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.

--
John Phillips

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

In article , John Phillips
writes
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.

Sometime in the late 60'd IIRC!...


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.

Yes in the main they so tho its quite a job to record the Organ well..


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.


Depends theres a good old echo in the circle..

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


Not been up there, isn't that the place to go if you've got a lady
friend?...
--
Tony Sayer

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...

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


Not been up there, isn't that the place to go if you've got a lady
friend?...

I used to go to the topmost place (was it called the gallery?) you didn't
have seats, it was all 'promenading'. Not many people wanted to go there
(presumably as it was almost literally out of the limelight g) the
acoustics were awfull but the atmosphere was the same.

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 find it bad for smaller 'period' ensembles. One of the problems
appears to be that the performers cannot hear each other properly, so
tuning and timing suffer.

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.

This is my preferred venue. I have given up on the RAH - the extra
time, effort and expense involved in getting there from Southampton
and then being disappointed by the sound is just not worth it. The
broadcast sound from the RAH is generally better in my experience.

Maybe it is just my personal bias, but the performers generally seem
more and ease and better rehearsed at the Turner Sims than at the
proms.

--
Chris Isbell
Southampton, UK