Theatre Design & Technology - Fall 1979 - 8

Overhead sound reflectlore surfaces to reflect

pl1

sound back to pH and 10 reInforce "Olces 10 au·

dlence
All mUSICIans

r...

CC" du

r~lqhl

11 conduClor desirable

t ,r mUSI nd.e ap~roprta1e .;:,e comaLt ... Hh slrg':::fS

Iurn dr
,

'Ioofs

".d

Solid Pit railll 'l *
,j

III Un'

IhlC~

a, d all mUSICians In pH reqUire 10.'.

ress cl o.erharg stru ture

.crhar g usetull I space balance and

ptc:.~lrrll,

vi audlel

ar d cu'ductor to Singers

.'ole

thar b' do:? If'lblo:- Lr rlr .. ulaiion and acoustlL . ")Iume but rot desllable toe perforrPefs
Sedl 51 rage. lurre lmder audience promoles blend ard ar.:ousl,...:al oalarce

r------.,.------------------.. .

relative priorities and degrees of effectiveness of the design
alternatives available to them.
The economic realities of the early 70's are still with us.
The days of monumental budgets and unrestrained technological muscle-flexing have given way to more realistic, responsive, and responsible design approaches. The best of the
design professionals, acousticians, and theatre consultants
have well-developed understandings of the functional imperatives, programming realities, and economic constraints.
In the halcyon days of the 1960's, various approaches
were pursued, using devices to reduce volumes, reshape surfaces, and/or introduce adjustable absorption. Certain of
these approaches were, and remain, quite successful in practical as well as acoustical terms. Others have proven to be
more or less problematic. In our pendulum-swinging world,
the 1970's also have seen what we regard to be overreactions
in the form of so-called "single-purpose" concert halls, designed exclusively for full symphony orchestras. The practical
realities of economic viability force most of the "single-purpose" halls to accommodate as best they can the other performance and public meeting activities that make up the programming of the multi-use halls.

Follr ... or..- I; II u~1 te
fea,J

Pr - ' I

l'lJ~

jll,r

~,,:,fS

<;lL:~

to pro

I 10 edge of sia e past stdndlng

~-€Isons

Ir balc..,r.

~f'd

}n:ll serond le.el

f 1.-

listruct

. Ie ... 015 .ree", past starJln

pers ,ns r. ,II::! fdl:::;ed "

In view of all these considerations, how do we approach the
acoustical design of performing arts spaces, and what are the
primary criteria and approaches we employ to achieve responsive results for those spaces? The full answer would require a book, but in brief terms can be described as follows:
1. Size audience capacities to the performance needs
tempered, but not governed, by box office considerations.
2. Shape the audience chamber in relation to the full
range of performing activities the facility is to accommodate, balancing the benefits of proximity for all activities
with the need to develop reverberant fullness for music.
3. Provide excellent sightlines/"soundlines" from all
seats to extreme downstage positions. The senses cannot
be separated-to hear and not see is really not to hear well.
4. Provide sufficient cubic volume to sustain adequate reverberation to support some music performances, and sufficient adjustable absorption in the form of panels, banners,
curtains, etc. to control that reverberation when it would be
inappropriate or undesirable.
5. Sculpt the major and minor surfaces to control the
time/space distribution of sound.
6. Provide ample stage space to accommodate the activi-

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Theatre Design & Technology - Fall 1979