Is this level of equipment appropriate

[JChenault]

I am serving as chairman of a building committee for a theatre renovation. As such I need to be part of making some decisions about a new sound system. I know little about current sound equipment and am trying to find out of our consultants recommendation is over the top or not.

We are a large community theatre that does only musicals - annual budget around one million. The house is a converted movie theatre that currently seats 379. ( 399 after the renovation). Part of the renovation is to put in an orchestra pit and re-work the sound system. We currently use wireless mikes and expect to continue to do so.

The proscenium arch in the renovated space will be 32 feet wide. The auditorium is 60 feet wide side wall to side wall. We expect to do some scenes on the apron which will be 45 feet wide.

Our primary desire is for reinforcing singing. Some sound effects, but that is not what we are designing for. The consultant is suggesting:

A new 32-channel, Left / Center / Right (LCR) digital mixing console
located in the performance space will be provided and will connect all input locations into the speakers. The digital console will allow for simple preset “scene” setup and recall to specific mixer configurations for consistency of use and for rapid recall of settings during a performance. The mixing console will connect to the house sound system via multi-pin connectors (CIP’s) and associated short length (15’) of multi-pin to fan snake cable.

A new LCR speaker system is to be provided to allow for realistic reproduction of speech, music and program content and to allow for cogent sound reproduction localization of the stage panorama through the speaker system. In addition, a 4- channel effects / monitor sound system with portable speakers is provided to allow for stage foldback (monitoring) of audio content and for sound effect playback.
​

My questions:

• With this size of theatre do we really need a LCR speaker cluster?
• How would an operator be able to do a live mix of voices and also pan output appropriately? Would he simply select where the sound comes from, or are we trying to map each microphone to a separate speaker?
• Is the preset concept really useful or is it just something to spend money on.
• Our sound operators are usually volunteers who have learned on the job. Is this kind of console adding too much complexity to the operation or is a higher end console going to be simple to use.

Thanks in advance for the feedback. Apologies if this has been covered in the past.

 

[mbenonis]

Has your consultant specified any wireless microphone systems? I'd be happy to look that over for you.

 

[Footer]

The digital console is standard with just about any install anymore. I don't think anyone is installing an analog console unless it is requested. I have used a many digital consoles and have had 13 year old students to 70 year old men running them without a problem. 32 channels sounds about right for a midsized musical with a pit orchestra. Having scenes is just as useful as lighting cues however its not a set it and forget it operation like lighting is. You still have to listen and be an active part of the show. However, the presets will get you where you need to start out.

I have 4 foldback/point source channels on my stage and we don't do any any reinforcement, its just playback. Four channels is actually the minimum as far as I am concerned.

As far as the "paning" thing goes. No one does that. Usually you want vocals primary coming out of your center cluster and you use your L/R/Front fills for fill.

I would push for a mic package to get added. I would also push for a good wireless system to be added. Both of those things typically get left off.

Overall, I don't think you are getting shafted. I think you are getting the system you need to have and that you guys will grow into. It might be 10x as much as what you had before, but it will be what you need in the future.

 

[JChenault]

Footer.
Thanks for the feedback - just the kind of info I was looking for.

The quotes were just an excerpt from the narrative from the consultant. It goes on to suggest 12 new wireless mikes ( not enough IMHO) stage mikes, etc. I did not want to post too much info to the board to reduce reading fatigue. If you are interested I will be happy to share the entire doc.

John

 

[Kally123]

Hey JChenault

I am the Sound engineer at a 900 seat theater. We just awarded the bid for a complet overhaul of our sound sytem. And there is not much difference in the gear specified for us. Our Digital board has a few more inputs but it is digital and we are also going with LCR set up with some Delays for the balcony and front fill.

As others have asked I would be inclined to ask what is the average size of the cast? What wireless sytems have been proposed?

But as it stands I think your consultant is on the right track as long as the brands of gear that he is proposing is quality stuff.

Has he also done a complete tour of your facility and included; if needed upgrades to power supply, power supply isolation, paging/com system?

