New Design - moved from Studio Construction

I'm still working out the floor issue, but another roadblock has shown up. Attached are two general floorplans (very generic). The first one was how I originally planned on laying out the studio. The control room front faced the live room, and opened out toward the structural wall of the building. It was fine, but then John suggested using scissor trusses to increase ceiling height. Well, if I follow the contour of the ceiling with that design, then the ceiling would be highest at the front of the control room, and would slope backward to it's lowest point at the back of the control room - exactly the opposite of what I believe you want. So the other option is to invert the location of the control room. The problem with this is that now I would have my back to the band while recording, rather than being able to see them through a window. This would require me to put in some sort of closed circuit video system to be able to visually communicate with the band - not the greatest situation. So, the dilemna - what to do? I could leave the control room in the original configuration, and use a flat ceiling - only sloping the ceilings of the iso booth and live room, or invert the control room. Any words of advise?

Just got done talking with the building inspector, and promptly nuked my entire :cen: design. Zoning doesn't allow me to have a detached building with living space, or two floors. If I want to put it all together, I need to have it attached to the house. Time to start over! :roll:

I'm still designing this thing, and came across what is probably a dumb idea - but I wanted to see if it's been done before. In my control room, to give me the utmost in the volume of the room (not sonic volume, space volume)and because of numerous other advantages (specifically making the placement of wiring receptacles easier - I can still place them inside the studs, but only have to worry about the hole in which the wire itself violates the seal of the wall), I am, of course, utilizing inside-out construction. In order to maximize floor space in the other rooms, I planned on utilizing a "standard" construction on any wall next to the control room. This, of course, would give me the spacing of the studs as part of the spring in the msm wall. However, the remaining walls of the other rooms could feasibly be inside out construction. Is there a problem with utilizing one wall of a room as "standard", and have the remaining walls inside out? I would assume I simply need to insure that the joints between the two walls were WELL sealed, but I don't foresee any problems other than that. My only other option would be to use inside-out construction in all rooms, and pull the studs abutting any other room four to six inches away from the "mating" studs - giving me less available floor space in the remaining rooms. Did I explain this well enough, or would pictures help?

However, the remaining walls of the other rooms could feasibly be inside out construction. Is there a problem with utilizing one wall of a room as "standard", and have the remaining walls inside out? I would assume I simply need to insure that the joints between the two walls were WELL sealed, but I don't foresee any problems other than that.

That should work fine. As long as you keep the same mass all around, and keep it sealed tight, it doesn't really matter how you support that mass. (Of course, I'm assuming that you'll keep the air gap large enough to not raise the MSM resonant frequency to high). - Stuart -

Every year, at least 10 recently completed studios or mixing rooms appear...

This is your last warning: Any more spam or irrelevant trash from you, and you will be banned. - Stuart -

I guess that is why the spam post should not be removed but rather the links in the post....it always looks like someone is talking to themselves;)

Back to the topic at hand: Well, I threw together another layout, taking a whole lot of things into consideration. (1) My original layout ideas did not give me a whole lot of view into the live room - that doesn't make me happy. (2) The control room seemed small to me, given the space I am planning on building. Based on this, I tried to optimize those two issues, and created a few new ones. Based on my limited knowledge, however, I doubt these are insurmountable. Attached is a picture of the proposed floorplan. My concerns are twofold: (1) The "iso booth" - it's small. I thought it would be good for recording electric guitar, or some vocals where I was looking for a dry sound. As can be seen, I plan on shoving the corners with rockwool type insulation, and using slat resonators on all the other exposed walls, with rockwool behind. Is this simply too small to be useable? (2) The back corner of the control room - currently it's wasted space. It is not truly symmetrical, for a reason. By cheating it to one side, I get a better view of the live room through the window of the control room. It's still not perfect, but better than it was. Although it's not symmetrical, could I expand the inner leaf into the corner, frame a slat wall into what is currently the inner leaf, and fill the back area with bass traps? Please let me know what you think.

