Angles of Control Room walls
naethoven
Thread Starter
#91
8th June 2009
Old 8th June 2009
  #91
Gear addict
 
naethoven's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayfrigo View Post
It seems like that side window could be smaller, and not have to go all the way to the front. Even that small change would help.

Jay, I have considered that. Do you see any other issues I'd have if I did just shorten the window to solve the reflection problem? I was just trying to keep as much size to the window as possible, for line of sight and for "WOW" factor.
#92
8th June 2009
Old 8th June 2009
  #92
Gear nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by naethoven View Post
Wes,
I traced rays for the entire console area, and decided to just extend the panels all the way to the front wall. As far as I can tell this should cover any 1st reflection aimed anywhere in the console area. I am finding my rays by: point of reflection = 1/2 distance between line perpendicular to wall from source, and line perpendicular to wall from listener. Is that accurate/does the explanation make sense?

I have tried every layout I could imagine for the last 10 months, and this is the best scenario I could come up with for volume, use of space, line of sight, and needs of bath/iso, etc.

Thanks so much,
Nathan

P.S. I had been considering the omnidirectional nature of the source, but I had not (until this diagram) addressed the "zone" other than my central pos. Also, please ignore that blue rectangle on the floor, I am in a hurry and have no idea why it is there!
Nathan,
Yes, your ray method sounds fine, as long as you are considering the source as omnidirectional.

It still seems that the zone is a bit narrow. I'd want at least 6 ft. side to side in front of the console for a room of that width.

-Wes
naethoven
Thread Starter
#93
10th June 2009
Old 10th June 2009
  #93
Gear addict
 
naethoven's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
I am reconfiguring my absorption placement for a much wider RFZ (an actual zone now).

In the meantime, can anyone show me any other problems with the room, assuming the 1st reflections are tamed?
naethoven
Thread Starter
#94
10th June 2009
Old 10th June 2009
  #94
Gear addict
 
naethoven's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Does no one have any other issues to call my attention to?

Here are my latest diagrams. I angled the front window to reflect over the RFZ. I will post the side window in an hour or so.
Attached Thumbnails
Angles of Control Room walls-1-14-166-side-view-5-.jpg  
naethoven
Thread Starter
#95
11th June 2009
Old 11th June 2009
  #95
Gear addict
 
naethoven's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Here are the most updated picks. I am planning to begin my framing tomorrow if no one has anymore red flags!

The grey rectangle on the floor is the beginning of the horizontal RFZ. It's about 6ft wide. The panel in the window sill will have a mirror image on the other side, but the one in front of the window is movable if needed for extra line of sight. The front wall issue is solved by the glass being angled to reflect over the listeners' heads.

DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY MORE RED FLAGS BEFORE I'M OFF TO HAMMER???

Thanks a lot guys,
Nathan Webb
Attached Thumbnails
Angles of Control Room walls-1-14-166-large-window-view-6-.jpg   Angles of Control Room walls-1-14-166-side-view-6-.jpg  
#96
11th June 2009
Old 11th June 2009
  #96
Gear nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by naethoven View Post
Here are the most updated picks. I am planning to begin my framing tomorrow if no one has anymore red flags!

The grey rectangle on the floor is the beginning of the horizontal RFZ. It's about 6ft wide. The panel in the window sill will have a mirror image on the other side, but the one in front of the window is movable if needed for extra line of sight. The front wall issue is solved by the glass being angled to reflect over the listeners' heads.

DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY MORE RED FLAGS BEFORE I'M OFF TO HAMMER???

Thanks a lot guys,
Nathan Webb
Take your time, Nathan. Patience is a virtue. The planning stage is not something you want to rush.

For the record, I don't say "wow" when I see a room with too much glass in the front end. Not in a good way, at any rate. I'd suggest deeper bass trapping where the window meets the front wall.

You may want to try some visual ray tracing to see just what benifit you're getting from each portion of the glass.

