The classical rectangular concert hall

In small halls the room form matters relatively little for the acoustics. This probably applies to smaller rectangular plan auditoria built in Britain as civic halls during the nineteenth century. Birmingham

80 The development of the concert hall

Town Hall of 1834, closely based on the Temple of Castor and Pollux in Rome, is an important example.

It has a rich history which includes witnessing the premières of Mendelssohn’s Elijah and Elgar’s Dream of Gerontius. (The hall has recently been thoroughly refurbished, reopening in 2007 with a balcony on three sides and seat capacity of 1086.)

In the latter part of the nineteenth century the demand arose for large public concert halls, and those that derived from the rectangular plans and dimensions of ballrooms proved to have particu-larly favourable acoustics. The proportions were roughly of a double cube, i.e. of 1:1:2, often referred to as shoebox-shape. The balcony overhangs were modest and the style of the period led to highly decorated room surfaces. The following will con-centrate on the four most significant of these clas-sical halls plus the London hall contemporary with them. A technical analysis of the three of these halls that survive has been made by Bradley (1991).

Many other rectangular halls were built which also gained good reputations, among them the Liv-erpool Philharmonic Hall (1849–1933), the Stadt-Casino, Basel (1876), the St Andrew’s Hall, Glasgow (1877–1962) and the Grosser Tonhallesaal, Zurich (1895). Their acoustic character was similar to their contemporaries.

A major performing space in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Vienna was the Redoutensaal in the Hapsburg royal palace, Schloss Hofburg. In 1752 this had been converted into a ballroom by

Antonio Galli-Bibiena. It witnessed several famous premières, including that of Beethoven’s Eighth Symphony in 1814. In 1870 the Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde (Society of the Friends of Music) opened a new building close to the Ringstrasse, containing a Grosser and Kleiner Musikvereins-saal by architect Theophil Ritter von Hansen. The latter hall is now known as the Brahmssaal, while the former has established the reputation as having one of the best acoustics in the world. Its name as the Goldener Saal derives both from its acous-tics and the extensive gilding of its interior. It is the orchestral home of the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra, and has included among its conductors Brahms, Bruckner and Mahler. It is likely that these and other Viennese composers were influenced for their compositions by the sound of the hall.

For its proportions (Table 4.2), the Grosser Musikvereinssaal followed those of the Redouten-saal extremely closely, Figures 4.3 and 4.4. The dimensions of the Redoutensaal of length 46 m, width 17 m and height 16 m were all scaled up about 12 per cent. The dimensions of the older hall were certainly not designed with concert music in mind, but the architect of the Musikvereinssaal must have appreciated its acoustic virtues. At a time before any theory of reverberation, the choice of ceiling height was certainly fortunate, given its strong influence on reverberation time. The distance to the furthest seat from the stage front is 40 m, again an accepted modern standard. In fact, the hall as we know it

Table 4.2 Details of the four most renowned classical concert halls (after Beranek, 1962 and 2004). Reverberation times are for the occupied halls at 500/1000 Hz.

Concert hall

Date 1870 1884–1944 1888 1900

Volume (m³) 15 000 10 600 18 770 18 750

Seat capacity 1680 1560 2037 2625

Length (m) 52.9 44.9 43.0 50.7

Width (m) 19.8 19.2 28.4 22.9

Height (m) 17.8 15.1 17.4 18.8

Reverberation time (s) 2.0 1.55 2.0 1.85

The development of the concert hall 81

Figure 4.3 Plan and long section of the Grosser Musikvereinssaal, Vienna

Figure 4.4 Grosser Musikvereinssaal, Vienna

82 The development of the concert hall

today differs in several respects from the original design. A major renovation was undertaken in 1911 (Clements, 1999) primarily for reasons of fire safety.

The opportunity was also taken then to cantilever the side balconies and move the caryatids from their position supporting the front of these balco-nies to locations flush with the side walls. This also allowed for an increase in usable platform area and, together with other modifications, for a modest increase in audience capacity.

Seating in the Grosser Musikvereinssaal is at three levels, though the gallery is basically a rear extension. The Stalls seating is mainly on a flat floor, surrounded by under-balcony seating at the level of the stage. The balcony runs round all four sides, enclosing the organ behind the stage. All surfaces are highly profiled, with the gilded caryatids along the lower side walls, numerous door surrounds, recessed windows round three sides at the upper level and a coffered ceiling. Such surface decoration produces a highly diffuse and blended sound expe-rience, which is a hallmark of the Musikvereinssaal’s acoustics. Indeed when seated in the side balcony with a view of only half the orchestra, the degree of reflected sound is so high that the visual loss appears much greater than the acoustic one. But

this highly blended sound can be somewhat at the expense of clarity.

