Please forgive
me for asking these hard questions, but I'm afraid others
will think it's much easier than it is, and make some very
costly mistakes.
The design of a worship space and a sound system for it
are
very complex. You need very good consultants doing this
work. Spend your money on hiring them and your time on
making sure you've chosen good ones, not on travelling
around looking at systems. You'll have a much better chance
of success.
Jim Brown
Audio Systems Group, Inc.
Chicago
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim Brown (Chicago, IL)
Subject: Re: What is the ideal building?
On Sun, 10 May 1998 17:37:15 EDT, Randy Wells wrote:
<"If so many rooms are not right...then what is
the ideal
room shape for reinforced concert sound?">
There is no one shape which is the best, but some work
better than others, and there are some general rules.
You need to hire a good acoustical consultant and sound
system design consultant to work with your architect on the
design of your space. They will work with you and your
architect to help you develop the layouts which will work
best for your church.
Some of the things you need to consider how are how you
will carry the sound of the choir out into the
congregation, how to get monitor to the choir and the
praise band without making a mess of sound in the
congregation, how to mic the choir without picking up
monitors, how to get a lively acoustic environment for good
congregational singing, but still keeping the acoustics
pretty dry so the praise band doesn't get muddy. You have
to avoid having the praise band echo off the rear wall and
slap back at itself, and the same for the PA.
I could go on for quite a while, but these are some of
the
more obvious things. All of this stuff requires careful
room layouts, careful acoustic design, and careful sound
system design. It is all quite complex and tricky.
There are a number of good consultants around the country,
and some of them donate time to help out those on this
list. When you are ready to choose an architect, you
should contact one or more of us for a proposal for our
services to work on your project.
Jim Brown
Audio Systems Group, Inc.
Chicago
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Kevin Potts (Las Vegas, NV)
Subject: Re: What is the ideal building?
In a message dated 5/10/98, Jim Brown writes:
<"You need to hire a good acoustical consultant
and sound
system design consultant to work with your architect on the
design of your space.">
I just wanted to say that the question that started this
discussion is
great!!!!!
While I agree with Jim Brown 100%, I can't emphasize enough
that when churches
start asking questions along the lines of what shapes work best
they are
headed in the correct direction.
I really appreciate the list Curt, and all the input that
we get from the
pros.
Kevin Potts
Sunrise Baptist Church
Las Vegas, NV
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Kevin Potts (Las Vegas, NV)
Subject: Re: What is the ideal building?
In a message dated 5/10/98, Jim Brown writes:
<"The design of a worship space and a sound system
for it are
very complex. You need very good consultants doing this
work. Spend your money on hiring them and your time on
making sure you've chosen good ones, not on traveling
around looking at systems. You'll have a much better chance
of success.">
Wow, once again I agree with Jim Brown.
Traveling around to other churches is good, but I have
been to churches that
some pretty solid acoustical guys have designed and the sound
operator was the
problem.
A large church in CA comes to mind. This church had a top
drawer consultant,
they hired a top installer, they used top equipment (Soundcraft
Europa,
Renkus, Crown, etc.) The guy running the sound just did not have
an ear.
I still encourage you to talk to at least one of the people
on the listserv.
The knowledge and the care that I have seen in just the information
provided
by the pros on the list is top, top, top drawer.
Don't just hire a designer, consultant, or contractor because
they are close.
I know for a fact that these pros travel all over the country
and world for
consulting and installs. With Federal Express, the Internet, and
airplanes a
top quality Pro Sound company is closer than you think.
Kevin Potts
Sunrise Baptist Church
Las Vegas, NV
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Chalmers (Edinburg, Scotland)
Subject: Re: RE>What is the ideal building?
<"4. Go listen to as many churches, (even if you
have to
travel) as you can. See how the pa system reacts in the room.
Listen at low volumes and loud.">
<"And then what do you do? Copy their PA and their
room?
I'm not sure I understand this advice, Jeff. Please forgive
me for asking these hard questions, but I'm afraid others
will think it's much easier than it is, and make some very
costly mistakes.">
I thought this was a good suggestion actually. Most people
find it very
hard to visualise things from plans etc, so even the best presented
designs
are hard to work out or relate to experience, when you have only
experienced one design before, i.e. the building you USED to have.
It is not to copy them, but to get a feel for what factors affect
sound and
acoustics. This experience can be guided into a useful discussion
about
requirements.
<"The design of a worship space and a sound system
for it are
very complex. You need very good consultants doing this
work. Spend your money on hiring them and your time on
making sure you've chosen good ones, not on travelling
around looking at systems. You'll have a much better chance
of success.">
So you are saying "trust us, we're experts".
Fair enough, but you are
requiring people to agree to things they can't percieve, and to
request
things they are unable to express.
The risk that after it is built, they say " no that
isn't what we wanted"
is higher.
Sure, you need experts to get it right, but you also need
the "customer" to
know what they want and be able to express that. If travelling
around
allows them to form a vocabulary for communication with the experts
then
the end result will meet their percieved needs better.
I struggle with experts who say "this is too complicated
for you to
understand", when some understanding is essential for expressing
the
requirements, before the best results can be achieved. You are
in danger of
assuming that you know what they want better than they do, when
in fact the
customer knows what they want, but may not have the vocabulary
to express it.
Just my opinion of course.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ron Pietrantoni (Detroit, MI)
Subject: Re: What is the ideal building?
In a message dated 5/10/98, Jim Brown writes:
<"If so many rooms are not right...then what is
the ideal room shape for
reinforced concert sound?">
Perhaps I'm being a little obtuse here, but would someone
just answer the
question? <bg> Forget the rest of the rammifications - what
is the ideal room
shape for concert sound? Rectangle or trapezoid? Am I missing
other logical
shapes?
Yes, I know - it's not that simple. Let's try spinning
it this way: You get to
design your Heavenly worship space. You don't have to kowtow to
*ANYONE* -
what you say goes. What shape would your room be?
Ron Pietrantoni
Grace Community Church, Detroit MI
Creative Communications - Bands & Technical Services
"He knows changes aren't permanent, but change is."
-- Neil Peart
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim Brown (Chicago, IL)
Subject: Re: What is the ideal building?
On Mon, 11 May 1998, Ron Pietrantoni wrote:
<"Yes, I know - it's not that simple. Let's try
spinning
it this way: You get to design your Heavenly worship space.
You don't have to kowtow to *ANYONE* - what you say goes.
What shape would your room be?">
Sorry, but still NO easy answers. How large will the space
be? How large will the choir and praise band be? What is
the shape of the lot you are able to build on? What else
has to fit in the building, and what needs to be close to
what? Where will you put the HVAC systems so they don't
make noise but don't cost too much? How will you bring air
into the space quietly, so it doesn't sound like a jet
plane idling? Where will you put the lighting catwalks and
other lighting positions? How about handicapped access to
everything in the building? How much money do you have?
Doing all this stuff right costs money, often a lot more
money than anyone thought.
In general, wide is bad for acoustics and sound, but better
for sight lines and intimacy. Most variations of circular
are a disaster. Low ceilings are bad, so are parallel
walls. But lots of other shapes can be problematic too.
Perfect regularity is generally bad, irregularity is
generally good. Spreading seating over a wide angle (more
than about 120 degrees) can be very difficult, and the
wider you go beyond that, the worse it gets.
So, Ron, I'm not trying to beat around the bush, I'm trying
to make you aware of how difficult it is to get it right.
Jim Brown
Audio Systems Group, Inc.
Chicago
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim Brown (Chicago, IL)
Subject: Re: What is the ideal building?
On Mon, 11 May 1998, David Chalmers wrote:
<"I struggle with experts who say "this is
too complicated for you to
understand", when some understanding is essential for expressing
the
requirements, before the best results can be achieved. You are
in danger of
assuming that you know what they want better than they do, when
in fact the
customer knows what they want, but may not have the vocabulary
to express it.">
You're absolutely correct, David. Any "expert"
should be
able to clearly present and explain their recommendations
and concepts in terms you understand. But their
recommendations for your specific project can take hundreds
of hours of design time to develop in detail sufficient for
things to work well for you, and to mesh with all of the
multiuple design constraints in any given project.
I also agree that seeing some other spaces can help you
make decisions by helping you visualize one you want to
build.
Jim Brown
Audio Systems Group, Inc.
Chicago
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Blake Engel (Chicago, IL)
Subject: Re: What is the ideal building?