--Wes
naethoven
Thread Starter
#97
11th June 2009
Old 11th June 2009
  #97
Gear addict
 
naethoven's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wes Lachot View Post
Take your time, Nathan. Patience is a virtue. The planning stage is not something you want to rush.

For the record, I don't say "wow" when I see a room with too much glass in the front end. Not in a good way, at any rate. I'd suggest deeper bass trapping where the window meets the front wall.

You may want to try some visual ray tracing to see just what benifit you're getting from each portion of the glass.

--Wes
Thank you for the reply Wes. Man, I don't mean to be impatient, but I've been researching and planning since last fall. I have a baby on the way (i'm very excited!) and I need to have it built before then. I want to be as accurate as possible, but time is drawing nigh when I must cut my losses. I feel pretty confident about the amount of study I've put into it (in addition to a B.S. in Audio) and about its ability to perform the function of producing a quality product for the level it will most likely operate on. I have covered all the 1st reflections I can think of, and will have massive bass traps in the ceiling. That makes me believe the spectrum is fairly covered. I have considered flutter echo, ratios, speaker/mix pos, symmetry, line of site, wise use of space, decoupling, mass, constrained layer damping, air tight construction, room-n-room, electric/bath/HVAC, indoor/outdoor-SPL, comb filtering, critical distance, diffusion (to be added later), transmission loss needs, stereo imaging, the list of course goes on and on and on. I'll be adding much more acoustic treatment after the room is built and tested. I mainly just wanted some confirmation that I'm not screwing myself if I go ahead and build the CR. : ) So, is there anything huge that I have just completely missed? I just don't know what else I could focus on...

Many, many thanks for everyone's time,

Nathan Webb
#98
11th June 2009
Old 11th June 2009
  #98
You could do a whole hell of a lot worse. I still don't love the size of that side window, but on balance, that room should work out. Once complete, do some as-built testing and fine-tuning and I'm sure you'll be able to get some good work done in there.
#99
11th June 2009
Old 11th June 2009
  #99
Lives for gear
 

Nathan, I'm coming in pretty late to this thread but I designed/remodeled a studio for fellow slutz member "The dman" (do a search on that user name) to his roughly 24 foot by 24 foot space. Since your space is very close in size to his I suggest you give him a call and maybe he will take some measurements and give you his wall layouts (I don't have that info anymore). It's a control room/live room/vocal - iso booth/mechanical room layout with symetrical splayed control room walls that has fantastic talent views (windows between control-live, control-vocal, and live-vocal) so all rooms can be used by a recording band. With standard wall/ceiling treatment the rooms turned out great acoustically and from a working/traffic-flow standpoint he is very happy with the layout. Here is a link to his webpage with a few photos and his phone number.

Dave Dalton Music

When he got rid of his analog desk I also designed the desk/racks and he scanned the plans so if interested he would probably give you those too.
naethoven
Thread Starter
#100
11th June 2009
Old 11th June 2009
  #100
Gear addict
 
naethoven's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bassmankr View Post
Nathan, I'm coming in pretty late to this thread but I designed/remodeled a studio for fellow slutz member "The dman" (do a search on that user name) to his roughly 24 foot by 24 foot space. Since your space is very close in size to his I suggest you give him a call and maybe he will take some measurements and give you his wall layouts (I don't have that info anymore). It's a control room/live room/vocal - iso booth/mechanical room layout with symetrical splayed control room walls that has fantastic talent views (windows between control-live, control-vocal, and live-vocal) so all rooms can be used by a recording band. With standard wall/ceiling treatment the rooms turned out great acoustically and from a working/traffic-flow standpoint he is very happy with the layout. Here is a link to his webpage with a few photos and his phone number.

Dave Dalton Music

When he got rid of his analog desk I also designed the desk/racks and he scanned the plans so if interested he would probably give you those too.
Hey, thanks for contributing. That studio looks really nice. I'm going to give him a call and see what he'd like to share. Thank you very much.

