Hi Folks,
I'm a new boy here so hello!
I am based in the UK.
I am in the process of employing an architect to design a room for me to be used as a writing room/ mixing room for club music. It is a completely new build and is to be situated in my Garden. Due to budget restrictions, the architect is not a specialist in acoustics, and neither will the builder be.... so i am trying my best to make sure that i have an overview of the design plans and can try and hopefully get advice from more experienced people that the plans seem ok so that the project doesn't end up being a complete waste of money. My budget is only about £12K...so with this and space restrictions i have to basically get the best i can.
I will look at other issues in later posts...in this one i am really concerned with best room shape and size for a room where i need mostly wish to effectively mix club music with deep bass.
I understand that 2500 cubic feet is recommended as minimum volume for control room with out having problems with modes.
Unfortunately i don't have enough space in the Garden for something so big.
At a push 1500 cubic feet is the best i can hope for.
Specifically the space limitations are that (considering the thickness of the walls for soundproofing, the design of which i will surely ask for advice on in a separate post) are as follows
its internal finished dimensions cannot be more than (In metres)
2.480 H
3.500 W
5.554 L
In fact the plan at the moment has these exact dimensions and results in close to 1500 cubic volume.
Does that sound ok?
I have looked at room mode calculators and tried to understand the effect these dimensions will have on the sound of the room...but tbh i don't understand what i am looking at.
Do these above dimensions look like a safe bet for minimum acoustic problems within this size.....this size is already causing a little conflict with my partner so if there is anyway a better ratio that was slightly smaller especially in width it might just save my relationship! are there any other suggestions for good ratios within these measurements that would work well.
Another option, which my partner would be much keener on would be for me to use smaller dimesnions of
H 2.438
W 3.101
L 3.755
Obviously this results in a smaller volume ....but there are a few bonuses to consider...
my girlfreind wont accuse me of completey ruining the Garden.
The extra length left (it is only width/depth that she is concerned with losing) could be used to add on a sizable storage space attached to the studio which would also add an extra level of security as the design would be that you would first enter a door in to the storage space...then enter the soundproof (room in a room)studio control room from there.
This would mean that the studio control room could always be free of any clutter and also my sizable record collection could be stored in there meaning the smaller control room option would mean a more open 'tidier' space.
This space may also be useful in the HVAC/venting of the airtight room in some way...but i am not that far into looking at aircon yet so will have to see...prob wont be able to afford it!
So clearly some advantages to this ...but if the larger room would definateley be much better for accurate mixing..then that is the way to go!?
Out of these two options...predominantly from the perspective of a flat frequency response and good sounding room for mixes that will hopefully translate well...which is the better one?
Alternatively if anyone has any ideas for better dimensions i would be very grateful if you could offer any advice...
Having said all of this...the architect has also suggested to increase the volume io the room i could consider 'diggin down' so that the height actually still falls within permitted planning development restrictions ..but technically internally it will have more height...i suspect however this will be considerably more costly ...any thoughts/ experience with this?
Many thanks to anyone who has taken the time to read this, any advice would be very very much appreciated. I will upload some plans as the design progresses when i have an idea of best room ratios/size.
Cheers
James
PLease advise on best room size/ratio for control mixing rm
Originally posted at johnlsayers.com, topic 14588.
"I understand that 2500 cubic feet is recommended as minimum volume for control room with out having problems with modes.
Unfortunately i don't have enough space in the Garden for something so big.
At a push 1500 cubic feet is the best i can hope for."
What I have to say is simply things picked up over the years, take it at face value.
Room ratios, in general are more to keep us from building poor rooms, like a square or cubical room. There is not a Holy Grail as it pertains to ratios and they are often reviewed and updated with better computational technique from learned people, like Eric Desart (http://forum.studiotips.com/viewtopic.php?p=5570 ) and Trevor Cox ( http://www.acoustics.salford.ac.uk/acou ... tent=index ).
Isolating a ratio that fits into your restrictions is the best that you can do. A taller ceiling height is better than shorter so the room volume is not a simple "more is better".
Alton Everest, in his book Master Handbook of Acoustics, lists his plots done on room ratios from Sepmeyer, Louden, Volkmann and Boner and assumes a ceiling height of ten feet or 3.048 meters to get the smoothest room characteristics @ low frequency in smaller rooms (1,500 cubic feet or less).
