Hi, my name is Ben from London, UK and I am about to undertake the task of building several rehearsal studios adjacent to one another and could do with some advice please. I have started to read through other threads but as I am trying to price materials I would like to avoid mistakes right from the off so thought I would post my draft design ideas to get a feel for whether Im looking at the construction/isolation incorrectly.
Firstly, the premises I'm going to work with is an open plan groundfloor industrial unit, concrete floor, brick walls, 14' high ceilings (partially concrete, partially normal ceiling which I guess is plasterboard with a unit above me).
The 5 studios will be quite close to one another (not touching) as I dont want to waste space. Initial measurements are 32' x 22' (x1) 18' x 13' (x2) 27' x 13' (x2).
My main concern is usability of the studios in such close proximity to one another and my other issue will be making sure no sound polution to the unit above.
My initial thoughts were to build and inner and outer wall of 6" dense concrete blocks. The inner wall 10ft high with a floating ceiling, the outer wall (6" apart from inner and not touching) 11ft high with an additional floating ceiling. None of the outer wall/ceiling with come into contact with the inner walls. Also, as mentioned the external walls to the unit are made of brick.
I would very much like opinions on whether double concrete walls are necessary or even effective or just plain wrong. Also, given I have a concrete floor throughout do I need to even think about floating the floors?
I have all sorts of questions regarding electrics, air con and ventilation but that seems so far off I'd like to know if Im on the right tracks with the basics first.
Im not sure how to edit my profile so to make sure I stick to the rules:
Ben, London
Many thanks for any guidance.
Ben
New Rehearsal Studio Advice Please
Originally posted at johnlsayers.com, topic 19457.
Hi Ben, and Welcome! :)
It would be unusual to have an industrial building where one part of the ground floor ceiling is concrete, and another part is just drywall (plasterboard), assuming that the next level up in the building extends across the same area. Could it be that the drywall you are seeing is just a drop ceiling, suspended below the actual concrete ceiling that you can't see right now? That would be more common. I'm not saying that it's impossible to have a building done like that: just not very common. It doesn't make much sense from the point of view of construction and structure to pour only part of the ceiling as concrete, leaving one section open, then go back and fill that in with joists, drywall and flooring.14' high ceilings (partially concrete, partially normal ceiling which I guess is plasterboard with a unit above me).
There's nothing wrong with having them "touching" in the sense that they are directly adjacent to each other, with the inner leaf of one studio being the outer-leaf of the next one. As long as the two leaves of each wall are fully decoupled, you are fine.The 5 studios will be quite close to one another (not touching) as I dont want to waste space.
That's why it would be important to find out if that is actually drywall on the underside of a set of joists that carry the floor above, or if it is just a drop-ceiling hanging from concrete above. There's a big difference in isolating those two scenarios, with a big difference in cost...and my other issue will be making sure no sound polution to the unit above.
When you talk about "inner walls" then "outer walls" then "external walls", it sounds like you are planning a three-leaf system! :shock: Three-leaf will have worse isolation than the same two-leaf, all other factors being equal. You already have your outer leaf: it IS the external wall of the building So if you start your series of 5 rooms from one corner of the existing building, then you only need to build one single inner leaf for each room, and you are done. No more walls required. Each room could, for example, have 13 foot walls with its own independent ceiling on top. If the set of 5 rooms does not completely fill the building, then you might need to extend the "outer leaf" wall across the area that encloses those 5 rooms, and that outer-leaf wall would go all the way up to the outer-leaf ceiling. In other words, something like this: OK, that only shows three rooms, not five (I got lazy!) and a passage in front of them, no doors, no windows, no HVAC (and without the ceilings), but it gives you the basic concept. Also, that's for "stud frame and drywall" construction, not concrete block as you are planning, but the concept is the same: The building itself provides the outer leaf, then each room is built as an inner leaf. That gives you fully-decoupled 2-leaf MSM.My initial thoughts were to build and inner and outer wall of 6" dense concrete blocks. The inner wall 10ft high with a floating ceiling, the outer wall (6" apart from inner and not touching) 11ft high with an additional floating ceiling. None of the outer wall/ceiling with come into contact with the inner walls. Also, as mentioned the external walls to the unit are made of brick.
The would work, and they would be very effective, but the question is cost and need. Do you really want to spend that much? And do you really need that much isolation? That's the big question here: in terms of decibels, how much isolation do you NEED? You need to put a number to that, to determine what type of materials and techniques yo need.I would very much like opinions on whether double concrete walls are necessary or even effective or just plain wrong.
The answer to that depends on the same question: How much isolation do you need? If you have two folks in adjacent rooms practicing vocals, then absolutely you do not need to float your floor. But if you have Pink Floyd practicing at full bore in one room, and a Foley stage in the next, then absolutely yes, you do need to float. But most likely you do not need to float: Very, very few studios actually need floated floors (despite the number of silly, misguided, and plain old WRONG attempts you see on YouTube!) I'm not sure of you have seen the thread below, but it probably answers your questions: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8173 Take a few minutes to read that.Also, given I have a concrete floor throughout do I need to even think about floating the floors?
Now is the time to think of all those things! HVAC can take up a lot of space, especially if you need high levels of isolation, so you should put that into the equation early on. Ditto doors, windows, electrical, and most of all, budget. And yes, you are on the right track... sort of! With the above caveats. :) It would really help if you could provide a diagram of the proposed layout in SketchUp and a few photos of the building, inside and outside, so we can get a better idea of what you are dealing with.I have all sorts of questions regarding electrics, air con and ventilation but that seems so far off I'd like to know if Im on the right tracks with the basics first.
You are fine! :) :thu: But if you do need to update your profile, click on the "User Control Panel" button at the top right of this page, then click on "profile" on the left edge. - Stuart -Im not sure how to edit my profile so to make sure I stick to the rules:
Hi Stuart and thanks for all of this. Im a novice (at best) but quick learner but was a bit confused before your visual mock up on the 2 leaf concept. Not needing to double the wall constructions is very good news all round. Im really grateful for the help.
I will start getting used to Sketchup and will get some basic layouts up soon. I will post up pics later in the week as we are only just about to get the keys today
You have given me hope because I hadnt thought of that. Unfortunately one end of the building (where the 32' x 22' studio will slot in) looks like it was part of the original building and definitely has a concrete ceiling, the rest of the open plan area looks like it was added at a later date. I now have hope though so will update on this during the week when I can dig around properly.It would be unusual to have an industrial building where one part of the ground floor ceiling is concrete, and another part is just drywall (plasterboard), assuming that the next level up in the building extends across the same area. Could it be that the drywall you are seeing is just a drop ceiling, suspended below the actual concrete ceiling that you can't see right now?
