DIRT & GRIME Construction photos

[frederic]

Michael, do you know anyone using Solidworks? I just accepted a job, for a small company here and the owner asked me if I used Solidworks. I never have seen it, but for the type of stuff he is doing, I think it would be sorta overkill. But he wants

I have that... but I'll be damned if I can figure it out. Took me 37 hours of monkeying with it to make a simple cylinder.

I have a friend in the UK who uses it a lot, trying to learn it, but he's so far ahead of me.

Hey frederic, the portions of Autocad that I use are so simple anyone could learn it in a week. Its HOW you use them that is important. Yes, Autocads features are DEEP, but I have yet to meet ANYONE, at least in my field, that even begins to scratch the surface. And as far as expensive, ha, and I hate to

Well, apparently I'm not one of those "anyones", as I struggled with it big time. Thats why I went visio... even my cat could use visio without staring at the manual

I would very much enjoy learing autocad... maybe once the studio's done I'll zap around with my laser tape measure and capture the x,y,z of each corner, angle, etc, and plug it into autocad to learn it.

 

[RICK FITZPATRICK]

Hey frederic, how are you this morning? Hey, when it comes to the coordinates, forget it. There is a much easier way. I use it all the time. I won't go into it, but like Steve said, if I were there in person to show you, you would probably drop your jaw!! Struggling with the xyz thing IS a mindfuck. Thats why I seldom draw that way. I use about 10 common commands. Line, where and to; shapes, point pick(object select), offset, copy, move, erase, and a few others, for 90% of everything I do. Like I said though, there are TONS of things you can do with each command also. Now when it comes time to dimensioning things, and scaling, printing etc, then you start running into concepts that take a while to grasp. Even after 8 years I STILL have problems grasping some things. But I'm a dunce, so I'm excused

Just one thing. THE @ symbol before a command is the best trick they have invented for Autocad. And forget the "z" coordinates. Drawing in 3d that way is NOT human
My god, trying to visualize coordinates in space is mindboggleing. Thats why most people extrude shapes. But I know nothing about the 3d stuff, basically cause in my field, you could build it before you could draw it. 2d, is where all of my work is done, just like a sheet of paper. But I do ok with that. Most section work is just a slice anyway. Now if your building a molecule or the shuttle, ha! Or engineering parts, thats a whole 'nuther banana. Michael knows 'bout that I bet. Me, I'm just a cabinet detailer, but still, Autocad runs circles around the other programs for that stuff. And now with CNC, its just a matter of pulling the file in and converting it to what the machine reads.
Figuring out WHAT you want to do with CNC is the hard part. Ha! And they don't operate themself either. Thats a whole 'nuther animal of a different specie.

fitZ

 

[DigitalDon]

Looking absolutely fantastic!! I know the details and design, redesign, re-redesign, re-re-redesign that went into it. I know you can't wait for the sheetrock to go up!

Now if everyone would leave me alone (wanting to record) I could finish my trim work and bathroom. Can't believe I just complained about recording I think I lost my sanity somewhere back in the sheetrock phase!

DD

 

[frederic]

Now if everyone would leave me alone (wanting to record) I could finish my trim work and bathroom. Can't believe I just complained about recording I think I lost my sanity somewhere back in the sheetrock phase!

I can't believe you just whined about recording... but such is life, huh?

I'm taking my first deposit tomorrow night... for a "death metal band" of all things. Someone I met on AOL, to which I assumed was just BS, but money talks, so why not

Glad they aren't ready to record until march... lol

 

[rushfan33]

Michael.... looking real nice there! I can't wait to see the guts go in. The amount of wood you've used seems like an absolute shit load! How many 2x's do you estimate you've used?

 

[DDev]

Michael,

That's looking awesomer with every shot!!

Frederic and Fitz - My boss told me a couple of weeks ago that I had to stop using Visio and start using ACAD for my system diagrams. I trained on CADAM years ago (anyone ever heard of that one? You actually draw on your CRT; no mouse). After having a draftsman for several years I got back into a higher level of design and started using Visio because it was given to me and it was so easy to learn. Ah well, ACAD here I come...

"How can science not be exact?"..... Since science is man's attempt to define the nature of stuff (whatever "stuff" is, whether it be the physical properties of a material or the nature of life, the universe, and everything), it can never be "exact" because to be exact in a scientific sense would make everything impossible to design or build. That's why one of my early engineering professors told us that engineering is the practical application of what science says is possible but cannot produce (or something to that effect; he actually used terms that are politically incorrect these days and I won't repeat).