Eric Desarts' paper uses 3 meter (10 feet) +/- as the ceiling height as well.
Trevor Cox plots are based simply on room volume so I guess it has to be assumed a taller ceiling height, as best as I can tell, and starts at 50m3 or 1765 cubic feet. Mr. Cox quoted Walker with this statement, "Walker states that the aim of the regulations [ratios] is to avoid the worse cases, rather than to provide proscriptive optimum ratios. "
(brackets mine)
Find out how much real estate you can give up and work backwards from there, it's a lot easier then chasing your tail, so to speak.
Just to add mass to the confusion, Wes Lachot ( http://www.weslachot.com ) wrote a paper that was published for a lecture, the paper titled "Architectural and Musical scales in sound room design" and can be found at this link http://www.weslachot.com/pub7.html
Cheers for the reply dude.
Did u not notice my user name? LOL
Thanks for reading my post and putting a reply but that all went way over my head. i'm not looking for a degree in room acoustics/design..i just wanna mix music in a good sounding room. .and perhaps be able to record vocals in there too ideally.
So the real estate that i am able to work with does not allow for internal finished dimensions of more than :
H 2.438M
W 3.500M
L 5.552M
Therefore the dimensions i am considering for the studio room are
H 2.438
W 3.101
L 3.755
This would mean that the extra length i have to play with could be used as a store room to keep the mixing/writing room free of clutter ..but should i just make the studio longer instead?
in a nutshell should a room with these dimensions result in a room with terrible/ok/good or (I very much doubt) excellent sound... and i mean this in the context that if i mix a record in there it will translate well to other systems in other rooms.
I am shooting for a good sounding room...ie minimal problems with my basic existing treatment....bass traps in 4 main corners . Monster bass trap on back wall and panels at early reflections on side walls and ceiling. The materials of the room for soundproofing the walls are Two layers of 140 dense concrete back with 55mm kingspan in the middle and plaster on the inside...to give you an idea incase this has any implications.... the ceiling and floor plan i don't quite follow yet...but it is essentially a room within a room construction...
does the fact that it is soundproof mean that it will be harder to get a flat response?
Any advice?
Thanks again
James
"..the architect has also suggested..."
Let the Architect get the education...it's not rocket science ;)
Brien
He already has one but unfortunately it's not in acoustics! And he doesn't really need to worry too much about my tight budget....hence the digging down route wld probably take me out of budget. So i was looking for adivce from people who deal with acoustics if my room looks ok...as i can't afford a pro studio designer this method of using a normal architect and getting peace of mind by asking questions is my best option.
Never mind...i thought that people here might share their experience and knowledge and let me know if my plan was looking ok, maybe i came to the wrong place, maybe i asked the wrong questions.
Cheers
James
"Due to budget restrictions, the architect is not a specialist in acoustics, and neither will the builder be...."
Where are you plans?
Please review these rules:
viewtopic.php?f=17&t=7572
Please review what John Sayers does here with his design abilities:
http://www.johnlsayers.com/Pages/Projects.htm
You will notice that the room shapes are not rectangular but incorporate splayed walls and ceilings that, while making it difficult to assess the room modes, does create a diffuse environment, eliminates parallel boundaries that create flutter echo and his designs are pleasing to the eye.
There is no simple answer to your question only that this is a complicated process and requires someone to learn something about what it is they want and how much they are willing to put into it.
If room ratios are your only concern then find the one on the top of the list and use that.
Already mentioned that ten foot tall ceilings are assumed and 1500 cubic feet is considered a small room, but all things being equal, 1500 cubic feet is a nice sized room.
You can use a 9 foot tall ceiling and base your ratios, if you are going to use them, on that. Remember that the ratios are based on the dimensions of the >finished< product and are often not scalable.
They are not where the walls are placed, it will be the actual measurements of the room.
So if you use nine feet as the ceiling height, then the nine feet is the measurement to the >finished< ceiling [ after all sheetrock is installed].
If you use best ratio as per Louden - 1:1.4:1.9 then 9 is your 1, 1.4X9=12.6 and 1.9X9=17.1
9 feet tall, 12-6 wide and 17.1 long, finished points to the hard boundaries.
