New concert hall
Jenn
have anything to do with running a small hall, you owe it to yourself to
experience the Meyer Sound Constellation system. Really and truly
stunning and amazing:
http://www.meyersound.com/products/lcs_series/constellation/
Soundhaspriority
"Jenn" <jennconduct...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:jennconductsREMOVETHIS...@news.eternal-september.org...
Congrats.
A general question. Below a certain level of funding, I can see how
something like this could really elevate a venue. But where is the cutoff
point? At what level of infrastructure do outfits like Bolt, Beranek, and
Neumann strive for a purely passive acoustic solution?
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Jenn
"Soundhaspriority" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote:
I don't know that answer to that, Bob. I do know that as expensive as
the Constellation system is, it is far, far, less expensive than
building a larger hall.
It really does sound great. In our case, it's 22 mics placed throughout
the hall, with about 40 speakers. This is not a PA with 'verb. The
"enlarged space" is present throughout the hall and stage, so the
audience conversing and applauding get the same treatment. It really
fools the ear/brain. It's not noticeable at all until you turn it OFF.
Amazing.
Soundhaspriority
For many years, I have enhanced my listening room with Yamaha and Sony DSP.
The principles are similar, and the result highly satisfying to me. I get
the impression the Stereophile crowd despises this approach. Yet it's the
first cousin of what you've implemented.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Peter Larsen
> http://www.meyersound.com/products/lcs_series/constellation/
Congratulations.
This concept is neither new nor unique.
Kind regards
Peter Larsen
Arny Krueger
news:4b0b80ce$0$56777$edfa...@dtext02.news.tele.dk
Agreed. It is probably used as a means to create a true multi-purpose hall.
A modern multipurpose hall needs to be able to do multi-media, spoken word,
band, orchestra and chorus which all have significantly different acoustic
needs.
While RT60 is a highly incomplete means for characterizing the acoustics of
halls, the difficulty pf the problem can be illustrated by noting that the
corresponding optimal RT60s range from 0.5 seconds or below, to 2 seconds or
above. Take a stab at it with a simple acoustics modeling problem, it takes
a lot of changes to cover that range.
There are at least 3 fairly new halls in the Detroit area with variable
architectural features for adjusting their acoustics quickly. They all have
large wall segments that can be varied from reflective to absorptive. The
one I haven't visited may vary the clouds. Do the math - varying the walls
has only limited effects because the walls you can vary comprise only 3 of
the six surfaces of a box, and its hard to vary the acoustic properties more
than a fraction of a surface using common architectural means.
I've made recordings in one, another belongs to a client so I've visited it
many times, but I've never been in the third. IME their range of adjustment
is not sufficient to be ideal, but is enough to make trouble when its wrong.
Adjustable acoustics does put them way ahead of any hall with fixed
acoustics. None of them are the best halls I've recorded in for the kind of
occasion, but they are at least OK.
If you play with a RT60 calculator, you will find that it takes some pretty
dramatic architectural changes to adjust a hall's RT60 over the necessary
range. None of the adjustable acoustics halls I've been in seem to have a
range of adjustment that really fills the bill. It seems like any truly
effective solution must at least be partially electronic.
Scott Dorsey
It's not, but it's still not a bad one. Altec built some hall augmentation
systems way back in the sixties, and they actually did okay.
The thing is, we're living in a world where people want to perform amplified
rock music and acoustical classical music in the same hall, and this really
requires two totally different kinds of halls.
Yes, gadgets like removable traps and curtains that roll out of place are
very useful and powerful tools, but there is only so much they can do.
The hall augmentation system isn't as good as a hall that is built properly
for classical concerts in the first place, but it's entirely respectable and
it's certainly a lot better than trying to play in a room totally unsuited for
the job (which is what a lot of orchestras today do).
