The importance of the direct to

reverberant ratio in the perception of

distance, localization, clarity, and
envelopment
David Griesinger
Consultant
Cambridge MA USA
www.DavidGriesinger.com

Introduction
Sound engineers need (almost) no convincing about the
importance of direct sound.
The sound image in most popular recordings is built
from close-miked sources.
Reverberation is added later as an enhancement, the
sauce that holds the sound together.
There is a fiction among classical engineers that the
hauptmicrophone picks up the direct sound
But in practice the image is created by accents, and
the main mike adds some early reflections.
My research into spatial acoustics started with sound
recording, and the hall research of Michael Barron.

Barrons Spatial Impression Diagram

Barron started with direct sound in front of listener and added a single
reflection at 40 degrees from the front. The diagram plots the spatial
impression that resulted as a function of time delay and the ratio of the
reverberation to direct (R/D). The range is -25dB tp +5dB

My research
I used a similar setup, but employed six or more
reflections at various angles and delays.
I obtained similar results and found it was the total energy of
the delays that mattered, not the amplitude of the individual
reflections.
The theory of how the ear detects such reflections in the
presence of music followed, with many interesting results.
But the range of the energy of the reflections was the same as
Barrons about -25dB to +5dB with respect to the direct.

In this talk I will refer to the Direct to Reverberant ratio

(D/R). In terms of D/R, Barrons range is +25dB to -5dB.

Results for D/R=+25dB to 0dB

Dry speech
Note the sound is uncomfortably close

Mix of dry with early reflections at -5dB. (D/R = +5dB)

The mix has distance (depth), and is not muddy!
Note there is no apparent reverberation, just depth.

Same but with the reflections delayed 20ms at -5dB. (+5dB D/R)
Note also that with the additional delay the reflections begin to be heard as discrete echos.
But the apparent distance remains the same.

Same but with the reflections delayed 50ms at -3dB (+3dB D/R)
Now the sound is becoming garbled. These reflections are undesirable!
If the speech were faster it would be difficult to understand.

Same but with reflections delayed 150ms at -12dB (+12dB D/R)

I also added a few reflections between 20 and 80ms at a level of -8dB to
smooth the decay.
Note the strong hall sense, and the lack of muddiness.

Note the Late reflections are at least 7dB more audible than the early ones!!!
And the sense of hall is all in the late reflections!!!

Preference and Practice

In recording practice the D/R for the combination of early
and late reflections is nearly always between +4 and
+6dB
If you give an engineer a control which varies D/R, and ask them
to set an optimum value, this is what they choose.
Acousticians (including Beranek) choose the same values.

Regardless of the material, reverberation in reproduced

music should be strong enough to be audible,
And weak enough not to reduce intelligibility or clarity

These values of D/R are optimums based on human

hearing and the properties of music.
Otherwise engineers, producers, conductors and musicians
would insist on something else.

But these are NOT the values of D/R found in halls!

Concert Halls
Barron was interested in halls, not recordings!
The critical distance in Boston Symphony Hall (BSH) is ~
7meters.
At this distance the D/R is 0dB. Almost all the listeners are
beyond this distance. The average D/R is below -8dB.

In halls the majority of the loudness is in the reflections

Otherwise the music would not be loud enough throughout the
hall.

When we experiment with D/R values less than 0 very

different results emerge.
And the results have large and controversial implications for
hall design.

Experiences Staatsoper Berlin

Barenboim gave Albrecht Krieger
and I 20 minutes to adjust the
LARES system in the Staatsoper.
My initial setting was much to
strong for Barenboim. He
wanted the singers to be
absolutely clear, with the
orchestra rich and full a
seemingly impossible task.
Adding a filter to reduce the
reverberant level above 500Hz
by 6dB made the sound ideal for
him.
The house continues with this
setting today for every opera.
Ballet uses more of a concert hall
setting which sounds amazingly
good.

In this example the singers have high

clarity and presence. The orchestra is
rich.

Experiences Bolshoi a famously

good hall for opera
The Bolshoi is a large
space with Lots of velvet.
RT is under 1.2 seconds
at 1000Hz, and the
sound is very dry.
Opera here has
enormous dramatic
intensity the singers
seem to be right in front
of you even in the back
of the balconies. It is
easy for them to
overpower the orchestra
This mono clip was recorded in the back of the second balcony.
In this clip the orchestra plays the reverberation. The sound is
rich and enveloping

New Bolshoi before modification

The Semperoper was
the primary model
for the design of the
new Bolshoi. As in
Dresden the sound
on the singers is
distant and muddy,
and the orchestra is
too loud.
RT ~1.3 seconds at
1000Hz.
New Bolshoi
Dresden

This theater suffers greatly from having the old Bolshoi next door!

What is it about the

SOUND of this
theater that makes
the singers seem so
far away?

Experiences Amsterdam Muziektheater

Peter Lockwood and I spent hours adjusting the
reverberant level using a remote in the hall.
He taught me to hear the point where the direct sound becomes
no longer perceptible, and the sonic distance dramatically
increases.
With a 1/2 dB increase in reverberant level, the singer moved
back 3-4 meters.
In Copenhagen, I once decreased the D/R by one dB while
Michael Schonwandt was conducting a rehearsal. He
immediately waved to me from the pit, and told me to put it back.

Given a chance to listen A/B, these conductors choose

dramatic intensity over reverberance.
When they do not have this chance, reverberation is seductive,
and the singers be damned!

Experiences, Copenhagen New

Stage

We were asked to improve

loudness and intelligibility of
the actors in this venue.

64 Genelec 1024s surround

the audience, driven by two
line array microphones, and
the LAREAS early delay
system. A gate was used to
remove reverberation from the
inputs.
5 drama directors listened to a
live performance of Chekhov
with the system on/off every 10
minutes.
The result was unanimous it works, we dont like it. The system increases the
distance between the actors and the audience. I would rather the audience did not
hear the words than that this connection is compromised.

INVOLVEMENT, not ENVELOPMENT

All these experiences relate to the importance of the perception of

direct sound in drama and opera. I believe the same is true of
music.
At the IOA conference in Oslo, Krokstad gave a lecture where he
insisted that acousticians needed to provide involvement, not
envelopment
And not just for drama and opera, but for chamber music and symphony
too.
At the end of the lecture he showed a picture of the Theatre de Colon in
Brazil. Is this the concert hall of the future he asked?

It is the independent perception of the direct sound that involvement

requires
We must learn how to provide this essential element in halls.

I was recently fortunate to hear the Metropolitan Opera performance

of Salome in HD at a good theater.
The sound was harsh and dry but you could hear every syllable of a
fabulous performance.
This is the dramatic and sonic experience the audience will increasingly
come to demand.

Main Points

The ability to hear the Direct Sound the sound energy that travels
to the listener without reflecting is a vital component of the sound
quality in a great hall.
The ability to separately perceive the direct sound when the D/R is less
than 0dB requires time. There must be sufficient time between the
arrival of the direct sound and the build-up of the reverberation

Hall shape does not scale

Our ability to perceive the direct sound depends on its level compared to
reflected sound, and on the time-gap between the two.
Both the direct to reverberant ratio (d/r) and the time-gap change as the
hall size scales but human hearing (and the properties of music) do
not change.
A hall shape that provides great sound to a high percentage of 2000
seats may produce a much lower percentage of great seats if it is scaled
to 1000.

Main Points 2

Current acoustic measures ignore both the D/R and the time gap
between the direct (the first wavefront) and the reverberation.
RT, C80, and EDT all ignore the strength of the direct sound, and the
effects of musical style on the audibility of the D/R
The strength of the reverberation depends on the length of a note compared
to the reverberation time. Short sounds do not excite a large hall, and the
D/R in practice can be much higher than expected from conventional theory.
There need to be gaps between notes sufficiently long that the reverberance
decays below the level of the new direct sound.
The direct sound from notes that differ in pitch by at least a musical fifth are
easier to distinguish.

