how did large halls work before the 20th century

[audiothings]

i don't understand how 2000+ seater large venues like carnegie hall managed before sound reinforcement.

i've just started working with a 1100 seater auditorium designed by andy munro... all visible surfaces are either reflecting or diffusing sound, and i still cannot clearly hear solo instruments being played on stage without amplification.

i can imagine that a relatively large orchestra can put out sufficient sound without the need for reinforcement... but i wonder how the audience could hear solo piano or string quartet concerts without amplification. can anyone enlighten me please?

[Larry Elliott]

Some general thoughts...

The only reference was live music no recordings so people learned to listen.

The general ambient noise was much lower than now - so there was very little interference from noise into concert halls - certainly no HVAC!

Halls didnt need to seat 2000+ people to make performances economical - the preferred halls were around 1200 - 1700 seats.

A good reference book is Concert Halls and Opera Houses by Leo Beranek.
Welcome to Leo Beranek.com

[d_fu]

Originally Posted by audiothings

i've just started working with a 1100 seater auditorium designed by andy munro... all visible surfaces are either reflecting or diffusing sound, and i still cannot clearly hear solo instruments being played on stage without amplification.

It really depends on your solo instruments... A Saraswati Veena, Gottuvadyam, and most other indian solo instruments are not built to acoustically fill a large hall. Neither are indian classical singers trained to do so. Western Classical singers, a piano, even a string quartet or a solo violin (as in Bach and not Vaidyanathan...) can. Not because they are better, but because they are trained or built to do so.

Try a couple of Nadaswarams, though, and I'm sure you won't need a PA..

[NorseHorse]

Any other insights?

Personally, when it comes to theatre/voice, I encounter many performers who have become accustomed to using a PA and look at you funny when you ask them just to sing louder if they want to be heard. Granted, new singing styles have evolved which take advantage of mics/PAs (e.g. screamo, crooning), but somehow performers in classical and traditionally acoustic genres are feeling the "need" for a PA. I'm wondering if projection is a dying art?

On a related note, "How did people hear before the 20th centuary?" I've had variations of this conversation a few times.

A cappella soloist: Where are the monitors?
Me: There aren't any for tonight.
Soloist: Did you bring any?
Me: Nope, sorry. I think you'll be fine though.
Soloist: I really need a monitor to hear myself.
Me: I really don't think it'll be a problem once you try it out.
Soloist: But how is the group supposed to hear each other?
Me: Well, do you ever rehearse with monitors?
Soloist: No.
Me: How do you hear yourselves?
Soloist: ... Oh.

[klaukholm]

Originally Posted by audiothings

i can imagine that a relatively large orchestra can put out sufficient sound without the need for reinforcement... but i wonder how the audience could hear solo piano or string quartet concerts without amplification. can anyone enlighten me please?

It takes skill and not electronics.
Massive soundproduction, golden sound and full control of clarity and articulation is what pro's get paid good for.

Volume is about dynamic range and articulation control and not about max spl. Lound is all about filling the hall with resonance.
This is what makes orchestras like concertgebouw, boston and vienna phil so powerful sounding.
They play daily in huge halls.
This is the real test of projection as orchestrations constantly vary from all in to single unaccompanied instruments, or a single wind towering over 60-68 string players.

[d_fu]

Originally Posted by klaukholm

It takes skill and not electronics.

And the right instruments, don't you think? The comparison with the instruments of Indian Classical Music shwos that quite clearly IMHO.

[klaukholm]

Absolutely, Daniel!
Not only that, but there is a reason why top dollars are paid for concertinstruments.

Let's also not forget that the majority of concerthalls are not particularly good.
I would say that there are no more than 5 good design firms worldwide today.

[RobAnderson]

A lot depends on the performer and the instruments as has already been noted, but much depends on the acoustic design of the space itself.

Solo piano has no trouble being heard in the back row of the balcony at the main hall in Carnegie because the hall itself is designed for this sort of purpose: concerts of western classical music by acoustic, non-reinforced instruments. It blends the sounds of the instruments on stage together and then adds a bit of its own ambience. I can say it is not difficult to communicate with someone standing in the balcony from the stage without any sort of reinforcement. It goes without saying that sound reinforcement of the electronic kind did not exist when the hall was first built.

As has already been said, the instrument itself needs to be capable of some projecting - I think a harmonium would have some trouble being heard without reinforcement, but a 9-foot concert grand needs no help at all.

