Aesthetics vs Acoustics

[chrispire]

Today I have a general question for studio designers regarding control room design.

As studio designers, I understand that some of your highest priorities in any design are to achieve a flat frequency response and even reverb decay times. So what do you do when a client has demanded a particular aesthetic component that might compromise the room acoustics in some way? For example, what if they want glass windows in places where you'd rather install absorbent material? What if they demand a certain room geometry or size that is less than ideal? What if they don't want flush mounted speakers or what if a RFZ is not possible for some reason?

I'm asking this question partly because it applies to my own upcoming studio build, but also because I am genuinely interested in your design process and how you deal with the challenge of aesthetics vs acoustics. Studio design is such a fascinating blend of physics and art and I'd love to learn more about how you think in these situations.

My question is inspired partly by the fantastic acoustic performance and impressive appearance of a design like this:
http://www.johnlsayers.com/phpBB2/viewt ... =2&t=20471

And also by the beauty of this studio - Refinery studio in Melbourne by John Sayers (this is one of my all time favourites):

Refinery Control 2.jpg

(By the way, the Refinery Studio website seems to be gone, but they still have a Facebook page with lots of great photos on it: https://www.facebook.com/refrec/)

Let's use Refinery Studio as an example. There is a lot of glass in that room across the front wall and also in the doors either side of the listening position. I wonder how that might have affected the room acoustics?

I myself would like to place a glass window in front of my listening position so that I can take in the lovely nature views that are available to me. That's a REALLY important part of the design of my studio (especially because I compose relaxation music from this position). But I'm aware that it might negatively affect my acoustics if my monitors are positioned close to the glass.

I imagine that balancing acoustics with aesthetics and the practical requirements of a room (i.e. entries/exits, the presence of desks, windows etc) must be a huge challenge. Would it be true to say that there is always some degree of compromise and imperfection in every design? And how do you decide when you've struck the right balance?

Please forgive the very broad nature of my question. This is such an interesting subject to me so I'm hoping to get a peek inside the mind of a studio designer and learn something about what goes on in there.

Thank you!
Chris

[boingrock]

I'm having similar thoughts... Intrigued as to what people have to say.

[Soundman2020]

So what do you do when a client has demanded a particular aesthetic component that might compromise the room acoustics in some way?

It depends on how bad the situation is. If it is possible to treat another part of the room differently to compensate for the "bad" part, then that would be a good option.

For example, what if they want glass windows in places where you'd rather install absorbent material?

If that would cause reflections to the mix position, or increase the overall decay times outside of specs, then I'd just lay it on the line for them, and explain to the owner that he has a choice: a studio that sounds terrible but looks the way he wants it, vs. one that sounds great and also looks great, but just not the way he wants it to look. I'd try to work with him to find a solution that looks as close as possible to what he wants, but without compromising the critical aspects of the acoustic response.

What if they demand a certain room geometry or size that is less than ideal?

If the resulting geometry or size is unworkable, acoustically terrible, once again I'd explain that as clearly as I can to the owner, and suggest alternatives. If the owner stubbornly insists on "doing it his way" when there really are better alternatives, I'd probably just walk away from the project, return the down-payment, and give him a list of other designers that he could contact. I would not want to put my reputation on the line, knowing that the studio would turn out lousy but have my name associated with it as designer.

What if they don't want flush mounted speakers

That's fine. You can still design a good room with speakers on stands. It won't be as good as it could be, but it can still be very acceptable. I did that just recently for a customer in Egypt: I initially put soffits (flush-mount modules) into the design for the speakers, but the owner expressed concern that his workmen would not be able to build them, for a very valid reason: wood is scarce in Egypt: trees don't grow in the desert! So there is very little wood (imported only, very expensive) are very few skilled carpenters in Egypt: but building soffits needs reasonably good carpentry skills, good materials, and good tools. If those are not available, then it makes sense to scrap the idea of soffits and just put the speakers on stands, with suitable treatment. That was certainly a real, valid, and understandable reason. I re-designed the room without soffits. I would have preferred to have them, but give the choice of badly built soffits, or well built stands, I'd go with the stands!

or what if a RFZ is not possible for some reason?