My basis for using concrete blocks was: 1. there will be local bands thrashing it out in close proximity to each other - around 500-1k watt PAs room size dependant. 2. if im being honest the concrete blocks seemed the line of least resistence for creating density. In other words, compensating for my general lack of knowledge. 3. Speed & Budget - now this is where Im hoping you will put me straight. I know that if I had 3 guys laying blocks this could go up pretty fast and to a large degree as long as they adhere to the decoupling rules my main job would be to deal with the ceilings, doors and HVAC etc... and acoustics of course. I would love to work with 4 x 2 studs but I cant see in my minds eye/ear how this could realistically isolate 2 rock bands only a few feet from one another - also, is stud the cheaper option given the need for additional insulation and dryboard to create density? There is more to this project as well, in that I am building music tuition rooms in the other half of the premises. These rooms themselves will be pretty well insulated but it would definitely need to be considered. Im going to try and upload the (very) draft floor layout to give you an idea of what I am trying to achieve. The control rooms in the diagram are still being considered as Im forward planning for adding recording facilities? Do the dimensions look ok? Dumb question - do the room sizes look ok for rehearsal space? I have gone back and forth changing my mind every other day on this and would be grateful for a 2nd opinion. Remember, I can divide this space pretty much how I like Many thanks for all your guidance., BenThey would work, and they would be very effective, but the question is cost and need. Do you really want to spend that much? And do you really need that much isolation? That's the big question here: in terms of decibels, how much isolation do you NEED? You need to put a number to that, to determine what type of materials and techniques yo need.
They are double walls! Just not in the sense that you expected! :) Take a close look: If you imagine yourself standing inside any of those three rooms, then you will find that there are TWO walls between you and someone else who is standing in any of the other rooms... 8) No matter which way you go, there are always two walls between you and the next "room", and that also considers the passage and the outside world as "rooms". That's the beauty of this system, which is sometimes called "fully-decoupled two-leaf MSM". It is "fully decoupled" because no wall touches any other wall, so there is no path for sound to get across the gap physically, except though the air. "Two leaf" because there are only two "leaves" of mass between any given pair of adjacent rooms: never one leaf, never three or more leaves (a "leaf" can be built up from several layers of material, if necessary: eg, two or three layers of 16mm drywall (plasterboard)). And "MSM" meaning "Mass-Spring-Mass", for the principle of physics on which this concept of isolation is based. In practice, a pair of walls separated by air is exactly the same as a heavy object (a "mass" in physics lingo) bouncing up and down on the end of a spring hung from above. Each leaf is a "mass", and the air between them is the "spring". We don't normally think of air as being "springy", but to sound waves it is very springy. An MSM system is resonant. That weighty object will bounce up and done at only one specific frequency: no matter how hard you try, you can't make it go faster or slower unless you physically force it through each cycle by hand... or you change the mass (make it heavier or lighter)... or you change the spring for another one with different "resilience" ("bounciness"). It's the exact same thing as pushing a child on a swing: they only swing at one specific frequency, no matter how hard or soft you push. Your wall works exactly the same way: it will resonate at one specific frequency, and will NOT want to resonate at all other frequencies. Meaning that it will actively isolate all other frequencies: it won't allow them to get through. And it turns out that this arrangement of Mass-Spring-Mass (or "leaf-air-leaf") is the most efficient way of arranging building materials if you want high levels of isolation at low cost. It works very well, since you are using the principle of resonance to your advantage. Resonance is a very powerful force, far more powerful than most people realize. Resonance has been known to destroy very large bridges and buildings effortlessly. So you are harnessing a very powerful ally to isolate your room There's only one downside: At the resonant frequency, the wall not only doesn't isolate any more, but in fact it actually amplifies. It only takes a slight bit of a push on each cycle to get a child swinging higher and higher on that swing. It only takes a tiny synchronized nudge on the bouncing weight to get it bobbing up and down harder and harder. It only takes a smidgeon of extra sound energy in phase with the wall vibration to get it REALLY humming. In other words, if you happen to play a note that is the exact same frequency as the resonant frequency of your wall, then the wall will amplify that note, and it will get through to the other side louder and clearer than if there were no wall at all! :shock: So obviously, the logical thing to do is to design your wall such that it's "MSM resonant frequency" occurs at a point that is outside the spectrum of notes that any possible instrument could ever play. And since human hearing is generally said to run from 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz, then all that you need to do is to "tune" your wall to a frequency lower than 20 Hz. It turns out that, mathematically, resonance has an effect up to 1.414 times the MSM resonant frequency (let's call that "f0", so that I don't have to type "MSM resonant frequency" all the time!). So your wall should be tuned such that f0 = 1 / 1.414 times the lowest frequency that you need to isolate. In reality, the recommendation is to tune it no higher than 1/2 f0: So if you want to isolate the entire spectrum down to 20 Hz, you should tune your wall to 10 Hz or lower. So how do you "tune" the wall? With "MSM"! :) You change the mass, or you change the spring. If you increase the mass on each leaf of your wall, then you lower the frequency. If you increase the air gap between the leaves, then you lower the frequency. So you tune your wall by playing with the amount of mass on each leaf, and the size of the air gap between them. In the real world, it gets to be pretty hard to tune a wall that low: you need lots of mass on each leaf, and a big air gap. On the other hand, there aren't many instruments that can even play that low! Bass guitars go down to about 35 Hz or so (depending on tuning), so unless you plan to record church organs, earthquakes, colliding planets, or heavy cannon fire, then you really don't need to isolate down to 20 Hz! So the question that you have to answer, is "What is the lowest frequency that I want to isolate?". You use that information to tune your wall, using the MSM equations. Then you also have to answer "How much isolation do I need?", with real-world numbers: Decibels. You have to decide on the level that you would consider acceptable for the isolation between two rooms. It might be 30 dB (about what a normal house wall gives you), or it might be 110 dB (about what a massive reinforced concrete bunker supported on enormous steel-and-polymer springs will give you). Based on those two numbers, it then becomes fairly easy to design a wall that will provide "X" level of isolation that extends down to "Y" frequency.but was a bit confused before your visual mock up on the 2 leaf concept. Not needing to double the wall constructions is very good news all round.
Ahhh! Then it might well be a lighter weight structure, if it was not part of the original building.the rest of the open plan area looks like it was added at a later date.
The power of the amps is one thing... the actual sound pressure level they create in the room is quite another! And so is the spectrum they cover. An electric guitar doing clean solos up the top of the scale through that 1000 watt amp is not going to be too hard to isolate, but a 6-string bass doing slap and hitting hard right down to the bottom end of its scale through the same amp is going to rattle the foundations... That's why you need to actually measure the levels, using a simple hand-held sound level meter. Go along to one of the sessions where a typical band is playing full-bore (the type of group that you expect to have in your rooms), and measure the levels in that room with your meter. Then walk out of that room, and keep on walking while the sound of that band gets quieter, until you judge that it is quite enough to be acceptable for your facility, and measure that level. Bingo! Now you know how much isolation you need! :) Subtract the "acceptable" number from the "loud" number, and the answer is your design goal for isolation. (Use "C" weighing and "Slow" response on the meter when doing these tests.)1. there will be local bands thrashing it out in close proximity to each other - around 500-1k watt PAs room size dependant.