We need measures that use binaural recordings of actual

performances as inputs.
And the ability to listen to these recordings to test the validity of these
measures against the true experience.
Two such measures will be discussed here.
Methods for accurately making and reproducing binaural recordings are
discussed in another paper.

Diffusing elements do not scale

The audibility of direct sound is frequency dependent.
Frequencies above 1000Hz are particularly important
Diffusing elements can cause the D/R to also vary with
frequency in ways that improve direct sound audibility.
The best halls (Boston, Amsterdam, Vienna) all have ceiling and
side wall elements with box shape and a depth of ~0.4m.
These elements tend to send frequencies above 1000Hz back
toward the orchestra and the floor, where they are absorbed.
The result is a lower early and late reverberant level above 1000Hz
in the rear of the hall.
This increases the D/R for the rear seats, and improves clarity.

Replacing these elements with smooth curves or with

smaller size features does not achieve the same result.
Some evidence of this effect can be seen in IACC80
measurements when the hall and stage are occupied.

Sound Build-up in halls, or why do

different large halls sound different?
In a large hall such as Boston Symphony
(BSH), or the Amsterdam Concertgebouw (CG)
the reverberation decay is nearly identical, but
the halls sound different.
I decided to examine the way reverberation builds up
compared to the direct sound, instead of the way it
decays.
I used a simple binaural image-source model with
HRTFs measured from my own eardrums.

Reverberation build-up and decay from models

Amsterdam

Boston

The upward dashed curve shows the theoretical exponential rise of reverberant
energy from a continuous source. The seat position in the model has been chosen
so that the D/R is -10dB for a continuous note.
The upward solid line shows the actual build-up, and the downward solid line shows
the decay from a shorter note here a 100ms excitation. Note the actual D/R for the
short note is only about 6dB.
T10 the time for the reverberation to rise to 1/10 the final energy is less in Boston
than in Amsterdam, but after about 50ms the curves are nearly identical. (Without
the direct sound they sound identical.)

Smaller halls
What if we build a hall with the shape of
BSH, but half the size?
The new hall will hold about 600 seats.
The RT will be half, or about 1 second.
We would expect the average D/R to be the
same. Is it? How does the new hall sound?
If the client specifies a 1.7s RT will this make
the new hall better, or worse?

Half-Size Boston
The gap between the direct and the
reverberation and the RT have become
half as long.
Additionally, in spite of the shorter RT,
the D/R has decreased from about -6 in
the large BSH model, to about -8.5 in
the half-size model.
This is because the reverberation
builds-up quicker and stronger in the
smaller hall.
The direct sound, which was distinct in more than 50% of the seats in the large hall
will be audible in fewer than 30% of the seats in the small hall.
If the client insists on increasing the RT by reducing absorption, the D/R will be
further reduced, unless the hall shape is changed to increase the cubic volume.
The client and the architects expect the new hall to sound like BSH but they, and
the audience, will be disappointed. As Leo Beranek said about the Berlin
Philharmonie: They can always sell the bad seats to tourists.

An existing small hall

An existing small hall of 350 seats has a
measured RT of 1.0s
The sound in the first few rows is loud and
harsh. In the middle 3 rows it has a good
balance between direct and reverberation.
The remainder of the seats (where most of
the audience sits) have a muddy sound and
poor localization.
Note that the time gap between the direct
and the reverberation is even shorter than
the half-Boston
The D/R has decreased further, from-8.5 to less than -10dB. It is impossible to
increase the volume of this hall. How can we improve the acoustics?
1. The earliest reflections to the floor (the first laterals and the stage back wall) can
be reduced through diffusion or absorption. This will increase the time gap.
2. The reverberation time must be increased but in a frequency dependent
fashion, and with a lower level. This can only be done electronically.

