sorry for waffling on about something you already clearly understand and you're right, I checked the sketchup drawing I did and I've positioned them further forward in the drawing than they actually are.
Take out the small room... DONE! Now I have a whole new set of problems. :(
- Thread starter MarkP
- Start date
Interesting, could you link me to some acoustic technical info about the cone of projection? Thanks.
mjbphotos
Moderator
Not off hand, but I guess searching some acoustic engineering books would find it for you. It's a common specification for PA speakers. Put any speaker in a cabinet on a table, put some music on and walk around and listen. Notice the change when you walk out of the direct projection cone of sound? Or if you can't walk around, just turn the speaker a littole bit at a time while you stand in front of it.
Hi John,
In a word... WOW!
It's taken me a while to respond because your blueprint really sent my head spinning in many directions - Just like the pesky bottom end!
I'm kind of overwhelmed by the work you've put in and can't thank you enough.
I do have a few questions, mainly relating to room design and affordability.
Clearly, using this 'Non Environment' design would give the ultimate clarity, and that's where I want to get to when I have the budget to back it up, but...
ATC SCM50 ASL - The cheapest I can find theses here in the UK is £12,000, which is way more than I can afford. I do have the capabilities of building exact replicas of the cabinets and I can buy the components to go in them for £1700. There is a catch... The component kit does not include the newer SL drivers and the speakers would be passive. So, I would still need to spend a lot on some high quality amps to drive them and even then I get the impression from several articles I've read that due to distortion and phase it's not worth doing, as it will not perform anywhere near as well as the real thing with the amp-pack installed. Not sure what to think? I'm leaning towards the idea that they would still sound and perform infinitely better than what I already have.
If I go down this route I can make the QRD's without any problems, but I'm not sure which materials to go with in and on the absorbers?
Is it just the slats at the front and the rear diffusers working on adding life back to the room or, do the absorbers have a membrane installed to reflect let's say from 500hz up?
The back wall I'm guessing would be a minimum of 4". but would the side walls be 2"?
My eyes are tired from reading, as there seem to be so many variations!
I've found all sorts of designs and they all claim to be amazing.
I agree that the ceiling really needs treating, the beams must be adding to my problems. I'm going to do some tests later just to see.
As an alternative, Let's say for now I really can't afford ATC speakers, should I stick to the layout at the front with my speakers just in front, or still soffit mount a cheaper alternative? I can't really mount my JBL's as they are rear ported.
With my small amount of knowledge (Lot's more reading to do) I think I understand that the cavity/chamber created to mount the speakers in is anechoic and supposed to prevent sounds (low end) coming from anywhere but the front of the speakers. I'm not sure about which modern materials are available that would completely trap the low frequencies, short of pouring concrete walls?
I'm at a turning point where by I've put up with inadequate mixing spaces for too long. I have to say I feel slightly overwhelmed by the vast amount of learning involved, but at the same time excited.
Until now I've kind of put off delving in to this, so I have to thank you again for the added inspiration.
Best wishes,
Mark
RogerL.
New member
Mark, I've been reading this thread with great interest and while most of the info is far above this boys head I find it greatly informative. I would love to see what you end up with as you rotate the room to achieve the best solution with what you have. Please post drawings as you progress, by the way nice job on the illustrations, I'm sure I'm not the only one interested in this.
jhbrandt
Acoustic Design
LOL! Well the ATCs were only for wishing.. You can use any good front ported speaker in this design, however I recommend that you have at least 8" woofers in there..
If I go down this route I can make the QRD's without any problems, but I'm not sure which materials to go with in and on the absorbers?
Is it just the slats at the front and the rear diffusers working on adding life back to the room or, do the absorbers have a membrane installed to reflect let's say from 500hz up?
The back wall I'm guessing would be a minimum of 4". but would the side walls be 2"?
My eyes are tired from reading, as there seem to be so many variations!
I've found all sorts of designs and they all claim to be amazing.
