Dimensions from a musical point of view...

(Sorry, I don't know if this is the right subforum but...erm...anyway) (2nd sorry...I just edited the topic-title. The one before headed into another direction) Does anyone have a clue about what is better or worse? Does it make (from the musical point of view) any difference if my room has a width of e.g. G2 :) meaning 352cm/11.53ft instead of 360cm/~11.8ft or musical spoken: somewhere between G2 and F#2? I know that one can't tune a "real" instrument "in real live" exactly so unless I won't use a e.g. a sinewave I may hit the sweet spot, sorry: tone, eventually. Semitones, quartertones and of course even smaller out-of- tune-tones create a flickering or floating or ________ (don't know how to name it) in the sound. What maybe will have the effect, that one cannot clearly hear what the f*** is going on during a mix or recording...or why the bassman is always soooo out of tune or something. So, does it make any sense to avoid width or length which equals a "real" musical tone? Maybe this is a dumb or "voodoo" question but hey...aren't we all a little voodoo??? :evil: Any thoughts welcome. Cheers, Carsten

carsten_d wrote:

Does it make (from the musical point of view) any difference if my room has a width of e.g. G2 :)

Studio designer Wes Lachot uses music theory that way in his room designs, so your idea is a "sound" one. 8)

So, does it make any sense to avoid width or length which equals a "real" musical tone?

I asked the same question several years ago, and the consensus was that mode Qs are usually low enough that there's some overlap whether you are exactly on a note frequency or not. Further, mode predictions are approximate, and you'll never nail them to within 1 Hz unless the wall are foot-thick cement. So just follow the usual "favorable" ratios and don't sweat the rest. --Ethan

Ethan, thanks a lot. And indeed I expected that. Anyways, I will follow the ratios and in my spare time I'll try to figure out how Mr. Lachot combines/uses music theory in his designs... :wink: Btw. great builds by Wes Lachot. Amazing designs. Thanks, Carsten

carsten_d wrote:

I'll try to figure out how Mr. Lachot combines/uses music theory in his designs.

I should have mentioned this yesterday - I believe he favors an augmented tri-tone for the three dimensions because that gives an equal distribution to the lowest length, width, and height modes. For example, C, E, and G#. --Ethan

Ethan, that is really cool stuff. I just read this article on Wes' site and have to admit that this makes soooo much sense to me. It's all about music! Before I read this I spent some time trying to figure out what you have written (C - E - G#). Why augmented? So I 1st looked at Wikipedia for Quinte (or fifth). On the german site i saw that the fifth has a ratio of 2/3. That was new to me - the term ratio in conjunction with an intervall (never heard of that before)- but on the other hand, of course, it had to be! IT IS A RATIO! The relation between two notes is an intervall, is a ratio. Anyway, I clicked meself further through the net stumbled upon "golden section" (not ratios) and the Fibonacci series as well and was still wondering "why augmented...why augmented"?! Finally got back to Wes' site and found this article... And suddenly there was light :) Cool. A few days before I read THIS post from Eric Desart and he said: "Please be careful to see room ratios as absolutes. (...) Hence don't look to these exact ratios, but judge them by ranges/areas." Wes isn't in the assumed good areas, too - but isn't too far away either (with a 1 : 5/4 : 8/5 or C : E : G# (enharmonic Ab) or 1 : 1.25 : 1.6. But the musical aspect of Wes' approach is something that I really missed during my research and design-time over the last couple of month. And now I'm glad :yahoo: Thanks a lot for that Ethan, Carsten