971102

research-article2020
BUA0010.1177/1351010X20971102Building AcousticsSanz Soriano et al.

Special Issue – ISRA 2019

Building Acoustics

Stage acoustics and parametric 2021, Vol. 28(3) 265­–279

© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
design: The development of an sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1351010X20971102
https://doi.org/10.1177/1351010X20971102

integrated early design tool

journals.sagepub.com/home/bua

Javier Sanz Soriano , Oliver Wright,

Elisabeth van den Braak and Christopher Day

Abstract
Traditional ray tracing software tools (e.g. Odeon, CATT-Acoustic, EASE) enable detailed analysis of stage
acoustics; however, they are typically undertaken in later design stages and lack the flexibility required for
early design development. This paper, which follows from a poster presentation at ISRA 2019, investigates
the use of a three-dimensional modelling platform (Rhinoceros/Grasshopper) to quickly assess the influence
of architectural changes on reflections that support orchestral ensemble. This approach enables immediate
feedback, a more creative design process and better integration of architecture and acoustics. Early
reflections have been found to be vital for effective orchestral ensemble. Therefore, the study focused on
the investigation of early energy distribution on stage with ray tracing analysis using a parametric tool. This
tool also considers cross-stage shielding effects from the orchestra and the directivity of instruments. The
results of the tool have been compared to an existing acoustic modelling software to determine its accuracy
and reliability. Additionally, the expansion of the tool with an evolutionary solver has also been explored. The
development of a Rhinoceros/Grasshopper design tool has been found to be beneficial in the analysis of stage
conditions and enhances the design collaboration during early design phases.

Keywords
Stage acoustics, ensemble, grasshopper, architectural acoustics

Introduction
Auditorium stage design requires careful balancing of many stakeholders. An iterative design
approach is often adopted by the architect and acoustician to optimise the stage design, in particu-
lar for venues with challenging stage environments. The most successful iterations occur in the
early design phase while the design has scope to change.
Detailed analysis of stage acoustics is typically undertaken in later design stages with well-
established ray tracing software tools (e.g. Odeon, CATT-Acoustic, EASE). This analysis is often
delayed until detailed design due to the time invested in creating the acoustic model.

Marshall Day Acoustics, Auckland, New Zealand

Corresponding author:
Javier Sanz Soriano, Marshall Day Acoustics, 84 Symonds Street, Auckland 1010, New Zealand.
Email: javier.sanz@marshallday.co.nz
266 Building Acoustics 28(3)

The use of parametric tools, such as Grasshopper and Rhinoceros, to aid the design of concert
venues is well-established.1,2 However, while these studies, and many more, explore the applica-
tion of parametric design for optimisation of the hall from the audience perspective, much less
work has been done on utilising parametric design for acoustic stage design.
This paper follows on from a poster presentation at ISRA 2019.3 In this original paper, the
authors reviewed how a Grasshopper ray tracing tool could enable a dialog between architectural
and acoustic design to further support orchestral ensemble.
This Building Acoustic Journal paper continues from the ISRA 2019 research and introduces
the integration of an Evolutionary Solver, Galapagos, into the tool.

Previous and ongoing research on early energy on stage

Investigations and ongoing research of musician’s preference on stage agree that early sound
energy between musicians, between 10 ms and 40 ms and particularly frequencies between 500 Hz
and 2 kHz, are essential for an effective orchestral ensemble.4
Many different approaches have been proposed to quantify orchestral ensemble. Stage support
measurements (STearly and STlate) proposed by Gade5 are commonly used and form part of ISO
3382-1:2009.6 Other parameters have been proposed to assess the cross-stage communication,
such as the strength parameters Gearly and G7-50 by Dammerud7 or the stage acoustic parameter for
music conductors (LQ7-40) by Van Den Braak and Van Luxemburg.8
Most recent research focuses on the arrival direction of early reflections across the stage.
LQ7-40 top/sides by Guthrie9 and TS20-50 by Panton et al.10 are two examples that compare the sound
energy received from above compared to the sides.
All these techniques focus on the early energy to quantify the stage acoustic conditions and ease
of ensemble.

