Login / Register
 
Help! 2 rectangular rooms, halfway there already
New Reply
Subscribe
SörenHjalmarsson
Thread Starter
#1
25th July 2010
Old 25th July 2010
  #1
Lives for gear
 
SörenHjalmarsson's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2010
Location: Skövde, Sweden
Posts: 1,263

Thread Starter
Send a message via Skype™ to SörenHjalmarsson
SörenHjalmarsson is offline
Help! 2 rectangular rooms, halfway there already

Howdy People,

Ok, pretty basic questions i think but i need some advice. I am in the middle of treating my two new rooms and i need some help.
I'ts one control and one live area, which are not very big (as you can see by the skp drawings) and it's the size of the rooms that makes me a bit confused about what to do with them, especially the live room.

So here we go, this is where i'm at:

1. the Control room
I have put basstraps al'a superchunk in every corner.
the wall behind the speakers is covered with 6" of glasfiber with a 5cm air gap.
the whole square patch of ceiling above the speakers and mixposition is covered with 4" panels.
the wall behind the mixposition have been angled to create a machineroom behind it. This will help improve the noisefloor and ventilation in the control room and hopefully reduce standing waves. This will also be covered with 2" or 4" glasfiber.

But i'm not completely sure what to do with the early reflections coming from the sidewalls. I want to keep them pretty "hard" in order to preserve the hi frequencies in the room. So my 2 options are:
angled plywood at the reflection points as you can see in my skp nr1, or building more of a sayer cind of wall as in my skp nr2.
Right now it's leaning towards nr 2, but i'm glad to here your opinions.

2. The Live Room
Superchunks in every corner, though not as big ones as in the control room.
Two 4" basstrap panels in the ceiling between the "long walls".
The rest of the ceiling will be covered with 4" panels and the floor will stay "hard" without any rugs.

Now the big Q: What to do with the walls in a "liveroom" this size? It feels boring to completely absorbe it, though i don't know how i could get some good acoustics out of it either. What i need is a good starting point and a sensible plan. In my skp nr 1 is a plan to do a cind of checkerboard pattern with a mix of absorbtive and reflective surfaces throughout the room. In my skp nr 2 is a plan to build the "sayer walls" again troughout the room, placing them as to create nonparallel walls and preserve the acoustics of the room instead of absorb it.

Right now i like the idea of nr 2 but the Q is what you think =)

And please excuse my lack of sketchup ability (and my blabbing english)

Yours sincerely
Sören Hjalmarsson
Attached Files
File Type: skp Studio Layout 1.skp (426.9 KB, 179 views) File Type: skp Studio Layout 2.skp (448.8 KB, 95 views)
#2
25th July 2010
Old 25th July 2010
  #2
Lives for gear
 
DrFrankencopter's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2003
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 978

DrFrankencopter is offline
Re: Help! 2 rectangular rooms, halfway there already

Can you please give the dimensions of the room for those of is who don't have sketchup handy?

Cheers

Kris

Ps: balanced frequency response may not be necessary for your live room. It's not a control room and it can be okay for it to have a 'personality' or sonic 'fingerprint'. Use trapping, absorption and diffusion to tailor that fingerprint.
SörenHjalmarsson
Thread Starter
#3
25th July 2010
Old 25th July 2010
  #3
Lives for gear
 
SörenHjalmarsson's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2010
Location: Skövde, Sweden
Posts: 1,263

Thread Starter
Send a message via Skype™ to SörenHjalmarsson
SörenHjalmarsson is offline
The dimensions are:

Control room = H 2.20M, W 2.90M, L 3.95M
Live room = H 2.20M, W 2.10M, L 3.95M

Ps: i'm not after a balanced frequency response in the live room, but i need to get rid of flutter echoes and smooth out the base response. I would like to do this without completely deadening the room and still keep some nice sounding reflections.

I liked the ideas in this ethan Winer article: Acoustic Treatment and Design for Recording Studios and Listening Rooms (which my first skp is based on) the conclusion of the article in regards to small live rooms is: hard floor, absorbtive ceiling and the walls a mix of absorbtive and reflective surfaces. But i'm wondering if my goal of a good sounding recording room is easier accomplished by using John L Sayers approach with angled absorbtive walls, like the ones you can see everywhere on his forum and in my second skp file.

