Sie sind auf Seite 1von 14

S HIZd VeJag

Stuttgart

ACUSTICA
Vo1 69(1989)

249

Investigationsof Musicians'Room Acoustic


Conditionsin ConcertHalls.
II:Field Expe lents and Synthesis of Results
A.C.Gade
The Acoustics Laboratory,Tcchnical UniVCrsity of Dcnmark

1-

sich, da8 Musiker ihre raumakustische Beurteilung


hauptsdchlich in zwei Kategorien bilden: ,,allgemeine
Qualitdt" und ,,Klang" (TIMBRE), und daB die subjektiven Aspekte, die ftir die Beurteilung der allgemeinen
Qualitiit maBgebendsind, von den Versuchsbedingungen
abhiingen. Dennoch ergab sich, daB verschiedeneobjektive Parameter, darunter ST bemerkenswertgut mit den
mittleren Beurteilungen korrelieren. Auf der Grundlage
der Experimente und eingehenderMessungenin vorhandenen Siilen werden optimale Bereichefiir dieseParameter vorgeschlagen.
Recherche sur les conditions dtenvironnement
acoustique des musiciens dans leurs salles de concerL
II: Exp6riences sur place et synthise des r6sultats

Untersuchungen der raumakustischen Bedingungen


fiir Musiker in Konzertsilen.
II: Feldmessungen und Synthese der Ergebnisse
Zusammenfassung
Diese Arbeit ist die letzte von zweien. die sich mit den
Beziehungenzwischen den subjektiven raumakustischen
Bediirfnissender Kiinstler bei klassischerMusik und den
objektiven Schallfeldeigenschaftenauf Orchesterpodien
beschdftigen. In der vorausgehendenArbeit [1] wurden
zwei mit ST und EEL bezeichneteraumakustische Parameter vorgeschlagen,welche fiir die Musiker die Eindriicke der Unterstiitzung (SUPPORT) und die Bedingungen fiir das Zusammenspielauf dem Podium objektiv
kennzeichnen.Diese Parameter wurden aus Ergebnissen
subjektiver Versuche im Laboratorium abgeleitet. In
dieser Arbeit werden drei Experimente in wirklichen
Siilen beschrieben,welchedie Niitzlichkeit der Parameter
unter realistischerenBedingungenzeigensollen. Es zeigt

Sommaire
On achdvede traiter, dans ce secondarticle, du probldme
des relations entre I'ambiance acoustique subjective 16clam6epar les musiciensd'un orchestrejouant une euvre
de musique classique et les propri6t6s objectives du
champ acoustique qui rdgne au niveau de la plate-forme
d'orchestre.Dans I'article pr6cedent[1], on avait propos6
I'introduction, en acoustique des salles, de deux nouveaux paramdtres (ST: Support et EEL = Early Ensemble Level) pour caracteriser,par des mesures objectives, les impressions ressenties sur la plate-forme
d'orchestre par les musiciens en ce qui concerne leurs
sensationsde soutien et d'aisancedu jeu d'ensemble.Ces
deux paramdtresavaient 6t6 d6duits des rsultats d'exp,6riences subjectiveselfectu6esau laboratoire. Ici par contre on d6crit trois exp6riencesqui ont eu lieu dans de
v6ritables salles de concert, dans le but de mettre en
6videnceI'utilit6 pratique de cesdeux paramdtresdans un
contexte realiste. On a trouv6 que les musiciens se forment leurs jugements personnels,sur I'acoustique de la
salle ori ils jouent, dans un espacevirtuel dont les deux
dimensions sont le timbre et la qualit6 globale, cette dernidre 6tant apprci6eri partir d'6l6mentssubjectifsd6pendant des conditions exp,6rimentales.Cependant il existe
un certain nombre de paramdtres objectifs, y compris le
paramdtre ST, qui sont en bonne corr6lation avec la
moyenne desjugements subjectifs.En conclusion on a pu
s'appuyer sur les exp6riencesde laboratoire et sur I'ensembledesmesureselfectu6esen sallesr6ellespour 6tablir
des intervalles d'optimalit6 ori il est souhaitable que se
situent les paramdtres s6lectionn6s.

1. Introduction
Reccivcd 9 Novcmbcr 1988,
accepted 23 May 1989.

In the preceding paper [1], two objective parameters


were defined for measurement of musician's room
A. C. Gade,TheAcousticsLaboratory,Technical
University acoustic conditions: ST ("Support") with an optional
upper limit for integration of early reflections of either
of Denmarl, Building352,DK-280OLyngby,Denmark.

250

A. C. Gade: Musicians' Room Acoustic Conditions' Part II

which was part of a renovation project, the main purposes of the investigations were the following:

100 or 200 ms:


STl=101g

ST2=101g

E(20 1 s)

E ( 0 1 0 m s )

2 m s )
EoOI
E(0 10ms)

and EEL ("Early Ensemble Level"):


. E-(0"'80ms)"
EEL:101g-f;,,5.t"' loms)

ACUSTICA
Vo1 69(1989)

(la)

(lb)

Q)

1) to testthe validity ofthe previous laboratory results


under realistic conditions, and
2) to obtain an impression of the dimensionality of
musicians' judgements, i.e. the number of relevant,
independent subjective parameters.
2. Objective measurements

