Acoustics all over again, now in Philadelphia
John Turner
be sure, about the acoustics in Verizon Hall (which was, after all, one
of the main reasons put forth for building a new hall of orchestra
concerts -- agreed upon by every Music Director from Stokowski onward),
there comes a big article in the Philly Inquirer that all the time,
money, blood, sweat, and tears put into this with major consulting with
a firm in NYC, seems not to have yielded the desired results.
It might also be pointed out, that the study that proved the
incompetence of the first acoustics firm has been done by the same firm
(for which they were paid, I guess), suggests that another study will
have to be done to find out the cost of necessary work to be done,(
presumably by the same company), and and that money will then be
given to the company that screwed things up to start, did a study that
said so, provided estimated costs to fix the situation, and then spent
more money to fix it -- which might, of course, not work. Or something
like that.
Whether this has any relevance or effect on the possible recording
contract with Ondine is not mentioned.
When I was reading this piece, and thinking that the sound in our seats
is pretty darn good, the article then mentions that our seats are in
one of the two places that have the best sound! Little did I know!
http://www.philly.com.mld/inquirer/10767643.htm
John Turner
John Turner
bzuk...@phillynews.com
"relatively low level of impact" of orchestral sound - basically, how
loud the orchestra comes across - is not considered desirable.>>>
This is my biggest problem with the hall by far. There is plenty of
clarity and the reverberation problem has diminished as they've
tinkered with the hall. But the Orchestra just doesn't project strongly
enough. I've had some luck with better presence when sitting near the
rear of the floor, but to have to seek out a small section of the hall
to get some decent presence is obviously a major problem.
Van Eyes
news:1107126200.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
> ....money, blood, sweat, and tears put into this with major consulting with
> a firm in NYC, seems not to have yielded the desired results.
A cryin' shame for sure. Who woulda thunk? After the acoustical
successes of Dallas, Birmingham (UK), New Jersey, and others.
Opening Verizon Hall nine months early wasn't Artec's idea. I've no
doubt much of the bad press on that occasion could've been avoided.
Regards
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Mark Melson
acoustical consultants on the Meyerson Symphony Center in Dallas,
widely regarded as one of the best newer halls in the world. They also
designed the acoustics for Symphony Hall in Birmingham, regarded by
many as the best in the U.K., and the new hall in Lucerne,
Switzerland, which has won largely very favorable reviews.
While I don't know the particulars of the Philadelphia situation, I do
know that there is a long distance between an acoustical firm's
initial designs and the final "as-built" results. Architects,
cost-control managers, building committees for the halls in question,
and musicians can all have a big impact on what is built as opposed to
what is originally envisioned. Compromise is the name of the game, and
acousticians often find themselves on the losing end of that process.
Again, I don't know the Philadelphia particulars and can't presume to
diagnose that situation. But I do know that the acoustician is just
one decision-maker in a process that involves many, and I also know
from experience that Artec has delivered handsomely in other places..
Mark Melson
On 30 Jan 2005 15:21:54 -0800, "John Turner" <oldd...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
bzuk...@phillynews.com
biggest part) is that the accoustician had to work around a flawed
design by the architect.
Barry
John Turner
> The acoustical firm - Artec - is not incompetent. They were the
> acoustical consultants on the Meyerson Symphony Center in Dallas,
> widely regarded as one of the best newer halls in the world. They
also
> designed the acoustics for Symphony Hall in Birmingham, regarded by
> many as the best in the U.K., and the new hall in Lucerne,
> Switzerland, which has won largely very favorable reviews.
>
> While I don't know the particulars of the Philadelphia situation, I
do
> know that there is a long distance between an acoustical firm's
> initial designs and the final "as-built" results. Architects,
> cost-control managers, building committees for the halls in question,
> and musicians can all have a big impact on what is built as opposed
to
> what is originally envisioned. Compromise is the name of the game,
and
> acousticians often find themselves on the losing end of that process.
>
> Again, I don't know the Philadelphia particulars and can't presume to
> diagnose that situation. But I do know that the acoustician is just
> one decision-maker in a process that involves many, and I also know
> from experience that Artec has delivered handsomely in other places..
>
> Mark Melson
>
I agree completely with the posters below. There certainly was
pressure to get the hall open at a certain time, and that cannot have
made it any easier for the acoustician, architect, builder, or anyone
else involved. It isalso true that Arctec has a fine reputation with
many notable successes, as you point out. The whole situation at the
beginning may be have been some version of "too many cooks . . . . " I
would just suggest that, if a significant problem has been identified,
it might be worthwhile to seel the possible analysis and proposed
solution(s) by one or more other firms. In medicine, it is never wrong
to consider a "second" (or third or more) opinion when a situation is
especially complicated.
John
John Turner
Mark Melson wrote:
> The acoustical firm - Artec - is not incompetent. They were the
> acoustical consultants on the Meyerson Symphony Center in Dallas,
> widely regarded as one of the best newer halls in the world. They
also
> designed the acoustics for Symphony Hall in Birmingham, regarded by
> many as the best in the U.K., and the new hall in Lucerne,
> Switzerland, which has won largely very favorable reviews.
>
> While I don't know the particulars of the Philadelphia situation, I
do
> know that there is a long distance between an acoustical firm's
> initial designs and the final "as-built" results. Architects,
> cost-control managers, building committees for the halls in question,
> and musicians can all have a big impact on what is built as opposed
to
> what is originally envisioned. Compromise is the name of the game,
and
> acousticians often find themselves on the losing end of that process.
>
> Again, I don't know the Philadelphia particulars and can't presume to
> diagnose that situation. But I do know that the acoustician is just
> one decision-maker in a process that involves many, and I also know
> from experience that Artec has delivered handsomely in other places..
>
> Mark Melson
>
I agree completely and with the posters below. There certainly was
pressure to get the hall open at a certain time, and that cannot have
made it any easier for the acoustician, architect, builder, or anyone
else involved. It is certainly true that Arctec has a fine reputation
with many notable successes, as you point out. The whole situation at
the beginning may be have been some version of "too many cooks . . . .
" I would just suggest that, if a significant problem has been
identified, it might be worthwhile to see the possible analysis and
proposed solutions by one or more other firms. In medicine, it is
Eric Nagamine
> The acoustical firm - Artec - is not incompetent. They were the
> acoustical consultants on the Meyerson Symphony Center in Dallas,
> widely regarded as one of the best newer halls in the world. They also
> designed the acoustics for Symphony Hall in Birmingham, regarded by
> many as the best in the U.K., and the new hall in Lucerne,
> Switzerland, which has won largely very favorable reviews.
I have heard otherwise about Meyerson & the Birmingham halls. From what
I gather from people who have played there, one of the problems with
Verizon is the same with Meyerson such as the issue of disappearing
french horns in both halls. I've also heard that it's hard for musicians
to hear each other in Birmingham.
I think though that to some degree, musicians can find ways to
compensate in halls. The Philly strings still can come across with that
wonderful sound in Verizon just as they did in the Academy.
I've heard some of George Blood's recordings from Verizon and depending
on the music the hall can sound good for the mikes. Similarly, from the
listener's point, the sound is fine, especially if one is sitting in the
front center of the balconies. Of the halls I've visited, front center
balcony seems to be the best place to sit, even in such a fine hall as
the Musikverein.
One wonders though if they had used the Disney hall acoustatician, what
the hall would sound like?
--
-----------
Aloha and Mahalo,
Eric Nagamine
http://home.hawaii.rr.com/mahlerb/broadcaststartpage.html
wind...@excite.com
hall that's now rising in Miami. This is a good overview, written 2
years ago in the Herald, which should tell you why my confidence in
Johnson isn't exactly as high as it could be:
The Sound of Philly: A Letdown?
James Roos
Classical Music Critic
PHILADELPHIA - Eugene Ormandy, who conducted the famed Philadelphia
Orchestra for 44 years, was once told by the manager of a new concert
hall that its acoustics were superb, because no matter where he sat he
could hear a pin dropped onstage. "But I don't want to hear a pin
drop," Ormandy exclaimed, "I want to hear the orchestra!"
He would have been bitterly disappointed by Verizon Hall in
Philadelphia's new Kimmel Center for the Performing Arts. The place was
long the dream of the Philadelphia Orchestra, which for a century
played the Academy of Music, a quaint but dry opera house, while
waiting for a new hall to do its big, plushy sound justice. But Verizon
is no dream. It's an acoustical nightmare. The powerful, lustrous
Philadelphia Orchestra sounds thin and pale in its handsome new home --
a huge letdown, raising fears of a similar fiasco with Miami's
Performing Arts Center, which long ago signed on the same acoustician,
Russell Johnson of New York's Artec Consultants.
Johnson, despite the recent Philadelphia debacle, is confident of
success in Miami. "Philadelphia, from the start 15 years ago, insisted
on having a large symphony hall -- 2,550 seats," he says. "Miami's hall
will be 300 seats smaller, and every seat you remove at the 2,500-seat
level ensures better sound."
But it's not quite so simple as that.
Miami's planned 2,400-seat opera house, also part of the arts complex,
will be a traditional proscenium theater, acoustically less complicated
than its 2,200-seat concert hall. But the concert hall will include
most of Johnson's all-but-trademarked "adjustable" acoustic
paraphernalia put into the Philadelphia lemon -- resonating chambers,
moveable ceiling canopies and curtains. This may not doom Miami's hall,
but it certainly is worrisome.
MIXED RECORD
Johnson has had his share of generally agreed-upon successes, from
Lucerne, Switzerland, to Birmingham, England; also with Dallas' touted
Meyerson Center, whose acoustics, though resonant, are to my ears murky
and overrated. A gargantuan Mahler Fifth Symphony I heard there, a
large-orchestra test piece, was a soggy blur, even though the Meyerson,
too, boasts "adjustable" acoustics.
Johnson's sound for West Palm Beach's Kravis Center, a combo symphony
hall-opera house, is also not an obvious winner -- it's on the dry side
for singers, instrumentalists and orchestras. Last year, Amsterdam's
great Concertgebouw Orchestra sweated bullets to produce a full-bodied
tone in the Kravis, which doesn't compare with the Broward Center for
the Performing Arts in Fort Lauderdale, whose acoustics, by Lawrence
Kierkegaard, give a richer bass response for orchestras yet also
flatter singers.
Johnson's idea that the smaller the hall the better the acoustics
doesn't necessarily hold water. Boston's Symphony Hall, a shoe-box
design that ranks among the greatest -- where I heard the Boston
Symphony shimmer and dazzle just one night after listening to a
dry-as-dust concert at Verizon -- has 2,600 seats, and legendary
Carnegie Hall has 2,800.
"What Russell meant, I think," says Artec senior consultant Tateo
Nakajima, "is that it's easier to achieve good acoustics in a smaller
space," especially in the European shoe-box models, such as Vienna's
intimate Musikvereinsaal, after which he patterns his halls.
Regardless of a hall's size, orchestras need lots of "live" natural
resonance, especially for their bread-and-butter Romantic music, which
thrives on cushy strings and brilliant but not strident brasses, mellow
woodwinds and percussion that won't thud or turn uproariously brittle.
Since artificial amplification doesn't suit classical music, natural
resonance, measured by "reverberation time" (the time it takes for a
loud tone to become inaudible), must be just right. Reverberation times
tend to range between 1.8 and 3.0 seconds in concert halls. But great
halls like Boston's time out around 2.0, with a faint "after-ring" --
just short of an echo -- that helps the instruments of an orchestra
blend. Opera houses are intentionally drier -- with ideal reverb times
of 1.3 to 1.5 seconds -- to keep voices and words clear and focused.
Seven months since it opened, the reverberation time for Verizon Hall
has not been disclosed. Why? "Because we're still working on it," says
Nakajima.
That's not plausible. Even with fine-tuning, it shouldn't take months
to get a quick read-back of a hall's basic reverberation. More likely
the timings so far confirm the obvious: Verizon is deficient in
resonance, balance and dark-hued bass response. Also, that despite the
interminable fiddling with Johnson's acoustical gadgets, Philadelphia's
hall remains a mediocre sound chamber.
Johnson is adamant that "a 21st Century concert hall must be adjustable
for symphony, chamber music, solo instrumentalists and other uses." But
who would want to listen to a string quartet or a piano trio in a
2,200-seat symphony hall when South Florida has several excellent 600-
to 700-seat venues available for that purpose? Yet Johnson clings to
his pet theory of adjustable acoustics, hoping to prove it once and for
all in Miami with his signature "resonating chambers," also expensively
incorporated into Philadelphia's washout.
CANOPY FAILS
Resonating chambers are empty corridors behind the side walls of a
hall. In Miami they will parallel three-quarters of the hall's length
and rise three levels to create a "chamber within a chamber." By
re-angling the hinged wall panels that open or close these chambers,
the hall's cubic volume, theoretically, can be increased or decreased,
to alter its acoustics. But there's more.
In Philadelphia, a huge squarish ceiling canopy (Miami's will be
spiral) is also supposed to be able to affect the basic resonance.
Philadelphia's canopy can be raised as high as 62 feet above the
concert platform, or lowered to 32 feet, to make the acoustics drier
for chamber music or allow the players to hear themselves better
onstage. Cloth curtains can also be deployed to soak up sound, or
whisked away to increase resonance. The trouble is, here in
Philadelphia, all this sounds better on paper than onstage.