Then I would not do RFZ! If there's a valid, reason why that can't be done, then I'd design the room differently, and treat it differently. Here too, the result would perhaps not be as good as it could have been, but it can still be really, really good.

A lot of things in studio design is about compromise. You often have to play off one desirable aspect against another desirable aspect that happen to be mutually exclusive. That happens in all studio designs: there's always something you'd like to do better, but you can't because it would interfere with something else, and make that one worse. It's all about trying to find the best balance between conflicting needs.

I'm asking this question partly because it applies to my own upcoming studio build, but also because I am genuinely interested in your design process and how you deal with the challenge of aesthetics vs acoustics.

Personally, I'm a big believer in the "form follow function" school of thought: The "form" of the room should be optimized completely for it's primary "function". For a studio, the obvious primary function is that it must have the best possible acoustic response at all points in the room where critical listening will take place. On the other hand, if your primary goal is to have a beautiful room that wins prizes in architectural shows and gets featured in interior decorating and design magazines, then you are not building a studio! You are building a piece of art, so in that case, the art takes first priority.... and the room will likely never be usable as a studio.

But it doesn't have to be an "either/or" decision. The room can be great acoustically and also look great. There are numerous things that can be done with lighting, finish materials, furniture, colors, textures, etc. that will make a room look fantastic, without affecting the acoustics.

My question is inspired partly by the fantastic acoustic performance and impressive appearance of a design like this:
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=20471

Thank you! That's one of my designs... If you'd care to PM or even call the owner (Rod DeMoss), I'm sure he'd be happy to tell you about the story behind that design. It's actually chronicled on his website. There were, indeed, some challenges with that design. At the time Rod brought me on board to do the design, the basic shape of the room was already in place, and built, with no chance of going back. So I had to work within that "shell". Many things changed from the way he had originally envisioned it, but still staying within the limitations of the existing shape. We got it working really well acoustically, and also visually, I think. Believe it or not, Rod actually hated the original conceptual design I did for him! He asked for many changes... but then he slowly asked to reverse those, one by one, and the final studio ended up pretty much the same as the original concept... it sort of "grew on him" over time. Now, most of the final interior decorating was done by Rod and his wife, after checking with me on the acoustic issues, so I can't take credit for all of that. The color scheme is their choice, and so is the use of finish materials. Along the way, they asked me to render images with many variations and combinations of color schemes, but without changing the acoustic design, until they settled on what you see in those photos, and on Rod's website ( http://studio3productions.com/ ). Personally, I think they did a fantastic job with that! Better than my original color schemes, for sure! Rod was very insistent that the acoustic aspects had to take absolute first priority, and even took a saw to his desk at one stage, cutting it down and changing some angles, to make that happen. There were no conflicts in our approaches to the room: we both wanted the best possible acoustics that we could get. In fact, he challenged me to go even further than I probably would have! There were some compromises due the room shape (it's complicated!), and also budget, of course, and sometimes in other things, but Rod had his priorities absolutely clear: First, acoustics. Then aesthetics.

And also by the beauty of this studio - Refinery studio in Melbourne by John Sayers (this is one of my all time favourites):

Another top-notch studio that looks absurdly great and sounds even better, by all accounts.

Let's use Refinery Studio as an example. There is a lot of glass in that room across the front wall and also in the doors either side of the listening position. I wonder how that might have affected the room acoustics?

That's John's design, of course, so I'm not aware of the dimensions, angles, and treatment specifics going on behind the scenes, but from what I can see, there's no conflicts there. The glass is not in a location where it would be causing issues, and I'll bet that John spent many hours angling that glass perfectly in the design stage....

I myself would like to place a glass window in front of my listening position so that I can take in the lovely nature views that are available to me. That's a REALLY important part of the design of my studio ...

