Music Lane

Posted by David Aiken (A) on March 10, 2011 at 14:41:47

In Reply to: RE: Absolutely NO Electronic Enhancement In Chicago posted by Mike Porper on March 10, 2011 at 11:53:24

Getting good acoustics with physical design isn't easy. It may not be right when the hall is first commissioned, and refurbishments don't always fix things. Add to that the initial design and construction are expensive, as are subsequent refurbishments.

That's not an argument against physical acoustic treatment, and I'd definitely rather see/hear a hall with good physical acoustics. I'm just making the point that good physical acoustics aren't as easy to obtain or as common as its proponents would like to present in debates such as this.

In addition, at least here in Brisbane, Australia, where I live, it seems as if quite a few performance spaces are actually conversions of buildings intended for other uses. We have one purpose designed concert hall complex with good acoustics but the other main indoor performance spaces are conversions. One is a conversion of an old power generating station, complete with concrete floor, ceiling and walls and seating on industrial scaffolding. That gets used for some local chamber groups who can't draw the audiences and demand the ticket prices necessary to justify hiring a hall in the concert hall complex. It's a simple economic fact that it's cheaper to convert a large existing space than to design and build a new performance space. And while the acoustics you get with conversions aren't always that good, those spaces are essential for the survival of a lot of local performing artists who form an important part of the classical and other music scenes.

Further, while big cities can often afford and support at least one good, acoustically designed performance space but that certainly isn't the case with smaller centres which often make do with less than ideal spaces.

If you live in a large city with a good concert hall and you don't attend concerts in other spaces because the type of music performed there isn't to your taste, then it's really easy to say that you don't want electronic acoustic correction and hold out for a good hall—after all, you've got it. Unfortunately most of the world doesn't live in big cities with acoustically superior performance spaces and what they get is much worse than what you get in your Orchestra Hall. They also aren't in a position in their communities to design, build and support such a hall.

It's all very well for you to say "Concertgoers in Chicago, and those from around the world, may come to Orchestra Hall, Chicago, and hear the orchestra, along with any visiting orchestra, in pristine, unadulturated, uncomtaminated, tamper-free, virginal acoustical purity." but do you think a lot of people from around the world, or even from elsewhere in the US, can afford the ticket to Chicago plus accommodation on top of ticket prices to listen to a concert in "pristine, unadulturated, uncomtaminated, tamper-free, virginal acoustical purity"? A hell of a lot of them can't.

And as I pointed out elsewhere in this thread and Chris' earlier one, electronic acoustic correction doesn't necessarily involve reproducing the actual direct sound of the music through speakers—only an acoustic correction signal need be reproduced through the speakers. The level of adulteration involved can be a lot less than you think and the actual direct sound of the performers can be as "pristine, unadulturated, uncomtaminated, tamper-free, virginal acoustical pure" as the direct sound in your local hall.

You and others present the debate as an either/or debate—good if it's all acoustic, bad if there's any electronic correction. In the world outside the good acoustically designed halls, the picture is a lot different to that. It can be bad if it's all acoustic and a lot less bad with electronic correction. Do you want to suggest that electronic acoustic correction should never be used under any circumstances and that concert goers everywhere should put up with what the unvarnished physical acoustics of their hall deliver, no matter how bad that is when it's bad?

Do you want to suggest that those concert goers in locations with bad halls should boycott those halls and travel to locations with better halls in order to hear live music? If classical music is financially challenged now, that will make it even more financially challenged as live audience totals nation-wide and world-wide drop due to reductions in audience size in smaller centres. That's a great solution to the problems of classical music.

I certainly regard good physical acoustic design and construction as the ideal but it doesn't work in some cases and it's too expensive in others. Electronic acoustic correction has a place as well. Something that allows all concert goers, no matter how small their city or town is or how acoustically challenged their hall is, to hear good sound in a live performance is going to help keep them coming back for more live performances and audience size is something that classical music, and some other forms of music, need if they are going to continue to be financially viable. How much use are acoustically good halls going to be for classical music if the financial state of classical music continues to decline and live concerts become less viable as a result, and even disappear in some centres because local audiences simply cannot support them?


David Aiken