Microphones

Microphones. One of the most interesting subjects in sound reinforcement. Books have been written about its history, development and usage techniques. Talk to anyone involved in audio and you're bound to get a swell of opinions and suggestions on the type of mic to use on a particular situation. Well, I'm not here to deal with the usage or technical aspects of mics, rather, I'd like to just touch on some of my thoughts on mics in general.

Sound reinforcement, like other industries, is driven largely by the consumer market. In this market, similar products compete for attention mainly because of the consumer dollar. Well, let's face it...microphones are big business. My point in all this? There is a consistent drumming of messages in magazines and the web that say that your gig or recording will sound better if only you had 'X' mic or 'Y' mic.

Pondering over this, my thoughts turned to mic technology past and present. I've heard some pretty remarkable recordings from 1960s that rival some of the stuff I'm hearing in this decade. Mics then were pretty crude compared to today's sophisticated production techniques. I'm kinda left with the conclusion that it's more a question of technique and engineering skill rather than the gear. Besides, any recording is only as good as the talent - you can have fantastic mics, but if the talent is less than talented....there's nothing much the gear can do.

So based on the above premise, we could assume then that the type and price of the mic does not really matter if the mic sounds pretty decent. Hence then, if we had only one mic which sounded decent, and if we knew of its limitations, we could use it for almost any sound reinforcement purpose. Now, I hear a couple of alarm bells sounding here... hence, my qualifier on knowing a mic's 'limitations'. I once came across a church that kept destroying their fairly expensive condensor mics; upon further investigation, I discovered that their sound operator was stuffing these delicate mics into the kick drum! I asked why they would do such a thing and the sound operator said that he had seen me use condensor mics on the drum kit! Now, talk about lack of knowledge and misunderstanding... I usually put condensors on the overheads and hihats; never in the kick drum. Now, I have to confess that I've put a condensor mic into the kick drum for one of my recording sessions - this was a DPA 4004 high SPL mic that was capable of handling levels well above 150dB; not some normal condensor mic with a peak SPL handling of 130dB. In this case, the operator obviously had a lack of knowledge of the mic's limits and was destroying them one after another!

Anyway, back on track.... let's use the common Shure SM57 as an example. It's a dynamic mic that has a fairly frequency response and is considered decent sounding by most folks. Used most of the time as an instrument mic, it's most popular use is on snare drums and guitar amplifiers. The other popular use of this mic is as the main lectern mic for the President of the United States (pictured above). I was fortunate to be the audio operator during the President's visit to Singapore in 2006 and worked closely with the White House Communications Agency with regards to the technicals in getting the event off the ground. One of the questions that I asked the technical director was the choice of mic - surely, there are lots of better mics out there for a lectern? The TD replied that they have considered other options over the years, but one mic that has gone through all kinds of conditions from snow to rain, from scorching heat to freezing cold, and have never had an issue was the SM57. I've used the SM57 on vocals, drums, horns, pianos, guitars and even flutes and recorders. Is it the best mic for all of these situations? Nope, but it'll get the job done.

So, I guess my message to you folks out there with limited budgets, pick a mic that sounds decent, get to know its pros and cons, and you should be on your way. It doesn't have to be a Shure SM57, it can be any of the numerous mics out in the market - Sennheiser, Audio-Technica, Audix, Superlux......get out there and audition them, pick one within your budget and use the heck out of it!

Now, I've personally got a bunch of mics that range from a hundred dollars to over a thousand dollars. Believe me, you do get what you pay for most of the time. But my point is that if you only had a limited budget, almost any mic will be able to do the job. Once again, is there a mic that will do a better job? Yes. But will the cheaper mic get the job done? Most probably.

Space & Technical Planning

Careful attention to space and technical planning for a venue is crucial to successful programming. Most of the spaces that I've visited in the past year suffer from poor planning and lack of attention to critical spaces like backstage and wing areas, dressing rooms, audience sightlines, audio operator's and lighting positions. A poorly designed space results in compromises that may make the audience experience less than satisfied and probably distracted from the hall's original purpose.

Good space planning and design rely much on the designer's experience and knowledge early on in a project. In projects where these spaces are crucial, theatre planning consultants experienced in performing arts building are engaged to come out with the programming blocks of the building even before architects are engaged.