In all the experiments the same set of objective mearefer to the energy surementswere made. These included ST1, ST2 and
in these formulae, "E(tt"'fr)"
integrated between tl and t, from impulse responses EEL as defined above, as well as Reverberation time
measuredwith a source: receiver distance of 1 metre. (RT) and parametersrelated to the ratio betweenearly
Thus ST is intended to measure the contribution of and late energy: Early Decay Time (EDT) [5]' Centre
early reflectionsto the sound from the musician's own Time (TS) [6], and Clarity (C) t7l. Like STI and ST2,
instrument. In eq. (2) however, "Eo" denotesenergy in Clarity was also measured at a one meter distance
an impulse responsepicked up in a receiving position from the source(CS),at which position it is a measur
further away on the platform, but still integrated over of the reverberation level (although with inverted
a time interval starting at the time of emission (hence sign). This use of the clarity measure is possible bethe suffix "e" in the formula). Thus EEL is supposedto cause of the direct sound dominatils the 0 "' 80ms
measurethe effrciencywith respect.to level as well as interval at this short distance from the source:
time of the transmission of ensemble informalion
E ( 0 ' " 8 0m s )
among the orchestra members.
cs: tolcEr8o;;_. @)
from
derived
parameters
were
These fairly simple
experimentsin simplified simulated sound helds in the
. ^ . E ( 8 0 m s' " o o )
: _ l0lg _.laboratory [1], and they do not therefore consider the
z(0"'80ms)
complexity of the acoustic conditions on real platE(80ms )
forms.
%-101g
When measuredusing omnidirectional transducers,
ECir)
none of the parameterstake into account the directivfrom impulse responses
ity of instruments or of musicians' sensitivity to other All parameterswere evaluated
1/1 octave tone sweep
of
recordings
from
deconvolved
respectiveand
in
Meyer
[3]
[2]
soundsas describedby
in the halls by an icosaly- Nor do they copsider the problems of various signals,which had beenemitted
of 20 full range units'
sound componentsmasking each other' Especially for hedron loudspeaker consisting
describedin [8]'
further
is
easeof ensembleplaying it is very important to main- The method and equipment
over the
averaged
then
were
tain a proper balance between the levels of one's in- The parameter values
250 to
from
frequencies
with
centre
strument and useful (and interfering) sounds from co- four octaves
(500
RT
and
Hz)
(500
2000
to
for
EEL
except
2000
Hz
players, and this balance will be governed by the
Hz).
to
1000
with
power and directivity properties in combination
In order to obtain a crude description of the tonal
the arrangement of the orchestra, the musical characof the halls, the low/high frequency racharacteristics
acousas
by
the
well
played
as
teristics of the piece
[4]
tios of EDT as well as of ST2 were formed:
tics of the room.
which
in
experiments,
realistic
Therefore, more
H
+EDT6
(41
EDTF=EDT250 H
these non-room acoustic factors are also present, are
proof
the
usefulness
the
to
evaluate
in
order
needed
posed objective parameters in practice. For such ex- and
periments the only possibility is to work with a full
ST2F
orchestra playing in real halls, although this implies
that a reduced control of the experimental conditions
ST2(2kHzl
ST2(lkHz)
must be accepted[1, section 3]. In the following, three
2
such experimentsare described:two surveysof halls in
of the three sets of measurement
Denmark and the United Kingdom respectively and The general outline
platform
are shown in Fig' 1' ST1'
one experiment in The Danish Radio Concert Hall, positions on the
by a microphone one
measured
were
Copenhagen (DR). Apart from the DR experiment, ST2 and CS

A. C. Gade: Musicians' Room Acoustic Conditions. Part II

ACuSTicA
Vo1 69(1989)

251

3.1.1.Subjectivedata

S3 P.l P3
2
p

S 2

positionson the or'


Fig. 1. Generallayout of measurement
chestraplatforms.
metre from the source positions S I (typical soloist
position), S2 (middle of right side strings betweenviolas and celli) and 53 (far left in second row of winds)'
For each source position, EEL, C, TS, EDT and RT
were measured at the "P" position with the corresponding number: P1 (normally position of solo
oboist), P2 (middle of left side strings between primo
and secondviolins), and P3 (far right in secondrow of
winds). The distance 52 - P2 was always very closeto
8 metres.and the distance53 - P3 closeto 6 metres'
The acoustic centresof all transducerswere one metre
above the floor. During the. measurements,the platforms were equipped with chairs and music stands'
However, closeto the transducerstheseobstacleswere
often moved slightly in order to avoid excessivereflections from them, and in order to ensurea free sight line
between corresponding S and P positions.
For all of the halls described in the following, our
measured values for most of these parameters have
been listed in the aPPendix.

The subjective evaluations were registered on questionnaires containing sevencontinuous semantic differential scales:one for each of the aspectsmentioned. in
[1, section 2], except for a different division of the
ensembleaspectsinto: Ensemble-generally,Ensemblehearing others, Ensemble-hearing oneself. The purpose of this division was to. allow investigation of the
balance aspect.The subjects'judgements were quantified by measuring the distance (with sign) from their
marking to the "satisfactory" mid-point on the scale,
which had a total length of 70 mm. In each of the nine
halls the questionnaires were filled in by about
20 musicians immediately after one to two hours of
rehearsal. This group of subjects was chosen to be
evenly distributed in the orchestra and representing
the various instruments groups in proportion to their
size by containing t0 to 12 strings, 3 to 6 woodwinds,
3 to 6 brass and occasionally one timpani player and
one harp.
In order to cover the nine halls it was necessaryto
cooperate with three orchestras: The Sealand Symphony Orchestra, SSO (covering 6 halls), The Danish
Radio Symphony Orchestra, RSO (2 halls) and Aalborg Symphony Orchestra, ASO (2 halls).The need to
employ several orchestras may have introduced an
orchestra effect into the results. Unfortunately this
effectcould not be directly estimated,sinceonly in one
casedid two orchestrasplay in the samehall (SSO and
RSO in the Tivoli Concert Hall, TI). Another variable
beyond control was the music played during the tests,
which varied according to what was on the programme for the coming concert.
3.1.2.Results

3. The three field experiments


3.1. Survey in nine Danish halls
In 1985 a survey was undertaken among orchestra
players during rehearsalsin nine Danish concert halls-

Table I shows the results of an analysisof variance on


the data from each of the sevenscalesin the subjects'
questionnaires.The instrument group variable corresponded to the splitting up into strings/woodwinds/
brass (and occasionally timpani and harp) as men-

halls.
Table L Analysis of variance results from subjective survey of musicians' conditions in nine Danish

=
l

i
tl:

ENS.GENERALLY
ENS HEAR.OTHERS
ENS.HEAR ONESELF
SUPPORT
REVERBERANCE
TIMBRE
DYNAMICS

<1
<1

2
<1
<1

(11)
<1

4
<1
6

<1
1

ACUSTICA
Vo1 69(1989)

Part II
A. C. Gade: Musicians' Room Acoustic Conditions'