Real-time raytracing for assessing early energy on stage

Any modelling technique represents a simplification of real acoustic behaviour. As such, the appro-
priateness of a technique is largely dependent on the intended use. At frequencies between 500 Hz
and 2 kHz, vital for an effective orchestral ensemble,4 sound can be treated as rays. As such, ray
tracing is widely accepted as a viable methodology for quantifying ensemble.
The ray-tracing tool developed by the authors generates in ‘real-time’ (or close to real-time)
visual feedback of the early reflections between the source and receiver, alongside the energy of
early reflections and an estimation of stage acoustic parameters. The tool quickly quantifies the
effects of architectural changes on early energy to discuss with the client or architect. Additionally,
the acoustic effects of the source directivity and shielding for occupied stages can be evaluated.
The following sections provide a description of the tool’s platform and outputs.3

The platform
Nowadays, 3D software (such as Rhinoceros) is often used in architectural concept design.
Grasshopper is a visual scripting programme within this Rhinoceros platform. The tool has been
developed in Grasshopper for designing models through the expression of parameters.
As the tool is integrated within Rhinoceros, it allows ‘real-time’ manipulation of the architec-
tural geometry. The acoustic plugin, Pachyderm, is also used to import the model geometry and
undertake image source calculations.
Sanz Soriano et al. 267

Figure 1. Image source reflections between source (blue sphere) and receiver (combination of thick spikes).

Visual communication of the early energy

The tool visually displays the reflections of sound through a 3D plot at the receiver’s location
(represented with thick spikes), and thin lines tracing the sound paths back to the source
(Figure 1).
Similar to Marshall Day Acoustic’s IRIS room acoustics measurement software, the 3D plot
shows the strength of the sound through the length of the spike (Figure 1). These spikes communi-
cate the dominant reflections (compared to the direct level) and can be used to visually interrogate
the strength, direction and delay of reflections.
Both the spikes and lines are coloured to represent the arrival time of the reflection, relative
to the direct sound: where red is the direct path, orange is ‘very early’ energy (usually the floor
bounce (0–7 ms)), green is early energy (7 and 40 ms), and blue is late energy (after 40 ms). The
time intervals given are typical examples but can be altered to calculate the chosen performance
criteria.
The thin lines allow for reflections to be traced to the cause architectural geometry. Tracing
reflections can be useful for diagnosing successful surfaces that should be promoted throughout the
design, or problematic surfaces that require treatment.
268 Building Acoustics 28(3)

Communicating numerically
The developed tool3 also calculates the energy of early reflections within the stage, to a maximum
of third order reflections. Third order reflections are typically considered to be sufficient to calcu-
late reflections within 100 ms. As such, the early energy component of traditional stage acoustic
parameters can be calculated with this tool. This includes the stage acoustic parameters, such as
STearly, EEL, Gearly, G7-50,5,7 that do not consider the late energy. Stage acoustic parameters that
compare the early energy received with the total or late energy cannot be immediately calculated
without lengthening the computation time and reducing the effectiveness of the desired quick
feedback.

Case studies of the effects of architectural changes of the stage

environment
Two case studies have been investigated in this study. The first case study discusses the visual use
of the tool for a typical early design element: stage reflectors. As a further development to the tool,
the use of an evolutionary solver for the optimisation of the design is explored.
The second case study discusses a more detailed review of the use of the tool for ensemble
assessments. This includes visual and numerical analysis, for an orchestra shell and stage risers, as
well as visualising the effects of orchestra shielding and directivity.

Visual assessment and optimisation of stage reflectors

The tool can be used to design stage environments in the early design phases. In a concept design
workshop, the architect and acoustician often use a 3D model to test possible design directions. As
such, it is powerful to have a tool that provides immediate acoustic feedback to these changes.
An example of typical early design development are stage reflectors. Altering the location, size
or angle can be easily done within Rhinoceros/Grasshopper. The tool then immediately visualises
the sound reflections so that the impact of the change can be easily understood. In contrast, a more
detailed modelling tool could be used, however, time would be taken in converting the model and
the immediacy and momentum of the workshop would be lost.

Visualisation of early energy on stage. Figures 2 and 3 show two possible examples of stage reflec-
tors. Early sound reflections have been extended as thin lines to easily trace and communicate the
sound energy.
In Figure 2 the three 3D plots show early energy (green spikes and lines) from the overhead
stage reflector as well as either the angled balcony front or balcony cornice reflections. In this
example, the height of the overhead stage reflector, depth of the balcony and angle of the balcony
front could all be quickly developed in a workshop by simply altering the architectural model.
Figure 3 shows reflections from large side reflectors. While the sides of the 3D plots are well
populated by spikes (sound reflections from the sides), little energy is received from above. While
this is adequate for an empty stage or small ensembles, some of the side energy might be shielded
by other orchestra members (this is discussed later in this paper). Again, the height, size, and angle
of the reflector could all be quickly reviewed in collaboration with the architect.

Optimisation through an evolutionary solver. The authors recently expanded the tool to include an evo-
lutionary solver, taking it from analysing the design to guiding the stage design process. The tool
presented can be used in conjunction with Galapagos, an evolutionary solver within Grasshopper.
Sanz Soriano et al. 269

Figure 2. Example of early reflections from overhead stage reflector and balcony fronts.

Figure 3. Example of early reflections from side reflectors.

Evolutionary solvers trial a population of parameters iteratively over time to produce an opti-
mised solution. These ‘parameters’ could be anything, ranging from dimensions (like reflector
height, size or angle) to geometry locations. There is a lot of flexibility in this input, so the user has
control of what is altered and by how much.
The user then selects the design goal. An example of a ‘goal’ could be to maximise the total
early energy to a receiver, or just early reflections received from the side. Alternatively, the goal
could be to provide at least one reflection from each reflector or provide more reflections from
‘weaker’ instruments. The evolutionary solver then cycles through the input parameters to find the
solution that best achieves the goal.
A simplified example of the design optimisation process using this tool with Galapagos is
shown in Figure 4. Figure 4 shows a series of angles for a side reflector (shown in grey). Each have
been tested by the tool and the optimised solution is shown in red. In this case, the design goal was
to achieve at least one reflection from above to each receiver. However, the evolutionary solver
could be used to optimise any other parameter.
The incorporation of an evolutionary solver into the tool shifts it from identifying useful or
detrimental surfaces, into a design guide that produces highly tuned solutions and greater design
270 Building Acoustics 28(3)

Figure 4. Reflector optimisation using an evolutionary solver.

variability. The above example is very simple and was included in this paper to help explain the
concept. However, as the calculation process could be done for multiple sources and receivers,
using Galapagos has the power to trial many options quickly to optimise the design for multiple
solutions. Altering the design process from form-diagnostic to form-finding is a powerful design
strategy and can lead to innovative designs during early stages of the design process.
Overall, the visual nature of the 3D plots produced with this tool efficiently communicates the
effect of architectural changes in a shared language. Expressing complex relationships between
surfaces in a simple and easy to digest medium reduces the barrier to entry for architects and advo-
cates for a collaborative design approach. The immediate feedback enhances the collaboration
between members of the design team in an interactive design process.