Just as a vent - it is a rip roaring pain in the butt to try to match a vaulted ceiling to a splayed wall - especially when trying to design it for inside-out construction, and get all of it sealed! I would dump my current sketchup file just as a status point, but it's 2 Mb, and even zipped it's 1 Mb. AAAAAAH!!!!!

Anyone have an opinion on the size of the "iso room" and the bass trap area for the control room in the previous post (actually 2 posts above)?

Good question- How do your match up/join a vaulted ceiling to the slat walls? Need to ask this my thread...................

A question for John (if he has time) - In "Scott's Studio" that you designed, he also has RP8's soffit mounted, and I wondered whether the back was vented on those soffits to release heat from the speakers, or if there was not enough heat buildup to worry about. Also, there is discussion about speaker height in the soffits. The general rule of thumb that I have seen throughout Rod's book and John's recording manual is 1.2 meters (about 3' 11"). However, I since I am 6'5" tall, in order to get the speakers to ear height I have the design currently with the center of the woofers at about 4' 4". Is the 3' 11" rule simply because not many people are as tall as me?

However, I since I am 6'5" tall, in order to get the speakers to ear height I have the design currently with the center of the woofers at about 4' 4". Is the 3' 11" rule simply because not many people are as tall as me?

Yup! :) The idea is to have the acoustic axis of the speaker at the same height as your ear, ("you" being the guy sitting at the mix position). If that happens to be higher or lower than 1.2m, then adjust as needed. Either raise/lower the speakers to get them to the right height, or tilt them forward/backward a little, for the same effect. By the way it is NOT the #center of the woofer" that you want at ear height, but rather the acoustic axis of the entire speaker cabinet, which is generally much closer to the tweeter than it is to the woofer. Some manufacturers do publish the location of the acoustic axis of their speakers, others don't. If you can't find that info for your speakers, then use a point either on or close to the tweeter, and you won't be far wrong... So if you have your woofers at your ear height right now, then you'll probably need to drop your speakers a few inches to get the acoustic axis at ear height. Regarding the vent issue: active speakers in soffits will practically always needed cooling vents, while passive speakers possibly wont, unless you run them at very high power levels all the time. - Stuart

Thank you Stuart.

Just as I thought things were going smoothly in design, another twist shows up. This is going to be more of a historical question - and I know opinions vary widely. In addition, the question may belong more in the speaker area, but I wanted to keep it all in my design thread. My original plan was to soffit mount my KRK RP8 monitors. John did it in one of his designs, and the feedback that he received from that design was that they sounded great. However, I just found out that a pair of JBL Century L100 speakers will be showing up on my doorstep for a song. I know that the L100 is the consumer version of the 4311 studio monitors, and are somewhat different in design. However, as the 4311 was so popular for so many years in studios, my thought was that utilizing the L100s as a second monitor set may be a good thing. The question is - which to soffit mount? I know that the JBLs are bass heavy, and I have no issue with either tweaking the electronics in them to smooth things out, but I'm at a loss. Also, I am not sure as the L100 is actually close enough to the 4311 to truly be useful as a monitor. Anybody want to throw in an (unbiased or biased, doesn't matter) opinion?

here's an idea on layout if its not too late to join in... you could build out your speaker box to allow you to mount either since the JBL are larger and you could retro fit an smaller speaker box later. that said, the KRK may well outperform the JBL just because of the updates in technology and design. here's an interesting link where someone re-created the L100 with upgraded drivers and crossover... http://www.troelsgravesen.dk/JBL_L100.htm

