When is a live room to big?

The reason I ask is because in the near future,I may obtain one of the following rooms for a live room: a)20'w X 30'l X 8'h or b)30'w X 45'l X 16'h Besides the obvious problems(bigger room=bigger cost to prepare,work on etc.),would I encounter more sonic headaches in the bigger room. I looked around and haven't found a reasonable opinion one way or the other. Thanks for any info.

Big rooms are cool, you don't have as many low freq problems as in smallish rooms, but they have a lot of reverb. That's also cool, you can use it or treat it, but the question is what you want to record there.

Thanks for yor reply, I'll just be recording mostly local rock bands.24 track DAW.More accurately,anyone at first.I just don't want to invest in a huge room,just to find later,that I could have done just as well with the smaller one. The smaller room will require much less development than the larger one,saving money for gear. I've seen rooms with reversable absorbers on the walls to change the sound of the room to suit the music. Thanks again.

i'd go with the larger room and build some isobooths... the ceiling height in the larger room is a really nice feature. you could put in a bunch of hanging traps throughout with a nicely finshed false ceiling and should have a nice tight bass with some absorption... building reversible treatments on the walls to change the remaining reverberation levels.

Wow.Nice print! I'm guessing from a sonic/versitility standpoint you prefer the larger room. To my chagrin,I left out some details on the larger room: 1)Ceiling has sprinklers a couple of inches below the beams which can't be obstructed. 2)In addition to the 30 x 45 area,there is a pair of 11 x 13 rooms at the east end,with a double door hallway between them. Its a bit of a can of worms(more details)compared to the smaller room. I'm trying not to talk myself out of it for the love of saving money. The cost difference in developing the two areas is like 20 to 1. But.The end result sound is, in the long run,what will provide the most satisfaction,for myself and clients as well. Thanks for your input!

Hello there Problems with big rooms are echoes... and as Bert said reveberation time. these can be controllable using diffusers/absorbers in a proper way.

paulscary wrote:

1)Ceiling has sprinklers a couple of inches below the beams which can't be obstructed. 2)In addition to the 30 x 45 area,there is a pair of 11 x 13 rooms at the east end,with a double door hallway between them. ... The cost difference in developing the two areas is like 20 to 1.

yeah i'd prefer the bigger room but your budget and timeframe will probably be the deciding factor. if you're planning on mostly close mic recording and so the room acoustics are less important, then the smaller area can be fashioned to meet your needs. the fire sprinklers could have the heads extended to poke through the false ceiling. the 11x13 rooms could be rehearsal/lounge/mix suites depending on your business model....

Hi, I can get the large room in a month and the smaller one in a little over two months.Money?Well--The large room will cost a lot so it will have to be a "real" pro,working studio to at least generate some cash to offset the investment.The smaller room would be so much cheaper to get going that I could eat the cost and have a relaxed semi-pro/personal studio with no scheduled stuff.Record what I like,when I like.I have recorded in the smaller room with decent results and almost no treatment. It seems the general drift is towards the Big room.Both sizes have obstacles.Just trying to see if the big one is a don't miss kind of thing. I'll post when I know for sure.Thanks to all for your help!

paulscary wrote:

It seems the general drift is towards the Big room.Both sizes have obstacles.Just trying to see if the big one is a don't miss kind of thing. I'll post when I know for sure.Thanks to all for your help!

I'm with Glenn here. I even shouldn't make that ceiling so absorptive (there is no real echo in a room that size). I don't see acoustic disadvantages whatsoever in the bigger room, but mainly advantages. A live room is meant to be used as live. Hence this higher (controlled) reverb is a plus, not a minus. And it can easily be adjusted to lower when needed. I think it's entirely a budgetary thing. I think this studio world hasn't it that easy (too much competition on the lower end side) from a commercial point of view. Hence you need to have a solid name already before you can ask higher prices, justifying/compensating these higher investments and overhead. Having a big room (with related overhead and installation cost) but too little work for it has little sense. In as far as I know a bit about it: it's nowadays a difficult world from a commercial point of view. I assume it's a bit like in sports and music. The toppers can earn/ask a lot, there is a relative small mid area, and lots must do with much less. Hence that big room with a 20:1 factor should only secundary be seen from an acoustic point of view. First question should be: can you get work enough on reasonable prices to justify that decision. A lot of DIY studios aren't really established with clear commercial mid or long term budget plans in mind but more as a side activity.

One vote for the smaller room. Build your cliental first. Its pretty brutal out there at this point, just in case you haven't noticed. I talk to big studio owners all the time. Seems to be picking up a bit recently. As long as you can do a decent build with good acoustics you should be able to make some nice recordings and not have to eat ramon noodles. Did the 5,000 square footer before. Just my 2 cents.

HMMM I'd say whatever your wallet can afford!!! You can still get great if not awesome results out of smaller sized main room, im meaning not under 18m2.. i have had problems with really large rooms im talking 150m2+ (not sure if this applies).. the problem was with drums..the room was so big and the ceiling so high that the drums didnt seem to activate the air in the room or achieve decent reflections, the drums almost sounded as if they were on a beach (kiddin but no vibe) haha..the drums sounded small, volume was unusually super low and the drummer had a 26 inch bass drum (really loud) I'd walk 12 feet away from the drummer and it sounded so soft in volume...we had to use a small PA with sends from the console on the kick snare and toms just to get the room to sound like something.... i'm not naming names but this was a famous room in LA at the time... if a room sounds good i guess its good?? i have been to recording sessions where engineers record the drums in the mic closet cause the A room had no vibe... guess it comes down to a personal taste thing?? I'm not sure if there is one room that can do it all??.. tight or huge? mulitple rooms? LEDE? there would be a few options... when a rooms big sounding, problem is you cant really take the largeness out of it as its in everything? ala high hat wash and splutter etc.. hmmm and yes i've noticed big studio owners are suffering atm! Engineers seem to be openeing up personal studios and taking the work!! good thing or bad thing? go with what the wallet is saying, can always extend later, and you would of learnt alot in the process so you know what you like acoustic wise! Govinda