Haha, you're 'guessing too much'. LOL. Like my wife always says in her exotic accent, "It's not like what you think"... There is a PRD in the rear of the room. This will return energy but at a much lower level than a Schroeder design (QRD - TM of RPG, Inc.) Have a look/listen to my video on youtube. There's a link on my website home page. This describes my criteria for a control room.
A little secret (Most of the absorption material used in these traps is the cheap R19 or similar building insulation (fiberglass). Not rigid. Not dense.
Why not do the drop ceiling as shown in the drawings?? You'll need a ceiling tile with an NRC of 0.8 or better.
SURE!!!
yEAH.. No... Read the sticky on Small Room Acoustics here. What is shown in the drawing is a 'soft-flush'. The cures the SBIR from the front wall.
Your welcome, as are all who read this. I want to 'stir your imagination' with a dose of reality. It's physics, not metaphysics. Acoustics in not a 'dark art', it's simply counter-intuitive. And all the time that you take to read and study and imagine, remember the words of Montgomery Scott, "Jim! What are ye doin'? Ye canno' change th laws o' physics!"
Cheers,
John
Obviously Mr Brandt knows a lot more than I do about recording studio room acoustics, but when I was building/designing my recording studios, I was always told (and specifically by the guys from Westlake Audio --- possibly the most famous studio designers or the late 1960's - 1970's) that to avoid any standing wave problems (and this is before any acoustical treatment is added -- eg bass traps, etc) the Control Room's room dimensions should be 1.00:1.28:1.54 in size and if the internal walls could be constructed to be done in non parallel sections even better --- for example a type of saw-tooth design where the section on one side went / while the directly opposite side went \ and even better if the bottom half of the / side (say) was finished in a solid ply wood timber and the top half (say) carpet, while the \ side had the carpet at the bottom and the ply at the top. The space behind both the / and \ sections being tightly filled with a dense grade fiberglass or possibly the expanding "filler foam" type material.
Ideally, the ceiling should not be parallel to the floor (either tear-drop type ceiling or non parallel to the floor suspended clouds) and the area directly above the console, should have a cloud or similar that is hung with the opposite slope to the slope of the console's surface..
Using the above described information, I built over a period of time, three studios (and Control Rooms) and I have had excellent results with all three. One of the studios (no longer in existence as the building was demolished to make way for a new road) is still considered to be one of the best studios (especially for "rock" type music) that has been built in this country.
Not for myself, but for a local community organisation, I have recently completed the construction of a Control Room and have used the same technique and on completion and final EQ tuning, very little had to be done to achieve a room that is flat from about 35HZ to almost 20KHz.
Others are welcome to comment (ridicule !!!) the above. but the system worked very well for me and apparently a number of very high profile and famous USA studios in the 60's and 70's.
David
Ideally, the ceiling should not be parallel to the floor (either tear-drop type ceiling or non parallel to the floor suspended clouds) and the area directly above the console, should have a cloud or similar that is hung with the opposite slope to the slope of the console's surface..
Using the above described information, I built over a period of time, three studios (and Control Rooms) and I have had excellent results with all three. One of the studios (no longer in existence as the building was demolished to make way for a new road) is still considered to be one of the best studios (especially for "rock" type music) that has been built in this country.
Not for myself, but for a local community organisation, I have recently completed the construction of a Control Room and have used the same technique and on completion and final EQ tuning, very little had to be done to achieve a room that is flat from about 35HZ to almost 20KHz.
Others are welcome to comment (ridicule !!!) the above. but the system worked very well for me and apparently a number of very high profile and famous USA studios in the 60's and 70's.
David
I'm sure something will turn up at my local car boot sale! Lol! Seriously though, I agree that soft flush is the way to go... I best start searching for something suitable.
Haha, you're 'guessing too much'. LOL. Like my wife always says in her exotic accent, "It's not like what you think"... There is a PRD in the rear of the room. This will return energy but at a much lower level than a Schroeder design (QRD - TM of RPG, Inc.) Have a look/listen to my video on youtube. There's a link on my website home page. This describes my criteria for a control room.
