Not to rain on your institutional parade but I presented in Palo Alto. My most vivd memory was having to deliver my boss's presentation in her stead and having to do it without benefit of a microphone and PA system. There was a PA system--just no microphone. Otherwise it was a great conference and a great location. It's all in the planning, and once you are there it is all in the stars and the putting-out of fires.

Best,

-Bruce

Bruce J. Gordon
Audio Engineer
Audio Preservation Services
Harvard University
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138
U.S.A
tel. +1(617) 495-1241
fax +1(617) 496-4636








On Feb 24, 2013, at 3:00 PM, Peter Hirsch <[log in to unmask]>
 wrote:

> Sorry, I did forget one other point.
> 
> I know that it is not always possible to find institutions willing to
> provide space, but I do want to second the comments on how unsuited
> hotel facilities are for the sort of presentations that are the meat
> of the ARSC conferences. The Palo Alto conference showed that you can
> house the attendees in a location and even hold committee meetings
> there, but use first the rate lecture halls on the Stanford campus a
> few minutes away. I also do not recall there being a lack of competent
> AV operators, at least not at the sessions I attended.
> 
> I realize that I must know just a small slice of what goes into
> managing a conference, putting together the program and all the local
> arrangements, so I mean no disrespect to any of those who have chosen
> to put the conferences on in hotel facilities. I just think this is
> one of the issues that are worth airing at this point in time when we
> seem to have a groundswell of sentiment for making some changes.
> 
> My best,
> 
> Peter Hirsch
> 
> On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Peter Hirsch <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Having attended, I believe, four ARSC conferences and presented at
>> one, I have just a few marginal comments to make.
>> 
>> I think that, unless there is only one presentation going on at a
>> time, there will be people who will be frustrated by having to miss
>> ones that are of interest because they are in your area(s) of
>> specialty or because they are not and you are missing the opportunity
>> to widen your horizons. This has been stated already and I do not know
>> if it is reasonable to cut back drastically on the number of
>> presentations. Still, it doesn't hurt to state the obvious fact that
>> you can't be two places at one time. I am making my possibly redundant
>> point because I am one of those who come to the conferences because I
>> am interested in all aspects of activity that ARSC encompasses. I
>> enjoy presentations that are in areas that I am at least moderately
>> experienced and qualified, like collecting, history of musical
>> figures, trends in the recording industry and cataloging. Also, I
>> equally make a point of attending the more technical presentations,
>> specifically because my knowledge there is pretty sketchy and I just
>> might learn from those much more expert than myself. I understand the
>> pull that Tom F. and Steve S. have described between attending
>> programs situated in your "power alley" to justify attending for
>> professional reasons and sitting in on what sounds cool or might have
>> charismatic presenters or guests, but is not related to what you do
>> for a living. I do receive some financial support from my employer for
>> attending ARSC conferences on some occasions, though not always and
>> the amount nowadays does not cover even close to half of my expenses.
>> This means that I don't feel a major compulsion to only go to
>> presentations approved by them. I would be happiest with fewer events
>> so that nothing is happening concurrently with something else, but
>> that is only my personal take on things. I can see that a conference
>> program that presents a larger menu is more likely to have something
>> for everyone, though it does also open the door for those just taking
>> a stab at presenting who have little to add to the common knowledge of
>> ARSC.
>> 
>> My experience presenting in Seattle (I believe I had half an hour) was
>> pretty educational for me and hope at least a little for the audience.
>> I echo the pleas that you prepare and run through your presentation as
>> many times as you have to (who could disagree?). I was shocked to see
>> that, what looked like a few hundred words on the page could take me
>> so long to enunciate out loud. I cut and slashed and worked on
>> developing a decent rhythm to the way I spoke. As it turned out, I
>> read mostly, but also was able to inject comments as they came to mind
>> or in response to audiences comments. I don't think I had to do any
>> truncation on the fly, but I would have really appreciated 15 or 20
>> more minutes, mostly so that there could have been a better Q & A at
>> the end.
>> 
>> Regarding the use of visuals. All I can say is that when I announced
>> that there was no multi-media component, just monomedia me talking,
>> the audience cheered. I have the recording of my presentation that
>> documents how little the audience wanted to sit through another
>> PowerPoint lecture. I have seen some good slide shows and obviously we
>> in ARSC like to listen to things, but I have never liked it when I
>> felt that the visual was either there to remind the speaker where he
>> was. I don't mind looking at them afterwards if they are printed out,
>> but I could do without them while I am trying to listen. As mentioned
>> a few times, some presenters put the entire content of their talk,
>> sometimes verbatim. This ought to be specifically forbidden by the
>> program committee if they are at all interested in assuring a decent
>> level of quality.
>> 
>> I have trimmed out some of the previous comments in this thread simply
>> to condense things. It is not that I wish to ignore them, since they
>> all made pretty good points.
>> 
>> Looking forward to seeing you in KC,
>> 
>> Peter Hirsch
>>