... and maybe you didn't follow the forum rules! You were lucky to get the responses you did. There is an announcement at the top of the forum about what to do to assure getting as many responses as possible. The announcement leads to this post (click here). Actually, several people, who are experts on this forum, will most likely not reply if you don't do what is written in that post. Many others who are very helpful, will most likely not reply out of respect for the moderators' wishes. Anyway...:maybe i came to the wrong place, maybe i asked the wrong questions.
Reasonable, but not fantastic. Close to Louden's 4th best ratioits internal finished dimensions cannot be more than (In metres) 2.480 H 3.500 W 5.554 L I have looked at room mode calculators and tried to understand the effect these dimensions will have on the sound of the room...but tbh i don't understand what i am looking at.
That's actually a better ratio: almost exactly pegged on Sepmeyer's best. But either will work, and with a bit of nudging both could be improved. So your decision doesn't need to be based on ratios. That said, more volume in a room is always better, and more height is generally better, so make it as big and as tall as you can without creating domestic issues!Another option, which my partner would be much keener on would be for me to use smaller dimesnions of H 2.438 W 3.101 L 3.755
considering ONLY frequency response (without the benefits of more volume), then #2 is slightly better. But there isn't much in it. Why does the height have to drop from 2.480 to 2.438 in the second case, if all you are doing is taking a slice off one end?Out of these two options...predominantly from the perspective of a flat frequency response and good sounding room for mixes that will hopefully translate well...which is the better one?
It would work, but I agree: it sounds expensive, and might introduce drainage / damp / humidity problems. On the other hand, having earth up against part of your outer-leaf would be good, acoustically... But if you are on a tight budget, then I'd forget that, and try to keep your floor as flat as possible: either use the concrete slab as-is, or just put something very thin on it, such as laminate flooring. You might also be able to squeeze out a few more cm of height by designing the ceiling carefully, using the inside-out technique.the architect has also suggested to increase the volume io the room i could consider 'diggin down' so that the height actually still falls within permitted planning development restrictions ..but technically internally it will have more height...i suspect however this will be considerably more costly
That's more a function of the room layout, speaker geometry, symmetry, and treatment, since both of your alternatives are still small. So I'd be more concerned about perfecting those, than about trying to hit an exact ratio.and i mean this in the context that if i mix a record in there it will translate well to other systems in other rooms.
There are 12 corners in a room: Why not use at least a few of the others as well? Its a small room: it will need lots of bass trapping.ie minimal problems with my basic existing treatment....bass traps in 4 main corners
I'm not sure that I understand what you mean. What is "140 dense concrete back"? I've heard the term "Kingspan" before, but I don't recall what it is. Maybe you could post a link.The materials of the room for soundproofing the walls are Two layers of 140 dense concrete back with 55mm kingspan in the middle and plaster on the inside...
It has huge implications! It would be good if you could post a diagram (in SketchUp format) or how you plan to build those walls, because there are methods for isolating and treating rooms acoustically that you and your architect might not have considered, so modifying your construction method could improve your dimensions, and your ratios, and your isolation, and your overall room sound.to give you an idea in case this has any implications....
Nope! Isolation and treatment are two entirely different things. In any event "sound proofing" is impossible: There is no conceivable wall that can stop a sufficiently loud sound from being audible in the room next door (EG: 25 kg of dynamite exploding 3m away prduces a shock wave equivalent to about 200 dB). But you CAN isolate a room to whatever extent you need, within reason, provided that you specify what that extent is in advance, then design and build a structure to attain it. You don't seem to be doing that. Isolation is one thing, and treatment is another. The best possible treatment for a room is to not have a room at all Just set up in the middle of a very large open field, with nothing around for hundreds of meters in all directions. But that means you have zero isolation. The best possible isolation is massively thick, dense concrete or rock walls, several meters thick, but of course that would sound like crap inside. The point is, if you are going to isolate, you will need to treat afterward. There are some things you can do in the design of the isolation that will help with the treatment, but for any practical size home studio, treatment is going to be a huge issue, and doesn't depend very much on the method of isolation.does the fact that it is soundproof mean that it will be harder to get a flat response?