An existing small hall - pictures

Note the highly reflective stage and side

walls, deeply coffered ceiling, and relatively
low internal volume per seat.
The sound in most seats is muddy. Adding
reflections or decreasing absorption will only
make the situation worse.
Compare this to Williams Hall coming up

Small shoebox halls can be OK

If the client insists on a shoebox it can
work by building a large hall and installing
a small number of seats.
I was just in such a small hall in Helsinki, and
at least half the seats were OK.

But this is not the ideal solution.

With a different shape nearly all the seats
could have been OK and it might have been
less expensive.

Great Small Halls Exist!

Jordan Hall at New England
Conservatory has 1200 seats, an
RT of 1.3s occupied. The shape is
half-octagonal, with a high ceiling.
The audience surrounds the stage,
with a single high balcony. The
average seating distance is much
shorter than a shoebox hall,
increasing the direct sound.
The high internal volume allows a
longer RT with low reverberant level.
The sound in nearly every seat is clear and direct, with a marvelous surrounding
reverberation.
Although the hall is renowned as a chamber music hall, it is also ideal for small
orchestras and choral performances. It was built in about 1905.
The hall is in constant use with concerts nearly every night, (and many afternoons.)

Williams Hall, NEC

Williams hall, in the same building, has ~350 seats in a square plan
with a high ceiling.
Once again the sound is clear and reverberant in most, if not all,
seats.
The audience usually sits where the
orchestra is rehearsing in this
picture.
The square plan keeps the average
seating distance low.
The high ceiling and high single
balcony provides a long RT without
a high reverberant level.
The absorbent stage reduces the
reverberant level while keeping the
direct sound strong.
Note the coffered ceiling similar to
BSH.

Hard learned lessons

Where clarity is a problem in small halls, acousticians usually

recommend adding early reflections through a stage shell, side
reflectors, etc.
These measures reduce the gap between the direct sound and the
reflected energy
They increase the sense of distance to the performers, and the
muddiness.
They also increase loudness, which is almost always too high already

A better way is to add absorption, or perhaps diffusion, to reduce the

level of the earliest reflections.
Small halls have strong direct sound and too many early reflections The
reflections also come too quickly Adding more reflections is exactly the
wrong thing to do.
Adding absorption will improve clarity but reduce the late reverberant
level and the RT. Electronics, or more cubic volume, can restore the
longer RT without decreasing the D/R

Adding absorption is NOT recommended unless the decrease in

late reverberation can be compensated.

If electronics are used they must be on all the time.

Clarity and involvement come from the

direct sound. Spaciousness and
envelopment are provided by LATE energy.

Reflections in the time range of 50 to 100ms can increase loudness

but tend to reduce clarity and intelligibility.
Reflections from 20 to 50ms can increase intelligibility but they
decrease involvement.

A few Early lateral reflections can help blend together the orchestra
image, but they do not provide significant envelopment.
When the direct sound is adequate for localization, and there is lots of
late reverberation, the spatial perception of early reflections is inhibited.
You can often make the reflections in the time range of 20ms to 80ms
monaural with no change in sound.

A hall with good reverberance will emphasize late reverberation over

early reflections
And ideally it should provide a lower level of reverberation above
1000Hz in the back of the hall.

This will provide loudness and clarity to the largest number of seats.

Why do current acousticians emphasize

early reflections?

I believe the current emphasis on early reflections (which include

reflections in the deadly range of 50-80ms) is a result of a misapplication of Barrons data for D/R greater than 0dB.
When D/R is below 0dB we find that it is the spatial properties of the
late reverberation that dominate perception.
The correlation between hall quality and early time delay gap
found by Leo Beranek applies only to large halls.
In a large hall excessive width can lead to disturbing echoes in some
seats.
Leo told me his interest in the subject started when he was working in
such a hall.

Our work shows that there may be an optimum delay gap.

The ~ 25 ms observed in BSH may be close to that optimum.
The Amsterdam hall, which is both clearer and more reverberant,
sometimes has echoes particularly on solo piano.
The Musikverrein in Vienna has a shorter gap, and a longer RT than
BSH. Seats in the rear half of the hall sound muddy and distant to this
author.
Best to sell them to tourists
The standing room (under the balcony) is surprisingly good!

Threshold Data
Onset and azimuth thresholds allow hall sound to be
predicted from models!
1. Thresholds for azimuth detection.
Azimuth experiments are simple, and repeatable.

2. Thresholds for onset enhancement

Onset enhancement is also easy to quantify.

3. Thresholds for elevation detection.

Work is on-going. Accurate HRTFs are needed in models

4. Thresholds for diffuse field detection

Also depends on accurate HRTFs

We have a data set of HRTFs from a precise model of a

single individual, including the ear canal and eardrum
impedance.
This data is available for the asking

Experiment for threshold of Azimuth

Detection in halls
A model is constructed with a
source position on the left, and
another source on the right
Source signal alternates between
the left and a right position.
When the d/r is less than about
minus 13dB both sources are
perceived in the middle.
Subject varies the d/r, and reports
the value of d/r that separates the
two sources by half the actual
angle.
This is the threshold value for
azimuth detection for this model
(Above this threshold the subject also reports a decrease in subjective distance)

Threshold for azimuth detection as a

function of T10

As the time gap between the direct

sound and the reverberation
increases, the threshold for azimuth
detection goes down.

As the time gap between notes increases

(allowing reverberation to decay) the
threshold goes down.
To duplicate the actual perception in small
halls I need a 50ms gap between notes.

An important caveat!

All these thresholds were measured without visual cues

The author has found that in a concert (with occasional visual input)
instruments (such as a string quartet) are perceived as clearly
localized and spread.

When I record the sound with probes at my own eardrums, and play it
back through calibrated earphones the sound seems highly accurate,
but localization often disappears!
Without visual cues when the d/r is below threshold the individual
instruments are localized and spread when they play solo, but collapse to
the center when they play together.
My brain will not allow me to detect this collapse when I am in the concert
hall even if I close my eyes most of the time!
With eyes closed it is more difficult to separate the sounds of the
individuals, such as the second violin and the viola. This difficulty persists
in the binaural recording.

How to use the Thresholds

These thresholds provide guidelines for hall design. As a
first approximation the d/r value can come directly from
classical acoustics, where for typical hall absorption and
an RT of 2s:
d/r ~= 20*log10(0.14*sqrt(R)/d_source) + d_source/30
Where:
R = room constant = S*a_av/(1-a_av)
S = total surface area
d_source = source distance in ft
a_av = average absorption coefficient

d/r scales with hall dimensions as long as the source to

listener distance decreases linearly with the sqrt of the
area. (And the music uses shorter notes by the same
factor!) But the time gap decreases and if a_av is
reduced to keep RT constant, than d/r will decreases
also. The net result is that localization decreases in
small halls unless the shape is changed.

In practice the D/R is different than expected

from classical acoustics
The D/R is frequency dependent in halls, and the D/R
above 1000Hz is critically important for the detection of
direct sound and musical involvement.
Surface features can be used to increase D/R at higher
frequencies.
In addition, the distribution of absorption in a hall
significantly alters the distribution of the D/R.
A high ceiling with a lot of reflecting surfaces above the audience
can increase RT without reducing the average D/R, because
there is less excitation of the more distant volume, and the
reverberation created tends to stay up high.
Effort should be to keep the D/R above ~700Hz as constant as
possible over the maximum number of seats.
Current modeling techniques may not properly calculate these
effects.
Old fashioned light models might work better

Light models
I ran across these pictures while
cleaning out my office. The top
one is a too-simple model of the
Philadelphia Academy of Music.
The bottom is intended to be
BSH, but with a single balcony.
I abandoned light modeling
because it does NOT provide any
information about the time delay
gap nor information about the
effects of note length on D/R.
But it DOES provide information
about the D/R the total
reverberant energy compared to
the direct. And very complex hall
shapes can be quickly modeled.

