"musical studio"

  • Thread starter Thread starter RICK FITZPATRICK
  • Start date Start date
RICK FITZPATRICK

RICK FITZPATRICK

New member
Hello, I have a design question if anyone has any access to resourse that suggests this. How many cubic feet of airspace should an inner shell of a studio enclose, to be considered a "great musical room". The purpose is the recording of acoustical instruments/performances. Say, a four, maybe 5 people. Jazz quartets, bluegrass band, duo guitarists, classical stringed instruments, etc. Standup bass, Piano(as large as I can get) Horns 1 maybe 2. And would this all be one room, divided by gobos? Or should I use smaller rooms, with the appropriate airspace for thier purpose, say a drum booth? I am trying to figure out how much square footage I will need, before I look at spaces. And the requirements for HVAC. And then code, and then.......you know, the budget ahhhhhggrrrrrrrr..OK how can I do this myself......and that and that....Ha, Hey, gotta have some fun here once in a while! And once one can determine this quagmire, how do you acousticly treat a live area, say a small grand piano area. A
hardwood floor would be appropriate, as a beginning, wouldn't it? As usual, my appreciation for any help!
fitz:)
 
Comeon, give me a break!

Hi, everyone. Well it seems either I have pissed people off around here, or no one cares to comment on these questions. I feel I am asking the right questions. But if no one here knows, or just don't want to talk to me, I guess I will have to hire a consultant. OK, I can live with that. But in my mind, that totaly negates the purpose of this forum. Now don't get me wrong. I have recieved a LOT of GREAT info here. And the people who have offered thier hard earned experience, do know what they are talking about. And maybe no one knows the answers to these questions. I can live with that too! Or maybe I'm asking the wrong questions? Or asking them in the wrong way?
OK, maybe there should be a master list/database of things to answer, sort of like knightflys mode calculator. Thats cool. Punch in each piece of the puzzle as you get to it, hit enter, and voila! out comes the answer. Right-dream on Rick. Well, I guess I'm spittin in the wind. But I will find the answers, cause I'll be damned if I'm going to fly by the seat of my pants when it comes to building my studio. And when I do, I shall then like to answer some of these questions here, as I have yet to see ANY of these details here, as well as door/ window details. HVAC details. Floating details. Thresholds, electrical, etc. etc. etc. Lots of plans. No details. Johns website takes it as far as I have seen. And that is TOO GOOD. But still no details. And I am sure someone knows. Well.... I guess I'll just have to pursue the "holy grails" myself, and when I'm done, I shall post THE DETAILS here. I know there are TONS of variables. But just as the different types of wall constructions are illustrated, I would like to see a sheet, or page, that has say, 100 details, of the most common type of problem areas. Like monitor enclosures/suspensions, electrical ground isolations, lists of caulks, types of doors and seals, products, etc. Come on guys, help me on this one. I for one would be happy as hell to draw and submit these, IF I knew what the hell I was talking about. That way, it would eliminate a lot of the arbitrary question/answer scenarios found on the forum. After all, this is the HOMERECORDING STUDIO BUILDING FORUM.Each detail could be looked at and approved by, all the gurus here, as a consensus of what works truely, and what doesn't. Like the "eggcrate" contreversy. A person simply pulls up the list, clicks on the area of interest, or punches in the appropriate query word, and a series of details pops up from which you can apply to your present inquiry.
It just seems to me, that the forum has come a long way thanks to people like Mr. Sayer among others too numerous to mention, but what is the purpose here? Lets take it to the next step? I'm willing, but I sure don't like making a total ASS out of myself in front of the whole forum. I've been there, done that. Enough already. I would truely like to see this forum evolve beyond just a question/answer forum. Not to say there isn't tons of info here. Great info. I just think we can take it further, better, and more organized. Maybe I've just pissed people off here too much. Sorry, but I've wasted enough time on bullshit in my life, and I'm sure others have too. Lets get to the bottom of this stuff, so we have a way to not "reinvent the wheel" over and over and..........What do you say? I know-buzz off rick.
fitz:rolleyes:
 
Hey Rick,
Chill dude :cool: Sometimes it's just a matter of timing. Some of these guys (like John Sayers) live on the other side of the world. Our clocks don't quite sync up. All in all, the studio building forum is kinda small in participation. If you looked at the current members online right now it's only about 20. Of those, you and I are the only ones who frequent this forum. Myself only in the last month or so.

I would love to see some type of central "database" to retrieve info on building my studio. It doesn't really fit into a "forum" though. A good place would be at the very beginning of homerecording.com before you get to the forum. It would have to be user updated because I don't think any one person would have time to construct and update it constantly. Maybe starting out as having different categories such as HVAC. Anyone having useful information could post it there with links for additional info. Maybe after some period of time (a year?) someone (?) could compile this information into a more useable form. I think that's called writing a book .:rolleyes: .

