John Sayers' Recording Studio Design Forum Archive

I hope I don’t Stuart!

Could you be so kind as to help me and suggest a better room ratio if the room is 4.6 meters in length, 2.19 meters high and 2.17 meters wide?
It is obvious that I do not posses your knowledge, skills experience or understanding in these matters.
I would make my day.

I came across this link on the web http://www.synaudcon.com/resources/cont ... or-ratios/
If I understood this correctly it criticizes the “ideal room ratios” calculated by modal calculators for the reasons listed in the link.

This is an old thread related to it http://www.johnlsayers.com/phpBB2/viewt ... f=3&t=2078
I would be nice to see what you experienced and knowledgeable people think about these links.


Sincerely,

Useg Diaz-Granados

unless you could extend the room to 4.9m you're not likely to get any better... i'd suggest looking at what John Sayers has done with container studios. you're probably better off not trying to soffit mount the speakers so you have some flexibility in configuring your surround setup. with the height and width being nearly identical, you're going to have some problems there. one option would be to take down the framing and use inside out walls and ceiling to try to preserve as much space as possible.

Thanks’ for the advice Glenn. I am going to use the flush mounts,
slant walls (12 degree) and I am leaving the frame.

My approach will be to measure the room after the isolation
(the frame you suggested) is finished and compare the actual results
to the calculator’s results. I will also take before and after test of the
bass-traps and the slanted walls.

In other words I will do what needs to be done to fine tune the room.

By the way Glenn……

Since this is your field, what do you think of the link in my last post (the link). Like to know what you think.

Sincerely,

Useg Diaz-Granados

"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.

on your links - i agree with Brien, the basic goal of the ratio selection process is to identify possible issues within a given small space and mitigate them structurally before treatment. obviously we've come along way in terms of computing power to calculate the expected behavior of a given space including odd shaped rooms and so on but ultimately the space needs to be measured at multiple stages of the project to determine how closely the space is following the model and what correct actions might be needed. and ultimately the final tuning. with your space being about 750ft3 (22m3) you're going to be challenged to maximizing the working area and get the room response right.

that said, you might want to acoustically measure the room as-is to see where you're starting from. noise levels, transmission loss currently, and room response.

I am very thankful for the information you have provided and will pay
close attention to (and read up on how they work) and measure the room as is for noise levels,
transmission loss and the rooms’ response.

Glenn, which software package/microphone setup do you prefer when testing these different aspects of a rooms acoustic qualities?

Thank you Brein for your analysis. Its very informative as well as being extremely educational!

Sincerely,

Useg Diaz-Granados

for the money it's hard to beat a Behringer ECM8000 and REW.

Thank you Glenn!