Hi Guys, great forum!
I'm looking into the feasibility of building a couple of production rooms in a family members back garden. I the UK we can build up to 322 square feet at a height of 9.8feet without requiring planning permission so this is the number I'm working to.
The plan is to have one production/control room at 160square feet and a connected live room of the same size that can double as a production room also. I understand I will lose quite a bit of this space in the walls. I've attached a similar sized studio that would work great.
I probably won't be recording any live drums or rock bands but I'd like to keep any leakage to a minimum. I'm guessing programmed drums travel just as much? 808 kicks must travel?
I'd also like the two rooms to be isolated from each other so I can work in one room while my partner works in the other.
The neighbours are about 30 feet away. I don't have an SPL meter so I'm not quite sure what is considered "loud" while producing.
I've spoken to a few friends of friends regarding construction but I'm getting wildly different ideas from everyone. I even spoke to a "professional" studio builder but I don't think he knows what he's talking about!
Am I best to go with a brick building or can I get away with timber frame?
People are telling me the ballpark cost to construct a 23 x 13 brick shell on concrete foundation is £20,000 :shock:
I've attached a copy of one of those prefab timber studios. If this really works surely a DIY build would be better and cost a fraction of the price (£30k)?
Thanks
Garden studio from scratch, brick or wood?
Originally posted at johnlsayers.com, topic 18200.
Hi "grammar", and welcome! :)
Lucky you! In many parts of the world, that would require lots of red tape. Are there no requirements at all? I'm sure there must be something: At the very least, I would imagine that the electrical installation would need to be signed off by a qualified electrician?I the UK we can build up to 322 square feet at a height of 9.8feet without requiring planning permission so this is the number I'm working to.
In general, the live room should have a considerably larger volume than the control room, for the simple reason that you want to hear the "sound" of the live room itself in your recordings, and you won't be able to do that if they are the same size: they decay times of the reverberation in the live room will be masked by that of the control room: you won't hear the natural reverb tails in your mixes very clearly. However, depending on what your goals are for this studio, that might or might not be important.The plan is to have one production/control room at 160square feet and a connected live room of the same size
That depends on how much isolation you need (how many decibels), and there are also techniques that allow you to minimize the footprint of the isolation system. For example, if you use materials of higher density than normal, then you can reduce the overall thickness of the walls and still get the same isolation over the same frequency range. However, high density materials are more expensive than commonly used materials, so that might be an issue.I understand I will lose quite a bit of this space in the walls.
By "programmed drums", do you mean electronic drums, as opposed to acoustic drums?I'm guessing programmed drums travel just as much?
Then that should be your first order of business! :) They are not expensive, and represent a tiny fraction of 1% of what the build will cost you. Well worth the investment, too: you'll need it all throughout the build, and afterwards to for calibration, and even checking levels during sessions. I couldn't live without mine! You can find decent meters on e-Bay and Amazon.com and places like that for about US$ 75 or so.I don't have an SPL meter
:D :!: :roll: :shock: It happens! You know what they say about opinions, I guess... The thing is, there are opinions about acoustic isolation and how sound should work, and then there is the actual science of acoustics and the real laws that govern how sound REALLY works. What you'll find on this forum is a lot of the latter, and very little of the former. There are an awful lot of myths, half-truths and plain garbage about acoustics floating around on the internet, so it sometimes is hard to discern what is real and what is not real. That's why on this forum, for any advice you get here, you'll also find actual references to research papers, laboratory tests, equations, books, physics, and plain old truth.I've spoken to a few friends of friends regarding construction but I'm getting wildly different ideas from everyone. I even spoke to a "professional" studio builder but I don't think he knows what he's talking about!