which of these six subjective aspccts (if any of


tioned above. It is seen that the different halls and mine
these at all) has been responsible for their judgement
instruments account for between ll3 and 213 of the
along factor 1. Thus, correlation ofthe subjectivedata
total variance, i.e. there is a considerable individual
with the objective measurement values, as described
spread in the judgements. However, on all scalesexbelow, appearsthe only way to approach this question
cept the timbre.scale there is still a significant differfurther. With factor one accounting for 82oh of the
ence between the halls. In addition, there is a clear
variance, one may at this point just associate this
dilference between instruments with respect to the
group
of scaleswith an overall quality judgement'
which
judgements on the REVERBERANCE scale,
Thi immediate attempts to correlate the subject
coriesponded to brass players generally scoring lower
averagedresponsesand the position averaged objecon thii scale than the strings, which in turn scored
tive parameter values indicated only few and weakly
lower than the woodwinds. The signilicant interacrelationships, of which the most important
tions on the REVERBERANCE and TIMBRE scales signilicant
the perception of REVERBERANCE being reindicate that players in the dilferent instrument was
Rt ana EDT (in both cases r:0'63, with a
groups did not agree on the scaling of the different lated to
of signifrcance).However, when plotting the
level
5oh
Lails with respect to these attributes' Consequently
and objective data for each hall against
subjective
analysis of variance (and the following correlation
in caseswhere a certain relationship had
other
eacl
for
with-objective data) was necessaryfor these scales
been expected, pronounced outlier tendencies were
each group separately. However these groups were
too small for the analysesto provide a clearer picture
of the differencesthan that already mentioned' The
following discussionwill therefore concentrate on the
16
subject averageddata corresponding to one "orchesinstruon
(A
remarks
few
judgement"
hall.
for
each
tra
ment differenceswill also be given in connection with
814
the correlations with the objective data')
Concerning the relevanceof using all sevenscales,a
factor analysis indicated that the judgements on the
12
scales were not independent. The two dimensional
factor space in Fig.2 hts the subject averaged data
u"ry *"U (it explains 90% of the variance), which
5T
nCHll"
-""na that essentially "an orchestra" judges hall
:T__1_
acousticsusing only two subjective parameters'
'REVERBERANCE'-scale values
Factor 1 is closely connected to all aspectsin the
Fig. 3. Subject averaged
questionnaire except TIMBRE, which comprises fac- u"irus CS flr 9 DaniJh halls' The data point for each hall is
tor two. With an orchestra not distinguishing between shown by a two letter symbol explained in appendix' NB:
of nearly
six ofthe scales,it is not possibleon this basisto deter- Tbe "TI'; point is written in bold letters because

YNAMiCS

ORSA K}

02% 02:0/
TOTAL VARIANCE

identical placing of two judgements by two dilferent orchesthe AS and AH halls


tras. Regressioritinefor lil data
"*cept
has been drawn dashed.

sUPPORT

Dl

[NS 6ENERAL
ENS HEARING ESELF

Fig. 2. The placing in the two dimensional factor spaceof the


su6ject averagedresponsesfrom 9 Danish halls'

21

3 1 D R

suPPORT

'SUPPORT"-scale values versus


Fig.4. Subject averaged
What looks like "TTI" is actualNS:
SiZ for S lianish rra[i.
ly two overlapping "Tl"-points. Seealso text to Fig' 3'

A. C. Gade: Musicians' Room Acoustic Conditions' Part II

ACUSTICA
Vo1 69(1989)

253

sbdW
don coettde
C
nDhall
h
me
eL Rdd

pc
::ti

I
0,eCdVe parameters deinel in1,l
S9Cti
and 2 0Jy coerldents signincant a
ttcn h bold numbers.
ucJhea,1%Lvds are w
TS

0.71

Fig.5. Subjectaveraged"TIMBRE'-scalevaluesversus
EitF for 9 Danish Halls. Seealsotext to Fig' 3'
revealed as is shown in Figs. 3, 4 and 5. In all three
figures it is seen that a rather dehnite relationship is
predicted by all data points except one: "AH" in
o'AS" in Fig' 5. These two halls
Figs. f and 4, and
happened to be the onesjudged by the Aalborg Symphony Orchestra (ASO), which suggeststhe existence
ofa serious orchestra effect.Concerning the two other
orchestras - both resident in Copenhagen their
judgements of the TI hall do not diller noticeably on
the Factor 1 scales.This leadsto the plausible hypothesis that the room acoustic frames of referencemight
be particularly different between the Aalborg and the
two Copenhagen orchestras. (The subjects had been
instructed to interpret the scaleextremesas experience
limits.)
Consequently,it seemednatural to analyzethe data
from the Copenhagen Orchestras separately which
resulted in a number of significant correlations as
shown in Table II. (The analysesof variance and factor analyses were also repeated; but these did not
differ markedly from the ones already mentioned
which included all the data.) It is seen that the six
subjective scales which comprised factor 1 correlate
mainly with those parameterswhich measurethe level
of the reflected energy relative to the energy emitted

-067
-0.66
-0,2
-0.93

-0.68

0.64

12

ENS.GENERALLY
ENS.HEAR OTHERS
ENS.HEAR.ONESELF
SUPPORT
REVERBERANCE
TIMBRE
DYNAMICS

:lET

-0.69

(: the direct sound):CS, ST1 and ST2. Even though


all six scalesare of course highly mutually correlated,
the correlation patterns indicate a sensible tendency
towards the ensemble and SUPPORT judgements
being related to ST1 and ST2, i.e. the level of early
sound, whereas the REVERBERANCE and DYNAMICS judgements seem to be related to the level
of late sound: CS. Thus, the objective correlations
appear to aid a slightly more detailed interpretation of
the factor 1 judgements.
It is interesting that the factor 2 judgement on the
TIMBRE scale correlates with nothing but the frequency variation of EDT: EDTF. This fact increases
the probability of this factor actually being related to
TIMBRE - and not just being statistical noise' as
feared after the analysis of variance.
The differencesbetween instrument groups as already mentioned did not manifest themselvesin convincingly different objective correlations; but the correlations for each group separately indicated that in
TableII the high correlations with ST1, ST2 and
EDTF are mainly due to the string players' responses,
whereas the DYNAMICS-CS relationship is mainly
due to the wind responses.Concerning TIMBRE' the
responsesfrom the winds actually showed a higher
correlation with ST2F (5), the frequency variation of
ST2, which may seem a more logical way of measuring TIMBRE than EDTF.
3.2. Survey in eight British halls
In 1986 we had the opportunity to follow the RSO on
a concert tour in the United Kingdom, which seemed
a convenient way to supplement our held data in the
hope of allowir-rgus to draw firmer conclusions than
had been possible before.
Eight halls were included in this tour: the Aberdeen
Music Hall, the Usher Hall in Edinbourgh, Middlesborough Town Hall, the Central Hall in York, Dern'
gate Northampton, St. Davids Hall in Cardilf, the
Congress Theatre in Eastbourne, and the Barbican
Concert Hall. During the tour, objective and subjec-

254

ACUSTICA
Vo1 69(1989)

A. C. Gade: Musicians' Room Acoustic Conditions. Part II

Table III. Analysis of variance results from subjectivesurvey of musicians' conditions in eight halls in the United Kingdom.

