General question about angled ceilings

I know this has been partially asked and answered in various design or build-specific threads, but I thought I would generalize the question a bit. Assuming one could do this from a construction standpoint: 1. Is it generally beneficial to angle the actual ceiling in a room, presumably to reduce mode effects and parallel reflections? Seems like it would be. 2. If so, and one were able to angle from front to back for instance, is it better to have the taller part in the back or the front (assuming the monitoring position is nearer the front)? My gut says it should be lower in the front, but my gut is often wrong. :? I threw some pictures in for talking points. These are not actual designs, just meant to illustrate the concepts.

brianrcdd wrote:

1. Is it generally beneficial to angle the actual ceiling in a room, presumably to reduce mode effects and parallel reflections? Seems like it would be.

No. It is not. Andre

Then why would angling walls have benefit along these lines, and not the ceiling? It's counterintuitive to me. Or am I wrong on the walls? should we be building rectangular rooms?? That wouldn't seem to coincide with many of the threads and designs presented here.

Is it generally beneficial to angle the actual ceiling in a room,

IMO - Yes.

1. Is it generally beneficial to angle the actual ceiling in a room, presumably to reduce mode effects and parallel reflections?

Yes it is. And i say that from experience, from a before and after test. But you must be willing to face the challenge of building them :wink: If you can do it then do it. The same rules apply for ceilings as for walls splay so, go for at least a 12 degres slope from front to back getting higher at the back. To completely "destroy" any kind of reflection flutters and other artifacts, a 30 degres would be best, more than that is just wasted space. Mine is only 6 degres (because fo space considerations)and i could hear the difference so...take it from there. regards

Thanks for the input, guys. I really appreciate it. I think the most Im going to be able to do is about 8 degrees in the control room. But if it's beneficial, I believe I will give it a go. Ought to really drive the carpenters and sheetrock guys crazy...

Brian, :twisted: Just to add to the confusion (but really well meant). I've build both, as well rectangular as splayed. For me both principles work. I have no explicit opinion for a control or mastering room. Asymmetry seems more important to me for live rooms. At Galaxy/Belgium the Mastering room is rectangular. The control rooms aren't. Gullfo (Glenn) heard himself during his Belgian visit (not from me) that one of the motives supporting (multiple award winning) Darcy Proper's decision to come to Galaxy (from Sony New York) as resident mastering engineer was the sound of/in that rectangular room. http://music.msn.com/artist/?artist=162 ... its&ipp=25 D'Antonio once said on the net (no courage to find this post back from some years old, hence you can ignore this comment) that he couldn't see real advantages in non-rectangular (control) rooms. Hence there are different visions about it. There are also different visions about flush mounting speakers. Normally I stay out of these discussions which seem forum dependent, and difficult to translate in objective terms. But it can maybe give the (wrong) impression that Andre didn't or hardly knew what he was talking about in this thread, and I wanted to balance this here. In function of modes all rooms show them. The more irregular the less predictable. In function of flutter echo: that's mostly/often an easy to solve problem. Certainly after treatment. As happens a lot here walls are cladded with slat resonators. They combine an absorptive and diffusing function (depending on frequency). I wonder if anyone ever noticed flutter between such types of cladded walls. Other posts here showed how easy it was to get rid of flutter between floor and ceiling. But for me it's OK, whichever choice you make is the right one. For me a factor should also be a potential cost or not in volume by angling boundaries.

