The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Room within a room
Old 4 weeks ago
  #31
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
I am not sure how one could say "the mechanisms of our ears and brain are quite well understood" when such fundamental and significant knowledge is still missing.
Split hairs if you must, but I thought I had made it clear that we are talking about studio environments, and how people perceive sound in them, and what it takes to create that environment. Scientists might not ever know for sure how the basilar membrane can vibrate in different ways at the same time and still convey meaningful information in each of the critical bands to the hair cells, nor how those bands can shift as the music changes.... but understanding that, or not understanding it, is totally irrelevant to design control rooms, which is what we are talking about here. Understanding in intricate detail why the masking effect is different in the forward and backward directions, or why it varies with SPL, is just as irrelevant. Understanding that will not help anyone design a better control room

The FULL text that you partially quoted said: " the mechanisms of our ears and brain are quite well understood, so there's not really much need to "re-invent the wheel". The principles of what a studio needs in order to be usable are fairly well laid out already, in documents such as ITU BS.1116-3 and EBU Tech.3276, among others". I thought it was pretty clear that I was referring to the mechanisms related to studio design being quite well understood, not the minutiae of how many stereocilia need to move in order to create a nerve impulse...

Take a closer look at those two documents I mentioned. Especially BS.1116-3, chapters 7 and 8. You can skip the other chapters, as they are not related to studio control rooms, but those two chapters are, and they lay out very clearly what is needed in order to create the listening environment that is needed for a "critical listening room". The specifications are quite clear and well presented... and not so easy to achieve! The smaller the room is, the harder it is to achieve, but it is still possible to get really close in a 36m3 room. One of my clients recently completed his 39m3 control room, another recently completed his 34m3 control room. Both of those get really, really close to the specs, and beat them in practically all aspects. A while back, another client completed his 24m3 room, and was very happy. So yes, it is possible to do what you want. On the other hand, right now I'm working with a client on a nearly 200m3 facility that he had designed a few years ago, and it never worked properly, so now he wants me to "rip it apart and re-do it right". The new CR will be about 60m3. I mention that to show that it is also possible to get it wrong, if careful attention is not paid to the principles of acoustics and psycho-acoustics, when designing a room.

Quote:
I have yet to find where that formula I quoted in an earlier post under this thread comes from.
If you are referring to this one: "1.1w/h =< l/h =< 4.5w/h - 4", it comes from a paper published in the EBU Technical Review, in 1997, titled "Subjective assessment of audio quality – the means and methods within the EBU", by Hoeg, Christensen and Walker. It is one of three equations that were used by the BBC for evaluating spaces for possible use as control rooms. It's also given in both of the documents I mentioned: BS.1116-3 and Tech.3276. The original source appears to be an earlier paper by Walker, but I can't find it right now. All of the recommendations in those papers are based on earlier research, in various places. Those are listed in the bibliographies, and many of them are well worth reading.

Quote:
I am trying to figure out if such a small room (36 m3) can be treated into a professional control room.
As I mentioned before: yes it can. However, the dimensions you gave in the first post for the original space, are for a room of 26m3. It says: "3.96 X 2.44 X 2.74 in meters". Even that is possible, but really hard to do. I have done two rooms around that size so far, and as luck would have it, I'm working on a third one right now. It is still possible to get usable results in there, but it won't be as good as a larger room, and it's really hard to design and tune such a room. Your second larger option is much better, but even then I would use every trick in the book to maximize the room volume, including Ryan's suggestion of inside-out construction, and also using higher density materials for the isolation. For such a small rooms, forget ratios and just go for volume. Ratios are nice, but are not the key factor when designing rooms. The ratio is just one of many factors that need to be considered in the design, and sometimes you have to sacrifice one factor to achieve a more important one.


- Stuart -
Old 4 weeks ago
  #32
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundman2020 View Post

As I mentioned before: yes it can. However, the dimensions you gave in the first post for the original space, are for a room of 26m3. It says: "3.96 X 2.44 X 2.74 in meters". Even that is possible, but really hard to do. I have done two rooms around that size so far, and as luck would have it, I'm working on a third one right now. It is still possible to get usable results in there, but it won't be as good as a larger room, and it's really hard to design and tune such a room. Your second larger option is much better, but even then I would use every trick in the book to maximize the room volume, including Ryan's suggestion of inside-out construction, and also using higher density materials for the isolation. For such a small rooms, forget ratios and just go for volume. Ratios are nice, but are not the key factor when designing rooms. The ratio is just one of many factors that need to be considered in the design, and sometimes you have to sacrifice one factor to achieve a more important one.


