Large Church Installation - Open Conversation, Please

FWIW, I would keep 4 speakers a side on their backs pointing up. You can then send a mix of mixtures etc to one l/r set and keep the other 3 a side for reeds/pedal reeds. This is very useful with dry sets, as it
A: gives a more natural dispersion with the upper-work, which would bounce off the roof in your space
and
B: gives you a stereo group to play with for things like non-hodded reeds(i.e. ones without a bend at the top) and rough pedal reeds with a lot of upper-harmonics that don't sound good pointed in your face.

Just a thought.

P.s. Armley ROCKS!!!
Consider Menestrol moist too. It's very good. Also, the Rotterdam Dry sets. The Transept Dry is wonderful.The Main Dry is very versatile. (The chamade-werk could form a rear group?)
P.p.s. Goerlitz does not really need truncating. Just load the front-direct ranks. They're DRY!

Alrighty, folks.....

Routing by "timbre" and then breaking it down further by "footage" (ie. 16, 8, 4, etc) does seem to clean things up quite a bit.

Just to experiment, I created 12 groups - 4 speakers each - as follows:

1 - 32'/16' Flues (Great/Pedal)
2 - 8' Flues (Great/Pedal)
3 - 4' Flues (Great/Pedal)
4 - 16' Reeds
5 - 8' Reeds
6 - 4' Reeds
7 - 8' Strings
8 - 16' Flues (Swell/Choir)
9 - 8' Flues (Swell/Choir)
10 - 4' Flues (Swell/Choir)
11 - Mixtures/Mutations
12 - Celestes

I tried out St. Anne's, Reuter op.227, and Friesach.

The more I think about this, the more it kind of makes sense as to why it improves. Looking back at my previous comment about louder sounds taking priority in a given mix, this perhaps explains why this works as well as it does. In this scheme, an 8' Principal, for example, isn't fighting with an 8' Trumpet for dominance if they were to be routed to the same speaker (which, if set up the conventional way - 8 speakers per division, cyclic within octave) then they would end up in the same speaker. This would make it to where the Trumpet would likely dominate over the Principal, rather than them helping to reinforce one another.

Very interesting. My routing scheme isn't perfect and I can see where it would need to change depending on the instrument. St. Annes for example, the 16, 8, 4 Diapason is one rank, so it all went to the same group.

The Reuter, for instance, has a PLETHORA of 8' Flues, few reeds, and only 2 mixtures, so it would need to be broken down even further, I'd think.... Maybe one reed group, and separate groups for each flue family - Flutes, Strings, Diapasons, etc.

I am still wondering what the results would be if you routed, say, 16' and 4' flues to the same group. 8' and 2' flues to the same group, etc. I wonder if the two octave distance would help move the frequency ranges out of each other's way???

I'm not sure what to do about speaker placement..... that's an entirely different obstacle to overcome.

Hi Drew,

Sounds like you're making some headway.

A couple questions for now, probably a few more coming after I scratch my head for a few, and it is kinda getting late.

1. With the current speaker layout are you able to set up the speaker groups in blocks of 4? In other words, can you do it so 4 speakers are set together in a block so 2 are side by side lower with 2 directly above them, like a square of 4 speakers?

2. How many subs do you have and can you set them (or it ) up to receive a mixdown of all?

I'm assuming a yes to both questions.

Also, I've tried the idea of mixing 4' flues with 16' flues as an example, or even 8' and 4' to the same speakers. Let's just say I found they don't play very nice with each other even though they might be from the same family. You gotta keep the ranks together based on length. Unlike my paltry 10 channels which requires some compromise, you've got a ton of channels to easily do this.

Marc

Okay, dumb question here but here goes; would there be anything detrimental to the sound or the speaker itself if the speaker were laid on it's side? I ask this because when looking at the pix, it seems as if there is room on the current shelves to stack two speakers between the shelves if they were oriented horizontally instead of vertically. There also seems to be enough room on the shelf for sufficient separation between stacks as well.

