The primer many architects wish they were offered in school Abstract: A presentation of acoustical concepts and terminology pertaining to the design and construction of built environments. A low-tech conversational narrative providing descriptions, explanations, and examples of the synergetic relationship bonding architecture and sound. This peer-reviewed title has recently been picked up by J. Ross Publishing, and is now available for purchase in paperback and e-book formats. Long form book review Use this link to see a long-form book review Clicking on the AE4A logo will send you to a selection of 9 local or regional seller sites automatically, regardless of your country or geographic region. If you're interested in making a bulk purchase, see the note near the bottom of this page. Here are some examples of what you'll find in this book: §  What is sound and why is it so hard to manage or control? §  The length of commonly heard, low- and high-frequency sound waves vary by as much as 400:1. Why does this disparity matter? §  How and why do various audible frequencies behave differently when interacting with various materials, structures, shapes and finishes? §  Why there are no “one size fits all” solutions. §  There are three acoustical tools available to both the architect and acoustician. What are they? How can they benefit or hinder the work of each craft? §  What is the wave/ray duality of sound? §  Is pure random accident part of your business model? §  Large rooms vs. small rooms: How and why do acoustical challenges change as rooms become larger or smaller? §  Room geometry: Why some shapes are much better than others. Examples and explanations. §  Reverberation and echo: How do they differ? Which is better, or worse, and why? How much reverberation is too much, or too little? §  New reverberation design goals for 21st century performance venues. §  What is the Parametric Method of Acoustic Treatment? §  Speech intelligibility: We all know it matters. What can architects do to help or hinder? §  Three simple tests: Quick, easy ways to evaluate the basic acoustical merits of a room, without any fancy test equipment or training. §  Opportunities and trade-offs: Blending architecture, acoustics and pragmatism. §  Applied Acoustics – The four key feasibility questions. Bulk Purchasing J. Ross Publishing offers a 25% discount on bulk orders. Anyone wishing to purchase 10 or more copies of the paperback format should contact me directly via email: mfay.gracenote@gmail.com Note: If necessary, copy and paste any link that doesn't work directly. Also, search by the book title or try the appropriate ISBN number listed below. Paperback - ISBN: 978-1-60427-211-6 e-Book - e-ISBN: 978-1-60427-866-8

The Case for the Parametric Method of Acoustic Treatment Abstract The topic of architectural acoustics has been documented and carefully studied for more than a century. Historically, most absorptive treatment materials and products have offered a relatively broadband  approach to managing reverberation in a room. While this basic approach has changed little, new acoustical goals, priorities, materials, test lab findings, and training suggest this singular approach needs updating. The Parametric Acoustics thesis does not challenge the physics underlying traditional acoustic theory. Rather, it offers a fresh perspective on how new materials can and should be deployed. For instance, the development of new absorption materials and products can and should provide a more specific, tuned range of frequencies; particularly those within the bottom three octaves of commonly used and heard sounds. Why? Because of the massive amounts of full-bandwidth energy being pumped into rooms deploying our modern loudspeaker technologies. Much of this energy is left untouched by generic acoustic materials. This paper expands on the T60 Slope Ratio thesis1 by providing methodology, commentary, and examples for specifying acoustic treatments as band-limited tools. The T60 Slope Ratio (TSR) is represented symbolically as T60SR6. The calculation delivers a relational score (Figure 1) using the two extreme time values - from the six octave centers - between 63 Hz and 2 kHz. The score is calculated by dividing the longest T60 by the shortest T60, regardless of octave. Figure 1 – The T 60 SR 6 or TSR Mean Opinion Score grading matrix. This discourse outlines how and why a Good  to Optimum  TSR grade can be achieved in almost any sound-critical  space. To that end, the next level of architectural acoustic refinement is proposed: PMAT - the Parametric Method of Acoustic Treatment. While the best practitioners in architectural acoustics already understand, and may implement similar principles, the PMAT concepts are not widely considered or applied.          *  Following its original publication2 in May of 2021, I was notified of an error in the data tabulation in what was then Figure 12. The second  edition of this thesis provided the corrected values, which are shown in Figure 5 below. Also, five new sections were added or updated. My new book Acoustic Essentials for Architects , published in May 2025, has prompted this third  addition. It includes refining and adding to the existing information, syntax corrections, new products and graphics, and reordering some sections for better flow and clarity. The full paper pdf can be downloaded via the link below.