A little secret (Most of the absorption material used in these traps is the cheap R19 or similar building insulation (fiberglass). Not rigid. Not dense.
You're right, lot's of guess work. I have read that the cheaper fibreglass works very well with deep trapping, so that helps with the corners, but I'm still unsure what thickness to make the panels for the rear & side walls? Would 4" with an air gap behind be sufficient, or is that over kill on the side walls?
Why not do the drop ceiling as shown in the drawings?? You'll need a ceiling tile with an NRC of 0.8 or better.
I want to drop the ceiling, but I'm concerned it will shrink the space too much. I'm 6' 4" tall and if I lower the ceiling it's going to end up being about 7' 4" high, which will feel really weird. (a little claustrophobic) I know all of your calculations and layout in the design are done to get maximum optimisation, but would this work?
I want to remove as many corners as possible, but still keep some height in the room. If the cavity behind the plywood is filled with fibreglass and I use thin ply it should still absorb the lower frequencies well. My only concern is the thickness of plywood? Or, maybe I shouldn't use ply at all? Am I correct in thinking as long as the wool is tight against the plywood it should dampen the board? I was concerned I'd end up with a giant tuned trap - Can't get my head around the calculations just yet!
yEAH.. No... Read the sticky on Small Room Acoustics here. What is shown in the drawing is a 'soft-flush'. The cures the SBIR from the front wall.
I've read your sticky. It gives me hope!
Your welcome, as are all who read this. I want to 'stir your imagination' with a dose of reality. It's physics, not metaphysics. Acoustics in not a 'dark art', it's simply counter-intuitive. And all the time that you take to read and study and imagine, remember the words of Montgomery Scott, "Jim! What are ye doin'? Ye canno' change th laws o' physics!"
Cheers,
John
As Albert once said, “Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is to not stop questioning.”
Cheers,
Mark
Hi Roger,
Thanks for your comments.
To be honest I'm new to sketchup. I basically downloaded and spent one afternoon getting to grips with the basics specifically for this thread. It's a great tool for novices like me, although looking at some of the models that others have created I can appreciate what it is capable of doing - I can't see myself delving in too much deeper though.
It's at a stand still at the moment. I really don't want to waste any more of my small budget on trial & error. John has been tremendously helpful and I'm hopefully getting closer to finishing my shopping list... I need to, as I've had a few calls from people wanting to come and record!
I'll definitely take lots of pictures as it progresses and post them up.
Cheers,
Mark
Hi David,
It's great having so many comments. really appreciate the feedback.
Unfortunately, I didn't have the luxury of starting from scratch, so I've had to work with the space I have. It's square, which isn't a good start, but after taking out the small room it's now a good size.
I looked at the "golden ratios" and to be honest got slightly depressed... But, the more I read, the more I realise it ain't so bad.
In fact, it was reading soooo much on the importance of good ratios, that made me consider putting in two narrow rooms either side to get somewhere closer. I'd figured that if used a ratio of 1:00 1:60 2:33
I'd get somewhere near. Because of the pitched roof (which kind of messes up rectangular geometry) the ceiling has an average height of 8'. If I narrowed the main room to 12'8" (1:60) the length of the room is pretty much spot on 18'7" (2:33).
Problem is, I then end up with a smaller main room.... John sent some figures of my room response with the right treatment which has sent me spinning off reading different ideas and approaches to treatment. I'd like to keep this room as large as possible... If I can get it right, I will build a smaller external room onto it for tracking guide vocals - away from other instruments. It's not ideal having one room for all, but I don't have the money or space to build a control room and live room.
It's great to see you've had so much success with your builds and designs, I can only strive to achieve something similar for my own personal space.
I've been playing various instruments for over 30 years now and I love all styles of music, but when it comes to recording my own material I tend to write melodic/progressive rock - Can't resist it!Here's a nasty, nasty mp3 of one of my more rocky tunes:
https://soundcloud.com/markpullin/falling-down
I'm playing drums, bass and attempting to sing. My friend Andy is playing guitars.