The next shelf can 'mirror' the lower shelf's arrangement, giving the effect of towers of speakers. I must say, I do like the idea of having the top speaker of each 'tower' facing upwards, providing it is playing the same signal as at least one front-facing speaker. After all, if it doesn't sound good, it would be simple enough to face it forward again!

~S

Okay, dumb question here but here goes; would there be anything detrimental to the sound or the speaker itself if the speaker were laid on it's side? I ask this because when looking at the pix, it seems as if there is room on the current shelves to stack two speakers between the shelves if they were oriented horizontally instead of vertically. There also seems to be enough room on the shelf for sufficient separation between stacks as well.

This is a good observation. The height of the speakers are 15.75" tall and 10" wide so hopefully he has an additional 5" clearance available on the bottom shelf so he could squeeze in 2 horizontally. If this comes to be, I'd recommend stacking them with opposing tweeters:
O o
o O

Danny B.

Hi Drew,

Sounds like you're making some headway.

A couple questions for now, probably a few more coming after I scratch my head for a few, and it is kinda getting late.

1. With the current speaker layout are you able to set up the speaker groups in blocks of 4? In other words, can you do it so 4 speakers are set together in a block so 2 are side by side lower with 2 directly above them, like a square of 4 speakers?

2. How many subs do you have and can you set them (or it ) up to receive a mixdown of all?

I'm assuming a yes to both questions.

Also, I've tried the idea of mixing 4' flues with 16' flues as an example, or even 8' and 4' to the same speakers. Let's just say I found they don't play very nice with each other even though they might be from the same family. You gotta keep the ranks together based on length. Unlike my paltry 10 channels which requires some compromise, you've got a ton of channels to easily do this.

Marc

I'm copying my post from last night to make sure it's seen as the posts are pouring in here. Again, I'll assume a yes to both above questions. I'll also add to what Scott and Danny have contributed. First, yes, the next big jump in sound after your latest routing scheme may very well come from some kind of an attempt at a stacking arrangement. If you can get the 12 per side speaker groups broken down into some arrangement of 4 speakers per group with some separation of each, then I'd think the sound will once again take a jump in the right direction. Although I like to see speakers stacked in a vertical alignment with each other, a stacking of some sort is better than none, and if you can even stack them laying on their sides is good, then go further by separating each stack a foot or so. It appears with the length of the cables going to each monitor this can be done, that is providing there's enough room between the shelves to lay the monitors on top of each other on their sides.

Next, the reason I ask about the sub(s) is I'd keep the idea of routing the pedal ranks as you have to a certain speaker group, but set the sub(s) up so they simply receive a mix-down of all, this way there's no concern that you're missing anything with the subs. I experimented with my own subs just to see where they fall off in the frequency range and surprisingly they do pick up some of the lower octave notes even of the 8' ranks. So, again this way I'm assured they aren't missing anything and it also lessens the routing concern for the subs. If it seems to be working good as is though, that's fine, it's not like you're missing a major chunk of the frequency range but it could prove to be beneficial to set the sub(s) up to mix-down.

Also, something I forgot to mention..... When using this routing scheme, start with the highest pitched ranks closest to the center or in other words the innermost speakers. So, as an example the highest pitched would be channels 1-4 L / R and work your way out to the farthest away speaker groups L / R as you go down in pitch / length. Smallest pipes to the inside, progressing out to the largest pipes on the outside. Picture it like you see in a typical organ case layout. Big pipes on the outer sides of the case, smaller pipes as your work your way to the middle of the case.

Keep us posted on how things are working!

Marc

Yes, I have the sub mixes. Currently I have two - the TubaHT (Left side - 16Hz capable so 32' ranks stay on the left side) and the Trio12BIB (32Hz capable) on the right.

I am heading to the church for choir rehearsal, so I won't be able to get any work done on this until tomorrow - if at all this week.

I will try out the "stacking" approach.

THANK YOU ALL SO VERY MUCH!!!!

