©1984 Mark B. Anstendig
(This paper
should be read in conjunction with The Anstendig Institute's papers on sound
equalization and hearing, which are available upon request.)
The acoustics of any hall, as
perceived by a member of the audience, consist of three factors: volume,
equalization, and reverberation (i.e., reflected sound).
VOLUME
Volume, easily understood as
the loudness of sound, needs clarification in relation to acoustics.
Technically, volume is referred to as sound-pressure-level and is measured in
units called decibels. Subjectively, one decibel is the smallest difference in
loudness that the human ear is supposed to be able to perceive. Objectively,
six decibels is the amount sound becomes louder or softer if the distance from
the sound source is halved or doubled.
In a concert hall, the sound
one hears consists of 1) directly radiated sound and 2) reflected sound.
1) Directly radiated sound,
referred to as primary sound, is the sound that reaches the ear directly from
the source.
2) Reflected sound is the sound
that reaches the ear after being reflected off the various surfaces of the hall
(walls, ceiling, etc.). It is usually confused with and mistakenly referred to
as reverberation.
Although the sound one
perceives consists of both primary sound and reflected sound, the primary sound
determines the perceived volume level. This is appreciably louder because 1)
sound becomes softer in proportion to the square of the distance traveled and
the reflected sound travels a much longer distance, and 2) sound is partly
absorbed and diffused by the reflecting surface. Therefore, reflected sound
normally plays a negligible role in the actual perceived volume level.
Primary sound and reflected
sound are essentially two separately arriving sounds of different volume
levels. A characteristic of hearing is that the loudness of two sounds of
different volume is not perceived as the sum of the two. The combined sounds
are perceived as being only as loud as the louder of the two sound-sources. The
louder sound determines the apparent volume level; the less loud sound does not
add appreciably to the perceived volume level. This can be demonstrated in a
room with four speakers, one in each corner. If the speakers play with unequal
volume levels, the sound will always seem to be coming from the direction of
the loudest speaker even with differences in volume as small as a few decibels.
It only becomes obvious that the other speakers are playing if they are
switched off.
In everyday life, most
sound-environments are full of sound-absorbing objects and materials and,
because one is usually close to the sound source, reflecting surfaces are
proportionally much farther away. Therefore, the ear is conditioned to hear a
relationship of primary to reflected sound in which the volume of the reflected
sound is so much lower than the primary sound that one is not aware of it. This apparent relationship between the volume of direct and reflected sound must be preserved if the sound in a concert hall is to seem natural. Because one is quieter, calmer,
more relaxed, and more concentrated than usual during a concert, perception of
subtleties is heightened. Therefore, for the sound to seem natural, the
proportionate volume level of reflected sound relative to primary sound must be
somewhat less than in real-life.
EQUALIZATION
Equalization is essentially a
further delineation of volume. Sound consists of vibrations (frequencies) of
different speeds (cycles per second, or Hz), from approximately 20 Hz to 17,000
Hz, with most sounds lying within 40 Hz to 12,000 Hz. The equalization of sound
is the volume of all the frequencies in relation to each other. If the
equalization of a hall is correct, a sound from the stage in which all
frequencies are equally loud will reach the audience in exactly that same volume
relationship. If the volume level of some frequencies in relation to the others
is changed when the sound reaches the audience, the hall is unequalized and
does not radiate all frequencies correctly. In other words, the equalization of
a hall is a function of volume in that it deals with whether the different
frequencies reach the audience in their original volume relationship to each
other, or whether the hall distorts that original balance, transmitting
some frequencies more strongly than others.
How sounds radiate from their
sources (their dispersion characteristics) differs over the frequency spectrum.
Lower vibrations radiate almost equally in all directions, while higher
frequencies radiate more directly in straight lines. Because strongly
reflective surfaces usually change the frequency balance in favor of the more
directly radiating higher frequencies, the reflecting surfaces of a hall have
to be carefully designed to not change the equalization. That holds true for
the directly-radiating surfaces of the stage as well as the reflecting surfaces
of the hall.