This was recorded before I took out the small room and mixed in the small room... A 7ft square small room! Lol!
All the best,
Mark
jhbrandt
Acoustic Design
Mark,
Two things:
1. Plywood on the ceiling: A very, very bad idea. This will create destructive reflections at the mix position causing comb filtering, not to mention the resonance issue. I recommend that you do the same thing as you have shown BUT using ceiling tile with an NRC of 0.8 or better, above which is lightweight fiberglass attic blanket (full fill).
2. "remove as many corners..." WHY would you want to do that?? Corners are the best place for trapping. Placing absorbent material in a tri-corner will cause an attenuation of 18 dB compared to absorbent placed on a single boundary surface which normally yields -6 dB. People that cut the corners of their rooms off are basically shooting themselves in the foot. It's wasting that space. This is an error that is perpetuated by people on the internet that copy each other.. the blind leading the blind. (Sorry, I have to address this here and now so that hopefully someone else thinking of removing corners will stop and think.)
Absorber thickness: Please see attached.
Note the differences between the different models. (Draw a horizontal line between 0.6 and 0.8 so that your reference is Absorption Coefficient 0.7) Compare the absorbers at this point.
Cheers,
John
Two things:
1. Plywood on the ceiling: A very, very bad idea. This will create destructive reflections at the mix position causing comb filtering, not to mention the resonance issue. I recommend that you do the same thing as you have shown BUT using ceiling tile with an NRC of 0.8 or better, above which is lightweight fiberglass attic blanket (full fill).
2. "remove as many corners..." WHY would you want to do that?? Corners are the best place for trapping. Placing absorbent material in a tri-corner will cause an attenuation of 18 dB compared to absorbent placed on a single boundary surface which normally yields -6 dB. People that cut the corners of their rooms off are basically shooting themselves in the foot. It's wasting that space. This is an error that is perpetuated by people on the internet that copy each other.. the blind leading the blind. (Sorry, I have to address this here and now so that hopefully someone else thinking of removing corners will stop and think.)
Absorber thickness:
Please see attached.Note the differences between the different models. (Draw a horizontal line between 0.6 and 0.8 so that your reference is Absorption Coefficient 0.7) Compare the absorbers at this point.
Cheers,
John
jhbrandt
Acoustic Design
David,
WELCOME! Thank you for your input. Yes, indeed, THAT is the way we used to do it.
However, in the last 40 years we have learned a couple of things. The room ratio 1:00 - 1:28 - 1.54 is one of 8 'good' ratios that offer good modal distribution for certain sizes (volume) of enclosures. However, once you begin to splay walls and ceilings, those ratio calculations go 'out the window'. I prefer rectangular cuboids as ideal for small room acoustics calculation and modeling since it CAN be calculated. Splaying walls will shift modal resonances in unpredictable patterns. So that you end up with, as Forest Gump would say, "... a box of chocolates."Plywood, carpet, dense grade fiberglass and expanding filler foam have been tested and found; Plywood (for soundproofing) is not heavy enough & gypsum board is more massive and cheaper, Dense grade (rigid) fiberglass {for wall cavity fill} does not improve transmission loss over the lightweight standard building fiberglass, Expanding filler foam (closed-cell foam, EPS, Styro, etc.) is completely useless acoustically, unless you are building a diffusor.
We have learned that angling absorption has little effect on reducing reflections and usually results in LOWER absorption figures since some of the 'cloud' is closer to the boundary effectively reducing the depth of the absorber.
Man, I love the Tannoys! I have been a Tannoy man for many, many years.
Please feel free to send me an email. (john@jhbrandt.net) I always enjoy talking about the old days as well as discussions about acoustics, etc.Cheers,
John
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
I've been working with a single-space studio for a long time....it's not a problem, and way better than what I see some people do, and break up a decent space into small little rooms.
From your description above....you obviously can't be playing all those instruments at once, and also singing.
