Winn Room salasobrien.com
Projection Screen &
Acoustics Evaluation
WINN ROOM, CORONADO, CA
UPDATE NOVEMBER 20, 2023
INTRODUCTION
The City of Coronado is considering five different options for the remodel or renovation of the Winn Room. The purpose of this report is to provide analysis and comparison between the different options with regard to acoustics and projection screens. The scope of this report is to provide the following information:
Acoustic recommendations for each of the 5 current room configuration options to determine the materials, quantities and costs involved in order to make a comparison.
Sightline studies and screen sizing analysis for each of the 5 current room options.
This version of the report has been modified from previous versions in that the option numbers and descriptions have changed. The new options are listed in order of overall project cost with #1 being the least expensive and option #4 being the most expensive.
ACOUSTICAL CONSIDERATIONS AND EVALUATION
The Winn Room is planned for presentations, speaking engagements, and a wide range of music performance styles that fall into two primary categories. The first performance style would be music that is played through a PA system such as high-quality musical events of various genres. This style would rely on the sound system to provide sound coverage to the seats. However, poor room acoustics (which are typically caused by excessive reverberation and reflections) will reduce the sound quality, even with a good system. The other type of performance would not use a PA system to reinforce the sound. This could be a small instrumental ensemble, a vocal choir, medium size orchestra, local community or school orchestra or concert band, or other similar un-amplified performance.
The biggest challenge with any of these types of performances is that music will produce a relatively high level of acoustic energy that needs to be controlled or managed. Because all the options for this Attachment 1
Winn Room | salasobrien.com 2
room are small when compared to a typical music venue, sound will tend to be loud in this space. In general, the larger the physical volume of the room, the better it can help manage that acoustic energy.
The design goal for this room would be to provide a well-controlled acoustical environment that would allow for good speech intelligibility and clarity for playback sources including music, and at least a neutral acoustic environment. From a music performance standpoint, it will be important to control the acoustic energy in the room with some sound absorption without making the room too acoustically dry or dead.
Option #1: Winn Room Interior Upgrade within the Existing Footprint. This option is the basis from which each other option will be evaluated. This option is the smallest in terms of acoustic volume (ceiling height) and, because of this attribute, will be the most difficult. This option would ideally have some amount of sound absorption on the walls and ceiling to control reflections and reverberation.
However, this option is mostly windows that will reflect sound.
When looking at this option, most of the walls are glass or have doors in the walls. As such, there are no practical opportunities to provide sound absorption panels on the walls. For the ceiling, we would recommend some amount of sound absorption if possible. We recommend, at a minimum, an acoustical tile ceiling with high NRC (Noise Reduction Coefficient) ceiling panels.
Option #2: Winn Room Interior Upgrades and Elevate Ceiling. This design option will have an increased volume (higher ceiling) and therefore a slight increase in the amount of reverberation in the space in addition to the larger acoustic volume. Windows are larger so there will be more reflections.
This larger volume room will provide improved acoustics for some music performances but will come with some challenges. As with option #1, the small footprint of the room will significantly limit the size of the performance group.
Most of the walls are glass or have doors in the walls. However, because of the raised ceiling height, there will be drywall finished walls along the left side of the room above the doors where a strip of 4’x4’ acoustical panels can be installed. We recommend a total of 10 panels creating a 40’ long band of 160 sf of 2” thick fabric wrapped sound absorbing panels be installed on this wall.
Approximate materials only cost (not including installation labor) for this option would be $5,000.
For the ceiling in this space, we recommend a minimum of high NRC acoustical tile. A step up from acoustic tile could include a ceiling cloud system, a perforated metal or wood slat ceiling system with sound absorption above the perforated metal or slats.
Option #3: Winn Room Internal Expansion: This design option is another large room that will require additional sound absorption materials to control reverberation and reflections. Of the 5 options, this one is the second-best option due to the room size although the footprint size and ceiling height is not quite as high as option #4.
Most of the walls are glass or have doors in the walls. However, because of the raised ceiling height, there will be drywall finished walls along the left side of the room above the doors where a strip of 4’x4’ acoustical panels can be installed. We recommend a total of 10 panels creating a 40’ long band of 160 sf of 2” thick fabric wrapped sound absorbing panels be installed on this wall.
Attachment 1
Winn Room | salasobrien.com 3
Approximate materials only cost (not including installation labor) for this option would be $5,000.
For the ceiling in this space, we recommend a minimum of high NRC acoustical tile. A step up from acoustic tile could include a ceiling cloud system, a perforated metal or wood slat ceiling system with sound absorption above the perforated metal or slats.
Option #4: Winn Room Larger Expansion. This design option is a much larger room with much higher ceilings and a greater amount of glass. This room will be the most reverberant of all options but can still perform well (acoustically) as long as sound absorption products are designed in conjunction with the architecture and installed in the ceiling and on the walls. The higher ceiling and windows will make the room feel open and should work the best of all options for acoustic performance such as a string or wind ensemble, or vocal group.