Glenn, I like the simplified layout - thank you very much. One thing that I was trying to do in the control room - and maybe I misunderstood John's suggestion early in the thread - was to utilize the scissor trusses that were suggested to (a) add a 12 degree slope from the "front" of the control room toward the back, peaking at the center, and then sloping back down, to reduce modal issues from parallel walls. It also (unfortunately, as I was drawing) added extreme complexity to the task of building the marriage between the walls and ceiling. I drew it out stud by stud - thus why my latest sketchup file isn't uploaded, it's way too big. If I don't have to worry about that sloped ceiling in the control room, then I will most probably work from a variation of your suggestion. Much as I am comfortable in the PC world, I'm not as adept in the web world - does anyone know of a location I can host a 3 meg file so I can link to it from the site? At least then people could see what I have designed so far. As far as the KRKs outperforming the JBLs, you are almost certainly correct - but I thought that a "second opinion" set of speakers would help me. I had seen the thread on replacing the crossover on the JBL, and there is another thread on it as well. http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/ ... for-L-100A I haven't looked closely enough between the two designs to really be able to tell the different approaches yet, but they both look interesting. With the history of those JBLs, I can't wait to start playing with them!

Why not soffit mount both sets? Put one set above the other, and tilt the soffit wall a bit. You won't be able to get both sets aimed perfectly at your ears, of course, so aim the lower ones perfectly, and choose the set that has the best off-axis response for the ones that go higher up. Not sure if that would work, acoustically, from the point of view of messing up the infinite baffle concept, but it seems like it should be OK. (Maybe its a lousy idea. Perhaps Andre or Barefoot or one of the other speaker experts could comment on that.) - Stuart -

do you have some photos of the space so we can see the construction?

Right now it's an open field next to my house. I could take pictures of it, but I'm not sure what good that would do. I am in the planning stages only - I have the luxury of building from the ground up. Also, fortunately, I have the luxury of time, since I probably will not be able to start building for a long while. I won't be able to start building for a while because the one luxury I don't have - unlimited money - is what I have to budget for. As I said in the beginning of my post, I plan on spending about $20,000 for the building and as much of the studio framing as possible. The rest of it will be finished as the budget allows. As I said, John suggested that I use scissor trusses in the construction, to give me more air space above. The only real constraints I have are these: (1) The building can be no more than 30' wide, as it must fit between my deck and the meter pole (I put the meter pole at its location specifically to make it easier to power this building). (2) I want the entire building to be no more than 40 feet long (for cost purposes), and will not exceed 44 feet (there's a beautiful huge maple tree that I will not remove - it provides incredible shade). (3) The front 20 feet (of the 40 foot space) will be my wood shop. The remaining area is reserved for the recording studio. (4) The pitch of the roof itself will not exceed 6/12 - because I am going to roof it. Since I hate heights in general, I will not step foot on a roof steeper than 6/12. (5) The meter pole houses a 400A meter base. A 200A entrance currently goes to the house - the other 200A is reserved for this building. These are the assumptions I have made: (a) I will use post frame construction for the shell of the building, with 2x6 studs between the posts. While the studs will not carry the load of the building, it will provide stiffness for the outer leaf, and space to insulate for isolation. (b) I will use scissor trusses on the building, as they add little cost, but provide more room. Because of the above stated pitch, the pitch of the ceiling will be 3/12, per the truss design I have been provided by my local home improvement store. I tried to remove all of my "studio design" from my sketchup file, but it is still over 1.8megs - after I purged all unused entities. So I have taken screenshots of it. Hopefully it is useful.

ok, so if the CR is aligned with the trusses so the ceiling goes front to back when you install an inner truss and/or false ceiling, it should be fine.

ok, so if the CR is aligned with the trusses so the ceiling goes front to back when you install an inner truss and/or false ceiling, it should be fine.