Unpacking Wave Numbers, and Introducing the Wave Ratio Thesis Ok I get it. This topic may be too esoteric for many, but if you’re truly interested in learning all you can about sound propagation and architectural acoustics, it’s something you should be acquainted with, at least casually. I’m going to give you the final answer right up front. It’s either: A: 11.00”, B: 0.84”, C: 7.50”, or D: none of the above. The question: When dealing with obstructions, which of these physical dimensions does not present meaningful acoustic shadowing in the upper speech range of audio? The answer is B, 0.84”. But why, and how is this information unpacked and calculated? Download the full story here: #Acoustics #ArchitecturalAcoustics #Architects #AcousticConsultant #AudioExpert #acousticshadowing

New Reverberation Design Goals for Modern Architectural Acoustic Environments Abstract - T60 Slope Ratio: Symbolically - T60SR6 A proposed standard for condensing six octaves (63 Hz – 2 kHz) of reverberant decay data into a singular-quotient, qualitative score for indoor performance, worship and entertainment facilities. Specifically, a defining metric for scoring and grading the proportional relationship (i.e. ratio) between the longest and shortest of the six T60 values, measured or predicted, and applied to fully-enclosed venues employing sound reinforcement systems. In practice, Bass Ratio and Slope Ratio goals are conflicting concepts. Bass Ratio goals and calculations were developed to support the idea that acoustic instruments need a little extra reverberant support in the low-frequency range. Slope Ratio goals and calculations support the notion that those same low frequencies do not require extra structural support, but rather need to be managed and well contained. Longer low and very low-frequency T60s are not needed or desirable when an extended-range sound reinforcement system is used. The T60SR6 thesis is offered to advance and define a room’s acoustic design goals, and provide a simple numeric scoring scale, and grading vocabulary, from which acoustical design specifications can be initiated and evaluated. To see the complete thesis as pdf document, click the download link below. #Acoustics #SlopeRatio #T60 #Reverberation #Echo #Intelligibility #Reverb #ReverbTime #ArchitecturalAcoustics

Complex automixing using a virtual digital mixing console I was so tempted to give this piece a geeky marketing title or sub-header suggesting VR (virtual reality), AR (augmented reality), or AI (artificial intelligence). But the truth is, none of those modern terms are relevant. What’s relevant is: with a quality DSP engine, and some good old-fashioned RPI (real person intelligence), we can create a complex microphone mixer that pushes way beyond the traditional boundaries of automixing. Per Wikipedia: “An automixer, or automatic microphone mixer, is a live sound mixing device that automatically reduces the strength of a microphone's audio signal when it is not being used. Automixers reduce extraneous noise picked up when several microphones operate simultaneously. Automixers are frequently employed in settings where it is expected that a live sound operator won't be present, such as courtrooms and city council chambers.” Wikipedia’s definition is limited in scope. It describes the earliest form of automixing algorithms called NOM - an acronym for number of open mics. A NOM automixer simply applies a noise gate to each input channel. Inputs that don’t receive a strong enough signal to cross a preset threshold - and open the gate - stay closed, or off. A more elegant solution is the gain-sharing, automix topology. Per QSC’s Q-sys “help” page: “The Gain-Sharing Automatic Mic Mixer is primarily used for multiple live microphones operating in the same room together as a system, for example, in boardrooms, classrooms, churches, courtrooms, etc. The Gain-Sharing (GS) Automatic Mic Mixer controls the live microphones by turning up microphones when someone is talking, and turning down microphones that are not used. It is a voice-activated, real-time process without an operator. The Gain-Sharing Automatic Mic Mixer controls the additive effect of multiple microphones being on at the same time and adapts to changing background noise conditions. The gain of each microphone input is calculated as the ratio of its RMS level to the combined RMS levels of all inputs. This ensures unity system gain at all times.” Traditionally, automixers, be they NOM or GS topologies, are meant for voice reinforcement, excluding musical instruments. This article introduces automixing concepts that provide recall, management, and control of both voice and musical instruments, while documenting the idea of using a DSP engine to custom-build virtual digital mixing consoles, with or without a graphic user interface. Download the full paper pdf via the link below.

Three Essential Feasibility Questions Must Be Resolved? "I know we need it, but I really don't want to think or talk about acoustics." Sound familiar? It took me more than a couple of minutes to figure this out, but for the vast majority of venues needing acoustic treatment, the success of such projects boils down to three essential questions tied to feasibility. I suspect most consider reflection, absorption and diffusion to be the “big three” acoustic treatment options. However, those aren’t the three things I’m writing about today. Those are our primary tools, but they can’t even be considered until the feasibility questions are answered. The Three Essential Questions At its most fundamental level, effective acoustic design must start with these basic feasibility questions: Where can we put it? What does it look like? How much does it cost? Click the link below to access the full story.

