Soundscape of Music Rehearsal in Band Room

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Soundscape of Music Rehearsal in Band Room
Physical Description:
1 online resource (212 p.)
Language:
english
Creator:
Tsaih,Lucky Shin-Jyun
Publisher:
University of Florida
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date:

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Doctorate ( Ph.D.)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Design, Construction, and Planning Doctorate, Design, Construction and Planning
Committee Chair:
Siebein, Gary W
Committee Co-Chair:
Gold, Martin A
Committee Members:
Jennings, Arthur C
Waybright, David A
Gerhardt, Kenneth J
Watkins, John

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
acoustics -- architecture -- band -- music -- soundscape
Design, Construction and Planning -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre:
Design, Construction, and Planning Doctorate thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract:
Band rehearsal rooms in schools require optimized acoustical design to become better core learning environments for music students. Three band rehearsal rooms were selected based on the distinct architectural features, acoustical conditions and levels of user?s musical skill for this research. Soundscape study methods including observation and documentation of rehearsal activities; interviewing conductors and student musicians to identify their goals during rehearsals; mapping of acoustical measurements taken to represent the specific communication paths used in the rooms; and modeling were used to investigate these rooms to measure and relate the specific acoustical events and musical issues occur during rehearsals. Video recordings of music rehearsals were analyzed to study the specific acoustical events and musical issues that conductors work on during rehearsals. It revealed that verbal communication between the instructor and students were important components of rehearsals. Additionally, conductors and music students reported in interviews and questionnaires that the ability to hear each other was a primary acoustical requirement for rehearsal spaces. They also identified five fundamental attributes of music; intonation, rhythm, dynamics, articulation and tone quality; that they were trying to hear while listening and playing in rehearsals. Acoustical measurements made in these rooms indicated statistically significant differences in measured values at different receiver locations within and among rooms. These values at different locations suggest that the musicians who sit at these locations could perceive qualities of music differently. A listening experiment was conducted by using these measured values to investigate whether the differences of these values within and among rooms could affect the attributes of music heard by musicians during rehearsals. The results indicated that musicians could identify the differences in the attributes of music and which band room better supports their needs in hearing the musical attributes. The results of the statistical correlation study indicated that in addition to the reverberation time; the floor area, ceiling height, room volume, surface diffusive materials? area, low frequency sound level and fine structure of reflected sounds arriving at a listener location affect the ability of musicians to hear each other and the detailed attributes of music in rehearsal rooms.
General Note:
In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note:
Includes vita.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description:
Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description:
This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Lucky Shin-Jyun Tsaih.
Thesis:
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2011.
Local:
Adviser: Siebein, Gary W.
Local:
Co-adviser: Gold, Martin A.
Electronic Access:
RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2013-08-31

Record Information

Source Institution:
UFRGP
Rights Management:
Applicable rights reserved.
Classification:
lcc - LD1780 2011
System ID:
UFE0043223:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 SOUNDSCAPE OF MUSIC REHEARSAL IN BAND ROOM By LUCKY SHIN JYUN TSAIH A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2011

PAGE 2

2 2011 L ucky S hin J yun T saih

PAGE 3

3 To my teachers friends and future students in music architecture and acoustic fields

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS It is your Without the opportunities given by you, this research cannot exist. Thank you my teachers, friends and family!

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 8 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 10 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 14 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 16 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ .......................... 20 Existing Acoustical Design Guidelines for Band Rehearsal Room .......................... 20 Development of Acoustical Attributes ................................ ................................ ..... 22 Concepts of Acoustical Parameters ................................ ................................ ........ 27 3 SOUNDSCAPE OF BAND REHEARSAL ROOM: SPEECH ................................ .. 33 Background ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 33 Method ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 36 Results and Discussions ................................ ................................ ......................... 36 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 39 4 SOUNDSCAPE OF BAND REHEARSAL ROOM: LISTENING CRITERIA ............. 41 Background ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 41 Method ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 4 1 Results and Discussions ................................ ................................ ......................... 42 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 46 5 IDENTIFICATION OF MUSICAL ATTRIBUTES DURING REHEARSAL BY CONDUCTOR INTERVIEWS AND STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRES ...................... 47 Background ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 47 Method ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 47 Selections of Conductor ................................ ................................ ................... 47 Reference of Interview and Questionnaires ................................ ...................... 48 Results and Discussions ................................ ................................ ......................... 51 Conductor Interviews and Questionnaires ................................ ........................ 51 Student Questionnaires ................................ ................................ .................... 61 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 64

PAGE 6

6 6 ACOUSTICAL MEASUREMENTS OF BAND REHEARSAL ROOMS .................... 66 Background ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 66 Method ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 66 Results and Discussions ................................ ................................ ......................... 76 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 96 7 CAN MUSICIANS HEAR DIFFERENT ATTRIBUTES OF MUSIC IN DIFFERENT ROOM ACOUSTICS? ................................ ................................ ........ 97 Background ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 97 Method ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 97 Results and Discussions ................................ ................................ ....................... 100 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 104 8 CORRELATIONS AMONG ACOUSTICAL PARAMETERS AND STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRES IN THREE BAND ROOMS ................................ ................... 105 Background ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 105 Method ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 105 Student Questionnaire ................................ ................................ .................... 105 Additional Uses of Parameters ................................ ................................ ....... 106 St atistical Analysis Methods ................................ ................................ ........... 108 Results and Discussions ................................ ................................ ....................... 109 Results of Questionnaires ................................ ................................ .............. 109 Result s of Factor Analyses ................................ ................................ ............. 114 Results of Multiple Linear Regressions ................................ .......................... 119 Hearing each other overall condition ................................ ..................... 119 Intonation overall condition ................................ ................................ ... 121 Rhythm overall condition ................................ ................................ ....... 124 Dynamics overall condition ................................ ................................ ... 125 Articulation overall condition ................................ ................................ 127 Hearing each other near condition ................................ ........................ 129 Hearing each other far condition ................................ ........................... 130 Intonation near condition ................................ ................................ ....... 131 Intonation far condition ................................ ................................ .......... 131 Rhyt hm near condition ................................ ................................ .......... 132 Rhythm far condition ................................ ................................ ............. 133 Dynamics near condition ................................ ................................ ....... 133 Dynamics far condition ................................ ................................ .......... 134 Articu lation near condition ................................ ................................ ..... 135 Articulation far condition ................................ ................................ ........ 137 Architectural Parameters versus Attributes of Music ................................ ...... 137 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 139

PAGE 7

7 9 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS BY MUSICIANS ................................ ........................ 143 Background ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 143 Method ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 143 Results and Discussions ................................ ................................ ....................... 144 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 146 10 CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK ................................ ................................ .. 152 Co nclusions ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 152 Future Work ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 154 APPENDIX A TRANSCRIPTIONS OF CONDUCTOR INTERVIEWS ................................ ......... 156 Interview with Conductor A ................................ ................................ ................... 156 Interview with Conductor B ................................ ................................ ................... 162 Interview with Conductor C ................................ ................................ ................... 167 Interview with Conductor D ................................ ................................ ................... 169 Inte rview with Conductor E ................................ ................................ ................... 174 Interview with Conductor F ................................ ................................ ................... 178 B MULTIPLE SOURCES AND RECEIVERS MEASUREMENT PLOTS .................. 188 C CORRELATIONS OF ACOUSTICAL RESPONSES AND LISTENING EVALUATION IN THREE BAND ROOMS ................................ ............................ 195 Background ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 195 Method ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 195 Results and Discussions ................................ ................................ ....................... 196 Results of Listening Evaluation on Tone Quality and Overall Impression ...... 196 Results of Multiple Linear Regressions ................................ .......................... 196 Tone Quality Overall Condition ................................ ............................. 196 Overall Impression Overall Condition ................................ .................... 197 Architectural Parameters versus Tone Quality and Overall Impression ......... 198 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 208 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 212

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF TABLES Table page 1 1 ................................ ................... 25 1 2 Acoustical Attributes Corresponding to Acoustical Parameters .......................... 31 5 1 G ..................... 48 5 2 important aspects for students to rehearse t o prepare the ensemble for ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 51 5 3 the most impo rtant aspects for students to rehearse to prepare the ensemble ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 53 5 4 Summary of the overall results of the interviews are the most important aspects for students to rehearse to prepare the ................................ ................................ ....................... 55 5 5 ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 57 5 6 Summary of the interview results on ................................ ......................... 59 5 7 same programs in different spaces, how are the acoustical attribute s of the ................................ ........... 60 6 1 Architectural Characteristics of three band rooms. ................................ ............. 67 7 1 Kruskal Wallis Test on three band rooms. ................................ ........................ 101 8 1 Results of questionnaires for the three band rooms. ................................ ........ 109 8 2 Results of Chi Square Test on questionnaires for the three band rooms. ........ 110 8 3 Results of Chi Square Test on questionnaires for Band Room A and B. .......... 111 8 4 Results of Chi Square Test on questionnaires for Band Room B and C. ......... 112 8 5 Results of Chi Square Test on questionnaires for Band Room A and C. ......... 113 8 6 ............................... 114 8 7 Results of Component Matrix for th ............................... 115

PAGE 9

9 8 8 ... 116 8 9 ... 117 8 10 ...... 118 8 11 ...... 118 8 12 Multiple Linear Regression versus hearing each other for three band room. ... 12 0 8 13 Multiple Linear Regression versus intonation for three band room. .................. 123 8 14 Multiple Linear Regression versus Rhythm for the th ree band rooms. ............. 124 8 15 Multiple Linear Regression versus Dynamics for the three band rooms. .......... 126 8 16 Multiple Linear Regression versus Articulation for the three band rooms. ........ 128 8 17 Multiple Linear Regression versus hearing each other at near receiver condition for three band room. ................................ ................................ .......... 129 8 18 Multiple Linear Regression versus hearing each other at far receiver condition for three band room. ................................ ................................ .......... 131 8 19 Multiple Linear Regression versus Intonation for far receiver condition in the three band rooms. ................................ ................................ ............................ 132 8 20 Multiple Linear Regression versus Dynamics for near receiver condition in the three band rooms. ................................ ................................ ...................... 134 8 21 Multiple Linear Regression versus Dynamics for far receiver condition in the three band rooms. ................................ ................................ ............................ 135 8 22 Multiple Linear Regre ssion versus Articulation for near condition in the three band rooms. ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 136 8 23 Summary of predicted parameters versus attributes of music for the three band rooms. ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 142 9 1 Summary of comments from questionnaires and listening evaluation for the three band rooms. ................................ ................................ ............................ 147 C 1 Multiple Linear Regression versus Tone Quality in the three band rooms. ....... 199 C 2 Multiple Line ar Regression versus Overall Impression in the three band rooms. ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 200

PAGE 10

10 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 3 1 Time history of rehearsal A as a waveform format. ................................ ............ 37 3 2 speech during the band rehearsal. .. 37 3 3 .. 38 3 4 speech during the band rehearsal. .. 38 3 5 rehearsals. ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 39 4 1 ...................... 43 4 2 ...................... 44 4 3 ...................... 45 4 4 Percentages of total rehearsal time during three band rehearsals. .................... 45 5 1 Question to music students about what musical attributes they are listening for during rehearsal. ................................ ................................ ........................... 50 5 2 aspects for students to rehearse to prepare the ensemble for concert. .............. 56 5 3 Results of student questionnaire about what musical attributes they are listening for during rehearsal for University A. ................................ .................... 62 5 4 Results of student questionnaire about what attributes of music they are listening for during rehearsal for University B. ................................ .................... 63 5 5 Results of student questionnaire about what attributes of music they are listening for during rehearsal for High School ................................ ..................... 63 5 6 are listening for during rehearsal. ................................ ................................ ....... 64 6 1 Interiors of three band rehearsal rooms.. ................................ ............................ 67 6 2 Band room A floor plan showing the acoustical measurement locations of the sound sources and receivers. ................................ ................................ ............. 69 6 3 Band room B floor plan showing the acoustical measurement locations of the sound sources and rece ivers. ................................ ................................ ............. 70

PAGE 11

11 6 4 Band room C floor plan showing the acoustical measurement locations of the sound sources and receivers. ................................ ................................ ............. 71 6 5 Impulse response concept. ................................ ................................ ................. 72 6 6 Impulse responses of three band rooms ................................ ........................... 79 6 7 Early decay time (EDT) responses in octave band center frequencies (Hz) ...... 80 6 8 Reverberation time (T20) plotted in octave band center frequencies (Hz). ......... 81 6 9 Reverberation time (T30) plotted in octave band center frequencies (Hz). ......... 82 6 10 Cen ter time (TC) plotted in octave band center frequencies (Hz). ...................... 84 6 11 Distinctness (D50) plotted in octave band center frequencies (Hz). ................... 85 6 12 Clearness (C80) plotted in octave band center frequencies (Hz). ...................... 87 6 13 Support (ST1) p lotted in octave band center frequencies (Hz). .......................... 88 6 14 Sound Pressure Level (SPL) plotted in octave band center frequencies (Hz) .... 91 6 15 Interaural Cross Correlation (IACC_A) plotted in octave band center frequencies (Hz). ................................ ................................ ................................ 92 6 16 Interaural Cross Correlation (IACC_E) plotted in octave band center frequencies (Hz) ................................ ................................ ................................ 93 6 17 Interaural Cross Correlation (IACC_L) plotted in octave band center frequencies (Hz). ................................ ................................ ................................ 94 6 18 Speech and Rapid Speech Transmission Index (STI and RASTI) values .......... 95 7 1 Sample of question for listening experiment. ................................ ...................... 99 7 2 Listening evaluation results based on three band rooms. ................................ 101 7 3 Listening evaluation results based on near receiver condition. ........................ 102 7 4 Listening evaluation results based on far receiver condition. ........................... 102 7 5 Impulse responses of far receiver location of Band Room A and Band Room B. ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 103 7 6 Listening evaluation results based on Woodwind music. ................................ .. 103 7 7 Listening evaluation results based on Brass music. ................................ ......... 104

PAGE 12

12 8 1 rehearsal. ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 106 8 2 Mean Plots of predicted parameters versus scores of hearing each other in the three band rooms. ................................ ................................ ...................... 121 8 3 Mean Plots of predicted parameters versus scores of hearing intonation in the three band rooms. ................................ ................................ ...................... 124 8 4 Mean Plot of predicted parameters versus scores of hearing rhythm in the three band rooms. ................................ ................................ ............................ 125 8 5 Mean Plots of predicted parameters versus scores of hearing dynamics in the three band rooms. ................................ ................................ ...................... 126 8 6 Mean Plots of predicted parameters versus scores of hearing articulation in the three band rooms. ................................ ................................ ...................... 128 8 7 Mean Plot of predicted parameters versus scores of hearing each other at near receiver condition in the three band rooms. ................................ .............. 129 8 8 Mean Plot of predicted parameters versus scores of hearing each other at far receiver condition in the three band rooms. ................................ ...................... 130 8 9 Mean Plot of predicted parameters versus scores of hearing intonation for the far receiver condition in the three band rooms. ................................ ........... 132 8 10 Mean Plot of predicted parameters versus scores of hearing dynamics of near receiver condition in the three band rooms. ................................ .............. 133 8 11 Mean Plot of predicted parameters versus scores of hearing dynamics of near receiver condition in the three band rooms. ................................ .............. 135 8 12 Mean Plot of predicted parameters versus scores of hearing articulation of near receiver condition in the three band rooms. ................................ .............. 136 8 13 Mean Plots of floor area versus scores of hearing each other and attributes of music in the three band rooms. ................................ ................................ .... 138 8 14 Mean Plots of the ratio of ceiling height to room volume versus scores of hearing each other and attributes of music in the three band rooms. ............... 139 B 1 Early Decay Time (EDT) in the three band rooms. ................................ ........... 189 B 2 Reverberation Time (T30) in the three band rooms. ................................ ......... 191 B 3 Center Time (TC) in the three band rooms. ................................ ...................... 193 C 1 Listening evaluation of tone quality scores in the three band rooms. ............... 202

PAGE 13

13 C 2 Listening evaluation of overall impression scores in the three band rooms. ..... 202 C 3 Me an Plot of predict acoustical parameter (IACC_L_HIGH) versus scores of hearing tone quality in the three band rooms. ................................ ................... 203 C 4 Mean Plots of predict acoustical parameters versus scores of overall impression in the three band rooms. ................................ ................................ 203 C 5 Mean Plots of predict ar chitectural elements versus scores of tone quality and overall impression in the three band rooms. ................................ .............. 204

PAGE 14

14 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy SOUNDSCAPE OF MUSIC REHEARSAL IN BAND ROOM By Lucky Shin Jyun Tsaih August 2011 Chair: Gary W. Siebein Cochair: Martin A. Gold Major: Design, Construction and Planning Band rehearsal rooms in schools require optimized acoustical design to become better core learning environment s for music students. Three band rehearsal rooms were selected based on the distinct architectur al features, acoustical conditions and levels of musical skill for this research. Soundscape study methods including observation and documentation of rehearsal activities; interviewing conductors and student musicians to identify their goals during rehearsals; mapping of acoustical measurements taken to represent the specific communication paths used in the rooms; and modeling wer e used to investigate these rooms to measure and relate the specific acoustical events and musical issues occur during rehearsals. V ideo recordings of music rehearsals were analyzed to study the specific acoustical events and musical issues that condu ctors work on during rehearsal s It revealed that verbal communication between the instructor and students were impo rtant components of rehearsals Additionally, conductors and music students reported in interviews and questionnaires that the ability to hear each other was a primary acoustical requirement for rehearsal space s. They also identified five fundamental attri butes of music; intonation, rhythm,

PAGE 15

15 dynamics, articulation and tone quality ; that they were trying to hear while listening and playing in rehearsals. Acoustical measurements made in the se rooms indicated statistically significant difference s in measured v alues at different receiver locations within and among rooms These values at different locations suggest that the musicians who sit at these locations could perceive qualities of music different ly A listening experiment was conducted by using the se measured values to investigate whether the differences of these values within and among rooms could affect the attributes of music heard by musicians during rehearsal s The results indicated that musicians could identify the differences in the attributes o f music and which band room better support s their needs in hearing the musical attributes. The results of the s tatistical correlation study indicated that in add ition to the reverberation time; the floor area, cei ling height room volume surface diffusive materials low frequency sound level and fine structure of reflected sounds arriving at a listener location affect the ability of musicians to hear each other and the detailed attributes of music in rehearsal rooms.

PAGE 16

16 C HAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Band rehearsal room s can be found in most of the high schools and college s that provide music education Basically it is a learning space where mus ic teachers and professors address and give specific instructions to the groups of music students ( who play different musical instruments ) who are learn ing to play together as a large ensemble. This is also a space where c learly hearing musical attributes is emphasized beyond just the verb al communication that occurs in a normal classroom. There is an existing ANSI standard S12.60 (2010) that addresses the acoustical design of regula r classroom spaces in schools. This stand ard provides criteria and design guidelines to optimize communication and learning in classroom spaces. U nfortunately, there is no similar research based design guideline for ba nd rehearsal rooms in schools. In practice, rooms for music education in schools are usually more expensive to build than regular classroom spaces because they are larger rooms with higher ceilings and special acoustical finishes are u sed on the walls and ceilings. Careful designing and planning of band rehearsal rooms in schoo ls are necessary to optimize the understanding of verbal instruction as well as allowing students to hear each other play in ensemble. A properly designed band rehearsal room will allow students to work on detailed musical attributes such as intonation, ar ticulation dynamics and rhythm Band rehearsal rooms with the proper room acoustical responses and sound isolation will enhance the ability of students and teachers to communicate with each other and will result in a more efficient educational environment Traditionally, the acoustical design guidelines for band rehearsal rooms used to design these spaces are based on d esign criteria state d in architectural acoustics text

PAGE 17

17 books, des ign guidelines published by government agencies and non profit educational organization s, as well as 1 However, the se design guidelines do not state which of the acoustical attributes and paramet ers can support musicians to hear each other during rehearsal s Therefore, understanding what musici ans are listening for during rehearsal s as well as knowing which acoustical attributes and is critical to improving the design of these spaces Consequently a research based, user oriented design guideline for band rehearsal rooms is necessary to ensure th at op timal acoustics is achieved by allow ing musicians to hear each other during rehearsals The initial phases of developing this user oriented, design guideline for band rehearsal rooms are also the objectives of this stud y. The first phase of the study is to investigate what conductors and music students are listening for during rehearsals, and which existing acoustical attributes of rooms and measured acoustical parameters can best correlate with these musical attributes to enable acousticia ns and architects to design rehearsal room s based on the educational and musical needs of conductors and music students 2 S 3 were used to investigate the issues as stated above It essentially descr ibes the procedures about how to listen for sound in any space, to identify the sources and receivers and the paths sound travel between 1 Further discussions of these resources are included in Chapter 2 Literature Review. 2 s resea rch. Therefore, at this phase, other aspects of acoustical design for the rehearsal room such as sound isolation, heating ventilation and air conditioning design and noise control as well as sound system design are not included in the scope of this study. 3 Further discussions of soundscape theory and study methods are included in Chapter 3 Background.

PAGE 18

18 them and to understand the meaning of the communications between the different sources, receivers, paths and spaces. musicians listening How are What kinds of support do musicians need architecturally from rooms the architectural features of the room support ing re differences between the needs of musicians should be constantly thought through during the visit of a space and the architectural and acoustical design process. The soundscape stu dy methods and procedures include the: Investigation of wha t specific acoustical events occur during band rehearsals Investigation of what conductors and music students listen for during band rehearsals by s tudying the results of interviews and questionna ires Studying band rehearsal room acoustical measurement data with current acoustical parameters Studying the possible correlation s between the results of the interviews and questionnaires with the acoustical measurement data and architectural properties o f the rooms. In conclusion this study is based on a series of video analyses of band rehearsals, interviews with music instructors, questionnaires administered to conductors and music students, studying evaluations of sound s by student musicians in rehear sal room settings and deriving statistical relationships between the evaluations of the rooms with acoustical measurements made in actual band rehear sal rooms and architectural features of the rooms. Three band rehearsal ro oms with distinct room acoustical and architectural characteristics were car efully selected for this investigation. Users of these band rehearsal rooms were given either interviews or questionnaires in order to identify

PAGE 19

19 what they listen for during rehearsals and how the rooms they rehears e in contributes to their listening. The ultimate goal of this study is to lay the foundation for future work on completing a user oriented, acoustical design guideline for band rehearsal rooms. The author believes that a well designed mus ic rehear sal room with optimized acoustics is a primary factor that could contribute to a better learning environment and more efficient musical education

PAGE 20

20 C HAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Existing Acoustical Design Guidelines for Band Rehearsal Room There are some existing acoustical design guidelines for band rehearsal rooms, but these are not based on achieving specific acoustical goals and/or based on evidence from research These existing design guidelines often only address limited acoustical par ameters and architectural features of the rooms Most of the architectural acoustics textbooks 4 and articles 5 in the technical literature provide simplified design guidelines such as achieving a relatively short reverberation time (RT = 0.5 to 1.0 seconds) (NIC 65, STC>70), proper ceiling height (16 to 22 feet), room volume (10,000 cubic feet for 20 musicians and 50,000 cubic feet for 120 musicians) and floor area (500 square feet for 20 musicians and 4,000 square feet for 120 musicians). There are some other design guidelines for band rehearsal rooms that show the additional desired surface materials and the needs of diffusing panels. These design guidelines are published by the N ational Association of Schools of Music (2000) the Department of the Army (1983) and the Wenger Music Corporation (2008) Among these existing design (1990) gi ve s more depth on the s how to use room geometry and absorptive or diffusing panels to control ac oustical defects. However, McCue from the acoustical and architectural perspective. 4 Please see List of Reference s for information on Egan (1988), Mehta, Johnson and Rocafort (1999) and Long (2006). 5 Please see List of Reference s for information on Pirn (1972) and Storyk (1993).

PAGE 21

21 A case study was conducted by Patrick and Boner ( 1966 ) to investigate the proper reverberation time of six band rehearsal rooms The six band rehearsal rooms were selected based on the comments of music instructors that these rooms provided good acoustics. In conjunction with results of the questionnaires given to the instructors who used these rooms regularly and the reverberation time s measured in these rooms the most interesting findings were: The proper reverberation time should be 0.3 seconds for 100 250 Hz, 0.45 seconds for 300 Hz, 0.55 seconds for 5 00 Hz and above Warmth 6 is not desired in a rehearsal space Teuber and Voelker (1993) stated the need f or variable acoustics in rehearsal rooms, so that musicians had a chance to balance their performance in the rehearsal room before performing in a conce rt hall. The required reverberation time for a brass band was 0.5 seconds. The measured reverberation time in the rehearsal room they designed when the curtains were exposed in the room was 0.44s. In summary the existing design guidelines for band rehearsal rooms have f ocused mainly on architectural and acoustical design features of rooms. However, there have been many studies to determine audience listening preferences and impressions for l attributes that are derived from these studies serve as the base knowledge of this research which is summarized in the next section. 6 According to Beranek (2004), warmth is the ratio of measured reverberation time in the 125 and 25 0 Hz to 500 and 1000 Hz octave frequency bands.

PAGE 22

22 Development of Acoustical Attributes The serious study of the acoustical attributes of concert hall acoustics began durin g the 1950 s when acousticians noticed that some concert halls, whose design was based on the theoretical calculation ere not perceived by listeners or perfor mers as having good acoustics. Concert halls with the sam e reverberation time s were perceived differently, depending on the audien ce and their seating location. o f the acoustical attributes of concert halls targeted the audience seating area as we ll as the subjective listening preference of listeners These studies wer e conducted by many resear chers over the past six decades and are briefly summarized. Beranek (1962) identified eighteen subjective attributes of mus ical acoustic qualities based on acoustical surveys of fifty four co ncert halls. In his studies, he interviewed conductors, performers and music critics for their overall impression of concert hall acoustics. The eighteen attributes included intimacy/presence, liveliness/fullness of tone /reverberation, warmth, loudness of the direct sound, loudness of the reverberant sound, definition/clarity, brilliance, diffusion, balance, blend, ensemble, response/attack, texture, no echo, quiet, dynamic range, no distortion and uniformity. Hawkes and (1971) study o f four British auditoria for subjective preference s of acoustical quality indicated that only six of the acoustical attributes had a significant effect on the subjective preference of their subjects for the acoustical characteristic s of concert hall s when various types of music were played in the rooms These acoustical attributes were reverberance, evenness, intimacy, definition, enjoyment and brilliance.

PAGE 23

23 Two decades later, Barron (1988) confirmed these acoustical attributes with r evised definitions. He identified five acoustical attributes : clarity, reverberance, envelopment, intimacy and lo udness. He used these attributes in his study of twelve con cert halls in Britain According to Barron (1993 p 37 ) hat the clarity should be adequate to enable musical detail to be appreciated, that the reverberant response of the room should be suitable, that the listener should perceive himself surrounded or enveloped by sound, that the listener should sense the acoustic experience as intimate and that he should judge it as having adequate loudness results of the subjective survey in British concert halls suggested that the hall s with the best acoustics depended on prefer red intimacy and reverberance. This study indicated that intimacy and reverberance were the two main factors that control the subjective impression of the concert hall acoustics. Some detailed studies were conducted to define clarity, reverberanc e, envelopment, intimacy and loudness from the objective measurement perspective These studies r evealed that acoustical attributes are highly correlated to the direct, early reflected and reverberant ( late reflected ) sound energy. From a typical impulse r esponse measure ment and analysis 7 the d irect sound is the first sound that a listener perceives directly from the source and it usually has the strongest sound energy. T he early reflected sound typically occurs due to reflections from the surfaces near th e listener. T he reverberant sound typically occurs due to m ultiple order s of reflection s from room surfaces and it is sometimes hard to perceive the completed decay of this sound energy by a listener when the background noise level is not quiet enough or d ue 7 Please see Figure 6 5 for illustration.

PAGE 24

24 to the successive running s peech and music that masked this sound energy Thus, from a direct sound and early reflected sound contained the most useful information of the sound quality than the r everberant sound energy during the live speech and music performance In consequence the direct and early sound s should have more significant effect on subjective impression than the reverberant sound The pioneered studies of clarity were b ased on results that were proposed by Thiele (1953) and Rei chardt et al (197 5 ), the sound energy of the early reflections after the direct sound should be within 50 milliseconds for speech (Thiele) and 80 milliseconds for music (Reichardt) in order to obtain the useful values of objective m easured parameters Distinctness ( D50 ) or Clearness ( C80 ) For speech all reflected sound energ y that arrive s s ears after 50 milliseconds is considered late or reverberant sound Therefore, clarity of speech dep ends on the ratio of early to total sound energy. For music, a ll reflected sound energ y that arrive s s ears after 80 milliseconds is considered late or reverberant sound Therefore, clarity of music depends on the ratio of early to late sou nd energy. Reverberance depends on the time that it takes for the sound to decay to a level that is less than the background noise level. Reverberation time ( T60 ) and Early decay time ( EDT ) are the objective measure d parameters 8 Envelopment depends on the early lateral sound received at the listener due to sidewall reflection s It is a spatial impression of sound in the room and was first proposed by Marshall ( 1967 ) as another subjecti ve quality of a concert hall The lateral en ergy fraction (LF) is used to measure 8 34 for more information.

