No. But the fact that a hall sounds
anechoic or nearly so does not mean it is!
To the extent that I could find out on line
in a quick search, it seems that the
reverb time was about 1.4 seconds. This
is much too short to sound satisfactory and
moreover the rise of RT in the bass was
not
Sorry! I read the wrong volume! RFH is actually 21,960.
This gives critical distance ~ 7 meters.
(not that this changes my basic point but just for the record)
Robert
On Wed, 22 May 2013, Robert Greene wrote:
No. But the fact that a hall sounds
anechoic or nearly so does not mean it is!
To
Even dead concert halls in the relative sense
have a lot of reverberation. A really dead hall
still has a 1 second reverberation time say
and most of what you hear in the audience is still
reverberant sound.
Robert
On Mon, 20 May 2013, David Pickett wrote:
At 00:50 18-05-13, Robert Greene
At 12:16 21-05-13, Robert Greene wrote:
Even dead concert halls in the relative sense
have a lot of reverberation. A really dead hall
still has a 1 second reverberation time say
and most of what you hear in the audience is still
reverberant sound.
Did you ever hear an orchestra playing in the
Hi
That's not the RFH - nor RAH! The stage organ are wrong for both.
Every Blessing
Tony
-Original Message-
From: sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu [mailto:sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu]
On
Behalf Of Aaron Heller
Sent: 19 May 2013 20:18
To: Surround Sound discussion group
Subject:
At 00:50 18-05-13, Robert Greene wrote:
Of course in those live versus canned experiments(also with AR)
reverberation tended to make things sound pretty much the same
to smooth out errors and so on.
Reverberation in the RFH pre 1966?
David
___
You see if he didnt do this (mimic positions of instruments) - its a very
different thing.
On 18 May 2013 12:01, Rev Tony Newnham revtonynewn...@blueyonder.co.ukwrote:
Hi
Indeed - there's a picture or two in one of his books, which I have here
somewhere. I don't think he tried to mimic
On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 3:01 AM, Rev Tony Newnham
revtonynewn...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
Indeed - there's a picture or two in one of his books, which I have here
somewhere. I don't think he tried to mimic the piositions of instruments
within an ensemble though - except maybe the piano. No
--On 19 May 2013 12:18 -0700 Aaron Heller hel...@ai.sri.com wrote:
There's a photo of the set up at Royal Festival Hall, about 1/3 down on
this page
http://www.gearplus.com.au/products/wharfedale/history/0-history-wharfeda
le.htm
Only if there's another Festival Hall which I don't know
Looks like The Duke's Hall at the Royal Academy Of Music.
John
On 19 May 2013, at 21:19, Paul Hodges pwh-surro...@cassland.org wrote:
Only if there's another Festival Hall which I don't know about! Sure, some
demos took place there (four out of over twenty), but that photo sure ain't
of
Hi
Indeed - there's a picture or two in one of his books, which I have here
somewhere. I don't think he tried to mimic the piositions of instruments
within an ensemble though - except maybe the piano. No time to look it up
at present
Every Blessing
Tony
-Original Message-
I believe Gilbert Briggs of Wharfedale did something like this in the
1950s. He hired major concert halls and other public venues in the UK
and USA to give concerts comparing live with recorded sound. Of course,
the purpose was to promote his Wharfedale loudspeakers and Quad
amplifiers (he and
I think I did not make myself clear.
Of course in those live versus canned experiments(also with AR)
reverberation tended to make things sound pretty much the same
to smooth out errors and so on.
But in fact, if one records musical instrument with a mike
and plays it back with a speaker has no
13 matches
Mail list logo