That's fine, and you are correct: concrete block is, indeed, a great way of creating very massive walls. In fact, right now I'm designing two studios where concrete block is a key part of the design. However, the question is more about budget and needs, than about "how massive can I get it". Maybe you really do need massive concrete walls, and maybe you don't. It is possible that less expensive methods would get the result you need. There's no doubt that an MSM wall built with concrete block and a big air gap is going to give you mountains of isolation! :shock: The question is really: Do you need to spend that much money, or can you get acceptable results for less?2. if im being honest the concrete blocks seemed the line of least resistence for creating density. In other words, compensating for my general lack of knowledge.
concrete block walls can go up fast, yes, but so can drywall. Recently I did an isolation wall for a church, 17 meters long (about 56 feet) with metal framing and drywall, and three guys had it up in one morning! Doing the same wall in concrete block would have taken a few days... Drywall can go up fast, if you have good guys doing it.3. Speed & Budget - now this is where Im hoping you will put me straight. I know that if I had 3 guys laying blocks this could go up pretty fast and to a large degree as long as they adhere to the decoupling rules my main job would be to deal with the ceilings, doors and HVAC etc... and acoustics of course.
"Fully-decoupled 2-leaf MSM" :) Resonance can be your enemy.... or it can be your friend, if you use it to your advantage. The simple fact of it being a resonant system means that it "fights back". You can very easily get 50 dB of isolation with 2-leaf drywall construction, 60 dB is entirely do-able, and 70 dB or more is also on the cards, if you work very carefully and design well. (But don't confuse "dB isolation" with "STC". STC is no use for measuring studio isolation.)I would love to work with 4 x 2 studs but I cant see in my minds eye/ear how this could realistically isolate 2 rock bands only a few feet from one another
You need insulation inside your wall in any case, regardless of how you build it. Insulation is part of the MSM system: it is the damper on the spring, and works exactly the same as the shock absorber on your car suspension: it "smooths the ride" so to speak: It doesn't matter if you use concrete block, drywall, or cardboard boxes to build the wall: you still need the exact same insulation filling the cavity. So the only difference in cost, is the number of dollars you pay for each kilogram of wall. That's what you should be comparing. Sound wave can't read price tags, so they won't be more impressed if you buy expensive materials to stop them. All they do is react to the amount of mass in the wall, regardless of whether it is made of concrete, gypsum, steel plate, or titanium! It is the surface density that counts (mass per unit area). So whatever is less expensive in your area, kilogram for kilogram (or pound for pound) is the most logical choice.also, is stud the cheaper option given the need for additional insulation and dryboard to create density?
Excellent! That's clear enough to get the general idea of what you have in mind.Im going to try and upload the (very) draft floor layout to give you an idea of what I am trying to achieve.
VERY smart move! You have no idea how much that increase the intrinsic value of your facility. And how much it potentially increases your revenue stream: Imagine a band comes in to practice, and sees the control room right next to their assigned rehearsal space. "So you mean we can record our jamming session? Cool! How much EXTRA do you charge for that?" :) "Oh, and can we record a proper demo too? How much?" $$$ "And could you record our complete new album for us, too? How much for that?" $$$$$ The only thing I would change, is to put the control rooms in between the rehearsal rooms... That means that each control room can cover two rehearsal rooms (one on the left, one on the right), and be used to record either one room or the other, or perhaps both at once for a bigger band (or more elaborate session). It also means that there is more space between each pair of studios, and therefore more isolation. Win-win-win! All around better. But those are a bit small for control rooms: You should probably think about enlarging them a bit...The control rooms in the diagram are still being considered as Im forward planning for adding recording facilities?
Probably OK, but that's a lot of work to go through each and every room and do the acoustic calculations, even the basic ones! You can do that yourself, though: Plug in the numbers to these calculators, and see what results you get for each room: http://www.bobgolds.com/Mode/RoomModes.htm http://amroc.andymel.eu/Do the dimensions look ok?
Instead of having them all practically the same size, I would have a couple of bigger rooms and a couple of smaller rooms, which you can then rent at different rates: The small rooms for the duo that wants to practice a guitar and vocal number, or for the individual musician who just wants a quite place to rehearse his upcoming performance, and also bigger spaces for full bands with stacks of gear, or the Phil Collins wanna-be drummer who needs a place to set up his fifty-piece drum kit... More room sizes = more flexibility, = more possibilities for revenue streams... And revenue streams are a good thing, to my way of thinking! :) There's a few other of those that you might not have considered, in addition to the above... lots of ways of making money in a large facility like that. - Stuart -Dumb question - do the room sizes look ok for rehearsal space? I have gone back and forth changing my mind every other day on this and would be grateful for a 2nd opinion. Remember, I can divide this space pretty much how I like
Thanks Stuart for all this information and guidance, it's really helped me get a handle on the enormity of the project.
One of the things that is absolutely killing my budget projection is the shear volume of insulation. I would dearly love to hear that the cheap loft roll can be used, but I've read enough to know its unlikely to have the desired effect.
So, I'm left with wondering how to approach this and hope for some advice. The general idea is to get a c. 60db reduction - there will be 2 of the described walls between separate bands with at least 2' - 6' gaps between the rooms.
Basic Idea so far
Studio walls and ceiling will be - 2 layers of different board (drywall, OSB), 4" metal stud (insulated), 4" gap, 4" insulated stud, 3 layers of board( one layer green glue).
I know there is a multitude of considerations, but for now I'm crunching numbers so need to know:
1. Can the cheaper loft roll be used or is it a dark path.
2. OSB is quite a bit more expensive than drywall - is it ok to just stick with drywall.
3. If I go with the cheaper insulation can I make up for this in the future by adding more mass the the inside walls?
4. Whats the impact of only using 50mm insulation in the 4" studs
5. If I only insulate on of the studs will this be .....bad?
Hope this isn't too stupid a Q
Thanks, Ben
Actually, it is probably OK, as long as the density is roughly right, for the type of insulation: if fiberglass, then you want a density of around 30 kg/m3. If mineral wool then more like 50 kg/m3.One of the things that is absolutely killing my budget projection is the shear volume of insulation. I would dearly love to hear that the cheap loft roll can be used, but I've read enough to know its unlikely to have the desired effect.
Make those gaps as big as possible! Bigger gaps=lower MSM resonant frequency= better isolation. Plus, more insulation (since the gap is bigger, you an fit in more)=more damping = better isolation. You have the space to get really large gaps (many studio builders do not have that luxury!) so make the most of it.The general idea is to get a c. 60db reduction - there will be 2 of the described walls between separate bands with at least 2' - 6' gaps between the rooms.
