First Presidency Broadcast quiet in chapel

Hope this is the right forum to post this in:

Last night the First Presidency Broadcast was very quiet in the chapel. We cranked up the volume as much as possible and checked the communications/electronics room and everything looked OK and normal.

Any ideas? Was it something we did, or maybe a broadcasting issue?

mem wrote:Hope this is the right forum to post this in:

Last night the First Presidency Broadcast was very quiet in the chapel. We cranked up the volume as much as possible and checked the communications/electronics room and everything looked OK and normal.

Any ideas? Was it something we did, or maybe a broadcasting issue?

Ours seemed to be a bit lower than usual, had to turn it up all the way to get decent volume.

mem wrote:Hope this is the right forum to post this in:

Last night the First Presidency Broadcast was very quiet in the chapel. We cranked up the volume as much as possible and checked the communications/electronics room and everything looked OK and normal.

Any ideas? Was it something we did, or maybe a broadcasting issue?

I had adjusted the volume in our chapel based on the sound level of the pre-broadcast countdown programming with the Tabernacle Choir. When the devotional began, the audio level dropped relative to what it had been during the countdown. I had to turn up the volume in the chapel in order to comfortably hear the broadcast. But I didn't have to turn it up all the way.

So while the sound level of the broadcast was unusually low, the fact that you weren't able to compensate for it may be an indication that you should have your FM group check your equipment settings.

Yes, the volume did seem quieter then normal. Also during the pre-program there was a number of times with long lapses of silence. Usually preceded by the word "English". It made me think the "override" wasn't letting go quickly enough.

Also we noticed that there didn't seem to be any Closed Captioning. Since we "tape delayed" there wasn't much we could do about it. The only thing that changed was swapping out the Satellite receiver. Hmmmm.

RussellHltn wrote:Yes, the volume did seem quieter then normal. Also during the pre-program there was a number of times with long lapses of silence. Usually preceded by the word "English". It made me think the "override" wasn't letting go quickly enough.

Also we noticed that there didn't seem to be any Closed Captioning. Since we "tape delayed" there wasn't much we could do about it. The only thing that changed was swapping out the Satellite receiver. Hmmmm.

It would be good to post the sound issue on the Broadcast Report that goes to the FM group and Stake Presidency. We use the time prior to the broadcast just like everyone else does - to check the system. If the sound is adequate prior to the broadcast, then drops, it not only makes for a poor recording but the person in charge of the broadcast has to "fiddle" with the sound volume at the beginning of the broadcast, which detracts from the spirit of the meeting.

techgy wrote:It would be good to post the sound issue on the Broadcast Report that goes to the FM group and Stake Presidency.

I haven't seen one of those in about a decade. Do they still use them?

RussellHltn wrote:I haven't seen one of those in about a decade. Do they still use them?

Yes. I'm told that our stake president has to submit a report periodically and requires the report. If this has changed no-one's told me - we just keep sending them to the FM group and the stake. :rolleyes:

I watched the rebroadcast last night online and it was pretty darn crappy in my opinion. It appears they had all sorts of technical issues recording it. The sound level kept changing, the video kept skipping, and the screen turned completely green at one point.

crislapi wrote:I watched the rebroadcast last night online and it was pretty darn crappy in my opinion. It appears they had all sorts of technical issues recording it. The sound level kept changing, the video kept skipping, and the screen turned completely green at one point.

I recorded the 8PM rebroadcast, but didn't show it. I did notice that the sound was off until the title appeared. I didn't experience any of the problems described with the playback of the 6PM broadcast.

RussellHltn wrote:I recorded the 8PM rebroadcast, but didn't show it. I did notice that the sound was off until the title appeared. I didn't experience any of the problems described with the playback of the 6PM broadcast.

I guess watching it online cannot technically be termed a rebroadcast. I just followed the link off the new.lds.org homepage, which is referred to there as archived video.

RussellHltn wrote:The only thing that changed was swapping out the Satellite receiver. Hmmmm.