This goes back to a question I asked before you joined the conversation, Glenn - and I think it may have been missed (or they didn't understand my question). I will rephrase it so that perhaps it will be a little more clear. My understanding is that if you increase the ceiling height, you want the low point on the ceiling to be at the "front" of the control room - where the desk is. The highest point on the ceiling you would want in the "back" of the control room. My understanding of this was to minimize reflections coming from the ceiling. If that is correct, then I would be sitting (at my desk) with my back to the band. That doesn't seem like a very efficient work environment. My other option would be to raise the ceiling from both ends, creating a peak in the center of the room. (I say center because a 3/12 pitch, which is what the scissor truss ceiling pitch is, equates out to a 14 degree rise, not too much over the minimum 12 degrees to be effective) At that point, I could turn the desk around and face the band. Would this work? Also, another question - and I really want to open this up for a lot of discussion. I truly want to understand the differences in philosophy behind this. I have seen a number of design techniques as I have searched through this site, specifically with regard to room shape. A number of designs have utilized the 12 degree splay (6 degrees each wall) in the walls to minimize all of the effects of having parallel walls, before any sort of treatment occurs. A number of designs build parallel walls, then place secondary structures inside each room (usually with slat resonators, etc) to then minimize the effects of the parallel walls. Why such a difference in design technique? I understand parallel walls are MUCH easier to build, but it seems that you are losing quite a bit of space by going this route. Much as I have enjoyed Rod's book and this forum, I have not found a clear cut explanation as to the differences in design philosophy. Any insight?

you face the live room but you build a false ceiling where the front angles correctly and you use the overhead space for bass trapping etc. i think this is the point John was making earlier on this thread.

My understanding is that if you increase the ceiling height, you want the low point on the ceiling to be at the "front" of the control room - where the desk is.

Exactly. If you can't do that, then the next best is to have a flat ceiling, the same height all over.

If that is correct, then I would be sitting (at my desk) with my back to the band. That doesn't seem like a very efficient work environment.

Yup. That would be the drawback. One way around that is with CCTV. Cameras and screens. Not ideal, but it works.

My other option would be to raise the ceiling from both ends, creating a peak in the center of the room.

Do you mean that the peak would run down the center axis of the room, being highest in the middle and lowest on the left and right? If so, that can work too. But if you mean that the peak runs crosswise, being low at the front and back and high across the middle, well, I think I'd avoid that.

Also, another question - and I really want to open this up for a lot of discussion. I truly want to understand the differences in philosophy behind this. I have seen a number of design techniques as I have searched through this site, specifically with regard to room shape. A number of designs have utilized the 12 degree splay (6 degrees each wall) in the walls to minimize all of the effects of having parallel walls, before any sort of treatment occurs. A number of designs build parallel walls, then place secondary structures inside each room (usually with slat resonators, etc) to then minimize the effects of the parallel walls. Why such a difference in design technique? I understand parallel walls are MUCH easier to build, but it seems that you are losing quite a bit of space by going this route. Much as I have enjoyed Rod's book and this forum, I have not found a clear cut explanation as to the differences in design philosophy.

The answer is: "yes!" :) As the saying goes, there are many ways of skinning a cat. There are many approaches to designing a studio, and most of them work. A rectangular room with parallel walls, properly designed and treated, can be a really great room. And it can also be really lousy if not designed/built/treated right. On the other side of the coin, a room with splayed walls and ceiling can also be a really great room, if done right. Or it can be really bad if done wrong. So the answer is: "six of one, or half a dozen of the other". Both approaches work, and there are pros and cons either way. Design trade-offs for one reason or another. Splayed walls do take up more space, absolutely, but then so do large treatment panels. Also, splaying walls makes it much harder to figure out room modes, whereas for a rectangular room is is dead easy. But splayed walls are necessary for a true RFZ. Soffit mounting your speakers almost begs to have your side walls splayed too. And splaying just looks cooler! But it is harder to do and might be more expensive. Etc. For every reason that you can give me for splaying a wall, I can come up with another one for not splaying it. And vice versa. To me, it seems to be more an issue of personal preference: do you like the look of splayed walls, or hate it? Do rectangles mess with your sense of aesthetics, or do you love them? That's pretty much it, as far as I can see, since either approach can be made to work just fine. - Stuart -

Soundman2020 wrote:

A rectangular room with parallel walls, properly designed and treated, can be a really great room. And it can also be really lousy if not designed/built/treated right. On the other side of the coin, a room with splayed walls and ceiling can also be a really great room, if done right. Or it can be really bad if done wrong... ...That's pretty much it, as far as I can see, since either approach can be made to work just fine.

+1 with a bullet! :shot: Andre

Thanks, Andre! :) - Stuart -