This might sound harsh, and you seem to be a bit touchy about the responses you got anyway, but it's what I would sincerely suggest: Since neither you nor your architect nor your builder know anything about acoustics, one of you is going to have to learn. (Remember the nursery rhyme, "Three blind mice"? :) One of you needs to learn how to see!) You cannot expect that the three of you can just throw together something based on wishes and hopes, and that it will turn out "great", just by chance. Not even "good". You'd be lucky if it turns out "bad". Chances are extremely high that it will turn out "terrible", at best. Not trying to be harsh: You'll find that people here speak their mind, and tell you the facts straight up. Hopefully, you'll take that in the spirit it is intended: to HELP you, to not insult you. xSpace's comments are along those lines. He's pointing out (in his own way) that nobody on the project knows what they are doing, and that somebody needs to learn BEFORE you go any further, or else the entire things will be an acoustic flop, wasting a lot of money. It might look fantastic aesthetically if you have a good architect, and it might be the best construction on the planet, if you have a good builder, but I can guarantee, up front and without even knowing any of you, that without someone on board that understands even the basics of acoustics, it will absolutely be an acoustic disaster. Since it is rather unlikely that your architect or builder will learn (and certainly not for free), it looks like yu will have to do the job. Folks here will certainly help out with commentary and suggestions, but you'll have to do the groundwork yourself. I'd suggest that you start by purchasing and reading two books: "Master Handbook of Acoustics" by F. Alton Everest, and "Home Recording Studio: Build it like the pros" by Rod Gervais. Between those two books, you'll learn the basics very well, then you can post your design here for comment and suggestion, and you'll get plenty of help with that, from some very knowledgeable people in the world of acoustics, perhaps even from John himself, or from the very same guy who wrote one of those two books (Rod is a member and regular poster here). It doesn't get better than that! But you still have to do the leg work yourself. That would be my advice, FWIW. - Stuart -Any advice?
Thanks for your feedback.
Sorry. I think i'm suffering with information overload.
I did have a few comments/questions regarding some of your guys questions/comments but i'll try and
read the rules and the books you recommended if i recover ......and before i go any further.
But one comment which i must quickly make is that i meant concrete block, not 'concrete back'....two layers (of i think 140mm each)!
Is that a really really bad idea judging by what you said about thick concrete would sound like crap inside?
I'm gonna pass out now.
Welcome to the insane world of studio building! That's normally how it starts out...I think i'm suffering with information overload.
Actually, it's a really, really GOOD idea.... for isolation! And yes, it will sound like crap... :) Let me explain: The problem is that materials that are really good for sound isolation, are really bad at treatment. And the ones that are really good for treatment, are really bad at isolating. Isolation needs mass, and lots of it. And density. And rigidity (stiffness). Different parts of the audio spectrum are blocked by each of those characteristics: some frequencies are better blocked by pure mass, some are better blocked by stiffness. So anything that is very stiff, very dense, and very massive is a great isolator across the entire spectrum.... but really lousy for treatment. On the other hand, treatment generally needs soft, fluffy, flexible, fibrous, light weight, porous materials, such as fiberglass insulation, mineral wool, and stuff like that. Soft and fluffy fuzz materials are wonderful for acoustic treatment! But really lousy at isolation... To get an idea: Turn up your stereo really loud, and put a folded handkerchief up against your ear. Can you still hear the music? Yup. Pretty much just as loud, practically no change, with maybe a tad off the highs, but the difference is minimal. Now put a dinner plate up against your ear. Wow. Big difference. All of a sudden it went an awful lot quieter! Both the handkerchief and the dinner plate are roughly the same thickness, but the plate is rigid and massive, while the cloth is soft and porous. The plate stops the sound, the handkerchief does not. Now put the plate about a foot away from your ear, and angle it so that you can clearly hear the sound reflecting off it. Then put the folded handkerchief directly over the plate. Wow! Big difference! The timbre and tone of the reflection change completely. In other words, the hard, rigid, massive plate is great at isolating, but lousy for treatment since it reflects too much. The handkerchief is lousy at isolating, but great for treatment. That's the conundrum faced by studio designers: The stuff that is good for one thing is lousy for the other. So you can't accomplish everything with just just one type of material. Either it will make your room sound fantastic but not isolate very much, or it will isolate fantastically, but not sound so great. That's why I said that these are two very different aspects of your room, and pretty much incompatible. You have to learn to separate the two in your head, since they don't really go together (despite the claims of internet