Sounds pretty good! That should give you upwards of 60 dB, without too much hassle, provided that you build it carefully, and that everything else is done to the same level. Notably: HVAC, electrical and doors.Studio walls and ceiling will be - 2 layers of different board (drywall, OSB), 4" metal stud (insulated), 4" gap, 4" insulated stud, 3 layers of board( one layer green glue).
Possibly, but check the density.1. Can the cheaper loft roll be used or is it a dark path.
Well, you can, yes, but then you lose the sheer strength in the walls, so you'll need to brace them in that sense by some other method.2. OSB is quite a bit more expensive than drywall - is it ok to just stick with drywall.
Nope! They do two different things. Insulation is not there to add mass to the walls: it is there to damp the resonances that occur inside the wall cavity, between the leaves. There are several different types of resonance that happen in there, and the insulation damps all of them. Leaving out the insulation can cost you up to 16 dB of isolation, just due to those resonances not being damped any more....3. If I go with the cheaper insulation can I make up for this in the future by adding more mass the the inside walls?
Much less than using 4"! :) But still better than none at all. As you take out insulation depth, you drive up the resonant frequency of the entire system, and you also reduce damping, so you lose isolation. For a typical house wall, there is normally a difference of about 5 to 10 dB from filling the cavity with insulation. That's about the cheapest way there is of increasing the isolation by a large jump! With less thickness of insulation, there is less damping and it also only happens at higher frequencies. More thickness = increased damping, and also increased effectiveness at low frequencies.4. Whats the impact of only using 50mm insulation in the 4" studs
I think you meant to write "on only one of the studs", and the answer is yes, that would be bad: much less damping = less isolation, and worse performance in low frequencies. Quick reference: There's an abbreviated form of the MSM resonance equation that illustrates this very well. It is ONLY for use with an MSM wall that has a drywall inner-leaf and an extremely massive concrete outer-leaf. It goes like this: F= 60 / SQRT (m * d) That's without insulation in the wall. If you put insulation in, the constant changes from 60 to 43, like this: F= 43 / SQRT (m * d) . Do the math for a few combinations to see what happens to the resonant frequency, then you'll see why you should maximize insulation in the wall. The insulation also changes the way energy is absorbed in the air gap (adiabatic vs. isothermal), and in effect increases the average path length that a sound wave must follow across the cavity. So stuffing your wall full of insulation is A Really Good Thing To Do! It's win-win-win all around. Except for your wallet.... :) - Stuart -5. If I only insulate on of the studs will this be .....bad?
Thanks Stuart
Is this the air gap between studs or the gap between rooms? I did mean the gap between room will be 2' or up to 6' but maybe the rule applies to both the stud air gap and the room separation?Make those gaps as big as possible! Bigger gaps=lower MSM resonant frequency= better isolation. Plus, more insulation (since the gap is bigger, you an fit in more)=more damping = better isolation. You have the space to get really large gaps (many studio builders do not have that luxury!) so make the most of it.
Absolutely meant 'on only one of the studs' and thanks, that confirmed my thinking. Cheaper Loft Roll - is half the price of RWA45 but specs list no density figures and one company I rang for info referred me back to RWA45 so will just have to keep researching. Will certainly be a bonus but my feeling is that the loft rolls looks all lovely and thick but its actual density is pretty poor. Ok, I think it would be remiss of me to get to the end of a post and not ask a stupid Q, so here goes: Scenario: I'm building 8 smaller rooms (8'x8'x8') out of 4" metal stud, so effectively 8' cubes. They wont be double stud as isolation requirements are much less than the studios, but will be 'separate cubes' and the intention is drywall, stud (insulation), 2 layers drywall (or reverse the drywall to max internal space). It might be relevant - one side of these cubes will be attached (albeit decoupled) to a brick wall. Problem: If I were building these from wooden frames I can see how I would deal with the ceilings. I would run joists across the top of each cube (or joist hanger them) and then drywall/insulate to my hearts content (ish). The ceilings available are 14' high so I really dont want to suspend a ceiling down into these cubes, it just seems a bit crazy and expensive. I also dont particularly want to extend each wall up 14' for the same reasons (I do need to contain upward sound to a degree as there is a unit above so connecting to the current ceiling is not wise). Q. Can I just run metal studs across the top of the cube as joists? Does anyone have a diagram of a solution for this as I cant visualise at all. In all fairness, I simply havent worked with metal stud before but I cannot find a pic online that satisfies this question, which leads me to think its not as simple as this. If I have to work with wood for these cubes I will, but I would rather use metal stud for the whole project. I do however intend to suspend a ceiling into the studios (as long as the current ceiling will handle) unless someone tells me thats a bad idea? The stud Co. have recommended a MF solution which seems logical, but having no metal stud experience I am a bit unsure? Any suggestions greately appreciate and many thanks for your guidance and support BenI think you meant to write "on only one of the studs", and the answer is yes, that would be bad: much less damping = less isolation, and worse performance in low frequencies.
Found a solution to the ceiling issue and thought i'd post in case anyone else might benefit. It seems that as the ceiling expanse is only 8' I can use I-Stud as mini joists and board underneath, insulate and board above. I can use 6" I-stud which should give me enough islotation for these rooms as long as I caulk every crevice of the rooms etc.
Ben
hey Ben, looks like you've got a great studio planed here. Really smart move coming here with your ideas before you start building. You'll save yourself a LOT of time and money :D
It looks like Stuart has answered all your questions so far, but this one rang alarm bells for me when I got to it.
The good old 'cube' is the worst possible shape for a room as far as acoustics go. I'm not an acoustician but I believe the theory is that all the equal sizes amplifies the room modes to a very high degree. This will make the rooms hard to treat acoustically and may make the rooms uncomfortable to use. I would definitely say they would be unsuitable for recording. post up some pics when you can, it'd be great to see the space. cheers, steveI'm building 8 smaller rooms (8'x8'x8') out of 4" metal stud, so effectively 8' cubes.
Thanks Steve, yep you are quite right but these rooms are just being used for 1-1 instrument tuition so the room mode isnt really a problem as such. most of the time its either electric guitar or piano at low volumes. It would be quite easy to go up 9' in height but to control budget and installation ease Im having to think in terms 8x4 drywall - if i go above the 8' I have to add more drywall, insulation etc. and these rooms are going to be pretty funcional and basic. Its a mix of laziness & frugality which I have chosen to describe to myself as forward planning :)hey Ben, looks like you've got a great studio planed here. Really smart move coming here with your ideas before you start building. You'll save yourself a LOT of time and money :D It looks like Stuart has answered all your questions so far, but this one rang alarm bells for me when I got to it.The good old 'cube' is the worst possible shape for a room as far as acoustics go. I'm not an acoustician but I believe the theory is that all the equal sizes amplifies the room modes to a very high degree. This will make the rooms hard to treat acoustically and may make the rooms uncomfortable to use. I would definitely say they would be unsuitable for recording. post up some pics when you can, it'd be great to see the space. cheers, steveI'm building 8 smaller rooms (8'x8'x8') out of 4" metal stud, so effectively 8' cubes.