Believe me, I know what you're going through. My head is so full of details I have to remember to build my studio there's not much room for anything else. I'm doing everything myself except the concrete slab and building shell. And my building goes up Aug 19th :eek:

As far as my responding to posts on this forum, I've done a tremendous amount of reading and research but still don't feel qualified to answer many questions. All I can do is point you to websites I've found when they seem applicable.

DD
 
Deserted Island?

Holy Crap, footprints in the sand. Wow, there is someone else on this "island" (lol)
OK I've got it, chill out, chill out, CHILL OUT rick. Now, where did I put the skill saw...crap, first, where is the shovel, damn, where is the level, ....yes dear, I'll take you shopping...........
fitz
(PS) Thanks a mill, I needed that. Yes dear, I'm coming...... shes beginning to believe that all I do is sit in front of the computer and talk, talk, talk);)
 
Rick, if you've ever noticed, the response rate here is about 10% of the view rate for any particular thread. That means you have to have about 100 views to get 10 responses. So, yeah, just sit back and wait, the responses will trickle in.

With regards to treatment of a live room, have a look at John Sayer's Design for "Left Bank Productions" he treated a room for piano with diffusers/absorbers, and they can be changed, I believe, between the 2. Something similar might be the ticket for your application.

I believe, and John can correct me if I'm wrong, that the piano is a 7'-2" Boston Grand, the GP218 model. I know this because, it's the same one I have. :) It's a large grand, and John says it sounds fantastic in that room!
 
Just for the record, I do frequent this forum, however because I haven't built anything yet, I have little insight to offer. However, in response to wanting a great room, I would say Sq footage does't matter as much as ceiling height. The sound comes from overall largeness of the room and surfaces it projects against. We could attempt to do some simple calculations. You say you want simple 4-5 person setups. Figure they each need 20 sq feet be comfortable, then figure that the ceiling should have an average height of 11 ft,(but it probably will be slanted). So once lets try 20sq ft x 5 people x 11 feet tall and I get 1100 cubic ft. Hmmm. That doesn't seem right. That would only have to be a 10x10 room at 11 ft ceilings. So my theory that I was creating on the fly proves to be bunk. I will leave it in the post to let you learn from it. I will take a rule I learned from software cost and time estimation. Take the number you come up with, double it, look at it, if it seems resaonable, double it again. If it is way out of proportion, use that as a base number. So, howabout a 40x 40 room with 11ft ceilings. That puts 17600 cubic foot in there. That is a lot of room. sounds "Great" to me.

I realize that I am of little help in this situation. I think a more ideal setup would be to buy a mix mag or look at john's sites and see if he has dimensions.

About this database archieve thing, i have tried to get this site to do similar things for gear. I know that 80% of questions I ask here are for reviews aobut a peice of gear. If these could all be stored somewhere and referenced easily, it would rule. It wouldn't be that hard to do either. Dragon never got back to me about that. I could see huge advantages of doing that for studio building as well. Someone make up a template of what type of information you want it to have and I will come up with something on it. I might have to start a homerecording.com sister site or something for database information on reviews and gera and studios.

Yup, that's my 10 cents, cause I found some old change in the couch.

--MIKE
 
I was going to post stuff in this forum, but since its a highly subjective subject I haven't. I figured JS would be in here and since his ideas are functional and cover alot of the basics I feel there is no need for me to express my ideas. Im less experienced that JS, Ive only designed 1 pro studio and 3 project studios, one of my own home studios(I miss it dearly since I moved) and a couple of bedroom studios.

SoMm
 
couch change studio

Hey mistahnke, thanks a mill, sounds good to me. I am DEFINETLY no expert in this stuff. Thats why I ask questions here. And your reply is generous, and helpful. I know everyone here tries to help when they can. Everyone is busy, . So ANY response
I get is APPRECIATED greatly, unless they tell me to buzz off:rolleyes: I can even accept that in the right context:D I've been less than helpful on a couple of occasions my self.;) The cubic footage thing came from some things I read in one of Everest's book. Had to do with the developement of low frequency sound waves. Now theres an area of discussion I am definely lacking in knowledge off. Thats why I asked. So....on to the next 40930 questions!!!!:eek:
fitz
 
I had a fairly long post ready to go on this yesterday, but my freakin' laptop has some evil glitch that every once in a while causes the mouse to go completely berserk and before I could post it was all dust...