mythology). So, the general plan to designing a studio is to first figure out how much isolation you need (which you do by taking real measurements with a sound level meter), and designing a structure that will give you the required amount of isolation, also called "transmission loss". But since that generally means that things will sound really ugly in there once you build it, you then need to decide on what treatment you are going to add inside the room, to make it sound good again. Two separate things, two different approaches. Of course, Murphy heard about all this, so to make your life even easier he arranges things so that some types of treatment can interact with some types of isolation, to screw things up for you... :) and he makes sure that none of this is intuitive! We can't see sound, so it's really hard to get your head around what it is doing inside your room. Which is probably the source of so many of the myths and voodoo that you see all over the internet, such as egg crates on the ceiling, carpets on the walls, walls with multiple "leaves" in them, light weight floating floors, and magical materials that defy the laws of physics. All of them are worthless junk, and you won't find them promoted here at all. On the other hand, this forum and the builds that go on here are based on solid science, sound (excuse the pun) principles of physics, and tried and proven techniques. Some of the best designers and acousticians in the industry post here, and folks like me sit here in awe, soaking up their wisdom and learning as much as we possibly can (for free!), and then trying to put it to good use in our own studios. It takes a while to understand the basics (as you already discovered!) precisely acoustics isn't intuitive or obvious, and you first have to un-learn some myths and concepts that you always assumed, then re-learn the truth. So that's my long and convoluted way of saying that even though concrete walls, floor and ceiling for a room will make it sound terrible, it is actually a really good idea to build it that way... :) You want to build it with materials that sound terrible, since they are good at isolating. And you can't build it just with materials that sound great, because they DON'T isolate! So 2 leave of thick concrete is excellent. However, two leaves of concrete 140mm thick sounds like overkill to me! Are you saying that you will have an outer shell around your building, consisting of 140mm (5 1/2") solid concrete block, then an air gap, then an inner shell (the "room-in-a-room") that is also built using 140mm of solid concrete block? If so, then you'd get PDG isolation from that! (PDG is a highly technical term that means "Pretty Damn Good"). That will give you fantastic isolation, but its most likely way more than you need, and way expensive. You can do with much less than that, and save yourself some money, unless you have some really serious isolation needs (such as you live right next to live-fire air force bombing range, or some such...). Or maybe I misunderstood what you meant by "two layers of 140mm concrete block"? Perhaps you can sketch out a diagram of what you have in mind for the those walls. - Stuart -...two layers (of i think 140mm each)! Is that a really really bad idea judging by what you said about thick concrete would sound like crap inside?
OMG. Maybe i'd be better off buying the neighbors concrete ear muffs!
Yes i think that is the plan for the walls simplyy 2 layers of 140mm concrete with an insulation material by Kingspan in the middle.
But maybe i misunderstood and it is actually 2 x70mm....would that be better?(in terms if being more cost effective)
The ceiling is a bit more complicated but I will get more detailed information together on the current plans and post them up later in the week.
In the meantime just to clarify my (lack of) understanding,you are saying that thick layers of concrete (if the rest of the structure is designed and built well) will be very good at stopping sound escaping but it will need a lot of treatment to then make that room sound good again.
Is it absolutely imperative that the build is designed with slopping walls and slanted ceilings and such and special treatments within the layers itself in order to prevent it sounding terrible?
To be clear, can it be built as a straight up rectangle and then treated after inside the finished soundproof structure with well place absorbers/bass traps/diffusers etc or is this an absolute no no!?
Thanks for the explanations so far Stuart it is very much appreciated!
Cool! That will help to understand what your architect is proposing. It does sound like overkill to me, though, from the way you describe it now. But first you need to answer the question: What are your design parameters, regarding isolation? How loud are you inside the room (in dB), and how quite does that need to be outside? Also the other way: What sounds occur outside the room, how loud are they, and how quiet do they need to be inside? You can only answer those questions with a sound level meter: you need to beg, borrow or buy one. That's the basic instrument you will need to set your basic design specs, regarding isolation. Without that, you just cannot know what you are trying to do. You cannot guess: Guessing will other get you an under-built structure that won't do the job, or an over-built one that will do it, but will cost much more than it should have.I will get more detailed information together on the current plans and post them up later in the week.
