New all-in-one room studio from scratch

We're building a new home in Kings Meadows, Launceston, Tasmania, Australia and my wife has graciously allowed me to tag a studio to the back of the garage for the purpose of practising, teaching and recording drums (and whatever else should enter my studio), mixing down and whatever else. I’m a novice hack, as you’ll read on… My reason for posting this is to ask for assistance in creating dimensions which will fit correctly to a recommended ratio in order to achieve even bass response within the space. I would also like some feedback on some of my current thinking and additional ideas which I may not have yet considered. I apologise for not having included a sketch - I'm a little technically and artistically challenged. I will do my very best to give a comprehensive verbal description - so have a pen handy! I will give all dimensions as internal measurements. As the room is on the back of the garage, the first restriction in dimensions is the width of the garage (6 metres). Therefore, the west and east wall are the constant - 6 metres long. The dimensions of north and south walls may be varied from 3 to 5 metres in order to achieve a desired ratio. The ceiling may also vary from 2.36 metres to a maximum of 2.715 metres for the same purpose. In this space I would like to achieve enough room to comfortably set up 2 drum sets and have a desk for a computer, audio monitors and rack equipment. The design so far consists of a rectangular room with 3 double-cinder block walls with a 50mm air gap between skins (total of 230mm thick). The blocks are 90mm thick. The 50mm air gap will have thermally-insulative polystyrene board (25mm thick) within. These double brick walls will be on the north, west and south. The eastern wall will be a single skin block wall which seperates the room from the garage. A solid-core wood door (standard dimensions) connects the studio to the garage exactly central on the eastern wall. An entrance to the studio is via a double-glazed glass door in the corner of the room on the eastern side of the northern wall - also standard dimensions. The western wall has 3 tall, narrow double glazed windows (each 300mm wide) from floor to ceiling set perfectly equidistant to one another and the ends of the wall for the 6 metre expanse. The roof is corrugated iron on woodern trusses and rests on a 9 degree slope rising from north upward to the south. There are several options for plastering the underside of this (discussed in just a sec...) In summary of the walls: northern wall - double thickness cinder block 3 to 5 metres with a double-glazed glass door on the eastern extremity. southern wall - double thickness cinder block 3 to 5 metres long. western wall - 6 metres long double thickness cinder block with 3 tall, narrow double glazed windows (each 300mm wide) from floor to ceiling set perfectly equidistant to one another and the ends of the wall for the 6 metre expanse. eastern wall - 6 metres long single thickness cinder block with a solid core wood door in the centre connecting the room to a garage on the other side. OK - clear on that? Allow me to discuss the roof / ceiling... The ceiling may rest anywhere between 2.36 to 2.595 metres from the floor. The second height mentioned will involve adding an additional layer of blocks for the entirety of the studio and garage, costing additional $'s. Without doing so, the height of the plaster ceiling may be increased up to 2.48 metres by plastering up to the top of the bottom beam of each truss. This however would mean the truss beams would penetrate, creating periodical ridges in the ceiling. If this were done with an additional row of one block, the ceiling height may be raised as high as 2.715 metres. Alternatively, the plaster may be fixed to align with the tin roof (with sufficent insulation between, of course!), placing the ceiling on a 9 degree slope with the low side 2.55 metres from the north side, rising to 3.5 metres on the southern end. This would maximise air volume, but I'm guessing would give similar effect to an angled wall, serving to create uneven dispersion of bass. Summary of my current restrictions: Width - 6 metres unnegotiable (that’s the width of the garage…) Height - A few options for height / configuration: Roof is corrugated iron (& fibreglass insulation ) on a 9 degree slope and is supported with timber trusses. Plaster may be secured to either the underneath of the trusses (height anywhere 2.36m to 2.595m) or between trusses, exposing the bottom beam of each truss (height anywhere 2.48m to 2.715m). An alternative may be to secure the plaster to the roof, exposing all of the trusses and providing additional air volume and framework on which to mount acoustically absorbent material. Downside to this is that ceiling would be on 9 degree angle with roof. (one side of roof 2.55 m tall sloping up 9 degrees to opposing side 3.5 m) Length - negotiable up to around a maximum of 5 metres. Bear in mind, I’d like to be able to fit a fair amount of gear in and make this a nice, usable space. Ideally, the area may house a couple of drum kits plus a mix bench / computer. Budget - An additional layer of blocks to raise the ceiling height (whilst keeping it flat) above the current 2.36 m or 2.48 m (with bottoms of trusses exposed) will cost $. Any additional expenditure must be truly warranted, as the budget for the entire house project is running fairly tightly... Internal Acoustics My current thinking is to allow the room to be as live as possible, then later I can tone it down with curtains, rugs and traps. A tiled cement floor and bare block walls with a dead-as-possible plaster ceiling should be a good start. I'm a university-trained drummer and don't consider my playing overly-loud (not an over-the-top crazy drum-smacking rock hack freak...). In an open space I doubt my SPL's jump over 110 dB at my ear level when I am playing at my loudest. Having received the latest issue of Sound On Sound magazine and read the Studio Acoustics article, I downloaded the ModeCalc from Realtraps website (www.realtraps.com/modecalc.htm) and started running some dimensions through. I’ve included some of these: Some possible dimensions from my calculations using ModeCalc: Length(6m) x Width x Height 6m x 4.14m x 2.58m Ratio - 1 : 1.60 : 2.33 64 metres cubed This appears to give some peaks beginning on a fundamental of 200 hz. 6m x 3.6m x 2.4m Ratio - 1 : 1.5 : 2.5 52 metres cubed This appears to give some rather alarming peaks beginning around 143.5 hz. 6m x 4.28m x 2.857m Ratio - 1 : 1.5 : 2.1 73 metres cubed Appears to give some peaks beginning at a fundamental of 60 hz, continuing upward to 120, 240 etc. With an angled ceiling, averaging the ceiling height at 3.25 metres (does this work? I suspect not…! ) 6m x 4.15m x 3.25m Ratio - 1 : 1.28 : 1.85 81 metres cubed Seems a fairly even spread, although I’m certain the angled ceiling would screw things up! Questions The ModeCalc program I used mentions a “Recommended Minimum Volume” of 70 cubic metres. How crucial is this. (I’m guessing not extremely… surely down as far as 50 is ok with the right ratios and treatments?) I’m aware that the acoustics of a rectangular, symmetrical room is easier to predict and therefore a desirable shape to keep to. I guess this means the ceiling should ideally be flat too? I would appreciate anyone who would take the time to sketch up some possible solutions and give recommendations. Thankyou all for your time!