So really....unless you plan on recording a lot of bands where a few people are playing at once, plus a singer singing....there's not a heck of a lot of need for a separate control room.
The only real downside is that when you are tracking, everyone listens via headphones, rather than monitoring in real time through the speakers....but I never found that to be a problem either.
I'm going to usually do a couple of set-up passes, and then maybe a couple of warm-up passes....so at that point, I've heard the playback through the monitors a few times....so when I'm finally tracking, using headphones is OK.
Also...when you are recording solo....it's going to be a real PITA walking back-n-forth between a control room and live room.
I've got my long headphone extension cables, and everything I use --- guitars, amps, keys, drums --- is within my reach.
I can walk over to the console or the rack gear and make an adjustment, and then back the mic for singing....without ever removing my headphones.
Even the times I've had more than myself in the studio...except for vocals, it was still not a problem using once space.
Worst case, I might stick an amp outside in an adjoining room, while guitar player, drums and bass (DI) would all be in the studio with me. I could also add scratch vocals during the same pass...and then later just do the vocals alone in the studio.
It's all quite workable, and I personally love working in the single space.
I would have to have quite a large studio setup and more regular commercial operation to warrant separate control room...plus an assistant to set up in the live room while I'm in the control room.
Mark,
Two things:
1. Plywood on the ceiling: A very, very bad idea. This will create destructive reflections at the mix position causing comb filtering, not to mention the resonance issue. I recommend that you do the same thing as you have shown BUT using ceiling tile with an NRC of 0.8 or better, above which is lightweight fiberglass attic blanket (full fill).
2. "remove as many corners..." WHY would you want to do that?? Corners are the best place for trapping. Placing absorbent material in a tri-corner will cause an attenuation of 18 dB compared to absorbent placed on a single boundary surface which normally yields -6 dB. People that cut the corners of their rooms off are basically shooting themselves in the foot. It's wasting that space. This is an error that is perpetuated by people on the internet that copy each other.. the blind leading the blind. (Sorry, I have to address this here and now so that hopefully someone else thinking of removing corners will stop and think.)
Absorber thickness:
View attachment 86675
Note the differences between the different models. (Draw a horizontal line between 0.6 and 0.8 so that your reference is Absorption Coefficient 0.7) Compare the absorbers at this point.
Cheers,
John
Sorry John,
I think you have misunderstood some of my last post because of my bad English.
I know you are right about the plywood, which is why I said "maybe I shouldn't use plywood at all?" I'm just shooting ideas around and have no intention whatsoever of just rushing ahead with half baked ideas.
I do understand how your design works and I know that adding a reflective surface to the ceiling will impact the room negatively, (defeats the object) so forget I ever posted that.
I want to keep some height, but I can't find ANY tiles I can afford. I'm on a tight budget, so I probably won't be able to spec the room to the required standards unless I can find alternatives.
The only tiles in the UK I have found with an NRC of 0.8 or better (0.9) cost a fortune. To cover the surface area of my ceiling it would cost £5687!
Another question sorry... Absorption is the key in all of this... What about building a lightweight frame into the ceiling and stuffing it with fibreglass, and then just stapling stretched breathable fabric over the top?
When I said I want to remove corners, I didn't mean literally increase the STC by adding mass so they don't exist.
I just meant cover them up, as I still want them to function. They'd still be there, stuffed with wool, attenuating. 
Your graph is an eye opener... The fluffy stuff works really well at 8"
Thanks for your patience.
Mark
Hi,
You’re right, I had a horrible setup. Two spaces that didn't function. I reached a point where I was going to rip the small room out, but decided to seek advice before going ahead. Thanks to the folks on this forum I'm now on a journey of reconstruction, which is long over due.
From your description above....you obviously can't be playing all those instruments at once, and also singing.
So really....unless you plan on recording a lot of bands where a few people are playing at once, plus a singer singing....there's not a heck of a lot of need for a separate control room.
Actually I've got eight arms and I did all of that whilst drinking a cup of tea! Lol!