You did a great job on the racks! Those are awesome.
naethoven
Thread Starter
#101
11th June 2009
Old 11th June 2009
  #101
Gear addict
 
naethoven's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayfrigo View Post
You could do a whole hell of a lot worse. I still don't love the size of that side window, but on balance, that room should work out. Once complete, do some as-built testing and fine-tuning and I'm sure you'll be able to get some good work done in there.
Thanks Jay, that's good confirmation. I will post pics and test results when it's built. Any more advice is definitely welcome while I'm building. Thanks so much.
#102
12th June 2009
Old 12th June 2009
  #102
Gear nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by naethoven View Post
Thank you for the reply Wes. Man, I don't mean to be impatient, but I've been researching and planning since last fall. I have a baby on the way (i'm very excited!) and I need to have it built before then. I want to be as accurate as possible, but time is drawing nigh when I must cut my losses. I feel pretty confident about the amount of study I've put into it (in addition to a B.S. in Audio) and about its ability to perform the function of producing a quality product for the level it will most likely operate on. I have covered all the 1st reflections I can think of, and will have massive bass traps in the ceiling. That makes me believe the spectrum is fairly covered. I have considered flutter echo, ratios, speaker/mix pos, symmetry, line of site, wise use of space, decoupling, mass, constrained layer damping, air tight construction, room-n-room, electric/bath/HVAC, indoor/outdoor-SPL, comb filtering, critical distance, diffusion (to be added later), transmission loss needs, stereo imaging, the list of course goes on and on and on. I'll be adding much more acoustic treatment after the room is built and tested. I mainly just wanted some confirmation that I'm not screwing myself if I go ahead and build the CR. : ) So, is there anything huge that I have just completely missed? I just don't know what else I could focus on...

Many, many thanks for everyone's time,

Nathan Webb
Then go for it, dude!

--Wes
naethoven
Thread Starter
#103
12th June 2009
Old 12th June 2009
  #103
Gear addict
 
naethoven's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Thanks Wes, and thanks for checking back with me. I'm going to start framing today and I'll keep you guys posted. Thanks to all for all the info, I'm going to have a better studio than I would have had a few weeks ago!
(...glad I've got a nail gun...)


Nathan Webb
naethoven
Thread Starter
#104
13th June 2009
Old 13th June 2009
  #104
Gear addict
 
naethoven's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Wes, Louden 1 is 1:1.4:1.9. I know musically 1.4 is good, and musically 1.9 is good. But together, don't 1.4 and 1.9 make a perfect 4th? Please explain this to me, maybe I'm not understanding correctly.

Thanks,
Nathan Webb
#105
13th June 2009
Old 13th June 2009
  #105
Gear nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by naethoven View Post
Wes, Louden 1 is 1:1.4:1.9. I know musically 1.4 is good, and musically 1.9 is good. But together, don't 1.4 and 1.9 make a perfect 4th? Please explain this to me, maybe I'm not understanding correctly.

Thanks,
Nathan Webb
Wow, Nathan, good observation. It is true, and for this reason I much prefer something other than 1.9 when I'm using 1.4. Like maybe 1.8, or 1.7. These are round numbers, by the way, but these two options would give you approx. the major 3rd and the minor 3rd.

It's okay to speak in terms of approximations when dealing with musical intervals, because musical intervals are not fixed in stone to begin with. Only for a hundred years or so has the Western world been fairly rigidly tied to the equal temperament system. When you get into just intonation and other tuning systems, there are very many versions of each of the intervals, depending upon what ratios are used to create them (by way of string or tube lengths, etc.) For instance the ratio (interval) between the 5th harmonic and the 6th harmonic is a minor third (5 : 6). But the ratio between the 6th harmonic and the 7th harmonic is also a minor third (6 : 7). The ear hears both as minor thirds, even though one ratio is 1 : 1.2 and the other ratio is 1 : 1.17. Equal temperament compromises and places the minor third at approx. 1 : 1.19.

