Project Studio in Phoenix, AZ

Howdy! I'm finally starting the conversion of my freestanding backyard garage into a studio. Structure is roughly 20'x20', stud framed with plywood exterior on a concrete slab. I write and record rock songs and whatnot, often tracking drums, bass, and guitar at full (i.e. loud) volume. The results occasionally sound like the tracks found here: http://tomcoffeen.com (or if you're into the whole facebook thing): http://www.facebook.com/pages/Tom-Coffeen/167354919974160?v=app_178091127385 The structure is set in the corner of an urban 1/4 acre with single family homes on all sides, the closest being probably 75' distant. I'd like to track and mix at all hours of the day and night (though I'm probably willing to forgo the potentially a**hole move of trying to cut live bass tracks at 3am) so I'm hoping to build in the greatest degree of isolation practically achievable given a budget of around $10K It's usually just me so I planned on having a single room to track and mix in. I'll also probably hold occasional rehearsals to the extent I can stifle my Daniel Plainview-like reaction to my former (and future) bandmates. :evil: So regarding the basic proposed layout. Following Louden room mode ratios with my 90"+ ceiling I get the following two-leaf inner room. The existing ceiling... ...and some wall and ceiling construction mock-ups more-or-less stolen from one of Sharward's graphics from The Greatest Thread of All Time. Please note that the existing outer wall (stud frame with plywood exterior) is not shown in the above graphic. A 50A subpanel was just installed and the 9000 btu Mitsubishi mini-split is being delivered Friday (photos soon). Anyhoo, any input at all is more than welcome as I'm sure I'm already well on the way to f*cking something up. I'll keep posting pictures and comments as the work proceeds. Cheers, Tom

welcome! it looks like a reasonable plan. you also want pink insulation between the walls as well.

Thanks Glenn and thanks for the reply. I've been assuming the insulation goes between the vertical studs of the leaf frame and thus would sit flush with the depth of the the stud (thus not visible in the perspective from the end of the leaf). Reviewing Keith's source graphic I see that the insulation is actually visible from that perspective and that insulation from both leaves makes contact. Is this desirable? Obviously the density of standard insulation would seem unlikely to transfer sound energy *but* there are so many perversions of common sense in this domain. :? I guess I'm curious in general about the use of mineral wool instead of standard fiberglass insulation. Is there a consensus regarding performance. I seem to recall mineral wool outperforming fiberglass but at a much higher price point. I assume mineral wool with its additional density (and thus compactness) would definitely not be visible from that perspective but hidden entirely within the vertical stud wells of the leaf.

I do not agree and here is why. Your roof is basically the final leaf, closed off as it is with the air gap. This structure you are showing "seems" to be closed in on the gables...that is great...even if it isn't, it would be easier to modify that and have the ceiling height be maximized then like your currently showing...which in most theaters is a three leaf... edit: and the use of resilient channel is redundant in this case...now it's a...too much :)

Hi Brien. Thanks for the response. So you're still talking about a two-leaf configuration but rather than an outer leaf whose top is attached to the bottom of the existing joists, I would use the existing roof and fill in the spaces between the trusses on the bottom side of the roof plywood with layers of cut gypsum board and insulation. If I'm understanding you correctly it seems that would create a greater construction challenge to tie the outer leaf walls into the 'roof leaf' (as the outer leaf in my proposed design isn't the outer wall of the garage but rather another leaf wall between the outer wall of the garage and the inner leaf). Then again, after 11 hours at work I'm probably missing the point of what you're proposing. :-?

yep 11 hours is in yer head...in a mass air mass assembly...there is an outside mass and air cavity and an inner mass. The purpose of RC is to decouple but with your basic room-in-a-room design you already have the decoupling...yet you add it again with this RC....in any event it is still mass/air/mass/air/mass...and you want mass/air/mass. What I am saying is nothing reflected by what you are suggesting...it is a simple process that I would not mind showing you, if you will refrain from placing words in my mouth:)

xSpace wrote:

yep 11 hours is in yer head...in a mass air mass assembly...there is an outside mass and air cavity and an inner mass. The purpose of RC is to decouple but with your basic room-in-a-room design you already have the decoupling...yet you add it again with this RC....in any event it is still mass/air/mass/air/mass...and you want mass/air/mass. What I am saying is nothing reflected by what you are suggesting...it is a simple process that I would not mind showing you, if you will refrain from placing words in my mouth:)

Yes please. By all means. :)

I'm contending with two challenges with making the existing structure the outside mass: -the garage door -the trusses I could more or less easily add mass to the outside of the existing walls but I still have to contend with building an entire wall to seal off the garage door as well as figuring out and executing a method to add mass between trusses. The interior two leafs are an effort to simplify the design and construction requirements. I've read that M-A-M-A-M is not ideal but given the relatively weak mass of the existing structure I was thinking of it more as m-a-M-A-M (i.e. the existing structure as more shell than isolation component).