One feature which characterizes nearly all of the classical halls, but was not appreciated until recent-ly, is the strength of the early lateral reflections they produce. Subjectively the sound source broadens considerably, with a sound image in forte passag-es extending well beyond the physical size of the orchestra. Two design features enhance the effect:

the narrow width of the hall and in the stalls the possibility of balcony soffit reflections (Figure 4.5).

Yet in the hands of musicians unused to the hall, Clements (1999) records some disappointing experiences; Beranek (2004) refers to difficulties when visiting orchestras fail to restrain themselves in what is actually a fairly modest-size hall. The resident Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra have per-fected their response to this subtle instrument and produce a sound that is frequently sublime, highly enveloping with delicate even textures and remark-able climaxes.

The objective behaviour of the Musikvereinssaal is given in Figure 3.34. The occupied mid-frequency reverberation time is right in the middle of the pre-ferred range at 2.0 seconds, with a welcome gentle rise in the bass. It might be assumed that many of the internal surfaces of the hall were wood, whereas in reality there is little timber apart from the floor.

Virtually all the wall and ceiling are of plaster, which hardly absorbs in the bass (Beranek, 2004).

In rehearsal without an audience the acoustics are less ideal; the reverberation time rises to over 3 seconds. This occurs because many of the seats are not upholstered; all seats in the gallery and in the balcony facing the stage are wooden.

Turning to the other objective quantities in the hall, the early decay time is identical with the reverberation time, which is a symptom of a highly diffuse space. Objective source broadening is high as one expects from the comments above. However objective clarity and sound level are in many places lower than expected. This combination points to early sound which is quieter than anticipated, a surprising discovery but one which appears to do Figure 4.5 Lateral reflections from a balcony soffit and

ceiling cornice on the half cross-section of a rectangular concert hall

Source

The development of the concert hall 83 no harm to subjective quality for orchestras familiar

with the hall.

A curious aspect in the history of concert halls is that the Vienna Musikvereinssaal, which has such a high reputation today, was little mentioned at the time. Neither Sabine (1922) nor Bagenal and Wood (1931) refer to it. Nor did the architects, Gropius and Schmieden, of the Neues Gewandhaus in Leipzig. This new Leipzig hall served as the world-wide model of excellence before the Second World War. From the point of view of reverberation time, this reputation proves to be somewhat surpris-ing. The new hall in Leipzig was built because the existing Altes Gewandhaus had long outgrown its modest capacity, even with the addition of long

side galleries with 170 extra seats. The design com-petition for a different site was won by Gropius and Schmieden. The building opened in 1884 with two concert halls, both at first floor level. The small hall was a very close replica of the old hall, which was itself later demolished. The large hall (Figure 4.6) held an audience of 1560 and immediately estab-lished its good reputation (Clements, 1998).

The architects record that ‘with reference to the acoustics, ... the client intended that the form should duplicate the old hall with its highly regard-ed reputation’ (Gropius and Schmiregard-eden, 1887). The first priority mentioned was to reproduce the box-like construction in wood which was considered (fallaciously) to allow the vibrations generated by

Figure 4.6 (a) Plan and (b) long section of the Neues Gewandhaus, Leipzig (1884–1944)

84 The development of the concert hall

the orchestra to set the enclosure into sympathetic vibrations in the manner of a violin. Reflections from the rear wall were (correctly) considered acceptable only if they arrived within 1/12th second. As the rear wall reflection in the large hall would have a sub-stantially longer delay, the rear wall was fragmented as much as possible and treated with some acous-tical absorbent. Concern for reflection between parallel plane side walls led to (sound absorbing?) paintings being placed on these walls. The only auditorium referred to by the architects apart from the old hall was the Trocadero in Paris, which had the form of an amphitheatre.

In plan the length of the new hall was nomi-nally twice its width, just as the Altes Gewandhaus had been. The curved ends were less pronounced but, as mentioned, attention had been paid to pre-venting echoes, with boxes at balcony level and a draped recess. Again there were ceiling coves, but here they were intersected by large clerestory windows. There was a high degree of moulding on the wall and ceiling surfaces. Bagenal (Bagenal and Wood, 1931) describes the experience of a concert in these terms:

The Gewandhaus is a true instrument to music produced within it. ... There is no exaggeration in its reputed excellence for orchestral music. ...

