Garage Studio Build 11CCOCO

Greetings to all, I've posted only a few times, but I have read quite a bit of very useful information at this forum and I'm truly greatful for it all. I am a song writer and I also do private production for recording artists, as well as my own. I will also be doing multimedia work for radio, tv, and maybe movies. I want to enable dolby surround mixes (I use Steinberg Nuendo) in the long run so the design should allow for that. I've spent some time going through ideas for building my home project studio and have decided between my wife and I that the best location is the Garage. I started out looking at my basement, but the ceilings would have had to be too low and the size & shape would have been far from ideal. So, its the garage now, and after many trys, I have used the sae basic studio design as a basis to develop the following design. Please offer advice if you have any on the dimensions and layout of the studio. The larger room will be the control room of course. The second largest will be treated as a percussion/ Vocal Isolation booth. The smallest room will be treated for amp Isolation or possibly vocals as well. I know I have not gotten all the required information in yet but I will be posting more when time permits. As for now, my budget is starting at arround US$5,000 and it will be a DIY build, which will hopefully begin towards the end of summer. I've bought Rod Gervais' book and have skimmed twice and am now going through it slowly to make sure I get it right. I'll be seeking your advice as the project goes allong. Best to all. Gordon

Aloha, It appears that your ceiling rises left to right across the width of your control room, but its a bit hard to tell from your pic. (Could you post your skp file?) If that is the case, it may adversely affect your soundstage at the mix position. If you were to turn the room so that the lowest point of your ceiling is at the front of the room (monitor position) and line runs upward toward the back of the control room, you would have a better response. Aloha 8)

Mahalo Kendale, for responding so quickly

It appears that your ceiling rises left to right

No, theres no slope there. You're right the picture doesn't quite get it accross.

Could you post your skp file?

I would be happy to post it, but its about 7meg. I'm not sure how to get the thing small enough to adhere to forum size restrictions. Any thoughts on that? Thanks again, Cheers

looks like it shouldn't be that big. one way I've found to minimize the size is to go to the components window and there's a little arrow with a menu icon on the right side. click on that and select "purge unused". this will eliminate extra components that you may have. hope this helps. c

11coco wrote:

I would be happy to post it, but its about 7meg. I'm not sure how to get the thing small enough to adhere to forum size restrictions. Any thoughts on that? Thanks again, Cheers

or another way i found is to select all and make it a group then copy and paste it into a new blank sketchup.

Tanks to you both. Group - copy - paste worked like a charm. Sketchup now attached. Guidance.

where is the door for access?

Only slightly different, i just turned th control room slightly to give you a bigger live space

Aloha, Gordon, here's something for you to try - Open your Sketchup file Click on "Camera" tab in top tool bar If "Parallel Projection" is clicked, click on "Perspective" Your views should now look more "normal" on your 2D and 3D shots. Be sure to click "Save" to keep the "Perspective" view . Hope that helps, Aloha 8)

The access points are not yet finalized, however I will probably use sliding doors between the control and percussion "live" room. There should be no access from the front or rear of the control room. The front of the control room must have space for a large plasma screen. The rear of the control room will be acoustical treatments, (diffusers, traps etc.) The control room dimensions and treatment are more important to me than the size of the live room. I enjoy mixing as part of my production experience thus, the sound in the control room should be paramount in the final design. Any suggestions on shape, dimensions or general layout? Medboyle: For what reason do you suggest a larger live room and the control room layout that you propose? Best.

Your views should now look more "normal" on your 2D and 3D shots.

Thanks Kendale I'll change that for the next set of pics. Any thoughts about the dimensions of my control room design? I've tried not to involve myself in too much mathematics, since its been a while since my last trig. class. So the layout I have tried is as close a copy as I could to the SAE model alluded to here. I hope to have some shots of the existing structure to upload soon. That should give the project some validity, and perspective. Walk good.

Aloha, After switching to the "Perspective" view, it looks like a pretty good design.

Any thoughts about the dimensions of my control room design?

Room Ratios - In Rod Gervais’ book “Build it Like the Pros,” http://www.johnlsayers.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=5670 he points out both L.W.Sepmeyer’s & M.M. Louden’s formulas most widely used in professional studios worldwide. He also notes that the orders listed are (top to bottom) the first to third best ratios in both cases. L.W. Sepmeyer Height Width Length 1.00 1.14 1.39 1.00 1.28 1.54 1.00 1.60 2.33 M.M. Louden Height Width Length 1.00 1.40 1.90 9’ x 12’6” x 17’1” 1.00 1.30 1.90 1.00 1.50 2.10 If you were to incorporate these dimensions into your control room design it would appear that you might be able to squeeze out a little more room for your iso booths. Perhaps something like this? Aloha 8)

I have a copy of Mr. Gervais book. I think I'll go over that chapter again, and see if I can actually catch the math. Thank you for the suggestion Kendale. I'm hoping though, to maximize the size of the control room, though with the ideal ratios as they are, I think that will be difficult to accomplish. As an asside, the ceiling height though not yet exactly determined, will surely be less than 9' since I will be building with the room in a room basis. The existing walls are 9' and will become the footing for the joists that hold the outer leaf (a new ceiling). I hope to be able to get the inside leaf at 8'6". So I suppose with the ratio you've used.