Anyway, enough of my ranting.

Keep the data flowing (for us information junkies).

Darryl.....

 

[RICK FITZPATRICK]

Hello Darryl, forgive this ole fart for his thickheadedness. I don't doubt science one iota. If anything, it totally amazes me. What I do doubt is people. But let me set this straight. IF, the science of acoustics is not an EXACT science, pray tell what the hell is it? Psedo science? Half baked science? Wishfull thinking science? I mean, comeon guys, why would one acoustician say one thing, and another applys a whole different rational. I don't get it, and if I can't trust the the science AND practicioners as a whole, then what the hell good is it? WHO DO I TRUST?
Cause tell you the truth, I'm really starting to wonder if this whole damn acoustics thing is just a bunch of BS. Take a look around. Contradictions abound when you look at actual studios. For instance. The whole shebang of Low frequency specs. That is now becoming a such joke in my book. Especially since I read Eric's statement that there isn't a testing facility in the whole damn world that can scientifically test anything below 100 hz. Well shit, a damn bass guitar puts out much lower than that. Hell, a guitar A1 is 220 hz. So a bass open A is I belive one octave below that so theres 110hz right there. And you STILL can go down to an open E. Now you tell me. If you resonate a room at that frequency, which I've done, how the hell do you know you can actually prove, you can predict anything to absorb that low?
I mean, I'm no acoustician by any stretch of the imagination, but were talking frequencys that are IN THE MUSICAL RANGE and no one can even tell ya scientifically if your room treatment is doing anything at all in the low frequency range. OR, if indeed you need it? Man, this is unbelievable stuff! Like bass traps. WHAT THE FUCK?
IF you can't prove they even absorb in the range of a simple bass line below 100z, then why the hell call them "BASS TRAPS?" That is total bullshit. How bout Not exactly bass traps? Ha!

Well, I'm going to give my brain a rest. I'm missin some stuff here probably, but the FACT remains. CONTRADICTION among acoustical designers is pissin me off. Either thier design is based on science or their word isn't worth the paper its written on. And neither are their designs In other words. HOW DO YOU PROVE IT WORKS? Someones word? No offence intended, but geeeeeeeezus. Lets put it out in the open. If this is indeed the case, who is telling the truth, and who ain't? And do you actually know the difference. AND what IS the difference. Its like someone tellin ya that you need a 4 ton air conditioner. Your not an HVAC engineer. How the hell do you know you even need it. His word? I've seen this kind of shit MANY times. "Mr Fitzpatrick, your muffler bearings are shot. Ya need a new pair. Only $500 on sale with free installation. Sign here and we'll fix ya right up."Hehehehe! S U C K E R!

Take slot resonators. Even a well known acoustition who will remain nameless, stated(I believe) he don't really know if slot resonators actually work. Shit. So what are we dealing with here. Intuition. Hell, I got that. Speculation. Got that too. Half baked ideas. Got plenty of them. Experimentation? Guess work? Man, my head is full of those things. And I bet I can prove them as well as NON EXACT SCIENCE does then.
Bottom line is exactly what I've been sayin for 3 years here. What the hell are they trying to accomplish? And THEN, how the hell do you know it actually works. No one seems to have a difinitive answer. And if there is one, then sure as hell theres another designer down the street that has a whole different opinion. And even THEN, next week someone will say, "OH< we don't use that form of proof anymore. It doesn't work."
I don't want OPINION anymore. I want some kind of damn proof that a designers word is backed by something other than his INTERPRETATION of science . Cause I don't see anything that confirms that anyone really has THE PROOF of it lately. Shit, I should have NEVER spent the money on Alton Everests book. Cause now, everyone says LEDE is crap and doesn't work. Or diffusion in a small room is bullshit. And on and on and on. FUCK. If anything, I'm also beginning to believe that its all marketing hype. Or this weeks trendy design. Maybe I'll come to the conclusion its just one big mystery and acoustical designers really don't have a clue. Half a clue maybe. As you said, its not an exact science. And if so, then I'm a non exact acoustical designer myself. (you know I'm being sarcastic, right?)
Heres another example. Back in the nintys, they started using a machine for looking at 3d plots of room response in lots of different ways. I just read last week where some(I won't name names) acoustical designer actaually said that stuff is BULLSHIT Now its some new fangled device that ONLY HE uses. And his word is the truth. OH Brother.
Now, if someone would care to slap me upside the head with some kind of reasoning that will bring me to my senses, cause as it stands at the moment, this NON EXACT SCIENCE is exasperating me. Ha! All I know is what I see. And what I see is contradiction and it doesn't make sense. If anything, its starting to look as though, someone out there is a high paid bullshit artist.
Well, bring in the flamethrowers guys. I need a hot shower. But just remember, I'm just responding to something that is not EXACT science. So how can I be wrong.

fitZ

 

[DDev]

Rick,

You hit the nail on the head, so no flames from me!!