Thanks 4 your interest Dr =)

Cheers
//Sören
#4
25th July 2010
Old 25th July 2010
  #4
Gear Guru
 
DanDan's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Location: Cork Ireland
Posts: 10,950

DanDan is offline
Design

Soren, it may be too late but I suggest that you reconsider.
There are various 'mistakes' at play here.
Those rooms are very small. One big room would be better.
I don't understand that angled back wall idea.
Nor the front wall idea RealTraps - Front Wall Absorption
Your highly treated wall would be better behind you.
The side walls idea. Look up RFZ.
I hope this does not appear harsh, I am hoping it is not too late to rescue your venture.
DD
SörenHjalmarsson
Thread Starter
#5
25th July 2010
Old 25th July 2010
  #5
Lives for gear
 
SörenHjalmarsson's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2010
Location: Skövde, Sweden
Posts: 1,263

Thread Starter
Send a message via Skype™ to SörenHjalmarsson
SörenHjalmarsson is offline
Hi there DanDan,

Yes, the rooms are small but these are the rooms i have, hence the problem =).

The whole back and front wall idea comes from Manny Lacarrubba.
He states that in a rectangular room the standing waves is strongest between the "short walls" and he also states that a heavily absorbtive front wall gives better imaging. Shortly described there should be heavily absorbtive "short walls", (and an angled backwall helps to deflect the standing waves even more) heavily absorbtive ceiling and if possible keep the sidewalls hard to preserve the hi frequencies.

The heavily absorbtive wall behind the speakers is of course most necessary when you do not soffit mount your speakers and low frequencis leak out the back of the speakers to the wall behind them.

Thank you 4 the link it was most interesting since it is a bit of a contradiction to the Lacarrubba theory. But then again every theory has to be seen in context with the whole situation, every room is a different room.

And don't be afraid to be harsh on me, i want all the cards on my table =)

Cheers
//Sören
#6
26th July 2010
Old 26th July 2010
  #6
Gear Guru
 
DanDan's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Location: Cork Ireland
Posts: 10,950

DanDan is offline
Where to start

Soren,
I urge you to at least consider creating one decent room. Neither of you current rooms has any chance of being fit for purpose.

I don't know of the person you mentioned. Either his ideas or your interpretation of them are at variance with pretty much every source I have.

Standing waves are strongest between the two hardest surfaces. They would also be strongest between the closest two surfaces. These facts should be self evident.

Angling walls does not diminish standing waves. Think about Bass Wavelenghts, nearly 7Metres at 50Hz. How will a short angled wall even tickle that?

The article linked doesn't slightly contradict, it does so pretty emphatically, using reason and logic. While there is no doubt that massive amounts of absorption would be welcome in these tiny rooms, it would be better behind the listener, or evenly distributed.

The theories we use don't fall down in particular rooms. Why would they?
Physics is physics.

To be frank, as you requested, you have been pretty much totally misguided or have misinterpreted wildly here.

DD
#7
26th July 2010
Old 26th July 2010
  #7
Lives for gear
 
jhbrandt's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2009
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia
Posts: 3,989

Send a message via Yahoo to jhbrandt Send a message via Skype™ to jhbrandt
jhbrandt is offline
Sören,

I agree with Dan. You really should reconsider making a one-room studio. A room 496cm by 393cm by 234cm has a total volume of 45.6 cubic meters. - That's only 3 meters larger than my minimum recommended volume. With the room as a one room studio, it will have decent modal distribution. This is where your studio design needs to begin. Small room studios will always have these issues and they are large issues and need to be dealt with first before any theories are chased.

There is much to be gained by reading and understanding different designers views and theories. I admit to operating a bit differently from my peers - although probably not that much differently. There is a danger, however, in adhering to one idea only and discarding others that do not comply with the chosen 'vision'.

I will answer your quotes one by one to be clear;

Quote:
Originally Posted by SörenHjalmarsson View Post
The whole back and front wall idea comes from Manny Lacarrubba. He states that in a rectangular room the standing waves is strongest between the "short walls" and he also states that a heavily absorbtive front wall gives better imaging.
The axial modes are the strongest... and because the side walls are closer to you, these particular modes seem stronger. The idea that a heavily absorptive front wall gives 'better' imaging is a Subjective viewpoint. (That's opposite of being Objective) Personally, I like mint chocolate chip ice cream....

