Why hardwood floors?

I apologize if this subject matter has been covered before; I attempted to use the search function and found a whole smattering of material that was not related so hopefully this is not redundant (and i hope i'm in the correct sub-forum as well! it was a toss-up between here in acoustics and design...) It has been mentioned before that concrete floors are horrible for recording and nobody disputes this at all. Having tried it myself, I'm right there with everyone. However, I am noticing a great deal of studio space being designed and constructed here that incorporates the use of hardwood floor. I have also been to a couple of studio spaces in Seattle that make use of this as well. The question I have is this: why does this seem to be the preferred flooring method? Wouldn't the reflections of sound from the floor bounce all over the place and make thing sound much more live than potentially desired? Obviously a throw rug of some kind could deaden this down yet it seems slightly impractical. I know that it is my inexperience that is begging this question so I hope I'm not offending anyone's sensibilities. (: (i also suppose that rod's book will probably answer a lot of these questions as soon as it arrives) I would just like a bit of opinion from folks here who have experienced the differences and can speak to the advantages and disadvantages. Ultimately, I just want to know how it works and why it works well enough that it's a common theme so that when it comes time to design my space (i'm in the middle of taking meticulous measurement of my existing home so that i can design the addition space) I have a better idea of what things to keep in mind. Thanks! -= george =-

It has been mentioned before that concrete floors are horrible for recording and nobody disputes this at all.

Well I hope it is disputed! I have concrete floors for the simple fact it was recommended here. :lol: George, I just do what I am told sometimes without fully understanding the principles. :wink: But I will pass along what I think I know I think, but don't know for sure.... but hardwood does the same job and looks very nice ......concrete can be made to look nice and be more economical But from what I understand, you do want the reflection of the hard surface floor. But you need to capture the reflections with a non paralell ceiling and or Clouds and Bass traps. Also from my understanding carpet alone over your floor space will capture mostly high frequencies. I have to admit my live room and ISO's took a lot of traps/treatments but after all was said and done I have great sounding rooms. I do have a small area rug in ISO 2 and a rug under the drum kit for obvious reasons. I'm sure someone else will be along to further clear up your question hope this helped Peace Tom

Well, I then sit corrected! I made the mistake of assuming that things I read about concrete floors being bad were a commonly accepted theme. (you can tell i have a ton to learn) So conceptually speaking, the reflections from a smooth floor surface are desired in some recording applications, and at the same time it is necessary that those reflections do not bounce back and forth ad infinitum (thus the clouds and non-even ceiling surfaces)? I really appreciate your input, Tom. (: (hah, i was just in your neck of the woods a few weeks ago too) -= george =-

George, Stop by anytime your neck is misplaced. I love showing the studio off and explaining all the friggin work that went into it. Peace Tom

Assuming the wood floor is installed correctly (ie, no weird resonances) then a wood floor and a concrete floor sound pretty close to the same in that they are both highly reflective. I also agree that absorptive ceilings are good, especially if you have a reflective floor.

norg wrote:

It has been mentioned before that concrete floors are horrible for recording and nobody disputes this at all.

Okay, this has been disputed pretty soundly so far. :) This is from my Acoustics FAQ: SIDEBAR: HARD FLOOR, SOFT CEILING The following is from an exchange that took place in the rec.audio.pro newsgroup in May, 2003: Bill Ruys asked: Why it is recommended to have bare (un-carpeted) floors in the studio? One web site I visited mentioned that a bare floor was a prerequisite for the room design with diffusors and absorbers on the ceiling, but didn't say why. I'm trying to understand the principal, rather than following blindly. Paul Stamler: Carpet typically absorbs high frequencies and some midrange, but does nothing for bass and lower midrange. Using carpet as an acoustic treatment, in most rooms, results in a room that is dull and boomy. Most of the time you need a thicker absorber such as 4-inch or, better, 6-inch fiberglass, or acoustic tile, and you can't walk around on either of those. Hence the general recommendation that you avoid carpet on the floor and use broadband absorbers elsewhere. Lee Liebner: the human ear is accustomed to determining spatial references from reflections off of side walls and floor, and a low ceiling would only confuse the brain with more early reflections it doesn't need. Everywhere you go, the floor is always the same distance away from you, so it's a reference that your brain can always relate to. John Noll: Reasons for having wood floors: they look good, equipment can be rolled easily, spills can be cleaned up easily, provide a bright sound if needed, sound can be deadened with area rugs. Ethan Winer: In a studio room, versus a control room, a reflective floor is a great way to get a nice sense of ambience when recording acoustic instruments. Notice I said reflective, not wood, since linoleum and other materials are less expensive than wood yet sound the same. When you record an acoustic guitar or clarinet or whatever, slight reflections off the floor give the illusion of "being right there in the room" on the recording. It's more difficult to use a ceiling for ambience - especially in a typical home studio with low ceilings - because the mikes are too close to the ceiling when miking from above. And that proximity creates comb filtering which can yield a hollow sound. So with a hard floor surface you can get ambience, and with full absorption on the ceiling you can put the mike above the instrument, very close to the ceiling, without getting comb filtering. Dave Wallingford: I've always preferred wood floors for a few reasons: 1) It's easier to move stuff around, 2) You can always get area rugs if you need them, And the main reason: 3) Pianos sound like crap on carpet.