Ideally, a concert hall should
not favor the high frequencies, but should have a mellow, warm sound, i.e., it
should slightly subdue the higher frequencies. The more mellow the sound, the
more freedom the musicians have in the manner in which they can produce and
articulate the sounds. The less the hall highlights the higher frequencies, the
greater the range of dynamics (from triple-pianissimo to triple-fortissimo) and
the more types of attack (from sweet dolce to vigorous, biting accents) the
musician can make use of while retaining beauty of tone. But, in a bright hall,
all hard accents and biting attacks sound overly harsh and stringent. The sound
in loud passages has a harsh, biting edge. To compensate, the musicians have to
avoid the more vigorous, biting attacks and accents, and the dynamics have to
be kept down if the sound is to remain listenable. The strings, for example,
cannot really "dig in" and play full out with plenty of bow-pressure
and a big tone. If they do, the sound is hard, harsh, and edgy.
Equalization is the most
important single factor in any acoustic, and, in fact, in sound itself. It is
the factor that most obviously changes the quality of a sound. Anyone with a
hi-fi system that includes an equalizer can easily find this out by observing
the differences in the sound when the frequency balance is changed. But, for
decades, people have been hearing grossly unequalized, distorted sound
reproduction (recordings, live broadcasts, live sound reinforcement).1 They have been conditioned to ignore the distortions of unequalized sound, have
become used to them, and thus do not notice that, in a bad acoustic, the
equalization is inevitably the worst factor.
REVERBERATION and REFLECTED SOUND
Reverberation is the most
misunderstood and least important of the factors. Reverberation is the process
of the reflected sound bouncing back and forth off all reflecting surfaces
until it stops. The word "reverberation" is the wrong term to describe
what is actually heard. The sound quality that is heard and called
reverberation is actually the result of only the first-arriving reflected
sound. These sound effects, wrongly referred to as reverberation, are
understood and discussed only in terms of reverberation time, but actually
consist of two other factors: volume and reflection time.
The more important of these
factors is the volume. If the reflected sound is so soft as to be covered (masked)
by the primary sound, it will obviously not make the slightest difference
except in the pauses. The time factor only plays a role when the volume of the
measured reverberated sound is loud enough to be perceived, however subtly, by
the listener. In a concert hall, the important point to remember is that the volume of reflected sound should not be loud enough to be consciously heard,
even when the tensions of the body have relaxed and the listener is hearing
very loudly.2
The characteristics of primary
sound do not change. Therefore, the first-arriving reflections determine the
character of a hall's acoustic because they are the only reflected sounds loud
enough to affect the sound's characteristics.
The simple mathematical
difference between the arrival-time of the primary and reflected sound is the
pertinent time-factor in acoustics: reflected-sound-time minus
primary-sound-time equals reflection time. This interval is purely a function
of the size and shape of a hall. Reflected sound can also be measured from the
source, in which case it becomes simply the time it takes for the sound to
travel to the reflecting surface and back to the source. This measurement
indicates how the performers, not the audience, experience the sound.
The concept of "reverberation
time" as a meaningful acoustical measurement is wrong. It does not
represent actual listening experience. In actual listening, there is no one
single time for reflected sound to reach a listener. All sounds continue
reverberating back and forth off all surfaces until they die down to absolutely
nothing. But we can only perceive the reverberating sound while it is still
loud enough to be heard. The misunderstanding stems from the measuring
technique.
The value stated as the
reverberation time is an arbitrarily chosen value that is supposed to represent
the point at which the reverberating sound has died down to a volume level so
weak that it essentially is no longer present (1/1,000,000th of the original
volume). In a hall with a measured one second reverberation time, the sound
would actually lose approximately 75% of its loudness in the first 1/lOth of a
second. It would be almost instantly covered by the continuing sounds of the
music and, in pauses, will be covered by the room's natural noise level
(ambient sound) long before it becomes 1/l,OOO,OOOth of its original volume.
