ADDENDUM TO “ACOUSTICS”
©1982 Mark B. Anstendig THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DESIGNING AND CORRECTING A CONCERT HALL
There
is a big difference between designing a concert hall from scratch, with either
a good or bad acoustic, and correcting an already existing acoustic. Totally
different skills are involved: the first demands a knowledge of design
principles; the second demands a particular, very rare type of trained hearing
capacity. It does not follow that someone with the first skill has to have the
second. Even a musician, trained to recognize notes and nuances, will not
necessarily have the needed capacity to recognize the various frequency ranges
without special training. I can attest to that myself: after many years with
the finest ear-training teachers in the world, I had to learn a completely new
manner of hearing. ONE CANNOT RECOGNIZE SOMETHING THAT ONE IS NOT FAMILIAR
WITH. Therefore, an ear that can dependably recognize faults in equalization
can only be developed through the use of modern equalizers and analyzers
capable of isolating the various sections of the frequency range so that the
student can learn to identify them by hearing them separately. This is an
important reason for the confusion in the field of acoustics, because the faults
one hears usually have their causes in a different range of frequencies than
the range where one finds fault and the means of training oneself to hear this
are a very recent addition to technology. The most famous German hi-fi
demonstration record of the sixties, using the fourth movement of the Klemperer
recording of the Berlioz Fantastic Symphony, demonstrated how each segment of
the frequency range sounded by itself. While the
performance continued, it first reduced the frequency range to only the middle
frequencies and then, one by one, as the movement progressed, each octave above
and below was added, until the full range was restored. Now, by using frequency
equalizers when playing back recordings, this process can be duplicated for
learning purposes.
HOW
FAULTY STEREO TECHNIOUES HAVE INFLUENCED ACOUSTICS
Evidently,
whoever is “correcting” Davies Hall has a particular, faulty sound-image in
mind that he is unwilling to abandon. It seems to come from listening to
unequalized stereo sound reproduction and from controversial stereo techniques
that supposedly introduce spatial effects, such as using sound delay circuitry
to add reverberation: the hall's acoustic exhibits the anomalies that these
devices introduce into sound reproduction and the idea, which is an
impossibility, of changing the reverberation retimed in the hall, derives from
the fact that these devices operate by adding a second signal, which is
actually a repeat of the original signal that is played a certain amount of
time after the first signal is produced. The amount of time that the second
signal follows the first can be varied by the machine. But this has nothing to
do with acoustics, wherein reverberation time is an absolute that is determined
by the distances the sound travels in the room. Further, the reverberated sound
in a hall is very different in character from the directly radiated sound (the
overtone construction is changed and some of the delicacy of nuance is lost)
and is not simply a repeat of the sound as it comes out of the instruments.
Unfortunately, in sound reproduction, these effects act in a manner similar to
the malfunctioning automatic focusing device described briefly in our paper on
television quality (available upon request from The Anstendig Institute). In the
presence of picture noise (interference), that device de-tuned the set until
the whole picture was so diffused that the noise was no longer noticeable. But
the picture itself was also diffused. The set should have been tuned to the
most precise setting, and the interference eliminated by a technician. That
particular AFT-device simply leaves the defect there and smears it over. (There
was a famous incident in
Even
stereo itself is by no means uncontroversial, is not necessary to a complete
listening experience, and does not reproduce the effect of a good concert hall.
As a way of reproducing directional effects, it is a compromise that employs
the simplest, cheapest means of doing so (only two signals), and is therefore
totally limited in the spatial effects it can achieve. (Another paper, “STEREO:
A MISUNDERSTANDING”, available from The Anstendig Institute, deals in detail
with stereophony.) In a good hall, one does not hear directionally; one hears a
perfect blend of well mixed sound. In most of the great compositions, the
composers expended great efforts creating sound colors by blending and fusing
the sounds of various instruments into one conglomerate, mixed sound. The fact
that the instruments had to be spread out on a stage was a matter of necessity.