I've decided to go with the 9 degree pitched ceiling to allow for extra height/air volume to increase liveness. Also allows some additional space to hang douvres to kill-off some liveness if so desired and exposed trusses may be useful for mounting / hanging stuff from. Otherwise, I understand that such irregular forms can be useful for creating dispersion. I've spent a little longer playing with dimensions using RealTraps' ModeCalc program and discovered that there's no absolutely perfect solution. This is as close as I've managed to achieve: Ratio: 1 : 1.4 : 1.9 H W L 3.158m 4.421m 6.000m As I mentioned - still not perfect. Appears to have some responses less than the recommended 5-6 hz apart: HxL at 54.53hz and 57.4hz LxW at 428.46hz and 430.51hz Apart from these, the rest appear fairly well-spread and workable. These stand-out bands may be targeted with tuned traps? Regarding sound-proofing the ceiling, I shall definitely consider either double-plastering (mass-air-mass) or just packing a heap of additional rockwool/insulation. I've also stumbled across a great idea for sound-proof doors - rather than solid core, a hollow core door with 15-20mm MDF sheeting glued to each side to provide mass-air-mass proofing. Will talk to our builder about this. He will of course need to build door frames to accomodate the thicker doors.

Swifty, It can be useful to look at this page. http://forum.studiotips.com/viewtopic.php?p=42390 I also added links to other room ratios, Louden areas, other room mode calculators etc. I extended that page with practical information and links. You'll notice that there is a lot more flexibility. If questions please ask.