Modeling T10
Classical acoustics predicts a starting value for d/r. We
can make a chart of d/r values in all the seats of a
proposed hall.
T10 does not follow easily from classical acoustics, but
can be predicted with fair accuracy with a simple
computer model of the hall. Just the basic hall
dimensions are needed.
From this data we can predict the localizability of sound
in all the seats.
The results can be surprising!
Auralization from these models (given accurate HRTFs) can be
convincing.

Onset Enhancement
When d/r is low a small amount
of direct sound sharpens the
perceived onset of sounds, so
that a tone with a slow rise like
a cello is perceived more like a
piano.
The threshold for this effect is
lower than for azimuth detection,
and surprisingly, the highest
threshold is for the 1kHz band.
This result is mysterious.

Small Hall Shapes

Above
threshold
Near
threshold
Below
threshold
A large hall like Boston
has many seats above
threshold, and many
that are near threshold

If this hall is reduced in

size while preserving
the shape, many seats
are below threshold

It is better to use a design

that reduces the average
seating distance, using a
high ceiling to increase
volume.

Boston is blessed with two 1200 seat halls with the third shape, Jordan Hall at
New England Conservatory, and Sanders Theater at Harvard. The sound for
chamber music and small orchestras is fantastic. RT ~ 1.4 to 1.5 seconds.
Clarity is very high you can hear every note and envelopment is good.

Retro reflectors above 1000Hz

Boston, Amsterdam, and
Vienna all have side-wall and
ceiling elements that reflect
frequencies above 1000Hz
back to the stage and to the
audience close to the stage.
This sound is absorbed
reducing the reverberant level
in the rear of the hall without
changing the RT.
Another classic example is the
orchestra shell at the
Tanglewood Music Festival
Shed, designed by Russell
Johnson and Leo Beranek.
Many modern halls lack these
useful features!!!

High frequency retro reflectors

Rectangular wall features scatter in three
dimensions visualize these with the
underside of the first and second
balconies.
High frequencies are reflected back to the
stage and to the audience in the front of
the hall.
The direct sound is strong there. These
reflections are not easily audible, but they
contribute to orchestral blend.
But this energy is absorbed, and thus
REMOVED from the late reverberation
which improves clarity for seats in the back
of the hall.
Examples: Amsterdam, Boston, Vienna

High frequency overhead filters

A canopy made of surfaces separated by
some distance becomes a high frequency
filter.
Low frequencies pass through, exciting the full
volume of the hall.
High frequencies are reflected down into the
audience, where they are absorbed.
Examples: Tanglewood Music Shed, Davies
Hall San Francisco
In my experience (and Beraneks) these
panels improve Tanglewood enormously.
They reduce the HF reverberant level in the
back of the hall, improving clarity. The sound
is amazingly good, in spite of RT > 3s.
In Davies Hall the panels make the sound in the dress circle and balcony
both clear and reverberant at the same time. Very fine
(But the sound in the stalls can be harsh and elevated.)

Binaural Measures
The author has been recording
performances binaurally for years.
Current technology uses probe
microphones at the eardrums.
We can use these recordings to
make objective measurements of
halls and operas.

The methods use a hearing model where the binaural signal is first filtered into
1/3 octave bands, and then is rectified and filtered.
For measures of localization a running IACC is calculated in 10ms overlapping
windows. The maximum values of 1/(1-IACC) are then plotted as a surface
over time and frequency band.

Localization
The figure shows the number of
times per second that a solo violin
can be localized from row 4 of a
small shoebox hall (~500 seats)
near Helsinki.
It also shows the perceived
azimuth of the violin
As can be seen, the localization
achieved at the onsets of notes
is quite good, and the azimuth,
~10 degrees to the left of center,
is accurate.