:I:i:]:i::lll:l:::

.:

% 1

<1
<1

<1

<1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1

<1

(12)
<1

tive data were collected using the same procedures,


questionnaires and ineasurement techniques as in the
Danish survey.The only direrence was thatthe group
of orchestra members participaung as subiects Was
extended to about 30,but with the same inutual ratios
bctween stri4gs,woodwinds and brass playOrs as be
fore.
The results of the an4ysiS Of Va ance in Table III
look lnuch the same as those found in thel)anish hans
(Table I)with iespect to thc am6unt ofvarianCc being
explained by the model:and the direrence betwcen
halls bcing signiflcant o,41SttesCXCCpttheTIMBRE
scale.The increased tendency 6f Signiflcant direren s

:80%02:9%
TOTAL VARANCE

m
ESELF
6 0
ENS HEARI
ENS H[ARINGOTHERS
Dl

EA MI
R[VERBERANCE

between instrument groups and instrument/hall i,ter


actions is probabl,due tO the greater number ofsub
Fig. 6. Theplacingin thetwo dimensionalfactorspaceof the
jectsin each group.H9weVer,as in the DaniSh subject
survey,
from 8 hallsin the UK.
averagedresponses
dgements
the difFerences between the
j of difFerent
instFume,t groups could not be,aced tO meaningful

- 0.78)in
low
RT - see
(The
with
halls
eight
halls.
this
sample
of
rsF!he difFerent instrument groups
e paramet
t
highest
the
with
ones
be
the
happened
to
7
also
Fig.
were a16o very similar to each other.
.EDTF
values.)
The factorpattertt ofthe subiect aVeraged reslonses
Fig. 7 shows values of RT and the corresponding
shown in Fig.6 was also very similar to the pictvlc
avragedresponseson the REVERBERANCE scale,
found in the Danish halls(Fig.2)All scales except
i.e. the relationship with highest correlation according
TIMBRE arc highly intercorrelated and clustered
to Table IV. It is seen that the data points form two
with high loadings on dimension l,whereas thejudge
1 6 a d iWith
n g respect to RT, the halls visited on the
m e n t s a l o n g t h e T I M sB cR al e f a l l w i t h a h i g hclusters.
on dilnension 2.Consequently we were left withtour
the had either a low value around 1.1 "' 1.2s' or a
high value around 2.0 s. This clear objective split of
same prOblem of interpretation of the flrst factor,the

the stimuli into two groups may have triggered the


overan quality"judgement,as in the Danish survey.
subjects towards making a simpler evaluation than
Analysis of the corrclation between the subiect aV
eCtiVe
had been hoped for, since it seemsthat the subjects
eraged responses and the position averaged o
have mainly based their judgements on whether the
data revealed the picture shown in Table IV.Contrary
hall belonged to the one or the other of these two
tO what was found in the Danish halls,all the
. groups. However, if the subjects had wished to direct
factor i scales are now highly correlated with the
their attention towards other aspects,it would have
conventional reverberation/clarity parameters(whiCh
arc always highly mutually correlated),Wherea,thebeen possible to evaluate these,since the halls showed
substantial, and more homogeneous,variation in othTIMBRE scale is only related to EDTF,as found
er objective parameters, including those which came
previously.
out as the important ones in the Danish survey (see
The high correlations between EDTF and all the
appendix).
SubieCtiVe scales is probably aF artifact caused by

relationships,and the correlation palterns with obiecEDTF and RT being highly correlated (r:

A. C. Gade: Musicians' Room Acoustic Conditions. Part II

ACUSTICA
Vo1 69(1989)

255

British halls: Correlation coellicients between judgements along subjective scalesand


Table IV. Field experiment in eight
-sections
1 and 2. Only coefficients significant at a 10o/olevel are shown, 57o levels are
objective paramet;rs defined in
underlined, 17o levels are written in bold numbers.
EEL

Objectivo pefandrt/
judpmsnts ffilce

RT

EDT

ENS GENERALLY
ENS HEAR.OTHERS
ENS.HEAR ONESELF
SUPPORT
REVERBERANCE
TIMBRE
DYNAMICS

0.89
0
86
0.91
0
93
0,6

O.76
075
0.82
0.84
87
0

0.78
0.79
0.84
0.86
0.87

-0.68
-072
-0.75
-078
-0.78

0.89

081

0
84

-0.79

CA A,
N )

tDBA

11

1.4

YO

EA

Ml

REVERBERANCE

Fig. ?. Subject averaged "REVERBERANCE"-scaIe values


veisus RT for 8 halls in the UK. The data point for each hall
is shown by a two letter symbol explained in appendix. The
regressionline has been drawn dashed.

1.2

CS

STl

ST2

EDTF

-086
-0.86
-0.78
-0.76
-0.77
-0.79
-0.77

by RSO (DR and the leftmost TI point) are lying


below the regression line - and fit the line in Fig. 8
quite well.
3.3. Experiments in Danish Radio Studio One
In connection with attempts to improve the ensemble
conditions in the concert hall "Studio One" in the
Danish Broadcasting Building, Copenhagen,we were
given an ex@llent opportunity to test further the importance ofearly reflections,a question on which the
Iindings in 3.1 and in 3.2 did not agree.Ever since its
inauguration in 1945 this hall has been criticized by
musicians as not allowing them to hear each other
sufficiently. The hall, which has a volume of 11 700 m3
and seatsabout 1100,has a wide fan shapeand a high
vaulted ceiling and is further describedin [9] and [10].
In the early filties, an array of hexagonal reflectors
was suspendedunder the high ceiling to help the situation. However, the complaints prevailed and in connection with a new chief conductor being appointed
for the orchestra, the management decided to take a
radical approach to solve the problem. Therefore a
large renovation project was started which included
redesigningthe platform floor, the walls in the orchestraareaas well as the ceiling reflectors.The alterations
were tested in a l:20 scale model as well as in a full
scaleexperiment in the hall with the resident orchestra
(RSO). These experiments were carried out in 1987,
and the plan is to renovate the hall during the summer
of 1989 after further refrnement of the design.

3.3.1. Objective variables


Fig. 8. Subject averaged"TIMBRE'-scale values versus
The model testing indicated that among severalpossiEDTF for 8 hallsin the UK. Seealso text to Fig.6.
bilities, the following changeswould be effective- as
well as acceptable- to the architect and users:
Fig. 8 shows a plot of the valuesof EDTF versusthe
1) Changing the plane sidewalls in the platform area
evaluation of TIMBRE. The dotted regression line
into a zig-zag shape in order to make them reflect
shown is placed somewhat lower than the line in
sound back to the musicians more effectively.
Fig.5. This lower placing may be the result of an
2) Lowering the height of and/or redesigningthe ceilorchestra elfect: RSO preferring "brighter" halls than
ing reflectors.
SSO, sincealso in Fig. 5 the two data points evaluated

256

ACUSTICA
V0169(1989)

A. C. Gade: Musicians' Room Acoustic Conditions. Part II

In each situation, the orchestra played three excerpts from works by Beethoven, Brahms and Debussy lasting 12 minutes in total, upon which all the
orchestra members frlled in questionnaires as in the
previous surveys. This time, however, the questionnaire only contained the two scalesfor "ease ofhearing oneself' and "ease of trearing others"' Including
instruction, training, and breaks for resting and
changing the conditions, the experimentswith the orchestra lasted two full working days. Objective measurements on the platform were carried out in all
twelve situations in accordancewith the description in
section 2.