Ron Pietrantoni wrote:
<"Perhaps I'm being a little obtuse here, but would
someone just answer the
question? <bg> Forget the rest of the rammifications - what
is the ideal room
shape for concert sound? Rectangle or trapezoid? Am I missing
other logical
shapes?">
Was it Don & Carolin Davis that said a rectangular
room is the best?? I can't
seem to find the reference to that statement.
Blake A. Engel (A.K.A. "Sound Guy")
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dale Alexander (Dallas, TX)
Subject: Ideal Building
Randy's Music Minister asked:
<"If so many rooms are not right...then what is
the ideal room shape for
reinforced concert sound? Our worship does very little traditional
style music. We don't have organs or traditional piano (we have
digital). We are a contemporary worship band. So given those factors
what would be the ideal?">
The answer is - Every church is unique and the ideal building
is
different for each church. The acoustic qualities of a worship
facility
are a very important part of the space but there are other design
criteria to consider such as; is the congregation community oriented,
what activities are to take place in the new worship space, etc...
There are some basic room designs that are fundamentally
flawed such as
wide fan shaped rooms, round rooms, octagonal rooms, rooms with
domed
ceilings & basically any room that has surfaces that look
like parabolic
dishes.
Also, a worship space may have a number of different acoustic
environments depending on the church's program.
Hope this helps.
Blessings,
Dale Alexander
ACOUSTIC DIMENSIONS
Dallas, Texas
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stephen Krone (Westlake, OH)
Subject: Re: Ideal Building
Dale Alexander wrote:
<"There are some basic room designs that are fundamentally
flawed such as
wide fan shaped rooms, round rooms, octagonal rooms, rooms with
domed
ceilings & basically any room that has surfaces that look
like parabolic
dishes.">
What do you mean "wide" in "wide fan shaped
rooms"? It seems from my
observations that fan shaped rooms must be the most popular design
in new
churches with contemporary worship styles.
Stephen Krone
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rob Parpatt (Chilliwack, BC, Canada)
Subject: Re: Ideal Building
Stephen Krone wrote:
<"What do you mean "wide" in "wide
fan shaped rooms"? It seems from my
observations that fan shaped rooms must be the most popular design
in new
churches with contemporary worship styles.">
I think the generally accepted rule for maximum width is
120 degrees.
Less is better. I think that the other problem with fan shaped
rooms is
that many tend to have flat side walls and a flat or convex back
wall.
If acoustical treatments are done to the walls, I think this design
can
be fairly successful in terms of sound and community.
I have seen fan shaped rooms that were really rectangles
turned
sideways. The people on the extreme 'sides' were actually behind
the
pulpit and thus did not always have the best view (if you get
my
drift). These rooms are actually in excess of 180 degrees. To
top it
off, they tend to have a large flat rear wall which is very close
to the
stage area.
If you look at http://home.echo-on.net/~jdbsound/parysnd.htm
(in Joe's
pages) you will see an example of a 'modified' fan shaped room.
Notice
the extensive use of 'round outs' to diffuse the sound, not absorb
it.
My biggest 'beef' with fan shaped rooms (regardless of
the acoustics) is
that if you have large worship teams, it can tend to get a little
crowded on stage if you don't plan that area well. If you have
a choir
loft, make sure you leave plenty of room up front for all of your
other
needs. Don't forget special events like Christmas/Easter plays,
etc.
Rob Parpatt
Chilliwack Baptist Church
Chilliwack, BC
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Kevin Potts (Las Vegas, NV)
Subject: Re: What is the ideal building?
In a message dated 5/11/98, Jim Brown writes:
<"But lots of other shapes can be problematic too.
Perfect regularity is generally bad, irregularity is
generally good. Spreading seating over a wide angle (more
than about 120 degrees) can be very difficult, and the
wider you go beyond that, the worse it gets.">
Bingo, Jim your answer for the ideal shape and building
is right on the money.
No one space can be a perfect answer. Wow if it was then we would
not need
acoustical consultants. We could just order from Acoustics-R-Us
(Im thinking
of buying a franchise). I have been in many churches that the
sound for both
speech and music was superb. The rooms were very very different.
I have been
in traditional churches that are long and deep and in what I call
"fan" shaped
buildings that work great. You must make your decisions based
upon what you
want to achieve. Our building has a 160 degree spread (fan) and
our acoustics
are pretty good. We also have a darn good sound system that picks
up where
our design left off. You have to have a quality acoustical design,
combined
with quality sound equipment properly designed and installed to
achieve your
specific goals.