Experiments since December to find optimal acoustical "settings" for
the Philadelphia Orchestra and other users of Verizon, have not made it
the resonant space promised. It's a pity, because the hall's red fabric
seats and cherry-stained wood-over-metal interior are inviting --
creating a warm-looking place where you'd like to sit to hear a great
orchestra.
I heard the Philadelphians in the kaleidoscopic 1911 orchestration of
Stravinsky's Petrouckha, conducted by Charles Dutoit. But the hall's
sound was dismal despite 100 of the world's best players onstage and
the ceiling canopy raised high for maximum reverberation. From the
first-tier balcony, the opulent Philadelphia violins sounded gray,
feeble and transparent -- almost as if you had cotton in your ears. The
darker strings sounded shallow, too, even though the players were
digging in forcefully to maximize sound. The solo flute gleamed, but
the other winds lacked creaminess and presence, imparting a lackluster,
airless quality. The brasses were harsh and bright, the percussion
dull.
A Berlioz overture, which in good acoustics would crackle, sounded
bland, almost muted, from a choice seat halfway back on the main floor.
And there was no bloom on the all-important reed winds. From the
third-tier balcony, Martha Argerich's piano in the Schumann Concerto
could be heard clearly but all but covered the velvety strings of the
Philadelphia Orchestra, which sounded uncharacteristically dim and
remote. The ensemble sounded more itself on tour in arid Miami-Dade
County Auditorium last year.
Johnson insists the orchestra needs "to get used to the hall," that in
the beginning it wasn't playing loudly enough, and he has said that
experimentation with the acoustics here could go on as long as four
years. Give me a break. Fundamental resonance is lacking, and more
tinkering is unlikely to help dramatically.
So what went wrong?
Johnson may have been thrown an acoustical curve ball by architect
Rafael Viñoly, who midway into the project announced he wished to
modify Johnson's preferred, previously agreed upon shoe box into a
"cello" shape. Johnson didn't protest and insists the slight cello
curves Viñoly imposed didn't much alter the hall's essentially
rectangular dimensions. Still, he says, "few grasp the fact that the
acoustician never gets to call all the shots. The design team involves
the building owners, the architect, the theater planner and the
acoustician."
Roberto Espejo, on-site architect for Cesar Pelli & Associates, the
firm designing Miami's arts center, assures "Miami's concert hall is
going to be more of a classic European rectangle with parallel walls
quite pure and simple" -- which could help.
EUROPEAN TOUCH
The Europeans certainly seemed to have the key, as Wallace Sabine knew.
That pioneering Harvard acoustician, who designed Boston Symphony Hall
in 1900, made it a long rectangular hybrid of the historic,
now-vanished Leipzig Gewandhaus and Vienna's Musikvereinsaal. Despite
the larger capacity of Boston's sound chamber, Sabine achieved
marvelously mellow resonance -- without Johnson's newfangled resonating
chambers, canopies or curtains. Some of Sabine's sound reflectors are
copies of Greek statues that decorate the rim of the balcony.
Miami's symphony hall will be closer in size to Johnson's more
successful halls (Birmingham, 2,200 seats; Lucerne, 1,840 seats). But
whether mere size and shape will be enough to assure outstanding
acoustics is anybody's guess. Unfortunately, all that can be done at
this late date is to cross your fingers -- and hope.
Norman M. Schwartz
"Eric Nagamine" <en...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:_EiLd.1772$BS....@twister.socal.rr.com...
>
Of the halls I've visited, front center
> balcony seems to be the best place to sit, even in such a fine hall as the
> Musikverein.
>
John Turner
wind...@excite.com wrote:
> I'm watching the goings on in Philadelphia closely because of the new
> hall that's now rising in Miami. This is a good overview, written 2
> years ago in the Herald, which should tell you why my confidence in
> Johnson isn't exactly as high as it could be:
Thanks very much for this. I seem to remember a column from Miami from
a couple of years ago, but obviously misplaced it. BTW, Verizon Hall
seats far fewer than originally intended, but I don't have the exact
number at hand. Will try to get it. I would agree that Ormandy would
very likely not have liked it.
John Turner
John Turner
Maybe there really is something to walking into the Academy of Music
that ensures the listening experience will be a good one. This column
combines and compares the Academy, Verizon Hall, two conductors, two
orchestras, and, oh yes, lots of money from the Annenbergs:
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/10777000.htm
Mark Melson
at the time (and still think) he needs to do more research. The
(Dallas) Meyerson's Eugene McDermott Concert Hall, for instance, is
highly regarded for its near-miraculous blend of clarity and warmth.
It can be reverberant, and it can also be quite dry, depending on how
it's set. There are those who are used to clinically dry acoustics
(like those at Cleveland's Severance Hall, for instance) who find it
"wetter" than they're used to in the settings we typically use in
Dallas. Perhaps Mr. Roos is one of those, and he's entitled to his
preferences. But the reverberance adds warmth and "glow" without
seriously compromising clarity or impact. It can be made much drier,
but why? If Mr. Roos' wants to broaden his knowledge of the Meyerson's
acoustics beyond one "drive-by" hearing, I invite him to spend a week
listening to different kinds of performances from different vantage
points in the hall - I'll provide the tickets. As one who has heard
most of the great and not-so-great halls throughout the U.S. and
Europe, I wouldn't trade anywhere (with the possible exception of the
Concertgebouw) for the Meyerson, day-in and day-out.
Mr. Nagamine said in an earlier post that he had heard complaints
about musicians not being able to hear each other. It's true that we
do hear that from musicians on occasion in Dallas, but the Dallas
Symphony musicians have adjusted. There are many halls, especially
those with proscenium stages and fairly tight shells, where the sound
is reflected back to the musicians but doesn't travel well into the
audience. The sound in the audience in the Meyerson is glorious. I
should also add that when the Dallas Symphony played in Johnson's new
hall in Lucerne, there were no complaints about not hearing each other
on stage.
Mr. Roos' article is also misleading when it cites Boston's Symphony
Hall and New York's Carnegie Hall to prove that large halls can have
wonderful acoustics. The problem is that you can't build halls anymore
like Carnegie and Symphony Hall because of fire regulations and
audience expectations about sight lines, leg room and fanny comfort.
And supporting Mr. Johnson's arguments about size related to quality
are the Concertgebouw (2,200 seats, with many of them in the elevated
seating area behind the orchestra) and Vienna's Musikvereinsaal (1,680
seats).
I would urge Mr. Roos and others to talk to Dallas Morning News critic
Scott Cantrell, who is not afraid to be blunt. The well-traveled Mr.
Cantrell can speak with authority about various Russell Johnson halls,
having heard most of them, and can compare them to many of the world's
concert rooms. He could give the people of Miami a better-informed
perspective, and would have the wisdom not to judge a hall before it's
built.
Mark Melson
Brendan R. Wehrung
Despite what they say I'm not sure that acoustics won't be an
afterthought, but I guess it worked out in Sydney.
Brendan
Orchestra Hall Being Designed in Atlanta
Feb 9, 4:07 AM (ET)
By DANIEL YEE
ATLANTA (AP) - An 18-story structure with moveable wings fashioned like an
angel would make the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra's new hall a heavenly
standout among the boxy skyscrapers that make up Atlanta's skyline.
The proposed design by world-renown architect Santiago Calatrava would
outshine the Georgia Capitol's gold dome, a giant Coca-Cola sign, and the
twinkling lights of the city's office buildings at night, developers say.
They want it to draw tourists as well as concertgoers, and serve as an
architectural landmark and a postcard image.
Civic officials hope the symphony center will become Atlanta's signature,
much like the Space Needle in Seattle, Sydney's Opera House or the Gateway
Arch in St. Louis.
"The potential to become ... a symbol of the city is for sure there,"
Calatrava said. "It appears like a small jewel in my mind, surrounded by
those very tall buildings."
Calatrava, who creates sculptural surfaces and unusual spaces, designed
the steel-and-glass-roofed Olympic Stadium in Greece, the site of the 2004
Games' opening and closing ceremonies and gold-medal soccer match. He also
is designing the new World Trade Center transportation hub in New York.
The Spanish-born architect and engineer planned to formally unveil his
design for the Atlanta hall to Gov. Sonny Perdue and others at a reception
Wednesday.
An artist rendering of his preliminary designs show the hall rising from
the base of skyscrapers with sweeping vertical lines in the city's Midtown
neighborhood, just north of the downtown district. Curving arches fly over
the top of the center, which is capped with delicate wings. Calatrava has
likened the design to a phoenix - a longheld symbol of the city relating
to its rise after the destruction of the Civil War.
The building easily could become a trademark for the city, said Robert
Craig, professor of architecture at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
"I'm sure it will be - when you are dealing with forms that are that
distinctive and idiosyncratic, it tends to take on a kind of signature
quality," Craig said. "Atlanta is literally the same age as the city of
Chicago but if you compare the two cities architecturally, we don't
compare. But we will start to take on an increasing international
character by continuing to raise the level of excellence in terms of the
city's architecture."
The $300 million Symphony Center project will redevelop a 6.5-acre section
in the heart of Atlanta. Besides a 2,000-seat concert hall, it will
include a plaza for festivals, similar to urban spaces such as Rockefeller
Center in New York, Calatrava said. Construction is expected to begin in
2008 and take up to five years.
"We're working not just on the symphony center but also on an urban
project," said Allison Vulgamore, president and managing director of the
orchestra. "It makes a larger, more gracious statement for Atlanta."
Officials also hope the new hall and urban plaza will complement other
modern projects in the city, such as a 5-million-gallon aquarium and a new
World of Coca-Cola museum being built downtown next to Centennial Olympic
Park.
The concert hall will feature premiere acoustics for a hall of its size.
But unlike traditional halls, there will be no balconies and boxes - the
seating surrounds the orchestra in what Vulgamore called a "democratic"
seating arrangement.
"We're all sitting in one 'zip code,' our music director says," Vulgamore
said.
The hall will "signify that music is there for everybody," said Calatrava,
who has built opera houses in Spain.
The Atlanta Symphony Orchestra has been performing in a hall built in the
1960s that is across the street from the planned site. Intended as a
multipurpose hall, its acoustics were not designed solely for a performing
orchestra, said orchestra spokesman Charlie Wade.
In the new hall, choral groups will be able to perform with the orchestra
and the ceiling can be moved vertically to augment the sound during a
performance.
Calatrava, who won the 1992 "Gold Medal of the Institute of Structural
Engineers" and the 1987 "Auguste Perret UIA Prize," has rarely designed a
totally enclosed building and is widely recognized for creating open
structures.
"When we've got the chorus and orchestra doing a great choral work, you
want to lift the roof to give it room to bloom, for the sound to just
blossom," Vulgamore said. "That design has never been unveiled in the world."
--
Michael
Where do you like to sit in a hall which doesn't have a balcony like
the Philharmonie in Berlin?
I have heard and played many concerts in that hall, and although its
acoustics aren't perfect, you can hear very good from almost anywhere
in the hall. Some describe the sound as a bit "glassy", but it
certainly is quite transparent even though the room may be a bit on the
reverberant side. You can also hear yourself and other musicians
extremely well on the stage.
One great feature is that it doesn't compress dynamics at all. You can
hear silent passages very well and there is no lid on the sound when it
gets louder.
They had to do some adjustments and hung some deflectors over the
stage. But basically it works very well, and I think I read somewhere
that architect Scharoun simply drew out the design without a whole lot
of calculations and "expert" consultation.
I have never been in Verizon hall, but from looking at pictures it
appears obvious that those long lines of open box tiers may be a big
problem. They look like a really great design to catch and suppress
reverberation.
What are those grill looking things on the sides and behind the
orchestra? Are those the magnificent sound adjustment boxes?
Funny that most modern halls are screwed up and usually turn out to be
too dry and colorless. I was in the new hall in Rome a while ago, it
also didn't have a good open sound. Similar in San Francisco. LA's new
hall on the other hand sounds really good.
I guess it must have been hard for the acoustician to adopt to the
architect's genius design.
All great halls I have been in have a lot of direct reflecting plain
surfaces, either symmetrical like in Vienna, or slightly offset like in
Berlin. Maybe the round shaped surfaces are contributing to the
problem?
Brian Minsk
news:cuhhci$jct$1...@theodyn.ncf.ca:
>
> Despite what they say I'm not sure that acoustics won't be an
> afterthought, but I guess it worked out in Sydney.
>
> Brendan
>
>
See this:
Acoustics center stage -- at last
By PIERRE RUHE
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 02/08/05
(may require registration)
Brian Minsk
Matthew Vaughan
news:1108103955....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Funny that most modern halls are screwed up and usually turn out to be
> too dry and colorless. I was in the new hall in Rome a while ago, it
> also didn't have a good open sound. Similar in San Francisco. LA's new
> hall on the other hand sounds really good.
I've heard people say this consistently since Disney Hall opened, but I was
somewhat disappointed when I finally went to a concert there. Not that the
sound was bad by any means, but I was somehow expecting it to be a
revelation compared to Davies, and it wasn't. In fact, I find concerts more
involving and lively-sounding in Davies than in Disney (at least based on
this one experience, the Quastoff/Eschenbach concert in November), while
generally being about as clear and well-balanced. When combined with the
sterile downtown area in LA (compared to the bustling, lively SF civic
center area), and the overly-efficient Disney lobbies that seemed to mask
the feeling of thousands of people coming together in one place to
experience a musical event, I would rather got to a concert in SF any day.