The measuring instrument registers the first-arriving (direct) sound and then
records the length of time it takes for that sound to die down (decay) to that
irrelevant, insignificant volume level. But this measurement is worthless
because it neither tells the actual time it takes for the reverberations to
stop nor does it tell anything about the really important, bearable sound
events that happen in between. Any effect the reflected sound would have on the
acoustic qualities of that room would happen long before the measurement was
reached.
Although no instrumental
measurements can duplicate the way the reflected sound is actually perceived,
they can provide helpful information. A more difficult, but more meaningful
measurement for acoustical evaluation would be to measure the time-interval
between the first arrival (direct sound) and the very next few arrivals (the
first-arriving reflections) along with their volume-levels. Careful tabulation
of that information for a large number of concert halls would probably lead to
insights into the real differences between good and bad halls.
The first-arriving sound
reflections are necessarily the loudest. But it is impossible to establish a
single reflection time. The reflecting surfaces are at differing distances from
the listener. Sound reflected off the ceiling, the side-walls, the back wall,
and the wall behind the performer will reach the listener at different time
intervals since each of these surfaces (even each segment of the surface) is at
a different distance from the performer and the listener. Also, a measuring
instrument has no way of telling whether the sound reaching it is a first
arrival from a far wall or a second, third or fiftieth arrival from a near
wall. Since all of the bearable reflections arrive so quickly, they amount to a
steady sound made up of the many arrivals of reflected sound which are so close
together that they cannot be registered separately.
There is a prevalent
misunderstanding that reverberation is something beneficial that can be added
to sounds at will within a wide range of parameters. Reverberation is really a
PROBLEM that has to be controlled, and not a benefit for which it is only a
matter of finding the ideal amount, and the more the merrier.
What reverberation amounts to
is repetitions of progressively more and more distorted reflected sound because
no surface reflects all frequencies equally. When loud enough to be heard, the
effect of these reflections is similar to the effect of reprinting the same
picture a number of times on top of itself, with each reprint shifted slightly
and the color-values changed. The result on paper is a blur, and conically the
result of repeated, bearable reflections is also a blur. The prevalent idea
that a long "reverberation time" can be excellent for a Mahler
symphony but wrong for the speaking voice (because speech would be rendered
unintelligible) is not valid. If the reflections blur speech, they will also
blur the Mahler symphony. The problem in recognizing this fact is that, in the
Mahler symphony, it is the most subtle nuances, which are the most
difficult-to-hear aspects of sound, that are blurred. We are seldom able to be
aware of all the subtleties of nuance in fine music. It is therefore difficult
to know that those nuances have been eradicated, and a regular audience quickly
becomes used to music without them.
At the
Church
of
Saint John
the Divine in
New York City
, the reflection times are so long and
the reflections so loud that one can hear a distinct echo along with the many
arrivals. Anyone familiar with the acoustic of such a room will understand that
reverberation should be treated as a basically undesirable element to be held
to low limits, and not as a toy to be played with for various effects, as is
often the case with reverberation devices in sound-reproduction.
II. DAVIES HALL
REFLECTED SOUND
In Davies Hall, the main
problem with the reflected sound is that it is too loud, not that the
reverberation time is too long or too short. A single measurement of the hall's
reverberation time is meaningless since all four walls, the ceiling, and the
reflectors (which amount to a sixth, irregular, reflecting surface) are made of
materials with unnecessarily strong reflecting characteristics. Each of these
variously distanced surfaces reflects the sound audibly enough to cause
blurring and an exceedingly uneven equalization.