Quote:
Originally Posted by SörenHjalmarsson View Post
Shortly described there should be heavily absorbtive "short walls", (and an angled backwall helps to deflect the standing waves even more) heavily absorbtive ceiling and if possible keep the sidewalls hard to preserve the hi frequencies.
It's going to be really dead in there unless you do your 'reflective' sidewalls, but then you have the problem of early reflections - unless you angle the reflection panels... and the idea of deflecting standing waves - deflect them where? They are still going to be there. If you angle walls to 'deflect' modal activity, what you get is indeterminable modal activity.
-- Honestly, I would really like the doctor to tell me if I have cancer or not, rather than to live (and die soon) in ignorance. - At least I'd have a chance to do something about it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SörenHjalmarsson View Post
The heavily absorbtive wall behind the speakers is of course most necessary when you do not soffit mount your speakers and low frequencis leak out the back of the speakers to the wall behind them.
Actually it doesn't leak. LF is omnidirectional. Wave travels in a spherical front, bounces off the wall and depending on the distance from the wall, causes LF comb filtering and is known as SBIR (Speaker Boundary Interference Response).

Quote:
Originally Posted by SörenHjalmarsson View Post
Thank you 4 the link it was most interesting since it is a bit of a contradiction to the Lacarrubba theory. But then again every theory has to be seen in context with the whole situation, every room is a different room.
Here are some recommended books:
Home Recording Studio Build it Like the Pros - Rod Gervais
Recording Studio Design - Philip Newell
Master Handbook of Acoustics - F. Alton Everest
Build Your Own Home Studio - John H. Brandt

Well, yeah, the last book is mine.

I hope this helps. Please reconsider the one room approach.
Cheers,
John
__________________
John H. Brandt
Recording Studio, Performance Hall & Architectural Acoustics Consultants

(American) in Jakarta, Indonesia

SERVICES - HOME STUDIO DESIGN - PUBLICATIONS

"Twenty thousand dollars worth of Snap-On tools does not make you a Professional Diesel Mechanic"

Last edited by jhbrandt; 26th July 2010 at 05:12 AM.. Reason: typo
SörenHjalmarsson
Thread Starter
#8
26th July 2010
Old 26th July 2010
  #8
Lives for gear
 
SörenHjalmarsson's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2010
Location: Skövde, Sweden
Posts: 1,263

Thread Starter
Send a message via Skype™ to SörenHjalmarsson
SörenHjalmarsson is offline
DanDan,

You seem almost angry with me DanDan, calm yourself =)
Remember... a humble approach is humans best approach. Years ago we where sure that the earth where flat and The Beatles was told that guitar bands was "old news".

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanDan View Post
I urge you to at least consider creating one decent room. Neither of you current rooms has any chance of being fit for purpose.
As i have allready explained... rebuilding my home is not an option, so we need to do what we can with the current situation and try to work around it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanDan View Post
I don't know of the person you mentioned. Either his ideas or your interpretation of them are at variance with pretty much every source I have.
YouTube - Standing Waves.mpg A little bit on Manny Lacarrubba, this video is originaly about 1 hour.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanDan View Post
Standing waves are strongest between the two hardest surfaces. They would also be strongest between the closest two surfaces. These facts should be self evident.
indeed it is evident DanDan, but i am talking about the LF problems. Again see Lacarrubba.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanDan View Post
Angling walls does not diminish standing waves. Think about Bass Wavelenghts, nearly 7Metres at 50Hz. How will a short angled wall even tickle that?
Of course Lacarrubba could be rong, but it is from his theory the wall is coming (you said you did't understand it and here is where i'ts coming from. It could be that the theory is a bad one, but hey... that's the fun part in talking about it is it not?) You also have to remember that the biggest reason i had for building this wall, was to be able to keep all the warmth generating machines in a secluded space, to help the ventilation and improve the noisefloor. The standing waves thing was just a bonus for me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanDan View Post
The article linked doesn't slightly contradict, it does so pretty emphatically, using reason and logic.
I am not so sure it "contradicts emphatically", since (as i understand it) the article only speaks of hi frequencis and imaging when you treat a room with thin one inch absorbtion. Where as Lacarrubba wants to have thick absorbtion on the front wall and the back wall to prevent standing waves in the LF, but the imaging thing is a contradiction. And then again... i have heard it's a subjective thing =)

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanDan View Post
The theories we use don't fall down in particular rooms. Why would they?
Physics is physics. .
Yes DanDan, Physics is physics but there is more than one way to cook a chicken =) why else would a forum like this exist?

//Sören
SörenHjalmarsson
Thread Starter
#9
26th July 2010
Old 26th July 2010
  #9
Lives for gear
 
SörenHjalmarsson's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2010
Location: Skövde, Sweden
Posts: 1,263

Thread Starter
Send a message via Skype™ to SörenHjalmarsson
SörenHjalmarsson is offline
Greetings Mr Brandt

Thank you for your reply, i consider it an honor that you spare your time and brain activity for my modest little projekt.



Quote:
Originally Posted by jhbrandt View Post

I agree with Dan. You really should reconsider making a one-room studio. A room 496cm by 393cm by 234cm has a total volume of 45.6 cubic meters. - That's only 3 meters larger than my minimum recommended volume. With the room as a one room studio, it will have decent modal distribution. This is where your studio design needs to begin. Small room studios will always have these issues and they are large issues and need to be dealt with first before any theories are chased.
I totally agree with both you and DAnDan, A bigger room would have been great, A big castle even better, but unfortunately these are the rooms in which i'm "forced" to create my music. And unfortunately it would have been even better to talk to someone like you in the beginning of the project, instead of in the middle of it. But we always have to do the best we can with our current situations in life don't we?

Please enlighten me Sensei, what would you do in my current situation? I have two smal rooms, i have made superchunks in all 8 corners and the ceiling panels are done. What is not finished is the walls (not even the crazy machineroom wall in the CR is completely done) How would you solve early reflection in the LR? absorb completely or preserve/deflect some reflection? And what would you do with the sidewalls in the CR? Any other thoughts you have are also most welcome.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jhbrandt View Post
There is much to be gained by reading and understanding different designers views and theories. I admit to operating a bit differently from my peers - although probably not that much differently. There is a danger, however, in adhering to one idea only and discarding others that do not comply with the chosen 'vision'.
Agreed, i am trying not to deflect new people and theories from my project, although it is harder to involve these now that the project is already halfway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jhbrandt View Post
The axial modes are the strongest... and because the side walls are closer to you, these particular modes seem stronger. The idea that a heavily absorptive front wall gives 'better' imaging is a Subjective viewpoint. (That's opposite of being Objective) Personally, I like mint chocolate chip ice cream....
Ok thank's for clearing that up! i also like the chocolate chip ice cream...=)

Quote:
Originally Posted by jhbrandt View Post
It's going to be really dead in there unless you do your 'reflective' sidewalls, but then you have the problem of early reflections - unless you angle the reflection panels... and the idea of deflecting standing waves - deflect them where? They are still going to be there. If you angle walls to 'deflect' modal activity, what you get is indeterminable modal activity.
-- Honestly, I would really like the doctor to tell me if I have cancer or not, rather than to live (and die soon) in ignorance. - At least I'd have a chance to do something about it.
I'm thinking of emulating this Sayer idea for the sidewalls: John Sayers' Recording Studio Design Forum • View topic - Small studio in 3D except that my walls will not go all the way up to the ceiling, covering my windows. Have you seen the standing waves video with Lacarrubba? Am i as DanDan suspects wildly misinterpreting?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jhbrandt View Post
Actually it doesn't leak. LF is omnidirectional. Wave travels in a spherical front, bounces off the wall and depending on the distance from the wall, causes LF comb filtering and is known as SBIR (Speaker Boundary Interference Response).
I'm aware of the SBIR. But am i wrong in saying that since my monitors will be standing pretty close to the front wall it's a good idea to absorb it heavily, due to the LF comb filtering?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jhbrandt View Post
Here are some recommended books:
Home Recording Studio Build it Like the Pros - Rod Gervais
Recording Studio Design - Philip Newell
Master Handbook of Acoustics - F. Alton Everest
Build Your Own Home Studio - John H. Brandt

Well, yeah, the last book is mine.

I hope this helps. Please reconsider the one room approach.
Thank's for the tips! i will defenetly look in to those books, but right now i'm in a bit of a hurry to finish this project.

Yours sincerely
Sören Hjalmarsson
#10
26th July 2010
Old 26th July 2010
  #10
Lives for gear
 
jhbrandt's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2009
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia
Posts: 3,989

Send a message via Yahoo to jhbrandt Send a message via Skype™ to jhbrandt
jhbrandt is offline
Sören,

Dan is only trying to save you, because he cares. It's up to you.
Cheers,
John
#11
26th July 2010
Old 26th July 2010
  #11
Gear Guru
 
DanDan's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Location: Cork Ireland
Posts: 10,950

DanDan is offline
Angry

Soren, I am not at all angry. If you saw a child walking into traffic, you would try to stop them too.
I wish you well.
DD
SörenHjalmarsson
Thread Starter
#12
26th July 2010
Old 26th July 2010
  #12
Lives for gear
 
SörenHjalmarsson's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2010
Location: Skövde, Sweden
Posts: 1,263

Thread Starter
Send a message via Skype™ to SörenHjalmarsson
SörenHjalmarsson is offline
solutions?

Greetings Mr Brandt,

Thank you for your reply to my Q. I actually postet a more extensive reply to you, but it seems to be lost somewhere? I have written to the moderators about it so we'll see, maybe it will turn up.

In the mean time i'll give you the short version:

I thank you for the honor done to me by you generously spending your time and brain activity on my little project.

I agree with both you and Dan, A bigger room would have been great , but since that is not possible, i have to deal with this situation as it is. It is a bit unfortunate that i am in the middle of the project at the start of this debate. It makes it a bit harder for new influences and theories but i am open for suggestions to my present problems. I guess that's the way it is in life, you have to deal with your current situation as it is and do the best you can with it.

So...what would you have done in my situation John? I have 2 rooms, there are superchunk basstraps in all 8 corners and the ceiling panels are finished. What would you have done with the early reflections in the LR? And what would you have done about the sidewalls in the CR?

I'm also aware of the SBIR. But am i wrong in saying that because my speakers will be close to the front wall, it is a good idea to put heavy absorbtion on it in order to prevent LF comb filtering?

Any other thoughts you might have are most welcome.
And thank you for the education tips, i will be looking in to those books, except that right now i'm in a bit of a hurry to finish this project.

Do you think i was to harsh on Dan? don't missunderstand me, i meant no disrespect as i'm shore neither did he. Maybe my english is a bit clumsy.

But i think he understands this and i don't doubt that he can take care of himself. after all... he is an Irishman

Yours Sincerely
//Sören

PS: Have you seen the Lacarrubba video? what is you opinion on that angled wall to prevent standing waves. Or is it as Dan suspects, that i wildly misinterpret?
SörenHjalmarsson
Thread Starter
#13
26th July 2010
Old 26th July 2010
  #13
Lives for gear
 
SörenHjalmarsson's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2010
Location: Skövde, Sweden
Posts: 1,263

Thread Starter
Send a message via Skype™ to SörenHjalmarsson
SörenHjalmarsson is offline
Dear Dan

Hi again Dan,

I guess you did mean some disrespect after all, calling me a child and all of that.
But if you would really like to help me Dan, stop clanking down on my present knowledge and the theories i'v been following and come up with some suggestions.

"If you are not part of se solution, you are part of the problem"

I love you regardless Dan =)
//Sören
#14
26th July 2010
Old 26th July 2010
  #14
Gear Guru
 
DanDan's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Location: Cork Ireland
Posts: 10,950

DanDan is offline
Gentle

Soren, I used that simile carefully. Your lack of knowledge and misunderstandings of the very basics, are somewhat child like. There is no disrespect or insult meant in that. We are trying to very gently suggest that you have gotten most of this wrong. It is not easy to do that.
We are trying to help you.

I will make one last attempt.

It would be well worth your while to delay work for a half day and have a look at the other theories. All you need to know can be found at
RealTraps, GIK, Sayers, Studiotips.
Or this free online book. Table of Contents

A small cool silent space for computers etc. is a great asset, especially in a one room studio.

Can you at least consider taking down that angled back wall and moving it to created one reasonable room with a small computer room?

Axial Modes , Standing Waves, are Low Frequency phenomena.

The Front Wall thing
You will find we are all basically agreed that lots of treatment will be needed even in the bigger small room. Distributed evenly would be ideal.
SBIR kinda depends. If the front wall is light, plasterboard on studs, it will not reflect LF strongly. Remember SBIR can also occur from the other surfaces nearby, sidewalls, floor, ceiling. Speaker+ Boundary.

DD

Last edited by DanDan; 26th July 2010 at 03:45 PM.. Reason: Tyspo
#15
26th July 2010
Old 26th July 2010
  #15
Lives for gear
 
johndykstra's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2008
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,766

johndykstra is offline
Soren,

what is the construction method of the dividing wall?

is it load bearing?

what kind of isolation is it providing?

Forgive me for continuing the "tear it down" mantra, but in reality, you will likely be a lot more happy in the future. If done carefully, much of the lumber and insulation could be salvaged and re-purposed into Sayer style inside out walls.

With two rooms you are left with this:

A control room with poorly distributed modal activity that will make translating your mixes into the real world a lot harder than it has to be.

A tracking room with all reflections in such close proximity to the source, than none will be useful. (That's to say damped the whole thing). Not to mention again having poor modal distribution and bass guitars will suffer from "one note" syndrome, unless you really like d.i.'s.

I'd hate to see you become frustrated with the forum, and our inability to see that you aren't willing to tear down the wall. If indeed there is really no way this can be done, then fine. We can go through the same recommendations typically allotted to bedroom home studios. Make no mistakes about it, with the current cubic volume available, you are looking at project studio acoustics, and no amount of wall angling is going to change that.

John
__________________
phantom power doesn't make your voice sound spooky

Here's what I do. Free if you like, pay if you REALLY like:

http://midwestdeathrattle.bandcamp.com/
#16
26th July 2010
Old 26th July 2010
  #16
Lives for gear
 
johndykstra's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2008
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,766

johndykstra is offline
Also, with reflective side walls and a completely absorptive back wall, the ambiance you are attempting to maintain isn't arriving to you. Furthermore, in a room so short, this ambiance should get another bounce before reaching you. But even if you did maintain some level of reflectiveness on the back wall, it'd likely come back quite heavy on the left side, because of the angle.
SörenHjalmarsson
Thread Starter
#17
26th July 2010
Old 26th July 2010
  #17
Lives for gear
 
SörenHjalmarsson's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2010
Location: Skövde, Sweden
Posts: 1,263

Thread Starter
Send a message via Skype™ to SörenHjalmarsson
SörenHjalmarsson is offline
Gentle as a lover

Dan my man,

thank you for sticking with me through misunderstandings. No harm no foul, right?

I'll try to take this slowly step by step and maybe we'll be able to find a good solution for me, as i need to continue A.S.A.P. So stop me when i go wrong.

The Control Room

1. I made superchunks in every corner, always good to fill the corners right?

2. I then made some 4" panels to hang over the speakers and mixposition.

3. I then wanted an RFZ that would deflect the hi Frequencis and absorb the low ones. I found this solution on John L Sayers forum: John Sayers' Recording Studio Design Forum • View topic - Small studio in 3D

4. I then followed Manny Lacarrubbas advice on reducing the LF by absorbing the short walls and at the same time creating a machineroom. (here i know you disagree with lacarrubba)

The Recording Room

1. superchunks in every corner here aswell

2. 2 basstraps over the ceiling corners to further the bass reduction

3. I then read this article Acoustic Treatment and Design for Recording Studios and Listening Rooms. After that i proceeded with treating the rest of the ceiling and left the floor hard.



"It would be well worth your while to delay work for a half day and have a look at the other theories. All you need to know can be found at
RealTraps, GIK, Sayers, Studiotips.
Or this free online book. Table of Contents"

although i love learning i don't have time to become a "pro acoustic" before finishing this project (thats where you guys come in). What i would love is advice on a good plan, which is not impossible to improve in the future.

"A small cool silent space for computers etc. is a great asset, especially in a one room studio.

Can you at least consider taking down that angled back wall and moving it to created one reasonable room with a small computer room?"

I'm not sure what you ment by this. should i remove that wall completely? And where did you mean the computers and hard drives should go?

And final Q: what do you think my approach should be in regards to the Live room walls?

Thanks again
//Sören
SörenHjalmarsson
Thread Starter
#18
26th July 2010
Old 26th July 2010
  #18
Lives for gear
 
SörenHjalmarsson's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2010
Location: Skövde, Sweden
Posts: 1,263

Thread Starter
Send a message via Skype™ to SörenHjalmarsson
SörenHjalmarsson is offline
Hi Dykstraster, and thank you 4 your interest. You mention some good points. I am aware of all the sad factors in dealing with small rooms, but these unfortunatly are the rooms i am going to be using.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dykstraster@gmai View Post
Also, with reflective side walls and a completely absorptive back wall, the ambiance you are attempting to maintain isn't arriving to you. Furthermore, in a room so short, this ambiance should get another bounce before reaching you. But even if you did maintain some level of reflectiveness on the back wall, it'd likely come back quite heavy on the left side, because of the angle.
I don't know how much this helps, but if you look at my skp drawing you can see that there is also a polycylindrical diffuser/deflector on that wall. (this again is a suggestion made by Lacarrubba)

Cheers!
//Sören
#19
26th July 2010
Old 26th July 2010
  #19
Gear Guru
 
DanDan's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Location: Cork Ireland
Posts: 10,950

DanDan is offline
All good

Cool.