 

[gpforet]

Most musicals I have designed sound for (West Side Story, The Music Man, TheWiz) in spaces like yours have functioned fine with 12 channels of wireless. If you are located in a Metro area, you may considering renting additional channels when needed. The major problem I have experienced with a pit is getting the stage actors volume over the top of the orchestra. This has never been a limitation of the system but more an issue of gain before feedback and it may be worthwhile to consider ways of treating the orchestra pit acoustically to control volume.

Footer.
Thanks for the feedback - just the kind of info I was looking for.

The quotes were just an excerpt from the narrative from the consultant. It goes on to suggest 12 new wireless mikes ( not enough IMHO) stage mikes, etc. I did not want to post too much info to the board to reduce reading fatigue. If you are interested I will be happy to share the entire doc.

John

 

[museav]

Did you ask your consultant to explain what they proposed? Many selections are not just a matter of simply being appropriate in general but rather of being appropriate for the specific application. There are often very specific comments made about the use or users that can lead to a designer selecting or rejecting certain approaches.

Beyond that, it is not just the system concepts and equipment models but also the system design and implementation that affects the end result. An LCR speaker system may generally be preferable for theatrical applications, however a poorly designed, installed and/or tuned LCR system may not be as good as a well designed, installed and tuned mono center cluster system.

FWIW, the size of the theater often has nothing to do with the general system concepts. It may affect what speakers are used, how much amplification is needed, etc. but things like the general speaker system concept or the number of inputs needed to support certain performances or functions may be the same regardless of the venue size. And example that may make you feel more comfortable, I just met today with the Architect and other designers on a Community Center project that includes an under 300 seat theatre that will probably be an LCR speaker system, with under balcony fills and perhaps some form of multi-channel surround as well, and will almost certainly have a digital console. Those choices had nothing to do with the size of the venue and everything to do with the functions and users they want to support along with the quality desired.

In my experience 12 wireless mics is plenty for most community theatres unless you already have a specific need for more on a routine basis. You might design the system to handle more than 12 but the issue usually becomes how many are used on a regular basis such that the cost, maintenance, etc. can be justified. Just look at the recent 700MHz spectrum changes, would you want to be having to replace a dozen wireless mics that you rarely use? Or could you rent additional wireless or simply use wired mics in many cases?

 

[MNicolai]

It sounds like they're setting you up for a Yamaha LS9-32 or equivalent. Even though that may not be what you'll end up getting, I'm going to use that as my frame of reference because that's what I'm familiar with.

The LS9 is a good, solid mixer, with lots of built-in features. I would never simply sit a volunteer down in front of it and expect them to know how to use it, because every application will have a different way they setup the mix groups and matrices, but the learning curve isn't too bad when some time is put into familiarizing people with it. If that is the mixer they're getting you, Yamaha even has some great online tutorial videos your volunteers could use. Overall, I think it's a mixer you'd be pleased with.

You're not really spending any extra money on getting a mixer with presets versus one without. That allows the mixer to be used like a light console, where you set the levels for each of your scenes, store the presets, and recall them when the show starts. If you don't use that feature, you can just operate the console just as you would. If you do lots of shows where there are a lot of wireless microphones and as soon as the scene changes, you need to have an entirely different setting for which mic's are on and which are not, then having the ability to use scenes can be pretty useful.

Even with LCR, you don't really have to spend a lot of time worrying about where the voices are coming from out of the speakers. Typically what you'll do is put a little more music into your side fills and voices more into your center cluster. With the LS9, you can mix in Mono mode, which lets you put your entire signal into the center cluster (or not, your choice), and allows you to pan between L and R like normal. If you mix in LCR mode, then the default setting is 50%, which is balanced between L/R and C, and then mixing towards 100% puts it more into C, and 0% puts it more into L/R (or vise versa, I forget which exactly it is).

LCR isn't a big deal. Just because you have a center cluster, doesn't mean you need to spend lots of extra time setting up your mix for it. If your install is setup well the first time, then getting into mixing LCR is added feature for the sound operator that wants to precisely tune the mix. A volunteer who doesn't want to worry about setting up an LCR-specific mix, really shouldn't have to worry about it. I leave almost all of my mic's at a default 50% and then just pan my canned music a little more carefully.