Are you SURE about that? :) Take a look at this: http://amroc.andymel.eu/ Set it to feet, plug in 8, 8, 8, and take a look at the results. Especially note where the tall red lines fall on the piano scale: Those will ring out loudly and long each time that note is played, while the other notes around them will not. And remember that each of those red lines is actually not just one red line, but THREE red lines: you can't see the other two, because the fall in exactly the same place. In reality, you should triple the height of those lines, since the effect of having three modes fall at the same frequency is to make the problem three times worse.... That isn't exactly a room that is conducive to being able to teach easily and effectively! Nor is it one that will entice customers to come back a second time, after their lousy experience the first time... You'd need a lot of treatment in those rooms to make them usable... Treatment = money. Steve is dead right. An 8 foot cube is about the worst possible room imaginable, acoustically. You could only make it worse if you built is as a sphere... It will take a stack of treatment in there to make the rooms usable... but with only 8 feet to work with, where would you even PUT that treatment? :shock:but these rooms are just being used for 1-1 instrument tuition so the room mode isnt really a problem as such.
Modes can be triggered with relatively low volumes... :) And both electric guitar and piano are plenty loud enough to do that in a small room. In fact, an upright piano will take up a rather large chunk of an 8x8x8 room, and since it is against one wall (it has to be), it can potentially trigger ALL of the modes fairly easily: And since the room has the same dimensions all ways, if the piano happens to trigger the 2,0,0 mode, then it will also trigger the 0,2,0 mode, and the 0,0,2 mode, since the are all at the same frequency. Tinnnnnnnnnnnnngggggggggg......most of the time its either electric guitar or piano at low volumes.
I'm guessing you haven't built a lot of stud-and-drywall rooms yourself? :) It takes me about 20 seconds to cut a sheet of drywall in two... One extra stud in each wall will cost you a couple of dollars. Several acoustic panels in the room to fix the terrible modal response will cost rather more... and take a bit more than 20 seconds to make... :) You could, for example, make all the rooms 8'6" long and 7'6" wide, using the exact same amount of materials (studs, drywall, insulation), with one extra cut of drywall on each wall, for substantially better acoustics at the exact same price... Plug those numbers into the same calculator as above, and see what a huge difference it makes... :)It would be quite easy to go up 9' in height but to control budget and installation ease Im having to think in terms 8x4 drywall - if i go above the 8' I have to add more drywall, insulation etc.
Basic? Yep. Functional? Nope. Not as MUSIC rooms, with those dimensions. Not without a lot of treatment. That might be fine as offices or storage rooms, but I certainly wouldn't want to have my piano lessons in an untreated room measuring 8x8x8 feet.and these rooms are going to be pretty funcional and basic.
:) You can be frugal and still have usable rooms! There's two ways of being frugal: Intelligently, and ... ummm .... not so intelligently... 8) There's economy, and then there's false economy. False economy is thinking you saved money and got good results, when you actually you did neither. There are many ways to save money when building studios, rehearsal spaces, and suchlike without sacrificing functionality. They aren't always obvious at first glance, but if you think things through and take a careful look at what others have done (learn form their experience, and also from their mistakes...) then you can do things inexpensively AND ALSO functionally and acoustically sound (no pun intended!). Please don't take this the wrong way, but what you are doing is basically going down the path that other forum members have gone down, trying to save money without understanding the consequences, and those are very, very often the threads that end up trailing off into nowhere as the build advances, and the builder realizes what a mess he has gotten himself into by not listening to solid advice, and learning the basics of acoustics and studio construction. Many of those same "trailing off" members have tried to save even more money by attempting to do things themselves that they don't know hoe to do, and by hiring the cheapest contractor, who has never built a studio, rehearsal room, or music room before, and has even less of a clue than the owner. Building such a place is VERY different from building a typical house, office, shop, school or garage. Many things must be done differently in order to succeed: same materials, same tools, same cost, but different techniques, in both design and in construction. A typical architect or contractor does not understand the implications, and is pretty guaranteed to do it wrong. It's not their fault. I make decent money being hired to tell people how to fix things that were screwed up by an architect or builder who didn't know about acoustics. Great architecture, wonderful lines, fast build, excellent workmanship, ... but terrible results, acoustically. If the owner would have called in someone at the start of the process (rather than at the end when things have already gone wrong) he could have saved a lot of money, both on paying the unnecessarily greater consulting fees, and also for buying the unnecessary extra materials and hiring the unnecessary extra workers to fix what was done wrong. It really is false economy to try to save money "unintelligently". (Not in the sense of being stupid, but just in the sense of not fully understanding what you are doing). So I'd really urge you to buy the books that can teach you this stuff, and spend some time gong through them, carefully, as well as looking over some of the bigger builds here on the forum. Put the build on hold for a couple of months while you do that, then you can design it properly, creating REAL savings in the process, intelligently, and also build it properly. I'd suggest two books: "Master Handbook of Acoustics" by F. Alton Everest (that's sort of the Bible for acoustics), and "Home Recording Studio: Build it Like the Pros", by Rod Gervais. They give you the necessary background on acoustics, to fully understand the implications of the decisions you make in the design process, and also the background on actual construction techniques that are needed for building acoustic spaces of any kind, even small one-on-one teaching rooms. Sure, reading those books and working through the design carefully will take time (realistically: a few months), but you'll be guaranteed a facility that actually does work well, both acoustically and operationally, and where the customers who use it for the first time will want to come back again, because the rooms are not just functional, but also sound so darn good. - Stuart -Its a mix of laziness & frugality which I have chosen to describe to myself as forward planning
ok, ok...:)
Actually redistributing 0.5' to width and length might be helpful overal so I can see this being the way to go, thaks for that Stuart. If Im being completely honest I was fully aware of the 8'x8' breaking the rules so to speak, but just wasnt lending enough importance to the end result for teachers and pupils.
I'm being really careful with the studios dimension requirements, but having taught for 25yrs in various locations I have never really put a whole lot of thought into the teaching room, until now.
I do have a bit of extra time (although I suspect we get the keys at the end of the week) as the sub-leases for the other tennents is dragging on a bit, mostly because they have no interest in speeding up the process, so I will do as you suggest and keep the research going.
There is no desperate hurry to start the build although once we have the keys I'm going to do all the clearing and prep myself. There are some features in the space that have to be worked around (an electricity room, a couple of concrete pillars) and to keep things simple Im going to redesign the basic layout to take advantage of current water and waste etc.
Im also going to be on site from start to finish to make sure the spec is adhered to. I will deal with the school side of the build and oversee the studios.