Both will work. Isolation can be accomplished with either method, if done correctly. Brick has the advantage of high mass, high density, high rigidity, and therefore good acoustic characteristics. Wood-framed construction has the advantage of being easier to build, cheaper, and requiring a bit more space for the same level of isolation. You could even combine the two: use brick for your outer-leaf and wood framing for your inner leaf: that's a common solution in some parts of the world. This is the way it works: The most economical way of getting good isolation is with a "fully-decoupled, two-leaf MSM wall". What that means is that between you and the outside world, there are two "leaves" of mass separated by an air gap, where "leaf" just means a massive (heavy), rigid surface that could be brick, or could be built up from one or more layers of common building materials, such as drywall ("plasterboard"), plywood, OSB, MDF, etc. So you have your two leaves, and the do not touch each other: there is an air gap between them that is filled with acoustic damping material, such as common insulation (fiberglass or mineral wool). It is that easy. The amount of isolation you get from this method is governed mostly by the amount of mass on each leaf, and the size of the air gap between them, and the amount of insulation in the air gap. There are equations for calculating all this, and there are documents that list literally hundreds of different ways of building isolation walls, showing the precise details of each method and the amount if isolation it actually provides. That's why it is important for you to know how much isolation you need, so you can choose the method and materials that will provide that level.Am I best to go with a brick building or can I get away with timber frame?
Sounds about right. That would be about 60-something pounds per square feet, which is roughly what one could expect.People are telling me the ballpark cost to construct a 23 x 13 brick shell on concrete foundation is £20,000
Possibly, if you are going to do most of the labour yourself. DIY saves you stacks on labour, and going with wood-framed construction is something that most people can do. Bricklaying? Hmmmm.... maybe not so much. :) So the short answer is that the very first thing you should do is get that meter, find out what your legal limitations are on noise, and based on that figure out how much isolation you need , then look at the documentation to fins a method that fits your budget and will give you that much isolation. That's the normal process. - Stuart -surely a DIY build would be better and cost a fraction of the price
Hi "grammar", and welcome! :)
I the UK we can build up to 322 square feet at a height of 9.8feet without requiring planning permission so this is the number I'm working to.
Hi Stuart! Fortunately as long as I keep to the dimensions and a few other points I'm basically ok - If the floor area of the building is between 15 square metres and 30 square metres, you will not normally be required to apply for building regulations approval providing that the building contains NO sleeping accommodation and is either at least one metre from any boundary or it is constructed of substantially non-combustible materials. You're right the electrics will need to be signed off by a proper sparky.Lucky you! In many parts of the world, that would require lots of red tape. Are there no requirements at all? I'm sure there must be something: At the very least, I would imagine that the electrical installation would need to be signed off by a qualified electrician?
The plan is to have one production/control room at 160square feet and a connected live room of the same size
Ah I see what you're saying. To be honest when I say live room I really mean a room that is isolated from the other so if I want to close mic an upright piano or guitar amp I can. Or if a singer doesn't like singing in the control room they can go there. Is it possible to use various acoustic baffles (correct word?) to remove most of the room sound?In general, the live room should have a considerably larger volume than the control room, for the simple reason that you want to hear the "sound" of the live room itself in your recordings, and you won't be able to do that if they are the same size: they decay times of the reverberation in the live room will be masked by that of the control room: you won't hear the natural reverb tails in your mixes very clearly. However, depending on what your goals are for this studio, that might or might not be important.
I understand I will lose quite a bit of this space in the walls.
In order of isolation and cost am I right in guessing Brick > Concrete board > Timber So a price/performance compromise might be concrete board for the outer leaf with plasterboard for the inner and rockwool filling? I'm assuming concrete/cement board will be cheaper than brick here.That depends on how much isolation you need (how many decibels), and there are also techniques that allow you to minimize the footprint of the isolation system. For example, if you use materials of higher density than normal, then you can reduce the overall thickness of the walls and still get the same isolation over the same frequency range. However, high density materials are more expensive than commonly used materials, so that might be an issue.
I'm guessing programmed drums travel just as much?
A kick drum coming through a speaker vs an actual kick drum being struck. I'd guess the frequency response of the monitors would dictate how much sub freqs we'll have to deal with.By "programmed drums", do you mean electronic drums, as opposed to acoustic drums?
I don't have an SPL meter
How does this one look? http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0015NSTLI/? ... B0015NSTLI You're right I do need one! According to my studio six iphone SPL meter, loud to me is 80dB. I'm sure this isn't measuring low freqs properly. According to unrelated noise pollution regulations for new constructions, a reasonable level of noise inside the home (bedroom and living room) is between 35-40db. If I can figure out a way to isolate down to 35db at the property this plan will have legs!Then that should be your first order of business! :) They are not expensive, and represent a tiny fraction of 1% of what the build will cost you. Well worth the investment, too: you'll need it all throughout the build, and afterwards to for calibration, and even checking levels during sessions. I couldn't live without mine! You can find decent meters on e-Bay and Amazon.com and places like that for about US$ 75 or so.