(Good thing I live near SF, not LA:) I'm not trying to criticize Disney
hall, it's a concert hall any city would be proud of (and who knows, maybe
the sound is more consistent between different seating areas than it is in
Davies), but San Franciscans needn't feel any kind of inferiority complex
either. There is no need to dynamite Davies Hall to keep up with other
cities, and I believe its reputation for bad sound is grossly exaggerated
(at least since the acoutstical renovations a decade ago).
On the other hand, seating areas that might be the best in other halls are
usually not my favorite in Davies (balconies, for instance). The rear of the
orchestra section ("Upper Orchestra") is my favorite seating area there. So
it might be that many seats in Davies are not as good as in some other
halls, though some are excellent.
Michael
I was in Davies Hall only once, so my experience is definitely not
representative. I sat on the left side, just above the violins in the
second or third row. Very close to the orchestra - probably too close
to judge the actual overall balance. But the sound even that close to
the orchestra was really bad. Very dry and colorless, very little bass,
and worst of all, a definite lack of dynamics. It felt like there was a
heavy lif on the orchestra, when they played louder there was an almost
measurable level on which the sound just got compressed and stuffy
instead of louder. Maybe the same kind of effect that people described
about Verizon.
I certainly don't care for Downtown LA or indeed the "Disney
efficiency". In fact, I complained to the orchestra management about
the way they treat the visitors. I went to a concert with a few friends
who had seats in other parts of the hall, and we had agreed to meet on
the middle level after the concert. When it was over, the ushers
started herding people out. I had to go downstairs, and they wouldn't
let me back up, even though I had a ticket and explained why I wanted
to go back up one level. But they had all these grim and important
looking people who actually started gathering around me like I was a
potentially dangerous person at an airport. Most of them were probably
failed actors (remember, LA) who felt they had to "act" like secret
service agents in a movie... It took us more than half an hour to find
each other, by then they had mostly "evacuated" the lobby and we had to
walk around the building and through exiting cars to get to our cars.
Definitely not a pleasant experience.
But sonically, I have found that the hall is really good in the
different places I sat. Very good and natural bass resonance,
transparent mids and highs. Most importantly, the sound carries very
nicely. Soft wind solos arrive directly at your ear without a feeling
of the sound getting lost somewhere on the way.
I really like the actual room layout. It is very steep, so wherever you
sit, you are not very far away from the orchestra, even though the hall
seats a large number of people.
wind...@excite.com
> I was in Davies Hall only once, so my experience is definitely not
> representative. I sat on the left side, just above the violins in the
> second or third row. Very close to the orchestra - probably too close
> to judge the actual overall balance. But the sound even that close to
> the orchestra was really bad. Very dry and colorless, very little
bass,
> and worst of all, a definite lack of dynamics. It felt like there was
a
> heavy lif on the orchestra, when they played louder there was an
almost
> measurable level on which the sound just got compressed and stuffy
> instead of louder.
I listened to a concert from Davies Hall broadcast throughout the
nation on classical music stations several months ago and the sound
struck me as very similar to your description. In fact, the sound was
so compromised I theorized the engineers hadn't adjusted their
microphones or console properly.
wind...@excite.com
> I saw Mr. Roos' article shortly after it was published, and I thought
> at the time (and still think) he needs to do more research. The
> (Dallas) Meyerson's Eugene McDermott Concert Hall, for instance, is
> highly regarded for its near-miraculous blend of clarity and warmth.
> It can be reverberant, and it can also be quite dry, depending on how
> it's set.
I believe you're affiliated with the Dallas Symphony and so I can
understand your having a soft spot for their home. However, as in Eric
Nagamine's post, I too have heard both pro and cons about the Dallas
Symphony's hall, including criticism from people other than just the
writer from Miami.
wind...@excite.com
> Despite what they say I'm not sure that acoustics won't be an
> afterthought, but I guess it worked out in Sydney.
Sydney's opera house is one of the most famous buildings in the world,
but the sound inside its concert hall has never been judged very good.
If you've ever seen pictures of it, with a shape that almost sneers at
designs of the past considered ideal or at least safe for the best
sound possible, such an outcome shouldn't be too surprising.
wind...@excite.com
the Kennedy Center in DC and seems to be fairly good, probably at least
better than where the National Symphony Orchestra plays:
BSO's Gershwin At Strathmore: Singing the Blues
Saturday, February 12, 2005; Page C05
Not only is the new Music Center at Strathmore living up to
expectations as a first-rate venue for orchestral performances, but --
as the Baltimore Symphony Orchestra proved during its "Rhapsody in
Gershwin" program there Thursday -- it also accords a surprisingly
intimate setting for the piano.
With principal pops conductor Jack Everly at its helm, the BSO featured
several soloists in its tribute to the Gershwin brothers.
Pianist Terrence Wilson brought melodic sensitivity to the forefront in
George Gershwin's "Rhapsody in Blue." The hall's acoustics projected
his sound with remarkable clarity and immediacy that belied the
cavernous size of the center. Even at his softest dynamic level with
the orchestra, Wilson was still easily discernible (at least from the
vantage of the orchestra section).
On the other hand, the hall treated the human voice less favorably. For
those seated on the ground floor, the amplification of two vocalists
created a strange sonic experience during several songs. Instead of
hearing Scott Tucker's mellifluous tenor and Judy McLane's rich
mezzo-soprano projected from the stage with the orchestra's sound,
their voices floated down from suspended speakers centrally located in
the hall, resulting in distant, reverberant vocals. Still, Tucker
tenderly shaped his voice in "They Can't Take That Away From Me" and
Kerns's "Long Ago and Far Away," while adjustments to the system
allowed McLane to sound almost too loud in Arlen's "The Man That Got
Away."
The unamplified soloists had their own challenges: Gwendolyn Jones gave
a perky rendition of "I Got Rhythm," though at times she lacked the
volume to avoid being buried by the orchestra. Shalanda Bond struck a
shimmering balance with the BSO in Weill's "My Ship," but suffered from
off-centered pitches and flickering top notes in "Summertime" and "My
Man's Gone Now."
Throughout the evening, the BSO remained a supportive partner for these
soloists, shining especially during emotional ballads tucked within the
Gershwin instrumental medleys.
-- Grace Jean
Michael
I would have thought the exact same thing. It really sounded as if
somebody had not calibrated levels properly or a limiter/compressor was
kicking in. I almost started looking around my seat for a button to
switch the limiter off!
The Decca engineers got a decent sound picture from the hall though,
probably by a lot of close-miking and athmosphere mics in well chosen
places in the hall.
Michael
They have a really cool virtual tour on the website. After the main
view loads, you can select different levels and clicking on the balls
gives you that particular view. You can also rotate the images and some
of the elements light up and lead you to detail views.
http://www.sydneyoperahouse.com/sections/tours/virtual_tour/vrtour2.asp
Eric Nagamine
I agree about the "upper orchestra" section of Davies probably being the
best place to hear a concert at davies. My problem with Davies is that
the sound doesn't project off the stage to the center baloncy/loges.
The only semi-decent sound up there is long the wall where I suspect the
reflected sound helps to liven up the "presence".
Eric Nagamine
> I really like the actual room layout. It is very steep, so wherever you
> sit, you are not very far away from the orchestra, even though the hall
> seats a large number of people.
>
Sounds like Disney is like a great old baseball park where one is close
to the field. The old shoehorse style halls like Carnegie & Symphony
Center-Chicago are like this, though in those halls, I think the sound
is best up in the cheap seats.
Eric Nagamine
One of the major problems with SF Symphony broacasts are that no matter
the source they seem to be highly compressed dynamically.
Eric Nagamine
I've only heard 1 concert in Davies prerenovation in the blomstedt era.
IMO, the sound was quite dull & gray back then. Post renovations
improved the sound of the orchestral colors, but projection is still a
problem IMO. In the MTT era i attended one of the RCA recorded concerts
and they seemed to use a large suspended array to capture the basic
sound of the orchestra along with hall sound. My main problem with those
recordings is with seemingly restrained performance from the orchestra
as if they're playing it safe for the recordings.
Eric Nagamine
I haven't had the pleasure of attending a concert at the Philharmonie as
yet, but hope to someday. I've always wondered about those flying saucer
shaped halls. I'd think that projection would be a problem for sections
like the horns or low strings with nothing to reflect the sound off of.
> I have heard and played many concerts in that hall, and although its
> acoustics aren't perfect, you can hear very good from almost anywhere
> in the hall. Some describe the sound as a bit "glassy", but it
> certainly is quite transparent even though the room may be a bit on the
> reverberant side. You can also hear yourself and other musicians
> extremely well on the stage.
> One great feature is that it doesn't compress dynamics at all. You can
> hear silent passages very well and there is no lid on the sound when it
> gets louder.
> They had to do some adjustments and hung some deflectors over the
> stage. But basically it works very well, and I think I read somewhere
> that architect Scharoun simply drew out the design without a whole lot
> of calculations and "expert" consultation.
> I have never been in Verizon hall, but from looking at pictures it
> appears obvious that those long lines of open box tiers may be a big
> problem. They look like a really great design to catch and suppress
> reverberation.
The side boxes aren't as "live" sounding as the center. Funny thing is
that at the back of the balcony centers, the sound is surprisingly open
even with the overhang.
> What are those grill looking things on the sides and behind the
> orchestra? Are those the magnificent sound adjustment boxes?
If you're talking about the areas below the chorus risers, they are open
areas with alternating space & wood panels. I always thought that they
swallowed the sound of the horns when they were back there and I've
heard comments that the acoustaticians are considering completely
enclosing the area.
Michael
Flying saucer? I have never had that association with the Philharmonie.
A flying saucer reminds me of round shapes, not craggy ones like the
Philharmonie. To avoid misunderstandings, here
http://www.acoustics.salford.ac.uk/acoustics_world/concert_hall_acoustics/shape.html
is a picture of the hall I mean (halfway down, you can also enlarge the
picture). I just googled for the image, but it happens to be on a
website about acoustics. I didn't have time to read the explanations
though.
The picture is actually reversed. The organ is on the right side of the
hall.
As you can see, there are very large flat or only slightly curved
surfaces everywhere. I guess that helps keep the sound alive. The high
fronts of the side tiers help reflect the sound of the orchestra. As
you probably already guessed, horns prefer to sit on the left side
where they have the side walls.
If there is no choir, you can sit on the choir benches. Of course you
get blasted when you sit directly behind the horns, but if you sit in
the middle or the other side, you still get a fairly OK balanced sound
picture, as the other brass points away from you and you can actually
hear the woodwinds better than from the front. The strings are still
very present. Soloists in in front of the orchestra are not as well
audible though from those seats.
BTW the structures on both sides encasing the stairs down to the choir
benches contain some high register organ pipes. If you look closely,
you can see that the front is made of long vertical strips which can be
opened and closed by a pedal to control the volume. I didn't know this
until I sat right in front of them in a performance of Also sprach
Zarathustra...
wind...@excite.com
> They have a really cool virtual tour on the website. After the main
> view loads, you can select different levels and clicking on the balls
> gives you that particular view. You can also rotate the images and
some
> of the elements light up and lead you to detail views.
>
http://www.sydneyoperahouse.com/sections/tours/virtual_tour/vrtour2.asp
That site is helpful for getting a good look at Sydney's concert hall.
I've seen at least one other photo of it several years ago, but this
one makes me realize that the stage area in Sydney is sort of
reminiscent of the orchestra area (or front portion) of the SF
Symphony's home:
http://www.sydneyoperahouse.com/sections/about_the_house/venues/images/ven_chall_big.jpg
I also looked at the virtual tour of the room and I'm not surprised the
hall would be compromised by various sound traps. However, look at one
of the dead spots affecting the newest hall in the US, the second home
of the Baltimore Symphony. I'd never have guessed that place would have
this weakness because it's rather small (I believe it seats less than
2000) and is a very simple shoebox shaped room. Moreover, another
writer for the Post a few days ago said the room has so much bass that
it's almost excessive and "tubby":
Philharmonic Puts the Lie to 'Hear No Evil'
By Tim Page
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, February 14, 2005; Page C01
The Music Center at Strathmore is not without its quirks, and some of
these were apparent Saturday night, when the National Philharmonic
played its inaugural concert in the brand-new auditorium, under the
direction of Piotr Gajewski. The sound that greets a spectator on the
ground floor is gorgeous and full, but the balcony just to the right of
the stage (where I sat on Saturday) seems to lie in a curious dead
spot, where bass notes sound both distant and muddled and some sections
of the orchestra can barely be heard at all. There is always an
acoustic dichotomy between the best and the worst seats in any house
(the old Metropolitan Opera in New York was famous for the way the most
glowing and immediate sound was lavished on those who held the cheapest
tickets, way up near the ceiling, where patrons could barely see the
stage). But this schism is rarely so profound as it would seem to be at
Strathmore.
Much tinkering can yet be done -- with its canopies and reflecting
panels, Strathmore has the equivalent of "modular" acoustics,
theoretically capable of eternal variation. Still, for the moment at
least, visitors are advised to sit downstairs. Of course, you may not
have much choice in the matter, as Strathmore is selling every seat in
the house, even for concerts that aren't really very good.
wind...@excite.com
> Flying saucer? I have never had that association with the
Philharmonie.