It takes at least 5,000 cubic feet to support a reverberant field, more is better. 2000 Cf is considered a small room. It would seem to me that even with non-parallel walls, the LWH ratios would matter, maybe just not as much. Part of this depends on whether you want a tracking room or a control room. General concensus on control rooms seems to be make them about as live as an average living room, so you hear what the end user will hear. Too dry, and you over-effect. Too wet, and your stuff is like peanut butter without milk... A tracking room should be larger and adjustable, depending on the type of music to be recorded. For that I like the idea of John's and Everest's tunable absorbers.

Maybe John can kick in here about whether room ratios are important with non-parallel walls, and how much?

Flying blind is OK, as long as the mountains know enough to get out of your way... Steve
 
flying low is a show in the snow.

Yea, espeicially if your trim tabs arn't adjustable:D hey, steve thats what I like. I hope no one takes me wrong on this stuff. At this point, its all just a possibility, not fact, that I can actually get anything that will accomodate a studio. Its been an insterest of mine for a long time, thats all. But as long as the possibility exists, I'll keep asking questions, so if and when it becomes a reality, at least I will have picked enough peoples brains, to at least draw something that might actually be considered a good home studio. Thanks for the help on this stuff. I looked at the links. Too good. I do have some questions about the kinetic things, but at this stage, I don't think my head can accomodate donky ears for more than an hour, so I'll keep them to myself.:o Now, as far as a tracking room, the adjustable slot resonators are exactly what I had in mind
but how to incorporate them acousticly into the room is beyond my skills. I'm just going for the basics right now, and thats only on paper. I had thought about ceiling and wall units with louvers of some type. Big ones, some with absorbers on the face, diffusers behind, and some just the opposite, maybe utilizing slot resonators. All adjustable from the console by servos, so you can hear the changes in real time. Kind of like a depth control:D Ok, ok dream on. I can fantasize can't I?;) Although, I thought
I have seen something along these lines somewhere, but I've seen a lot, forgot a lot too. I do better with the 60 chord sytem. Its hardwired. And thats really what this is about for me. Playing music is more fun. Recording it is work.:eek: Well, back to the soldering iron. I've got a midiizer cable to build with Dsub's.....crap, thier no fun either. When is this thing going to start being fun!!!Thats what I wanna know.:rolleyes:
fitz
 
son of mixerman? ouch

howdy Snmn, any relation to mixerman, of the prorec. forum fame! Just curious, I wanted to know in advance if I should duck. :D So whats this you say. You wha....? Let me get this straight. Youv'e designed what? Boy, thats about as sick as they come;) slippin in here, listening to all the wannabuildits talk thier design shit,....boy, you have a lot of nerve.:D Ok, you know what we do to people like you here. We flood thier email everyday with as much archival questions that we can shove in your server. Ha! that'll teach ya. Holy crap, you been hangin here and haven't offered as much as a STC quote or something.? Not even a winkling of a slot resonator design. What are we going to do with this guy!!:p All kiddin aside Snmn, what, are you nuts or something. Your not going to get away with this!!! If you don't at least give us a teaser, well send you to the Cave for a brutal thrashing. Ha!. Come on now. We know youv'e got a little smidgen of stuff your just dieing to show us. Or do we have to break your arm. Hey, I'm the biggest goof here and at least I show how dumb I am. You should SHARE. But, then again some people are STINGY:D Thats ok, I get a little uncomfortable sticking my neck out too sometimes. The scare tissue barely shows though! Maybe I'm just a masochist. But I don't think so. Your right about Mr. Sayer though. I feel a little nervous saying ANYTHING here! But now, I have a permenant opening where the donkey ears pop through,and it doesn't even hurt anymore. So comeon, jump in the pool, cause NO ONE has been as big of jerk as me here, so the best you can do is second place. Not bad. But I warn you, you try and take my spot and like chessrock says, I'll kill ya. :D :D
fitz
fitz
 
non parallel walls?

me again, say, how do you figure out ratios with non-parallel walls-ceilings?I thought those were kind of for rectangular rooms.(Double LWH dimensions in a trapazoid, right?)Same with some other statements Mr. Everest gives in one of his books. I get confused with some of this, especially when it comes to control room front end angles that are critical for a RFZ, That ONE is the real bugger. Is that for real? I mean, what happens, cancellation or some kind of physics phenomena? I can't really imagine that. A void in space where you only hear the initial wavefront?And is that concept still even in vouge. I'm about 20yrs behind the times when it comes to this stuff.(thats how long it took to collect my gear!) Probably some new second wavefront, harmonic disintegrator beam me up scotty type theory is in place now, huh! Crap, I'd be happy with a second rate analog room that I could get 5 musicians in at one time! At least I could dink with it till it sounded good to me. Ha! :confused: Oh.............it just dawned on me. What a dunce. RFZ=outside. duh!!!
fitz:
 
An RFZ mix position that isn't outside, is accomplished by choosing the angles of walls and ceiling so that direct radiation from the speakers to walls/ceiling is reflected at angles that divert it away from the listener and to the rear of the room, so that by the time it gets back to the listener, it's no longer an "early" reflection. This requires about 15 feet between the listener and the rear walls, plus diffusion of some kind at the rear, such as a polycylindrical diffuser or a QRD, etc - the end result should be that the only sound the mix position hears is either direct from the speakers or delayed by at least 30 milliseconds and diffused. When using splayed walls/ceiling, the other area to watch is the surface of the mixer itself. sometimes this can be fixed by tilting the mixer to the front so reflections off the surface of the mixer miss the ears of the mix engineer and enter the diffusion zone before returning.

