Judge critical of Town Hall acoustics

Press, 23 March 1988, Page 6

Judge critical of Town Hall acoustics

1!' ' ' 1 iil 1 ■ I 1 .. 1 1 : ' H 1 I ■ ' ! |; 1 '1 I 1 ' of the Christchurch Town Hall acoustics, ed the hall since it was built 15 years ago, popped up again] after last week-end’s National Concerto Competition final. j j ' , ’ I] ll'

The adjudicator for the final, Mr Erich Bergel, aimed his criticism at the saucer-shaped reflector above the stage. The reflector was badly made and should be replaced with a fibreglass structure, he said. Mr Bergel has criticised the acoustics in the auditorium before, soon after it opened and again after the recent Christchurch Symphony Orchestra Concert there. The reflector was positioned above the stage iin 1978 to meet criticisms from the musicians on stage that they could not hear themselves or their fellow musicians. . | '■ Mr Patrick Connell, the then manager of the complex, said yesterday that the “doughnut” reflector had been fixed above the stage, baffle reflectors positioned on the choir galleries and the balconies at the edge of the stage to “squash the sound back on to the stage area.” That had vastly improved the reflection of sound for the performers. Surveys were done after the opening of the Town Hall and the general feeling of audiences and performers was that the hall's acoustics were good. “In my opinion they were the finest acoustics and the design created something of a vogue; in New Zealand acoustic design,” said Mr Connell. The effect of the reflec-

tor above the stage was to make good orchestra sound better, and a bad orchestra sound worse. 0 “I think (acoustics are ;a3 matter iof personal - opinion Leonard Bern- . stein said (it j was one of the finest performance j venues he had worked in.” Yesterday ; Mr William Southgajte, the freelance composer and conductor from Wellington who cori-j ducted the Christchurch Symphony (Orchestra for Saturday’s ! final, and Mr John Boardman, the actind leader of the orchestra, we're not so complimentary. j . Mr Southgate said he, was surprised at the rieac-j tion of| Town Hall man-i agement to Mr Bergel’s comments. “It has; always been agreed that the acoustics could be improved,” l he said. I i ■ . I | He agreed that it was a ; problem for performers i rather (than the audience; although it!was a problem ; for theL audience also. | “It does affect perform- ; ances,’| he said. “It is very I difficult to get a balance ! from the orchestra if you cannot jhear them all. You do your best, but it could be improved.” Mr Boardman said that he foiind jit difficult to ; hear the other musicians playing in j His section of the orchestra, but other sections came through well. J !■] j “It’s a strange problem j

but it does have an effect. It 'improved after the reflector went in but it is Still disconcerting." i ■ | Sometimes there was -no i problem at all, he j said. ■ rl Professor Harold Marshall, an Auckland .University professor of architecture and a partner in the acoustical design firm of'Marshall Day and Associations, the firm which designed the acoustics for jthe Town Hall, said yesterday that the acoustics ! of] the hall were remarkable. 1 It had always been intended that the hall should have a; reflector above the stage, integrated with lighting, but money ran out and the hall opened without the reflector. Professor Marshall said there had been a vast improvement when the reflector was inI stalled. j “We always .knew it was I necessary — it was in the ; design.’.’ . ! [The intention had been I for the reflector to be ; louvered or raised. “That would ■ be advantageous. The different needs of ensembles and singers made moving the reflector a benefit” Professor Marshall dismissed Mr Bergel’s comments i as “not! worth answering. Acoustically i thiey’re I rubbish.;’ i The Town Hall was 15 years atjead of its time when openedj and set. design precedents still used.