Haddock Performance Hall

Haddock Performance Hall Space Evaluated on April 29th, 2012 by: Janice Kammler Alto and Tenor Saxophones Performance by: Patrick McCulley Lionell Hampton School of Music Auditorium

Richard H. Wilson Solo Piano Performance by: Shoko Nelson and on April 20th, 2012 by:

Let’s Begin: http://rhwdesigns.com/RHW_Designs/Studio.html

Room(Full Occupancy)@ 500 Hz Surface Ceiling Ceiling Panels, absorptive Side Wall Side Wall, absorptive Rear Wall, lower Rear Wall & Stage Rear Wall Aisles Orchestra Pit & Apron Stage Rear Wall Audience

Room Volume Room(Half-Occupancy)@500Hz Auditorium (less audience) Seats Audience

Material Gypsum Bd. Acoustic Material Gypsum Bd. Wood Paneling Wood Mesh Panels Painted Wood Slats Carpet on concrete Wood Gypsum Bd. seated in upholstered seats Volume (cu. Ft.) 104000

Well-upholstered seats seated in upholstered seats

Area (sq. ft) Absorbency 3000 0.05 2500 0.5 3800 0.05 900 0.15 435 0.2 1385 0.1 700 0.14 750 0.1 330 0.05 1500 0.8 Total Abosrption Reverbation Time

1500 750 Total Abosrption Reverbation Time

Absorption(S) 150 1250 190 135 87 138.5 98 75 16.5 1200 3340 1.53

0.56 0.8

2140 840 600 3580 1.42

Source: MEEB p.769

Some Melodious Thoughts: The performance may be heard throughout the halls surrounding the auditorium. A=0.2

Rustling paper, shifting audience, sneezing children “Neutral” - all of which was very easy to hear from all seats in the Room space. 3340

No notice of mechanical or HVAC system noises. Although they were obviously on, due to the cool air easily felt falling from above and from the side. Electronic sound system was used, and the small 5”x16” speakers were on during this performance. Perceived temperature of space was chilly. But it came more from the color of the space, and flatness of surfaces. The general feeling on the space was cool, not warm or welcoming. Although the wood paneling was pleasant.

104,000 cuft

Closeness of stage to audience may allow for a lower ceiling; as the space had a generally uncomfortable height.

Source: MEEB p.774

MEEB Calcs 1.42 to 1.53 sec

1.42 1.53

MEEB Accepted Acoustics for Concert Halls 1.5 to 1.9 sec

1.

Source: MEEB p.784

Painted Wood Slats: Provide both reflectance, and increased dispersion. Typically solid wood has a high reflectance, but due to the open cavities the focusing of the concave rear wall is reduced.

2.

Also featured on the title page, this wood mesh provides a similar acoustic advantage as 1.

3.

4. 5. 6. 7.

Wood paneling felt hollow, or perhaps not authentic. Very reflective, and attached to the side walls, that were only flared out 1degree. A wider degree of rotation might have made the space less reverberant.

Curved ceiling panels disperse sound over space more evenly to the audience and performers. Gyp Walls, although also very reflective, with their indented ‘creases’ provide more successful dispersion throughout the space as well. Electronic sound enhancement system. “Critical filter networks that, by selective amplification and attenuation of portions of overall audio frequency spectrum, voice or equalize a system after installation. (MEEB 793)”

Dark brown/black seats, upholstered. Perhaps red seats may make the space feel warmer?

8. 9.

Wood framed felt screens over Gyp wall board. Provides very minimal acoustical absorption. These were most likely installed to only slightly offset reverberation time in an attempt to improve the space. Wood framed felt screens over open space. The rooms beyond allow bass to better re-enter the auditorium with a more rich sound quality, while increasing the time for treble to reach the audience and performers.

10.

Slats on Gyp at side walls, and slats over empty space at stage back. This disperses the sound while reflecting it more successfully than a solid reflective surface.