3) Moving the orchestra two metres further back on


the platform (which can be incorporated into the
already necessaryredesign of the whole platform
floor).
The best shape of the wall reflectors was found to be
as shown in Fig. 9. In fact the upper, tilted, part is
rsponsible for most of the improvement, obviously
because it employs reflection angles which are not
affected by attenuation at grazing incidence by the
musicians.
The three variables given above were then chosento
be tested in the full scale experiment in the hall.
3.3.2.Experimentaldesign
In order to test the subjective elfects a full factorial
experiment was designed,in which all combinations of
the variables could be presented to the orchestra'
Thus, two wall conligurations (plane or as in Fig.9),
two orchestra placings (as usual or moved two metres
backwards), and three ceiling heights resulted in a
total of twelve situations to be tested.The three ceiling
heights were the normal position 7 metres above the
floor (on average),a lowered position at 5 metres, or
the maximally raised position 14 metres above the
floor. The hight position was included in order to
allow measurement of the effect in the normal position.

Fig.9. Sketch of the new wall reflector design and ceiling


reflector height recommendedfor The Danish Radio Concert
Hall (DR).

3.3.3. Results
Responsesfrom 71 musicians were subjectedto analysis of variance.On the "hearing others"-scalethe three
room variables tested accounted for 24oh of the variance, but on the "hearing oneself'-scale,it was only
97o, which is actually very close to the proportion of
between-hall variance on the same scalesin the Danish and British surveys. (The remaining variation in
the responseswas related to the instrumental and individual differences plus usual experimental error.)
However, the correlation between the two scaleswas
quite high (0.75),indicating that the "hearing others"
data simply reflected the musicians'judgements more
clearly than the "hearing oneself'data did. This was
in line with many comments received that the differencesin "hearing oneself'conditions were very small
in this experiment. This in turn is as predicted by
Naylor (seesection 4.1.2). Therefore, for each of the
twelve situations, only the averaged"hearing others"
- scoreis shown in Fig. 10 along with the corresponding ST1 values averaged over the three positions. Of
all the objective parameters, ST 1 showed the highest
correlation with the subjective data: r: 0.91 (seealso
Table 9. The two sets of data illustrated by the bar
charts in Fig. 10 look very much the same,as expected
from the high correlation coelficient. Both setsof mea-

Table V. Correlation coelficients from three different freld experiments betweenjudgements along subjective scalesand a
selectionof objective parameters.Only coefficientssignificant it a tO% level are shown, 57o levels are underlined, 17o levels
ure *ritt.o in bold numbers. "HO": scalefor easeof fearing others, "HS": scalefor hearing oneself;but in the 1985and 1986
experiments,both scalesrepresent more probably: "overall quality".

Scvcn Danish Halls


(1985)

HO:
HS:

(1986)

HO:
HS:

DR Concert Hall,
twclvc conig(1987)

HO:
HS:

Eight British Halls

-0.67
0.75
082
-072
-0.63

0.69
0.76

0.77
0.91

0
91
0
70

0.91
0
72

079
0.84
-0.76
-0.60

0.62

A. C. Gade: Musicians' Room Acoustic Conditions. Part II

ACUSTICA
Vo1 69(1989)

257

3.4. Discussion

F
DRCH
YES VES
W A t t R E FNLO N O

NO
NO
YES YES
G R E F L E C T O 6R HS : S N O R M A L : LO W i Z
C E lN

Fig.10. l,eft Subjectaveragedratingsfor easeof hearing


otf,erorchestrarnLmbers(HO) for eachof twelveconfigurations of the orchestraplatform in the DR ConcertHall'
Right:CorrespondingST1 values.The situationbeforethe
altlrations is the secondfrom the left.

surements clearly show that the largest effect is provided by the ceiling reflectors.
Judged from ths subjective measurements,all three
modifications have a significant and positive effect,
with the best situation being the one in which all three
variables are combined: the ceiling reflectors in their
lowest setting, the wall reflectors mounted, and the
orchestra moved to the rearmost position'
The most important differencebetween instrument
groups was that, contrary to strings and woodswind'
brass and percussionplayers did not like the combination of rear position and wall reflectors, because it
resulted in powerful reflections of their own sound
which were too powerful. However, this can probably
be avoided by making small arsas of the new walls
absorptive near these groups.
The only generalnegativecomment about the alterations testedwas that the sound quality sulferedwhen
the ceiling reflectors were in their lowest position' We
will try to investigate whether this problem, which
may be related to comb filter colouration, can be
avoided with a new reflector design'
In terms of ST 1, the wall reflectors provide signifrcant improvement only in caseswhere the ceiling reflectors are not in their lowest position; i.e' in the
lowest position the overhead reflections are so strong
that the contribution from the walls vanishesin comparison.
By analyzing the objective data by position, it
turned out that the ceiling reflectors were most effective in positions S 1 and 52, in which the effect of the
wall reflectors is weak, whereas in position 53' i'e'
close to the walls, the picture is reversed. In other
words, these two types of alteration seem to complement each other well.

3.4.1. Factor spaces


Exactly the same factor patterns for the subjective
judgements were found in the Danish and British
Halls. A two factor structure with TIMBRE being
independent from other aspectswas also found in an
earlier laboratory experiment:[11, section4.3]. Also
the lack of distinction between soloist and ensemble
judgements (which make up factor 1, the overall quality judgement, in the held experiments) was encountered in the laboratory: [1, section 4.1.2].This lack of
distinction may also be caused by objective relationships, since both SUPPORT and HEARING EACH
OTHER will be aided by an increased level of early
reflection energy. The tendency in the Danish survey
for theseaspectsto be separatefrom the impression of
REVERBERANCE (indicated by the objective correlations) was too weak to be seenin the factor analyses.
Therefore it may be concluded that when their results
are averaged,musicians judge concert hall acoustics
primarily in two dimensions:an overall quality judgement. and TIMBRE.
The similarity of the factor patterns from the DAnish and British halls might tempt one to pool the two
sets of data for further analyses.However, becauseof
the very different correlations with objective measurements which are discussedsubsequently,this was regarded as being meaningless.
3.4.2. lnterpretation of the "overall quality" factor
The subjective experiment in DR was simple in the
sensethat the subjects were only asked to judge one
room acoustic aspect:"easeof ensembleplaying". Still
the nagging question arises,whether this was actually
the criterion on which they based their judgements'
The relevanceofthis question is evident after the experiences in the two previous field experiments in Danish
and British halls. It was difficult to find the basic
subjectiveaspectbehind the overalljudgement, and in
addition this judgement correlated with different objective parameters in the two surveys.
Table V shows the correlation coefftcientsbetween
relevant objective room acoustic parameters and the
hearing-others and hearing-oneself responses from
each ofthe three experiments.The differencesbetween
the correlations from the Danish and the British survey are striking. Obviously the overall quality judgements have been governed by aspectsrelated to early
energy in the Danish halls, whereasin the British halls,
the touring Danish orchestra focussedon aspectsrelated to reverberation. The only obvious dilference
between the two investigations is that the orchestra
was familiar with the Danish halls, but not with the