What is the distance you intend to start the new build from the existing exterior? You are dealing with more issues than you have gotten your head around at this time. The m/a/m configuration is a solid enclosed boundary with an air space and an interior solid enclosed boundary. The trusses are not at fault but the perception that somehow they cannot be implemented into this design is the fault, at least in part, but that goes back to distance and actual footprint of the proposed build since these things are important, trust me, I'm not making this up as I go along :) I can say this, that if you use the trusses as you suggest that the potential to allow flanking from the exterior structure increases, and this is never good for isolation...even in Arizona. And the fact that you are spending more money to decouple what is already an exterior (as you see it) boundary...this money needs to go elsewhere...as we will see in time. That said, it is just a bit more complicated in respect to what should get attention and what should not. So to dismiss the exterior like somehow it has no impact is, how can I say this without making enemies...juvenile...or at least lacking in pertinent information as to developing an enclosed, as Phillip Newell would say, hermetically sealed environment. These things are important or I would not even bring them up...could care less as my wife says on a regular basis :) Give us some dimensions, some monies you want to spend and let's see if we can come up with something that people agree on at best, or no one shoots down...at worst:) And yes, that garage door is an issue...

xSpace wrote:

What is the distance you intend to start the new build from the existing exterior?

I want to keep my room ratio proper so I'll displace the internal structure enough to accommodate the entry on the west wall (the garage door is north) -- at this point in the design, an arbitrary amount; let's call it 8 inches.

xSpace wrote:

You are dealing with more issues than you have gotten your head around at this time.

Are the kids still saying 'derp'? If I knew what the hell I was doing I wouldn't be here taking abuse. :mrgreen:

xSpace wrote:

The m/a/m configuration is a solid enclosed boundary with an air space and an interior solid enclosed boundary. The trusses are not at fault but the perception that somehow they cannot be implemented into this design is the fault, at least in part, but that goes back to distance and actual footprint of the proposed build since these things are important, trust me, I'm not making this up as I go along :) I can say this, that if you use the trusses as you suggest that the potential to allow flanking from the exterior structure increases, and this is never good for isolation...even in Arizona. And the fact that you are spending more money to decouple what is already an exterior (as you see it) boundary...this money needs to go elsewhere...as we will see in time.

Roger.

xSpace wrote:

That said, it is just a bit more complicated in respect to what should get attention and what should not. So to dismiss the exterior like somehow it has no impact is, how can I say this without making enemies...juvenile...or at least lacking in pertinent information as to developing an enclosed, as Phillip Newell would say, hermetically sealed environment. These things are important or I would not even bring them up...could care less as my wife says on a regular basis :) Give us some dimensions, some monies you want to spend and let's see if we can come up with something that people agree on at best, or no one shoots down...at worst:) And yes, that garage door is an issue...

As mentioned previously I'm trying to keep it all under $10K. The HVAC budget so far (mini-slim and ERV) is around $2K. Another $800 went to the subpanel install. So if my arithmetic is correct I have $12,800 left. :shot: I'll post another diagram soon with all the dimensions of the existing structure.

"an arbitrary amount; let's call it 8 inches." let's call it 36 inches...anything closer tends to present problems...I'll work on a diagram over this weekend...show you what you are up against...as best as I know it.:) edit: if it has not come to your attention...how would you attache the panels to the exterior wall of the proposed r-n-r build...when it becomes a pieced assembly...it becomes a weak assembly:)

Here is how I would try to build this out. There are several modifications that would have to be done to the existing building. For example, I moved the exterior door to get it out of the corner, turned it around to make it swing outward. Since this is now an open garage you may not have even been aware of the minimal venting. You have one vent that lets build up exit, but for the most part it's the opening of the garage door that allows everything out, plus the none existent interior wall sheathing. So I would install a continuous ridge vent and install a continuous soffit vent at the soffit/overhang area to get some flow to allow heat to escape. Ridge vent and the soffit overhang only...not in the gable, it's not recommended by the ridge vent manufacture since it can create a short circuit in the upward flow, and that helps you to keep from having a large hole in your gable walls. I used Loudan's first set of ratio's based on the higher ceiling boundary height of 7 feet 8 and 5/8 of an inch. That said, ratio's are not scalable so not having the ten foot ceiling height used in the design perimeters that produced ratio's in the first place, I don't spend a lot of time on if it is or is not a tight ratio, only that it isn't multiples of any dimension, square or has an built in issue of some type. Like I said, there is more way to skin a cat, so you are free to choose the direction you want, but overall, if this was mine to do, I would approach it like this. If you install mass/sheetrock in the exterior stud bays this will give you Much more mass, gain you better isolation which is what you are shooting for here. I can't vouch for what will or will not pass as acceptable building practice in your neck of the woods, so you have to view this as a guide it is not a blue print. The SketchUp file has the whole view, roof, door, trusses, etc. Thanks,

Wow Brien. The sketchup is very illuminating. Thanks. I think this gives me enough direction to start working out the construction details from this template and get them posted. I'm headed out on the road for work for the next couple of weeks so may not have much time to post. Thanks again for the direction.

