The recent UK Reproduced Sound conference invested heavily in acoustic modelling and auralisation. Among the event’s speakers, conference chair Paul Malpas looked at ‘the role of auralisation in interdisciplinary design’, questioning the neglect of sound in the early development stages of buildings. Good man.
On the surface, it wasn’t an issue that should have needed raising at an acoustics conference. But if not here, then where?
Given the technologies available to enable architects to anticipate the sound considerations of their design decisions, many present at the conference may have regarded the question as largely rhetorical. But it desperately needs asking of other audiences. Almost every other aspect of design is tightly integrated into the development of a vast range of commercial services and products. Why not sound?
Another of the Reproduced Sound presentations concerned the London Aquatics Centre. A truly awesome architectural exercise, such a large volume of space, with such complex roof geometry devoted to such a specific purpose should have screamed analysis and auralisation. If it did, its parents were deaf to their child’s pleas.
That the project was such a success – including in its acoustic performance – was achieved in spite of the acoustics aspects of its design process rather than because of them. And in spite of the missed opportunities to monitor the acoustic characteristics of the building as it took physical shape.
It is inconceivable that you would design lingerie without consideration of how it would feel against your skin. Or a smartphone without a care for its styling. Or a hair shampoo without fine-tuning its smell. Or a toothpaste without testing its taste. Great care and cash goes into the design of a prestige car, for example. How will it look? How will it drive? What navigation and entertainment systems might it have? How will its interior smell? How will the doors sound as they close?
Some manufacturers are even using the sound of their vehicles in the soundtrack to their advertising... as a sound man, I have to like that.
Sound sense
If the automotive industry ‘gets’ sound, why not the architectural industry? The acoustic signature of a building’s interior is one of the immediate impressions it makes on anyone entering, and is a major factor to anyone spending any length of time inside. How on earth can architects create visualisations of vast spaces with complex acoustics without wanting to audition the character of the sound they will generate?
Even something as modest as a small bar or restaurant can be sounded out before it becomes apparent that the conspiracy of glass, chrome and marble that looked so good as a CAD model is a reverberant hell for staff and customers. Subsequent remedial real-world treatment from an acoustician is often essential. What mix of arrogance and ignorance casts a trade with so much to offer in the role of repairman?
Fast-and-Wide’s own Audio Boy eloquently raised similar questions over the perceived value of event production here a short while ago. Now Paul Malpas has made an excellent parallel case over architecture and acoustics. What other areas of pro audio are being similarly undervalued? And at what cost to our industry?
How about music mastering? How about sound editing for feature films? How about live sound engineering? How about music recording in a ‘proper’ studio facility? If you care to make you own lists, I’d be interested to see them…
Apple probably devotes a greater proportional effort to the packaging of its products than most major architectural firms invest in understanding the sound of their works of imagination. That’s just plain wrong.
It seems to me, as it did to Audio Boy, that sound and audio skills are widely underrated – not just by the public but by other industries. And possibly by ourselves. So, what are we going to do about it?