I remember a particularly high profile project - the Eugene McDermott Hall in Dallas, Texas where noted architect I.M. Pei had to share leadership duties with the late acoustician Russell Johnson. Johnson has built more concert halls than any other person in the last 50 years and is recognised as one of the pre-eminent designers of modern day concert halls. According to a biography on Pei, there was a tremendous amount of tension on that project with Johnson on areas such as aesthetics and placement of other architectural elements. At the end of the project, Pei, when asked about his working relationship with Johnson, answered, "The man has great ears, but he has no eyes." Johnson retorted, "He has eyes, but he is deaf!"

Hence, a there sometimes exists a tension between the architect and the theatre planner over good practical design and perceived needs especially when the theatre planner comes in late during a project. Now, there are good reasons to let an experienced theatre space planner lead in this area, two major ones are :

1) Experience - most theatre planners have had years of experience in the field. They do it day and night, day after day, week after week. Most have years of working in a production environment under their belt. They will be able to identify problem spots simply because they've spent time on the floor, often in poorly designed spaces, making shows work. As opposed to architects who may have be commissioned to build one or two performing spaces a year, they are involved in building projects almost exclusively throughout the year. Theatre planners don't do condos or offices.....

2) Cost savings - getting an experienced theatre planner will save costs on the long run because it's done right the first time around. My projects from 15 years ago are still in operation today. On the other hand, I've been to scores of poorly design spaces where I've had to redesign spaces and systems for the second or even third time resulting in extra costs to the client years after the project.

Now, it's important to note that I'm not saying that architects are not adept at their jobs. They are still the experts when it comes to putting a building up and making it look good. What I am saying is that, in many cases, most architects do not have enough experience to be put into a position of deciding where a space should be. Just as the M&E consultant is left to design the air conditioning system, a theatre planner should be allowed to come out with the preliminary space design before it is all integrated into the main building program.

Architect Frank Gehry during his lecture in Singapore said this of his curvy designs, "If I had for one moment neglected the programming of the space first and foremost and focussed on the aesthestic design, I will not be in business today."

I've worked with many architects who have been more than accommodating to change critical aspects of their designs to fit technical spaces and adjust audience sight lines. All I'm saying is that it needs a specialist with theatre experience to propose functional spaces rather than perceived functional spaces based on textbooks early on in the process.

So, book your theatre space planner early....

Handy Tools

As a theatre technician, there are some tools that I carry around my waist most of the time. Pictured above is my standard rig. I used to have a bum bag with me all the time, but since a couple of years ago, I've favoured using a military type utility belt. This type of belt allows me to configure my kit to suit different situations and jobs. For example, in the picture above, I've got a Domke pouch attached to the belt in the picture above. That's my flying and rigging kit inside. Sometimes, it can be a RJ Espion DMX512 tester or a Leica DistoLite laser meter. It really depends on what I'm doing. The other great thing about using a utility belt such as this is the ability to put it on and remove it quickly and because it's not part of your pants, it doesn't cause your pants to fall down!

There are two tools that I find indispensable in the technical industry. It's my utility tool and my flashlight. I will always have these two items on me all the time during work and I strongly encourage everyone in this industry to get both of these items.

I started with the Leatherman MiniTool, Super Tool, PST, Wave and Charge XTi. There are many other brands out there - Gerber, Victorinox, Buck, etc. The thing that I really like about the latest Leatherman tools are their positive grip. There's no play at all when you're using the pliers. I currrently carry a Wave and Charge XTi. Features that are used most often are the pliers, scissors, mini and Phillips head screwdrivers.

With flashlights, I started with the Mini Maglite in 1990. I currently carry a Pelican M6 LED as my main light and a Streamlight TwinTask 1L as a backup. In this industry, you're usually working either in the dark or low light conditions so a light is absolutely crucial especially if you've got to fix something backstage in the middle of a show. The TwinTask has both LED and a Xenon bulb inside. The LED is great for showtime when you just want a good even wash without a distracting beam. I use rechargeable CR123s with these lights.

