Confused about related dimensions vs. non-parallel surfaces

Started by Adrian Popovich on 28 November 2006. 1 reply.

Originally posted at johnlsayers.com, topic 7628.

Hello All, I just read the following from legendary engineer/producer Bruce Swedian's site:
In recording room acoustics the most important rule to remember is - avoid “like dimensions”. In other words, a "square" room will make a poor studio. Another important rule is; avoid large parallel surfaces. When choosing dimensions for a studio or evaluating an existing design, it is imperative to have major dimensions that are not related to each other. Even with non-parallel surfaces this is extremely important. Related dimensions produce resonances or peaks in a room's response. Related dimensions are divisable by each other, or a root number. In other words, a room with a ten foot ceiling height that is 20 feet wide and 30 feet long will, predictably have standing waves, flutter echos and will not be suitable for a recording studio.
I've long understood the "avoid parallel walls part", but the "avoid like-dimensions" part has me confused. Most of the control-room designs I'm finding here from John (and from others) have non-parallel walls, but many are perfectly symmetrical, meaning there are a number of "related dimensions" within them. Does the above quote make any sense to you, John? I really don't know what to make of it... Thanks for your help!
Yes Adrian - the above quote makes sense as he's talking about tracking rooms - his reference to equal dimensions refers to room dimensions - i.e. his 10ft x 20 ft x 30 ft room will have modes around the 10 ft dimension. Symmetry in a control room is another story - you are looking for symmetry around the area of the front projection of the speaker system - that's where you'll see similar dimensions in my control rooms BUT the walls aren't parallel. cheers john