You are all magnificent and wonderful people. (: Thanks for the insight, Ethan, and the history! I've officially obliterated the idea that smooth flooring surfaces are a bad thing, regardless of what I read anywhere else. So building on that, obviously if the live sound is not quite as necessary, the throw and area rugs can go onto the floor in question and then with absorption methods in place in the ceiling and walls as necessary, most applications can be accommodated for with a few simple tweaks and the smooth surfaces (hard wood, concrete, etc) can be left in place, right? Thanks also for the link to your acoustics FAQ. There goes the rest of my day... (: -= george =-

Right.

George, You've already gotten some good guidance on this issue. What I have to add is more philosophical than anything else. Rooms for recording instruments usually have hard floors. Wood (or wood-like) floors are often preferable for a number of reasons. Wood tends to have a less "harsh" sound than stone or concrete. Rooms with wood floors (as well as ceilings and walls) are often described as "warmer." I think you'd probably agree that you don't want the talent to perceive the room as "cold." Wood is also the finish on many of the worlds stages. Thus, musicians often prefer wood floors since they're the same sort of floor that their favorite performing venues have. There is also something to be said for the way musical instruments - many of them made of, you guessed it, wood - sound in rooms with wood finishes. IMO, there is even a perceptible difference between wood and non-wood (e.g., plastic) diffusers, all other factors being roughly the same. This does not mean that other hard floors, such as concrete, are "bad." IMO, a recording room with a concrete floor would be preferable to one with wall-to-wall Berber. But I would also prefer wall-to-wall hardwoods to poured concrete. In sum, I concur with the others here. Hard floors are the way to go in purpose-built recording rooms. To put it another way, if you ever have the opportunity to record an artist like, say, the late, great Chris Whitley, you will want to get those foot stomps on tape/disk. (Listen to any of the tracks on Dirt Floor if you don't know what I'm talking about. ;) (It's one of those CDs that I wish was, like, 10x longer...)) And a foot stompin' on a hard floor - even dirt - sounds WAY better than a foot stompin' on a piece of plywood over carpet!!! :D :D :D

I have found that while concrete and wood are similar sounding compared to carpet, they DO sound a bit different from each other in a tracking room. I have tracked in many different rooms and the rooms with concrete floors (including the one in my great room) have a mid range (2K) emphasis over the wood floors. I have tested this a couple of times and it really is interesting. Not a huge difference, but noticeable to me. Again, this is what I have heard and not measured, and another engineer friend of mine who operated a commercial studio where the drum room was cement confirmed this with me. I have no explanation as to what my ears could be hearing, but it has been consistent.

I don't record live instruments. I mainly want to treat my room for a good mixing studio. Carpet should not be a problem for me, right?

Right.

wrong? you know, yer monitors are your instruments. Your ears still keep hearing them sounds so why should carpet be okay in this case?

Ro, Mostly because - in many cases - the cost of tearing out carpet and replacing with (e.g.) hardwoods would far exceed the benefits gained. Carpet isn't the #1 preferred option, but it's not all bad. If awilki01 is operating a top-notch commercial facility, hardwoods should be considered. Assuming that's not the case, the carpet is not likely to be a major detriment.

I have a studio space I'm building, and it's currently carpet over padding over concrete (basement). I'm considering what to do here. The walls are going to be pretty absorbent (due to the need to isolate the room as much as possible and the inability to do that well from the outside) and the ceiling will have enough angled foam to eliminate reflections from the floor. So, should I leave the carpet (medium pile, on medium foam padding), or remove it and clean up (and paint?) the concrete floor? Because of the soft walls, I'm concerned with the carpet the room will be too dead. We will be recording in there, so I do what somewhat of a live sound to the room. But we'll also be practicing in there, and I don't want to have too much reflection. Perhaps a thin, commercial carpet with no padding is a good compromise? If I do remove the carpet entirely, I have no plans on installing a hardwood (or laminate) floor - it's out of my budget. So should I paint the concrete floor? Or leave it as is? For a full understanding of my current renovations of my studio space, see: http://www.johnlsayers.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=11207

JamesCzar, You've been hijacking a lot of threads, why don't you just start your own. It might have better feedback :) To answer your question (alright, alright..) If you're on a tight budget, just leave the carpet there. If you've got a hard floor you'll need a soft ceiling and vice versa. Unless you've got a soft ceiling (meaning you've hanged absorption in there) I'd leave the carpet. The carpet, in this case, is also handy for gear/instruments to to shift around on a concrete floor. extra bonus :) In time, when you're band is ranking the top-40 lists and have some spare money, you can always go for a wood floor and add soft ceiling panels (wool panels, clouds or whatever you wanna call it).

