Acoustics

In spite of the fact that many American auditoriums in the 19th Century were based on European designs and traditions, there was never any conscious attempt to develop a "science" of building acoustics until 1898 when Wallace Sabine was commissioned by Financier Henry Higgenson of Boston to design a new symphony hall.

Until Mr. Sabine made a conscious effort to discover the objective properties of "good acoustics", most American builders either modeled their designs on successful European buildings, or went with their instincts.

Carnegie Hall in New York was designed without reference to any acoustical science whatsoever. Apparently, it is quite good.

Many buildings are designed with reference to good acoustic principles. Then the buildings' owners make a last minute change-- add a balcony, or increase the width or something-- and don't go back to the architect for a re-reckoning of the acoustics. The results: disaster. The main auditorium at Redeemer College in Hamilton, for example, looks fabulous, but the sound is horrible. Choirs howl, instruments screech. (You don't believe me? In all fairness, I must say that many people think the hall sounds just fine. I confirmed my impression with a music professor who led the choir that performed most often in that hall. I think we're right.)

Sabine came up with a formula: the reverberation time multiplied by the the quantity of absorbent material equals a constant that is proportional to the room's volume.

Sabine then measured the reverberation time of some classic European halls, including Leipzig's Gwandhaus and the Music Hall in Boston, and applied it to the design of the Symphony Hall. Symphony Hall is still around today and it is reputed to still have excellent acoustics.

Avery Fisher Hall (Lincoln Centre) had poor acoustics. The acoustical engineers tried and failed. They spent millions trying to fix it.

By the 1930's, with the development of electronic amplification systems, the marriage of acoustics and structure began to fall apart. Today, whether you are watching a movie in a theatre or a live production at the Pantages Theatre, you will not hear the sound of the building. Everything you hear will be electronically processed and manipulated. That's why singers can now project their affections for each other with breathless intimacy. That's why people who can't project at all-- but can hold pitch-- can now star in a musical production.

That's probably a good thing. Why should only big people with voluminous chests get to sing? And I like the breathy, intimate sound of the quiet human voice. But don't go away thinking that the building has "great acoustics". The acoustics of the building are now largely irrelevant, as long as it doesn't have vast hard surfaces to create feedback. What you are hearing is the result of electronic engineering.

Unfortunately, some shows now use taped or synthetic music to accompany the singers. Sometimes they use part of a real orchestra and a keyboard with synthesizer or digital recordings. People don't like it a lot, so there is a bit of flim flam there-- the producers want to keep their costs down by employing as few actual musicians as possible, but audiences want to feel that they had an "authentic" theatrical experience for their $75 a seat, so they put up a show of an orchestra.

In 1906, Julia Barnett Rice, who was married to the publisher of Forum Magazine, organized "The Society for the Suppression of Unnecessary Noise". New York had a "Noise Abatement Commission" in 1929. See? There was a time when people cared about ambient sound. I don't think we care today. Maybe we've just given up on trying to control it. Until you've camped in the wilderness, you probably have no idea of how much constant, ambient sound you are inundated with. And I doubt that anybody fully understands how much stress this creates in the human nervous system. One of these days, I believe we will find out that regular periods of silence are more effective than Prozac.

Rant of the Week

Acoustics