Tone is both ‘full’ and ‘bright’ and at the same time notes are distinct. ... To hear indeed the highly trained Leipzig orchestra in the Ninth Symphony, each phrase exactly presenting itself to the ear for the fraction of a second before it is resolved in the great onrush of the scherzo, to feel the control of sheer loudness maintained by the conductor, is a musical experience of consid-erable interest to the student of acoustics.

And by modern standards? Many of the details, including the precise proportions of the plan, are of no especial significance. Regarding vibrations being radiated by the box-like construction, Meyer and Cremer already demonstrated in 1933 that this was a myth. Nowadays we would take note of the dif-fusing nature of the hall envelope and the modest 18.9  m width. One would criticize the design for

poor sightlines from the gallery, and the then normal flat stalls floor. But the major surprise con-cerns the reverberation time which has been cal-culated as 1.55 seconds at mid-frequencies, prob-ably falling slightly in the bass (Beranek, 1962; this result can in fact be derived by the Kosten method, section 2.8.6, but the measured unoccupied results by Meyer and Cremer of 1933, suitably corrected for occupancy, and analysis of recordings after the war by Kuhl are consistent with this figure).

While a reverberation time of 1.55 seconds would be suitable for late Classical or early Roman-tic music, it would certainly today be judged as too short for the main Romantic symphony repertoire.

It is possible with the highly diffuse sound in the Gewandhaus that a shorter reverberation time was acceptable. Yet diffuse sound fields were not unique to the nineteenth century. One cannot help wonder-ing whether musical taste has not developed since the demise of the Gewandhaus in 1944; our sensi-bilities have surely been influenced by daily expo-sure to recorded music. Although the building shell of the Neues Gewandhaus had survived the 1944 air raid, the East German authorities decided unfortu-nately to demolish it and build a new Gewandhaus in 1981 to a contemporary design (section 4.11).

Amsterdam’s response to the Leipzig tradi-tion has fortunately survived (Figures 4.7 and 4.8).

Designed by A.L. van Gendt and completed in 1888, the Concertgebouw also has a high reputation for its acoustics, though it differs from its forebears in several respects. Principal among these is a width which is 45 per cent and 50 per cent larger than that of the Vienna and Leipzig halls, respectively.

But providence again was kind in the selection of a ceiling height which provides a 2 second reverbera-tion time when occupied with audience. The stalls seating is on a flat floor, though sightlines are some-what compensated by a very high stage level of 1.5 m. A single high balcony skirts the hall in front of the stage. Behind the orchestral platform is exten-sive choir seating, which is now often used for audi-ence. The acoustics for the audience in the stalls are generally considered slightly inferior to those of the Musikvereinssaal, with a sound which is live

The development of the concert hall 85

Figure 4.7 (a) Plan and (b) long section of the Concertgebouw, Amsterdam

but lacking a little clarity. Conditions in the balcony though are good, both clear and well balanced.

Beranek (1962) quotes musicians with differing views about the Concertgebouw. A likely reason for this is the lack of support they receive from above, with an unusually large distance of 16 m from the stage to the ceiling.

London’s hall from this period was less distin-guished and followed the rectangular plan less closely, but was viewed no less affectionately by its users. From 1895 it became the first home of Lon-don’s annual Promenade concerts, which now take

place in the Royal Albert Hall. The Queen’s Hall (1893–1941) was designed by T.E. Knightley who described his scheme as follows (Elkin, 1944):

The feature of the internal design ... is on the reversal of the lines usual in such cases – fre-quently a horseshoe; in this one a parallelogram with a curved end, wind instruments being the inspiration. For example, the end of the horn is normally convex, and that form has been adopted for the orchestra. The junction between the ceiling and wall is usually a hollow curve; in this case it will be the reverse.

86 The development of the concert hall

Figure 4.9 (a) Plan of stalls plus intermediate balcony and (b) long section of the Queen’s Hall, London

Figure 4.8 Concertgebouw, Amsterdam

The development of the concert hall 87

Figure 4.10 Symphony Hall, Boston, Massachusetts In fact the plan for the hall (Figure 4.9) derived considerably from a design by the theatre architect C.J. Phipps for the same site but a different client; the dispute about the plan’s origin had to be referred for arbitration to the Royal Institute of British Archi-tects. The use of convex surfaces is frequently good acoustic practice, but the rear auditorium wall was concave and this must have performed much like the rear wall of the Usher Hall, Edinburgh, does to this day (section 5.2). The use of extensive wood panelling was a further detail which would not be used today, as it diminishes the sense of warmth.

The audience capacity was initially 3000, becoming latterly a more relaxed 2050. With a volume of only 12000m³, the reverberation time was short, prob-ably 1.4 seconds, which meant a clear but rather dry acoustic (Parkin, Scholes and Derbyshire, 1952).

Allen (1969) records that the sound was best in the gallery. Given that the design owed much to Victori-an theatre forms, this observation is in line with one made frequently of traditional opera houses.

The first application of a science of acoustics to concert hall design for Boston Symphony Hall is a much-quoted episode (Figures 4.10 and 4.11). The town of Boston, Massachusetts, USA, wanted to demolish their existing Music Hall of 1863 to make way for a road (Beranek, 1977, 1979 and 1988); in the event the old Music Hall has survived and is now called the Orpheum Theatre. The architects, McKim, Mead and White, had visited Europe and chose the Leipzig Neues Gewandhaus as a standard of excellence. Various conductors had advised them against pursuing their scheme of a concert hall in the form of a classical Greek theatre, since it was untried. Wallace Sabine was engaged somewhat by chance in 1898. He hesitated to accept, but spurred on by the challenge, he analysed over a couple of weeks all his reverberation time results from the Fogg Lecture Hall and other rooms in Harvard Uni-versity (Chapter 1) and derived the first form of the now-famous Sabine equation for reverberation time. He then agreed to offer his assistance. Sabine

88 The development of the concert hall

Figure 4.11 (a) Plan and (b) long section of Symphony Hall, Boston, Massachusetts

next embarked on a frantic exercise collecting more absorption data to enable him to calculate rever-beration times of auditoria.

The seat capacity for the new hall was to be 2600 compared with 1560 in the Leipzig Gewandhaus

and this had led the architects to suggest scaling up all dimensions of the Gewandhaus. Sabine realized that this would imply a doubling of the auditorium volume, which in the absence of substantial (unde-sirable) extra absorbing material would lead to an

The development of the concert hall 89

excessively reverberant hall. The only other hall referred to was the old Boston Music Hall of 1863 (Figure 4.12), which with 2361 seats was much closer in size to the new design. Beranek (1977) says that the old hall was well liked in Boston, while Sabine (1922) wrote that ‘the old Music Hall was not a desir-able model in every respect, even acoustically’. In fact the new hall bore a much closer resemblance to the old than to the Gewandhaus. It has two bal-conies rather than the one in the Gewandhaus. The principal modifications to the Music Hall design were to make it lower and longer and to remove the angled reflector above the orchestra. The stage area in Symphony Hall is mainly in a recess behind a notional proscenium frame. To compensate for the acoustic effects of increased length, the side walls of the stage enclosure were angled to project sound out to the audience. Symphony Hall has an early example in a concert hall of an optional raked stalls floor.

Sabine (1922) calculated the reverberation times of the Gewandhaus and old Music Hall as 2.30 and 2.44 seconds, with the new hall as 2.31 seconds. In the first and last cases these are now known to be substantial over-estimates; the occupied value in the Boston Symphony Hall is 1.8 seconds. Beranek (1977) suggests that the large gaps in Sabine’s diary of the period may be due to the anguish this dis-crepancy caused him. In reality a reverberation time value of 2.3 seconds would have been excessive and

1.8 seconds is now generally considered the bottom of the optimum range. The main reason for Sab-ine’s prediction error was that he was calculating seat absorption on a per-seat basis rather than on an absorption-per-square-metre basis. It took over 60 years for this confusion to be resolved (section 2.8.3).

Of particular interest is the question of what other acoustic advice Sabine gave for the design of Symphony Hall. As his general philosophy, he stated (1922) that ‘in order that hearing may be good in any auditorium, it is necessary that the sound be

Of particular interest is the question of what other acoustic advice Sabine gave for the design of Symphony Hall. As his general philosophy, he stated (1922) that ‘in order that hearing may be good in any auditorium, it is necessary that the sound be