Choral Sound 1
Running head: CHORAL SOUND
Spacing, Formation, and Choral Sound:
Preferences and Perceptions of Auditors and Choristers
James F. Daugherty
University of Kansas
Choral Sound 2
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to assess preferences of auditors (N = 160) and choristers (N = 46)
relative to choral sound of an SATB high school choir in two choral formations (block sectional
and mixed) and three spacings (close, lateral, and circumambient).Six conditions of a 30-second
homophonic choral excerpt were sung and recorded digitally. Auditors listened to ten pairs of
randomly ordered excerpts, expressing preference for most pleasing choral sound. Choristers
completed the Singer Evaluation Form. Auditor results indicated consistently significant
preference for excerpts sung with spread spacing and no consistent preference for formation per
se. Choristers (95.60%) thought spacing influenced their choral sound. Singers consistently and
significantly preferred spread spacing and attributed to it improved vocal production, and ability
to hear better both self and ensemble. Results suggested that choir spacing made a greater
contribution to choral sound preferences of both auditors and choristers than choral formation.
Choral Sound 3
Spacing, Formation, and Choral Sound:
Preferences and Perceptions of Auditors and Choristers
Choral methods materials routinely endorse various choir formations and seating
arrangements. Cain (1932) compares them to “the proper disposition of troops on a field to
obtain a definite objective” (p. 118). Kohut and Grant (1990) state that “noticeably different”
changes in choral sound occur by moving sections of the choir, relocating individual singers, or
singing in mixed quartets. While such comments illustrate an abiding belief among choral music
educators, little empirical research is available regarding choir formations. There is still less
empirical evidence with respect to spacing of singers and choral sound.
Aspects of human chorusing have been investigated empirically using individuals and
small groups, yet a comparatively small number of acoustical studies have included a
functioning, intact choir in the research design (Hunt, 1970; Killian, 1985; Lambson, 1961;
Lottermoser & Meyer, 1960; Lottermoser, 1969; Ternström, 1989, 1994, 1995; Tocheff, 1990).
Two of these studies relate directly to the focus of the present investigation. Lambson (1961)
employed a college choir singing both a homophonic and a polyphonic composition in both live
and taped performances to investigate four choir formations: (a) sectional blocks; (b) mixed
SATB quartets; (c) “acoustically compatible” voices placed in proximity; and (d) random
distribution. Ten visually shielded adjudicators completed the 1958 MENC choral adjudication
form. Judges were asked also to rank order preferences and identify riser formations employed.
Auditors agreed that various placements produced differing sounds, but were unable to identify
specific formations. Five favored mixed formation for the homophonic composition.
Tocheff (1990) used a researcher devised voice matching process to examine “acoustical”
or voice-compatible placement of singers. Two college choirs sang both a polyphonic and a
Choral Sound 4
homophonic choral excerpt in four formations: (a) acoustically placed sections; (b) unorganized
sections; (c) acoustically placed mixed; and (d) unorganized mixed. In all, 32 excerpts (75
minutes of music) were performed in a live study of approximately two hours' duration. Five
visually shielded adjudicators rated facets of each performance on a Likert type inventory
devised by the researcher. Results indicated that acoustical placement of voices effected
positively every variable of choral sound tested in both sectional and mixed formations.
In a pilot study, Daugherty (1996) assessed preferences of auditors and choristers relative
to choral sound produced by a high school choir in three formations and three spacings.
Participants were 46 choral singers and 72 auditors (N = 118). Twenty-six presentations of a 46second homophonic choral excerpt (19.93 minutes of music) were sung in a live performance
format that lasted 47.20 minutes. Auditors listened blindfolded then expressed a preference for
“most pleasing choral sound.” It was concluded that (a) varied physical positioning of singers
appeared to engender significant auditor perceived differences in choral sound, but (b)
difficulties observed in a live performance format raised questions about the data obtained.
Among the difficulties observed: (a) auditors reported fatigue and loss of concentration; (b)
physical shifting of position between excerpts created distraction and uneven, lengthy intervals
between performances; and (c) latter excerpts were sung less energetically than earlier ones.
