Performance Acoustics: The Importance of Diffusing Surfaces 3118 (B-2)

and the Variable Acoustics Modular Performance She!I--VAMPS TM

4A/B-2
Peter D'Antonio
RPG Diffusor Systems, Inc.
Largo, MD 20772, USA
Presented at Auo,o
the 91st Convention
1991October 4-8
New York
Thispreprinthasbeen reproducedfromtheauthor'sadvance
manuscript,withoutediting,correctionsor considerationbythe
ReviewBoard. TheAES takesnoresponsibilityforthe
contents.
Additionalpreprintsmay be obtainedbysendingrequestand
remittancetotheAudioEngineeringSociety,60 East 42nd
Street, New York,New York10165, USA.
All rightsreserved. Reproductionof thispreprint,oranyportion
thereof,isnot permittedwithoutdirectpermissionfromthe
Journalof theAudioEngineeringSociety.
AN AUDIO ENGINEERING SOCIETY PREPRINT
PERFORMANCE ACOUSTICS: THE IMPORTANCE OF DIFFUSING SURFACES AND
THE VARIABLE ACOUSTICS MODULAR PERFORMANCE SHELL-VAMPS TM
Peter D'Antonio
RPG Diffusor Systems, Inc.
12003 Wimbleton Street
Largo, MD 20772
ABSTRACT
There has been significant research in stage acoustics within the last decade. This research is focused
on determining the appropriate distance, disposition .and composition of sound scattering surfaces on the
stage enclosure. The acoustical design of stage enclosures must try to satisfy the sometimes contradictory
requirements for solo performance, chamber group, full orchestral and chorus as well as providing
sufficient sound projection into the hall. Since the introduction of the QRD in 1983, there has been an
expectation that, in addition to improving critical listening spaces, these new surfaces would enhance the
acoustics of stage and pit performance environments. The case studies presented in this paper are part
of an ongoing research program to satisfy these expectations and develop a new generation performance
acoustical shell. This goal has been realized in the evolution of a variable acoustics modular performance
shell called VAMPS TM.
[1] INTRODUCTION
During solo, band, chamber, orchestral or choral performances there is a need for surfaces or enclosures,
conventionally called acoustical shells, which surround musicians. The acoustical shell reinforces and
blends the sound projected toward the audience and also heightens the ability of the musicians to hear
themselves and as well as other musicians in the ensemble. Acoustical shells typically incorporate a rear
wall, flared side walls and a projecting canopy which are all structurally supported with either a
counterweight or leg mechanism. In addition to the orientation of the shell surfaces with respect to the
performers, the nature of the acoustical surfaces is critical to good performance. A shell can contain
reflecting surfaces, which re-direct sound, diffusing surfaces which uniformly distribute sound, and
absorbing surfaces, which attenuate sound. The temporal and spatial response of these acoustical surfaces
is shown in Fig. 1. The object of our stage acoustics research, which involves objective measures as well
as musician's perceptual evaluations, is to determine the appropriate combination and orientation of
reflecting, diffusing and absorbing surfaces to optimize performance. The results of this investigation will
be presented in case studies which describe the purpose and conclusions from each experiment. A
description of the patent pending variable acoustics modular performance system will then be given.
[2] FACTORS AFFECTING ENSEMBLE
Early reflections among musicians greatly improve their sensation of playing as a group if the reflections
occur within a temporal window which is dependent on the nature of the musical program material,
typically between 17 ms and 35 ms; include high frequency content roughly between 500 Hz and 2000
Hz, containing the attack transients which are cues for rhythm and expression; contain a balance of all
the parts in the ensemble at all performance positions [1]. The first condition is easily met by spacing
the shell an appropriate distance from the performers, while the second and third requirements depend
on the nature of the shell surfaces themselves. Prior acoustical shells have used flat reflecting panels and
various forms of surface irregularity, such as curved surfaces, polycylindrical and fluted columns, etc.,
to provide sound diffusion. Despite the usefulness of these partially diffuse forms of relief ornamentation,
experimental measurements and observations [2,3] reveal limitations in either the uniformity of the
spatial response, the degree of independence from the direction of incident sound, the diffusion
bandwidth, the temporal density, or the frequency response. We were interested in developing a new
generation acoustical shell that uses a unique sound diffusing surface based on mathematical number
theory sequences. This surface is called a reflection phase grating (RPGTM) and provides optimal surface
irregularity for broad-bandwidth wide-angle scattering [2-50]. The RPG provides diffuse reflections
covering the essential part of the spectrum to aid ensemble, and because of the uniform wide-angle
scattering properties, a well balanced reflection pattern is provided for all performers. This blending and
uniform distribution of the sounds from each member of the ensemble to all performers is illustrated in
Fig. 2.
Each point on a reflecting surface, whether flat or diffusive, can be considered as the source of a
spherical wave. When the surface is flat, destructive interference between all these point emitters occurs
in all directions except the specular direction. That is, all energy components in non-specular directions
cancel each other. Even though all points on a specular surface are contributing to the scattering process,
it is useful to consider a specular reflection as arriving from one point on the boundary which satisfies
the condition that the angle of incidence equals the angle of reflection. Consider the indirect energy
arriving at an observation point from three sources (dots), and a boundary surface shown in Fig. 2. In
Fig. 2a it can be seen that each source is reflected (dotted lines) from only one point, on the specular
boundary surface, to the observation point (O). If one or more of these boundary positions is absent or
non-reflective, the indirect energy from that source will not reach the observation point. Each observation
position receives indirect reflected energy from the three sound sources from different positions on the
specular surface. If the specular surface is replaced with an array of RPGs, vertical dashes Fig. 2b, each
diffusor element on the surface has a scattering component (dotted lines) in the direction of the
observation position (O), from all sources. This leads to uniform coverage in that all sources are
scattered to all observation positions, from all elements on the RPG surface. The difference between
a specular surface and an array of RPGs, is that each element on the diffusive surface, instead of only
one, has a component in the direction of the observation position from all sources, instead of only one.
To illustrate this fact the sound scattered from a purely reflective and diffusive shell was measured. This
was accomplished by placing a loudspeaker/microphone combination in front of each shell. Using a
Techron System 12 acoustical analyzer the direct swept sine wave chirp test signal from the loudspeaker
and scattered energy from the shell are measured and displayed in an energy versus time display. The
speaker was placed approximately 3' in front of the shell and the microphone was placed 18" away
toward the shell and 3" down. In Fig. 3a the direct and reflected sound detected by the microphone in
front of a purely reflective shell is shown. The full scale intense reflection at 1.3 ms is the direct sound
and the two isolated reflections at 8.4 ms and 11.0 ms are the strongest reflections from the shell.
Fig. 3b illustrates the diffuse reflection pattern recorded by the loudspeaker/microphone combination in
front of a diffusive shell consisting of lower lateral diffusors and upper vertical diffusors. Again the
direct sound occurs at 1.3 ms, but now instead of a few sparse reflections, a rich diffuse sound field
beginning at 8.5 ms and extending over a significant period of time is recorded. This measurement
documents that the sounds from all performers are scattered from all elements on the RPG surface to
all performers.