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Jenn
klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> Peter Larsen <dig...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Jenn wrote:
> >
> >> We opened our new hall this weekend. Great fun. I have to say, if
> >> you have anything to do with running a small hall, you owe it to
> >> yourself to experience the Meyer Sound Constellation system. Really
> >> and truly stunning and amazing:
> >
> >> http://www.meyersound.com/products/lcs_series/constellation/
> >
> >Congratulations.
> >
> >This concept is neither new nor unique.
>
> It's not, but it's still not a bad one. Altec built some hall augmentation
> systems way back in the sixties, and they actually did okay.
I haven't experienced any other systems, but I can sure swear by this
one, at least so far. I understand that the software is a new paradigm.
With the system on as the audience enters, it really fools them. Their
conversations and other typical sounds just seem to be taking place in a
larger room. As I demonstrated at the first two concerts Fri and Sat,
they don't know that it's there until we shut it off.
>
> The thing is, we're living in a world where people want to perform amplified
> rock music and acoustical classical music in the same hall, and this really
> requires two totally different kinds of halls.
Yep, and at colleges, this is a given (except at very wealthy schools).
With us, it's not so much rock vs. classical, but as Arny mentioned,
it's several varieties of classical ensembles vs. jazz ensembles vs.
drama.
polymod
"Jenn" <jennconduct...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:jennconductsREMOVETHIS...@news.eternal-september.org...
> klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
> > Peter Larsen <dig...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >Jenn wrote:
> > >
> > >> We opened our new hall this weekend. Great fun. I have to say, if
> > >> you have anything to do with running a small hall, you owe it to
> > >> yourself to experience the Meyer Sound Constellation system. Really
> > >> and truly stunning and amazing:
> > >
> > >> http://www.meyersound.com/products/lcs_series/constellation/
> > >
> > >Congratulations.
> > >
> > >This concept is neither new nor unique.
> >
> > It's not, but it's still not a bad one. Altec built some hall
augmentation
> > systems way back in the sixties, and they actually did okay.
>
> I haven't experienced any other systems, but I can sure swear by this
> one, at least so far. I understand that the software is a new paradigm.
> With the system on as the audience enters, it really fools them. Their
> conversations and other typical sounds just seem to be taking place in a
> larger room. As I demonstrated at the first two concerts Fri and Sat,
> they don't know that it's there until we shut it off.
And nothing says it better than that last sentence.
Good job!
Poly
Mike Rivers
> The thing is, we're living in a world where people want to perform amplified
> rock music and acoustical classical music in the same hall, and this really
> requires two totally different kinds of halls.
A friend of mine from Seattle has a Lexicon LARES system installed in
the tracking
room of his studio. He records mostly classical music, but there's all
sorts of classical
music. He can make the room sound right for the size of the group or the
form of
music. He didn't have it installed when I was up there in 2000-2001, but
he says it
works great and does exactly what he hoped it would. And people like
playing in the
room, which goes a long way to getting a good performance
TimR
system.
I still haven't found it, I have construction funds but no design
funds yet, but hopefully soon.
Would a system like this be workable for a small church? (seats 200,
expandable to 355 with a divider)
Peter Larsen
> Some time ago we had a thread about my problem with a church sound
> system.
I vaguely recall such a thread.
> I still haven't found it, I have construction funds but no design
> funds yet, but hopefully soon.
Hmmm ...
> Would a system like this be workable for a small church? (seats 200,
> expandable to 355 with a divider)
Waste of money, the first priority is intelligibility, ie. to carry voice.
Your next is something that can produce the 110 dB peak required to give you
some 85 dB average spl at musical events of the gospelian kind. Unless of
course the ploy is to increase business for the local audiologist. You need
good low frequency reproduction more than you need deafening midrange.
But then, that's as I see it, and in this context I'm definely a luddite. A
system for vox, then a better organ, and then perhaps a system to carry
acoustic guitar and such. A string quartet can easily do a 200 seater
unamplified, but a classical guitar may need some assistance with "carry",
depending on the actual acoustics.
