Hello all ,
I am currently considering adapting a design by Wes Lachot to my home studio control room. The Wes design was published in a Sept. 2004 EQ ( http://www.weslachot.com/new/articles_eq.html ). The design itself will be attached below for easy reference.
I have run into a hang-up contemplating the adaptation , so I turn to you folks for much needed help.
My space is a preexisting rectangular room with dimensions of 7.8 x 14.8 x 26.3. I will be building inner shell with splayed walls , trapezoidal shape, exactly as the Wes design shows. Due to the 2" difference in ceiling height, I have scaled down my dimensions accordingly ; my splayed wall dimensions = 7.8 x (10.7 to 15.6) x 20.48
*However*, because I do have a much longer length of room to begin with (26.3') , I would have to shorten the room by 6 feet to keep it in exact dimensions of the original design. I cannot calculate the modes of the Wes design myself , but I imagine the dimensions are optimized for an even spread of modes in this type of room.
I have seen posts on this board that suggest that perhaps having a larger room is more beneficial than worrying about mode relationships. This is usually brought up while discussing rectangular rooms. If this may hold true for non-parallel walled rooms, then I am left to wonder ; do I need to strictly adhere to the original design dimensions, or may I leave the length as is to achieve a slightly bigger control room.
ps. ** Just in case: Why am I splaying the walls? For the same reasons Wes points out in his article. Is having a smaller control room a problem for me? 6 feet more would make it more comfortable, but it would never outweigh having having better acoustics in the room.
many thanks in advance for your help--
Help adapting a Wes Lachot control room design
Originally posted at johnlsayers.com, topic 11165.
"whose higher expressions approach the Golden Mean proportion of 1.618. The proportions of the studio itself are derived from the same mathematical series." /quote
Existing room diminsions:
7.8 x 14.8 x 26.3
With the Golden mean ratio (pi) wouldn't your room change to:
7.8 X 12.62 X 20.42 ?
This next line includes a number that is outside of your existing boundaries 14.8 feet:
" my splayed wall dimensions = 7.8 x (10.7 to>>15.6<<) x 20.48 "
Am I getting close here or are you way out in front of me?
Definitely a typo, thanks for pointing out. The splayed wall dimensions I calculated was :
7.8 x (10.73, 14.63) x 20.48
that is a median/avg width of 12.64, and short parallel side of 10.73 (front room), long side of 14.63 (rear room)
To achieve this I scaled my dimensions based on the 2" difference in room height from the original Wes design. So , I multiplied each side (of original dimensions) by 7.8/8.
Hope I am on the right track
"whose higher expressions approach the Golden Mean proportion of 1.618. The proportions of the studio itself are derived from the same mathematical series." /quote Existing room diminsions: 7.8 x 14.8 x 26.3 With the Golden mean ratio (pi) wouldn't your room change to: 7.8 X 12.62 X 20.42 ? This next line includes a number that is outside of your existing boundaries 14.8 feet: " my splayed wall dimensions = 7.8 x (10.7 to>>15.6<<) x 20.48 " Am I getting close here or are you way out in front of me?
Yes sir, but the golden mean ratio is a specific property. That is 1: 1.61.
Right on then, I will use the exact ratio
Yes sir, but the golden mean ratio is a specific property. That is 1: 1.61.
Re-read Wes' article. He notes that the ratios approach the golden ratio. If he thought it was sacrosanct, he would have used it and said so. He noted mathematical similarity in the trend of the Fibonacci series converging on the golden ratio.
Trendily,
Andre