There are three types of QRD diffusing surfaces which can be used in performance shells, l-
dimensional (I_D), 2~dimensional (2-D) and fractal QRD diffusors are shown in Fig. 4. The 1-D QRD,
Fig. 4a, consists of a linear periodic grouping of an array of wells of equal width, but different depths,
separated by thin dividers. The 2-D diffusor based on a quadratic residue sequences is called an
Omniffusor TM, Fig. 4c, and consists of a 2-D array of square, rectangular or circular wells of varying
depths, separated by thin dividers. The Omniffusor possesses two vertical mirror planes of symmetry and
four-fold rotational symmetry. This symmetry insures that the backscattering is identical in both the
horizontal and vertical planes. A schematic comparison between the hemidisk coverage pattern of a 1-D
diffusor and the hemispherical coverage pattern of a 2-D Omniffusor are shown in Fig. 5. In Fig. 5a the
incident plane wave is indicated with arrows arriving at 45 o with respect to the surface normal. The
radiating arrows touching the hemidisk envelope indicate the diffraction directions. In Fig. 5b the
incident plane wave is indicated with arrows arriving at 450 with respect to the surface normal. The
arrows radiating from the hemisphere envelope indicate a few of the many diffraction directions. The
fractal diffusor, which is called a Dlffractal TM, Fig. 4b, is essentially a multi-way crossed over diffusing
surface, designed much like a loudspeaker, which consists of nested diffusors each covering a specific
bandwidth. Since these surfaces tend to be large when extending to low frequencies, they are more
suitable for fixed acoustical shells. In the present investigation we report only on the 1-D QRD.
[2] PERFORMANCE CASE STUDIES
Study: I [IMay 1986
Case
Venue: The Opera House, Boston, MA
Analysis: Pit Rail Reflection Analysis
Experiment: The pit rail was covered with three materials- Velour Curtains, Wooden
Panels and RPG Diffusors
Response: Musicians within 20' overwhelmingly were in favor of the RPGs. Beyond
20' ability to perceive difference was evenly divided.
Comments: "The playing space seemed to be larger"
"I could bear the rest of the orcheslxa much better"
"I heard the strings for the first time (Timpanist)"
Result: RI:'Gs remained in place for the entire run of Tosea and plans for
permanent installation are in progress.
Collaborators: Gary Harris, Sarah Caldwell and The Opera Company
Case Study: 2 April 1987
Venue: Wolf Trap Farm Park, Vienna, VA
Analysis: Pit Rail and Sectional Partition Analysis
Experiment: RIK]s were placed on the pit rail, between percussion and woodwinds,
behind the brass and between brass and strings, Fig. 6.
Response: Musicians responded favorably to the Biffusor partitions. RPGs improved
string blend and sense of ensemble.
Comments: "The acoustic orchestral blend improved in the house (House Manager)"
Result: Musicians requested RPGs remain in place for the Tales of Hoffmann
performances.
Collaborators: Farrell Becker
II
Case Study: 3 Il July 1987
Venue: Circle Theatre, Indianapolis, 1N
Analysis: Stage Acoustics Analysis
Experiment: Rl_s were used as performance partitions and on upstage wall, Fig. 7.
Response: 1. RPGs replaced plastic reflective panel traditionally used in front of brass
and percussion. The RPGs gave considerable relief without specularity
effects.
2. The trumpet and trombone players preferred the return when the RPGs
were tilted 45 degrees to the floor.
Comments: "The RPGs improved the balance and quality of the ensemble as heard in
the hall"- Don Davis
Result: This research paved the way for the development of the Biffusor, a two
sided abffusive/diffusive variable acoustics panel, and the Triffusor, a three
sided absorptive/reflective/diffusive variable acoustics panel.
Collaborators: Chris Jaffe, Jaffe Acoustics; Don and Carolyn Davis, Syn-Aud-Con
II
Case
Study: 4 II December 1988
Venue: Wortham Theatre, Houston, TX
Analysis: Pit Acoustics Analysis
Experiment: The experiment attempted to improve cross-pit hearing and the conductor's
ability to hear all sections of the ensemble.
Response: 1. Mounting 2'x2' RPGs on the inner pit rail with vertical wells improved
hearing throughout the pit
2. The RPGs smooth out the sound of the upper strings.
3. When RPGs were used with horizontal wells on the pit rail,
communication between the stage singer and pit musicians improved.
Result: The Houston Grand Opera is employing the RPG Diffusor System.
Collaborators: laffe Acoustics
I Case Study: 5 I April 1989- Present
4
Venue: Meyerhoff Symphony Hall, Baltimore, MD
Analysis: Symphoni c Recordings with Telarc International
Experiment: RPGs were used to optimize the Green Room as a control room and also
placed around the perimeter of the stage in increasing numbers over the
years to improve the musicians ensemble and enhance the recordings. The
chronology of RPG application is:
1. First control room use in April 1989 for the Schumann Symphonies No.
2 and 3.
2. Control room use and first modest stage application in June 1989 for the
Elgar Enigma Variations.
3. Control room and stage use for the Schumann Symphonies No. 1 and 4.
4. Control room and stage use for Tchaikovsky Symphony No. 4 and
Romeo and Juliet in November 1989.
5. Special acknowledgement for control room and enhanced stage use for
the Tchaikovsky/Rachmaninoff recording in January 1990.
6. 1st use as Telarc'c exclusive acoustical system for control room and
stage use for the Berlioz Symphonic Fantastique in November 1990.
7. 1st use of full stage VAMPS shell, withspecial thanks for the
Stravinsky March 1991 recording of the Firebird and Petrushka, Fig. 8.
Response: 1. The musicians express an enhanced ability to hear themselves as well as
other musicians in the orchestra
2. The conductor expresses a level of accuracy, clarity and detail not
present before diffusors
3. The recorded blend, string size, spaciousness and depth of imaging
were improved
4. Harshness of brass has been minimized and woodwinds can now hear
the outer strings
Result: The Meyerhoff installed a full stage diffusor shell around the perimeter of
the stage for a one year evaluation period and uses them for all recordings,
performances and rehearsals. The RPG Diffusor System has been adopted
as the exclusive acoustical system of Telarc, International to be used in all
field recordings and in-house editing. A field application of the diffusors is
shown in Fig. 9 at the Dobris Mansion in Prague, the site of the Telare
Mozart series with Sir Charles Mackerras and the Prague Chamber
Orchestra.
Collaborators: Jack Renner and Mike Bishop, Telarc International; George Alexsovitch,
Meyerhoff Symphony Hall; David Zinman and The Baltimore Symphony
Orchestra.
Study: 6 11September 1989
Case
Venue: Carnegie Hall, New York
5
Analysis: Reflections from the rear of the hall
Experiment: RPGs were placed on rear wall of the hall to control slap echo. Objective
and subjective measurements were conducted.
Response: Objective and subjective measures indicated the diffusors solved the
problem.
Result: RPGs were permanently architecturally integrated into the rear wall at
Carnegie Hall.
Collaborators: Kirkegaard & Associates.
II
Case Study: 7 IlOctober 1989-Present
Venue: Troy Music Hall, Troy, New York
Analysis: Symphonic Recordings
Experiment: RPGs were used on stage for chamber and solo recorded performances.
Andrew Rangell Beethoven piano sonatas January 1990.
Response: Dorian is using RPGs at Troy and location recordings, in particular the
Zurich sessions of Jean Guillou's series of Bach organ works. An
application can be seen in Fig. 10.
Result: Dorian is employing RPGs in all of their recording projects.
Comments: "The results from the Zurich session are nothing short of incredible"-Craig
Dory.
Collaborators: Craig Dory, Dorian.