How about this?




It's the best I can come up with to marry each of your ideas and not have to move my shelves - which would require getting the electrician involved again, as well as the man-hours to move them.

Each speaker is laid on its side, each alternating WOOFER/TWEET position, and each toed in or out a few degrees.

Clever. Hope it works. S/B better than what you had.

Rgds,
Ed

I don't know how important it is in a large space to have everything aimed differently, but one more thing you could do that would be relatively fast and cheap, would be to put shims under the side of the top speaker in each pair. That would give them a slightly different angle of speech and reflection.
John

There is a nasty residue effect that could happen called sympathetic vibration (sometimes called sympathetic resonance) esp with stacked speaker cabinets. In one installation I did, I had to put medium heavy foam between the speakers cabs and between (what you have in this case) the shelf and the speakers. It may not happen, but it is something to keep in mind. Admittedly very hard to track down what was happening. Esp happened only when the organ was played loud.

In the above mentioned case, the speakers involved were fairly heavy approx 40+ lbs each. I found a suitable isolation material in (green) seat cushions sold at Menards used by hunters. Sounds slightly weird, but these really did the job. Had to order something like 50 of these. Person taking the order had a strange look on his face, but didn't ask any ??? These cushions are approx 1.5 inches thick and may not fit in this case. Paid something like $4.50 apiece for them (in that quantity).

https://www.menards.com/main/outdoors/outdoor-recreation/hunting-equipment/tree-stands-hunting-blinds/guidesman-13-x-14-seat-cushion/1758538/p-1444421318549.htm

Rgds,
Ed

Basically neoprene in the form of anti-vibration pads will do the same. Here are some pads in various size or comes in a roll:

https://www.amazon.com/Closed-Sponge-Rubber-Various-Choose/dp/B078N92Q9S/ref=sr_1_6?keywords=neoprene%2Bfoam&qid=1547865478&sr=8-6&th=1


Danny B.

Ok, so here's how it turned out....



My shelf brackets are kind of in the way, so I'm going to have to do some reworking on these more than likely.

The good news it that it did make a tremendous difference.

I did an A/B comparison. The left side was the new arrangment (pictured) and the right side was the original "flat to front." I set up 6 audio groups within Hauptwerk with 4 channels each (24 speakers). I then created two presets in the MOTU interface that let me switch instantaneously between LEFT side (new arrangement) and RIGHT side (flat to front). I then played some MIDI files through it and walked around the sanctuary with my laptop so I could switch between the two presets.

THEN IT DAWNED ON ME!

The old arrangement basically made a massive line array - made of studio monitors. OH, you could hear the difference - night and day. The right side (all flat to front) was EXACTLY like listening to a line array. Powerful. Brash. Intense. Muddy.

The left side had a significant amount of "air" in it. I also realized that the perceived volume is much softer on this setup. The "line array setup" (henceforth known as) was LOUDER.

So as it turns out, stacking all of the speakers like this new layout isn't possible with every single channel since the shelf L brackets get in the way but I went ahead and moved as many of them as I could for the time being.

All that being said, now I'm back to wondering about routing......

"Line array", that's the effect I was thinking about, but I didn't know what to call it! BRAVO old son!!!

When I saw the photo of them lined up together it reminded me of some of the speaker kits at Parts Express, only on their side, with a line of midranges and tweeters beside them!

~S

I am not questioning the difference in sound with a different configuration, but it is important to understand that speakers will only behave as a line array if fed the same audio signal. Presumably that was not the case since different ranks are fed to different speakers.

About all that would change is that some or all of the speakers will be a bit more off axis which would only affect the tweeter audio and possibly mellow the sound, make some tones less strident perhaps.

I'm curious and sure wish I could hear the test in person. In any case the ears are the final decision maker.

EDIT: Especially in an A-frame sanctuary the direction of the tweeters could result in sounds coming from opposite portions of the ceiling as the reflected sound is sometimes more prominent than the direct sound. That would create a more open sound.