The present study sought to isolate variables not considered by previous research, among
them: (a) consistency of tempo in sung choral excerpts, (b) consistency in the conducting of
seriated choral performances, (c) chorister and auditor fatigue, (d) uniform spacing of singers, (e)
consistent profiles for choral formations, and (f) an adjudication format that does not presume
ability to respond to single elements of a performance in isolation from other facets, or require
auditors to listen and write simultaneously. The purpose of the present study was to assess
Choral Sound 5
preferences and perceptions of choristers and auditors relative to the choral sound of an intact
SATB high school choir in two choral formations (block sectional and mixed) and three spacings
(close, lateral and circumambient). To this end, three research questions were devised: (1) Are
there differences in choral sound perceived and preferred by participants (auditors and choristers)
when the physical position of choral singers on risers varies from close to spread spacing among
choristers? (2) Are there differences in choral sound perceived and preferred by participants
(auditors and choristers) when the physical position of choral singers on risers varies between a
sectional block formation and a mixed formation? (3) Do perceptions and preferences of auditors
differ according to experience, age, or gender; and do perceptions and preferences of choristers
differ according to voice part sung, row within the choir, gender, or director rating (strong, weak,
average chorister)?
Method
Design Issues
Given issues of consistency and fatigue in live studies, and since Lambson (1961) reports
“nearly identical” auditor results in both recorded and live contexts, a recorded format is used for
this investigation. Choristers sing each condition only once and auditors do not require visual
shielding. To insure consistency of both tempo and conductor behavior in each condition, singers
follow the conductor via pre-recorded videotape on a 21 inch television monitor, a procedure
incorporated from the pilot study (Daugherty, 1996). Moreover, singers are assigned places
randomly in both sectional and mixed formations. This measure is used to control for possible
variables that are not concerns of this study, such as situating of strong and weak singers,
compatibility or "matched" placement of voices, height, or voice quality.
Multi-faceted adjudication forms employed in previous studies were not documented as
Choral Sound 6
valid dependent measures. In the present investigation, therefore, auditors are asked simply to
express a preference for most “pleasing choral sound” overall. In this vein, other studies related
to musical or vocal sound preference find that single, overall auditor evaluations can yield useful,
reliable information (Garman, Boyle, & DeCarbo, 1991; Zuckerman & Miyake, 1993).
Participants
Choristers. The choir for this study was a curricular ensemble from a public high school
in the southeastern United States. Members (N = 46) ranged in age from 16 - 18 years, with
most choristers (70%) at 17 years of age. There were 30 female and 16 male singers.
Auditors. Auditors constituted a haphazard array (N = 160) of persons solicited according
to variables of age (18 - 25 years, n = 80; 26 - 39 years, n = 80), gender (male, n = 80; female, n
= 80) and choral music experience (experienced, n = 80; nonexperienced, n = 80). Choral
experience was defined as at least two years’ membership in a choral ensemble at some point
from first year high school onward. This group included persons with degrees in choral music
education or choral conducting (n = 14), those currently working toward such degrees (n = 42),
and those with a degree in some other area of music (n = 16). Criteria for the non experienced
group included: (a) no musical ensemble experience (band, choir, or orchestra) from first year
high school onward; (b) no degree in music, or work toward a degree in music; and (c) no private
lessons on the same musical instrument for a year or more after first year high school.
Upon recommendation of an audiologist, auditors forty years of age and older were
excluded from this study as a general precaution against possible presence of hearing loss.
Otherwise, auditors were self-screened for hearing acuity by responding to two questions: (a)
Have you ever been told you have a hearing loss?; and (b) How would you evaluate your
Choral Sound 7
hearing? (Normal, Better than normal, Slight hearing loss, Moderate hearing loss, Severe hearing
loss).
Of all auditors, 118 (73.75%) described their hearing as normal, while another 38
auditors (23.75%) said their hearing was better than normal. Four auditors (2.5%) who reported
a slight hearing loss were included in the study because a doctor had recently assured them that
the loss was negligible. Seven other persons were replaced in the study either because they
reported moderate or severe hearing loss, or subsequent inquiry was unable to ascertain the
degree of slight hearing loss.