From the composer's point of view, the ideal would have been if all the sounds
could emanate from the same point, since they were meant to fuse, not to be
pulled apart, as is the case in much stereo recording. After 15 years in the
finest conducting classes, I can attest that the best teachers spent much time
and effort teaching us to achieve a type of perfectly balanced blending of
instruments that much stereo destroys. One can flip the switch to mono when
listening to music and have no difficulty hearing the different instruments if
the sound is correctly equalized. But that can only apply to performances
wherein the conductor had balanced the orchestra in the first place. The proof
of this is in the finest piano playing, wherein perfect balance of the dynamics
of the separate notes and voices clarifies the textures without the slightest directional
effect. Stereo demands that we buy double everything, so the manufacturing and
recording world is not in any hurry to clarify the shortcomings of the medium,
most sound technicians are dependent on the industry, and the artists are
dependent on...there is no need to elaborate.
THE
"IMPROVEMENTS" IN DAVIES HALL
The
latest attempts to "improve" the acoustics of Davies Hall are
examples of the confusion and misunderstandings that our papers dealing with
sound, hearing, and acoustics are meant to clarify:
According
to the
Our
paper “Acoustics” explains the fallacies in the use of reflectors to improve a
hall's acoustics and clarifies current misunderstandings about reverberation
and reverberation time:
CARPETING
THE HALL AND USING REFLECTORS ARE SELF-CANCELING PROCEDURES: THE CARPET REDUCES
REVERBERATION AND THE REFLECTORS ADD TO IT.
In
this case, if the intention were to reduce reverberation, the floor, being the
most shielded reflecting surface, was the least effective, and riskiest, place
to begin. The first step should have been to experimentally hang the walls with
removable sound-absorbing material, which could be much more easily removed
than an expensive carpet which cannot be touted as an appropriate corrective
procedure when the walls are obviously the place to begin if the intention is
to reduce reverberation.
There
is no need to repeat the reasons why the use of reflectors to improve the
disbursement of the sound to the audience is plainly and simply a mistake, as
it is fully explained in the paper “Acoustics”. One thing more should be
pointed out here: the word "reflector" is a misnomer that does not
describe the devices used in Davies Hall. "Diffuser” is more accurate. The
word reflector implies a flat, or concave surface
capable of precisely focusing and reflecting vibrations. The convex surfaces of
the Davies Hall reflectors do no such thing. They diffuse the sound, radiating
it indiscriminately in an unfocused manner.
A
DESIGN THAT NEEDS REFLECTORS IS A FAULTY DESIGN
In
relation to the discussion of the Berlin Philharmonic Hall in “Acoustics”, it
should be made clear that the Berlin Philarmonic Hall
was designed to work WITHOUT reflectors and that the design, though a genial
concept, was not wholly successful acoustically. Reflectors were only
considered AFTER the hall was finished and originally were for the sole purpose
of helping the orchestra hear itself better, not for the purpose of better
sound disbursement. To incorporate a need for reflectors into the original
design concept, as was the case in Davies Hall and the two new halls in Toronto
and Baltimore by the same acoustician, is tantamount to designing corrections
into an acoustic that one already knows will be faulty. A hall with a good
acoustic does not need reflectors! If reflectors are considered necessary when
the hall is in the design stage, the design is faulty and should be changed.
In
halls with flawed acoustics, it is often remarked that the best place to sit is
in the balcony. This can very well be the case, for two reasons: 1) Since sound
becomes softer in relation to the square of the distance it travels, the volume
level is usually substantially lower in the balcony and our hearing is more
tolerant to distortions, particularly those in the balance of frequencies, at
lower volume levels. 2) The balcony receives less of the reverberated sound: it
is not affected by the sound reflected off the walls below it, while the sound
reflected from the ceiling reaches the balcony at essentially the same time as
the direct sound, with the ceiling acting more as a conductor than as a
reflector. Also, the time difference between the arrival of the direct sound
and that of the reflected sound is smaller.
A
problem inherent in correcting bad acoustics in already existing halls is that
of obtaining knowledgeable opinion from experts who have absolutely no reason
to say anything but the unadorned truth. Almost everyone who is active in the
musical and acoustics world is dependent on some person or other who would find
the truth uncomfortable and experts themselves are notoriously unhappy about
admitting when they are wrong.
It
is so very important to remember that, with Davies Hall and any other acoustic
situation, WE ARE DEALING WITH UNCHANGING ABSOLUTES THAT ARE THERE FOR EVERYONE
TO HEAR. Until a hall itself is physically changed, the sound of that hall
remains an unchanging constant; it is people who not only hear differently, but
whose hearing, far from remaining constant, changes even during the course of a
concert. (Please refer to our paper on equalization.) But that does not mean
that the character of a hall's acoustic is a matter of opinion, as is usually
claimed; it means that most people are either unable to hear and evaluate it or
unaware of what to listen for.