Thanks for your interest and reply, Eric - I had a good read through the post you linked. Some pretty heavy stuff! I accessed RealTraps' mode calc program as it was recommended by a reputable sound magazine (Sound on Sound) in their most recent issue. I read from your link that it is not reliable, as it doesn't account for axial reflections (have i got this right??!) I shall run my proposed dimensions through some of the calculators you've recommended and post again soon...

Swift, I know Sound on Sound well enough. That doesn't change a bit of the content of my above entered link. A commercial magazine lives by the grace of their subscribers and advertisers, and aim to a certain target group. They call themselves best in the world, as all the many competing related commercial magazines do. I'm not the best in the world, I'm just a guy doing acoustics, real acoustics ... for the acoustics, being formally educated and trained to do so. My link does not promote a single calculator, but explains principles and refers to more of them. I doubt SOS referred once to any other calculator than RealTrap's, even when only the DOS version was available (for years). SOS' clear and almost exclusive preference is NOT defined by any scientific attitude or motivation. As you can notice, here in the forum itself the GOOD Harman room mode calculator is referred for potential users here (also included in the list in my link). Knightfly (moderator here) found it more important to help people with what, based on his extensive research, he found to be a good room modes calculator. http://www.johnlsayers.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=5801

Thanks again Eric - I've had a bit of a tinker with a few of those new calculators and using the bass response ratio graph from the Uni of Salford have come up with these dimensions: Ratio: 1 : 1.59 : 1.89 H = 3.175m, W = 4.921m, L = 6.000m Apart from being fairly live around 250hz and the low mids, looks alright to me, but I'm totally new to this :roll: I see my main challenge from here being the ceiling. I guess I'll try plastering with the 9 degree slope of the ceiling to an average height of 3.175m, packing a good load of fibreglass insulation between the plaster and tin. Looking at the STC chart from the SAE website (http://www.saecollege.de/reference_material/), the Metal deck (perforated channels, 75mm(3") batts) registers the maximum absorbancy across the bands - I could install this at the bottom of the roof rafters, leaving the above space for hanging LF absorbive panelling. Some clarification (specs) as to exactly what the "metal deck" looks like would be great! Any ideas?

Swifty, I leave the practical stuff to all these experienced guys here.

swifty wrote:

Thanks again Eric - I've had a bit of a tinker with a few of those new calculators and using the bass response ratio graph from the Uni of Salford have come up with these dimensions: Ratio: 1 : 1.59 : 1.89 H = 3.175m, W = 4.921m, L = 6.000m I guess I'll try plastering with the 9 degree slope of the ceiling to an average height of 3.175m,

Understand something - the minute you begin creating rooms that are not rectangular - splayed ceilings - splayed walls - the room ratios and mode calculations using standard mode calculators become meaningless. Seriously. Those programs are based on certain assumptions - and although I see it suggested quite often that you can "average things out" this isn't real in any sense of the word. You would need to use a calculator capable of calculating the room based on it's shape. The point here is not that you are going to necessarily have problems in the long run - but rather that your room ration is not what you present - and therefor you have no way of knowing how in advance what iot's test results will be. As reported by Everest (and others) you can calculate modal activity in rectangular rooms - build rooms to those same dimensions - and even when they are the same rooms the calcs were based on - have the actual testing produce data that was not predicted in the model. How could anyone think for even a moment that you can change the room properties dramatically and get accurate results from programs that calculate based on 3 pairs of parallel membranes with infinately rigid surfaces? Your level of accuracy will be limited to knowing that reported axial modes based on the wall surfaces alone could be accurate - tangential modes based on those 4 walls may be OK as well - but the axial and tangential modes based on floor to ceiling will not be - and none of the oblique modes will be. And your ratios are not what you think or project - because there is no constant for relating the height factor. Why pick the mid point? Why not 60% of the max height? Or 80%? I see no testing (or math) to support the claim that everything averages out when my mind says it must be otherwise.......... Sincerely, Rod

rod gervais wrote:

How could anyone think for even a moment that you can change the room properties dramatically and get accurate results from programs that calculate based on 3 pairs of parallel membranes with infinately rigid surfaces?

