attached is the layout in cad format plus a print of the design with a thick dashed line indicating a comparison of the current sketchup model extents versus this design.
if it were me. and dependant on budget, i would push your rear control room wall out further.
i'll get the sketchup model under later on today.
the idea with the drum alcove on this version is to either use a curtain for separtion or folding door panels so it can be shut down or opened up depending on isolation needs. some may not like that concept and some may. other option is double sliding glass doors but that can lead to treatment issues in a small room.
control based on the sketchup model of 2400mm nom front wall and 15 deg splays depth shown same as sketchup model also. width shown on drawings is mid point width along long wall.
just looking at deep window to left of control room. this could be reduced to 300mm nom wall thickness and a seat in front to retain the angle line to the sliding door area.
attached is the layout in cad format plus a print of the design with a thick dashed line indicating a comparison of the current sketchup model extents versus this design.
if it were me. and dependant on budget, i would push your rear control room wall out further.
i'll get the sketchup model under later on today.
the idea with the drum alcove on this version is to either use a curtain for separtion or folding door panels so it can be shut down or opened up depending on isolation needs. some may not like that concept and some may. other option is double sliding glass doors but that can lead to treatment issues in a small room.
control based on the sketchup model of 2400mm nom front wall and 15 deg splays depth shown same as sketchup model also. width shown on drawings is mid point width along long wall.
just looking at deep window to left of control room. this could be reduced to 300mm nom wall thickness and a seat in front to retain the angle line to the sliding door area.
Nice work again gouge. I especially like the half bath, now including the steps down from my kitchen.
Still not sure about the changes to the control room shape that Andre had. While yours is close to the same, it does protrude a bit beyond my 41' limit, albeit just a small amount.
Two things come to mind. With yours, it doesn't look like I would have a view into the entrance/iso, unless the control room door had glass. secondly, due to the angle of yours, it seems that my view from the control room front glass would be somewhat diminished. I realize that's why you added the window to the left, but,.. that would for sure add more costs.
Curious, is there something in particular you don't like about Andre's control room design? I mean, yours is similar anyway, so why change it?
Your idea for the drum alcove is pretty cool. I don't really like the curtain idea,..but the double sliding glass sounds cool,..kind of like what Glenn came up with a while back,... yet, as you stated, I could see the reflections being a problem in a small area. Plus, once again the costs would have to be pretty high for something like that.
I wish I didn't even need a second iso, but I know as soon as I record my first "entire band" at once, I'll wish I had a second one. Bear in mind that I had planned on having the drums and bass guitar in the live room, with perhaps a loud amp in one iso, and the vocalist, or acoustic guitar, etc., in the other. This way I could take care of an entire band at one time. A lot of local bands here don't have the budget for a "real" cd, but I've spoken to many that can scrape up a couple hundred bucks for an afternoon "quick demo", so to speak.
Thanks again for taking the time and looking forward to looking around your "sketchup" model.
Very nicely done Glenn! I love the simplicity, and of course the roomy control room!
I'll assume the long 4' wide area beside the control room would be one large storage area, instead of a few smaller ones?
What ceiling height were you using for your control room ratios?
While I do love the larger control room, it puts the total width, from the far right side (top view) to the far left corner of the control room at a little over 35', outside dimension. I'll have to go out and measure again to see if I have any more "left to right" room out there. My (Andre's) current plan comes in at almost 30' across (including the control room left triangle area), and that is already getting pretty close to my landscaped island I have back there.
Damn!, if I only had more yard, or money, then I could purchase the land beside me and have no problems.
attached is the layout in cad format plus a print of the design with a thick dashed line indicating a comparison of the current sketchup model extents versus this design.
if it were me. and dependant on budget, i would push your rear control room wall out further.
i'll get the sketchup model under later on today.
the idea with the drum alcove on this version is to either use a curtain for separtion or folding door panels so it can be shut down or opened up depending on isolation needs. some may not like that concept and some may. other option is double sliding glass doors but that can lead to treatment issues in a small room.
control based on the sketchup model of 2400mm nom front wall and 15 deg splays depth shown same as sketchup model also. width shown on drawings is mid point width along long wall.
just looking at deep window to left of control room. this could be reduced to 300mm nom wall thickness and a seat in front to retain the angle line to the sliding door area.