THE
PURPOSE OF HIGHER MUSICAL EXPERIENCE
The
first step for anyone interested in comprehending the problems of acoustics is
to understand exactly what should be achieved through higher musical
experience.
THE
OBJECT OF THE PURSUIT OF CLASSICAL MUSIC, EITHER BY ITSELF OR IN COMBINATION
WITH OTHER ARTS, IS TO ACHIEVE THE FINEST, MOST EXQUISITE EXPERIENCES THAT THE
HUMAN BODY IS CAPABLE OF SUSTAINING.
Music
is the highest, most powerful, most overriding of all the arts. In the presence
of music, all the other arts take on the character of the music, not vice
versa, and it is capable of, and can produce in us, the finest, most delicate of possible human reactions. If the
experiential phenomena produced by the musicians and in the bodies of the
listeners were translated into scientific, physical measurements (evenness; the
minute differences in volume that produce the expressive content; the
mechanical precision in the coordination of the orchestra players' bodies; and
the minute vibrations of the listeners' bodies and ear drums) those
measurements would equal, and in many ways surpass, anything possible in any
field of science or engineering. A sensitive, well trained human being, in a
correctly relaxed and balanced physical state, is capable of more
extraordinarily fine differentiation than any machines or measuring instruments
available to science, including realms of phenomena that science has no means
of measuring. It should therefore be clear that ANY DISTURBING FACTORS, HOWEVER
SLIGHT, CAN DEGRADE A FINE MUSICAL EXPERIENCE. The
irritations, tensions, and distractions of an acoustic like that of Davies Hall
make such a fine musical experience as described above impossible without the
performer resorting to extra-musical measures that militate against his
interpretive intentions. Even trained musicians have limited consciousnesses
and can only simultaneously concentrate on a limited number of things.
Music-making alone takes up anyone's full concentration, and a need for the
musicians to be constantly adjusting their playing in an unnatural manner makes
them technically uncomfortable, limits the quality of their interpretation, and
destroys the natural flow of a performance. This is the reason that concerts in
Davies Hall by even the finest orchestras, such as the Amsterdam Concertgebau Orchestra, have more than a usual share of
missed or cracked notes. The only concert I have heard in Davies Hall that
achieved the exquisitely refined type of experience that I am used to was that
of Claudio Arrau. But he had to achieve it by
trimming the dynamic levels of his playing, reducing the amount of pedal, and
even making a quick, unexplained program change because there was nothing he
could have done to achieve the necessary clarity that his well-known
interpretation of the Beethoven Waldstein Sonata
demands. What a depressing situation it is for the members of an orchestra to
know that there is little hope for those kinds of magical performances that
they are striving for to happen. The orchestra members may not dare to openly
complain: but they know better than anyone that the bad acoustic makes it
impossible to achieve their potential. A moment's contemplation of their plight
should convey to anyone the seriousness of such a situation.
Two
things Jean Morel constantly impressed on all of his conducting students during
my five years as his student at the Juilliard School of Music are the best
directives for proceeding with correcting the acoustics of any hall: In
teaching us how to arrive at the expressive content of music as the composer
intended it, he used the analogy “first you wash your face; then you put on
your makeup", and he never stopped emphasizing that "you serve your
art; it does not serve you”.
FIRST
YOU WASH YOUR FACE; THEN YOU PUT ON YOUR MAKE-UP
Pursuing
that metaphor in relation to correcting the Davies Hall acoustic, the
reflectors are simply make-up that smears the dirt around more or less evenly
without getting rid of it. First wash the hall's face, by correcting the
acoustic without the use of reflectors, baffles or any other extraneous
devices. Then one can experiment with external devices, since one can always
return to a basic good sound. But to begin with that type of experimentation
before establishing the best shape and resonating characteristics of those
basic components that determine the acoustic (the walls, floors, ceilings,
stage, and their reflecting characteristics) is absurd.
YOU
SERVE YOUR ART: IT DOES NOT SERVE YOU
The second quote, which is The Anstendig Institute's guiding principle in making these papers available, has vast implications both for correcting Davies Hall and against using any hall until it is acoustically correct. Until then, it does not serve art; it degrades art. Since stopping the use of most halls is unthinkable, no stone should be left unturned in the efforts to correct them without delay.
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.
|