Eric, first of all thank you for your thoughts and taking time to reply. I have read your various inputs on threads in this forum, and enjoy not only your level of intellect in your approach to the subject matter at hand, but your sometimes wry humor that pops in. I definitely wasn't writing off Andre's reply. I was really hoping he would expound on the logic behind his answer; thus the probing reply. It seems as though studio building is an example of something that in fact can be engineered to the last micron, but is more cost effective to realize through best practices first and a comprehensive test-modify-repeat cycle afterward. What I am trying to get in my head is those best practices, to gain an upper hand. I have recognized many things while researching this subject. One of those things I believe one has to accept is the sheer number of variables involved in trying to build the ultimate space. Not just design variables, but implementation variables as well. So it seems prudent to plan at the outset for plenty of dynamics in planning and building anything this complex, if one wants to have something useable at the end. In regards to your statement "In function of modes all rooms show them. The more irregular the less predictable", you brought me back to earth. I know what you say is true; I think I was distracted from that truth a bit. I liken it somewhat to blowing across the opening of an odd-shaped bottle. You can still get a resonant tone out of it, no matter what the shape. Might be a bad analogy, maybe not. But something deep inside me still wants to believe complexity in surfaces diminishes modal intensity. I have no references to back that up, and should search for one if I truly believe that. I just think about the extreme example of a symetrical cube and it's resulting modal behavior, and how moving away from that shape lessens the effect. I'll definitely be considering as many of those variables as I can before I make a decision regarding the angled ceiling. I consider myself blessed that I do have the option to decide, as many do not.

brianrcdd wrote:

I definitely wasn't writing off Andre's reply. I was really hoping he would expound on the logic behind his answer; thus the probing reply.

Brian, :twisted: I DO agree that Andre sometimes answers in old telex style: No---- Stop----It isn't-----Stop :mrgreen: And John replied in a comparable manner: Yes---- Stop----It is-----Stop Hence I figured that I had to fill that page a bit more .....

Thanks for the comments Eric. To use more than telex style, would have given more than the question asked. Especially with starting with "is it generally" making the entire discussion moot. My first reaction was to suggest to Brian that he count number of rooms with, and without angled ceilings in the STUDIOS UNDER CONSTRUCTION area. A fantastic resource John, thank you. To expand on my thinking, sufficient height is more important than an angled ceiling. Something so important that the NARAS P&E wing includes a recommendation for minimum ceiling height. An angled ceiling is one of many tools in the designer's toolkit. There are so many other variables involved that a general answer would be another example of "all generalizations are wrong, including this one." :roll: Both Eric and John (alphabetical order) have given examples of both in this thread and in the STUDIOS UNDER CONSTRUCTION area. Francis Manzella's design for Egan Sound has flat ceilings, from what I can from the photographs. Obtusely, Andre

Brian, :wink: You see how to trigger Andre .... :mrgreen:

But something deep inside me still wants to believe complexity in surfaces diminishes modal intensity. I have no references to back that up, and should search for one if I truly believe that. I just think about the extreme example of a symetrical cube and it's resulting modal behavior, and how moving away from that shape lessens the effect.

No. For the most indepth analysis and testing I am aware of on this subject see BBC RD 1992 09 starting with section 4 on pdf page11. Enjoy! Anre

You see how to trigger Andre ....

Actually, I thought the "generally" verbiage would do the trick, and I see it has. :lol: Andre, in retrospect I think I should have crafted that a little differently. What I meant was more along the lines of "all other variables being static", as in room dimensions, treatment, and listening positions. Even so, it may be that what I was trying to elicit cannot be isolated in such a way as to derive a meaningful answer, and that in itself is the answer. "All generalizations are wrong" is a strong statement though. I'll have to ponder that one. :? Counting the number of designed (and constructed) rooms with and without angled ceilings would be an interesting exercise. I agree, this forum is an excellent resource, and hats off to John for providing it. But I'm afraid it would be too biased in favor of financial and space-availability constraints to provide meaningful or fair results. People have multitudes of practical reasons why they wouldn't angle the ceiling, even if it were a godsend in terms of providing better acoustical performance.