 

[SHARYNF]

It is important to quickly get beyond the general design and to the specific equipment that is going to be used. The devil is in the Details

I have seen A couple of approaches where depending on the height a Line Array hang on the two sides might also work

Do you have a Balcony? what is the overall height of the venue, how high is the Proscenium arch? height above that? You have a fairly wide venue to the width of the stage so again possibly a hang on either side might work better than a center cluster. Again a good designer should be able to go over the thinking in their recommendations. I have seen a lot of designs start with the stand LCR and then upon more careful analysis move to a LR

Any Idea what the budget for the audio equipment side of things will be?

Sharyn

 

[museav]

It is important to quickly get beyond the general design and to the specific equipment that is going to be used. The devil is in the Details

I agree abut the devil being in the details but disagree vehemently about it being important to get into the details of the equipment quickly. Some of the worst projects I've had were a result of focusing on specific products too early in the process.

My approach is to spend as much time as needed to get a good definition of what the system needs or is expected to do. Then develop a system concept to support the functionality and performance defined. Then plan for the infrastructure to support that concept. Only then do you really need to start thinking about actual equipment details. I'm not saying you may not have some ideas in mind long before then and considerations like rider compatibility may be part of the functional requirements defined but it usually comes down to focusing first on what is going to define a successful result.


A couple of details on some of the comments. I'm not clear whether a "LR" speaker system is referring to a stereo/two channel system where the speakers on both sides cover the entire listener area or an exploded mono cluster system where the speakers on each side cover different parts of the listener area. Since speech intelligibility and localization are usually a high priority in those applications, I typically avoid two channel/stereo systems for most theatrical applications.

The left and right channels in an LCR system are not side fills. In a proper LCR system the speaker(s) for each individual channel properly cover the entire listener area. And as you pan a source it pans from left to center to right. This requires a mixer that supports a true LCR mix. One variation on this is a stereo plus center mono system which also uses three speakers groupings each covering the entire listener area, however in this case sources are assigned to either the center mono cluster as a mono source or to the stereo left/right system and panned between left and right. This approach can be handled via a console with subgroups or with master stereo and mono/center mix buses. Another variation would be a three component exploded cluster, which would have left, center and right speakers grouping but with each grouping covering a separate section of the listener area (and thus where the term "side fill" may be more applicable for the left and right components). This would be a mono mix. So just having three speakers or speaker arrays does not make a system LCR, LCR is a more general concept for how the entire mix and speaker system work.

FWIW, it is never possible to have a source in both the left and right channel in a true LCR system and the LS9 needs you to work two controls simultaneously (from panned left and all L/R to panned center and all center to panned right and all left/right again) to try to mimic true LCR mixing. However that approach does provide a good way to implement a stereo plus center mono system with great flexibility.

Line arrays are the right solution for some spaces but not for nearly as many as end up with them. Wihtout knowing more about the space it is difficult to say of they would be a good idea or not in this case. But other than verifying that the concept proposed can be made to work, the specific speaker system locations and components should not really be a factor until after the general concept is defined and approved.

And I think that where they are in the process may be where there is some confusion. The language quoted sounds very much like it is from a Program Report or Needs Analysis, a document where the functional requirements and proposed concepts are delineated in order to provide a basis for review and approval before proceeding into any detailed design. The intent of such a document is for the Consultant to say "Here is what we understand you want the system to do and how we plan to accomplish that" before they start investing effort on the detailed system design. This is also why it is important to discuss this with your Consultant. You need to all be on the same page, if there are misunderstandings, misinterpretations or errors now and they are not addressed, they will follow through the rest of the project.

 

[SHARYNF]

I don't disagree with Brad but here is perhaps a slightly different take on this

What I see is that the situation is a lot further down the process, and that what is being produced is a proposed bid document. The wording, again this is subject to interpretation is more like a spec that someone has an idea what folks are going to bid on, vs a needs document out of the program stage

At the program stage the wording for instance would be "the here needs to be a system that provides left right and center"

Again, I absolutely agree at the PROGRAM stage you need to get the requirements down so a proper design can be done, BUT IF I am correct and this is way post Program stage and is part of a bid pack proposal stage, then I think understanding more specific equipment is going to be important


My comments on LR system is a mono system, where the speaker system is on stage right and left, and does not have a center fill


Brad does this sort of work all the time, so he might have the more accurate interpretation of where in the design you are. I am coming more from the review end of the equation where I have been asked to look over what is being put in the bid pack and to look at design tradeoff recommendations


I do think that some of the questions I raised

Height of proscenium, height of the ceiling, balcony or no etc would be usefull

How is the acoustics in the room, are there any problems that are going to need treatment? What is the Budget and how is it beeing split up. A orchestra pit with a lift being added to an existing structure is not an inexpensive project.

Sharyn

 

[museav]

Sharyn is right and it would help to know where in the process you are. The text quoted from the Consultant sounds very much like what I would typically issue in a Program Report. However, on my projects that same language would also be included in the Specifications, but it would be in Section 1 (Section 1 is 'General', Section 2 'Equipment' and Section 3 'Execution' in a standard three-part CSI Specification) as part of the Project Description, a place used to make the overall goals defined earlier in the project a part of the work being bid on. In order to provide direct continuity in having the goals defined up front follow through the entire project I often quite literally cut and paste the relevant parts of the Program Report into the Project Description in the Specifications. However that does not mean that this is how every Consultant approaches every project and while formal Bid Documents should include information like this to define the general intent, they should indeed also go into much more detail.

The inverse of this would be situations where the documents used to obtain bids are an equipment list with little or no definition of the overall functionality or performance for the system. That has the potential result of getting the details right while totally missing on the 'big picture'. The best result is when the Bid Documents define both the overall and specific expectations.

Another possibility is where the Consultant develops a detailed Technical Request for Proposal for design/build services. In that case the Contractors are bidding on both designing and building the systems and the Consultant's role is not actually designing the systems but rather to assist the Owner in providing sufficient information for the Contractors to provide responsive bids. Basically trying to make sure that everyone bidding is bidding based on the same information to allow competitive bidding and that the information used for bidding sufficiently defines the desired results.

So as you can see, whether the language provided is the entire description or only the 'big picture' part of a more encompassing description can depend on the approach used and where you are in the process.


To address the specific questions:

With this size of theatre do we really need a LCR speaker cluster?

As already noted, it is typically the use and functionality, not the size of the space or the number of seats, that determines the general speaker system approach used. The same concept applies to the number of system inputs and outputs, quantity of wireless mics, etc., it is the use, not the room, that defines many of the basic system requirements. It is accommodating those goals within the actual space that is a major part of the actual system design effort and may lead to some compromises.

How would an operator be able to do a live mix of voices and also pan output appropriately? Would he simply select where the sound comes from, or are we trying to map each microphone to a separate speaker?

With the true LCR system you simply pan where you want it, keeping in mind that the perceived imaging probably differs some throughout the audience (an issue sometimes leading to cross-matrix LCR systems and other more complex approaches).

Is the preset concept really useful or is it just something to spend money on.

Most theatres really appreciate presets. As others have noted, they can be used much like lighting scenes but I also have many Clients using them as simple room presets to accommodate typical uses and events.

Our sound operators are usually volunteers who have learned on the job. Is this kind of console adding too much complexity to the operation or is a higher end console going to be simple to use.

That is a little difficult to answer as the console description given is very generic and could be fulfilled by quite a range of products. If your volunteers have only worked with analog consoles then a digital console may take a bit of getting used to. However, I'm finding more and more people with digital console experience, and more with only digital console experience, as many bands, churches, etc. are adopting them.

One thing to consider is that I find that digital console operation can often be broken into two parts. One of both the biggest advantages and biggest hurdles with digital consoles is that they are very flexible in configuration, thus someone has to have sufficient understanding to properly configure the console. However, once configured the operation can then be relatively straightforward. As a result, in many situation it is quite possible to have a limited number of people capable of programming the console with a larger number of operators who can run the console without necessarily knowing how to program it.