Instead of simply trusting the
instruments themselves to radiate into the hall, the design of Davies Hall
relies on reflections to distribute the sound. Such a design is doomed to a
sound that is blurred, unequalized, and has no resemblance to the sound
environments we live in. All the surfaces of the stage are as shiny and
reflective as could be achieved without simply installing mirrors. Since the
stage is set forward into the hall and has its own low reflecting wall behind
the players, the back wall of the hall becomes an extra reflecting surface. As
opposed to a conventional design, this arrangement produces an extra set of
strong reflections that further confuse the sound. In an attempt to distribute
the sound evenly throughout the hall, the reflecting surfaces are designed in
convex forms and incorporate added convex-shaped disks molded into them at key
reflecting points. The hanging reflectors are also convex. This diffuses the
sound and ruins much of the focus that the players attempt to achieve in their
tone production.
The effect of the excessive,
overly loud reflections in Davies Hall is a muddying of textures from the many
arrivals and a predominance of overtones, particularly in the mid-range
(approximately 200 to 2000 Hz). This is similar to the blurring that occurs
with overuse of the sustaining pedal of the piano. In fact, during a piano
recital, Claudio Arrau, who has an excellent ear for balances, was forced to
use either little pedal or no pedal at all in order to keep the textures clear,
more so from mid-keyboard on up than in the bass, which sounded proportionally
weak.
Davies Hall uses baffles to
supposedly change the reverberation time. But they do nothing of the sort: the
real reverberation time is a fixed physical entity almost infinitely longer
than the times that are measured. It is determined by the distance the sound travels
back and forth among the reflecting surfaces in relation to the point of
reference. The baffles in no way change these distances. They also cover only a
small percentage of the reflecting surfaces of the hall. What the baffles do is
absorb some, but not all, of the sound that would be reflected by the sections of the walls they are shielding. This somewhat reduces the volume of the
reflected sound and causes the instrument measuring the so-called reverberation
times to register a shorter interval. But the length of time for a sound to
truly die out remains essentially the same and the timing of the more important
first-arriving reflections remains the same.
The baffles do slightly reduce
the volume of the reflections, but mainly in the areas most affected by the
covered wall surfaces. This, in turn, changes the equalization of the hall
somewhat for the better by slightly reducing the high-frequency sizzle and
clarifies the sound a little bit by reducing the blurring. The point has
already been made that an acoustic that blurs one type of sound will blur all
others. The baffles should therefore be left down all the time, and more of
them on all of the walls would probably improve the acoustic immensely. But
that could be better accomplished by simply reducing the reflectivity of the
walls.
EQUALIZATION
The generally encountered
opinion that Davies Hall has an overly bright acoustic is correct.
A hall's acoustic is
"bright" when an unequal transmission of the frequency spectrum
favors the higher frequencies, i.e., in traveling from the stage to the
listener, the balance of the higher to the lower frequencies changes, the
higher frequencies becoming louder in proportion to the lower frequencies. In
Davies Hall, this greater proportion of high frequencies peaks in the 2500 to
5000 Hz range, which is unfortunate because of two natural phenomena: 1) the
sensitivity of our hearing is greatest in this range, becoming greater with
increasing volume and 2) the overtones of most instruments, and especially the
human voice, peak in this range (2500 to 3500 Hz). Since Davies Hall is a loud
hall, the effect is that the music sounds harsh and expressively
undifferentiated. In a vocal concert, for example, the voice has a harsh,
raspy, grating "edge", which is a frequency peak at 2500 to 3500 Hz
(male voices peak closer to 2500 Hz and female voices closer to 3300 Hz).
The distortion of the frequency
balance in favor of the overtones detracts from the expressive effect of the
music. Musicians play fundamental tones, not overtones. They do not think or
conceive of music in terms of overtones. The fundamental tones, not the
overtones, carry all the expressive, human nuances of the music. Therefore, the
exaggeration of the overtones in Davies Hall reduces the expressive content, degrades
the emotional experience inherent in the music, and robs it of many
characteristic, human qualities.