In my Domke pouch are a variety of tools - I got my trusty electrical screwdriver, a mini screwdriver kit with both straight edged and Phillips heads, one small Bahco adjustable wrench, one extra wide Bahco adjustable wrench, one Bahco ratchet wrench fitted with a M8 socket and a Visegrip tool. This particular kit is heavy; I only carry this when I'm doing flying and rigging work and assembling sets. Because they're all in a pouch, it's easy to just put it on in a jiffy when I need these set of tools.

Different people will have different preferences and opinions on various tools mentioned here; I'm just stating what works for me and hopefully, that will give an insight into some of the toys that is commonly used in this industry.

Consoles?

There are two kinds of live sound consoles to choose from nowadays - analogue and digital. Most of us are familiar with the analog consoles with its banks of knobs and sliders. However, in the last few years, the price of digital consoles have steadily gone down, making these consoles, usually lacking the massive amount of knobs and engendered with an LCD screen or two, an attractive option for replacing the analog console. Throw in all the bells and whistles like built-in processing and effects plus a small footprint.....one can see the future as a digital future.

While digital consoles seem to have a bit of a steeper learning curve than the analogue console, the principals remain the same. Advantages of using a digital console include instant recall with memories, small physical footprint, loads of audio processing and connectivity. Disadvantages include the user interface, dependence on a central processing unit and possible issues with AD/DA quality and interconnectivity.

My personal experience with digital consoles have always been positive. My first digital console was the Yamaha Promix01 which was released sometime in 1994. I remember seeing it in EQ magazine with Roger Nichols using it for the Steely Dan live tour. The Promix was very basic compared to what is out in the market today. It had 16 inputs, only three assignable dynamics processors, s/pdif output and no expansion slots. The EQ was pretty edgy and the converters were not the best sounding ones out there. But it had a few things going for it - instant recall, full parametric EQ on every channel, it was dead quiet and cost approximately just a tiny fraction of any console out in the market that had recall or was digital. I eventually ended up with two units daisy chained for 32 channels of mixdown from ADAT recorders and used them for some musicals. Unfortunately, the Promix units had an inherent problem with the circuitry that causes them to die after three years. I've got them in storage in Singapore at this point, just massive paper weights since they are worth close to nothing in the market.

Currently, Yamaha continues to lead in the development of digital consoles, especially in the lower cost end with the LS and M7CL series. Other manufacturers were a little slow off the block but are catching up with various incarnations in terms of interface. Some are a breeze to use, some are a total pain. Consoles that I've tested and used recently include the Yamaha DM2000, M7CL, 01V96, PM5D, PM1D, Digidesign Venue, Soundcraft Vi series and Digico D5. All of them are amazing in their own way and each manufacturer offer different interpretations of what they think a live sound engineer would like to see in a digital board.

The main enemy of digital consoles is obsolescent. While we can expect an analog console to last for seven to ten years; digital consoles generally become out of date within a couple of years. This doesn't mean that they're unusable after that time, just that newer models will come out costing less with more features and better sounding converters, making your existing digital console feel crappy, sound cheaper and basically junked overnight in terms of value, a victim of Moore's Law.

However, having said that, I will probably never go back to mixing on an analog console nowadays. When on tour, you carry a lot less in terms of processing racks. Installed in a venue, the smaller footprint allow for more seats, which usually translate into money paying punters. Having recall capabilities, processing on all I/Os, remote control and backup capabilities has convinced me that the digital lifestyle is definitely worth living :-)

Singapore

I was in Singapore over the weekend for client meetings and also to catch up with some friends. I managed to zip by Books Kinokuniya at Takashimaya and managed to pick up two excellent books - Sound System Engineering, 3rd edition by Don Davis and Dr Eugene Patronis, Jr; and, Sound Systems : Design & Optimization by Bob McCarthy. You can pick them up online at Amazon or Barnes and Noble.

The first two editions by Don and Carolyn Davis are considered to be the bible for sound system engineering. I have the second edition and this was one of the books that put me on the right path towards the pursuit of design excellence. The latest edition offers the insights of Dr Patronis and is updated to be a little more relevant in relation to latest developments and trends.