- Stuart -
Thanks for your efforts so far Stuart. Really appreciate the sources and suggestions you provided. I will post the results once satisfied with the build.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #33
Lives for gear
 
avare's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundman2020 View Post

If you are referring to this one: "1.1w/h =< l/h =< 4.5w/h - 4", it comes from a paper published in the EBU Technical Review, in 1997, titled "Subjective assessment of audio quality – the means and methods within the EBU", by Hoeg, Christensen and Walker. It is one of three equations that were used by the BBC for evaluating spaces for possible use as control rooms. It's also given in both of the documents I mentioned: BS.1116-3 and Tech.3276. The original source appears to be an earlier paper by Walker, but I can't find it right now.
For followets of this forum and not jerks, attached is the originating document.,
Attached Files
File Type: pdf 1993-08.pdf (449.0 KB, 13 views)
Old 4 weeks ago
  #34
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by avare View Post
For followets of this forum and not jerks, attached is the originating document.,
No need to throw insults at new comers to the forum. Nowhere in my posts did I insult anyone or any idea. If I knew that I was invading someone's safe space, I wouldn't have posted my ideas in the beginning in order to extract relevant information for my project.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #35
Lives for gear
 
avare's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mtsyas View Post
No need to throw insults at new comers to the forum. Nowhere in my posts did I insult anyone or any idea. If I knew that I was invading someone's safe space, I wouldn't have posted my ideas in the beginning in order to extract relevant information for my project.
I was not referring to new comers. I was not refering to anyone specific.

Pleae be polite.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #36
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by avare View Post
... attached is the originating document.,
Yes! That's the one! I kinda figured Andre would have it well identified and catalogued...

- Stuart -
Old 3 weeks ago
  #37
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by avare View Post
I was not referring to new comers. I was not refering to anyone specific.

Pleae be polite.
All right. Thanks, Andre.

I wanted to find out the math behind that formula because my room doesn't qualify, and to find out ways to work around it. I will read this article.

Last edited by mtsyas; 3 weeks ago at 08:32 AM.. Reason: more info
Old 3 weeks ago
  #38
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
I wanted to find out the math behind that formula because my room doesn't qualify,
There really is not need to get overly concerned about a room having. or not having, dimensions that meet one of the specs. All that it means if your room does NOT meet one of them, is that it won't be ideal. It does NOT necessarily meant it will be terrible, or unusable. There are many examples on the forums of very good rooms that don't measure up to one (or more) of the specs in some way, but still turned out great.

The equations do not create a black/white, "wonderful/terrible" line: they just mark a theoretical "ideal" point. For example, one spec says that the room should have a floor area of 20m2. That doesn't mean that any room with an area of 20.1 m2 is automatically fantastic, and any room with only 19.9 m2 is a total disaster! Not in the least! There's only 1% difference between those rooms to start with. In fact there would be no noticeable difference at all between the two rooms, if they were treated similarly.

They point of those equations, like many other rules of thumb, is just to give you a good starting point, that's all. The same is true of the famous 38% rule, and 120cm rule, and the equilateral triangle "rule", and all the other "rules". If you obey every single one of them you could still get a lousy room if you use lousy speakers, a monster desk, or don't treat the room right. On the other hand, I can show you studios where every many or even all of those "rules" were broken, yet they turned out fantastic.

I would imagine that you can't make your room bigger, since that would involve knocking down walls or the ceiling, and making it smaller would be a mistake, so your only real option is to do the best possible within the limitations that you have. Your room has 12.3 m2 floor area, but it also has the advantage of a 2.9m ceiling, and as already noted, a volume of 36m3. It's not terrible. It can be made to work. Your actual room ratio is 1 : 1.09 : 1.34, which is pretty close to what is arguably the best possible ratio: Sepmeyer's famous 1 : 1.14 : 1.39. Your ratio is fairly close to the Bolt area, the Bonello chart is reasonable, the modal spread is not bad, your Schroeder frequency can be around 130 Hz, etc., etc., etc. There's a lot going for that room, so there's no need to get hung up the fact that it fails one single criteria. All that it means is that the ratio is a bit outside the bolt area, that's it. In your case: no big deal!

You have several people here pointing out that your room is usable, and yet you still want to chase down the meaning behind one single unimportant parameter... That's not a good use of your time! You should be working on the layout and treatment design, not worrying about things you can't fix anyway! You can't fix your room's failure to meet that one spec, unless you start moving the the walls or ceiling! In order to get that one single "failure" right, you would have to lower your ceiling by 13", which is a TERRIBLE idea! That would REDUCE your room volume by nearly 150 cubic feet, and raise your Schroeder frequency to 140 Hz, among other things. It also moves your room room ratio from being "best possible" to being only "9th best", on Eric Desart's famous list of best ratios... I would definitely not reduce the room volume in order to chase a spec that really has no bearing on how good the room can be.

To be very honest, I think you are focused on an totally unimportant aspect of your room, and not even looking at all at all the good aspects, nor looking at how to lay out and treat your room.

Your basic question has been answered many times: Can your room be laid out and treated in such a way as to make it into a decent mixing room, capable of turning out good mixes? Answer (one more time): Yes it can. But only if you start concentrating on the things that matter, instead of the ones that don't.


- Stuart -
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
skeeballcore / So Much Gear, So Little Time
0
mario.junicic / Studio Building / Acoustics
11

Forum Jump
Forum Jump