Abbey RD. Studio 2 Dimensions

[phils]

I have looked hi and low, but have not been able to find the dimensions of Abbey Road - Studio 2.
The dimensions used to be posted on their website, but now I can't find it.
Height X width x depth would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Phil

[oceantracks]

Though I don't have the dimensions, I did have the pleasure of recording there for almost 3 months in the late Sixties.

A very strange room. Wonderful to record in, though it looked huge it was just dead ....and live....enough.

I know this doesn't help your question, but that what struck us immediately...how big it looked, and yet how great it sounded and felt.

[blackcat_records]

I know it's been a while since you've posted this, but I've got the dimensions of Abbey Road - Studio 2.

Height: 24ft/7.31m
Width: 38ft 3in/11.65m
Length: 60ft 2in/18.35m
Floor area: 2131sq ft/198sq m
Reverberation Time: 1.2 sec
Musician capacity: 5

Just out of curiosity, what do you need the dimensions for? Are you trying to study it's acoustics or something?

I had that idea a while back & wondered what it was exactly about Studio 2 that made it sound so great (from what others have said, including oceantracks above). So I took the dimensions & put it into a program called RealTraps ModeCalc (RealTraps - Home) which calculates Room Modes & Ratios.
I'm no expert on room acoustics but the results look pretty nice. The first modes start out pretty low (because of it being a big room) & it looks like all the modes are spaced out pretty nicely, so it seems like it would have a relatively flat sound overall.

oceantracks, can you expand upon the sound of Studio 2?
So it was mostly dead but I guess the hard-wood floors made it a little bit live? Was there a noticeable echo? Were those big yellow floor-to-ceiling drapes for acoustic treatment?

Also, what did those big white hinged acoustic walls do exactly? Did it actually change the acoustics of the room? Or was it more for providing isolation rooms behind the screens?

[oceantracks]

Originally Posted by blackcat_records

I know it's been a while since you've posted this, but I've got the dimensions of Abbey Road - Studio 2.

Height: 24ft/7.31m
Width: 38ft 3in/11.65m
Length: 60ft 2in/18.35m
Floor area: 2131sq ft/198sq m
Reverberation Time: 1.2 sec
Musician capacity: 5

Just out of curiosity, what do you need the dimensions for? Are you trying to study it's acoustics or something?

I had that idea a while back & wondered what it was exactly about Studio 2 that made it sound so great (from what others have said, including oceantracks above). So I took the dimensions & put it into a program called RealTraps ModeCalc (RealTraps - Home) which calculates Room Modes & Ratios.
I'm no expert on room acoustics but the results look pretty nice. The first modes start out pretty low (because of it being a big room) & it looks like all the modes are spaced out pretty nicely, so it seems like it would have a relatively flat sound overall.

oceantracks, can you expand upon the sound of Studio 2?
So it was mostly dead but I guess the hard-wood floors made it a little bit live? Was there a noticeable echo? Were those big yellow floor-to-ceiling drapes for acoustic treatment?

Also, what did those big white hinged acoustic walls do exactly? Did it actually change the acoustics of the room? Or was it more for providing isolation rooms behind the screens?

Yes the floors made it a bit live, but not live like you think of today in a posh studio with wood floors. It is a very strange room, again, it's size does not really reflect it sound. It sounds open a big without sounding reflective. I know that's weird, but that's what makes it different. It certainly wasn't a DEAD studio on it's own, but with the rugs, and baffles, you could make that room sound like a record plant recording from the 70s. Very strange.

The hinged walls they could pull together and cut the studio in half. They did that on a string session we had, it was like a big gobo In fact they didn't close them all the way, just pulled them toward each other a bit. Yes I'm sure it changed the sound.

The miraculous versatility of the room can be heard by listening to the insane variety of sounds The Beatles achieved in that same room from song to song. Though they did tracks in the smaller Studio 3 as well, Studio 2 was their main base of operation.

TH

[Clueless]

Originally Posted by blackcat_records

I know it's been a while since you've posted this, but I've got the dimensions of Abbey Road - Studio 2.

Height: 24ft/7.31m
Width: 38ft 3in/11.65m
Length: 60ft 2in/18.35m
Floor area: 2131sq ft/198sq m
Reverberation Time: 1.2 sec
Musician capacity: 5

If you can only fit 5 musicians in a space that large, they must really hate each other! Seriously, it's 55 musicians...

[vernier]

Can't beat Studio 2.




'

[Kiwiburger]

The total dimensions of a room are only one factor. What the room is made out of, and the treatment on the walls, defines the reverb properties. You can make a very small room sound very big, and a very big room sound very dry.

Which is exactly what I think was going on at Abbey Road. For a lot of pop & rock, dry or small room sounds are what is needed. But small rooms can really suck, because of problems with the room nodes being in the audio range. I think the very best small room sounds come out of specially treated big rooms, like Studio 2.

And the actual reverb or room sounds that you hear on the albums are most likely from the amazing echo chambers, which are an exercise in getting large room sounds out of small rooms. This was done with very reflective rooms, and convex surfaces in the form of large pipes. This breaks up the room nodes and disperses the sound around. George Martin certainly understood acoustics, and paid a lot of attention to how air affects sounds. Probably why he called his studios AIR studios, and he describes a great deal about acoustics in his books.

As much of a hoplessly romantic Beatles lover that I am, I think the importance of the Studio 2 is highly overrated. Apart from the historic reasons. The importance of the echo chambers is another subject ...

[oceantracks]

Originally Posted by Kiwiburger

The total dimensions of a room are only one factor. What the room is made out of, and the treatment on the walls, defines the reverb properties. You can make a very small room sound very big, and a very big room sound very dry.