1.00 1.40 1.90

the result would be 8.5'X11.9'X16.5' Ok, back to the book, and then the drawingboard. Thanks again for your your illustrations. Walk good, [/code]

11coco wrote

The rear of the control room will be acoustical treatments, (diffusers, traps etc.)

You could do inside out walls and then the walls would form part of the treatment(i now wish i had taken this route!)

Ok, here goes with Louden et al. I've tried the following illustrations to help me determine the correct shape/layout from scratch using the "ideal" ratios acording to Sepmeyer & Louden. I've used 8.5 feet in one set and 8 feet height in the other just to give myself more options. I assume that once I get the correct rectangular shape that I can cut corners from one section as long as I move it somewhere else.(ie to remove parallel lines). That illustration in the next post. here goes

You gave me an idea. I just made a sketchup file that has all six preferred room ratios in 3D that you can use to scale and fit your particular space. should make it easier to try out different ratios without figuring anything. Maybe something for stickies? -ashley

Just a remark. Please be careful to see room ratios as absolutes. I'll talk with it in some later stage with Rod when having a better complete oversight. Rod's data I assume originates from Everest's Master Handbook. I analysed the complete Louden ratios, which shows that within Louden's own approach there are better ratios possible than he himself calculated. I calculated a map derived from the discrete Louden ratios. The differences in 1, 2 and 3 are very small. Note that these guys calculated this stuff when CPUs where still room filling objects or even didn't exist yet (Bolt period). The green areas are the good ones with the brownish the center areas. These center areas are basically likely somewhat better than the ratios published by Louden himself. The darkest green area are the ones where Loudens best ratios are located in. But from a practical point of view, these same colored ranges/area are about equal. The others relate to Bolt. but I still have to make a new one since that Bolt area seems by copying in different publications to have got an own live. I have now digitized the original Bolt paper and looks closest (but still not equal) to the Primary Bolt area shown here. Hence this isn't a final picture. Just something in-between I made, to make the question marks visible for myself. But this Louden Map represents rather well what can be extracted from his study with modern means. The blue areas relate to EBU ranges (European Broadcast Union). You'll notice, not in this picture, that Trevor Cox will advice other ranges. Hence don't look to these exact ratios, but judge them by ranges/areas.

Mr. Desart, thank you for chiming in. I have seen your demonstration/illustration in in another forum today. I am happy to see you taking the time to lend your expertise here. If I understand your chart correctly it illustrates some form of ideal modal conditions which occur based upon width and length variables (with height being unitary (1). Am I to assume (even though this is preliminary) that there are ratios that should work even better than louden et al. that would fall in the ranges indicated by green or yellow? i.e., is the H,W,L ratio of 1,1.35, 1.85 (in the yellow) ideal? If this chart is even close to being correct, it will be very valuable to people like myself who would like a bit of breathing room for the design parameters which is indicated by your illustration. I look forward to the final illustration. As well as others chiming in on what seems to be an exiting new way to look at this. Walk good,

Aloha,

I analysed the complete Louden ratios, which shows that within Louden's own approach there are better ratios possible than he himself calculated. I calculated a map derived from the discrete Louden ratios. The differences in 1, 2 and 3 are very small.

Thank you for sharing your time, insights and expertise with us, Eric. We would love to learn more about your findings, (especially those ratios you've mentioned) as well as more of your thoughts on acoustic design. Aloha 8)

11coco wrote:

If I understand your chart correctly it illustrates some form of ideal modal conditions which occur based upon width and length variables (with height being unitary (1). Am I to assume (even though this is preliminary) that there are ratios that should work even better than louden et al. that would fall in the ranges indicated by green or yellow?

Sorry if it isn't as clear as it should be yet. My scale goes from the darkest green as being best over the light yellow to the dark red as being worst. In fact everything green is acceptabtable with the darker the better. But since I had some trouble with these slight shade differences I emphasized the darkest green by altering that color in that brown-yellow which is the best and better than Loudens best ratios. But the differences are rather small. Hence you can decide for yourself your priorities. Louden calculated his points on a Matrix. He did not calculate in-between values. Hence he wasn't searching for the very best, but entered the best of the values calculated by him. With specific algorithms (this is not Excel work) one can map the logic in all that data.

