Soup Studio, UK, design and construction

Hi guys, I'm very excited to share my new design with you and ask your comments. In a few weeks we will be moving out of our basement, beneath a well-known London ukulele shop, into a warehouse space down the road in Limehouse. It is currently empty, except for a chandelier. I think it used to be the boardroom of the factory. I have attached two terrible cameraphone photos of the room, a plan of the empty room and a design. We hope to keep construction costs below £10,000. The control room is as near-symmetrical as we can fit into that corner, and we are very keen to keep the control room in that corner because of the large window. I realise this is going to cause difficulty with reflections, and I would be very interested to hear from anyone else that has a large window in their control room, or indeed anyone who works with a control room that is nearly symmetrical but not quite. Continuing on the theme of compromise, we are interested in the possibility of using patio-style doors between the control room and the live room. As you can see there will be a corridor separating the two, which we hope will work to advantage in terms of isolation! I'd be very interested to hear from anyone who glass or glass-filled doors in their studio. The live room will be used for most genres of music, from acoustic ensembles to the occasional metal band. The project space at the top will be rented out to another engineer, though we do not anticipate having to achieve sufficient isolation to have two full rock bands in the building at the same time! I will return to post more details, but for now, thanks for reading! I have been browsing the forum for years, waiting for the opportunity to build my own place, so this is a very exciting time. Thanks guys, Giles

Just a couple of comments: First, I guess that isolation is not important at all for you guys, because you don't show any at all on the SketchUp model. Why is that? Is the building located in a very, very quite place out in the middle of the countryside, with no roads, railways, animals, weather, aircraft or neighbors to worry about? Nobody will ever need to flush the toilet or use water while you are in session? No phones will ring? No radio, TV, talking, walking? :) (If that's not the case, then you might want to think about how to isolate your rooms!) Second, I don't see that CR layout as being workable: it is far from symmetrical, the left speaker will be facing the glass directly, and the glass will be a first reflection point BEHIND you, among other things. The hall also seems to be wasted space. I reckon you should be able to get a much better layout than that, while still keeping the window in the control room, but personally if I had to choose between having a great control room with no window, or a lousy control room with a great window, I reckon I'd forget the window real fast. (But that's just me...) - Stuart -

Thanks for the comments Stuart. Isolation is important to us. This sketchup model was a quick one to try out the shape, I'm now working on a more detailed one showing the isolation. Sorry for not making that clear. The control room is actually very close to symmetrical, but perhaps that angle doesn't show it well, it is an odd shape. I'll post a different angle to demonstrate this. I take your point about the glass behind the speaker, I'll have another think about that. The hall may be wasted space from a purely recording point of view but I feel it is useful to have a lobby area for bands to use. Does anyone else find that useful? We plan to use the nook in the hall for storage. Thanks again for the comments, sorry i wasn't more clear to begin with, more info soon.

Hi Giles, do we know each other? I'm a French VO guy, name's Pierre, was working in London, mostly Soho, for 15 years before moving back to France in 2009. Anyhow, nice location! A question: Is that the vocal booth 1.8m wide? If yes you might want to reconsider - working in something that tiny for more than few minutes is not something I would anticipate with joy and excitement... Other than that, what Stuart said. For me the lobby is too small to be anything else than an entrance hall. What is the 'project studio' room for? What about the 'lab' room? Overall I think that the space could be better used - but then again that's part of the process in the design.