Some people may think it strange to speak of ratios as musical intervals, since doing so concentrates on the 12 relatively fixed intervals between the numbers 1 and 2, at the expense of all of the other infinite possibilities. But the truth is, once microtuning in taken into account, the infinite possibilities open right back up, and it surely helps to have those 12 guideposts or grid lines along the way. It's like the 12 hours of the clock - sure there are lots and lots of minutes in the day, but it helps to simplify things to first say which hour it is you're talking about.

But getting back to your question, it is important to pay attention to the third leg of the triangle, meaning the ratio between the width and length. Given a ratio of height to width (e.g. 1 : 1.4) and height to length (e.g. 1 : 1.9), you just divide 1.9 by 1.4 to see what the third ratio is. And this ratio is just as important as the other two, I promise you.

--Wes

Last edited by Wes Lachot; 14th June 2009 at 03:44 AM.. Reason: typo
naethoven
Thread Starter
#106
13th June 2009
Old 13th June 2009
  #106
Gear addict
 
naethoven's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Thanks for explaining that Wes.

Yesterday, unfortunately, when I began placing footers to get an idea of the space, I realized it was going to be WAY too large for my other rooms to work. Frustrating yes, but at least I hadn't attached anything yet. dfegad

So, I'm actually having to shrink a bit. : ( But it gives me a fresh look at things, and I caught a mistake in my average ceiling height. Thus my next question:

Part of my ceiling is flat, the rear of it is angled. I have found an accurate way to average the ceiling height based on the ratio of the reflected surface area of the angled portion to the surface area of the flat portion. The trouble is, 1) as I choose a ratio my length changes w it, therefore changing my surface area of the flat portion and throwing off the ceiling height average. 2) After that, I splay the walls, which again changes the surface area of the ceiling portions unevenly creating the same problem.
(Just a note, by "reflected surface area" I mean the amount of area of floor space directly under the angled ceiling, so it just accounts for the space covered)

I believe the problem is I don't have a constant...
If my ceiling height was constant, the splays and ratio changes wouldn't matter.

HOW DO I DO THIS ACCURATELY?
naethoven
Thread Starter
#107
13th June 2009
Old 13th June 2009
  #107
Gear addict
 
naethoven's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
I just plugged my "accidental/forced" average ceiling height into the mode calc because it was extremely close to the goal. It's response actually looked a little smoother!

Wes, the ratio I'm dealing w currently is 1:1.4:1.76, putting my dimensions at
(precisely) 9.0998987' : 12.818344' : 16.02293'. (I'm sure the decimal is overkill, just trying to save rounding till the end)

Mind sharing your opinion?

-Nathan

P.S. just went and layed the wood out and it doesn't work either...
naethoven
Thread Starter
#108
13th June 2009
Old 13th June 2009
  #108
Gear addict
 
naethoven's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
OK, new view point. Does 1 : 1.28 : 1.66 count as an augmented triad? (ie: what you're saying about rounding is that this is not very different in terms of musicality in room resonance than 1 : 1.25 : 1.6, correct?) Will this room yield as good of a result as the 1.25:1.6?

Nathan Webb

Edit: I ask because that size should work in the space I have and the mode calc looks great (the Bonello makes me happy!). I think it's also musically good but I'd like to see what you say first.

Thanks
#109
14th June 2009
Old 14th June 2009
  #109
Gear nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by naethoven View Post
OK, new view point. Does 1 : 1.28 : 1.66 count as an augmented triad? (ie: what you're saying about rounding is that this is not very different in terms of musicality in room resonance than 1 : 1.25 : 1.6, correct?) Will this room yield as good of a result as the 1.25:1.6?

Nathan Webb

Edit: I ask because that size should work in the space I have and the mode calc looks great (the Bonello makes me happy!). I think it's also musically good but I'd like to see what you say first.