> A flying saucer reminds me of round shapes, not craggy ones like the
> Philharmonie. To avoid misunderstandings, here
>
http://www.acoustics.salford.ac.uk/acoustics_world/concert_hall_acoustics/shape.html
> is a picture of the hall I mean (halfway down, you can also enlarge
the
> picture).
This is the specific photo you're referring to:
http://www.acoustics.salford.ac.uk/acoustics_world/concert_hall_acoustics/berlin.gif
I find it interesting that you said you could hear quite well on that
room's stage. I read comments from another musician for the National
Symphony who said the sound in the orchestra area of the Philharmonie
wasn't as good as he'd have liked, which is why I thought the
Berliners, perhaps several years (?) after their hall had first been
built, hung sound panels over the performance area to begin with.
wind...@excite.com
the Philharmonie to be kind of claustrophobic or not a very soothing
room to sit in. I know the Berlin Philharmonic definitely is one of the
best bands in the world, but the home they play in looks kind of
disheveled or dated in a way that reminds me of a shopping mall from 30
years ago:
http://www.acoustics.salford.ac.uk/acoustics_world/concert_hall_acoustics/berlin.gif
Michael
Au contraire. It is not claustrophobic at all. The room is quite big,
but it has many different spots. It is neither one vast room with
endless areas nor does it have any cramped, closed areas. It is like a
big landscape with open and intimate spaces. The "room feeling" as such
is great. It is a wonderful room to be in, listen to music or play. It
also has a lobby which is very big and stretched out, but it follows
the same concept as it has open, big and small, intimate areas
carefully complementing each other. It is fun just to walk around in
it, and you get the sense of being in a big, public space whith a sense
of occasion. At the same time, you can also take position in more
intimate, small-group spaces.
Michael
For some it is almost a shock at first to sit on the stage because you
can hear yourself so well, you think everybody is just hearing you!
Then you adjust and get less paranoid, and start to listen to yourself
and the other players. It is quite extraordinary and makes playing in
an orchestra very satisfying and effective.
wind...@excite.com
> Just when there seemed to be some kind of concensus, not unanimity to
> be sure, about the acoustics in Verizon Hall (which was, after all,
one
> of the main reasons put forth for building a new hall of orchestra
Look at what Ricardo Muti thinks of the new hall. I saw this in the
2-15-05 edition of the New York Times:
Mr. Muti has been more famous recently for a nonappearance (last year,
at the Royal Opera in London), but elusive or not, there he was in the
orchestra's three-year-old Kimmel Center on Sunday night, dashing and
magisterial as ever. An enemy of the old hall's acoustics, he was in
the new one for the first time, and in a rambling postconcert address,
he said he liked it very much.
wind...@excite.com
> For some it is almost a shock at first to sit on the stage because
you
> can hear yourself so well, you think everybody is just hearing you!
> Then you adjust and get less paranoid, and start to listen to
yourself
> and the other players. It is quite extraordinary and makes playing in
> an orchestra very satisfying and effective.
Check out these pages to see why I wasn't sure if the Berlin hall was
as good as it possibly could have been. The musicians from Minnesota
and Washington both give it good marks, although the guy with the
National Symphony did have a few reservations.
I previously had not seen the Berliner's hall ranked in the top 10,
assuming that even means anything or that surveys are reliable. But it
was the indepth paper at anstendig (which coincides with our comments
about the SF Symphony's home) that made me pause and go hmmm.
http://www.stereophile.com/musicrecordings/43/index2.html
http://www.artsjournal.com/roadtrip/archives20040215.shtml
Michael
I don't know what you mean. They mostly say they all loved the sound,
even the NSO guy, after getting used to the stage acoustics. Obviously
I am to a certain degree imprinted on the Philharmonie sound since I
grew up with it. Some people even say they like the other hall in
Berlin, the Schauspielhaus (classic shoe box shape), better. They say
the sound is warmer, darker, more blended. I like the P sound better.
I never think about stuff like "top 10", I don't know all halls anyway.
Among the ones I know, Philharmonie Berlin, Musikvereinssaal Vienna,
Concertgebouw Amsterdam, and Disney LA are all really good sounding. I
have been in too many really bad sounding halls to decide which are the
worst though!
The article from the "Anstendig Institute" I haven't read. I remember
this guy from another forum. He is basically a failed conductor who
tells everybody how many credentials he has and that he was better in
conducting class than Ozawa blabla. Did I miss anything by not reading
the article?
wind...@excite.com
> I don't know what you mean. They mostly say they all loved the sound,
> even the NSO guy, after getting used to the stage acoustics.
After seeing the comments about the new Strathmore Hall in Maryland,
which is described as having a lot of bass, maybe too much in the ears
of one listener, but at the same time also having limited bass audible
to people sitting in a part of the balcony, as mentioned by 2 reviewers
I've read in the past few days, it's not surprising that no hall in the
world is without certain quirks and weak and strong points.
I guess it was the National Symphony musician's use of the word
"spotty" that stood out in my mind, while you and the musician from
Minnesota not only didn't notice the same thing but were quite
satisfied with the whole experience. As with the example of Strathmore,
I'm sure the sound in a room depends a lot on where people are sitting,
be it on parts of a stage, or in a balcony or on the orchestra level.
Here's the passage from the musician in Washington that I'm referring
to:
>From the point of view of the musicians, however, this hall offers
mixed blessings. The stage is very "spotty," having specific resonant
and dull spots, and aural communication among the musicians is
dependent on the positions of the individual artists. For example, the
strings can clearly hear the winds (assuming the former are not out at
the extreme edges of the orchestra), but the winds cannot often hear
the strings with the same immediacy and clarity. Even with these
shortcomings, the Philharmonie is (in my opinion) one of the world's
finest concert halls.
> The article from the "Anstendig Institute" I haven't read. I remember
> this guy from another forum. He is basically a failed conductor who
> tells everybody how many credentials he has and that he was better in
> conducting class than Ozawa blabla. Did I miss anything by not
reading
> the article?
His paper is the most thorough I've ever seen about sound, at least on
the WWW, and based on his background I wouldn't call him inexperienced
or untalented. In other words, he's no slouch:
http://www.anstendig.org/Vita.html
Here's his text about the Philharmonie from his paper that analyzed the
San Francisco Symphony's home:
Probably the classic forerunner of the low-budget, Davies-type hall is
the Berlin Philharmonic Hall, the "Philharmonie", which was one of the
first to use reflectors. But the reflectors were not used to help the
acoustic of the hall itself. The hall was not designed with reflectors,
but the orchestra complained that they could not hear themselves as
well as they should. Some judiciously placed reflectors seemed to help
that problem, which was not as serious as in Davies Hall. An important
point is that the orchestra in the "Philharmonie" does not sit
immediately in front of a highly reflective, polished wall, as in
Davies Hall.
The "Philharmonie" was designed by one of the greatest geniuses of the
famous Bauhaus group, who designed it around an extraordinarily
harmonious geometric pattern and allowed no compromise in that shape.
The angles of the geometric pattern of the walls (reproduced on the
cover of recordings made in the hall) do not direct the reflected sound
as unremittingly towards the listener as those of Davies Hall nor do
they diffuse the reflected sound as much. The inside of the auditorium
is an artistic masterpiece that perfectly sets the tone (mood) for the
experience of music, easing the audience into the necessary state of
calm relaxation. The mood set by the visual impressions is an important
point in a hall's success. But even in the "Philharmonie", the seats
behind the orchestra never had good acoustics and still do not. After
the experience of the Berlin hall, the idea of having seating behind
the orchestra should have been scrapped. As beautiful, even
overwhelming, as it is, the "Philharmonie" cannot be considered an
acoustical success.
Michael
orchestra. The balance is different, but it is still very satisfying
because the sound is very clear. The brass point in the other
direction, so they don't overwhelm the strings which come back from
everywhere in the room anyway. The whole idea of having the orchestra
surrounded by the audience is a really good one, I think because it
does indeed create this unique sense of intimacy and being there with
the musicians. But if it makes other people unhappy, OK. Most listeners
in Berlin absolutely love it there.
Matthew Vaughan
news:1108417096.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> That site is helpful for getting a good look at Sydney's concert hall.
> I've seen at least one other photo of it several years ago, but this
> one makes me realize that the stage area in Sydney is sort of
> reminiscent of the orchestra area (or front portion) of the SF
> Symphony's home:
>
> http://www.sydneyoperahouse.com/sections/about_the_house/venues/images/ven_chall_big.jpg
Sydney is really not much at all like the configuration of Davies. It's
almost more similar to Disney in how it's laid out.
> I also looked at the virtual tour of the room and I'm not surprised the
> hall would be compromised by various sound traps. However, look at one
> of the dead spots affecting the newest hall in the US, the second home
> of the Baltimore Symphony. I'd never have guessed that place would have
> this weakness because it's rather small (I believe it seats less than
> 2000) and is a very simple shoebox shaped room. Moreover, another
> writer for the Post a few days ago said the room has so much bass that
> it's almost excessive and "tubby":
Meyerhoff? It was built in 1982, and holds about 2,500. It's fairly similar
to Davies Hall's configuation in many respects. It's not exactly
rectangular, either: somewhat ovoid, with a sloping roof.
Matthew Vaughan
news:1108500734.2...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Anstendig is a quack that doesn't know anything about acoustics.
In the Wired article, the Berlin hall listed is the Konzerthaus, not the
Philharmonie.
http://www.musiccelebrations.com/images/austria_19-Konzerthaus-int.jpg
(Also interesting is that Beranek's own most-recent design is on his own
self-compiled list of top-10 halls, amongst nearly no modern competition.
Hmm.)
Michael
That's waht I thought too.
> In the Wired article, the Berlin hall listed is the Konzerthaus, not
the
> Philharmonie.
>
http://www.musiccelebrations.com/images/austria_19-Konzerthaus-int.jpg
> (Also interesting is that Beranek's own most-recent design is on his
own
> self-compiled list of top-10 halls, amongst nearly no modern
competition.
> Hmm.)
Hmm indeed. I disagree about the Konzerthaus being better than the
Philharmonie. Of course, some may prefer the former's darker, more
blended rounder sound to the somewhat more transparent and more
balanced sound of the latter.
But it's a nice hall too.
I don't have any details, but I remember reading that the interior was
not exactly reconstructed, but redesigned in the style of the era, but
with a different interior layout. So what we are seeing there now is
not the original hall. Which makes sense, since it was originally a
theatre, although it always had a small concert hall too.
Matthew Vaughan
news:wwJQd.7049$m31....@typhoon.sonic.net...
>> hall would be compromised by various sound traps. However, look at one
>> of the dead spots affecting the newest hall in the US, the second home
>> of the Baltimore Symphony. I'd never have guessed that place would have
>> this weakness because it's rather small (I believe it seats less than
>> 2000) and is a very simple shoebox shaped room. Moreover, another
>> writer for the Post a few days ago said the room has so much bass that
>> it's almost excessive and "tubby":
>
> Meyerhoff? It was built in 1982, and holds about 2,500. It's fairly
> similar to Davies Hall's configuation in many respects. It's not exactly
> rectangular, either: somewhat ovoid, with a sloping roof.
Ah, you are talking about another hall; my apologies for the confusion.
North Bethesda's Music Center at Strathmore, seating 1,976. Now that is a
beautiful concert hall, very much rectangular, with shallow balconies, and
plenty of diffusing surface details. I'd love to go hear a concert there
someday. I'm not surprised the acoustics are good.
http://www.strathmore.org/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3751-2005Feb6.html
http://www.denwmedia.com/Portfolio/animations.asp?offset=15
Matthew Vaughan
news:1108548855.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
>> The article from the "Anstendig Institute" I haven't read. I remember
>> this guy from another forum. He is basically a failed conductor who
>> tells everybody how many credentials he has and that he was better in
>> conducting class than Ozawa blabla. Did I miss anything by not
> reading
>> the article?
>
> His paper is the most thorough I've ever seen about sound, at least on
> the WWW, and based on his background I wouldn't call him inexperienced
> or untalented. In other words, he's no slouch:
>
> http://www.anstendig.org/Vita.html
He can claim anything he wants, he still doesn't know much about acoustics
(and appearantly not as much about conducting as he'd like to think,
either). Someone can take all the classes they want, but that doesn't mean
they learn anything, or get good at what they're studying. I get the
impression his "ear" may not be terribly good (which would explain a lack of
success in both conducting and understanding acoustics in any meaningful
way, as well as the large amount of probably remedial ear training he had to
take). The sheer number of classes combined with the absolute lack of any
professional accomplishment in this area (that I'm aware of) may mean that
the classes were a hopeless attempt to gain some skill that he may, by
nature, be incapable of mastering.
I have known people possibly like him (one is my very dearest lifelong
friend), who had a slighly manic personality and devoted enormous energy to
things they weren't very good at. I wouldn't want to stop them from trying,
but I also wouldn't want others to get sucked into believing that their
enthusiasm necessarily translates into expertise.
