What acoustic improvements have you made for choir?

lmassery

I'm trying to solve the problem of the resonance in my choir loft being completely dead and am wondering what y'all have done to help. The body of the church has a decent 3 second reverb, but up in the loft it sounds dead as a doornail and is a real stumbling block to my choir sounding their best, obviously. The ceiling is very low, slopes back and up (bass ackwards) and has plaster stucco. Have any of you ever hired an acoustic engineer to help with similar issues? If so do you know anyone in/near Ohio? Any do-it-yourself ideas like some sort of fiberglass screen? One partial solution I have found is to literally stand at the railing and sing over the loft, forgetting about the mics, but only a couple people could fit there. Take a few steps back and the sound gets stuck up there and dies.
Thanks for any tips.

Salieri

Out of curiosity, have you had your choir sing something while you go down to the nave or into the sanctuary to hear what it sounds like downstairs? I know in my own loft that it sounds dead upstairs but the sound travels quite well and fills the church. (You can actually hear whispered conversations in the loft from the sanctuary.)

Chris Garton-Zavesky

Lmassery,

Salieri has a good idea. Here's another one: study whatever the architect of St. Michael's Anglican Cathedral in Coventry, England, did, and then do something which is as near as opposite to it as possible.

Avoid, run away from, forget about microphones of all kinds.

lmassery

Salieri - that is a good idea which I'll try again. We have sung from the sanctuary before (downstairs) and the sound is much better. Even if the sound from the loft carries better than I thought, much of the problem is that we can barely hear each other up there.

melofluent

Ah, here we go again. Chris, I just met with pastor looking at latest blueprint (no elevations yet) of our pro-cathedral project. I re-re-re-re-emphasized my concern about the building materials used for all surfaces as it's been my experience that contractors and the engineers at the diocese all opt for wall and ceiling options that are sound-absorbent, most likely due to cost-savings. He agrees, which is nice, but this isn't a concern decided upon by our mini-See. A 2500 occupancy will have to concede to some measure of apt sound engineering by both builders and audiologists.
There is a parish in our diocese that was built likely 35 years or so ago that has huge dimensions and has been used as a "pro-cathedral" that arguably had the deadest acoustic of any major church in the diocese. The DMM ( a friend) finally after decades remediated that deficiency when digital room modeling found its way to sound management systems like it had with simulacra organs and studio/live popular effects. That's also been done at a neighbor parish that has made a world of difference towards "enlivening" vocal ambience. Sometimes acceding to worthy technical remedies is, in fact, a better decision that remediates poor decisions at a building's genesis. Mic's have nothing to do with that technology other than being worthy, unobtrusive vehicles.

mahrt

You might also try any other space in the church where the choir might sing. We found an alcove about half-way back that has proven very advantageous.

My experience in Prague is interesting. We were invited to go to Prague for a liturgical music festival, and we arranged to sing a Mass in a different church each day for the ten days we were there. They put up posters, and there were quite good-sized congregations, considering they were week-day Masses. But when I saw the churches, elegant but enormous old buildings, I thought how are we going to manage, this little choir in such big spaces. No worry, every place we sang was beautifully resonant, and we sounded very good. Our American churches are dumbed down acoustically.

The cathedral in Oakland is a counter-example. The acoustician recommended acoustical material throughout the church with the use of microphones. The administration of the cathedral vetoed the recommendation, saying "we want it to be good for music." The building is quite live; it works well for music. It was a challenge for the sound-system engineers, because they had to manage such a live acoustic for speech, but they did manage, and it is quite successful acoustically.

M. Jackson Osborn

'Avoid, run away from, forget about microphones of all kinds.'

Hear! Hear!
Wisdom! Attend!
These are the words of a sage.

Liam

I would say the only major negative feature in old-practice (architecturally speaking) churches would be deep domes on high drums. That's one "traditional" architectural feature that translates poorly to the postconciliar liturgy (a shallow Byzantine dome or, even better, a sail vault are better options) and should not be designed into new churches over the sanctuary or between the sanctuary and the choir/congregation. Reserve proportionally deep (albeit smaller) domes for unitary spaces like baptisteries and chapels.

M. Jackson Osborn

Dr Mahrt's above example of a building committee who said, contrary to the advice of the acousticians and builders, 'we want it to be good for music', is indeed music to the ears. Once in too great a while we hear of such wisdom from those erecting new churches, but most of the time the dumb advice from acoustical people and architects is followed cluelessly. This raises the question: just what is it about these supposedly knowledgeable 'professionals' that leads them to engineer acoustically dead or inferior spaces in which a lion's roar could hardly be heard without a PA system? What makes acoustical 'experts' purposefully engineer horrid acoustics, dead spaces? They must know that there is no hope for music and congregational singing that is alive in the rooms they create, yet they persist in championing the opposite of what is desirable in a building in which music making is a paramount concern? What's wrong with them? Why do they do this? Mustn't they know better? (I know of at least two Catholic churches in Houston which have, not only sound absorbent ceilings, wall-to-wall carpeting, and padded pew seats and backs, but [believe it or not!!!] padded walls! This is insane. Another, very prominent, parish, on Sage Road near the Galleria, has a very generously proportioned sanctuary [probably at least roughly forty feet square] which is paved with beautiful black marble - and what has some recent pastor done to it? - covered it over with wall-to-wall carpeting. Of course, the nave, too, is carpeted. Beauty of sound or appearance is apparently of no concern.)

melofluent

The acoustician recommended acoustical material throughout the church with the use of microphones. The administration of the cathedral vetoed the recommendation, saying "we want it to be good for music." The building is quite live; it works well for music. It was a challenge for the sound-system engineers, because they had to manage such a live acoustic for speech, but they did manage, and it is quite successful acoustically.

Professor, would you mind forwarding me the sound mgmt. engineers' firm URL?
Dire need.
Charles

melofluent

Once in too great a while we hear of such wisdom from those erecting new churches, but most of the time the dumb advice from acoustical people and architects is followed cluelessly.

Jackson, would you please pay attention and once in a while opt not to offer your huzzahs and stentorian advice. What the h*ll do you think I'm trying to do up here in CA?
I can't be the only one, but ivory tower pontifications actually turn off the gate-keepers in chanceries, or is that not one of your concerns? Please.

M. Jackson Osborn

Charles -
It seems that you are in the midst of very trying efforts on behalf of a fit house for the worship of our Lord. I wish you well and hope that all your efforts bear the fruit that you and all of us desire.

melofluent

Thank you, Jackson. Yes, I am fighting the good fight and it was only today that I was sure I had the current clerical staff, not the least of which is the pastor, endorsing my insistence. Having no inkling whether I will be extant to see this through, at least I know that documented or not, my voice was heard by TPTB at a pivotal moment.
Sorry to have been snippy.

ClergetKubisz

Many of us have been where you are, or at least in a similar position, melo. May the Lord bless you and see to all of your needs.

doneill

Dennis Fleisher has a good reputation and understands Catholic liturgy - he's in Grand Rapids, Michigan.
http://www.musonics.org/

ghmus7

MJM:
It's quite simple really: architects and sound system people design buildings that require expensive sound systems to make anything heard. They are simple providing work for themselves. I have never heard a soud system person say "oh you dont need much equipment" . No, they want to sell you as much as possible.

Welcome to the MusicaSacra Forum!

Categories