I've been given the task of equipping a brand new space with an entire sound system. Currently I don't know what the space looks like, or even what kind of electronics it has at the moment. The budget isn't exactly huge, but I'm not looking for top of the line here. More of something to allow me to operate a number of mics, play cd's, the basics. At the moment I'm thinking 16 channels, which may later be upgraded to 24 channels. The space will mostly be used for regular plays (no musicals), so pit mics are not an issue. I'm not certain, but it may end up being rented out periodically to other groups, so versatility is important. Any general ideas are welcome.
New Space to Outfit
- Thread starterCaveman
- Start date
Can you clarify what you mean by your being tasked to "equip" a sound system for a new space? Do you mean develop concept, create a design, procure the equipment, install the system, test it, document it, warranty it and so on or just some subset of that? Knowing your role and the planned process might help in making sure any comments offered are appropriate and relevant.
I'll make my usual general recommendation. Since it is apparently an existing space that may also have a major impact, so the more you can find out about the space the better. Also, the overall scope of work and changes (architectural, electrical, acoustics, etc.) could play a significant role, so having a good understanding of what other work is planned will probably help. This information will help you know where you are.
Also focus the desired functionality for the space and system. Figure out what you need/want the system to do and what would be considered an acceptable or desired result, then start putting together a conceptual design to support that. Let form follow function rather than trying to determine the form before knowing the function. This will give you where you are going.
Once you know where you are and determine where you want to go, then you can start looking at how to get between the two.
I'll make my usual general recommendation. Since it is apparently an existing space that may also have a major impact, so the more you can find out about the space the better. Also, the overall scope of work and changes (architectural, electrical, acoustics, etc.) could play a significant role, so having a good understanding of what other work is planned will probably help. This information will help you know where you are.
Also focus the desired functionality for the space and system. Figure out what you need/want the system to do and what would be considered an acceptable or desired result, then start putting together a conceptual design to support that. Let form follow function rather than trying to determine the form before knowing the function. This will give you where you are going.
Once you know where you are and determine where you want to go, then you can start looking at how to get between the two.
Thanks for the advice Brad. Sorry about the miscommunication there, although you gave me an idea of where to go next in this process. By "equip" I meant that I was told to provide ideas for equipment. Things such as a board, mics, setup, and configuration. Based on what you've said though, I should probably decide those for myself to fit with how the space will be used, and it's overall structure.
And yes I am a high school student. It's a long story, but my theatre teacher last year runs a small theatre company that just bought the space I'm talking about and wanted to talk to me because I'm the primary sound technician at my school. In short, I know more than my peers, but I don't know a lot in the grand scheme of things.
And yes I am a high school student. It's a long story, but my theatre teacher last year runs a small theatre company that just bought the space I'm talking about and wanted to talk to me because I'm the primary sound technician at my school. In short, I know more than my peers, but I don't know a lot in the grand scheme of things.
As a sound system designer this is a situation of which I am acutely aware. The reason I say that is that when I design a system I can either take the functional goals you define and be responsible for a system design that supports those goals or I can take a list of equipment and be responsible for using that equipment. However, I cannot be responsible for meeting the functional goals someone defines while using an equipment list someone else developed.
I'm not saying not to develop general ideas of what is wanted or even specific models where there is reason for it (tech riders, compatibility with existing gear, user familiarity, etc.), but I see situations with people expecting the system designer to provide a system with a certain level of performance while giving them no choice in the components used.
This issue is not limited to Owners either, when I worked as a system designer for a Contractor it was initially common for the salespeople to simply provide us a list of what equipment they had sold. We would often have no idea of what the system was supposed to do or what the Owner expected. We ran into so many cases of putting the equipment together in a completely logical manner only to have it not be what the Owner expected that we got our management to require the sales staff to provide a written narrative of what the system would be and do for each project and that became the basis for the system design and eventual acceptance, including our being able to modify the equipment list from sales if necessary to achieve the result defined. I still see this all the time with Contractors, their bid is an equipment list with no definition of what they are providing other than that equipment (which in one case I know of was, much to their surprise, actually all the Owner got, a pile of equipment on a pallet).
Put more simply, if there will eventually be someone responsible for the system performance and result, then they should have a major role, and probably the final say, in selecting the equipment. If there will be no such entity, then the parties selecting the equipment probably want to develop enough of a system concept or design to verify that their equipment choices can provide the desired results. In either situation, there has to be some basis for assessing what is the desired/acceptable result.
Another common challenge in these situations is that people without system installation experience often tend to overlook aspects such as power, conduit and all the other issues related to actually getting a system installed. They also often fail to incorporate ancillary items such as cable, racks, hardware and so on into budgets. The result is too often budgets that reflect the major equipment items but not a practical installed system.
It sounds like you input may be invaluable in the assisting the theatre in figuring out what they conceptually need or want but that everyone should be clear on just what your input is and is not.
I'm not saying not to develop general ideas of what is wanted or even specific models where there is reason for it (tech riders, compatibility with existing gear, user familiarity, etc.), but I see situations with people expecting the system designer to provide a system with a certain level of performance while giving them no choice in the components used.
This issue is not limited to Owners either, when I worked as a system designer for a Contractor it was initially common for the salespeople to simply provide us a list of what equipment they had sold. We would often have no idea of what the system was supposed to do or what the Owner expected. We ran into so many cases of putting the equipment together in a completely logical manner only to have it not be what the Owner expected that we got our management to require the sales staff to provide a written narrative of what the system would be and do for each project and that became the basis for the system design and eventual acceptance, including our being able to modify the equipment list from sales if necessary to achieve the result defined. I still see this all the time with Contractors, their bid is an equipment list with no definition of what they are providing other than that equipment (which in one case I know of was, much to their surprise, actually all the Owner got, a pile of equipment on a pallet).
Put more simply, if there will eventually be someone responsible for the system performance and result, then they should have a major role, and probably the final say, in selecting the equipment. If there will be no such entity, then the parties selecting the equipment probably want to develop enough of a system concept or design to verify that their equipment choices can provide the desired results. In either situation, there has to be some basis for assessing what is the desired/acceptable result.
Another common challenge in these situations is that people without system installation experience often tend to overlook aspects such as power, conduit and all the other issues related to actually getting a system installed. They also often fail to incorporate ancillary items such as cable, racks, hardware and so on into budgets. The result is too often budgets that reflect the major equipment items but not a practical installed system.
It sounds like you input may be invaluable in the assisting the theatre in figuring out what they conceptually need or want but that everyone should be clear on just what your input is and is not.
Similar threads
