[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ARSCLIST] Poor sounding concert halls.
I design studios for a living.... and I agree with this point. The 'black art' of my youth is now ....fairly predictable. The real difference between lousy and pretty decent is money and practical concederns. The difference between pretty decent and wonderful...now THAT is art, and convincing the people that matter. Tough call.,...
-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
[mailto:ARSCLIST@xxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Mike Richter
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 11:27 PM
To: ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Poor sounding concert halls.
steven c wrote:
> In fact, is acoustics an exact enough science that we know why one hall
> sounds better than another?
> Steven C. Barr
Acousticians think so. <G>
Seriously, the notorious failures have consistently derived from
compromises forced by 'the real world' - usually money in one form or
another. For example, Bort Beranek and Newman disowned Philharmonic Hall
(now Avery Fisher Hall) before it opened.
My understanding is that they know why the great halls are great, but
reproducing one is economically out of the question - too much money per
seat. The solution today is to use electronics which can be tuned to
simulate a fine hall; the results have been debatable even when a highly
sophisticated setup has been set up by experts.
Mike
--
mrichter@xxxxxxx
http://www.mrichter.com/