Downloaded Lossy Files are Viable for Loudspeaker & System Evaluation Presuming you’re in the audio business on some level, and are an “active” listener, you’ve probably started a collection of reference recordings you think are exceptional. You’ve also probably found it helpful, if not necessary, to make this collection highly portable so it’s available, on a moment’s notice, where and when needed. As a pro, or an aspiring one, you just never know when you may be presented an opportunity to evaluate a new or existing loudspeaker or system. Think trade shows, rep demos, client system evaluation and troubleshooting, factory tour demos, and shoot-outs. Having a highly portable, widely compatible file storage system makes it easy to say, “Yes, I have a few tracks I’d like to listen to.” Background When I first started thinking carefully about this topic, CDs were at their peak as the ubiquitous digital audio storage and distribution format. While they are still a viable option, cell phones, tablets, and computers are now the storage devices of choice. Each of these is just as convenient, if not more so, than carrying around one or more discs in a wallet, and obviously the storage capacity is much greater. Further, when we store our music as files on a small device there’s no need to carry or ask for a CD deck. This brings us to the subject of file formats that are widely available and compatible with your favorite device. MP3, FLAC, WMA, WAV, ACC, OGG and AIFF, come immediately to mind. Some of these are lossless formats, others are lossy. But, when you only want to buy one track at a time, not the whole album, a lossy download is often your only option. When that’s the situation I think there’s one clear choice, MP3. Why, because of availability and compatibility. According to the MakeUseOf.com website, https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/audio-file-format-right-needs/ “Nearly every digital device in the world with audio playback can read and play MP3 files, whether we’re talking about PCs, Macs, Androids, iPhones, Smart TVs, or whatever else. When you need universal, MP3 will never let you down.” So, is promoting MP3 and other lossy formats to the pro audio community blasphemy? I think not! The Never Ending Search Over the years, I’ve spent a lot of time looking for really good examples of music, production and recording technique. If you’ve seen my article, The Mental Side of Mixing, [Insert LSI reference link here] you know I’ve searched through tens of thousands of recordings (via Rhapsody, Zune, Spotify, etc.) to find my collection, which currently numbers about 45 tracks of varying musical styles. It only takes me a few seconds to tell if a track has something sonically-special to consider. Why so many favorites you might ask? That’s an excellent question. I strongly believe the music you use must have something in common with a client’s requirements for sound reinforcement. If your reference tracks are tools, it’s about having the right tools for the job. There’s an important psychological/emotional bridge that needs to be crossed when selecting songs to use for showcasing a new system to a client. They must be something the client can easily relate to. Can you imagine using an AC/DC or Metallica track to tune and showcase a new Presbyterian church system? No, I don’t think so. How insensitive. I wouldn’t use an Ed Sheeran ballad to showcase a new dance club system either. Here is a short list of my favorite tracks for system testing, tuning and voicing. There are several different musical styles, but all have something very nice to offer. My full collection has about a 60/40 mixture of high bit rate MP3 (60%) and WAV files that I use without reservation. Reference Tracks Reference Track Sampler Night Winds – Randy Dorman and Rick Harper Calling Elvis - Mark Knopfler and Dire Straits Some People - LeAnn Rimes Can't Find the Words - Kim Richey Pop Culture – Thomas Dolby I Will Remember - Toto Poquito Mas – Infected Mushroom Capricorn - 30 Seconds To Mars You can find the full list of my favorite tracks here: www.gracenoteds.com/more, look for the MF SysTune link. I keep most of these tracks handy on various storage media and on one small, portable device. I have a tiny thumb drive on my key ring and a number of compilation CDs, but my favorite is a FiiO X1, high-resolution, lossless music player. This device is compatible with the lossless and lossy file types listed below, and unlike phones, tablets and most computers that use headphone outputs, it has a dedicated line-level output with excellent specs. There are one or more specific things I'm keyed into on every track. Examples are often kick, snare, bass and acoustic guitar. Sometimes I’ll use a specific track just to listen to the high-hat, or another for the harmonics of an orchestral triangle. If I only get one track to use to evaluate the voicing of a single speaker or system, and I’m not looking for brute-force power handling, it’s a track called Night Winds on Taylor Guitar’s Sounds of Wood & Steel III sampler. It’s an amazing recording, and a must-have track for any reference collection. Exceptional vocal recordings are hard to find. The LeAnn Rimes vocal is exceptional. Want to stress test your system? Use the 30 Seconds to Mars or Infected Mushroom tracks. Need to focus on the subwoofer section, bring up the Thomas Dolby track. The Bill Payne recording has the best jazz acoustic piano recording I've been able to find, plus a lot of percussive ear candy. The Kim Richey track will rip your head off if your system is not right in the upper mid-range. And last, but not least, the Mark Knopfler track is my favorite overall track for mainstream rock and blues. Too Often MP3 Gets Blamed for Poor Sound? As for the debate over the sonic quality of the various lossless and lossy file formats; I contend that with most 21st century mass-market music, it’s the original production that often sounds bad, regardless of the final file format or compression scheme used. In other words, don’t automatically blame the lossy format if a track or whole album sounds like it was recorded and mixed in a metal shed full of Styrofoam and gravel, and has about as much warmth, depth, space, clarity and punch as cold, leftover turnips. If poor sonic quality is what the artist demands, fine, but don’t automatically blame the compression algorithm if you don’t like the sound of the recording. Acceptable Bit Rates A few years ago, while working at Sound Image, I