I went into a new Mormon Stake under construction here
in Vegas, and the audio
company had just installed the system. The acoustics were really
good. I
could understand every spoken word very well. The Mormon churches
use a very
stayed type of service with not to much music. The acoustics and
the sound
system were designed just for the style of worship they utilize.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Kevin Potts (Las Vegas, NV)
Subject: Re: What is the ideal building?
In a message dated 5/11/98, Jim Brown writes:
<"You're absolutely correct, David. Any "expert"
should be
able to clearly present and explain their recommendations
and concepts in terms you understand. But their
recommendations for your specific project can take hundreds
of hours of design time to develop in detail sufficient for
things to work well for you, and to mesh with all of the
multiple design constraints in any given project.">
Gosh Im agreeing with Jim all the time. I have been fortunate
to see the
innerworkings of an acoustical consulting and sound design as
it takes place
from the ground up for a church here in Las Vegas that is building
a 2,500
seat worship center. I am amazed at the volumes of calculations
and
recalculations that have gone into the entire design and installation.
At
some point you just have to say "I TRUST THIS COMPANY."
Do your homework and
make them explain as much as possible, but you are at some point
going to have
to let them loose and trust the decisions that they make.
Kevin Potts
Las Vegas, NV
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Chalmers (Edinburgh, Scotland)
Subject: Re: What is the ideal building?
At 01:47 AM 5/12/98 EDT, you wrote:
<"...buildings that work great. You must make your decisions
based upon what you want to achieve. Our building has a 160 degree
spread (fan) and our
acoustics are pretty good. We also have a darn good sound system
that picks up where our design left off. You have to have a quality
acoustical design, combined with quality sound equipment properly
designed and installed to achieve your specific goals.">
Would you care to describe your speaker arrangement to
cover this fan of
seating?
Dave Chalmers
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dale Alexander (Dallas, TX)
Subject: Ideal Building
Stephen,
"Wide" is a bit of a nebulous term in that what
we are looking at is the
distance between the side walls. Typically, when fan shaped rooms
exceed 90 degrees the problems get exponentially worse. Also,
the wider
the fan the greater the "parabolic dish" (back wall)
which increases the
opportunity for focusing reflections back to the front of the
room.
There are also major sight line issues when fan shaped rooms approach
180 degrees.
Blessings,
Dale Alexander
Acoustic Dimensions
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ron Pietrantoni (Detroit, MI)
Subject: Re: What is the ideal building?
In a message dated 5/11/98, Jim Brown writes:
<"In general, wide is bad for acoustics and sound,
but better
for sight lines and intimacy. Most variations of circular
are a disaster. Low ceilings are bad, so are parallel
walls. But lots of other shapes can be problematic too.
Perfect regularity is generally bad, irregularity is
generally good. Spreading seating over a wide angle (more
than about 120 degrees) can be very difficult, and the
wider you go beyond that, the worse it gets.">
<"So, Ron, I'm not trying to beat around the bush,
I'm trying
to make you aware of how difficult it is to get it right.">
I understand that there's no "cut-n-dried" answers
- there are precious few
answers to life, the universe, and everything that fall into *THAT*
category!
<g> But I was equally certain that, with all you guys' combined
experience,
that there were some preferences in creating any room from an
auditory POV,
and I think we got a much better sense of that from your first
paragraph above
than from the previous post.
At least, I did. <g> Thanx!
Ron Pietrantoni
Grace Community Church, Detroit MI
Creative Communications - Bands & Technical Services
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim Brown (Chicago, IL)
Subject: Re: Ideal Building
On Tue, 12 May 1998, Kevin Potts wrote:
<"The Mormon churches use a very staid type of
service
with not to much music.">
Yes, and they learned a long time ago that they don't do
anything without very good acoustic and sound system
consultants. I don't know who they use.
Jim Brown
Audio Systems Group, Inc.
Chicago
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim Brown (Chicago, IL)
Subject: Re: Ideal Building
On Tue, 12 May 1998, Kevin Potts wrote:
<"Yep, but our church chose intimacy over acoustics
and we had to use speaker
cluster design and electronics to fix our flaws. We love the fact
that we can
seat almost 600 and no one is more than 60 feet away from the
stage.">
Your example is good, Kevin. You appear to have had a
consultant (who, by the way?) who was able to get you
acceptable acoustic performance in a difficult shape, and
get you to spend the additional money it took to buy a
sound system to do the same.