11coco wrote:

i.e., is the H,W,L ratio of 1,1.35, 1.85 (in the yellow) ideal?

That's indeed a good one and the area around it. And it lies also good within the Bolt and the EBU area. But please, what I'm doing now is analysing the data as existing, then comparing them, and finding the logic between al the data of different authors. Note that there is a lot of dispute going on about room ratios and their use. There is not such a thing as the perfect ratio. There are better and worse ratios. No single ratio can automatically result in a perfect soundfield. What I'm telling now that within Loudens approach these brownish areas are the best, exceeding his own numbers, and the darkest green comprising his own best numbers. I made it as such that his best ratios lie at the border between brownish and darkest green, hence that the brownish area is better. With better think slightly better. Also note that as well Louden, as well Sepmeyer calculated these numbers based on the idea of giving the NON-axials (mainly tangentials) as much weight as the axials. That's another ongoing dispute: While non-axials are certainly an important part of the modal distribution, they still should get some weighting factor. To express this very carefully: Room mode calculators which do not calculate the non-axials aren't good (certainly the tangentials are still important). The room mode distribution based on Loudens 2 to 3 best ratios looks ugly based on the axials alone. These ratios become good just by taking the non-axials into account. The argument is often used that they are weaker (less strong, hence less important). That's indeed correct: Bolt estimated the tangentials at 50% and the obliques at 25% energetically. But translated into dB values 50 % equals - 3 dB, and 25% - 6 dB. This dB values then should be compared with dips going down to minus 20 to 30 dB. Then this - 3 dB doesn't sound as unimportant and to be ignored anymore isn't it? Edited: I added the room mode distribution of the 6 room ratios as referred here from Rod's book (made these pictures long ago): Note that by shrinking or enlarging rooms this distribution results in exactly the same pictures but with an offset versus the frequency scale. This is what Peter D'Antonio doesn't agree with (unlike the former authors) and claims that good room ratios are volume dependent (but that's another topic, not discussed now and here) SEPMEYER Note how Sepmeyer's best ratio fills the gaps with the first 6 tangentials and the 1st oblique. Less significant, but the tangentials make part of the distribution. Same comment as above. LOUDEN: Imagine this distribution without the tangentials and one could call this a really ugly room ratio. And this is his best of a list of 125 ratios. Same comment as above. This is a sick room ratio judged on the axials alone (hence you can't). Yet it's the second best of a list of 125 ratios. Same comment as above. One will notice that there are (very often referred) room mode calculator(s) emphasizing the UNimportance of non-axials, therefore only calculating axials, while simultaniously presenting these very ratios (without source) as advisable ratios which are mainly based/designed on the integration of these non-axials. Advising these ratios as being good and to be advised, in a Room mode Calculator calculating only axials and as such calculating these same ratios as being bad, is a contradiction in itself. And if I name it in defence of visitors/users, I'm the one getting in trouble (bit fun/cynical in fact).

kendale wrote:

Thank you for sharing your time, insights and expertise with us, Eric. We would love to learn more about your findings, (especially those ratios you've mentioned) as well as more of your thoughts on acoustic design. Aloha 8)

Thank you for your gentle words Kendale. :) Your location and your typical "Aloha" always triggers me to dream about vacation, sun, beach, palm trees and sexy girls. :? Better stay with my feet on the ground.

Ok, this is a bit beyond my realm of immediate comprehension. Thank you, though, for your incredible degree of attention. For the purpose of my design, I think that I will stick with the industry standards as described in Rod Gervais' book, but I will use your chart as an extention of those standards. Thank you for sharing your work. New design will follow, soon. Walk good.

11coco wrote:

For the purpose of my design, I think that I will stick with the industry standards as described in Rod Gervais' book, but I will use your chart as an extention of those standards.

That was my original intent. And your conclusion about the

11coco wrote:

i.e., is the H,W,L ratio of 1,1.35, 1.85 (in the yellow) ideal?

was correct also (better than Louden's best as per his own approach). I just wanted to warn you against the expectation "Ideal" or "Perfect". And further put things in a somewhat broader context for those possibly interested.

Aha!

just wanted to warn you against the expectation "Ideal" or "Perfect".

"there lies the rub" Yes, I appreciate that reminder also. Though, being in pursuit of perfection doesn't necessarily mean that I actually think I will get there.:wink: Walk Good.

all this talk of hawaii, palm trees and sexy girls has got me thinking!! i need to get out more often! care to go to a club mr desert.. i think you need to get out maybe as well?? :wink: hehe