In Davies Hall, the very high
frequencies are not as exaggerated as the 2500-5000 Hz range. In fact, there
may be a problem of transmitting the highest frequencies. The cymbals and
triangle, for example, do not have enough of a high-frequency sheen. But the
highest frequencies would become more prominent if the thickness due to
exaggerated overtones were reduced. The bass fundamentals, which are not
reinforced by the exaggerated overtone structure, are weak and suffer the most
from the diffuse character of the hall's acoustic. The tuba, in particular,
which radiates upwards into the reflectors, sounds so diffuse that it is a
musical equivalent of the proverbial something hitting the fan and splattering
all over the hall.
In listening for oneself, one
should bear in mind that the brightness one experiences in Davies Hall, which a
musician would refer to as being in the high, or upper, registers, would be
referred to in hi-fi language as the "lower-highs" or
"upper-mid-range". A high note on an instrument seldom exceeds 2000
Hz (high C is about 1040 Hz), but when an acoustics or electronics technician
refers to "highs", he generally means frequencies well above 5000 Hz.
VOLUME
As a result of the strongly
reflecting surfaces, Davies Hall is a loud hall. Even the auditorium itself is
loud. Although a carpet has improved the auditorium somewhat, coughs and other
audience noises are still more audible than necessary. Since hearing is much
more forgiving of sound distortions at lower volume levels, the loudness of the
sound in Davies Hall is a major aggravating factor in the bad acoustic. A loud
volume level is not only unnecessary for a deep musical experience, it can even
be detrimental. The frequency peaks are more disturbing. With a more subdued
volume level, the audience has to calm down and become attentive in order to
better hear details. A hall should not have so low a sound level that it is
difficult to hear. But modern halls have such a loud volume level that the
audience does not realize the need to settle down and become still in order to
hear acutely. The abrasiveness of the resulting irritations and distortions
keeps them on edge, making it difficult to relax and settle down.
THE PROBLEMS OF DAVIES HALL
DUPLICATE THOSE OF RECORDINGS
It is obvious that Davies Hall
has been built by people whose ideas of what music should sound like have been
influenced by recordings. The distortions in the equalization of the hall occur
in very much the same parts of the frequency range as the distortions of
unequalized recordings.3 The idea of using baffles to alter the
reverberation characteristics of the hall at will obviously comes from a type
of electronic device, variously called a Time Delay System or a Reverberation
System. These systems introduce, during sound reproduction, a repeat of the
original signal. The time between the original and the delayed signal can be
varied at will. This added signal is supposed to have the same characteristics
as the reverberated sound in a concert hall, which is impossible, since it is
only one repetition of the sound as opposed to the many reflections in a hall.
The signal also cannot duplicate the changes in equalization that occur when
sounds are actually reflected. In reality, all that these devices accomplish is
to muddy and blur the sound. They in no way duplicate real reflected sound.
Nevertheless, sound systems of this type are often used in the actual
preparation of recordings and were even incorporated in concert halls as soon
as they were developed. These systems are obviously the source of the utterly
mistaken idea that reverberation TIME can be changed without actually
physically changing the dimensions of the hall, i.e., without changing the
distances the sound has to travel. They probably also have much to do with the
acceptance of a blurred sound among acoustic technicians.
The acceptance of a highly
diffused, unfocused type of sound quality as correct also stems from
stereophonic sound-reproduction. Stereo is an impossible, irrelevant attempt to
reproduce the way we hear a sound. It is only possible to reproduce the
characteristics of the sound source itself.4
The fact that concert halls
have been and are being built to sound like the flaws of unequalized music has
created a vicious circle. Sound buffs attend concerts in these halls to check
the accuracy of their sound systems. Of course, the halls sound very much like
their systems. At the same time, performers who listen to unequalized
recordings, which degrade the delicately refined expressive nuances, start to
mimic the sound of those recordings. The home-listener hears something very
similar to the concert he has just attended and thinks his system is marvelously
accurate. Because this mess keeps music from fulfilling its greatest potential
of uplifting us into the finest realm of experience, the conclusion must be
drawn that it is dangerous to listen to music in Davies Hall.