Yes, but ALL rooms need treatment, period. It goes without saying. If the room isolates well, it will need treatment. And regardless of how well it isolates, if the room is small (as yours is) it will need LOTS of treatment. These are unavoidable basic truths about rooms. If it is isolated, it needs to be treated. If it is small, it needs to be treated. No question about it. So don't sweat construction materials at this point: There really isn't much you can do to change the facts. No matter what you build it out of, it is going to need treatment.you are saying that thick layers of concrete (if the rest of the structure is designed and built well) will be very good at stopping sound escaping but it will need a lot of treatment to then make that room sound good again.
Not imperative, no, but desirable for several reasons. Many rooms are built as simple rectangles, and they can sound great. But splaying your walls and ceilings does offer advantages PROVIDED THAT IT IS DONE RIGHT! You can't just angle things any old way and hope it will work. There are reasons and methods for getting the angles right. Size, layout, geometry, speakers, mix position, treatment, etc. Lots of things come into play here. For example, splaying the front walls and ceiling of a control room can help to create a reflection free zone (RFZ) around the mix position, which is Very Good Thing. Splaying walls in a booth or live room can eliminate flutter echo, which reduces the need for treatment later. etc. It is all interconnected...Is it absolutely imperative that the build is designed with slopping walls and slanted ceilings and such and special treatments within the layers itself in order to prevent it sounding terrible?
Yes, you CAN do it like that if you want. It is one approach, and it works just fine. Many studios are done just like that. But once again, there are advantages to splaying. And there are advantages to not splaying. There are no easy answers.To be clear, can it be built as a straight up rectangle and then treated after inside the finished soundproof structure with well place absorbers/bass traps/diffusers etc or is this an absolute no no!?
I seem to be confusing you more than I'm helping you, though! :shock: But then again, the whole thing is very confusing to start with. Been there, done that! So much of this "acoustics" thing just flies in the face of what you think you know about sound, and it takes a while to unlearn the myths and get a sound basis in science. - Stuart -Thanks for the explanations so far Stuart it is very much appreciated!
Hey Soundman2020,
It seems like the plan for the walls is indeed 'Outer skin is dense concrete block 140mm wide and the internal will also be dense concrete block 140mm wide'
In the middle is 50mm of this stuff http://www.insulation.kingspan.com/uk/k8.htm
The only other layer (Before acoustic treatment) for the walls is plaster over the inside skin.
With regards to how loud i can get inside the studio...i will try and get hold of something to measure it, but ultimately i wanna get new speakers when i can afford to and will prob get louder anyway so not sure how much that will tell me. I suspect on certain moments of quick reference checking i will be reaching 110db and as i make club music, it will often have very loud and low freq bass!
Not too worried about outside sound getting in...mostly recording with synths...only very occasionally may try and record vocals and i live in a suburb so it is pretty quiet outside. Nearest neighbor is about twenty feet away though and the soundproofing is so as not to unreasonably disturb then when they are inside their house with windows closed. We don't have many hot days in the uk...so on the odd occasion when we do and neighbors may be in the garden or have their windows open, I cld just keep the volume down a bit.
Can i ask a direct question ...will more mass directly equal harder to treat for good sound inside?
ie if i use 2 layers of 140mm concrete as opposed to 2 layers of 70mm concrete...will the result automatically be many more nasty reflections to deal with inside the room
If so then i will certainly strike for minimum density that i cld get away with for desired TL loss (TBC) If not then i will go with more mass, as long as it fits within budget, it means i can get louder when i can afford more speakers.
Regarding the treatment...i appreciate that all rooms need treatment and i already have some GIK acoustic panels and bass traps and will be getting more as required... i gather that with calculations of the room modes etc these can be 'targeted' for best effect and i hope to develop a better understanding of this.
But the thing is, the way i am looking at it is...if i can get built a basic structure before treatment that i know in the long run is possible to treat to get a fairly flat response then i can kind of do it in stages.....first get through the costly and 'fixed' aspect of the building construction and then deal with treating it , in the meantime i could at least use the room, which (i hope) can't possibly be any worse than where i am currently working, in terms of size shape/intrusive furniture and availability of suitable working hours..long story.
Regarding the idea to slope the walls or not...as you say that both can work but..
"splaying your walls and ceilings does offer advantages PROVIDED THAT IT IS DONE RIGHT!"
i am thinking that splaying the walls should be avoided in my case as it offers more opportunity for errors, and as knowledge within this this project is limited regarding good acoustics i see that it would be safer to stick with a rectangle..