Thanks
Well, the 1.66 is getting close to a major 6th below the 1, but it's not making a perfect 4th with the 1.28, but rather a quarter-tone interval right between a major third and a perfect 4th. That is to say, 1.66 divided by 1.28 = 1.3, which is right smack between 1.26 (M3rd) and 1.33 (P4th). And 1.3 is one of Louden's "good" ratios, as I'm sure you're aware.

No, this set is not quite as good as 1 : 1.26 : 1.59, but the overall spacing is very similar, thus, it will sound far better than rooms with wacked out dimensional ratios that have poor overall spacing.

-Wes
naethoven
Thread Starter
#110
14th June 2009
Old 14th June 2009
  #110
Gear addict
 
naethoven's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Thanks Wes. I know you say the mode calc doesn't show all, but that Bonello on 1.28:1.66 was the smoothest curve I've seen. Is it really that smooth or am I seeing a weakness of the mode calc?

Also, here again, I'm debating greater volume vs better ratio...I could have 1900+/- cuft if I didn't care about the ratios, but having a good ratio, good intervals, and a good graph puts me at around 1600 cuft...thoughts?

P.S. Why does 1:1.25:1.75 look so bad on the calc? Fails a Walter, bad Bonello. I thought it should be good because all three relationships are good, aren't they? Isn't 1.25:1.75 a diminished 5th? With all three being good, I don't understand why the calc isn't perfect.
#111
14th June 2009
Old 14th June 2009
  #111
Gear nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by naethoven View Post
Thanks Wes. I know you say the mode calc doesn't show all, but that Bonello on 1.28:1.66 was the smoothest curve I've seen. Is it really that smooth or am I seeing a weakness of the mode calc?

Also, here again, I'm debating greater volume vs better ratio...I could have 1900+/- cuft if I didn't care about the ratios, but having a good ratio, good intervals, and a good graph puts me at around 1600 cuft...thoughts?

P.S. Why does 1:1.25:1.75 look so bad on the calc? Fails a Walter, bad Bonello. I thought it should be good because all three relationships are good, aren't they? Isn't 1.25:1.75 a diminished 5th? With all three being good, I don't understand why the calc isn't perfect.
Nathan,

I can't tell you anything about the weighting that goes into the various mode calculators. I know some of them give too much weight to tangential and oblique modes. My contention has always been that if the axial modes are well spaced, the others will fill in the gaps and will be evenly spaced as well, by virture of the fact that they are proportionally related to the axial modes.

The ratios you mention, 1 : 1.25 : 1.75 are not as evenly spaced as 1 : 1.26 : 1.59, particularly at the bottom. Having a major 3rd between the first two resonances is 33% better than having a diminished 5th (in the lowest octave, and this advantage is compounded as you go up the harmonic series). And that first octave really matters - the bottom end is very critical - these modes are all about bass, after all. But the former ratios will perform better than ratios which span more than an octave, for instance. It's a simple matter of more dense spacing, which is the name of the modal game, as long as the spacing is even.

If a mode calc (or any other computer program) gives me an answer that I know to be inconsistent with my own empirical knowledge and experience, I discount its weight. What my ears and experience tell me is that the musical approach is the one that works, so it's the one I use.

As to your question about cubic volume vs. better modal spacing, for me the real question for a control room lies in the available depth, along the axis of the throw of the speakers. The reason for this is twofold:

First, the distance of the listener from the back wall affects the frequency of the back wall null, which is the most deadly of the boundary interference nulls. I try to get as close to 20 ft. as possible for the depth dimension, which allows puts the listener to sit somewhere around 12 ft. from the back wall if things are set up properly. This puts the 1/4 wavelength null at 23 Hz, which is too low to do any real damage. If the listener were only 8 ft. from the back wall, that null would be at 35 Hz, which could be audibly problematic.

Second, the depth dimension is often the longest dimension, and as such will determine the natural cut-off frequency of the room. A 20 ft. depth will take you down to 30 Hz, which is a good practical cutoff for a working class studio. You'll hear stuff below 30, but the dropoff slope will be steep. I'd rather have that slope start at 30 Hz than at 40 Hz, which would be the case in a 16 ft. deep control room, for instance.