PAGE 25

25 envelopment. Intimacy depends on the proxim ity of the source to receiver. According to Barron (1993, p 43) intimacy was found to be best related to sound level, rather than the initial time delay gap (ITDG). Lastly, loudness depends on the total sound source level an d is measured by strength (G). The j udgment of loudness depends on seating location. Cervone (1990) derived a comprehensive questionnaire on the sub jective preference for acoustical evaluation with nine at tributes patterned after the studies of Beranek (1962), Hawkes and Douglas (1971) Plenge and Wilkens (1974) 9 Barron (1982 ) as well as Bradley and Halliwell ( 1989 ) The nine attributes were clarity, intimacy, envelopment, balance, reverberance, loudness, overall impression background noise and echoes. The definition s of these attributes are simple and precise. These definitions are (1990 p 18 ) figure and show n in T able 1 1 Table 1 CLARITY The degree to which notes or words are distinctly separated in time and clearly heard IN TIMACY The auditory impression of the appa rent closeness of the orchestra ENVELOPMEN T The sense of being immersed in the sound or surrounded by it rather than it appearing to come f rom a particular point on stage BALANCE The relative levels of bass and treble frequencies REVEBERANCE The persistence of sound in a space LOUDNESS The overall loudness or strength of the sound where you are sitting OVERALL IMPRESSION The overall impression of the acoustical quality where you are sitting 9 Reference quoted by Cervone. Plenge G and Wilkens H. ( 1974 ). The correlation between subjective and objective data of concert halls in auditorium acoustics (John Wiley & Sons, New York ).

PAGE 26

26 Table 1 1. Continued. BACKGROUND NOISE The sounds heard other than that from a source on stage or people in the audience ECHOES Long delayed reflections that are clearly audible I n addition, Cremer (1976 ) Blauert (1983 ) and Ando (19 85 ) contributed to the spaciousness factor with studies of the intera ural cross correlation (IACC). These studies are based on the dissimilarity measuring a normalized correlation coefficient of the sound pressure arriving at the two ears of a listener and to the perception of sou nd energy from all directions. Based on the st udies cited above, the subjec tive preference s for concert hall acoustics depends ing experience and impression. Gade (1989) proposed an important acoustical attribute define the ensemble/balance for the performers on sta ge. A decade later, Beranek (2004) came up with the holistic acoustical attributes based on previous works that were done by numerous researcher s on subjective preference studies for concert hall acoustics. These attributes are: Reverberation and Fullness of tone (RT) Direct sound early sound, reverberant sound Early decay time/early reverberation time (EDT) Speed of Successive Tones Definition/clarity (C80) Horizontal and Vertical Resonance Intimacy or Presence and Initial Time Delay Gap (ITDG) Livenes s and Mid Frequencies Spaciousness (Binaural Quality Index BQI)/Lateral Reflection (LF) Warmth/Bass Ratio (BR) Listener Envelopment Strength of sound and Loudness (G) Timbre and Tone Color Acoustical Glare (SDI) Brilliance

PAGE 27

27 Balance Blend Ensemble/support (ST1) Immediacy of response (attack) Texture Echoes Dynamic range and Background noise level Detriments to Tonal Quality Uniformity of Sound in Audience Areas In summary the evolution of acoustical attributes that acousticians have used to develop the ov erall impression of concert hall acoustics has been refined through the cont ributions of many researchers. The subjective listening preference of concert hall acoustics, have been explained by the objective measurement parameters properly Yet, a set of th e acoustical attributes primarily use d for the subjective preference assessme nt o f band rehearsal rooms have not yet been developed. T he new set of attributes should consider the musicians and conductor having dual listening tasks as both performers and listeners. These attributes should consider how they communicate with each other and the relatively smaller, closed space of a band rehearsal room, rather than the concert hall stage. Concepts of Acoustical Parameters P art of the objectives of this study is to investigate the adjusted values of acoustical parameters to be used i n band rehearsal room s, the need of introducing the acoustical measurement parameters and the corresponding acoustical attributes that are nece ssary in a band rehears al room. (1982 p p 413 447 ) concepts of the acoustical parameters are based on impulse response analyses Since completely describe other acoustical attributes from

PAGE 28

28 different parts of the room, the impulse response has been used by researchers and acousticians to evaluate room acoustics in both subjective and objective manners. An i mpulse response is created by an impulsive sound source such as a starting pistol or is derived from an electronic signal such as a sine sweep or maximum length sequence signal ( MLS ) The impulsive sound excites the room and a microphone records the direct and reflect ed sound produced by this excitation process. Both the sound source and receiver can be located at any desired location for comprehensive studies of the sound qualities in the room. In general, the impulse response consists of direct, early reflect ed and late reflect ed (reverberant) sound. These time dependent sound energ ies are often viewed to contain useful and non useful information o f the sound quality in a room. An echogram or reflectogram is used to plot and analyze the impulse response of a room with a specific frequency and magnitude of the sound reflections. The m ore effort spent on analysis of impulse response with echograms at different locations of the room with different frequencies, the better the prediction of sound quality can be derived from the room. any acoustical parameters that researchers proposed based on impulse response concepts from 1947 to 1976. These criteria are brief ly introduced here. Atal et al ( 1965) which is the time it takes for the first 15 dB decay af ter the direct sound Krer and (1967 68) is the time it takes for the first 20 dB decay after the direct sound where as (1974 ) 10 is the time it takes for the first 10 dB decay after direct sound. Jordan also proposed to 10 Reference quoted by Cremer (1982). Jordan, V. ( 1974 ). 47 th AES Convention, Copenhagen

PAGE 29

29 describe the ratio of the reverberation time of the hall to the reverberation time of the stage (1976) 11 is the measure of the direct sound energies with a predetermined distance i n the room Later he used to show the difference of the sound pressure level at the listener versus the sound power level of the source. Initial Time Delay Gap (1962) is the time between the direct sound and the first reflected sound perceiv ed by a listener. The closer the time difference between direct sound and the first reflected sound, listener perceives the sound more clear (1953) demonstrated that the limit of the perceptibility 12 of perceive clarity of speech i s 50 milliseconds. It is the measure of the useful sound before 50 milliseconds with the total sound Reichardt (197 5 ) show ed that the limit of the perceptibility for music is 80 milliseconds. His is a measure of useful sound before and compared to the sound energy received after 80 milliseconds. (1958) is a A weighting factor is used to prevent or reduce the effect of the strong reflected energies to either side of the limit of perceptibili ty before and after 95 milliseconds. (1961) is a time measure of the sound energy below 3 dB and the level of the first 3 dB should be equal to the final level o f the sound energy after the steady state excitation. Likewise, 13 11 Reference quoted by Cremer (1982). Lehmann, P. ( 1976 ). ber die Ermittlung raumakustischer Kriterien und deren Zusammenhang mit subjektiven Beurt eilungen der Hrsamkeit ( Dissertation, TU Berlin ). 12 harmful sound on echo problems. (1972, pp. 71 72) 13 Please see Chapter 7 for further discussion.

PAGE 30

30 to avoid setting an arbitrary time limit of perceptibility by using the measured sound energy level in the room. (1 961) is used to detect the echo annoyance of the room and is a measure of excessive sound energies within 33 milliseconds The echogram of the decay pattern of the first 33 milliseconds is used to compare to a smooth sound energy decay pattern within 33 milliseconds. (1965/66) is used to detect the flutterecho in the room. (1953) is a single number criterion used to describe and measure the directional di (1968) 14 is used to measure and compare the sound pressure level at left and right ears difference of the sound pressure level at the left and right ears can be used to detect the source location. (1976) is a measure of ratio of sound energies at left and right ears with the consideration of the angle of incid ence. (1978) is used to detect the distribution of reflections in both time and direction of arrival by measuring the sound w ithin about 40 degree angle of a dummy head. Lastly, (1980) is Jordan changed the direction of the directional microphone from frontal incident to lateral in cident. Hence, it is the measure of the ratio of the frontal incident sound pressure level versus lateral incident sound pressure level The criteria mentioned above are the objective measures of the sound qualities in a room. Many of them, with 14 Reference quoted by Cremer (1982). Danilenko, L. ( 1968 ). Dissertation. TH Aachen.

PAGE 31

31 their revi sions are still used to evaluate concert hall acoustics today. For example, According to the current acoustical measurement standard ISO 3382 (1997) for auditorium room acoustics, only sound strength (strength G), early decay time (EDT, T20, T30), balance between early and late arriving en ergy (Definition D50, C50, C80 and Center time Ts), early lateral energy (LF) and binaural measures (Interaural Cross Correlation IACC) are required to include in the report after the measurement With consensus (Bradley, 1989) these acoustical parameters are used in present day practice to assess and design the concert hall by most of the acousticians. Therefore, using these parameters as the basis of the rehearsal room acoustical parameters, with adjusted values considering band room architectural design and settings (smaller room volume and the sam e audience/performer area) would be appropriate for band rehearsal room acoustics assessment and design Table 1 2 is a summary of the concert hall acoustic studies that are discussed above and shows the typical acoustical attributes to the corresponding acoustical parameters for concert hall acoustical design 15 Table 1 2. Acoustical Attributes Corresponding to Acoustical Parameters Acoustical Attributes Acoustical Parameter s Reverberation and Fullness of tone Reverberation Time RT Direct sound early sound, reverberant sound Early decay time EDT, T20, T30 Speed of Successive Tones Definition (or Clarity) D50, C80 Resonance 15 The acoustical attributes of this table are cited from Beranek (2004). The corresponding acoustical parameters are cited from Beranek (2004) and ISO 3382 (1997).

PAGE 32

32 Table 1 2. Continued. Acoustical Attributes Acoustical Parameter s Intimacy or Presence and Initial Time Delay Gap ITDG Liveness and Mid Frequencies Spaciousness Binaural Quality Index BQI, Interaural Cross Correlation C oefficient IACC Warmth Bass Ratio BR, Bass Strength Glow Listener Envelopment IACC Strength of sound and Loudness G, SPL Timbre and Tone Color Acoustical Glare Surface Diffusion Index SDI Brilliance BR Balance Blend Ensemble Support ST1 Immediacy of response (attack) Texture Envelop Function EF Echoes Dynamic range & Background noise level NC, RC Detriments to Tonal Quality Uniformity of Sound in Audience Areas Apparent source width (ASW) Lateral Reflection LF

PAGE 33

33 CHAPTER 3 SOUNDSCAPE OF BAND R EHEARSAL ROOM: SPEEC H Background According to Siebein (20 1 1 integrate the conscious design of the sonic attributes of the environments as part of the design process for interior and exterior spaces as well as significant natural area s The term soundscape was first u sed by Murray Schafer in 1977 to describe the sonic attributes and/or events in indoor or outdoor spaces These sonic attributes could be purposely composed as the spaces are designed and constructed. In a sense, these sonic attributes can be view ed as a music al composition. Schafer stated later (1994 p. 8 ), This definition leads to the concept of the s oundscape a s a sonic environment which involves hearing perception whereas landscape involv es visual perception In addition, Schafer state s that a soundscape could be an acoustic environment, a musical composition, or a radio program and sugge sted that soundscape could be an interdisciplinary subject which allow s a researcher to study the relat ionship between the people and sounds in their environment. Truax (2001) the meanings of a soundsca pe that is perceived by humans. communication attempts to understand the interlocking behavior of sound, the listener, T he complicate d communication paths between sources, listeners, and the environment require systematic study method s to appro ach and analyze the meanings of the sounds; the sounds perceived

PAGE 34

3 4 by the listeners ; the effect of the environment on the meanings of the sounds and the com munication paths ; and to apply the findings to a design process. S ystematic soundscape methods proposed by Sie bein (2010 ) include observation (soundwalk), documentations (focus group discussion and acou stical measurement), mapping and modeling techniques These methods are use d for acoustical design studies and can be applied in any sonic environment A s oundwalk is a techn ique use d to direct ly observe the sonic environment The observer is a listener who not only listens critically for sonic events in the environment but also is able to identify the se sonic events and the possible issues that could be discussed with the users of the space Foc us group discussion is a technique use d to approach and understand the meanings of these sonic events to the listeners in the environment The discussion formats could be individual interview s with the users of the space or questionn aires to a group of the users or public meetings of varies types T houghtful document ation and critical analysis of the discussions will ensure obtain ing useful qualitative assessment s of the sonic environment. A coustical measurement is ano ther documentati on technique use d to obtain quantitative descriptions of the sonic environment. Performing the acoustical measurement s in accordance with appropriated ISO or ASTM standards is basis, but modifications might be needed to investigate the sonic events/issues in the environment based on the results of observation s and discussion s M apping is a technique use d to clearly illustrate the findings of the sound walk, focus group discussion and acoustical measurement graphically. For instance, sonic events could be recorded in audio or video format. The sonic events recorded in an

PAGE 35

35 audio format could be presented as a waveform with time and amplitude to show the time history of events that occurred. The results of interview and ques tionnaire studies could be presented with table s and charts to categorize and illustrate the results M odeling is a technique use d to study the relationship between the qualitative and quantitative element s of the sonic environment. Statistical analysis me thods are used to study the possible correlations between the sonic events perceived by the users and the environment Consequently, these soundscape study methods are applied to the band rehearsal room study in order to understand and identify the acoust ic events and the meanings of t hese acoustic events during rehearsal s T hree band rehearsal rooms were selected for this study based on their distinct architectural features, acoustical conditions and levels o f musical skill of the users Observation and d ocumentation of band rehearsals in these band rooms were performed accordingly. Three band rehearsals in one of each band room were observed and recorded. Verbal instruction was giving by the conductor s at t he beginning of the rehearsal, at the be ginning of each piece of music, as well as during frequent points of the rehearsal when the conductor stopped the playing to address a specific musical issue during rehearsal. Three band rehearsal videos have been analyzed to investigate the overall length of time that a conductor addresses or gives verbal instructions to music students during these three band rehearsals. A summary of the length of time which the conductors spe ak to the students during these three band rehearsals indicates the need for students to be able to understand verbal instruction in the band rehearsal room

PAGE 36

36 Method Video recordings were made of one rehearsal session in each band room using a Sony HDR XR50 0V digital camcorder. The audio was extra cted from the video by using Prism video converter software. The extracted audio was used to show the time history of the rehearsal in a waveform format using a digital audio editing program (Audacity 1.3.12 Beta). These videos were analyzed on a laptop computer with Window s Media Player and an Excel Spreadsheet. Window s Media Player wa s used to play and pause the video recording The Excel Spreadsheet is used to record the durat total length of time of each rehearsal versus the length of time that the conductor s spoke during the rehearsal were totaled and shown in a graph ical format. Results and Discussions The time hi story of rehearsal A as a waveform is shown in F igure 3 1. The usic performance. Since speech i s not as loud as music when the band is playing, the valleys of the waveform represent where the conductor was s peaking whereas the peaks of the waveform represent the music being played by the band during the rehearsal. Consequently, it clearly indicated the frequent stops in playing when the conductors spoke In order to summarize the durations of time when verbal instruction occurred the video analysis technique as explained in the Method section of this chapter was used. T o summarize the durations of time t he total length of rehearsal A measured from the video is approximately 66 minutes. The length tely 29 minutes. This means that conductor A spoke for approximately 44% of the total rehearsal time Likewise, the total length of rehearsal B measured from the video is

PAGE 37

37 approximately 52 minutes. The length of conducto minutes. This means that conductor B spoke for approximately 60% of the rehearsal time Similarly, the total length of rehearsal C measured from the video is approximately pproximately 17 minutes. Th is means that conductor C spoke for approximately 39% of the rehearsal time Figure s 3 2, 3 3, 3 4 clearly show the results of the band rehearsal video analys i s with the percentage s of the rehearsal time that the instructor spoke for in each room Figure 3 1. Time history of rehearsal A as a waveform format. Figure 3 rehearsal.

PAGE 38

38 Figure 3 3. P ercentages of durations of conductor B r eh earsal. Figure 3 4. P ercentages of durations of conductor C r ehearsal. The overall length of the three rehearsals is approximately 161 minutes. The at approximately 48% of the total rehearsal time was spent listening to the verbal instructions of the conductors. Figure 3 5 shows the percentage of total rehearsal time spent listening to verbal instructions of the conductors.

PAGE 39

39 Figure 3 5. P ercentages of durations of three conductor s re e band r ehearsal s Summary Students listened to the verbal instructions of the conductor for approximately 48% of the total duration of the three band rehearsals. The mean and standard deviation of 16 rehearsals was contained in a questionnaires administrated to 206 music students wh o were the members of the bands. Ninety eight percent of the students responded that Therefore, it is plausible to suggest that the speech intelli gibility is important to in clude as a design criterion for the acoustical design of rehearsal room The current acoustical parameter Speech Transmission Index (STI) or Rapid Speech Transmission Index (RASTI) could be used to evaluate and serve as a design criterion. Both STI and R ASTI 16 The met hods, results and discussions of the 206 student questionnair es will be discussed in Chapter 5 and 8.

PAGE 40

40 can vary range from 0 to 1. A h igher STI or RASTI means better speech intelligibility (Houtgast, T., and Steeneken, H.J.M., 1984 and 1985).

PAGE 41

41 CHAPTER 4 SOUNDSCAPE OF BAND R EHEARSAL ROOM: LISTE NING CRITERIA Background In order to design a band rehearsal room with optimum acoustics, understanding what conductors and music students are listening for during rehearsal is key. The three band rehearsal videos were thoroughly analyzed to investigate the specific attributes of music that conductors might address or work on during a band rehearsal. These specific attributes of music required critical listening and therefore can be seen as listening criteria during the rehearsal. These listening criteria are used as the basis design guidelines for band rehearsal roo m in this research. Three band rehearsals were chose n carefully to encompass a range of level as well as genre s of music. One of the three rehearsals recorded was a high school band rehearsal where the repertoir es rehearsed during the rehearsal were melodic and with a mar ching band style. The others were recorded during a college Jazz band rehearsal and a university Wind Symphony rehearsal. The repertoires rehearsed by the Wind Symphony band required better levels of playing skill to overcome th e difficult rhythmic combinations and fast tempo. The results of each rehearsal, as well as the average of three rehearsals, will be summarized and presented based on the numbers of attributes of music that were addressed and worked on by the conductors du ring the band rehearsal. Method Three band rehearsal videos were separately recorded using Sony HDR XR500V digital camcorder. These videos were analyzed on a laptop computer with Window s Media Player and an Excel Spreadsheet. Window s Media Player is used to play and

PAGE 42

42 pause the video recordings while conductor is addressing specific attribute s of music The Excel Spreadsheet is used to record the numbers of specific attributes of music that are being addressed. For example, the conducto r gave the instruction to the trumpet players that they should listen for their intonation. From the Excel spreadsheet, the the total numbers of each music al attribute to the sums of all attributes of music addressed was presented. Likewise, the ratio of the overall number of times that each attribute of music was addressed during the three rehearsals to the total numbers of times that of all attributes of music from these three rehearsals were addressed was presented. Results and Discussions The conductor often asked the music students to work on intonation, rhythm, dynamics, articulation and other musical attributes such as style and phrasin g, tone quality or non musical 17 issue s such as discipline during the recorded rehearsals According to the Oxford Music online dictionary, the concise definitions of the above attributes of music are: I ntonation: accuracy of pitch in playing or singing. Rhythm: the systematic arrangement of musical sounds, principally according to duration and periodic stress and/or a particular type of pattern formed by rhythm. Dynamics: the varying levels of volume of sound in different parts of a musical performance. Articulation: t he separation of successive notes from one another and/or refers primarily to the degree to which a performer detaches individual notes from one another in practice (e.g. in staccato and legato). 17 For this study, non musical issues will not be studied further due to the natural of these issues will not be affected by the room acoustics.

PAGE 43

43 Style and phrasing: the grouping of successi ve notes, especially in melodies. Tone Quality: q tone tone Each attribute is counted when the conductor stopped the orchestra and addressed a specific music attribute. Conductor A stopped 98 times durin g the rehearsal. Within these 98 stops, conductor A specifically worked and addressed the rhythmic issues 33 times, dynamics issues 23 times, articulation issues 23 times, and intonation issues 3 times. Band rehearsal A was recorded from a university Wind Symphony rehearsal. Figure 4 1 shows the percentages of rehearsal time that these musical issues were addressed and worked on by conductor A with music students during band rehearsal A. Figure 4 1. P ercentages of rehearsal time earsal that specific musical issues were addressed a nd worked on by the conductor and music students. C ondu ctor B stopped 83 times during the rehearsal. Within these 83 stops, conductor B specifically worked and addressed the rhythmic issues 20 times, dyna mics issues 24 times, articulation issues 17 times, and intonation issues 6 times. Figure 4 2 shows the percentages of the rehearsal time that these musical issues were addressed

PAGE 44

44 and worked on by conductor B with music students during band rehearsal B. Ban d rehearsal B was a recor d ing of a college Jazz band rehearsal. Figure 4 2. P ercentages of rehearsal time during school B that specific musical issues were addressed a nd worked on by the conductor and music students. C ondu ctor C stopped 52 times during the rehearsal. Within these 52 stops, conductor C specifically worked and addressed the rhythmic issues 13 times, dynamics issues 1 time, articulation issues 7 times, and intonation issues 21 times. Band rehearsal C was a recording of a hig h school band rehearsal. Figure 4 3 shows the percentages of the rehearsal time that these musical issues were addressed and worked on by conductor C with music students during band rehearsal C. Regardless of the different genres of music and level of musi cianship of the bands, the three conductors stopped for a total of 233 times during the three rehearsals. Within these 233 stops, three conductors specifically worked and addressed the rhythmic issues 65 times, dynamics issues 48 times, articulation issues 47 times, and intonation issues 30 times. Figure 4 4 shows the percentages of the total rehearsal time that these

PAGE 45

45 musical issues were addressed and worked on by the three conductors to music students during the three band rehearsals. Figure 4 3. P ercent ages of rehearsal time during school C that specific musical issues were addressed a nd worked on by the conductor and music students Figure 4 4. P ercentages of total rehearsal time during three band rehearsals that specific musical issues were addressed and worked on by three conductors and their music students

PAGE 46

46 Summary From the three band rehearsal video analyses, regardless the styles of repertoi res rehearsed during rehearsals, con ductors addressed intonation 17% of the time, rhythm 27% of the time, dynamics 18% of the time and articulation 19% of the time during rehearsals. This suggests that music students and conductors were both listening to these musical attributes for 80% of the time. Therefore, it is clear that conductor s and music students are constantly trying to hear each other on these music al attributes It is recommended that future acoustical design guidelines for band rehearsal room s should support the ability for musicians to hear each other on these attributes.

PAGE 47

47 CHAPTER 5 IDENTIFICATION OF MUSICAL ATTRIBUTES D URING REHEARSAL BY CONDUCTOR INTERVIEWS AND STUDENT QUESTION NAIRES Background T he results of the video analysis of the band rehearsals show that the musicians were constantly trying to listen to ea ch other during rehearsal s. P ersonal interviews were conducted with six conductors and questionnaires were administrated to music students and an additional seven conductors to determine what specific attributes of music their groups listen for during rehe arsals. Method According to the University of Flo rida, all research involving human subjects require s permission to be obtained prior to conducting the research 18 This is a procedure that the University of Florida takes in advance of any research being con ducted in order to evaluate whether or not the research has any potential health damage to the participants. For privacy reason s the names of the six conductors will not be listed. E ach conductor will be represented as conductor A, B, C D and accordingly The results of conductor interviews are summarized in a question by question manner. The music students and the additional seven conductors who completed the questionnaires will also remain anonymous. Selections of Conductor The selection of conductor s for the interview s was based on their teaching experience and expertise. Among the conductors, five of them use the band rehearsal 18 UFIRB02 Protocol #2010 U 0088.

PAGE 48

48 rooms where the author conducted the acoustical measurements. Table 5 1, shows the aching experience and expertise in terms of years of teaching, teaching area and school where he/she currently teaches. Table 5 1. Conductor (Interview) A B C D E F Years of experience in teaching: more than 30 years X X X Years of experience in teaching: more than 10 years X X X X X Area of teaching: Classical Music X X X X X Area of teaching: Jazz Music X School where conductor teaches currently: College X X X X X School where conductor teaches currently: High School X Conductor (Questionnaire) G H I J K L M Years of experience in teaching: more than 30 years Years of experience in teaching: more than 10 years X X X X X X Area of teaching: Classical Music X X X X X X X Area of teaching: Jazz Music School where conductor teaches currently: College X X X X X X X School where conductor teaches currently: High School Reference of Interview and Questionnaires The interview questions are prepared and developed with consideration to several res (1962) and Gade (1981) Beranek conducted interviews with outstanding professional musicians and music critics to learn the wa ys that musicians evaluate concert hall acoustics and derived a list of acoustical attributes 19 which he used to describe the attributes of music that musicians regularly use. According to Beranek (1962) his interview technique was to show musicians and 19 Please see pp. 28 29.

PAGE 49

49 mu sic critics some photographs of concert halls and ask them to comment on their experience and knowledge of these concert halls. Gade (1981) interviewed thirty t wo professional musicians to understand what the musicians listened for during their rehearsal s on stage. The method Gade used was to distribute several questionnaires to the musicians in a c hamber orchestra and asked them to rate what they listened for while playing on stage Gade (1981, pp. 26 27, 44) derived seven acoustical attributes: Hearing Each Other Reverberation Support Timbre Dynamics Time Delay Change of Pitch 66% of conductors/orchestra players considered he aring each other as the primary listening criterion on stage. Sixty six percent of conductors/orchestra players translate to mean twenty one out of thirty two people agreed that hearing each other was first pri ority. Five of the twenty one people were conductors. There were only five conductors that participated in this study, which means that 100% of the conductors consider he aring each other as the primary attribute they are involved with while they are on sta ge. The strong agreement among the conductors and orchestra players that wh at exactly musicians mean b y hearing each other during rehearsal s was investigated in this study. Analysis of the video recordings of the band re hearsal s showed that conductors spend most of their time during rehearsals trying to bring students to play together by

PAGE 50

50 hearing individual s members of the ensemble relative to each other Therefore, the basic interview questions for the band rehearsal room are: What are the most important aspects for students to rehearse to prepare the ensemble for concert? What do you try to listen for during a rehearsal? What aspects of student/performer playing do you discuss during rehearsal? If you are playing or rehe arsing the same programs in different spaces, how are the acoustical attributes of the room helpful or harmful for listening and teaching? Interviews were conducted individually and recorded with a digital audio recorder. All audio recorded files were tran scribed into text and the transcriptions are included in Appendix A. In order to compare and summarize the interview results in a clearly manner, only vocabularies or short sentences are cited directly and used in the tables below to summarize the response s to each interview question. Questionnaire s were sent by electronic mail to additional seven conductors were using the same questions as shown above. After the conductors co mpleted the questionnaires, these questionnaires were emaile d back to the author. The r esults for the additional seven conductors will be shown in the same table with the results from the interviews. Questionnaires were given to the music students during their rehearsal. Due to time constrain t s th e questions were simplified to one ques tion and as shown in Figure 5 1. Figure 5 1 Question to music students about what musical attributes they are listening for during rehearsal.

PAGE 51

51 Results and D iscussions Conductor Interviews and Questionnaires A summary of the responses of the conductor to at are the most is shown in Table 5 2. As expected, the diverse vocabularies used by conductors to express their musical teaching experience were noticed. This was also identified by Beranek and Gade in their research. It was necessary to categorize the musical terms into groups in order to obtain the clearer results. According to conductor F 20 the fundamental s of music means whether pitch/notes are played in tu ne (intonation), notes are played with precision and in time (rhythm), level s are played in balance (dynamics), notes are played with the right amount of weight as indicate d by the composer, ph r asing and tone quality. The result of this question is 12 out of 13 conductors agree that student s should be able to hear each other and hear the fundamental attributes of music such as intonation, rhythm, dyna mics, articulation and tone quality Table 5 2. Summary of the interview and questionnaire are the most important aspects for students to rehearse to prepare the ensemble for Conductor (Interview) Answers A Produce the right notes, learn to hear and play with right intonation, precision (rhythm), blend with section (dynamics), hear the orchestra as whole, and develop musicality. B Correct notes and rhythms first, then dynamic level, melodic structure, phrases, trills and grace notes. C Be able to hear each other. It is a very important to tuning, balance, blending sounds. D Match articulation, listening to each other in the hall, be able to hear each other, ensembles tune, constant intonation, balance and blend. E The ability to hear across the ensemble, the volume and balance of level, refine the tone qualities. 20 Additional questions regard the typical rehearsal processes and difference between student musicians and professionals are also listed in Appendix A.