Seriously though, I do get the odd scenario when a small separate room is needed. I recently recorded a 3 piece and the bass player couldn't play the songs all the way through without a vocal guide. Also, the drummer couldn’t use a click track and they wanted to track everything at the same time to get (in their words) that vibe. I had both rooms when I did this, so it wasn't a problem. If I’d only had one room I would of either had to get the singer to stand outside in the rain, (he was loud by the way) or send them home until they could play there parts without any guidance.
I used to do this even with the two rooms. The small room was so terrible I bought some decent headphone amps and several sets of good quality headphones.
Any solo projects would be recorded in the main room, I'd literally only use it for guide tracks The most leaky point of the room is the door, so I'd planned on building it there, with another set of doors opposite. It's literally only going to be the length of the glass doors in my sketchup illustration by about 4ft wide.
Even the times I've had more than myself in the studio...except for vocals, it was still not a problem using once space.
Worst case, I might stick an amp outside in an adjoining room, while guitar player, drums and bass (DI) would all be in the studio with me. I could also add scratch vocals during the same pass...and then later just do the vocals alone in the studio.
It's all quite workable, and I personally love working in the single space.
I would have to have quite a large studio setup and more regular commercial operation to warrant separate control room...plus an assistant to set up in the live room while I'm in the control room.
Yes I agree. I'll be much happier working in a single space that sounds good, instead of putting up with what I had before. The small bolt on isn't going to happen until I achieve this.
Cheers,
Mark
jhbrandt
Acoustic Design
Mark,
Great! (To everyone; Please forgive my 'passion'. Sometimes I get a little, "OH NO! - You can't do THAT!" - Just take me with a grain of salt)
You've got the right idea. AND yes! the cheap fluffy stuff @ 8" does indeed perform better than the dense, expensive rigid products.
I agree with you about the ceiling; frame it out as you can and fill it with building insulation, then cover with fabric.
"Actually I've got eight arms and I did all of that whilst drinking a cup of tea! Lol! " - LOL! Reminds me of a drummer I know in Detroit.. we used to call him Octopus.
Cheers,
John
Great! (To everyone; Please forgive my 'passion'. Sometimes I get a little, "OH NO! - You can't do THAT!" - Just take me with a grain of salt)
You've got the right idea. AND yes! the cheap fluffy stuff @ 8" does indeed perform better than the dense, expensive rigid products.
I agree with you about the ceiling; frame it out as you can and fill it with building insulation, then cover with fabric.
"Actually I've got eight arms and I did all of that whilst drinking a cup of tea! Lol! " - LOL! Reminds me of a drummer I know in Detroit.. we used to call him Octopus.
Cheers,
John
jhbrandt
Acoustic Design
Mike,
Well, I don't do a 4" solid 703 because that would really suck.. haha! - 2" is where it really works good.
Here's some more of my 'research notes'. Enjoy!
I recommend drawing a horizontal line between Absorption Coefficients 0.6 and 0.8, so that you are looking at a limit of 0.7 to determine the best performance.
I have used 26000 mk/rayls for OC 703, and yes, you can get it in 1" slabs. THAT is the best one to use.
The standard 'pink stuff' is about 5600 mk/rayls
Look closely at the graphs and you'll begin to see the pattern.
We are hoping to be finished with our testing facility by June or July 2014. I'll keep you posted with the 'real world' testing data.
Cheers,
John
Well, I don't do a 4" solid 703 because that would really suck.. haha! - 2" is where it really works good.
Here's some more of my 'research notes'. Enjoy!
I recommend drawing a horizontal line between Absorption Coefficients 0.6 and 0.8, so that you are looking at a limit of 0.7 to determine the best performance.
I have used 26000 mk/rayls for OC 703, and yes, you can get it in 1" slabs. THAT is the best one to use.
The standard 'pink stuff' is about 5600 mk/rayls
Look closely at the graphs and you'll begin to see the pattern.
We are hoping to be finished with our testing facility by June or July 2014. I'll keep you posted with the 'real world' testing data.
Cheers,
John