The danger is not simply a matter
of a bad acoustic in the auditorium ruining well-played music on stage. First,
the playing can never achieve the musician's potential because the musicians
are crippled by the various acoustical problems. Thus the desired
"magic" of a performance cannot happen. Secondly, because
simultaneous, direct comparison with correct-sounding music is impossible, we
accept and become accustomed to (conditioned to) a wrong sound image and
anticipate that image at future performances. When one's mind and body are set
in anticipation of hearing a particular interpretation, it is nearly impossible
to accurately hear a different one. Better to do without than to ruin one's
frame of reference by developing and accustoming oneself to wrong listening
habits. Once ingrained, those habits are almost impossible for most people to
change. This is particularly tragic for young people since first impressions
are the strongest determining factors in their development.5
HOW TO CORRECT THE DAVIES
HALL'S ACOUSTIC
It is desirable to find out as
precisely as possible what the characteristics of the hall presently are. While
mechanical measurements do not duplicate actual live experience, if used by
someone who understands the differences between the measuring of room acoustics
and the measuring of actual music, they could provide valuable insights into
the dispersion characteristics and the equalization of the hall. But they must
be made under real-life circumstances, i.e., with an audience present. Such measurements are a prerequisite for any systematic attempt
to correct the hall's acoustic.
That Davies Hall is a loud hall
makes correcting it feasible. The steps necessary to correct the reverberation
and equalization problems would lower the volume level, but there is ample
leeway to do so without adversely affecting the musical experience.
Substantially reducing the reflectance of all reflecting surfaces might solve
the basic problems. Some experimentation might be desirable to determine
whether or not the reflectance of all surfaces should be reduced equally.
The auditorium itself is too
live, but the edginess and emphasis of overtones is also caused by the high
reflectance of the stage. The apparent lack of fundamental bass is probably due
to the overabundance of overtones in which case reducing the reflectivity of
the surfaces could also solve the problem of the bass fundamentals. The
protrusions of the back wall of the stage, which further diffuse and confuse
the sound, would be unnecessary if the reflectance of the stage were lowered.
Sound becomes softer in
relation to the square of the distance from the source to the hearer (the
square of the distance the sound travels). The musicians' ears are next to
their own instruments and in the midst of the other instruments around them. They
normally hear primary, direct, unreflected sound and adjust their playing to
those sounds, not to the reflected sound, which, in most halls, is too soft to
be heard by the time it returns and arrives too late to be taken into
consideration by their reactive responses. The extremely shiny surfaces of the
stage and its back wall change this normal relationship so that certain players
who are closer to the wall hear more reflected sound than other players and
much more than they are used to hearing. The even shinier reflectors, which are
much closer than a normal ceiling, have a similar effect.
In Davies hall, orchestra
members complain that they have problems hearing each other. The complex
problem of whether or not the musicians can "hear themselves" in a
hall is mainly a problem of balancing the sound of distant players with that of
players close by. The problem is complicated by the differences between the way
the musicians hear themselves in a bad hall and the way they are used to
hearing themselves. The usual method of trying to deal with this problem is to
use overhead sound-reflectors which, in addition to helping the musicians hear
themselves, are used to help distribute the sound evenly throughout the
auditorium. This is a misunderstanding of acoustics. Since reflection times are
a function of the size and shape of a hall, the artificial introduction within
a hall of additional reflecting surfaces to conduct the sound can only make the
sound more confusing. The characteristic qualities of a sound are determined
mainly by the shape of the source and the shape of the space in which it is
vibrating. Reflectors are foreign objects that are not part of the shape of a
hall. They add additional time-delayed arrivals which confuse the ear and are
unnatural to the sound qualities inherent in the hall's proportions.
