Newb needs help interpreting Bobgold room mode calculations

My room's H/W/L ratios are: 1 : 1.16 : 1.61 So I plugged my room size into the calculator at bob golds. http://www.bobgolds.com/Mode/RoomModes.htm H= 8.12' W= 9.39' L= 13.14' And I got this drawing as a result: So I need help understanding the results. Looks pretty good (I guess...) except for that nasty dip on the right end. Are these results in the "acceptable" range for a non-pro project studio? (My standards are negotiable as to what acceptable means to me :lol: ) I hope the room can be optimized by acoustically treating the existing room and not changing the construction of the room. If not, I could shorten the dimensions of the room (length would be easiest) but I can't expand any dimensions.

It's a clever calculator. BUT - It only works for rectangular boxes - I don't build rectangular boxes, I don't even start my designs with rectangular boxes. They say you can get an idea from it because you use the mean lengths in an angular room, but I'm afraid in my opinion the moment you start changing wall angles the math gets beyond a simple calculator. A company in Australia has developed a software program, not a calculator, that does predict the acoustic response of angled rooms but it's beyond my budget for sure.

Understood. Thank you! I find myself in the unenviable position of having to make the best of a small rectangular box. :cry: :oops: Would you recommend that I run a program like ETF and treat the room in its current dimensions; or would it make a significant enough difference to do the construction to alter the dimensions to be closer to one of those 'recommended ratios' that I've read about before doing the ETF and treatment?

I think Philip Newell said something similar to this "the problem with small room acoustics is that the modes become the acoustics." I have been finding this out to be true in that a small room just does not have the air volume to allow sound waves to expand and create the spaciousness associated with large well designed rooms. Often the best that we can do is to treat the reflective wall areas in reference to the sitting position, use over head cloud assemblies and absorption panels in at least the monitor side wall corners. A large back wall absorption panel can also be of use in keeping early reflections from becoming an issue while mixing. Hope this helps you too.

tiltrite wrote:

Understood. Thank you! I find myself in the unenviable position of having to make the best of a small rectangular box. :cry: :oops: Would you recommend that I run a program like ETF and treat the room in its current dimensions; or would it make a significant enough difference to do the construction to alter the dimensions to be closer to one of those 'recommended ratios' that I've read about before doing the ETF and treatment?

Check out this small studio - it's built in a typical bedroom - all the absorption is in the ceiling and rear wall. It was a great sounding room even though it was small. He had a pair of JBL 4311s soffit mounted and they sounded wonderful. Note how the ceiling and front speaker mounts break up all those pesky parallel walls. http://johnlsayers.com/Pages/Hello_Testing.htm