McCarthy's book on system design and optimization completely humbles me. I really believe it's the missing link for sound system designers everywhere. He starts with basics and moves on to design issues and measurement techniques in a very systematic and logical manner.

If you're even remotely interested in sound system design, then these two books are must reads and should be kept within arm's reach for reference. I'm still recovering from my trip, but I'll give a slightly more detailed review once I have the time to run thru these two books.

The Art of Mixing, Part Two

In the second part of the art of mixing, I'll touch on a few softskills which every mixing engineer must have. While I've listed them down in sections, they're really interlinked and each element is just as important as the next.

Critical Listening Skills
Developing critical listening skills is the single biggest hurdle for aspiring mix engineers. Sometimes, even in a small four or five piece band, the mix op is confronted with a massive amount of sound information. Where does one start? One bit at a time!

Critical listening involves sound analysis of various musical instruments and genre. What is important to note is that this is a time to analyse what you're hearing. Break the track down to verse and chorus; listening to each instrument and see where they sit relative to the rest. Where each instrument sits in the mix depends very much on the genre of music. For example, if you were doing a R&B band, you got to make sure you've got good solid bass lines coming thru the mix. If it's punk, you gotta give space to the vocals and guitars. If it's fusion jazz, a lot of the groove comes the bass and drumkit.

One of the important things I do is I spend time listening to different types of music - from classical stuff like Beethoven to heavier stuff like Linkin Park. I listen to punk, rock, R&B, blues, smooth jazz, pop. Now, I generally prefer certain types of music, but I make it a point to listen and analyse each genre. It's really an exercise in training my ears to familiarise them to the genre. If I'm slated to mix a particular band, you can be sure I'm listening to their CD and making mental notes of riffs and solos. If I have the chance, I'll be talking to the band leader or manager, in order to get an idea of their general sound direction.

Music Appreciation
While I'm not a musician technically, I've had the opportunity to study formal music appreciation while at college in the US and Singapore. This has helped me to understand a lot more about the history and forms of music. Take time to learn about different music genres. Study the different instruments out there. Next time you're doing sound for a band, take time to study the instruments they are using. Ask questions and be genuinely interested in their answers. What's the difference between a Fender Strat and Tele? Why choose a maple snare drum? What's the deal with all those little effects pedals on the floor? How different is the sound of a viola compared to a violin? How about the tonal differences between a Yamaha and Selmer alto sax?

In my early days of being a mix operator, I've had the benefit of meeting some great musos who were willing to share their skills and thoughts with me; great musos always share! I've had the opportunity to talk to them about their guitars, amps, drums, basses and all sorts of stuff. What this did to me was to develop my understanding of each muso's need and particular playing style. This is stuff you just don't get from a college education or attending seminars ;-)

It would be extremely difficult to mix a band well if you are not aware of the subtle differences in sound between a Taylor and Martin guitar.

Leadership
All the abovementioned skills aren't much good without some form of leadership from the mix operator. I've seen folks behind the mixer that are intent on doing their own thing by fiddling knobs on the board, or just plain ignore the musos when they come in. What happens then is the musos start doing their own thing - setting up, tuning their gear and before you know it, a full swing rehearsal is going on. Mix operators need to take control of the situation. They need to communicate the soundcheck process to the musos; let them know the gameplan. Help them plug their gear into the DI; talk to them and find out individual preferences; let them know that you've got their sound/interests at heart.....do anything but sit quietly behind the console.

Communication
Communication is a crucial component in this mix (no pun intended) of art and technology. In my experience, most performers/musos are pretty self absorbed before a performance. This is not because they are self-centered (although I've met some that are), but because most of them are focussed on the upcoming performance. It's up to you to discover and define their needs early in the process, preferably long before soundcheck. As it is seldom that most systems are ideal, you will need to communicate limitations of the system, do's and don'ts to them.

Identify microphones, jacks etc with tape. This will help in sorting stuff for folks such as background singers. If the musos are relatively inexperienced, take time to explain some dynamics of monitoring to them. For inexperienced vocalists, give them some tips on mic handling; how not to point the mic at the monitor, etc.

