Golden Ratio

  • Thread starter Thread starter Green House
  • Start date Start date
G

Green House

New member
I am currently working on my attic studio...but I am also considering options for the future.

I am intending to build (in a couple of years) a free-standing studio. I have considered the various costs and such and have arrived at a single room concept. One big room that doubles for tracking and mixing.

By only designing it with one room, many factors are made more simple...AC, wiring, soundproofing. But I digress...let me get to my actual question.

We all agree that a rectangle shaped room is not as good as a well designed control room with splayed walls creating a RFZ...but I had an idea that I wanted to run by you. How do you feel about a single large room that is rectangular...with dimensions that are gloden ratios. The idea is that these golden ratios will evenly distribute room modes. I would then (of course) treat the room with bass trapping and construct angled wall and ceiling treatment in key areas to the mix position.

What do you think?
 
whoops...golden...man I don't like being the one who makes english mechanical errors. It's unpossible to sound smart if you can't communicate well. :)

Seriously though...I am not sure if "golden rectangle" is exactly the right term for what I am talking about. I remember reading an article that was talking about room dimensions. Of course, it was saying that you should avoid dimensions that are multiples of each other. Then it talked about these "golden ratios" that would lead to very evenly distributed room modes.

Example
1.0 x 1.4 x 1.9 would be maybe 10' high by 14' wide by 19' long.

I was thinking that by doing this one would possibly avoid any huge problems right from the beginning. Then just set up your RFZ, lower your reverb time, and trap your bass.

Good idea? Bad idea?

Thanks,
Richard
 
Richard,

> I am not sure if "golden rectangle" is exactly the right term <

Yes, it is, but of course it's never that simple. Wes Lachot over at RO can tell you much more about this than I can. But understand it's not only the ratio, but also the absolute dimensions. The best ratio in the world applied to a room only eight feet long still stinks.

--Ethan
 
The best ratio in the world applied to a room only eight feet long still stinks.
Click to expand...

Hmmmmm, maybe in your world. When its raining and its the only one I got, I love it, stink or not.:) I don't care either, but you make the best of what ya got. Hey, for those of us with room whose dimensions do not meet acoustical perfection criteria, I have one thing to tell you. Ask anyone who listens to your recordings if they know the dimensions of the room by listening to the recording.:rolleyes: OR if they care. Actually, take a reality check. THOUSANDS of hit records have been made in less than acoustically perfect rooms. EVEN if it is a perfect ratio, perfect size and is made of gold, it still obeys the laws of physics. Standing waves still form, speakers and mics and listeners positioned "incorrectly" will not reach perfect potentiial. That is reality. For every recording room that has "everything" perfect, there will be a listeners room with a speaker setup and listening positition that defies the best attempts at providing them with optimal "translation" recordings. Ask 10 listeners what they like about the recording, and I'll bet $100 the first thing they will say is the "song".
And add this to it.
Contemporary recording mastering doctrine has now reached the point whereby, acoustical criteria is not important. On the contrary. If it were, then tell my why so many digital pop records are digitally mastered LOUD. "Smashed" to the point where distortion is so prominant, that even consumers have become aware of it, and mastering engineers discuss the irrelevance of "golden ears". Consider this too. If you think every recording studio in the world has perfect everything, take a look at the
thousands of different room configurations, opposing acoustical designer theorys and opinions, engineering mic and placement choice differences, soffit monitoring vs nearfield monitoring AND placement choice differences, not to mention the brand, elevation and baffle material differences, LEDE vs non environmental design dogma, digital autotuning correction use, analog vs digital tracking opinion, and any number of other potential sonic altering choices, and you will discover that room size, width vs length monitoring axis, magic ratio formuli, and splayed vs parallel room boundarys, become just another acoustical designers opinion. Not scientific recording success criteria. However, this is just my .02, but I think it illustrates the significance of ratio opinion. Hey, if there were such a thing as a "perfect" studio design, every major studio in the world would look, and perform identical.
So what is important? Talent. Thats what. The mere fact that recording producers, performers and engineers work in a multitude of different rooms is evidence that all rooms sound and perform differently. Thats why they are unique. Not clones of acoustical perfection. Take it or leave it. One more thing. Million seller records are not
always recorded in studios either. Many artists have recorded in hallways, blanket enclosed spaces, vocal booths and even in spaces that sonicly and acousticly suck.
Does the consumer care? No. They just like the song, the artist and the recording, of which doesn't make a bit of difference where it was made, as long as they like it.

