当前位置： >
> 只要1元就可拥有无线麦克风K歌的乐趣！
只要1元就可拥有无线麦克风K歌的乐趣！
&&&&现在越来越多的人开车上下班、接送孩子。可城里车多路窄，往往出门就堵在路上，开车的很烦躁、坐车的很无聊。&&&&眼下年关又将至，回家的回家出游的出游，但无论是还是回家开车过年，漫长的旅途枯燥无味，都希望有什么车上的娱乐活动能打发时间。&&&&近日，一款为广大车友们解除以上烦恼的独特智能硬件产品Ki无线车载麦克风首次亮相京东众筹，以其创新性的使用方式和简单易用的设计获得了极客和车友的热捧。&&&&全新的娱乐方式&&&&无论您的是否有蓝牙功能，一支Ki无线车载麦克风瞬间就将车厢变成移动KTV包房；用的环绕立体声来听手机音乐、K歌、听影视大片，效果无比震撼！&&&&这个无线话筒，我用过，神马都不用接就能唱，确实很神奇，汽车里用的，各种的汽车音响都能用，漂亮很有范，音质确实比那100来块的话筒好很多。现在京东搞活动1元有会获得哦~&&&&Hi-Fi音色 KTV效果&&&&Ki无线车载麦克风系统采取专业的无线音频传输和混音技术，具有极低噪音、极少尾音、超大动态范围效果，在不同使用环境下也能使声音清晰、自然、流畅，让用户在听手机音乐和K歌中也能享受高保真的音质。&&&&使用简单自由方便&&&&Ki无线车载麦克风无须任何连线，可以和手机之间用蓝牙连接，麦克风混音后通过FM广播频段在汽车音响上播放。麦克风上只有一个开关键，简单易用；而且内置了大容量进口锂离子电池，用手机USB充电器充好电就可连续使用8个小时之久。&&&&支持丰富的K歌软件&&&&Ki无线车载麦克风通过蓝牙，可以和智能手机或平板电脑上的各种免费K歌软件（唱吧、酷我K歌、K歌、K歌达人、咪咕爱唱、爱唱K）相配合，海量曲库，随身携带。让您在爱车中享受歌唱的快乐！&&&&此次Ki麦克风团队携重礼诚意而来，希望在京东众筹平台上听到小伙伴们最真实的反馈！京东众筹上用户只要花1元钱就可以抽取价值几百元的Ki无线车载麦克风，另外还有大大低于成本价的限量抢购。&&&&追求快乐，让堵车不再无味，让旅途不再疲惫，一元就可享受~&&&&你还在等什么？快快来京东众筹秒杀抢购吧！GO！GO！GO！&&&&订购热线：400-038-5917
打开微信，用“扫一扫”扫描二维码，打开页面后分享到朋友圈。
行驶里程2.60万公里
行驶里程4.30万公里
行驶里程1.30万公里
行驶里程5.40万公里
指导价：13.18-18.58万
36.98-63.68万
18.99-30.39万
42.28-63.48万
16.98-23.78万
17.98-25.98万
10.78-16.38万
23.98-42.28万
13.99-18.59万
28.80-48.69万
编辑：许振宇
发布日期：
编辑：许振宇
发布日期：
编辑：许振宇
发布日期：
编辑：许振宇
发布日期：
编辑：许振宇
发布日期：
下载爱卡客户端
用微信扫一扫
上市新车：
即将上市：
热门品牌：
移动频道：
爱卡官方微信
用微信扫描二维码添加爱卡汽车为好友
您可以在微信上找车型、看热帖、读资讯，还能参加各种好玩的活动。
收藏成功咯 ！
分享好友：
打开微信，用“扫一扫”扫描二维码，打开页面后分享到朋友圈。
loadding...智能电视需要什么话筒才能唱歌 需要音响不_房产知识_问答_新家优装,新家网
& 智能电视需要什么话筒才能唱歌 需要音响不
智能电视需要什么话筒才能唱歌 需要音响不
智能电视需要什么话筒才能唱歌 需要音响不网友飙歌倍儿爽给出的答案是:智能电视有线和无线话筒都可以唱歌，电视唱歌需要音响的。1·有线话筒就连接混响
智能电视需要什么话筒才能唱歌 需要音响不网友飙歌倍儿爽给出的答案是:智能电视有线和无线话筒都可以唱歌，电视唱歌需要音响的。1·有线话筒就连接混响器或者功放2·无线话筒也看接口支不支持电视直接连接，咪唱的无线话筒支持就可以直接连接电视和音响就可以唱歌了哦。普通的无线话筒也需要搭配功放和音响才能唱歌的。智能电视连接话筒和音响最简单方法想用功放机唱歌,怎么在电视上搜问题描述:想用功放机唱歌,怎么在电视上搜网友cheng168558给出的答案是:想用功放机唱歌，要在电视上搜，这种电视只是电脑的一个显示器，需要配套一个点歌系统才可以，再把点歌系统的音频输出接到功放机上，同时还要求功放支持卡拉OK功能才行。拉ok麦克风可以不用音箱直接用电视内置音箱唱歌吗？ 怎么做?问题描述:我家是电脑主机之间连接电视的。没音箱，有卡拉ok 麦克风和功放。怎么可以连接唱卡拉ok网友xuanyan88889给出的答案是:是可以的，但效果就没有用单独的音箱那么好的。智能电视如果有麦克风话筒功能，有麦克风话筒插孔，直接把麦克风插上即可。如果没有麦克风话筒插孔的电视机，可以买一台卡拉OK混响器（如：功放，DVD、VCD内置卡拉OK功能，有麦克风话筒插孔，可替代混响器）。把麦克风话筒插到功放，VCD,DVD等上面，再把混响器（或内置卡拉OK功能的DVD、VCD）的音视频输出接到电视机的音视频输入即可。转接过后就可以连接麦克风话筒k歌的。电视后面是这样的，想在家唱歌需要买什么，家里有音响还有有线话筒网友航太厨卫电器给出的答案是:如果不需要功放·直接用电视的画面与声音的话。最右边一个就是话筒接口就可以开唱了。USB播放就可以开唱了· 如果需要好的消原声等功能还是买一套功放和喇叭·只把电视当显示来用问题描述: 想在家里唱卡拉ok 都需要什么设备呢 功放和家庭影院是一回事吗 如果想要很多歌怎么办 光盘解决的了吗问题描述:本人彻底不懂 烦请细细指教 如果需要功放和光盘应该在哪类商场能买到呢 多谢网友zyzheng54给出的答案是:在家唱卡拉OK需要以下设备：1、电视机。2、音频功率放大器（功放）和音箱。3、DVD播放器。家庭影院也是有上述器材组成的，所不同的是家庭影院可以没有话筒放大器，而话筒放大器一般都包含在DVD播放器中，有的功放也有话筒放大器。如果有需要许多歌候选，可以选择具有这种候选歌曲功能的“歌王”DVD，一般可以具有上万首候选歌曲，缺点是无法及时补充新歌。解决的办法是采用电脑下载歌曲，选择具有卡拉OK伴奏的视频歌曲，再转到U盘上供DVD或电视上播放、演唱。每首歌曲约占存储单元80M，一个8G的U盘可以装100首歌。请问电视机如何用来连接唱歌问题描述:我现在有电视机一台，音箱（漫步者C2X）一台电视机参数（Sony/索尼 KLV-32EX310产品品类 LED 屏幕尺寸 32英寸屏幕比例 16：9物理分辨率 显示参数刷屏率 50HZ原理参数背光灯类型 LED发光二极管LED背光源分类 侧入式音频参...现在有电视机一台，音箱（漫步者C2X）一台电视机参数（Sony/索尼 KLV-32EX310产品品类 LED 屏幕尺寸 32英寸屏幕比例 16，话筒是插电视上还是音箱上？如果不能直接插电视上买个其他什么设备好，硬盘播放器之类的，我最简单的想法就是到网上下载歌曲然后插到电视的USB接口上然后唱歌不知道行不行,TSUSB支持音频格式 MP3,WMAUSB支持图片格式 JPE）我现在的想法是不买dvd，有台台式电脑在外面用没带回来，买了dvd浪费，如何能用这么多设备唱歌，就是家庭娱乐不用专业，天线输入端子*1，量视频输入端子*1，音频输入端子*3机身输出接口 音频输入端子*1,RM,AVI,ASF,MP4,MKV,PS，立体声微型耳机输出端子*1机身侧面接口 USB接口*1，耳机接口*1USB音视图参数USB接口 1USB支持视频格式 RMVB：9物理分辨率 显示参数刷屏率 50HZ原理参数背光灯类型 LED发光二极管LED背光源分类 侧入式音频参数音频系统 Surround 三维环绕声系统扬声器数量 2个端口参数机身输入接口 电脑接口+音频输入*1，实在没办法再考虑dvd展开网友水行云天1号给出的答案是:家里电视唱歌连接麦克风和音响的方法工具电视无线话筒(飙歌达人X6）音响步骤一：找电视接口1.注意：不管是什么牌子什么型号电视上面都会有以下三种接口任一一种，只要有任何一个插孔都可以哦2.AV输出孔3.音视频输出孔步骤二：用音频线把电视和无线话筒主机连接上音频线根据插孔而定步骤三：把音响连接在飙歌达人X6主机上同上，音频线根据插孔而定如果想多人唱歌也可以，前面只带了2支有线麦克风插孔