I was just going back over your layout, gouge,... and just wanted to say that I really think it's your best one yet,.. at least for my tastes, my yard availability, and my half bath issues.
Also, thinking about your "drum alcove",... and the double glass doors, I'm reminded once again of a similar idea from Glenn earlier in this thread. The more I think about it, the more I like it. I wouldn't be using it for drums, so maybe with a decent cloud over top, and plenty of trapping and absorption, the glass doors wouldn't be as much of a problem.
Then I could open them up when not in use. Love the idea!
All probably moot though, as I doubt I'll be able to afford it, but I will be checking into the costs involved regardless.
I'm also realizing that this floor plan has been slowly morphing ideas from you, Andre, and Glenn, and a small amount of my own even, into a pretty efficient small studio.
on the control room and why i changed it. - i didn't believe it was the most efficient use of space. so i changed it. which also made the volume greater without making your footprint bigger, other than the tiny triangle which is nothing in real terms. i think you'll find that small twist of the control room made a couple of the rooms bigger.
in terms of the extra extension. a constraint for eg, would be a property boundry where you legally cannot build beyond it.
i then changed the rest of the layout because i didnt beleieve it "felt" proportionally right. compare the layouts. which one feels more ballanced?
addressing the effiency, well , with respect, i'm not going to go there anymore with comparisons of the designs. i've stated what my thoughts are there. it's great that you're close to your preference as that's all that is really important now. so moving forward.....
recording bands, for the time and money you are talking i think the benefits of numerous iso rooms may not be fully realised. you will not have hours to do mixdown and tweak everything which is when full iso is worth it.
definitely though have iso rooms. absolutely. and use them. absolutely, but bear in mind there are other ways to approach the session and everyone in the live room together does produce excellent results.
obviously depends on the genre, i'd merely compress and tweak on the way in and that's the mix. run it through a buss compressor on the way out and you're good to go. bleed is good, interaction between the musicians is where it's at.
especially with young bands, my experience of younger singers is that when you put them in an iso booth by themselves with an expensive mic in front of them they freeze and their throat closes down leading to flat performances.
better results tended to happen with everyone on the same room bashing out their songs. the best acoustics also happen in the big room.
i'd then get the singer back and overdub them in the live room and just pick the best performance from that and the live session. that's what i've done on the past, there is no right and wrong.
Partially because it will look much better from the exterior, and likely screw with your property value less.
I liked it as well. Curious as to how you think it would "look much better from the exterior" ? It seems to me that it would look much the same from the outside.
Also, how would it NOT mess up my property value any more than the other two plans currently up for evaluation?
Don't you think that the last 3 plan ideas: Andre's, gouge's, and Glenn's, are all now very similar,?... based mainly off of what Andre and I (mostly Andre) had come up with.
I'm seeing it as cleaner lines. Whether that messes with or enhances the aesthetic of your current structure was just a guess on my part now that I evaluate my opinion. It certainly seems easier to roof at the very least.
the main reason for the rectangular CR is room volume and space for acoustical treatment (plus working in it ) it's 1:1.4:1.9 with a 9 1/2' (or so) ceiling.
at this point it's also wise to begin including the space taken by the isolation walls in terms of real measurements. if you're only going with a single block wall separating the rooms, then you're @ about 8", if you're going with 2 framed walls (2x6 + 2" gap + 3x 5/8" drywall on each) you're looking at 16 3/4". in my last example i kinda bundled both so the depths of the walls are exaggerated in some places. unless block comes in cheaper i'd go with framing and drywall for the inside walls.
i think John is alluding to the idea that the more normal room shapes could be better for resale but i know that was not high on your list of priorities.
I'm seeing it as cleaner lines. Whether that messes with or enhances the aesthetic of your current structure was just a guess on my part now that I evaluate my opinion. It certainly seems easier to roof at the very least.
Thanks. The "roof" part is something I'll run by my builder,...never thought of that,.. and I do have to consider everything with my limited budget.
If you were to go with the non Glenn shape, a single a frame roof accounting for the greater width at the control room side, if the entire roof was that width you could have a nice covered porch area where the structure recesses.