Other common advantages to digital consoles are that the onboard effects and processing can often replace racks of outboard equipment. And that this combined with the use of fader layers can result in a much smaller physical footprint, something that is often a consideration in renovations.

 

[JChenault]

Thanks for all of the comments - let me see if I can answer some of your questions.

We are in the early stages of the project. Our schedule will be to do the renovation in summer of 2011.

There is no balcony in the space. The current ceiling height of the space from the floor of the auditorium at it's lowest point ( IE next to the stage) is 20 feet. We are still working on exact stage height and proscenium size but the stage will be approximately 3 foot 4 inches above the floor, and the proscenium 32 feet wide by 13 feet tall.

The document is closer to a program report than a design document. ( They call it a design narrative) The consultants came to the space and measured the acoustical properties. They looked at the preliminary plans our architect and us have come up with and have made some general comments re the physical space to make it better acoustically ( some of which we will do, and some of which we will not be able to do).

Along with the architectural acoustics document, they included an overview of what they would recommend for equipment. They did include some suggested equipment as part of the document, but we are no where near any kind of bid process or installation as yet. ( For the gearheads among us, they are suggesting an Allen and Heath iLive-T series mixer, Telex intercoms, TOA HX-5 Speakers, and Sannheiser G2 100 wireless mikes. ) I interpret the purpose of the equipment list to give us a better idea of what they believe an appropriate system would cost.

We do not anticipate using the acoustical consultant to bid on the project. They seem to be more comfortable with preparing the documents and supervising than installing.

Cast and orchestra size ranges from small of two orchestra and four cast up to 21 musicians and a cast of 20 to 30.

I don't think we are ready to talk about specific equipment as yet. First we need to understand the architectural components of the project and balance off the needs of seats, acoustics, space on stage, lighting, etc. Once all of that gets sorted out we can start to look at manufactures gear - but we are just not there yet. I consider the consultants cut sheets only as ideas of the kinds of equipment they propose.

We have not as yet met with the consultants after their initial report - plan to do that in the next few weeks ( primarily for architectural acoustical issues as these seem to be a lot more intertwingled with every thing else).

So to summarize - we are early in the process, I am pretty happy with the consultants at this point. We have a number of conflicts to resolve ( For example, they want to make the pit so big that we would need a second exit for code reasons that would add substantially to the cost - and they want the pit opening to be enlarged taking out a row of seats, or several seats off of the stage).

I was trying to get a sense of reasonableness of their proposal. The AV Equipment guy has tended to go a bit overboard in some of our discussions and I had some concerns that this might be happening here. What I am hearing is that the narrative sounds generally reasonable at this point in the process. I expect that when we get closer to selecting equipment I will be back for more advice.

Thanks to all.

 

[mbenonis]

I'll speak with regard to wireless (and leave the other stuff to people far more qualified than I). Make sure your system designer understands the intricacies of wireless/RF installations. In particular, they should be able to tell you what kind of systems you need based on the space, proximity to broadcast transmitters, and other spaces nearby (especially gyms and football stadiums). They should also be able to talk about antenna type, feedline size, and antenna distribution (active or passive) They don't necessarly need to specify particular brands or models of equipment, but they should be able to point out whether (for example) you need directional antennas positioned closely to the stage or if a pair of omni whips on the antenna distributor is sufficient for your needs (and why). If they don't, start asking questions and come here for more answers as well.

Wireless can often be overlooked as a "drop in", but with more than eight systems it is critical that professionals design (and install) the system and get it right the first time. If not, you're going to have a world of headaches when you go to use it.

 

[SHARYNF]

So Brad's take on where you are in the process is correct. Equipment comes later

Before dismissing the changes to the venue to improve acoustics and the size of the pit it might be interesting to post these recommendations here and see folks reactions.