上述内容为转载或编者观点，不代表新家网意见，不承担任何法律责任。
麦克风插在tcl电视上唱歌一定要功放吗网友zxfly1990给出的答案是:从声音的感受来说是不同的，肯定是功放听得比较爽啦。，声音可以传输到功放进行播放
王牌l32f3309b能连接无线网吗网友cn#aQaLfpLpuB给出的答案是:能tcl电视L32F3309B可以当电脑显示屏吗？网友du小度娘给出的答案
有没有iPad TV 10 受骗者？问题描述:发现最近好多收到ipad10TV骗局的人，我是报社记者，希望可以联系一些重庆本地受到这个骗局的人，写一下
JPG图像尺寸中几乘以几是代表高乘宽吗网友super569给出的答案是:如，是宽高相乘，与显示器的形状是基本一样的。1024是从左到右
土巴兔装修网搞装修靠谱吗网友给出的答案是:维权什么的也容易些，这家公司上的装修公司资质都是经过审核的，现在利用互联网平台找装修也是一大请问一下无线话筒是不是只要有音乐就可以唱歌啊？_百度知道
请问一下无线话筒是不是只要有音乐就可以唱歌啊？
我有更好的答案
无线话筒是连接音响就可以唱歌，有音乐是背景音乐伴奏而已哦。
采纳率：81%
谁跟你说的
我以为是的！就是不知道才问嘛！
为您推荐：
其他类似问题
例假的相关知识
换一换
回答问题，赢新手礼包
个人、企业类
违法有害信息,请在下方选择后提交
色情、暴力
我们会通过消息、邮箱等方式尽快将举报结果通知您。无线麦克风唱歌近跟远怎么不一样_百度知道
无线麦克风唱歌近跟远怎么不一样
无线麦克风唱歌近跟远怎么不一样
我有更好的答案
都有一个最远接受距离的范围，解调出音频信号。再由相应的接收机接收，经过一系列的处理，有两个方面，一旦超过发射接收距离将没有声音，而你说的唱歌近跟远的不一样，通过喇叭还原声音。每款不同型号的无线麦克风无线麦克风是通过把话筒采集的音频信号处理后，调制在要发射的频率上发射，传输距离决定处理，太远的话可能在传输过程中会存在杂质介入或信号被阻挡导致接收弱
音频设备技术顾问
为您推荐：
其他类似问题
您可能关注的内容
换一换
回答问题，赢新手礼包
个人、企业类
违法有害信息,请在下方选择后提交
色情、暴力
我们会通过消息、邮箱等方式尽快将举报结果通知您。室内美声唱法或歌唱应不应该用麦克风加喇叭扩音？
室内美声唱法或歌唱应不应该用麦克风和喇叭扩音？
等一会唱歌和踢足球扯到一起，谈一个中国的歌唱与国外的区别。
先简单提一下麦克风的分类（来自网络）：
动圈 ；适合家用电器K歌用 缺点K歌要离话筒很近 要不出不了效果
纯电容麦克风；需要48V电源供电 适合录音棚使用 缺点没有屏蔽器 电脑用容易有电流声
驻极管麦克风；适合聊天使用 K歌录音不圆润
静电式麦克风；推荐电脑K歌用 录音高清 没有电流声 没有失真延迟
其他知识（来自网络）
单臂查尔斯爵士是第一个人想出用“麦克风”在1827年，但即使如此，埃米尔柏林发明第一麦克风于1876年。
1876年， 发明留声机，然后再麦克风作为一个电话语音发射机。&
电唱机早先叫留声机，诞生于1877年。世界上第一个发明留声机的人就是誉满全球的发明大王--托马斯·阿尔瓦·爱迪生。&
在1878年，大卫爱德华休斯发明了第一碳麦克风，后来是改善在1920年。
1906年美国人德福雷斯特发明了真空三极管，开创了人类电声技术的先河。1927年贝尔实验室发明了负反馈技术，使音响技术的发展进入了一个崭新的时代
1964年，詹姆斯西部和总理Sessler由贝尔实验室发明了驻极体麦克风。&
扩音器，于1950年由雷威发明。
&我在后面有几个链接，还有英文的评价，特别关于使用有线麦克风和无线麦克风。实际上我主要谈不用麦克风和麦克风问题。
&首先美声演唱是表演艺术，两个手空出来是表演需要的，用真嗓歌唱才是对听众和音乐尊重，追求完美。
欣赏音乐关键是需要原声原滋原味，用麦克风，在经过电子放大，经过喇叭放出耒，喇叭如果有一对，实际上在舞台上有三个音源，音乐有自己的语言当需要动态力度表达需要PPP，经过麦克风扩音这样的效果完全就没有了。而力度表达是演奏家或歌唱家的技术，麦克风加扩音器把这些技术和真实音乐特性和质量完全掩盖了。好的音乐表演艺术家要真实的演出，而听众来到音乐厅也是欣赏这个真实的音乐和没有任何修饰的声音。收藏古董要原件，欣赏音乐就有点像类似的东西，就是要原封不动地在现场的体会欣赏音乐，好的音乐就是现场音乐，好的录音也同样是现场的声音，没有其他的音响因素。
&清华大学教授彭林在讲礼仪是提到“敬净静雅”，有些让你认为是中华礼仪四大特。我以为欣赏音乐，应该“静”，之后做到“雅”。
&In a concert hall, the sound one hears consists
of 1) directly radiated sound and 2) reflected sound.
在音乐厅里，声音只有两种一个是直接辐射的声音，另一个就是反射声音。从声学和音响学（CONCERT HALL
ACOUSTICS）喇叭完全是破坏性的。或者歌唱或演奏只有&primary sound and
reflected sound,
&我认为美声室内演出不应该用麦克风扩音。这应该是常识。另外，这样做会降低声乐的标准，大家不去认真的欣赏音乐，总会在音乐厅说话，走动（先开头写一写，还会有些改）。还有，声乐比赛就像量身高脱鞋一样，穿高跟鞋大家身高就不是实际了。而且最好不要报幕，节目单，或者打字幕，报幕干扰听域。比赛不需要这东西，欣赏音乐也不需要报幕，节目单解释清楚就可以了吗？
&如果这个问题给音乐发烧友讲就容易明白，尤其是音乐厅发烧友（欣赏音乐的听众），原滋原味的音乐是非常重要的，这就是为什么音乐厅有位置和票价的不同。国外的音乐厅，看到麦克风，时录音用的，不是扩音用的，除了流行音乐，美声唱法，用麦克风把声音放大是没有水准，或有失水准唱歌。我记得有一次黄英唱”我爱你，中国“，就有意在舞台上行走，这样让你感到，她不需要麦克风。室外的广场音乐会，用麦克风倒是可以理解的。当今著名俄罗斯籍女高音Anna
Netrebko有一次露天室外音乐会，演唱Quando m'en vo (La
Boh&me)时，故意离开麦克风，一样可以将唱声音投射到观众中。http://video.tudou.com/v/XMjQ2ODYyODQ5Mg==.html?spm=a2hzp..0
图注：在这种场合，室外，不用麦克风，后面的乐队有麦克风接扩音。在唱到一半时，录像的后半部分 离开麦克风。
中国的军乐团一次在莫斯科红场露天演出《半个月亮爬上来》（录像的5分18秒左右）
http://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/PTVOX7dIjan9mkJW8_svig
再看这里，我看不出用了麦克风和喇叭放大歌唱（5分26秒左右）。
http://www.ikoo8.com/video_play/XMzA2Mjg3MDI0NA==.html
&加入这也是一种比赛，中国的歌唱家如何对阵呢？很久以前，有人说我们的国家篮球队比不过美国普通的大学生篮球队。其实现在，我们的足球队敌不过普通的小国家足球队。歌唱总是依靠麦克风，扩音器。当然不可能有实力和安娜这样的女高音相比了。
&有的老师讲：“我们学校暂时达不到音乐会或者剧院演唱的规格，相信以后会慢慢改进的”。还有的专业老师认为“我的观点是：用不用话筒不是判断高雅艺术或专业艺术的标准，完全取决于场地条件。如果是美国坡士顿交响大厅，或者卡耐基音乐厅，可能会不用。因为那是世界顶级的声学设计也是世界顶级的演员。我们的场地仅仅算是一个礼堂。谈不上任何针对音乐会的声效设计。在没有观众的情况下也只是隐约听到声音，如果观众坐满再加上喧闹声，台上任何歌声都传不到耳朵。我们都不让观众听到我们唱什么，何谈尊重啊。西装革履正襟危坐，高档音乐厅中，高素质的演员面对高素质的观众，这是艺术。我们仅仅是群众文化，大家图个乐呵。在这个基础上做的更专业，那大家就更乐呵。目睹国外的高雅艺术，可能对国内的群众文化不是太了解和理解，任何国家的群众艺术都是简单、直接而有效，因为它不是高雅艺术，只是群众文化。仅此而已。“
&我记得很久以前，著名作曲家刘天华的侄子刘育熙从法国回国后，在高校巡回义演，那年我在同济医学院念书，他和钢琴伴奏，不用麦克风，不用电子的放大器和喇叭在食堂演出，那时的食堂非常简陋，按现在的有些人讲声学效果根本达不到音乐厅的效果，食堂也没有凳子，大家就站着听他演奏，好像有贝多芬的春天奏鸣曲等曲目。刘育熙介绍演出时好像也没有用麦克风。我还记得，美国费城交响乐团1993年访问中国（成为第一个走进中国人民大会堂的西方交响乐团，那天江泽民出席晚会，曲目有自新大陆），在人民大会堂演出也没有用音响设备。国外严肃音乐的电视转播，需要在播音室或电视播音的需要给电视观众报幕。音乐厅有节目单，根本不需要报幕。也不需要演出前，搞一个领导讲话，用扩音器干扰观众的听阈。我在美国纽约州立大学布法罗分校赶上一次校庆，请美国女高音歌唱家--
凯瑟琳·迪安娜·芭特尔 (Kathleen Deanna
Battle）个人独唱演唱会，没有任何领导讲话，全场没有麦克风，就是临时和观众对话，也没有麦克风，我在楼上看演出，虽然离着很远，也还是可以接受的。当然布法罗交响乐团（爱乐乐团？）在当地一个中学演出，同样也没有用喇叭音响放大声音。还好，又一次赶上北京大学五四青年节，中国交响乐团在北大演出，我由于参加一个学习班，主持教授（院士）给大家一次欣赏交响乐的机会，没有喇叭和扩音器。我想中国还是有一些听音乐的常规知识，只是很多人不了解，又被一些表面的现象误导，以为音乐一定要声音震耳欲聋地扩音放大，这是偏离了古典音乐，声乐和合唱等音乐演出以及欣赏的基础常识。希望有些观众想一想该如何看待我在这里讨论的事情。再打个比喻，公众场合大声说话，吃饭时有其他人在身边吧唧嘴是不是算不当的行为。同样唱歌手持麦克风，把声音搞得很大，也不是正常的唱歌和欣赏音乐的方式。以上这些有些要么是久远的事情，基本应该算是群众性的音乐活动，人民大会堂也不算是音乐厅。
&还得承认就是现在，中国的某些音乐学院的欣赏音乐的观众，包括音乐学院的学生仍然不注意音乐厅的基本要求，走动说话，随意拍照和录像等，但是演员的基本素养也一样很差。就是国家级的演播机构也是不懂得如何处理声乐和流行歌曲演出的区别。反正只要声音，无差别使用音响，麦克风和喇叭，同样滥用报幕，一个音乐学院的个人演唱会也用报幕，主持人在国外简直是不可思议。60-70分钟的学生个人演出（教学）搞2个小时，每个曲目加上一段报幕，主持人用麦克风让听众的听阈受到干扰，加上调侃，教学音乐汇报也娱乐化，排场化，真正的音乐内容被边缘化。还有歌手在国外音乐厅动用国内电视主持人，穿插在每个节目当中，加上变换服装，以为这样听众就更理解音乐了，其实同样是把音乐边缘化，把节目单的东西重复念一遍在加上调侃。音乐会应该是除了必要的台词，需要非音乐的东西。有些时候，非音乐的东西太多了，模糊了本来应该有的真东西，特别是给青少年的教育需要灌输东西。再比如，成年人看武侠小说很正常，色情故事很正常，中小学课本就不该有这些东西。国内知名歌唱家，知名作曲家，好不容易弄一台（民族）清唱剧，当然服装也是非常有档次，到了国外请了当地交响乐团，一定是在好的音乐厅演出，可是演出时，搞上麦克风，合唱也配上耳麦，请想象演出效果是什么样子，我可以说这么搞音乐演出有点没有底线了，混淆流行音乐和严肃音乐作品的表现形式，该穿皮鞋时候穿拖鞋，打赤脚，该穿西装，穿便装，形式场合部分，再好的音乐，或者你想正经的表现自己，可是自己的行为不当，反而被人家轻视。化大价钱大成本，搭上国家身份（也许严重了，人家不认为是这样），想赢得文化上的名份，结果可能相反，反正给中国国内观众看没有问题，在国内就这么干，到了国外就不灵了。人家的品味不同，而那些演出恰恰要，争取品味和名份，最后被麦克风和大喇叭搞砸（可能又言过其实了）。这些得罪人的话我说了，是因为最近我在排练合唱比赛，他们要我用麦克风唱歌，全体合唱队也用麦克风加扩音器，大喇叭，我心里不是爽，有点别扭，为什么是这样呢？就是中国的歌唱家有些人，整天用麦克风加扩音器，再和卡拉OK巡回演出，搞得我自己本来正当的想法没有任何反应。反正我想已经得罪人了，就索性说出来，大家自己看看，想想我是不是有问题，在瞎说。
&有线麦克风是电声音乐和流行音乐的选择，就是有线的麦克风，不同的乐器用不同的麦克风，鼓，钢琴和歌唱的麦克风是不一样的。在古典音乐时期（那时有没有麦克风），就是70年代，那时电很缺，唱歌根本没有电，就不可能有喇叭扩音，甚至现在军训战士指导大学生拉歌在操场上时候也不用麦克风。其实声音还是可以提高的比较清楚。我记得中学，大学甚至毕业分配到单位表演合唱，很多时候也没有麦克风。
&我认为人口只有30万的冰岛足球踢过英国，30万人半个锦州，冰岛养不起职业球队，但是他们平时就按欧洲杯标准踢球。娱乐也有水平问题，踢球就体现的比较好。我们请一个教练花那么多钱，一个小国家，战乱的叙利亚哪有钱，哪有场地，可是为什么就不一样呢？好像季羡林留学待过一个德国城市13万人口，出过40几位诺贝尔奖。人家做研究真是认真了。群众娱乐也有修养和素质问题，听音乐可以用喇叭放大声音，问题是，你有基本底线和共识的东西要存在。如果有些东西是零，一片空白，纯娱乐，没有内涵的做基础，谈不上文明和修养。
有的老师说我们体育运动专业的，看着现在身边的现代高科技含量的体育设施、器材，眼馋的不得了。器材是次要的，叙利亚足球队就没有地方训练。但是人家认真踢，每次都是国际比赛。前我去过卡内基音乐厅，而且我是现在后台进去（不要票）。所以后台休息室等地方我也看看了，有些地方很普通，所以我觉得就是听音乐时候人要认真对待。我们各自在认真做事情的。同时，还有帮助传播、普及文化，提高能力的乐趣，也是大学老师的职业特点。华人在国外呆久了，知道说话声音大有碍公众秩序，随处抽烟也是类似的，但是有规则出来，很多习惯可以改变，或在不同的地点和场合加以调整。
&我想在战火纷飞的叙利亚，在一片瓦砾空地就是世界杯。同样大学生会堂就当成卡耐基音乐厅，唱歌时候就应该这样。音乐表演要求完美，我可以不完美，但是我想努力。听众应该懂音乐，及时对于有些听众是“对牛弹琴”，但是首先表演者要尊重音乐，然后把听众当“人”，而不是“牛”。当然，大学老师没有进过音乐厅的很多，不知道如何欣赏音乐的很多，就是合唱比赛也要娱乐化，要用喇叭扩音，动静大了才过瘾当然我也理解。
我只是想说话，毕竟咱都是大学老师。我也去过卡耐基音乐厅，其实音乐厅都差不多。我收藏还有世界音乐厅，剧场，剧院结构的原版专著。唱过一些弥赛亚，布兰诗歌完整清唱剧，或其他康塔塔。也在很大的教堂唱过，关键是不要用麦克风，我觉得我们的礼堂声学标准够用了，关键是不要用报幕，听众不要说话，老师讲课不要学生讲话。把合唱的站台前移。国外有时合唱还会在学校的体育馆举行，也不要麦克风。老外演话剧也不要麦克风，甚至我还见过在室外演话剧。在国内我见过演话剧，台上演员个个手持麦克风演出，观众欣然接受。这样的地方，平时开会用麦克风，扩音器也是声音非常大，开会简直是觉得耳朵难受。也许中国现在的生活就是这样，这就是以前不一样，和一些国外的情况不同吧。
教堂大部分是群众性活动，我在上面的地方，我们就这几个人，在一个很大的教堂唱歌，从来不用麦克风，独唱不用，有交响乐队独唱也不用。男声就这4个人。后面的乐器是管风琴，我们唱歌时用这个伴奏。
我去参加协和百年校庆，当年洛克菲勒没有因为我们是东亚病夫就把医院建成低规格的医学院和医院，聘请的教授也是世界知名教授，当年的解剖系有nature文章发表。除了抗日时期，解放以后协和研究水平就变了。这次校庆特别告诉我们男士要传西装办，学态度很重要。洛克菲勒财团给协和引进一台当时北京只有为数不多的管风琴。管风琴是很贵重的乐器，教堂里面用还是教民捐的，不是政府拿钱，说明老百姓对待音乐的价值观和我们不一样。外国老年百姓也娱乐，但是搞起音乐来，就愿意花大价钱，民间的群众才是音乐的基础，花了大价钱，人家怎么会听通过麦克风用大喇叭放出来的东西呢，那么还挺的小提琴，大提琴，钢琴的声音，凭什么要加上电子扩音器变声音，搞得不真实呢？因为纯真音乐的美妙动听，人家就会安静地欣赏，就不会有人走动，不会有人在演出期间说话。还有听音乐时，老外是来听音乐本身，不是听你主持人说话，老外的节目单是干活，多少分钟的演出就是这个价码，额外的耽误时间，说得在漂亮也没用。比如，马友友演出，找一个中国主持人，喧宾夺主，你算干什么地？就是普通的歌唱家，也不需要报幕，学校的演出家长去看，也不需要报幕，而别说话，解释尽量不用麦克风。我记得一次唱黄河大合唱，中间的朗诵把台词通过麦克风使劲的喊，我都快震晕了，好在我坚持独唱演出不用麦克风，非常幸运，当时的女声独唱也没用麦克风，尽管其他部分包括合唱团用麦克风和喇叭，我自己还是欣赏自己的声音，也对那位女高音（也可以是女中音）的演唱表示敬佩。这次演出排练，我不要麦克风，遭到一致反对，还在我不手持麦克风，争取要一个有线麦克风。反正，大家就是要声音大，只有扩音器才能满足大家需要
其实国外小学生唱歌也不用麦克风，童声不用。有人问不用麦克风，坐在最后一排的观众听不到怎么办？其实就是最后一排才可以听到，因为声音从墙壁反射回来。1993年，我在北京音乐厅观看吕思清的演出，布鲁赫小提琴协奏曲，坐在最后一排（提及因为是最后一排），没有喇叭一样听得很清楚（那天原定刘诗昆演出，据说由于想起文化大革命的事情受刺激，不能演出，有吕思清代替）。我在Buffalo时候参加一个合唱团，在露天不用麦克风，我还是领唱。我儿子就是合唱团的，中学礼堂也很大，他们的室内乐合唱（chamber
choir）获得高中加拿大银奖。也在western
参加一次合唱节目，市内中学推荐2-3天接受大学老师练合唱节目，接着演出，不用考试可以直接上大学声乐系。而且老外基本不用节目主持人，没有报幕。没有报幕的怎么知道上场的是哪个学院呢？节目单，打字幕也行（中国特色）。我在国外待了十几年，虽然也不总是去音乐厅看节目，但是比中国还是多，从来没有见过报幕的。我不是专业的，但是在交响乐团里曾经坐过一把椅子。我唱歌为什么不要麦克风？因为学校让写3000字的建议，我没啥可写的，就写了这个，写了没人理睬，就在这里说说。你们不同意我也没意见。凡事用无线麦克风唱歌的，尤其手持无线麦克风都是低端，不专业，有的时候是令人可笑，自找其辱做法，为什么？这是和麦克风的物理性能有关，麦克风分好几种。好的麦克风有线的，为什么？因为需要48伏电。无线麦克风的电池供电，转成48伏不灵，还有无线会损失声音的质量。有线一定好于无线。就是线材本身也有好坏。好的有线麦克风，有可能几万甚至更贵，所有的线材有可能10几万。人们现在总是说音乐录音是无损的，好的有线麦克风这是对于无损音乐，和录音质量非常重要。可以总是拿着无线麦克风表演和歌唱，永远不会有好的现场演唱的录音和录像。另外，加上喇叭这样的录音的音场就有问题，比如，很多CV或录像要再现音响效果，要分清人物的站位，和各种乐器的前后位置。由于喇叭扩音会破坏站位和乐器的位子关系，现场录音实况音乐会就会有质量问题。所以，尽量在室内开音乐会，然后室内尽量不用喇叭扩音。
&有线麦克风是电声音乐和流行音乐的选择，就是有线的麦克风，不同的乐器用不同的麦克风，鼓，钢琴和歌唱的麦克风是不一样的。在古典音乐时期（那时有没有麦克风），就是70年代，那时电很缺，唱歌根本没有电，就不可能有喇叭扩音，甚至现在军训战士指导大学生拉歌在操场上时候也不用麦克风。其实声音还是可以提高的比较清楚。我记得中学，大学甚至毕业分配到单位表演合唱，很多时候也没有麦克风。有人问我你唱歌怎么不用麦克风呢？好像只有通过麦克风才是表演，没有麦克风他们的耳朵就失去辨别声音的能力。我知道有些人已经是到了“非正常”的鉴赏音乐的状态了，而我还不便反驳他们，只能说，巴赫，贝多芬时代，和之前的大教堂也不是没有电码？更谈不上电子扩音器了？
&中国著名歌唱家手持无线麦克风在舞台，在室内表演唱，相对帕瓦罗蒂，多明戈，卡雷拉斯，弗莱明很难看到他们这么唱，还有其他大牌中国人唱歌，手持麦克风拍成照片，到处宣传，好像没有麦克风人家不知道是唱歌的，让人可笑。作为美声唱法，手持麦克风是不伦不类的表现。又一次我在微信上给一个专业的歌唱家提醒，我说你是专业的歌唱家，不要拿着麦克风唱歌，结果被人家拉黑了。以此在这里讲美声在室内表演不要用麦克风，肯定得罪人，问题是作为听众和爱好音乐的歌者提出自己的欣赏音乐的见解，坚持自己的观点，而且有些是有道理的主张应该有正面的意义。
&还有物理上，好的麦克风有震膜大小，有的人用耳麦更是可笑。这些麦克风，包括无线麦克风，很多是非音乐用途。专业麦克风，高质量用于音乐的一定是有线，大震膜麦克风。我们国家著名作曲家的声音作品，再配上知名歌唱家跑到国外演出，就是用麦克风这一点，就是自找没趣。自甘随波逐流。好的麦克风需要用防震盒子包装，我有一只国产的临时备用。你们看看国外就是流行音乐也用立麦，有线。中国人搞美声就用无线麦克风，拿着在舞台上来回跑，那叫不专业（其实很没有面子的）。总结，我的经历告诉大家，美声唱法在室内拿麦克风唱歌，在国外完全是不可思议的事情，很无知。我回北京经常路过一个解放军文工团，他们的形象宣传橱窗，展示歌唱家，基本上个个有手持无线麦克风或带耳麦的剧照。让我看了哭笑不得，这种耳麦纯粹是为说话设计的，根本不是唱歌用的。有一次我在纽约遇见一个华人男高音歌唱家，他说***文工团唱歌的都是业余的。老外，演话剧也不用这些玩意，对应有线麦克，价格上无线麦克风是低端的东西。
&你一定问那为什么中央电视台老是给明星美声们下套?
