Any thoughts on the Ceiling? It's only 6' high
Best,
Dave
Take a look/ my basement project studio design
Moderators: Aaronw, kendale, John Sayers
-
dbluefield
- Posts: 158
- Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 10:47 am
- Location: Marietta, GA, USA
-
John Sayers
- Site Admin
- Posts: 5462
- Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2003 12:46 pm
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
-
ap
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2003 12:41 am
Amazing how similar your room looks to my plan. I've got a bigger couch!
Why is de-coupling the floor from your walls so important? Just to cut down on sound transfer between rooms? From your description, it seems the two rooms have independent concrete floors and thus shouldn't have much transmission there. Is it because they share the same walls? If sound transfers from the live room to the control room via the walls, it doesn't seem like floating the floor will make much difference.
I really only wanted to do the joist floor for acoustic purposes(as opposed to sound reduction). If it'll sound good like you've done it, I won't bother with the joists.
Thanks!
Why is de-coupling the floor from your walls so important? Just to cut down on sound transfer between rooms? From your description, it seems the two rooms have independent concrete floors and thus shouldn't have much transmission there. Is it because they share the same walls? If sound transfers from the live room to the control room via the walls, it doesn't seem like floating the floor will make much difference.
I'll have under 8' after the room within a room ceiling goes in. If I add say, 2 inches of wood floor on top of 5 1/2 inches of floor joist on top of 1 inch of neoprene, I'd only have, at best, a 7' 3" ceiling. Would this be too low? Is it worth the sacrifice? Using 2x4's instead of 2x6's would give me a few more inches at what cost to acoustics?But since you have the ceiling height (i.e. garage) why not build a true isolated floor on pads, and full studio/control room etc?
Like in the first couple of drawings you posted here, the door opens into the room on the left and would hit any floor higher than it's bottom edge. The room width is less than 10' so a "hall" or isolation space would dominate the whole room. However, I am considering building a joist frame floor with a square area cut out in front of the door to allow the door to swing open. This would necessitate a step up onto the main floor, which would feel, look, function, and maybe sound awkward.You could isolate the door by building a hall space to another door.
I really only wanted to do the joist floor for acoustic purposes(as opposed to sound reduction). If it'll sound good like you've done it, I won't bother with the joists.
Thanks!
-
dbluefield
- Posts: 158
- Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 10:47 am
- Location: Marietta, GA, USA
Okay,
The soffits are scaring me. Bringing in the sidewalls might be too tight -- I've really only got 6" on each console side. Is a rear and front absorptive wall a problem?
Sounds like you are saying stuff the rear half of ceiling with 703 as well --that probably makes sense.
I'm basically concerned about soffit placement and angling down if necessary. They would form an equilateral triangle to the mixers head right? --- some of your drawings show a point of intersection behind the mixers head??
I'm good at construction, so it's not the work, but the results.
Have a look at this, it keeps my existing front wall 703 and corners, but slips in some slotted panels/bass trap or full 6" 703 on rear wall. This is closer to your small control room design.
Thanks!
Dave
The soffits are scaring me. Bringing in the sidewalls might be too tight -- I've really only got 6" on each console side. Is a rear and front absorptive wall a problem?
Sounds like you are saying stuff the rear half of ceiling with 703 as well --that probably makes sense.
I'm basically concerned about soffit placement and angling down if necessary. They would form an equilateral triangle to the mixers head right? --- some of your drawings show a point of intersection behind the mixers head??
I'm good at construction, so it's not the work, but the results.
Have a look at this, it keeps my existing front wall 703 and corners, but slips in some slotted panels/bass trap or full 6" 703 on rear wall. This is closer to your small control room design.
Thanks!
Dave
-
giles117
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1476
- Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2003 2:42 am
- Location: Henderson County
- Contact:
-
dbluefield
- Posts: 158
- Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 10:47 am
- Location: Marietta, GA, USA
ap,
you wrote:
"Why is de-coupling the floor from your walls so important? Just to cut down on sound transfer between rooms? From your description, it seems the two rooms have independent concrete floors and thus shouldn't have much transmission there. Is it because they share the same walls? If sound transfers from the live room to the control room via the walls, it doesn't seem like floating the floor will make much difference. "
I will give my understanding to date upon this subject. If anyone cares to correct anything, please chime in.