PAGE 52

52 Table 5 2. Continued. Conductor (Interview) Answers F Think like one, fundamentals of music, together to sound as one, to hear what they sound like in conjunction with others, to hear whether they are in tune, whether they are in time, balance is correct, balance an d blend of sound, working on trying to get better intonation, and better togetherness, better dynamics and all the fundamentals. Conductor (Questionnaire) Answers G themselves and the ensemble clearly. H To be able to hear across the ensemble with ease. I All elements of music, including: rhythm, intonation, textural balance, timbre (blend), musical dynamics, and musical architecture. J Pitch, tone, ensemble, balance, precision, artistry. K During rehearsal: Blend and balance within and between sections, including tonal color decisions. Intonation in both unison/octave and chordal contexts. Elements of rubato and tempo continuity. Elements of style specific to the repertoire being rehearsed. Elements of Phrasing, articulation, note weighting. L An identification of the total sound and the spectrum of colors within the ensemble. M The ability to hear and listen in an environment similar to the most often performing environment. No carpeted floor, enough cubic space for the sound to resonate in the room without overwhelming the space with condensed sound. what would he/she like the students to rehearse as an ensemble is shown in Table 5 3 This table lists the most important aspects of rehearsing, from the highest to lowest percentage. Hearing each o ther, intonation, blend of sound, balance dynamics, musicality/tone quality, rhythm, articulation and phrasing are the 8 most important aspects of music that conductors would like to work on during rehearsals In fact in terms of hearing each other, it ca n be considered as hearing all of the fundamentals of music that are mentioned above. Additionally, players are c onstantly aware of themselves and others playing during the r ehearsal and making appropriate adjustments relative to other players and the spac e that they played in. Balance and blend are often used by musicians to describe balance

PAGE 53

53 the dynamics and blend ing the sound with the right tone qualities within the section and the ensemble. However, the adjustments of tone quality, phrasing and blend ing of sound during rehearsal often required musicians to have better music al skill s to achieve. The conductor in the band is the one who makes the ultimate decision on aspects for students to rehearse for a concert would be, rephrased appropriately, as Tab le 5 3 the most important aspects for students to rehearse to prepare the ensemble Conductor/Answers (Interview) A B C D E F Total Number % Hear the orchestra as whole, be able to hear each other, listening to each other in the hall, the ability to hear across the ensemble, together to sound as one, total sound X X X X X 5/6 83% Produce the right notes, correct notes, fundamentals of music, learn to hear and play with right intonation, tuning, ensembles tune, constant intonation, fundamentals of music, together to sound as one, in tune, intonation, togetherness X X X X X 5/6 83% Blend with section (timbre), blending sounds, fundamentals of music, together to sound as one, blend of sound, refine the tone qualities X X X X X 5/6 83% Dynamic level, balance, volume and balance of level, fundamentals of music, together to sound as one, balance is correct, togetherness, better dynamics X X X X X 5/6 83% Develop musicality, think like one, refine the tone qualities, melodic structure, artistry X X X X 4/6 67% Precision (rhythm), correct rhythms, fundamentals of music, together to sound as one, in time, togetherness X X X 3/6 50%

PAGE 54

54 Table 5 3 Continued. Conductor/Answers ( Interview ) A B C D E F Total Number % Trills and grace notes, match articulation, fundamentals of music, together to sound as one, togetherness X X X 3/6 50% Phrases, fundamentals of music, together to sound as one, togetherness X X 2/6 33% Conductor/Answers (Questionnaire) G H I J K L M Total Number % Hear the orchestra as whole, be able to hear each other, listening to each other in the hall, the ability to hear across the ensemble, together to sound as one, total sound X X X X X X X 7/7 100 % Develop musicality, think like one, refine the tone qualities, melodic structure, artistry X X X X 4/7 57% Blend with section (timbre), blending sounds, fundamentals of music, together to sound as one, blend of sound, refine the tone qualities X X X X 4/7 57% Produce the right notes, correct notes, fundamentals of music, learn to hear and play with right intonation, tuning, ensembles tune, constant intonation, fundamentals of music, together to sound as one, in tune, intonation, togetherness X X 2/7 29% Dynamic level, balance, volume and balance of level, fundamentals of music, together to sound as one, balance is correct, togetherness, better dynamics X X 2/7 29% Precision (rhythm), correct rhythms, fundamentals of music, together to sound as one, in time, togetherness X X 2/7 29% Trills and grace notes, match articulation, fundamentals of music, together to sound as one, togetherness X X 2/7 29% Phrases, fundamentals of music, together to sound as one, togetherness X 1/7 14% A summary of the overall results from the interviews and questionnaires administrated to the 13 conductors is shown in Table 5 4 and Figure 5 2 Ninety two percent of the conductors stated that hearing each other was a primary concern; 69% mentioned blend; 62% mentioned musicality and tone quality; 54% mentioned

PAGE 55

55 intonation; 54% mentioned dynamics; 38% mentioned rhythm; 38% mentioned articulation; and 23% mentioned phrasing and style. The findings from the band rehearsal videos analyses have been completely identified comments. Table 5 4 Summary of the overall results of the interview s and questionnaires for are the most important aspects for students to rehearse to prepare the Conductor/Answers (Interview a nd Questionnaire) Total Number % Hear the orchestra as whole, be able to hear each other, listening to each other in the hall, the ability to hear across the ensemble, together to sound as one, total sound 12/13 92% Blend with section (timbre), blending sounds, fundamentals of music, together to sound as one, blend of sound, refine the tone qualities 9/13 69% Develop musicality, think like one, refine the tone qualities, melodic structure, artistry 8/13 62% Produce the right notes, correct notes, fundamentals of music, learn to hear and play with right intonation, tuning, ensembles tune, constant intonation, fundamentals of music, together to sound as one, in tune, intonation, togetherness 7/13 54% Dynamic level, balance, volume and balance of level, fundamentals of music, together to sound as one, balance is correct, togetherness, better dynamics 7/13 54% Precision (rhythm), correct rhythms, fundamentals of music, together to sound as one, in time, togetherness 5/13 38% Trills and grace notes, match articulation, fundamentals of music, together to sound as one, togetherness 5/13 38% Phrases, fundamentals of music, together to sound as one, togetherness 3/13 23%

PAGE 56

56 Figure 5 2. the most important aspects for students to rehearse to p repare the ensemble for concert. to listen for during a are summarized in Table 5 5. Among the 13 conductors, only conductor A mentioned that he/she would listen for room a coustics and make adjustments to playing based on the room acoustics. Most of the conductors mentioned that they wou ld listen for either all or some of the fundamental elements of music (intonation, rhythm, dynamics and articulation). Conductor E did not specify clearly about the layers that he listen ed for except the harmonics and the counter lines. Conductor H thought this was a complex question and though t it depended on the musicians. However, based on a ll the s conclude d that most of the conductors were listening for student s playing of the most fundamental music al attribute s and making sure these elements were played correctly by s tudents. Then, they continued and taught students about how to make music with good tone qualities, balance, blend, phrasing and style so that the music sounded as one.

PAGE 57

57 Table 5 5 ing a Conductor (Interview) Answers A Listen to the hall about whether the room has the right amount of reverberation and warm round sound (room acoustics), then adjust your playing in accordingly to produce good tone, play in time and articul ation with others B Once I got all the notes and rhythms done, then I go make music by listening for tone quality, phrasing, timber of the instruments, balance of the dynamic level in room, togetherness C Everything. I listen for timber, quality of sound, intonation, volume levels of different sections to create an appropriate balance. I listen for rhythmic precision and accuracy, all the elements in to making a performance as accurate and musically correct as possible D In a rehearsal what I am lis tening for is errors amongst individuals on notes, rhythm, out of tune, articulation and dynamic; checking what they are playing against your instrumental image, the mental image of what it is I want to hear as the sonorities that I want to hear from a par ticular piece; constantly checking from your mental image from what you want, how you want a piece to sound like, tone, balance E Depends on the repertoire, every work has a different requirement. I normally listen in terms of layers; I listen for formality layer, mid devise layer, etc; a purely harmonic layer. function. I rarely listen only for timber. I rarely go in rehearsals ines, F I listen to everything. Ask students how to play and learn to of music. G I am listening for balance/blend of the various instruments, intonation of the ensemble, and tone of the instruments. H This is a complex question that I will not be able to answer adequately in this answer. The abbreviated answer to this question is that listening in rehearsal is determined solely by you are receiving by the ensemble. I Same as question 1. All elements of music, including: rhythm, intonation, textural balance, timbre (blend), musical dynamics, and musical architecture. J Pitch, tone, ensemble, balance, precision, artistry.

PAGE 58

58 Table 5 5 Continued. Conductor (Questionnaire) Answers K Same as question 1.During rehearsal: Blend and balance within and between sections, including tonal color decisions. Intonation in both unison/octave and chordal contexts. Elements of rubato and tempo continuity. Elements of style specific to the repertoire being rehearsed. Elements of Phrasing, articulation, note weighting. L Multiple balance concepts, timbre, intonation, timing and musical relationships within the ensemble. M Balance and clarity of voice colors, accuracy of sounds rhythmically, blend of colors both like and different voices. The responses of the conductors to the question were summarized in Table 5 6. Under the main heading of being able to hear oneself and each other, all conductors worked on or discussed with their students the fu ndamentals of music. However, for this particular question, match ing tone quality or blending of sound was the dominant focus of the fundamentals of music. Matching tone quality or blending of sound involves critical listening skills and excellent playing skills. As conductor A states from T able 5 5, a player not only needs to listen for the room acoustics, but also needs to play with adjustments due to the room acoustics in order to produce good tone. In this case, matching tone quality or blending of soun d is a technique that a player has the final control over. For instance, blending of sound for a trombone player during the band rehearsal means he/she will make whatever adjustments on the dynamics and tone quality are needed to match the trombone section first, then to match tuba, and finally to match the orchestra. Therefore, even though room acoustics has effects on tone quality; a player has the final control of how to blend the sound during the rehearsal.

PAGE 59

59 Table 5 6 Summary of the interview results o Conductor (Interview) Answers A quality, blend, intonation, slurs and articulation all those things in lessons a nd sectionals. Sectionals are so important. B really try to focus on hearing it in tune, getting to play in tune and also, the quality of the tone is coming out of the instrument so it is not t oo harsh. I would say you know, we talk about the quality of sound, reading and playing very pr ecise, those kinds of things. C Pretty much what I discussed above. Being able to listen across the ensemble. They must be able to hear each other and match not e length. D I think one of the things I focus on the great deal is tone quality. Matching tone quality. So I stress on their ability to listen and match the tone and be unified tone. Being able to listen, you constantly try to tune them to it. How and when to end a phrase or where to breath. E Articulation, intonation, balance blend ensemble alignment and rhythmical alignment. Those are the basic. I think every ensemble that has rehearsed well rehearsed the fundamentals. Depends on work. Some element m ight be more in this piece than that piece of music. F Just the same things we all discussed fundamentals of music as well as the blending of tone and/or quality of sound. Conductor (Questionnaire) Answers G Same as above question. I am listening for balance/blend of the various instruments, intonation of the ensemble, and tone of the instruments. H All aspects, once again, dependent upon what is coming from the ensemble. This question is a complex issue that cannot be answered simply. I Same as above question. All elements of music, including: rhythm, intonation, textural balance, timbre (blend), musical dynamics, and musical architecture. J Pitch, tone, ensemble, balance, precision, artistry. K Same as above question. During rehearsal: Blend and balance within and between sections, including tonal color decisions. Intonation in both unison/octave and chordal contexts. Elements of rubato and tempo continuity. Elements of style specific to the repertoire being rehearsed. Elements of Phrasing, ar ticulation, note weighting. L Multiple balance concepts, timbre, intonation, timing and musical relationships within the ensemble, especially musicality and musicianship.

PAGE 60

60 Table 5 6 Continued. Conductor (Questionnaire) Answers M Stylistic conviction and projec tion of style to the audience. Listening, listening, listening. T he responses of the conductors to the question the same programs in different spaces, how are the acoustical attributes of the room helpful or ha are summarized in Table 5 7. This question was not asked during the interview with conductor A. Thus, conductor A is not listed in table 5 7. Conductor B preferred a quiet room so the control of different level of dynamic s can be achieved. Conductors C, D, F and H preferred a less reverberant room, so they could hear more. Conductor D and G had concerns about the high sound level in a room because it cou ld lead to hearing damage. Conductors B and E responded that musicians learn how to compensate for the room and make the necessary adjustment s to produce good music. Conductor s J, K, L and M seemed to prefer variable acoustic settings. Table 5 7 same programs in different spaces, how are the acoustical attributes of the Conductor (Interview) Answers B Check and learn the room acoustics first for the spaces, to make sure that you get the best set up for the room, you learn how to compensate, you have to compensate and do your best what you can unless you are a professional musician, a lower background noise level is desired, control of dynamic level. C I prefer a slightly deader acoustics in a rehear sal setting because I can hear more. I do want it to deader so it is truer to what is coming out of the instrument. D You want the last person from the last row to hear you, size of the room (practice room) decibel level is so high in a room like that is also harmful, dead room gives you better details but it also lies to you.

PAGE 61

61 Table 5 7 Continued. Conductor (Interview) Answers E First thing it affects is programming. Rehearse resonance rather than reverberation we rehearse how to end a note so to make it sound like a natural reverberation. To create artificial reverberation. And length of this, the reverb of the decay, is dependen perform in. F Because we record in there. I would be happy if it were dry all the time, open up curtain and sound like in the hall in the last rehearsal. Conductor (Questionnaire) Answers G The amount of reverberation can determine clarity of the ensemble. This can help/hinder the rehearsal process. Also, certain instruments will speak more loudly in different environments. H Different acoustics will influence tempos and articulations. Rooms that are t oo reverberant are often very difficult for the ears to perceive a true indication of what has actually been played. I Performers must be able to hear one another as accurately as possible. J Can be both. It challenges the players to listen in different ways. I alter set ups depending on the room. K Less reverberant spaces assist detailed listening for note lengths, precision, etc., and erode the confidence of the players. More reverberant spaces assist in preparing for normal concert room acoustics, and build confidence in the players. L Acoustic dryness can assist quantification, but can hinder musicality and balances. M Extremes are harmful acoustics to be slightly less resonant than performing area acoustics. Also, important that recording in the rehearsal space be possible enough space behind the conductor to capture sound before immediately bouncing off a wall behind the conductor. Student Questionnaires There are a total of 206 questionnaires collected fro m two university wind and jazz bands and one high school wind band. One hundred twenty five wind band members completed the questionnaires at University A The results shown in Figure 5 3 reveal that more than 70% of the students were listening for intonat ion, rhythm, dynamics, arsals. This is an

PAGE 62

62 indication that student musicians are constantly trying to hear themselves and other players during band re hearsal s at University A. On ly about 1 % of students mentioned that they also listened for other musical attributes such as tone quality, phrasing, style, blend of sound and pulse. Figure 5 3. Results of student questionnaire about what musical attributes they are listening for during rehearsal for University A At University B 49 wind and jazz band members completed the questionnaires. The results shown in Figure 5 4 reveal that 78% and above, of student s were listening s playing while they were playing during rehearsals. These results indicated the student musicians were constantly trying to hear themselves and other players during band rehearsals at University B. O nly 18% of students mentioned that they were also listen ing for other attributes of music such as phrasing, style, breaths, inflection and balance. The High School Band had 32 wind band members who completed the questionnaires. The results shown in Figure 5 5 show that 68% and above of the students are listenin playing while they are playing during rehearsals. Evidently, the results indicated that

PAGE 63

63 music students were constantly trying to hear themselves and each other during band rehearsals. Twen ty two percent of the students mentioned that they were also listening for other attributes of music such as tone quality and phrasing. Figure 5 4. Results of student questionnaire about what attributes of music they are listening for during rehearsal fo r University B. Figure 5 5. Results of student questionnaire about what attributes of music they are listening for during rehearsal for High School The overall results of the responses of the 206 students on the questionnaires are shown in Figure 5 6. St udent musicians are constantly listening to each other so they can play in time, in tune, balance dynamics and articulate notes properly. Hearing

PAGE 64

64 oneself and each other has been broken down in the following categories in the questionnaires: 93% of the students listened for intonation, 89% of the students listened for rhythm, 73% of the students listened for dynamics and 95% of the students listened for articulation. This is an indication that student musicians are constantly t rying to hear themselves and other players during rehearsals. Only about 14 % of the students mentioned that they also listened for other musical attributes such as tone quality, phrasing, style, breath and blend of sound. Figure 5 6. Results of 206 stud are listening for during rehearsal. Summary The objective of conducting the interview s with the conductors/instructors and administrating the questionnaires to music students was to study what both gr oups are listening for during rehearsals. The results can be use d to u nderstand what listening criteria and rehearsal room acoustic conditions would be helpful or useful for conductors to teach and music students to rehearse in as an ensemble. The results of interviews and questionnaires indicated that hearing each other has been identified as the main criterion to rehearse as an ensemble in the band room by both c onductors and music

PAGE 65

65 students. Twelve out of 13 conductors (92%) stated that hearing each other i s the primary factor for students to rehearse together. Results of the question naires also identified 73 to 95% of the time s student musicians were listening to dynamics, articulation; and 14% of the students were also listening for other musical attributes (tone quality, blend, breath, phrasing and style). The students and instructors are c onstantly listening for the fundamentals of music to en sure that the entire band play s everythin g together and sound s like one. Musicians were co nstantly being asked to listen to the fundamentals of music such as dynamics (balance), intonation (notes, togetherness, tone quality and blend), rhythm (togetherness) and articulation ( note length, together ness). Therefore, it is appropriate to state that band rehearsal room s should be design ed to allow both conductors and music students to hear each other clearly on the most fundamental attributes of music. Most of the conductors mentioned that a less rever berant room allows both conductors and music students to hear one self and each other easier. This is the key to playing together as an ensemble.

PAGE 66

66 CHAPTER 6 ACOUSTICAL MEASUREME NT S OF BAND REHEARSAL RO OMS Background A coustical measurements were perf ormed in t he three band rehearsal rooms to study the acoustical conditions of these rooms. From the impulse response concepts and site observations, different receiver locations in the room perceive sound quality differently. Likewise, different source loc ations or numerous sources generating sound in unison result in different sound quality at a receiver location. Due to multiple source and receiver paths in the band rehearsal room that have different impulse responses, musicians could perceive different s ound qualities. In addition, assuming that the ability to hear themselves and other then the acquired acoustical attributes and corresponding acoustical parameters from the data can be us ed to study the attributes of music that musicians are listening for during rehearsals. Method As mentioned earlier, three band rooms were carefully selected for their distinct room acoustic responses due to architectural characteristics such as room volu me, room dimension s and acoustical treatments in the room. Acoustical treatments are the average absorption coefficient of the surface areas (Alpha_Bar) and the average surface diffusivity (SDI). The average absorption coefficient can be obtained from the reverberation time and calculated surface area of the room. The average surface diffusivity is based on the ratios of area for the diffusive panel to the surface area where the panel is located. Figure 6 1 shows the interior s of these rooms. Table 6 1 sho ws the architectural characteristics of these rooms.

PAGE 67

67 B A C Figure 6 1 Interiors of three band rehearsal rooms A) Band Room A, B) Band Room B C) Band Room C. (Photos courtesy of Lucky Tsaih) Table 6 1 Architectural Characteristics of three band rooms. Room Name Room Volume, (ft 3 ) Max. Length (ft 2 ) Max. Width(ft 2 ) Ceiling Height(ft 2 ) Average Absorption (Alpha_Bar) Average Surface Diffusivity (SDI) Band Room A 184738 84.5 66.25 33 0.48 0.38 Band Room B 35840 56 32 20 0.40 0.16 Band Room C 20545 48 38 11.47 0.28 0.21 In order to study the room responses due to the different sound source and receiver paths, four source locations with multiple receiver locations for each source was used for this study. Since the se room s are symmetrical, source and receiver loc ations were chosen based on even coverage of the seating area However, the multiple receiver locations were particularly chosen based on rehearsal condition s. This means setting locations with the perspective that a player is sitting and listening to

PAGE 68

68 a nother player close to him/her (on the side, in front and at the back) and far from him/her (mid and far distance s ) in all direction Receiv ers that are close to the source are categorized as near condition. Receivers that are far from the source are categorized as far condition. Near and far conditions will be used for the measurement report. Figure s 6 2 6 3 and 6 4 show the floor plan sketch es with source and receiver locations for the three band rooms A laptop pre installed with the WinMLS software is used for the measurement. A Maximum Length Sequence is used as the testing signal that is played through a directional self powered loudspeaker 21 The playback loudspeaker was moved to the four source locations (S1, S2, S3 and S4) as indicated on Figure s 6 2 6 3 and 6 4 An omnidirectional microphone 22 and a dummy head (binaural microphones) are separately connected to the laptop and moved to the multiple receiver locations during the measurement s The reason to use a directional loudspeaker as a playback source is because musical instruments have directional patterns, thus the recommended omnidirectional loudspeaker from I SO3382 is replaced by the directional loudspeaker 21 JBL Eon 15 G2 Self Powered Loudspeaker 22 Earthworks M3 0BX Type 1 Microphone

PAGE 69

69 Figure 6 2. Band room A floor plan showing the acoustical measurement locations of the sound sources and receivers.

PAGE 70

70 Figure 6 3. Band room B floor plan showing the acoustical measurement locat ions of the sound sources and receivers.

PAGE 71

71 Figure 6 4. Band room C floor plan showing the acoustical measurement locations of the sound sources and receivers.

PAGE 72

72 The selected acoustical measurement parameters as discussed in Chapter 2 in conjunction with the parameters that suggested by ISO 3382 (1997, pp. 12 19) are used to report the room responses These acoustical measurement parameters include Early Decay Time (EDT), Reverberation Time (T30 and T20), Center T ime (Tc), Clarity Index (C80), Definition (D50), Support (ST1), Strength 23 (SPL), Interaural Cross Correlation (IACC). Speech Transmission Index (STI) is included in this study due to the importance of verbal communication during rehearsals These parameter s are calculated based on the impulses response measured at a receiver location in the room. An impulse response as shown in Figure 6 5 consists of direct sound, early sound and reverberant sound. The impulse response is a graphic al analysis of sound perce ive d by a listener at a specific location in the room. Figure 6 5. Impulse response concept. 23 Strength for this measurement is the actual sound pressure level measured at the receiver location.

PAGE 73

73 According to Cremer (1982, p. 414) individual syllables or notes of running speech and music can often be masked by the following syl lables and notes. Therefore early decay time (EDT) is the time it takes for the first 10 dB of decay of an impulse response extrapolated to a 60 dB decay and can be used to indicate the perceived reverberance as suggested by ISO 3382 (1997, p.14) Reverberation time, T20 a nd T30, are the time measurements sound energy has to decay from 5 dB to 25dB and from 5dB to 35dB respectively extrapolated to a 60 dB decay T20 and T30 can be used to indicate the overall reverberation of the room due to room properties. EDT, T20 or T30 are the modifications of reverberation time (T60) proposed by Sabine ( 2009) The measured decay time of EDT, T20 and T30 is often multiplied by 6, 3 and 2 respectively to be reported as reverberation time. Center Time (TC) is proposed by Cremer (1982, p. 434) and can be derived from the equation as shown in E quation 6 1 Center time is a measure of center point of the impulse response where t he early sound energy equals the reverberant sound energy. It indicates whether or not the listener perceives direct and early sound or the reverberant sound as the dominant part of the impulse responses. Center time is reported in seconds or milliseconds. When the value of center tim e is close to 0 millisecond, it means the direct sound and early sound energy is dominant. TC = tp 2 (t) dt / p 2 (t) dt (Equation 6 1) Distinctness or definition (D50) is proposed by Thiele (1953) and can be derived f rom the equation as shown in E quation 6 2 Distinctness is a measure of the ratio for the first 50 milliseconds early sound energy to the total sound energy. Fifty milliseconds

PAGE 74

74 is the limit of perceptible speech. It is used to measure the subjective evaluation on clarity of speech. Distinctness is reported as a fraction between 0 and 100. A higher percentage means clearer speech as perceived by the listener. D50 = p 2 dt / p 2 dt (Equation 6 2) Clearness or Clarity Index (C80) is proposed by Reichardt (1975) and can be derived from E quation 6 3. It is a ratio for the first 80 milliseconds of early sound energy to the sound energy after 80 millisec onds in logarithmical format. Eighty milliseconds is the limit of perceptible music Clearness is used to measure the subjective evaluation on clarity of music. Clarity Index is reported in decibel s (dB). A positive value means clear music as perceived by the listener. C80 = 10 log p 2 dt / p 2 dt (Equation 6 3) Interaural Cross Correlation (IACC) is based on the concept of the law of first wavefront and the direction of sound energy being perceived by the listener binaurally. Equation 6 4 shows the mathematical equation to derive the entrance of sound perceived by the left and right ear (Beranek, 2004, p. 635) Since IACC is a measure of time that sound arrives at the left and right ear, the value of t 1 and t 2 from the integral term will point out which subjective sound quality is being perceiv ed by the listener. For example, if the value of t 1 and t 2 equal 0 and 1000 milliseconds, the difference of sound perceived at two ears is measured and is denoted as IACC A When the value of t 1 and t 2 equal 0 and 80 milliseconds, the result is denoted as I ACC E According to the definition of ISO 3382 (1997, p. 19) IACC E

PAGE 75

75 1 and t 2 equal 80 and 750 milliseconds, the result is denoted as IACC L According to the d efinition of ISO 3382, IACC L is used to p L (t)p R (t + ) dt IACC = (Equation 6 4) p 2 L dt p 2 R dt Support or ensemble (ST1) is proposed by Gade (1989 ) and can be derived from E quation 6 5 It is a measure of the ratio for the direct sound energy within the first 10 milliseconds of the impulse response to the early sound energy between 20 and 100 milliseconds in logarithmical format. Support is measured with a microphone located at 1 meter from the omnidirectional source on stage 24 and is used to measure the subj ective perception on perceived loudness of sound energy Support is reported in decibel s (dB). A negative value means more support for the musician, hence clear music is perceived by the musician. ST1 = 10 log p 2 dt / p 2 dt (Equation 6 5) Strength (G) is often recommended to be used in reporting the sound strength at a measured location in a room. It is measured by using a calibrated omnidirectional 24 proposed measurement procedures. The modifications included the microphone distance and the use of the source playback device. The microphone was placed at a seat that is in the front of the source, at the back of source and next to the source, since these are the actual locations where the musicians sit during rehearsal. The distances of these seats to source are approximately 2 to 4.5 feet apart. Directional loudspeaker was used instead of the omnidirectional loudspeaker, since most of the musical instruments have directivity characteri stics.

PAGE 76

76 loudspeaker in the room and in a free field with a microphone at a 10 meter distance. The me asured value is the difference of the field measurement and the free field measurement. However, f or ease of comparison, the actual perceived sound pressure these locati ons were used in lieu of strength in this research Relative sound pressure level from a listener is the sound pressure level measured from the source to receiver. The directional loudspeaker output level was set to have the same sound pressure level outpu t for the three band rehearsal rooms during measurement. Speech Transmission Index (STI) and Rapid Speech Transmission Index (RASTI) are used in this study to evaluate speech intelligibility It is based on Houtgast and ( 1985 ) that the Modulation Transfer Function with individual octave frequency bands could be useful to predict the speech intelligibility between the original speech signal to the speech with different reverberation times, levels of echo and noise. As signal to noise le vel increases, STI will increase. On the other hand, as reverberation time increase, STI decreases. There are 98 modulation factors for STI. RASTI has 9 modulation factors only. With averaged weighting of 98 factors for STI and 9 for RASTI, STI and RASTI r ange from 0 to 1. Values close to 1 means a listener has better speech intelligibility. Results and Discussions The impulse responses of a source at the center of the room and the multiple receiver locations for the three band rehearsal rooms are shown in Figure 6 6 These impulse responses are used to identify the sound energy decay pattern at specific receiver locations in the room. For example, from Band Room A ( Figure 6 6 A), the

PAGE 77

77 upper left circle points out that receiver #A4 25 has strong direct sound whereas the right bottom circle points out that receiver #D1 has no strong direct sound energy. The different direct sound patterns are due to the receiver location. The upper left impulse response is measured at the receiver locat ion directly in front of the source, within 5.5 feet distance. The right bottom impulse response is measured at the receiver location that is 22 feet away and off axis from the source. This implies when an oboe player who sits in the center of the room pla ys a melody, the flute player who plays accompaniment, and sits directly in front of the oboe player, will perceive attributes of music more clearly than the trumpet player who sits far away from the oboe player. It is apparent by seeing the two different kinds of decay patterns from these impulse response graphics of the three band rooms. The receiver locations at the front or near the source had stronger direct sound energy. The receiver s located off axis and far away from each source has less direct soun d energy. The amount of direct sound will probably affect the music quality. Entry notes played by different instruments simultaneously at different locations will not sound together as one. In order to see the individual room response in a clear manner t he following acoustical measurement results for the three band rooms with multiple receiver locations as well as to each acoustical parameter are pr esented in a graphical format. Within each graphic, the dotted line means the receivers are near the source. A solid line means the receivers are far away from the source. The legend of the receiver location on the right side of each graphic is based on the near to far distance relative to the source. Reading the graphic al data with the measured floor p lan from page 69 70 25 Please refer to the measurement floor plan on page 71 for relative receiver location.

PAGE 78

78 and 7 1 will help to locate the source and receiver locations clearly. The mean value of all receiver locations is shown with the pink broken line. The standard deviation is shown with the black vertical broken line. Figure 6 7 shows the early d ecay times (EDT) for multiple receiver locations for the three band rooms. Band Room A has larger ranges than Band Room B and C due to wide spread of the receiver locations. The floor area of Band Room A is twice as large as Rooms B and C. However, within each band room, it shows that the receiver that is located in front of the source has a very short EDT compared to the other receiver locations. This might be due to the fact that the direct sound is perceived rapidly by the player in front of the source. Figures 6 8 and 6 9 show the reverberation time (T20 and T30) of the three band rooms. Both figures show small variations responses of T20 or T30 when compared to EDT (Figure 6 7). This might be due to the diffusive theory that the reverberation t ime is not sensitive to receiver location. However, it is interesting to note that Band Room A has a longer reverberation time response at low frequency bands than Band Rooms B and C. The longer reverberation times in the low frequency bands may provide a sense of warmth and fullness of tone during rehearsals since the high frequency bands of the music notes decay sooner. On the other hand, the longer reverberation time in the low frequency bands might affect the entry of the notes, as well as the precision of rhythm.

PAGE 79

79 A B C Figure 6 6. Impulse responses of three band rooms. A) Band Room A, B) Band Room B, and C) Band Room C.

PAGE 80

80 A B C Figure 6 7. Early decay time (EDT) responses in octave band center frequencies (Hz) in A) Band Room A, B) Band Room B, and C) Band Room C.

PAGE 81

81 A B C Figure 6 8. Reverberation time (T20) plotted in octave band center frequencies (Hz) in A) Band Room A, B) Band Room B, and C) Band Room C.

PAGE 82

82 A B C Figure 6 9. Reverberation time (T30) plotted in octav e band center frequencies (Hz) in A) Band Room A, B) Band Room B, and C) Band Room C.

PAGE 83

83 The values of center time (TC) measured in the three band rooms are shown in Figure 6 1 0 Center time shows the same pattern as early decay time in that Band Room A has larger variances than Band Room B and C. As mentioned earlier, center time is to measure the center point where the early sound energy equals the reverberant sound energy. Thus, the data suggest that receivers located closer to the source encounters more d irect sound, whereas the receivers located far ther away from the source encounter more reverberant sound. Consequently, a player who experiences direct and early sound energy higher and quicker than other players might react faster in terms of adjusting wh at he/she is playing than other players. This raises questions about how to design a band rehearsal room that can balance the perception of sound over the seating area with architecture elements. This topic requires a detailed future study. Figure 6 1 1 shows values of Distinctness (D50) for the three band rooms. D50 is the measured ratio of early to total sound energy of an impulse response. Interestingly, like. This might suggest that the higher percentage of D50 has a lower center time value. D50 is intended to be used to check the clarity of speech. It suggests that a higher direct sound level will have a significant effect on the clarity of speech. As shown in F igure 6 11 the near receiver positions have higher values of D50 than the far receiver locations such as the percussion position and the location behind the source. In addition, the overall D50 response seems narrower in Band Room B than in Band Room s A and C. Thus Band Room B might have overall better speech intelligibility.