It's always good to make musos feel as comfortable as possible; talk to them and try to find out some of their comfort needs. One Sunday, we had a new bass player join the band. While talking to the worship leader, I discovered this bloke develope a skin rash each time he perspired. I put up a small fan and aimed it directly at him. He was pleasantly surprised and expressed his gratitude at the end of the service. That little bit of thoughtfulness built much more in relationship between the mix operator and muso than any amount of lip service.

Feeling of 'Team'
The mix operator has to start feeling, thinking and being 'team'. What does this mean?

Good sound is a synergy of several elements - musos, tech team and audience. When one of these fall short of the desired expectation, it makes things a tad more difficult.

The mix operator is the only person who stands between the musos and the audience/congregation. It's just as much your gig as is theirs. I've always stated that while I'm not a full fledged muso, I'm still a pseudo muso because of the sonic decisions that I make on behalf of a band. My instrument is a little different, but I'm part of a particular band's sound. That's why there's a lot of trust and communication that goes on between the mix operator and the musos in the concert touring circuit.

Diversity
Finally, we must recognise that we deal with different types of people at all levels. Some of them like music loud, some may like it soft. Some prefer more bass, others more vocals. Some are really picky about the guitar sound, others may not really care.

The point here is that God made everyone unique. They have unique taste and preferences that don't quite match up with any other individual. Over the years, I've discovered that mixing audio is the fine art of compromise. It's really trying to sit in the middle of the 'Bell Curve', which states that in most situation, approximately 10% will be enthusiastic about the mix, while 80% will not really be bothered and there will always be that 10% that will not be pleased with the mix.

I remember in one service after we had put in a new audio system, there were many compliments about how good the audio sounded that morning. I also had a couple of folks who came up to me and said that the audio wasn't as they expected it to be. After determining that they were not sitting in a blind spot, I figured that they must have been in that bottom 10% of the Bell Curve. As long as we are honest with God, ourselves and the situation, then we should be on the right track.

Well, that's about all I have to share at this point. Happy mixing!

Art of Mixing, Part One

After having conducted numerous seminars over the years, one subject that always comes around is the art of audio mixing . It's easy to teach the technical stuff, simply because it is pretty much black and white. It's either works or it doesn't. I'm going to break this post into two parts as it's gonna be pretty long and besides, I'll need some time to gather my thoughts on this matter.

In this post, I'll try to put some of my years of experience mixing for different events into text form. I'm not entirely sure that I'll be sucessful as I'm pretty sure I'll leave some gaps in the process simply because there is so much to cover.

The art of mixing is exactly what it implies - art. Why the challenge? What makes it difficult for operators to get consistent quality sound? The very fact that there are so many variables week after week in terms of people, instrumentation and physical conditions makes any of these questions almost self defeating.

Anyway, on to business.....

Generally, there are two areas to consider when approaching the art of mixing - 1) Technicals, and 2) Artistic Values. We will cover Technicals in Part One.

1) Technicals

This is the really easy part - basically it's about getting to know the audio system. Consider its strengths and weaknesses. What can it do? What are its limitations? Knowing this will help you to plan for an event efficiently. You can't have 26 mics if you only have 24 input channels on the console. If you absolutely must have 26 mics, then you will have to plan for alternatives.

Sometimes, it's not just about the mixing console. It's about knowing the limits of the system and looking for the best compromise in view of limitations. I remember one event in a small club space where there was a very basic audio system consisting of a 24 channel mixer with a pair of three-way 15" boxes. The space was a shoplot in Bangsar and the event consisted of several alternative, heavy rock type bands. Translation - big loud drums, screaming guitar amps, booming bass and furious vocals. While I could have put a mic on all the instruments, etc, it was really an exercise in futility due to the limited space and massive sound level that was gonna come out of the band onstage. I ended up only using one channel - a mic for the main vocals. The loudspeakers barely made it out in one piece that night as the amplified vocals were almost drowned by the rest of the band! But I managed to get the vocals on top of the rest of the band. Just! I managed to keep the manager and punters happy and kept the owners happy too, by keeping their system intact ;-)

Back to the topic at hand....other things to consider include the number of monitor sends needed, console position, existing inventory of mics, stage setup, etc. Stuff like this is usually taught in stage and theatre production courses and can be found in books available today.