Floating the floors (as well as using fiberglass treatments in ceilings and upon walls, including bass traps etc.) in both the studio and control room helps the overall usefulness of each room. There are several issues at work here:
1) Sound transmission between the control room and the studio room -- if kept to a minimum, you will hear what's happening more clearly in the studio via your microphones to the control room while tracking live. My two rooms have a physical break between the concrete floors. This should help with transmission loss. But having a floor that is decoupled from the walls can provide extra benefits as well -- providing some liveliness, act as an absorber, and still be able to roll stuff around.
2) We need sound absorption (sabins) within studios to make recording live instruments and vocals easier. Generally the smaller the studio, the more absorption you will need, IF…… you plan to track multiple live instruments and possible vocals together within that room. This has to do with critical distance (Dc) -- the distance at which direct energy equals reverberant energy.
To quote Malcolm Chisholm:
"If there is sound bouncing around in a room, the bounce will at some
point be as loud as the sound source that created it.
That point is called the critical distance, and the Dc of a sound
source is a statement of how far it travels in a room before it goes
constant volume. Dc varies with a number of factors including the
directionality of the source but, as rhythm section instruments have
about the same directionality as voice, a general treatment can be
made for rhythm and vocal isolation.
The treatment needs to yield 26 db or better of die off before the
source goes constant volume. Sound dies off by 6 db per distance
doubling until the Dc is reached, with the last figure a 3 db point.
Therefore, assuming a mike to mouth distance of six inches, 1ft=6db,
2ft=12db; 4ft=18db; 8ft=24db, and as the last figure adds only 3db,
a voice Dc of 16 feet adds 3 db more for 27 db of acoustical loss at
that figure.
You can live with less, as little as 10, but it's not quite
satisfactory. 12 is definitely OK for general work, and usually used,
but 16 feet is just bloody wonderful, as you can put a vocal anywhere
in the room, and allows the mixer to do anything he(she)wants instead of the room's dictating all kinds of weird stuff to keep garbage out of the mikes. "
Now if you put everybody in an isolation booth this may not be your problem or goal, but you might have bigger problems like musicians struggling to find a groove, and poor performance. That is a debate, and depends on what kind of music you wish to record. But IMO it's very hard for musicians to work in a room where they can't hear each other because everything is bouncing off the walls, and basically I’ve chosen to go for live room recording for as much of the rhythm section I can grab.
Using uniform absorption of low/low-mids and highs will increase the workable critical distance within the studio, making it easier to work multiple microphones within one room with acceptable isolation/leakage between mics. (see link for Malcolm Chisholm’s site in earlier post above). Studios that only use carpet or thin treatments get boomy because they have not addressed the low frequency energy build up within the room.
Sound absorption is the process of pressure waves pushing into interstices. Floating an absorptive floor (like unsealed plywood) gives another interstice to absorb, as well as decoupling sound sources to reduce modal excitation -- which can potentially get into every microphone. Getting amplifiers/instruments away from walls and on chairs is another way to reduce the source Q, modal excitation, and phase cancellations between instrument and adjacent wall/floor.
3) In control rooms, some liveliness is desirable, but how much is not an exact science. Floated floors not only help decouple the console and listening environment, but they are practical for moving equipment and cleaning. Interestingly, building soffits apparently uses limited coupling to benefit speaker/lestening performance. On top of this, according to Davis (sound system engineering), in very small control rooms "there is no Dc, no well mixed sound field, and hence no reverberation. RT60 measurements become meaningless. The control of early reflections becomes the most meaningful because there is no reverberation to mask them." Hence my challenge of figuring out the best possible treatments for my small control room.
you wrote:
"However, I am considering building a joist frame floor with a square area cut out in front of the door to allow the door to swing open. This would necessitate a step up onto the main floor, which would feel, look, function, and maybe sound awkward. I really only wanted to do the joist floor for acoustic purposes(as opposed to sound reduction). If it'll sound good like you've done it, I won't bother with the joists. "
Actually I think stepping up to the control area could be kinda cool, but it looks like it's about time for you to post a picture of what you are thinking, and tell us what you are planning to record there.
