On 23 Jul 2007 18:42:45 GMT, John Phillips
wrote:

On 2007-07-22, tony sayer wrote:
...
And the RAH isn't the -best- acoustic around...

When did the flying saucers go up? I started regularly visiting the RAH
in the late 1970s or early 1980s. I did know the hall's reputation but
I never found it that bad. I have a feeing the acoustic treatment may
have been there aleady when I first went.

I had been used to the intimacy of the Turner Sims concert hall in
Southampton so the RAH was clearly not the same. However BBC does a
very good job of getting the best out of the RAH, IME.

I've had mostly stalls seats at the RAH. Some of those do provide a
slightly strange audio perspective [1], especially compared to the Royal
Festival Hall (now re-opened with its new acoustics). But I have only
visited the RFH occasionally.

[1] But not as strange as the seats right up at the top. Promenading in
the gallery presumably is even stranger.

The worst problem I find in the RAH these days is the horrendously
noisy ventilation system. The next worst problem is that they find it
necessary to amplify everything regardless of the fact that it is
supposed to be acoustic.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com