Note to reader of this linked file: The gentleman’s response in the body text below references an earlier edition of Eastman Theatre Acoustics: Original Essay January 2006, which is, however, substantially similar to the current edition.
Please take note also that his letter predates and therefore in no way directly references Stirring the Soup.
The yellow highlighting and boldface in the body text below are my emphases.
- Bob Laird, May 18 2008
____________________________________________
Bob -
First: Wonderful screed.
Second: Leo's email is: beranekleo@ieee.org.
I will copy him on this reply
to you.
Third: What a mess...
I have visited Eastman
only once, in about 1980. One of my xxxxxxxxxx lives
in
period are what I heard - bright, harsh, kinda dry.
I am currently working
full time trying to understand what are the major
perceptions of music in halls of various sizes, and how to predict them.
I
am of the opinion - perhaps too optimistically - that they can be for the
most part predicted from rather simple assumptions about the hall, such as
the time delay between the direct sound and the build-up of reflected
energy, the hall volume, and the total absorption.
These assumptions are based on the hall lacking strong specular reflections,
particularly those that arrive after 50-80ms. These types of reflections
are disturbing and problematic in any hall, and need to be dealt with by
strategic addition of sufficient (ie sufficiently low frequency) diffusion
and absorption.
The original acoustic
surfaces probably supplied this absorption, and as you
suggest, mitigated the problems caused by strong reflections.
But to get back to the simple stuff - in a great many halls there is too
much reflected energy in the time range of 50-120ms, even when this energy
is well temporally diffused. This energy causes a lack of clarity and the
perception of muddiness. The acoustic material, and the curtains behind
the
orchestra would damp this energy. I would like the sound more.
But... This energy
also provides loudness. You reduce it; clarity
improves, loudness goes down. Which is better? Depends on
who you are. I
am beginning to suspect (at my current age) that the brain may be better at
extracting musical information from a muddy signal when we are younger.
As
I have aged (and my audience colleagues with me) I come to appreciate more
and more clarity over loudness. And this is from someone who
developed
xxxxxx xxxxx. I do not trust memories of how clear a hall was
some years ago. The brain is not good at remembering clarity, and our
ability to detect it changes.
And - I have a great deal of respect for Chris Blair. Acousticians are
bound to provide what the customer thinks they want, alas. Chris is very
thoughtful, and one of the most scientific of the consultants out there.
John Allan organized a workshop at the last AES meeting in NYC that included
Chris, Leo, Larry Kirkegaard, and the project manager for the new hall in
for me the best part was the orchestra manager's
description of what it took
to cajole donors, musicians, press, etc. to get the new hall built and to
put the acoustics on the
front burner.
WOW!
Seems to me your chances of causing change as a lone voice are pretty poor.
I probably agree with
nearly everything you say, but my opinion is not worth
much. I would LOVE the opportunity
to consult on a project to improve the
hall - and I am more than willing to talk about it with Chris. But
getting
involved in a political maelstrom is not my cup of tea.
You are blessed, or cursed, with the ability to listen carefully and
appreciate exactly what you are hearing. This ability is rare, and
wonderful. Keep it up.
Good luck. I may send you more later.
-----Original Message-----
From: Xxxxx, Xxxxxxx [mailto:xxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 8:18 PM
To: xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxx
Subject: FW: 2004 Akustiks alterations at the Eastman Theatre, Rochester NY
> ----------
> From: Bob Laird[SMTP:BOBLAIRD@ROCHESTER.RR.COM]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 8:17:50 PM
> To: Xxxxxxxxx, Xxxxxx
> Subject: 2004 Akustiks alterations at the Eastman Theatre, Rochester
NY
> Auto forwarded by a Rule
>
Xxxx,
Caveat: We do not know each other, and I am way out of my depth here. I lack
the credentials that might normally dispose one to take time to read the
attached.
That said, please allow me tell you that as a 63-year old lover of live
acoustic music. I occupy what may be a unique listening position vis-à-vis
the Eastman Theatre in
acoustics as a regular concertgoer well before the 1971 acoustical changes
cited in Leo Beranek's book, "Concert Halls and Opera Theaters..." As
cited
in my 2006 essay (attached) the hall back then was substantially the same
hall that had served well for about fifty years, and which had been
memorialized in the famous purist Mercury recordings of the '50's and very
early '60's. I, along with many generations of Eastman School of Music
students, had long been aware that the cheapest seats, the balcony seats,
were the best, just as Mr. Beranek notes in his book.
In 2004, Akustiks, represented by Chris Blair, presided over acoustical
changes to the Eastman Theatre, changes that I find unfortunate. To be fair,
the Music Director of the Rochester Philharmonic, Christopher Seaman,
successfully lobbied to coat with polyurethane the original 1920's porous
Zenitherm blocks comprising the house wall surfaces. Christopher did so
because he wanted still louder and brighter sound out in the house.
In the summer of 2008, "Stage Two" of the renovations are scheduled,
with
funding now in place. Although by no means my sole raison d'être, I am
seeking a neutral, credentialed angel to take whatever interest he might in
the sound of the renovations. Perhaps nothing will come of this small effort
on my part, nor do I plan to become a nuisance to anyone involved, but it
does no harm to look around a bit.
Honestly I was seeking Leo's email (hey, why not start at the top!) when I
came upon yours. Frankly I think you'd do just fine, and/or maybe you know
someone else who would like to join a polite fray just because it might be
the right thing to do...
I do not presume to be objectively 'right' about a damn thing. I am merely
stirring the pot as a result of my own marked disappointment with the sound
of the Theatre. There are those who agree with me, but they, like me, have
no influence over those who, with all due respect, appear to hear but not to
listen, when it comes to music.
Best Regards,
Bob Laird
315-483-0523 landline
585-738-2320 cell