A more detailed case study (visual and numerical) for an orchestra

A simplified multipurpose hall stage has been used to assess the acoustic implications of architec-
tural changes around the stage in more detail. Two example situations have been used to examine
how the tool can visually and numerically communicate early energy on stage. These situations are
the inclusion of an orchestra shell and stage risers.
A representative sample of sources and receivers has been chosen to analyse the stage condi-
tions for different orchestra members. A simplified representation of an orchestra is shown in
Figure 5 and the source/receiver positions chosen for this study are shown in red: first Violin,
Viola, Flute, French Horn, Trumpet, Bassoon, Cello, Oboe and Conductor.
Additionally, the effects of the directivity and shielding of instruments and musicians is discussed.

Introducing an orchestra shell. Incorporating an orchestra shell into a multipurpose hall is a typical
design solution for increasing early reflections on stage. This case study is intended to illustrate the
ability of the tool to provide immediate visual and statistical feedback to the architect and client.
As discussed earlier, this direct feedback is powerful when communicating design intent and advo-
cating for change in a design workshop.
Sanz Soriano et al. 271

Figure 5. A representative sample of sources and receivers highlighted in red.

Figure 6. Sound reflections on stage without orchestra shell (left) and with orchestra shell (right).

As shown in Figure 6 below, the modelled stage with a large open proscenium and no orchestra
shell (left) provides few useful early reflections (green). In most locations no early reflections are
received within the desired time interval. However, the inclusion of the orchestra shell, walls and
overhead panels, (right image) provides a good level of early reflections from above, which facili-
tate support and cross-stage communication.
The difference of early energy between with and without orchestra shell can also be seen in the
3D receiver shown in Figure 6 and enlarged in Figure 7.
These visual plots quickly communicate the change in stage environment to the architect or client
in a form that they can understand and interrogate. For example, when comparing the two 3D plots,
it can be seen that a larger number of spikes arrive from above and approximately 45° to the right.
These extra rays represent the overhead and cornice reflections from the shell’s overhead/side walls
panels. This inherent visual nature of the tool is far more digestible for a client or architect.
Besides visual representation of the raytracing, the developed tool can also estimate the early
energy and a selection of stage acoustic parameters (e.g. STearly, Gearly, etc.). Table 1 compares the
‘early energy’ (SPL7-40) received at one metre from the source and the stage support, STearly, from
different musicians’ locations.
272 Building Acoustics 28(3)

Figure 7. 3D receiver plots without orchestra shell (left) and with orchestra shell (right).

Table 1. Change in SPL7–40 and STearly for the use of an orchestra shell – based on a sound power level of
80 dBA.

Source Shell SPL7–40 (dB) STearly (dB) STearly (dB)

calculated recommended
Violin front No * –21 –10 to –14
Yes 52 –14
Change N/A +7
Trumpet No 49 –19 –10 to –14
Yes 54 –12
Change +5 +7
Oboe No * –20 –10 to –14
Yes 51 –14
Change N/A +6

*No energy was received within this time window.

Stage acoustic parameters that include the direct sound and floor bounce show little differ-
ence between scenarios (1–2 dB) for most source/receiver combinations. This is due to the
strength of the direct sound and floor bounce, which might not be audible with the occupied
stage. Therefore, it is considered that the energy received without the direct and floor bounce
will represent better the cross-stage communication. This aligns with the latest stage acoustic
parameters proposed in recent research by Van Den Braak and Van Luxemberg (LQ7–40),8 Panton
et al. (TS20–50)10 and others.7,9
Table 1 shows an increase of approximately 6 dB of the early energy (SPL7–40) with the orches-
tra shell when calculated one metre from three different sources (violin, trumpet and oboe). An
increase of 6–7 dB is predicted for STearly with an orchestra shell. Adding the orchestra shell shifts
the expected performance from poor to optimum for symphony music recommended.5

Stage risers. Stage risers provide a better visual connection between musicians than a flat stage,
while better projecting sound from the orchestra to the audience. With a greater visual connection,
the direct sound between musicians should also improve due to diffraction and less shielding.
Sanz Soriano et al. 273

Figure 8. Stage risers’ arrangement (three first rows of strings flat at 0 m, fourth row of strings and first
row of winds at 0.25 m, fifth row 0.5 m, sixth row 0.75 m, seventh row 1 m and percussion at 1.25 m).