Materials, Procedure and Equipment
Choral music was excerpted from “Ubi Caritas” by Maurice Duruflé (Durand Publishing,
No. 312-41253) for SATTBB voices. This composition was selected from music the choir was
then rehearsing because it was a cappella, homophonic, and had a Latin text. Auditors in the pilot
study stated that a foreign language facilitated concentration upon choral sound. Measures 18
(last half) - 28 were sung in each trial. Ex post facto analysis of the DAT from the recording
session revealed that each sung excerpt was 30.5 seconds in duration.
For random sectional formation, choristers stood in contiguous sectional blocks
according to respective voice parts sung; each of the choir’s voice sections occupied all rows of
the riser unit. The random mixed formation used in this investigation was such that no two
singers of the same voice part stood contiguously. Choristers were kept in the same rows for both
formations. Once positions were randomly assigned for sectional formation, mixed formation
positions were randomly determined in conjunction with a predetermined chart for distributing
voice parts as equably as possible. Retaining singers in the same rows sought to mitigate any
perceived differences between formations possibly attributable to row change.
Choral Sound 8
Choristers stood on portable Wenger choral standing risers. Each riser unit contained
three steps. Each step was 18 inches wide. Elevation from one step to another was eight inches.
Nine contiguous riser units were employed, connected per manufacturer’s instructions and
forming a modest semi-circular curve. A windowed arrangement, whereby singers had a
sightline to the conductor between the heads of singers in the row ahead, was employed with
each formation.
For close spacing, choristers stood on each row of the riser units, hands at side, with the
upper arm of one singer no further than one inch from the upper arm of another singer. For
lateral spacing, 24-inch dowel rods were placed between the upper arm of one singer and the
upper arm of a neighboring singer; dowels were collected before singing. Circumambient
spacing followed the same procedure for lateral spacing while adding a vacant row’s space
between each row of singers. The second riser step was left vacant and the front row of the choir
stood 18 inches in front of those choristers on the first riser step. In this study circumambient
spacing was achieved by leaving the front row of singers in place while moving the riser units
back 18 inches. Precisely the same distance was maintained between the front row of the choir
and the microphones in all recording formations to insure integrity of the choral soundscape.
One week prior to the recording session, the choir rehearsed both "Ubi Caritas" and other
music in each of six positions: random block sectional formation with close, lateral, and
circumambient spacing, and random mixed formation with close, lateral, and circumambient
spacing. A log was maintained to insure a similar amount of rehearsal time in each position.
Choristers were aware only that the ensemble would be asked to sing in different
positions for a recording session. Choristers and conductor were asked not to discuss or share
nonverbally their perceptions of various placements until after the recording session.
Choral Sound 9
The choir practiced once with the videotaped conducting in the week prior to the
recording session, and once on the day of the recording. The video monitor was centrally placed
10 feet in front of the choir during recording. The backs of the monitor and the video cassette
playback device were covered with a thick material to eliminate any equipment noise.
A chorus member controlled playback of the videotape with a remote control device. He
rewound the tape during formation transitions, and whispered “Ready!” directly prior to
commencing playback, alerting singers for the conductor’s breath and preparatory beat.
The recording venue was a recital auditorium at a university school of music. Two
identical Schoeps CMC-5 omni condenser microphones, along with two Schoeps MK-2 omni
capsules, were used for recording. The microphones were placed in a spaced pair configuration
with a distance of six feet between them. Microphones were situated 15 feet from the line formed
between the ends of the semi-circular riser configuration at a height of 11 feet from the stage
floor. Microphones were angled slightly upward. In all details, this arrangement followed expert
recommendations for recording choral ensembles as detailed in Miller (1992). The entire process
was accomplished and monitored by a professional recording engineer experienced in recording
choirs. Once microphones were placed and the recording level set, nothing was touched during
the recording process; the only changes were the positions of the choristers on the risers.
Excerpts were recorded on an Ampex 467 (R-60) Digital Audio Tape (DAT). Signals
from the microphones were brought into a Soundcraft 220-B mixing board. Here only amplitude
levels were adjusted. No EQ (frequency equalization) was added. The signal then went to a
Panasonic SV-3700 digital audio tape deck.
A zero dB calibration signal was recorded onto the DAT prior to the recording of any
choral excerpts. This 0 dB amplitude level on the Soundcraft 200-B equaled minus 12 dB on the
Choral Sound 10
Panasonic SV-3700. Such calculation was made for alignment purposes for the later transfer of
excerpts from the master tape to the auditor tape. The entire recording process was monitored by
the recording engineer using AKG 240 headphones, the same headphones later used by auditors.
Immediately upon conclusion of the recording session, two survey instruments, the
Singer Evaluation Form (SEF) and the Ensemble Director’s Evaluation Form were completed.
The SEF was adapted from the pilot study and subsequently piloted in revised form with a
university recital choir
(N = 24).
Research questions formulated for this study were concerned primarily with spacing and
formation variables. Ten presentation pairs were devised to address these variables, including
some comparison of differing formations and space dimensions and a randomly selected
identical pair of excerpts. Presentation order was varied so that no two pairs devoted to the same
variable were heard in succession. Within that framework, excerpts for the auditor DAT were
selected randomly, both with respect to the order specific research pairs would be heard and with
respect to which excerpt would be heard first in each pair.
Excerpts were transferred from the master tape to the auditor DAT using a Panasonic SV3700 digital audio tape deck, the same deck used in the original recording. This signal went into
a two channel MACKIE 32x8x2 mixing console, and then into another Panasonic SV-3700 deck.
Prior to transfer, each excerpt was adjusted so that its peak amplitude was calibrated to the same
dB reading. This measure involved manipulation of input level only; there was no electronic
compression of the recorded signal. Within the transfer process, moreover, all dB levels in both
decks and the mixing board were aligned.
Auditor instructions and announcements of pair numbers were included on the auditor
DAT for administrative consistency. Eight seconds of silence separated excerpts in each pair.
Choral Sound 11
Thirty seconds of silence was left between each pair of excerpts for auditors to mark responses.
The auditor DAT was played on a Sony Walkman DAT machine (Model No. TCD-D3).
A Sony cleaning cassette (DT-10CLA) was employed at manufacturer suggested intervals. A
TASCAM MH-40 multi headphone amplifier permitted four auditors at a time to complete the
listening task, using four identical professional AKG K-240 headphone sets. Volume was set on
the amplifier, allowing no individual auditor control. The listening process was piloted with four
professionals in choral music. Volume level was determined by their recommendation. Auditors
completed the listening task in an insulated room in a university research laboratory.
For each of the ten pairs of excerpts heard, auditors were asked to respond as follows:
1. Comparing the overall sound of the choir in these two performances, I heard:
(a) No difference; (b) A Little difference; (c) Much difference; (d) Very much difference;
(e) Not sure;
2. I preferred the overall sound of the:
(a) First Performance; (b) Second Performance; (c) Both sounded the same.
Auditors devoted approximately 20.5 minutes each to this study. This timeframe was less than
the 25 minute mark at which auditors first reported fatigue in the pilot study.
Results
Auditor Results. Results are presented in Table 1 according to the variables considered.
As data are at the nominal level, chi- square testing is employed to determine significant
relationships at a predetermined alpha level of .05.
Spacing. Four pairs of performances (Pairs 1, 3, 7, & 10) were presented with contrasts
in choir spacing. Choral formation was consistent in each pair. In each condition, auditors overall
favored significantly that excerpt performed with more spread spacing. Crosstabulations revealed
Choral Sound 12
no significant difference in spacing preferences by experience, age, or gender.
Formation. Three pairs of performances (Pairs 2, 5, & 8) were presented with contrasts
in choral formation (block sectional vs mixed). Spacing was consistent in each pair. Data point to
no consistent preference for either formation per se. Significant differences, however, obtained in
favor of the mixed formation at close spacing and the block sectional formation at lateral
spacing. There was no significant preference for formation at the circumambient level.
Crosstabulations revealed that in close spacing experienced auditors significantly
preferred the mixed formation. With circumambient spacing, older experienced auditors
significantly preferred section formation, while younger experienced auditors significantly
preferred the mixed formation. Experienced female auditors significantly preferred mixed
formation at circumambient spacing, while experienced male auditors reported that both
formations sounded the same with circumambient spacing.
Indirect formation and spacing comparisons. Indirect comparison of formations at
dissimilar spacings (Pairs 4 & 9) yielded significant preference in both instances for the
sectional formation with more spread spacing.