These infinitely rigid surfaces relate to a statistical equal impedance of all boundaries for the frequency in investigation. If they should be absorptive but still fulfill these conditions, the calculations should still be valid. You only should have dips and peaks with lower Q. The null point travels back and forth over a larger area. If you have a room in drywall, where these properties should be constant all around, these calculations for the individual modes are still valid (as long one still can speak of modes of course). The reason they calculate this for infinite stiff boundaries is because that's the easiest way to fulfill these conditions, enabling to ignore this parameter. The shift in spot of the dip, as mentioned in one of the HARMAN papers is likely due to asymmetric absorption between opposing walls. I still believe it must be possible to quantify this effect in an analytic manner. I see you use this argument a lot, sounding good, but it's good to know the background. It's not because real rooms have no infinite stiff walls that suddenly all these numbers should be unusable. Also if a room should have infinite stiffness, meaning no damping whatsoever, it should explode (as a matter of speech, since sound pressure can't exceed ambient pressure unless with non-linear acoustics), since no energy should leave the room, and just continue cumulating. I know that Room mode calculators are nothing more than a tool, as all others are, made within certain constrains including made for rectangular rooms. Still it is or can be a useful tool. In function of modal density and distribution, for people having no access to BEM or FEM (in as far this is sensible as well), to cover slight systematic angled boundaries, the 50% rule is still the most logical, yet not perfect approach, and can be seen in some analogy with the cavity of angled windows (poetic license). Modes show over- and under-pressure areas, which by definition when added or averaged, result in 0 Pascal versus the ambient pressure (neutralize one another; 50%+ and 50%-). With the 50% rule we +/- fulfill this condition, with an arbitrary 20%, 60% or 80% rule we don't. It's because of the fact that time averaged oscillating + and - pressures equal 0, that pressure is expressed as RMS, thereby making the negative Pascal values |absolute| by setting it to the power and then squaring it again (and time averaging it in-between). By asymmetry this 0 point will shift to the point where plus and minus pressure are in balance again. This causes this shift in location. In the case of symmetric angled walls (as often standard applied), that first order mode between the symmetric angled walls will still be a straight line through the center with a frequency defined by the averaged +/- 50% approach. Hence it's up to you to tell why you should divert from the 50% estimation approach, or make this approach senseless by referring to it as some arbitrary thing. It's the one diverting from the general consensus who must tell why. The fact that frequencies can divert from the calculated frequencies, don't make them useless (within limited constrains of course). That obliques have less use is because (unless a couple) is that they start in a frequency range where the modal density is normally very high already and modal overlap and asymmetry in boundary conditions become defining. Further they increase in quantity that fast that even on their own they show fast a high modal overlap. I don't mean this post as a complete overview, and I'm aware of the +/- 10 log(2) and 10 log(4) energetic decay between types of modes. A room mode calculator is meant to judge the frequency range dominated by the effect of individual, more isolated modes, no matter what they are, and that's defined by the frequency range, standard concentrating in the lows. How come that a Google check shows around 60 posts, a lot originating from Kendale (moderator), extensive and explicit referring, as a starting point, to the Sepmeyer and Louden Ratios clearly referring to your book as the source (not Everest), and where as almost typically here in the forum, angled walls are involved, you do NOT feel the need to keep things real with posts as you did here. And in a post where I offer a lot more flexibility to the original poster than what he was working with, you suddenly feel the need to keep things real. I offered an alternative for one single fixed ratio he felt stuck with, and clearly ended my contribution stating I left other stuff to others. You did not respond to the other stuff, but exclusively indirect to my posts and content of the page I linked.

rod gervais wrote:

Just trying to keep things real here.