Best,
Dave Blauvelt
you wrote:
"Why is de-coupling the floor from your walls so important? Just to cut down on sound transfer between rooms? From your description, it seems the two rooms have independent concrete floors and thus shouldn't have much transmission there. Is it because they share the same walls? If sound transfers from the live room to the control room via the walls, it doesn't seem like floating the floor will make much difference. "
I will give my understanding to date upon this subject. If anyone cares to correct anything, please chime in.
Floating the floors (as well as using fiberglass treatments in ceilings and upon walls, including bass traps etc.) in both the studio and control room helps the overall usefulness of each room. There are several issues at work here:
1) Sound transmission between the control room and the studio room -- if kept to a minimum, you will hear what's happening more clearly in the studio via your microphones to the control room while tracking live. My two rooms have a physical break between the concrete floors. This should help with transmission loss. But having a floor that is decoupled from the walls can provide extra benefits as well -- providing some liveliness, act as an absorber, and still be able to roll stuff around.
2) We need sound absorption (sabins) within studios to make recording live instruments and vocals easier. Generally the smaller the studio, the more absorption you will need, IF…… you plan to track multiple live instruments and possible vocals together within that room. This has to do with critical distance (Dc) -- the distance at which direct energy equals reverberant energy.
To quote Malcolm Chisholm:
"If there is sound bouncing around in a room, the bounce will at some
point be as loud as the sound source that created it.
That point is called the critical distance, and the Dc of a sound
source is a statement of how far it travels in a room before it goes
constant volume. Dc varies with a number of factors including the
directionality of the source but, as rhythm section instruments have
about the same directionality as voice, a general treatment can be
made for rhythm and vocal isolation.
The treatment needs to yield 26 db or better of die off before the
source goes constant volume. Sound dies off by 6 db per distance
doubling until the Dc is reached, with the last figure a 3 db point.
Therefore, assuming a mike to mouth distance of six inches, 1ft=6db,
2ft=12db; 4ft=18db; 8ft=24db, and as the last figure adds only 3db,
a voice Dc of 16 feet adds 3 db more for 27 db of acoustical loss at
that figure.
You can live with less, as little as 10, but it's not quite
satisfactory. 12 is definitely OK for general work, and usually used,
but 16 feet is just bloody wonderful, as you can put a vocal anywhere
in the room, and allows the mixer to do anything he(she)wants instead of the room's dictating all kinds of weird stuff to keep garbage out of the mikes. "
Now if you put everybody in an isolation booth this may not be your problem or goal, but you might have bigger problems like musicians struggling to find a groove, and poor performance. That is a debate, and depends on what kind of music you wish to record. But IMO it's very hard for musicians to work in a room where they can't hear each other because everything is bouncing off the walls, and basically I’ve chosen to go for live room recording for as much of the rhythm section I can grab.
Using uniform absorption of low/low-mids and highs will increase the workable critical distance within the studio, making it easier to work multiple microphones within one room with acceptable isolation/leakage between mics. (see link for Malcolm Chisholm’s site in earlier post above). Studios that only use carpet or thin treatments get boomy because they have not addressed the low frequency energy build up within the room.
Sound absorption is the process of pressure waves pushing into interstices. Floating an absorptive floor (like unsealed plywood) gives another interstice to absorb, as well as decoupling sound sources to reduce modal excitation -- which can potentially get into every microphone. Getting amplifiers/instruments away from walls and on chairs is another way to reduce the source Q, modal excitation, and phase cancellations between instrument and adjacent wall/floor.