Case Study: 8 October 7-8, 1989
Venue: Cleveland Institute of Music, Knlas Hall
Analysis: Development of a new generation acoustical shell with diffusive and
reflective components
Experiment: This analysis attempted to determine:
1. The appropriate orientation of diffusive surfaces and the percentage of
diffusive and reflective surfaces in a performance shell in terms of mutual
hearing and projected sound quality
2. The appropriate shell distance from the performers
3. Two siring quartets, a brass quintet and horn duo were used
4. Five different microphone systems were used for each playing
environment to obtain 5 simultaneous DAT recordings:
a. The Head Acoustics mannequin, with microphones at the entrance to the
ear canal, was placed within the group to determine ensemble blend
without self masking
b. Etymotic Research probe microphones, Fig. 11, were inserted into the
ear canal to determine ensemble blend with self masking
c. Helmuth Kolbe's headband microphones, located at the entrance to the
ear canal, were used to monitor ensemble blend with self masking
d. An omnidirect[onal microphone was placed within the group as a
monophonic control
e. Spaced omnidirectional microphones were placed in the front of the
house to measure the projected sound quality
5. Recording Equipment: 5 Panasonic 3500 DAT recorders
6. The RPG shell consisted of (8) 4'x4' QRD modules with specular back
panels arranged to form a barrier behind the musicians 16'(W)x8'(H).
Response: String Quartet (Fig. 12-14):
1. The string ensemble preferred a mixed orientation shell with lower
vertical wells and upper horizontal wells. Some musicians preferred
specular support on the lower surfaces for better bass coupling.
2. Mutual and self hearing was unanimously improved
3. The general reaction was that the diffusive shell provides warmth and
intimacy and minimizes harshness
4. The preferred shell distance for warmth and intimacy was approximately
3-6'
5. The preferred shell distance for projected sound quality was 9-12'
6. There was unanimous agreement that a height of 8' was better than 4'
Brass Quintet (Fig. 15):
l. The brass quintet preferred a mixed orientation shell with lower vertical
wells and upper horizontal wells
2. The brass experienced harshness from a completely reflective shell and
did not prefer upper diffusors with vertical wells
3. The preferred distance for mutual and self hearing as well as projected
sound quality was 9'.
4. A horn duo preferred a mixed diffusive and specular shell at
approximately 6'
Result: The musician's positive response and enthusiasm encouraged the
development of a new generation performance shell which incorporated
diffusion
Collaborators: Tom Knab, CIM staff and students; Jack Rennet, Telarc; Wade Bray, Jaffe
Acoustics; Dana Kirkegaard, Kirkegaard & Associates; Tech support from
Mead Killion, Don and Carolyn Davis, Dave Andrews and Joseph McGee,
Fig. 16.
Careful audition of the DAT recordings and listener preferences led to the development of a new
acoustical shell incorporating a lower reflective section below the listeners ears, vertical 1-D Diffusors
providing horizontal diffusion at ear height and 1-D horizontal diffusors above ear height providing
diffusion in the vertical plane. Because the size of the performance group, disposition on stage, program
material, conductor's preferences, etc. are variable, it was decided to design a portable variable acoustics
modular performance shell which incorporate the concepts of reflection, diffusion, absorption, variability
and a reflecting cantilever. This concept is called VAMPS.
To evaluate this new performance shell design musicians in a string quartet and brass quintet (Case
Study 9) were asked to respond to eight perceptual questions on a scale of O-unacceptable, 1-poor, 2-fair,
3-good and 4-excellent. A perfect score being 32.
CaseStady:0 IIMarch23-24,1991
Venue: Cleveland Institute of Music, Kulas Hall
Analysis: Evaluation of the new VAMPS acoustical shell
Experiment: The shell was placed at a preferred distance of 6' for the string quartet and
9' for the brass quintet. The shell consisted of a lower row of (8) 2'x2'
reflective panels, an intermediate row of 8 vertical 2'x2' diffusors, an
upper row of (8) 2'x2' horizontal diffusors and a reflective cantilever
oriented at 45 . The shell was configured in a diffusive/reflective format,
Fig. 17, completely reflective format, Fig. 18, and for comparison, the
stage curtains were also used as a control, Fig. 19.
Response: The respondents scores are listed in Fig. 20-21. Fig. 20 tabulates the
individual perceptions to the eight questions for the string quartet. A
summary of the preferences for the three environments is shown at the
upper right. VAMPS is the preferred shell. Fig. 21 tabulates the individual
perceptions to the eight questions for the brass quintet. A summary of the
preferences for the three environments is shown at the lower right.
VAMPS is the preferred shell.
Result: The VAMPS concept has moved into production
Collaborators: Tom Knab, CIM staff and students; Jack Renner, Telarc
Enthusiastic response from the BSO musicians and conductor during Telarc sessions led to an objective
8
measurement of the stage acoustics and subsequently an subjective official evaluation of a full stage
diffusive shell system reported in Case Study 10.
Case Study: 10 "1 April 25, 1991
Venue: Meyerhoff Symphony Hall
Analysis: Evaluation of the new VAMPS acoustical shell. Musicians were asked to
responds to 6 questions on a scale of 1-4 without and with the diffusive
shell. The questions were: rate the ability to play in rhythmic
synchronicity, intonation perception, ease of tone production, ability to
hear distant instruments, ability to mutually hear instruments in adjacent
sections, and ability to hear your own instrument. A perfect score is 24.
Experiment: The shell was placed around the perimeter of the stage, using
approximately (22) 4'x12'x9 1/8" sections. The shell consisted of a lower
open support which allowed sound to reflect from the hard existing wall
behind the shell. The next 2' high tier consisted of horizontally diffusing
diffusors with the center of this level at seated ear height. The next 4' in
height contained all vertical diffusion. A 24" cantilevered plexiglass
canopy was oriented atop the vertically diffusing QRDs at an angle of 45 o
with respect to the face of the diffusors.
Response: The purpose of the experiment was to blend the outer strings into the
woodwinds, decrease the harshness of the brass, intensify the fullness and
warmth of the strings and enhance the sense of ensemble and rhythmic
performance of the musiciar_s.
Result: The shell was extremely well received and plans for a permanent
installation are under way. This same arrangement was also used for the
highly acclaimed Telarc recording of Stravinsky's Firebird and Petrushka
CD-80270. Musician's preferences are listed in Fig. 22-24. Fig. 22
tabulates and plots the Baltimore Symphony Orchestra's average sectional
evaluation of the existing stage. Fig. 23 lists and plots the BSO's
evaluation of the full stage QRD shell. Fig. 24 illustrates the general level
of satisfaction the BSO experienced in using the QRD shell. The average
percentage improvement was 83%, with a high of 144% and a low of 42%.
Collaborators: BSO musicians and staff and RPG.
The following are a summary of section comments from the musicians which accompanied the
perception questionnaire.
Violin
Much, much better with RPGs.
Viola
The woodwinds and basses are clearer with the RPGs. Brass are even louder than before. There is a
9
basic improvement in most areas, but the synchronicity between 1st violin and viola remains a major
problem. With the public it felt less reverberant, a little dead. With the RPGs we can hear the real sound
of the 1st violins instead of the echo. Also from the back we can hear the viola section for the 1st time.
With the RPGs the Cello sound is so much more focused and the winds sound like a unit. Its easier to
hear the violins. Quality with RPGs is somewhat bright and raw. I don't like the way my instrument
sounds with the RPGs. Its very raw and scratchy with no bass overtones. It reminds me of Salisbury.
It takes more effort to play even though the ensemble improves. Congratulations! I love the diffusors.
Sound is much warmer. Tendency to force sound is reduced. Brass not as overpowering. Ensemble much
easier, reverb got in the way before. Easier to hear all around. Rhythmic underpinnings are more present,
no longer buried by acoustics.
Cello
Winds especially have much richer, integrated sound. I'm very encouraged by the potential in these
RPGs to make this a great hall. For the first time I can hear the timpani's beat. I feel my intonation
should improve at rehearsals and concerts because I can hear myself. In the past it Was worse after a
rehearsal because I couldn't hear myself. Also the brass doesn't hurt ones ears the way it did when
sitting close.
Bass
The effect is better without the plastie on the rear diffusors. Cellos are better and the bass is more
integrated.
Flute
With RPGs I don't have to push sound to be heard. The RPGs are a definite improvement.
Oboe
The RPGs are at their most valuable in cutting down superfluous sound on stage. Tone color seems a
little darker, much fuller and more focused with RPGs. Bass was more even and not boomy with RPGs.
Significant impact on basses. RPGs offered more clarity and warmth.
Clarinet
without the RPGs the sound has too much treble and sounds too thin; My instrument feels like it has
too litde resistance. It is also difficult to play soft without the RPGs. With the RPGs I can hear myself
better and the sound is deeper, more bas and has more core. However, for me it lacks a little brilliance.
Bassoon
My tone blends better and the piano sounds meatier. The brass were more controlled. Generally, some
brightness was eliminated. Without RPG I like my sound better when playing alone on stage, but I like
it better when the orchestra is playing with the RPGs. I would like to try risers.
Horn
I can understand the conductor with the RPGs. The biggest improvement is the ensemble. This is a real
problem with the BSO, but it also has been a convenient excuse to justify bad playing. For the fa'st time
in 9 years, I hear difference tone beats. I can hear the conductor talk. The general clarity of the orchestra
is improved. I didn't give mo m 4s only because I hope further improvements will be possible. I like the
RPGs.
10
Trumpet
I play louder without the R./_s. The stage sounds more resonant, but muddier without the RPGs, thus
I cannot hear various instrument groups without RPGs. I cannot hear the violins in real time. I hear a
later reflected sound and so to play with the strings I must play ahead of them. With the Rt_s I feel
that I can play with different tone colors, more colors and more control. I feel more confident with the
RPGs.
Trombone
Woodwinds and upper strings sound louder and cleaner. It has been noted the brass sounds more edgy
but softer from audience, however, the benefits outweigh this problem. I preferred sound without plastic
reflective cantilevers on the rear baffles. Plastic sheets seem to go too far.
Tuba
Sound is much clearer. Intonation and proper releases are much more critical with RPGs. Feels more like
Carnegie Hall. Don't like the plastic above the rear diffusors it makes the stage noisier.
Percussion
Timpani is still unclear. No clarity in rhythmic passages.
Paul Blackmore
The strings are complete and full with good section sound. The quality of attack is similar. Brass are
better. Don't sound like laser beams. Percussion sounds dull. Tympany attack is reduced.
David Zinman
The sound is 100 percent better.
[3] THE VARIABLE ACOUSTIC MODULAR PERFORMANCE SHELL
All of the case studies suggested the development of a variable shell, which could include all of the
ingredients of the acoustical palette. The VAMPS shell which evolved utilizes a sturdy tubular metal
framing system forming 2'x2' modular cells into which any absorbing, reflecting or diffusing modules
can be inserted. Two formats for the shell are possible. A 2'(H) x 10'(W) portable shell tower, Fig. 25,
which can be disassembled and a 6' (W) x 12' (H) transportable and movable welded shell, with 2'x2'
modular openings, hinged cantilever and counterweight support system. Each format can accept any
2'x2' acoustical insert. Only the former will be described here.
The framing system forms independent or coupled towers, Fig. 26, with openings which accept modular
acoustical inserts. The towers are self-supporting and when linked with splayed side sections, typically
angled at 120, form a very stable lattice framework which can accommodate a wide range of acoustical
surfaces. The uppermost section of the shell is an angled (typically 45 o) reflective canopy which projects
sound toward the audience. VAMPS can be conceptually thought of as a tubular framing system which
is divided into a modular reflecting lower section, a diffusive middle section and an upper reflective
cantilevered canopy. Fig. 27 shows the Cavani String Quartet performing with VAMPS at the Cleveland
Institute of Music. Another performance at the Kohl Mansion in Burlingame, CA is pictured in Fig. 28.
[3.1] Aluminum Framing System
The aluminum framing system consists of 15/16" or 1" square aluminum extrusions and 2-, 3-, 4-, 5-,
and 6-sided injection moulded nylon connectors. Three sided connectors at the base can accept casters
11
for mobility. The aluminum tubing can either be simply press-fit over the connectors or press-fit over
self-locking spring plungers imbedded into the connectors. Insertion of the plunger into a hole in the
aluminum tubing provides a positive lock. Towers can either be independent providing easy mobility or
economically coupled to adjacent units for semi-permanent setup. An isolated tower consisting of 4
nominal 2'x2' modular openings requires (4) 3-sided connectors at the top, (4) 3-sided connectors with
caster inserts at the base, (12) 4-way connectors for the additional three horizontal square sections and
(36) 24 3/8" sections of aluminum tubing. Towers can be interconnected by using (2) 4-sided connectors
at the top and bottom and (6) 5-sided connectors in the three internal horizontal sections on one side.
Thus coupled towers eliminate the need for (10) connectors and (13) 24 3/8" aluminum sections.
Individual towers can be rolled about freely or tilted backward to allow transport through doorways.
Coupled towers can be rolled within a space for optimum positioning. Rear and splayed (typically 120))
side wall framing sections are connected with a stabilizing mechanism which maintains the angle. For
transport or storage the aluminum framing system can be completely disassembled or partially
disassembled into square of rectangular sub-sections, which afford quicker re-assembly.
[3.1.1] Mounting "T" Face Frame
The acoustical modules are attached to the aluminum framing system via a stained or painted hardwood
"T" face frame, Fig. 50, which is permanently connected to the acoustical element. The lower section
of the "T" frame is molded to form a square groove which straddles the square aluminum framing thus
securing it in place. The "T" frame press fits into the aluminum opening and is secured in place via a
variety of locking mechanisms including, but not limited to, friction, a rotating lever, spring loaded bail
plunger, etc.
[3.2] Lower Reflecting Section
For the soloist and orchestral ensemble, the lower section consists of one 2'x2' reflector to elevate and
position the diffusor at ear height. For choral performance, with a riser whose last row may be as high
as 45" above the ground, the shell contains two or more reflecting sections to elevate the diffusive
section to ear height of the rear chorister. The lower reflective panels provide half space bass support.
[3.3] Mid Diffusor Section
The diffusive section contains two or more diffusor modules. The lower 1-D horizontal diffusors with
vertical wells scatter sound laterally across the stage. The upper 1-D vertical diffusors with horizontal
wells, scatter sound which would normally rise and be reflected by a flat surface into the reverberant
field, back down into the performance area as well as into the canopy. If 2-D diffusors are used, then
both panels are similar since 2-D omniffusors are hemispherically omnidirectional.
[3.4] Upper Canopy
The upper cantilevered canopy serves several functions. It projects sound from the rear of the stage
forward; reflects sound coming backward from the front of the stage downward to the rear performer
sections; and reflects diffuse sound from file upper vertically diffusing section forward.
[3.4.1] Canopy Mounting "T" Face Frame
The uppermost section of the shell is a reflective canopy which'is bolted to the aluminum framing. The
canopy "T" frame is either rectangular for adjacent linear segments or trapezoidal to allow adjacent
sections to be mounted at an angle of typically 120. Thc base of the canopy "T" frame is moulded with
a square groove appropriately angled to allow the canopy to project forward of the face of the shell by
12
450.
[3.5] Angled Side Connectors
The splayed side sections are attached to the rear section with connectors which straddle the aluminum
framing and provide the appropriate angle. The light gap between adjacent towers forming the side-rear
intersection is concealed with vertical black inserts tapered at the appropriate angle and incorporating
thumb holes for easy insertion and removal. Two horizontal angular spacers and one vertical spacer is
required for each vertical 2'x2' modular opening.
[3.61 Acoustical Insert Elements
The modular acoustical surfaces can include:
Abffusor - broad-bandwidth absorber which simultaneously provides sound diffusion.
Absorbor- broad-bandwidth sound absorber.
A!mute tM- sintered glass sound absorber. The low frequency absorption bandwidth can be tailored by
varying the air gap behind the panel.
Reflector- rigid sound reflector.
QRD Diffusor- broad-bandwidth wide-angle 1-dimensional sound diffusion.
Omniffusor- broad-bandwidth wide-angle 2-dimensional sound diffusion.
Terrace tM- broad-bandwidth wide-angle 2-dimensional sound diffusion, without cell dividers.
Fabric can also be stretched over the face frame to conceal the acoustical surface and provide a uniform
set or backdrop.
[4] DISCUSSION
VAMPS utilizes a wide complement of acoustical inserts to address ensemble, projection, on-stage
loudness and hearing impairment, and on-stage frequency balance.
[4.1] Projection
In addition to providing a heightened sense of ensemble and support the acoustical shell projects sound
toward the audience. The VAMPS shell utilizes a stiff lower reflecting section and upper reflecting
canopy to project sound. The reflecting sections are formed from either wood, particle board or
laminated paper honeycomb for a light weight and stiff non-diaphragmatic panel.
[4.2] Loudness
Musicians are becoming more sensitive to hearing impairment due to sustained loudness on stage.
VAMPS lowers the impact of loudness by diffusion, which uniformly distributes the sound so that the
level in any particular direction is diminished. In addition, the modularity allows use of low-frequency
or broad-bandwidth sound absorbing modules in the vicinity of high intensity instruments like brass and
percussion. Strategically placed absorbing panels also improve ensemble balance and allow musicians
to hear more distant softer musical sections.
[4.3] Frequency Balance
The ability to add dedicated bass absorbers covering specific frequency ranges or broad-spectrum
absorbers provides the ability to tune the shell to the conditions on stage. Thus the frequency balance
on stage can be adjusted to a particular music ensemble_ musical piece or stage. This can be
accomplished with a new sintered aluminum sound absorbing panel whose frequency response can be
adjusted by varying the depth and fiberglass contents of the rear air cavity.
13
[4.4] Portability
VAMPS provides the performance of a fixed shell in a portable format. The aluminum framing system
easily disassembles for pacldng and transportability and the acoustical modules stack easily. Thus there
is no sacrifice in performance for portability.
[5] FULL STAGE SYSTEMS
A full stage arrangement is illustrated in Fig. 29. The ceiling canopies offer specular reflections, from
the front curved lip to project sound into the audience and diffusion, from the underside, for enhanced
ensemble. For fixed stage enclosures the design offered in Fig. 30 provides significant energy to the
performers as well sound projection if the cantilever is utilized. The lower diffusor scatters sound
horizontally, while the diffusor above it scatters sound in the vertical plane. Some of this scattered
energy is directed back towards the musicians and some of it is re-scattered towards the musicians from
the soffit above. The vertically diffusing QRD mounted on the soffit also scatters sound back down to
the musicians as well as into the cantilever, which in turn projects the sound forward. The reflective
soffit and the cantilever also direct sound from downstage into the diffusors for subsequent re-scattering.
For fixed built-in stage shells this design may prove effective.
[6] REFERENCES:
[ 1] A.H. Marshall, D. Gottlob and H. Alrutz, "Acoustical Conditions Preferred for Ensemble", I. Acoust.
Soc. Am., Vol. 64, No. 5, pp._1437-1422 (1978)
[2] P. D'Antonio and J.H. Konnert, "The Reflection Phase Grating Diffusor: Design Theory and
Application", J. Audio Eng. Soc., Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 228-238 (April 1984).
[31 P. D'Antonio and J.H. Konnert, "The Acoustical Properties of Sound Diffusing Surfaces: The Time,
Frequency and Directivity Energy Response", Invited Paper B-6, 79th AES New York (October 1985),
Preprint 2295.
[4] M.R. Schroeder, Number Theory in Science and Communication, with Applications in Cryptography,
Physics, Digital Information and Self-Similarity, Springer, Berlin, 1986.
[5] Synergetic Audio Concepts Newsletter, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 14-17 (Winter 1984).
[6] Synergetic Audio Concepts Tech Topics, Vol. 11, No. 7 (Spring 1984).
[7] P. D'Antonio and J. Konnert, "The RPG Reflection Phase Grating Diffusor", Mix Magazine, Vol.
8, No. 8, pp. 74-76 (August 1984).
[8] P. D'Antonio and J.H. Konnert, "The RPG Reflection Phase Grating Acoustical Diffusor:
Applications", 76th AES Convention, New York (October 1984), Preprint No. 2156.
[9] P. D'Antonio and J.H. Konnert, "The RFZ/RPG Approach To Control Room Monitoring", 76th AES
Convention, New York (October 1984), Preprint No. 2157.
[10] P. D'Antonio, J.H. Konnert and F. Becker, "The RPG Reflection Phase Grating Diffusor:
Experimental Measurements", 76th AES Convention, New York (October 1984), Preprint No. 2158.
[11] Synergetic Audio Concepts Tech Topics, Vol. 12, No. 1 (Fall 1984).
[12] P. D'Antonio and J.H. Konnert, "The Role of Reflection Phase Grating Diffusors in Critical
Listening and Performing Environments", 78th AES Convention, Anaheim (May 1985), Preprint No.
2255.
[13] P. D'Antonio, John Konnert and Russell E. Berger, "Control Room Design Utilizing a Reflection
Free Zone and Reflection Phase Grating Diffusors: A Case Study", 78th AES Convention, Anaheim
(May 1985).
[14] P. D'Antonio, "The Reflection Phase Grating Acoustical Diffusor: Diffuse It or Lose It", db
Magazine, Vol. 19. No. 5, pp. 46-49 (September/October 1985).
[15] W. Baldwin, Technology: "Applied Gozinta", Forbes Magazine, pp. 152-153 (October 1985).
14
[16] P. D'Antonio and J.H. Konnert, "Recording Control Room Design Incorporating a Reflection Free
Zone and Reflection Phase Grating Acoustical Diffusors", Invited Paper D2, 110th Meeting: Acoustical
Society of America, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. Suppl. 1, Vol. 78, p. S9 (November 1985).
[17] I. Peterson, "Acoustic Residues", Science News, Vol. 129, No. 1, pp. 12-13 (1986).
[18] P. D'Antonio and John It. Konnert, "Advanced Acoustic Design of Broadcast and Recording
Facilities", NAB Engineering Conference Proceedings, TV Multichannel Sound Session, pp. 215-224
(April 1986).
[19] P. D'Antonio and John H. Konnert, "The Reflection Phase Grating Acoustical Diffusor: Application
in Critical Listening and Performing Environments", Invited Paper E4-6, 12th ICA, Toronto (July 1986).
[20] P. D'Antonio, "Control Room Design Incorporating RFZ TM, LFD _" and RPGTM Diffusors", db
Magazine, pp. 47-55 (September/October 1986).
[21] P. D'Antonio and W. Peterson, "Incorporating Reflection Phase Grating Diffusors in Worship
Spaces", AES Convention, Los Angeles (November 1986), Preprint No. 2364.
[22] P. D'Antonio & J.H. Konnert, "New Acoustical Materials Improve Room Design", AES Convention,
Los Angeles (November 1986), Preprint No. 2365.
[23] P. D'Antonio and D. Eger, "T60- How Do I Measure Thee, Let Me Count The Ways", AES
Convention, Los Angeles (November 1986), Preprint No. 2368.
[24] P. D'Antonio and John It. Konnert, "New Acoustical Materials improve Broadcast Facility Design",
Proceedings 41st Annual Broadcast Engineering Conference, pp. 399-406, National Association of
Broadcasters, Dallas (1987).
[25] P. D'Antonio, "Advanced Design of Broadcast Facilities", Broadcast Engineering (July 198'7).
[26] M. Wagner with D. Paoletti, "Acoustics: The RPG Diffusor", Interiors, p. 56 (July 1987).
[27] D. Davis, "The LEDE Concept", Audio Magazine, pp. 48-58 (August 1987).
[28] B.V. Pisha and C. Bilello, "Designing A Home Listening Room", Audio Magazine, pp. 56-63
(September 1987).
[29] P. D'Antonio and J.H. Konnert, "Complex Time Response Measurements Using Time Delay
Spectrometry", 83rd AES Convention, New York (October 1987), Preprint No. 2542 lB-I].
[30] P. D'Antonio, F.M. Becker and C. Bilello, "Sound Intensity and Interaural Cross Correlation
Measurements Using Time Delay Spectrometl3,", 83rd AES Convention, New York (October 1987),
Preprint No. 2543 lB-2].
[31] B.A. Bell, G.N. Stenbakken, D.R. Flynn, D.J. Evans, E.D. Burnett, V. Nedzelnitsky and K.R.
Eberhardt, "Evaluation of A Copy Prevention Method for Digital Audio Tape Systems", National Bureau
of Standards, Report NBSIR 88-3725 (February 1988).
[32] P. D'Antonio, "Acoustical Troubleshooting and Modification in Broadcast Facilities", NAB
Engineering Conference on Studio Consn'uction and Acoustics (April 1988).
[33] P. D'Autonio, "Complex Time Response Measurements Using TEF: Importance of the Functional
Form Phase Shift", Invited Paper 86th AES International Conference, Nashville (May 1988), Paper 2.C.
[34] K. Yates, "A Matter of Diffusion", Stereophile, pp. 58-77, Vol. 11, No. 4 (April 1988).
[35] P. D'Antonio, "Acoustical Control of Worship Spaces", Resources Magazine, pp. 223-223 (Spring
1988).
[36] P. D'Antonio, C. Bilello & D. Davis, "Optimizing Home Listening Rooms, Part 1", 85th AES
Convention, Los Angeles (November 1988), Preprint No. 2735.
[37] P. D'Antonio, "Acoustical Design of Worship Spaces", 85th AES Convention, Los Angeles
(November 1988), Preprint No. 2721.
[38] P. D'Antonio, "The Reflection Phase Grating Diffusor: A Five-Year Progress Report", J. Acoust.
Soc. Am. Suppl. 1, Vol. 85, p. S16 (Spring 1989).
15
[39] P. D'Antonio, "Optimizing Home Listening Rooms", J. Acoust. Soc. Suppl. 1, Vol. 85, p. S101
(Spring 1989).
[40] F. Alton Everest, "The Master Handbook of Acoustics", Second Edition, First Printing, TAB Books,
Blue Ridge Summit, PA (1989).
[41] P. D'Antonio, "The RPG Diffusor: A New Architectural Acoustic Design Ingredient", Architecture
Magazine, pp. 109-112, 137 (June 1989).
[42] P. D'Antonio, "The Reflection Phase Grating Diffusor: A Five Year Progress Report", Audio
Engineering Society 4th Regional Convention, Tokyo, Paper C-10 (June 1989).
[43] P. D'Antonio, J. Konnert, F. Becker, and C. Bilello, "Sound Intensity and Interaural Cross-
Correlation Measurements Using Time-Delay Spectrometry", J. Audio Eng. Soc., Vol. 37, No. 9, 659-673
(September 1989).
[44] P. D'Antonio and J. Konnert, "Complex Time-Response Measurements Using Time-Delay
Spectrometry", J. Audio Eng. Soc., Vol. 37, No. 9, 674-690 (September 1989).
[45] J. Konnert and P. D'Antonio, "Comments on Diffusing Surfaces in Concert Halls", J. Audio Eng.
Soc., Vol. 37, No. 10, 839_844 (October 1989).
]46] P. D'Antonio, 87th Audio Engineering Society Workshop on "Optimizing The Listening
Environment", Chairman: Dr. Peter D'Antonio, Presentations: "Tribute To Charles Bilello"; "Reflection
Control in the Listening Environment"; "The Evolution of the RFZ TM, RPG and Full Spectrum Diffusor
(FSD_")"; "Optimizing An Existing Listening Room"; "Recent Experiences Using Diffusive Surfaces to
Improve Mutual Hearing on Stage and in the Orchestra Pit"; "Reflection Control in Worship Spaces",
New York (October 1989).
[47] P. D'Antonio and N. Grant, "The RPG Low Frequency Diffusor: A Case Study at Real World
Studios, Bath, England", 87th Audio Engineering Society Convention, Architectural Acoustics Session
L, New York (October 1989).
[48] P. D'Antonio, "Employing the Complete Acoustical Palette in Teleconferencing Design", J. Acoust.
Soc. Am. Suppl. 1, Vol. 89, p. S56 (Fall 1989).
[49] P. D'Antonio, "The QRD DIFFRACI'AIff: A New I or 2-Dimensional Fractal Sound Diffusor",
119th Meeting of the Acoustical Society of America, Penn State University (May 1990).
[50] P. D'Antonio, ""The QRDDIFFRACTAL_'": A New 1 or 2_Dimensional Fractal Sound Diffusor",
89 AES Convention, Los Angeles (September 1990), Preprint No. 2938.
Trademarks: RPG, QRD, ABFFUSOR, DIFFRACT/'AL, TERRACE and OMNIFFUSOR are trademarks
of PPG Diffusor Systems, Inc. ALMUTE is a trademark of NDC Co., Inc.
16
ACOUSTICAL TEMPORAL SPATIAL
TREATMENT RESPONSE RESPONSE
0
ABS??'r!.O.N.. D'RECTSOU"'O _3o , 30/
ii_i::i!_iiiiiiiiii::::i::?_'_?:i_i::?:?:i::i_i_i_?:i_i TTiiii!i'.T i 511'i ..... o
SIREC__ .90 --90
REFLECTION SPECULAR _ ._
....... REELECTION _ '
..... ." 6dB
/ TIME (ms)
Figure 1. Illustrates how sound is distributed in time and space after interacting with an absorbing,
reflecting and diffusing surface. An absorbing surface attenuates sound, a reflecting surface re-directs
sound and a diffusing surface uniformly distributes sound.
o
=
_
.
_
_
S
P
E
C
U
L
A
R
_
o
o
,
_
,
,
,
_
O
P
o
_
P
/
/
t
s
o
_
.
.
_
!
/
.
?
,
_
=
o
o
_
,
:
:
.
