"If I understood this correctly it criticizes the “ideal room ratios” calculated by modal calculators for the reasons listed in the link"
I didn't get that. What I took away from the paper was the notion that just because there may be a #1, #2 and a #3 ranked in order of best acoustical performance ratio, in terms of real world "fits" the best ratio may have the worst results in reference to total square footage used VS. total square footage unused resulting in a smaller area and more cost per square footage on an annual basis.
The acoustics of any room can be made relatively even with the proper attention to treatments and the overall room itself, a square room, a cubed room and even parabolic shapes can all be used with effectiveness.
http://www.acoustics.salford.ac.uk/acou ... ntent=best
"This is because room ratios are generally not scaleable." (Prof Trevor Cox)
Ratios assume a ten foot tall ceiling, based on most of what I have read that matters to me. And often, even in your case, a ten foot tall ceiling isn't available. So attempting to scale down, who knows really what to expect
Prof Trevor Cox quotes R. Walker (BBC) "...the aim of the regulations is to avoid the worse cases, rather than to provide proscriptive optimum ratios. "
That' is all we can go on, to avoid the worst case taking everything into consideration, and to achieve a simple starting point in order to get the build moving utilizing the maximum amount of available resources.
