Entrance to the Kogod Cradle Theatre

Exterior nearly complete

.

As the name suggests, Design Development is the process of developing the conceptual design into one we can begin to visualize. We further develop and document concepts we approached in the Schematic Design phase, creating in-progress drawings and specifications. The design team – architect, engineers and other consultants – continue to revise their work, coordinating with each other using client review comments.

In the Design Development phase, we determine the final physical configuration for the building and the layout of the interior spaces.

For the AV systems, this phase primarily involves the design of infrastructure components, those that affect other engineers’ work. The electrical and mechanical systems that support the AV systems are among these. Another, the system of conduit and back boxes, will eventually house the AV cabling and connections but are installed as part of the electrical contractor’s scope. The general architecture of the project, such as complex integration of equipment into architectural elements that may require special construction or enhanced structural design and may impact the project’s cost, are part of this plan, too.

While coordinating with the design team, the AV consultant will decide what devices are required for each system in the facility, and where each piece of equipment will be located. Some pieces are located in equipment racks. Large racks are often housed in dedicated rooms or in the client’s computer server room; smaller racks that serve local AV systems will be housed in local credenzas or nearby closets.

Other AV devices may include plates and panels that are located in the floor, on walls, and in or on the ceiling; these are intended to receive connections from nearby permanent or portable equipment. Integrating video projectors and projection screens in ways that minimize or eliminate impact to architectural aesthetics may also be required.

All of these components must be documented in the project drawings for continued cost estimating during Design Development. This is done for the AV systems by showing symbols that represent these individual AV components on the architectural background drawings developed and provided by the project architect. The resulting set of drawings, the AV Systems Device Location Drawings, is created by the AV consultant. Additional drawing will begin to reflect any custom integration elements required for the project, all coordinated between the architect and the AV consultant.

For the most part, the client is not involved in coordinating and developing these documents. However, the client is responsible for reviewing the documents and providing comments: Do they agree with the development of the design to date or desire to revise it in some way?

This process is critical for both sides. It provides the client an opportunity to interact with the design team, and it allows the consultant to revise the design based on feedback from both the client and the design team. Without this progressive and collaborative process, the result could be less than desirable.

So why make the point about how critical client review is? Through the Design Development phase, the process is focused on the client. Later, changes are possible but may compromise the project and increase cost.

It is easy for the client to be overwhelmed by the barrage of information that comes from all directions—from the architect, engineers, and consultants. Without a good plan to accomplish these reviews, the client may overlook something important or just skip review to reduce anxiety.

Since clients rarely take on new building projects, it makes sense to make the most of each. Planning well ahead of time allows the client to follow and participate in the design process in a way that will benefit them. That’s why we recommend that a client assign one internal person, someone familiar with technology, perhaps from the IT or AV department, to do the review.

Of course, the responsibility for client participation begins with a consultant. Your consultant should recognize the challenges you face with new construction or new AV systems and make the process as efficient, effective and comfortable as possible.

Once Design Development is 100% completed, the client should feel comfortable signing off on all aspects of the design. This is required to move into the next phase. So, as they say, onward and upward. The next stop: Construction Documents.

Until next time…

Playhouse Website

.

We tend to romanticize the stories of Beethoven and Smetana, both of whom continued composing after serious hearing impairment. Still, it is difficult to imagine a more tragic story than an artist who struggles with a disability that limits his capacity to work.

Do we take hearing loss seriously enough? What can we do to protect tomorrow’s Beethoven—and his teachers?

Until recently, stories of hearing loss tend to focus on the elderly, factory and construction workers, and rock band musicians. More and more, we hear about the dangers of noise-induced hearing loss to a broader cross-section of music lovers. With the fairly recent proliferation of hand-held audio devices, we have become concerned about hearing damage caused by consistent high-level headphone use, too.

In 2003, the European Union passed a directive on minimum health and safety requirements that did not exclude the entertainment industry. This served as an unwelcome wake-up call to classical musicians and music educators who had previously been largely unconcerned with this issue. The implication of the directive is clear: You only have two ears. Use them wisely.

Subsequently, the research world has made efforts to better determine what noise levels and duration will minimize risk. Also, the specific concerns of classical musicians have been researched, including the specific types of hearing loss and tinnitus experienced by classical musicians, the relation of instrument frequency response to hearing loss, and the position of the instrument relative to the ear.

These regulations and the topics of subsequent research have the potential to affect acoustic design and the everyday function of the music education facility.