performed some blind listening tests with a few very talented and experienced professional mix engineers, and one very well known loudspeaker designer. The conclusion reached was that no one could consistently pick out a 256 kbps bit rate MP3 track vs. a ripped WAV track (or even the original disk). Experimental data shows that for average listeners, 128 kbps is the point where MP3 becomes consistently worse-sounding than higher bitrates and uncompressed audio. But, when higher bitrates (196 kbps and above) are compared to uncompressed files, the differences are less and less audible. The distinctions between those are so small that they become statistically insignificant, and in many double blind studies (here's just one), uncompressed original files rank somewhere below high bitrate compressed formats. My takeaway is: if you want or need to use lossy files, do so without any embarrassment. Take Your Own Blind Listening Test To start, find a track that you really like and that you think has exceptional audio quality. Buy the original disk, then also download the same track as a WAV or other lossless file, and at a bit rate of 256 kbps or higher from an on-line music site. Now days I usually use Amazon for individual lossy tracks, or one of the HD download sites listed below, if they have the track(s) I want. You might also find it interesting to download the same track at 192 kbps, 128 kbps or even lower, so you can find the point at which the sound becomes unacceptably degraded. Next, rip the original track as a WAV or other lossless file so you can burn everything back to a new CD. Scramble the sequence in some random fashion when building the new test disc. Now you are ready for playback. Use the best listening equipment you can get access to and ask a friend to play the tracks in random order. Ask yourself if you can hear any difference between the various downloaded bit rates, the ripped lossless file, and the original disk? Also, try asking some friends, with good ears, to pick out which is which. I think you will be surprised. I was. For me, the magic number is 256k. Nothing more is mandatory, nothing less will do if I have a choice. Another quick way to test your ability to recognize different bit rates can be found here: https://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/how-well-can-you-hear-audio-quality Lossless and Lossy Download Sites Here are a few sites that offer both lossless and lossy music downloads: HD Tracks - http://www.hdtracks.com – Offers multiple lossless formats for each artist 7 Digital - https://www.7digital.com – Offers lossless and 320 kbps lossy downloads Bandcamp - https://bandcamp.com/ - Offers lossless and lossy downloads Here are three of the most popular lossy music download sites: Amazon offers 256 kbps MP3 for the most part iTunes offers 256 kbps ACC for the most part Spotify Premium offers, with a paid subscription, up to 320 kbps Ogg Vorbis Summary So, unless you’re downloading music to play through your audiophile stereo system, in your acoustically-refined listening room, and you’ve spent thousands if not tens of thousands of dollars on loudspeakers, tube preamps, cables, Class A monoblock amplifiers, etc., there’s no reason to avoid using a high bit rate, lossy files for system evaluation and tuning. © Copyright Michael Fay 2013 - 2018

IMag is an acronym that describes a functional capability within a live video production system. Image Magnification, to be specific, is the real-time reproduction and display of an enlarged image, as captured by one or more video cameras. Within the range of the camera’s lenses, and the sufficiency of the lighting system, the enlarged image can include any of the various activities taking place on stage or elsewhere in a facility. In a House of Worship setting, the enlarged image is typically that of a leader or teacher while delivering a message or lesson. The need for IMag capabilities most often becomes necessary in facilities that are quite large; so large that many of the seats in the room are too distant to allow a reasonably good view of the people and activities taking place on the stage or platform. One or more displays may be used. Both video projection and direct, flat-panel displays can work well in this application. IMag presents significant technical challenges. When considering an IMag signal path, the video signal latency can easily become a problem if the signal path through-put timing (between the cameras, projectors and displays) is not kept to an absolute minimum. However, achieving this goal comes at a cost, which may become prohibitive for the Owner. For IMag applications, the currently-accepted “standard” for maximum video latency is 7 video frames, or a total of 116.67ms when using a 60 fps refresh rate. 116.67ms is just a little over 1/10 of one second. Anything greater in length becomes obvious to the average viewer, and a distraction to the desired performance or presentation on stage. Why the distraction? The presentation of the enlarged image can easily arrive too late, and is therefore not in sync with the live presentation or performance that is taking place right next to the large display(s).In order to perform successfully, IMag systems require a very specific combination of hardware and software, as well as some skilled human interaction. Key elements include, but are not limited to: Reasonably high-quality hardware, capable of high-speed signal through-put. (Read minimal latency.) Hardware capable of operating natively within the desired system-wide signal format. HD-SDI is what we recommend and use. Hardware capable of accepting a master clock or house-sync reference signal. One or more HD video cameras. Centralized video switching hardware and software, with full and simultaneous monitoring of all input and output signals. Integrated or compatible graphics software to provide for still and full-motion background images as well as keyed text and IMag insertion. One video director or production manager. (Optional for facilities with only one camera) One video switch operator One camera operator for each manned-camera position, or one camera operator for controlling multiple robotic cameras. A two- (or more) channel production intercom system. (Optional for facilities with only one camera) One or more large format displays. IMag may sound like a nice idea but it is fraught with technical, operational and financial obstacles. If you are facing the IMag challenge alone, we would like to help. Our best results start with a conversation that outlines the needs, constraints and goals for your new systems. Copyright - Michael Fay 2011 - All Rights Reserved

