|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
65.85.130.130
In Reply to: RE: Update on accoustically enhanced concert halls posted by Amphissa on March 08, 2011 at 12:24:14
The acoustical engineer who designed it favors an extremely dry sound--here and in one other hall of his that I visited. The sides of Zankel are covered with acoustically absorptive panels. They suck out any reverb that might potentially be in the hall. The first time I went there, I found it unnatural and a bit disturbing. The person sitting next to me said that he had reacted the same way initially but ended up liking the sharper definition of instruments. Since Zankel usually gets chamber groups, the dry acoustic makes the individual instruments stand out more distinctly, and this could arguably be a good thing.
I can agree with this partially, but a bone dry acoustic still seems like a radical choice and one which I don't really like. Shaping the sound of the hall electronically, If it was done well, might be an improvement over what's there now. I suppose they could also dismantle the acoustic panels and replace the fiberglass with a more reflective material, but either way, you are manipulating the room response. If the elecronic manipulation is done with finesse, I wouldn't object to it. This is what most of us here do with our home stereos and I wouldn't have it any other way. After all, what standard of neutrality could realistically be used as a reference? Is a hall fundamentally different, and is electronic sound shaping inherently inferior to "natural" means?
Follow Ups:
ANY reverb added electronically to a room is a mistake. It defeats the whole purpose of acoustic music. Same goes for recordings. I personally don't care for classical recordings that have reverb added to them. You want to make a great recording of acoustic instruments? Start with a great venue. Last year I was at a violin/piano performance and someone in front of me was complaining they could not hear. I heard them say it should of been amplified through the PA system. It was all I could do to bite my tongue and keep my mouth shut.
I agree that adding standard reverb to a recording is a mistake. But in large halls like Avery Fischer, there are systems where a slight delay is introduced into the signal sent to speakers placed in different locations throughout the hall. The delay corresponds to the distance of the speaker from the stage so the sound reinforcement doesn't add out-of-phase sound to the original. Each speaker has a different delay. This is supposed to result in a boost in signal without any added reverb. Sound enhancement that is worked out this carefully will be different than just "adding reverb" and this is the kind of tailored sound that I think could be legitimate, not a PA with reverb.
The acoustic enhancement was done to the NY Opera stage. The system was put in in 1999 but after a renovation ten years later, the system was removed.
Mr B = George Balanchine, and this hall was and is the home of the NY City Ballet.
Although he himself was a fine musician, Mr. B didn't want stage noise (e.g. clomping from toe shoes) traveling throughout the hall. I love the sightlines there, but I will admit that the NY State Theater acoustics were pretty dead. Great for dance, not so great for singers. I haven't been there in 15 years but improvements were definitely needed.
We do have reverb enhancement at the Hilbert Circle Theater here in Indy, home of the ISO - VERY dry hall, which is great for clarity, but IMO the hall is still on the dry side. The sound on the main floor under the first mez is horrible. Period.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: