The following text is the transcript of a presentation given at the 1893 convention of the American Institute of Architects by Edmund George Lind (1829-1909), professionally known as E.G. Lind, a British-born architect who spent most of his life and career in Baltimore, but practiced in Atlanta from 1883 to 1893.
Lind had recently returned to Baltimore from Atlanta, and his architectural career was effectively finished. With more free time at his disposal, he had been recently pondering architectural acoustics, a subject that has confounded architects since at least the days of Vitruvius.
Architects of the 19th century commonly believed that interior spaces such as concert halls or church sanctuaries should be designed according to specific dimensions to produce the best sound acoustics.
Lind demonstrated the limitations of that theory by comparing the dimensions of auditoriums in 4 different buildings, including Baltimore’s Masonic Temple, which he designed. The building now operates as an event space.
While 3 of the auditoriums he referenced had dimensions based on the number 13, only one was considered an acoustic success. In a frank assessment of his work, Lind described the acoustic quality of his own Masonic temple design as “very defective”.
Lind proposed that the dimensions of auditoriums should be in multiples of the number 7, offering as proof the dimensions of Baltimore’s First Presbyterian Church — which he partly designed — and 2 unnamed churches that he designed in Georgia: the first is Central Presbyterian Church (pictured above) in Atlanta, and the second is likely Park Memorial United Methodist Church in Macon. All 3 of these buildings still stand, and Lind claimed their acoustics were a “perfect success”.
Within a few years of Lind’s presentation, Wallace Sabine‘s extensive study into the acoustic quality of buildings launched what became the field of architectural acoustics. Designers now know that the dimensions of a space have much less impact on acoustics than the strategic use of sound-absorbing building materials.
“A Few Words About Acoustics.”
By E.G. Lind, F.A.I.A., Baltimore.
For lack of more profitable employment I have been thinking. Usually I like to do that sort of thing in appreciative or sympathetic company, but, deprived of that luxury in Baltimore, I write to enlist the interests of my brethren of the Institute in the subject of my thoughts, “acoustics”.
I don’t know that it ever happened to any architect to deliberately plan a hall or concert room with a certainty of its being an acoustic success, but that buildings have been planned and are acoustically successes is very certain; whether by accident or design I know not, and that is what I want to find out. Can any rule be laid down whereby perfection in sound may be certainly acheived, and if so, what is that rule?
For some good reason, I presume, or other, various numbers have been recommended as multiples to be used in the dimensions of auditoriums. Numbers 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 18 have all had their supporters, upon what particular grounds we are left in ignorance.
I will just notice two or three examples and leave the matter in the hands of the brethren, praying for further light.
The Boston Music Hall has always been considered a specimen of acoustic perfection. Its dimensions are a multiple of that usually considered unlucky number 13, in this case a particularly fortunate one.
The dimensions of the hall are:
- 13×10=130 feet long.
- 13x 6= 91 feet wide.
- 13x 5= 65 feet high.
It has galleries on the side and ends, which considerably reduce the floor space.
The hall of the Baltimore Masonic Temple, built by myself, was also a multiple of 13, its dimensions being:
- 13×8=104 feet long.
- 13×7= 91 feet wide.
- 13×3= 39 feet high.
This hall proved to be very defective, inasmuch as it possessed resonant qualities which destroyed its usefulness as a lecture room while it was enhanced as a concert hall.
There was a gallery at the end of this hall but no side galleries, as at Boston, which might have made all the difference.
The dimensions of old Steinway Hall, New York, were a little in excess of this multiple of 13, being:
- 13×9+ 3=120 feet long.
- 13×5+10= 75 feet wide.
- 13×3+ 3= 42 feet high.
It, too, was an acoustic failure.
The Baltimore Concordia Hall was a multiple of 10, and was a failure.
Now let us take another multiple.
A few years ago, for amusement and recreation, I undertook to investigate the properties of the number 7—a number of such frequent occurence in the Holy Scriptures that we may be naturally led to the conclusion that 7 is the symbol of perfection and completeness.
Convinced of its importance, I determined to use this multiple in arranging the auditorium of a Presbyterian church I was about building in Georgia, and made the dimensions thus:
- 7×10=70 feet long.
- 7x 9=63 feet wide.
- 7 x5=35 feet high.
It proved a perfect success, and it has the testimony of hundreds of divines that it is the best auditorium for acoustics they ever preached in.
Later on I had another church to build for another Presbyterian congregation in Georgia, but smaller in size. I adopted the same multiple, 7, for my auditorium, and with the same success.
In further support of the proposition that 7 is a multiple to be respected, I will mention that the auditorium of the First Presbyterian Church of Baltimore has always enjoyed a first-class reputation for its acoustic qualities, and it also is a multiple of 7, being:
- 7×10=70 feet long.
- 7x 9=63 feet wide.
- 7x 9=63 feet high.
So little in excess of the multiple as to be unappreciable.
It may be doubted whether a strict adherence to any particular multiple will insure success.
The acoustic qualities of a room may be influenced, in great measure, by the materials of which it is constructed, the arrangement of its various parts, the heating and ventilation — all have the part to play — but due attention being given to these and all other things being equal, I incline to the multiple 7 all the time until good reason is shown for adopting some other number.
There is no problem so difficult of solution as this one of acoustics, and yet with a little or more probably a good deal of thought and study we may be able to avoid some of the many pitfalls which await the unwary.
As the body cannot live without nourishment, so the mind needs food for thought. If a brother here has any to spare let him not withhold it.
For my part “I want to know.”
And that is all I have to say about acoustics.