No idea what im doing, but im trying...

F

fireandglass

New member
So here is my project studio ive been building for a few months. The bigger part of the room is going to be the live room and its 20x17, the smaller platform area i want to be a control room and it has dimensions of 9x9. Below are pictures from almost every angle. Any advice on construction before insulation goes in would be appreciated. I have to make this post before i can post pictures
 
pictures

IMG_1385.jpg

IMG_1383.jpg

IMG_1382.jpg

IMG_1388.jpg

IMG_1387.jpg
 
Sweet space; that'll make alot of people jelous!:D
Is that a stand alone building? Is there any HVAC? I dont see any ductwork.
Do you have an actual floor plan drawn up or are you winging it?

9x9 sounds awful small (and square) for a control room especially if you'll be mixing in there (small space, square room, not good).

Most people opt for non parallel walls.

You'll get PLENTY of help around here if you ask for it. :D
You might check out John Sayers site too- I havent been over there in a while, but I though they had sample studio layouts.
 
Its a room above a new 2 car garage addition. My parents used it as storage but agreed to let me build a studio in it! pretty awesome...but i have no idea how to build a studio. I think AC is going to be just a bunch of fans in the summer, heat for the winter ( i live in buffalo so i DEFINATELY need heat ) i was thinking of buying this heater. I have a gas line i can extended from the garage right below.

I know the control room isnt ideal but its such an odd shaped room there isnt really another application for that little space. Here is a picture of the acoustic treatment recommendation from Auralex.
PaulBesch.jpg

I was just going to buy everything they listed and follow thier advice but if anyone has cheaper alternatives, im all ears.

As far as gear, im going to be running a digi 002, pro tools le 7.4 on windows xp, 4gb ram, two 500 gb hard drives in raid (5 partitions each of 100gb). For monitors i have ADAM A-7's. My dilemma right now is what to do for a desk...
 
I dont want to speak for the general population here, but I doubt greatly that many of them would recommend (or use themselves) any of the "studio foam" products on the market (i.e. Auralex, Foam by Mail, etc.).

Rigid fiberglass or rockwool seems to be the superior (and probably more economical) choice. I've been using it in my space for years and it made a HUGE difference.

As for your layout, since all you have is bare studs, it wouldnt set you back much to move a wall around. Just my 2c, but if you are gonna put in the work to make this happen, why compromise on stuff that you can easily change now?

Personally, I'd take some time while you're cleaning out the space to do some research now. Hang out around here. Pay attention to posts by Ethan W, Brian, Rick Fitzpatric, etc (and others) (these guys have been around here since I was putting together my modest studio 6 years ago and have solid and practical advise to give).

Also, check out the JOhn Sayers links. They've done some BEAUTIFUL studios (home and pro). You should find plenty of inspiration there. Check out their forum.

If you are going to take the time and money to do this, dont leave yourself wanting to kick yourself in the ass a year later. Post dimensions. Come up with a plan!

:)
 
One question i had about building my own sound traps, is that with auralex products they offer different benefits (aborption, diffusion, reflection, etc.) and alot of the "gobos" i see people build are just flat boxes filled with rockwool. Im sure they have fantastic acoustic benefits but would i be missing something with not using auralex? Whats mostly throwing me off is how the surfaces are so strange on auralex products and typically flat on the DIY panels people build. I am reading the links you sent me, sorry if the answer is buried within and i havent read it yet, but i just wanted to know.
 
Last edited:
Any minute now one of the well respected members of the studio forum here will be along to tell us that most home studios benefit most from broad band absorption and especially low frequency absorption (of which foam has little benefit).

More info here... http://www.ethanwiner.com/basstrap.html

Check out the really nice studios at the John Sayers site. I dont see a whole lot of foam. I dont have a single bit of foam in my own modest studio (all rockwool wall mounted and floor standing movable panels) and they really do work well.

I've been hanging around here for the last 6 or 7 years and I dont think I've ever heard anyone here recommend foam (or "eggcrates") for a studio. I'm certainly no studio designer (though I am an architect by trade) and there are certainly people here more qualified than me to discuss the virtues of bass traps, broadband absorption, standing waves, non-parallel walls, and acoustics in general.

Just my 2c, I'd skip the Auralex, or at least keep on reading to make a better informed decision. Stick around- this shits addictive. :D
 
My biggest turmoil right now is I have this recommendation from Auralex. A layout of my room with proper treatment all around the room. Coming here I really am amazed at how quick and helpful people are, but before deciding "hey im going to start building my own sound control" i need a reason to avoid auralex. I have read the links posted earlier, very good information, and what i generally gathered was that foam doesnt compare to rockwool, owens 703, etc.

NOW, i know this is going to get opposed as soon as i say, but im not here to be an architect, a personal contractor, or to learn everything there is to know about how to control sound response in a room.

I want to spend about $2k on a pretty good sized room i have, to make demos (rock/alternative music) for my band to shop. I like the idea of making my own panels but my biggest concerns are
1. will they be as effective as auralex?
2. how much less will it cost to achieve the same results as auralex? (the recommended treatment is about $1000)
3. im a virgin when it comes to power tools so building ANYTHING will be a feat within itself

Without telling me to read something where the answer to my question might be cryptically held within, what are the answers i need? thanks, and sorry if i come off a little impatient or demanding, i really dont mean to
 
fireandglass said:
My biggest turmoil right now is I have this recommendation from Auralex. A layout of my room with proper treatment all around the room. Coming here I really am amazed at how quick and helpful people are, but before deciding "hey im going to start building my own sound control" i need a reason to avoid auralex. I have read the links posted earlier, very good information, and what i generally gathered was that foam doesnt compare to rockwool, owens 703, etc.