In our Collegiate Music Education Facility Project survey, we asked music school executives about their hearing conservation programs and encouraged them to share their opinions on how suitable their buildings are with regard to noise exposure.

Eighteen percent of respondents indicated that they conduct seminars or provide information regarding hearing loss for musicians. Generally, schools with larger enrollments are more likely to have hearing conservation programs.

Nine percent of respondents indicated that throughout their facilities, they have rooms that seem excessively loud.  Alarmingly, 47% reported that certain rooms in their facilities are too loud.  The remainder of our sample indicated no concern regarding noise-induced hearing loss at their facilities.  There was observed a direct correlation of perceived loudness with the age of the facility:  the older the facility is the more likely it is to be perceived as excessively loud.

As acoustic consultants, we continue to believe that appropriate loudness is a critical element in rooms properly designed for good listening. The ceiling height of rehearsal spaces particularly influences loudness.  While our survey had no means of surveying actual loudness levels, the sentiments of people regarding noise levels were clearly correlated with reported ceiling heights.  The median ceiling height in band rooms of schools that indicated no concern regarding noise-induced hearing loss was 10 feet taller than other schools.  For chorus rooms, the median height was 7 feet taller.

To learn more about the Collegiate Music Facility Information Project and to receive a copy of the 2010 survey, join our email update list here.

.

First Step: The Programming Narrative

Creating a Conceptual Design

Schematic design is typically the first formal phase of a project and involves assembling the conceptual design.

Programming, the process of discovering what a client’s activities are and what AV systems will be required to support those needs, usually occurs during the schematic design phase. Schematic design also identifies what the AV system will be capable of doing. This critical phase sets the direction for the entire AV system: If we don’t think through the conceptual design, a less-than-ideal AV system may be specified.

During programming meetings, the AV consultant asks questions about a client’s everyday work method, the multimedia in use to support it, and how the two merge. Then we determine the AV systems that will support that client’s methods in a seamless and transparent way and lead the client toward the final design and installation of a system that will be easy to use.

Playing Your Part in the Process

At first glance, the AV programming process may seem straight forward. And it is—if everyone involved understands it. Sometimes, however, a client hasn’t had experience designing and constructing a new project. If this client were to learn about the process before hand, would chances of success increase?

Often, clients haven’t thought about or defined their work methods. In programming exercises, the consultant teaches, coaxing with probing questions to help clients reveal the intricacies of their work method. We then document these in the programming narrative, a physical and operational description of various AV systems the client can review. An estimated installed cost of the conceptual AV systems design accompanies the narrative.

After the client reviews and accepts a programming narrative and accompanying cost estimate the next phase begins, culminating in a set of construction documents for contractors to bid on.

Preparing to Participate

To ensure that the programming exercise is as productive as possible, the client can prepare by considering a few basic questions:

• What are you currently using to support your work method?
• Can you think of specific technology tools that would increase efficiency and productivity?
• Does your firm have documented AV system standards, and have they been provided to the AV consultant?
• Do you have an AV department, and are they knowledgeable enough to support the AV systems you have or will have in the future? If not, are you considering experienced hires for these support positions?
• Are you prepared to interact with your consultants sufficiently in order to assure a successful design process and project completion?
• Have you considered assigning someone from your firm to be the single point-of-contact to your AV consultant?
• Will you have adequate flexibility to adjust your preliminary allowance for the AV budget once the cost estimate is completed by the AV consultant?

These are among the issues that are critical to the overall success of a project at every consultant and sub-consultant level. As the project progresses, the clients and their architect and consultants will proceed through a series of phases on the way to commissioning the project:

• Preliminary Design (if required)
• Schematic Design
• Design Development
• Construction Documents
• Bidding (tender)
• Construction
• Commissioning

Next time, we will discuss design development– porting the client-approved AV programming narrative into documents that will become the initial drawings of the design development phase. Until then….

.

The infamous music history quiz Drop the needle, where students play Name that Tune on excerpts of classical music LP’s, no longer has a literal name. Digital music technology has replaced the record player and is revolutionizing the classroom.

The use of technology in the music classroom was perhaps the most surprising of the results from the Collegiate Music Facility Information Project.

My personal experience in conservatory education, while it seems to me very recent, was nearly nine years ago. Certainly, many things must have changed in that period of time. And since then, at TALASKE I’ve witnessed the latest technology being integrated into classrooms of all types and at all grade levels—not just in business schools or in technology-heavy disciplines.