As I'm sure you know, in a few months we are having a national election, with many fundamental issues at stake. The operative word in the previous sentence is fundamental, which when used as a noun means: a basic principle, rule, law, or the like, that serves as the groundwork of a system; an essential part. If you are still undecided about who to vote for, or are unsure why you should even bother voting, please read on. Above all, this is a presidential and congressional election cycle that will ultimately determine if the USA continues on, flaws and all, as a nation that preserves and defends the original form of constitutional, republic governance upon which it was founded, or becomes a country that gradually chooses to dissolve the fundamental precepts of our current constitution, in the name of "progress", without due process. Yeah, I know, almost everyone says that this election is about the economy or terrorism more than just about anything else. I say yes, the economy and security are huge topics of concern, but please look a layer deeper. This election is really about one party's desire to make fundamental changes in our constitution! My basic argument against this is this: the constitution is the fundamental rule book, the playbook, the reference standard upon which our national society is built. Is the US constitution perfect? Probably not, but it's much, much better than anything anyone else has come up with throughout history. And for good reason, it was designed to require a major consensus of individuals and states to make legal changes. The "rule of law" concept is based on the rights and freedoms that are laid out in the language of our constitution. Without viable, acceptable, repeatable rules and laws, we slip into anarchy. I say we can no more make progressive changes to the constitution than we can change the reference values in the Periodic Table, or maybe change how many days there are in a week, or add or subtract a few letters from our alphabet. Can you imagine what those fundamental changes would mean to everyone's daily life? There are no perfect candidates, nor political parties, nor political ideologies. There never will be. Get over it. We are all flawed human beings. Therefore, these are not acceptable excuses for not participating. I'm sure I could come up with ten or more examples of less-than-perfect compromises that you have accepted, and easily live with in your every day life. Politics and political parties are not the end game of this election. Support for, or denial of, our fundamental rules of law, reliable, repeatable governance, and a productive national vision are. The politicians and political parties are just the means of implementation for various, far reaching ideas. Some much more insidious than others. In this election there are two very different visions for the future of the US: one as a worldwide leader, and an example of freedom and individual rights that is second to no other. The other vision sets us on a course to becoming a nation of fewer and fewer personal freedoms, through a desire to make fundamental changes to our inalienable rights and freedoms, which are detailed in, and represented by, the constitution. I know most of the arguments against voting for one party or the other. I can also speak to the idea of not voting for anyone; because none of the candidates is "worthy of my vote". And, until a third-party candidate gathers enough real support to be a serious contender, they too fall into this same thesis, which is that none of these are acceptable excuses to not support one major candidate or the other. You think your vote doesn't count? Consider this: There are something like 25 million businesses in the US. If an average of just one more employee (out of every 100 businesses) votes in November, that would add 250,000 people to the voter rolls, or an average of 5,000 per state. According to Wikipedia, the margin of victory in the 2000 presidential election can be distilled down to just 537 votes. That is not a typo. By a margin of 537 votes, all of Florida's 25 electoral votes went to George Bush - the eventual winner. Your assignment is to decide which path you want for our country, and to support that decision by casting your votes accordingly. Thanks for taking time to read this. Please pass it along.

A Modern, Predictive Modeling Application for Ft. Lamberts and Contrast Ratio Mine is not your typical throw-ratio calculator. No, that's too easy. This is a story of discovery and problem solving that many have searched for, but few have found. The Challenge This adventure starts about thirteen years ago. It was then that a customer complained that a new projection system I specified was not "bright enough". He asked how I determined what projector to specify. Remember, this was back at a time when cost-effective LCD projectors were just beginning to reach 3,000 ANSI lumens. My answer to him was weak. I really didn't calculate anything I just specified the brightest XGA projector they could afford. When I saw the image for the first time I had to agree with him. It looked dim and washed out. Ultimately, the problem was resolved when our service manager found a bad connection on one of the extender cables that had been installed. Once the termination was repaired, the image came to life and was acceptable to all. The Journey That event sent me on a mission to figure out a better way to objectively quantify my projection designs. I figured this would be fairly easy to do. Surely, the leading projector or screen manufacturers would have calculators on their websites, or at least have some specific information relating to "industry standards" for brightness and contrast. Oh my, was I wrong. There are many details to factor when calculating for brightness and contrast. They include screen size, available projector lumens, usable projector lumens, aspect ratio, screen gain, black level, front vs. rear projection, throw distance, and ambient light. It took about a year of research, in my spare time, to cobble together fragments of information, which came from all corners of the industry. I was looking for consistent ideas and direction, target values and formulas, but I couldn't find much. I gathered a little from each of the major projector and screen manufacturers, from standards organizations such