Understanding less than ideal space for a studio design

Hello! This is my first post. So, initially I'd like to thank John and everybody involved in producing all the information regarding studio design, construction and acoustics. As I've looked at studio designs for my basement, where I will be playing and mixing progressive music with occasional loud amps and miced acoustic guitars, but using drum programming software and direct bass recording, I came across the Paddy2 design at http://johnlsayers.com/Stuff/Paddy2.skp. Understanding that the purpose here is to work with a smaller than the minimum ideal of 2500 cubic feet space, what is the reasoning behind two rooms instead of one? By my calculations if the space was one room, it would be around 1,960 cubic feet, below the 2500 cubic feet threshold, but closer than either of the separate rooms. Is the thinking "if it's not 2500 cubic ft, better to have two small dead small rooms, because the smaller the deader if the construction is done right? I could also surmise the value of separating tracking from listening by the producer/engineer, or having the tracking room treated a bit more to enhance the remaining live aspects of an admittedly imperfect space, but I'm not sure. Could anyone elaborate? Finally, I've read that one would be better keeping a 2500 cubic ft room with existing walls as one room, and treating them with absorption and diffusion panels, than to compromise the volume by reducing the space building decoupled double stud walls. My house is far enough separated from my neighbors that bugging the neighbors with loudness should not be a problem. And I will be the only person there besides an occasional other musicians between 9-5, which works for me and my wife who works between 9-5. So, are there any other elements of this ideal space vs. optimal construction issue that I should be considering? For those who wish to listen to the linked songs, I recorded them with absolutely no consideration for wall construction, room ratios, modes, absorption, diffusion etc. The house did have a vaulted ceiling and wood floors, though my mix position was right in front of a wide brick fireplace that was in the middle of one very large room. Like everybody, I want to do everything better. Thanks in advance for your thoughts. Frank http://www.reverbnation.com/artist/song_details/6204176

welcome! the 2 rooms allow for isolation of the performers from the tracking/mix room - thus allowing the monitoring of the performance via the soffit mounted speakers instead of headphones, and it's optimized for mixing where critical listening is essential. having less than 2500ft3 is OK, there is a recommendation not to have less than 1500ft3 for the CR but it all depends on what you need and are trying to achieve.

gullfo wrote:

welcome! the 2 rooms allow for isolation of the performers from the tracking/mix room - thus allowing the monitoring of the performance via the soffit mounted speakers instead of headphones, and it's optimized for mixing where critical listening is essential. having less than 2500ft3 is OK, there is a recommendation not to have less than 1500ft3 for the CR but it all depends on what you need and are trying to achieve.

Thanks for your reply Glenn. The two room isolation was precisely my interest as I want to play electric guitar in a control room which is isolated from another room, where I can crank my amp and listen to the guitar sound inside the mix via the monitors without the loudness of the amp in the other room getting in the way. However, I also need as good an acoustic space as possible to be able to record acoustic guitar. I program my drums and go direct with bass and all keyboards are direct. So, I'm looking at the trade-off of one room which would have more natural ambient space for the acoustic guitar recording (and possibly vocal recording) vs. the two room isolation for electric guitar and mixing. Any insight would be appreciated. Thanks.

what are the actual dimensions of the space? H W L