Finally, DCI Acknowledges "Issues" At LOS

[oldschooldbc]

you see... as fans of an outdoor activity... we need to suck it up, and be fine with rain... heck i thought the orlando crowd was still great this year... wish we could have actually performed for them, they were pretty fired up.... even for a stand-still.

And rain and texas in the summer isn't too much of a problem usually... especially this summer unfortunately...

Anyway... I love Austin.... only place in Texas I do like. There needs to be more than just a preview show there.

Personally though... i would rather have rain at finals than finals indoors.... but oh wait... those silly electronic things.... ####... somehow it gets back to that.

Both Austin and San Antonio would offer essentially the same experience - except the stadium in San Antonio is covered, and the one in Austin is not. The stadium in San Antonio has poor accoustics, and the one in Austin does not.

Ten years ago, DCI chose the Alamodome as the site for the Southwest SR, in large part because of the tourist attractions in San Antonio - the Alamo, Riverwalk, Sea World, etc. And yes, it is a great place to visit. I've been there many times.

I am sure that DCI felt it could draw more out-of-town attendees to the Southwest SR, if it held it in a tourist town, which San Antonio is. But Austin has expanded tremendously in the past 20 years, and now offers much of the same attractions and amenities that San Antonio does. San Antonio has the Alamo, and Austin has the Texas Capitol Building. It's Coke vs. Pepsi to me. So we could move the Southwest SR to Austin, and not see any dropoff in attendance.

But you can buy a margarita on 6th Street in Austin, just like you can buy a margarita on the Riverwalk in San Antonio. After six or seven margaritas, who can tell the difference between the Alamo and the Capitol Building? I can't.

Edited September 15, 2009 by oldschooldbc

[kickhaltsforlife]

Trust me... I know San Antonio pretty well for someone from Jersey... hmmm

The Riverwalk is awesome... but so is 6th street.... so yeah... open air stadium WINS.

[jjeffeory]

It's not the fact that there is a lot of seating... it's that the space is just huge. Most of the echo problem is just because LOS is so HUGE... now I'm not sure is DCS is as vertical as LOS is, but that is most the problem I feel... and how far away the stands are from the field, there is just too much room for sound to travel and bounce. From what I've heard DCS is even larger and monstrous. Personally I feel we should stick to the more reasonable college stadiums, or just stick to permanent outdoor stadiums. The problem with most retractable roof stadiums is that there is still a lot of enclosed space once the roof is open. From reading up on DCS it does offer the most promise acoustically if the roof were to be open. I don't know. when I think of finals, I think of stands close to the field, sort of a more intimate feeling. I felt so disconnected as a fan and a performer this summer.

College Stadiums are generally LARGER than Professional football stadiums. Well, at least the stadiums I've been in, which is a lot...

[Newseditor44]

Both Austin and San Antonio would offer essentially the same experience - except the stadium in San Antonio is covered, and the one in Austin is not. The stadium in San Antonio has poor accoustics, and the one in Austin does not.

Ten years ago, DCI chose the Alamodome as the site for the Southwest SR, in large part because of the tourist attractions in San Antonio - the Alamo, Riverwalk, Sea World, etc. And yes, it is a great place to visit. I've been there many times.

I am sure that DCI felt it could draw more out-of-town attendees to the Southwest SR, if it held it in a tourist town, which San Antonio is. But Austin has expanded tremendously in the past 20 years, and now offers much of the same attractions and amenities that San Antonio does. San Antonio has the Alamo, and Austin has the Texas Capitol Building. It's Coke vs. Pepsi to me. So we could move the Southwest SR to Austin, and not see any dropoff in attendance.

But you can buy a margarita on 6th Street in Austin, just like you can buy a margarita on the Riverwalk in San Antonio. After six or seven margaritas, who can tell the difference between the Alamo and the Capitol Building? I can't.

And don't forget... FREE BATS AT THE BRIDGE!!!!

[kickhaltsforlife]

College Stadiums are generally LARGER than Professional football stadiums. Well, at least the stadiums I've been in, which is a lot...

Not always larger. They just fit a lot more people. Bleacher seating is very common for college stadiums. A few are definitely larger, but they aren't huge open gigantic domes. They are more like bowls. Bowls have an echo but it doesn't stick around for long usually. LOS is a pit with skyscrapers towering over the field.

[SoundmanG]

do we have real sound experts?

Well I've made my living doing sound editing/mixing for the last 21 years out here in L.A. so I'm as much of an expert as the next guy. However my expertise is in creating the sound that comes out of the speakers rather than dealing with it once it enters the acoustic space. Acoustic design for large spaces is not my forte. However that being said there are certain acoustic principals that are generally known regardless of one's area of expertise.

Acoustic design is part science and a bigger part black art. One can model an acoustic simulation all day long only to find that what the math says will work doesn't actually sound good to the human ear. LOS may have been designed with acoustics in mind but at the end of the day it's really a football stadium first and concert hall a distant second.

It's definitely possible to fix most of the major sound issues at LOS however the practicality and cost of doing that would be prohibitive. First off it would require an extensive acoustic study in order to determine exactly what needs to be fixed. It's not enough to say "Too much Low Frequency" or "Too much Echo" (it would need to be defined in much greater detail than that). Once the problems have been identified it would then take an extensive amount of specialized acoustic treatment in order to fix each and every "problem" area. And even after all that it's really only going to improve the sound for a very narrow area of seats. The laws of physics won't allow this sweet spot to extend from end zone to end zone no matter how much money you throw at it. Unfortunately the reality is that even though LOS can be fixed to some degree they (the owners) are probably not going to acoustically modify major portions of the stadium in order to accommodate 3-5 days worth of marching music. At the end of the day it is what it is...a giant indoor football stadium.