I'm back from the road and diving back into the design phase. I was going to jump right into working up some construction details based on Brien's sketchup but found this thread and want to digest it first: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11485 Though I'm sticking to a one room design, still looks like a lot of the same issues I'm facing.

Starting on beefing up the stud bays. Tremco acoustical sealant is some right nasty shite.

I saw ya over here : viewtopic.php?f=2&t=15886 But it reads better if it is all in one place :) Good luck

xSpace wrote:

I saw ya over here : viewtopic.php?f=2&t=15886 But it reads better if it is all in one place :) Good luck

I agree. Wondered how much the index topix were adhered to. I'll just update this thread going forward.

More pics of the truss bay beef up...

For my inner leaf (drywall facing the sound room interior), I have conflicting information and opinions on the board regarding the use of resilient channel. I was planning on using it for both the wall and ceiling but have read that it might not be worth it (I'm assuming because the inner leaf/room is completely isolated -- well, except for the concrete slab). I've been looking for a definitive forum thread covering this subject but haven't found it yet. Any info or opinions on RC or not-RC for the decoupled inner leaf would be greatly appreciated!

TomInAZ wrote:

For my inner leaf (drywall facing the sound room interior), I have conflicting information and opinions on the board regarding the use of resilient channel. I was planning on using it for both the wall and ceiling but have read that it might not be worth it (I'm assuming because the inner leaf/room is completely isolated -- well, except for the concrete slab). I've been looking for a definitive forum thread covering this subject but haven't found it yet. Any info or opinions on RC or not-RC for the decoupled inner leaf would be greatly appreciated!

I guess I'm also wondering if the wall closing off the garage door (part of the outer leaf) should have OSB directly attached to the outside of the frame with drywall in the stud bays (essentially the same configuration as the other three outer walls) or if I should use resilient channel to attach 2 layers of 5/8" drywall directly to the frame.

TomInAZ wrote:

For my inner leaf (drywall facing the sound room interior), I have conflicting information and opinions on the board regarding the use of resilient channel. I was planning on using it for both the wall and ceiling but have read that it might not be worth it (I'm assuming because the inner leaf/room is completely isolated -- well, except for the concrete slab). I've been looking for a definitive forum thread covering this subject but haven't found it yet. Any info or opinions on RC or not-RC for the decoupled inner leaf would be greatly appreciated!

The definitive is a decoupled assembly, the mass/spring/mass we talk so much about. Resilient channel decouples from an existing framing and creates this "decoupling", difference is that it is attached directly to the existing framing and reduces the air space. The same decoupling that exists with an exterior frame/air space/ and an interior frame with mass included will produce a far better transmission loss especially in the low frequency area which is where the RC looses points. The concern that the coupled area, the slab, may be in question, is moot in respect to how well the assembly will perform. The slab will usually have a lower resonant frequency than the light weight wall assemblies, so to what extent the lower frequencies of the slab and how they might migrate intro the wooden framed walls, this information is not readily available.

xSpace wrote:

TomInAZ wrote:

For my inner leaf (drywall facing the sound room interior), I have conflicting information and opinions on the board regarding the use of resilient channel. I was planning on using it for both the wall and ceiling but have read that it might not be worth it (I'm assuming because the inner leaf/room is completely isolated -- well, except for the concrete slab). I've been looking for a definitive forum thread covering this subject but haven't found it yet. Any info or opinions on RC or not-RC for the decoupled inner leaf would be greatly appreciated!

The definitive is a decoupled assembly, the mass/spring/mass we talk so much about. Resilient channel decouples from an existing framing and creates this "decoupling", difference is that it is attached directly to the existing framing and reduces the air space. The same decoupling that exists with an exterior frame/air space/ and an interior frame with mass included will produce a far better transmission loss especially in the low frequency area which is where the RC looses points. The concern that the coupled area, the slab, may be in question, is moot in respect to how well the assembly will perform. The slab will usually have a lower resonant frequency than the light weight wall assemblies, so to what extent the lower frequencies of the slab and how they might migrate intro the wooden framed walls, this information is not readily available.

Sounds like I can safely leave RC out of the build. In the meantime, getting 2" of Roxul AFB into 1.5" of truss bay and securing with twine is not an easy one-man job... :(

hire help...

Insulation in outer leaf stud and truss bays complete (except for containing wall). Inner leaf frame up. Dimensions according to Louden's 1:1.4:1.9 ratio. Electrical mostly completed. I was planning on doing surface mount outlets with one entry point into the room but also wanted separate circuits for lighting, recording gear, and amplifiers. At some point I would have had to have had circuits crowding the same conduit or a bunch of separate wall-mount conduit runs. The compromise is what's pictured. Rather than drywall cutouts for each outlet a block will be attached to the frame and a single hole drilled for the wiring then filled with acoustical caulk (outlets will still be surface mounted IOW).