To expand on my thinking, sufficient height is more important than an angled ceiling

This makes me really step back and think. I couldn't agree with you more that weighting should be applied to the possibilities, as in 'best bang for your buck'. This is worth a lot of thought, as there are many things that can be done within the cubic footage of a higher, non-angled ceiling to alleviate problems. I have re-read the BBC document you referenced. While not speaking directly to the subject at hand, it does once again lift some of the fog in my brain. I have a tendency to confuse (or at least unnecessarily associate) modal properties and reflection properties. Eric was steering me, but it didn't sink in right away. Angular surfaces provide a mechanism to alter reflections, but modes will still be modes. They will just be different modes, but will exist nonetheless (and are more difficult to calculate). So following that line of thinking, designing a non-rectangular room increases the unknowns (and therefore the risk) due to our lack of tools in calculating the results in such spaces prior to the build stage. Is this a fair statement? All that having been said, I still find angular construction very appealing, from a visual standpoint. I have always been a fan of such architecture, and can't really explain why. This will definitely bias my decision process, but hopefully not my objectivity when it comes to acoustical performance. :D

Andre, in retrospect I think I should have crafted that a little differently.

Total agreement on that one. I didn't know where your thinking was coming from,and I did not want to get into lengthy dissertations that do not answer your real questions. You started with a general question, yet twice have referred to your studio design. Straight contradiction. I still do not know which is your real desire. Either is fine as a topic, having the two together in one thread when you already have an excellent thread on your studio is confusing at best.

What I meant was more along the lines of "all other variables being static", as in room dimensions, treatment, and listening positions. Even so, it may be that what I was trying to elicit cannot be isolated in such a way as to derive a meaningful answer, and that in itself is the answer.

My bolding of the correct answer. The problem is that never everything else remains the same. If you are building in an existing structure the effect of splaying will be to reduce the volume of the room. If a new structure, mode patterns change in complex ways. If you splay the ceiling, the locations and sizes of required absorption for controlling initial reflections changes. Just three examples.

"All generalizations are wrong" is a strong statement though. I'll have to ponder that one.

You have been reading and posting here long enough to know the importance of proper quoting. The full statement put in quotation marks was "all generalizations are wrong, including this one." It is a rhetorical statement, not a declarative or absolute. Consider the following examples: "Money is the root of all evil." vs. "The lust for money is the root of all evil"; and: "What's in a name? A rose by any other name would smell." vs. "What's in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." The latter is from a production of Romeo and Juliet I was involved with two years ago. I had severe problems holding my laughter when it occurred. With regard to generalizations, they are good for exactly that. They describe the pattern or central tendency. The average person has one testicle and one ovary. True? The class in school has half its students below average. What does that tell you? Are the students inferior? Inferior to what?

Counting the number of designed (and constructed) rooms with and without angled ceilings would be an interesting exercise. I agree, this forum is an excellent resource, and hats off to John for providing it. But I'm afraid it would be too biased in favour of financial and space-availability constraints to provide meaningful or fair results. People have multitudes of practical reasons why they wouldn't angle the ceiling, even if it were a godsend in terms of providing better acoustical performance.

I do not know what you are looking for. If you want no holds barred best design, Tom Hidley rooms are your desire. Fully absorptive ceilings, side and back walls, with absorbers up to 4 feet thick. If you are looking for one step (maybe) down then count the commercial rooms shown at: [url]fmdesign.com[/url] [url]soundcontrolroom.com[/url] [url]wsdg.com[/url] All three are world class designers. I did an informal survey, in researching this response, and I found NO studios built in the last five years that have splayed ceilings in the control room. I am not saying they are not there, I am saying that in all the studios I looked at there were none. If you are asking for your studio, as I recall it you have a 1600 sq.ft. building and a budget of app. $60,000. This works out to $37.50 per square foot. There are references to studios just constructed on Gearsluts that cost $300/sq.ft. As a cost example that has been presented here, Blue Bear cost $62,000 Can several years ago. You are working very much with a budget.

This makes me really step back and think. I couldn't agree with you more that weighting should be applied to the possibilities, as in 'best bang for your buck'. This is worth a lot of thought, as there are many things that can be done within the cubic footage of a higher, non-angled ceiling to alleviate problems.