&我不正面回答？换个话题，加拿大急诊挂号，进门登记，如果你不看病走人，没有保险，账单700多加元。4000多块人民币。有的概念起点不一样。
&在提一下足球，足球要进步关键在大众，国外民间的小区到处是带草皮足球场，一个36万的城市，有很多足球场，有散在的，又有5-6个或更多大足球场，中学也有足球场，有的大学更多足球场。夏天大的足球场在有家长带小孩在教练指导下，踢球，练习。城市人口较多的日本，周末小区的运动场也是一直有青少年在锻炼，很多项目是有教练在指导中进行，所以，体育是民间的文化和活动。音乐其实民间是基础，而民间要有认真端正严肃态度，尤其教育层次上，有娱乐的东西，但是有真正艺术水准东西。我说的歌唱也同样，我在加拿大的一个教堂，平均每周一次，学唱7年，绝大部分合唱，独唱都是不用麦克风和扩音器，所以，正式场合的音乐会，尤其合唱音乐会，更是没有任何的电声和放大器，歌唱家也不用麦克风。我认为一部好的声乐作品，借助喇叭放大事大有极大的水分，或这样的演唱就很“水”，或很“假“，至少不够艺术，或与歌唱艺术相背离。再好的音响也比不上原声的歌唱，最好的欣赏声乐作品或歌唱就是不借助任何电子设备的现场倾听。
&总之，人的歌喉就是一件乐器，是一件独立的或单独演奏的乐器，美声或声乐演唱的完美形式就是不需要借助其他电子设备的东西放大其音量，本身具备艺术特质就是直接欣赏。尤其青少年的学习和欣赏过程更是至关重要，在发育时期在自然状态下，安静地专注地欣赏原声音乐，培养固化他们欣赏音乐和辨别音乐的能力至关重要，如果一切都借助麦克风和放大器，对于好的作品就是糟蹋，就不是认真的演绎，重现，不当的表演方式将损害他们的审美观念，甚至失去真正的辨别能力，给培养青少年的艺术修养造成畸形扭曲。
要是说中国的足球有问题，其实整个中国人都有责任。唱歌欣赏个演唱出问题，同样我们作为观众也有共同的担当。要想把一件事情做好就必须让这个事情成为一种骨子里的事情，比如中国菜做得好，成为生活的必须东西，你必须有口味上的感觉，然后有自己亲自动手的行动，或者到处品尝的想法和欲望。书法也是，即使不练书法，也看不懂，但是文化氛围里有这个存在。足球在巴西就是人民，民间的骨子里的东西，包括卡塔尔，叙利亚，冰岛等国家。古典音乐方面的声乐欣赏和演唱，同样需要民众的欣赏和实践的基础，由于中国文化上的差异，没有恰当的理解，然后成为自身的东西。佛教是舶来品，但是仍然可以成为中国的文化的东西。足球和西方音乐，作为好的东西也同样可能成为我们自身的生活内容，只是我们需要因循和领略其精髓和真谛。
&我认为原声地歌唱是歌唱艺术的试金石，中国需要正在的好声音，而不是依靠麦克风和大喇叭，而摒弃真正天才的歌唱家，可以驾驭歌唱艺术的歌唱家，麦克风和喇叭掩盖了歌唱真实本质，同时让有能力歌唱的声乐家和依靠麦克风的歌唱演员混淆，使观众难以分清仲伯，即使原声地录音音乐的品质也是完全不同。
&在中国，假如说，内美声和声乐合唱就是用麦克风，扩音器就是这个趣味，就好这一口，我就道歉，请各位老师尊便，我失礼了，打扰了你们的娱乐，和你们高雅方式。
下面我发几张照片，说明美声和流行唱法的麦克风不一样
&Page应用电磁体发声
&贝尔和沃森申请电话专利,发明第一个实用的电话受话器
&德国人西门子提出了扬声器雏形的专利
&英国物理学家瑞利发表了"声学原理"
&怀特(A.White)发明肩背式送话器(现在电话机的原型)
&福雷斯特(De Frorest)发明三极电子管
&出现用于收音机的杠杆式扬声器(如图1-6所式)
&E.C.Weute发明静电传声器
&美国Wester Electric公司生产了将电话受话器房子留声机号筒的扩声设备
&韦伯斯特(A.G.Webster)第一个将数学方法用于扬声器号筒设计
&强生发表了收音机扬声器专利
&Magnavox公司生产号角扬声器
&西门子的格洛克(E.Gterlach)发明了带式电声换能器
&Kellev提出背后开放式障板和密闭箱
&美国Wester Electric公司生产电磁式纸盆扬声器(如图1-7所示)
&赛克斯(A.S.Sykes)和格洛克发明电动式扬声器
&美国赖斯和凯洛格发明电动式传声器
&美国的汉纳(Hanna)和斯利伯(Slperian)论述了号筒扬声器的设计方法
&出现了带式扬声器（如图1-8所示）
&电动式纸盆扬声器有Magnavox公司投入市场
&正缝圈被采用
&凯尔（Kyle）推出经典扬声器
作者：沐天天
链接：https://www.zhihu.com/question//answer/
来源：知乎
著作权归作者所有。商业转载请联系作者获得授权，非商业转载请注明出处。
https://www.zhihu.com/question/
麦克风主要按两种方式分类，方向性和电子特性。方向性大致可以分成心型（Cardioid），全向型（Omni），8字型（Figure
8），电子特性大致可以分成电容式（Condensor）, 动圈式（Dynamic）, 铝带式（Ribbon）,
心形动圈式（Dynamic Cardioid Microphone）.
从电子特性说起。不同电子特性的麦克风的敏感度和频率响应都不太一样。
1.动圈式。动圈式可能是日常最常见到的一种。
内部构造：
频率响应：
这种麦克风不需要power
supply就可以正常工作，原理大致是膜振动的时候，会切割磁感线之类（高中物理都学过的那些），产生电流。
动圈式麦克风对声压和高频都较为不敏感。优点是造价低，比较适用于录制鼓和电吉他。常见型号如Shure SM57。
2.电容式。
内部构造：
频率响应：
好的（贵的）电容麦克风都是需要交流供电的。便宜的一般使用电池作为能量供应。一般我们叫这个幻象电源（Phantom
Power，我记得好像是48V）它的工作原理大致是（参照内部电路图）当有声压时，压力造成diaphragm振动，使得带有小孔的电极（Slotted
Elctrode）和振膜之间空间压缩或者扩大，产生AC voltage，通过电容C1输出。
内部构造：
频率响应：
它的工作原理大致就是通过铝带两边压力不同产生电流，也就是说，和铝带两侧的压力梯度（power
gradient）有关。由于粒子的速度（particle velocity）和压力梯度是比例关系，铝带麦克风也被称为velocity
microphone。同时，Ribbon Mic具有临近效应（Proximity Effect）。这个就先不详细解释了。
我的理解中，Ribbon mic在实际使用中区别于电容式麦克风的主要的特性是，它是一种Figure 8型的麦克风（polar
pattern见下面的贴图）。这种特性也很好理解，从内部构造可以看出，Ribbon
mic可以同时感知正反两个方向的声压，他产生电流的原理是两端的压力差，因此形成了figure 8的polar
pattern.原理如这张示意图：
使用Figure 8的好处，例如同时录制吉他和人声（来自两个方向），我们至少需要两个cardioid
mic实现，就需要考虑mic摆放的位置对录制效果的影响（很麻烦对不对），如果使用omni，则有可能录入太多来自两侧的环境杂音，而Figure
8就可以轻松解决这个问题！
当然了。。还有这种昂贵的ORTF怪物（解说见最底下）：
不过由于Ribbon mic非常脆。。所以。。。
接着说说方向特性（Polar Pattern).
1.Cardioid。
从它的方向性可以看出，这种麦克风主要捕捉来自前方的信息，不强调对于空间环境的捕捉。
全向性顾名思义就是每个方向的信号都会捕捉。适用于捕捉环境声音。
3.Figure 8
同时捕捉前后的声音，忽略两侧的声音。
对于各种麦克风的使用场合，这里按照录制的乐器举例分类：
一般使用cardioid mic。
鼓的录制对麦克风摆放要求比较复杂。总体来说，麦克风的正面指向鼓的中心可以获得更加集中的声音，指向边缘会获得更多ring的声音（再次词穷。。不知道咋翻）。同时，可以在鼓组上方加上两个麦克，收录整个鼓组的效果和空间效果。Audix在为自己的产品做宣传的时候也出了一个很好地教学视频系列&&
在只有一个麦克风的情况下，录制电吉他可以使用动圈式麦克风（例如经典的舒尔SM57)，将麦克风放在靠近箱体的地方。或者可以使用电容式麦克风并放在几feet远的地方。在声音比较大的情况下，可以使用麦克风垫。在可以使用两个麦克的情况下，可以将每一个麦克收录的声音录制进一个音轨。并且可以尝试调整麦克风的角度使其达到全指向性。
3.Acoustic Guitar
用cardioid mic对准吉他箱的开口那个圆圆的地方
使用电容式麦克风。取下麦克风套，将其放置在几厘米远的地方，中心对准嘴巴，然后套上麦克风套。同时可以选用不同型号的几个麦克风，分别收录相同的歌唱片段，交给vocal挑选，以满足不同演唱者以及歌曲对麦克风收录声音的偏好和要求。
5.Acoustic Piano
录制钢琴时一般会直接录制双声道。选用两个有大隔膜（large diaphragm,
1inch及以上的直径）的电容式麦克风，或者用大隔膜电容式麦克录制低音部分，小隔膜电容式录制高音部分。录制钢琴时可以有多种放置方式。同时市场上也有为钢琴声音录制设计的组合套装。
高质量的电容麦克或者Ribbon mic
Ribbon mic.
麦克风的摆放讲一点（ORTF），一般两个麦克风常用摆放方式是靠在一起中间110度角，这是因为110度角使得左右声道各有-3db衰减，这样结合在一起中间的声道就正正好是Central的概念了。。大概是这样。。。
很多地方翻的很生硬。。见谅。。如有错误请指正。。先这样！
动圈麦克风
经久耐用、便宜
不怕潮、不需外部供电
10Khz以上的高频变差
适用场合：
现场录制、军鼓录制、吉他录制、录音旁白、广播
履带麦克风
比动圈更好的高频，无需内部外部电源
脆弱易坏、使用时需小心，相对较贵
适用场合：
录制镲片、录制钢琴、电吉他、铜管
电容麦克风
低频高频都更好、需要内外部供电
反应灵敏、容易受湿度和温度的影响
适用场合：
录制镲片、鼓、钢琴、原声吉他、人声、弦乐
另外，不同指向性的麦克风的摆放位置对录音的影响是非常大的
To Wire Or Not to Wire, That Is The Question
有线还是无线麦克风
http://ccisolutions.com/StoreFront/category/wired-microphone-wireless-mic
& October 1, 2013&
The other day I was talking with one of our Systems Engineers and
we came across a picture of a church vocal team on their stage.
Many things struck me about this picture, like seeing 7 vocals
crammed in maybe a 12' wide by 5' deep space (on a large stage) and
seeing each singer with their own music stand, mic stand and
personal monitor mixer. But the thing that stood out most was the
fact that each singer, surrounded by all of this stuff, was using a
wireless microphone instead of a wired microphone.