Due to the large number of windows on the right side and rear walls, it appears that only the left wall is an option for sound absorption panels. The drywall wall surfaces could provide up to approximately 384 square feet of acoustical panels that can be installed on the left side wall.
Approximate materials only cost (not including installation labor and materials) for this option would be $11,000. For the ceiling in this space, we would recommend a minimum of high NRC acoustical tile. A step up from acoustic tile could include a ceiling cloud system, a perforated metal or wood slat ceiling system with sound absorption above the perforated metal or slats.
Option Alternate: John D. Spreckels Center (JDSC) Grand Room Audio Visual Upgrades. This option has a slightly larger footprint (with a much higher ceiling) and will require a similar approach to installing sound absorption to control reverberation and reflections. Because this room is larger, it will require more sound absorption. The obstruction of the room dividing wall header that splits the room into two spaces will make this space extremely problematic for any type of acoustical music performance. Because of this item, this is the worst room of the 5 options.
When looking at this option, there appears to be a mixture of drywall walls and glass. The drywall wall surfaces could provide up to approximately 544 square feet of acoustical panels that can be installed on the side walls (128 sf each side) and 288 sf on the back wall. Approximate materials only cost (not including installation labor) for this option would be $15,000. For the ceiling in this space, we would recommend a minimum of high NRC acoustical tile. A step up from acoustic tile could include a ceiling cloud system, a perforated metal or wood slat ceiling system with sound absorption above the perforated metal or slats.
The following is a subjective rating for each of the rooms in their current designs, considering their acoustical performance on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the ideal is:
• Option #4 – Larger Expansion: 4
• Option #3 – Internal Expansion: 3
• Option #2 – Elevate Ceiling: 3
• Option #1 – Interior Upgrades: 2
• Alternate Option – Grand Room AV Upgrades: 1
Attachment 1
Winn Room | salasobrien.com 4
PROJECTION OR LED SCREEN SIZE COMPARISON AND EVALUATION Display Type
For a room that is intended to support a wide variety of community type functions, there are generally two types of video screens that can be used for video support of functions in the room. Those two types are Front Projection and Direct View LED. The aspects and pros/cons of each of these video display formats are as follows:
• Front Projection
• Uses a video projector, generally mounted from the ceiling or in the back of the room, and a fixed or motorized roll-down fabric screen material. • Provides very poor contrast when there is any ambient light from either exterior windows or interior lighting. The front projection screen cannot discriminate between ambient light and light from the projector, so all light is reflected off the screen. The best contrast attainable (image black color) is when the projector is turned off and any ambient light is on the screen. Front projection is generally used in environments where light can be highly controlled (such as a movie theater). • The projector that is mounted from the ceiling or on the back wall will typically have a noisy fan and may be disruptive.
• Depending on screen mounting height and projector location, someone could walk across the stage and shadow the image on the screen. Front projection is not conducive for use as a backdrop.
• Depending on projector brightness, lens configuration and resolution, the projector/screen combination is generally lower cost than direct view LED. • Direct View LED
• Uses a grid of LED panels mounted from the floor, attached to the front wall or suspended from structure.
• Viewing distances determine the optimum pixel pitch (distance between LED image pixels). For this application, a 2.5mm (or smaller) pixel pitch is recommended. • Provides rich colors and high light output, even in high ambient lighting conditions. • Provides excellent image contrast.
• Uses more power and generates more heat than front projection. • Is generally more expensive than front projection, as much as 2-3 times the cost.
Given the different room design options, all with extensive glass (and ambient light), direct view LED is the preferred display technology.
The following list of approximate sell pricing can be used as a budget for equipment only, not including infrastructure, installation labor, materials, tax, etc.
Attachment 1
Winn Room | salasobrien.com 5
• 7’x12’ Projection – Approximately $30k (Options 1,2,3, Alternate) • 9’x16’ Projection – Approximately $35k (Option 4)
• 7’x12’ LED – Approximately $60k (Options 1,2,3, Alternate) • ‘9x16’ LED – Approximately $100k (Option 4)
Aspect ratio
There are many different screen formats used depending on what type of content is going to be displayed most often. For the majority of uses, a standard 16:9 High Definition aspect ratio is the most common for the majority of content that will be displayed. It is the standard aspect ratio for virtually all TVs that are produced today. Another format is 16:10 which conforms more closely to an earlier standard computer video graphics card and display resolution, but is not as common as HD. Also, there are various types of cinema formats, the most common of which is 2.35:1 but these screen aspect ratios are rarely used outside of movie theaters or other specialized video format functions. For the purpose of this comparison, a 16:9 aspect ratio will be used.
Screen Size
Optimum screen size is a function of many factors, most notable of which are the viewing distances and the nature of the content to be displayed. For example, viewing spreadsheets or small text PowerPoint presentations generally require larger screen size and higher resolution than full motion video.