Sharyn

 

[Chris15]

I'll speak with regard to wireless (and leave the other stuff to people far more qualified than I). Make sure your system designer understands the intricacies of wireless/RF installations. In particular, they should be able to tell you what kind of systems you need based on the space, proximity to broadcast transmitters, and other spaces nearby (especially gyms and football stadiums). They should also be able to talk about antenna type, feedline size, and antenna distribution (active or passive) They don't necessarly need to specify particular brands or models of equipment, but they should be able to point out whether (for example) you need directional antennas positioned closely to the stage or if a pair of omni whips on the antenna distributor is sufficient for your needs (and why). If they don't, start asking questions and come here for more answers as well.

Wireless can often be overlooked as a "drop in", but with more than eight systems it is critical that professionals design (and install) the system and get it right the first time. If not, you're going to have a world of headaches when you go to use it.

It seems the consultant has touched on this... speccing G2s BUT this highlights that the consultant is out of touch. G2 is old news, G3 is the current thing...

 

[museav]

It seems the consultant has touched on this... speccing G2s BUT this highlights that the consultant is out of touch. G2 is old news, G3 is the current thing...

Keep in mind that at the point where this project apparently is an equipment list is likely more a place holder for budgeting purposes than a final equipment list. You know you need something like that item, but may determine the specific model later on when preparing the Bid Documents. It also can be months between when a Program document is created and when the the final Bid Documents get completed and it will typically be months or years between then and when the equipment actually gets ordered and/or things actually get installed, so it is not at all unusual for product versions or models to change from when some documents are created.

Mike, this also goes to your point. At the time a Consultant is designing a system there may be no building and it may be years before the systems will actually be operational. While there does need to be some reasonable level of design on the wireless systems, it may also require leaving aspects open enough to accommodate changes and field conditions. One typically has to balance providing sufficient detail to obtain the desired result with providing too much detail to accommodate the inevitable changes, the more the chances of relevant factors changing the more one must be able to accommodate those changes.

In fact it is dealing with things like it being months and years between when you first conceptualize, and have to budget, a system and when it actually gets bid and then even later starts being used that can be some of the greatest difficulties when working as part of a larger building project. As an example, I am currently part of a team bidding on a project where the design team will be selected at the end of this month. The Conceptual Design package would be due in just over 3 months however the Bid Documents aren't scheduled to be completed until 13 months after that and the construction isn't scheduled to be completed until over three years from now. Do you think some equipment models, assumptions and even laws may change between 3 months, 16 months and 38 months from now? But that's how things work on large construction projects.

Again, they may just be place holders and there may be good reasons for the selections but I do find the 100 series Sennheiser wireless mics and TOA HX-5 speakers a bit at odds with an iLive-T console. They are all good products but the speakers and wireless systems are perhaps more 'entry level' products compared to the console. I will suggest that unless the application is speech only, the TOA HX-5 would almost certainly require subwoofers, which may already be accommodated and simply were not mentioned.

 

[fx120]

Bah the HX-5's are awful speakers. At their rated power they are so distorted they're almost unlistenable.
<end rant>

I too find it odd that they would specify a ~$18,000+ console to pair up with ~$800 speakers and $600 wireless microphones. Even at this stage in the design process it seems mismatched.

Do you mind me asking what is the overall budget including installation for the audio portion?

 

[museav]

Bah the HX-5's are awful speakers. At their rated power they are so distorted they're almost unlistenable.
<end rant>

Like any speakers, they can be a good choice in the right application and a bad choice in the wrong one. However, $800 is actually very close to list price on the HX-5 so if you're looking at list prices then the comnparison is more like $22,000 to $30,000 for the console, $900 each for the wireless mics, and $800 each for the speakers. Unless there is some specific driving force behind the choice, you can see why the speaker slection sticks out.

 

[fx120]

Like any speakers, they can be a good choice in the right application and a bad choice in the wrong one. However, $800 is actually very close to list price on the HX-5 so if you're looking at list prices then the comnparison is more like $22,000 to $30,000 for the console, $900 each for the wireless mics, and $800 each for the speakers. Unless there is some specific driving force behind the choice, you can see why the speaker slection sticks out.

Perhaps there is an application the HX-5's would work well for, unfortunately none of the places I have ever seen them are it. I have had to start stocking the replacement drivers because some other company in town started putting them into every application they could think of, then disappeared leaving dozens of clients hanging.