I don't think that was the problem for this particular broadcast. We had to walk up to the front of the chapel and significantly increase the sound once the actual broadcast started.

I do not know how they staff the crew, but it seemed as if the "B" team was at the controls in the conference center that evening.

lajackson wrote:I do not know how they staff the crew, but it seemed as if the "B" team was at the controls in the conference center that evening.

Did anyone else notice that the sound from the conference center seemed to be riding on the ragged edge of feedback for most of the time when someone was speaking?

Aaron Z

We also had to crank the volume on both the PA and Satellite systems to maximum, and still the volume of the broadcast was just under adequate to not be drowned out by the squeals and babel of the infants in our congregation viewing the broadcast.

aczlan wrote:Did anyone else notice that the sound from the conference center seemed to be riding on the ragged edge of feedback for most of the time when someone was speaking?

Yup. I spent too many years trying to coax more volume out of PA systems. My ears to tuned for that sound.

I had just been reading about feedback controllers and wondered if they were relying on one to keep them out of trouble. Of course it can only work once the feedback becomes detectable....

RussellHltn wrote:Yup. I spent too many years trying to coax more volume out of PA systems. My ears to tuned for that sound.

Yeah, that little ringing sound that says turn down the fader or else.

I had just been reading about feedback controllers and wondered if they were relying on one to keep them out of trouble. Of course it can only work once the feedback becomes detectable....

Something like a feedback ferret? I would LOVE to have one of those, but I don't do enough live sound reinforcement to make it worth buying one.
From what I have been told of the sound system in the conference center by some of the people who run sound there, the Church had to do a lot of work to the sound system after they took possession of the conference center to control echos and other sound problems.
As such, I would be surprised if they didnt use something like a feedback ferret somewhere in the mix.

Aaron Z

aczlan wrote:Something like a feedback ferret?

I was reading about a Sabine Feedback Exterminator {drool}

But then I talked to a sound guy and he claims that feedback controllers don't work - at the end of the day, the mic still hears the speaker.

I can see his point. Unless the room acoustics are highly resonant at a few frequencies, you're not going to get much additional gain out of using any feedback device - because there's another frequency just behind it.

Speaking of feedback controllers, I ran across a very old Altec anti-feedback device. Looking at it, I think what it did was modulate the audio into a Single-Sideband and then demodulate it. That would cause the frequency of all sounds to shift sightly. Thus the feedback couldn't reinforce itself.

That must have been interesting to listen to. When you pushed it to where it started getting echo-y, it must have gone up or down in frequency with each "ring". It must not have worked too well as Altec made very few of them. I think it goes back to what the sound guy was saying - the mic hears and speaker. No getting around that.

aczlan wrote:Did anyone else notice that the sound from the conference center seemed to be riding on the ragged edge of feedback for most of the time when someone was speaking?

Yes. I also noticed it during October conference and kept thinking that the speakers needed to get closer to the mic. But the First Presidency broadcast was even worse in sound quality.

jbh001 wrote:Yes. I also noticed it during October conference and kept thinking that the speakers needed to get closer to the mic. But the First Presidency broadcast was even worse in sound quality.

There is only so much that you can do with amplification. We had stake conference recently and I was impressed with how the mission president spoke. When he started speaking, I said to myself, there is a man who knows how to speak into a microphone.
For a building that has the acoustic properties of a large airplane hanger with a balcony and speakers pointed at the balcony, I think they do pretty well in the conference center.


Aaron Z

aczlan wrote:There is only so much that you can do with amplification.

True. But the current situation seems to represent a downward trend in the quality of sound coming form the conference center. I think that is the point of the thread. It makes one wonder what the problems can be that after 10 years of broadcasting from the conference center, the sound quality starts to get worse. It suggests that either there is some equipment that is wearing out, someone has tweaked the system unintentionally resulting in increased feedback and decreased sound quality, or that the "B" team is running the system and has several incompetencies they have yet to overcome.

jbh001 wrote:But the current situation seems to represent a downward trend in the quality of sound coming form the conference center.