So I’m surprised to be surprised, and I am delighted that music schools are keeping pace with other academic disciplines in their use of technology in the classroom.

Our survey included two general questions that involved technology, one relating to overall satisfaction, the other to intent for technology upgrades. Overall, 40% of respondents indicated that building technology was, in their opinion, deficient in their music facility. Of these, 32% indicated that upgrading building technology was one of their priorities. Admittedly, this does not seem overwhelmingly positive. But, keep reading.

This general satisfaction with technology wasn’t strongly correlated with the size of the school’s enrollment—other than that the smallest quartile of schools were generally the most dissatisfied with their classroom technology. On the other hand, the facility’s age correlated: The older the facility, the more likely upgrading technology was a priority.

Our survey went on to look at four specific aspects of technology in the music classroom: the availability of audio and video playback systems, digital music player connections such as an iPod dock, access to the internet, access to a wifi network.

Forty-four percent of respondents indicate that audio and video playback systems were available in every, or nearly every, classroom. Sixteen percent indicated that audio and video playback systems were mostly portable systems.

Here’s where it gets interesting:

Eighty-five percent of respondents indicated that instructors could readily plug in an mp3 player.

Ninety-four percent indicated that internet content was available to instructors from the classroom.

Eighty-one percent indicated that their facilities had wifi available throughout.

Each of these results seems encouragingly high. To get a benchmark on these numbers, we found some survey results from The Campus Computing Project which reports that wifi networks are available in about 77% of 4-year academic institution. Music schools, by our count, seem to do slightly better.

Why, then, don’t these results correlate with overall satisfaction with building technology? “So, you’ve got an iPod dock, the internet, and wifi. What else could you want?” The answer can only be that these basic systems are not meeting the specific needs of the music school.

We’re interested in what will make technology really work for music education facilities. We’re eager to hear your feedback, and we look forward to probing this issue further in the 2010 version of our survey.

To learn more about the Collegiate Music Facility Information Project and to receive a copy of the 2010 survey, join our email update list here.

Onstage with the Band
Do you ever find yourself interested in the behind-the-scenes technical aspects of live performance? I certainly do. At this concert, my sister caught me trying to read the label on the side of a loudspeaker during one song… busted.

The first time I chose this listening position, I found it to have an unexpected benefit. Because the stage is only about 36” off of the main audience area, I was able to hear a very pleasing balance between the unamplified stage sound and the sound from the loudspeakers. In contrast, had I sat further from the stage, the unamplified sound directly from the musicians’ instruments would have been less audible.

My seat allowed the benefit of being able to evaluate and enjoy the mix that was being created for the rest of the audience while being able to appreciate the monitor engineer’s mix. Perhaps the most exciting benefit of grabbing this spot was that I could hear the naked instruments themselves more than the house mix, creating an even more intimate environment in an already intimate venue.

It was as though I were listening to the concert onstage with the band.

This sort of listening allows a deeper understanding of what musicians are doing on stage. I already appreciated the intricacies of this particular band’s playing, but the ways the members communicated and played off each other became all the more evident in listening to the same sources they did. For example, in the live mix, the bass guitar was equalized, compressed, and mixed to a point where it provided low-end support to the rest of the music, as is common. On stage, however, the bass guitar’s amplifier was one of the louder sounds. In being forced to listen to the bass guitarist’s lines for a change, I realized how much he used his actions, his notes’ sustain or lack thereof, and his volume to guide the rest of the band members. Additionally, I was able to appreciate his writing, as his bass parts intricately weaved through the guitar and keyboard parts while at the same time keeping the spotlight focused on the lead singer.

The Modern Mix
While listening to the bass guitar, I realized that due to the frequency of loud, amplified shows in this venue and elsewhere, today’s mixing techniques have made it increasingly rare to hear a more acoustic, nuanced group in a realistic way. In addition to the bass’s dynamic playing, I loved hearing the rattle of the snares under the snare drum and the naked slap of the kick drum head – things that would have been completely lost had I been listening further back in the venue. The use of reverb, equalization, and other processing that make modern mixes sound “buttoned up” when used well, or overproduced and fake when used too liberally, often detract from the natural beauty of the sounds created onstage. Sure, the raw kick sound wouldn’t be considered beautiful from a modern mixing standpoint, but it gives me more of a connection with the artists than a polished kick drum sound pounding through a venue’s subwoofers.