Hi Pierre, I'm not sure whether we do know each other! Perhaps you did some voiceover work at my old studio, the Bunker, two or three years ago? The booth is quite small, you're right. I do feel it's rather a choice between a small booth or none at all. Does anyone else have experience of building a booth this small? I think the project studio is rather essential for us, much as I'd like to use all the space for ourself, we need to rent out a project studio on a long-term let. Hence the bare room at the moment, we would like to build it to our tenants specifications. The lab is a small space that we will rent to a friend of ours who is an amp technician and repairman. It is a small space, but no smaller than his current workshop, and he would like to be onsite at the studio to meet people and help with our repairs. Thanks for pointing out the shape of the control room, guys. It was less symmetrical than I thought! The inclusion of an additional wall now makes it a perfect diamond, as the below picture should show. I do take the point about the lack of isolation in the control room. We plan to isolate the live room to the best of our abilities, with a new floor above the current concrete, and a suspended ceiling above the new walls. The building is in a warehouse which is in the process of being divided into various units, so I don't know what they will be used for but we plan to have loud bands in the live room sometimes so we are aiming for a high standard of isolation. The control room, however, is a different story. In our current location, beneath a shop, where we have worked for the last 5 years, we rarely if ever shut the door to the shop. People come in and out, and we sometimes hear noise from the street. This is occasionally distracting, but usually not a problem. Does anyone else share this approach, or does everyone else here have well-isolated control rooms that keep out most outside noise? Given that I require a space for a project studio of at least that size, and I need a small room for the 'lab', do you guys still think that I make dramatically better use of the space?

Hi guys, So I'm designing the isolation around the live room in detail. It's going to be quite a quite complicated structure due to the existing pillars and beams within the space. I have been rereading Rod's excellent book, and my plan is coming together, but I'm confused on a couple of points. 1) When using a double-wall construction for isolation, is it possible to use as the outer wall an existing drywall construction within the space, if I ensured it was sealed and airtight? 2) I note that Rod, in his book on page 71, points out that when using a double frame assembly it is pointless to also use resilient channels. This makes sense to me. I did wonder, however, if using resilient channels would be the best way to deal with the pillars that exist in my space. As demonstrated in the attached picture of a section of my frame assembly, the pillars fit flush with the frame. My thinking at the moment is that the best use of this space is hang the drywall in front of this pillar from resilient channels attached to the frame, with the possible inclusion of neoprene pads between the resilient channels and the pillar. Does that seem like a sensible solution? And can I presume that if I'm using resilient channels for several sections of the drywall it makes sense to use them for the whole room?

1) When using a double-wall construction for isolation, is it possible to use as the outer wall an existing drywall construction within the space, if I ensured it was sealed and airtight?

Yes, you can do that. The outer leaf usually is part of the original structure. The only time that you'd build a new outer leaf is if there was nothing already there in the existing structure, close to where you need it. If you are building a new outer life inside an existing structure, you do need to be careful that you aren't creating any 3-leaf walls.

2) I note that Rod, in his book on page 71, points out that when using a double frame assembly it is pointless to also use resilient channels.

Exactly! Page 71 shows a single frame ceiling, not a double frame. If you have a double frame structure, then you do NOT need RC, since the wall is already decoupled. Decoupling twice is pointless. What Rod shows there is a single frame structure which DOES need decoupling, precisely because it is single frame! If it had been double frame, Rod would not have needed the RC.

My thinking at the moment is that the best use of this space is hang the drywall in front of this pillar from resilient channels attached to the frame, with the possible inclusion of neoprene pads between the resilient channels and the pillar. Does that seem like a sensible solution?

To be honest, no it doesn't seem sensible. That would create a very thin resonant cavity in the wall, which will likely have unknown effects, and once again adding neoprene pads (which decouple) to RC (which decouples) is pointless: if it is already decoupled, then why would you need to decouple it again? I would suggest that you either move the inner leaf framing a little to get past that pillar, or that you build a "kink" in the leaf just around the pillar section.

And can I presume that if I'm using resilient channels for several sections of the drywall it makes sense to use them for the whole room?

No, it only makes sense to use RC where you need to decouple the drywall from a SINGLE frame wall. The purpose of RC is to mechanically decouple the drywall on one leaf from the drywall on the other leaf. If each leaf is on a separate from already (ie, double frame wall) then the leaves are decoupled, and trying to decouple them again is going to do absolutely nothing for you, except waste your time and money. Adding RC to a decoupled wall is like taking a hose pipe into the swimming pool with, to try to get you even wetter! If you are totally wet already, then you are totally wet, and you cannot get any wetter no matter how much more water the hose pipe adds! Wet is wet. Decoupled is decoupled. - Stuart -

thehaircut wrote:

Hi Pierre, I'm not sure whether we do know each other! Perhaps you did some voiceover work at my old studio, the Bunker, two or three years ago? The booth is quite small, you're right. I do feel it's rather a choice between a small booth or none at all. Does anyone else have experience of building a booth this small?