Kind regards
Peter Larsen
Scott Dorsey
Kind of. If your goal is to have a room that seats 200 sound like a
room that seats 5,000, it will do the job admirably. And there are
some cases where that can be beneficial.
The thing is, these systems can only add room tone, they can't remove
bad room tone. So you need to start out with a good sounding but very
dry room to begin with.
Don Pearce
>Kind of. If your goal is to have a room that seats 200 sound like a
>room that seats 5,000, it will do the job admirably. And there are
>some cases where that can be beneficial.
You think so? I've visited a couple of these rooms, and I can only
describe the effect as - well, an effect. And like all effects it very
quickly gets tiresome. I couldn't spend an entire evening in such a
place.
d
Jenn
Jenn
sp...@spam.com (Don Pearce) wrote:
Based on the two spaces I've heard (ours and Zellerbach at UC Berkeley),
I would disagree.
Don Pearce
That's fair enough. I guess I envy you that as more of these kind of
venues appear.
d
Jenn
sp...@spam.com (Don Pearce) wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 08:41:08 -0800, Jenn
> <jennconduct...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <4b1388c3....@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > sp...@spam.com (Don Pearce) wrote:
> >
> >> On 26 Nov 2009 08:52:56 -0500, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> >>
> >> >Kind of. If your goal is to have a room that seats 200 sound like a
> >> >room that seats 5,000, it will do the job admirably. And there are
> >> >some cases where that can be beneficial.
> >>
> >> You think so? I've visited a couple of these rooms, and I can only
> >> describe the effect as - well, an effect. And like all effects it very
> >> quickly gets tiresome. I couldn't spend an entire evening in such a
> >> place.
> >>
> >> d
> >
> >Based on the two spaces I've heard (ours and Zellerbach at UC Berkeley),
> >I would disagree.
>
> That's fair enough. I guess I envy you that as more of these kind of
> venues appear.
>
> d
Lots of folks with world-class ears/experience are agreeing that this is
a real positive breakthrough...Kent Nagano, John Adams, recording folks,
etc. May I ask, which Constellation equipped halls have you heard?
Don Pearce
<jennconduct...@mac.com> wrote:
I don't know whether it was Constellation or just something similar,
but one that comes particularly to mind is The Cultuurcentrum in
Hasselt, Belgium.
d
Don Pearce
<jennconduct...@mac.com> wrote:
A thought occurs to me. Would anyone actually record an orchestra with
this system turned on? I'm sure there's a chicken and egg problem
there, only I'm not entirely sure how to express it.
d
Jenn
sp...@spam.com (Don Pearce) wrote:
I'm not highly experienced in recording, but I doubt it. It seems like
that thing to do would be to record in the dry hall and add 'verb to
taste digitally.
Don Pearce
<jennconduct...@mac.com> wrote:
Yes, but then you have an orchestra playing in a dry hall, and they
certainly won't play or pace the music as they would if they were
hearing a full hit of reverb. Simply adding reverb later to such a
recording would not produce the required effect. Tricky, isn't it?
d
Scott Dorsey
> sp...@spam.com (Don Pearce) wrote:
>
>> A thought occurs to me. Would anyone actually record an orchestra with
>> this system turned on? I'm sure there's a chicken and egg problem
>> there, only I'm not entirely sure how to express it.
>>
>that thing to do would be to record in the dry hall and add 'verb to
>taste digitally.
Sadly that never really sounds all that natural. The room reverb systems
sound a lot more natural because they make a real attempt to model the
3-D pattern of the room reflections.
I have in fact recorded in rooms that used LARES, and it was fine. You
would never have known it was there.
Jenn
klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
I see, thanks. There's a Digi board and ProTools in the booth, but I
haven't heard the results of the recordings of last weekend's concerts
yet.
Jenn
sp...@spam.com (Don Pearce) wrote:
I see, thanks. Yes, it's tricky. So is making the music! ;-)
Mike Rivers
> A thought occurs to me. Would anyone actually record an orchestra with
> this system turned on? I'm sure there's a chicken and egg problem
> there, only I'm not entirely sure how to express it.