.
0_
c
D
_
_
_
.
_
=
_
'
_
c
_
_
_
'
c
_
m
o
m
(
/
q
m
_
.
.
_
_
R
P
G
'
_
,
o
_
=
o
'
,

w
'
_
,
-
'
,
"
,
'
0
_
_
-
-
r
'
w
--
_
T
_
r
3
-
-
r
-
3
-
_
v
-
_
-
?
q
.
J
_
.
"
_
'
:
,
,
'
m
h
l
'
I
I
t
/
z
5
,
,
_
_
.
_
'
_
SCATTERING PATTERN FROM A PERFORMANCE SHELL
""' ? ......................................................................................................................... ,
t_99_sec i 11 Reflective Shell
t.4714
106.29 dS
Sparsereflections : i
S_eep Rate: _.1[ ...... :.......................... i
1002Hz/S
II d
i.............................. i ................................................................................................ i
o. oooB o_sec '. " VAMPSrM i i
Feet
55.29 dB i
i' Diffusion : : !
ii
108PHz/$ d
JOB28
iiiiiiiiiil Z iiiiiil l
B.0000Ee80
4.5189E+01
Feet
Freq R(mqe:
B. 0[t0
1B001,_80 .... [.........
Figure 3, (a) Energy versus time curve illustrating the direct and reflected sound pattern 3' in front of
a purely reflective shell. The full scale direct sound occurs at 1.3 ms and the two most intense isolated
specular reflections occur at 8.4 ms and 11.0 ms. (b) Energy versus time curve illustrating the direct and
scattered sound pattern 3' in front of a VAMPS TM shell,
II
Figure 4a. 1-D QRDDiffusor
1
Figure 4b. Diffractal TM
Figure 4c. 2-D Omnifft_sor TM
Figure 4d. 2-DTerraee TM
c
_
o
r
_
'
_
_
o
_
Figure 6. Orchestra pit diffusive acoustical treatment at Wolf Trap Farm Park, Vienna, VA.
Figure 7. (Left) Rear wall diffusive treatment and diffusor separators between brass and woodwinds at
the Circle Theatre, IN; (Right) Close up of diffusive separators between the brass and woodwinds to
minimize brass harshness.
Figure 8. Experimental full stage RPG Diffusor shell at the Meyerhoff Symphony Hall, Baltimore, MD.
Figure 9. RPG Diffusor treatment used by Telarc for the Mozart series at the Dobris Mansion, Prague.
Figure 10. RPG Diffusor treatment used by Dorian Recordings on stage at Troy Savings Bank Music
Hall, Troy, NY.
Figure 11. Probe microphones manufactured by Etymotic Research.
Figure 12. Probe microphones inserted into tile ear canal of 1st Violinist. Microphone is inserted to a
point just in front of the ear drum.
Figure 13. Case Study 8 string quartet I, with tile Head Acoustics anthropomorphic mannequin (Klans)
at the center. RPG diffusors are oriented with vertical lower wells and horizontal upper wells.
Figure 14. Case Study 8 string quartet I1, with the Head Acoustics anthropomorphic mannequin (Klans)
at the center. RDG diffusors are oriented with vertical lower wells and horizontal upper wells.
Figure 15. Case Study 8 brass quintet, with the Head Acoustics anthropomorphic mannequin (Klaus) at
the center. RPG diffusors are oriented with vertical lower wells and horizontal upper wells. The spaced
omnidirectional microphones used for audience evaluation are also shown.
Figure 16. Collaborators in the Case Study 8 experiment. From left: Elizabeth D'Antonio, Wade Bray,
lack Renner, Dana Kirkegaard, Tom Knab, Peter D'Antonio, Klaus and the String Quartet I.
Figure 17. Case Study 9 string quartet in front of mixed VAMPS.
Figure 18. Case Study 9 brass quintet in front of purely reflective VAMP&
Figure 19. Case Study 9 string quartet in front of stage curtain used as a control.
Acoustical Shell Evaluation: string Quartet,KulasAuditoriumCIM
1st Violin 32 Musician's Perception Viola Musician's Perception
perception0-4 Perception 0-4 32
[I[111 Ambhmc_ 28 .............................................. []1_ Ambiance 28 ............................... /Musician's Perception
[_ $ytw. hnmlclty 20' _ Synchronicity 20-
:t
[_ To_P_oductlon 12., _ Tone Production 12.
Suppo. 8 .....................
0' I Self Hearing 0
[ ........
Ambiance 01i il I 3i ToA_ b_uutic O
Group Pitch 1 3 Group Pitch '".-'
Synchronicity I 4 !
Intonation 0 4 Intonation O , ,
Tone Production 0 4 Violin I Violin H Viola Cello
Support 0 4 Support String Quartet
_mb_ I 3 {_mb_
Self Hearing [ Self Hearing Maximum_-32
l S_e_ _ _w Shell fl:[qql VAMPS
Acoustical Shells Acoustical Shells
Pexfotme, r-Sophia Sllivos
3/23/91 Performer. lcany Smlih
3/23/91
1St Violin Comments: VAMPSBehindMuslchua16' {W)x 10'0t)
'The curtain dispe,rsed thc sound too quickly. I tended to push with thu reflective shell andit was Viola Comlrmlts: 3D.3D1
hunter to he.ar tho ensemble blend.Tim VAMPSru wM wltnnex enveloping sound" There is no question that tho VAMPSTM setting was far lupelior to me. The clarity nd support
of sound was wonderful to hear, and I elmscantily hear fll_ lit violin wiLhtile prominence I'd
, like. Tho reflective seatingwas second choic_ aud th* curtalu clearly was inferior.
2nd Violin
Musician's Perception Cello
Perception 0-4 32 ' Musician's Perception
[mTn Ambiance 28- [1_ Ambiance 28 .........................................................
[EE_ Group Pitch 24 - _ Group Pitch 24
[_] Synchronicity 20-
Intonation 16- {'--'7 Synchronicity 20-
[_ Tone_uction 12- _ Intonation 16-
[_]'[_ Support 8 - '"'"'"'"'"'"'" _ _ ii [x,'Xm::_Tone production 12-
Ensemble 4- '"_. _. _ [_ Support 8-
I SelfHearihg 0. _ Ensemble 4.
Ambiance : l_ Self Hearing 0'
Group Pitch Ambiance l
Synchronicity Group Pitch 2.5
Intonation Synchronicity
Tone Production Intonation
Support Tone Production
Ensembl_ Support
Serf Hearing En_mble/
se_m_g 3.S I 2.s I 4 I
Acoustical Shell
Perforraer.RebeccaL Harris Acoustical Shells
3/23/91 P_form_r. Klm Cook
Znd Vi0llll Co--tS: 3/23/91
'I felt lost in spa_ with the cumdn and tho lnue. r voices (2nd violin and viola) especially felt Cello Comments:
unclear, The re/lective gw, a felt *dead". It was hlud to hear other instruments and had a hard Tho support from th_ VAMPSrI'' shell mad4 articulation easy to hear, the_for* easy to blend and
time producing tone, The VAMPSrtt sound was alive, warm, ambient and I heard the ftrst violin, react to what we hear, Clean, Tho curtaha provldo no support and the sound disappears behind
Cleally, fuh tho inner vole24projected really welL' me.
Figure 20. Case Study 9 acoustical evaluation of VAMPS by each member of the string quartet in Kulas
Hall, CIM. A summary comparison of the shell variations is provided at the upper right. VAMPS was
the preferred performance environment.