One step that is absolutely crucial for successful technical operation is setting proper gain structure. Basically, what this means is ensuring that every input channel you have is set in a way where it does not clip and overload any of the stages in the mixer. One would usually start at the master gain control that is usually found at the top of the channel strip by slowly cranking it up until the clip light comes on and then backing it off until that light stops flashing. This procedure can only happen if there is something called a 'soundcheck'. A soundcheck is where the musos come on stage and each instrument level is set on the mixer by having the muso play their instrument as they would during the show. This is not a rehearsal for the musos; in fact, I kinda think that it is rather a rehearsal time for the mix operator.

So, in a nutshell, get to know the system really well. You should know where everything comes from, what each knob does, and where to send various signals. Get some serious hands-on time at the console. Not just on Sunday service, but try to put in some hours just getting to know the console. This familiarity will make your 'instrument' almost invisible as the musos come in and the music starts flowing so that you can start to focus on the mix instead of the technicals.

This last bit sets us up nicely for the next section, dealing with artistic matters when mixing, so I'll leave it a that for the moment.

Next, Part Two - The Art ...

Priorities

So, you've got the budget approval for a spanking new audio system. You've always been irked by the lacklustre bass reproduction of your existing loudspeaker cluster and the existing mixing console is always short of one aux send when it is fully used. You've got some idea of what you want in the new system, but where exactly do you start? How much money should you been spending on various components?

In my experience, here's my list of priorities :

1) Loudspeaker system
In any audio system, the main priority is to settle the loudspeaker system design. Traits of a well designed loudspeaker system include adequate frequency response for its purpose, even coverage at all listener positions and good localization. The end result is for every seat from the front to rear, and left to right, to have exactly the same consistent sound quality. You can check your audio system by taking a walkabout in your hall while playing some CD music. Listen carefully as you walk from rear to front, and from side to side. Does the audio quality change radically as you move from spot to spot? If it is, then it is entirely probable that your loudspeaker system has inadequate coverage. Without proper coverage, the congregation will not be able to hear a balanced and consistent sound coming from the audio system.

A well designed loudspeaker system is usually easier said than achieved. Some halls may have low ceilings, deep balconies or extensions in the oddest spots that make the design of any audio system anything but straightforward. Adding to that list may be acoustical issues like long reverberation times, high mechanical noise levels and architectural aesthetics. From a design perspective, getting it right require a mixture of knowledge, experience and the aid of a variety of tools like simulation software programs. Hence, it's not as straghtforward as putting up boxes and pointing them where you want the sound to be.

Just for the record, the loudspeaker system, in this definition includes the loudspeakers, amplifiers and related processing like limiters, equalisers and delays. Once the system is set up, the system should be locked up and never adjusted except by the person who designed it. Nowadays, digital signal processors(DSPs) have replaced most of the individual pieces of processing equipment. Once the system is set, the DSP is password locked.

2) Microphones and DIs
Next step is to take a good look at your microphone and Direct Box(DI) inventory. Choose a variety of dynamic and condenser mics for vocals and instruments. For DIs, whether it's active or passive, go for the higher quality units as these offer better performance and reliability on the longer term. More on mics in another post...

3) Mixing console
I've been to many, many spaces with very nice mixing consoles. Alas, the loudspeaker system installed is usually less than ideal . This is quite common as the mixing console is the operator's most common interface and will usually be a major point of focus during a new install or upgrade. No amount of EQ, processing or mixing is going to help a poorly installed loudspeaker system. Again, I will touch on consoles in another post.....

4) Outboard
In my opinion, equipment like program equalisers, CD player, reverberation units are in the lowest priority. Again many folks focus too much on the main program equalisers thinking that somehow tweaking the sliders will somehow improve the sound of a poorly designed system. A well designed system will not need a program equaliser; however, due to varying 'taste' in sound quality from person to person, some operators feel a little more secure when they have an equaliser to tweak the system to suit their taste.

Percentages
My own personal breakdown goes like this :

Loudspeaker system - 35-40%
Mixing console - 25-30%%
Outboard and mics - 20-30%

Well, these are my thoughts when it comes to a new audio system. Of course there are many other variables, but my intention is to give you just a glimpse of the issues involved and hopefully point you in the right direction the next time you're on the market for a new system.

