Carpet and Congregational Singing

[cw4u]

We had an acoustical engineer come in and said that the reason our congregational singing was so minimal was because the carpet on the ground and fabric on the pews was absorbing a decent bit of the FOH system and that all they could hear was themselves.

Does this make any sense? I would figure replacing it with a hard surface would add more reflections than anything else.

[petereit]

Have you stood with the congregation during praise and worship? How does it sound to you? Does anyone complain that they can't hear?

And here's the kicker question: Does anyone complain that the music is too loud? Because if there's not at least ONE person complaining that it's too loud, then it's probably not loud enough.

[cw4u]

Well when I usually am in the congregation, I usually sit about three rows back from the front. I think it sounds fine...maybe a little muffled but that's probably due to the front fills not being turned up enough.

And we actually had an older gentlemen leave Sunday because he said it was too loud. I always had that complaint from the older group of people when I mixed FOH but the younger to middle aged people said it was fine. And now I'm stuck on broadcast audio...haha

[SamG269]

There should be a new announcement before service...

"Please turn your hearing aids down..... And put your cell phones on vibrate or off."

[petereit]

Most of the time when people are complaining that it's "too loud", it's really not -- it's just not Q'ed correctly. And that can also cause it to be "not loud enough" too. Can't tell you how many venues I've been in where it was PLENTY loud, but you couldn't understand anyone.

I'm also amazed at the number of places that use essentially the same Q on their lead singer's mic as they do for their pastor's. Usually that means both are wrong.

[Brad Weber]

Originally Posted by cw4u

We had an acoustical engineer come in and said that the reason our congregational singing was so minimal was because the carpet on the ground and fabric on the pews was absorbing a decent bit of the FOH system and that all they could hear was themselves.

Does this make any sense? I would figure replacing it with a hard surface would add more reflections than anything else.

They've been in the space and I have not so I can only address this in generalities. Human voices are not that directional so if the carpet and padded pews are absorbing the sound from the FOH system wouldn't they also be absorbing much of the congregational singing? And if the pews are filled then wouldn't the people provide even greater absorption?

I do often find that the problem is that the congregational area is too 'dead', but the impact is usually a matter of people feeling like they only hear themselves and the environment not encouraging interaction because of a lack of surfaces that would assist in hearing other portions of the congregation rather than it being the carpet and padded pew absorbing the sound from the FOH system (and just how much direct sound from the FOH system actually hits the floor and padded pew surfaces?).

[cmchamp]

I'm with Brad and agree with his generalities.
Also with Mark and the possibility in inappropriate EQ.
You also pegged a possibility, not intelligible enough. If you're in the front 1/3rd and the mix is "muddy," due to fills not being up enough, or just a poor mix (blend or EQ), then people with limited vocabulary to describe the issue will say it's too loud.
For example, we had a really good quartet at our venue last week, however, since they run IEM's, they sent us a line to our house. After intermission and the house band, the main level was boosted about 3dB above where it was when that group had left just before intermission. Their opening song was piano and vocal only, and not 1/2 way through the first verse, an older gentleman jumps from his chair, comes and asks me to turn it down as it was too loud and he couldn't understand the words. Dropped the level to where it was and he was fine.
C.

[Brad Weber]

Originally Posted by cmchamp

For example, we had a really good quartet at our venue last week, however, since they run IEM's, they sent us a line to our house. After intermission and the house band, the main level was boosted about 3dB above where it was when that group had left just before intermission. Their opening song was piano and vocal only, and not 1/2 way through the first verse, an older gentleman jumps from his chair, comes and asks me to turn it down as it was too loud and he couldn't understand the words. Dropped the level to where it was and he was fine.

More anecdotal evidence that 3dB is a generally noticeable difference!

If there is an intelligibility issue then removing carpeting and pew padding would probably have the opposite effect desired.

Pat Brown put an aspect relevant to this in such direct and simple terms that it really stuck. In theory, if you stood right at a wall that was 100% reflective at all frequencies and then replaced that with a wall that was 100% absorptive and eliminated all reflections then there would be a maximum 6dB reduction in the level you hear. In real world situations with less than ideal absorbers, varying relative phase relationships, etc. the reduction in the overall level from a source due solely to the specular absorption of a single surface will virtually always be less than that.

So the absorption of the carpet and padded pews may reduce the levels for any reflections of the sound from the house sound system off those surfaces but would most likely have minimal impact on the overall level from the house sound system. In other words, they may reduce the reflected or reverberant levels without affecting the direct levels, which is typically exactly what you want to do to improve intelligibility from the house sound system. One challenge with many worship spaces is maximizing the direct/reverberant energy ratio for the sound system while also incorporating surfaces that enhance natural reinforcement throughout the congregation and/or on stage. And is also one reason why diffusion is sometimes a more desirable solution than absorption.