Not a problem! And I agree entirely: natural light and a great view are very often aspects that studio owners want. If you have a great view, then certainly make the most of it! Put a window in, but design it carefully so that it does not interfere with acoustics. Make it as big and bold as you want, limited only by the acoustics that you are shooting to achieve.

I imagine that balancing acoustics with aesthetics and the practical requirements of a room (i.e. entries/exits, the presence of desks, windows etc) must be a huge challenge.

Yep! You got that right! For example, in the case of the Studio Three thread that you linked to above, in order to be able to use Rod's large desk and console, we had to raise his speakers slightly, to get them above the desk and dog-box, but that also meant tilting them down a bit, to still keep the mix position on-axis. But tilting speakers down brings its own set of risks, as it affect the psycho-acoustic response: the way we perceive sound, rather than the way it really is. Psycho-acoustics is all about the way our ears and brains interpret the subtle clues in the intensity, phasing, timing, and angle difference of sound striking our ears, and use that to create the "perceived sound environment" that we hear in our heads (in other words, the mental image that our brain creates of the room, based on acoustic clues alone). Messing with high tilt angles messes with that, and if the angle is too great, our brains tell us that we actually heard a different frequency coming from a different direction... So that was a big challenge. The soffits are all tilted forwards at exactly 4.6° in Rod's room, which was the optimum compromise between speaker height, speaker angle, mix position, desk location, and psycho-acoustics. Rod was very careful to get that angle correct.

Another challenge was that Rod wanted a raise floor at the rear of the room, and he wanted it it to have an elliptical front: not square, not angular.... A raised floor is always a risk, as it creates a resonant cavity below, so that took a bit of work. In the end, I tuned the floor to help with the room treatment: There are large holes along the front face of the raised floor, and also through the joists, with all of the bays between joists being different sizes and different volumes, and filled with insulation, to damp the resonances. Doing that while also making it curved, and not just "round-curved" but rather "elliptical curved" was interesting.... You can't see the holes, as they are covered with acoustic carpet, and then there's concealed lighting under the ip for aesthetics.

There's quite a few more challenges that went into that place.

Would it be true to say that there is always some degree of compromise and imperfection in every design? And how do you decide when you've struck the right balance?

Ah, well, now, that's the thing, isn't it? That's the US$ 64,000 question. Where do you draw the line? I could tell you, but then I'd have to "make you an offer you can't refuse"...

Seriously, I wish I could give you a simple answer, but there isn't one. Every room is different, and each has it's own challenges, and it's own set of compromises and optimizations. I guess it comes from a bit of theory, and a bit of experience, salted with a good budget, good building skills, and even a dash of luck. When you've design quite a few rooms, you get a feel for what will work or wont work in any given situation.

With a large room and a large budget, pretty much anything is possible. The smaller the room, the tougher it gets. The smaller the budget, the tougher it gets. There might also be legal restrictions (for example, a heritage listed building that you cannot modify much at all, or Home Owner's Association bylaws restricting building facades, or ADA requirements for wheelchair access, etc.) There might even be issues with building materials in some places (eg. no wood in Egypt!), or in where I live, seismic limitations: there's certain things I won't do when designing a studio, if there's a very real probability it will be subject to very many Magnitude 5 and 6 quakes throughout its life, as well as a few Magnitude 7s, and probably even one or two Magnitude 8. In other places, hurricanes, flooding, permafrost, or heaving ground might be issues.

There are so, so many things that need to be taken into account in the design. Even apparently "small" things, such as local climate, and room occupancy. Your HVAC system needs to be designed to meet the "worst-case scenario" of having the studio packed with hot sweaty musicians jamming their hearts out on the hottest day of summer, while also being able to handle the single, lone musician on the coldest day in winter. Etc.

That's why guys like John and Glenn and myself and Andre and others have a job: designing a studio to be the best it can be is not an easy task. If it were, and anybody could do it, then we'd be working in a different field!

Please forgive the very broad nature of my question. This is such an interesting subject to me so I'm hoping to get a peek inside the mind of a studio designer and learn something about what goes on in there

No problem!


- Stuart -