My limited research while I was designing and building my little control room (which got me intrigued with this whole acoustics thing in the first place; bad thing for an electrical engineer with just barely enough brains to begin to understand the concepts) led me to basically the same conclusion. So, what that means for a designer/builder is that you have to take a leap of faith and pick a camp to follow, hoping that you're not wasting your time/money on a fruitless endeavor.

From an engineering standpoint, I chose to pick a hybrid design approach based on Ethan Winer's membrane traps and John Sayers corner traps to develop my corner bass trap, since their approach seemed to me to make practical sense (and both will freely admit, I think, that there is no "scientific evidence" to back up their claims, but they will offer case studies of a sort based on their experiences). The real proof is in the pudding. If a room treated in such and such a way provides a pleasant working environment AND allows mixes to translate accurately, then the design works, irregardless of whether anyone can scientifically test it for accuracy.

I've recently (in the last few months) had the opportunity to be on the sidelines while an "professionally acoustically engineered" room was tested and "tuned" by the designer. In this case it was a large church sanctuary for which a huge sum of money was spent on the room design and on the sound system to "ensure" the best possible sound. A supposedly highly experienced engineer ran a series of computerized tests to charcterize the room response and then tweak the sound system for "optimum" performance. Guess what? He didn't use his ears, and as a result there are spots in the room that are great, and more spots in the room where the sound is way less than ideal. But, since he used the latest and greatest method of testing the room, he swears that the room is perfect (and has us locked out of the rack where all the system settings are for a whole year.....another story).

My point here is that, in my book, there is no real acoustic science behind practical design. There is as much black magic involved as science, and the only way to verify a design approach is through experimentation. Over the course of time, such experimentation will turn into design methodology based on the individual designer's accrued experience of what he believes works or doesn't work. Take the LEDE concept for example. When originally introduced it seemed to provide a solution to an existing problem. But over the course of time, with the experience of those using the rooms, other deficiencies began to become apparent, so then it was on to the refinement of that concept and onto the next.

Anyway, the bottom line is that when the rubber meets the road, a designer with limited experience (such as a homerecorder) has to make a decision about who's advice he is going to trust to help him get his studio constructed. I like practical (and cheap) solutions, hence the advice I took. For me, it seems to be working. But I am constantly learning new things that help me make better mixes, so even stuff I did when my room was first completed won't sound like it does now because my skills have continued to evolve, partially to compensate for the way I now hear things as my experience level has grown, and possibly partially to compensate for that subconscious inkling that something may not be the way it should be and I need to compensate for it in such and such a way (you know, those things you do that have no exact explanation for "why" you do them).

Enough.

Rick, your turn

Darryl.....

 

[knightfly]

Rick, not a lotta time now before going to the "DDJ", so I'll just hit a few points -

Drawings - been using Generic Cadd (a dos prog) since its inception, it's compatible with DXF but uses its own format. I convert the DXF's to JPEGs when major detail isn't important. I convert to PDF's (told you about DataBecker's PDF PRoducer, $50 @ Staples - I've not had time but still intend to ask John's nephew to set up for DWF (view only, viewer avail. @ Autodesk free) - server size is limited, so 150 K files are kinda small. I've taken DXF's and zipped them, told you about that too - didja get a "zipper" yet?

I agree resolution sucks on ALL the bitmap formats - actually, converting to PDF works reasonably well and allows good enough precision for cabinet grade carpentry.

Acoustics - just got a couple of Philip Newell's books, he's designed/built over 200 studios and been a mix engineer, etc, since the Who, Stones, Kinks, etc, were learning how to play an E chord - one of the major probs with acoustics is PEOPLE, as it turns out -

The part of the ear that helps (a lot) form your impressions of sound is called the Pinna - it's the wierd-shaped lump of goop that sits in front of the door to your ears - Newell had a couple of cases where guys claimed panning a high hat to center changed it's frequency response a LOT - Newell couldn't hear it, tried lowering the speakers and the "problem" went away. Found out that those people's pinnae were shaped enough different that their frequency response changed with panning/altitude.