The early energy between instruments across the stage was analysed with this tool in a flat
orchestra scenario and with risers at difference heights (Figure 8). Both scenarios included an
orchestra shell and shielding from music stands and musicians.
As the tool is based on a ray tracing technique, diffraction around musicians’ heads is currently
not considered. As such, the improvement obtained was lower than expected and several positions
showed that the direct sound was still blocked.
As shown in Figure 9, for a flat floor (left), the direct path is blocked by two heads. However,
with the risers (right) this path, while not being completely clear, only has the side of one head
blocking the sound. This improvement in the visual connection between the musicians in a real
orchestra would be expected to result in a better direct sound connection between musicians.11,12
Some positions did not show an appreciable change in the early energy received (7–40 ms), but
others showed approximately a 1 dB improvement (e.g. the first violin received two early reflec-
tions that previously arrived after 40 ms).
Being able to position a camera and see the stage as a musician would, communicates the
change in height simply and effectively to a client or architect. This experience can be quickly
enhanced further by transitioning the view simply and quickly into Virtual Reality.

Considering shielding of instruments and musicians. On-site stage acoustics measurements are typi-
cally undertaken with an omnidirectional source and without the musicians on stage. Generally,
this is due to the difficulty and expense of incorporating the orchestra in the measurements. When
possible, measurements are undertaken with chairs and stands; however sometimes these measure-
ments are undertaken with an empty stage. It has been appreciated for some time that this does not
communicate a realistic test of the actual performance stage conditions. The effects of the directiv-
ity of the different instruments and cross-stage shielding due to musicians and stands can have a
significant impact on the sound received between musicians.11,12 Assessment of the changes in the
stage acoustics conditions due to these items by using the developed tool are discussed in this and
the following section.
274 Building Acoustics 28(3)

Figure 9. View from trumpet to violin – flat floor (left), stage risers (right).

With the developed tool it is easy to include objects such as musicians, chairs and stands and then
estimate the effect of cross-stage shielding on the stage acoustics. At low frequencies the direct sound
will diffract around the instruments and musician’s heads. However, at 500 Hz – 4 kHz the obstacles
in the stage will reduce the direct sound creating shadow zones within the orchestra.13
A selection of musicians and large instruments (shown in Figure 5) have been incorporated into
the Rhinoceros model to analyse the shielding effects from musicians/instruments. As discussed in
the risers’ section, the tool is based on ray-tracing and at this point it does not consider any diffrac-
tion. Therefore, it provides a binary response to shielding (if the ray is intercepted by an obstacle it
considers that all of the sound does not arrive at the receiver). However, some degree of diffraction
of the direct sound would be expected around musicians’ heads.
Studies have measured the sound attenuation of orchestra shielding.12 This transmission loss
data could be applied to the distance calculation in the tool. However, doing so would limit the
investigation of stage arrangements to those measured in that study. As part of a future study the
authors will investigate a less binary approach to the analyse the shielding effects of musicians.
This would allow the tool to estimate the diffraction of sound around musicians while preserving
the ability to assess unique stage designs.
The analysis with the developed tool showed that the direct sound and floor reflection are
shielded in most scenarios with a flat floor arrangement. An average reduction of 4 dB was calcu-
lated in the early energy (7–40 ms) for the flat stage due to shielding, compared to the stage with
stage risers; however, in some source/receiver combinations a higher reduction was observed.
Figure 10 shows a comparison of the violin energy plots received from the oboe with and with-
out musicians on stage. Figure 11 shows the range of early sound energy reduction due to shielding
for four sources (the trumpet, violin, french horn and cello) to the rest of the musicians, for the flat
stage compared to the stage with stage risers. This reduction typically represents the low-level
reflections from the side walls/shell, which are blocked by the orchestra.

