Page 1 of 1

Dimensions Rehearselroom/Studio

Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2015 10:43 pm
by arabesque-bass
Hi everybody,

I'm a member for some time now but everytime I wanted to start building my own studio something happened
that destroyed my plans.... In my case it had to do something with Women :cry:

Anyway, now I have moved to Germany and we are close on buying a house. Unfortunately the Basement was not high enough.
(Im 2.01 m - about 6ft 8 ) so I almost burried my plans again....

BUT!!!! My girlfriend said: the garden is large enough so why don't you build a studio?
My reaction was something like this: :yahoo: :yahoo: :yahoo: :yahoo: :yahoo:

Now I've been doing a lot of surfing but I cannot get serious answer on this:

What Dimensions should my Live room and Controll room have?

Maybe this information is somewhere on the forum but I could not find it....

I want to rehearse with my band in the Live Room.
We are: Drums, Bass, 2 x Guitar and 3 of us are singing. Style: Rock/Metal.
Of course I want the room to be suitable for a larger bands as well but no big band or something like that.

I was thinking

215 Square feet (20 M2) for the Control room (Eventually with a Vocal Boot in it)
270-322 Square Feet (25-30 M2) for the Live room.

Other facilities like Kitchen, toilet etc. are in the house where the studio will connect with the house.

Please feel free to comment or advice what would work. As soon as I have reasonable dimensions I will
try to plan how it should be constructed. Therefore I still have a lot of reading to do :shock: :D

Thank you very very much in advance!!

Regards, Frank

Re: Dimensions Rehearselroom/Studio

Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2015 6:54 am
by OttoPus
Hello Frank :)

Speaking of the acoustics side of the matter, is more about the height and the length of a room that make that room suitable for its acoustic purpose.

To put it in a concrete example: if a control room longest dimension is shorter than half of the wavelength of the lower frequency you have to monitor (generally speaking, your monitor cutoff frequency), then the room is not able to support that frequency (letting you to hear that frequency without distortions) due to the pressure zone effect (more about it googling "control room pressure zone", the first links are a nice reading).

Also take in account room dimesions ratio to have a good modal spreading.

Then there's the ergonomic side. I spent years rehearsing with other 3 people in 16 square meters rooms, it's not comfortable at all but it can be done. I'd say 30 square meters is a good comfortable room to play in. Of course, if we're not talking about a 3x10m room :D

I'm a newbie here so maybe from what I've written take only cues to investigate further, I never designed a studio.

Marco

Re: Dimensions Rehearselroom/Studio

Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2015 7:25 am
by bert Stoltenborg
OttoPus wrote:Hello Frank :)

Speaking of the acoustics side of the matter, is more about the height and the length of a room that make that room suitable for its acoustic purpose.

To put it in a concrete example: if a control room longest dimension is shorter than half of the wavelength of the lower frequency you have to monitor (generally speaking, your monitor cutoff frequency), then the room is not able to support that frequency (letting you to hear that frequency without distortions) due to the pressure zone effect (more about it googling "control room pressure zone", the first links are a nice reading).

Also take in account room dimesions ratio to have a good modal spreading.

Then there's the ergonomic side. I spent years rehearsing with other 3 people in 16 square meters rooms, it's not comfortable at all but it can be done. I'd say 30 square meters is a good comfortable room to play in. Of course, if we're not talking about a 3x10m room :D

I'm a newbie here so maybe from what I've written take only cues to investigate further, I never designed a studio.

Marco

I googled but I still would like you to explain what you think about "control room pressure zone" and why the room isn't able to support taht wave. Not to offend anybody, just curious about what the reaon might be.

Re: Dimensions Rehearselroom/Studio

Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2015 7:41 am
by Soundman2020
Hi there Frank, and welcome to the forum! :)
something happened that destroyed my plans. In my case it had to do something with Women ... ... My girlfriend said: the garden is large enough so why don't you build a studio?
Sounds like you found the right woman this time! :)
What Dimensions should my Live room and Controll room have?
Two things limit that: How much space do you have, and how much money do you have? That might sound like a joke, but I'm very serious. Studios cost money to design and build. Lots of it. The cost is normally expressed in terms of "Dollars per square foot" or maybe "Euros per square meter" in your case. So if your budget is very tight, then the maximum size of your studio is limited by how many Euros you have on hand, and the cost per square meter to build where you live. On the other hand, if money is not a problem for you, then the only limit is how much space you have available in your yard.
Maybe this information is somewhere on the forum but I could not find it....
It is here, but in disguise! It's a question many people ask, but since most people are limited by either money or the size of existing rooms, it isn't usually spelled out so clearly. It's a very good question, though!
I want to rehearse with my band in the Live Room. We are: Drums, Bass, 2 x Guitar and 3 of us are singing. Style: Rock/Metal. Of course I want the room to be suitable for a larger bands as well but no big band or something like that.
So you need a live room big enough to fit in a good sized band of say a dozen people, with their instruments and gear, with enough acoustic separation between them that you can play well, rehearse well, and record well. So you need to come up with a figure that describes how much space each of your musicians needs, multiply that by 12, add a bit extra for room to move around, and that's how big your live room needs to be.

For the control room, that's a different matter. There's a huge amount of research that has been done on that, and several organizations have put out guidelines and specifications. There are very good, solid, strict acoustical reasons for their recommendations, and rooms built to those specs can truly be considered "word class". Organizations like AES, EBU, ITU, Dolby, the BBC, and others have all put out specs, and they are all similar.

The general consensus from all of these specifications is that for a good control room you need between 20 and 60 m2 of floor area, and the cubic volume of the room should be around 45 to 200 cubic meters. There are a whole bunch of other parameters, but that's the basics.

There's one more ingredient for your recipe: in general, the live room should have a cubic volume of around 5 to 8 times the volume of the control room, according to other specs (and studio designers).

Based on all that, you should be able to come up with some reasonable dimensions.

However, if I was going to invest a lot of money for a ground-up studio build in my back yard, then I would also add a few more rooms to the facility: A bathroom (so that musicians don't have to run up to my bathroom in the house), a kitchenette (for making coffee, warming pizza, etc.), a "green room" for resting, relaxing, talking, etc., a storage room, for keeping equipment and instruments in (and their cases!), and at least one isolation booth.
215 Square feet (20 M2) for the Control room (Eventually with a Vocal Boot in it)
20m2 for the control room is fine, but not with a vocal booth in it! There's no way you could do that anyway, without destroying the very carefully tuned acoustics of the control room. Look at the designs and builds of control rooms here on the forum, and you will see that NONE of the successful ones has a vocal booth in it. IF there is a vocal booth, it should go on the live room, never in the control room. A control room is very carefully design, laid out, and built to have very exact acoustics. You cannot put a vocal booth inside a control room, and still use it as a control room.
270-322 Square Feet (25-30 M2) for the Live room.
Too small. 25m2 gives each of your 12 musicians a tiny space of just 1,4m x 1,4 m. You will need much more than that. Also, if your CR is 20m2 with a 2.5m ceiling, that's a volume of 50m3, so your live room should have a volume of at least 250m3. Assuming you have a ceiling of 4m in there, your floor area needs to be about 60 - 70 m2.
Other facilities like Kitchen, toilet etc. are in the house where the studio will connect with the house.
Ummmm... this is much less acoustic advice, and much more family advice: DON'T DO THAT! Right now, your girlfriend is just fine with you building the studio in the garden, but I'm betting big money she will NOT be so fine with it when she has random stranger musicians invading her kitchen and her bathroom at unearthly times of the day and night! If the studio is just for you alone, then fine. But if you will be having other musicians in there, then don't do that. It is a recipe for yet more of those "Women trouble" issues you mentioned. Rather, make the studio big enough to fit in it's own small bathroom and kitchenette area. I have done that in several studios that I have designed for my customers, and it is simple to do, does not need to take up much space, and is very, very necessary.
As soon as I have reasonable dimensions I will try to plan how it should be constructed. Therefore I still have a lot of reading to do
Oh yes! Realistically, you will need about six months to read and learn all the basics of acoustics, studio design, architecture, structural design, construction, and interior decoration. Then another three or four months to actually design the studio. Then you can start building it.

I'd suggest that you start with two books: "Master Handbook of Acoustics" by F. Alton Everest (that's sort of the Bible for acoustics), and "Home Recording Studio: Build it Like the Pros", by Rod Gervais. They will give you the initial basics you need to know about acoustics, and about studio construction.

---
if a control room longest dimension is shorter than half of the wavelength of the lower frequency you have to monitor (generally speaking, your monitor cutoff frequency), then the room is not able to support that frequency (letting you to hear that frequency without distortions) due to the pressure zone effect (more about it googling "control room pressure zone", the first links are a nice reading).
I think you've been reading too much John Brandt! He's a great guy, and I like his designs a lot, and we share many viewpoints on studio design. However, what he has published in his blog about frequencies and room modes is applicable to the rooms that he designs for his high end clients. It does not mean that you cannot build a smaller control room successfully. John Sayers has designed many small control rooms, and has even built one inside a shipping container! I have not designed or built one that small, but many of my customers have very limited spaces where I have managed to fit in control rooms that work very well.