Exactly the same

I understand that no prediction tool will deliver 100% accuracy - but somewhere in the ballpark is way better than flying blind! My personal learning curve on this job has been exponential! (You should have seen some of my dodgy ideas earlier on! Completely oblivious to the importance of the whole ratio thing, my original dimensions looked something like HWL 1:1.5:3! - H 2m, W 3m, L 6m) My initial plans included one of the brick walls being angled - bad idea! Thought this might help counteract the poor ratio I appeared to be 'stuck' with but I found out this would only serve to distribute bass unevenly. I feel ok about the pitched ceiling as I intend to deaden it as much as possible across the spectrum, hanging limp baffles and the like to eat as much reflection as possible. As I intend this room to be used for drums for the most-part, I understand that ceiling height should be maximised (as I have allowed as much as possible, given the restrictions of backing onto a garage...) and acoustically dead, whilst the floor remaining as live as possible - similarly with the walls, though some dispersion/trapping staggered to remove harsh slap. I'm feeling far more confident with my current designs. I'm content that I've designed it as best I can and know how. From this point I feel confident that any "real" issues may be tackled once the builders have finished, using my own (and others') two ears and experimenting with trapping and treatment. Having said this, keep this advice & opinions coming - I'm listening and acting on it! Once the project is complete (6 mths?) I'll post some pics and a report, so stay tuned! BTW - I've presented 2 options on dimensions to my architect: Option 1: Ratio - 1 : 1.51 : 2.14 H - 2.804m; W - 4.234m; L - 6.000m (71.22m3) Option 2: Ratio - 1 : 1.55 : 1.89 H - 3.175m; W - 4.921m; L - 6.000m (93.726m3) QUESTION: Does anyone know anything about the effectiveness of Besser (are they now Hansen?) sound bricks? They're basically a hollow concrete building block with slots cut through into the hollow chambers. The blocks are installed with the slots facing inward. My prediction (am yet to get some literature) is that while lowering the sound proofing of the wall (not necessarily a good thing) the holes would serve to allow low mids / bass to enter more freely, heightening the blocks' trapping qualities and improving internal acoustics. I've discovered that applying paint to the blocks severely changes their acoustic properties - providing a far more reflective surface. I now intend to leave them raw/unpainted as I believe this may assist in controlling low mids.

Swifty, Do you have a link to these bricks? I know these types of bricks, but they can have different shapes. It's easier that you provide one time the link for all, than that all have to search for one. We live all around the globe here.

Eric_Desart wrote:

These infinitely rigid surfaces relate to a statistical equal impedance of all boundaries for the frequency in investigation. If they should be absorptive but still fulfill these conditions, the calculations should still be valid. You only should have dips and peaks with lower Q. The null point travels back and forth over a larger area. If you have a room in drywall, where these properties should be constant all 412w around, these calculations for the individual modes are still valid (as long one still can speak of modes of course). The reason they calculate this for infinite stiff boundaries is because that's the easiest way to fulfill these conditions, enabling to ignore this parameter.

Understood – we have no disagreement here that I can see.

The shift in spot of the dip, as mentioned in one of the HARMAN papers is likely due to asymmetric absorption between opposing walls. I still believe it must be possible to quantify this effect in an analytic manner.

I believe this is possible too – but believing it is possible – even believing that it “must be possible” is not the same as proving it is possible. but the fact that it is possible does not mean that this analytic manner exists right now – and I that (more than anything else) was the point I was trying to make with the original poster of the subject.

I see you use this argument a lot, sounding good, but it's good to know the background. It's not because real rooms have no infinite stiff walls that suddenly all these numbers should be unusable. Also if a room should have infinite stiffness, meaning no damping whatsoever, it should explode (as a matter of speech, since sound pressure can't exceed ambient pressure unless with non-linear acoustics), since no energy should leave the room, and just continue cumulating.

Eric, My thoughts (on this) stem from the difficulty (reported in Everest) to always find the predicted modes in some small rooms……. I offered a thought as to what might cause a particular mode that was mathematically predicted to not become excited – or to have a mode that was not predicted appear. I have always been clear about the fact that this is a thought of mine – not anything backed with tested data – although perhaps one day (when I retire maybe) I would like to pursue this further.