as ANSI and SMPTE, and anything else I could find. Actual guidelines and formulas were few and far between, unlike today’s AVIXA Image System Contrast Ratio standard. The Goals As I came to learn, the two key elements are Ft. Lamberts (FL) and Contrast Ratio (CR). FL being the amount of light that is reflected off a screen – or through, in the case of rear projection -- and to the viewers eyes. CR is the ratio between the brightest color (white) and the darkest color (black) that a system is capable of delivering. I now knew what to look for, but I couldn't find any published data describing how much of each was needed. So, what are the objective goals for FL and CR? Based on my research and experience, a combination of 50 FL or more, AND a CR of 15 or greater, will deliver a very good image under well controlled lighting conditions. If you have a reasonably sufficient budget, these goals aren't too hard to achieve with today's technology. There are two obvious exceptions to the 50/15 guidelines: First is in a darkened room or theater. There, a good CR value is much easier to achieve. Second is a scenario where significant ambient light surrounds the screen; think large windows. When this situation occurs, human eyes can't voluntarily isolate on the projected image. In general, if the background light is brighter than the projected image the pupil constricts, allowing less light in, and the viewing experience is significantly degraded. If faced with this type environment, arrange for an in situ demo, and advise the customer that they will either have to install and close blinds or drapes, or throw a great deal of money at screen and projection technology to resolve the problem. The Application I've had a long standing love affair with spreadsheets, going back to the early days of Quattro Pro. To me they blend art and science; here math meets graphic design in a most elegant way. I began to heuristically connect the dots, plugging various formulas into my first projection spreadsheet. The plan was to figure out a way to incorporate all the factors, as I understood them at the time, into an interactive tool that was flexible enough to get quick, useful results. Over the years, new insights, products, standards and experiences have pushed me to update the workbook several times. My FL & CR Projection Calculator (v5.4) is by far the best version of those efforts. It's also the one that best incorporates two sub-components I didn't fully understand and appreciate until a couple of years ago -- lens dimming factor (LDF) and lens speed (f). How are LDF and f related? LDF is a subtle but important component in the FL and CR calculations. Simply put, LDF is a variable reduction in projected light that is defined by the required throw ratio of the lens. All zoom lenses have (or should have) two published throw ratio limits. The smaller number is the widest (short throw) end of the zoom, the larger number is the tightest (long throw) end. Ratios such as 1.7 - 2.5 are often representative of a projector's "standard" lens. In addition, each zoom lens has a speed range that is given as two "f" numbers. At the widest end of the range the f number is smallest. It is largest at the long-throw end. Also, a projector's “standard” lens usually has the fastest optics. Fixed, short-zoom, and longer zoom lenses almost always have a higher (slower) range of f numbers than the standard lenses. Throw Distance Matters Light loss is directly affected by the throw distance. Lens theory tells us that the greatest amount of light passes through a projection lens at the short-throw end of its range, while gradually, less and less light passes through as we move towards and reach the long-throw end, thus reducing the usable light being produced by the light engine. The throw ratio and lens speed are interdependently locked together. As a lens tracks through its range of focal lengths, it simultaneously tracks through its range of lens speeds. This happens at different rates because the throw ratio boundaries and the lens speed limits are almost never on the same scale. Example: you are not likely to see a throw ratio and lens speed that are both listed as 1.8 - 2.4. Usually the lens speed limits are tighter than the boundaries of the throw ratio. Based on the required throw ratio, the application calculates (as a percentage) the point along the range of "zoomability" (I can’t resist making up technical terms where none exist) where the lens will be used. It then factors a correlated percentage of the f range so it can effectively de-rate the available lumens as the throw ratio increases. Manufacturer Specs Manufacturers are not consistent or standardized with their testing methods. The most reliable metric is found when ANSI lumens are derived using their standard lens, set mid-way between the throw-ratio extremes. However, some manufacturers test their projectors using the best case scenario in their lens lineup; their fastest, widest option. This usually appears at the wide end of their "standard" zoom lens. The only way to tell which method was used is to contact the company and ask. Plugging in the appropriate speed values would be much easier too if the manufacturer's actually published the f number for each of their lenses. Few do. Hitachi (now Maxell) and NEC were the most forthcoming I could find online. It's interesting to note even today, none of the major projector manufacturers seem willing to address the two key elements (FL and CR) in their projection calculators. They're all happy to help with basic projection geometry, but that's the easiest part of the designer's work. Does Any of this Really Matter? The main reason all these things matter is this. It gives the designer and customer confidence that the specified projection system is nether too much nor too little for the desired application. It helps the customer trust they are spending an appropriate amount of money to get a high-quality image. I think this is the goal of all concerned, and the true value of the application. If you would like a copy of the Excel spreadsheet, click here. There are a minimum of nine data cells that must be used to properly calculate for FL and CR, and seven more that can be used to provide even more accuracy if the appropriate data values are input. To help guide you through the process, there are many informative and instructive fly-offs embedded in the spreadsheet. You'll see these notes when you place a cursor over the various cells. Please take the time to read each at least once. Hopefully, you'll find that this application provides all the tools necessary to make good projection decisions. Disclaimer: There are no perfect, interactive algorithms for calculating FL and CR values. This application should be used as a practical planning guide with these tolerances in mind. Best case - +/- 5%. Worst case - +/- 20%. This application offers no guarantees. For highest accuracy – mock up, test and measure results under real-world conditions. #Projection #ZoomLens #ThrowRatio #Lamberts #LDF #LensDimmingFactor #SRF #ScreenReflectanceFactor #ViewingAngle #AspectRatio #ContrastRatio #ANSILumens

