On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Olin Lathrop w= rote: >=A0For example, I once saw a room with cardboard > egg cartons stapled to the walls. =A0It deadened the sound surprisingly w= ell, > although it wasn't like a professional sound studio. =A0Multiple thin she= ets > of cloth with a little separation between them takes space but are > relatively cheap. That surprises me, from my experience it is how well the material absorbs the sound is the most important factor, eg just having carpet in a room significantly reduces the reverberation. The surface of the studio acoustic foam is in an egg box shape to aid with frequencies the foam struggles to absorb so is secondary function. Egg boxes ability to absorb is limited so most freq pass straight through (with a little attenuation) and are still reflected of the wall behind. Olin is correct, it would help to try and acoustic improve the environment. Cosmetics in a church would need to be considered... it isn't a studio, but acoustic materials do not have to be egg box studio style. There are flat wall tiles that absorb, also maybe even just the ceiling tiles may be enough. Acoustic materials are very expensive :-( http://www.acousticalsurfaces.com/echo_eliminator/wall_panel.htm?d=3D0 That said Shotgun mics are very directional you would not pick up much reverberation.. Food for thought though. Gordon --=20 http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist .