another take on things. not too sure about the entry providing sufficient isolation or the entry being detached from the lounge but you get the drift.
this is getting large. ceilings to the studio would need to have an internal apex of 13 feet. control room ceiling would be a few inches under 10feet.
my maths may well be wrong (not my speciallty) but the live room should support down to 22hz.
p.s. the dimensions are rounded off so the studio is a little over 18' wide and booth 4 a little under 6 foot. the rounding off makes the dims look like they don't add up at either end of the building but they would if drawn to a technical level.
More good stuff here gouge, thanks!
I gotta say again though,... I know that when you start discussing scissor ceiling trusts, etc.,.. my costs will again escalate beyond my budget,... of this I have no doubt.
Also, I'm also trying hard to somehow come up with two iso's. I can't see any other way to successfully record entire bands, without having to overdub a lot of tracks,.. which most local bands here can't afford,.. that is,..the extra time involved to do that. That's the kind of thing I also have to be mindful of.
First and foremost (for me), the room HAS to be acoustically sound. I realize of course I'm extremely limited as to what I can accomplish due to both my limited budget, and footprint.
That said, I still plan on utilizing the additional left rear area of my yard (as discovered recently). You are correct though, I won't know how that will effect my total cost until the builder starts "number crunching".
If I had more left to right room,.. I could easily place your iso inside the walls, and maintain a line of vision. Hmmmm,... maybe place it at the back left corner.
Still experimenting,... but as usual, gotta get ready for work now,
scissor trusses are more expensive than flat ceiings but nowhere near the same level as a full raked ceiling.
if you're really worried then forget the scissor trusses but i would fight for it if it were me. all of my layouts for the record will work regardless of ceiling height. you just pick another ratio and adjust to suit.
the design i uploaded tonight has 2 iso rooms. the lounge doubles as an iso. that gives you 4 rooms in total. other than that use gobos then overdub the vocals if you need to. can't see why you would as you'd have 4 rooms to choose from.
yes, the iso room on my designs can be moved left. no problems. just don't move it all the way to the left end. 1. because you need bass traps in corners. 2. it won't feel right proportionally within the room.
another question, why use all of the space just because it's there. that makes no sense. if the budget is tight you would be better to make the space you can afford better. you're saying you want the best acoustics possible but then say you can't afford a higher ceiling. i think you need to balance the floor area with the height.
i can't help but feel some of your concern about limited budget and constraints are more thought process than reality. seems to me you are wanting to build the taj mahal because you believe the biggest footprint you can afford will mean better acoustics. that just isn't the case. there is also the volumetric design. volumetric design not only enhances acoustics by reducing ceiling reflections but it also enhances the architectural space.
now if we really want to understand where the money is going. it's the blockwork walls which will need to be core filled. i could be wrong but i doubt your builder understands we are talking full corefilled blockwork.
also the aircon is gonna hurt. the bigger the space. the bigger the units.
Still love this design. I noticed that, according to the ratios here, the length of control room goes back to approx. half of the rear triangle. This is still where I'm confused. I just don't see how you're accounting for the triangle space.
I understand (I think) how to come up with the area of the triangle,... but again what do I do with that number?
See the top row in the attachment. Start with the rectangle of the desired space. Draw a triangle with the desired base and angle. You can see this above the rectangle.
On the rectangle draw a line below the end one half the height of the triangle. Sketchup does rounding on dimensions, but the distance was entered as one half the height. This is in the top middle drawing.
Remove the top rectangle and place the triangle on top. Remove the line dividing the triangle and the rectangle. This is shown in the top left drawing.
As you can see by checking the areas of the right top left and right drawings, the areas are identical. You check the areas by moving onto the are of interest with one of the drawing tools, then right click and select entity information.
The splaying is done in a similar fashion shown in the lower sereies of drawings. Use protactor set to teh midpoint of the lines to be splayed and draw guides at he desired angles and revise the rectangle. Again you have the same area in the left and right drawings.
The splaying was done to show options, specificalyy in this case trying reduce the severe angle between the control room and adjacent room where the door is.
The width of the window in LSP 16 is defined by the location of the monitors. Channging the splay, or not having one, will not affect the wdth of the window as configured. Are you bearing in mind that the listening position is roughly behind the line of the mixer, where you would have your head for sitting back and doing criticall listening? When recording you will move your head forward and to the left and right as required. Did you check the lines of sight? The blocked areas are along the extreme edges of the room.
If you want greater lateral visibility, then the monitors will have to be raised ( currently they are at the alphabet soup standard of sitting ear level(4')) and or a muliheight window be built.
Quote:
I'd like to be able to also calculate for 10' ceilings, just in case I have to go that route.
My latest design uses a 10' ceiling. The 11' ceiling was a nice thought, but after your response from the contractor that it will add siginificantly more than the incremental height increase in cost, I dropped it from options. Sorry I did not state that explicitly.
Optionally filled,
Andre
September 28: added the attachments.
__________________ Good studio building is 90% design and 10% construction.
now if we really want to understand where the money is going. it's the blockwork walls which will need to be core filled. i could be wrong but i doubt your builder understands we are talking full corefilled blockwork.
also the aircon is gonna hurt. the bigger the space. the bigger the units.
but i'm jumping ahead. keep working on the plans.
The exterior wall construction was discussed in posts from #50 on. Post #80 makes it obvious that the contractor is aware of the wall construction. Post #127 is part of the exterior wall construction also.
There are other cost considerations listed in previous posts, including: HVAC, electrical, and signal line routing.
The exterior wall construction was discussed in posts from #50 on. Post #80 makes it obvious that the contractor is aware of the wall construction. Post #127 is part of the exterior wall construction also.
There are other cost considerations listed in previous posts, including: HVAC, electrical, and signal line routing.
Reading the thread will help you.
Andre
does it. maybe the contractor is aware then but i can't find it. actually i can't find any reference to concrete core filled blockwork.
does it. maybe the contractor is aware then but i can't find it. actually i can't find any reference to concrete core filled blockwork.
Hi gouge,
I'm not sure which post it was in, but I do recall that being discussed at some point.
At any rate, he has calculated the basic costs for my original footprint, using 10' ceilings. He said it was for sure more money to do block as opposed to stick built, but that we may still be able to work them into the budget.
He's also told me that for 10' block walls, local code only requires him to fill every 4th cavity with concrete.
yep i understand every fourth core and beside openings.
i was referencing every core from a point of view of acoustics as you have some very loud sound sources 25feet away. which will produce around 110db
andre probably has another view on that. my training is design and construction.
Ahh, I see. Yes, we did discuss the differences in a fully filled block. No doubt it would be better for acoustics, but once again, if I were to do that it would cost WAY more, according to my builder. Concrete here is quite expensive.
Not sure how much difference it makes, but the road is about 35 yards away, not 25 feet. Thankfully the motorcycles aren't a constant nuisance, just an occasional one.
yeah 35 yards does make a difference but not so much in the lower frequencies if there are no obstructions.
grass between you studio and the road i believe will make a difference.
hmm.
hollow core block versus sand filled block is about 3db difference. where as hollow core blockwork versus core filled blockwork is around 7db so that is a nice upgrade.
how cheap are brick commons in your area. bricks are cheap here. what is the cost difference between for eg.
hollow blockwork, insulation/cavity, stud, 3 layers of high density plasterboard.
versus
hollow blockwork, insulation/cavity, stud, brick commons (express the face)
even if you only do the wall facing the road.
i keep thinking back to your comments that first and foremast the room has to be acoustically sound. so why are we skimping on the front wall isolation and (ceiling height) scissor trusses. in real terms what is the cost difference. it needs to be calculated. then maybe build a smaller building if it doesn't stack.
i understand your budget constraints. but i go through this every day in my job.
sometimes what appear as savings are only minor savings in real terms.
things like, higher rated walls. what is the real cost to only do the front studio wall.
what is the real cost to only do scissor trusses to the studio. $500 or $4000
all builder will tell you it costs more because it does. but sometimes it's miniscule in comparison the the total budget and worht the added value.
if you reduce the length by 1 foot does that mean you can afford scissor trusses or better front wall acoustics.
yeah 35 yards does make a difference but not so much in the lower frequencies if there are no obstructions.
grass between you studio and the road i believe will make a difference.
hmm.
hollow core block versus sand filled block is about 3db difference. where as hollow core blockwork versus core filled blockwork is around 7db so that is a nice upgrade.
how cheap are brick commons in your area. bricks are cheap here. what is the cost difference between for eg.
hollow blockwork, insulation/cavity, stud, 3 layers of high density plasterboard.
versus
hollow blockwork, insulation/cavity, stud, brick commons (express the face)
even if you only do the wall facing the road.
i keep thinking back to your comments that first and foremast the room has to be acoustically sound. so why are we skimping on the front wall isolation and (ceiling height) scissor trusses. in real terms what is the cost difference. it needs to be calculated. then maybe build a smaller building if it doesn't stack.
i understand your budget constraints. but i go through this every day in my job.
sometimes what appear as savings are only minor savings in real terms.
things like, higher rated walls. what is the real cost to only do the front studio wall.
what is the real cost to only do scissor trusses to the studio. $500 or $4000
all builder will tell you it costs more because it does. but sometimes it's miniscule in comparison the the total budget and worht the added value.
if you reduce the length by 1 foot does that mean you can afford scissor trusses or better front wall acoustics.
I see your points, and will be discussing the differences in cost for the additional block fill, and scissor trusses with my builder as this moves forward.
Yes, as stated, it has to be acoustically sound. I suppose at this point though, I'm not sure how much I'd be willing to sacrifice on the "internal" footprint, in order to get the absolute most out of the outside walls. definitely a balancing act for me. Admittedly the "visual" aspects are coming into play for me as well, which is why I really like the plan(s) Andre has come up with. They may not produce any better recordings than the one's you've come up with,... but again, I just like the way I can envision the way it will look inside when completed. I'm sure this is because I've never worked in a "real" studio before,..meaning,... I want this thing to have a true studio "vibe", ya know what I mean?
Remember, I've been dealing with a simple bonus room, with plenty of occasional road noise ruining takes, for 6 or so years now. So, in my mind, IF I only went with non filled block, etc.,... the difference would still be quite substantial, compared to what I'm used to.
My plan is to, at some point, finally choose a definitive floor plan. Have my builder start to calculate the costs for all of the walls, including core filled, sand filled, and non filled.
I will then start to calculate the approximate costs of all the glass, drywall, etc. Working with my builder closely, we will get an idea early on if we even stand a chance of coming in at budget. If not, then I will start to "cut back" on costs, according to what I consider a priority, including possibly making the footprint smaller, raising the ceilings, etc.
As you've stated, I have a balancing act here, of that I'm aware. Not an easy road, but I've got to keep driving, so to speak.
i'm realistc that you're probably going to go with andre's layout. no problems there. and your right, you do see a lot of studios like that.
even most studios you see on gearslutz don't have windows, not to be to harsh but a lot of studios remind a little of 1980's night clubs. ie. you walk in, they're dark with no connection to outside and over in one corner is a 45 degree wall with a window in it where the dj hangs out.
there are studios out there where this is not the case.
anyways, i started thinking about testing out some designs where a buffer is created between the live room and the road by placing the iso booths along an axis between the road and the studio. i've already got that theme going for the control room but it's been bugging me that i hadn't explored that with the studio.
i mean if the cost of full isolation is an issue, and clearly it will be. then the design may be able to adress these issues. to be honest, there is a fairly big argument to say the studio should be isolated from the road because that's the noise source. same to say the studio should be isolated from the house because the studio will be the noise source for the house.
i've explored the outcome. it's most likely not the cheapest solution which is an issue because it breaks the rectilinear form. but it's worth looking at just to know for sure.
i don't expect they will ever be a realistic option but will upload once i've finished them off.
Not sure how much difference it makes, but the road is about 35 yards away, not 25 feet.
That's a significant difference. Very significant, in fact. If you are able to do some landscaping in that 35 yards, you can tip the scales more in your favor. Any excess from excavation during studio construction could be used to build a berm to absorb and redirect airborne noise. Plant some trees in that space, etc.
What is your criteria for the external wall Transmission Loss (TL)?
Andre
i'll have to dig it up, i looked up a few documents.
for the noise levels i referenced a portland state uni document on traffic noise as well as online reference of harley's being upward of 110db because most are modified.
the tl value of the wall i extrapolated after looking at the mass of the blockwork versus brickwork. the csr redbook in australia (i use it a lot) has stc values for brick veneer walls. i have ball parked it at around stc 63-65.
in the canadian ir 586 there are test results for cavity brick wall where 190/90 is approx stc 79
i was aiming for a noise level of 25db in the studio.
110-25=85 stc needed. roughly.
looking at the bbc tests the double masonry walls also seem to do quite well in the lower frequencies.
I have taken Andre's latest control room/floor plan, and shifted the control room slightly to the right(when sitting at mix position). This has opened up the line of vision such that I believe I would now be able to view all but the extreme left corner of live room, where the door into the live room will be.
I do agree with 'gouge' about not wanted to have the door to the half bath "inside" of iso 2, but I truly am out of choices, ... that is of course is I stay with this plan, which I'm pretty sure I will at this point,...as the footprint fits perfectly with my yard.
I tried moving the iso to the other wall, but then the view out of the control room would be pretty close to said iso, which I don't like.
It could likely work out that the second iso simply isn't in the budget anyway, so that would make the problem moot. I'm just not confident that I could achieve enough isolation for tracking entire bands at once with gobo's, which is why I will definitley be trying to work the second iso into the budget.
I could also move the door to the bath to the dining room wall. However, that corner looks like a likely spot to park my drums, and the door would once again be hard to access due to the drums being in the way,.. not to mention would be a little awkward entering from the dining room, with a table and chairs in the way.
Sorry, I couldn't figure out how to "edit" and add another jpeg to the previous post. At any rate, here's what I came up with putting the iso on the other side.
I tend to like it better than on the other side, contrary to what I had originally thought. Mainly because I will now be able to access the bathroom door without issues, and still have room for a bass trap. I also made it a little smaller.
If I put a large enough glass in the iso, I feel it will help in not feeling so "closed in" while viewing from the control room,.. eg, like I'm not looking directly at a wall.
out of your last 2 images i also much prefer your switched iso (post 287). it makes the live room feel more ballanced.
you could probably add another foot to the length also or even push it out further so it lines up with the wall dividing the half bath and dining.
with the wall at the control room/lounge. maybe use the angle of the current control room wall and then where the door is between the lounge and the studio kick it right so the door is perpendicular to the front wall.
i explored the outcomes if you were to stack the iso rooms and entry along the axis parallel to the road so that the design provides more isolation for the live room. all of these design achieve view lines between rooms.
design 7, 7a, 8 & 8a. some more expensive than others. 7a and 8a being the most cost effective of the 4 variations.
8a is interesting as it maintains the greatest view lines of all designs. it was that layout that got the ball rolling with the stacked axis idea, but i couldn't get it to work so put it on hold and explored the version with the angled walls. after that process version 8a just fell together. kinda ended up being my preference out of all options. 6a i like also.
8a has got a lot going for it. entry/live room isolated from the house, live room and control room isolated from the road, seperate wc access, connection with outside view of the woods, full line of sight between rooms, entry connected to lounge/iso booth, cost effective (easy) construction as everything is linear, short cable runs between rooms, some articulation to front facade.
i also went back and massaged 2 earlier verions i felt worked the best to gewt better line of sight between rooms. that produced version 2d and 6a based on version 2 and 6 respectively.
all of these design would fit within your envelope and suit ideal room ratios plus provide 2 iso rooms.
Not sure if this is viable given constraints and construction codes, but could you build this building partially underground? Think about a basement space and how quiet that is. It seems to me you could build this "partially submerged" and that would automatically reduce the amount of sound that would penetrate the underground part of the walls. Perhaps this could allow for cheaper construction on the part below ground?
Of course, there may be constraints with code or with the building side of things. I would bet others here or your builder could validate whether this is viable. Also- if you live in an area that could flood you would want to weigh that risk, too.
Another option I have seen for exterior walls is foam block construction. Basically styrofoam cinder blocks filled with rebar and concrete. These may not be common where you are and I don't know the relative cost as I haven't looked into it in at least a decade. I can say I have been inside buildings like this that were right on the street and eerily quiet inside.
this would be cost prohibitive and prone to potential water issues.
but it's an interesting concept when used slightly differently as dirt could be mounded up against the building side facing the road while still leaving natural ground levels to the sides and rear.
but we're dreaming here. it's costly stuff and requires commercial construction methods.
can really look good though and provide insane isolation. i like it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by tunekicker
Not sure if this is viable given constraints and construction codes, but could you build this building partially underground? Think about a basement space and how quiet that is. It seems to me you could build this "partially submerged" and that would automatically reduce the amount of sound that would penetrate the underground part of the walls. Perhaps this could allow for cheaper construction on the part below ground?
Of course, there may be constraints with code or with the building side of things. I would bet others here or your builder could validate whether this is viable. Also- if you live in an area that could flood you would want to weigh that risk, too.
Another option I have seen for exterior walls is foam block construction. Basically styrofoam cinder blocks filled with rebar and concrete. These may not be common where you are and I don't know the relative cost as I haven't looked into it in at least a decade. I can say I have been inside buildings like this that were right on the street and eerily quiet inside.
i explored the outcomes if you were to stack the iso rooms and entry along the axis parallel to the road so that the design provides more isolation for the live room. all of these design achieve view lines between rooms.
design 7, 7a, 8 & 8a. some more expensive than others. 7a and 8a being the most cost effective of the 4 variations.
8a is interesting as it maintains the greatest view lines of all designs. it was that layout that got the ball rolling with the stacked axis idea, but i couldn't get it to work so put it on hold and explored the version with the angled walls. after that process version 8a just fell together. kinda ended up being my preference out of all options. 6a i like also.
8a has got a lot going for it. entry/live room isolated from the house, live room and control room isolated from the road, seperate wc access, connection with outside view of the woods, full line of sight between rooms, entry connected to lounge/iso booth, cost effective (easy) construction as everything is linear, short cable runs between rooms, some articulation to front facade.
i also went back and massaged 2 earlier verions i felt worked the best to gewt better line of sight between rooms. that produced version 2d and 6a based on version 2 and 6 respectively.
all of these design would fit within your envelope and suit ideal room ratios plus provide 2 iso rooms.
Wow gouge, I can tell you really enjoy your line of work! I've got a lot of errands I have to run this morning, but plan on checking out your ideas later when I have more time.
By the way, In your previous post regarding my entrance/lounge,..I can't quite figure out what you mean by " maybe use the angle of the current control room wall and then where the door is between the lounge and the studio kick it right so the door is perpendicular to the front wall",... especially the "kick it right" part. It's probably a simple adjustment, I just can't visualize what you mean.
i'll have to dig it up, i looked up a few documents.
for the noise levels i referenced a portland state uni document on traffic noise as well as online reference of harley's being upward of 110db because most are modified.
the tl value of the wall i extrapolated after looking at the mass of the blockwork versus brickwork. the csr redbook in australia (i use it a lot) has stc values for brick veneer walls. i have ball parked it at around stc 63-65.
in the canadian ir 586 there are test results for cavity brick wall where 190/90 is approx stc 79
i was aiming for a noise level of 25db in the studio.
110-25=85 stc needed. roughly.
looking at the bbc tests the double masonry walls also seem to do quite well in the lower frequencies.
so that's how i arrived there.
Thank for your detailed and clear explanation of your methodology.
What is missing is the inverse square distance. Motorcycle sound level testing by SAE J1287 specifies a distance of 0.5 m for the microphone from the exhaust. The studio site is 35 yards from the road. This yields a 35 dB reduction in sound level. The level at the exterior of the building would be 75 dB. Using your criteria of 20 DB inside the studio, and ignoring the suitability of STC for studio isolation, the wall design should have STC classification of 55(50=110-35-20). Those calculations ignore any sound absorption by the terrain.
The wall construction that I recommended has an STC of 61. It is detailed in IR 586, test TL-88-421. The TL is shown in th elower right hand grah in fig. 4.
If you add 6 points to the required STC to compensate for construction practices, the wall still meets your criteria.
There is no issue with sound isolation with the wall construction I recommend
Andre
Last edited by avare; 2nd October 2012 at 05:25 PM..
Reason: Corrected wrong STC value. 55 was 50
Thanks,.. hey Andre, I understand that the window width in your control room plan was determined by my A7 monitors, and there placement.
What if I were to make the front wall wider, and consequently the glass wider than the placement of the A7's. I of course would have to continue to place the A7's on stands like I am now, but I would then have some visual capabilities on the outside of the speakers as well.
I would at that point have a wider view from the control room,.. but would glass being behind speakers create more issues than the added visual benefits?