Just because you know where the buttons and knobs are, and what they do, doesn’t mean you know how to mix. The secret lies in your mind's ability to recognize, learn and store a huge library of good, bad and unusual sounds. The collected and archived, personal sound library is the mental gateway to the audio mixing craft. Like many of the sage voices in the industry, I too have several decades of experience working in and around pro sound. The overview of my career looks like this: classically trained music student, professional musician, studio engineer, studio owner, studio designer, technical writer, studio trade magazine editor, acoustician, fixed install systems designer, AV system sales, AV system installer, live sound mixer, live sound trainer, and contracting/integration management. Those are the big and obvious hats I've been paid to wear over the years. As designers and integrators, one of the challenges we regularly face is "training" sound operators on their new systems. A few years ago I realized the following, and have been using these ideas and processes to successfully teach the novice, and some not so novice sound engineers how to think about sound and mixing. Ok, here we go … Step One Most people are passive listeners. Sound “happens” to them and they pay little or no attention to it other than to possibly notice it’s there, or that it is too loud or soft. To become a good mix "artist" (yep, there is a healthy dose of artistry that comes into play) you need to immediately become an "active" listener. Active listening means that whenever possible you pay attention to all sound that you come in contact with. Examples are: movie sound tracks, TV sound, music and voice on the radio, environmental sound, concert sound, industrial sounds, bizarre sounds, and all other every-day sounds you are exposed to. Be curious. Be critical. Put useful or important sound into context relative to the surrounding activities and environment. If you are at a sporting venue, is the intelligibility good? Why or why not? In the beginning, you won't be able to figure out the why of everything, but you've got to start somewhere. This should become a lifelong habit. Step Two The best sound mixers in the world have a huge "library of sound" in their heads. You need to begin to capture this concept by building your own library. During our training sessions, I'll ask the class to raise their hand if they can "hear" a real common musical sound in their mind's ear. I usually start with a trumpet or piano. Then I'll move to a few more common instrument sounds like a saxophone, or violin. This is really just a warm up, because I'll then start to drill deeper into my library. Can you hear a French horn? An oboe? How about an oboe vs. an English horn? How about a female alto vs. soprano vocal? How about an acoustic guitar with nylon strings vs. steel strings? A steel string acoustic with heavy gauge strings vs. light gauge stings? A stiff pick vs. a light pick on said guitar? A Martin vs. a Taylor? We could go on for hours. I think the concept is established. The collected and archived, personal sound library is the mental gateway to the audio mixing craft. Step Three The next key ingredient is to begin collecting reference recordings. These should be relevant to the types of presentations or performances you are being asked to work on. This collection should contain the very highest quality recordings you can find. What’s good you ask? For me it’s a musical recording with extraordinarily good production values, musicality, frequency response, tonality, clarity and space. It also has to be something that I can stand to listen to over, and over, and over. I have searched through tens of thousands of recordings (Rhapsody, Zune, Spotify, etc.) to find my collection, which currently numbers about 35 tracks of varying musical styles. It only takes me a few seconds to tell if a track has something sonically-special to offer. Once you compile a few really good recordings, I suggest you listen to these tracks over and over on the best, flattest, playback speakers or headphones you have access to. For me it’s Fostex T20RP headphones. (Selecting reference monitors is a whole 'nother article.) If it's a contemporary band track, you need to carefully study the mix to understand where the engineer placed each and every drum track, vs. the bass and guitars, vs. the keys and horns, vs. the background vocals, vs. the lead vocals, etc. Again, be critical and curious. Try to capture in your mind what is working and what is not. What is the tonal relationship of every instrument and voice? Does each voice and instrument sound natural? If not, why? Is something intentionally distorted or oddly processed? What sounds or instruments are conflicting? Why? What are the panning and volume relationships? When you start finding recordings that you wished you had your name on, you are on the right track. Step Four So what do we do with this library? Well, over time, the library will contain the really good, the average, the ugly, and the unusual. The best mixers are constantly comparing what they are hearing in real time to the desired or required sounds in their library. Then, assuming they have a sound system and room that are functioning reasonably well, they begin to use their experience and available electronic tools to adjust the sound that is coming through the mix console so it matches the various sounds in their mental library, and that they think are appropriate for the gig. This library concept works on individual instruments as well as the overall mix. It also works just as well in the studio as it does for live mixing. And, when fully developed, it all happens semi- or subconsciously. But, don’t get discouraged if In the beginning there’s a lot of trial and error. We all have learned from our mistakes. This overall