We talk about difficult spaces and shapes. Sometimes
difficulties can be overcome with careful design, and some
additional money. Sometimes the "fixes" are only partial,
with some remaining problems that you learn to live with
but wish you didn't have to. Examples:
The sound system may wash the stage more than you like
to
provide good coverage, may be much more visible than you
would like, may not provide good stereo, may kick more
sound back to the platform than you would like, etc. You
may find sound from the monitors going places you don't
want it to go. You may have difficulty miking the choir
and getting them monitors.
The room may have visual intimacy because the sight lines
are good, but lack acoustic intimacy because the side walls
are too far away. Side wall reflections may come in too
late (because they are widely splayed), and may thus
degrade intelligibility or screw up imaging.
I could go on, but I think you get the idea.
Jim Brown
Audio Systems Group, Inc.
Chicago
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rick Chinn (Seattle, WA)
Subject: Re: What is the ideal building?
Jim wrote to Jeff...
<"And then what do you do? Copy their PA and their room?
I'm not sure I understand this advice, Jeff. Please forgive
me for asking these hard questions, but I'm afraid others
will think it's much easier than it is, and make some very
costly mistakes.">
and Jeff replied...
<"No problem, I was just giving some start up advice,
a reference point
to know where to go or not to go. If you don't know whats out
there
then you may not no wh at to ask for or even no were to start....">
----------------------------
I think (as others did) that this is good advice (Jeff's).
Often,
a consultant may tell you something, but someone doesn't
quite believe them, and often seeing and experiencing can help
the belief/understanding process.
You also get to see other people's failures and successes, and
can
see someone else's approach to worship. This can be a source of
good ideas as well as bad ones.
Perhaps a really synergistic approach would be to have your
consultant visit with you and explain why something works well
or why it doesn't, or perhaps how/why it could be done better.
Of course, the consultant will charge for this use of their time,
and
perhaps it would be good to narrow your selection down to a few
before
inviting them along for their observations.
Finally, visiting someone else's facility may change someone's
perception
of how something works or doesn't, and it may totally raise their
expectations
for their own facility.
So, I see this as a great idea for fact finding, observation,
and idea gathering.
I do not see it as a poor-man's consultant.
--Rick Chinn
Uneeda Audio
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Kevin Potts (Las Vegas, NV)
Subject: Re: Ideal Building
In a message dated 5/12/98, David Chalmers writes:
<"Would you care to describe your speaker arrangement
to cover this fan of
seating?">
Pretty basic stuff, L,C,R Clusters with subs on the floor
at L,C,R. Joe D.
has a pic on his site under acoustical consulting that pretty
much shows our
configuration. Our room has razor sharp even sound wherever you
sit, we hit
Joe's H.I.S. standard in the entire room.
We are about 500-550 seats and yes the spread is about
160 degrees. Now when
I say our acoustics are good, please keep in mind that we designed
for our
specic needs. We have a contemp. service and always use a band
or midi band.
Kevin Potts
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Kevin Potts (Las Vegas, NV)
Subject: Re: Ideal Building
In a message dated 5/12/98, Jim Brown writes:
<"Your example is good, Kevin. You appear to have
had a
consultant (who, by the way?) who was able to get you
acceptable acoustic performance in a difficult shape, and
get you to spend the additional money it took to buy a
sound system to do the same.">
Our architect was an acoustics "Junkie" He has
passed away, he was about 75
when he designed our building. I was not at this church when the
design
happened, but got to meet him, he was a real treat. He had about
10
architecture books in his home office and oh about a hundred on
acoustics,
physics, and pastries. Yes, he made an apple pie that would make
you loose
your religion.
Our sound system is relatively new, I did the design with
help from several
buddies in the business, So my system is a Showco, Ford, ABC Television,
Paramount, Soundmasters, Dreamworks, Opryland system. Whew, that
was a mouth
full. With donations from Circus Circus, Mirage Resorts, Hilton
Hotels, The
Boyd Group, and those nice folks at M.G.M Grand.
Kevin Potts
Sunrise Baptist
Las Vegas, NV
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Russell O'Toole (Romeoville, IL)
Subject: Re: What is the ideal building?