I have a creative question. I have the chance to pick up a signinficant quantity of glass partitioning for next to nothing - 2.5m x 1.2m 0.5" thick. Possibly 25 sheets or maybe more. 4 of the sheets are not quite as long
Q1. Assuming the actual framing(s) are correctly built etc will this kind of glass do the job between the control room and studio (a seperate sheet in each wall, say 12" apart?
Q2. If I were to use one of these sheets as part of the front of a teaching room wall and frame (lets assume I can frame air tight correctly) will 0.5" thick glass give me reasonable isolation. Remember the teaching rooms do not have to be anything like the studios in terms of isolation spec.
I would love to use to bring extra light into the teaching rooms. I would also like to use for the wall between the reception and teaching rooms but I can see I would have to float the ceiling down to accomodate top track for the glass partitioning?
Many thanks again for all the help, Ben
Many people do the same: underestimate the effects of bad acoustics on their business. I went to a restaurant with my wife a while back, and the acoustics were so bad that we could hardly have a conversation! It wasn't the noise level: in fact, it was rather quite in there, for a restaurant. It was the acoustics at our table: it was like talking into a concrete pipe or something like that: everything you said resonated and reverberated back at you, making it hard to understand what you were saying, and even harder for the other person. There weren't many people in the restaurant: I wonder why? :) What's the point of going to a place with friends/family to have a good social time together, if you can't even talk to each other? The food was good, the service was fine, and the prices were reasonable, but we certainly wont be going back. Why would we? I could have fixed that with a few hundred dollars worth of acoustic treatment, making it a pleasant place to eat (OK, maybe that more like a couple of grand), but the owners (and even worse, the architect!) obviously never gave any importance at all to acoustics... and now their business is suffering. I predict it will fail, as people just won't go back, and won't recommend the place to others. And most people probably won't even realize WHY the didn't like the place! It will just be "vibes" or "feeling" or something. But the real reason is acoustics: The owners never "lent enough importance to the end result"... :) The same applies to many, many churches: the pastors and priests often don't realize that a big part of the reason why their congregation is shrinking, is the acoustics. Statistics say that around 17% of church-goers will not return to a church, purely because the sound and acoustics were bad. Not the doctrine preached from the pulpit, or the hardness of the chairs, or the color of the flowers, or how they were greeted at the door: just "how it sounded in there". Pretty amazing. The same stats apply to most types of business where communication is important: Can you afford to lose 17% of your first-time customers? :)but just wasnt lending enough importance to the end result for teachers and pupils.
In that time, I'll bet there have been more than a few rooms where you thought "I really hate this room! I just can't seem to teach well in here!". And several others that you have loved... I'll also bet that the ones you hated had lousy acoustics, and the ones you loved had great acoustics, if you really go back and think hard about it. With most people, it's more of a gut reaction, a subconscious effect: they don't like the room (or do like it) but don't really know why. There's a whole branch of acoustics called "psycho-acoustics", which relates not so much to the sound in the spaces around people, but rather to the way the people perceive sound in that space. Apparently small effects can have a big effect on our perception of the spaces around us.but having taught for 25yrs in various locations I have never really put a whole lot of thought into the teaching room, until now.
Is that laminated glass, by any chance? If so, then excellent! If not, then still great. 12mm glass for free is not something to pass up. Yes, you very likely could use that in several places in your facility. 12mm is pretty good at isolating: glass is about 3 to 4 times the density of drywall, so 12mm of glass is equivalent to about 35 to 50mm of drywall, in terms of mass. That's somewhere between two and three layers of 5/8" fire-rated drywall. Pretty god for isolation! That said, you'll need to be very careful how and where you use it: Those are pretty big panes of glass! If you want to use that in the walls between teaching rooms, one pane will take up more than the entire wall! 2.5m is over 8 feet long... You might need to cut it, but there are some types of glass that you cannot cut, so it is important to find out what type of glass this is: if it is tempered, then forget it: you cannot cut tempered glass: it just shatters if you try. Plate glass can be cut, and so can float or annealed (basically similar). Laminated glass probably can be cut (provided that it is made with annealed or float glass, not tempered glass!), but it ain't easy. So try to find out what type of glass it is, to see if you have any flexibility in cutting it. There might also be restrictions in what type of glass you can use in what places: check your building code. for example, you should not use plate glass for stair railings and safety railings: that has to be laminated or annealed, usually. etc. Taking windows all the way down to the floor also invites disaster: kicking, banging with vacuum cleaners and other cleaning equipment, chairs, desks, pianos.... Full-length glass looks great, but sometimes isn't practical. You might also want to consider applying vinyl "frosting" strips or lettering to the glass, to improve privacy a bit. Acoustically, you'll also need to take care where/how you use it. For example, if you use it between your control rooms and rehearsal rooms, then you obviously cannot put any treatment over the glass, so you have to design the rooms with that in mind: it can only go at positions on the walls where no treatment is needed. so it cannot go at first reflection points, for example, and nor can it go in corners or on the back wall of the control rooms. Etc. So basically: yeah, it can be used, and yeah "free" is certainly an attractive price! So go for it, but then design and use it intelligently... And sell what you don't use, to help your budget... - Stuart -I have the chance to pick up a signinficant quantity of glass partitioning for next to nothing - 2.5m x 1.2m 0.5" thick. Possibly 25 sheets or maybe more. 4 of the sheets are not quite as long
Hi Stuart, you are right there have been plenty of rooms I have disliked and actually plenty of restaurants that I have taken a dislike to, so I think you are dead right there.
The glass is laminated but is also toughened, so cutting is a no no. It turns out they also have a couple of frosted square patterns on each sheet (for H & S) so in between control/live rooms might look a bit weird. I do have my eye on another couple of sheets of laminated glass for the control room
I could consider extending the teaching rooms height and using one of the panels on the front wall upright. The hallway as well could be a possibility as it would probably cover the whole corridor (ish).
Anyway, I will have to hire a pretty big van to get this stuff back but it will be worth it
Thanks for the help again, Ben
I do have a stupid Ceiling Q of the day.
I will have 2 metal stud walls MAM, say 6" apart from stud to stud, so 14" + drywall/OSB , maybe 18-20" in total.
The ceiling will suspend down from building shell ceiling into the internal stud wall, drywall/osb, insulation, drywall/osb.
Q. What happens with the external stud in terms of finishing. I cant realistically run joists to create a second ceiling across the other ceiling or float a second ceiling above. Is the outer stud better off going up 14' to shell ceiling with as much decoupling as possible?
I ask this because what I was expecting to do was make the stud walls the same height and then run the outer ceiling drywall/board across from outer studs right across the span, but this does create a connection between the studs?
I suppose the question is simply that with 2 stud walls surely at some point across the ceiling there will be a connection (unless the outer stud goes to the ceiling)?