I know that Room mode calculators are nothing more than a tool, as all others are, made within certain constrains including made for rectangular rooms. Still it is or can be a useful tool. In function of modal density and distribution, for people having no access to BEM or FEM (in as far this is sensible as well), to cover slight systematic angled boundaries, the 50% rule is still the most logical, yet not perfect approach, and can be seen in some analogy with the cavity of angled windows (poetic license).

I agree with this to the point of covering imperfections in construction that fall within tolerance…….. in other words I accept that no one is constructing rooms within thousands of an inch of tolerance – and that the testing that has been performed on rectangular rooms would work as if the room were perfect by averaging out those imperfections - but I have seen no testing to suggest that this would be the case when we begin talking about walls (or ceiling/floors) that are 5’ out of parallel with one another. I would love to see someone construct 2 rooms side by each – one with the dims of H…W…….L 8’:12.08’:17.12’ And the other ……H……….…….W…….L 4’ – 12’ on a slope:12.08’:17.12’ (these numbers work using one of the Ratios provided to his architect as acceptable - 1 : 1.51 : 2.14) And then find out exactly how close the test results were after hard testing.

Modes show over- and under-pressure areas, which by definition when added or averaged, result in 0 Pascal versus the ambient pressure (neutralize one another; 50%+ and 50%-). With the 50% rule we +/- fulfill this condition, with an arbitrary 20%, 60% or 80% rule we don't. It's because of the fact that time averaged oscillating + and - pressures equal 0, that pressure is expressed as RMS, thereby making the negative Pascal values |absolute| by setting it to the power and then squaring it again (and time averaging it in-between). By asymmetry this 0 point will shift to the point where plus and minus pressure are in balance again. This causes this shift in location. In the case of symmetric angled walls (as often standard applied), that first order mode between the symmetric angled walls will still be a straight line through the center with a frequency defined by the averaged +/- 50% approach.

I happen to agree with you on this 100% - but I feel that it steps beyond this – and can become frequency dependant as well – and thus can have the frequency decide the % for you. Let’s focus on this for a moment by just looking at axial modes. It would seem logical that as frequency shifted – seeing as you had a series of available varying axial path lengths due to this asymmetry - that the centering point of this averaged field would adjust to compensate for constant points that correlated to the length of the frequency signal. If that were the case – then you would begin shifting pressure points to load up one corner greater than another (which is what I believe an example you gave us earlier indicates) and I would also suspect that you would introduce a series of a modes capable of being excited that did not exist in the original rectangular model based on that same room ratio. Seeing as LF waves are non-directional in nature – why wouldn’t you create a series of axial modes running between the planes of the ceiling and floor? I agree that the center would remain the same regardless – and that (assuming you pivoted the ceiling on the center point) – the modes working off those centers would not change. But what about beyond those points? And it seems impossible to me that it would not introduce an entire new set of tangential modes as well. Just think on that for a bit………

Hence it's up to you to tell why you should divert from the 50% estimation approach, or make this approach senseless by referring to it as some arbitrary thing. It's the one diverting from the general consensus who must tell why.

I disagree my friend. It’s up to me to question why no one has ever provided any empirical data backing up the claim that the averaging method works in rooms that are designed drastically out of parallel – yet claim that standard room ratios still apply within the room. At one point in time it was the general consensus that the world was flat – the center of the universe – but that didn’t change the fact that the consensus was wrong. I am not suggesting that anyone change their method of design – heck I use splayed walls in pretty much everything I design (when ever I can) And I believe that they can greatly enhance the natural sound of a room – and raising ceilings is a great way to increase volume within a room without changing the foot print. And I always do that by beginning with a known good ration to begin my design process with………. But once I make the leap of faith to the other design (from that beginning) I then drop any reference to room ratios…….. The original poster made reference to the fact that he provided his architect with 2 known good ratios that he would accept for the basis of his design – and also that he would splay the ceilings Reality is that unless his architect is already a studio designer (which I seriously doubt else he wouldn’t need to be here asking these questions) he doesn’t have a clue what any of this is about – AND thus the least of this guys worries should be about a room ratio – but should be about the other million things some architect can screw up that he (himself) doesn’t have a clue about either.