I've spoken to a few friends of friends regarding construction but I'm getting wildly different ideas from everyone. I even spoke to a "professional" studio builder but I don't think he knows what he's talking about!
:D :!: :roll: :shock: It happens! You know what they say about opinions, I guess... The thing is, there are opinions about acoustic isolation and how sound should work, and then there is the actual science of acoustics and the real laws that govern how sound REALLY works. What you'll find on this forum is a lot of the latter, and very little of the former. There are an awful lot of myths, half-truths and plain garbage about acoustics floating around on the internet, so it sometimes is hard to discern what is real and what is not real. That's why on this forum, for any advice you get here, you'll also find actual references to research papers, laboratory tests, equations, books, physics, and plain old truth.
Am I best to go with a brick building or can I get away with timber frame?
Both will work. Isolation can be accomplished with either method, if done correctly. Brick has the advantage of high mass, high density, high rigidity, and therefore good acoustic characteristics. Wood-framed construction has the advantage of being easier to build, cheaper, and requiring a bit more space for the same level of isolation. You could even combine the two: use brick for your outer-leaf and wood framing for your inner leaf: that's a common solution in some parts of the world. This is the way it works: The most economical way of getting good isolation is with a "fully-decoupled, two-leaf MSM wall". What that means is that between you and the outside world, there are two "leaves" of mass separated by an air gap, where "leaf" just means a massive (heavy), rigid surface that could be brick, or could be built up from one or more layers of common building materials, such as drywall ("plasterboard"), plywood, OSB, MDF, etc. So you have your two leaves, and the do not touch each other: there is an air gap between them that is filled with acoustic damping material, such as common insulation (fiberglass or mineral wool). It is that easy. The amount of isolation you get from this method is governed mostly by the amount of mass on each leaf, and the size of the air gap between them, and the amount of insulation in the air gap. There are equations for calculating all this, and there are documents that list literally hundreds of different ways of building isolation walls, showing the precise details of each method and the amount if isolation it actually provides. That's why it is important for you to know how much isolation you need, so you can choose the method and materials that will provide that level.
People are telling me the ballpark cost to construct a 23 x 13 brick shell on concrete foundation is £20,000
Thanks a lot Stuart! Some things to think about. I'm going to call the noise pollution squad tonight or on monday and try to get a ballpark number on what they think is acceptable. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a cut and dry number published anywhere.Sounds about right. That would be about 60-something pounds per square feet, which is roughly what one could expect.surely a DIY build would be better and cost a fraction of the priceI'll be doing some of the labour myself but have access to cheap builders who are working on the property at the moment anyway. I'm confident I can get it done correctly if everything is planned and plotted to perfection beforehand. Measure twice, cut once!Possibly, if you are going to do most of the labour yourself. DIY saves you stacks on labour, and going with wood-framed construction is something that most people can do. Bricklaying? Hmmmm.... maybe not so much. :)So the short answer is that the very first thing you should do is get that meter, find out what your legal limitations are on noise, and based on that figure out how much isolation you need , then look at the documentation to find a method that fits your budget and will give you that much isolation. That's the normal process. - Stuart -
"Live room" is more of a generic term for that kind of room, not just for rooms that are very "live", in the sense of reflective and reverberant. I'm glad you choose those two example, as they are very different in terms of what makes them sound good, acoustically. For most types of recording, a piano needs a large space to sound good, with a fair amount of "liveness" (to coin a term). If you track a piano in a room that is to dead, it just doesn't sound right in the mix. It sounds thin and lifeless. So a piano would track well in a large room with a good bit of "ambiance". But a vocal tracked in a large room with lots of ambiances doesn't sound so good: smaller rooms with a bit less ambiance are better for most type of vocal tracking. Of course, there are no hard and fast rules here, about what is "correct", and some vocalists do sound great in large rooms, but in general pianos and drums sound better in larger, livelier rooms, while vocals and some instruments sound better in smaller or "deader" rooms. Yes, you can use treatment in a room to make it dead, but dead rooms are unpleasant. You can also make the acoustics of a room variable, by adding hinged or sliding devices on the walls, so that you can either expose a lot more absorption to the room, or a lot more reflection, or even a lot more diffusion, as needed for each session. Probably in your case, the best would be to build two-sided gobos on wheels, with one side highly absorptive and the other highly reflective, so you can wheel those into position to create the type of ambiance you want. So the LR itself could be fairly neutral, and you could create a deader, smaller sounding space by surrounding a vocalist or instrument with several gobos, with the soft side facing in, or create a larger, more live sounding space by pushing the gobos up against the wall, covering absorptive devices on the walls, and with the reflective side facing the room. Most live rooms are design to have a certain "character", but it makes sense if yo also have the means to change that character as needed.To be honest when I say live room I really mean a room that is isolated from the other so if I want to close mic an upright piano or guitar amp I can. Or if a singer doesn't like singing in the control room they can go there. Is it possible to use various acoustic baffles (correct word?) to remove most of the room sound?