Thanks, Ben
i'm not sure I quite get what you're talking about there Ben :D
If you already have your outer shell ceiling, you don't want to connect it with your inner ceiling or walls in any way.The ceiling will suspend down from building shell ceiling into the internal stud wall
It sounds like you're building a 3-leaf system from what you've said here. Your outer shell IS your second wall. There should only be one wall internally which you would run your internal ceiling joists across and hang the plaster for your ceiling from that. In the drawing that Stuart posted up a little further back, the outer wall he has drawn IS your existing outer shell. The rooms inside that consist of all the walls you will have to build. Each internal room will have it's own ceiling which doesn't touch any of the others and sits on it's own walls. Maybe posting up a few pics of the space or a sketchup drawing of what you're thinking could help. cheers, steveI ask this because what I was expecting to do was make the stud walls the same height and then run the outer ceiling drywall/board across from outer studs right across the span, but this does create a connection between the studs?
Hi Steve, no I think Im being a bit unclear. There will be a double stud but it only amounts to a single leaf as there is no inner mass, only mass on the exteriors. So the buildings brick shell will be one leaf and the studio double stud will effectively be the second leaf.
because of the expanse a ceiling has to be floated from the existing ceiling. It will be decoupled of course but you cant realistically use metal stud and span 21' x 31' width unless its suspended from the existing ceiling (well, thats my understanding but I could be wrong of course?). These are effectively free standing rooms. Whats confusing me is that in my (tiny) mind im visualising the drywall/osb ceiling being suspended into what is effectively the inner room (created by the inner stud, maybe 12" into it. Above that I will insulate etc and finally add layers of more drywall/osb. This will complete my MAM for this leaf. BUT - and here is the studid Q.... If I have suspended the ceiling into the room, and this will be into the inside of the leaf (created by the inner stud and inner osb etc) there is still the issue of the outer stud, which is in my visualisation just sitting there, unconnected to the inner stud and ....well, unfinished. Im hazarding a guess that either the ceiling isnt suspended 'into' the room as such and that its only suspended to the same height as the room OR the outer stud is higher than the inner stud, the celing is suspended down to the inner stud and the difference created is treated as MAM and insulated accordingly? Basically, connecting the wall studs and the ceilings in the studios are confusing me and im being as clear as mud. Any guidance would be appreciated - photos wont help with this as such as the problem doesnt exist yet as im building in my head - we get the keys this week. Thanks, BenIf you already have your outer shell ceiling, you don't want to connect it with your inner ceiling or walls in any way.
Then what is the purpose of having double studs? If there is nothing on the second set of studs, then why are they even there? Your INNER leaf only needs SINGLE studs, not double. As Steve mentioned, your OUTER leaf ceiling is already there: You don't need another outer-leaf ceiling, since you already have one: the existing building. And since none of your rooms is 21' wide, you don't need to span 21' anywhere either. If your inner rooms are only 12' wide, then you only need to span 12'. So you build your inner-leaf walls, then you put 12' joists across the tops of those wall, then you attach the drywall to those joists, and you are done. The inner-leaf joists rest ONLY on the inner leaf walls, and there is only ONE set of joists and studs per room, totally independent of all other sets of joists and studs. - Stuart -There will be a double stud but it only amounts to a single leaf as there is no inner mass, only mass on the exteriors.
This is my fault as im confusing the issue, probably with terminology. Im saying 'double stud', but unless Im completely misunderstanding what a leaf is, then its actually still just one leaf: There is an outer leaf (the external brick shell of the building) and the construction of one of my studio walls is basically a single leaf MAM: osb/drywall - stud (insulated) - 6" air gap-stud (insulated)-drywall/osb Unless Im mistaken, this is a single leaf, but with 2 studs within. My reference to no mass on stud was the internal sections of the studs. Both externals have mass on the outside which all added together I thought constituted a single leaf If you are saying there is no point to this and what i should actually do is a single stud with mass on each side...then I have completely misunderstood the notion and benefits of increasing the distance between the mass? I doubt this will be sufficient. Nobody will be happier than me if i have this wrong as it will take a significant amount off the spend because I can dispense with the 2nd stud in each wall, but I think we are just talking at cross-purposes?Then what is the purpose of having double studs? If there is nothing on the second set of studs, then why are they even there? Your INNER leaf only needs SINGLE studs, not double.
the performace studio is 21' wide, 32' long (maybe 27' long but thats to be confirmed, but def 21' wide) - the diagram i posted may have changed I guess but it was 22' foot wide originally - the final layout is still a work in progress atm though. If I'm using metal stud for walls and using 6" I-Stud for the joists are you saying 12-13' span should be ok without additional suspended support - say 2 layers of board on either side of ceiling and and insulation inbetween. That will be good news.. In the unlikely event that I am right about the double stud scenario described above I believe what you are saying is that I just rune the joists across from the external stud? Doesnt this short-circuit the 6" gap between studs that i created or is that irrelevant as its all one leaf anyway? Ive attached a very rough layout idea which is limited by my 'sketchy' skills. It will change as I would prefer to run the 1-1 teaching rooms in a row along the back wall BAnd since none of your rooms is 21' wide, you don't need to span 21' anywhere either
LIke Steve said: that is indeed a triple leaf....There is an outer leaf (the external brick shell of the building) and the construction of one of my studio walls is basically a single leaf MAM: osb/drywall - stud (insulated) - 6" air gap-stud (insulated)-drywall/osb
No, that's a TWO-leaf MSM wall! The "OSB/Drywall" on the first set of studs is your first leaf, and the "drywall/OSB" combination on the second set of studs is your second leaf. (Also, the OSB should go up against the studs, not the drywall... but that's a different issue). So combine that 2-leaf with the existing outer leaf, and you have 3-leaf... :shock:the construction of one of my studio walls is basically a single leaf MAM: osb/drywall - stud (insulated) - 6" air gap-stud (insulated)-drywall/osb
No, it is two leaves.Unless Im mistaken, this is a single leaf, but with 2 studs within.
The mass IS the leaf! They are not separate things. The "leaf" consists of mass, and is usually built up of one or more layers of common building materials, such as OSB, drywall, plywood, MDF, etc. In your case, the set of "OSB + drywall" makes up a leaf.My reference to no mass on stud was the internal sections of the stud. Both externals have mass on the outside.
Wrong again! :) What you are describing is a 2-leaf wall: you are just using the wrong term for it, and not understanding it... A 2-leaf MSM wall can, indeed, consist of osb+drywall attached to one stud frame ("M"), then a gap ("S"), then more osb+drywall attached to another stud frame ("M"), with insulation filling the gaps between.If you are saying there is no point to this and what i should actually do is a single stud with mass on each side...