For the purpose of this study, the standard viewing design criteria that is used is to have the screen image height be no less than 1/6 the distance to the furthest viewing seat. The following screen sizes for each room option will be used:
Furthest Optimal Screen
Option Viewer Size (rounded)
#1 40 7x12
#2 40 7x12
#3 41 7x12
#4 56 9x16
Alternate 41 7x12
Mounting Height
The mounting height of a screen is dependent on the information displayed and how much of the screen needs to be viewable to the worst seats. A screen mounted higher on the wall will provide better viewing for the seats in the rear of the room that has flat floor seating.
The main reason to mount a screen lower on the wall is if it is to be used as a scenic backdrop for activities on the stage. However, because of the flat floor seating and multiple uses for this room, a higher mounted screen will be the basis of the design for this evaluation.
Attachment 1
Winn Room | salasobrien.com 6
When looking at the screen from the back row of each room option, a significant portion of the lower part of the screen might be obstructed for viewers unless the screen is raised. As such, our recommendation is to mount the screen sufficiently high to provide adequate viewing for all seats.
Evaluation
The following descriptions assume the screen sizes per the chart above.
Option #1: to provide the optimum screen size for the viewing distance, this option would require the bottom of the screen to be mounted 3’ above the floor due to the ceiling height. This would result in very poor visibility to most of the screen image. Approximately 65% of the screen image will be blocked from viewing from the rear row. The alternative would be to put in a smaller screen which would reduce the image size and result in poor viewing of the screen image from the back of the room.
Option #2: to provide the optimum screen size for the viewing distance, this option would require the bottom of the screen to be mounted 6’ above the floor. This would result in good image visibility to most of the screen image from all seats and allow a presenter to walk across the front of the room without obstructing the screen.
Attachment 1
Winn Room | salasobrien.com 7
Option #3: to provide the optimum screen size for the viewing distance, this option would require the bottom of the screen to be mounted 6’ above the floor. This would result in good image visibility to the majority of the screen image from all seats and allow a presenter to walk across the front of the room without obstructing the screen.
Option #4: to provide the optimum screen size for the viewing distance, this option would require the bottom of the screen to be mounted 6’ above the floor. This would result in good image visibility to the majority of the screen image from all seats and allow a presenter to walk across the front of the room without obstructing the screen. The further viewing distance of this room would require a 9’x16’ screen for good viewing from the furthest seat because of the longer viewing distance.
Attachment 1
Winn Room | salasobrien.com 8
Option Alternate: to provide the optimum screen size for the viewing distance, this option would require the bottom of the screen to be mounted 6’ above the floor. This would result in good image visibility to the majority of the screen image from all seats and allow a presenter to walk across the front of the room without obstructing the screen.
An adequate viewing experience can be achieved when using Direct View LED (instead of projection) on any of the options #2-#4. Due to the low ceiling height and extremely poor viewing of Option #1, this room design option is not recommended.
The main drawback of Option Alternate is the presence of the glass wall header in the middle of the room which negatively impacts the room's functionality. Removing this element would significantly improve the room's suitability for various purposes but would eliminate the ability to split the one large room into two smaller rooms.
SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION OF THE WINN ROOM OPTIONS
A subjective rating for each of the rooms in their current designs, considering their suitability for meetings or small musical performances on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the ideal is:
• Option #4 – Larger Expansion: 4
• Option #3 – Internal Expansion: 3
• Option #2 – Elevate Ceiling: 3
• Option #1 – Interior Upgrades: 2
• Alternate Option – Grand Room AV Upgrades: 1
Attachment 1
Winn Room | salasobrien.com 9
EVALUATION OF CINEMA USES FOR THE WINN ROOM
The following is an evaluation of the attributes of a Cinema Movie Theater when compared to the various Winn Room design options for the uses of cinema presentations:
Attribute Cinema Winn Room Options
Screen Fills the entire front width of the
room
Covers half of the front width of the
room
Sightlines Stadium seating for optimal viewing Flat floor with obstructed viewing Ambient
Light
No ambient light Ambient light from windows
Acoustics Completely absorptive room Minimal sound absorption The Winn Room is more suitable for live presentations to a group and interactive functions and gatherings compared to cinema. The primary issue is the screen size, as the architecture and budget constraints limit its size.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
In addition to the acoustics of the space and screen size and image type, there are additional considerations that will need to be addressed once a design option is selected. A partial list of these items include:
Stage lighting positions for front and back light
Lighting control of both stage and house lighting
Sound control (mixing console) equipment and operator location and accommodation Stage storage, if a portable stage is used
ADA access to the stage
Structural and architectural accommodation for the video screen and speaker systems Space, infrastructure, power, and cooling requirements for AV equipment All of these items will need to be addressed during the design phase of the project. -END OF REPORTAttachment 1