I'm not sure how things work on this message board, but I thought commenting/contributing on threads was what was expected? I've only contributed to two other threads, and both times I added a comment - NOT A QUESTION. How is that HIJACKING threads? And I also created my own thread about my experiences/plans for my own studio - which I referenced in my post here, and which explains that I will indeed have a soft ceiling, thus my question about whether I should go for the hard concrete floor. So I contributed to this thread by asking a similar question in the same vein. Is that incorrect? If so, I see no indication in the posting rules of this, or I missed it. Frankly, it's what I'm very used to on every other message board that I've been on for years: threads continue with people commenting, adding their own experiences and questions. Is that unacceptable here?

Well, the common thing to do on *this* particular forum is to have 1 thread in the design section to start with. Planning is everything. There you could ask/show/discuss all the stuff for your studio. Then you'd progress to the constuction thread and acoustics. It's just more handy, esp for you, to have all your questions in a dedicated thread. just a thought... ps. you MUST be a Tool fun... 8) [edit]I mean FAN[/edit] sorry :oops:

So by that logic, I shouldn't contribute to any other thread? I shouldn't ask any of my own questions on anyone else's thread? So I should first put my ideas in the "design" forum, spend weeks or months waiting for everyone to contribute their morsels of wisdom, then progress to the "construction" forum and "acoustics" forum, to spend more time waiting for input, and maybe in a few years I might actually get this thing built. As I explained in my OWN thread in the construction forum, I have a simple EXISTING 12x19 room, with not much modification possible to the walls except for ripping them out completely - which isn't an option - and I have very limited time (to work on it and I need to get it done quickly) and a limited budget. I'm doing the best with the materials I can readily get at Lowes/Home Depot and on the cheaply on the Internet. I wish I had a year to plan and build this room, a huge budget to work with, and all the time in the world to rip out and rebuild all the existing walls. But I don't have that luxury. I have a band that needs a place to play and record ASAP, and I need to work as much with my existing construction as necessary. I just wanted to ask specific questions about how to make the best of the situation I'm forced to live with. I thought I could get help within those parameters, but you seem so pie in the sky focused on perfect acoustics by way of the most expensive, time-consuming routes, I guess this forum may not be for me. I've toured studios where some of the greatest songs of all time were recorded and I gotta tell ya - even my crappy little basement room BEFORE I do anything to it is light years ahead of many of them. Tool fun? What the hell is that? PS - You must be a TOOL. Is that what you meant? Thanks. Thanks for the help and warm reception.

Hi James, like you i am in need of answers quickly and like you I will not receive them. I don't think the anybody's trying to rib you, just pointing out that this place works to a different approach to what your used to. Your thread looks brilliant, not finished reading the text yet, but your onto a winner. All we have to do is work out what out questions are then people can answer them, but we are expected to work the question out for ourself. Good Luck with your build sir, i look forward to following it Iain

JamesCzar wrote:

Tool fun? What the hell is that? PS - You must be a TOOL. Is that what you meant? Thanks. Thanks for the help and warm reception.

You Americans will find that not everyone reads English as well as you, and they do not type it as well either. ;)

padded cell wrote:

...we are expected to work the question out for ourself.

Hey, I have pretty much worked out most of my questions on my build based on the available time and materials I have, as well as reading Ethan Winer's amazing site. The only real question I had at this point was what to do about the floor - I was going to leave the carpet, but I'm reconsidering, so that I still have some "live" sound to the room. On the other hand, since I'm a bass player, I don't know that I want to be standing on the concrete for hours every practice. Double edged sword (though I could get a padded area rug or rubber mat for just under me). I thought it would be so simple to ask a question about it, but at this point I'm about |------| this close to deleting all my previous posts and never logging on again. And the concept of being called a tool by a "senior member" after only a few confused posts on a site... well that's just so welcoming. Or was he trying to call me a Tool fan? Well, whether I'm a Tool (I guess he might mean the band?) fan or not, what the hell does that have to do with the discussion. And if I am, I guess I'm less qualified to be on this board? Doesn't sound like ribbing to me in any language.

hello old bean, please take a min and have a read back and you might see where he was coming from. for practice carpet/concreat makes little difference, so get comfortable, for recording, go with acoustics, when recording practices ... your buggered :D Iain

James, it was a typo. I meant "TOOL FAN". . . . since your profile points me to "rosetta stone" studio (which is a TOOL song) and there I find other TOOL related titles (APC songs etc). oh well, I could be wrong :( And this forum is a great resource, but don't expect quick answers and solutions. Especially when yer on a tight budget, dont' have the luxury to tear down existing walls etc. etc. No one's trying to bullshit you, honest. Now, let's talk shop, shall we! (in YOUR threat preferably) :jammin: :shot: :inn: :yahoo:

Ro wrote:

(in YOUR threat preferably)

You can't be threading the FNG!!!