Planning design of a full recording studio/ Now building...

Erik, Just wanna say it's looking good. Must feel good to see things starting to take shape! Marc

Hi Marc ! :D Yessssss it feel good to have something that begins to look like a CR, i only began to work on this construction since July last year but i have the impression that it's been much longer that, seems to me that it will never end. And it's only the CR ! :shock: . I am quite proud of it too 8) , this is my first "large scale" construction project taken from scratch. So i am even more proud. I learn a lot, thanks to this forum.

Quick update... Did some listening test yesterday, with the acoustic traps in place, and an unfinished superchunk. Again this test was made with no measurement gear. Let's just say it's better but not there yet. Stereo image is back but i still have no bass, it seems i am sitting in a null. In the corner where the superchunk will be, i have massive :shock: amount of bass, sub/bass, enough to make one sick acctually. The closer i move to the listening position the less bass i have. And since bass is not present in the listening position, eveything seems to sound thin/harsh. These traps were just statring a point but they reveal something, i will have to do a huge corner superchunk to keep the bass from comming back. And add some more bass trapping in the upper rear corners too. I will ty moving the monitors back into the soffit cavities, just to see if that changes the position of the null point.

orangenumerik wrote:

I will ty moving the monitors back into the soffit cavities, just to see if that changes the position of the null point.

Eric, he room is looking good........ On the caulk issue - and sorry for me chiming in so late - but it looks to me like you didn't "tool" the joint when you caulked it........ once the corner is caulked (and it's critical that the backer rod is far enough back to allow this) the joint has to be raked so that it is a clean concave corner - slightly behind the face of the drywall - and thins out to almost nothing at the 2 edges..... This can be done neatly with the fingers if you wear a latex glove and keep it wet with water during each swipe...... ON the issue of the null........ your expectations are not what happens with the placements of treatments......... The null location never changes position - If the treatments were perfect - the null just never happens........ If the treatments aren't perfect - the null will just be less of a null... and then you can fine tune for the null by a slight shift of your listening position. And the shifts should be very subtle - not large. This is why - when testing - one or 2 or even 15 tests aren't enough - you really want to do as many as you can force yourself to do - with very small shifts of the microphone - the smaller the movement the more accurate representation you get of where your sweet spot really is. Rod

Thanks for chimming in Rod.

he room is looking good........

Thanks, I certainly hope so, damn, so many hour spent alone in there...

This can be done neatly with the fingers if you wear a latex glove and keep it wet with water during each swipe......

Funny used to do that with latex caulk, i'd never though it could be done with that incredibly sticky gray nightmare acoustic caulk :roll: Thanks for the tip!

The null location never changes position -

Right, forgot that one :? You know what, something positive came from you post : I can acctually correct the nulls ( getting in a discouraged phase here ) so let there be hope ! :P

This is why - when testing - one or 2 or even 15 tests aren't enough

These test i did were just made with my humble sound engineer ears, but that's what i'll do when i'll be there for sure. This is my Job i won't settle for something that is just OK. I want to have the best environement with what i have, after all this is why i am building this thing !

Hi, I'am starting construccions my High/Med absorvers and corner bass traps. Wich product is better for sound tratement? Fiberglass like 703/705 or fiberwood? Thanks. Diego Guerrero www.diegoguerrero.com

Hi all ! Just a quick update to tell everyone that no work was done since my last post :roll: I am not dead either :wink: I just work a lot, on different project at the same time, so there is no more time for studio construction. But that means more money to finish the damn thing later. I don't know when this roallercoaster ride of work will end, but you can make sure you'll hear from me when i'll begin to work on the booths and studio. Thanks to all.

Hi everyone ! i've been busy all summer buried with work, i almost ended in New-York with le "Cirque du Soleil" ! :shock: ... but no, instead, i am back at building my studio in the making :? . Soooo. Some work was done, i have almost finished beefing up two of the three exterior walls (photos to come), electrical plans, and framing of a new window, and tons of little things here and there. I came to the forum once in a while in the lasts months to read the post and keep "the edge" on building this thing. I understand that there is a lot of people here and lots of opinions and experiences. Recently in a post Mr Rod Gervais was saying the the more stiff a wall construction was, the better, at least as far as low freq range is concerned (sorry i just can't find the post). What is confusing to me is an old post i had with Steve (Knightfly), about a year and a half ago, here's the quote :

I've learned in the last couple of years that stiffness in a wall is NOT a good thing - ideally, you could have infinite mass separated by lots of air (or better, vacuum ) from a second infinite mass, and have both masses just floating - this would be the best you could get. Not being able to do that, the next best thing is a frame that allows the wallboard to be as floppy (floating) as possible; this is why 24" centers gives better isolation than 16" centers. It's also, in a way, why wider air gaps between masses is better (softer coupling "spring") .

Am i missing it or Steve's post just say the oposite of what's Rod is recommending ? I am about to built my 2X4 inner walls and i'd like to be clear on the issue. Just for the record, i am not questionning Mr Gervais competence on the subject or Steve's. Having just read two opposite views from two people i trust is just confusing. Thanks

its a tough challenge - Infinite Limp Mass­® :wink: on one hand you want the mass to be limp so it passes virtully nothing, and since thats not possible, you want the frequencies it does excite on the other side to be attentuated in the next layers (limp air/insulation (spring) and then limp mass again). I think Eric Desart posted recently (and many times previously as well) the Acoustical Physics Voodoo Magic® (APVM®) (as well as an Excel spreadsheet) for calculating MSM on various wall assemblies.

To be more on the practical side of things :wink: when using 2X4 should they be spaced at 16 O.C. or 24 O.C. ? Obviously for maximum stiffness 16 or even 12 O.C. would be better and then using 2X6 would be even better than all that. I was planning to use 2X4 at 24 O.C. upon Steve's recommendation, but now i'm not so sure about that...

orangenumerik wrote:

To be more on the practical side of things :wink: when using 2X4 should they be spaced at 16 O.C. or 24 O.C. ? Obviously for maximum stiffness 16 or even 12 O.C. would be better and then using 2X6 would be even better than all that. I was planning to use 2X4 at 24 O.C. upon Steve's recommendation, but now i'm not so sure about that...

2x6 @ 24" oc gives better low end Tl values than 2x4 @ 16" oc. They both use the same # of board feet of lumber to construct 12' of wall (except for the small gain in the top and bottom plates with the 2x6). Rod