Toggle sidebar

Loudest crowd

allan5oh said:
Designing a building for acoustics means it ABSORBS sound. MTSC has plenty of acoustic absorption. They even have it on the ceiling.
Click to expand...

Nucks fans been telling Oilers and Flames for this for years, when we were accused of being a morgue, when all they can brag about is them having a louder building then all.
 
allan5oh said:
Designing a building for acoustics means it ABSORBS sound. MTSC has plenty of acoustic absorption. They even have it on the ceiling.
Click to expand...

Hmm, you learn something new every day. I heard it was designed with sound in mind which I interpreted to mean NOT quiet.
 
Stej said:
Hmm, you learn something new every day. I heard it was designed with sound in mind which I interpreted to mean NOT quiet.
Click to expand...

Gotta keep in mind that the building is used for many concerts too. If the acoustics were designed to propagate sound it would be a huge challenge to mix bands and you'd have areas in the building where there would be almost no clarity due to resonance issues. Sound damping is a huge part of why that building is an acceptable venue for concerts.

If they didn't have concerts or other events there i'm sure they would design the building to amplify crowd noise, and make it insanely loud.
 
I've been to many, many concerts at both the old Winnipeg Arena and the new Bell MTS Place. The old arena was a challenge for good sound, with lots of bouncing and echo, but the new building is almost flawless, which should make it less noisy, yet somehow during Jets games...it isn't.
 
Jaytee said:
I've been to many, many concerts at both the old Winnipeg Arena and the new Bell MTS Place. The old arena was a challenge for good sound, with lots of bouncing and echo, but the new building is almost flawless, which should make it less noisy, yet somehow during Jets games...it isn't.
Click to expand...
The small footprint, with relatively steep seating and as much overhand on the upper deck as they can get without compromising sight lines is a big factor. Basically you have more fans closer to the ice and in a smaller volume than you would in most arenas. The compromise is that t’s probably the most cramped for legroom, but that was a deliberate trade off they knew when they designed the building that they wanted to trade leg room for getting fans closer to the ice (or stage for concerts).
 
LowEnd88 said:
Gotta keep in mind that the building is used for many concerts too. If the acoustics were designed to propagate sound it would be a huge challenge to mix bands and you'd have areas in the building where there would be almost no clarity due to resonance issues. Sound damping is a huge part of why that building is an acceptable venue for concerts.

If they didn't have concerts or other events there i'm sure they would design the building to amplify crowd noise, and make it insanely loud.
Click to expand...
Compare MTS to US Bank stadium in Minneapolis which apparently sucks balls for concerts and is huge. MTS definitely has a roof to attract concerts.
 
LowEnd88 said:
Gotta keep in mind that the building is used for many concerts too. If the acoustics were designed to propagate sound it would be a huge challenge to mix bands and you'd have areas in the building where there would be almost no clarity due to resonance issues. Sound damping is a huge part of why that building is an acceptable venue for concerts.

If they didn't have concerts or other events there i'm sure they would design the building to amplify crowd noise, and make it insanely loud.
Click to expand...

I totally get that the design has to limit echo; I mean clearly that's why recording studios have soft and uneven material lining the walls. Perhaps it was doublethink for me to expect that reducing echo and designing for optimum sound/volume isn't contradictory. But I digress; we're getting way off track.

My initial point was an attempt to concede that the building design contributes to how loud the building gets. I guess this shoots that point down. What good is a low ceiling if it absorbs all the sound?

Not even sure why I'm in this thread. As I said in another post a week or so ago, who gives a f*** whether one building is a decibel or two louder than another? :dunno::laugh:
 
Stej said:
I totally get that the design has to limit echo; I mean clearly that's why recording studios have soft and uneven material lining the walls. Perhaps it was doublethink for me to expect that reducing echo and designing for optimum sound/volume isn't contradictory. But I digress; we're getting way off track.

My initial point was an attempt to concede that the building design contributes to how loud the building gets. I guess this shoots that point down. What good is a low ceiling if it absorbs all the sound?

Not even sure why I'm in this thread. As I said in another post a week or so ago, who gives a **** whether one building is a decibel or two louder than another? :dunno::laugh:
Click to expand...

hahaha i can agree with this.
 
Claiming which team has the loudest crowd is just as annoying as when the announcers continually remind us that (insert city, usually a small market city) is a hockey city.
 
Maybe if the average person can buy tickets in Toronto we would make some noise every now and then.

I enjoy watching Jets/Nashville games because of the fans
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom