Hello everyone.
About myself:
My name is Marco, I'm 30 years old, and I have been working as sound engineer (tracking/mixing) since 9 years. I'm a long time lurker here (at least 3 years), I registered this account a year ago but made the first posts only a month ago.
I'm writing from the south-west Sardinia, an Italian island located between Italy and Spain. It is a pretty big island actually, if you ever got an eye over the Mediterranean Sea map you should have seen it
I'm studying and reading studio design concepts since few years, I've took my time to get into the vast moltitude of counter-intuitive concepts related to sound isolation and general acoustics rules. The journey is still far away from being completed, as my questions below will reveal shortly
I read (multiple times to be honest) these three books:
- Home Recording Studio: Build It Like the Pros by Rod Gervais
- Recording Studio Design by Philipp Newell (... ok I know... )
- Studi di registrazione e di ascolto, sale multimediali e home theater by F. Alton Everest. It's the Italian translation of the book "Handbook of Sound Studio Construction"
I received a warm welcome and high valuable answers already from some forum members, this place is wonderful.
The purpose of this thread:
I'm starting this thread for three main reasons:
- get help on some topics I have not enough expertise of
- make a sort of "design diary"
- stimulate discussion around topics that can be useful to other members in the future, as I learned myself a lot of thing because of threads like this
The goals:
What I would like to achieve is:
- a studio/rehearsal facility with two rooms: a control room, and a live/rehearsal room
- the studio must have sufficient isolation (more details of "sufficient" later) to not disturb neighbours and studio operations during the entire day (9am - 22pm is the desidered time of operation in my actual plans), to be achieved via a room in a room" design
- this is gonna be a commercial project on a tight budget (more details about the budget will follow)
- the control room must aim for a very good (can I say towards flat?) frequency response, short reverb time at the low frequencies, good habitability (I don't know if this word exists, but I think it makes sense )
- the live/rehearsal room should have variable acoustics, with a natural/balanced reverb decay that allows the usage as an "out of the way" recording room and rehearsal space
- a small bathroom
- if possible, control room and live room entrances should be indipendent
- fresh air supply
- temperature and humidity control
- if possible, not too ugly appearance
The budget:
I'd prefer to keep it under €30,000. I know it's not a great sum... I think I can stretch a little above but... we'll see how the design develop.
Where I am now:
I am in the research/planning phase.
I own an "empty" (you'll get the meaning of those double-quotes soon) place of 90 sq. meters (969 sq. feet), at the ground floor of a small 3 floors building, with neighbours above and at one of the four sides. Walls are 3,46 meters (9,84 feets) tall. Full details of this place will follow (I hope I didn't forget anything).
There is a window in the actual bathroom, that I think will become a part of the "external leaf" wall (= will be walled, since it brings no natural light and can represent a potential weak spot for the sound isolation system).
There is also a glass-door in the external wall of the small room at the back of the building. Its future is part of the questions at the bottom of the post
The actual bathroom will be demolished (even the walls), and the small room separation wall at the end of the main space will be demolished as well, creating a single space to work with.
These walls will be removed:
It will become like this:
Loudness and isolation:
As the image above shows, the outer shell of the room misses one wall, the front one.
Instead of the front wall, there is a huge, old window-wall (I don't know the exact word to describe it) made of glass and aluminium with several air leaks:
This place was a shop once. The window was a showcase.
In front of that, at about 2 meters (6,5 feets), there is a road with moderate traffic.
The measurements (all values refers to maximum values measured by the spl meter, "slow" response, "C" weighted)
1. Environmental noise in the studio space
The maximum value measured was 102dB, due to a heavy truck accelerating in front of the building.
Of course, the farther I measured from the street, the lower the maximum spl (as shown, 82.3 dB);
In the room above the studio space (neighbour 1), the level was about 50dB. Near the window facing the street it raised to 60dB when cars were passing by.
2. Noise with drums and bass playing loud in the room
In the studio space, the maximum pressure was measured near the drums, 120 dB at about 1 meter.
Adjacent the right side of the studio space, there is the stairwell and an apartment (neighbour 2), slightly higher than the studio space floor.
I can safely presume that in that apartment the noise will be like or slightly less the noise measured in the stairwell: 101.9 dB
In the neighbour 1 apartment, the measured level with drums and bass playing was 93.2 dB.
Interesting fact: the floor was vibrating, I could feel it by the feets.
I also touched the pillars, and they were vibrating too (a little less, but still vibrating).
Since the studio space floor is rigidly connected to the pillars and therefore to the 1st floor, I think I have the classic "flanking path" situation of the impact sound being transmitted via concrete in addition to the airborne transmission.
I don't know if the 1st floor is being put in vibration by airborne sound or by the transmission via the pillars.
Given these measurements, I think that I'll have to achieve at least 60 dB of isolation.
The questions:
1) Due to local regulations, I cannot change the aesthetics of the front entrance of the building. I.E. I cannot substitute the window with a brick wall, but I can change the window with a newer one.
So a new sealed and safe "showcase" will substitute the actual one, maybe in PVC or wood.
Is it a good idea to build, a meter or so inside of the space, a new massive wall to complete the isolation outer shell?
2) Those pillars are a bad business, but I have to deal with them. They are a rigid connection between the studio space floor and the upper floor, and I suppose they represent a flanking path. I'm thinking to design the rooms to let the pillars to be outside the inner isolation shell of course, but what about the floor? Wouldn't it be necessary to decouple it as well from the pillars? I was thinking about a giant drum riser as a new floor inside the inner shell isolation walls. It would be handy also to make room for the audio cables... I don't know, I'd really appreciate your advice
3) I think I have identified my isolation goal with 60dB of transmission loss.
I would like to make the isolation walls with 4 sheets 15mm of fire rated drywall and steel framing, inside-out. Same for the ceiling but with wood beams instead of steel.
It means a total of 60mm - about 52.8kg/sq. meter surface density - using the data of Knauf gypsum board easily available here were I live (docs I found are in the Italian version of the website, the published density is 880kg/m3)
Will I achieve with this system enough mass to reach the TL requested?
I would also like to not waste any space, and so mantain the iso walls MAM system as thin as possible. In my initial plans, the air cavity is 140mm wide (5,5 inches) in the closer spots, and in some spots it should be around 900mm (35 inches) wide (but without insulation, to make a passage for indipendent live room and control room entrances ).
In the first case (140mm - 5,5inches wide cavity with insulation), the calculated MAM resonance is 18.7Hz.
In the second case (900mm - 35 inches wide cavity without insulation), the calculated MAM resonance is 10.5Hz.
Both of these calculations were made using the surface density of the weakest wall of the external shell.
What of these two values will be the closest to the final resonance of my wall isolation system?
4) In my idea, the HVAC duct runs will be above the iso rooms.
Will be 30cm (11 inches) enough? Also, is there a problem placing the ducts inside the MSM cavity?
5) In the back of the building, there is a glass door, in the external wall. Due to its orientation, it's a very useful natural light source. Is it possible/is it a good idea to mantain this glass door (with proper glass thikness, airtight construction and a second internall glass door for the iso shell)?
Also that door I think will be needed because the external units for the HVAC system should be placed in that side of the building.
At this design stage these are the "blocking questions" that I have to solve before I can move on adding more details to the designs...
Sorry for the long post and thank you for reading!!
P.S. Sorry but I didn't manage to make readable images with a resolution below 750pixel wide, I hope the post isn't difficult to read for anyone.
Marco
New Studio design in southern Italy, nasty pillars challenge
Moderators: Aaronw, kendale, John Sayers
-
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2014 8:27 pm
- Location: Sardinia, Italy
-
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2014 8:27 pm
- Location: Sardinia, Italy
Re: New Studio design in southern Italy, nasty pillars chall
Just to add some "detail", this is an extremely rough idea of how I would like to arrange the rooms in this space.
Of course geometry, real dimensions will be in function of iso wall required thickness, this is just a rough idea.
I.E. I would like to design an RFZ control room. The Control Room iso shell geometry has not to be necessarily a rectangle, maybe I'll manage to optimize space utilization when I'll go into deeper and finer design stage...
The green wall on the left is the wall that I think I need to build to complete the external leaf. I know that with the pvc/glass showcase this is a 3-leaf system, but there is a large distance between them (more than 1 meter - 3,2 feets), and the pvc/glass showcase will not have much mass.
It is a very rough idea yet, I have to make my mind on the topics I pointed out in the first post
Of course geometry, real dimensions will be in function of iso wall required thickness, this is just a rough idea.
I.E. I would like to design an RFZ control room. The Control Room iso shell geometry has not to be necessarily a rectangle, maybe I'll manage to optimize space utilization when I'll go into deeper and finer design stage...
The green wall on the left is the wall that I think I need to build to complete the external leaf. I know that with the pvc/glass showcase this is a 3-leaf system, but there is a large distance between them (more than 1 meter - 3,2 feets), and the pvc/glass showcase will not have much mass.
It is a very rough idea yet, I have to make my mind on the topics I pointed out in the first post
-
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2014 8:27 pm
- Location: Sardinia, Italy
Re: New Studio design in southern Italy, nasty pillars chall
Should the 4 layers of drywall be enough to obtain the isolation level I need, I've came up with two layout ideas:
The first one allows me to have more spacious, comfortable rooms with a separate room whitch can come handy. But I lose the hallway and the storage room.
Also I suspect a bad 3-leaf effect having the showcase, the new wall and the iso wall so close each other.
With the second one I would have a weird shape for the live room though, and a noticeable waste of space...
The first one allows me to have more spacious, comfortable rooms with a separate room whitch can come handy. But I lose the hallway and the storage room.
Also I suspect a bad 3-leaf effect having the showcase, the new wall and the iso wall so close each other.
With the second one I would have a weird shape for the live room though, and a noticeable waste of space...
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 11938
- Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 10:17 am
- Location: Santiago, Chile
- Contact:
Re: New Studio design in southern Italy, nasty pillars chall
Hi Marco, and Welcome! (again! ! )
It seems like you have a pretty good grasp of the concepts, and a nice space to work with.
Also, the goal regarding decay times should be to have them consistent across the spectrum, with only slight variation between frequency bands, and increasing in the lower end. AES, ITU, EBU and other specs show good recommendation plots for this. That's what you should be aiming for.
100 dB ambient level is VERY loud. It means you must be shouting all the time to talk to anyone near you.
OK, major important question: Does the building itself vibrate, with those loud sounds? Get a stethoscope, or borrow one from a doctor or nurse, and listen to the floor, walls, ceiling, pillars, etc. to see if there is sound already in the building structure itself...
OK, so the vibrations you felt in the floor an in the pillars? is that the vibration of the drums? Or is it the vibration of the traffic from outside?
Especially if you want 60 dB of isolation.
But you won't know that until you do the HVAC calculations: You first need to figure out your air flow rate, your airflow velocity, the length of the path for each room, the predicted statics pressure, sensible heat load, latent heat load, and all the other parameters, so you can know what duct size and register sizes you will need for each room. Then you can calculate what size your silencers will need to be, and based on that, you can calculate how much space you need up there.
Overall, I'd say your most serious problem is the very high ambient noise level outside, and the fact that you already have a major structure-borne noise problem. The more I think about it, the more I suspect that you might need to float your rooms completely.
I would still suggest giving serious though to floating your rooms. Yes, it will be expensive, but with 100 dBC ambient noise and structure-borne vibration that you can feel in your feet and even in the support columns, I do not see you being able to get good isolation unless you float your rooms.
- Stuart -
It seems like you have a pretty good grasp of the concepts, and a nice space to work with.
It's not easy to get truly flat response in a small CR. You can get close, but there will always be variations. And I'm not even convinced that it is desirable to have truly flat response... I've come to believe that there is something to said for a little variability.- the control room must aim for a very good (can I say towards flat?) frequency response, short reverb time at the low frequencies,
Also, the goal regarding decay times should be to have them consistent across the spectrum, with only slight variation between frequency bands, and increasing in the lower end. AES, ITU, EBU and other specs show good recommendation plots for this. That's what you should be aiming for.
That's not too hard to do, with panels that open/close. I've designed a few like that, and they work quite well.- the live/rehearsal room should have variable acoustics,
That's a reasonable budget for that size space. Maybe a little on the low side, but in the general ball-park.I'd prefer to keep it under €30,000. I know it's not a great sum...
Wow! That's REALLY loud! And that's just ambient sound? With no noise at all being made inside your place?1. Environmental noise in the studio space .... 82 dBC ... 102 dBC ...
Is that common? I mean, does that happen a lot, with trucks accelerating outside all the time?The maximum value measured was 102dB, due to a heavy truck accelerating in front of the building.
100 dB ambient level is VERY loud. It means you must be shouting all the time to talk to anyone near you.
OK, major important question: Does the building itself vibrate, with those loud sounds? Get a stethoscope, or borrow one from a doctor or nurse, and listen to the floor, walls, ceiling, pillars, etc. to see if there is sound already in the building structure itself...
So you have less than 30 dB of isolation, but there is a concrete floor up there... which suggests that there are flanking paths for sound to get around that.2. Noise with drums and bass playing loud in the room ... 93 dBC
Yes, but you said that the ambient level is 103 dB anyway, so having drums at 102 dB is not going to be a problem.I can safely presume that in that apartment the noise will be like or slightly less the noise measured in the stairwell: 101.9 dB
Which floor? Are you talking about the floor upstairs, above where your studio will be? Or the floor in your studio? Or the floor in the neighboring apartments?Interesting fact: the floor was vibrating, I could feel it by the feets.
I guess that answers the question above, about structure-borne noise...I also touched the pillars, and they were vibrating too (a little less, but still vibrating).
OK, so the vibrations you felt in the floor an in the pillars? is that the vibration of the drums? Or is it the vibration of the traffic from outside?
Yep. No doubt about that...Since the studio space floor is rigidly connected to the pillars and therefore to the 1st floor, I think I have the classic "flanking path" situation of the impact sound being transmitted via concrete in addition to the airborne transmission.
YEs, I would definitely do that, due to the very loud levels coming from outside. It won't solve the problem, of course, but it will help, and it will complete your outer-leaf with consistent high-mass surfaces all around you.Is it a good idea to build, a meter or so inside of the space, a new massive wall to complete the isolation outer shell?
I'm seriously considering that you might be one of those rare cases where a true floating floor would be the best solution. With over 100 dB of ambient noise, and vibration present in all of the building structure, it really might be a good idea to consider floating your entire inner rooms completely.but what about the floor?
Especially if you want 60 dB of isolation.
No, because you are only talking about the outer leaf, which is just a single leaf, and is only a small part of the overall isolation you will get from building your complete "room-in-a-room" systems. What you propose there is good as the basis for creating your outer leaf, but by itself it will not give you the isolation you are looking for.Will I achieve with this system enough mass to reach the TL requested?
You have a very nice, big area, and you are not trying to fit in too many rooms: You don't need to worry too much about saving a few cm here and there. People who are trying to fit in a room to a very small basement need to worry about that, but you have a good sized space, so it' isn't as important. Of course, it's still a good idea to make the best use of space!I would also like to not waste any space, and so mantain the iso walls MAM system as thin as possible.
How did you calculate that? What parameters did you use for the surface densities of your two leaves, and for the insulation infill in the cavity?In the first case (140mm - 5,5inches wide cavity with insulation), the calculated MAM resonance is 18.7Hz.
Then they are not valid! You need to use the densities of BOTH leaves, not just one leaf. I suspect that you are not using the correct equation....Both of these calculations were made using the surface density of the weakest wall of the external shell.
11 inches of what? Are you talking about the available clear space between the top of your inner-leaf ceilings, and the bottom of the outer-leaf floor above you? If so, no, 11 inches will not be enough. The very slimmest silencer box that I have ever designed was 11 inches high, but you still need at least an inch or two below that, and/or at least an inch or two above it. I would not try to do it in less than 14 inches. And I'm assuming that you will be using 6" unlined round ducts: If you will be using 8" ducts (which might be necessary, considering the size of your facility), then you'd need at least 16" of headroom up there.4) In my idea, the HVAC duct runs will be above the iso rooms.
Will be 30cm (11 inches) enough?
But you won't know that until you do the HVAC calculations: You first need to figure out your air flow rate, your airflow velocity, the length of the path for each room, the predicted statics pressure, sensible heat load, latent heat load, and all the other parameters, so you can know what duct size and register sizes you will need for each room. Then you can calculate what size your silencers will need to be, and based on that, you can calculate how much space you need up there.
No problem at all. That's the way I prefer to do it, especially when I have to get maximum isolation for a facility.Also, is there a problem placing the ducts inside the MSM cavity?
Yes, it is possible. No problem.Is it possible/is it a good idea to mantain this glass door (with proper glass thikness, airtight construction and a second internall glass door for the iso shell)?
Overall, I'd say your most serious problem is the very high ambient noise level outside, and the fact that you already have a major structure-borne noise problem. The more I think about it, the more I suspect that you might need to float your rooms completely.
It sounds like you've been reading too much Phillip Newell!!!I would like to design an RFZ control room. The Control Room iso shell geometry has not to be necessarily a rectangle,
No problem. I would not be worried about a third leaf at that distance, especially considering the high mass you are planning for the "green" wall.I know that with the pvc/glass showcase this is a 3-leaf system, but there is a large distance between them (more than 1 meter -
I would suggest turning your CR 90°, so that it faces the live room, to give you better visibility and also make better use of space.I've came up with two layout ideas:
That's not a problem at all! Live Room shape can be anything you want it to be. I would not worry too much about it. Rather, I would plan to maximize the volume of the LR so that it is at least 3 times the volume of the CR, and then treat it accordingly.With the second one I would have a weird shape for the live room
I would still suggest giving serious though to floating your rooms. Yes, it will be expensive, but with 100 dBC ambient noise and structure-borne vibration that you can feel in your feet and even in the support columns, I do not see you being able to get good isolation unless you float your rooms.
- Stuart -
-
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2014 8:27 pm
- Location: Sardinia, Italy
Re: New Studio design in southern Italy, nasty pillars chall
Hello Stuart, and thank you so much for taking the time to look into my thread and give your help. Very appreciated!Hi Marco, and Welcome! (again! ! )
Roger that. In the past two years I had a the chanche to speak with some skilled sound engineers, and they tend to agree with this concept.It's not easy to get truly flat response in a small CR. You can get close, but there will always be variations. And I'm not even convinced that it is desirable to have truly flat response... I've come to believe that there is something to said for a little variability.
So, should we replace the word "flat" with "accurate"?
I didn't mention that my montiors are not "main" big and loud monitors. They are the PSI A-21M, with a maximum SPL of 119dB at 1m (pair).
More info here: http://www.psiaudio.com/en/our-products/a21-m/
I'll look into those specs and set a reasonable target to aim in that regard.Also, the goal regarding decay times should be to have them consistent across the spectrum, with only slight variation between frequency bands, and increasing in the lower end. AES, ITU, EBU and other specs show good recommendation plots for this. That's what you should be aiming for.
great! I'll research for some designs and propose them when other major aspects of the live room will be less smoky.That's not too hard to do, with panels that open/close. I've designed a few like that, and they work quite well.
Sadly, yes. As I mentioned, there is actually no front wall, is like a giant (6m x 3m) window open to the road in front of the building.Wow! That's REALLY loud! And that's just ambient sound? With no noise at all being made inside your place?
Well...Is that common? I mean, does that happen a lot, with trucks accelerating outside all the time?
100 dB is the peak value when loud trucks/autobus or motorcycles pass by. With "normal" traffic the noise is at around 76dB, with no traffic at all (rare, that's the main road of the town), we are around 60dB.100 dB ambient level is VERY loud. It means you must be shouting all the time to talk to anyone near you.
I'll do that test ASAP and report back.OK, major important question: Does the building itself vibrate, with those loud sounds? Get a stethoscope, or borrow one from a doctor or nurse, and listen to the floor, walls, ceiling, pillars, etc. to see if there is sound already in the building structure itself...
I didn't measure the ambient noise level in the stairwell. I forgot doing that I'll do ASAP to picture a better data set of the acoustic performance of the actual structure.Yes, but you said that the ambient level is 103 dB anyway, so having drums at 102 dB is not going to be a problem.
My explanations weren't very understandable, pardon me. You guessed right, I was talking about the floor upstairs.Which floor? Are you talking about the floor upstairs, above where your studio will be? Or the floor in your studio? Or the floor in the neighboring apartments?
I felt the vibrations in the floor by my feets, and in the pillars by touching them with the hands, while the drums were playing. I didn't felt any vibrations from the traffic though.OK, so the vibrations you felt in the floor an in the pillars? is that the vibration of the drums? Or is it the vibration of the traffic from outside?
Yes, I would definitely do that, due to the very loud levels coming from outside. It won't solve the problem, of course, but it will help, and it will complete your outer-leaf with consistent high-mass surfaces all around you.
If I understand this correctly, you are talking about rooms built on top of floating floors?I'm seriously considering that you might be one of those rare cases where a true floating floor would be the best solution. With over 100 dB of ambient noise, and vibration present in all of the building structure, it really might be a good idea to consider floating your entire inner rooms completely.
Especially if you want 60 dB of isolation.
erm again, I wasn't very clear in my explanations. The "iso walls" I was referring to were the new ones to build inside the existing structure, so the "second leaf". I was taking for granted the "new external front wall" to complete the outer leaf, with a mass comparable to the existing walls.No, because you are only talking about the outer leaf, which is just a single leaf, and is only a small part of the overall isolation you will get from building your complete "room-in-a-room" systems. What you propose there is good as the basis for creating your outer leaf, but by itself it will not give you the isolation you are looking for.
The "only" challenge here is making a good use of the space avoiding having the pillars inside the rooms... I find it a bit trickyYou have a very nice, big area, and you are not trying to fit in too many rooms: You don't need to worry too much about saving a few cm here and there. People who are trying to fit in a room to a very small basement need to worry about that, but you have a good sized space, so it' isn't as important. Of course, it's still a good idea to make the best use of space!
I used the formulaHow did you calculate that? What parameters did you use for the surface densities of your two leaves, and for the insulation infill in the cavity?
Code: Select all
43[(M1+M2/M1*M2*d)]^1/2
The "d" I'm using is 0,14 meters.
The first leave is the thinnest wall of the external shell, which is 115 kg/m² (hollow blocks 8 cm + mortar + plastering)
The inner leave I'm aiming for is made of 4 layers of 1,5mm wide fire rated drywall. I took the data from the Knauf website, and for a build like that, NOT counting the framing (of which I don't know exactly the weight), I obtained a surface density of 52 kg/m²
I have to get better, among other things, in written English. I hope that the explanation above settles the mistakeThen they are not valid! You need to use the densities of BOTH leaves, not just one leaf. I suspect that you are not using the correct equation....
Ok, so if I want to place the ducts and silencers above the inner-leaf ceilings I have to plan at least 41cm (circa 16"). Thanks, I didn't get yet to the HVAC calculations, and this is my first studio design ever... I have to build a "forma mentis" around some systems11 inches of what? Are you talking about the available clear space between the top of your inner-leaf ceilings, and the bottom of the outer-leaf floor above you? If so, no, 11 inches will not be enough. The very slimmest silencer box that I have ever designed was 11 inches high, but you still need at least an inch or two below that, and/or at least an inch or two above it. I would not try to do it in less than 14 inches. And I'm assuming that you will be using 6" unlined round ducts: If you will be using 8" ducts (which might be necessary, considering the size of your facility), then you'd need at least 16" of headroom up there.
Great!No problem at all. That's the way I prefer to do it, especially when I have to get maximum isolation for a facility.
Yes, it is possible. No problem.
I'm not following you here. Are you saying that It's better to mantain a rectangle? I wrote "The Control Room iso shell geometry has not to be necessarily a rectangle," because I've seen some John's designs of RFZ rooms without rectangular shape, and in the Rod's book too the CRs are not rectangular.It sounds like you've been reading too much Phillip Newell!!!
Is it something that a common man like me can design? Or does it get too much complicated and therefore is better to stick with a rectangular shell?
And what if I build the wall just a few inches far from the showcase? (anyway, I discovered that there's a legal workaround to get rid of the showcase and build directly a wall INSTEAD of the showcase. Just some paper work and money, but it would mean an easier design... )No problem. I would not be worried about a third leaf at that distance, especially considering the high mass you are planning for the "green" wall.
Copy that, but I don't think it's feasible in this space: I really don't want to get under 20sq. meters for the CR, and I don't see how I can get contiguous 60 sq. meters for the live room... those are my limits, I know.That's not a problem at all! Live Room shape can be anything you want it to be. I would not worry too much about it. Rather, I would plan to maximize the volume of the LR so that it is at least 3 times the volume of the CR, and then treat it accordingly.
BUT I'll keep working on layout ideas
I'll do ASAP some tests with the sound level meter and the stetoscope and report back. Of course if I'll have to float the entire rooms, I'll contact a professional: the money involved will be too much to make a design mistake just for the satisfaction of saying "I designed that!"I would still suggest giving serious though to floating your rooms. Yes, it will be expensive, but with 100 dBC ambient noise and structure-borne vibration that you can feel in your feet and even in the support columns, I do not see you being able to get good isolation unless you float your rooms.
Thank you again, I'll report back soon.
Marco
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 11938
- Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 10:17 am
- Location: Santiago, Chile
- Contact:
Re: New Studio design in southern Italy, nasty pillars chall
That will do perfectly!So, should we replace the word "flat" with "accurate"?
Those are fine. Very nice, in fact. They should work well for that room.I didn't mention that my montiors are not "main" big and loud monitors. They are the PSI A-21M,
ITU-REC-BS.1116-2 is what you are looking for. Or EBU TECH-3276. They are not identical, but close enough that you get the general idea.I'll look into those specs and set a reasonable target to aim in that regard.
That's still pretty loud. You are going to need serious isolation.With "normal" traffic the noise is at around 76dB, with no traffic at all (rare, that's the main road of the town), we are around 60dB.
Yes. In your case, it would be easier and more effective to do that. So each room would have its own independently floated floor, the walls for that room would sit on top of that floor, and the ceiling would sit on top of the walls. The entire room would be floated, since that's the easiest way to do it. The floated floor would be a concrete slab, poured on top of the current floor (with plastic and insulation in between, of course!) and raised up on isolation mounts, such as these:If I understand this correctly, you are talking about rooms built on top of floating floors?
Then you'd build the walls on that, once it is raised up. The concept is simple, but there's a whole lot of calculations to do to get it right, and it isn't cheap to do that. But you would have a very well isolated studio like that!
OK, so you have the correct formula, but your constant is not so accurate. 43 is for normally incident sound with an optimally filled cavity, 60 is for normally incident sound with an empty cavity, 90 is for randomly incident sound with an empty cavity, but for real-world conditions the number is somewhere on between. The sound hitting an MSM wall is not 100% normally incident, and also not 100% random, plus the cavity won't ever be perfectly filled.... so a good number to use there for most situations is around 50 to 70. I like 53. Your mass numbers and air gaps look reasonable, so your frequencies are reasonably accurate.I used the formula "43[(M1+M2/M1*M2*d)]^1/2" The 43 there is due to the insulation I'm planning to use.
HVAC is a big part of studio design... Actually, EVERYTHING is a big part of studio design!I didn't get yet to the HVAC calculations,
Not really: I was taking a dig at Phillip and his concept of having a non-rectangular outer "isolation" shell, with a symmetric inner room... I'm not a big fan of that theory...I'm not following you here. Are you saying that It's better to mantain a rectangle? I wrote "The Control Room iso shell geometry has not to be necessarily a rectangle," because I've seen some John's designs of RFZ rooms without rectangular shape, and in the Rod's book too the CRs are not rectangular.
Yes, you certainly can build your room either as a rectangle, which Rod likes sometimes, or as a non-rectangular room, which John and I like a lot (and other people too). An RFZ type room is always non-rectangular; it has to be, in order to create the reflection free zone! so if you want to go with the RFZ concept (and I definitely do recommend that!), then correct, your control room inner-leaf would not be rectangular.... however, your OUTER leaf might still be rectangular, which is what I thought you were talking about.
Definitely! It takes a bit of time to learn how to do it, and then to work through the process of doing it, but it isn't that hard, once you understand the basics.Is it something that a common man like me can design?
Use your formula, and you'll find out! As the gap gets smaller, the MSM resonant frequency goes up higher. As soon as it is into the audible spectrum (or at lest the part of the spectrum that YOU are concerned about), then you have a problem.And what if I build the wall just a few inches far from the showcase?
To be honest, I would leave that wall in place, even if you do have another wall to the street. You could use that areas as storage, or as the utility area for your HVAC system, or maybe for your bathroom, or a small office... It's always good to have an extra "buffer" space between your studio and a very loud area...(anyway, I discovered that there's a legal workaround to get rid of the showcase and build directly a wall INSTEAD of the showcase. Just some paper work and money, but it would mean an easier design... )
Ahhh, but you missed the point... I mentioned room VOLUME, not room AREA. It its the VOLUME that needs to be larger. And since your control room will likely have a lower ceiling, and you will be maximizing your LR ceiling, it is feasible to get to that goal, I think...Copy that, but I don't think it's feasible in this space: I really don't want to get under 20sq. meters for the CR, and I don't see how I can get contiguous 60 sq. meters for the live room...