258

ACUSTICA
Vo1 69(1989)

A. C. Gade: Musicians' Room Acoustic Conditions. Part Il

British ones. Therefore the hypothesis is that only


after having had some time to adjust to a new hall,
doesit becomepossible to evaluate other aspectsthan
reverberation, which in turn seemsless important in
familiar halls. Consequently the acoustic consultant
should not be too enthusiastic about praise from musicians upon inauguration.of his new hall. If he has
forgotten to consider the early reflection energy, he
can be sure that criticism will arise later!
In the survey of Danish halls, the correlations appear much as in the DR experiment, where only two
scaleswere used. It is even possible that the fact that
the highest correlation which appearsfor the hearingoneself scale in the Danish halls, is due to the musicians regarding the quality of sound from their own
instruments as being the most important aspectin this
survey. Likewise the highest correlation in the DR
experiment appearing at the hearing-others scale,may
indicate that here easeof ensemblereally was the criterion used - as had been hoped. In any casethe comments from the RSO members during the experiment
supported this. Therefore, the correlations with the
earlyflate ratio parameters are likely to be a consequence of the early sound being the only variable in
this experiment.It is also worth noticing that the signs
of the correlations with these parameters are even
reversedcompared to the British survey.
Thus the results of theseexperimentscan be seento
depend on the subjects'previous experience,and the
questions they are asked, as well as on the context of
physical variables. Against this background it is not
dillicult to imagine the risk of overinterpreting the
results - a risk even more severein simplilied simulation experirnents,as stated in [1, section 3].

4. Discussion
4.1. Validity of the objective parameters
In both the laboratory and the field experiments,the
amount of the variance associatedwith different subjects (and instruments) was often higher than the variancecausedby the sound lield variables. This tendency has also been found in investigations of listener
conditions, e.g. [12]. In spite of this the data averaged
over subjectsshowed very high correlations with certain objective acoustic parameters,which means that
even though individuals may disagreeon the acoustic
quality of an orchestra platform, objective parameters
can be and have been found which predict the judgement of the "average performer" very well.
In the experimental situations above the subjects
had dilficulty distinguishing between what are believed to be dilferent subjectiveaspects.The discussion

in section 3.4.2 clearly shows, however, that it is relevant to measureeach aspect separately using a set of
different objective parameters.The formation of such
a set is discussedbelow.
4.1.1. Objective measurementof soloist aspects
The laboratory experiments in [1, section 4.1] show
that soloists and small groups are sensitive to early
reflection energy for the benefit of the sound of their
own instruments. The result in sections3'1 in this paper might indicate that musicians in symphony orchestras bre also occupied with other aspectsrelated
to early sound than ease of ensemble.We are now
tempted to believe that this early energy is important
becauseit representsthe majority of the total energy
from the room, rather than becauseit comes early, as
discussedin [1, section4.1.2] and illustrated by the
higher correlations of ST2 than of ST1 in the experiment in Danish halls (section 3.1).Therefore,it is suggestedthat measure ST2 should be used rather than
ST1 to describe conditions related to the soloistic
concern for Support.
The late energy is also important according to the
laboratory experiment in [1, section 4.1.2],and correspondingly CS turned out to be capable of describing
REVERBERANCE and DYNAMICS in the Danish
hall experiment (section 3.1). Instead of using CS as
described in section 2, a measure directly evaluating
the level of late reflectedenergy seemsmore appropriate:
ST13tC=1 lg

E(lC30 ms )
E(0 10 ms)

(0

Of course such a parameter should still be measured


with a source microphone distance of 1 metre.
The experiment in the British halls stressedthe importance of also measuring the traditional REVERBERANCE parameters RT and EDT. TS and C were
equally well correlated with the responses;but on the
other hand they provide no further information and
will therefore be omitted from subsequentdiscussion.
The consistencyof the correlation betweenTIMBRE
and EDTF in the two hall surveys(stictions3.1'and
3.2) was very encouraging, and EDTF defined in eq. (4)
seemsto be the best candidate for a parameter describing TIMBRE.
4.1.2. Objective measurement of ensembleaspects
Assuming that the criterion used in the DR experiment actually was the easeof hearing others, we would
have expected a higher correlation with EEL than
with ST 1 according to the laboratory experiment in
[4, section 4.2.3].While ST 1 only measuresthe contribution of early reflectionsat a distanceone metre from

ACUSTICA
Vo1 69(1989)

A. C. Gade: Musicians' Room Acoustic Conditions. Part Il

the source, EEL was designed also to consider the


influence ofdelay and attenuation ofthe direct sound
over longer distances. However, the reason for the
lower EFL correlation might well be that the subjective judgements by the orchestra members are governed by an even greater number of complex factors'
including the way in which sounds from a great number of dillerent sources are transmitted along many
diflerent paths - and finally the mutual masking and
importance of these sounds.
By measuring EEL, only the transmission of sound
from one speciltc source position to on specific receiver position on the platform is consideredat a time.
Therefore, with the question of interest being the very
complex judgement on easeof dnsemble,and not just
the easewith which sound from the three source positions in Fig. 1 can be heard at the three corresponding
microphone positions, it is not unlikely that the averagedjudgements are better describedby just measuring ST1, i.e. the contribution from early reflections.A
closer look at the validity of EEL would have required
that the subjectsclose to a measurementmicrophone
position had been asked specifically about the easeof
hearing coplayers placed close to the corresponding
source position - or vice versa.Clearly, their answers
would then have been strongly influencedby the power, directivity and orientation of the instruments in
question, which again illustrate that this approach and the extra complexity in EEL measurements- is
not worth the effort in real halls.
Naylor has found that the balance between oneself
and others is a major determinant for HEARING
EACH OTHER [4]. According to Meyer [6] rhythmic
precision is still possible while intonation suffers, if
you do not hear yourselfwell but hear your co-players
well. If on the other hand one hears oneselfwell, but
not the co-player(s),intonation may be all right, but
rhythmic precision will be hard to achieve.A position
averaged measurement of STl or ST2 is probably
able to describethis balance betweenoneselfand others. The reason is the law of sphericaldistance attenuation, which implies, that the level of one's own instrument will be almost unaffectedby changesin level of
reflectiond, becausethese will come from surfacesfar
away compared to the short direct path and therefore
be much weaker than the direct sound (see also [1,
section 4.1.21).On the other hand reflectionsmay have
alarge influence on the level of sound from coplayers
placed at larger distances,and the contribution from
reflections will even increase (relative to the direct
sound) as the distance between source and receiver is
increased.Consequently,adding reflectorsin the platform area will increasethe level of others relative to
the level of oneself,i.e.influence the balance.The actual balance between useful and interfering sounds from