5 1 9

6

10

7

2 3

4

8

Haddock Section Scale at 1/16” = 1’-0”

7

2.A 1.C

3

2.B 1.B 7

2.C

1.A Haddock Plan Scale a at 1/16” = 1’-0”

Climax: Scores from data sheets during Richard’s review. - Distinct sound was heard in excess from the right wall during the performance. Audience noise excessive. - HVAC located at side walls, made seating here cold/drafty.

St 1.A

- Grade:

C+

- No chance of being distracted by audience members (both noise and visuals reduced to nearzero). - Warm seat, near lights. So it’s also brighter here. - More direct sound from performer, not from reverb.

St 1.B

- Grade:

A

- All noise is easily distinguishable here, including audience noises. - Audience is distracting. - Superb acoustic quality. - Best seat in the house for those who don’t appreciate sitting front and center.

St 1.C

- Grade:

B

Clear Sound Live Reverb Warm Bass Intimate Sound Satisfactory Loudness Rich Diffusion Good Balance Good Background Noise Echoes Yes

Blurred Dead Cold Remote Unsatisfactory Poor Poor Poor No

Clear Sound Live Reverb Warm Bass Intimate Sound Satisfactory Loudness Rich Diffusion Good Balance Good Background Noise Echoes Yes

Blurred Dead Cold Remote Unsatisfactory Poor Poor Poor No

Clear Sound Live Reverb Warm Bass Intimate Sound Satisfactory Loudness Rich Diffusion Good Balance Good Background Noise Echoes Yes

Blurred Dead Cold Remote Unsatisfactory Poor Poor Poor No

Climax: Scores from data sheets during Janice’s review.

St 2.A

- All sound was easily distinguishable, no audiance distractions. Very - Good acoustic quality. - Main issue was the persistence of certain tones due to reverberation which kind of made my ears hurt. - Grade:

B

- Very close to stage and the center of the auditorium allowed for superior acoustics. - At times the overall sound was too loud. - More direct sound.

St 2.B

- Grade:

B+

- Being right next to the wall I observed lots of loud reverberations. - Audience and musicians echoed loudly. - Seat was cold and drafty.

St 2.C

- Grade:

D

Clear Sound Live Reverb Warm Bass Intimate Sound Satisfactory Loudness Rich Diffusion Good Balance Good Background Noise Echoes Yes

Blurred Dead Cold Remote Unsatisfactory Poor Poor Poor No

Clear Sound Live Reverb Warm Bass Intimate Sound Satisfactory Loudness Rich Diffusion Good Balance Good Background Noise Echoes Yes

Blurred Dead Cold Remote Unsatisfactory Poor Poor Poor No

Clear Sound Live Reverb Warm Bass Intimate Sound Satisfactory Loudness Rich Diffusion Good Balance Good Background Noise Echoes Yes

Blurred Dead Cold Remote Unsatisfactory Poor Poor Poor No

Redesign: Decisions based off of post experience of the performance space.

1/4”

ReDesign: - Perforated wood panels 1/2” to replace existing solid face wood panel. This will reduce excessive side reverb for the audience that sits close to the side walls.

Haddock Section Scale at 1/16” = 1’-0”

ReDesign:

Haddock Plan Scale at 1/16” = 1’-0”

- Carpet the entire floor under the audience seating area. Decreasing average absorbency within auditorium from 1.42-1.53 to 1.35-1.44 seconds. - This would also create a warmer feeling space. Currently the auditorium has a generally cool disposition. Installing carpet throughout would make the audience generally more comfortable.

Conclusion - The Haddock Performance Hall already has a reasonable level of acoustic quality. - There is room for improvement, but not enough to warrant an actual redesign. - The space is attractive, but has a cold quality. - This may be attributed to the poured concrete flooring, or the color choice of the seating and/or walls. - Installing carpet would improve aesthetic, temperature, and acoustic quality. - Janice and Richard agree that the preferred seating choice is near the front row. - All-in-all, the Haddock Performance Hall is a pleasant experience, and recommended for general performances.

Thank

You