Acoustical Shell Evaluation: Brass Quintet, Kulas Auditorium, CIM
Trumpet 4o Musician's Perception French Hem 4o Mtulcian's Perception Tuba 32 Musician'l Perception
P_c4p_n 0-5 Per,piton 0-5 Pe-._lxlou0-4
ff[rn Ambanc4 35 ................................................... _ fill3 Ambinn_ 35 ........................................................... [ITU1 An,ba,,ca 28 ..............................................................
[:::::::l OroupPkch 30 = '"'"'-'"-'-'"'"'"'--_--- _ OroupPhch 30' [:::::::1OroupPltch 24-
[::2 sp_a_.a7 25' '"'"'"'-"_i"i::::_!_ _ Sy,,c_aactty 25- [:::2] sy,_<_a_/ 20-
],_a_t_ 20- _ _4uul oa 20- _ ]n_ 16.
_--_ Toll4Pzoluctll_ 15- _ T,:_Pmduc_lon 15' _ T,:_hoducdon 12'
[tilt Support 10- _ Support 10- []]3 Support 8'
_=_=_ 5 _ '_ S- _ _'-=_' 4.
/I sc=x,..,,_ 0 mm _j O- Il l _u,.aa_ 0
Ambhmc_ t I 4 5 { Ambiance _ Ambiance
Group Pitch 2 I 4 $ { Group Pitch Group Pitch 3.5
hmtonatioa 2 I 4 $ Intonation Intonation
Tone Production 3 I 4 .5 I Tou_ Production Tone Production
}Self Heal_ll 2 { 4 5 $,lf Hear_g
Acoustical Shells Acoustical Sh*lls Acoustical Shell{
Performer-Mlks Cox Perfom_t. Joctlyn Dikllch per fo_a_.r-AlanBau
ShellLocated9' BehindM._.I.., Shell Local_ 9' Be.blodMuikllml SheLlLoc_x[ 9' Behind Musicians
t/23_t 3/23_1 3fL_gt
lit Trtmlpel Commeata: Item Co--ti: Tubl Co_ta:
Tho cunain ablor_ the sound. Italikaplaylullinav_uum. Tho g' VAMPSm shell wMby far 'It wu dif_cultto 19okin on intouadon whh tho tdl_tive sbulL Tho VAMPSr_ sound wu ve,ty The curtain nude In,on.on que4fionableaadlow notes hud to find. Tho reflective shell nu_e
the bell fecund on stage, th4 sound quality aad proJ,_tion Into hall wu the best of all cbuices, intonation walxd, The VAMPSTMwu beatof all Intonation look_ on, sound w,u warm and rich,
] I:ould heat tha _rOUP much bct_ _ them wu It 8m_t rain b_tween th_ halt and the shell
2nd Trumpet _u, ic_', Perocpfion
I_,_to_ 0-_ 40 , T_ombonc Mualalea'_ l_uc.cptloa
sull en 10-
mm seuma,_ 0- Il _uma,l,_ 0
Ambiance Re five VA S
Group Pitch Ambiance . . .
Synchrouleity Group Pitch
Tone Production Intonation
_bl_ Tone Production , , , Support Support Trpt I Tq)t H Hem Bono Tuba
Self Hea_8 Ensemble Brass Qu}ntet
Self Hearing
Acoustical Shells
Acoustical Shells MaximumSeen=40
Perf0ol_r. Rytu Anthony Ill Stage Curtain _ Refl_dve Shell [t_ VAMPS
ShellLoclled9' BehindM_l_lanl P_rfonn_-Roi[et Wlghi
3/23/91 ShellLoc_.d 9'Be, hlnd Muat.-llaJ
3/23/91
2nd Trumpet Commeat_:
The cur[ain wall very dead. With {ho reflecllvo shell tho sound from hall was evident b, fore Trombone Commenta: VAMPSBelundMusicians16' (W) x 10'(fl)
sound on stage. Sound was dry. The VAMPSru wall very good. easy to play. lively, bfighL good Thc VAMPSTMw_ e.asier to listen to. but not Is loud asthe icflcctive shell. The VAMPSr*t sh_][ 3/23/91
resonance luld laalutal oven sound, at 9' was by far tho bust intonation wise, al well as b]end.
Figure 21. Case Study 9 acoustical evaluation of VAMPS by each member of the brass quintet in Kulas
Halt, CIM. A summary comparison of the shell variations is provided at the lower right. VAMPS was
the preferred performance environment.
BSO Existing Stage Evaluation
Section Perception Preferences
RPG Diffuser Systems, Inc.
Musician's Perception
04 t .........
Perception 1-4 16 - -
Synchronicity
[_]5_ Intonation
[5_ Tone Production 12
[_J_q_] Distant Hearing
_ Mutual Hearing
8
II Self Hearing
4
0
Synchronicity 2,5
Intonation 2.8
ToneProduction 1.8
Distant Hearing ' 1 2.3
Mutual Hearing I iiii 2_1 '36'532. 2.'a]81}i!i
Scl[Hearing J 1 [1.63L2.2
Acoustical Treatment
Without RPGs
4/25/91
Figure 22. Case Study 10 evaluation of the existing stage enclosure by tile Baltimore Symphony
Orchestra. Individual sectional average scores for each question are listed and plotted.
BSO RPG Diffusor Evaluation
Section Perception Preferences
RPG Diffusor Systems, Inc.
Musician's Perception
24
20
Perception1-4 16
[_J Sy_mhronicity
[_ Intonation
ToneProduction 12
[_ Distant Hearing
_z_ Mutual Hearing
8
II Self Hearing
Synchronicity
Intonation
Tone Production
Distant Hearing
Mutual Hearing
Self Hearing
Acoustical Treatment
RPGs Located Along Stage Perimeter
4/25/91
Figure 23. Case Study I0 evaluation of the fnI1 stage RPG Diffitsor shell by the Baltimore Symphony
Orchestra. Individual sectional average scores for each question m'e listed and plotted.
BSO RPG Diffusor Evaluation
Average Preferences and % Improvement
RPG Diffusor Systems, Inc.
Musician's Perception
144
120
96
72
48
24 ............................................................
0 I I I I I I I I I I I I { I
Cm VlnlVlnlI Vla Cio Bas Pclo Fit Obo Clrt Basn Hrn Trpt Trbn Tba Prcn
Instrumental Section
Maximum Score-24
II Without RPGs [7_ With RPGs _ % Improvement
Conductor expressed verbal 100% Imprvmnt
RPGs Located Along Stage Perimeter
4/25/91 Average =83%
Figure 24. Case Study 10 comparison of existing stage without RPGs and with RPGs. The %
Improvement, which is the ratio of the total score with RPGs divided by the total score without RPGs
is also plotted. It can be seen that the average improvement was 83% with improvements as high as
144%.
/ R x _r. -. 7 ..... t,: ..... .';'_%.'_' '7_
i [-._2 i r...... _l
Figure 25. Isometric illustration of VAMPS.
,4_i_t;_-_F -_t_/_ _:
/'
/
/
/
///
,/
i /
/
f / (_)
/
Figure 26. Exploded axonometric illustration of VAMPS.
Figure 27. Cavani string quartet performing in front of VAMPS at the Cleveland Institute of Music.
Figure 28. Performance at Kohl Mansion, Burlingame, CA using VAMPS.
Figure 29. Artistic rendering of a full stage VAMPS with diffusive/reflective ceiling canopies.
Figure 30. Diffusive/reflective wall element which optimizes the diffuse backscattering of sound back
at the source with forward sound projection.