What is a good consultant?

Having covered why you should engage the services of a consultant for your project, I thought that it would be appropriate to look into what I believe are the traits of a good consultant.

Experience
A good consultant should have hands on experience in the services that he is providing. Some level of practical experience is a must for consultants involved in the design of performance audio, video and lighting systems. Request information on previous work experience besides a project list. Take some time to visit their completed projects and look closely at the ergonomics and functional design of the installed systems. Speak to the users of the space. Ask them about stuff they like and issues they are having with the systems.

Communication
A good consultant is an excellent communicator, with top notch listening skills. This is crucial as there is a lot of information that flows thru each process during a project. Communications with the design team, client and staff via meetings, emails, documentation and instructions are crucial to the smooth and timely implementation of the project. The consultant must spend a good amount of time speaking to stakeholders, defining their vision and addressing their needs, with the end result of addressing technical infrastructure and operations for the client.

Details
A good consultant will look at every detail in the project. Many times, people have the impression that the only thing that involves audio system design is just matching pieces together. Unfortunately, issues such as acoustical finishes, physical constraints and aesthetics are major issues to consider in each design. The choice of seating or ceiling height will make a difference in the choice of loudspeaker type. Having a detailed consultant will also help to control project costs by reducing variation orders caused by last minute changes.

Education
A good consultant is always up to date with the latest development in the areas of acoustics, noise control and performance systems. He should be a member of a major society of peers and be kept abreast of the latest developments via peer reviewed journals and research. This will ensure that all projects will have the benefit of the latest developments in the industry in an age where new developments come at tremendous speed.

Tools
A good consultant should have a good set of tools for the job. Testing and measurement equipment, CAD and simulation software are essential in this day and age for aiding in the design of any system. Proper usage of these tools will allow designs to be confirmed and the results presented to you before the actual physical building is constructed. Problems can be identified early in the design process and rectified, avoiding potential disasters later on in the construction process.

That's all I can think of at this point. There are many other factors, but these few pointers should get you on your way to indentifying a good consultant from a mediocre one.

Why engage a consultant?

That's a question that many organisations ask when it comes to acoustics and performance systems. Strangely, in many new building projects that I've been involved in, the acoustics consultant is usually the last specialist that's engaged.

Here are a few reasons why anyone should consider engaging an acoustic consultant even before the architect -

1) Prioritise your programming needs. An experienced consultant will help your organisation sort out its programming priorities and advise on spaces, sizes and functionality. They can help you develop a design brief for the architect and design team.

2) Independence. Independent acoustic consultants should only be selling their services to your organisation. They should not represent any of the products specified and should not make any commission or profit from the installed equipment or systems. Design decisions should be based on needs rather than what is available in the inventory.

3) Experience. Good consultants have invested considerable time and money into education with years of related field experience to boot. As the field of acoustics and performance system is very wide, it's important to engage an acoustic consultant that has related experience to your project. Some consultants have lots of experience in noise control. They should not be engaged to design a complex audio or video system for your new space.

4) Stewardship. Getting a consultant to design something that works well for your space is good stewardship of resources. I have been involved in many upgrading projects in the last decade; some of these spaces are fairly new, having been in operation for only 4 or 5 years. Most of these projects are complete redesigns rather than upgrades. Why? Because they were not designed well in the first place. For example, a well designed system should work well in the space for many years; a typical audio system should last well over a decade. Having said that, upgrading due to obsolescence and expansion are inevitable in this day and age. However, a good consultant would have advised and design a good infrastructure backbone for all installed systems.

Good consultants always share their knowledge and take time to explain critical design decisions to the client. That is one of the key factors in choosing a consultant. You must feel comfortable with your choice and that your ideas and thoughts for the new space will be considered from every angle.

So, in a nutshell.....engaging a consultant will benefit any organisation in the areas of cost savings, functionality and design excellence!

First thought

It's here at last....my technical weblog. I've been wanting to start something like this for a while but dragged my feet over the last year due to various reasons.....but I guess now is about as good as any time to start. So, here goes......