process is not unlike what a chef or painter will use to create their work. The chef has a selection of raw ingredients and a pantry full of spices and condiments that may be used and blended to create an excellent recipe (mix). Even if he has never made the recipe, he can mentally taste the end result and the influence that each ingredient has on the overall flavor and texture of the recipe. The painter does the same with their color pallet; knowing what colors to combine and what to lay down first in order to build the foundation of color (tonality) that will eventually lead to the finished picture. The chef and painter can consistently taste and visualize in their minds the end result that all the individual parts play in the finished product. So too can you with sound. Step Five After all is said and done, sound mixing is highly subjective. In my opinion you need to mix to meet your own personal tastes and expectations, but with these caveats: Your mix should be aligned with your sound library, which must also have common ground with the general public and/or the paying customer. Simple, no? If you are consistently getting praise and thanks for the work you are doing, you are doing many things right. If you are consistently getting complaints, you aren't, and you still have a lot of work to do to refine your craft. © Copyright Michael Fay 2012 - 2018 - All rights are reserved #SoundMixing #SoundEngineer #AudioMixer #SoundGuy #SoundSystemOperator #Mixing #FOH #LibraryofSound #AudioMixingCraft

Three main building blocks make up the foundation of a good sound system for worship. They are: A. The acoustics of the room, building or facility B. Thoughtful electronic systems design and integration C. The people who operate the systems A. THE ROOM AND ITS ACOUSTICS Providing quality sound reinforcement for the spoken word and for varying musical styles is an ongoing challenge -- a challenge with a catch. There are factors relating to room acoustics that significantly influence, and often limit the impact of messages and musical presentations, regardless of what microphone, loudspeaker or amplifier is connected. Music directors, worship leaders, musicians and sound operators seldom have control over the acoustics of a sanctuary. Yet, the geometry, building size and the materials used to finish the interior are the primary factors controlling the room's specific tonality or reverberant "signature". Look at it this way; design a room with good acoustics for the application, and everything seems to work well. Design a room with no thought to the acoustics and watch as an endless parade of consultants, music directors, sound operators and worship leaders struggle to find ways to provide consistent sound coverage. You may not have thought of it this way, but most, if not all worship centers are used as performing arts auditoriums. As such, the building and its sound system must accommodate a wide variety of applications; be they sermons, solo, ensemble, choral, orchestral or dramatic performances. Unfortunately, few architects are trained to design with a mind toward architectural acoustics. Therefore, they too often design worship spaces that acoustically resemble gymnasiums, classrooms or office structures, when in fact they should be designing performing arts-style facilities. Providing even, natural-sounding sound reinforcement, coupled with the highest possible speech intelligibility is the goal of the acoustician and the sound system designer. B. THE ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS Once the room geometry and acoustics have been worked out, the system designer can select and install appropriate equipment to meet the goals and requirements of the client. The following outlines our priorities when designing a sound system. Intelligibility and reliability. Most importantly, a good sound reinforcement system must provide maximum intelligibility and reliability. This is primarily accomplished through the careful selection, integration and installation of loudspeakers, power amps and digital system processing. Proper coverage. Proper coverage means that the room receives an even distribution of sound energy at all frequencies. It also means the system distributes the greatest percentage of it's sound in areas where it is wanted and, therefore, is capable of operating without feedback. Room acoustics, and loudspeaker selection and placement are keys here too. Headroom is the reserve capacity of the system to handle momentary peak demands without distortion, overload or failure. Thoughtful hardware selections and proper gain structuring will insure maximum headroom and signal-to-noise ratios for any given system. Gain structuring is the process of adjusting each electronic device in a system so that it can operate within its optimum range. Proper wiring. If the equipment is not wired right, it won't perform the way it was designed to perform. Reliability suffers too. There are easily a half dozen different ways that two devices can be wired together. There is a reason and technique for each. If the right wiring scheme is employed throughout, the system will perform cleanly and consistently for years. But, if you've ever heard complaints of "gremlins" in the system (problems that seem to come and go, from week to week), you can generally point to poor wiring as a likely cause. C. THE PEOPLE Probably the aspect most overlooked when evaluating the overall performance of an existing or new sound system is the people who operate the system. For most churches, the duties and responsibilities of the sound operators are demanding and continually changing. Expectations are generally high, while training and experience are often minimal. It takes a unique blend of talents and personality traits to serve in areas of technical support. Doing a consistently good job as a sound operator is much like singing or playing a musical instrument with virtuosity; it takes knowledge, experience, practice, patience and wisdom well beyond that which may be perceived as the basic skill required to "push a few buttons and flip a few switches". Even if a great deal of money has been spent on the design and development of a wonderful acoustic space and sound system, the human interaction with these systems is equally vital. We encourage investing in these people with equal passion. Copyright - Michael Fay 2015 - All Rights Reserved #AudioDesign #SoundExpert #AudioExpert #Acoustics #AudioElectronics #SoundEngineer #SoundSystemOperator