Considering directivity of instruments. Directivity can be a significant influence on the sound level
experienced on stage, and therefore the degree that a player can hear themselves and other
musicians.
The developed tool can easily include the directivity of the instruments in the raytracing and
calculation of parameters. Directivity of the instruments has been exported from Odeon’s database
and imported to the calculations. As described in the measurements of the directivity by Pätynen
and Lokki,14 the position of the musicians’ head has been defined as the centre position.
Sanz Soriano et al. 275

Figure 10. 3D receiver plot (from the oboe to violin) without shielding (left) and with shielding (right).

SPL7-40 (dB) reducon from shielding

8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
Trumpet Violin French Horn Cello

Figure 11. Average reduction of early energy due to shielding for different sources.

Figure 12 shows the directivity of the trumpet at 4 kHz, and the 3D receiver plot from the trum-
pet with and without directivity to the calculated position. The plot shows that the length of the
direct sound (red) and early reflections from above (green) is reduced due to the directivity of the
source; however, the length of the floor bounce increases due to the trumpet being more directional
at this direction.
A direct comparison of the energy received can be seen in close-up views of the energy plots
from an omnidirectional source and the directivity of the trumpet at 1 kHz and 4 kHz (Figure 13).
When looking the early energy calculated between each source (trumpet and violin) and the
remaining receivers, a general reduction of 2–8 dB was observed in the early energy (between 7
and 40 ms), due to the directivity of the sources when compared to an omnidirectional source.
The change in early energy predicted between omni-directional and directional sources, alters
with each instrument and frequency. However, the two instruments selected for this study were the
trumpet and violin. The change in the early energy received (SPL7–40) from the violin and trumpet
to other musicians is shown in Figures 14 and 15.
276 Building Acoustics 28(3)

Figure 12. Comparison of trumpet directivity (top: omni-directional; bottom: 4 kHz).

Figure 13. 3D receiver plots - Omni-directional (left), trumpet 1 kHz (centre), trumpet 4 kHz (right).

The trumpet is highly directional at 4 kHz. As such, a reduction of 6–8 dB reduction in the early
energy was observed at 4 kHz, compared to a reduction of 2–3 dB at 1 kHz. For the violin, which
is less directional at 4 kHz, a reduction of 3–5 dB was found.
Note that all the simulations have been calculated with a fixed position and orientation of the
instrument for simplicity. As some instruments are very directional, the orientation of the instru-
ments could result in changes in the energy received.

Comparison of the developed tool with odeon

The statistical parameters generated by the developed tool were compared to an established ray trac-
ing software, Odeon. Table 2 summarises the results. A high level of agreement was found for both
Sanz Soriano et al. 277

SPL7-40 (dB) reducon from omnidireconal

source - Trumpet
10.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0 1kHz
2.0 4kHz
1.0
0.0

Figure 14. Early energy sound reduction from trumpet to musicians compared to omnidirectional
source.

SPL7-40 (dB) reducon from omnidireconal

source - Violin
10.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0 1kHz
3.0
4kHz
2.0
1.0
0.0

Figure 15. Early energy sound reduction from violin to musicians compared to omnidirectional source.

the ‘open proscenium’ and ‘orchestra shell’ scenarios, as discussed in the stage shell analysis in this
paper. This verification was undertaken with omnidirectional sources and no musicians on stage.