The fact that frequencies can divert from the calculated frequencies, don't make them useless (within limited constrains of course). That obliques have less use is because (unless a couple) is that they start in a frequency range where the modal density is normally very high already and modal overlap and asymmetry in boundary conditions become defining. Further they increase in quantity that fast that even on their own they show fast a high modal overlap. I don't mean this post as a complete overview, and I'm aware of the +/- 10 log(2) and 10 log(4) energetic decay between types of modes.

Agreed

A room mode calculator is meant to judge the frequency range dominated by the effect of individual, more isolated modes, no matter what they are, and that's defined by the frequency range, standard concentrating in the lows.

Agreed

How come that a Google check shows around 60 posts, a lot originating from Kendale (moderator), extensive and explicit referring, as a starting point, to the Sepmeyer and Louden Ratios clearly referring to your book as the source (not Everest), and where as almost typically here in the forum, angled walls are involved, you do NOT feel the need to keep things real with posts as you did here.

How do I know? I didn’t reference Everest – I referenced the original publications themselves……… If you have a question in this regard please feel free to ask Kendale………… I have enough trouble answering for what comes out of my mouth – I cannot accept responsibility for someone else’s as well………. I do know that this is not the first time I have voiced this (opinion) on this subject – and it certainly won’t be the last (unless I see some test results that convince me I am wrong).

And in a post where I offer a lot more flexibility to the original poster than what he was working with, you suddenly feel the need to keep things real.

Eric, I have since removed that statement from my post – it was never intended as a slight to you – certainly not intended to show disrespect – and was only directed at the original poster - trying to get him focused on the fact that each step he took outside that original box (pun intended) made that room ratio useless as relates to that particular room – and that at some point in time he might as well stop referring to it altogether.

I offered an alternative for one single fixed ratio he felt stuck with, and clearly ended my contribution stating I left other stuff to others.

Yup

You did not respond to the other stuff, but exclusively indirect to my posts and content of the page I linked.

I responded to something that I felt should be addressed but had not until that point in time. It had nothing to do with you or your links. I don’t know why you are personalizing this my friend – I am not (even by accident) pointing fingers at you. Sincerely, Rod

don't want to interupt to much here, but for those following the action - "symmetrical angled walls" where the modes could still retain symmetry and its possible to Guesstimate™ via dimension averaging on room ratios vs. a purely "asymmetric room" where the modes most assuredly would be skewed and complex calculations would needed, so measuring is likely the better answer... now back to Battle Stadium™ and the Iron Acousticians­­™ :twisted:

Total STAR as always Glenn - and yes, although very interesting and highly informative, it seems to me at least, that they're at it again! Warmest regards to you and yours my friend. P.S. Haven't seen or heard from Kendale for a while - any thoughts? (to calm things down slightly) Lou. 8)

Lou wrote:

it seems to me at least, that they're at it again!

Lou, I take it you don't know us very well......... Eric and I are almost never "at it" - I consider him a friend - but sometimes in this place something doesn't present itself as quite right - and then someone might get tense. But if Eric and I were to "argue " more than once or twice a year - that would be the exception - not the rule... Sincerely, Rod

Very nice to know - please accept my humblest apologies. Lou. :oops: 8)

i happen to think the intellectual discourse provided by these type of threads is one of the most important aspect of the Internet - friends engaging in intelligent (sometimes :wink:)) discussions... we all benefit...

Glenn - I wholeheartedly agree with you Sir. I just don't like the idea of two people, who I greatly respect, appearing to (somehow), 'niggle' each other for all the 'newbies' to see. However as implied, healthy debate is the the very substance of any event in most things learned. As I said some pages ago, (IMHO) knowledge shared is knowledge earned. Peace and good wishes to you dude, - and in case you've missed my thank you's.......................Thank you. :wink: Kindest reagards, Lou. 8)