I don't think I would call it a trend yet. This was just one technically poor broadcast.

I did notice from watching that they were using a different stage setup than has been used in past broadcasts. I do not know if they have set up that way before, but it certainly could have contributed to the problem, especially as far as the podium location and mike are concerned.

Still, there is not much further we can do here in this thread now that the general issue has been raised.

RussellHltn wrote: ...

Speaking of feedback controllers, I ran across a very old Altec anti-feedback device. Looking at it, I think what it did was modulate the audio into a Single-Sideband and then demodulate it. That would cause the frequency of all sounds to shift sightly. Thus the feedback couldn't reinforce itself.

That must have been interesting to listen to. When you pushed it to where it started getting echo-y, it must have gone up or down in frequency with each "ring". It must not have worked too well as Altec made very few of them. I think it goes back to what the sound guy was saying - the mic hears and speaker. No getting around that.

If putting the audio through a SSB mod-demod channel did result in a frequency shift, that could create some interesting effects. The Doppler effect from a passing train whistle comes to mind.

In some ways, phase is even more important than frequency in terms of preventing audio feedback. Many years ago, (long before FM groups) I designed and built an audio preprocessor for my stake center cultural hall. It included a polarity reversal switch, because I had thought the two possible polarities through the electronic part of the loop could yield different profiles of the first frequencies to feed back. It turned out at least the first few frequencies to feed back were the same, regardless of the polarity setting.

What I did discover was that moving that switch from one position to the other would instantly (well, so it sounded) kill any feedback energy that had built up. I found that by periodically (or aperiodically) toggling the switch, I could contain the audible feedback to a modest volume level, even with the gain turned up quite a bit higher than would normally be possible. I toyed with the idea of an automatic polarity toggler but never built one. With a modern DSP, one could do some wild things to the phase of the signal. However, I suspect it would likely not be feasible to get more than at most a few dB gain above unity without some rather unpleasant audible effects.

rmrichesjr wrote:If putting the audio through a SSB mod-demod channel did result in a frequency shift, that could create some interesting effects. The Doppler effect from a passing train whistle comes to mind.

I suspect the shift was a constant. So it would be more like listening to a SSB transmission with the receiver slightly mistuned.

RussellHltn wrote:I suspect the shift was a constant. So it would be more like listening to a SSB transmission with the receiver slightly mistuned.

That would be the case for the first echo. However, if the loop gain were near unity, the second echo would be one more step lower in frequency, the third echo one more than that, etc. A short, beep would turn into something like sliding a finger down a piano keyboard.

OK, I see what you're talking about now. Yeah, that would be interesting.

BTW, I think your prior quote "I suspect it would likely not be feasible to get more than at most a few dB gain above unity without some rather unpleasant audible effects." sums up the issue with any anti-feedback device.

Filtering is useful, but only knocks off the high peaks. But once you hit unity in a broad range, it just won't work. Not until you can invent something that will broadcast the "sound" into the nerve system bypassing the ears. <mad scientist mode>

Thanks for the great discussion.

I am relieved to know that it 'wasn't just me'.

On the other hand, someone had suggested to report this issue to some place so FM and broadcast dept gets the message. How do we go about that, and/or has it already been done?

For facilities issues that need FM group attention the issue should be passed through the high councilor for physical facilities. He is your stake's single point of contact with the FM group. Sometimes a stake technology specialist may have a relationship with the FM manager that permits direct communications for technology issues. Even if he does have a direct line, the high council PF rep should be kept in the loop.

To get the issue before the people handling the broadcast I am not certain. I would use the feedback link on the http://lds.org/broadcast page. That feedback link is the generic lds.org feedback link. There is hope that the right people have been informed because of this thread. Others may have a better communication method for this.

Thanks, that is a great answer and makes sense.