Conclusion
The developed Grasshopper/Rhinoceros tool was found to be useful for designing stage conditions.
The tool produced both meaningful graphics that communicated reflection direction, delay and
strength to the client.
278 Building Acoustics 28(3)

Table 2. Comparison of the tool results with Odeon – based on a source with a sound power level of
80 dBA.

dB Open proscenium Orchestra shell

Odeon Tool Difference Odeon Tool Difference

SPLdirect 54.3 54.3 0 54.3 54.3 0
SPL0–50 ms 57.3 57.3 0 58.8 58.8 0
SPL0–80 ms 57.7 57.8 0.1 59.5 59.2 0.3
SPL7–40 ms 22.5 – – 52.0 52.1 0.1
STearly –20.4 –20.5 0.1 –13.8 –13.7 0.1

The power of the tool comes both in its accessibility from an architectural perspective, and its
affinity towards providing ‘real-time’ visual and statistical feedback for architectural design issues.
Through the inherent visual nature of the tool, outputs are more digestible for a client or
architect.
As Rhinoceros is a predominantly architectural programme, little time is lost converting files
and simplifying the model. Furthermore, the immediacy of the results allows the acoustician and
architect to make meaningful design changes within a workshop.
The incorporation of an evolutionary solver, Galapagos, into the tool shifts it from a tool for
assessing surfaces to a design tool. Galapagos has the power to quickly trial multiple options to
optimise the design to create highly tuned solutions with greater design variability.
Results from the tool suggest that an average reduction of 4 dB in early energy (7-40ms) can be
found when considering shielding from the orchestra. Depending on the instrument, a reduction of
up to 6–8 dB in early energy can be found when considering instrument directivity. The stage
acoustic parameters calculated with the tool aligned well with results from Odeon.
Further research will be undertaken on improving the management and calculation of curved
surfaces and diffraction of sound around musicians’ heads. A non-binary approach to the ‘rays’
intersection from musicians will be investigated to estimate the effect of diffraction around
musicians.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publi-
cation of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD
Javier Sanz Soriano https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0560-4052

References
1. Scelo T. Integration of acoustics in parametric architectural design. Acoust Aust 2015; 43: 59–67.
2. Garcia Gomez JO, Kahle E and Wulfrank T. Shaping concert halls. In: EuroRegio 2016. Porto, 2016, pp. 1–11.
3. Sanz Soriano J, Wright O, Van den Braak E, et al. Exploration of stage acoustic considerations with
parametric tools during early design stages. In: ISRA 2019. Amsterdam, 2019, pp. 5–16.
Sanz Soriano et al. 279

4. Marshall AH, Gottlob D and Alrutz H. Acoustical conditions preferred for ensemble. J Acoust Soc Am
1978; 64(5): 1437–1442.
5. Gade AC. Investigations of musicians’ room acoustic conditions in concert halls. II: field experiments
and synthesis of results. Acta Acust United Acust 1989; 69(6): 249–262.
6. ISO-3382-1:2009: Acoustics–measurements of room acoustic parameters–part 1: performance spaces.
7. Dammerud JJ. Stage acoustics for symphony orchestras in concert halls. PhD Thesis, University of Bath,
UK, 2009.
8. Van Den Braak E and Van Luxemburg L. New (stage) parameter for conductor’s acoustics? J Acoust Soc
Am 2008; 123(5): 3198–3198.
9. Guthrie A. Stage acoustics for musicians: a multidimensional approach using 3D ambisonic technology.
PhD Thesis, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, USA, 2014.
10. Panton L, Holloway D, Cabrera D, et al. Stage acoustics in eight Australian concert halls: acoustic con-
ditions in relation to subjective assessments by a touring chamber orchestra. Acoust Aust 2017; 45(1):
25–39.
11. Panton L and Holloway D. Effect of a chamber orchestra on direct sound and early reflections for per-
formers on stage: a boundary element method study. J Acoust Soc Am 2017; 141(4): 2461–2472.
12. Wenmaekers RHC, Hak CCJM and Hornikx MCJ . How orchestra members influence stage acoustic
parameters on five different concert hall stages and orchestra pits. J Acoust Soc Am 140: 4437–4448.
13. Barron M and Dammerud JJ. Stage acoustics in concert halls –early investigations. Proc Inst Acoust
2006; 28: 1–2.
14. Pätynen J and Lokki T. Directivities of symphony orchestra instruments. Acta Acust United Acust 2010;
96: 138–167.