(caviat) I have not read whether or not the structure gets narrower there due to other logistics
the main reason for the rectangular CR is room volume and space for acoustical treatment (plus working in it ) it's 1:1.4:1.9 with a 9 1/2' (or so) ceiling.
at this point it's also wise to begin including the space taken by the isolation walls in terms of real measurements. if you're only going with a single block wall separating the rooms, then you're @ about 8", if you're going with 2 framed walls (2x6 + 2" gap + 3x 5/8" drywall on each) you're looking at 16 3/4". in my last example i kinda bundled both so the depths of the walls are exaggerated in some places. unless block comes in cheaper i'd go with framing and drywall for the inside walls.
i think John is alluding to the idea that the more normal room shapes could be better for resale but i know that was not high on your list of priorities.
Block is definitely more expensive. I'd planned on using block for ONLY the external walls, and, as you suggested, using framing and drywall for internal.
For cost considerations, I've been thinking of using 2 framed walls for the control room, and perhaps staggered stud for the iso's.
Wall construction was discussed in the beginning of the thread, with some modifications as the design evolved. The outside walls are 12" thick (8" block, 3.5" stud and .5" drywall) depending on the budget, the drywall may be 5/8". Depending on the operating costs the thickness may become 15" with a 3" deeper cavity for improved thermal insulation.
Most internal walls are 11" thick (double 5/8" drywall, 3.5" stud, 1" gap, 3.5" stud and double 5/8" drywall). The interior control room wall will be like the thin exterior wall plus stud and drywall added on the iso booth side. The front control room is thicker to accomodate flush mounting the monitors. I have been using 15". All of the drawings I have done use these dimensions.
Andre
__________________ Good studio building is 90% design and 10% construction.
i think if the ceiling is not suspended on the rafter system, then the internal walls become load bearing so you probably need 2x6 walls in the live room and CR. you could get away with the 2x4 in the smaller rooms. you could also go with 2x6 in lieu of the 2x4 if you wanted deeper walls with the same 1" gap.
the pop out of the control room would be framed with rafters pitched off the roof trusses. when the pop out was the iso in my designs this was straight forward as the reduced ceilig height where the rafters continue raking down was typical construction. on the later versions i did, where the iso pop out got bigger they were flat roofs lower than the main roof to articulate the facade. i also tried to articulate the facade at the entry on the majorty of my outcomes.
i had elevataded a couple of my designs during the process to get a feel for the external proportions.
now the pop out is the control room it is only slightly more complicated as you need a higher ceiling throughout that area. so you pitch the rafters from higher up the truss. still fairly easy though.
Marc, i'd also like to point out that the current design i tabled is not "my design" it is you and andre's design where i tweaked some walls.
with respect, my designs were completely different. i'd be more than keen to see what your "current" design looks like as a building. maybe andre can take his design further and show us what the form looks like.
Andre RE post #408 Would increasing the 1" gap, increase the db reduction? I mentioned earlier, having to build my "framed wall pair "(my term like the one you describe)around 4" posts. Thanks Michael
Andre RE post #408 Would increasing the 1" gap, increase the db reduction? I mentioned earlier, having to build my "framed wall pair "(my term like the one you describe)around 4" posts. Thanks Michael
i've been messing with my own designs, doing section studies.
it is possible to increase ceiling heights to the control room by putting a stepdown in the concrete slab. that combined with the makeup of the trusses etc should gain you as much 250mm. is that 10" in old school.
if you use a 3-4" top plate (usually 2-3" plate) on top of the blockwork at 10' plus a 6" setdown in the slab you get more height for minimal expense and that allows a bigger control room.
i'm also looking at making all the walls of the control room double stud. can't be sure this is a real cost beneift when considering cost of block versus multiple layers of high density board. or acoustically apropriate. only your builder will be albe to say for sure on costs. the thought is that unless you have structures behind your building for the sound to bounce off then the noise source is not as extreme.
