Rudman's city: Ambience OK but sound an issue

By BRIAN RUDMAN

Back in 1990 when the Aotea Centre opened, I was so critical of the acoustics that the city council tried to calm me down by hastily setting up an official listening panel and putting me on it.

Unfortunately by then it was too late to do much more than to state the obvious - that the attempt to create a multi-purpose concert hall, where the acoustics could be electronically adjusted by the flick of a switch to suit everything from the solo voice to symphony orchestra, had bombed.

But the experience did give me a chance to attend a lot of free concerts and to acquire a smattering of the rudiments of acoustic science.

Enough knowledge anyway to be unsurprised when the reviews of the first orchestral concerts in the restored Civic Theatre in January used words like "dry," "lifeless" and "dead" to describe the sound of the great London Philharmonia.

Neither am I surprised to hear from New Zealand Opera general director Jonathan Alver that he could well install an electronic reverberation system at the Civic to beef up the sound for the upcoming Madama Butterfly production.

What does surprise is the decision to do orchestral concerts and opera in a hall not designed for the purpose.

Unlike the Aotea Centre, this is not a case of the acousticians getting it wrong. Just the reverse.

As Richard Harris, managing director of architects Jasmax messaged me last October, "the acoustics within the auditorium have been optimised for amplified stage shows."

The key word is "amplified." This design choice was made by the city council in response to the demands of The Edge management and commercial promoters who wanted to create a space ideal for long-run, amplified blockbusters such as Les Miserables.

These big shows need an all-but-dead, low-reverberant hall into which promoters can ship their million-dollar sound systems and create the acoustics of their choice.

The consequences of this crucial decision are emphasised in an April 18, 1996, report to Auckland City from its acoustic consultants, Marshall Day Associates.

* "The reduction in reverberance will improve the theatre for cinema, drama and rock concerts but the venue will not be well suited to symphony concerts."

* "The space is excessively large for opera and drama, hence unamplified sound levels from performers would not be sufficient in audience areas."

Mr Alver says Madama Butterfly is in the Civic for a one-off season to mark the theatre's opening. He dismisses rumours that soloists are worried about their voices being able to fill the space and seems to be hanging his hopes on electronic reverberation.

He agrees it won't increase the volume of sound but will increase "the resonance."

To me that sounds like adding a good dose of reverberation to the truth.

As for The Edge, which promoted the London orchestra visit, it is being very defensive.

A request for an interview after the London Philharmonia performance brought a fax from chief executive Greg Innes saying there had been no complaints from patrons. With it was a letter saying the Civic was chosen over the Aotea Centre because of high public interest in the Civic.

As to the acoustics, he said there is "a diversity of opinion as to what constitutes an ideal acoustic" and it was "short-sighted to adopt the view that the only acceptable acoustic is the style of the Town Hall."

He argued that "perceptions of the 'best' orchestral acoustics have changed markedly" both in response to the development of modern concert halls and to CD recordings which have established "a heightened sense of clarity." He said the warmth and bloom of traditional venues such as the Town Hall "rarely allows this level of analysis in a live performance."

Now I'm a fan of clarity, but not at the expense of "bloom" and certainly not at the expense of the key issue that Mr Innes avoids - the little matter of loudness. What's the use of clarity or warmth if you have to strain to hear anything?