Depends on where you live! In some countries, brick is like gold nuggets, while in other it is dirt cheap. Some places (like where I live) fiber-cement board is about twice as expensive as drywall, but in other places it is the other way around. Where I live, timber and drywall are both cheap, so that's the way to build a studio here, but in South Africa, for example, timber is very expensive, so metal framing makes more sense than wood framing. So you might well be right about the order of materials where you live. But the point behind it all is that sound waves cannot read price tags, and do not care in the least about how much you pay for your mass: they only react to the mass in front of the, regardless of the cost, so get the least expensive material that will do the job.In order of isolation and cost am I right in guessing Brick > Concrete board > Timber
If that would be the cheapest combination for you, then yes. The only real advantage of fiber-cement board over plasterboard (drywall), is that the fiber-cement is about twice as dense, so it can be half as thick for the same mass and therefore the same isolation. So if a 10mm sheet of fibercement costs 50% more than a 19mm sheet of drywall, then use the fiber-cement, for sure. But if the fiber-cement costs more than double, then go with the drywall, sine it is easier to work with, and thicker.So a price/performance compromise might be concrete board for the outer leaf with plasterboard for the inner and rockwool filling?
Yup. Or a snare, or a tom, or the overheads... You really do want to be able to hear that properly on the monitors, so you can find the best position for the mic. Mic'ing drums is complicated anyway, but if you can't hear what you are doing as you try to find the best location for each mic, then that's a problem.A kick drum coming through a speaker vs an actual kick drum being struck.
Hopefully you'll be using speakers that have flat response down to below the lowest frequency that you'll be recording. And hopefully the control room will also be designed so that the speaker response in the room remains just as flat as the manual says it should be... :) What speakers do you plan to use?I'd guess the frequency response of the monitors would dictate how much sub freqs we'll have to deal with.
Looks like a cheap rip-off of the famous classic Radio Shack meter! I would look for something more like this: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Digital-sound-l ... 77&sr=1-70 You need both A and C weighting, as well as "fast" and "slow" response. Having a direct output form the mic is also useful, as that allows you to use the meter as a measurement mic, for measuring your room response later, while you are tuning it.How does this one look? http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0015NSTLI/? ... B0015NSTLI
It probably only reads "A" weighting, so you wont see much in the lows. And sorry, but the iPhone mic and circuitry was never designed to be used as a precisions acoustic instrument... :)You're right I do need one! According to my studio six iphone SPL meter, loud to me is 80dB. I'm sure this isn't measuring low freqs properly.
Yes, but that's probably "A" weighting, which is not so much use for measuring the spectrum of music.a reasonable level of noise inside the home (bedroom and living room) is between 35-40db.
Well, that IS possible, for sure: but your budget might not cooperate....If I can figure out a way to isolate down to 35db at the property this plan will have legs!
Call your local municipality, and ask them for a copy of their noise regulations. That should be very specific. It will probably tell you not just the actual levels that are allowed at each time of day, but also how it should be measured. - Stuart -I'm going to call the noise pollution squad tonight or on monday and try to get a ballpark number on what they think is acceptable. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a cut and dry number published anywhere.