Combine that with all the various room shapes, NONE of which get RID of modal problems, only CHANGE them, etc, and acoustics IS DEFINITELY an inexact science. Where would small block chevys be if you had to modify each part to fit the block? Yet that's what humans are - no two pistons the same...

Daryll hit it in his comments, no time to elaborate right now though -

Get a zip manager, zip some of your DXF files and see what size they are - if under 150K, they'll post to John's site just by zipping them. If not, the PDF Producer thing is next best way. I'm gonna try to get DXF's and DWF's set up this coming week if it's possible.

Meantime, hang in there - remember, not everybody likes a Dm9-13 chord either... Steve

 

[Michael Jones]

IF, the science of acoustics is not an EXACT science, pray tell what the hell is it? Psedo science? Half baked science? Wishfull thinking science? fitZ

Its good science - based on a WHOLE lot of assumptions, averages, and means.

For instance:
Build a wall to these specs, and IF the drywall has this density, and IF every hole is sealed, and IF the plywood/OSB has this density, and IF the insulation has this density, then you SHOULD end up with a wall that has an AVERAGE STC of this....

Ever weigh 2 different pieces of drywall? They're not the same - not EXACTLY.

 

[frederic]

I had initially typed a 2 page dissertation in response to Rick's comments, but realized that Darryl, Steve and Michael echo'd my thoughts almost exactly.

BTW, Michael stated that two pieces of sheet rock would weigh differently, this is very true, in hanging the sheetrock here I've found a few pieces that happened to have an air pocket right where a screw goes

Its about manufacturing tolerances... while acoustics can be translated down to geometry and mathematics, the materials we are using are not exact.

I just weighed two 2x4's that were uncut, and there is a 14 ounce difference between the two... so its clear that the materials we are using, even if professional grade, top quality, grade A, douglass fir, etc, no two will be the same.

How many fir trees have you seen grow exactly the same way? How about pine trees? A lot of 2x4's are pine... I have no less than 30 pine trees on my property, some are massive, straight, beautiful very tall pine trees, others, well, my wife wants me to cut them down. I have one thats about 200' tall with no branches except for the top 10'. Essentially, it looks like pine-celery LOL

 

[DDev]

Pine celery? What a description!!

Hey Rick - I meant to throw this in during my ACAD diatribe but forgot. Michael mentioned a utility that allows you to create PDF files directly from ACAD. I use a program called "pdfedit995" that works as a printer. When you are ready to make a plot, you just select pdfedit995 as your plotter, hit plot, and a box pops up asking you what filename you want to save as. It works great and is very easy to use.

Hope this helps,
Darryl.....

 

[RICK FITZPATRICK]

Gentleman, you are ALL too kind. I thought I'd get railroaded out of this place after being tarred and feathered. I don't know. A a whole lot of shit has been going through my head lately. OLD FART SYNDROME ya know. Brain cells diein....skin is wrinklin, eyeballs fallin outa the sockets... maybe, because of lifes little and big dilemas, I've become an agnostic. Like my dad said though. SOMETIMES, you gotta trust something,
and when your flyin, if you don't trust the fact that the stuff your breathing, is the stuff thats keeping you up there, you might as well not get in a plane in the first place or you'll be scared outta your wits the whole time. Which takes all the FUN out of it! Which also translates to me, that I've also got to trust myself a little more too.

Well, to keep from making this reply into another useless waste of bandwidth, I'm going to go now. Thank you gents for your patience, and for sharing your insights, wisdom and not running me out on a rail. I will keep the faith, and actually, I'm going to post, as soon as I can, the layout of my "studio", and maybe you guys can help me find my way through the shadow of doubt. Awfully dark there sometimes. Your torch of enlightenment is reasurring to say the least.

Oh, and thanks for the tips on those other app's too guys. Just last night, I tried to convert some files to .gif, to post here. Took a half hour, and when I finally hit the button to send em, when they came up, it was a long thin black line
Wha the f..... DRIVE ME CRAZY. (but it dawned on me what I did wrong this morning. What a dork I can be sometimes.)

Cheers

fitZ