So, for all of you with less than acousticly perfect rooms, have fun in your space. Even if its 8'x8'x8'. Remember, not all of us can afford to drive Mercedes, but I sure the fuck can get from point A to point B, and have fun doing it in my 73 Toyota. Even if it sucks.

:)

fitZ
 
>The best ratio in the world applied to a room only eight feet long still stinks.<

Right...In my plan for this building I was thinking along the lines of 12' high by 20'(ish) wide by 30'(ish) long. My thought is that without a lot of money spent on dividing spaces I can afford to have a nice high ceiling and larger square footage.

Any cautions?

And I do understand the difficulty involved in working in one big room. I will have to monitor with headphones and do a lot of test recording to make sure I have good sounds.
 
It's raining here too Fitz. has been for a week now - we haven't flooded yet but could if it keeps up :)

BTW I mixed "the Real Thing" - an aussie classic from the 60s in a control room 10 x 10. :D

cheers
john
 
Fitz,

Wow, where'd that come from? :D

Actually, I agree with most of what you said. And there's no doubt you can do a fine job recording vocals in a closet full of clothes. Where a good room matters most is when mixing. Yeah, you can mix in an untreated bedroom, but it's a lot easier and takes far less trial and error when you can hear what you're doing accurately.

--Ethan
 
No envornment is perfect. Acoustic guys are just as in the dark as everyone else. Their estimates are a little closer and sometimes thats still not close enough. Ive heard of guys paying the big boys for design to only have the room sound like crap and guys with total gear clusters in a funky room sound awesome. I don't think anyone who go to the depths of calculating everything realistically. Its could take years, in fact I know of Mastering Rooms where the ME spent months tweaking the room after spending a google on design.
The problem is that alot of the time our brains can't interpret without bias. Ive been in rooms where they sounded great and 6 months later you go back and its boxy sounding, even though nothing changed. Then without anything being changed, the room sound great again after mixing there a few days... Fickled huh?

My vocal booth sounded good.... until one singer sounded bad. The difference was the amount of energy. I know that a room can sound good because your only at 70 or 80 db, bump it up to 87 to 94 db and the room can start to exhibit its true nature. Especially when resonants from the equipment starts to feedback.

Sound is subjective.


SoMm
 
Ethan, please forgive my attitude. I guess the bedroom acoustic blues set in the other morning. Rain, dark clouds, cold weather and no acoustics make for a shitty attitude:D Take what I said with a grain of salt you guys. Acoustics ARE important. My rants are not. As soon as I can gather the materials for my acoustic plan, I'll post what I think then. I spoke with no experience.....yet. But my thoughts are sincere. Heres a few more.
You know, I have been chasing this acoustics thing for 5 years at least. 5 years of trying to figure out exactly what it is that acoustic designers are trying to acomplish. Ha. Now I'm finally at the point where I have one room and thats it for good. I've got my plan. I've studied. I've listened. I've ranted, raved, been astounded by acoustic discovery, and yet I'm no fucking closer to actually setting up my studio than I was 6 months ago EXCEPT for the plan. I come here and read the suggestions, replys and data people post , only to find the complete opposite acoustic opinion on another site. Another plan down the tubes....fuck. Ok, this is the last time I'll post my opinion. I've already said this stuff but you asked me Ethan. The only reason I respond like this is total frustration with the acoustics field at large from reading so much conflicting information. In fact, get this, I found an acoustics website that very morning I posted my shitty attitude reply. It is written by an educated acoustition telling people sound travels at ELEVEN feet per second!!:eek: WTF!! ELEVEN FEET PER SECOND........now wait a minute....Even I know that is total crap.....hence the attitude with acoustic bullshit that day....(JOHN, ignor this little fable)Every acoustic designer has his own ideas, but there is so much conflict.....I mean.......how bout this....... How many times have you read about slot or hemholtz resonators and are given a formula for calculating the absorption frequency, right? like...f = 2160 x sqrt ( r / (( d x D ) + ( r + w )))

Where:

f = resonant frequency in Hertz (Hz)
r = slot width.
w = slat width.
d = effective depth of slot. (1.2 x the actual thickness of the slat)
D = depth of box.