The way the orchestra hears
itself would be improved by drastically reducing the reflectance of the stage,
eliminating or drastically reducing the number of reflectors, and enlarging the
stage so that the back members of the orchestra can be much farther away from
its back wall. This would also improve an additional problem, that the
orchestra members hear the sound differently from the way the audience hears
it. When the sound seems right to the orchestra, it does not sound so in the
auditorium.
A good acoustic with the sound
dispersed evenly throughout a hall depends on 1) each seat receiving direct
sound, which means having a direct view of the stage, and 2) the reflections
remaining substantially below the volume level of the direct sound. The use of
reflectors only raises the volume of the reflections and introduces other, new
anomalies. The proper way to proceed is to do whatever is necessary to correct
the hall without any reflectors, and then, only as a last resort, add a minimum
of reflectors for the musicians to hear themselves, if absolutely necessary.
Reflectors should not be used to improve the acoustics of the auditorium.
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.
A good acoustic (or any
acoustic, for that matter) is essentially a product of the shape of the room. A
room that does not have harmonious proportions will never have a good acoustic,
no matter what one does with it. While a person sitting in the orchestra
section of Davies Hall might not have as strong a feeling of harmony as in some
past architectural masterpieces, one certainly does not feel uncomfortable with
one's general impression of the shape and proportions of the hall. This leads
to the conclusion that the hall could be considerably improved. Ideally, along
with changing the reflectivity of the walls, the seating behind the stage
should be abandoned, the back wall of the stage eliminated, and that area
either left open or reconstructed solely to act as an evenly radiating horn for
the sound from the stage.
The acoustic of a concert hall
can only be best in ONE particular part of the hall. Trying to design equal,
perfect coverage for all seats is an impossibility that, at best, can only
result in a mediocre acoustic for all and more often results in an overall bad
acoustic. That particular "best" part of a hall can only be the most
central section of the center-orchestra section. If that central part of the
audience has an excellent acoustic, the rest of a well-designed hall will have
the best chance of being good. If that central part of the hall is faulty,
there is NO chance of the acoustic being really good anywhere else. Some other
sections might, by accident, be a little better, but the collective experience
possible with music in a good acoustical environment will not happen.
The most sensitive measuring
instrument by far is the human being. But the more sensitive an instrument, the
more one must know precisely how to direct the measurements and the more care
that is necessary. Mechanical instruments cannot replace the ear in devising,
evaluating, tuning, or correcting a concert hall.
The senior acoustician of
Davies Hall, Robert B. Newmann, said that "the acoustic of every new
concert hall is an experiment" in that the acoustician never knows
beforehand how it will turn out. That should not be the case. The morass of
misunderstandings and wrong concepts prevalent among concert-goers and
acousticians is fatal to building halls with the excellent acoustic one should
be able to expect with today's technology. The first step is to know what to
listen for and how to preserve the ear's sensitivity. An understanding of the concepts
set out in this paper is essential.
1 See our papers on sound equalization.
2 See our paper "Sound
Equalization" for a description of how hearing changes in relation to
the relaxation of physical tensions during the course of a listening session.
3 See our papers on sound equalization.
4 See our paper "Stereo,
a Misunderstanding".
5 See our paper "Our Conditioned Responses to Music."
The Anstendig Institute's other
papers on acoustics and equalization, which are available to the public free of
charge, help the public understand what to listen for. They explain in
non-technical terms the factors involved in acoustics, sound reproduction, and
hearing, putting these elements in proper perspective and clarifying many
misunderstandings. Their purpose is to provide a knowledgeable basis for
forming one's own opinion.
The Anstendig Institute is a non-profit, tax-exempt, research institute that was founded to investigate stress-producing vibrational influences in our lives and to pursue research in the fields of sight and sound; to provide material designed to help the public become aware of and understand stressful vibrational influences; to instruct the public in how to improve the quality of those influences in their lives; and to provide the research and explanations that are necessary for an understanding of how we see and hear.