Thanks OpusOfTrolls! I appreciate the link. I have to buy a copy of Rod Gervais' book. I borrowed it and now want my own, though this thread is turning into an online course on the subject!
i decided to do an area comparison to evaluate the efficiency of a couple of the designs.
there was a point where the building envelope was 43', however that seems to have changed.
in the jpeg the current Marc/Andre layout is top right. the variation to the theme top left. then 2 designs i looked at bottom left and right. bottom left was based on the 43' envelope and bottom right based on the 41' envelope. i drew these up quickly so they need refinemnt and windows/doors added in some places machine cupboard added etc. i haven't taken them as far as the top left layout as yet.
the thick dashed line is the andre/marc outline which is still going through refinement.
things to look at are live room size and control room size comparisons. number of walls and linear length of walls.
please note the iso/drum alcove area on all layouts is included in the live room area. the wall between both rooms is arbitary as one informs the other with regards to total area.
Andre RE post #408 Would increasing the 1" gap, increase the db reduction? I mentioned earlier, having to build my "framed wall pair "(my term like the one you describe)around 4" posts. Thanks Michael
Minimally, as the acoustic gap is already 8" (3.5" stud twice plus 1" gap between studs).
The latest design you posted in skp format looks nice. You used a ratio of 1:1.125:1.75. I have no idea where you got that ratio from. YOu have numerous "vetted" ratios in you library. Use one of them. For best acoustics I suggest following Eric Desart's analysis of ratios.
There is a couch/settee on hte back wall of the control room. The back wall will be absorbers and diffusers. A couch could in front of the wall or be built acoustacally transparent.
The latest design you posted in skp format looks nice. You used a ratio of 1:1.125:1.75. I have no idea where you got that ratio from. YOu have numerous "vetted" ratios in you library. Use one of them. For best acoustics I suggest following Eric Desart's analysis of ratios.
There is a couch/settee on hte back wall of the control room. The back wall will be absorbers and diffusers. A couch could in front of the wall or be built acoustacally transparent.
Andre
hi Andre,
i'll have to assume you are referring to the control room.
i would be interested to know how you arrived at that ratio? did you model it in acoustic software?
my understanding is that with walls over 15 deg the simple room ratios us laymen use aren't really workable anymore. here we have 30deg
at a minimum i get a ratio of 1:1.9 for the height and the length. width is around 1.4 but again the walls are splayed.
this is one of the reasons i stuck to rectangular rooms on my designs. as i can use ideal ratios.
the seat in the rear of the room is built in. on the wall behind it would be a diffusor, above it would be trapping and to the sides would be trapping as well as the cupboards.
a small touch of architecture.
i'll have to assume you are referring to the control room.
i would be interested to know how you arrived at that ratio? did you model it in acoustic software?
my understanding is that with walls over 15 deg the simple room ratios us laymen use aren't really workable anymore. here we have 30deg
at a minimum i get a ratio of 1:1.9 for the height and the length. width is around 1.4 but again the walls are splayed.
this is one of the reasons i stuck to rectangular rooms on my designs. as i can use ideal ratios.
the seat in the rear of the room is built in. on the wall behind it would be a diffusor, above it would be trapping and to the sides would be trapping as well as the cupboards.
a small touch of architecture.
Yes I am refering tot he control room.. That is the most critical room acousitcally.
I reversed your control room design to determine what the ratios are.
A hard reflective surface on the rear wall is not an option. Full range absorption and diffusion go there.
ok, well i won't argue the toss but i get different ratios.
onto the seat.
lets put this into perspective. the zone shown on the diagram is approx 1m deep and 3m high. a bench seat is only 450mm high.
the bench seat could be anything, it coulb be slats over abssorption, it could be some timber boards suspended above the floor and open under. the wall could be anything, it could be slats over absorption, diffusion, full absorption or any combination of the above. why assume it's hard surfaces.
it is intended as something more sculptural then an ikea couch in the back of the room or a bunch of acoustic treatments glued to the wall.
what's shown in the model is not the built outcome, it's about as real as the acoustic treatments shown in the live room which are also "notional" at this stage.
again, for the record, the layout modelled is not "my design". all i did was apply an aesthetic to the current layout to improve the balance and feel of the space. i was throwing an idea on the table. trying to improve where its at. which in architectural terms is clunky.
you and marc can either take it and run with it, take it and morph it and improve the built outcome or throw it in the bin as you see fit. i'm easy either way.
New Reply 
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