> Here's his text about the Philharmonie from his paper that analyzed the
> San Francisco Symphony's home:
>
> Probably the classic forerunner of the low-budget, Davies-type hall is
> the Berlin Philharmonic Hall, the "Philharmonie", which was one of the
> first to use reflectors. But the reflectors were not used to help the
> acoustic of the hall itself. The hall was not designed with reflectors,
> but the orchestra complained that they could not hear themselves as
> well as they should. Some judiciously placed reflectors seemed to help
> that problem, which was not as serious as in Davies Hall. An important
> point is that the orchestra in the "Philharmonie" does not sit
> immediately in front of a highly reflective, polished wall, as in
> Davies Hall.
Interesting. I don't recall that Davies ever had a "highly reflective,
polished wall" immediately next to the orchestra, and there certainly isn't
anything resembling that now. (In general my impression of his comments has
been either that he hasn't been inside Davies hall or that he doesn't quite
understand what he is hearing.) But if he wants to define any fairly flat
surface as such, the orchestra in Berlin sits immediately in front of
several highly reflective, polished walls. So do orchestras in most concert
halls. I'm not sure what that's supposed to prove. Most orchestras that play
in proscenium theatres specifically bring in acoustical panels to help
support the sound, which usually turn out to be flat, polished, and highly
reflective. (It might be better if they were somewhat less flat and
polished - with more surface detail to provide diffusion - but the highly
reflective part is necessary and desirable.)
> The "Philharmonie" was designed by one of the greatest geniuses of the
> famous Bauhaus group, who designed it around an extraordinarily
> harmonious geometric pattern and allowed no compromise in that shape.
A "harmonious geometric pattern" is not a predictor of good acoustics. This
is new-age wishful thinking. But this particular pattern, and arrangement of
reflections, seems to have worked out quite nicely.
> The angles of the geometric pattern of the walls (reproduced on the
> cover of recordings made in the hall) do not direct the reflected sound
> as unremittingly towards the listener as those of Davies Hall
This could POSSIBLY be true (but probably isn't), but it should be noted
that many of the "best" concert halls are rectanglular boxes with flat walls
and
ceilings, and robust reverberation times, and they direct PLENTY of
reflected sound unremittingly towards the listener. In fact, the problems of
Davies have been a LACK of directly reflected sounds, not too much of them.
If the Philharmonie didn't direct reflected sound to the listener, the music
would seem dull, remote, and lifeless.
Directing NO sound to the listener would be like playing outdoors, without
even a shell. The sound would be dull, lifeless, distant, quiet, and dry.
Directing only delayed, diffuse reverberation to the listener makes the
performers sound distant but lost in the echoing room ambience, as in a
large church or sports arena. What's required is directing plenty of "early"
reflections to the audience very soon after the direct, unreflected sound
arrives - bunched within the first 50ms or less (combined with sufficient
continuing reverberation to fill out the sound, make it seem to surround the
audience, and provide some "wetness" and liveliness to the overall
impression). So clearly directing sound to the listener is not the problem.
The problem with Davies was in the past mostly not enough of certain kinds
of reflected sounds (and still is, to a lesser extent). There were some
isolated problems of "too much" reflected sound - audible echoes in certain
seats, and in some areas the sensation the sound was perhaps coming from the
ceiling rather than directly from the orchestra - but those problems were
corrected 12-1/2 years ago. Davies is not generally thought to be overly
reverberant or loud (though I think it is quite adequate in both respects),
and no longer has notable echoes, so "too much" reflected sound is not the
problem.
> nor do they diffuse the reflected sound as much.
I would disagree with this. Diffusion is almost always a good thing in
concert hall acoustics, and variously-angled surfaces are likely to
contribute to this (as are small details in the room, such as the statues,
ceiling coffers, beams, and other ornamentation in older halls). I can't say
from personal experience whether sound is more or less diffused in Berlin
than San Francisco, but having more diffusion isn't usually a problem;
rather, it's likely to be a benefit.
> The inside of the auditorium
> is an artistic masterpiece that perfectly sets the tone (mood) for the
> experience of music, easing the audience into the necessary state of
> calm relaxation. The mood set by the visual impressions is an important
> point in a hall's success.
I agree, it's a nice looking hall (as is Davies, each in their own way), and
this contributes to the overall effect.
> But even in the "Philharmonie", the seats
> behind the orchestra never had good acoustics and still do not. After
> the experience of the Berlin hall, the idea of having seating behind
> the orchestra should have been scrapped.
I'm not sure I agree with this. True, the sound can't be balanced the same
to the sides and rear of the orchestra as it is in front, and you generally
won't hear some things as well (some of the string sections, soloists), and
will hear other things too strongly (percussion, brass), but the overall
effect can still be very nice. You gain different things even as you lose
some, both visually and acoustically. I don't know whether the experience
behind the stage is poor enough in the Philharmonie that one could argue
they should have limited the number of seats back there more (as in Davies
and some other halls, with just a few rows), but having at least some seats
there I think is a great idea, and provides a unique and interesting
experience that I, and many others, enjoy from time to time.
> As beautiful, even
> overwhelming, as it is, the "Philharmonie" cannot be considered an
> acoustical success.
I have not been there, but that's not been my impression. I don't know
whether most people really rank it with the Concertgebouw, the Vienna
Grosser Musikvereinsaal, or Boston's Symphony Hall (for instance), but I've
heard that it's not bad. It's certain to be a unique experience, and both
the audience and the orchestra (and visiting orchestras) have seemed quite
happy with it.
wind...@excite.com
>
http://www.sydneyoperahouse.com/sections/about_the_house/venues/images/ven_chall_big.jpg
>
> Sydney is really not much at all like the configuration of Davies.
It's
> almost more similar to Disney in how it's laid out.
I was referring to only a portion of the area around and behind the
orchestra of both halls. It looks like Sydney and Davies become
narrower in that location and both of them also have vertical panels or
slat-type forms along the walls. I believe Davies has little pyramid
shapes on its ceiling, whereas Sydney appears to have little boxes and
scallops embedded into its ceiling. If a simple rectangle is the safest
shape for good sound in a room than I'd be surprised if Sydney's hall,
while dramatic looking, didn't have really compromised acoustics.
wind...@excite.com
Matthew Vaughan wrote:
> I'd love to go hear a concert there
> someday. I'm not surprised the acoustics are good.
Here's a rundown on it from the past several days:
Strathmore: Off to a Sound Beginning
By Tim Page
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, February 7, 2005
So, just how good is the Music Center at Strathmore -- the gleamingly
handsome, dazzlingly ambitious, 1,976-seat auditorium just off
Rockville Pike that opened its doors Saturday night? Very good indeed,
on the preliminary evidence of the first concert, a gala program
featuring the Baltimore Symphony Orchestra, under the direction of Yuri
Temirkanov. Indeed, from where I was sitting (on an aisle in the middle
of the orchestra level) it sounded as though this may turn out to be
the best place to hear symphonic music that the Washington area has
ever known.
For those who would argue that this is faint praise -- neither the
Kennedy Center Concert Hall nor its predecessor, DAR Constitution Hall,
has been known for its brilliant acoustics -- let me add that the sound
at the Music Center at Strathmore would seem to have presence, luster
and clarity, with an unusually rich bass response. Indeed, the lower
strings, whether played solo (cellist Yo-Yo Ma was the evening's name
soloist) or in aggregate, seemed to emanate from the walls, the floor,
the air itself, with a luscious, trembling immediacy that you could
feel in your bones.
Until the last selection, Shostakovich's "Festive Overture," high notes
were less impressive, sounding somewhat constrained. But Strathmore is
equipped with adjustable acoustic panels and canopies, which were duly
brought into play over the course of the evening. By the finale, the
proper setting was achieved, and the bite and brilliance of the
stratospheric brass fanfares in the Shostakovich were startling.
Moreover, one could actually hear all that was going on in this
complicated music. The evening began with a fervent, unusually dramatic
performance of "The Star-Spangled Banner" -- credited, this time, to
the man who actually wrote the music (John Stafford Smith) rather than
the man who added patriotic words later on (Francis Scott Key). After
that, there were speeches, and then more speeches (for better and for
worse, politicians usually forget about concert halls after opening
nights) and then -- in a last-minute substitution -- Temirkanov led the
festive Polonaise from Tchaikovsky's "Eugene Onegin" as the first piece
to be played in the new hall.
The Baltimore Symphony sounded terrific throughout the evening -- big
and glistening and powerful, yet never insensitive to nuance. There
will be time to explore the strengths and weaknesses of the Music
Center at Strathmore at length. How will it sound on a night when not
every seat is filled? (The mere presence of lots of bodies can have an
enormous effect on a hall's acoustics.) How will it respond to
amplified music? To solo recitals? We shall find out. One thing is
already certain, however: Musical life in the nation's capital region
just got a lot more interesting.
Sampling the Hall's Acoustics
Besides music critic Tim Page, four additional reviewers appraised
the sound quality in other parts of the hall. Here are their reports:
Sitting in the second tier directly over the right side of the stage
gave me a view of the audience as well as a bird's-eye view of most of
the stage. But standing up and leaning over the rail was the only way I
could see the entire orchestra; otherwise, the low brass and basses,
along with half the violas and cellos, were obscured from my view.
I was disappointed to discover that there is at least one dead spot in
this stunning hall. From where I was sitting, it was difficult to
discern instruments deeper than clarinets. And when I could hear those
instruments, the sound was muddy. On the other hand, percussion was all
too present, making Tchaikovsky's Polonaise sound like a tympani
concerto.
Whenever the orchestra played louder than a mezzo-forte, the effect was
one big blur of murky, undefined sound. At softer volumes, the sound
was better defined, though often limited to those instruments that I
could actually see. Soprano Harolyn Blackwell's voice was often
inaudible, especially when the accompaniment was louder than a whisper.
In the subtler music by Max Bruch, Yo-Yo Ma's cello projected over the
orchestra up to my seat.
Unfortunately, Strathmore's acoustics seemed to suffer when the music
was louder and lower-pitched.
-- Gail Wein
>From promenade right, which is near the back at the same height as the
second-level boxes, I felt posted at a spacious ship's stern, buoyed by
lighted windows at the "bow" -- the stage. At a rehearsal, one
Baltimore Symphony Orchestra violinist told me the sound "was clean and
we could hear each other clearly."
Sound, even inner orchestral lines, came directly to me, brightly and
pungently focused with clear entrances and no apparent echoes. At first
the percussion and lower brass overrode the violins, and cellist Yo-Yo
Ma's pianissimos in Bruch's "Ave Maria" were audible only spottily. But
Ma's "Kol Nidrei" had an all-encompassing depth at every dynamic level,
as did the cello section consistently. Blend and balance improved later
-- from adequate to superb -- overwhelmingly so in Shostakovich's
timely chosen "Festive Overture." Both sopranos, Harolyn Blackwell and
Janice Chandler-Eteme, soared above, yet with, the orchestra.
-- Cecelia Porter
Perched at the highest crest of the Music Center's undulating ceiling,
my upper-tier seat provided an exhilarating view of the hall's splendid
architecture. But while the stage looked far off, the acoustics were
immediate. The Baltimore Symphony Orchestra sounded full-bodied, with a
fine balance between sectional clarity and corporate blend. The strings
had a lovely bloom on them. Woodwind tone was rounded and very present.
The hefty brass penetrated without a harsh glare.
Soloists enjoyed a natural perspective, too: Janice Chandler-Eteme's
voice soared while Harolyn Blackwell's ducked in and out of audibility,
and Yo-Yo Ma's cello carried nicely through the orchestral fabric. The
bass, though, was a real problem, with lower-pitched instruments taking
on a tubby, bloated tone that engulfed detail. Pounding bass is a
relief to hear after the polite, bass-shy acoustics of the Kennedy
Center Concert Hall. But the kind of bass you'd get from a 1960s
console-stereo isn't the greatest trade-off.
-- Joe Banno
When I saw " Orchestra Center Row G Seat 101" printed on my ticket, I
thought: Too close to the stage. That's because in some halls, being
seven rows from the action means you're looking up at the musicians'
feet, and the music whooshes over your head. But Strathmore G-101 (left
aisle) is one comfortable seat. The gentle rake of the floor puts your
eye line slightly above the stage. And although you're some 25 feet
back, you feel closer.
Balconies, they say, offer the best sound. But from my seat, I heard
fine details of texture in Hersch's "Arrache" and balance between winds
and strings in Tchaikovsky's "Waltz of the Flowers." The sound was
bright but not edgy. Plucked harp strings pinged, and horns bloomed. My
only worry is volume. When the orchestra thundered in Tchaikovsky's
"Pas de Deux," high tones turned brittle and the former warmth and
transparency disappeared.
Strathmore's butter-colored lighting and pale wood create an inviting
glow. I'm ready to return and try out a few different seats.
-- Tom Huizenga
wind...@excite.com
> Anstendig is a quack that doesn't know anything about acoustics.
You and Michael are quite down on that person, and I'm not sure if
that's based on specific information about his background or
reputation, or if it's just a personal opinion. All I know is that most
of the supposed experts in sound, at least in America, have reportedly
come up with their fair share of duds, so from that standpoint the
field of acoustic design can be described as full of "quacks." And it's
also a matter of perception too. For instance, you seem to be less
bothered by some of the quirks in the room where the San Francisco
Symphony holds their concerts, while Michael and I find them to be more
noticeable or troubling.
> In the Wired article, the Berlin hall listed is the Konzerthaus, not
the
> Philharmonie.