Obviously this needs to be done properly also..but sloping walls seem like one less thing to worry about dong wrong if it is not completely necessary.
Do you sense any major problems with this way of thinking?
Perhaps it sounds lazy to you...but as much as i would like to fully understand things, i am already reading the book by rod gervais and tbh i find it very hard to follow so i gotta keep things as simple as possible. I have been reading ALOT on this board and i can see that there are some very very clever individuals on here..unfortunately academic intelligence is not a gift i was blessed with! To me this is rocket science and i struggle with basic science!
That is why i am not designing the build...but equally i would like to be confident that the design sounds/looks ok before it is built.
I will be checking with the architect if i am allowed to post his plans here as they develop (i sincerely hope he will be ok with this)as clearly there are people on this forum that know what they are talking about regarding studio design/ construction and fortunately there also seems to be many kind people such as yourself that are willing to offer the benefit of their knowledge and experience.
Thanks once again.
James
I'm looking at that Kingspan stuff, and thinking that it probably isn't useful at all, acoustically. Neither its the construction method shown on that site, which I assume is the same method that your architect is planning. The huge problem there is that the two leaves of the wall are not decoupled: There are wall ties in there! Wall ties join together the inner and outer leaves mechanically, which means the provide a direct path for sound to get in and out. In effect, the wall will act more like a single leaf than a two-leaf.
The other major problem is with the Kingspan insulation itself: that looks as though it is intended only for thermal insulation. The site offers no acoustic properties at all, and very little technical stuff in any case. It does not mention the density, or the gas flow resistance, so its impossible to even guess at the acoustic properties. But it does say "rigid phenolic insulation", and it seems to be sealed on both faces, which makes me think that it won't be any use at all, acoustically. You'd better call the manufacturer, and ask for the acoustic specs of that product, or at the very least for the density and gas flow resistance.
To be honest, I'm not at all sure that your wall design is going to work. You haven't said much about how the roof and ceiling tie into the walls, but I suspect that your architect has NOT designed a proper "room-in-a-room" structure at all.
What you need to check:
1) Is he going to use wall ties? If so, it isn't a room-in-a-room. MSM isolation means that there is no mechanical connection at all between the inner leaf and outer leaf. Not even a single nail. Nothing touches.
2) Does the ceiling structure touch the roof structure at any point? If so, then it is not a room-in-a-room.
3) Do the roof trusses touch the inner-leaf walls at any point? If so, then it is not a room-in-a-room.
4) Does the ceiling structure touch the outer-leaf of the wall at any point? For example, do the joists rest ONLY on the inner leaf, or do they also rest on the outer leaf? If the ceiling joists touch the outer leaf, then it is not a room-in-a-room.
In order to get acoustic isolation, the inner leaf must be built entirely independent of the outer leaf. In other words, the roof rests on the outer leaf ONLY, and the ceiling rests on the inner leaf ONLY. There must be NO mechanical connections at all between the two. No braces, no nails, no screws, no studs, joists, trusses, wall ties, or anything else. Two entirely separate structures, one built inside the other, but zero connection. The only thing they have in common is that they both rest on the same floor.
Check with your architect. If he has not totally separated the two leaves, then he has to re-design the inner leaf to do so. This is your number one major big-time problem right now: confirm that he actually has designed a true MSM "room-in-a-room" structure.
Nope. More mass is just more isolation, but it won't make the room any harder to treat. Just having enough mass for basic isolation is already plenty mass to require treatment.Can i ask a direct question ...will more mass directly equal harder to treat for good sound inside?
Nope. Reflections are relatively way to deal with anyway. Its the modes that are a problem, and need the most treatment. Modes don't depend on construction materials at all: they only depend on room dimensions.ie if i use 2 layers of 140mm concrete as opposed to 2 layers of 70mm concrete...will the result automatically be many more nasty reflections to deal with inside the room
You probably can use what you have, but you don't need to by more commercial stuff: you can make it yourself (or your builder can do it for you) much cheaper than you can buy it. And it is fairly easy to do.Regarding the treatment...i appreciate that all rooms need treatment and i already have some GIK acoustic panels and bass traps and will be getting more as required... i gather that with calculations of the room modes etc these can be 'targeted' for best effect and i hope to develop a better understanding of this.