[Peel Paint]

Thanks to both SoundmanG (again) and Deftguy for weighing in on the acoustical issues of a domed stadium and offering great advice. Both agree that improvement is possible but both warn that it could be quite expensive, even prohibitively so.

Significant money is very unlikely to be spent to make major improvements in the acoustics, for two obvious reasons. First, the LOS project has been in financial difficulty from the get-go

http://lucasoilstadium.9f.com/timeline.htm

and continues to be in 2009.

http://www.theindychannel.com/news/18572352/detail.html

The project had major cost overruns and was funded with sales, lodging and restaurant tax revenues which, obviously with the economy, have fallen well short of what were probably overly-optimistic forecasts anyway. Of course, DCI and BOA don't have any money to spend on this, but neither do the stadium people. Even if you have an acoustical study saying it's needed, it's a non-starter to go to them and say the seats need to be ripped out so sound absorbent material can be installed, for example. You've got something that can be done for ten grand, they'll talk to you, but inexpensive bandaids are not going to fix this.

And second, as I believe both SoundmanG and Deftguy understand and as others have pointed out, LOS was built as a football stadium, not a concert venue. Sure, they want music events there, because those are needed to make new football stadiums work financially, but the Colts always were the point, as you can see on the timeline link above. So they're not going to do anything that negatively impacts the experience for football fans or makes the place look like a concert hall during a Colts game. BOA and DCI, while important, don't generate the kind of revenue that are generated by music acts selling out the entire facility with much higher priced tickets. For those superstar acts, the sound is pumped so loud that nobody can tell how good the acoustics are, anyway, so spending money to improve acoustics is not going to be seen as something that builds revenue. They're not going to spend millions more on acoustics to keep DCI happy.

Edited September 15, 2009 by Peel Paint

[Peel Paint]

sorry, duplicate

Edited September 15, 2009 by Peel Paint

[oldschooldbc]

Significant money is very unlikely to be spent to make major improvements in the acoustics, for two obvious reasons. First, the LOS project has been in financial difficulty from the get-go

And second, as I believe both SoundmanG and Deftguy understand and as others have pointed out, LOS was built as a football stadium, not a concert venue. Sure, they want music events there, because those are needed to make new football stadiums work financially, but the Colts always were the point. So they're not going to do anything that negatively impacts the experience for football fans or makes the place look like a concert hall during a Colts game.

That is why I am convinced that DCI is looking for a way to terminate the contract. And this is likely the reason for the survey. If the problem cannot be fixed, given the current financial and architectural limitations, then why spend time and money on a survey, to get more information on the problem? That's asinine. More to the point, it will only serve to antagonize your customer base, if the customers request changes that you can't deliver; this will only give them the impression that the customers are being ignored.

"Excuse me, ladies and gentlemen, valued passengers of the RMS Titanic. We are sorry for tonight's unfortunate incident with the iceberg. We realize you are about to jump into the ice-cold waters of the North Atlantic. But first, would you mind filling out this brief customer survey, to tell us about your experiences onboard? We will use it to make our next crossing of the Atlantic better for you - well, for those of you who live. The White Star Line appreciates your cooperation. Thank you."

DCI is hoping for a way out of the contract, by using this information to justify the use of one of the termination clauses. I am convinced of this, at this point.

[Peel Paint]

That is why I am convinced that DCI is looking for a way to terminate the contract. And this is likely the reason for the survey. If the problem cannot be fixed, given the current financial and architectural limitations, then why spend time and money on a survey, to get more information on the problem? That's asinine. More to the point, it will only serve to antagonize your customer base, if the customers request changes that you can't deliver; this will only give them the impression that the customers are being ignored.

"Excuse me, ladies and gentlemen, valued passengers of the RMS Titanic. We are sorry for tonight's unfortunate incident with the iceberg. We realize you are about to jump into the ice-cold waters of the North Atlantic. But first, would you mind filling out this brief customer survey, to tell us about your experiences onboard? We will use it to make our next crossing of the Atlantic better for you - well, for those of you who live. The White Star Line appreciates your cooperation. Thank you."

DCI is hoping for a way out of the contract, by using this information to justify the use of one of the termination clauses. I am convinced of this, at this point.

I would be amazed if DCI had already concluded that they wanted out, or needed to lay the groundwork for a breach-of-contract case already. That's very unlikely. You're not considering the whole picture here, how DCI moved to Indianapolis and saw the long-term project as being a part of controlling their costs. They are heavily invested in making this work. Organizations, even ones as small as DCI, cannot turn the Titanic on a dime in the water, especially after they've gone All In. They won't get to the point of cutting and running unless they see revenues declining not just in championships, but across the board, and unless they are certain that staying in Indy puts them into a terminal spin. That will take at least three years of data and it will take a major push from corps directors who of course really are DCI, not just a small group of noisy fans on the Internet. You're way ahead of yourself, here.

DCI is doing what every organization does with a long-term commitment when things start off not as well as they'd hoped. They're going to try and fix it, first. And they're going to believe they can, even if the early evidence suggests they may be in trouble if they stay. They won't read the data that way. And we don't know that the evidence really will say they're in trouble. Some evidence suggests to me that they're working from a plan to change their fan base, anyway.