Hey Giles, I problably did, I worked in most studios in London! Re. the booth, it'd be silly not to have one as there's a lot of post-prod in London as you know! Now... I don't have the experience of building in such a small booth but I have the experience of working in one and let me tell you, it's not my idea of fun. Especially when there's no HVAC...

Stuart and Pierre, thank you so much for your comments. You've both really helped me get my head around these new concepts of design and construction. I'm going to do quite a hefty redesign now that I've had a good think so I'll be back once that's done.

So.. ceilings. Just re-read Rod's chapter on the subject again, and gone over John's original recording manual and the STC Chart which are all very useful. I'm confused by a couple of points. 1) All STC ratings I've seen have been related to building beneath an existing plywood floor. I am building beneath a concrete floor. Should this affect my approach significantly, or are the designs in Rod's book still applicable? 2) Regarding the designs in Rod's book, for example figure 4.22 on page 79, there is 1 element I do not understand. Beneath the new cross bridging and new fiberglass insulation, there is a horizontal line that the RC-1 channel appears to be suspended from. What does this line represent? Is it a physical element that sits between the bridging and the RC-1 channel, or is the RC-1 channel suspended directly from the cross bridging and the line is a convention of the diagram of which I am ignorant? I'm very grateful to anyone who can help me with my ignorance here!

1) All STC ratings I've seen have been related to building beneath an existing plywood floor. I am building beneath a concrete floor. Should this affect my approach significantly, or are the designs in Rod's book still applicable?

The concepts are still the same. The only thing that changed is that you started out from a better position, since you already have good isolation from the concrete! I don¿t have Rod's book with me right now to check on the other question: I'll take a look later, when I get home. - Stuart -

Stuart, I think the completed studio is going to have to have little plaque with your avatar on it in tribute to your commitment to excellent, prompt advice!

:oops: :) - Stuart -

Hi guys, I've realised something. Shocking, I know, but I have. The existing internal wall, separating my unit from the next unit in the warehouse, is a single timber frame, filled with rockwool, with staggered double-leaf studwall on either side. My original plan was to construct a double-wall inside this, with the outer frame being attached to this existing wall. I now realise of course that this would create the triple leaf effect. I imagine you guys will all confirm that this is a bad idea and to be avoided and most if not all costs. therefore have a single So, my questions becomes: is it best to remove the studwall from the inside of the existing wall, leave a large cavity and build another wooden frame with double-leaf studwall to create a double frame assembly as detailed in Rod's book? Or would it be preferable to, as I have been advised, build a brick wall in front of the existing construction and create a new double frame assembly in front of that? Cheers giles

"Or would it be preferable to, as I have been advised, build a brick wall in front of the existing construction and create a new double frame assembly in front of that?" That would still be a 3 leaf.

Wouldn't it be a 5 leaf then? Anyway Giles, I was in the same situation, and did what called beefing up. It's basically removing the plasterboard on your side, recutting it so it fits exactly between the studs, green glue it, fit them bits between the studs, apply acoustic sealant all around, then fiberglass in roll as thick as you can (the new Knauf Ecose version is much nicer to work with!) then a void as wide as you can, then fiberglass again, then metal or wood studs, then plasterboard, acoustic sealant around and on screws heads, green glue, plasterboard, acoustic sealant again, bob's your uncle.

Thanks for the tips guys that's great!

xSpace wrote:

"Or would it be preferable to, as I have been advised, build a brick wall in front of the existing construction and create a new double frame assembly in front of that?" That would still be a 3 leaf.

Ahem. So it would.

TheFrenchVoice wrote:

basically removing the plasterboard on your side, recutting it so it fits exactly between the studs

1. So the newly cut plasterboard fits between the studs and is glue onto.. the plasterboard on the other side of the studs? Is that right? Are both layers of plasterboard used for this, ending with 4 layers altogether between the studs? 2.

TheFrenchVoice wrote:

then a void as wide as you can

Is this literally true, or is there a point after which you lose the effect? I ask because if I put in, say a 50cm void, this would make my room an easier shape to build. Thanks again

... more like 5 leaf no?