>
http://www.musiccelebrations.com/images/austria_19-Konzerthaus-int.jpg
> (Also interesting is that Beranek's own most-recent design is on his
own
> self-compiled list of top-10 halls, amongst nearly no modern
competition.
> Hmm.)
I understand that list is based on a survey of hundreds of people in
the music profession, so I take it for what's it worth (and some may
say "not much" or "hardly scientific or comprehensive enough").
However, it's one reason I thought the newer room in Berlin wasn't as
good as it could be, or not as good as the only new or younger hall
that is included within that 10, which is a vineyard style hall in
Britain and one that I've never heard anyone talk about before.
I googled this topic and found the following comments on the WWW, which
gives a good overview and shows that ALL halls have their good and weak
points:
At the outset of the design process, client leadership and the design
team visited Europe in a whirlwind tour that took the group to seven
concert halls in five cities over the course of six days. We were also
able to hear concerts in four of the sevens venues (the asterisked
halls below). The list of halls comprised:
Amsterdam: The Concertgebouw*
Vienna: Grosser Musikvereinssaal* Konzerthaus
Berlin: The Philharmonie* Konzerthaus
Zurich: Tonhalle*
Barcelona: Palau de la Musica Catalana
Through this process, the client leader refined their vision for the
new hall, articulating clearly what they did-and did not-want.
These halls, along with a handful from the United States, such as
Boston Symphony Hall, Carnegie Hall and the Troy Savings Bank Music
Hall, became not models to be copied but rather sources of inspiration
to illuminate and inform the design concepts for the new hall in
Nashville.
Even if one wanted to copy these excellent rooms exactly, modern
standards of seating comfort, accessibility and safety make this
approach impossible. And there are acoustic reasons not to copy
precisely as well. As highly regarded as the Musikvereinssaal,
Concertgebouw and Boston Symphony Hall are, they each have attributes
that one might wish were a little better. In Vienna, the
Musikvereinssaal's relatively small cubic volume can be easily
overdriven to sonic harshness by a large orchestra. In Amsterdam, the
Concertgebouw's generous width and high ceiling results in a lack of
clarity, particularly onstage where it is needed for performance
coordination. In Boston, the clarity is excellent while also forgiving
to small imperfections in orchestral ensemble, but reverberation decay,
loudness, and bass strength are all a little less than optimal.
Michael
Wayne Reimer wrote:
> > In article <1108597587....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
wind...@excite.com says...
> > Matthew Vaughan wrote:
> >
> > > Anstendig is a quack that doesn't know anything about acoustics.
> >
> > You and Michael are quite down on that person, and I'm not sure if
> > that's based on specific information about his background or
> > reputation, or if it's just a personal opinion. All I know is that
most
> > of the supposed experts in sound, at least in America, have
reportedly
> > come up with their fair share of duds, so from that standpoint the
> > field of acoustic design can be described as full of "quacks." And
it's
> > also a matter of perception too. For instance, you seem to be less
> > bothered by some of the quirks in the room where the San Francisco
> > Symphony holds their concerts, while Michael and I find them to be
more
> > noticeable or troubling.
> >
> >
>
had a
> major acoustical revamping in 1992. I don't know exactly when you
and Michael
> were there, but the article is not discussing the same place that
exists today
> and that has been there for around a dozen years now and is
distinctly superior
> to the original hall.
>
> wr
I was there last April. That was the only time I have ever been there,
so my experience with Davies is certainly not completely
representative. However, the problems I observed (or rather heard) back
then were not bad balance or that the hall favored certain parts of the
sound spectrum. It simply didn't resonate in any parts of the spectrum,
and the dynamic range of the orchestral sound was massively congested.
The hall seems to be a really effective resonance and reverb killer. I
was actually sitting directly next to the orchestra where such effects
should not be so noticeable. But they were. That doesn't leave much
hope for other parts of the hall further away.
Richy the X-SDA
Wayne Reimer wrote:
> > In article <a2LQd.7066$m31....@typhoon.sonic.net>,
matt-no-...@NOSPAM.hotmail.com says...
>
> There are several obsolete write-ups on that site about the old
pre-1992-rehab
> Davies hall. I didn't see a single one about the hall as it
currently exists.
>
> Personally, what I hate the most about that hall now are the glitzy
mirror-
> striped lobby walls, and the expensive and shitty Ruffatti organ
which
> possessed all the tonal allure of a chorus of peacocks and donkeys
the last
> time I heard it. The acoustics of the hall are tolerable, although
some
> soloists in front of the orchestra tend to have their sound get lost
in the
> ozone, I think because the reflector array above the orchestra
doesn't extend
> forward quite far enough.
>
> wr
Having attended hundreds of concerts in Davies since its construction,
I'd like to respond to Michael's and Wayne's remarks:
Michael, if your only experience in Davies was in one of the terrace
seats, overlooking one side of the stage, you should know that that is
the worst possible location for sound. The orchestra would completely
unbalanced and distorted. It should be no surprise if you consider the
geometry involved. In a hall of this type (fan-shaped with a couple of
balconies) the best location is usually at the front-center of the
balconies and Davies is no exception. After the renovation of 1992, the
sound is now quite satisfactory in terms of volume and presence. To me
it is too bright and sizzley, but it may be my hearing. Other don't
seem to have that problem. The puzzling thing to me is that ever since
the 1992 rebuild, the sound has continued to improve: The strings have
more body and the bass is stronger. I can't decide whether the players
are playing differently, or whether they are tweaking the hall but the
continuous improvement since 1992 has been a pleasure to observe. By
the way, I have always thought that the live sound was far better than
the recorded whether it was by London, RCA or their own SF Media
recordings. Some critics have said that the recordings are better than
live, but I disagree. I find them invariably disappointing.
Off the topic, but I recently saw drawings of Atlanta's new hall, and
I'm troubled by the very high ceiling and distant walls around the
orchestra, even though Kirkegaard is very good (I think he redesigned
Davies' acoustics). I just don't see how there will be sufficiently
close reflective surfaces to give a sound with real presence. Oddly, I
had the same concerns when I saw the drawings for Davies before it was
built, and my fears came true. The fix, thankfully, has been largely
successful.
Rich Y
wind...@excite.com
> Let's see - that article is copyrighted 1982, revised 1984. The hall
had a
> major acoustical revamping in 1992. I don't know exactly when you
and Michael
> were there, but the article is not discussing the same place that
exists today
> and that has been there for around a dozen years now and is
distinctly superior
> to the original hall.
I merely was surprised at how Michael's description of the hall was in
alignment with my impression of the sound based on what I've heard on
national broadcasts of San Francisco Symphony concerts. By the way, I
heard syndicated feed a few days ago of the New York Philharmonic and
the sound was quite dry and strident, made more apparent because they
were performing a percussion- and brass-heavy piece by Stravinsky. I
know their hall was competely rebuilt a long time ago, obviously to not
a really satisfactory outcome. I don't know what the San Francisco
Symphony did with their room after 1992, but if its sound was very poor
before then, and if I or others notice aural weaknesses today, and if
an example of even a massive makeover, such as in New York, shows
success isn't guaranteed, then the field of sound engineering truly is
full of "quacks."
wind...@excite.com
> In a hall of this type (fan-shaped with a couple of
> balconies) the best location is usually at the front-center of the
> balconies and Davies is no exception.
I understand a fan shape tends to discourage good sound quality. I
would think that unless the renovation of 1992 involved something as
drastic as rebuilding the room to a rectangle, then at least one basic
component in altering its sound has yet to be addressed.
> The puzzling thing to me is that ever since
> the 1992 rebuild, the sound has continued to improve: The strings
have
> more body and the bass is stronger. I can't decide whether the
players
> are playing differently, or whether they are tweaking the hall but
the
> continuous improvement since 1992 has been a pleasure to observe.
I notice that certain compositions (for example, a Stravinsky compared
with a Mozart) will make a room sound harder or softer, rougher or
smoother, better or weaker. And the quality of playing, no doubt, also
will affect my impression of a room's sound. Since I mentioned the New
York Philharmonic's home previously, I've heard other concerts from
there as part of the orchestra's national broadcasts, and the sound on
those occasions has been a bit more satisfactory.
> Off the topic, but I recently saw drawings of Atlanta's new hall, and
> I'm troubled by the very high ceiling and distant walls around the
> orchestra, even though Kirkegaard is very good (I think he redesigned
> Davies' acoustics).
That hall's ceiling will be designed so that it can move up or down,
which will be quite unique. Whether such a very expensive feature will
be worth it is anyone's guess.
Michael
I thought I made it very clear that I wasn't referring to balance or
distortion:
"However, the problems I observed (or rather heard) back then were not
bad balance or that the hall favored certain parts of the sound
spectrum. It simply didn't resonate in any parts of the spectrum, and
the dynamic range of the orchestral sound was massively congested."
However, while every hall has better and worse spots, many of the
better halls give you generally good listening positions in many
different places. Obviously, balance and dynamics will be different in
each of those places. That can actually be very interesting though. The
problems I heard in that hall were much more fundamental. The sound,
whatever its actual balance was depending on my position relative to
the ensemble, simply didn't resonate well. But the worst problem was
that very strange dynamic compression effect. That shouldn't happen at
all if you sit close to the action.
That it does points to some very grave problems.
On most instruments, when they play louder, the basic note doesn't
actually increase that much in level. Certain parts of the overtone
spectrum increase in level, on some instruments very drastically
(especially the brass where the overtone spectrum becomes very rich
when they play louder, that's why they sound much brighter on loud
levels).
Apparently this hall "swallows" or crosscancels a lot of that part of
the spectrum. You may get a better balance in some seats, but I would
be very surprised if there were any sections in the hall which give you
a really true and dynamic sound picture.
Matthew Vaughan
news:1108597587....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Matthew Vaughan wrote:
>
>> Anstendig is a quack that doesn't know anything about acoustics.
>
> You and Michael are quite down on that person, and I'm not sure if
> that's based on specific information about his background or
> reputation, or if it's just a personal opinion.
For me it's based on the lack of viable or accurate information in all of
the writings of his that I've read. I don't mind someone having an
off-the-wall opinion or writing garbage in general, but when it's tarted up
as "research" from an "institute", it starts to feel fradulent, in addition
to being misleading to those that can't tell the difference. If you read his
opinions as you would a new-age quack with no knowledge about the topic
being discussed, then you'll be fine; just don't be fooled by the
quasi-academic trappings, and remember that anyone can put up a website or
call themselves an "institute".
> All I know is that most
> of the supposed experts in sound, at least in America, have reportedly
> come up with their fair share of duds, so from that standpoint the
> field of acoustic design can be described as full of "quacks."
I don't really agree with this. If you ask any of the practicing
professionals in the concert-hall acoustical field, they'll pretty much tell
you the same things. They may have their own pet methods to try to achieve
these ends, and they're always trying to experiment with getting a balance
of good results in constrained situations (the orchestra association wants
more seats than the acoustician feels is ideal, the architect wants a
particular shape or feature, there's not enough money in the budget, etc.),
but overall, I don't think any of them - Beranek, Johnson, Kirkegaard,
Jaffe, Harris, etc. - are quacks, and I don't think they disagree that much
with one another. Acoustics is an imperfect science in much the same way
medicine is - every patient is different, and every treatment has
side-effects. Even the same "forumla" that seems to work most of the time
may disappoint at others.
> And it's
> also a matter of perception too. For instance, you seem to be less
> bothered by some of the quirks in the room where the San Francisco
> Symphony holds their concerts, while Michael and I find them to be more
> noticeable or troubling.
I do find the quirks noticeable. However, form the seats that I generally
sit in, the sound is BETTER than in most other halls, such as very similar
seats (at nearly 2x the price) in Disney Hall. I agree that not all sections
in Davies sound great; I tend to avoid them for that reason. For instance,
I've avoided sitting in the balconies for most of the last decade.
>> (Also interesting is that Beranek's own most-recent design is on his
> own
>> self-compiled list of top-10 halls, amongst nearly no modern
> competition.
>> Hmm.)
>
> I understand that list is based on a survey of hundreds of people in
> the music profession, so I take it for what's it worth (and some may
> say "not much" or "hardly scientific or comprehensive enough").
Yes, I understand his methods (I've read the first two editions of his book
on acoustics, though not the very latest one), and in the case of the other
9 halls on the list, I'd say he's probably spot on. But the ONE new hall (so
new that few people have probably had a chance to hear a concert or perform
in yet) showing up is a bit suspicious... I'm sure it's good, but I bet
there are quite a few other good, recent halls that might sound as good.
> However, it's one reason I thought the newer room in Berlin wasn't as
> good as it could be, or not as good as the only new or younger hall
> that is included within that 10, which is a vineyard style hall in
> Britain and one that I've never heard anyone talk about before.
I've heard of that one (in Cardiff) several places, and it is supposed to be
quite good. Top 10 I have no idea. It's newish, but opened over 20 years
ago.
Matthew Vaughan
news:1108634049....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> I was there last April. That was the only time I have ever been there,
> so my experience with Davies is certainly not completely
> representative. However, the problems I observed (or rather heard) back
> then were not bad balance or that the hall favored certain parts of the
> sound spectrum. It simply didn't resonate in any parts of the spectrum,
> and the dynamic range of the orchestral sound was massively congested.
> The hall seems to be a really effective resonance and reverb killer. I
> was actually sitting directly next to the orchestra where such effects
> should not be so noticeable. But they were. That doesn't leave much
> hope for other parts of the hall further away.