So all of these things (and a good many more) should be taken into consideration, not just whether a particular ratio set wins over another in a vacuum.

Volume in and of itself is like anything else, meaning more is better all things being equal, but rarely are all things really equal.

-Wes
naethoven
Thread Starter
#112
14th June 2009
Old 14th June 2009
  #112
Gear addict
 
naethoven's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wes Lachot View Post
First, the distance of the listener from the back wall affects the frequency of the back wall null, which is the most deadly of the boundary interference nulls. I try to get as close to 20 ft. as possible for the depth dimension, which allows puts the listener to sit somewhere around 12 ft. from the back wall if things are set up properly. This puts the 1/4 wavelength null at 23 Hz, which is too low to do any real damage. If the listener were only 8 ft. from the back wall, that null would be at 35 Hz, which could be audibly problematic.
By "the listener to sit 12 ft from the back wall" you mean the engineer, not the client, correct?
If so, can you tell me if I'm doing my math right? 38% point puts me 10.22 ft from my back wall. So: 10.22 x 4 = 40.88 ft wavelength, and 1130 / 40.88 = 27.6 Hz
So in that seating position I should be good down to about 28 Hz. Correct?



Quote:
Originally Posted by Wes Lachot View Post
Second, the depth dimension is often the longest dimension, and as such will determine the natural cut-off frequency of the room.
-Wes
Just a quick question about this- that's what I've always heard/read, but the other day in Master Handbook of Acoustics he mentions that technically the diagonal is the longest dimension. Which should I use for my math above and for any calculation?
#113
14th June 2009
Old 14th June 2009
  #113
Gear nut
 

[QUOTE=naethoven;4282123]
Quote:
By "the listener to sit 12 ft from the back wall" you mean the engineer, not the client, correct?
If so, can you tell me if I'm doing my math right? 38% point puts me 10.22 ft from my back wall. So: 10.22 x 4 = 40.88 ft wavelength, and 1130 / 40.88 = 27.6 Hz
So in that seating position I should be good down to about 28 Hz. Correct?

Just a quick question about this- that's what I've always heard/read, but the other day in Master Handbook of Acoustics he mentions that technically the diagonal is the longest dimension. Which should I use for my math above and for any calculation?
Yes, you are doing your math right with regards to the back wall null, but there is still the matter of overall control room depth.

Everest is correct technically, but the diagonal of the room has much less surface area to resonate, so the resonance will be much less pronounced. So with all due respect and then some, in my experience, for all practical purposes the knee of the curve will follow the longest axial dimension. Like I said there will be audible sound below that, but it will not be flat. This is related to the reason that one shouldn't give as much weight to tangential modes as one gives to axial modes. They aren't equal in amplitude due to the inequality in resonating surface area.

So your 16.5 deep room will have an effective cutoff frequency of 34 Hz. This is approx. C# below E on the Bass guitar. Not bad, but there are 4 more 1/2 steps on a Steinway, and even more on a Bosendorfer. That's why we go for that 20 ft. depth if there's any way to pull it off. I think it's worth sacrificing your favorite ratio set in favor of your next favorite if it means getting closer to that critical depth.

-Wes
#114
15th June 2009
Old 15th June 2009
  #114
Lives for gear
 

I thought you had to get ALL your rooms to fit in a 25'x25' space. If you have the control room 20' long that won't leave much room for everything else on your list. You may need to adjust how many rooms you are going to have in that 25'x 25' space or more likely make compromises. Rooms have to function FIRST for the talent you hope to have in. If they can't see each other or feel cramped into a nook how do expect to get a great performance. Having the perfect size control room is one thing but if you expect to do any recording it's time to look at the BIG picture and in a 25'x25' space that's going to mean compromises. Hope Dave Dalton was helpful to you as the compromises made at his place worked well for the control room and more importantly the talent.
naethoven
Thread Starter
#115
16th June 2009
Old 16th June 2009
  #115
Gear addict
 
naethoven's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Wes, I'm stumped. I'm really trying to be accurate with my ray tracing, but having an angled wall with an angled window is really proving to be a challenge. Do you have any advice for me, as far as a method or software/plugin?