OK cool......is that one slot? hmmmmm......
So you calculate and figure, draw and build........for absorption at say 75 hz.....OK?

Now, I've said this before, but I'll say it again....how the hell can any one depend on a formula that NO ONE has EVER TESTED below 100 hz cause they CAN"T test below that threshold.....so what the hell good is it if you can't even prove it fucking works!!

How bout this one..... Someone PLEASE give me a clue.......how does one figure how MUCH absorption a room needs? 1 sabine? 100 sabines...10,000 sabines?
If your using slot absorbers, and the effeciency rating is dependent on the percentage of SLOT AREA.....what tells you how much a slot absorbs per SQUARE FOOT of slot in sabines? From what I've read, the absorption varies by the width of slot, depth or thickness of the slat, and the width of the slat, and the DEPTH of the box. But THEN, what tells you how LONG to make the box...or how WIDE to make it. Or the number of slots. Or does the percentage of slots to total slat area affect the frequency? ARGGGGGGGRRR.... broadband is arbitrary..AND you can't gaurantee that what you've built is indeed working like it is supposed to. Even if you knew what it is your trying to do in the first place.....fuck.
Ok, how bout this.....here you have this room...not a good room....in fact a shitty little 9'2x 11'4 x 8' high or some similar crappy bedroom size room.... . Its empty. Standard construction. Ok, its a fucking rectangle. So you figure the modes....and sure enough you have problems. What little room doesn't. Ok..now you find out that broadband absorption is what you need....what the hell does that mean? Sounds like a fixall bandaid. Broadband...HOW MUCH BROADBAND.....oh well, you take the advice and lo and behold, yea...sounds ok, you think....but wait a minute. Now the room is dead as hell. Nothing. Zilch. Oh.... rooms this size don't have an RT-60 worth shit anyway, and then you kill what little you have with broadband...hmmm Ok, time for the Alton Everest book.....hmmm.....diffusion....YEA!! thats what it needs....see, even pictures in the book show diffusers in a small room....COOL! Ok, study, read, ask, study more....cool, quadratic diffusers are EASY to build....gather the shit, cut and build..and WAIT A MINUTE. Now someone says diffusion doesn't work in small rooms...
F U C K ME.....crap, well at least I have wood burning stove fuel now. Damn. Well, heres something new......A cylindrical diffuser.....Hmmm....what tells you the size? What radius? What depth? Hmmmm....OH!! ....heres an ABSORPTION cylinder! Hmmm, wait a minute....this doesn't add up....IF....fuck it...been there. done that one. Sooo, where does that lead me......to posting SHITTY ATTITUDE replys, thats where.