- Stuart -
-
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2014 8:27 pm
- Location: Sardinia, Italy
Re: New Studio design in southern Italy, nasty pillars chall
Thanks, I'll look into thoseITU-REC-BS.1116-2 is what you are looking for. Or EBU TECH-3276. They are not identical, but close enough that you get the general idea.
I've seen this approach in the first chapters of Rod's book.Yes. In your case, it would be easier and more effective to do that. So each room would have its own independently floated floor, the walls for that room would sit on top of that floor, and the ceiling would sit on top of the walls. The entire room would be floated, since that's the easiest way to do it. The floated floor would be a concrete slab, poured on top of the current floor (with plastic and insulation in between, of course!) and raised up on isolation mounts, such as these:
If I understood the process, it will work like this:
1) Design a semi-definitive layout for the studio, with the correct builds of the walls, ceilings and doors
2) Estimate the weight of the bare builds
3) Design a rough idea of the acoustic treatment
4) Estimate the weight of the rooms WITH the acoustic treatment
5) Estimate the weight of people, equipment and furnishing
6) Estimate the weight of the new floating slabs with "reinforcements" (I refer to the iron bars supporting the slab)
7) With this data, make calculations to set the decoupling devices in their optimal spring state (I'm not sure of the technical language here )
Reading other posts of people in need to float their floors, the resonant frequency should depend on decoupling devices and room weight right?
I noticed that, and a bit over overwhelming to be honest. A lot of big things which have to work right together... a challenge indeedHVAC is a big part of studio design... Actually, EVERYTHING is a big part of studio design!
About this matter: could it also be a rectangular inner shell but with "false" (lightweight, maybe wooden) partitions to accomplish the RFZ? In this way I can use the space in the corner for bass frequency absorption (like in the first layout I posted).Yes, you certainly can build your room either as a rectangle, which Rod likes sometimes, or as a non-rectangular room, which John and I like a lot (and other people too). An RFZ type room is always non-rectangular; it has to be, in order to create the reflection free zone! so if you want to go with the RFZ concept (and I definitely do recommend that!), then correct, your control room inner-leaf would not be rectangular.... however, your OUTER leaf might still be rectangular, which is what I thought you were talking about.
Thank you, I'll think about itTo be honest, I would leave that wall in place, even if you do have another wall to the street. You could use that areas as storage, or as the utility area for your HVAC system, or maybe for your bathroom, or a small office... It's always good to have an extra "buffer" space between your studio and a very loud area...
UOAHH now it's a very different concept eheh... it looks indeed achievable.Ahhh, but you missed the point... I mentioned room VOLUME, not room AREA. It its the VOLUME that needs to be larger. And since your control room will likely have a lower ceiling, and you will be maximizing your LR ceiling, it is feasible to get to that goal, I think...
Thank you so much again for your kind help Stuart!!
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 11938
- Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 10:17 am
- Location: Santiago, Chile
- Contact:
Re: New Studio design in southern Italy, nasty pillars chall
Correct!Reading other posts of people in need to float their floors, the resonant frequency should depend on decoupling devices and room weight right?
Nope! If your panels are light weight, then they won't reflect mid and low frequencies properly, and they will also probably vibrate and resonate at certain frequencies. They have to be heavy, and rigid. Especially your speaker soffits: They have to be very rigid, and very massive, in order to work well as infinite baffles.About this matter: could it also be a rectangular inner shell but with "false" (lightweight, maybe wooden) partitions to accomplish the RFZ?
You can still use the corners for that! If you look at John's design for speaker soffits, you'll see that the entire section below the speaker shelf is used for bass trapping. He has hangers in there...In this way I can use the space in the corner for bass frequency absorption
- Stuart -
-
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2014 8:27 pm
- Location: Sardinia, Italy
Re: New Studio design in southern Italy, nasty pillars chall
copy, thanks!Nope! If your panels are light weight, then they won't reflect mid and low frequencies properly, and they will also probably vibrate and resonate at certain frequencies. They have to be heavy, and rigid. Especially your speaker soffits: They have to be very rigid, and very massive, in order to work well as infinite baffles.
Yes I've seen John's soffit design, I was thinking that the RFZ wasn't involving low frequencies... I was wrongYou can still use the corners for that! If you look at John's design for speaker soffits, you'll see that the entire section below the speaker shelf is used for bass trapping. He has hangers in there...
Thank you again!
Marco