Then you'll likely want to do wood framing for that studio. Spanning that distance with a good load of mass is very likely going to need 2x12's 16OC, or perhaps even lager dimensions, or closer spacing, or both. Your structural engineer is the only person qualified to tell you how to do that. Nobody else. And you can't guess, either. You won't get your permits signed off if you don't have the right paperwork from a qualified structural engineer, showing the calculations and conclusions. Also, performance studios have even higher live loads than typical control room or live rooms ceilings: they have to support the theatrical lighting rigs, cables, acoustic treatment, speakers, equipment, scenery, HVAC, etc. There's a very heavy load up there: get a structural engineer who has experience with small theaters or other performing spaces. There will be loads going on there that he'll need to take into account, far beyond the typical.the performace studio is 21' wide, 32' long (maybe 27' long but thats to be confirmed, but def 21' wide) -
Nope! :) the joists for your CEILING, which is the INNER leaf must not EVER touch any part of the outer leaf ("external studs"). The outer-leaf is one thing, and the inner-leaf is an entirely separate, independent, self-standing structure that does not touch any part at all of the outer leaf. There can be NO connections between the two, so your ceiling CANNOT rest on the external studs, since those are holding up outer leaf. Refer back to the model I did for you on the first page of your thread: now imagine three separate and independent ceilings on there, one on top of each of the inner-leaf rooms. That's all you need to do. The joists for each room will rest only on the walls for that specific room, touching only the inner-leaf studs for those walls. There is no connection to the outer-leaf walls (the long ones): Those studs do not and cannot support the inner-leaf ceilings. It would REALLY help if you could model your plans in SketchUp and post them here: it seems that there is a lot of confusion about what you are trying to do, and how you are going about it, and also of the terminology. You really do need to learn the right jargon before you can start building this, or your instructions to the contractors will very likely be misinterpreted: they will build what you actually tell them to build, not what you thought you told them to build! :shock: :) - Stuart -I believe what you are saying is that I just rune the joists across from the external stud?
ah, ok..so this is good news.. I think.
So, just so Im clear - from what you say a single stud with drywall/OSB on both sides with insulation in the middle is in fact 2 leaf also, because it has mass - air - mass.
How does one ever achieve 2 leaf when there is an existing outer leaf as all partition walls have to have mass on each side of a stud -unless of course I attach a decoupled stud to current outer leaf and the only added mass is the interior to that?
I have attached what was going through my mind for the wall.
Its crude I know but my sketchup skills are not up to this.
Ok, so if my idea is a 3 leaf then what would you suggest to achieve 2 leaf or are we saying that actually a 2 leaf wall as im describing is the way to go?
Absolutely agree Stuart a structural engineer will have to play a big part in the main studio. Im glad you said wood as now its a bit easier to visualise.
Thanks, B
Insulation batt hangers glued to the existing concrete wall and then build "ONE" inner leaf wall
Peace
Tom
the diagram that you've drawn here will (hopefully) point out where you're going wrong if I can manage to explain it properly. What you've drawn is a 3 leaf wall. leaf 1 - brick exterior wall leaf 2 - plasterboard/OSB stud wall with the plasterboard/OSB facing the brick wall. leaf 3 - PLasterboard/OSB stud wall with plasterboard/OSB facing the inside of the room. you have two options for your walls regarding this drawing and it means removing one of the plasterboard OSB walls. Option 1 - remove the plasterboard/OSB wall that is facing the brickwork. Fill the cavity between the remaining plasterboard/OSB wall with appropriate insulation (another story altogether) and you have your two leaf system with plaster on the inside of your finished room. Hang your ceiling joists on the single internal wall (without without connecting to the external wall in any way) hang your ceiling plaster from them and begin acoustic treatment. Option 2 - remove the plasterboard/OSB wall that is facing the inside of the room. Fill the cavity between your remaining wall with appropriate insulation, and again, you have your 2 leaf system which you can then hang your ceiling joists on and then plaster etc. The differnece being, that if you do it this way, you leave the stud cavity facing the inside of the room which allows you to put your acoustic treatment in the cavity to save you room space. This method is outlined in John's manual on the site. Take a look at 'dog & bear studio' build under 'other studios' on the forum. It's my build and I've done it the way John suggests. There's a lot of photo's in there that might help you visualize this process better as it's the same kind of brick outer shell that you have. edit: look at pages 4-5 to be precise :D cheers steveI have attached what was going through my mind for the wall.
Thanks Steve, that makes sense of course and I can see how my way was a 3 leaf system. I can see how a room within a room is easy to achieve a 2 leaf solution, but what about roomS within a room, which is what i need.
The area of my space is c. 4,800ft2 (150'x33') and c. one half of this is going to be rehearsal rooms, effectively next to each other (maybe 12" - 48" apart) so even though my outer shell is brick (leaf 1), the inside studios were going to be free standing rooms (not associated with the outer brick wall and not associated with each other) I cant really leave the outer stud on these rooms without board as this would...well be ugly I guess as it will be visible in corridors etc. I could consider leaving the inside of the stud (inside the room) without drywall, but surface mounting electrics etc is hard to visualise.
The isloation requirements are going to be around 60db from inside a room to outside, which when you factor in a further reduction from inside a room to inside another room I think this will be sufficient for rehearsal space. I cant see this being acheived with 6" stud with only drywall/osb/insulation on one side?
I will read up more on this as its still not particularly clear how Im going to construct these walls in my scenario...
Thanks, Ben
If you put your plaster board on the outside of the rehearsal spaces, then all your cabling runs through the internal stud cavity. It's pretty easy to fix a small panel of timber here and there to attach your sockets to. Once you fill the exposed internal stud cavity with whatever acoustic treatment you need, you then cover that with a fabric purely for aesthetics.but surface mounting electrics etc is hard to visualise.
You'll be able to achieve 60db loss between your rehearsal spaces if you construct your walls with the right materials, in the right amounts, in the right places. and pay attention to detail :) if you want 60db loss in a corridor which is outside the reheasal spaces, but inside the brick shell, then that's a whole other kettle of monkeys :shock: This is where you'll have to take a serious look at your budget. If you need to maintain a serious amount of isolation from your neighbours, then sticking with 2 leaf construction is the way to go. To maintain serious isolation from your neighbours AND have a 60db loss in your corridor means building all your internal walls and ceilings to have a 60db loss EACH :shock: Not impossible, but not cheap. If you think you can get away with less isolation regarding your neighbours, and want 60 db loss in your corridor, then a 3 leaf construction could be the way to go. This does mean building another ENTIRE shell within your existing shell, then building all your rehearsal spaces inside that second shell. Not impossible, but again, certainly not cheap. This all begs the question, why do you want 60db loss in the corridor outside the rehearsal spaces? cheers, steveThe isloation requirements are going to be around 60db from inside a room to outside, which when you factor in a further reduction from inside a room to inside another room I think this will be sufficient for rehearsal space. I cant see this being acheived with 6" stud with only drywall/osb/insulation on one side?