259

others cannot be measuredby ST1, and will also have


to be controlled by a sensibleplacing ofthe orchestra
on the platform rather than by reflectors,since different orchestra sizesand lay outs for different orchestral
works will render specifically oriented reflectors impractical - unless they are computer controllable.
For measurement of ensemble conditions, ST1 is
probably more relevant than ST2, since most other
authors stressthe importance of a fast transmission of
the energy,as confrrmed by the findings in [1, sections
4.2.1 and 4.2.21.
According to Naylor's findings [4] early/late ratios
as described by EDT only alfect easeof ensemblein
caseswhere hearing others ls easy, which is not normally the casein symphony orchestrasin large rooms
as discussedin section 4.2. Thus it is also most unlikely that easeof ensemblewas the aspectgoverning the
judgements in the U.K. survey (section 3.2).
The effect of a mere delay ([1, section 4.2.1])was not
further illuminated in the field experiments and, as
mentioned, cannot be measured by ST1 either. However, this should not lead to neglect of the need for
designersto keep the platform dimensions as small as
possible (without forgetting the risks of direct sound
levels that are too high and may impair hearing), and
to ensurefree sight lines between the different sections
(e.g.by proper use of terracing towards the rear and
sides).
4.2. Range of variation and suggestionsfor optimal
values for the objective parameters
Accepting that the objective parametersST1, ST2, CS
and EDT are relevant measures,the need for specifying ranges for good or satisfactory conditions arises.
Our ideas about such ranges are based on the experiments described above, as well,as on our measurements of these parameters in nearly 40 halls in Denmark, Europe and United Kingdom (seeappendix).In
spite of the tendencies in some of the experiments
towards different preferences depending on instruments played, it seemsimpractical to extend the discussionbeyond position averagedvalues(corresponding to averaging the subjective data over positions,
individuals and instruments). All values mentionbd
below and listed in the appendix refer to measurements in empty halls, and of course the recommendations should be taken as our present guessesrather
than as absolute truths.
4.2.1.STl-values
Concerning the range of position averaged ST1-values measured as described in section 2, the highest
value experiencedso far in a "proper" concert hall is
- 10.9dB in the Tivoli Concert Hall, Copenhagen,in

260

A. C. Gade: Musicians' Room Acoustic Conditions. Part II

which ensembleplaying is regardedas being very easy.


At the other end of the scalewe found - 18.3dB in the
Concertgebouw, Amsterdam, whereas in the Musikvereinsaal,Vienna the value was - 13.0dB.
Naylor suggests[4], that in larger rooms such as the
halls in the field experimentshere, the ensembleproblem is often that th sound of co-players is too weak
compared to the sound of one's own instrument.
Whether or not this was actually the problem in the
presentexperimentscould not be illuminated because
of the high correlations between the hearing-oneself
and hearing-othersscales.Naylor [4] has also encountered diffrculties separating these two responses.
Keeping in mind the influ'ence of ST on self/other
balancein section 4.1.2,Naylor's suggestionis concurrent with the experimental results in Fig.4 and
Fig. 10, which both indicate a monotonic increase of
preferencewith higher ST values. However, an upper
limit for the amount of early reflection energy is likely
to exist - at least from an ensemblepoint of view. In
smaller spacssuch as rehearsal halls or even orchestra pits, Naylor [4] has found that the problem is
reversed:the general level created mainly by "others"
in large ensemblesmay become so high that it is diflicult to hear oneself.(This implies that absorption is
the answer for improvement of ensemble conditions
for large orchestras in such small spaces[4].) In this
context, "small" should be seenas relative to the size
of the orchestra, since chamber groups may still find
ensemble playing very easy in small rooms. In the
large adjustable orchestra pit at the Royal Theatre in
Copenhagen,we havs measuredST1 values as high as
- 9.7 dB, which the orchestra members felt was too
high (the sound becametoo loud). Consequently one
may guessat the optimum ST1 range for ensemblein
symphony orchestrasas being about - 12 dB t 1 dB,
but for smaller groups higher values may be allowed.

ACUSTICA
Vo1 69(1989)

point in favour of an optimal RT value for larger halls


being close to 2 s, as is normally recommended for
symphonic music. A comparison with EDT instead of
RT indicates optimal EDT values on orchestra platforms to be around 1.5 s. (In the Danish halls the EDT
value on the regressionline corresponding to the "ideal" point on the subjective scaleswas always close to
1.4s, while in the generally larger British halls, this
point correspondedto EDT : 1.6s.)
4.2.4. CS-values
CS values are difficult to recommend becauseunder
realistic conditions we have only encountered a sensible correlation with subjective responsesin the Danish halls data. According to Fig.4 the subjective optimum corresponds to CS (or ST,",.) between 72 and
13 dB, while the range of variation is from 11.5 to
16.7dB. Of all halls we have measured,the 11.5dB
from the Odd Fellow Palaet, Copenhagenis the lowest, whereas the highest (i.e. corresponding to the
weakest reverberant field) was 18.0dB in the Gasteig
Philharmonie,Munich.
4.2.5. EDTF-values
For EDTF measured according to the delinition eq. (4)
in section 2, a variation between 0.83 and 7.26 has
been found, and in both hall surveys the optimum
values fell close to unity: 1.07in Fig. 5 (from the Danish survey)and 0.94in Fig. 8 (from the British survey).
Thus EDTF : 1.0may seema reasonabledesign goal.

5. Conclusion

In this and a previous paper a number of experiments


on musicians room acoustic conditions have been reviewed. The results are found to be influenced by the
4.2.2. ST2-values
technique of sound field presentation, the context of
ST1 and ST2 are always highly correlated, with ST2 stimuli, the selectionof questions asked,as well as the
being between I and 3 dB higher than ST1. This subjects'background. In addition, there is a considermeans that ST2 will be between about - 8 and able spreadin judgements causedby individual prefer-l2dB for STl within the range describedabove. encesand instrument played. The identification of the
Judged from Fig.4, from our other experiencesand subjective aspect(s)which have governed the judgefrom the high correlation between judgements of ment in eachcaseis often diffrcult. Neverthelessobjecensembleand soloist aspects,this range is most likely tive parameters have been found, which quite consisto be close to an optimal range for ST2 values, and tently show a very high correlation between the
about the maximum obtainable for the benefit of subject averagedjudgements and the room acoustic
SUPPORT in larger rooms. However, at present we conditions. In spite of the complexity of the sound
have no real background for discussion of an upper field on orchestra platforms, these parameters are
rather simple
ST2 limit much below J'bathioom" values.
In caseswhere the orchestra players are familiar
4.2.3. RT and EDT-values
with the stimuli (halls), the main factor behind their
Comparison of the subjectivescalesand the RT values generalquality judgements seemsto be the amount of
in the field experimentsin sections3.1 and 3.2 (Fig.7) energy returned from the room relative to the energy