PAGE 84

84 A B C Figure 6 10. Center time (TC) plotted in octave band center frequencies (Hz) in A) Band Room A, B) Band Room B, and C) Band Room C.

PAGE 85

85 A B C Figure 6 11. Distinctness (D50) plotted in octave band center frequencies (Hz) in A) Band Room A, B) Band Room B, and C) Band Room C.

PAGE 86

86 Figure 6 1 2 shows the Clearness (C80) responses of the three band rooms. The figure shows that all three band rooms have positive C80 responses for all receiver lo cations. This means musicians are able to perceive the attributes of music well while they are playing. However, the ranges of the C80 for all receiver locations are between 5 to 30 dB, with the receiver s located in front of the source having a higher valu e than the receiver s loca ted far from the source. This lar ge difference might need some architectural elements to balance it if playing together and balance is the main goal of the ensemble. Figure 6 1 3 shows the values of Support (ST1) for the thr ee band rooms. According to Gade (1989), ST1 is used to study whether or not the musicians on stage can hear themselves sufficiently when playing in an ensemble. A negative value of ST1 means the players can hear themselves better than the positive value. The receiver locations near the source versus the receiver location s far ther from the source have 8 to 30 dB ranges of ST1 across the frequency bands. Evidently, the percussion locations fo r all source locations have lower ST1 value s than the receiver loca tions that are in the front of sources. This might suggest that ST1 is affected by the directivity pattern of the source. The ranges of ST1 values increases in higher octave bands. Therefore, musicians who sit off axis of the source will not hear clearly i n high frequencies compared to a musician who sits within the coverage of the source directivity pattern. This cou ld affect the adjustment of intonation during rehearsal s

PAGE 87

87 A B C Figure 6 12. Clearness (C80) plotted in octave band center frequencies (Hz) in A) Band Room A, B) Band Room B, and C) Band Room C.

PAGE 88

88 A B C Figure 6 13. Support (ST1) plotted in octave band center frequencies (Hz) in A) Band Room A, B) Band Room B, and C) Band Room C.

PAGE 89

89 The relative sound pressure level measured (SPL) at recei ver locations in the three band rooms are illustrated in Figure 6 1 4 As expected, the receiver locations that are in front of the source have higher sound pressure level s than other receiver locations. The receiver locations near source versus the receive r location far from source have 8 to 25 dB variances of SPL across the frequency bands. In Band Room C, the receiver locations in front of the source have SPL higher than 110 dB. Band Room s A and B have SPL below 110 dB. The difference of SPL for the three band rooms is due to the room volu me and the placement of absorbent material on the room surfaces. From an audiological perspective, human s perceive sound as twice loud when there is a 10 dB difference between two sound levels Therefore, the 10 dB differ ence for near and far receiver locations will affect the musicians ability to listen for dynamics during the rehearsal. In addition, the high sound pressure level in Band Room C might damage the hearing of the condu ctor and music students The proper room volume as well as the placement of absorption material on surfaces could be used to reduce the high sound pressure level as well as the chance of hearing damage. Figure s 6 1 5 6 1 6 and 6 1 7 show the Intera ural Cross Correlation (IACC) valu es of three band rooms. IACC measures the source level differences at left and right ears. It has been relate to the spaciousness of the source (IACC_A) and describes the dissimilarity of the signal as it arrives at each ear, either for early reflections (0 to 80 ms IACC_E) or for the reverberant sound (80 to a time greater of the reverberant time of the enclosure IACC_L) Response patterns of IACC_A and IACC_E are alike. The receiver locations that are in front of the source have narrow source width but even spacious ness across the

PAGE 90

90 octave bands whereas the far receiver locations have a wider sound source and uneven spaciousness if the listener is focused on certain frequency bands. In Figure 6 17 it shows similar IACC_L responses among three band rooms and all receiv er locations. According to ISO 3382 (1997) (Beranek, 2004, p. 30) this means that the listener perceives the reverberant sou nd arriving from all directions. Thus, it is plausible to state that the listeners in thes e band rooms could perceive even reverberant sound fields regardless of near or far condition. Figure 6 18 shows the Speech Transmission Index (STI) and Rapid Speech Transmission Index (RASTI) responses for the three band rooms. Both STI and RASTI are based on weighted sums of the modulation transfer function values and are used to check whether the receiver inside the room has good speech intelligibility. High er STI and RASTI value means better speech intelligibility. The results of STI and RASTI indicate the receiver locations in front of the source will perceive better speech intelligibility than the receiver locations far from the source. However, all receiv er locations for the three band rooms have STI and RASTI rating above 0.6. This means all receiver locations should have good speech intelligibility in these rooms.

PAGE 91

91 A B C Figure 6 14. Sound Pressure Level (SPL) plotted in octave band center frequencies (Hz) in A) Band Room A, B) Band Room B, and C) Band Room C.

PAGE 92

92 A B C Figure 6 15. Interaural Cross Correlation (IACC_A) plotted in octave band center frequencies (Hz) in A) Band Room A, B) Band Room B, and C) Band Room C.

PAGE 93

93 A B C Figure 6 16. Interaural Cross Correlation (IACC_E) plotted in octave band center frequencies (Hz) in A) Band Room A, B) Band Room B, and C) Band Room C.

PAGE 94

94 A B C Figure 6 17. Interaural Cross Correlation (IACC_L) plotted in octave band center frequencies (Hz) in A) Band Room A, B) Band Room B, and C) Band Room C.

PAGE 95

95 A B C Figure 6 18. Speech and Rapid Speech Transmission Index (STI and RASTI) values of A) Band Room A, B) Band Room B, and C) Band Room C.

PAGE 96

96 Summary The near and far receiver locations show significant differences of EDT, TC, D50, C80, ST1, IACC_A, IACC_E and STI. On the other hand, T30, T20 and IACC_L have pretty s imilar results amongst the three band rooms and all receiver locations. The different room acoustic responses for near and far receiver location s in the ban d room s might affect how music students hear each other and how they play together as an ensemble. In addition, the measured values for parameters across different freq uency bands also showed large difference s. This raises the question about the appropriat eness of using one single average value to represent the measured value of each acoustical parameter in each frequency band

PAGE 97

97 CHAPTER 7 CAN MUSICIANS HEAR D IFFERENT ATTRIBUTES OF MUSIC IN DIFFEREN T ROOM ACOUSTICS? Background Base d on the findings f rom the previous chapter, the different acoustical responses among rooms and among the receiver locations within each room have been identified with respect to same source location. The near and far receiver locations have significant ly different values fo r most of the acoustical parameters measured A listening experiment is conducted to find out whether the musicians can hear the different attributes of music as they claim from the interviews and questionnaires i n rooms with different acoustic responses. Method There are 36 musicians participating in the listening experiment. Among the 36 musicians, 6 o f them are conductors. The rest of the participants are members of the university wind symphony with an average of 12.5 years playing experience. The 12 audio tracks were created based on one near and one far receiver location in the three band rooms as well as two different music types. The receiver location directly in front of the source and the receiver location far ther away from and off axis of the so urce were used to represent and simulate the different room acoustics in the test audio tracks. Woodwind duet (Clarinet and Bassoon) and brass duet (Trumpet and Trombone) are used to represent the simple ensemble playing condition. The audio tracks were created by using the Mirror Acoustics function from Sony Sound Fo rge Audio Editing Software. The Mirror Acoustics function allowed adjustment of the cut off time from the measured impulse responses to create a closer simulation of liv e condition s in these rooms. Impulse responses of the chosen near and far receiver

PAGE 98

98 locations selected for the three band rooms were convol ved with the anechoic ally recorded woodwind and brass duet music tracks 26 In order to minimize the playback distortion s (Zwicker, 2007, p. 8) a Rane HC 6S Six Channel Headphone Amplifier and six Sony MDR V600 Studio Monitor Stereo Headphones were used duri ng the listening experiment instead of using loudspeakers as playback devices The calibration of the headphones outp uts were performed by using a B&K 4100 High Quality Head and Torso Simulator (Dummy Head), Smaart Live Software, Windows Media Player and a Norsonic Piston Calibrator. In order to set the same output level for the six headphon es, calibration was performed using binaural microphones on a dummy head. For the dummy head calibration, the outputs of binaural microphone from the dummy head were connected to a laptop computer with Smaart Live Software pre insta lled. Then, the Norsonic Piston Phone Calibrator input 104 dB into each microphone separately. The level of the signal picked up by each microphone was measured by the Smaart Live Software. A second laptop computer with Windows Media Player pre installed was used to playback the test signal through the headph one s. The output levels at the headphone s were measured by Smaart Live Software through the dummy head. The approximate sound levels of a normal conservation level at 1 foot (Harris, 1998, p. 16.10) was used as a comfortable listening level. The comfortabl e listening level of 70 dBA was set on all six headphones by adjusting the volume from the Rane Headphone Amplifier. A questionnaire with a 7 point semantic rating scale was used for this listening experiment due to the need for a detailed evaluation of at tributes of music. Since the 26 Odeon anechoic audio files library

PAGE 99

99 objective of the experiment is to learn whether the musicians can hear the dif ferent attributes of music, question s about intonation, rhythm, dynamics, articulation and tone quality were asked for each audio track. A question a sking listeners to evaluate their overall impression on the ease of playing together as an ensemble was added to the question naire which can also be viewed as an evaluation of the overall response of the effect of room acoustics on the ability of musicians to hear each other Figure 7 1 shows the sample of the question used in the listening experiment. Figure 7 1. Sample of question for listening experiment. The orders of audio tracks were randomized to prevent bias. At the beginning of evaluation, participants were given instructions not to judge the playing skill of the musicians on the recorded music but to focus on whether they can hear the attributes of music. Results of 36 participants were analyzed using SPSS statistical software. Kruskal Wal lis and Mann Whitney Non Parametric Tests were used to test whether or not the results of semantic scales have significant differences between groups. The Non Parametric method was used based on a small sample size. No assumptions were made of the distribu tion of the tested parameters (Kuzma, 2004, pp. 254 261) for means

PAGE 100

100 and variances. One way ANOVA required a larger sample size and assumptions were made that the tested parameters have a normal distribution curve for means and variances. The Kruskal Wallis test is a one way analysis of variance by ranks. Results and Discussions T he semantic scale points were transformed into a ranking scale in order to see clear results on the semantic scale evaluation Figure 7 2 shows the result of the listening evaluation based on Band Room A, B and C. This is the case where the near and far receiver locations were calculated together for each band room. It clearly shows that Band Room C had the worst acoustical condition for musicians to hear the musical attributes of mus ic The Kruskal Wallis test was performed to test where there were significant differ ences among the semantic scale results between these band rooms. The results shown in T able 7 1 confirm that there were significant differences of scoring for the musical attributes between the three band rooms. This means musicians could hear the attributes of music definitely in different room acoustics condition. Based on the results from previous chapter, the near the far receiver locations have very different room resp onses. Additional sets of data analyses were based on receiver locations. Figure 7 3 shows the listening evaluation results based on the near receiver condition for the three band rooms. It shows that the near receiver location of Band Room A had the highe st mean ranking on all musical attributes and overall impression. Therefore, it is appropriate to state that Band Room A was the preferred room acoustical condition for musicians to rehearse in.

PAGE 101

101 Table 7 1 Kruskal Wallis Test on three band rooms. Inton ation Rhythm Dynamics Articulation Tone Quality Overall Impression Chi Square 33.349 24.234 14.922 26.167 19.689 26.813 df 2 2 2 2 2 2 Asymp. Sig. .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 Figure 7 2. Listening evaluation results based on three band rooms. Likewise, the results of the listening e valuation for the far receiver location of the three band rooms is shown in Figure 7 4. It clearly indicates that Band Room B had a higher mean ranking than Band Room A and C. The reaso n for the different results for near and far condition s could be that the far receiver location for Band Room B had stronger direct sound energy and a smoother decay slop e than Band Room A The stronger direct sound results higher sound pressure level Our ear mechanizm general perce ives twiced louder when sound pressure level increases 10 dB than the original signal. In addition, the smoother decay slope indicates that there are no strong echoes will perceive at the receiver location. Hence, the origianl signal could be perceived by the listener more clearly than with echoes. From the impulse responses of the far receiver location for Band Room s A and B ( Figure 7 5), the stronger direct sound and smooth decay slope in Band Room B can be identified. The stronger direct sound

PAGE 102

102 energy was indicated by shorter TC higher values of D50, C80 and ST1. T hese parameters are used to evaluate the clarity of speech and music. Additionally, the far receiver location of Band Room A seems to have a strong early reflection. This early reflection has a h igher s ound energy than the direct sound. T he higher stronger reflection may have been perceive d by listeners as an echo or delay and reduced the clarity of speech or music. Figure 7 3. Listening evaluation results based on near receiver condition. Figure 7 4. Listening evaluation results based on far receiver condition.

PAGE 103

103 Figure 7 5. Impulse responses of far receiver location of Left) Band Room A and Right) Band Room B. In order to study which attributes of music can be identified better in these rooms, the additional analysis was perform ed based on the type of music used in the audio tracks. The results of the listening evaluation of the three band rooms based on woodwind and brass duets and regardless of receiver locations are shown in Figure 7 6 and 7 7. Based on these figures, it migh t be appropriate to state that intonation, tone quality and o ver all i mpression can be heard better in B and Room A. On the other hand, rhythm, d ynamic s an d a rticulation can be heard better in Band Room B. Figure 7 6. Listening evaluation results based on W oodwind music.

PAGE 104

104 Figure 7 7. Listening evaluation results based on Brass music. Summary M usicians can hear different attributes of music in different rooms. With semantic scale evaluation, musician could hear the attributes of music better with Band Room A acoustical conditions ( regardless of the receiver locations ) Band Room B had better acoustical conditions to hear the attributes of music in the far condition due to the strong direct sound and smooth decay slope. Band Room A was rated higher in hearing attributes of music for the near condition. Overall, Band Room C was rated the lowest for in all conditions. Additionally, based on the analysis of woodwind and brass music, Band Room A was ranked better for hearing intonation, tone quality and overall imp ression whereas Band Room B was ranked better for hearing rhythm, dynamics and articulation. The semantic results indicated that musicians not only could hear the different attributes of m usic in different room acoustic condition but also know which room s upport s their playing

PAGE 105

105 CHAPTER 8 CORRELATIONS AMONG A COUSTICAL PARAMETERS AND STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRES IN TH REE BAND ROOMS Background The purpose calcula ting the correlations among the musical attributes and acoustical parameters is to understand which acoustical parameters have major effects on hearing each other and the attributes of music in the three band rooms. In order to study which attributes of music and acoustical paramete rs have the significant correlations with each other, a questionnaire was administrated to the music students who use these three band rooms regularly. Method Student Questionnaire Questionnaires were given to music students who rehearse in these three band rooms to determine how well they hear each oth er and the attributes of music from the instruments surrounding them or across the room in the ensemble (near and far receiver locations). The questions in the questionnaire were based on the observations made during rehearsals that a player might or might not be playing all of the time. The impulse response graphs indicated that the acoustical r esponse of the room depends on the receiver locations. T here are significant differences in measured acoustical parameters at the n ear and far receiver locations in each room This survey was produced and used as shown in Figure 8 1. The use of yes no forced choice response was based on modifications of yes no procedure described in the psychoacoustics literature 27 27 Please refer to Zwicker (2007), p. 9.

PAGE 106

106 Figure 8 rehearsal. Typically, during psychoacoustic experiments, in order to get responses from subjects, subjects are forced to answer yes or no if they could hear th at stimuli or not Instead of using test signals music students were forced to choose whether they could hear each other and whether they could hear the details of intonation, rhythm, dynamics and articulation played by other musicians in the ensemble d uring rehearsals. The yes and no responses were transformed into ones and zeroes for each question for the three band rooms for statistical analysis. Tone quality was not included in student questionnaire because only 14% of the 206 student musicians respo nded that they were listening for this musical quality. However, the correlation for tone quality based on listening evaluation results is included in Appendix C. Additional Uses of Parameters Beside the most frequently used acoustical parameters in the acoustical consulting field (EDT, T30, C80, D50, IACC) as stated in most of the architectural text books and the ISO 3382 there were some additional parameters used in this study. The additional parameters were based on the distinct architectural elements of the three band rooms.

PAGE 107

107 The architectural parameters included the room volume, ceiling height, floor area, total surface area, ratio of ceiling height to room volume, distance from the ear s of the listener to the ceiling, surface diffusivity index (SDI), mean free path (MFD), average absorption coefficient ( bar) and room constant (RC) for frequency bands from 63 to 8000 Hz, low frequency bands (63 to 250 Hz), mid frequency bands (500 to 1000 H z) and high frequency bands (2000 to 8000 Hz). Room volume, floor area, total surface area, and the ratio of ceiling height to room volume were calculated based on measured room dimensions. The distance from the ear of the listener to the ceiling was based on ear height at 1 meter above the floor assuming that a player is seated in a chair during the rehearsal. For Band Room A, the ceiling height was measured to a point where the reflecting panels hung below the actual ceiling. The room constant and average absorption coefficient of the surface material s were calculated from the measured room reverberation time and room dimension s The Mean Free Path according to Long (2006, p. 299) was calculated based on using the room volume divided by the total surface a rea of the room. Surface diffusivity or sound diffusivity index (SDI) was calculated (1993) for each surface was based on the details and placement of diffusive materials. However, in the band rehearsal rooms, due to the irregular room shapes which affected the seating layout and the ratio of music stands and chairs covering the floor area, the c alculated SDI also accounted for the ratio of the area of the diffusing elements to the total area of each surface. In addition, the signal to noise ratio (SNR) and effective decay range (EDR) w ere used in the study. The signal to noise ratio is the

PAGE 108

108 sound pressure level difference of the source signal to the background noise level perceived by the listener. The effective decay range describes the range of the decay curve 28 Statistical Analysis Methods Factor Analysis, Pearson Correlation Coefficient, Multip le Linear Regression, One Way ANOVA and Non Parametric statistical analysis were conducted The Principal Component Method of Factor Analysis was used to derive the principal components that could explain the variances of the data. The Pearson Correlation Coefficient was used to identify which parameters had significant effects on each musical attribute without experiencing the effects from other parameters. Multiple Linear Regression s were used to identify which acoustical parameters could have significant effects on hearing each other and the ability of student musicians and conductors to hear the details of One way ANOVA was used to obtain the mean plots of each music attribute and the corresponding parameters to show the relationship of the questionnaire results and the measured value of the parameters. A Non Parametric Chi Square Test was used to test whether the questionnaire results showed significant differences among the t hree band rooms. Due to the limited sample sizes (three band rehearsal rooms) ; the results of using these methods should be viewed as the basis for studying the tendency of the relationship between the subjective and objective data rather than using the r esults to 28 WinMLS help manual

PAGE 109

109 design the room. A future study with adequate sample sizes should continue to support the results of using these methods. Results and Discussions Results of Questionnaires Table 8 1 shows the percentages of 206 student s who responded that they co uld hear each other in general terms in their rehearsal rooms and the percentages of students who responded that they could hear the details of intonation, rhythm, dynamics and articulation in the playing of the other musicians. Eighty five percent of stud ents responded that they could hear each other in Band Room A; 57% in Band Room B; and 79% in Band Room C. Table 8 1 Results of questionnaires for the three band rooms. Hearing each other While playing Near Ave. Near Far Ave. Far Band Room A 85% Intonation 86% 88% 67% 68% Rhythm 97% 81% Dynamics 87% 73% Articulation 82% 50% Band Room B 57% Intonation 61% 63% 29% 33% Rhythm 82% 51% Dynamics 59% 33% Articulation 51% 20% Band Room C 79% Intonation 88% 84% 63% 61% Rhythm 97% 78% Dynamics 84% 66% Articulation 66% 38% While not playing Near Ave. Near Far Ave. Far Band Room A Intonation 95% 96% 92% 89% Rhythm 98% 91% Dynamics 96% 93% Articulation 93% 78% Band Room B Intonation 82% 78% 53% 53% Rhythm 98% 76% Dynamics 76% 47% Articulation 55% 37%

PAGE 110

110 Table 8 1 Continued. Hearing each other While not playing Near Ave. Near Far Ave. Far Band Room C Intonation 88% 91% 88% 81% Rhythm 100% 97% Dynamics 97% 75% Articulation 81% 66% Since some perc entages of the results are quite close to each other a non parametric chi square test was used to test whether there were significant differences under 95% confidence levels ( Agresti 2009). The Chi Square test results shown that there were significant differences in T able 8 2 for the scores of three band rooms; and for all of the attributes of music in each room and pl aying condition, except intonation in the far receiver condition while playing the music There are statistically significant differences among the percentages of the responses for a given musical attributes at the 95% level when the p value shown in Table 8 2 smaller than 0.05. On the other hand, when the statistical results shows there are no sign ificant differences at the 95% level (p 0.05) of the percentages of responses of these rooms, it means the results of the student questionnaires are the same. Likewise, when the statistical results show that there were no significant differences of the i mpression to hear musical attributes in these rooms, meaning that the acoustical conditions are the same. Table 8 2 Results of Chi Square Test on questionnaires for the three band rooms. While playing and hearing instruments surrounding (Near Condition) Yes/No Score Intonation Rhythm Dynamics Articulation Good Speech Intelligibility Chi Square 71.427 a 72.252 b 146.971 b 69.903 b 37.592 b df 2 1 1 1 1 Asymp. Sig. (p) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

PAGE 111

111 Table 8 2 Continued. While playing and hearing instruments across ensemble (Far Condition) Yes/No Score Intonation Rhythm Dynamics Articulation Good Speech Intelligibility Chi Square 3.282 b 42.893 b 10.272 b 7.010 b df 1 1 1 1 Asymp. Sig. (p) .070 .000 .001 .008 While playing and hearing instruments surrounding (Near Condition) Yes/No Score Intonation Rhythm Dynamics Articulation Good Speech Intelligibility Chi Square 130.563 b 185.488 c 136.044 c 81.176 c df 1 1 1 1 Asymp. Sig. (p) .000 .000 .000 .000 While not playing and hearing instruments surrounding (Near Condition) Yes/No Score Intonation Rhythm Dynamics Articulation Good Speech Intelligibility Chi Square 79.534 b 117.195 c 66.776 c 20.610 c 175.243 b df 1 1 1 1 1 Asymp. Sig. (p) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected frequencies less than 5. The minimum expected cell frequency is 68.7. b. 0 cells (.0%) have expected frequencies less than 5. The minimum expected cell frequency is 103.0. c. 0 cells (.0%) have expected frequencies less than 5. The minimum expected cell frequency is 102.5. A further analysis was conducted to find out if there were significant differences between Band Room s A and B, since intonation at the far receiver location in the three band rooms data showed no significant difference. The results of Band Room A and B for this case are shown in T able 8 3. Similarly, the results of Band Room s A and B show that there are significant differences of hearing al l musical attributes except intonation at the far receiver location whi le playing the music. Table 8 3 Results of Chi Square Test on questionnaires for Band Room A and B. While playing and hearing instruments surrounding (Near Condition) Yes/No Score Intonation Rhythm Dynamics Articulation Good Speech Intelligibility Chi Square 33.195 a 55.195 a 119.172 a 55.195 a 34.966 a df 1 1 1 1 1 Asymp. Sig. (p) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

PAGE 112

112 Table 8 3. Continued. While playing and hearing instruments across ensemble (Far Condition) Yes/No Score Intonation Rhythm Dynamics Articulation Good Speech Intelligibility Chi Square 1.862 a 33.195 a 7.448 a 5.172 a df 1 1 1 1 Asymp. Sig. (p) .172 .000 .006 .023 While playing and hearing instruments surrounding (Near Condition) Yes/No Score Intonation Rhythm Dynamics Articulation Good Speech Intelligibility Chi Square 112.644 a 153.578 b 108.491 b 68.676 b df 1 1 1 1 Asymp. Sig. (p) .000 .000 .000 .000 While not playing and hearing instruments surrounding (Near Condition) Yes/No Score Intonation Rhythm Dynamics Articulation Good Speech Intelligibility Chi Square 62.161 a 90.318 b 58.965 b 17.486 b 143.471 a df 1 1 1 1 1 Asymp. Sig. (p) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected frequencies less than 5. The minimum expected cell frequency is 87.0. b. 0 cells (.0%) have expected frequencies less than 5. The minimum expected cell frequency is 86.5. Table 8 4, shows the results of the analysis on Band Room B and C. There were no significant differences between the percentage of responses in these rooms except i ntonation, rhythm and dynamics at the far receiver condition while playing R hythm and articulation for the far receiver condition while not playing and hearing instruments surrounding also show significant differences. This me ans t hat both rooms have the similar acoustical condition s for music students to listen for rhythm and dynamics. Table 8 4 Results of Chi Square Test on questionnaires for Band Room B and C. While playing and hearing instruments surrounding (Near Condition) Yes/No Score Intonation Rhythm Dynamics Articulation Good Speech Intelligibility Chi Square 3.568 a 15.123 a 45.938 a 11.864 a 1.494 a df 1 1 1 1 1 Asymp. Sig. (p) .059 .000 .000 .001 .222

PAGE 113

113 Table 8 4. Continued. While playing and hearing instruments across ensemble (Far Condition) Yes/No Score Intonation Rhythm Dynamics Articulation Good Speech Intelligibility Chi Square 2.086 a 4.457 a .605 a 16.901 a df 1 1 1 1 Asymp. Sig. (p) .149 .035 .437 .000 While playing and hearing instruments surrounding (Near Condition) Yes/No Score Intonation Rhythm Dynamics Articulation Good Speech Intelligibility Chi Square 37.346 a 39.200 b 8.450 b 9.000 a df 1 1 1 1 Asymp. Sig. (p) .000 .000 .004 .003 While not playing and hearing instruments surrounding (Near Condition) Yes/No Score Intonation Rhythm Dynamics Articulation Good Speech Intelligibility Chi Square 39.200 b 2.450 b .050 b 77.049 a 39.200 b df 1 1 1 1 1 Asymp. Sig. (p) .000 .118 .823 .000 .000 a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected frequencies less than 5. The minimum expected cell frequency is 40.5. b. 0 cells (.0%) have expected frequencies less than 5. The minimum expected cell frequency is 40.0. Table 8 5, shows the results of the analysis for Band Room s A and C. There were significant differences among the percentages of responses for all of the attributes of music except articulation at the far receiver location Table 8 5 Results of Chi Square Test on questionnaires for Band Room A and C. While playing and hearing instruments surrounding (Near Condition) Yes/No Score Intonation Rhythm Dynamics Articulation Good Speech Intelligibility Chi Square 55.089 a 78.478 a 130.248 a 78.478 a 48.210 a df 1 1 1 1 1 Asymp. Sig. (p) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 While playing and hearing instruments across ensemble (Far Condition) Yes/No Score Intonation Rhythm Dynamics Articulation Good Speech Intelligibility Chi Square 14.070 a 55.089 a 25.280 a .516 a df 1 1 1 1 Asymp. Sig. (p) .000 .000 .000 .473

PAGE 114

114 Table 8 5 Continued. While playing and hearing instruments surrounding (Near Condition) Yes/No Score Intonation Rhythm Dynamics Articulation Good Speech Intelligibility Chi Square 112.669 a 137.637 a 126.631 a 96.363 a df 1 1 1 1 Asymp. Sig. (p) .000 .000 .000 .000 While not playing and hearing instruments surrounding (Near Condition) Yes/No Score Intonation Rhythm Dynamics Articulation Good Speech Intelligibility Chi Square 99.522 a 105.994 a 90.197 a 37.764 a 130.248 a df 1 1 1 1 1 Asymp. Sig. (p) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected frequencies less than 5. The minimum expected cell frequency is 78.5. Results of Factor Analyses Factor Analysis was used to select the most promising of the 191 parameters used in the study to explain the variance among the data. F ive components were identified and shown in T able 8 6 from the Principal Components Analysis from the Factor Analysis F ive components explained 100% variance in the data. Table 8 6. Principal Component Total Variance Explained Component Initial Eigenvalues Total % of Variance Cumulative % 1 86.804 45.447 45.447 2 62.572 32.760 78.208 3 31.644 16.567 94.775 4 6.182 3.237 98.012 5 3.797 1.988 100.000 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Table 8 7 shows the extrapolated Component Matrix based on the results of the Principal Component Analysis. Component 1 refers to the early reflected sound energy acoustical parameters D50, C80, TC, ST1 and EDT have the highest loadings and least

PAGE 115

115 amount of correlation with other components. Most of these acoustical parameters were based on ratio of the early sound energy to total/late sound energy. C omponent 2 refers to architectural features of the room. T he paramet ers with the highest loadings and the least amount of correlation with the other components are based on the architectural elements and reverberation time. Parameters having the highest loadings and least amount of correlation with other components are bas ed on sound pressure level below 1 KHz for Component 3 For Components 4 and 5, the parameters with the highest loads (0.71 and 0.85) are the Room Constant in High Frequency Bands (2000 to 8000 Hz) and the average sound absor ption coefficient (Alpha bar) i n the 63 Hz octave band In general, researchers are allowed to choose the parameter that has the highest loadings from each component and use these parameters to p redict the linear relationship among the parameters by using a Multiple Linear Regression procedure However, as shown in T able 8 7, the loadings between the parameters in each component are very high and have very small differences. Therefore, it is not plausible to use the parameter that has the highest loadings to represent the entire compo nent. Yet, the Principal Component Analysis clearly points out that five components could be used to explain data in the three band rooms Table 8 7 Results of Component Matrix a Parameter Component 1 2 3 4 5 D50_125 .992 .105 D50_LOW .991 C80_500 .989 TC_500 .987 .119 D50_500 .986 .122 ST1_2K .986 .113 ST1_4K .985 .135

PAGE 116

116 Table 8 7 Continued. Component Matrix a Parameter Component EDT_250 .984 .127 Floor_Area .993 ClgHt_RV .993 T20_1K .992 .108 T30_63 .991 T20_63 .141 .990 T30_1K .989 .114 RC_63 .120 .987 T30_MID .127 .986 SPL_125 .991 SPL_LOW .988 SPL_250 .149 .987 SPL_MID .161 .983 SPL_500 .170 .983 SPL_1K .124 .104 .980 .100 SPL_63 .199 .105 .964 .144 SPL .106 .256 .956 RC_HIGH .416 .141 .512 .706 .217 RC_8K .485 .447 .400 .615 .162 IACC_L .509 .443 .441 .574 .140 Alpha_bar_63 .206 .163 .445 .852 IACC_L_250 .409 .690 .596 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. a. 5 components extracted. Table 8 8 shows the Principal Component Analysis for the near receiver condition data in the three band rooms. One hundred percent of the variance o f this data set can be attributed to two components. Table 8 8 . Total Variance Explained Component Initial Eigenvalues Total % of Variance Cumulative % 1 112.140 58.712 58.712 2 78.860 41.288 100.000 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

PAGE 117

117 Table 8 9 shows that component 1 based on the ceiling height and IACC Component 2 is based on the signal to noise level and effective decay range. Therefore, the perception of relative loudness and correlation of the difference in sound energies at the left and right ears are the dominant factors for the near locations Table 8 9 Results of Component Matrix a Parameter Component 1 2 Ceiling_Height 1.000 IACC_E 1.000 IACC_A_250 1.000 IACC_A_LOW 1.000 IACC_A 1.000 IACC_E_250 .999 RC_2K .999 Alpha_bar_250 .997 IACC_A_125 .996 RC_4K .996 IACC_E_LOW .996 RC_125 .996 C80_250 .995 .103 SNR_MID 1.000 EDR_500 1.000 SNR_500 1.000 EDR_250 .999 SNR_1K .999 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. a. 2 components extracted. Table 8 10 show s the Principal Component Analysis for the far receiver condition s in the three band rooms. One hundred percent of the variance in this data set can be attributed to two components. Table 8 11 shows that component 1 based on the reverberation time, IACC and arc hitectural elements. Component 2 is based on sound pressure level, effective decay range and IACC Therefore, in terms of far condition

PAGE 118

118 room responses, perception of reverberance and binaural hearing are the dominant factors. Table 8 10 Principal Compone Total Variance Explained Component Initial Eigenvalues Total % of Variance Cumulative % 1 105.274 55.117 55.117 2 85.726 44.883 100.000 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Table 8 11 Results of Component Matrix a Parameter Component 1 2 T30_MID 1.000 T30 1.000 IACC_L_2K .999 T20_HIGH .999 RC_63 .998 T20_4K .998 T20_1K .998 IACC_L_500 .998 T20_63 .997 Floor_Area .995 ClgHt_RV .995 IACC_E_125 .995 .103 SPL_500 1.000 SPL_250 1.000 EDR_HIGH 1.000 IACC_L_250 1.000 IACC_L_LOW 1.000 D50_125 .999 SPL_MID .999 SNR_LOW .998 EDR .997 ST1_2K .996 SPL_1K .996 IACC_A_1K .995 SNR_125 .995

PAGE 119

119 Table 8 11 Continued. Component Matrix a Parameter Component 1 2 EDR_4K .100 .995 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. a. 2 components extracted. Results of Multiple Linear Regressions The 191 parameters were used in a Multiple Linear Regression Analysis. A Stepwise selection method was used because th is method only allows for parameters that have significant correlations to stay in the model. The model(s) wer e derived from the regression analysis based on the parameter(s). The derived parameter(s) is/are used to predict the best correlations with dependent variables such as hearing each other and a specific music quality like intonation, rhythm, dynamics and a rticulation. Note that it was not in the scope of this research to predict values by using regression models. Hence, a limited sample size was used for this study. The predicted parameter(s) are only used to determine the correlation between acoustical an d architectural parameters for hearing each other and the attributes of music. Hearing e ach o ther o verall c ondition Table 8 12 shows two models that were derived from the data. Model 1 has an r 2 = 0.610 whereas model 2 has an r 2 = 0.785. The r 2 is the de termination in dex of the linear relationship between the dependent and independent variables. The r 2 ranges from 0 to 1. A 1 means that the model has a perfect linear relationship between the variables. Therefore, model 2 was used to explain the linear rel ationship of acoustical/architectural parameters to hearing each other. The best predicted parameter to be heard clearly of

PAGE 120

120 each o ther was Sound Pressure Level in the 63 Hz octave band and Interaural Cross Cor relation for late sound energy in the 500 Hz oc tave band Sufficient lo udness level in the low frequencies is needed for musicians to hear each other could be related to human hearing ability as stated in equal loudness contour that human are less sensitive to low frequency sound. The differences timi ng of the sound arrives at musicians and hence knowing which instruments are playing. The late energy measures of IACC could be used to detect when the players sit across from the ensemble which ha s a longer sound path. Figure 8 2 shows the Mean Plots of the predicted parameters versus hearing each other in the three band rooms. It clearly shows that increasing the sound pressure level in the 63 Hz octave band results in higher scores for hearing ea ch other According to the thr ee band room data, for IACC_L in the 500Hz octave band the time differences of late sound energy arrived at two ears needs to have a ratio of 0.21 and 0.29 for hearing each other clearly Table 8 12. Multiple Linear Regression versus hearing each other for three band room. Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate Change Statistics R Square Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change 1 .781a 610 .571 .12183 .610 15.645 1 10 .003 2 .886b .785 .737 .09539 .175 7.313 1 9 .024 a. Predictors: (Constant), SPL_63 b. Predictors: (Constant), SPL_63, IACC_L_500

PAGE 121

121 Table 8 12. Continued. Coefficients a Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. Correlations B Std. Error Beta Zero order Partial Part 1 (Constant) 1.653 .605 2.730 .021 SPL_63 .026 .006 .781 3.955 .003 .781 .781 .781 2 (Constant) 1.139 .511 2.230 .053 SPL_63 .027 .005 .820 5.283 .001 .781 .870 .817 IACC_L_500 2.396 .886 .420 2.704 .024 .343 .670 .418 a. Dependent Variable: Hearing_Each_Other Figure 8 2. Mean Plots of predicted parameters versus scores of hearing each other in the three band rooms. Intonation o verall c ondition Table 8 13 shows two models that were derived from the data. Model 1 has an r 2 = 0.568 whereas model 2 has an r 2 = 0.727. The parameter s most strongly related to i ntona tion was Sound Pressure Level in the 63 Hz octave band and Interaural Cross Corr elation for late sound energy in the 500 Hz octave band T he perception of pitch of a pure tone depends on frequency and sound pressure level from psychoacoustic literature (Zwicker, 2007, p. 113) The example given in that louder tone s produce a lower pitch than the softer tone at

PAGE 122

122 frequencies of 200 Hz and below. The louder tone produces a higher pitch than the softer tone at a frequency at or above 6000 Hz. Thus, he stated that the dep produced by a musical instrument consists of many frequencies. The sounds prod uced by musical instruments are considered as complex tones. Zwicker (2007, p. 120) p itch of a complex tone is based on the spectral pitch of its Thus, it is plau sible to ac cept the predicted parameter (SPL_63) of the regression analysis. There are at least two pitches that occur when playing and listening for intonation during rehearsal s One pitch comes from the listener and one from the other player. The two pi tches are needed to be compared and matched. According to Zwicker (2007, p. 111) the sensation of pitches is based on a comparison of two tones/frequencies or the strength of pitches is increased Hence, dissimi larities in the timing of sounds arriving at both ears might allow the brain to compare and distinguish the pitch better. The acoustical parameter IACC calculates the cross correlation between the sound energy arriving at the left and right ear after 80 mi lliseconds to 750 milliseconds after the direct sound (IACC_L) This parameter could be used to e xplain the procedure during a general psychoacoustic experiment. Traditionally, subjects are often being asked to listen for one stimulus, and with pause, whil e the second stimulus was played. The subject was asked to listen and compare the two stimuli. Therefore, if discarded, the original definition for IACC_L that was used for acoustics was the time differences of the late sound energy (frequency and sound pr

PAGE 123

123 two ears. This effect enables the listener to hear intonation better. Figure 8 3 shows the Mean Plots of the predicted parameters versus intonation in the three band rooms. The plots show that increa sing the sound pressure level in the 63 Hz octave band results in higher scores for hearing intonation. The IACC_L in the 500Hz octave band the cross correlation between the sound energy arriving at the left and right ear after 80 milliseconds to 750 milliseconds after the direct sound should fall between 0.21 and 0.29 for intonation Table 8 13. Multiple Linear Regression versus intonation for three band room. Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate Change Statistics R Square Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change 1 .754 a .568 .525 .13730 .568 13.152 1 10 .005 2 .853 b .727 .667 .11499 .159 5.257 1 9 .048 a. Predictors: (Constant), SPL_63 b. Predictors: (Constant), SPL_63, IACC_L_500 Coefficients a Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. 95% Confidence Interval for B Correlations B Std. Error Beta Lower Bound Upper Bound Zero order Partial Part 1 (Constant) 1.727 .682 2.531 .030 3.247 .207 SPL_63 .026 .007 .754 3.627 .005 .010 .043 .754 .754 .754 2 (Constant) 1.201 .616 1.952 .083 2.594 .191 SPL_63 .028 .006 .791 4.526 .001 .014 .042 .754 .834 .788 IACC_L_500 2.449 1.068 .401 2.293 .048 4.866 .033 .327 .607 .399 a. Dependent Variable: INTONATION

PAGE 124

124 Figure 8 3. Mean Plots of predicted parameters versus scores of hearing intonation in the three band rooms. Rhythm o verall c ondition Table 8 14 shows one model that was derived from the three band room data. Model 1 has an r 2 = 0.577. The best predicted parameter for hearing rhythm is the Sound Pressure Level in the 63 Hz octave band. According to Zwicker (2007, pp. 275, 204) hythm is perceived by human with accord addition, our hearing is less sensitive to low frequency sounds than high frequency sounds as shown in Equal Loudness Contour. Therefore, the sound pressure level in the 63 Hz octave band could be the key fo r musicians to hear the rhythm Figure 8 4 shows the Mean Plot of the predicted parameter s versus hearing rh ythm in the three band rooms. The mean plot shown the i n crea sing the sound pressure level in the 63 Hz octave band resulting in higher scores for hearing rhythm c learly Table 8 14 Multiple Linear Regression versus Rhythm for the three band rooms. Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate Change Statistics R Square Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change 1 .760 a .577 .535 .09831 .577 13.647 1 10 .004 a. Predictors: (Constant), SPL_63

PAGE 125

125 Table 8 14. Continued. Coefficients a Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. Correlations B Std. Error Beta Zero order Partial Part 1 (Constant) .930 .489 1.904 .086 SPL_63 .019 .005 .760 3.694 .004 .760 .760 .760 a. Dependent Variable: RHYTHM Figure 8 4. Mean Plot of predicted parameters versus scores of hearing rhythm in the three band rooms. Dynamics o verall c ondition Table 8 15 shows two models that were derived from the three band room data. Model 1 has an r 2 = 0.638 and model 2 has an r 2 = 0.848. The best predicted parameters to dynamics are the Sound Pressure Level in the 63 Hz octave band and the Interaural Cross C or relation for late sound energy in the 500 Hz octave band According to Zwicker (2007, p. 331) to 8 dB higher than monaural heari ng for louder and softer sound. Similarly our hearing is less sensitive in low frequency bands as shown in Equal Loudness Contour. Therefore, the stronger sound pressure level in the 63 Hz octave band is needed for musicians to hear the dynamics clearly. Figure 8 5 shows the Mean Plots of the predicted parameter versus

PAGE 126

126 d ynamics in the three band rooms. The plots shown that the increa sing the sound pressure level in the 63 Hz octave band, results in higher scores of dynamics The IACC_L in the 500Hz octave band, the cross correlation between the sound energy arriving at the left and right ear after 80 mi lliseconds to 750 milliseconds after the direct sound should fall between 0.21 and 0.29 for intonation. Figure 8 5. Mean Plots of predicted parameters versus scores of hearing dynamics in the three band rooms. Table 8 1 5 Multiple Linear Regression versus Dynamics for the three band rooms. Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate Change Statistics R Square Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change 1 .799 a .638 .602 .12540 .638 17.647 1 10 .002 2 .921 b .848 .815 .08558 .210 12.473 1 9 .006 a. Predictors: (Constant), SPL_63 b. Predictors: (Constant), SPL_63, IACC_L_500 Coefficients a Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. Correlations B Std. Error Beta Zero order Partial Part 1 (Constant) 1.875 .623 3.009 .013 SPL_63 .028 .007 .799 4.201 .002 .799 .799 .799

PAGE 127

127 Table 8 15. Continued. Coefficients a Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. Correlations B Std. Error Beta Zero order Partial Part 2 (Constant) 1.273 .458 2.778 .021 SPL_63 .029 .005 .842 6.459 .000 .799 .907 .838 IACC_L_500 2.808 .795 .460 3.532 .006 .382 .762 .458 a. Dependent Variable: DYNAMICS Articulation o verall c ondition Table 8 16 shows two models were derived from the data. Model 1 has an r 2 = 0.596 and model 2 has an r 2 = 0.784. The best predicted parameters to articulation are the Interaural Cross Correlation for early sound energy in the 8000Hz octave band and the averaged frequency bands of Signal to Noise Ratio. By definition, articulati on for music is the weight given or subtracted from the note. A common phrase heard in music is that a performer attacked the note with different weights. Therefore, articulation is distinguished by the time differences of the early sound energies at high frequency arriving at two ears. A person should hear articulation before pitch and loudness. The short time differences of early sound energies arriving at the two ears, as well as with the sufficient signal to noise level could be the key contributing to hearing articulation clearly. Figure 8 6 shows the Mean Plots of the predicted parameter versus articulation in the three band rooms. It is clear to see the trends of shorter time differences ratio for left and right ear of IACC_E in the 8000Hz octave band results in better scores of articulation. However, the overall signal to noise ratio for the six locations of the three band rooms might not be sufficient to explain the reason at this point

PAGE 128

128 Table 8 16 Multiple Linear Regression versus Articulation for the three band rooms. Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate Change Statistics R Square Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change 1 .772 a .596 .556 .14526 .596 14.778 1 10 .003 2 .885 b .784 .736 .11211 .187 7.787 1 9 .021 a. Predictors: (Constant), IACC_E_8K b. Predictors: (Constant), IACC_E_8K, SNR Coefficients a Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. 95% Confidence Interval for B Correlations B Std. Error Beta Lower Bound Upper Bound Zero order Partial Part 1 (Constant) .075 .142 .531 .607 .241 .392 IACC_E_8K 1.413 .368 .772 3.844 .003 .594 2.233 .772 .772 .772 2 (Constant) 1.171 .408 2.873 .018 .249 2.093 IACC_E_8K 1.426 .284 .779 5.026 .001 .784 2.068 .772 .859 .779 SNR .036 .013 .433 2.791 .021 .065 .007 .420 .681 .433 a. Dependent Variable: ARTICULATION Figure 8 6 Mean Plots of predicted parameters versus scores of hearing articulation in the three band rooms.

PAGE 129

129 Hearing e ach o ther n ear c ondition Table 8 1 7 shows one model was derived from the near receiver condition of the three band room data. Model 1 has an r 2 = 0.752. The best predicted pa rameter for hearing each other at near condition is the Clearness Index (C80) in the 8000 Hz octave band Figure 8 7 shows the Mean Plot of the predicted parameter versus hearing each other at near condition in the three band rooms. It is clear to see the trend of decreasing the C80 in the 8000 Hz octave band results in better scores for hearing each other clearly. Figure 8 7. Mean Plot of predicted parameters versus scores of hearing each other at near receiver condition in the three band rooms. Table 8 17. Multiple Linear Regression versus hearing each other at near receiver condition for three band room. Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate Change Statistics R Square Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change 1 .867 a .752 .691 .06502 .752 12.161 1 4 .025 a. Predictors: (Constant), C80_8K

PAGE 130

130 Table 8 17. Continued. Coefficients a Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. Correlations B Std. Error Beta Zero order Partial Part 1 (Constant) 2.242 .405 5.538 .005 C80_8K .077 .022 .867 3.487 .025 .867 .867 .867 a. Dependent Variable: Hearing_Each_Other Hearing e ach o ther f ar c ondition Table 8 1 8 shows one model was derived from the far receiver condition of the three band room data. Model 1 has an r 2 = 0.693. The best predicted parameter for hearing each other clearly at far condition is the Center Time (TC) in the 2000 to 8000 Hz octave bands Figure 8 8 shows the Mean Plot of the predicted parameter versus hearing each other at far condition in the three band rooms. It is clear to see th e trend of decreasing t he TC in the 2000 to 8000 Hz octave bands results in better score s for hearing each other Figure 8 8. Mean Plot of predicted parameters versus scores of hearing each other at far receiver condition in the three band rooms.

PAGE 131

131 Table 8 18. Multiple Linear Regression versus hearing each other at far receiver condition for three band room. Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate Change Statistics R Square Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change 1 .832 a .693 .616 .12460 .693 9.016 1 4 .040 a. Predictors: (Constant), TC_HIGH Coefficients a Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. Correlations B Std. Error Beta Zero order Partial Part 1 (Constant) .033 .230 .141 .895 TC_HIGH .026 .009 .832 3.003 .040 .832 .832 .832 a. Dependent Variable: Hearing_Each_Other Intonation n ear c ondition No parameters have significant correlation s with intonation at the near condition in the three band rooms. Intonation f ar c ondition Table 8 1 9 shows one model that was derived f rom the far receiver condition of the three band room data. Model 1 has an r 2 = 0.622. The best predicted parameter for clearly hearing i ntonation is early decay time in the 250 Hz octave band Early de cay time is the time for the first 10 dB of decay that a listener perceives in a space. To recognize a pitch, as stated previously in intonation for overall receiver locations, listeners need a bit longer time as well as sufficient strength of signal. Figu re 8 9 shows the Mean Plot of the predicted parameter versus hearing intonation for the far receiver condition in the three band room s. It is clear to see the trend that increasing the early

PAGE 132

132 decay time in the 250 Hz octave band had results in better scores of hearing intonation clearly. Table 8 19 Multiple Linear Regression versus Intonation for far receiver condition in the three band rooms. Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate Change Statistics R Square Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change 1 .814 a .662 .578 .15113 .662 7.845 1 4 .049 a. Predictors: (Constant), EDT_250 Coefficients a Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. Correlations B Std. Error Beta Zero order Partial Part 1 (Constant) .391 .378 1.035 .359 EDT_250 1.506 .538 .814 2.801 .049 .814 .814 .814 a. Dependent Variable: INTONATION Figure 8 9. Mean Plot of predicted parameters versus scores of hearing intonation for the far receiver condition in the three band rooms. Rhythm near condition No parameters have significant correlations with rhythm at the near condition in the three band rooms.

PAGE 133

133 Rhythm far condition No parameters have significant correlations with rhythm at the far condition in the three band rooms. Dynamics n ear c ondition Table 8 20 shows one model was derived from the near receiver condition of the an r 2 = 0.732. The best predicted parameter to hear dynamics clearly at the near condition is Distinctness ( D50 ) in the 63 Hz octave band. The acoustical responses at the near receiver condition typica l l y have strong direct and early sound energies. Therefore, the less direct and early sound energies might be desired for a listener to hear the sound played by other player s Figure 8 10 shows the Mean Plot of the predicted parameter versus hearing dynamics for the near condition in the three band rooms. It is clear to see the trend of de creasing the D50 in the 63 Hz octave band result ing in better scores of hearing dynamics clearl y. Figure 8 10. Mean Plot of predicted parameters versus scores of hearing dynamics of near receiver condition in the three band rooms.

PAGE 134

134 Table 8 20 Multiple Linear Regression versus Dynamics for near receiver condition in the three band rooms. Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate Change Statistics R Square Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change 1 .856 a .732 .665 .08209 .732 10.940 1 4 .030 a. Predictors: (Constant), D50_63 Coefficients a Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. Correlations B Std. Error Beta Zero order Partial Part 1 (Constant) 6.359 1.671 3.805 .019 D50_63 .060 .018 .856 3.308 .030 .856 .856 .856 a. Dependent Variable: DYNAMICS Dynamics f ar c ondition Table 8 21 shows one model that was derived from the far receiver condition of the three band room data. Model 1 has an r 2 = 0.852. The b est predicted parameter to hear dynamics clearly for the near condition is Clearness ( C80 ) in the average high er frequency bands of 2000 8000 Hz octave bands The acoustical responses of the far receiver condition s typically have more even sound energies fo r direct, early and reverberan t sounds. The balance point of the direct, early and reverberant sound energies is the key for a listener to hear the sound played by other player s A future study could be conducted to investigate this issue. Figure 8 11 shows the Mean Plot of the predict ed parameter versus hearing dynamics for the far condition in the three band room s. It is clear to see the trend of decreasing the C80 at high frequency bands results in better scores for hearing dynamics clearly.

PAGE 135

135 Table 8 21 Multiple Linear Regression ver sus Dynamics for far receiver condition in the three band rooms. Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate Change Statistics R Square Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change 1 .923 a .852 .815 .09210 .852 23.063 1 4 .009 a. Predictors: (Constant), C80_HIGH Coefficients a Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. Correlations B Std. Error Beta Zero order Partial Part 1 (Constant) 1.694 .222 7.642 .002 C80_HIGH .083 .017 .923 4.802 .009 .923 .923 .923 a. Dependent Variable: DYNAMICS Figure 8 11. Mean Plot of predicted parameters versus scores of hearing dynamics of near receiver condition in the three band rooms. Articulation n ear c ondition Table 8 22 shows one model that was derived for the near receiver condition of the three band room data. Model 1 has an r 2 = 0.869. The best predicted parameter for clearly hearing articulation at the near receiver condition is the Distinctness ( D50 ) in the 4000 H z octave band As discussed above from the dynamics at near condition, a

PAGE 136

136 less strong direct and early sound is the key for musicians to better hear their playing while listening to someone else. However, for articulation, the D50 at high frequency band all ows listener to detect the transient of the note. Figure 8 12 shows the Mean Plot of the predicted parameter versus hearing articulation at near receiver condition in the three band rooms. It is clear to see th e trend of decreasing the D50 in the 4000Hz oc tave band result ing in better scores for hearing articulation clearly. Figure 8 12. Mean Plot of predicted parameters versus scores of hearing articulation of near receiver condition in the three band rooms. Table 8 22 Multiple Linear Regression versus Articulation for near condition in the three band rooms. Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate Change Statistics R Square Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change 1 .932 a .869 .836 .06732 .869 26.566 1 4 .007 a. Predictors: (Constant), D50_4K Coefficients a Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. Correlations B Std. Error Beta Zero order Partial Part 1 (Constant) 8.074 1.428 5.653 .005

PAGE 137

137 Table 8 22. Continued. Coefficients a Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. Correlations B Std. Error Beta Zero order Partial Part D50_4K .081 .016 .932 5.154 .007 .932 .932 .932 a. Dependent Variable: ARTICULATION Articulation far condition No parameters have significant correlations with articulation at the near condition in the three band rooms Architectural Parameter s versus Attributes of Music Although the architectural parameters did not show up as the best predicted parameters of attributes of music from the three band room data, there are some clear trends that can be detected from the Mean Plots for the correlations between the two parameter s. Figure 8 1 3, show s the Mean Plots of the larger floor area will benefit musicians to hear each other and the attributes of music better. It is clearly to see the trends of increase floor area for better scores of hearing each other and the attributes of music Figure 8 14, shows the Mean Plots of the ratio of ceiling height to room volume will benefit musicians to hear each other and the attributes of music better. It is clearly to see the trends of less ratio of ceiling height to room volume for better scores of hearing each other and the attributes of music Additional Multiple Linear Regression analysis and Mean Plots based on the data obtained from the listening evaluation are included in Appendix C. The amount of sound diffusing surfaces in the band room was identified as another important factor for better scores of hearing each other and the attributes of music.

PAGE 138

138 Figure 8 13. Mean Plots of floor area versus scores of hearing each other and attributes of music in the three band rooms.

PAGE 139

139 Figure 8 14 Mean Plots of the ratio of ceiling height to room volume versus scores of hearing each other and attributes of mu sic in the three band rooms. Summary The results of the student questionnaires have shown that f or both near and far conditions, a 14 to 20% more student musicians could hear the attributes of music

PAGE 140

140 asked about in the questionnaire when they are not playing their instruments (88.3%, 74.3%) compared to while they were playing their instruments (74.3%, 54%). For both playing and not playing conditions, a 14% to 20% more student musicians could hear the attributes of mu sic asked about in the questionnaire played by other students nearby compared with instruments being played from far ac ross the ensemble. In addition, a greater percentage of student musicians could hear the attributes of music asked about in the questionnaire in Band Roo m A (85.3%) compared to Ban d Rooms B (56.8%) and C (79.3%) for all playing conditions and receiver locations. The results of Factor Analysis have identified five components of acoustical and architectural parameters that are related to room acoustical cond itions of the three band rooms These acoustical and architectural parameters are used to explain the different room acoustical conditions in the three band rooms. The five components with the percentage of variance explained the different acoustical condi tions in the three band rooms are the r atio of the early to to tal or late sound energies (45 %) a rchitectural e lements and reverberation time (3 3 %) s oun d pressure level below 1000 Hz (1 7 %) room Constant at 2000 to 8000Hz (3%) and a veraged absorption coe fficient at 63 Hz ( 2 %) However, the results of the Fa ctor Analysis that consider the near and far receiver location s in the three band rooms separately have identified two components from the acoustical and architectural parameters that are related to the room acoustical conditions of the near receiver locations The two components for the near condition are the a rchitectural elements and IACC (59 %) and s ignal to noise level and effective decay range (41%) The two components for the far condition are the r everberation time, IACC

PAGE 141

14 1 and a rchitectural elements ( 55 %) and the s ound pressure level, effective decay range and IACC (45 %) In addition to the architectural elements, the variations in room responses for the near condition depend on IACC and sound energy strength. Likewise, beside the architectural elements, IACC and sound energy strength, the variations of the room responses for the far condition also depend on reverberation time. The best way to determine which architectural and/or acou stical parameters of the room can be used to predict the questionnaire scores of the attributes of music listened for by student musicians during rehearsal is by using Multiple Linear Regression analysis in conjunction with the mean plot. The coordination of the mean plot shows the questionnaire scores by human subjects (vertical axis) and the values measured in the three band rooms with the predicted architectural and acoustical parameter of Multiple Linear Regression (horizontal axis) The predicted pa ram eters can be explained by most of the psychoacoustics principles For near and far condition s, the acoustical attributes of the rooms could be used to directly explain the predicted parameters. Table 8 2 3 summarized the parameters with the highest r 2 that can be used to predict each attributes of music The mean plots of architectural elements (Floor Area and ratio of ceil ing height to room volume) show useful trends for obtaining higher scores in hearing the attributes of music better, despite not being in cluded in the regression predication s In summary the method used in this study derived some acoustical and a rchitectural parameters that could be explained by both psychoacoustic principles and acoustical attributes of rooms to show the correlations betw een architectural/acoustical

PAGE 142

142 parameters and the attributes of music that student musicians listen for during rehearsals T able 8 23 Summary of predicted parameters versus attributes of music for the three band rooms. Music Attribute Predicted Parameter R 2 Zero order Correlations Sig. (95%) Hearing each other SPL_63 0.785 0.781 0.003 IACC_L_500 0.343 0.024 Hearing each other near C80_8K 0.752 0.867 0.025 Hearing each other far TC_HIGH 0.693 0.832 0.040 Intonation SPL_63 0.727 0.754 0.005 IACC_L_500 0.327 0.048 Intonation near No predicted parameter. Intonation far EDT_250 0.662 0.814 0.049 Rhythm SPL_63 0.577 0.760 0.004 Rhythm near No predicted parameter. Rhythm far No predicted parameter. Dynamics SPL_63 0.848 0.799 0.000 IACC_L_500 0.382 0.006 Dynamics near D50_63 0.732 0.856 0.030 Dynamics far C80_High 0.852 0.923 0.009 Articulation IACC_E_8K 0.784 0.772 0.001 SNR 0.420 0.021 Articulation near D50_4K 0.869 0.932 0.007 Articulation far No predicted parameter. 2 nd set data Listening Evaluation Tone Quality IACC_L_HIGH 1.000 0.897 0.000 ST1_63 0.274 0.000 IACC_L_2K 0.516 0.000 IACC_A_1K 0.057 0.000 RC_LOW 0.736 0.000 Overall Impression Alpha_bar_250 1.000 0.846 0.000 IACC_L_MID 0.005 0.000 RC_HIGH 0.227 0.000 SDI_CLG 0.643 0.000 T20_125 0.507 0.000

PAGE 143

143 CH APTER 9 A DDITIONAL COMMENTS B Y MUSICIANS Background Additional comments by musicians were also obtained through both students questionnaires and listening evaluations. It is important to look at these comments because additional insights can be obtained about room acoustical responses that affect a musician attributes of music In addition, these insights could be used to explain the correlations of architectural/acoustical parameters to attributes of music Method A question about the additional comments on each individual band rehearsal room mentioned above, the purpose of the additional comments was to learn other possible insights from these musicians that were not covered by the questions from questionnaire an d listening evaluation. Thus, the question used in questionnaire and rehearsing in this band room on room acoustics? ( i.e. the room was too dry, or too reverberant, so that adds to the difficulties of playing together with your section or the whole ensemble. Or, the room generally supports good rehearsal conditions, so it ectly from the answer sheet to the Excel spreadsheet with the information of the instrument played by the musician who made the comments. The comments made more sense knowing the instrument played by the musicians. Also, the seating locations of the instr ument in the band room were more or

PAGE 144

144 less the same for most of the band s For example, the brass players usually sat at the back of the woodwind and in front of the percussion. Oboe players usually sat in the center of the band. Results and Discussions Ther e were 129 music students from Band Room A that participated in the questionnaires and an additional 30 music students and 6 conductors who participated in the listening evaluation. For Band Room A, the average years of experience for musicians who have pl ayed their own instruments was 12.3. The average years of experience for conductors who also have played their own instruments was 22.2. For Band Room B, there were 49 music students who participated in the questionnaires. Since it was an optional question at the end of the questionnaire, only 28 students provided a comment. For Band Room B, the average years of experience for musicians who have played their own instruments was 10.09. For Band Room C, there were 32 music students who participated in the que stionnaires. 9 students provided comments. For Band Room C, the average years of experience for musicians who have played their own instruments was 5.66. It was necessary to show the average years of playing experience because different years of experience means musicians have different playing skills and listening abilities. Therefore, the needs of the room acoustics to support their playing as a large ensemble could be different. A professional musician with better listening abilities knows how to adjust his/her playing in any space due to different acoustics. On the other hand, the less skill ed music student who is still learning to play in an ensemble, a s uitable acoustical condition could help him/her to listen and support his/her playing.

PAGE 145

145 Table 9 1 sho ws the comments obtained from the questionnaires and listening evaluation. For Band Room A, the general comments from the students were that the room had good acoustical designs that supported their needs to hear the attributes of music However, many of t hem thought the room was too dry and, at a point, they could not clearly hear the attributes of music played by other musicians who sit far away from them. A comment from the saxophone player, who sat 20 feet away from conductor Too dry, sp eech doesn't carry well from podium out the need for balancing reverberation time. Comments from the conductors generally stated that they preferred the variable acoustics provided by the design and that the current acoustical condit ion supports their needs to teach the students. Interestingly, there were also comments regarding room temperature. These comments described the room as being generally too cold for some to rehearse in. Indeed, the room temperature affects the intonation. Thus, a future study in this area is necessary For Band Room B, the general comments were that the room was too dry and this resulted in difficulties for them to hear anything during the rehearsal. The dryness was The musicians rehearsing in this room primarily heard the strong direct sound from everywhere. These comments supported the acoustical measurement data shown in Chapter 6 that the average value of T20 and T30 was approximately 0.5 seconds for the octave b ands. The mean value of Center Time was 1000Hz is approximately 20 milliseconds. However, the stronger direct sound also showed that musicians could hear rhythm better in the listening evaluation. For Band Room C, the comments showed that the room was too small that musicians could not hear each other clearly during rehearsals. Indeed, the floor area,

PAGE 146

146 ceiling height and room volume of Band Room C was the smallest among the three band rooms for this study. The high sound pressure level can be seen from the acoustical measurement result that ranges from 94 to 124 dB across octave frequency bands and all receiver locations. The acoustical measurement data and results of the questionnaires did not have m atching responses. Interestingly and surprisingly, through observations during the live rehearsal in this band room, conductors managed to train these music students to hear more clearly on intonation and rhythm by using a keyboard and a pair of loudspeake rs. The keyboard and loudspeakers were used to play the pitch of the note and beats of tempo, so the students could hear the pitch and beats clearly and match the tone and rhythm in accordance Summary With comments from the users of these rehears al rooms, the acoustical measur ement data, correlation analyses and questionnaires made more sense about the room acoustical responses to hearing the attributes of music. The reasons of the musicians preferred Band Room A better than Band Room B for intonation, tone quality and overall impression can be seen from the comments made by students from Band Room B. Through the observations of the rehearsals, musicians learn to a dopt the room acoustics and cope with it to achieve the better playing as an ensemble. In addition, comments on room temperature setting raised the issue that acoustical consultant, mechanical engineer and architect should consider it during the band room design process. On top of all, acquiring comments from the users of these band rehearsal rooms are necessary during the design process to ensure the potential acoustical issues being identified and provided solutions.

PAGE 147

147 Table 9 1 Summary of comments from qu estionnaires and listening evaluation for the three band rooms. Room Instrument Comments Band Room A bassoon I can hear myself and my mistakes more clearly bassoon It is sometimes so dry that it is hard to hear the other instruments because they do not carry. This makes listening across the ensemble difficult at times bassoon Sometimes it s too hot. Mostly good though bassoon It's too cold a lot of the time bassoon I think the room is very professional! I can hear the resonation Clarinet Too dry! Clarinet High school moldy allergies prevented my ears from working well as possible. This room trumpets are a little loud but only in concert band, hard to balance in the concert hall, b/c it s very echoic but beautiful with strong brass section Clarinet The room has good acoustics Clarinet This room is nice, but can be very dry at times. I prefer a little more reverberance Clarinet This room has a nice sweet spot Clarinet The rehearsal room is conducive to good sounds and many things can be heard Clarinet/Saxophones Generally, a good, "dead" rehearsal environment wish that, in some ways, more natural overtones could be heard Clarinet The room does support good rehearsal conditions, as it is easy to hear individuals and more difficult to work together as a group. It is hard to hear across the room sometimes, however. Clarinet The acoustics make it easy to rehearsal, but the t emperature often affects our tun ing. It is usually very cold or very warm Euphonium This room is awesome Flute too cold Flute The difference between concert hall and this room acoustics is annoying Flute The room is great, each instrument can be heard clearly Flute It's a great rehearsal space but I feel that the overall sound sometimes does not come across as well when we record in there Flute It is great! Flute The room has good rehearsal conditions through sometimes tuning is difficult

PAGE 148

148 Table 9 1 Continued. Room Instrument Comments Band Room A Flute Occasionally it would be nice to hear the room more live to get a better idea what it will sound like in the UA horn my own section and the ones next to and behind me I usually can't hear (everything) horn sometimes the horns end up too far left or too close to the tubas horn It's a great room, the chairs are uncomfortable. horn Dry is great for rehearsal but makes player felt exposed and loud compared to others. horn So far, this room is the best acoustic setting I've played in. (As far as band rooms are considered) horn When there is a soloist, it is very easy to hear their articulations, intonation, and dynamics Horn Large room sometimes makes it difficult to listen across the ensemble or for instruments facing backward to be heard Horn With so many people in such a large ensemble it can be hard to hear all the parts going on. It sometimes feels like a wall of sound and you just have to do your best to stay with the conductor Horn Variability in acoustics is nice (i.e. movable curtains) Oboe It is hard to hear director speak often Percussion It is dry Percussion No, this room has much better acoustics than my high school Percussion No, it's just as good if not better Percussion It is good for rehearsal purposes but fails to recreate an actual performance environment Percussion Good setting. Can hear very clear Percussion It's a good, dry sounding space allows performers to better hear rhythms/timing and articulat ion at least in the back of the ensemble Saxophone too cold Saxophone Previous ones have deadened the sound and made dynamics differ when we played elsewhere Saxophone I think it would be easier to play in tune if it weren't so cold Saxophone Too dry, speech doesn't carry well from podium Trombone This room is awesome Trombone Too cold hard to be in tune

PAGE 149

149 Table 9 1 Continued. Room Instrument Comments Band Room A Trombone Not great for recording in and making music/rehearsal sound much different than our performance venues Trombone It makes it easier to hear the other parts as well as yourself Trumpet At first the room is surprising dry, everything is very audible. It is a great hall when the curtains are closed that is! Trumpet Great room to play in Trumpet A little too dead Trumpet No. The size of the ensemble makes it difficult to hear some of the woodwind sections Trumpet This room is really "dry" Trumpet It is the best rehearsal space I have been in Trumpet The room is very "dead" and it is sometimes hard to hear across the ensemble Trumpet This room is the best rehearsal hall I have ever performed in conductors Trumpet The curtains make a drastic difference in the amount I hear in rehearsal Percussion The room has the added advantage of changing acoustical environments by altering curtain Flute The room allows performers to hear clarity and articulation easier Clarinet Room is good; difficult to hear from back of room Tuba/Trombone The room supports proper rehearsal conditions you can hear the various sections of the group easily Trombone Having the volume of air in the room helps. Elimination additional echo or resonance helps with rehearsing Band Room B Clarinet Doesn't ring Clarinet You cannot hear individual sections or players. Very dry room! Clarinet Too dry Euphonium Its vary dry, and there is no warmth or resonance to the sound. There is no space for the sound to grow as it leaves the instruments Flute Hard to listen across to other sections when playing Flute on my left because her sound goes into my ear Flute Very loud. Hard to distinguish different voices and instruments Flute/piccolo The room sucks up the middle voices, especially the saxophones

PAGE 150

150 Table 9 1 Continued. Room Instrument Comments Band Room B Horn Difficult to hear across room, bad acoustics, deadened ensemble sound Oboe The room is too dry. I can't hear across the ensemble Oboe Totally sucks up saxophone sound Percussion The room is too dull and too dry Percussion The room is so dry. No reverb, sound just dies Percussion The room is too reverberant Percussion The room is very dry and does not resonance at all. It makes the instruments sound muffled, makes it hard to hear many of the music al attributes listed above. The FAU Band Room is a terrible environment for rehearsing bands in Percussion The room has no reverb, and is completely dry. Rehearsals are pretty unproductive and working on ensemble intonation is almost pointless Trumpet Dead, very dry Trumpet Room is dead acoustically speaking, lacks any warmth or resonance Oboe/Saxophone The sound is sucked into the room, especially brass Drum set Too reverberant Drum set This room is so big; I think it makes everything sound very muddy Piano It's not bleed, I don't know really Piano My main issue is the volume is really loud (+ horn heavy) hearing piano (or "keys") amongst all of this is next to impossible. :( When rhythm section is playing alone, it is not too bad! Saxophone Too loud, difficult to hear whole ensemble, individual players in it Saxophone The room is too dry Saxophone Can't hear myself at all! Can't hear my tone, my intonation. Hard to tune to the ensemble when I can't hear myself. I feel like all sound is lost immediately after it leaves my horn Saxophone The practice rooms are horrible. You sound like you're playing in a box. The combo room is the worst it gets so hot in there it starts to smell. And you can't hear everything clearly Trombone Room is very dry. Hard to judge dynamic levels Trumpet Too boomy

PAGE 151

151 Table 9 1 Continued. Room Instrument Comments Band Room C Clarinet Difficult to hear the way we blend Clarinet Sometimes it is hard to hear the intonation of players right around me I hear other instruments, just not the ones near me Clarinet Sometimes it is difficult to discern the blend of our instruments with others and the band as a whole. When we cut off a chord we rarely hear the "ring" every band loves to hear Saxophone I know concrete block is not good for acoustics and I built acoustic panels for my middle school band room Saxophone I like the new room Trombone The room is too dry Trumpet From my position, the room is just fine Tuba Instruments can be too close together to each other Tuba I can't hear right side of room at all

PAGE 152

152 CHAPTER 1 0 CONCLUSION AND FUTUR E WORK Conclusion s S oundscape study methods have been applied to this research to investigate what musicians are trying to listen for while playing a s an ensemble during rehearsal s in the three band rooms Direct observation by attending the rehearsals in each band room and video recorded of each rehearsal were used to study t he amount of time conductors spend during rehearsals addressing various attributes of music with student musicians and the amount of time the students actually spend playing their instruments during typi cal band rehearsals (Chapter s 3 and 4 ) The ability of student musicians to understand verbal instruction from the conductor has been identified as an important activity during band rehearsals from the analysis of the three music rehearsal recordings. Ther efore, an acoustical metric related to speech intelligibility should included in the design criteria for these rooms since band rehearsal rooms are core learning spaces where verbal communication is important. Current band rehearsal room design guidelines have not included this criterion. In addition, the analysis of the three music video recordings show that conductors and music students were constantly hearing self and each other on intonation, rhythm, dynamics and articulation for 80% of the total rehea rsal time. This was also supported by the results of the interviews and questionnaires to the conductors and music students. P ersonal interviews with six conductors and questionnaires administrated to an additional seven conductors and 206 student musicia ns were used to determine what

PAGE 153

153 each group is trying to listen for during rehearsals (Chapter 5). The results indicated that b oth groups were constantly trying to hear themselves and each other on the five primary attributes of music during rehearsals. Into nation, rhythm, dynamics, articulation and tone quality are the five primary attributes of music heard by musicians during the rehearsal Therefore, the future acoustical design guidelines for band rehearsal room should support the ability for musicians to hear themselves and each other on these attributes of music. Mapping and modeling were the techniques used to illustrate the distinct acoustical responses of the near and far receiver locations in the three band rehearsal rooms and the differences in the rating of the attributes of music heard by student musicians at these locations (Chapters 6, 7 and 8). From the three band rooms acoustical measurement data analysis, the room acoustics responses of near and far receiver locations had shown significant difference. The acoustical parameters that had the measured values with greater differences between the receiver locations included EDT, TC, D50, C80, ST1, IACC_A, IACC_E and STI. These differences are a result of the early reflection from the architectural features of the room. T30, T20 and IACC_L did not show much difference for different receiver locations because the reverberant s ound energy is affect ed mostly by room volume not receiver locations. The different room acoustics responses for near and far receiver location as well as for the different frequency bands in these band rooms indicated the difficulty for music students to listen for attributes of music and to play together as an ensemble. Additionally, the results of the listening experiment based on these measured values indicated that musicians not only could identify the differences in the attributes of

PAGE 154

154 music at differe nt seats and rooms but also could identify which band room better supported their needs in hearing the musical attributes. Ther efore, the m easurable differences among seats within rooms and among different rooms for acoustical measurements, architectural f eatures and qualitative evaluations of the rooms suggest that the architectural design of the rooms influences the music instruction quality. Furthermore, t he results of the statistical correlation study indicated that t he ceiling heights, room volumes and area of sound diffusing surfaces were found to be important to achieve preferred listening conditions in the rooms. The low frequency sound level, spatial distribution of later sound energy, early reflected sound energy and reverberation were found to be important acoustical attributes of the rooms. In summary, the importance of the verbal communication between the conductors and music students, the attributes of music that both conductor and music students are trying to listen for during the rehearsal, as well as the above suggested architectural features and the acoustical attributes of the room should be considered as the design criteria for these rooms and be included in the future acoustical design guidelines for band rehearsal room s F uture Work In order to complete a user oriented acoustical design guidelines for band rehearsal room s t he work of this research will be continued by o btain ing a larger sample of band room measurements and student questionnaire s relative to these band rehearsal room s, a s well as u sing m ultiple receiver locations for acoustical measurements in the band rooms. At the same time, questionnaires should be given to music students who sit at these receiver locations of the band rooms for improved c orrelation analysis. S tatistical analysis methods such as factor analysis, multiple linear

PAGE 155

155 regression s and mean plots to derive the correlations between architectural/acoustical parameters to attributes of music will be used as well. A nalyzing the effects of musicians playing or not playing their instruments which listening for the attri butes of music during rehearsals and c onduct ing multiple source impulse responses tests in more of the rooms with a reg ular grid of receiver locations will be conducted.

PAGE 156

156 A PPENDIX A TRAN SCRIPTIONS OF CONDUC TOR INTERVIEWS Interview with Conductor A Conductor A: From a conductor for students to rehearse to prepare the ensemble for concert? Put to self you are now a student and I am the t eacher if we look at the question. And then what are you asking me. Ask me the question. Lucky: Conductor A: are you talking about the lesson? Or are you talking about playing in the section? Or preparation for..? Well first of all, as you know when you have lessons, we prepare excerpts so we can play the notes, number one, the league has to be able to produce the right notes and the arm has to slide on the position so when you play the instrument well enough so you can do the excerpt in question that we talked abou t, then we talk about the musicality so we can draw a line so it sounds the orchestra. But before that, you want to talk about playing the excerpt in context. By that I mea n that, when you play an excerpt for me in a lesson it has to be exactly the excerpt, you have to hear the orchestra so that is very much part of preparation for a student t o hear orchestra and knowing what goes on and what it sounds like when you come in with when that specific very difficult passage. When you sit in the orchestra it becomes a whole different level, dynamics become different and then of course we talk about blend thing you think you want the whole section to blend and we talked about direction of sound and the bel ls so that they blend in that way so by the time when the sound time it gets to the audience, you know person number 3,000 to hear a good blend as well as the conductor and ev erybody else. Blend is very important and then of course precision Precision, so that everyone in your section and the whole orchestra so that they hear the rhythm that the conductor gives (gigs), also when you play your excerpt you have an entrance, the n you have to hear the orchestra You always, your entrance, what comes before the entrance what leads the entrance; you have to hear what instrument that what should I say, you take over from. You often take over a portant to hear the whole This take a lot of time and experience and you will not be able to that as your first time you sit in the orchestra as a student. As you develop and you become a personal player, then that aspect of your intellective develops and develops, and professor decision of how his caliber can, most part hears the orchestra. Except when you sit in the back of the hear the orchestra. So there are so many aspects. Is that something you wanted me

PAGE 157

157 to comment on? Are we going in the direction or what? Lucky: al musician even you are in the room, concert hall where the acoustic are not really good, ech oing, you can still be able to adjust? Conductor A: Yes, as a student that is very difficult, but as a professional you have to. You come into a place where there is a lot reverberation like church or something you have to play much softer because the sou nd carries, it just comes out of the instrument in the place. If you come into another room that is very dead, then you have to play more sustained because you get no help of the acoustics, so you have to play sustained and try to play a sound that project the sound will just fall right down in front of you and goes nowhere. This is a big problem, and orchestras, you are in different halls, all the time. And most orchestras you have a rehearsal in the concert hall where th extremely important. And great experienced orchestras know how to handle that aspect. They change their play for the different concert halls they go into. Lucky: so usually do you think all the professional musicians, hm... I was going to say the conductor is the first person that goes into a new concert hall and listens to it so they can make a comment to the musicians or you think both of them do it at the same time? Conductor A: hear it and then after that, hopefully it is a good conductor that can balance the orchestra It is a very difficult thing to do after one rehearsal. Because a ll the instruments and all the different acoustics and specifics when it comes to acoustic for each individual instrument. So it is a very hard thing to do. And in this case, it is very good to have a person in the concert hall itself to listen so then you have at least 3 aspects, the performer himself, the conductor and the listener Lucky: And then also as an acoustic consultant, I notice that doing rehearsal you sometimes as the conductor as well as the assistant conductor sit in the audience area to so rt of listen to the acoustics. But then also, another problem is that during the rehearsal usually there is no audience. So, that room is more reverberant and so how do you adjust? Conductor A: rehearse, as if people were in the audience. That is a very good point. When the concert hall has reverberation, it will be not as much when you have the concert. And not only the people there, it is about how many there are. Half a hall of a full hall makes a difference. And especially if it is a rainy day and people come in with wet es and just a little a side step when it comes to playing sections, let say 3 trombones and tuba, students especially must have sectionals beforehand. So that the sectionals of 3

PAGE 158

158 trombones and tuba practice again so they can give a homogenous sound and it balances in the practice room that you are. So then, you are way ahead of the game when you come to rehearsal room of the orchestra. Lucky: I see, yeah, okay and if we are not talking about professional musician, so if you encounter a freshman student do y ou when you coach them for chamber music of something or a quintet or something, do you ask any same difference? Different Conductor A: The thing is that take it personally to your high school. You might remember that yourself playing trombone, it was so much fun, so easy, remember? And then when you got to college, your teacher or myself started pointing things out to you, maybe your intonation kinds of things and then you know in High scho So so much matter of developing your ears. So some people would say about the n when you come to college. So middle high F on the trombone, you know how sharp that can be. And in high school you probably played that note all the way in third pos ition, it was very sharp but then pitch too sharp and so down and then you play the high F, you happens, the slide is down but the lip goes up. The lip wants it higher and the slide goes lower. And then you end up playing a mid dle high F in second position and then First of all they have to learn their individual parts so that when they come to rehearsal we have to teach them to listen to each other Because if you are very young, first year in part in front of you, you see the music and you play your part. But what about the rest of you? D you really hear the five voices? So you put your own voice and part into the context? And here is a give and take all the time when you play trombone in a quintet, suddenly you have a lit tle solo that is a little louder than your company and maybe it has all the same dynamics but dynamics are relative and you have to play stronger when you play solo and softer when you play with company. So, those are you know very basic ideas. And then of course after that, comes musicality And see if they can find the musicality the basic rule of music, so not only the technique is in order but also the musicality think of. Lucky: Yes, thank you covered a lot. Conductor A: Yes, you asked that question you could answer that almost as well as I can.

PAGE 159

159 Lucky: well yes, but I am looking other professional answers as a student. And I Conductor A: nevertheless. Conductor A: What do you try to listen for during a rehearsal? Yes, we basically covered this also. And when you listen back to this tape here, you will discover and remember what we forgot to say or do you will remember what I forgot to say. So insert that! So you know, we covered most of it, so then we want to go over the very beginning one. Lucky: oblems right amou nt of reverberation and that it has acoustics that it creates a warm round sound Because that is ideal. So then, conversely if you come into a place, a and the sound is...well some halls can give you a nasal sound so then you have to adjust to that. So how do you do that? How do you adjust to sort of a thin sound, well I have or you have a certain sound in your ear you want to produce. sound I so that has to do a lot with ears. So I think, somewhat automatically you start putting warm juicy thick air into the instrument to make it juicy round and dark. So that ying same all the time, and then articulation is the same. If the hall is very reverberant then you have to rance with piccolo and ____(Glackens squeal), then what do you have to do. And the (Glackens squeal) goes sometimes you have anticipate when it comes to that. Back to the solo in a hall that is not so favorable, those are the things that I would think about. It is same thing as before, is that the acoustics is dry you have to play much more sustained and it is much harder to do because you need more air, so you know, te chnically, hopefully Lucky: Okay, so do you think when students rehearse for ensembles or symphony, do you think they should try to rehearse in a dry, less reverberant room or more reve rberant? Conductor A: that is a very good idea if you have the opportunity to do so. But a t all, may

PAGE 160

160 idea to play in different rehearsal room is fantastic. If you play in a ve ry dry room, it is very challenging. And then at least you have been in that position, that situation so that you know what that feels like. And conversely if you play in a very reverberant room, you know how to make it drier. Lucky: for band room, rehea rsal room, so when they practice, the curtain is close. So the room has really dry, about .6 or .7 seconds dry acoustics. And the conductor because he thought he wants a drier condition, he can ask students to listen to intonation and rhythm so they can pl ay together. Conductor A: I think that is right actually, that is a very good idea. And when they come into a good concert hall it will be so easy to play. Lucky: Yes they are thinking about that. Because the concert hall they, they play usually is muc h more reverberant. Conductor A: But for an inexperience student, if that student played exactly the same way in good acoustics as he did in a dry acoustics, then that will not going to be good either because you have to blow harder, you have to use more air and you probably have to play louder in a dead room. So then, when they play in a room with good acoustics, they have to adjust to that and hold back a little back because otherwise it will be too loud and too hard. Lucky: So you suggest students sh ould rehearse in a not too dry room, it should be Conductor A: Yes I agree with that. Because if it is too dry, it will be too different when you come into a room with good acoustics. So because you have good that is not THE solution as such. So to rehearse, for the reason that you said, it is to get the feeling what the difference is. You draw the curtain. Lucky: Sometimes, when they draw the curtain. The reverberations go to about 1.8 seconds. It is similar to concert hal l, usually the concert halls are that. Conductor A: Yes, I would actually say that is nearly perfect. That is actually you go from very dry, where you have to really put out to have your sound out, and also in the same thing as except that the conductor is here, and use the intonation and do everything, maybe the orchestra can do that too. And if you can open it gradually, a little by little until you have the acoustic

PAGE 161

161 Lucky: What do you discuss with students during rehearsal? Conductor A: same thing with tone quality, blend, intonation, slurs and articulation all those things in lessons a nd sectionals. Sectionals are so important. Lucky: Okay, so from there, you can see the speech intelligibility**, so you can perceive the speech well, students can hear basically what you are talking about, and you can hear student comments. So do you co nsider that is important criteria, when an acoustical consultant in band room or concert hall they should think about? Conductor A: That is very interesting question. Because again you can look at concert halls or halls that are made for music, theater a nd speech. So for the human voice, speech you need much drier acoustics, when music you need some reverberation and then projects ones voice that is a very individual thing of course. The conductor has to learn what volume he has to speak at in order for t hem to hear. So, it also depends I mean if the orchestra is much quiet, then it should be easier. But must project so that they can hear. I myself, tendency to look do wn a little, and then percussion, you have to raise your head and so you know, the opening of the bell ell. Lucky: This is just to show you. I recorded a rehearsal from beginning from an empty room to two hours later. This is when musician warmed up, and the conductor came in. This is the very first rehearsal. So musicians warm up and conductor comes in, and suddenly they all become quiet. So conductors start talking about what you should be careful something. And then so as you can see each gap between the lines, gap represents when conductors stop the rehearsal. Okay so when you have _______ where the mu sic rehearsal is going on. So each gap is where conductor stops and speaks to students. So when you added it from here to there, you see a lot of gaps. So when conductor tries to talk to students, actually stops a lot. And this if very first rehearsal. And the last rehearsal you see that the conductor does not stop so much. spend a lot of time during the two hour rehearsal. Conductor A: Oh, sure. That is right. Just a litt le side step, if he talks a lot and stops a lot. If this was first rehearsal, I give the ensemble a chance to go through the passages and not go too detailed right away because I think they should sort of get it in their fingers and start hearing what the much first time around. The second time around I go into detail. Then it would look like this one right here. Lucky: So I see. The first time, you will have them go over the whole piece.

PAGE 162

162 Conductor A: Yes if it is short piece, whole piece, big piece, etc, I will do sections. Because for orchestras, even professional orchestras and students especially, it sounds so much better the second time around, the third time around because then they get the feel. Yo Lucky: Yes, okay so. I never really realized that the speech is very important and an important criteria. Conductor A: How might this be different in a smaller ensemble or individual lesson? T he aspects you discuss among students... Teaching single lessons and teaching quartets, quintets and larger and larger? And some of it becomes very different. And when yo u have a large orchestra especially with professional orchestras, and when you rehearse them, this might not have to do so much your project but the approach of the conductor, when the conductor conducts a good professional orchestra you can rehearse but y professionals and they know much more about their own instruments that I know become too personal. If yo that way, whatever, if you are negative in that term, you get the orchestra against you right away. So when that happens, you might as well pack up and go home. You have to be careful. You have t o be somewhat diplomatic and get your message your through without becoming too personal in large orchestra. In a lesson, you very well know that there are times when you could even be unpleasant, if I think that student is not working hard. You know, I wi this to the orchestra. But I can tell it to like students from brass quintets or so. But of course, you have t o try to be somewhat diplomatic. Interview with Conductor B 1. What are the most important characteristics of a room that support your coaching/playing? C onductor B: a happy medium not too dead sounding, but not too live either. You know old recording studio used to be very dead, not it is very dead with wood and glass, very alive. So I would say for me to really work with the student and get the mature sound out of the instrument, dead. So I ne ver really get the real feel as to what it will sound like (instrument). But the other band room is actually good for instrument playing alone with piano accompaniment. It sounds good in there, single player or 3or 4 players playing. It sounds fine to me

PAGE 163

163 with that kind of sound to it is good. 2. From a conductor to rehearse to prepare the ensemble for concert? C onductor B: My first emphasis is always setting the correct notes and rhythms first Then I would say second area I look at is the dynamic level that everything we are playing. Are the dynamics correct and coming close as possible, to what the composer had in mind things like that or, what has been played before in other orchestra band s or jazz bands, and third I try to imagine the melodic structure of what I am hearing how are the phrases going, how do I want to phrase something. I would say this is the order. Even with students that I am having private lessons, and for a solo, I just say I want all the right notes, all the right rhythms first. Once you get that, we can make music Always those first. Of course with a large group as well as solos intonation, pitch and everything else, I always try that as well but my reasoning my main focusing is that if they got all the right notes and rhythm, then I go see if that note is too flat or sharp, and the next thing I do is dynamics. As a practicing, etc just play really slow. Secondly make sure with the wind instruments, about rhythm and ot until got all the basics down, then you can put in all the rest. So for first couple rehearsals, we just read the music and go through. Then we go back make comments like this has to be soft or this has to be loud. And then we work on putting everythin g else together, getting pitch and intonation. 3. From a s point of view, what are the most important aspects for students to rehearse to prepare the ensemble for concert? C onductor B: Yes for this I would say the same view I would say to listen and go for getting all the notes and rhythms first then become acquainted with all the dynamic levels, all the embellishments that you can add to music, that are there, grace notes, trills, whatever. And then of course, applying this after having it gone through once you know what the melodic line is and how to phrase the different until you got all the notes and rhythm. 4. From an educator to rehearse to prepare the ensemble for concert? C onductor B: Basically same thing. As far as being teacher and doing this for 48 years, all of those things from 2, and 3 I see that same f or teaching. You have to have all the basics there and then you go on to make music.