OK, does that make sense. Its just my bad attitude in regards to stuff that no one can prove below 100 hz, and diffusion that not even experts can test, yet. How bout this one. Here is a new one on me For at least 3 years, for me the holy grail of monitoring axis has been to use the LONG dimension, to gain a time delay gap between the direct sound and the reflection from the back wall. Ok, sounds reasonable. But then I read that the brain cannot distinguish the difference between two different sounds if they are less than .....what is it.....2 milliseconds apart or some such thing.(So why not have a wall right behind your head :D ok, I know, phase smear...hey, won't a wall 20 feet away have the potential of phase smear too) What if the initial sound is 40 db louder than a 5 ms delayed sound. Hmmm. Ok, if my rear wall is 20 feet behind my ears, and sound travels at approx 1140 ft per second, thats about 2 milliseconds there, and 2 milliseconds back to my ears. Hmmm...however, sound decays 6db for every doubling of distance traveled. Not to mention the absorption at the boundary. So if my monitors are blasting at 80 db, from my ears, to the rear wall and back, the sound should have decayed....lets see, wait a minute......how the hell do you know how much sound decayed in the first foot, to calculate the total decay to the rear wall and back???? And does sound decay faster or slower in a near field than it does in a diffuse field? Fuck..where was I. Oh, ok, axis..thats where. Now I read that the most important issue is early reflections, as they are the "bad guys" and they come off the side walls. So the new thing is making the monitoring axis on the short dimension, to keep the side walls farther than the rear wall, so early reflections have farther to travel cause if the TDG from the rear wall is short enough, you can't tell anyway(ha!).........but wait, I thought in order to make an RFZ, the side walls have to be ....er ...........crap.:rolleyes: :confused: ."....whats that honey?" Our electric bill is WHAT!!?:eek:......(moan groan..sigh) .....there goes the 703 this week......and next week too....fuck. Hmmm. Acoustics. What the hell do I need them for, I've already got a headache. :D......


(soap opra organ starts) this weeks rant has been brought to you by the fine folks at OWENS CORNING!! Tune in next week for another chalkboard scratching episode of "ACOUSTICS SCI FI" same time...same station...er bbs....

http://www.clubq3a.com/rkpics/TempStdio2.gif
http://www.clubq3a.com/rkpics/TempStdio3.gif
http://www.clubq3a.com/rkpics/TempStdio4.gif
http://www.clubq3a.com/rkpics/TempStdio5.gif
http://www.clubq3a.com/rkpics/TempStdio6.gif

Ok Ethan.....thats where it comes from... brain farts......any more questions:p
fitZ





:)
 

Attachments

  • tempstdio7.webp
    tempstdio7.webp
    20.1 KB · Views: 212
Fitz,

There aren't enough hours in my day to respond to all that, so I'll hit just the high points. :D

> I have been chasing this acoustics thing for 5 years at least. <

Buy eight MiniTraps and you'll be done. Okay, maybe also get two MicroTraps for the early reflections.

> I come here and read the suggestions ... only to find the complete opposite acoustic opinion on another site. <

If you post both opinions here I'll be glad to tell you which one is correct.

> sound travels at ELEVEN feet per second!!:eek: WTF!! <

C'mon, that sounds more like a typo.

> how the hell can any one depend on a formula that NO ONE has EVER TESTED below 100 hz cause they CAN"T test below that threshold <

That's not really true. You certainly can test absorbing materials below 100 Hz, and we have our stuff tested down to 25 Hz. The issue is that below 100 Hz the results become less accurate. So when a manufacturer needs to have certified data they can't ethically claim results below 100 Hz. But it's not like at 100 Hz the data is totally accurate and at 99 Hz it totally falls apart. When I asked the head of IBM's lab, where we test our products, he said their data was "reasonably accurate" down to the 63 Hz band. And you can always test two materials and get a very accurate comparison. The exact numbers may not be fully accurate, but you can definitely tell if one is twice as absorbent as the other, etc.

> how does one figure how MUCH absorption a room needs? 1 sabine? 100 sabines...10,000 sabines? <

As far as I'm concerned, you probably cannot have too much absorption at low frequencies. You can definitely have too much at mid and high frequencies. How many Sabins at a given frequency you need is not an absolute, because it depends on how the room sounds before treatment.

> in fact a shitty little 9'2x 11'4 x 8' high or some similar crappy bedroom size room ... So you figure the modes <

There's no value in knowing the modes unless you're willing and able to move the walls.

> now you find out that broadband absorption is what you need....what the hell does that mean? <

It means you want to absorb all low frequencies evenly, not build tuned bass traps that target specific frequencies.

> F U C K ME.....crap <

I feel your pain!

> So why not have a wall right behind your head <

One important goal is to be far away from all boundaries. Even in a million dollar room you can't do much about the floor. But if you can orient yourself to be farther from a wall - especially the rear wall where low frequency nulls are strongest - you should always do that.

--Ethan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top