1 Yes, usually. However I prefer to establish where the modes are strongest in fact, not theory. I use Mode calculators and Sine waves to do this.

2 Yes, I always like Clouds. I always prefer overhead treatment to carpet.

3 RFZ means no reflections, particularly HF ones. Any reflection within 20mS is a big problem, it will fight savagely with the direct sound.
If you wanted to have some HF bounce from the side it would need to be later than 20mS. That would require a room about 6-7 Metres wide.

Pretty much the same with the Live side walls. However in that case you might try bouncing, redirecting the HF. For recording in live ish small ish room, I often lean plywood panels against the wall. The angle prevents flutter but keeps a sort of woody liveness.

John Sayers slats have different widths and gap widths. This is in fact a diffusor of sorts. I would still not like to see one of those a metre or so away from each ear.

I recommend removing/moving the back wall. Create a one room mixing and recording space. Build a new wall to create a small room/closet to contain the noisy computer and other fan cooled equipment. You will then have a reasonable sized work space, totally useful for recording as it is silent.

I can't see the skp, Sketchup seems to come up with new versions frequently, incompatible with the old. You can post those as JPG or a screenshot would do it.
Even the most ardent fans of Polys will probably agree you should not be closer than 1 radius distance.
DD

Last edited by DanDan; 26th July 2010 at 04:16 PM.. Reason: Poly
#20
26th July 2010
Old 26th July 2010
  #20
Lives for gear
 
johndykstra's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2008
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,766

johndykstra is offline
Here you go Dan

Help! 2 rectangular rooms, halfway there already-studio-layout-2-2-.jpg

Poly's are a scattering device, not a diffuser. That's to say, reflections from them are specular... too strong...too distinct. Particularly at that distance.
SörenHjalmarsson
Thread Starter
#21
26th July 2010
Old 26th July 2010
  #21
Lives for gear
 
SörenHjalmarsson's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2010
Location: Skövde, Sweden
Posts: 1,263

Thread Starter
Send a message via Skype™ to SörenHjalmarsson
SörenHjalmarsson is offline
Ok Guys, i think we are getting closer to my original Q now. the Q is: what would you do with rooms this size? do you have to absorb them completely, or is there a way to preserve some reflection that are not "bad" reflection?

S
#22
26th July 2010
Old 26th July 2010
  #22
Lives for gear
 
johndykstra's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2008
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,766

johndykstra is offline
here it is cleaned up a touch. Clouds are transparent for better viewing

Help! 2 rectangular rooms, halfway there already-overview.jpg
#23
26th July 2010
Old 26th July 2010
  #23
Lives for gear
 
johndykstra's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2008
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,766

johndykstra is offline
First thing I would recommend. The back wall of the control room, ditch the superchunks, and build a false wall that encompasses the entire angled wall into one massive rear wall absorber. A qrd diffusor could be recessed into it to maintain some life, but as Dan pointed out, it's reflections will fall within the 20ms recommended ISD, so leaving it 100% absorptive is probably a better idea.
SörenHjalmarsson
Thread Starter
#24
26th July 2010
Old 26th July 2010
  #24
Lives for gear
 
SörenHjalmarsson's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2010
Location: Skövde, Sweden
Posts: 1,263

Thread Starter
Send a message via Skype™ to SörenHjalmarsson
SörenHjalmarsson is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanDan View Post
1 Yes, usually. However I prefer to establish where the modes are strongest in fact, not theory. I use Mode calculators and Sine waves to do this.
I also think that the best approach would be to measure the room before hand and then maybe build some membrane absorbers or simular. However i don't feel advanced enough to attempt it. After measuring and building those cind of traps i would probably still be better of with the super chunks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanDan View Post
3 RFZ means no reflections, particularly HF ones. Any reflection within 20mS is a big problem, it will fight savagely with the direct sound.
If you wanted to have some HF bounce from the side it would need to be later than 20mS. That would require a room about 6-7 Metres wide.
Ok thats a bit new for me with the RFZ. I recently followed a build on Studio Forum and the guy was creating soffit mounting with drywall over the insulation. The walls where angled and he called it RFZ.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanDan View Post
Pretty much the same with the Live side walls. However in that case you might try bouncing, redirecting the HF. For recording in live ish small ish room, I often lean plywood panels against the wall. The angle prevents flutter but keeps a sort of woody liveness.
Ok that's like my plan and skp nr1 for the liveroom.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DanDan View Post
John Sayers slats have different widths and gap widths. This is in fact a diffusor of sorts. I would still not like to see one of those a metre or so away from each ear.
Ok but if you look at the Sayer drawing you can see that the width of the room is almost the same as mine, or am i mistaken?