Recording isn't just about what the microphone hears, it's what the players
hear as well (assuming they're not all on headphones in a studio). Once they
get over the visual discrepancy, they can be playing in a 200 seat hall and
feel like (and convey that feeling to the audience) that they're playing
in a
5000 seat hall. Conversely, with a properly designed system (which includes
the room as well as the acoustic enhancement) the chamber ensemble can
play in a 5000 seat auditorium and have it sound, both to them and the
audience,
that they're playing in the king's living room.
Of course a chamber ensemble is meant to play in a chamber, not a huge
concet hall, so this is a compromise that the promoters and conductors
have to deal with.
Scott Dorsey
>
>Of course a chamber ensemble is meant to play in a chamber, not a huge
>concet hall, so this is a compromise that the promoters and conductors
>have to deal with.
Right. What we NEED is a magic box that can take a stadium and make it
sound like a small concert hall for chamber music. That's the hard job.
Richard Webb
>> A thought occurs to me. Would anyone actually record an orchestra with
>> this system turned on? I'm sure there's a chicken and egg problem
>> there, only I'm not entirely sure how to express it.
> Recording isn't just about what the microphone hears, it's what the
> players hear as well (assuming they're not all on headphones in a
> studio). Once they get over the visual discrepancy, they can be
> playing in a 200 seat hall and feel like (and convey that feeling to
> the audience) that they're playing in a
> 5000 seat hall. Conversely, with a properly designed system (which
> includes the room as well as the acoustic enhancement) the chamber
> ensemble can play in a 5000 seat auditorium and have it sound, both
> to them and the audience,
> that they're playing in the king's living room.
True, but I"d assume you still have to place microphones
etc. as you would for the actual environment, not what the
effect does to it.
Then there's the fact that a 200 seat hall won't support the dynamics used when the orchestra plays to 5000 seats.
I know, suddenly I"m hearing about these things where I
really hadn't before, but to me there's got to be a down
side to such gimmickry. wHen we fool the brains of the
musicians into actually believing that they're playing in a
5k seat hall when they're really playing to 500 then they're going to play at inappropriate levels for the space I"d
think.
MR> Of course a chamber ensemble is meant to play in a chamber, not a
MR> huge concet hall, so this is a compromise that the promoters and
MR> conductors have to deal with.
true, but it can be made to scale a bit easier than getting
the large orchestra to play in the chamber.
Regards,
Richard
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet<->Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
Mike Rivers
> I"d assume you still have to place microphones
> etc. as you would for the actual environment, not what the
> effect does to it.
You place mics based on what you hear, just like always (provided that's
what you want).
If what you hear is the combination of the direct sound from the
instruments or singers and
the artificial room environment created by the distributed loudspeakers
and algorithms,
that's how you place the mics, because they'll pick up what comes from
the speakers that
are adding the room sound. It may not be exactly like the real thing,
but it does contribute
to what goes into the mics, so it can't be ignored.
Unless of course you're trying, in the recording, to minimize the
environment. You might want
the musicians to feel like they're playing in a stadium, but you want
enough isolation so that
you can fix mistakes or manipulate their sound in different ways when
mixing. Then you have
the same situation as if you were recording in any environment that you
want to go away. You
can, of course, turn off the artificial environment, but then that
changes what the performers
are playing to.
> Then there's the fact that a 200 seat hall won't support the dynamics used when the orchestra plays to 5000 seats.
No, but the artificial environment system creates the dynamic range if
it's done right. This
is where a sighted person might have more trouble adjusting than someone
who can't see
where he's playing, but can judge space by hearing what's around him. If
you're ever out in
the Seattle area, you should pay a visit to Mike Matesky at Opus 4 Studio.