We all know wireless microphones provide a high level of
convenience and flexibility, and they certainly can keep a stage
looking clean. If your setup features the vocalists out towards the
front of the stage and you want to keep wires at bay, I'm totally
in favor of wireless mics. If your guitarists don't need access to
any pedals and need to be able to move around the stage, wireless
connections totally make sense. Too often people think wireless
mics and guitar systems will clean up the look of the stage. That's
true, if you don't have a bunch of other wired gear in the same
space. As most touring guys will tell you, if you don't have to use
wireless you shouldn't. In this edition I want to look at some of
the advantages that come with sticking to wired microphones over
Wired Microphones Might Sound Better
a wired microphone, what you put into it is what you get out of it.
A high quality mic capsule well matched to voice or instrument is
the best possible way to get quality sound. With wireless
equipment, you are often limited in the selection of mic capsules,
limiting your ability to try different mics to find the best match.
Many wireless mics use companding to compress dynamic range into a
small frequency allocation. While this processing is less
noticeable on higher priced wireless systems, there can be a
noticeable difference between vocals and instruments on a wireless
setup versus a wired one.&&can
handle a full dynamic range just like wired microphones.
Reliability
One well-known microphone manufacturer (of both wired and wireless
microphones) had an engineer that used to start off his classes by
holding up a microphone cable and saying something like, "The most
expensive wireless mic in the world is ALMOST as good as using
this." Wireless technology is not perfect, and even a really great
wireless has a higher rate of failure than its wired counterpart.
In the world of production, where so much can go wrong, wireless
introduces one more finicky area of possible failure. Wireless
interference, intermodulation distortion and drop-outs happen for a
variety of reasons and can kill a moment when you least expect it.
As long as your cable is of decent quality, a wired microphone just
won't have these issues. If you want to go wireless, invest in a
well designed&&to
give your wireless mics the most reliable signal possible.
They Don't Require Batteries
If you mix audio with wireless equipment for any length of time,
you'll run into the dreaded situation of someone's batteries dying
while on stage. Even for those particularly diligent about
replacing batteries, it will happen at some point. Whether it
simply has run its course or maybe it came with bad cells,
batteries can and will die without notice where a good microphone
cable typically won't. And there is a significant ongoing cost to
the batteries you use for wireless equipment. At the first church
where I was on staff, we ran something like 10-12 wireless
microphones for 3 services per week and had a battery budget in the
neighborhood of $1,500 per year! Add a few more wireless
microphones and some wireless in-ear monitors and the cost of your
batteries per year can double. Do you know how much ongoing expense
your wired microphone has? Maybe $25 if you need to get a new
cable? It's not even close. For those situations where you are
using wireless, get a&&designed
for professional wireless microphones like those available
More Economical
Last but not least, wired microphones simply cost less. Average
wired microphones often amount to 1/3 the cost of their wireless
counterparts if you compare apples to apples. I don't know about
you, but if I don't need the mobility, I'd much rather buy two good
microphones than one average wireless.
Make no mistake, I like high quality wireless microphones and love
them for many applications. That being said, I think too many
churches today go to wireless first when a wired microphone would
actually fill the need better. Wired microphones generally sound
better, are more reliable, don't require batteries (saving money
and increasing reliability) and are significantly more
cost-effective up front. I've said it many times before in this
newsletter, and I'll say it again: before you buy anything, really
weigh out what features you need in order to be successful, then
buy the equipment that will meet those needs. My recommendation is
this: don't buy wireless where wired will do just fine. Take those
funds and add versatility and diversity to your wired mic
selection. We have&&designed
to bring out the best in female vocals, male vocals and a wide
variety of instruments.
Church Relations Director
CCI Solutions&
https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-difference-in-quality-between-wireless-and-wired-microphones-that-professional-musicians-use
http://www.wirerealm.com/guides/top-10-best-microphones-recording-vocals
here:&&/&&/&The
Top 10 Best Microphones for Recording Vocals
How to Choose Your Vocal Microphone
The Top 10 Best Microphones for Recording Vocals
Audio-Technica AT2035
Neumann TLM-102
Blue Microphones Bluebird
Shure SM-27-SC
Rode NT1-A
sE Electronics sE2200a II
Behringer C-1
http://www.anstendig.org/Acoustics.html
CONCERT HALL
AN EXPLANATION
OF THE FACTORS INVOLVED IN
ACOUSTICS&
ANALYSIS OF THOSE FACTORS IN RELATION
SAN FRANCISCO'S
DAVIES HALL
Anstendig Institute, Revised 1984
(This paper
should be read in conjunction with The Anstendig Institute's papers
on sound equalization and hearing, which are available upon
request.)&
The acoustics
of any hall, as perceived by a member of the audience, consist of
three factors: volume, equalization, and reverberation (i.e.,
reflected sound).
Volume, easily
understood as the loudness of sound, needs clarification in
relation to acoustics. Technically, volume is referred to as
sound-pressure-level and is measured in units called decibels.
Subjectively, one decibel is the smallest difference in loudness
that the human ear is supposed to be able to perceive. Objectively,
six decibels is the amount sound becomes louder or softer if the
distance from the sound source is halved or
In a concert
hall, the sound one hears consists of 1) directly radiated sound
and 2) reflected sound.
1) Directly
radiated sound, referred to as primary sound, is the sound that
reaches the ear directly from the source.
2) Reflected
sound is the sound that reaches the ear after being reflected off
the various surfaces of the hall (walls, ceiling, etc.). It is
usually confused with and mistakenly referred to as
reverberation.
Although the
sound one perceives consists of both primary sound and reflected
sound, the primary sound determines the perceived volume level.
This is appreciably louder because 1) sound becomes softer in
proportion to the square of the distance traveled and the reflected
sound travels a much longer distance, and 2) sound is partly
absorbed and diffused by the reflecting surface. Therefore,
reflected sound normally plays a negligible role in the actual
perceived volume level.
Primary sound
and reflected sound are essentially two separately arriving sounds
of different volume levels. A characteristic of hearing is that the
loudness of two sounds of different volume is not perceived as the
sum of the two. The combined sounds are perceived as being only as
loud as the louder of the two sound-sources. The louder sound
determines the a the less loud sound does not
add appreciably to the perceived volume level. This can be
demonstrated in a room with four speakers, one in each corner. If
the speakers play with unequal volume levels, the sound will always
seem to be coming from the direction of the loudest speaker even
with differences in volume as small as a few decibels. It only
becomes obvious that the other speakers are playing if they are
switched off.
In everyday
life, most sound-environments are full of sound-absorbing objects
and materials and, because one is usually close to the sound
source, reflecting surfaces are proportionally much farther away.
Therefore, the ear is conditioned to hear a relationship of primary
to reflected sound in which the volume of the reflected sound is so
much lower than the primary sound that one is not aware of it.
Thisapparent relationship between the volume of direct and
reflected sound must be preserved if the sound in a concert hall is
to seem natural. Because one is quieter, calmer, more relaxed, and
more concentrated than usual during a concert, perception of
subtleties is heightened. Therefore, for the sound to seem natural,
the proportionate volume level of reflected sound relative to
primary sound must be somewhat less than in
real-life.&
EQUALIZATION
Equalization is
essentially a further delineation of volume. Sound consists of
vibrations (frequencies) of different speeds (cycles per second, or
Hz), from approximately 20 Hz to 17,000 Hz, with most sounds lying
within 40 Hz to 12,000 Hz. The equalization of sound is the volume
of all the frequencies in relation to each other. If the
equalization of a hall is correct, a sound from the stage in which
all frequencies are equally loud will reach the audience in exactly
that same volume relationship. If the volume level of some
frequencies in relation to the others is changed when the sound
reaches the audience, the hall is unequalized and does not radiate
all frequencies correctly. In other words, the equalization of a
hall is a function of volume in that it deals with whether the
different frequencies reach the audience in their original volume
relationship to each other, or whether the hall distorts that
original balance, transmitting some frequencies more strongly than
How sounds
radiate from their sources (their dispersion characteristics)
differs over the frequency spectrum. Lower vibrations radiate
almost equally in all directions, while higher frequencies radiate
more directly in straight lines. Because strongly reflective
surfaces usually change the frequency balance in favor of the more
directly radiating higher frequencies, the reflecting surfaces of a
hall have to be carefully designed to not change the equalization.
That holds true for the directly-radiating surfaces of the stage as
well as the reflecting surfaces of the hall.