//Sören
SörenHjalmarsson
Thread Starter
#25
26th July 2010
Old 26th July 2010
  #25
Lives for gear
 
SörenHjalmarsson's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2010
Location: Skövde, Sweden
Posts: 1,263

Thread Starter
Send a message via Skype™ to SörenHjalmarsson
SörenHjalmarsson is offline
One more thing Dan,
For the liveroom, do you think the plywood/absorbers thing is better than the Sayer walls angled at well shosen places in the room?
SörenHjalmarsson
Thread Starter
#26
26th July 2010
Old 26th July 2010
  #26
Lives for gear
 
SörenHjalmarsson's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2010
Location: Skövde, Sweden
Posts: 1,263

Thread Starter
Send a message via Skype™ to SörenHjalmarsson
SörenHjalmarsson is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by dykstraster@gmai View Post
First thing I would recommend. The back wall of the control room, ditch the superchunks, and build a false wall that encompasses the entire angled wall into one massive rear wall absorber. A qrd diffusor could be recessed into it to maintain some life, but as Dan pointed out, it's reflections will fall within the 20ms recommended ISD, so leaving it 100% absorptive is probably a better idea.
Thank you for your straight forward suggestions Dykstraster.
What if i keep the chunks but switch the panels that hang on the frontwall and hang them on the backwall instead. would that be better?

And where would you put the computers and drives?

//Sören
#27
26th July 2010
Old 26th July 2010
  #27
Lives for gear
 
johndykstra's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2008
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,766

johndykstra is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by SörenHjalmarsson View Post
Ok thats a bit new for me with the RFZ. I recently followed a build on Studio Forum and the guy was creating soffit mounting with drywall over the insulation. The walls where angled and he called it RFZ.

//Sören
RFZ can be achieved through absorption (pretty standard) or geometry. You are attempting geometry, but with your monitors placed the way they are (not good) in the drawing, it's hard to say when they are positioned correctly whether or not your side walls will do what you want them to do.
SörenHjalmarsson
Thread Starter
#28
26th July 2010
Old 26th July 2010
  #28
Lives for gear
 
SörenHjalmarsson's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2010
Location: Skövde, Sweden
Posts: 1,263

Thread Starter
Send a message via Skype™ to SörenHjalmarsson
SörenHjalmarsson is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by dykstraster@gmai View Post
RFZ can be achieved through absorption (pretty standard) or geometry. You are attempting geometry, but with your monitors placed the way they are (not good) in the drawing, it's hard to say when they are positioned correctly whether or not your side walls will do what you want them to do.
Yeah, im sorry about the monitor placement, my skp ability is lacking.
They would of course be placed more beneficial in real life =)

//Sören
#29
26th July 2010
Old 26th July 2010
  #29
Lives for gear
 
johndykstra's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2008
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,766

johndykstra is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by SörenHjalmarsson View Post
Thank you for your straight forward suggestions Dykstraster.
What if i keep the chunks but switch the panels that hang on the frontwall and hang them on the backwall instead. would that be better?

And where would you put the computers and drives?

//Sören
Sorry, the drawing was unclear. I was under the impression that the closet at the back of the room must be accessed from outside the room, as i saw no door on it. I would keep the closet but engulf it in insulation. All that geometry back there isn't doing anything of benefit, and the more low end control you can can manage the better. Lowend will have more velocity at the rear wall than the front, so yeah, if it's a matter of choosing placement of existing treatment then yes. However, I like a fair amount of front wall treatment, so in a perfect world, I guess I'd say both .
#30
26th July 2010
Old 26th July 2010
  #30
Lives for gear
 
johndykstra's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2008
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,766

johndykstra is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by SörenHjalmarsson View Post
my skp ability is lacking.

//Sören
one thing that helps in sketchup, when placing components, is to have a fixed location to "snap" it to. Meaning, draw your triangle on the floor... the speaker stands will want to snap to that location.
New Reply Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+ 
 
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
JonesH / Remote Possibilities in Acoustic Music & Location Recording
53
MikeHotten / Electronic Music Instruments & Electronic Music Production
6
Edouan / Studio building / acoustics
7
vodka gimli / So much gear, so little time!
2
jazzymike / Studio building / acoustics
5

Forum Jump

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.