1. So the newly cut plasterboard fits between the studs and is glue onto.. the plasterboard on the other side of the studs? Is that right? Are both layers of plasterboard used for this, ending with 4 layers altogether between the studs?

No, not glued on. Held in place with cleats, then caulked around the edges.

Is this literally true, or is there a point after which you lose the effect? I ask because if I put in, say a 50cm void, this would make my room an easier shape to build.

Yes, there is a point where you lose the effect. As you increase the air gap, or the mass, you lower the overall resonance of the MSMSM (or MSMSMSMSM!) system. Eventually it gets to the point where that resonance is down to a frequency so low that you are OK again. For a 3-leaf wall, that's not too hard to figure. But for a FIVE-leaf! :shock: Don't even know where to start for figuring that!!! Moral of the story: Keep it to three, max, put lots of mass on the middle leaf, and put a big air gap on at least one side. - Stuart -

Yep, that'd be 5 leaves as I said earlier. Giles, NOT glue - green glue. So for you to have a 2 leaf ie. MSM, you do: plasterboard (on the other side of the studs) - GG - bits of plasterboard fitted snuggly in the studs 'cavities' maintained against 1st layer of plasterborad with clits fixed on the sides of the studs - insulation (not too dense, just on the roll is fine, as thick as posssible) empty space (min. 10cm) - insulation - metal or wood studs - plasterboard - GG - plasterboard. If you want a void of 50cm between each M and that you install insulation 15cm thick then you have a void between insulations of 20cm, plenty good. Right, back to my building site!

TheFrenchVoice wrote:

Yep, that'd be 5 leaves as I said earlier.

Not hardly. Well, that is what you said but you were incorrect then and you are still unaware of a few things now that modify this assembly. For a leaf to be considered a leaf it has to have it's own enclosed air space. In this area that we mingle in, this is always preceded with a path to the ceiling. So for this to actually be a full blown five leaf, we would have to have a ceiling that gives an individual air space to each leaf...and this is not the case. What you get that can be far worse than this effect, would be the flanking that is sure to be involved since the wall heights most likely have not been changed and all the ceiling joists connect in one way or the other to ALL the interior walls. Even with a staggered stud, the design in this case is to decouple one room from another room on the other side of the partition...so there is only one air space in between the two decoupled leaves but the ceiling remains a flanking path with an unchanged air space since we have to "assume" that there is no double ceiling as of yet. If this NOT the case...then the ceiling is becoming a bigger issue than was reported previously. Granted the OP is playing with fire and in the "traditional" sense this is or has the potential to be a five leaf. But in an accurate representation, it is not a five leaf at all. It IS a multi-leafed assembly that needs correction. But if it makes you feel better, it has five vertical barriers in the current configuration and possible 2 leaves in the horizontal configuration:)

Thanks for the clarification Brien, I stand corrected. And just so Giles isn't confused further, let's confirm that the solution I offered is the correct one, if you're so inclined.

Just noticed this;

If you want a void of 50cm between each M and that you install insulation 15cm thick then you have a void between insulations of 20cm, plenty good.

Why would it be "good" to have a void between the insulation on the leaves? - Stuart -

Well Stuart, I know that the void is not the space between insulation but between the two leaves - but this is what's shown on page 63 of Rod's book so I assumed that was the way to do it. Beside, it's quite impractical to stuff 50cm of insulation in a wall, so if you put less you need a void somewhere. Would you have another better suggestion? Shoot, I'm building too, so I'm more than interested!

Theoretically, filling the entire gap with insulation maximizes the isolation of the wall, and can increase overall isolation by up to 16 dB. Basically, the insulation sort of extends the air path that sound must follow by approximately 140%, so each cm of insulation effectively makes your air gap 1.4 cm thicker. However, Rod has pointed out here on the forum that totally filling the cavity may be a violation of fire code in some cities, so that is something you should check if you plan to do that. If so, then leave the smallest gap that fire code allows. Of course, if your wall is already giving you more isolation than you need, then it isn't necessary to do this. But if you want to maximize isolation, this is an easy way to do so. - Stuart -