Thanks,.. hey Andre, I understand that the window width in your control room plan was determined by my A7 monitors, and there placement.
What if I were to make the front wall wider, and consequently the glass wider than the placement of the A7's. I of course would have to continue to place the A7's on stands like I am now, but I would then have some visual capabilities on the outside of the speakers as well.
I would at that point have a wider view from the control room,.. but would glass being behind speakers create more issues than the added visual benefits?
Marc
The monitor placement is controlled by the length of room, not the width. In my designs I used the industry equilateral triangle with the listening position 38% back. Other options are a multiple level window with the monitors raised, The standard is monitor acoustic center at 4'.
ah yes you are correct, i had not taken into account the distance correctly.
to take this a step further. isn't the problem frequencies for trucks (and i'll assume harleys as i have no specific low freq harley data) in the 63-80hz band.
wouldn't this mean the 88-421 makeup is only borderline for the lower frequencies achieving a TL of 30-35.
i understand this may be a moot point due to budget.
so do you have any data based on a more traditional from of construction then 88-421.
for eg, 190 block/ 25mm gap / 90mm timber stud / high density plasterboard.
that provides a makeup of 320 approx total but also provides isolation between the blockwork and the lightweight wall as well as a deeper cavity (110mm) which i assume would improve low freq attenuation plus wall resonant frequencies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by avare
Thank for your detailed and clear explanation of your methodology.
What is missing is the inverse square distance. Motorcycle sound level testing by SAE J1287 specifies a distance of 0.5 m for the microphone from the exhaust. The studio site is 35 yards from the road. This yields a 35 dB reduction in sound level. The level at the exterior of the building would be 75 dB. Using your criteria of 20 DB inside the studio, and ignoring the suitability of STC for studio isolation, the wall design should have STC classification of 50(50=110-35-20). Those calculations ignore any sound absorption by the terrain.
The wall construction that I recommended has an STC of 61. It is detailed in IR 586, test TL-88-421. The TL is shown in th elower right hand grah in fig. 4.
If you add 6 points to the required STC to compensate for construction practices, the wall still meets your criteria.
There is no issue with sound isolation with the wall construction I recommend
what i've done here is show the process from start to finish of working out the planning. it includes exploring the bad ideas as well as the good ideas. all of those options are very crudely drawn just to explore the outcome. i wouldn't put 15 options in front of a client and ask them to take their pick under normal circumstances.
what i would usually do is work through all of those ideas and present 1 option in a neater manner that i thought had merrit. for eg if your mental image of a studio involved angled walls etc i would run with one of those. if your mental image was more of the modernist type of space with straight lines i'd go with a design that lent itself to that. all of that would be worked out by tabling reference images.
plus i would under normal circumstances need a much better understanding of your existing house. there may be other completely different option based on your existing.
we didn;t even look into 2 storey.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LSP
Wow gouge, I can tell you really enjoy your line of work! I've got a lot of errands I have to run this morning, but plan on checking out your ideas later when I have more time.
By the way, In your previous post regarding my entrance/lounge,..I can't quite figure out what you mean by " maybe use the angle of the current control room wall and then where the door is between the lounge and the studio kick it right so the door is perpendicular to the front wall",... especially the "kick it right" part. It's probably a simple adjustment, I just can't visualize what you mean.
I can't quite figure out what you mean by " maybe use the angle of the current control room wall and then where the door is between the lounge and the studio kick it right so the door is perpendicular to the front wall",... especially the "kick it right" part. It's probably a simple adjustment, I just can't visualize what you mean.
Thanks for your efforts,
Marc
something like this. i changed the angle of the iso booth wall near the dining on one of them as well.
The monitor placement is controlled by the length of room, not the width. In my designs I used the industry equilateral triangle with the listening position 38% back. Other options are a multiple level window with the monitors raised, The standard is monitor acoustic center at 4'.
Andre
I understand. What I was talking about was leaving the monitors spaced exactly as you have them, only on stands instead of flush mounted in the wall. The glass could then be wider than the monitors, thus providing more viewing capabilities. I am concerned however, that the glass that would then be behind the monitors would have a negative acoustic effect, eg, too much reflection.
Is this a real bad idea?
I hope I'm not sounding like I'm obsessed with having a larger viewing glass, I'm just exploring all possibilities, and learning in the process!
New Reply 
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