ACUSTICA
Vo1 69(1989)

A. C. Gade: Musicians' Room Acoustic Conditions. Part II

emitted as measured by the ST1, ST2 and STr"t"


parameters. In the caseof subjects not being familiar
with the stimuli, their main concern seemsto be the
amount of reverberation, as measuredby RT and other reverberancelclarity parameters.Regardlessof their
previous experience with the sound lields, musicians
judge TIMBRE as an independentquality, which correlates with the frequency variation of EDT: EDTF.
The experiment in the Danish Radio Concert hall
showed that the most effective factor in providing
early energy on the orchestra platform is the ceiling or
overhead reflectors which, however, need to be designed with great care in order to avoid colouration
phenomena.Compared to the total range of variation
encountered in different halls, substantial changesin
early reflection energy (and consequentlyin ensemble
conditions)were possible.
It is hoped, that the suggestedparameters will aid
the possibility of quantifying musicians' room acoustic conditions, since this i3 the only way to ensurethat
musicians'needscan be met regardlessof the architectural trends in design of future performing spaces.

Acknowledgements
About 150 musicians deservewarm thanks for their
most willing participation in the experiments described in this and the preceding paper. The objective
measurements in the various halls were only made
possible by the kind assistanceof the hall managements, and above all from my assistant Jorgen Rasmussen.I also thank Graham Naylor and JensHolger
Rindel for valuable comments on the manuscript.
Travel expensesin connection with experiments in

261

Denmark and abroad were covered by grants from


``A.N.Neergard og Hustrus Fond''and the Rockwool
Foundation respectively.

References
[1]Gade,A.C,Musicians'room acousdc conditions in
conrt hals I:Mcthods and laboratory experiinents.
Acustica 69[19891,193.
[2]Mcyer,J.,Acoustics and thc pcrfomance of music.Ver
lag Das Musikinstrument,Frankfurt aln Main 1978.
eyer,J.and Biassoni de Serra,EC.,Zum Verdek
13]
kungscrekt bei lhstrumcntalinusikern. Acustica 46
[1980],130
s upon
[4]Naylor,GM.,Musical and acoustical inluen
the achievement oF cnscmblc PhE)thesis,HcHot Watt
University,Edinburgh 1987.
[5]Jordan,v.L.,Room acousucs and architectural acous
tics development in rcccnt years.Appl.Acoust.2[1969],
59.
[6]Ktrer,R.,Zur Cewinnung vott Einzahlkrite en beilm
pulsmessungcn in der Raumakustik.Acustica 21[19691,
370.
[7]Reichardt,W.,Abdel Alim,0.,and Schmidt,W.,Deini
tion und Me3grundlagc cines obickt en Ma3es zur Er
littlung der Orenze zwischen brauchbarer und un
brauchbarer Durchsichtigkeit bei Musikdarbietung
Acustica 32[1975],126.
[8]Gadc,A.C.and Rindel,JH.,Akustik i danske koncert
SalC(ThC acousticsin Danish concert halls)PubliCation
No.22(in Danish),The Acoustics Laboratory,Techni
cal Univcrsity of I)enmark 1984.
19]JOrdan,V L., Acoustical design of concert halls and
theatres.Appl d Science,London 1980
[101 Beranek,L.L.,Music,acoustics and architecture.John
Wilcy,Ncw York 1962.
[11]Gade,A.C.,Suttect C rOom acoustic cxperlments with
musicians. Report No.32, The Acoustic Laboratory,
Tcchnical Univcrsity of I)enmark 1982.
[12]Wilkens,H.,Mchrdimensionale Beschreibung suttek
tiver Bcurteilungen der Akustik von Konzertsalen.Dis
sertation,Technische Universitat,Berlin 1975.

Appendix
Objective parameter valuesfrom various orchestraplatforms (measuredand averagedas describedin section 2).
DanishHalls(section
3.1)
:

111

Alborg Hallen
Symfonien Aalborg
Danish Radio Concert Hall
Falkon6rcentret Store sal
Kalundborg Hallen Hal 1
KulsvierskolenHillersd
Odd Fellow Palaet
Sct. Anna Salen
Tivoli Concert Hall

(AH)
(AS)

2.0
1.1

(DR)
(FC)
(KA)
(KH)
(OF) 1.7
(SA) 16
(TI)
21

1.1
1.0

1.8
1.6
1.2
1.7
1.5
11
14

16.7
14.9
1.5
1.0
0.8
11
115
14.5
1314

-15.3
-12.7
13.9
156
151
132
-13.3
-12.2
-1019

- 1 4 . 5 14.5
-14.0
-13.1
-12.3

262

ACUSTICA
vo1 69(1989)

Part II
A. C. Gade: Musicians' Room Acoustic Conditions'

British Halis(SeCtiOn 3.2)

Aberdeen Music Hall


Barbican Concert Hall,
London
St. Davids Hall, Cardiff
CongressTheatre'
Eastbourne
Usher Hall, Edinbourgh
Middlesborough Town Hall
Derngate, NorthamPton
Central Hall, York
(Assist.res. off)

(AB)
(BA)
(CA)
GA)

19
12
2.0
1.2

(ED)
(MI)
(NO)
(YO)

0:11

1
111111

_ _

. 11

:1:111
1:
1111

1.8
1.3

12.0
15.1

-155
-13.2

-12.8
-12.0

1.5
0.9

15.6
17.5

-16.6
-14.4

-14.3
-13.3

1_5
1.1
1.6
1.0

12.9
13.2
12.6
12.7

--16_3
-14.5
--14.6
-12.4

-13.6
-12.5
--12.3
-10.9

1.01
0.83
0.88
1.26
0.93
1.17
1.05
1.07

Danish Radio Concert Hall (section 3'3)

_14.2
-12.9
-11.7
-13.8
-12.8
-11.2
-14.0
-12.6
-12.1
-13.4
-12.1
_11.2

-16.1
-14.2
-12.6
-156
-14.0
-12.0
-15.8
-13.9
-132
-15.1
-13.3
-12.0

143
145
14.8
14.2
14.5
14.8
14.4
14.6
14.6
14.0
14.4
14.6

17
1.5
1.5
15
1.4
1.3
1.6
15
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.3

l.9
l.9
l.9
l.8
19
l
l.9
l.9
l
l.9
l.8
l

HIGH
NORMAL
LOW
HIGH
NORMAL
LOW
HIGH
NORMAL
LOW
HIGH
NORMAL
LOW

FORW.
FORW.
FORW.
BACK
BACK
BACK
FORW.
FORW.
FORW.
BACK
BACK
BACK

i 1