Again, if you were sitting in a side terrace seat, the sound there is
considerably different that out in the hall, and it's not just the balance
of sections (though that's certainly not ideal either). Despite the lack of
a proscenium, out in the orchestra (main floor) seating is a different sound
world from around the side/rear edges of the stage, which are cramped under
the reflecting panels and under the swooping sidewall reflectors as well.
The sound doesn't really "project" to there as a coherent and airy whole as
it does when you sit out in the hall.
Michael
I have been in many seats in similar "compromised" positions in Berlin,
and I never had that kind of compression or lack of tonal color problem
there.
Michael
I have to strongly disagee here. Disney has quite natural colors and
very good presence and dynamics in different parts of the auditorium.
So far, I have been behind, at the sides, in front of the orchestra and
was always happy. Except for the people talking during the music!!!
However, I still know Davies from only that one (very sad) experience.
The next time I show up in SF, I will contact you for advice on where
to sit! You are apparently based in the area or visit it often.
wind...@excite.com
Matthew Vaughan wrote:
> Yes, I understand his methods (I've read the first two editions of
his book
> on acoustics, though not the very latest one), and in the case of the
other
> 9 halls on the list, I'd say he's probably spot on. But the ONE new
hall (so
> new that few people have probably had a chance to hear a concert or
perform
> in yet) showing up is a bit suspicious... I'm sure it's good, but I
bet
> there are quite a few other good, recent halls that might sound as
good.
> I've heard of that one (in Cardiff) several places, and it is
supposed to be
> quite good. Top 10 I have no idea. It's newish, but opened over 20
years
> ago.
After reading your comments and re-reading that article I had a link
to, I realize I overlooked the other new hall on that list. It's the
one in Tokyo, and now that you mention it, it is a bit self-serving or
quite biased when the other newer hall on that list was one worked on
by the same person who compiled the survey.
And my comments about "quacks" refers to the fact that all of the
leading experts, at least most of the ones you mentioned, have come up
with their fair share of duds, the most recent being the person who
designed the sound for the Philadelphia Symphony's room. In other
words, in spite of all those consultants' experience and knowledge,
they still can't guarantee the success of their work.
1. Grosser Musikvereinssaal, Vienna (1870)
2. Symphony Hall, Boston (1900)
3. Teatro Colón, Buenos Aires (1908)
4. Konzerthaus, Berlin (1821, rebuilt after WWII)
5. Concertgebouw, Amsterdam (1888)
6. Tokyo Opera City Concert Hall, Tokyo (1997)
7. Grosser Tonhallesaal, Zurich (1895)
8. Carnegie Hall, New York City (1891)
9. Stadt-Casino, Basel (1876)
10. St. David's Hall, Cardiff (1982)
wind...@excite.com
> I have been in many seats in similar "compromised" positions in
Berlin,
> and I never had that kind of compression or lack of tonal color
problem
> there.
As I mentioned before, the sound I heard on a broadcast of the San
Francisco Symphony last year had so much of the compressed quality you
refer to that I thought the engineers had misadjusted their mikes or
console.
Matthew Vaughan
news:1108676112.3...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Richy the X-SDA wrote:
>
>> In a hall of this type (fan-shaped with a couple of
>> balconies) the best location is usually at the front-center of the
>> balconies and Davies is no exception.
>
> I understand a fan shape tends to discourage good sound quality. I
> would think that unless the renovation of 1992 involved something as
> drastic as rebuilding the room to a rectangle, then at least one basic
> component in altering its sound has yet to be addressed.
The main floor area in Davies is essentially rectangular. And being
fan-shaped, or other shaped, doesn't NECESSARILY prevent sound from being
good. It's just that a rectangular shape (particularly below a certain size)
starts off with many desirable characteristics without needing to add or
obtain them in other ways.
Matthew Vaughan
>
> I thought I made it very clear that I wasn't referring to balance or
> distortion:
> "However, the problems I observed (or rather heard) back then were not
> bad balance or that the hall favored certain parts of the sound
> spectrum. It simply didn't resonate in any parts of the spectrum, and
> the dynamic range of the orchestral sound was massively congested."
> However, while every hall has better and worse spots, many of the
> better halls give you generally good listening positions in many
> different places. Obviously, balance and dynamics will be different in
> each of those places. That can actually be very interesting though. The
> problems I heard in that hall were much more fundamental. The sound,
> whatever its actual balance was depending on my position relative to
> the ensemble, simply didn't resonate well. But the worst problem was
> that very strange dynamic compression effect. That shouldn't happen at
> all if you sit close to the action.
I'm not sure why sitting "close to the action" should improve that. I've
spent plenty of time playing in orchestras (and singing in choruses), and a
lot of the time, I sure hope the audience gets better sound than we do (this
applies to many, if not most of the halls I've played in). Being on stage
and in the middle of the action can sound very congested, not to mention
unbalanced - very much like the terrace seats in Davies, which are
practically onstage (other than being elevated a few feet).
I understand what you are saying, and I agree that this is characteristic of
the terrace sections in Davies, but not of other parts of the hall.
> That it does points to some very grave problems.
> On most instruments, when they play louder, the basic note doesn't
> actually increase that much in level. Certain parts of the overtone
> spectrum increase in level, on some instruments very drastically
> (especially the brass where the overtone spectrum becomes very rich
> when they play louder, that's why they sound much brighter on loud
> levels).
> Apparently this hall "swallows" or crosscancels a lot of that part of
> the spectrum. You may get a better balance in some seats, but I would
> be very surprised if there were any sections in the hall which give you
> a really true and dynamic sound picture.
I think you should go to more concerts there and sit in different sections.
The terrace seats are not at all representative of the hall as a whole.
Granted, not every other section sounds great either, but some do, and most
don't sound much like the terraces.
Some people recommend front and center of the balcony, as in many other
halls - that would be the Loge, basically the most expensive seats in the
house. Another friend of mine swears by the center seats in the very back
row of the Second Tier, seats in which I've experienced good sound in other
halls (and available at a bargain price). Personally, I find the balconies a
bit distant, both visually and acoustically (the redesigned reflector array
is intended to direct more sound to the floor, which it does well, perhaps
at the expense of the balconies), so I recommend the Upper Orchestra - the
best guaranteed (anywhere in the section) combination of good sound and good
view, all for one of the lowest prices available in Davies.
Matthew Vaughan
>
> I have to strongly disagee here. Disney has quite natural colors and
> very good presence and dynamics in different parts of the auditorium.
> So far, I have been behind, at the sides, in front of the orchestra and
> was always happy. Except for the people talking during the music!!!
> However, I still know Davies from only that one (very sad) experience.
> The next time I show up in SF, I will contact you for advice on where
> to sit! You are apparently based in the area or visit it often.
Yes, I am in the SF Bay Area. As I've already said, I think Disney's
advantage is probaby that you get decent sound from most anywhere. Davies
does have some lackluster sections (though the terraces, for one, have other
attractions) - but the best, in my opinion, are as good as or better than in
Disney. When I went to the concert in Disney, I was expecting it to be
notably better than what I was accustomed to, but came away with a mild
sense of disappointment. It seemed different, but not better. I still
thought it might have some advantages over Davies in terms of balance (upper
strings, woodwinds), with the disadvantage being a lack of excitement to the
sound, but when I went to a concert in Davies the next week, I changed my
mind, as the sound in Davies matched or exceeded it in every way. I will
have to go back to Disney and sit various places to be sure, though - I
think I was sitting in a ~$90 Terrace seat there, and if that section is
below average in sound somehow, that would be good to know.
Again, my personal recommendation in Davies is the "Upper Orchestra"
section, at the rear of the main floor - it's also cheaper than any other
section except the second tier. (I say this at my peril, since if too many
people catch on, that section will sell out more often or start going up in
price!)
Matthew Vaughan
>
> I have been in many seats in similar "compromised" positions in Berlin,
> and I never had that kind of compression or lack of tonal color problem
> there.
Berlin doesn't really have any similar seats, since the orchestra is
positioned more toward the center of the room.
Michael
Certainly not the balance. You will never get a "perfect mix" from that
perspective. But basic tonal character and especially dynamics should
be fairly unobstructed because you get a lot direct sound.
> I've
> spent plenty of time playing in orchestras
What instrument do you play?
Michael
But you have a lot of seats just to the side of the orchestra, and
slightly above it. Actually, you are sitting a little higher above the
orchestra, so you get a little less direct sound from some of the
sections "down there". Still, you get a much more balanced and lively
sound there.
Of course, and I just realized I may not have taken that enough into
account, the orchestra also simply has much more sound substance and
dynamic range than the SFS, which came to Berlin a few times, but I
never heard them there, and neither have I heard the BP in SF. The only
orchestras I have heard in different halls are the BP (Philharmonie and
Konzerthaus Berlin), the WP (PhB and Musikverein Vienna), Concertgebouw
(Ph, and a very large hall in Kiel, unfortunately never in Amsterdam,
although I heard the Netherlands RSO there) and the LAP (Ph, Dorothy
Chandler Pavillion, Disney). The SFS came to San Diego recently, but I
didn't hear the concert.
Eric Nagamine
SFSO broadcasts are compressed. I haven't heard an off air broadcast or
webcast where the signal wasn't severely compressed.
--
-----------
Aloha and Mahalo,
Eric Nagamine
http://home.hawaii.rr.com/mahlerb/broadcaststartpage.html
wind...@excite.com
Eric Nagamine wrote:
> SFSO broadcasts are compressed. I haven't heard an off air broadcast
or
> webcast where the signal wasn't severely compressed.
Why would their sound engineers do that? It's baffling to me that the
front office of the San Francisco Symphony, assuming they tune in and
listen on occasion, would ever allow such an unflattering sound to go
out to stations picking up their program. I've listened to other
broadcasts of a few major orchestras here and abroad that distribute
their concerts (for instance, the Chicago Symphony), and I've noticed
sound qualities distinctive to each of them. Those that are known for
performing in compromised environments, such as Davies, do offer a less
ideal sound, which I have detected even from a distance.
I notice you have attended concerts at the SF Symphony orchestra's
home, and I wish there were others in this newsgroup who could provide
some added insight into the sound quality of Davies.
Matthew Vaughan
>
> Matthew Vaughan wrote:
>> "Michael" <msch...@gmx.net> wrote in message
>> news:1108690091....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > I have been in many seats in similar "compromised" positions in
> Berlin,
>> > and I never had that kind of compression or lack of tonal color
> problem
>> > there.
>>
>> Berlin doesn't really have any similar seats, since the orchestra is
>> positioned more toward the center of the room.
>
> But you have a lot of seats just to the side of the orchestra, and
> slightly above it. Actually, you are sitting a little higher above the
> orchestra, so you get a little less direct sound from some of the
> sections "down there". Still, you get a much more balanced and lively
> sound there.
Yes, but what I mean is that the Philharmonie is more open around the stage.
There is plenty of space above the orchestra on all sides, and while the
distances vary, there is no real "sending" or "receiving" end to the room.
While Davies is "open", without a proscenium, it definitly has a "sending"
configuration around the stage, with the intent that the sound be "received"
on the main floor and in the balconies. The terraces are part of the
"sending" end, and hence don't get the normal sound.
> Of course, and I just realized I may not have taken that enough into
> account, the orchestra also simply has much more sound substance and
> dynamic range than the SFS, which came to Berlin a few times, but I
> never heard them there, and neither have I heard the BP in SF.
I did hear the Berlin Phil. in Davies. They are a marvelous orchestra, with
a great deal of clarity to their playing (as well as wonderful nuances of
phrasing). Interesting was that they sounded, to me, distinctly like the
Berlin Philharmonic, rather than just "an orchestra" playing in Davies (just
as the Concertgebouw Orchestra sounded like the CO, the St. Petersburgh
Phil. sounded like itself, etc.). You're right that the performers do make a
difference to how the room sounds. With the SFS, the conductor can make a
difference too, and I attribute much of the sonic improvement over the last
decade to MTT's different emphasis in terms of string sound, and attention
to balance as it is heard in the hall (plus a bit more tinkering with the
overhead reflectors, on-stage diffusers, etc.).
Matthew Vaughan
>
> Matthew Vaughan wrote:
>>
>> I'm not sure why sitting "close to the action" should improve that.
>
> Certainly not the balance. You will never get a "perfect mix" from that
> perspective. But basic tonal character and especially dynamics should
> be fairly unobstructed because you get a lot direct sound.
My experience from playing in orchestras is that this is not necessarily
true. Sound on stage often gets oppressive and/or congested when the volume
rises, while out on the hall it may "bloom" in a more natural way.
> What instrument do you play?
Bass. So I tend to sit near the edge of the stage (or at least I did when I
was playing regularly), which is fairly similar to the side terrace seats
(though I've never played in Davies).
wind...@excite.com
>
> Yes, I am in the SF Bay Area. As I've already said, I think Disney's
> advantage is probaby that you get decent sound from most anywhere.
Davies
> does have some lackluster sections (though the terraces, for one,
have other
> attractions) - but the best, in my opinion, are as good as or better
than in
> Disney.
