Sounds like (although I haven't heard it of course) the new hall is a
major achievement.
The Boston hall, of similar rectangular shape, is actually quite simple
in design. Because it has such excellent acoustics, it seems to me that
it would be relatively inexpensive to essentually duplicate its basic
construction and dimensions rather than spending multiple millions
trying to come up with new designs able to achieve the same results.
When the Meyerson hall in Dallas was opened, it received criticism on
talk shows to the effect that, despite the multiple $$$$ spent
("wasted"), it didn't have as many seats as the old music hall/opera
house. In my experience, smaller halls, of approximately 1,200 - 1,500
seats, often have much better acoustics than larger ones. There seem to
be some basic principles of physics that have to be respected.
Jim
wrote:
Jenn wrote:
I understand what you're saying about the advantage of location, but the
sound is TRULY magnificent, IMO.
I'd have to call it "good" more than "magnificent." Its sound has less
clarity and spaciousness than Boston's hall.