Anahata
> <jennconduct...@mac.com> wrote:
>> thing to do would be to record in the dry hall and add 'verb to
>>taste digitally.
>
> Yes, but then you have an orchestra playing in a dry hall, and they
> certainly won't play or pace the music as they would if they were
> hearing a full hit of reverb.
As I understand it, the Royal Festival Hall in London was designed to
address this problem. I believe the idea was to have a quite dry acoustic
so the audience could hear everything clearly, but to avoid the harsh
playing style that tends to result from musicians working in a dead
acoustic (and the distracting discomfort of doing so) there is a
reflective wooden ceiling above the stage, so the orchestra gets a good
deal of reflected sound for its own benefit, but the audience doesn't get
so much.
From the player's point of view, a long reverb time isn't necessary, but
having some sound reflected back at you makes for a more comfortable
playing experience.
(I have played in the RFH, but it was a long time ago, and assessing the
platform acoustics was the last thing on my mind...)
--
Anahata
ana...@treewind.co.uk -+- http://www.treewind.co.uk
Home: 01638 720444 Mob: 07976 263827
Don Pearce
wrote:
The festival hall had huge problems when it first opened. The broad,
slightly curved but very thin concrete roof was virtually transparent
to bass, and the extra ceiling was put in to get at least some sound
back. It is still not a good hall acoustically.
d
Arny Krueger
news:4b1388c3....@news.eternal-september.org
I suspect that the implementations you have experienced were not well-done.
As usual Scott nailed it - you can use a system like this to add reverb, but
if the room is already too reverberant, it can only make something that is
bad even worse. And even then, you still have to do things very carefully.
Arny Krueger
> A thought occurs to me. Would anyone actually record an
> orchestra with this system turned on?
Good question.
It is possible that a system like this would be designed to have most of its
effect in the audience seating area as opposed to the orchestra's area. If
you were doing close micing, then a lot of its beneficial effects might be
lost.
In a naturally reverberant room, a lot of the room reverb makes it back to
the stage.
I imagine that a savvy recordist would try it both ways.
Arny Krueger
news:qeCdncglUPDNV5LW...@brightview.co.uk
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 18:47:43 +0000, Don Pearce wrote:
>
>> <jennconduct...@mac.com> wrote:
>>> thing to do would be to record in the dry hall and add
>>> 'verb to taste digitally.
>>
>> Yes, but then you have an orchestra playing in a dry
>> hall, and they certainly won't play or pace the music as
>> they would if they were hearing a full hit of reverb.
>
> As I understand it, the Royal Festival Hall in London was
> designed to address this problem. I believe the idea was
> to have a quite dry acoustic so the audience could hear
> everything clearly, but to avoid the harsh playing style
> that tends to result from musicians working in a dead
> acoustic (and the distracting discomfort of doing so)
> there is a reflective wooden ceiling above the stage, so
> the orchestra gets a good deal of reflected sound for its
> own benefit, but the audience doesn't get so much.
Based on my knowledge of how musicians work, the more serious problem with
working in a dead room is simply hearing each other well.
Arny Krueger
news:jennconductsREMOVETHIS...@news.eternal-september.org
> I'm not highly experienced in recording, but I doubt it.
> It seems like that thing to do would be to record in the
> dry hall and add 'verb to taste digitally.
You have a lot more faith in digital reverb than might be justified.
In theory digital reverb can do exactly what you suggest, and a lot of the
recent work with architectural simulation seems to bear that out.
Whether or not this kind of thing could or would be done in practice is
something else again.
On balance a lot of recording studios that do a lot of work with
contemporary music are basically very dry and add digital reverb as desired
with good commercial results. But that is a different world.
Mike Rivers
> As usual Scott nailed it - you can use a system like this to add reverb, but
> if the room is already too reverberant, it can only make something that is
> bad even worse.
That's why the design of a system that provides artificial and variable room
reverberation starts with the design of a room. You don't just hang a bunch
of speakers and feed them a mix through a reverb unit.