When I read this in today's Chicago Sun-Times, an article about the
Chicago Symphony Orchestra having to find a replacement for their
current direction, Daniel Barenboim, I thought of the discussion
between you and Michael. When it comes to a few aspects of the
classical music scene today, you folks in California are in a nice
position:
But the CSO's emphasis on the bond between music director and orchestra
and an orchestra and its home city isn't simply a yearning for some
imagined good old days. San Francisco and Los Angeles enjoy brilliant
matches between music director and ensemble. Michael Tilson Thomas, 60,
who is celebrating his 10th anniversary as the San Francisco Symphony's
music director, is as popular as a rock star in the City by the Bay. In
Los Angeles, the young Finnish conductor Esa-Pekka Salonen, 46, has
attracted a varied audience with innovative programming and solid
musicianship. The orchestra's move into Frank Gehry's boldly designed
Walt Disney Hall only raised the orchestra's profile.
> When I went to the concert in Disney, I was expecting it to be
> notably better than what I was accustomed to, but came away with a
mild
> sense of disappointment. It seemed different, but not better. I still
> thought it might have some advantages over Davies in terms of balance
(upper
> strings, woodwinds), with the disadvantage being a lack of excitement
to the
> sound, but when I went to a concert in Davies the next week, I
changed my
> mind, as the sound in Davies matched or exceeded it in every way.
This makes me think of the times I've flip flopped in my impressions of
the sound of certain concerts. I was listening to a broadcast of the
New York Philharmonic awhile back and thinking, hmmmm, that sounds
quite good. My response was puzzling to me because it contradicted the
way I've felt in the past and also because I'm aware of the reputation
of the Philharmonic's home.
Because the Boston Symphony has a hall considered by most experts as
the best in country, I have long favored recordings made by that band
and think of them and their home (although more the latter than the
former since the quality of the BSO has slipped over the years) as an
ideal reference point. And so I switched on my tape (but I also could
have used my discs or even vinyl) of the BSO, and it was then that I
could more clearly understand the different nuances and qualities
between a performance in one location and a performance in another. In
other words, my ears were able to juggle with and adjust to the
different sounds, which allowed me to figure out why my gut reaction to
one was more positive than the other.
Michael
I don't quite understand what you mean here.
Michael
Matthew Vaughan wrote:
> "Michael" <msch...@gmx.net> wrote in message
> news:1108694003....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Matthew Vaughan wrote:
> >>
> >> I'm not sure why sitting "close to the action" should improve
that.
> >
> > Certainly not the balance. You will never get a "perfect mix" from
that
> > perspective. But basic tonal character and especially dynamics
should
> > be fairly unobstructed because you get a lot direct sound.
>
> My experience from playing in orchestras is that this is not
necessarily
> true. Sound on stage often gets oppressive and/or congested when the
volume
> rises, while out on the hall it may "bloom" in a more natural way.
In "front box" type of halls or theatres or in orchestra pits, yes, but
in an open hall like Davies, that shouldn't be.
> > What instrument do you play?
>
> Bass. So I tend to sit near the edge of the stage (or at least I did
when I
> was playing regularly), which is fairly similar to the side terrace
seats
> (though I've never played in Davies).
I play the bass too. I hope you don't still play with the French bow.
That is an error. Now that you have seen the BP live, you don't have an
excuse anymore!
wind...@excite.com
applies to not just the the home of the musicians in Philadephia or
Maryland, but to almost any hall out there: "One starts to suspect that
luck is a main ingredient."
Strathmore, a New Concert Hall
By Pierre Ruhe
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Sunday, February 6, 2005
North Bethesda, MD - When a $100 million concert hall opens, the
make-or-break question concerns acoustics: How does it sound? When the
Music Center at Strathmore opened Saturday night in this affluent
Washington, DC suburb, the question held implications that extended far
beyond the home audience - as far as Baltimore and Atlanta.
The Baltimore Symphony Orchestra and its chronically poetic Russian
conductor, Yuri Temirkanov, played the black-tie and bejeweled opening
gala and, in coming seasons, are booked for 40 visits a year. Maryland
Governor Robert Ehrlich, Jr. and Montgomery County Executive Doug
Duncan delivered speeches in the "I paid for this microphone"
tradition: the center was built entirely from public funds, split
between state and county.
For Atlanta, the connection comes with Larry Kirkegaard, the
acoustician who designed Strathmore's sound. His firm, the
Chicago-based Kirkegaard Associates, also designed the acoustics for
Emory University's Emerson Concert Hall and - his highest profile
job to date - will engineer the acoustics for the Atlanta Symphony
Orchestra's planned Symphony Center.
Saturday's program held a mish-mash of short pieces, some better
indicators of acoustics than others. A few works, like "the Waltz of
the Flowers" from Tchaikovsky's "The Nutcracker," was played
with Temirkanov's delightful combination of elegance and earthiness.
Star cellist Yo-Yo Ma was on hand, too, as he often is at big-budget
occasions. His lean tone came through loud, clear and pure. A pair of
sopranos, Harolyn Blackwell and Janice Chandler-Eteme, sang with verve
but there was little bloom in their voices and their diction, to my
ears in the first balcony, arrived garbled.
The musical highlight of the evening came from Baltimore-educated
composer Michael Hersch. His earlier works were bursting with ideas
that sometimes remained embedded in a dense, gloomy thicket of notes.
"Arrache," commissioned for the occasion, opens in a quiet,
atmospheric fog, pierced by woodwinds and growling low strings. Buzzing
passages lead to agitated jolts from various groups within the
orchestra. If some moments evoked Ligeti's buzzing sound-sculptures
or Stravinsky's rhythmic energy, the whole was recognizable Hersch,
urgent, expressive, impressive to hear. "Arrache" might be the
break-through piece for this young composer. I wished they'd played
it twice.
So to return to the big question: the Strathmore sound is good but not
as dazzling as other recent venues, including Disney Hall in Los
Angeles and the Meyerson in Dallas.
A concert hall is the instrument of the orchestra. At Strathmore, bass
notes and middle-register tones were warm, but not tear-drop shaped,
and the violins lacked sheen in higher frequencies. Overall, the
orchestra's timbre was true and immediate, but Strathmore lacks the
luster and balance that characterizes the world's best concert halls.
Is the problem that the players haven't adjusted to their new sonic
environment, despite the fact that they've been rehearsing here for
four months? Or that the hall's complex system of sound-absorbing
banners (similar to Emory's Emerson) still hasn't been mastered to
best effect? Or, the simplest answer, that the hall's acoustics are
inconsistent?
And compared to the ASO's current home? It bears repeating that
Atlanta Symphony Hall is the worst major-orchestra venue in America;
Strathmore, in comparison, seems a miracle.
Strathmore's relatively minor acoustical shortcomings are especially
puzzling - or troubling - because the center hired the same team
that created the excellent Ozawa Hall in Massachusetts: Acoustician
Kirkegaard and architect William Rawn. They were given creative freedom
to build the best hall they could, yet they couldn't duplicate their
earlier triumph. Is building a concert hall pseudo-science artistry?
One starts to suspect that luck is a main ingredient.
Matthew Vaughan
>
> Matthew Vaughan wrote:
>>
>> Bass. So I tend to sit near the edge of the stage (or at least I did
> when I
>> was playing regularly), which is fairly similar to the side terrace
> seats
>> (though I've never played in Davies).
>
> I play the bass too. I hope you don't still play with the French bow.
> That is an error. Now that you have seen the BP live, you don't have an
> excuse anymore!
I was a cello player first, so I always preferred French. I tried German for
a while (my teacher played German, and for one or two concerts in college a
good French bow was unavailable so I was forced to adapt), but it didn't
seem to have quite the advantages I thought it might, at least for me. I
don't really think the type of bow matters much, it's a matter of mastering
whichever one you happen to choose.
Michael
Philharmonic basses in action? I am deeply disappointed with you,
Matthew.
BTW, if you still play: let me tell you that all the "German" bows I
have seen outside Germany have a much too big frog, they all freeze up
the hand. Get a bow with a small German frog. Let your hand wrap around
it naturally, like shaking somebody's hand. Shaking, not squeezing. Put
your middle and index finger on the side of the stick, forget about
your thumb completely - it may rest on the stick if it likes, but
without applying any pressure - relax your wrist, but don't let it go
slack. Don't bend it. Let it come out at the natural angle it extends
from the arm. Good. Now you are ready to enjoy all the freedom of
playing and tone control you never thought was even remotely possible
with the French bow. Don't press on the string, just let the natural
weight of your arm rest on it and let it dig into the string. Play away
from it rather than pressing down. Control your arm and hand from the
shoulder rather than scratching into the string with a cramped hand.
When you play tremolo, relax and just shake your arm from the shoulder.
Yes. I can see you understand what I mean. Shame all your French bow
colleagues who are scratching at the string with your freely swinging,
full tone, and your flamboyantly free control of the bow from frog to
tip. Ever thought Beethoven 7 was difficult to play? Not with the right
equipment.
wind...@excite.com
http://www.musicweb-international.com/SandH/2005/Jan-Jun05/verizon.htm
Here are the key passages:
A great hall: is it or isn't it?
by Bernard Jacobson
The headline in the Philadelphia Inquirer was pretty alarming:
"Study: Verizon Hall needs major work on acoustics," the paper
proclaimed on 30 January, over an article by Peter Dobrin, who used to
be listed as "music critic" but is now described below his byline
as a "culture writer."
...Now we move from plain fact to the realm of judgment. Acoustics,
after all, cannot be restricted within the confines of an exact
science. You can measure the elements of sound scientifically as much
as you like, but in the end the experience of a concertgoer is a
personal matter. There was a good deal of dispute initially about the
success or otherwise of Verizon's acoustics, some critics finding the
sound uneven or lacking in "presence," others (and many orchestra
members) expressing more positive feelings. I am only one concertgoer,
if an exceptionally experienced one, so that my opinion is necessarily
personal. My first reaction was that the hall had the potential to be
as great acoustically as it is beautiful visually, but that until the
orchestra (and its conductors) grew accustomed to their new
environment, there would obviously be a need for adjustments. To my
ear, the problem did not lie in a lack of resonance, but rather in a
certain fierceness, or glare, in the overall sonority. At that first
concert, however, the sound of the orchestra already had more cohesion,
color, and impact than it had ever had in the 17 years I had been
hearing it in the Academy, where even after some recent structural
adjustments it had sounded distant, thin, lacking in body (especially
in the bass register), and curiously uncoordinated, with the first
violins in particular seeming to be playing in a quite separate
acoustical environment from the other sections.
But what needs to be made crystal clear at this point is that, like all
Russell Johnson's designs, the hall's acoustics were conceived with
the explicit purpose of gradual adjustment, using such resources as
large resonating chambers with 105 doors that could all individually be
closed or more or less widely opened, an adjustable canopy over the
stage, and other such elements. Johnson himself said that it would take
three years for the best settings for various different orchestral
complements and musical repertoires to be found and established, and he
has since told me to "keep in mind that my three-year rule doesn't
always work. Sometimes it is five years!"
Starting back in 2001, the adjustment process duly began, with Johnson
and his Artec colleagues often in personal attendance. Over the first
two years or so, the sound gradually improved, to the point where many
of my experienced musician friends in the audience, and I myself, felt
that we were getting close to an ideal sound, allowing for the
consideration that no hall in the world is perfect - there are always
trade-offs balancing one acoustical quality against another. Conductors
of visiting orchestras, such as the Royal Concertgebouw from Amsterdam
and the Berlin Philharmonic, expressed enormous pleasure at playing in
the hall.
Early in 2004, Sir Simon Rattle remarked after his latest appearance in
Verizon, "We always knew it was going to be a great hall, and now it
is." That was even before the dramatic change that I, in common with
many others, experienced last autumn. With the opening of the
Philadelphia Orchestra 2004/05 season, most of what small shortcomings
remained seemed to have suddenly melted away. Delighted with the
glorious sound I heard that evening, I went backstage to ask music
director Christoph Eschenbach what had happened. He told me that he had
been equally astonished and pleased at the start of rehearsals. It
turned out that, with the installation of the organ console during the
summer break, the walls to both sides of it behind the stage had been
solidified. The results since then have been consistently thrilling.
Among the most satisfying evenings, acoustically as well as musically
speaking, was a performance of the Brahms German Requiem, at which not
even the fullest fortissimos from a large and well-trained chorus
prevented the first violins or the other orchestral sections from
sounding out with marvelous warmth and clarity.
It is clear that some cost-cutting during the hall's construction led
to issues that it will be expensive to address. The report acknowledged
further that, in consequence of such issues, the hall suffered from a
"low level of reverberance" and a "relatively low level of impact
of the orchestral sound." Here, perhaps, we come back to personal
judgments. It may be that "relatively" is the crucial operative
word. It is the position of both the orchestra's and the Kimmel
Center's administration that the hall is already extremely good. It
is my own personal position, and one shared with many good musicians,
that it belongs among the best acoustical environments to be
encountered anywhere in the world.
To sum up, most performers love the sound of the hall - I have not
done a statistical analysis, but I have talked to quite a number of
musicians, and the word "most" fairly describes the proportion of
enthusiasts among them. Most audience members love it. I love it
myself. It could be better. At some point, with further adjustment to
the positions of doors and canopies, and with or without major
expenditure to remedy the acknowledged constructional deficiencies, it
probably will be. But as of now, Verizon is a wonderful hall, and it
would be a thousand pities if the Inquirer's horror story were to
undermine local confidence and pleasure in its possession.