Which is exactly what I think was going on at Abbey Road. For a lot of pop & rock, dry or small room sounds are what is needed. But small rooms can really suck, because of problems with the room nodes being in the audio range. I think the very best small room sounds come out of specially treated big rooms, like Studio 2.

And the actual reverb or room sounds that you hear on the albums are most likely from the amazing echo chambers, which are an exercise in getting large room sounds out of small rooms. This was done with very reflective rooms, and convex surfaces in the form of large pipes. This breaks up the room nodes and disperses the sound around. George Martin certainly understood acoustics, and paid a lot of attention to how air affects sounds. Probably why he called his studios AIR studios, and he describes a great deal about acoustics in his books.

As much of a hoplessly romantic Beatles lover that I am, I think the importance of the Studio 2 is highly overrated. Apart from the historic reasons. The importance of the echo chambers is another subject ...

I'd have to disagree, having done an entire album there.

The chambers were great, but that "sound" is the room. You can hear it all over the early Beatles records (listen to "You Can't Do That" for instance). You can also hear this room and what it does in their many bootlegs of them rehearsing tracks, long before the mix stage and the echo was put on. We heard it in our own tracks, but we used the chambers a LOT on our project since it felt right with what we were doing. I think Studio 2 is rated highly for very good reason.

TH

[ssaudio]

Couldn't agree more. Having worked in that room more than a few times I can safely say it sounds brilliant.

[Kiwiburger]

I'm sure "You Can't Do That" would have sounded just as good if recorded in any number of studios around the globe at that time.

I'm not saying Studio 2 is bad at all, and I would love to record an album there one day. But I would see it for what it is - a romantic indulgence. I honestly don't think it's a necessary part of a Bealtlesque sound.

And back to the point of this thread - i'm not convinced that recreating a room of the same dimensions would create the same magic. I'm sure any number of room sizes and shapes could be treated to become equally useable rooms.

I think places can have vibes that go beyond the physical, and I expect there is something very magical about Abbey Road (amazing history counts for something). Just trying to add perspective.

[ssaudio]

You wouldn't say that if you used the room, though.

I guess you'll just have to wait until that day

[oceantracks]

"I'm sure "You Can't Do That" would have sounded just as good if recorded in any number of studios around the globe at that time. "

That's not the point, the point was the sound of the room, and though a great song is a great song, the sound of the room is unique, and that's a good example of the sound when hit by loud guitars.

"I'm not saying Studio 2 is bad at all, and I would love to record an album there one day. But I would see it for what it is - a romantic indulgence. I honestly don't think it's a necessary part of a Bealtlesque sound."

That's a whole different statement, and of course it isn't a necessary part of The Beatles sound, since they did record in other studios, such as Regent for "Fixing a Hole" and Trident for "Hey Jude," as well as EMI's own Studio 3, which sounded totally different. We are simply talking about the wonderful sound of this particular room, which can be heard on many Beatles recordings.

"And back to the point of this thread - i'm not convinced that recreating a room of the same dimensions would create the same magic. I'm sure any number of room sizes and shapes could be treated to become equally useable rooms."

Agreed! The sheer non-technical approach of the AR staff to solving whatever acoustic problems it technically surely contributed as well. There was a real make shift approach to the way they worked there, believe it or not, throw a rug down here and there, etc.... I have no idea how they work today, I'm speaking about circa 1969 from my own experience. About 3 months in that room

"I think places can have vibes that go beyond the physical, and I expect there is something very magical about Abbey Road (amazing history counts for something). Just trying to add perspective."

Absolutely.

TH

[Clueless]

Originally Posted by Kiwiburger

I'm not saying Studio 2 is bad at all, and I would love to record an album there one day. But I would see it for what it is - a romantic indulgence.

Heaven forbid we try to capture music in an environment of romantic indulgence!

[narcoman]

Originally Posted by Clueless

Heaven forbid we try to capture music in an environment of romantic indulgence!

ha ha !!

[kungfuT]

RTB BOOK

RECORDING THE BEATLES


amazing info and well worh it.

I believe much of revolver was done in studio 3 as well as studio 2

[EJW]

Originally Posted by oceantracks

"I'm sure "You Can't Do That" would have sounded just as good if recorded in any number of studios around the globe at that time. "

That's not the point, the point was the sound of the room, and though a great song is a great song, the sound of the room is unique, and that's a good example of the sound when hit by loud guitars.

"I'm not saying Studio 2 is bad at all, and I would love to record an album there one day. But I would see it for what it is - a romantic indulgence. I honestly don't think it's a necessary part of a Bealtlesque sound."

That's a whole different statement, and of course it isn't a necessary part of The Beatles sound, since they did record in other studios, such as Regent for "Fixing a Hole" and Trident for "Hey Jude," as well as EMI's own Studio 3, which sounded totally different. We are simply talking about the wonderful sound of this particular room, which can be heard on many Beatles recordings.

"And back to the point of this thread - i'm not convinced that recreating a room of the same dimensions would create the same magic. I'm sure any number of room sizes and shapes could be treated to become equally useable rooms."

Agreed! The sheer non-technical approach of the AR staff to solving whatever acoustic problems it technically surely contributed as well. There was a real make shift approach to the way they worked there, believe it or not, throw a rug down here and there, etc.... I have no idea how they work today, I'm speaking about circa 1969 from my own experience. About 3 months in that room

"I think places can have vibes that go beyond the physical, and I expect there is something very magical about Abbey Road (amazing history counts for something). Just trying to add perspective."

Absolutely.

TH

I see where you're coming from, but I didn't see anyone ever mention trying to recreate the Studio 2 sounds via copying the dimensions, nor did anyone state that it made the Beatles' songs better. The only statements were that the room sounded good and you could hear a good example in "You can't do that." In your posts, it seems your taking up issue with things that were never said.