(Please note that Ms. Michaelson, her band, her tech crew, and the technical staff at the Park West are all brilliant at what they do, and their performances have been among my favorites. My comments are not intended as criticisms of the band but rather as comments on modern approaches to live sound.)

While many venues won’t allow you to get as close to the stage as I did, some offer stage-side balconies that allow patrons to hear bands sans front-of-house system. Give these listening areas a try and let us know what revelations you have enjoying your favorite artist from a new angle.

It is not unheard of for music educators and music students to refer to practice rooms as “practice cells.” Do they really feel imprisoned?

This is unfortunate, given the long hours that students spend practicing. The environment of the individual practice room should be friendly to the eyes and ears.

Having spent quite a bit of time in practice rooms ourselves and having designed many of these rooms, we have a good idea if what musicians need from their practice rooms: sufficient availability, adequate space, a decent piano, freedom from noise disturbance, and an acoustic environment suitable for the instrument or music being practiced. The latter requires proper room dimensions and finishes.

Seeking to learn more about the educator’s impressions of their facilities, our recent Collegiate Music Facility Information Project surveyed music school executives about many aspects of their buildings, including practice rooms.

Here is some of what we have learned:

Schools that reported satisfaction with how many practice rooms they have, indicated, on average, 4.5 full-time undergraduate students per practice room. (This is a common metric used in planning music school buildings. With a lower number there is, theoretically, greater availability of practice rooms). Schools reporting dissatisfaction with their quantity of practice rooms averaged over 10 students per practice room.

What surprised us about the trends in quantity of practice rooms was the relationship to overall enrollment: larger schools reported more students per practice room. With our initial survey of schools, there is an apparent trend that larger schools have more students per practice room. In fact, a linear regression of our data indicates that for every 100 additional full-time undergraduate students, the number of students per practice room goes up by 1.75. Why is this ratio of students to rooms not constant, regardless of school size? We will continue to observe this apparent distinction between large and small schools as we look toward our 2010 survey.

Another surprise was that the size of individual practice rooms was not reported to be a strong factor in respondents’ satisfaction with their practice rooms. The median size of practice rooms, overall, was about 60 sq.ft. Those who indicated that they were very satisfied with the practice rooms overall, had only a slightly higher median response (64 sq.ft).

These two attributes, quantity and size, were indicated as the best features of practice rooms, overall.

The most reported worst characteristics of practice rooms were sound isolation and aesthetics. Over half of all responses indicated poor sound isolation between rooms!

Another surprise for us was that respondents were generally apathetic about background noise. Only 9% of schools indicated that background noise was a problem. (This was a general sentiment for not only practice rooms, but also faculty studios and rehearsal spaces.) This is an interesting discovery, as considerable effort and expense can be expended in making these spaces very quiet and free from lighting and heating/air conditioning systems noise. The missing link in the correlation of our survey results with actual objective measurement of background noise.

To learn more about the Collegiate Music Facility Information Project, join our email update list here.

Sound reinforcement systems are often used to amplify the artists onstage. This can lead to extreme results: very good or very, very bad.

When a sound system is well designed and properly operated, it often goes unnoticed. A common saying among live sound engineers goes something like, “If it sounds good, the artist gets all the credit. If it sounds bad, you get all the blame!” You want the audience to be focusing on the performers on stage, after all, not on the stack of loudspeakers.

Making the system transparent requires that many things come together well. Having been at the controls for many shows, I know how hard that can be, and I can’t help but be picky when I’m out in the audience:

Volume level: There’s loud, and then there’s loud. I find too often that system operators think that louder is better. A well-mixed and properly-equalized concert can actually sound louder than it is. I love to feel the impact of a kick drum or the envelopment of a deep bass line, but that knob doesn’t need to be turned up to 11 to make that happen. “Turn it down!” “What? -I can’t hear you!”

Equalization: I listen to hear if each instrument sounds natural, as it would if it were being played right in front of me. It’s easy for the system to unintentionally color or change the natural sound of an instrument. I’ve heard beautiful concert grand pianos sound like cheap synthesizers too many times. Poor equalization often contributes to the show feeling too loud.

Most of us have also experienced dreaded feedback, or squealing, in the sound system. Even if the system only is on the verge of squealing, the sound operator has already lost, as this will ‘color’ the sound. Feedback is most often caused by poor equalization and/or volume level, but it can also happen when a performer walks directly in front of the loudspeakers, which should be placed appropriately for the audience and the artist. The lighting system is designed to cover the stage; you don’t want the performer walking out of that lit area. The audio system is designed to cover the audience; you don’t want the performer walking into the covered area, at least without the operator making the proper adjustments.

Localization: If I close my eyes, is the sound coming from where the performer is, or is it off to the left or from high above? I find it very distracting when what my ears hear doesn’t match what my eyes see. Careful placement and balance of loudspeakers can make, or come close to making, the sound localized to the performer. The success of this comes mainly from how the system is originally designed and installed, but it is also important for the sound operator to know how each subset of loudspeakers work together as a whole in his mix.

Distortion: This goes back to whether or not a voice or instrument sounds natural. If anything in the signal chain of the audio system is overdriven, the sound will become distorted and be far from natural. I can’t count the number of shows I’ve either painfully endured or walked out of because the system was so distorted that I couldn’t differentiate between a guitar and a piano. For any given system, there’s a limit on how loud it can be turned. Beyond that, the sound quality degrades and equipment can become damaged.

Room Acoustics: If the room acoustics are problematic, even the best system will have a hard time performing well. I attended a Wynton Marsalis concert at Wentz Concert Hall last year. Microphones were used minimally, only for certain instruments and for certain songs. The room’s acoustics and the sound system were developed together to work harmoniously, and with Wynton’s sound engineer at the controls, it was quite transparent when the sound system was being used and when it wasn’t.

When you attend a live theatre or movie event, you hope the performance will transport you, take you away from your busy life for a few hours to experience a mix of emotions, sights and sounds. Similarly, listening to a talented musician is one of the greatest things in life, and it’s easy for the room you’re standing in or the technology within it to get in the way. When those elements disappear or enhance the performance, the experience can be downright magical. I think most of us have experienced fantastic performances. But have you ever asked yourself what made it so great, aside from the artist’s talent? I know, the mirror ball always helps…..

A friend of the TALASKE consulting team finds great amusement in the different noises each of us acousticians makes when walking into a room. Many of us are hand-clappers—some use cupped-hand thuds, some prefer palm-centered cracks, and others choose fingers-only slaps. In addition to this, I sometimes prefer to use my voice—a “mwhaaa” sound that I picked up from another colleague. Suffice it to say, we all listen differently and have our own approaches to evaluating rooms. And somehow, we usually end up reaching a consensus.

Artist’s Ears

I listen for breath. Perhaps it’s because I’m a singer. I want to hear the piano soloist inhale to indicate the upbeat. I love to hear the subtle grunt from the conductor when encouraging a weighty accent. I want to know that the opera star inhales in time with music. I must hear the glottal stop—then sigh—from the actor whose character is annoyed.

This level of detail engages me in art and reminds me that the performance is live—that it is happening in real time and that the people offering the performance are, indeed, alive.

Scientist’s Ears

Let’s face it. We all get bored at concerts sometimes. During a piece I don’t care for or a first-hearing of a complex and difficult work, my mind may wander to what I call the “building blocks game.” This involves ferreting out the building blocks or combination of blocks involved in any given moment.

Any subjective acoustic impression is comprised of a combination of four such blocks: time, level, frequency, and direction.

“Time” includes how synchronously the ensemble plays and how long the notes linger in the room. “Level” describes how loud the loudest passages are, for instance, and how silent the quiet is. “Frequency” accounts for everything related to pitch—do the high notes dominate? Or the low notes? “Direction” relates to where it sounds like the music is coming from.

The fun starts when you combine these.

Frequency + Direction: Do the low pitched notes sound like they envelope me? Do the high-pitched notes clearly come right to me from the stage?

Level + Time: How loud are the notes that linger? Is there a low murmur of reverberance? Or does the reverberance almost get in the way of the music?

Direction + Time: Are the sounds that come from overhead completely in synch with the sound that comes from the stage?

For some of these combinations, we have established and well understood terms. “Warmth” is generally understood to be a combination of frequency and time, when the low frequencies linger longer than the high frequencies.

For others, we can’t rely on single words. How do you describe the sense that the reverberance of the upper woodwinds seems to come exclusively from above me? The descriptors of time, level, frequency, and direction help us put into words the very real and predictable acoustic effects that we observe.

We want to hear what you listen for in a building.  Leave your thoughts in the comment section below.