NOW, i know this is going to get opposed as soon as i say, but im not here to be an architect, a personal contractor, or to learn everything there is to know about how to control sound response in a room.

I want to spend about $2k on a pretty good sized room i have, to make demos (rock/alternative music) for my band to shop. I like the idea of making my own panels but my biggest concerns are
1. will they be as effective as auralex?
2. how much less will it cost to achieve the same results as auralex? (the recommended treatment is about $1000)
3. im a virgin when it comes to power tools so building ANYTHING will be a feat within itself

Without telling me to read something where the answer to my question might be cryptically held within, what are the answers i need? thanks, and sorry if i come off a little impatient or demanding, i really dont mean to
Click to expand...
There is no reason to avoid auralex. Auralex is the best foam company out there. It's the other foam companies you have to look out for.

The thing is, you can get similar results to auralex for much cheaper by building your own absorbers and they tend to look a lot more professional too.

Also, I'd really recommend against square dimensions in your control room. It's important to make your control room as accurate (flat) as possible so your mixes translate well onto other systems. If your room lies to you at certain frequencies, and it can by as much and more than 30dB, then you will compensate for this(up to the amount your room lies by). If you then take your mix elsewhere which does not lie in the same way, then your mix will sound really skewed. The best thing is to have the flattest mixing environment you can, so no matter what room you listen in, it sounds as close to what it's meant to as possible.

Even though it's just for demos, if you're going to do it, you're better doing it right, especially if it doesn't cost more. The more time you take in learning about acoustics, the less mistakes you'll make, the better a room you'll have and you may end up saving a lot of money. Spend the time to educate yourself.
 
fireandglass said:
not really, the only thing i could do is not put the recording gear there, but its convenient. does it make a difference that it has rear wall? you can see that from the layout
Click to expand...
The rear wall closes in the room to make it 9'x9' which is a terrible shape (square). You'd be better either extending the back wall, or having none at all. The only problems with having no back wall is the lack of isolation, making it difficult to hear what you are recording, and that it becomes much more difficult to predict the affect the room will have on your mixes.

The auralex suggestion does seem to have the basics, bass traping and first reflection absorption in the control room, but the rest doesn't seem all that great. A mixture of thin foam and tiny diffusors. You could make a lot more panels for the same money, which would definitely give you a better environment. You can also, tailor-make your panels to exactly suit your room (gobos, etc).
 
Quick help clearing up confusion i have...the shape of the auralex foam led me to believe that each panel was relfecting, absorbing, or diffusing the sound in all sorts of magical ways. if i build my own panels dont they need to be in the same weird shapes? dont i need a lot more than absorption to balance the sound in the room?
 
An as far as the control room goes, i unfortunately cant really do much else besides build an iso booth in that space and just keep all my gear chilling out in the middle of the room? any suggestions would be greatly appreciated
 
fireandglass said:
Quick help clearing up confusion i have...the shape of the auralex foam led me to believe that each panel was relfecting, absorbing, or diffusing the sound in all sorts of magical ways.
Click to expand...

Then they worked PERFECTLY! Their stylish marketable design has convinced you of their superior magic!

(I'm no expert but I'm researching my own home studio project. From that wealth of experience and knowledge (hehe) I don't think the shape of the surface of your acoustic treatment is going to make a measurable difference.)
 
fireandglass said:
Quick help clearing up confusion i have...the shape of the auralex foam led me to believe that each panel was relfecting, absorbing, or diffusing the sound in all sorts of magical ways. if i build my own panels dont they need to be in the same weird shapes? dont i need a lot more than absorption to balance the sound in the room?
Click to expand...
Absorption is the best way to balance a small room and is best for home studios.

The amount of absorption or diffusion is based on the thickness of the panels. A 2" panel of either absorption or diffusion will theoretically absorb/diffuse well down to around 1.7kHz then start to tail off. You can space an absorption panel from a wall to increase it's absorption at lower frequencies (a 2" panel spaced 2" will absorb to 850Hz before tailing off) but i don't think you can with diffusion. So absorption is the best way to balance a room on a budget.

The weird shapes on absorption panels don't really do all that much and are mainly for aesthetics. The shapes of diffusors are important, but like I said, absorption is best when on a budget.
 
fireandglass said:
An as far as the control room goes, i unfortunately cant really do much else besides build an iso booth in that space and just keep all my gear chilling out in the middle of the room? any suggestions would be greatly appreciated
Click to expand...
Maybe just don't have a back wall to the control room or extend the back wall to block off the door (and build a second door into the control room, which increase isolation).
 
fireandglass said:
I like the idea of making my own panels but my biggest concerns are
Click to expand...

You biggest concern should be absorption at bass frequencies. Foam is okay for mids and highs, and it's even okay for bass if it's really thick and you cover large areas of corner surface. If you want to DIY just get some rigid fiberglass four inches thick and follow all the advice here:

Acoustics FAQ

There's a ton more non-sales advice on my company's web site:

RealTraps Articles
RealTraps Videos

--Ethan
 
well i wasnt planning on putting up a back wall (I dont know why there is a grey line in that diagram). We wanted to keep the room kind of open in design. i know this isnt the best for isolation but there is only one other person in my band (we write and record every instrument), and with such a small space that we have we didnt we to lose anything by building walls, and be able to easily communicate while tracking. I know that i said the room is 9x9 and thats terrible for bass frequencies but does it help that there is no back wall?

pandamonk said:
Maybe just don't have a back wall to the control room or extend the back wall to block off the door (and build a second door into the control room, which increase isolation).
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top