Identical Pair. Results indicated 57.50% (n = 92) of all auditors correctly heard no
difference between the identical pair of excerpts sung as Pair 6. Among younger chorally
experienced auditors, 67.50% (n = 27) reported no difference on this item. The number of
auditors reporting no perceived difference in this presentation was significantly greater than the
frequency of “Both sounded the same” responses obtained with any other pairing.
Characterizations of differences heard. Auditors overall reported hearing differences
between excerpts in all pairs presented, with the least perception of difference occurring in Pair 6
(Identical Pair) and the highest percentages of perceived differences in two pairs where spacing
Choral Sound 13
was the dependent variable (Pairs 1 & 10). The mean percentage of auditors reporting
differences on all items was 73.99%. In those pairs soliciting spacing comparisons, the mean
was 82.49%. For pairs seeking formation comparisons, the mean was 72.49%.
Overall, most auditors characterized differences heard as “A Little difference,” though
greater differences were perceived when spacing was the variable than when formation was the
variable. At the close dimension, males, especially nonexperienced males, characterized
differences heard as being greater than did females. At the circumambient level, experienced
females characterized perceived differences as being greater than did experienced males.
Experienced auditors, particularly females, reported a greater difference between Close Mixed
and Lateral Section arrangements of choristers than did nonexperienced auditors.
Chorister Results
Spacing. Among choristers overall, 95.60% (n =44) thought spacing had some degree of
influence on choral sound, with 82.60% characterizing such influence as “Much” or “Very
much.” Two singers said they were "not sure." The choir as a whole consistently and
significantly preferred spread spacing over close spacing in every instance. Choristers thought
individual vocal technique and production improved with spacing.
Approximately 90% of choir members reported they could hear and monitor their own
voices better with spread spacing than close spacing, with circumambient spacing preferred more
than lateral spacing for this purpose. Approximately 75% of choristers reported they could hear
and monitor the sound of the ensemble as a whole better with spread spacing than close spacing;
preference for either lateral or circumambient spacing was evenly divided. Responses suggested
that close spacing was inadequate for hearing either self or ensemble well. Circumambient
spacing, however, was for some singers too spread for optimal monitoring of the choir's sound.
Choral Sound 14
Choristers disagreed that close spacing encouraged louder singing.
Crosstabulations by the choir director's subjective ability rating (strong, average, weak)
indicated that "weak" singers tended consistently to prefer closer spacing. "Average" and"strong"
choristers significantly preferred spread spacing.
Formation. This choir as a whole consistently and significantly preferred mixed
formation for all singing conditions. Crosstabulations, however, indicated that while female
choristers significantly preferred mixed formation, males were about evenly divided in
preference for formation. A majority of basses (54.50%, n = 6) preferred sectional formation.
Frequency of preference for mixed formation appeared to decline as the voice part sung
descended in range: soprano (100%, n =8), alto (87.50%, n = 14), tenor (63.60%, n=7).
Row and segment position. Singers significantly preferred a position within the middle
segment of the choir as a whole. Female singers identified as "strong" by their director appeared
more inclined to prefer standing at the outer edges of the choir. Choristers expressed no
significant preferences for where they stood within voice sections or for row assignment, though
the back row was less favored.
Other. Approximately 96% of choristers reported success with following the conductor
via video monitor. In addition, thoughtful written comments indicated that these high school
singers could understand, contribute to, learn from, and enjoy research into their choral sound.
Director's responses. The choir director indicated strong preference for spread spacing
regardless of formation: “Both lateral and circumambient produced a MUCH better sound than
closed." The director thought spacing appeared as well to foster balance: ”I found it interesting
that the random arrangements produced a fairly even balance; I had expected problems with
strong voices dominating.” She strongly agreed that the Duruflé excerpts were performed in a
Choral Sound 15
consistent manner throughout the recording session by attending to the videotaped conducting.
Discussion
The major finding of the present investigation is that preference for this ensemble’s
choral sound is influenced more by the choir’s spacing than by its mixed or sectional formation.
Such finding supports the observation of Lambson (1961) that “...differences among various
choral seating plans are not nearly as pronounced as generally believed” (p 53). In light of such
results, sometimes frenetic and conflicting discussions of choral formations (section vs mixed,
etc.) in many methods textbooks possibly constitute a misplaced debate.
Most participating auditors describe differences attributable to spacing as modest, i.e., in
terms of “A Little difference.” Spacing, then, likely contributes a nuance to the overall sound. It
may be conjectured, however, that nuance makes a difference between pleasing and nonpleasing
presentation of choral sound. For significant numbers of auditors in this study, differences in
choral sound attributable to spacing beyond the closed dimension were perceived readily and
consistently as desirable nuances.
Choristers described greater degrees of difference in their choral sound when spaced.
They attributed to spacing better vocal production and improved hearing of self and ensemble.
Such finding may complement Ternström's (1995) work on self to other ratios among singers.
Further research of the spacing variable apart from the issue of choral formation is
warranted. For music educators, such research may point to uses of choir spacing as a nonintrusive pedagogical technique contributing to students’ satisfaction with their choral sound.
Overall preferences of experienced and nonexperienced auditors were remarkably in
agreement. Only in Pair 2 (Close Section vs Close Mixed) was there significant disagreement
impacting overall auditor choice. This finding bodes well for choral performances, where
Choral Sound 16
audiences contain both experienced and nonexperienced listeners.
Singer preference for mixed formation in the present study may be attributed, in part, to
this ensemble's being accustomed to some sort of mixed arrangement. Likely, such preference
also relates to the composition of the ensemble. Females outnumber males almost two to one.
Female preference for mixed formation was consistently greater than that of male singers.
Still, might there be within the soundscape of the choir itself some acoustical attribute of
mixed formation that makes it appealing to certain choristers and some auditors? Is this, at heart,
still a spacing phenomenon in terms of distancing sound sources that emit the same frequencies?
Though results of this study seem to suggest a mixed formation may not be as successful at this
task as spread spacing, such conjecture may fuel future research.
This investigation raises implicitly some philosophical issues of potential import for
choral music education. John Dewey (1934), for instance, suggests that space is a quality
inherent in every art, including music. Just as art intensifies other areas of ordinary experience,
says Dewey, so should art express the experience of spatiality more energetically (p 209).
Jammer (1969), moreover, reminds us that the concept of space historically has had not only
physical dimensions, but metaphysical dimensions as well.
Choral music has long had deep functional associations with social, religious, and
dramatic space. The ancient Greek chorus, for instance, typically performed in large circles,
processed, and otherwise moved about. Similarly, the reverberant, vaulted space of the great
European cathedrals lent a sense of wholeness and energy to choral sound. These are but two
examples in the long history of the chorus of a continued heritage of space, a spatial presence
somehow diminished in the compact way choirs tend to rehearse and perform today.
Though this choir's director clearly preferred the ensemble sound in spread spacing, she
Choral Sound 17
also lamented that her school stage had insufficient room to place students on risers with 24-inch
lateral spacing. It is interesting to contemplate to what extent the choral sound of school
ensembles may be restricted by such understandable concerns. Why are school choirs seemingly
restrained to a stage? Why are the risers to which choirs are typically confined manufactured as
they are? Who decides where choirs sing, and for what reasons? Such questions are worthy of
further reflection.
The present investigation institutes specific controls so that with this particular “real life”
high school choir in this particular venue with this distinctive group of auditors there is
reasonable assurance that significant differences perceived and preferred in choral sound are
attributable to choir spacing, not formation or other factors. Results, however, are not inferable
to other populations. It may be conjectured that different results might obtain by employment of
different kinds of ensembles, more or fewer singers, non-random assignment of voices, older or
younger choristers, or comparison of a choir’s sound in different acoustic environments. Such
variables, while not concerns of the present study, may well suggest avenues for future
investigations of choir spacing and preferred choral sound.
Choral Sound 18
References
Cain, N. (1932). Choral music and its practice. New York: M. Witmark & Sons.
Daugherty, J. F. (1996, April). Differences in choral sound as perceived by auditors and
choristers relative to physical positioning and spacing of singers in a high school choir: A pilot
study. Poster session presented at the Music Educator's National Conference, Kansas City, MO.
Dewey, J. (1934). Art as experience. New York: G. P.
Putnam's Sons.
Garman, B. R., Boyle, J. D., & DeCarbo, N. J. (1991). Orchestra festival evaluations:
Interjudge agreement and relationships between performance categories and final ratings.
Research Perspectives in Music Education, (Fall)(2), 19-24.
Hunt, W. A. (1970). Spectrographic analysis of the acoustical properties of selected
vowels in choral sound. (Doctoral dissertation, North Texas State University). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 31, 4201A.
Jammer, M. (1969). Concepts of space: The history of theories of space in
physics.(Second ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Killian, J. N. (1985). Operant preference for vocal balance in four-voice chorales.
Journal of Research in Music Education,33(1), 55-67.
Kohut, D. L., & Grant, J. W. (1990). Learning to conduct and rehearse. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Lambson, A. R. (1961). An evaluation of various seating plans used in choral singing.
Journal of Research in Music Education, 9(1), 47-54.
Lottermoser, W. & Meyer, Fr.-j. (1960). Frequenzmessungen an gesungenen
Akkorden. Acustica, 10, 181-184.
Lottermoser, W. (1969). Zum Klang der Dresdner Kreuzchors. Musik und Kirche, 39(5),
Choral Sound 19
201-206.
Miller, A. W. (1992). Choral recordings as history: A study of the recording techniques
of five choral organizations. (Doctoral dissertation, Florida State University). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 53, 2154A.
Ternström, S. (1989). Long-time average spectrum characteristics of different choirs in
different rooms. Speech Transmission Laboratory-Quarterly Progress and Status Report, 3, 1531.
Ternström, S. (1994). Hearing myself with others: Sound levels in choral performance
measured with separation of one’s own voice from the rest of the choir. Journal of Voice,
8(4), 293-302.
Ternström, S. (1995). Self-to-other ratios measured in choral performance. Proceedings
of the 15th International Congress on Acoustics, Trondheim, Norway, Vol. 2, 681-684.
Tocheff, R. D. (1990). Acoustical placement of voices in choral formations. (Doctoral
dissertation, Ohio State University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 51, 4055A.
Zuckerman, M., and Miyake, K. (1993). The attractive voice: what makes it so? Journal
of Nonverbal Behavior, 17(2), 199-31.
Choral Sound 20
Table 1
Responses to Paired Choral Excerpts Among Auditors Overall (N=180)
____________________________________________________________________
Spacing Comparisons
__________________________________________
Pair 1:
Responses:
Percentage:
Close mixed
49
30.63
Lateral mixed
Same
102
9
63.75
5.62

 (2, N =160) = 81.62, p <.05
Pair 3
Responses:
Percentage:
Close section
45
28.13
Lateral section Same
75
40
46.87
25.00
 (2, N =160) = 13.44, p <.05
Pair 7:
Responses:
Percentage:
Circum. mixed
75
46.87
Pair 10:
Responses:
Percentage:
Lateral section
34
21.15
Lateral mixed
Same
45
40
28.13
25.00

 (2, N =160) = 13.44 p <.05
Circum. section Same
99
27
61.87
16.87
 (2, N =160) = 59.17, p <.05
Direct Formation Comparisons
___________________________________________
Pair 2:
Responses:
Percentage:
Close section
54
33.75
Close mixed
Same
71
35
44.38
21.87

 (2, N =160) = 12.16, p <.05
Pair 5:
Responses:
Percentage:
Lateral mixed
47
29.37
Lateral section Same
75
38
46.87
23.75
 (2, N =160) = 13.96 p <.05
Choral Sound 21
Table 1, continued
Pair 8:
Responses:
Percentage:
Circum. section Circum. mixed Same
48
52
60
30.00
32.50
37.50

 (2, N =160) = 1.40, p >.05
Indirect Formation/Spacing Comparisons
______________________________________________
Pair 4:
Responses:
Percentage:
Circum. section
68
42.50
Pair 9:
Responses:
Percentage:
Close mixed
39
24.37
Lateral mixed
Same
45
47
28.12
29.38
 (2, N =160) = 6.09 p <.05
Lateral section Same
87
34
54.37
21.25

 (2, N =160) = 32.11, p <.05
Identical Pair
______________________________________________
Pair 6:
Responses:
Percentage:
Close mixed
22
13.75
Close mixed
Same
46
92
28.75
57.50

 (2, N =160) = 47.45, p <.05
____________________________________________________________________