The music also makes a big difference. Carnegie Hall was designed and built just past the height of the Romantic era. Symphony orchestra sounds amazing in the space. Bring a rock band into Stern Auditorium and it would be a different story - the sound would turn to mush without some sort of reinforcement (and even then...). The space was not designed for this type of music or ensemble. However, Zankel Hall would work much better - it is a smaller dryer space designed for more modern purposes.

Most modern ensembles cannot properly balance themselves acoustically, and so they require a sound system to amplify and take care of the balance issues. As a result, most modern auditoriums assume that sound reinforcement will be used, and seeks to reduce the influence of the space on the sound itself, so the design often tends to not be conducive to un-reinforced music, but makes life much easier if you are using a PA system. As a result, sound-reinforcement becomes a necessity, not an option.

[Plush]

Also please keep in mind that when one visits the "large halls" of the 17th and 18th centuries, they are not *that* large. Places where Mozart operas were played were relatively small and orchestras were much smaller and were in smaller halls.

Real artistes project on piano and with singing voice. Those professional voices who can fill the Lyric Opera in Chicago (nearly 4000 seats) or the Met work for years to develop the ability to project.

Smaller "art" voices would not agree to appear at these massive venues and they choose their halls carefully.

Legit classical singers wanting to be miced are to be encouraged to study until they ramp up their skill to big league standards. If they asked to be miced, their request would be refused. If they still demand it, they would be fired.

[vonrichter]

Originally Posted by RobAnderson

A lot depends on the performer and the instruments as has already been noted, but much depends on the acoustic design of the space itself.

+1

I've been in halls where a PPP Clarinet is present and audible in the back seats. It's about superior engineering... the stage volume of real non-amplified instruments is often quite loud. It's the job of the hall designers to make sure that sound projects well.

Sound is an interesting thing... think of how a phonograph cone type shape can "amplify" sound without any electronics.

Part of it is how the music is arranged and composed. For example, Tchaikovsky symphonies using the same size orchestra as Beethoven are usually louder in performance for a variety of reasons.

[boojum]

My first exposure to live classical music was the old Metropolitan Opera house. It was huge and seated 3,600+. The acoustics were excellent. And those singers could match Ethel Merman for being heard in the back row. Yes, I know the wheez that the singers were better then is an old one, like the winters were colder and it used to snow more, but that house was filled with sound, and very well, without sound reinforcement. It can be done.

At the same time Birdland had jazz groups playing without amplification, too. Maybe it actually did snow more, too.

[videoteque]

Originally Posted by Larry Elliott

The only reference was live music no recordings so people learned to listen.[/url]

More educated public and less noisy environments! I can't think singers or instrumentists projected more then than now, human body changes take thousands of years to change...

[Thomas W. Bethe]

I have been to concerts at the Concertgebouw in Holland, I have been to concerts in Carnegie Hall in New York, I have been to operas at the Metropolitan Opera in New York and the State Theater in Cleveland with the Cleveland Opera and I was for 26 year affiliated with a college where I did all the recording and concert sound work. I have never seen a classical artist have to use any kind of reinforcement in order to be heard in the farthest reaches of the hall. The three halls we had at the college were a 200 seat small hall, an 800 seat concert hall and a 1200 seat chapel that was used for musical performances. I have heard and worked with such performers as Yo Yo Ma, Itzhak Perlman, the Kronos Quartet and a large number of singers. They all performed with out amplification (true the Kronos did use some amplification for a couple of their pieces but it was more for a special effect than for overall amplification) and they were heard just fine in all corners of the halls they played in. While at the Concertgebouw in Holland I heard a large orchestra play and I was seated in Row H seat 1 which is in the middle of the hall and later heard a sting quartet playing and I was in the back of the balcony and in both cases the sound was amazing and perfectly balanced.

The idea of using amplification for classical concert is not new and I have have done my share of it. It is usually a crutch or for some special reason but it never sounds believable and is usually offensive to just about everyone. Classically trained musicians for the most part abhor it and will do most anything to avoid using it. Jazz and pop musicians seem to be more accepting of it. Broadway could not exist without it today.

I think that if you have a properly constructed hall and one that is well designed like the Concertgebouw that the need for amplification of any artist will NEVER be needed and that if it is needed there is something seriously wrong with what the hall acoustics is being asked to do.

FWIW and YMMV