You are know referring to your specific project AGAIN! Stating more emphatically what I wrote earlier, NARAS in their 5.1 recommendations includes a minimum ceiling height of 11 ft in the control room. If they were a governing body, that would be a requirement. The space you have I understand has 25 ft internal height.

I have re-read the BBC document you referenced. While not speaking directly to the subject at hand, it does once again lift some of the fog in my brain. I have a tendency to confuse (or at least unnecessarily associate) modal properties and reflection properties. Eric was steering me, but it didn't sink in right away. Angular surfaces provide a mechanism to alter reflections, but modes will still be modes. They will just be different modes, but will exist nonetheless (and are more difficult to calculate).

The BBC documents are a wealth of information, available for free! As Philip Newell wrote in Recording Studio Design, "about the only thing that is intuitive in acoustics is that the further away you get from a sound source, the quieter it is. Everything else requires counter-intuitive knowledge."

designing a non-rectangular room increases the unknowns (and therefore the risk) due to our lack of tools in calculating the results in such spaces prior to the build stage. Is this a fair statement?

Correct!

All that having been said, I still find angular construction very appealing, from a visual standpoint. I have always been a fan of such architecture, and can't really explain why. This will definitely bias my decision process, but hopefully not my objectivity when it comes to acoustical performance.

As has been posted already in this thread, you can go either way and get good results. Keep posting asking questions. The more you know, the better your studio will be. Good studio building is 90% design and 10% construction. Please ask clear questions that will provide the knowledge that you seek and structure them in such way that people for years will be able to access the knowledge base created by your questions. Keep posting asking questions I am really helpfull: Andre [edited twice] several words added to clarify statements, and spellings corrected. There is one quote later in this thread of an original sentence. His quote is correct. I edited this to clarify.

Francis Manzella's design for Egan Sound has flat ceilings, from what I can from the photographs.

Andre - look again - the control room and studio both have angled ceilings. cheers john

John Sayers wrote:

Francis Manzella's design for Egan Sound has flat ceilings, from what I can from the photographs.

Andre - look again - the control room and studio both have angled ceilings.

Thanks John. That is why worded what I worded the way I worded it, to make certain my words were clearly understood. It isn't the first time I've made a mistake, and won't be the last. :D At least honestly, Andre [edit] It took a while for something to sink in. From a remark in an earlier post about monitors and max 8º angle I assumed confirmation of my thought that we are talking about control rooms. If we are discussing tracking rooms, then it purely a subjective topic. Only two erors so far in one thread. Not bad for Christmas :shock:

You started with a general question, yet twice have referred to your studio design. Straight contradiction. I still do not know which is your real desire. Either is fine as a topic, having the two together in one thread when you already have an excellent thread on your studio is confusing at best.

First of all, my apologies to you. My intent for this thread was definitely not to reference my design or anybody else's, but rather to provide what you referred to - something "that people for years will be able to access the knowledge base created by your questions". Couldn't have said it better. And as you have pointed out, I have failed in that endeavor by letting my own specific plans and desires creep into the mix. For that I am indeed sorry. The original intent was to (hopefully) make information known to everyone interested regarding the pros and cons of angled ceilings. Naturally I have my own motivation, but I thought it would be more beneficial to generate the discussion in a non-specific way, so that everyone would be able to apply the knowledge to their own scenarios appropriately. What I see now is that was probably unrealistic to think that it could be discussed in such a non-specific manner. Perhaps that is the good that comes from this thread after all. There is no simple generality that can be made. And that's what needs to be known above all. As a side note, you are correct that I missed the rhetorical nature of that statement you made. I simply read too fast and too inaccurately. Old age is creeping up on me, I'm afraid. I will continue to ask questions, but will be specific and will ask them in the design thread I have started. Thanks again for the lively conversation and your time, tolerance, and understanding.