Richard Webb
>> I'd assume you still have to place microphones
>> etc. as you would for the actual environment, not what the
>> effect does to it.
> You place mics based on what you hear, just like always (provided
> that's what you want).
> If what you hear is the combination of the direct sound from the
> instruments or singers and
> the artificial room environment created by the distributed
> loudspeakers and algorithms,
> that's how you place the mics, because they'll pick up what comes
> from the speakers that
> are adding the room sound. It may not be exactly like the real
> thing, but it does contribute
> to what goes into the mics, so it can't be ignored.
True, because it would shape the sound the mics hear as
well.
> Unless of course you're trying, in the recording, to minimize the
> environment. You might want
> the musicians to feel like they're playing in a stadium, but you
> want enough isolation so that
> you can fix mistakes or manipulate their sound in different ways
> when mixing. Then you have
> the same situation as if you were recording in any environment that
> you want to go away. You
> can, of course, turn off the artificial environment, but then that
> changes what the performers
> are playing to.
INdeed it would. Sounds like another whole kettle of worms
to deal with <g>.
>> Then there's the fact that a 200 seat hall won't support the dynamics used
>> when the orchestra plays to 5000 seats.
> No, but the artificial environment system creates the dynamic range
> if it's done right. This
> is where a sighted person might have more trouble adjusting than
> someone who can't see
> where he's playing, but can judge space by hearing what's around
> him. If you're ever out in
> the Seattle area, you should pay a visit to Mike Matesky at Opus 4
> Studio.
I"d like to do that sometime. Still, there's the experience we've all had, trying to record, for example, the operatic
soprano in the vocal booth. IT just don't scale.
Get that orchestra in the 200 seat hall thinking they're in
a 5k seater and lettin' her rip when the dynamic marking is
tripple forte and you've got <omigod>
I'd have to hear one of these things do its stuff. I hope
I"M forewarned if I've got to capture for broadcast or
recording that one is in use, and waht the expectations are. On blindness and relating to one of these babies:
I can just see myself coming in to set up, hearing the room, knowing I'm in a 200 seater, basing my assumptions and setup on that, then coming in to perform and ...
We already do so much unnatural things with captured and
reproduced sound that most folks don't know what real
instruments in real spaces sound like anymore. THis just
gets scarier and scarier to old dogs like me <g>.
Jenn
Mike Rivers <mri...@d-and-d.com> wrote:
Yes, our room was designed with the system in mind.
Jenn
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
This is true. Rather than going for clouds between the fly space and
the stage which would be very labor intensive to move for flying set
pieces, we went with the part of the Constellation system call the
"virtual shell" which adds the Constellation effect to the stage for the
players/singers.
Peter Larsen
>>> Then there's the fact that a 200 seat hall won't support the
>>> dynamics used when the orchestra plays to 5000 seats.
>> No, but the artificial environment system creates the dynamic range
>> if it's done right. ... <stuff snipped>
> I"d like to do that sometime. Still, there's the experience we've
> all had, trying to record, for example, the operatic
> soprano in the vocal booth. IT just don't scale.
> Get that orchestra in the 200 seat hall thinking they're in
> a 5k seater and lettin' her rip when the dynamic marking is
> tripple forte and you've got <omigod>
Yerp, you need a lot of cubic feet of air to contain have a lot of sound, or
you will have a lot of intermodulation distortion.
> Richard
Kind regards
Peter Larsen
Richard Webb
And there's my concern. IF we let our ears guide us on how
loud to play we might cause an even bigger problem in such
an environment.
SO much of what we do in all kinds of media production these days is bending reality, all in illusion instead of actual
fact, but you can't change the laws of physics, no matter
how much manipulation you put into it.
I'd have to really hear one or two of these systems before i made a judgment.
Regards,
Richard
... Sacred cows make great hamburgers.
Arkansan Raider
> ... Sacred cows make great hamburgers.
Now *that* is funny!
---Jeff