Most of these factors change whether you are using large soffited far fields or smaller console-mounted nearfields.

I know what you mean about the "fun" of making cables. As much as I know it's better to roll your own to get exactly what you want, I still have to beat myself nearly to death with a hot Weller Soldering Station before I'll get off my ass and build cables... Steve
 
rear wall diffussers vs slot resonators?

Alright, I guess I'll have to beat this thread to death. Ok steve, that sunk in, I thought diffusers were supposed to be at the rear wall, but how do slot resonators fit into that puzzle as suggested here, in many posts? This is why I get:confused: Is it purely a matter of preference, and they both work equally well? And btw, I'm sorry if my way of posting does not amuse people here. This subject matter is as dry as a room full of absorbers:D and tends to be dull as hell when disscussed with anyone other than a fellow studio wannabuildit. I am sincerely interested, but I must have attention span deficiency syndrome as I tend to try and amuse myself during periods of complete frustration. The subject is not one you can casually discuss with your partner at home or someone on the bus, so to eliviate the pressure in my head from 40930 questions constantly bombarding my brain!:eek: I have to make it something bearable.
Ok, now, to get to the heart of this, once the available space is FINALLY determined, is this RFZ concept something that should be sought after in a home studio control room, or is that kind of like figuring out the propellant used in a space shuttle for a home built aircraft? And if it is desirable, should one attempt to figure out these angles etc. himself,, ask here, or hire an acoustical consultant? BTW, I stumbled across this webpage last night in search of the "holy grail", if anyones interested. Informative, but maybe not directed at the subject matter at heart.
http://www.kettering.edu/~drussell/Demos/waves/wavemotion.html
fitz
 
THat site has fun pictures....it's like the 60's for me cause I wasn't there.....:cool:
 
Rick - I get silly sometimes too, and people either ignore it, enjoy it, or (if they take themselves entirely too seriously) take offence at it. If we were all exactly the same, acoustics would be exciting by comparison, not just a necessary study so as not to screw up perfectly good building materials...

OK, short answer here since you're getting into at least one area where my inquiring mind has dabbled but zippo...

Diffusion is called that because it's when you diffuse the sound so that it's incoherent. Diffused sound doesn't confuse a stereo image, because there's nothing concrete for your brain to compare to the main sound source.

Absorption is called that because it actually absorbs, or gets rid of, the sound. It does this by some of the sound passing through all the layers of wall, etc, and never coming back - other components travel thru surface treatment, bounce back off a hard boundary, and travel BACK thru the surface treatment, much weaker than before.

If you no longer can hear a particular sound (frequency) in a room, it's because either the sound has found a way out of the room (open door, window, missing wall) or it has been converted to a different form of energy, normally heat. This is how a bass trap works. At any boundary (wall, ceiling, floor) it stands to reason that the air velocity is zero, since it can't get through the wall and has to stop before it can be reflected. When you build a bass trap out of 703 and wood, if you place the 703 right against the wall you've just wasted your time and materials. this is because the function of the 703 is to provide an IMPEDANCE to the air movement caused by the low freq, allowing the air movement to be converted to heat by the friction between the moving air and the fiberglass. In order for this to work, the fiberglass has to be where the air velocity is maximum, which is at 1/2 wavelength if I remember correctly. This means that for a normal absorber to work for low frequencies, it has to be really deep in order to put the fiberglass where the air velocity is highest. Not too practical for low frequencies.

I believe that one of the reasons a couch or overstuffed chair makes a decent bass trap is that it CAN'T be up against the wall or it wouldn't be big enough to sit on. That puts the bulk of the couch out into the room where air velocities are greater, so it actually has some effect on the lower frequencies.

As far as slat resonators are concerned, until I get more familiar with their ideosyncracies John'll have to chime in or we'll both still wish we knew. the only thing I know right now is that they tend to have a two octave bandwidth at their 3dB points, and you can tune one as low as 30 hZ and still fit it into a room. This would take 2x12's with 1/32" slot, stood off on 2x10's, but beyond that little tidbit I know nothing... Steve
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top