PAGE 164

164 5. What do you try to listen for during a rehearsal? C onductor B: I start listening for tone qua lity, start working on phrasing start looking for the timber of the instruments and how I think the overall sound should be Then I really try to go for the, I guess you would say the acoustics Sound level, if it is balance, are they playing together, an d this is unison line so is this guy playing too loud comparing to other players so those are the kinds of things I look for in a rehearsal. Once I got all the notes and rhythms done, then I go make music 6. What aspects of student/performer playing do you discuss during rehearsal? C onductor B: to focus on hearing it in tune, getting to play in tune and also, the quality of the tone is coming out of the instrument so it is not too harsh. Because when you play everything is in relationship. Dynamic level for example, how soft is a piano how loud is a forte, it is all in relation. So I tell the student, look, when you start a piece of music, if its piano, evel so whatever you said in the beginning, every other y forte you have to make sure the listener knows and hears the difference. So I would say you know, we talk about the quality of sound, reading and playing very precise, those kinds of things. 7. How might this be different in a smaller ensemble or ind ividual lesson? C onductor B: with individuals and you put them in a group, they should be really thinking about the same thing. And the other thing, smaller groups, you have to make sure the balance is there, the instruments are balanced with one another, if not one instrument is sticking out or so. So there, there might be a difference. But as far as playing the c orrect note and correct rhythm, it is same even in small ensembles. 8. If you are playing or rehearsing the same programs in different spaces, how are the acoustical attributes of the room helpful or harmful for listening and teaching? C onductor B: If e chance beforehand and play and get the acoustical properties in the room, you are doing it in the spot. So you have to be aware and then group has to be aware if you want to indicate soft maybe different in one room and different in another room, for an example, our rehearsal room is not very good and also the same place that we play in the acoustics are not very good. So, what we have to do is as a conductor I have to imagine and rehearse what it will sound like out there. And then, when we actually do go in stage, all we do for 2 hour period is to acoustically balance and we use a lot o

PAGE 165

165 microphones because we want to be able to isolate the sound. So, what I have to do with our group, I have to push it all the way to the back in the stage where it blow people out of their seats and then let the sound people set it up, for it is not ringing all over the place, so that they can get something for definition working because the live sound courses have taught them pretty well and they know what they are up against in these different rooms. You walk into a room where it is great and you drop a pen and everyone from all the way from back stage can hear it and then you go to a bad r oom where it just cluttered and bouncing all around and sometimes situations like this you have to compensate and do your best what you can unless you are a professional musician and you are playing with let say Cleveland orchestra (professional one) Ther e, I would say 90% of the time, they are playing in the same hall with same air conditioning with same acoustics with same musicians there all the time. Now, when they fly out Cleveland they go to some place like Miami, to do concert they get couple days of rehearsal to adjust to what they are doing to how the theater sounds like here and now after doing it for number of years I kind of know how to compensate but you also know it will loud with the audience. But there is nothing much you can do about that. The other group here uses shelves that because if I did that, it will re ally bring me___. So I need in a stage that all sounds all absorbed, we make sure the curtains are closed, and backstage is okay, etc. I play and play so that we are acoustically nearly perfect and some places you just know, that no matter what you do, yo Lucky: I know the band room here school is trying to do renovation if it is possible, if it is possible, do you prefer a room that you can adjust acoustics, like curtains, and change reverberation time, etc. C onductor B: Yes a bsolutely it is important because if it is number of different groups because i to go in that room with a quintet and a quintet sounded wonderful. Orchestras also had bea utiful sound, good reverberation. But if you put a band in there or a jazz, it was just too much. So for a while, they started using it for recitals and such. But here, you need a facility for rehearsal that will accommodate these different groups of strin gs, naturally loud as jazz bands would or wind ensembles. And we need a theater that is acoustically good. How do you do that though? You know, acousticians here think te the how humanity is, everybody got different bony structures, the waves that are bouncing at I played,

PAGE 166

166 hm, maybe down in Miami where they have symphony hall and then they have the hall for Broadway play, and opera and ballet then they have a beautiful hall. They have a hall that is beautiful in there; it seemed to me when I played there that an yone who played there would sound great. You totally would. They have one thing there that Lucky: C onductor B: Yes I am used to dealing with it, when you do this long enough, you get to the point where you compensate rehearse in 260 and I listen and take in regards what the trumpets are playing so they practiced that way and when they go in there, we do acoustical check and do some balance. Let say l do acoustical check on Thursday and then I tell have to come down a little because it is being carried very really well in here so you know how to respond to it. And then once we get up there before the concert, when the sound crew comes in 45 minutes before us and sets up, and then we get up in the stage, then my instruction to the soun the stage. And then I hope that th e acoustical balance is all right, and usually when I hear it in the back it sounds pretty good. So they know what they are doing out there you know and you have good professors teaching those courses. And we may to some adaptations to what is going on, so I think the students when they are here long enough they also adapt. But that I mean this is the only way you can do it. If a student be absorbed. And then, when they do that, during their juries, etc when they go play, they sound wonderful because I kind of compensated part time since 1970s, I was full time another university, there we had a very good auditorium and they spent half a million dollars improving and improving sound nd a lot of money trying to fix the theater, but then it was never built for music it was built for people to come in and speak and those kinds of things. To me, here they should tear it down and start all over again. Build a good concert hall and good reh work, orchestral work etc as a perfo rmer playing and worked in a lot of recording studios, best recording studios and they will change their concert hall from a dead sound to a live one. I walk in and rehearse, walk out, it is what it is it would be great if e high hopes. I know for 260, they would have to rip the whole thing, change the ceiling and everything else.

PAGE 167

167 Interview with Conductor C 1. What are the most important characteristics of a room that support your coaching/playing? C onductor C: Okay for me personally, first of all the sound has to be able to dissipate. There needs to be enough space in the room so that I can accurately hear all the frequencies and all the instruments that are playing in the room. If it is too loud, it makes it d ifficult to be able to focus to what I need to communicate with the students regarding their playing. So to get a correct representation of the frequencies those are being played in the room. 2. From a conductor nt aspects for students to rehearse to prepare the ensemble for concert? C onductor C: Is for them to be able to hear each other. It is a very important to tuning, balance, blending sounds. 3. From a s point of view, what are the most important aspects for students to rehearse to prepare the ensemble for concert? C onductor C: The same, they need to be able to hear each other. 4. From an educator to rehearse to prepare the ensemb le for concert? C onductor C: Sort of what I said in number one, I need to be able to hear everyone, all voices. 5. What do you try to listen for during a rehearsal? C onductor C: Everything. I listen for timber, quality of sound, intonation, volume levels of different sections to create an appropriate balance. I listen for rhythmic precision and accuracy, all the elements in to making a performance as accurate and musically correct as possible. 6 What aspects of student/performer playing do you discuss during rehearsal? C onductor C: Pretty much what I discussed above. And I always talk about listening to, must be able to hear the flutes and match them or v being able to listen across the ensemble Another thing is that we talk about is note length and same line, quarter notes might be longer for th is group than they are for this group, and they must match each other. They must be able to hear each other and match note length Acoustics and players both affect the sound but the room has to allow and give

PAGE 168

168 the musician an ability to be able to hear not only themselves but other instruments as 7. How might this be different in a smaller ensemble or individual lesson? C onductor C: ally when you are in a small group. 8. If you are playing or rehearsing the same programs in different spaces, how are the acoustical attributes of the room helpful or harmful for listening and teaching? C onductor C: I prefer a slightly deader acoustics in a rehearsal setting because I can hear more. I like it to be less forgiving so that when we get into a hall which generally has more reverberation the sounds better. In the end in the university they had a practice building with individual prac tice modu les in there and it was always nothing. couple of times I played in there I felt like I was a terrible player. Terrible, because there was no reverb but it did force me to create resonance from within myself and that sort of thing. So I prefer something like that in a rehearsal setting, a little bit that you know not like a close. But I do want it to deader so it is truer to what is coming out of the instrument. Lucky: Oka the corner. Do you use this for recording or..Recording studio? Conductor C: Yes because of how small the room was, I have not to this point but I would like to. Just really not for publication, to publish a cd, but for review purposes, for myself. Just for study. Lucky: And I know you have different group for ensemble, Do you think each student has different musicianship level? Conductor C: Absolutely yes. You just saw the youngest brass players. My wind symphony is my top group and they come in before and I combine them. You noticed that this is just brass, I try doing that this year; grouping brass to teach brass __, maybe you are availabl e you can come in and help me. And, first period I have the wood winds that are the younger ones and 4 th period are the wind symphony combined. Also the percussion is combined in a class and so there we have the battery percussion as well as the ma l le t ins truments. The decibel levels go up a lot especially when the entire percussion section is playing. Lucky: Conductor C: do that this year and it seems so far to be working well because I am abl e to work with them because they are so young, and still immature developmentally I can really focus on their basic skills. And then they are ready to move on to big ensemble.

PAGE 169

169 Interview with Conductor D 1. What are the most important characteristics of a room that support your coaching/playing? C onductor D: For me I think a room that supports what I want to do is a room that is big and that has a lot of space. Small rooms, especially if you have so many instruments whether high or low, and especially the lower instruments though, because back, I mean the bigger the room the better. Though I really think you get the sense of tly hearing different types of sound waves that are coming back off the walls. So, I think the bigger the group the more you want a if the sound bounces back an d forth. Lucky: And do you prefer the reverberation time drier? C onductor D: rehearsa l you want ear detection, you want to be able to hear the group and go from much reverb, it is nearly impossible to make such distinction. Or, room reverb into a w all that. At the same time, you want a little bit because sometimes that facilitates for people clarinets that are right next to you but you want the reverberation for the trumpets and whoever that are sitting in the back and the percussion especially for them to be able to hear the sound. I m to be totally dead because somewhat a balanced reverb for the entire ensem perform. When you perform in a space and you need to make musical decisions based on how the space sounds there, then you might go to a stage that is very live, then you have another change. So you have to adjust and those are what dress rehearsals are for, to figure out the halls, if articulation is being heard, depending how dry or how live the hall is. 2. From a conductor rehearse to prepare the ensemb le for concert? C onductor D: I think in terms of what they have themselves I think it imp for them to match articulation Entrances and releases all go into listening to each other in the hall not only the conductor wants to be able to hear but you want them to be able to hear each other That sort of goes to how do ensembles tune does it make difference where you seat people. And I think it does to a certain point because seating people differ ently helps more in the

PAGE 170

170 sense for them to communicate more than hearing each other or how affective their ensemble sounds. So in terms of what aspects I want them to rehearse is definitely is articulation, matching articulation Obviously entrances and rel eases, and then of course constant intonation all deals with being able to hear each other. Many ways, it ar from one another. Final thing is balance and blend Being able to hear how their parts fit with everything else to be able to decipher or not they are over playing their part, because so often they do that, and many musicians are often very stubborn abo ut that or they have no idea how they sound compared to rest of the ensemble. 3. From a s point of view, what are the most important aspects for students to rehearse to prepare the ensemble for concert? C onductor D: this ma y be your experience too but to days with players playing in a section, I remember how I used to be concerned about how we as a section were playing not necessarily what the ensemble was doing. You try to get that information from the oo loud or so, but I remember always concentrating on who is or are we all playing together, or balanced and I think as a performer that becomes a big thing. Lining things up, making sure that all musicians are playing the right units and does all sound th e same. Lucky: So ? C onductor D: on articulation wise and trying to match that. But I think actually for younger player s, it is all about how our section is doing and do we sound as a section correct. Lucky: yes, my dissertation is for band room rehearsal acoustic. And just for high school or college , etc C onductor D: Yes that is one of the things. The young ones are all into what they are matching articulation but give an ensemble sound because for con very important.

PAGE 171

171 4. From an educator to rehearse to prepare the ensemble for concert? C onductor D: This funny because many people interchange educator and conductor simultaneously but the thing is that as a conductor, the end product is that, if you want to talk absolute end products for conductor is how the ensembles sound. And educator it is innate in the title, becaus e you want them to understand why it is happening. So whys of making it happen as oppose to a conductor who can sing something, wrote to somebody, having them singing b ack to them correctly with correct tone, and then be happy with that, that is great. Whether or not they actually understood what the rhythm was on the page, or not, but for an educators point of view in terms of rehearsing, it is to rehearse the instrumen ts with right dynamics, accurate and all that but the back side of that is, and it might very similar to what a conductor would say, is that they want it to sound good in an ensemble. But I think the educators view is a little different, they want them to perform in high level and want them to understand how to do that so you can apply to any situation as opposed to, you know, so often younger ensembles, of working it through them and deciphering them together, they just give it to them next rehearsal schedule. I think that in terms of concerts, the why and how of the bac k side of making them still sound great making them know appropriately and correctly. 5. What do you try to listen for during a rehearsal? C onductor D: You know, I try to make sure that I have set up my score correctly, and hopefully I have a mental image of what it is I want to hear and not only in terms of what I want to hear note wise but also in terms of blend I want to hear and the seniorities I want to hear from a particular piece interpretation comes in and ask ing people to play certain things certain way to articulate and be in a mental image you have. In terms of what I listen to are all those things. The to certain level o f musicianship on a piece until rhythms are right I mean you can still talk about it and talk about what the style is going to be but one of the first things you do is you have to make sure all can play right stuff and then you start move away from specif ic contents. But I think most all, in a rehearsal what I am listening for is errors amongst individuals everyone at every measure to make sure that it happens. Going through a course of a rehea rsal schedule such and such time every day 20 minutes every day on this section every day, is to take it slowly little it down, maybe through home practice or sectional checking what they are playing against your instr umental image so a lot of the times I will listen for error detection and be able to

PAGE 172

172 that person was playing a wrong rhythm, or that person is out of tune o. I think it changes through the rehearsal process I think you might listen more for error detection stuff during the early part of rehearsal process because they are still in terms of getting the notes and rhythms as a section but as you progress out an d prepare the bigger picture, about balance and blend and on how they are sounding together And of course assuming too that the students are too going a lot the journey with you. It rd that constantly checking from your mental image from what you want, how you want a piece to sound like, tone, balance, etc 6. What aspects of student/performer playing do you discuss during rehears al? C onductor D: I think one of the things I focus on the great deal is tone quality. Is matching tone quality The thing is that, be it singers and everybody in the ensemble everyone is going to have a slightly timber and tone, and they will all be in di fferent level of development. So I stress on their ability to listen and match the tone and be unified violin tone or unified clarinet tone because there are so many variations there. Being able to listen, you constantly try to tune them to it So for youn ongoing process. Even the older players are still working at it but then they get it more. So constantly try to talk with students about how their individual tone is and I can think, maybe one of it is even if it not matched perfectly is it a beautiful tone? Does it sound beautiful? And usually, if you as a performer can hear that it is a nice beautiful tone, and students, do they know what a char acteristic tone because after you listen you might not know what is, and you might be capable of. But I think that it is a focus individual tone. And then, not only that in terms of performer playing its also about how they treat the ends of phrases a lot of the times. Because so many times, especially wind players, we are slaves to the brass. And so we learn early stages what are the best things, you might have learned rules of breathing from your first teachers, breathe from the bottom line or never breat he it here or breathe with your neighbors but at the same time what happens is that many times the music suffers for the brass. End a phrase instead of playing a full note making a nic e release but still have good resonance 7. How might this be different in a smaller ensemble or individual lesson? C onductor D: Again, difference is that, well because the thing I notice is most often between smaller ensembles is that students who are always even professional players do this. There is a way to play an ensemble, there is a way to play you play in a small gro up or a solo. You most often or not you play softer than you normally would in a solo, and you play with different tone in some cases

PAGE 173

173 t a spot mike on a trombone player inside of a section and listen to what they are playing in an ensemble, they might sound very awful to hear by itself. So to put it isolated inside the whole section, or entire brass section soon as you move into small ensemble type, that point you want to really work hard to get them, especially with you nger students. Younger students, their opportunity to do well, most of their experience in playing in a horn is in small ensembles so when they come in college they have to more solos and more team work, I spend so much time trying to open their sound up, trying to make them play a beautiful sound until solo, I control the dynamics, I get to control what piano, what forte is, and that makes a real difference, especially in a small play like this. 8. If you are playing or rehearsing the same programs in different spaces, how are the acoustical attributes of the room helpful or harmful for listening and teaching? C onductor D: tuba lesson before this. And my students were sitting down in a room, a small room actually because practice rooms are always so small and because of that we think we immediate feedback that is only 2 feet away fro m us. We think our forte is too loud or because one year or couple years ago they made the practice rooms have reverb out and stuff like t hat and yeah that will give a Lucky: Do you like it? C onductor D: only so many, only sound of certain amplitudes is going to give you something back but we constantly talked about let say for my tuba players when their waves are coming out of the hall because they are such low instruments so because they are such low instruments those waves have to have a lot of distance to kind of open up, before they come back. We always talk about trying to play in that small room, as if we are playing in the large hall and you want the last person from the last row to hear you that to of that dynamics in a solo inside and outside of the room, is to a lways move up because piano becomes bass level for your piano moves way up, so often and not that is a real harmful perspective. Are they helpful things to it? Yes to some extent. If you are aying more often but I small room. Then you get a really good idea of what is happening there. Of course, you little more. The bigger the instrument

PAGE 174

174 the harder it is. When it comes right down to it tubas should be practicing in a huge gets them a better idea of how their tone is reacting, how their sound is filling up the space and then with that respect, of course with all of the places that we perform, I think at the same time you have to be able to be in a room that is conducive to the instrument kn room, because of the size of the room decibel level is so high in a room like that that is also harmful. Lucky: have you ever rehearsed in band in any variable acoustic room? C onductor D: changes on the acoustics but I guess the most we can ever do is let say f or most halls determine if we want bare walls But most often depending, let say for instance 800 seat, you want those curtains drawn because most of the times you might get sound most acoustical changes you can have really aside from obviously from an y type of back, moving people around will definitely make some difference and affect how you sound because understanding the instrument among st and obviously directionality like instruments like horns as opposed to clarinets, which really has a sphere sound, so I think that features in as well. And so you can start playing with that all of it. Interview with Conductor E 1. What are the most important characteristics of a room that support your coaching/playing? C onductor E : Sure. I guess. You have to forgive me. I don't know all the terms. But it is diffusion, so the player can hear themselves or hear themselves across the room. The range and the adequate ability of diffusion of the sound, so the player in this quadroon and the players in this quadroon are hearing the people on the outer side of room, and the reasonable level of room is not overwhelming and that is acoustically legit imate that actually as the level equal to the volume that has been perform back, so that is not artificial and attenuation or artificial increase and the volume. Does that make sense? So that is primary, especially in a chamber situation. Just to make sure people can hear adequately and what they are hearing is honest reflection the sound has been produced from the instrument.

PAGE 175

175 2. From a conductor rehearse to prepare the ensemble for con cert? C onductor E : Well, this is really good. There is two different elements. In terms of rehearsal and performance. Again, the diffusion, the ability to hear across the ensemble is so important. But for the performance, well that is absolutely vital tha t they hear across the ensemble. The throat, the ability to projecting that the mixture of the sound out to the house or the audience. And again the honest way that actually reflects the volume and balance of level that we retrieve. You know in our theater and most theaters, so much crank it up of the concerns that I have was to spend a lot of time trying to really refine the tone qualities to reflect the certain overtone. And then all that work will be dismissed by the wrong facility. I guess the most imp ortant characteristics is to project the complete sound into the audience in an authentic way that relates those have been created by the ensemble. That is to say I am not looking for necessary a theater that helps, but just to reflect what we are doing. I think that there sometimes you get houses or halls that are artificially reflective and they trying to create the activity in that environment. Sometimes there are misleading but there is too much reverberation. Lucky: Yes, you could not hear a lot of de tails. C onductor E : Right, some people like that. It reduces the degree of what we are trying to do. Everything has to sound like an organ or else they sound out of the place. Lucky: So, I just wonder, beside the loudness that you were talking about and also students to be able to hear each other. Do you think intonation, rhythmic, articulation or dynamics C onductor E : Oh, I see in terms of elements of sound. Lucky: Yes, or musical quality C onductor E : Sure, well, it is really good question. In terms of pitch, I supposed it really end it up that hall affects pitch in terms of which overtone is going to be reinforced. So the hall reinforces the upper overtone, the upper most overtone that obvious going to be a challenge. Because there are not going to be the true to The further up, the series you get for the further the way you are from just the intonation, which makes the ird partial of the flute that to have a chance to be really in tune. Does that make sense? So, when they really exaggerate the upper overtones, that is when they facing the problem. We are trying to flight physics. 3. From a s point of view, what are the most important aspects for students to rehearse to prepare the ensemble for concert?

PAGE 176

176 C onductor E : For performers, I think it is the same thing. They want to hear themselves clearly. And then be able to with only a little bit of intellectual engagement, to be able to focus their ear on other players across the stage. It is very intellectual process to dis do that, but at the same times not be overwhelmed by other sounds to be able to hear themselves, is that compromise, and to be able to switch to one to the other. For instance, the very complex composition that the player was about their own work. If you were playing Kandinsky, you were only focusing on yourself, where as if you were doing that is flexible for both in a hall which allows a player to really concentrate on their own sounds, for that sort of repertoire and that is particu larly 20 th century. Lucky: Do you prefer band room with acoustics? C onductor E : say I prefer it but I would say that if I were in a conducting ensemble, and traveled in of reverberation situations from one location, without having them move around across state lines to be able to different lines. Plus to prepare for professional musicians, Lucky: My dissertation is for specifically for students, so after you become real performer you are adjusted to it but most of college students some of them might have that ability but most of them..not. C onductor E : Yes that helps a lot. My goal for the acoustic situation is to be pr edictable so the students can have consistent and a standard which to judge. To degree to which they can hear an instrument 20 feet away is consistent from day one to day two. Cross repertoire. 4. From an educator ant aspects for students to rehearse to prepare the ensemble for concert? C onductor E : I guess I would consider those the same, educators from conductors. But again, that comprise from being able to hear their own sound with clarity and being able to hear other voices. 5. What do you try to listen for during a rehearsal? C onductor E : Well, that is a loaded question. Depends on the repertoire, every work has a different requirement. I normally listen in terms of layers, I listen for formality layer, mi d usually talking in terms of function. I rarely listen only for timber. I rarely go in rehearsals s for trombones, sometimes for others.

PAGE 177

177 Lucky: Do you have to stop and tell your students their intonation is not correct? Or rhythm? C onductor E : Yes in the band room I do a great deal of that. Band room, one of the trying to help focus them on a specific voice which will help them play more musically, to unlock the piece. What I am listenin g for is to see if they have accomplished that. 6. What aspects of student/performer playing do you discuss during rehearsal? C onductor E : a course of a month, is to see in a re hearsal how many times have I discussed about articulation, how many times did I discuss intonation, how many times balance, blend, ehearsals talking about dynamics all day long. All of those things and try to be balanced with all those. Some works is more articulation then blend, some more other elements. So depends on work. Articulation, intonation, balance blend ensemble alignment a nd rhythmical alignment. Those are the basic. I think every ensemble that have rehearsed well rehearsed the fundamentals. 7. How might this be different in a smaller ensemble or individual lesson? C onductor E : much as possible to have great independent learners. Often becomes self coaching, and they learn to, they address what to listen for and what to create and I try to give an intuitive atmos just have to be. It would be great if everyone could unlock their musicianship but if there on e and one and try to get more of the individual listening and adjusting to be much more rapid. Allow more musical freedom and decision making. This phrase can go to 4 8. If you are playing or rehearsing the same programs in different spaces, how are the acoustical attributes of the room helpful or harmful for listening and teaching? C onductor E : I program based on space. I program different repertoire to see if space will be a little different. For instance, worst case scenario, many of invitational conferences that bands play at, are involved. They play portable stage in a ball room. progra m an organ transcription because there is no reverberation and anything that is created there would have to artificial. So first thing it affects is programming But rehearse resonance rather than reverberation we rehearse how to end a note so to make it sound like a natural reverberation. How to end a note with resonance so that you can artificially re create. Lucky:

PAGE 178

178 C onductor E : Well we try to rehearse to end a note exactly there and then well the process I use is that I will have a whole note and indicate different dynamics and then we do the same with two beats then same thing with one beat and finally open to eighth note and th To create artificial reverberation. And length of this, the reverb of the decay, is dependent on the acoustic Interview with Conductor F Speaker: Ultimately what thos e numbers mean are the matter of judgments and opinions that people that listen. So one of the struggles is to try to find links between the some of the scientific or quantitative measurements that we can make in rooms and notion of trying to get from experienced musicians conductors and what their impressions are from the acoustics of a room and acoustical situations, how the room music qualities in the room can rise to the top as the way of interpreting what the measurements tell. Conductor F: you my opinion and my opinion is probably, on the national level you might want to get like 10 peo might even want to say these are the ten people I consulted, famous conductors from band directors and come up with something but if you sample the 10 really good ones mediocre ones. So you might get some people that might disagree with me on a few things but I will tell you what they are. IN general, I told Gary this when we were building the room between me and some people is that I want to rehearse in a dead room all the time where some people, on last rehearsal or two would like to throw open curtains out there and make it sound more like the concert hall. Which they do have that option. So you have a multifaceted room here where you, we record with the curtains completely open and it sounds li ke a concert stage. We shut the curtains and its dead and the other being said, my goals might be slightly different with my colleagues at the University of Texas and Uni answer. And then you can ask as many as you want but I would say if you ask 10 people, you might get a little bit different answer from 10 people but at least they will be cut up in a people that are going to tell you whereas if you go fishing around for a bunch like

PAGE 179

179 e ours but he might have a room that has it sound like the way he want s possible. His name is Alan McM urray. So his one of the names I can give you. I can come up with ten fairly quickly I can even give you their addresses. Lucky : are they all going to go to the conference in Chicago? Conductor F: They will all be there. Most likely but they would be hard to track down because they just go to Chicago to mess around. There are several that would give you qualified answers, like th e guy at Texas, Chicago, Illinois, etc. (Prof now goes over the Q: How many people are there usually in a wind band? Conductor F: So, if you define a wind band as a concert wind band like most people do, the size band 40 though a large symphony band of 120, with the average band being 60 70 players. Now, a marching band would not be really referred to as wind band. Wind band referee d to concert band. Marching band is 60 400. Quite large difference, depending on size of school. With the average 200 250 for university, maybe 100 average for high school. Q: There are couples different wind bands in school, is there a rank for each ban d, and why? For example, Wind Symphony at UF is formed by the best students for each instrument group out of entire school of music. Conductor F: There is couple of different bands in the school. For instance, yes, almost every university has a top ensemble called the wind ensemble or wind symphony. Wind ensemble refers to one of the part players. And even still wind ensemble might double parts, li ke some clarinets and trumpets. So wind ensemble could be around 40 60 players. Wind symphony implies a hybrid symphonic band in wind symphony and it might be slightly larger but could be same size as wind ensemble. Players are grouped in bands based on ab ility. Top group has best players, in this case, our wind symphony has the best players, next is the symphonic band and then concert bands are pretty much even. That would be mirrored in almost every school. Top group called wind ensemble or wind symphony. Even in some schools that are more old fashioned could call their top band symphony band or symphonic band. Like at University of Michigan, top band is called symphony band. So you kind of have to ask what the names of the top band are but they are groupe d by their abilities. At Florida State, it is called wind orchestra. South Florida, it is called wind ensemble. University of Texas, it is called wind ensemble, University of Illinois, wind symphony. Michigan, symphony band. Wind ensemble implies one perso n at a part; concert band implies a smaller wind band for about 60 players. And a symphony band could be as many as 80 100 players, with multiple players at each part. Q: Do you agree that there is a difference in level of musicianship and musicality for professional musicians and college/high school student musicians?

PAGE 180

180 Conductor F: There is a difference in musicianship and musicality for professionals and high schools, yes. The difference is professional musicians, college students are half way between h igh school and professional. There are difference levels of players. Most college players aspire to be professionals. And often times, outstanding high school and college groups can sound professional, this has to do if they make characteristic and fundame ntal good sounds they can confuse you and sound like a professional band. I would suggest to you recordings of our band, would sound as good as recordings of top outst anding high school bands that will sound like college bands or even professional, depending on their quality of conductor, or number of rehearsals. We have more rehearsals in college, and they have even more rehearsals in high schools. Professionals do it minimum rehearsals. Group rehearsals as supposed to individual and they just come in and read the music. They know the music already for the most part. They learn it Q: What is musicianship? Conductor F: with music theory, it is just small part of it. Musicianship is just those undefined things that peo Musicianship is the ability of an individual based on his level of ability and level and all those things kind of conglomerate. So, most people thing they are good musicians be a 6th degree black belt as supposed to a 4 th degree black belt. A great musician like Y o Y o M this country. Probably has a lot better musicianship than someone else. Whatever level of ability someone has attained in total knowledge of music and artistically development on one instrument. Q: What is musicality? Conductor F: Musicality is basica lly the same thing as musicianship, means the level of performance ability that a person posses either as a conductor or performer. It is safe to Although, sometimes people have very fine musical ability but maybe they are on their edge in music playing. In other ones, they once were great musician but through lack of knowledge they might not just perform anymore but they might still be a superior musician, they might write music or conduct music. They still have a high level of musicianship even though they might not perform anymore. Most of us start as performers, in other words. So, the best player has best musicality than normal player? I mean, not necess arily, some people are gifted in terms of having or being technical

PAGE 181

181 experts like you might find a child prodigy of age to 5 that technically who can play well and sound fantastic and he may have better technical skills than a college professor might. But t heir knowledge would maybe not be as refined and maybe they might not know anything much about music. So if you say best player, the best player may not have developed musicality all that far but they might just be all just very talented at something at on e particular skill of playing. Lucky: So if a student came to school or ensemble, as part of reason is to develop musicality? Conductor F: They want to become better musicians and that not only includes technical expertise but also includes total educa tion about music and styles and history and theory, it involves a lot of different things. Lucky: Conductor F: musicality is the total musical education that a person posses a t whatever level they are at so the more time they spend studying and working on music probably the better musicianship they have. Now just the skills of playing the instrument is all a part of that but musicianship is all kind of very elusive terminology to talk about. Technical skill, good tone, are finite things. Musicianship is harder to define. Lucky: Conductor F: Different level of everything, of expertise of instruments, different level of experiences. Like, if you say play this in the style of Prokofiev, rather Stravinsky they know the difference. Professionals have years of expertise. Years of experience, experience is a key element of musicianship. But not necessarily, in terms of playing expertise. So younger the students are, the more they need a conductor, a leader and more experienced performers are, the less they need a conductor. Conductor kind of helps them stay together because they play extraordinarily well without them. Q: What are the most important characteristics of a room that support your coaching/playing? Conductor F: Well, I think the most important characteristics of a room are the ones that musicians can hear and musicians can see. So you have t have enough light, an environment that makes it possible to hear things around them. And hopefully is somewhat pleasant environment for the one who sat there. So comfort is also important. Q: Do you think t he room acoustics will affect phrasing, tempo and style of music ? Conductor F: things. I think acoustics can make it sound better.