Well, if my guess is right and your architect hasn't really designed a room-in-a-room structure, then he'll have to re-think the entire inner leaf anyway, so now would be the best time to re-design the inner leaf walls, and now would be the time to think about splaying. Especially if you decide to change the inner leaf from concrete to drywall on studs! Much cheaper, much easier to work with, and really good acoustically. Mention it to your architect: leave the outer shell as concrete supporting the roof, and design the inner leaf using 2x6 wood stud framing, with two layers of 5/8" (16mm) drywall (also known as gypsum board, plaster board, sheetrock and a few other things). The inner leaf wall also supports the inner leaf ceiling. It could save you money, and it is very much easier to design and build your actual inner room like that, either with or without splaying the walls.Obviously this needs to be done properly also..but sloping walls seem like one less thing to worry about dong wrong if it is not completely necessary.
Have you considered that maybe paying a professional studio designer would be the right way to go? Why don't you contact John directly (send him a PM), and get him to quote for doing a proper professional design for you. That would be the best, really. Whatever his fee is, it will SAVE you money in the log run. Trying to do this yourself is most likely not going to work out well. There are just so many things that you have to take into account, and any one of them done wrong can ruin the entire studio. I'd strongly suggest that this is the only practical path for you.much as i would like to fully understand things, i am already reading the book by rod gervais and tbh i find it very hard to follow so i gotta keep things as simple as possible. I have been reading ALOT on this board and i can see that there are some very very clever individuals on here..unfortunately academic intelligence is not a gift i was blessed with! To me this is rocket science and i struggle with basic science! That is why i am not designing the build...but equally i would like to be confident that the design sounds/looks ok before it is built.
If not, then all is lost. If nobody here can check your plans, and the architect knows nothing about acoustics, then this just isn't going to work, period. Besides, you are paying the guy for the plans, so there is no reason why he should NOT allow you to show them to others! Without seeing the plans, nobody here can help you. - Stuart -I will be checking with the architect if i am allowed to post his plans here as they develop (i sincerely hope he will be ok with this)
"Wall ties join together the inner and outer leaves mechanically, which means the provide a direct path for sound to get in and out. In effect, the wall will act more like a single leaf than a two-leaf."
In order for the brick veneer to be strong, secure and have reduced differential movement or restriction of movement first, code compliant second, it will be difficult to have a brick veneer that does not incorporate brick ties.
But, it is a higher rated wall if not due to weight alone when it comes to containing low frequency sound, but you can do better. Basically your Architect is designing you a typical structure with typical methods.
I am pretty certain that you can get wooden framing, timber as you may refer to it as in your country, to help in this construction.
Using 190mm block for the exterior would be the first part of the construction. It will require poured corners and cells at intermittent intervals with rebar in those cells to keep the wall standing upright. Some have used dry sand in the remaining cells to add more mass to this type of wall and keep the rigidity down, others have poured every cell with concrete.
Data suggests and most of the authorities in this area of construction agree that 2X6 @ 24 inch (50mm X 140mm @ 609mm) centers with 5/8 sheetrock will out perform 2X4.
A structure of this type would allow you to build the exterior part of the mass/spring/mass tall enough and strong enough to support itself and the framing/trusses required to put a roof on it. Then your interior walls would be, based on the ratios chosen, laid out with an air gap or a space between the exterior wall and the interior framing with >no hard connection between the two< (saving the concrete floor which should be of sufficient thickness).
You can, upon proper design, actually have a footer poured that would have only the exterior block wall resting on top of it. Then with a resilient material installed as expansion joint between the exterior footer and the yet to be poured interior slab, you can break the connection between the exterior wall and the interior wall completely resulting in an even higher rated wall assembly.
There are considerations for any of these types of procedures, like if all you have where you live in your ground is hard ass rock then attempting to break the connection with a separate footer/slab may not gain you anything since the hard rock will re-connect the two and render all the work simply an exercise in building technique.
And who needs exercise...
Thanks for all the feedback guys.
I have mailed these points to the architect requesting his feedback and have asked for an email of a more detailed plan of his 'room in a room' design so i can hopefully upload it on here and get some opinions on his ideas...
Not sure where i'd be without you lot...probably a very bad sounding room with a lot of sound leaking out!
Cheers
James