Ideally, a
concert hall should not favor the high frequencies, but should have
a mellow, warm sound, i.e., it should slightly subdue the higher
frequencies. The more mellow the sound, the more freedom the
musicians have in the manner in which they can produce and
articulate the sounds. The less the hall highlights the higher
frequencies, the greater the range of dynamics (from
triple-pianissimo to triple-fortissimo) and the more types of
attack (from sweet dolce to vigorous, biting accents) the musician
can make use of while retaining beauty of tone. But, in a bright
hall, all hard accents and biting attacks sound overly harsh and
stringent. The sound in loud passages has a harsh, biting edge. To
compensate, the musicians have to avoid the more vigorous, biting
attacks and accents, and the dynamics have to be kept down if the
sound is to remain listenable. The strings, for example, cannot
really "dig in" and play full out with plenty of bow-pressure and a
big tone. If they do, the sound is hard, harsh, and
Equalization is
the most important single factor in any acoustic, and, in fact, in
sound itself. It is the factor that most obviously changes the
quality of a sound. Anyone with a hi-fi system that includes an
equalizer can easily find this out by observing the differences in
the sound when the frequency balance is changed. But, for decades,
people have been hearing grossly unequalized, distorted sound
reproduction (recordings, live broadcasts, live sound
reinforcement).1 They have been conditioned to ignore the
distortions of unequalized sound, have become used to them, and
thus do not notice that, in a bad acoustic, the equalization is
inevitably the worst factor.
REVERBERATION
and REFLECTED SOUND
Reverberation
is the most misunderstood and least important of the factors.
Reverberation is the process of the reflected sound bouncing back
and forth off all reflecting surfaces until it stops. The word
"reverberation" is the wrong term to describe what is actually
heard. The sound quality that is heard and called reverberation is
actually the result of only the first-arriving reflected sound.
These sound effects, wrongly referred to as reverberation, are
understood and discussed only in terms of reverberation time, but
actually consist of two other factors: volume and reflection
important of these factors is the volume. If the reflected sound is
so soft as to be covered (masked) by the primary sound, it will
obviously not make the slightest difference except in the pauses.
The time factor only plays a role when the volume of the measured
reverberated sound is loud enough to be perceived, however subtly,
by the listener. In a concert hall, the important point to remember
is that the volume of reflected sound should not be loud enough to
be consciously heard, even when the tensions of the body have
relaxed and the listener is hearing very loudly.
&&The characteristics of
primary sound do not change. Therefore, the first-arriving
reflections determine the character of a hall's acoustic because
they are the only reflected sounds loud enough to affect the
sound's characteristics.
The simple
mathematical difference between the arrival-time of the primary and
reflected sound is the pertinent time-factor in acoustics:
reflected-sound-time minus primary-sound-time equals reflection
time. This interval is purely a function of the size and shape of a
hall. Reflected sound can also be measured from the source, in
which case it becomes simply the time it takes for the sound to
travel to the reflecting surface and back to the source. This
measurement indicates how the performers, not the audience,
experience the sound.
The concept of
"reverberation time" as a meaningful acoustical measurement is
wrong. It does not represent actual listening experience. In actual
listening, there is no one single time for reflected sound to reach
a listener. All sounds continue reverberating back and forth off
all surfaces until they die down to absolutely nothing. But we can
only perceive the reverberating sound while it is still loud enough
to be heard. The misunderstanding stems from the measuring
technique.
stated as the reverberation time is an arbitrarily chosen value
that is supposed to represent the point at which the reverberating
sound has died down to a volume level so weak that it essentially
is no longer present (1/1,000,000th of the original volume). In a
hall with a measured one second reverberation time, the sound would
actually lose approximately 75% of its loudness in the first 1/lOth
of a second. It would be almost instantly covered by the continuing
sounds of the music and, in pauses, will be covered by the room's
natural noise level (ambient sound) long before it becomes
1/l,OOO,OOOth of its original volume. The measuring instrument
registers the first-arriving (direct) sound and then records the
length of time it takes for that sound to die down (decay) to that
irrelevant, insignificant volume level. But this measurement is
worthless because it neither tells the actual time it takes for the
reverberations to stop nor does it tell anything about the really
important, bearable sound events that happen in between. Any effect
the reflected sound would have on the acoustic qualities of that
room would happen long before the measurement was
Although no
instrumental measurements can duplicate the way the reflected sound
is actually perceived, they can provide helpful information. A more
difficult, but more meaningful measurement for acoustical
evaluation would be to measure the time-interval between the first
arrival (direct sound) and the very next few arrivals (the
first-arriving reflections) along with their volume-levels. Careful
tabulation of that information for a large number of concert halls
would probably lead to insights into the real differences between
good and bad halls.
first-arriving sound reflections are necessarily the loudest. But
it is impossible to establish a single reflection time. The
reflecting surfaces are at differing distances from the listener.
Sound reflected off the ceiling, the side-walls, the back wall, and
the wall behind the performer will reach the listener at different
time intervals since each of these surfaces (even each segment of
the surface) is at a different distance from the performer and the
listener. Also, a measuring instrument has no way of telling
whether the sound reaching it is a first arrival from a far wall or
a second, third or fiftieth arrival from a near wall. Since all of
the bearable reflections arrive so quickly, they amount to a steady
sound made up of the many arrivals of reflected sound which are so
close together that they cannot be registered
separately.
There is a
prevalent misunderstanding that reverberation is something
beneficial that can be added to sounds at will within a wide range
of parameters. Reverberation is really a PROBLEM that has to be
controlled, and not a benefit for which it is only a matter of
finding the ideal amount, and the more the
reverberation amounts to is repetitions of progressively more and
more distorted reflected sound because no surface reflects all
frequencies equally. When loud enough to be heard, the effect of
these reflections is similar to the effect of reprinting the same
picture a number of times on top of itself, with each reprint
shifted slightly and the color-values changed. The result on paper
is a blur, and conically the result of repeated, bearable
reflections is also a blur. The prevalent idea that a long
"reverberation time" can be excellent for a Mahler symphony but
wrong for the speaking voice (because speech would be rendered
unintelligible) is not valid. If the reflections blur speech, they
will also blur the Mahler symphony. The problem in recognizing this
fact is that, in the Mahler symphony, it is the most subtle
nuances, which are the most difficult-to-hear aspects of sound,
that are blurred. We are seldom able to be aware of all the
subtleties of nuance in fine music. It is therefore difficult to
know that those nuances have been eradicated, and a regular
audience quickly becomes used to music without
At the Church
of Saint John the Divine in New York City, the reflection times are
so long and the reflections so loud that one can hear a distinct
echo along with the many arrivals. Anyone familiar with the
acoustic of such a room will understand that reverberation should
be treated as a basically undesirable element to be held to low
limits, and not as a toy to be played with for various effects, as
is often the case with reverberation devices in
sound-reproduction.
II. DAVIES
In Davies Hall,
the main problem with the reflected sound is that it is too loud,
not that the reverberation time is too long or too short. A single
measurement of the hall's reverberation time is meaningless since
all four walls, the ceiling, and the reflectors (which amount to a
sixth, irregular, reflecting surface) are made of materials with
unnecessarily strong reflecting characteristics. Each of these
variously distanced surfaces reflects the sound audibly enough to
cause blurring and an exceedingly uneven
equalization.
Instead of
simply trusting the instruments themselves to radiate into the
hall, the design of Davies Hall relies on reflections to distribute
the sound. Such a design is doomed to a sound that is blurred,
unequalized, and has no resemblance to the sound environments we
live in. All the surfaces of the stage are as shiny and reflective
as could be achieved without simply installing mirrors. Since the
stage is set forward into the hall and has its own low reflecting
wall behind the players, the back wall of the hall becomes an extra
reflecting surface. As opposed to a conventional design, this
arrangement produces an extra set of strong reflections that
further confuse the sound. In an attempt to distribute the sound
evenly throughout the hall, the reflecting surfaces are designed in
convex forms and incorporate added convex-shaped disks molded into
them at key reflecting points. The hanging reflectors are also
convex. This diffuses the sound and ruins much of the focus that
the players attempt to achieve in their tone
production.
The effect of
the excessive, overly loud reflections in Davies Hall is a muddying
of textures from the many arrivals and a predominance of overtones,
particularly in the mid-range (approximately 200 to 2000 Hz). This
is similar to the blurring that occurs with overuse of the
sustaining pedal of the piano. In fact, during a piano recital,
Claudio Arrau, who has an excellent ear for balances, was forced to
use either little pedal or no pedal at all in order to keep the
textures clear, more so from mid-keyboard on up than in the bass,
which sounded proportionally weak.
Davies Hall
uses baffles to supposedly change the reverberation time. But they
do nothing of the sort: the real reverberation time is a fixed
physical entity almost infinitely longer than the times that are
measured. It is determined by the distance the sound travels back
and forth among the reflecting surfaces in relation to the point of
reference. The baffles in no way change these distances. They also
cover only a small percentage of the reflecting surfaces of the
hall. What the baffles do is absorb some, but not all, of the sound
that would be reflected by the sections of the walls they are
shielding. This somewhat reduces the volume of the reflected sound
and causes the instrument measuring the so-called reverberation
times to register a shorter interval. But the length of time for a
sound to truly die out remains essentially the same and the timing
of the more important first-arriving reflections remains the
The baffles do
slightly reduce the volume of the reflections, but mainly in the
areas most affected by the covered wall surfaces. This, in turn,
changes the equalization of the hall somewhat for the better by
slightly reducing the high-frequency sizzle and clarifies the sound
a little bit by reducing the blurring. The point has already been
made that an acoustic that blurs one type of sound will blur all
others. The baffles should therefore be left down all the time, and
more of them on all of the walls would probably improve the
acoustic immensely. But that could be better accomplished by simply
reducing the reflectivity of the walls.
EQUALIZATION
The generally
encountered opinion that Davies Hall has an overly bright acoustic
is correct.
acoustic is "bright" when an unequal transmission of the frequency
spectrum favors the higher frequencies, i.e., in traveling from the
stage to the listener, the balance of the higher to the lower
frequencies changes, the higher frequencies becoming louder in
proportion to the lower frequencies. In Davies Hall, this greater
proportion of high frequencies peaks in the 2500 to 5000 Hz range,
which is unfortunate because of two natural phenomena: 1) the
sensitivity of our hearing is greatest in this range, becoming
greater with increasing volume and 2) the overtones of most
instruments, and especially the human voice, peak in this range
(2500 to 3500 Hz). Since Davies Hall is a loud hall, the effect is
that the music sounds harsh and expressively undifferentiated. In a
vocal concert, for example, the voice has a harsh, raspy, grating
"edge", which is a frequency peak at 2500 to 3500 Hz (male voices
peak closer to 2500 Hz and female voices closer to 3300
The distortion
of the frequency balance in favor of the overtones detracts from
the expressive effect of the music. Musicians play fundamental
tones, not overtones. They do not think or conceive of music in
terms of overtones. The fundamental tones, not the overtones, carry
all the expressive, human nuances of the music. Therefore, the
exaggeration of the overtones in Davies Hall reduces the expressive
content, degrades the emotional experience inherent in the music,
and robs it of many characteristic, human
qualities.
In Davies Hall,
the very high frequencies are not as exaggerated as the
Hz range. In fact, there may be a problem of transmitting the
highest frequencies. The cymbals and triangle, for example, do not
have enough of a high-frequency sheen. But the highest frequencies
would become more prominent if the thickness due to exaggerated
overtones were reduced. The bass fundamentals, which are not
reinforced by the exaggerated overtone structure, are weak and
suffer the most from the diffuse character of the hall's acoustic.
The tuba, in particular, which radiates upwards into the
reflectors, sounds so diffuse that it is a musical equivalent of
the proverbial something hitting the fan and splattering all over
In listening
for oneself, one should bear in mind that the brightness one
experiences in Davies Hall, which a musician would refer to as
being in the high, or upper, registers, would be referred to in
hi-fi language as the "lower-highs" or "upper-mid-range". A high
note on an instrument seldom exceeds 2000 Hz (high C is about 1040
Hz), but when an acoustics or electronics technician refers to
"highs", he generally means frequencies well above 5000
As a result of
the strongly reflecting surfaces, Davies Hall is a loud hall. Even
the auditorium itself is loud. Although a carpet has improved the
auditorium somewhat, coughs and other audience noises are still
more audible than necessary. Since hearing is much more forgiving
of sound distortions at lower volume levels, the loudness of the
sound in Davies Hall is a major aggravating factor in the bad
acoustic. A loud volume level is not only unnecessary for a deep
musical experience, it can even be detrimental. The frequency peaks
are more disturbing. With a more subdued volume level, the audience
has to calm down and become attentive in order to better hear
details. A hall should not have so low a sound level that it is
difficult to hear. But modern halls have such a loud volume level
that the audience does not realize the need to settle down and
become still in order to hear acutely. The abrasiveness of the
resulting irritations and distortions keeps them on edge, making it
difficult to relax and settle down.
THE PROBLEMS OF
DAVIES HALL DUPLICATE THOSE OF RECORDINGS
It is obvious
that Davies Hall has been built by people whose ideas of what music
should sound like have been influenced by recordings. The
distortions in the equalization of the hall occur in very much the
same parts of the frequency range as the distortions of unequalized
recordings.3 The idea of using baffles to alter the reverberation
characteristics of the hall at will obviously comes from a type of
electronic device, variously called a Time Delay System or a
Reverberation System. These systems introduce, during sound
reproduction, a repeat of the original signal. The time between the
original and the delayed signal can be varied at will. This added
signal is supposed to have the same characteristics as the
reverberated sound in a concert hall, which is impossible, since it
is only one repetition of the sound as opposed to the many
reflections in a hall. The signal also cannot duplicate the changes
in equalization that occur when sounds are actually reflected. In
reality, all that these devices accomplish is to muddy and blur the
sound. They in no way duplicate real reflected sound. Nevertheless,
sound systems of this type are often used in the actual preparation
of recordings and were even incorporated in concert halls as soon
as they were developed. These systems are obviously the source of
the utterly mistaken idea that reverberation TIME can be changed
without actually physically changing the dimensions of the hall,
i.e., without changing the distances the sound has to travel. They
probably also have much to do with the acceptance of a blurred
sound among acoustic technicians.
The acceptance
of a highly diffused, unfocused type of sound quality as correct
also stems from stereophonic sound-reproduction. Stereo is an
impossible, irrelevant attempt to reproduce the way we hear a
sound. It is only possible to reproduce the characteristics of the
sound source itself.
4&The fact that concert halls
have been and are being built to sound like the flaws of
unequalized music has created a vicious circle. Sound buffs attend
concerts in these halls to check the accuracy of their sound
systems. Of course, the halls sound very much like their systems.
At the same time, performers who listen to unequalized recordings,
which degrade the delicately refined expressive nuances, start to
mimic the sound of those recordings. The home-listener hears
something very similar to the concert he has just attended and
thinks his system is marvelously accurate. Because this mess keeps
music from fulfilling its greatest potential of uplifting us into
the finest realm of experience, the conclusion must be drawn that
it is dangerous to listen to music in Davies Hall.
The danger is
not simply a matter of a bad acoustic in the auditorium ruining
well-played music on stage. First, the playing can never achieve
the musician's potential because the musicians are crippled by the
various acoustical problems. Thus the desired "magic" of a
performance cannot happen. Secondly, because simultaneous, direct
comparison with correct-sounding music is impossible, we accept and
become accustomed to (conditioned to) a wrong sound image and
anticipate that image at future performances. When one's mind and
body are set in anticipation of hearing a particular
interpretation, it is nearly impossible to accurately hear a
different one. Better to do without than to ruin one's frame of
reference by developing and accustoming oneself to wrong listening
habits. Once ingrained, those habits are almost impossible for most
people to change. This is particularly tragic for young people
since first impressions are the strongest determining factors in
their development.&
5&HOW TO CORRECT THE DAVIES
HALL'S ACOUSTIC
It is desirable
to find out as precisely as possible what the characteristics of
the hall presently are. While mechanical measurements do not
duplicate actual live experience, if used by someone who
understands the differences between the measuring of room acoustics
and the measuring of actual music, they could provide valuable
insights into the dispersion characteristics and the equalization
of the hall. But they must be made under real-life circumstances,
i.e., with an audience present. Such measurements are a
prerequisite for any systematic attempt to correct the hall's
That Davies
Hall is a loud hall makes correcting it feasible. The steps
necessary to correct the reverberation and equalization problems
would lower the volume level, but there is ample leeway to do so
without adversely affecting the musical experience. Substantially
reducing the reflectance of all reflecting surfaces might solve the
basic problems. Some experimentation might be desirable to
determine whether or not the reflectance of all surfaces should be
reduced equally.
The auditorium
itself is too live, but the edginess and emphasis of overtones is
also caused by the high reflectance of the stage. The apparent lack
of fundamental bass is probably due to the overabundance of
overtones in which case reducing the reflectivity of the surfaces
could also solve the problem of the bass fundamentals. The
protrusions of the back wall of the stage, which further diffuse
and confuse the sound, would be unnecessary if the reflectance of
the stage were lowered.
Sound becomes
softer in relation to the square of the distance from the source to
the hearer (the square of the distance the sound travels). The
musicians' ears are next to their own instruments and in the midst
of the other instruments around them. They normally hear primary,
direct, unreflected sound and adjust their playing to those sounds,
not to the reflected sound, which, in most halls, is too soft to be
heard by the time it returns and arrives too late to be taken into
consideration by their reactive responses. The extremely shiny
surfaces of the stage and its back wall change this normal
relationship so that certain players who are closer to the wall
hear more reflected sound than other players and much more than
they are used to hearing. The even shinier reflectors, which are
much closer than a normal ceiling, have a similar
In Davies hall,
orchestra members complain that they have problems hearing each
other. The complex problem of whether or not the musicians can
"hear themselves" in a hall is mainly a problem of balancing the
sound of distant players with that of players close by. The problem
is complicated by the differences between the way the musicians
hear themselves in a bad hall and the way they are used to hearing
themselves. The usual method of trying to deal with this problem is
to use overhead sound-reflectors which, in addition to helping the
musicians hear themselves, are used to help distribute the sound
evenly throughout the auditorium. This is a misunderstanding of
acoustics. Since reflection times are a function of the size and
shape of a hall, the artificial introduction within a hall of
additional reflecting surfaces to conduct the sound can only make
the sound more confusing. The characteristic qualities of a sound
are determined mainly by the shape of the source and the shape o}