PAGE 182

182 Q: Do you agree there are aff ects with different reverberation in a rehearsal rooms? Conductor F: Yes. Q: Do you think the rehearsal room has less reverberation (dry condition) can help you and /or students to listen for intonation, rhythm, dynamics and articulation clearly than the room has reverberant condition? Conductor F: Yes, it definitely can. The less stuff is bouncing around in a room, the less confusing it is for the players. So if they play true sound in dry environment, like if they are playing outside, which soaks up all sound, they can hear themselves very well. They might like the sound playing in the bathroom, but the truth of it is if you have two or three people playing in the bathroom, sou nd will be bouncing off the tiles all the time, that is why I say whether its pleasing to a player, is really not that important. But rather if s important. They are reverberant environments where players can other players. the hall kind of pulls out and enhances the quality of sound and actually gives a little reverb to it, I guess that would be a fairly desirable thing. Q: What about for rehearsal as a group? Conductor F: For rehearsal, they want to be able to hear. So it is true that it can be so traveling back and forth. I mean that is possible too but I would say in general, in our So yes, it definitely could help, tuning, listeni ng, dynamics, and articulation. Q: hat are the most important aspects for students to rehearse to prepare ensemble for concert? Conductor F: Well, the most important thing to do is, it takes time to 60 people to think like one and to match and to do all the things necessary. All of the fundamentals of music there are diffe rent difficulties involved in making them come together to sound as one So that take a little bit of time and younger the player, the longer it takes. The more professionals, the less time it takes. Q: From the previous interview with you, you mentioned what do you want them to hear? Conductor F: I want them to hear what they sound like in conjunction with others I want them to hear wheth er they are in tune whether they are in time and these are all

PAGE 183

183 fundamentals. I want them to hear if balance is correct and I want to be able to let them know what I want to hear in terms of balance and blend of sound I give them the opportunity to play in tune with a nice sound and then we start working on trying to get better intonation, and better togetherness, better dynamics and all the fundamentals Q: Do you mean to ask s tudents to listen for dynamics and adjust their playing to get Conductor F: Balance and blend Balance is what you want to hear as opposed to another. If there is a solo in one instrument and everybody else is accompanying, obviously you want to hear more of the solo and less of the accompaniment. However the balance of those two, how much of each the conductor decides. And to a certain degree the players decide until the conductors says otherwise. But usually you have to address balance. Now, also it could mean you want to hear more from one chord tone than another, if you have not enough ones but too much of a third, you might back off chord is too much. Then you would have to balance that by saying, I need less third here, would you play quieter if you are playing that third, English horn, or tenor sax, a exactly what you would thi nk of when you blend much of ingredients together when trumpets and trombones, I want you to play into the stands, and then I want a lot of chef. Blends of all these sounds and what kind of sound they are, which again is very complex. The hardest thing for a conductor is to draw the blend of the sound and mostly professionals, you do years ago. Conductors would have ensembles making specific sounds, depending on like they sound in one or chestra and another because they sound that way. Not so much because the conductors want them to sound that way. Most other groups in the sound is. Even in professional wo amount of sound and other conductors will get different sound. And a lot of it is based on the way they conduct, how their gestures are, and mostly affected by what their concepts are in terms of what they want to hear. Some people like very brass dominated sounds, so they are always working on getting a little bit more brass. Some is simply more of this less of that. Blend is the right balances but also a different quality controlling the quality of the sound with the balance. Lucky: Conductor F: The hall is going to contribute to t he quality of sound so it has impact in

PAGE 184

184 enough trumpet. The bad thing about that because they are seated in the further back, I am always wanting them to play louder. rehearsal. So we realize that when you get on stage, the trumpets might have to tone it down a little bit, or percussion too because they will bound off back of the stage when they get in there. So bad thing about rehearsing in a different acoustical environment is that you have to realize what is going to be like when you change places. And are you going to have to change what ensemble skills they will naturally adjust to the new environment when they get there. you have to say. Th it, they already know what to hear. We change our halls all the time when we play and red to others. Well rehearsed group can adapt to a change of environment with a very little consequence. Weaker groups might have more trouble with this. Q: From a performer rehearse to prepare the ensemble for concert? Conductor F: I would say as conductors really. They might hear it differently from with. They hear themselves and they think about t hemselves a lot and their parts but will not hear at all. Q: From a n educato point of view, what are the most important aspects for students to rehearse to prepare the ensemble for concert? Conductor F: I mentioned, all the fundamentals of music, good quality tone is most important thing, intonation dynamics, technique, rhythm,, style, phrasing, those are all the fundamentals that every educator, all the conductor, performer should be concerned about. Q: What do you try to listen for during a rehearsal ? Conductor F: I listen to everything. And the more experience conductor hear more. work on to the ability to hear. And so when they started out ear training, some of them did better than the other. So with experience and musicianship you hear more. You might hear the slightest finite difference in terms of pitch whereas in younger conductor might not hear

PAGE 185

185 do and even if professionals, sometimes you have to say gu ys, we need tune this/chord, trombones and oboes play that chord for us please. Okay. Now lets go back and take it They are professionals. With my students, I give th es in rehearsal and then they hear it and then you move listening for everything. All the fundamentals of music. Q: According to three band rehearsal videos; intonation rhythm, dynamics and articulation are identified as being addressed frequently by the conductor to student musicians. These elements are separately agreed and rated by student musicians as the listening criteria during the rehearsal. The overall percenta ges of 206 student questionnaires for the four fundamental musical elements are 90% (intonation), 89% (rhythm), 73% (dynamics) and 94% (articulation). Therefore, do you think if it is safe to say that these four elements are the most fundamental listening criteria during a rehearsal for both conductor and student musicians? Conductor F: Which is right, now, inexperienced conductor will not spend much time working on blending of tone tempo and dynamics. Because those are much easier to hear then quality of sound you want, molding Q: What aspects of student/performer playing do you discuss during rehearsal? Conductor F: Just the same things we all discussed. (same as 17) Q (19) : Do you think intonation, rhythm, dy namics, articulation and speech intelligibility can be affected by room acoustics? And why? Conductor F: Yes, 19 is yes they are all affected by room acoustics. Because if they And if it is really reverberant, they have trouble playing can expand the dynamics to loud or not. And articulation is covered. So for a dry environment, you can hear urce of the sound which is articulation, the tongue, with the win d instrument and with the attack Q: How might this be different in a smaller ensemble or individual l esson?

PAGE 186

186 Conductor F: The more players you have, the more you have the possibility of 60 different -that. Maybe a little heavier on articulation. And then you try multiple times you try to get Q: If you are playing or rehearsing the same programs in different spaces, how are the acoustical attributes of the room helpful or harm ful for listening and teaching? Conductor F: Yes, because we record in there. I would be happy if it were dry all th e time. I also would have people get to last rehearsal and open up some curtains. Some sound like in the hall in the last rehearsal Pe rsonally there are many more things to worry about than that for me. Just happy to be in a nice room. Q instrument section? From closer distant section such as flute, cl arinet, oboe, bassoon; to medium distant section such as horn, saxophone; and to the farther distant section such as trombone, trumpet, tuba and percussion. Conductor F: would say that tone is one you left that in number 19. Tone, quality, intonation, rhythm, dynamics, articulation, balance, blend of sound, these are all fundamentals. The 4 Conductor F: Again, this depends on what you can hear. Some people can hear more Some people can hear things bet ter than others. The ti mber of instruments identifies quicker in my mind. If euphoniums. But they would confuse the average listener. They would all think conductors will know the difference. And they would hear where the sound is coming from. But from a closer distant, it is easier to hear, being right in front of you. It is also easier to get the balance right. Q: that these four fundamental music elements are most important listening criteria that you would think and like your music students to listen for during the rehearsal? Condu ctor F: the blend and balance of their tone, their tone, nice tone whether it is balanced and blended with everyone else, that their matching style, articulation, phrasing, tha t they are playing in tune, that they are playing in time, that they are playing in same style,

PAGE 187

187 other words by style means articulation and spacing. So, all of those things and then dynamics and etc, all those are fundamentals and all those things are what I want them until they are playing. Q: Can you rank these four fundamental listening criteria (intonation, rhythm, dynamics and articulation) in terms of difficul ty for an average high school player? Conductor F: rank them. Lucky: I guess, I was trying to find out Conductor F: ol player. I think it is thing to figure out. Rhythm, they can probably di scern whether they are playing the is harder than that to do because it involves, technique of articulation is sometimes very level of that so that will be harder for them to discern and then rhythm ir dynamics. Hardest of all will be the tuning part. Eventually if they learn to listen for tuning, none of them are difficult. These are all things that could be taught. But if you work with an average kid, they will hear first whether they are loud that after that and then tuning is probably will be a little more difficult. Lucky: and then get to more high level symphony band, then from intonation and down, Conductor F: For high school bands and all bands, they will work on same things. The y easy for them to tell about tuning. Lucky: so that means, in reh earsal in high school conductor will spend more time in intonation? Conductor F: they are good. Y ounger conductors will spend more time on precision trying to make things line up. And dynamics because they hear those things. They might not spend too work on what you don and refining sound because your ultimate goal is to ma ke it sound as good as it can.

PAGE 188

188 APPENDIX B M ULTIPLE SOURCES AND RECEIVERS MEASUREMEN T PLOTS In order to see the individual room response in a clearly manner the following acoustical measurement results for the three band rooms as well as for the multiple sources and receivers with acoustical parameter s (EDT, T30 and TC) are pr esented in Figure s B 1 to B 3 Each figure contains three columns and four rows. The order of columns from left to right separately represent band room A, B and C measurem ents. The order of rows for each column from top to bottom represent location of source 1, 2, 3 and 4 for each band room. Within each individual graphic, the dotted line means the receivers are near the source whereas the solid line means the receivers are far away from the source. The legend of the receiver location on the right side of each graphic is based on the near to far distance relative to the source. Reading the graphic al data with measurement floor p lan s from page 71 7 2 and 7 3 will help to locat e the source and receiver locations clearly.

PAGE 189

189 Figure B 1. Early Decay Time (EDT) in the three band rooms.

PAGE 190

190 Figure B 1 Continued

PAGE 191

191 Figure B 2. Reverberation Time (T30) in the three band rooms.

PAGE 192

192 Figure B 2 Continued

PAGE 193

193 Figure B 3. Center Time (TC) in the three band rooms.

PAGE 194

194 Figure B 3 Continued.

PAGE 195

195 APPENDIX C CORRELATIONS OF ACOU STICAL RESPONSES AND LISTENING EVALUATION IN THREE BAND ROOMS Background The additional investigations to correlates tone quality and the results of the listening evaluation were necessary because tone quality was identified as one of the listening criteria by conductors during the rehearsal interviews. Tone quality was also not used in the student questionnaires. Since the overall impression from the listening evaluate the ease of hearing each other during rehearsals. The correlations between the overall impressions to acoustical parameters are also included in this an alysis. However, since different methods were used in the student questionnaire and listening evaluation, the correlated results could also be different. The playback of audio tracks during the listening evaluation used headphones that could not totally re produce the sound field of the room. Hence, the correlated results of using the listening evaluation are only used to show the possible effects of acoustical parameters to tone quality and overall impression. Method Methods to conduct the acoustical measu rement, listening evaluation, and statistical analysis are the same as stated in C hapters 6, 7 and 8. Hence, author will not repeat the methods used for the correlations of tone quality and overall impression to acoustical parameters here.

PAGE 196

196 Results and Dis cussions Results of Listening Evaluation on Tone Quality and Overall Impression The scores of tone quality and overall impression in the three band rooms are shown in Figure s C 1 and C 2. Figure C 1 shows that Band Room A has higher scores of hearing tone quality than Band Rooms B and C. Figure C 2 shows that Band Room A has higher scores of overall impression than Band Rooms B and C on all receiver condition and near receiver condition. However, Band Room B has higher scores of overall impression than Band Rooms A and C on far receiver condition. The possible reasons were discussed in chapter 7. The far receiver location of Band Room B is 10 feet closer than the far receiver location of Band Room A and the stronger direct sound and smooth decay slope of far receiver location of Band Room B gave it a better overall impression. Results of Multiple Linear Regressions The acoustical measurement data for the listening evaluation and statistical correlation analyses were based on one near and one far receiver loca tion from each band room. Therefore, the correlations of the tone quality and overall impression with acoustical parameters were solely used to indicate the trends of the possible effect between these parameters. Tone Quality Overall Condition Table C 1 shows five models that were derived from the overall receiver condition of the three band room data. Model 1 has an r 2 = 0.805. Model 2 has an r 2 = 0.982. Model 3, 4 and 5 have r 2 = 1.000. When r 2 = 1.000, it means the model has the best linear correlation of the predicted acoustical parameters and scores on tone quality. The best predicted parameters for clearly hearing tone quality regardless the receiver

PAGE 197

197 condition is the interaural cross correlation for late energy (IACC_L) at the average of 2000 to 8000 Hz and at 2000 Hz, early support (ST1) in the 63 Hz octave band interaural cross correlatio n for overall energy (IACC_A) in 1000 Hz octave band and room constant at the average of 63 to 250 Hz octave bands H owever, from T able C 1, the late energy (IACC_L) at the average of 2000 to 8000 Hz octave bands has changed r 2 = 0.805. This means that IACC_L at the average of 2000 to 8000 Hz octave bands has a significant percentage (80.5%) of predicting the linear relationship with scores of tone quality. Fi gure C 3 shows the Mean Plot of the IACC_L_HIGH versus scores of hearing tone quality in the three band rooms. Apparently, the trend s of decreasing the values of IACC_L at the average of 2000 to 8000Hz octave bands result in better scoring for hearing tone quality clearly. Overall Impression Overall Condition Table C 2 shows five models that were derived from the overall receiver condition of the three band room data. Model 1 has an r 2 = 0.716. Model 2 has an r 2 = 0.996. Model 3, 4 and 5 have r 2 = 1.000. When r 2 = 1.000, it means that the model has the best linear correlation of the predicted acoustical parameters and highest scores for overall impression. The best predicted parameters for overall impression about ease of playing as an ensemble regardless of the receiver condition is the average s urface absorption coefficient in the 250 Hz octave band interaural cross correlation for late energy (IACC_L) at the average of 500 to 1000 Hz octave bands room constant at the average of 2000 to 8000 Hz octave b ands surface diffusivity index (SDI) multiply by the ceiling height (CLG) and the reverberation time (T20) in the 1 25 Hz octave band. However, from T able C 2, the average s urface absorption coefficient in the 250 Hz octave band has r 2 change = 0.716. This means that the average s urface absorption coefficient in

PAGE 198

198 the 250 Hz octave band has a significant percentage (71.6%) of predicting the linear relationship with scores of overall impression. Figure C 4 shows the Mean Plots of the predicted parameter versus scores of overall impression in the three band rooms. It is clear that the trends of increasing the Alpha_bar in the 250Hz octave band and the product of SDI to Ceiling Height result in better scores for overall impression. Architectural Parameters versus Tone Quality and Overall Impression Figures C5 (A to J) show the architectural elements versus the scores of tone quality and overall impression. From the figures, it is clear to see the positive relationship between scores of the tone quality to overall impression. As the scores of tone quality went up, the scores of the overall impression went up as well. It indicates that in order to design the rehearsal room with ease of hearing each other as an ensemble; tone quality must be considered as the primary musical attribute and design criterion. In general, higher product of T30 versus room volume (T30_RV), higher product of surface diffusivity versus ceiling height (SDI_CLG), larger surface area, larger room volume, higher ceiling, larger mean free path (MFPath), less ratio of ceiling height to room volume (CLG_RV) and longer distance to ceiling (D_CLG) are shown as the key architectural elements to obtain the higher scores of tone quality. Therefore, the se architectural elements could be used to achieve the optimized tone quality of the rehearsal rooms.

PAGE 199

199 Table C 1 Multiple Linear Regression versus Tone Quality in the three band rooms. Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate Change Statistics R Square Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change 1 .897 a .805 .756 .2132 .805 16.483 1 4 .015 2 .991 b .982 .969 .0758 .177 28.680 1 3 .013 Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate Change Statistics R Square Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change 3 1.000 c 1.000 .999 .0150 .018 74.276 1 2 .013 4 1.000 d 1.000 1.000 .0000 .000 7.627E7 1 1 .000 5 1.000 e 1.000 . .000 1 0 a. Predictors: (Constant), IACC_L_HIGH b. Predictors: (Constant), IACC_L_HIGH, ST1_63 c. Predictors: (Constant), IACC_L_HIGH, ST1_63, IACC_L_2K d. Predictors: (Constant), IACC_L_HIGH, ST1_63, IACC_L_2K, IACC_A_1K e. Predictors: (Constant), IACC_L_HIGH, ST1_63, IACC_L_2K, IACC_A_1K, RC_LOW Coefficients a Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. Correlations B Std. Error Beta Zero order Partial Part 1 (Constant) 6.480 .445 14.551 .000 IACC_L_HIGH 16.623 4.094 .897 4.060 .015 .897 .897 .897 2 (Constant) 7.374 .230 32.058 .000 IACC_L_HIGH 23.429 1.932 1.264 12.128 .001 .897 .990 .952 ST1_63 .090 .017 .558 5.355 .013 .274 .951 .420 3 (Constant) 7.418 .046 161.608 .000 IACC_L_HIGH 25.846 .475 1.395 54.440 .000 .897 1.000 .848 ST1_63 .095 .003 .590 28.096 .001 .274 .999 .437 IACC_L_2K 2.064 .239 .175 8.618 .013 .516 .987 .134

PAGE 200

200 Table C 1 Continued. Coefficients a Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. Correlations B Std. Error Beta Zero order Partial Part 4 (Constant) 7.416 .000 997504.352 .000 IACC_L_HIGH 25.515 .000 1.377 297724.545 .000 .897 1.000 .751 ST1_63 .100 .000 .621 126065.845 .000 .274 1.000 .318 IACC_L_2K 2.129 .000 .180 53912.647 .000 .516 1.000 .136 IACC_A_1K .056 .000 .053 8733.191 .000 .530 1.000 .022 5 (Constant) 7.416 .000 . IACC_L_HIGH 25.517 .000 1.377 . .897 1.000 .027 ST1_63 .100 .000 .621 . .274 1.000 .008 IACC_L_2K 2.129 .000 .180 . .516 1.000 .021 IACC_A_1K .057 .000 .053 . .530 1.000 .002 RC_LOW 1.250E 8 .000 .000 . .736 1.000 .000 a. Dependent Variable: Tone_Quality Table C 2 Multiple Linear Regression versus Overall Impression in the three band rooms. Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate Change Statistics R Square Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change 1 .846 a .716 .645 .2839 .716 10.100 1 4 .034 2 .998 b .996 .993 .0401 .279 197.394 1 3 .001 3 1.000 c 1.000 1.000 .0029 .004 560.177 1 2 .002 4 1.000 d 1.000 1.000 .0000 .000 113696.521 1 1 .002 5 1.000 e 1.000 . .000 1 0 a. Predictors: (Constant), Alpha_bar_250 b. Predictors: (Constant), Alpha_bar_250, IACC_L_MID c. Predictors: (Constant), Alpha_bar_250, IACC_L_MID, RC_HIGH d. Predictors: (Constant), Alpha_bar_250, IACC_L_MID, RC_HIGH, SDI_CLG e. Predictors: (Constant), Alpha_bar_250, IACC_L_MID, RC_HIGH, SDI_CLG, T20_125

PAGE 201

201 Table C 2 Continued. Coefficients a Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. Correlations B Std. Error Beta Zero order Partial Part 1 (Constant) 3.752 .359 10.464 .000 Alpha_bar_250 3.125 .983 .846 3.178 .034 .846 .846 .846 2 (Constant) 2.096 .128 16.342 .000 Alpha_bar_250 4.330 .163 1.173 26.521 .000 .846 .998 .998 IACC_L_MID 5.314 .378 .621 14.050 .001 .005 .992 .529 3 (Constant) 1.986 .010 189.909 .000 Alpha_bar_250 4.419 .013 1.197 353.470 .000 .846 1.000 .972 IACC_L_MID 5.610 .030 .656 184.970 .000 .005 1.000 .508 RC_HIGH 1.844E 6 .000 .072 23.668 .002 .227 .998 .065 4 (Constant) 1.985 .000 45121.885 .000 Alpha_bar_250 4.398 .000 1.191 54571.459 .000 .846 1.000 .629 IACC_L_MID 5.625 .000 .658 41683.427 .000 .005 1.000 .481 RC_HIGH 1.879E 6 .000 .073 5479.544 .000 .227 1.000 .063 SDI_CLG .001 .000 .008 337.189 .002 .643 1.000 .004 5 (Constant) 1.986 .000 . Alpha_bar_250 4.397 .000 1.191 . .846 1.000 .036 IACC_L_MID 5.626 .000 .658 . .005 1.000 .163 RC_HIGH 1.878E 6 .000 .073 . .227 1.000 .024 SDI_CLG .001 .000 .009 . .643 1.000 .000 T20_125 .001 .000 .000 . .507 1.000 .000 a. Dependent Variable: Overall_Impression

PAGE 202

202 Figure C 1. Listening evaluation of tone quality scores in the three band rooms. Figure C 2. Listening evaluation of overall impression scores in the three band rooms.

PAGE 203

203 Figure C 3. Mean Plot of predict acoustical parameter (IACC_L_HIGH) versus scores of hearing tone quality in the three band rooms. Figure C 4 Mean Plots of predict acoustical parameters versus scores of overall impression in the three band rooms.

PAGE 204

204 Figure s C 5 (A to C top to bottom ) Mean Plots of predict architectural element s versus scores of tone quality and overall impression in the three band rooms.

PAGE 205

205 Figure s C 5 (D to F top to bottom ) Continued.

PAGE 206

206 Figure s C 5 (G to I top to bottom ) Continued.

PAGE 207

207 Figure C 5 (J) Continued.

PAGE 208

208 LIST OF REFERENCES Agresti A., and Finlay, B ( 2009 ). Statistical Methods for the Social Sciences ( Pearson Prentice Hall Upper Saddle R iver ). Ando Y. ( 1985 ). Concert Hall A coustics (Springer Verlag, New York) ANSI S12.60. ( 2010 ). American National Standard Acoustical Performance Criteria, Design Requirements, and Guidelines for Schools (American National Standards Inst., New York) Atal, B., Schroeder, M. and Sessler, G. ( 1965 ). relation to soun th ICA, Liege. Barron M. ( 1993 ). Auditorium Acoustics and Architectural D esign (E & FN Spon, London) Barron M. ( 1988 ). Subjective study of British symphony concert ha lls 66 (1) 1 14. Beranek L L. ( 1962 ). Music, Acoustics & A rchitecture ( Wiley New York) Beranek L L. ( 2004 ). Concert Halls and Opera Houses: M usic, Acoustics, and A rchitecture (Springer Verlag, New York). Blauert, J. ( 1983 ). Spatial Hearing ( MIT Press Cambridge). Boner, C.K., and Coffeen, R.C ( 2000 ). Acoustics for Performance, Rehearsal, and Practice Facilities, a Primer for Administrators and Faculties ( National Association of Schools of Music Reston). Bradley J S and Halliwell R E. ( 1989 ). Making auditorium acoustics more qualitative Sound & Vib 23 ( 2 2 ) 16 23 Cervone R P. ( 1990 ). Subjective and Objective Methods for Evaluating the Acoustical Quality of Building for M usic ( A Master of Architecture Thesis, Univ. of Florida) Cre mer, L. ( 197 6 ). Acustica, 35 (3), 215 218 Cremer L. and Mller H A. ( 1982 ). Principles and Applications of Room A coustics [volume 1] ( Elsevier Science Pub. Co ., New York) Design Guide DG 1110 3 119 ( 1983 ). Design Guide for Band Training F acilities (Department of the Army, Washington D.C.) Egan M D. ( 1988 ). Architectural A coustics ( McGraw Hill New York)

PAGE 209

209 Gade A C. ( 1981 ). ualities [Report No. 31] ( The Acoustics Laboratory, Tech. Univ. of Denmark ) Gade A C. ( 1989 halls. Part I: Method and laboratory experiments, Acustica 6 9 (5), 193 203. Haan C and Fricke F R. ( 1993 Statistical investigation of geometrical parameters for the acoustic design of a uditoria Appl Acoust 35 105 127. Harris C M. ( 1998 ). Handbo ok of Acoustical Measurements and Noise C ontrol ( Acoustical Society of America Woodbury ) Hawkes R J and Douglas H. ( 1971 Subjective acoustic experience in concer t 24 (5), 235 250. Houtgast T and Steeneken H J M. ( 1973 The modulation transfer function in room acoustics as a predictor of speech intelligibility Acustica 28 66 73. Houtgast, T., and Steeneken, H.J. M. ( 19 85 ). RASTI: a T ool for E valuating A uditoria [ Technical review. No 3 ] (Bruel & Kjaer Instruments, Inc., Marlborough), 13 30 Houtgast, T., and Steeneken, H.J. M. ( 19 84 A multi language evaluati on of the RASTI method for estimating speech intelligibility in auditoria Acustica 54 (4), 185 199. ISO 3382. ( 1997 ). Acoustics Measurement of the Reverberation T ime of Rooms with Reference to Other Acoustical P arameters ( International Organization for Standardization Genve) Jordan, V. ( 1970 47 (2), 408 412. Jordan, V. ( 1980 ). Acoustical Design of Concert Halls and Theatres (Appl. Sci. Publi shers Ltd. London) K rer, R., and Kurze, U. ( 1967/68 ). Acustica 19 (6), 313 332 Kuttruff, H. ( 1965/66 ). Acustica 16, 166. Kuzma J W. ( 2004 ). Basic Statistical for the Health S cience s ( Pro Ed Publishing Co ., Taipei ) Lochner, J.P.A., and Burger, J.F. ( 1958 ). echoes by their primary sounds and their contribution to the intelligibility of Acustica 8 ( 1 ), 1 10 Long M. ( 2006 ). Architectural A coustics ( Elsevier/Academic Press Boston )

PAGE 210

210 Marshall A H. ( 1967 A note on the importance of room cross section in concert hall J Sound Vib 5 100 112. McCue E. and Talaske R. ( 1990 ). Acoustical D esign of M usic E ducation F acilities (Acoustical Society of America, New York ). Mehta M., Johnson J and Rocafort J. ( 1999 ). Architectural Acoustics: P rinciples an d D esign ( Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River ) Niese, H. ( 1961 ). und Echogradverteilung zur Beurteilung der Horsamkeit in R Acustica 11 (4) 201 213 Oxford Music O nline [electronic resource] ( 2007 ). ( Oxford University Press Oxford) Patrick N G and Boner C R. ( 1966 ). Acoustics of s chool b and r ehearsal rooms, J Acoust Soc Am 41 215 219 Pirn R. ( 1972 On the loudness of music rooms Paper presented at the 84th ASA Meeting, Miami Bea ch Reichardt W Abdel Alim O and Schmidt W. ( 1975 ). "Definition und Megrundlage eines objektiven Maes zur Ermitt lung der Grenze zwischen brauchbarer und unbrauchbarer Durch sichtigkeit bei Musikdarbietung, Acustica 32 (3) 126 139. Reichardt, W., and Lehmann, U. ( 1978 ). R umlichkeit und Halligkeit, Erl uterungen des Raumeindrucksma Acustica 40 (5) 277 290 Sabine, W C. ( 2009 ). Collected Papers on A coustics ( Peninsula Publishing Los Altos). Schafer R M. ( 1994 ). The Soundscape: Our S oni c Environment and the Tuning of the W orld ( Destiny Books Vermont ) Siebein G W Bettcher A Park S B Shin S B Tsaih L and Siebein K M. ( 2010 ). Architectural and aco Paper presented at the 1st EAA EuroRegio Congress on Sound and Vibration Meeting Siebein G W. ( 2011 Essential soundscape concepts fo r architects and urban ( City of Stockholm Sweden) Storyk J. ( 1993 Design, construction and testing of a college rehearsal hall Paper presented at the 95th AES Convention, New York Teuber W and Voelker E. ( 1993 ) Acoustical requirements and results for music rehearsal rooms Paper presented at the 94th AES Convention, Berlin. Thiele R. ( 1953 ). "Richtungsverteilung und Zeitfolg e der Schallrckwrfe in Rumen, Acustica 3 (2), 291 302.

PAGE 211

211 Truax B. ( 2001 ). Acoustic C ommunication ( Ablex Publishing Westport ) Wenger Music Corporation. ( 2008 ). Planning Guide for M usic F acility ( Owatonna ). Zwicker E. and Fastl H. ( 2007 ). Psychoacoustics, Facts, and Models (Springer Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg New York)

PAGE 212

212 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Lucky is a native of Taiwan and received a Bachelor of Music in t rombone p erformance (1996) and a Master of Arts in a udio and a coustics (2003) from the Peabody Institute of The Johns Hopkins University. She is also a graduate of Manha ttan School of Music and received a Master of Music in t rombone p erformance (1998). Lucky has worked as an acoustical consultant for eight years (five years as full time, three years as part time). She is a member of the Acoustical Society of America (ASA) Technical Committee on Architectural Acoustics of ASA, Institute of Noise Control Engineering (INCE), Audio Engineering Society (AES) and National Band Association (NBA). With her educational and professional background as a scholar, acoustical consultan t and musician; her interests and passions about creating an optimum acoustical environment for musicians and ensembles to rehearsal in is undertaken. She believes that optimizing the acoustics of any musical or educational space is a primary factor that c ontributes to a better learning environment and more efficient musical education.