(I PM'd you as well)
#116
16th June 2009
Old 16th June 2009
  #116
Gear nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by naethoven View Post
Wes, I'm stumped. I'm really trying to be accurate with my ray tracing, but having an angled wall with an angled window is really proving to be a challenge. Do you have any advice for me, as far as a method or software/plugin?

(I PM'd you as well)
Ahhhh, so that's the rub. Come on, man, you can do it. You just gotta think three dimensionally, and draw the component triangles. Keep it to right triangles and you can solve for anything you need to know.

No, I don't use a program for ray tracing; we do it all manually in AutoCAD or on paper.

Here's a hint: If the window is sloping in the up-down dimension, and you want to know how a ray is going to reflect, all you are really interested in is where that window is at ear level. So draw a dotted line on the floor plan repesenting how far that window has moved at 48" (ear level). Then just do a normal ray trace using that dotted line as the new "wall".

-Wes
naethoven
Thread Starter
#117
16th June 2009
Old 16th June 2009
  #117
Gear addict
 
naethoven's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wes Lachot View Post
You just gotta think three dimensionally, and draw the component triangles. Keep it to right triangles and you can solve for anything you need to know.
Could you elaborate on that please?

Thanks for the PM
#118
16th June 2009
Old 16th June 2009
  #118
Gear nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by naethoven View Post
Could you elaborate on that please?

Thanks for the PM
The way to figure out 3D geometry problems is to divide them up into a series of 2D slices. Then the angles are easily solvable using the normal Pythagorean principles.

Did you grok my hint about drawing a dotted line to represent the window at ear level? That's really the simplest way to solve this problem.

--Wes
naethoven
Thread Starter
#119
16th June 2009
Old 16th June 2009
  #119
Gear addict
 
naethoven's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wes Lachot View Post
The way to figure out 3D geometry problems is to divide them up into a series of 2D slices. Then the angles are easily solvable using the normal Pythagorean principles.
That's what I was asking about. I will go check that out...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wes Lachot View Post
Did you grok my hint about drawing a dotted line to represent the window at ear level? That's really the simplest way to solve this problem.

Yes! I believe so anyway. That was wonderfully refreshing and stress relieving, thank you so much. I will post my next design with that included in the pic for you to judge if I understood correctly.

Also, just wondering, is there any difference in 1.25:1.75 and 1.4:1.75?
naethoven
Thread Starter
#120
17th June 2009
Old 17th June 2009
  #120
Gear addict
 
naethoven's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Hello, sir.

Here's my latest, tell me what you think. I did the ray tracing as well as I could, I think I get what you're saying about only the extremes are necessary. You can see my dotted line representing the location of the glass at ear level, just to the left of the window on the left side of the CR. I couldn't angle it much due to wall thickness (lack of) but I guess I gained a little something. I put a question for you in the pic, if you'd be so kind to school me! It would be nice to have the window extend up a little further, to have better line of sight. I realize that will shoot reflections at mix pos, but is it something I could deal with if I'm producing someone I need to see, or will it just make a mess of things? I would definitely have a custom panel to fit over that portion of the window while mixing, mirrored by a panel on the other side of the room. I have tossed the idea around of having several small panels each maybe 1 ft wide, to add as needed to have an expandable RFZ. I could change between producing, critical tracking, mixing, and client presentation. I'd appreciate any thoughts you'd like to share.
Attached Thumbnails
Angles of Control Room walls-cr-1-1.4-1.8-8-.jpg  
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
Matej / High end
19
jeremycox / Studio building / acoustics
36
TheBeast / So much gear, so little time!
2
GMR / So much gear, so little time!
11
Bang / So much gear, so little time!
1

Forum Jump
 
Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.