3) In control rooms, some liveliness is desirable, but how much is not an exact science. Floated floors not only help decouple the console and listening environment, but they are practical for moving equipment and cleaning. Interestingly, building soffits apparently uses limited coupling to benefit speaker/lestening performance. On top of this, according to Davis (sound system engineering), in very small control rooms "there is no Dc, no well mixed sound field, and hence no reverberation. RT60 measurements become meaningless. The control of early reflections becomes the most meaningful because there is no reverberation to mask them." Hence my challenge of figuring out the best possible treatments for my small control room.
you wrote:
"However, I am considering building a joist frame floor with a square area cut out in front of the door to allow the door to swing open. This would necessitate a step up onto the main floor, which would feel, look, function, and maybe sound awkward. I really only wanted to do the joist floor for acoustic purposes(as opposed to sound reduction). If it'll sound good like you've done it, I won't bother with the joists. "
Actually I think stepping up to the control area could be kinda cool, but it looks like it's about time for you to post a picture of what you are thinking, and tell us what you are planning to record there.
Best,
Dave Blauvelt
-
dbluefield
- Posts: 158
- Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 10:47 am
- Location: Marietta, GA, USA
Hey Giles,
Can you post a more exact description of you control room, possibly some pictures?
I'd like to see how you built your soffits in particular, if you hung panel sheet absorbers behind the console/ what monitor choice you made etc.
The soffits bring up the question of the value of "mini-mains" with extended bass response and any bass attenuation if needed.
This makes for an interesting discussion.
Best,
Dave Blauvelt
Can you post a more exact description of you control room, possibly some pictures?
I'd like to see how you built your soffits in particular, if you hung panel sheet absorbers behind the console/ what monitor choice you made etc.
The soffits bring up the question of the value of "mini-mains" with extended bass response and any bass attenuation if needed.
This makes for an interesting discussion.
Best,
Dave Blauvelt
-
giles117
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1476
- Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2003 2:42 am
- Location: Henderson County
- Contact:
Below the window i did 703 between studs. Under the monitors in the soffits (per johns instructions, I installed 703 as well) Helps trap sound reflecting of the front of the room. It tightened up stuff around 250 to 100 for me. Evened out the "audible" response.
I followed the other picture of soffit building you see on line and I followed Johns dimensions.
I Loaded mine with mackie 824's
My Room before construction was about 13' x 10'10 with an 8.5' ceiling ht. I floated the floor on 2x4's and 2 layers of 5/8" particle board with a hardwood floor on top. Walls were floated as well. double layers of Drywall. The interior angled walls as you see in the FP are loaded with AFB. I probably spent about $50.00 on all the safb I needed for the interior sound control stuff.
I used to 32" 9-light doors with the magnetic strip. I am pleased with the results.
Between the CR and the LR there is about a 12" air space between walls. Loaded with 2.5" SAFB
The rear ceiling is dropped at an angle about 5" at the center point of the room (approx) and 1' at the rear of the room, loaded with 1.5" double layered AFB. This really tightened up my bass response. the room is really flat from 40Hz to 100hz.
The front (what I am finishing up now) will be a slot resonator with the 1.5" AFB double layered. This stuff was really cheap. $16.00 for 32 - 2'x4' sheets. Works so well too. (.16 /sq. ft.)
Any other questions, let me know
Bryan
I followed the other picture of soffit building you see on line and I followed Johns dimensions.
I Loaded mine with mackie 824's
My Room before construction was about 13' x 10'10 with an 8.5' ceiling ht. I floated the floor on 2x4's and 2 layers of 5/8" particle board with a hardwood floor on top. Walls were floated as well. double layers of Drywall. The interior angled walls as you see in the FP are loaded with AFB. I probably spent about $50.00 on all the safb I needed for the interior sound control stuff.
I used to 32" 9-light doors with the magnetic strip. I am pleased with the results.
Between the CR and the LR there is about a 12" air space between walls. Loaded with 2.5" SAFB
The rear ceiling is dropped at an angle about 5" at the center point of the room (approx) and 1' at the rear of the room, loaded with 1.5" double layered AFB. This really tightened up my bass response. the room is really flat from 40Hz to 100hz.
The front (what I am finishing up now) will be a slot resonator with the 1.5" AFB double layered. This stuff was really cheap. $16.00 for 32 - 2'x4' sheets. Works so well too. (.16 /sq. ft.)