Localization surface1
Here we plot the same data
for the violin as a function
of (inverse) azimuth, and
the third octave frequency
band.
As can be seen, for this
instrument the principle
localization components
come at about 1300Hz.
Interestingly, Human ability
to detect azimuth, as
shown in the threshold
data, is maximum at this
frequency.

Localization, Surface 2
Here we plot 1/(1-IACC) as
a function of time and third
octave band.
Note that the IACC peaks at
the onset of notes can have
quite high values for a brief
time.
This happens when there is
sufficient delay between the
direct and the reverberation,
and sufficient D/R.

Localization a poor seat

Here is a similar diagram for
a solo violin in row 11 of the
same hall. The sound here
is unclear, and the
localization of the violin is
poor.
As can be seen, the number
of localizations per second is
low (in this case the value
really depends on the setting
of the threshold in the
software).
Perhaps more tellingly, the
azimuth detected seems
random.
This is really just noise, and
is perceived as such.

Measures based on harmonic coherence

When the formant frequencies above 1000Hz are disturbed by

reflections, the phase relationship between harmonics of solo
instruments is randomized.
The result is highly audible, and is a primary cue for the distance of
an actor, singer, or soloist.
The perception has been described by Zwicker as roughness.

This effect can be easily measured, and is sensitive both to medial

and lateral reflections.

This graph shows the audible

fundamental components in the
formant frequencies as a function of
time. The vertical axis shows the
effective D/R ratio at the beginning of
two notes from an opera singer in Oslo
to the front of the third balcony (fully
occupied.) The sound there is often
muddy, but the fundamental pitch of
this singer came through strongly at
the beginning of two notes. He
seemed to be speaking directly to me,
and I liked it.

Another singer
The king (in Verdis Don Carlos) on the
other hand, in his wonderful solo aria,
was not able to reach the third balcony
with the same strength.
Like the localization graph shown
previously, this graph seems to be
mostly noise.
The fundamental pitches are not well
defined. The singer seemed muddy
and far away.
His aria can be heart-rending but
here it was somewhat muted by the
acoustics. We were watching the king
feel powerless and forlorn. We were
not involved.

Some demos of eardrum

recordings

These recordings have been equalized for loudspeaker reproduction. You

may be able to judge clarity and intelligibility over near-field loudspeakers.
Accurate headphone reproduction requires headphone equalization
If probes are available the method described here will work,
A method which uses equal loudness curves will be described later in this paper.

opera balcony 2, seat 11

Moderate intelligibility, reverberant sound.
OK for non-Italian speakers with subtitles

opera balcony 3, seat 12

Poor intelligibility, very reverberant

opera standing room

Deep under balcony 2 good intelligibility
This was preferred by Italian speakers

A concert hall row 8 (quite close)

Very good sound. Not so good further back.

Conclusions

Performance venues should maximize involvement, not envelopment

To achieve this goal the direct sound must be perceived by the brain as
distinct from the reflected energy and this includes early reflections
from all directions.
The optimum value for the d/r ratio depends on the hall size
The D/R ratio must increase as hall size is reduced if clarity is to be
maintained.
D/R can be increased by decreasing the average seating distance,
decreasing the reverberation time, increasing the hall volume, or by careful
use of rectangular diffusing elements.
This is particularly true in opera houses and halls designed for chamber
music.
A 1.8 second reverberation time is NOT necessarily ideal in a 1000 seat hall!!!
Remember that changes in reverberant LEVEL (D/R) are far more audible
than changes in RT.

To maintain clarity, low sonic distance, and azimuth detection in a small

hall it is desirable to reduce the average seating distance, and widely
diffuse or absorb the earliest reflections, whether lateral or not.
The best small halls do this already.

Current hall measurements ignore both the D/R and the time gap
between direct and reverberation.
Better measures exist. They must be used if the current practice of hall
design is to be improved.