Jim:
LDS Churches in our area has been using
Mr. Ken Dickenshets
DICKENSHEETS DESIGN ASSOCIATES
13581 Pond Springs Road
Suite 306
Austin, Texas 78729
512-331-8977
Russel L. O'Toole
AUDIO ELECTRONICS, Inc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Kevin Potts (Las Vegas, NV)
Subject: Re: What is the ideal building?
In a message dated 5/13/98, Russ O'Toole writes:
<"LDS Churches in our area has been using...">
I am sure that they use several companies, but the word
is that you have to be
LDS to get the work. Noone in Vegas even bids the LDS projects.
Kevin Potts
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bill Thrasher (Kennesaw, GA)
Subject: Re: Ideal Building Shape
Dear Everyone,
With regard to the ideal shape for a Church, we have the
following
thoughts:
If the Church wants a formal "CONCERT HALL",
that is a room that is
optimized for symphonic music performed without any form of electronic
reinforcement or enhancement, then a rectangular or "shoe-box"
style room
is most often the proper solution. I think of a Concert Hall as
a space in
which the acoustics are by far the dominant design issue, and
nearly
everything takes a back seat to the acoustical performance of
the space.
These spaces are almost always designed for a certain style of
music
(symphony orchestra) and are not the same spaces as would be designed
for
Opera, Theatre, and other performing arts. I would refer you all
to the
First Baptist Church of Columbia, SC. They asked their Architect
for a
Concert Hall, and for the most part, they got what they asked
for.
However, a Concert Hall wasn't what they really wanted or needed
as a
Church. Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it. Or
to quote a
book I recently read: PEOPLE SELDOM KNOW WHAT THEY WANT, UNTIL
YOU GIVE
THEY WHAT THEY'VE ASKED FOR.
However, if your Church is like most Churches today and
they want a space
that can and will support any and every type of program, music,
and event
that can be imagined, then the shape of the room cannot be determined
predominately or exclusively by the acoustical demands. It has
become our
opinion over the last few years that an acoustically neutral or
"non-antagonistic" space is appropriate for most of
today's Church's. We
define such a space as one whose architectural acoustics and background
noise are carefully designed so as to not interfere with or antagonize
any
form of program, music, or event, but will not really help or
enhance any
of them either. What we are talking about is really an ultimate
compromise
(or "multi-purpose") space. It's not really great (optimized)
for any
thing, but also doesn't really hurt or hinder anything that will
occur in
the space.
In submitting this idea, we recognize that there will always
be multiple
factions that will pull and tug at the acoustical design of a
space. In
the case of the First Baptist Church of Orlando, FL, the pipe
organ
manufacturer made extreme demands on the acoustical design of
the building,
some of which were in total opposition to what the Church music
department
and ministerial staff wanted. Because they were so vocal, their
demands
were seriously considered and did, IMHO, negatively influence
the final
acoustical design of the space. In the case of the Christ Presbyterian
Church of Nashville, TN, the music staff and the decorating sub-committee
changed, late during the construction process, from soft seat
back pews to
hard seat back pews, at considerable additional cost to the Church,
without
any regard to the gigantic change that would occur to the architectural
acoustics of the space, and without consulting or even bothering
to notify
the project Acoustician of the change. Both of these Church's
are dealing
every week with the acoustical "accommodations" and
resultant problems that
were constructed into their facilities without everyone carefully
(&
prayerfully) weighing all the alternatives and consequences.
Ideally, we would probably want this non-antagonistic space
to either have
variable acoustics or have some form of an electronic enhancement
system
that would give us the perception of a more reverberant space
when desired.
The only problem with this idea is the significant associated
costs. It's
difficult enough to get an Architect or Church Building Committee
to put
any money in the new building budget for any acoustical treatments
or for a
sound system, much less for the ultimate in acoustical and audio
systems.
Unfortunately, acoustics and audio are usually down on
the Building
Committee's priority list, that is, until the first Sunday service
draws
near. Suddenly, and very predictably, the Building Committee,
the Church
Staff, and everyone associated with the design and construction
process
becomes very concerned with everyone's ability to hear and everyone
being
pleased with the sound. Unfortunately, and most often, it's way
too late
in the game to worry about such low priority items as acoustics
and sound.
In His Technical Service
Bill Thrasher
Thrasher & Company, Inc.