Any other questions, let me know
Bryan
-
dbluefield
- Posts: 158
- Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 10:47 am
- Location: Marietta, GA, USA
-
chrisaiken
- Posts: 48
- Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 7:58 am
- Location: Warsaw Poland
Hi,
Just looking at some of the designs here...I was wondering about the ones with the window on the right side and what appears to be a treated panel on the left.Wouldn't you get really bad reflections from that side and not the other?Just curious as I may have the same sort of setup soon.
Thanks
Chris
Just looking at some of the designs here...I was wondering about the ones with the window on the right side and what appears to be a treated panel on the left.Wouldn't you get really bad reflections from that side and not the other?Just curious as I may have the same sort of setup soon.
Thanks
Chris
-
knightfly
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6976
- Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2003 11:11 am
- Location: West Coast, USA
Chris, it's not as important if those side walls/windows are splayed enough to redirect the sound to the rear of the room where it can be absorbed (small room) or diffused (large room) - but you're right, if those surfaces are parallel and NOT absorbent it would be bad... Steve
Soooo, when a Musician dies, do they hear the white noise at the end of the tunnel??!? Hmmmm...
-
chrisaiken
- Posts: 48
- Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 7:58 am
- Location: Warsaw Poland
-
knightfly
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6976
- Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2003 11:11 am
- Location: West Coast, USA
That would sorta work, except that when designing an actual Reflection Free Zone room, you ideally would have a big enough RFZ so that others could be in it too.
If you were fortunate enough to have actual Ray Tracing software and know how to use it, that's the best way to set angles. Without that, the method I use is a Cad program that you can set the "ortho" angle to whatever you want, and draw several rays from each speaker center, each one at maybe 5 degrees from the last, then where those rays intersect walls I measure the incident angle, match that with a reflective angle, and continue each ray until its path is at least 22 feet long or it impinges on the desired RFZ area. If the ray gets back to the RFZ area in less than 22 feet travel, I change the angle of one of the wall sections (keepin in mind things like symmetry)
It's kind of a pain-staking process that way, but eventually you can get angles where they work for everything. (I'm still working on accomplishing that for a surround room, however...) Steve
If you were fortunate enough to have actual Ray Tracing software and know how to use it, that's the best way to set angles. Without that, the method I use is a Cad program that you can set the "ortho" angle to whatever you want, and draw several rays from each speaker center, each one at maybe 5 degrees from the last, then where those rays intersect walls I measure the incident angle, match that with a reflective angle, and continue each ray until its path is at least 22 feet long or it impinges on the desired RFZ area. If the ray gets back to the RFZ area in less than 22 feet travel, I change the angle of one of the wall sections (keepin in mind things like symmetry)
It's kind of a pain-staking process that way, but eventually you can get angles where they work for everything. (I'm still working on accomplishing that for a surround room, however...) Steve
Soooo, when a Musician dies, do they hear the white noise at the end of the tunnel??!? Hmmmm...
-
AndrewMc
- Posts: 178
- Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2003 8:55 am
- Location: New Orleans, USA
-
dbluefield
- Posts: 158
- Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 10:47 am
- Location: Marietta, GA, USA
Rear wall redesign
Hi John and everyone.
Well I took the back half of my control room ceiling down -- what a mess.haha.
I'd thought I'd start with the rear wall first before attempting the soffit monitor front wall.
Having seen LDQ's (Silva productions) control room (greta pictures LDQ - I hope we can get in touch), I wonder if I would benefit from some hanging panels there -- however, I can only go as deep as 16"?
Too shallow for a back wall John? Maybe 8" of 703 instead? Do you think panels would work better than 8" 0f 703?
As for the rear half of the control room ceiling, how much 703 would you put in there?
Best,
Dave Blauvelt
Bluefield Studio
Well I took the back half of my control room ceiling down -- what a mess.haha.
I'd thought I'd start with the rear wall first before attempting the soffit monitor front wall.
Having seen LDQ's (Silva productions) control room (greta pictures LDQ - I hope we can get in touch), I wonder if I would benefit from some hanging panels there -- however, I can only go as deep as 16"?
Too shallow for a back wall John? Maybe 8" of 703 instead? Do you think panels would work better than 8" 0f 703?
As for the rear half of the control room ceiling, how much 703 would you put in there?
Best,
Dave Blauvelt
Bluefield Studio