So it is entirely possible to build a control room that is smaller than half the longest wavelength that you need to deal with. It might not be mathematically perfect, but it can still be very good.
Also take in account room dimesions ratio to have a good modal spreading
That is important, yes, but people do tend to place way too much emphasis on room ratios. As long as you stay away from the really bad ratios (cube, square section, direct relationship between L, W, H, or within 5%, etc.) then you are fine.
I spent years rehearsing with other 3 people in 16 square meters rooms, it's not comfortable
Right! That would be uncomfortable, even with good acoustic treatment. But as you say, of that's the only place you have, then it can be done. But if you have the opportunity to build a place that is any size you want, then 16m2 for 3 people would not be a good choice.. :)
I'd say 30 square meters is a good comfortable room to play in.
For three people, that would be very nice, but Frank mentioned a group of seven people, with the need to have even more. Assume 12 people, and 30m2 isn't very big. That's even more cramped than 3 people in 16m2!

But a lot of this depends on Frank's budget and garden: If he has unlimited funds and a huge garden, then he can build Abbey Road #2. But if he has a very tight budget and/or a very small garden, then his options will be more limited.

Frank, please give us an idea of how much money you are prepared to spend on this, and how much maximum space you have in your garden. Obviously, you have at least 50m2, but do you have more than that?


- Stuart -

Re: Dimensions Rehearselroom/Studio

Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2015 8:49 am
by bert Stoltenborg
I think he has a modest band with musicians who also sing.

Re: Dimensions Rehearselroom/Studio

Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2015 5:39 pm
by arabesque-bass
Hi everybody!!

First of all THANK YOU!!

Well my Band is 4 People. 3 of us sing also. Like Bert mentioned :-)

We are now in the middle of negotiating for the house. As soon as we agree with the sellers
I have to investigate what is neccessary replacing on the house to make it comfortable for living.
Then I will know exactly what my budget will be.

The garden is big enough but I still have to convince my girlfriend on the size of the studio.
She thought it would be about 30 square meters..... I said 60 is more realistic. The discussion
started from there on...... I guess I will be able to make it 50 M2 maximum....

So actually I need some argumentation on getting a go on the size.
I believe that she will not accept a larger building.....

@Stuart, the kitchen etc is not in our apartment. It is a kind of small holiday apartment which will
only be used for family & friends visiting us from Holland ;-)

Re: Dimensions Rehearselroom/Studio

Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2015 1:23 am
by OttoPus
bert Stoltenborg wrote: I googled but I still would like you to explain what you think about "control room pressure zone" and why the room isn't able to support taht wave. Not to offend anybody, just curious about what the reaon might be.
I also hope that nobody is offended by a reasonable discussion. If you were talking about me, not a chance ;) the word "support" should have been preceeded by the word "modal", I'm sorry for the inaccuracy there.
Soundman2020 wrote:I think you've been reading too much John Brandt! He's a great guy, and I like his designs a lot, and we share many viewpoints on studio design. However, what he has published in his blog about frequencies and room modes is applicable to the rooms that he designs for his high end clients. It does not mean that you cannot build a smaller control room successfully. John Sayers has designed many small control rooms, and has even built one inside a shipping container! I have not designed or built one that small, but many of my customers have very limited spaces where I have managed to fit in control rooms that work very well.

So it is entirely possible to build a control room that is smaller than half the longest wavelength that you need to deal with. It might not be mathematically perfect, but it can still be very good.
The first source where I read about the pressure zone is "Recording Studo Design" by Philip Newell, then I also read JH Brandt blog post and other links in "the internet".

If I understood the theory correctly, if the longest dimension of a room is below 1/2 of the lowest frequency to be reproduced, then there'll be no modal support for that frequency ( in other words: not enough space to develop the entire wavelenght ) and then the whole room will raise and fall in pressure following the positive or negative portion of the sound wave.

In the PN book, the pressure zone is described as a range of frequencies where the resonances cannot occur (no modal support), without further explanations.

The idea I've built by combining these inputs, is that the frequencies in the pressure zone are felt like you feel a very low sub-woofer note on a car cockpit. You can't really "hear" it, but you feel like being inside a giant speaker cabinet.

As soon as you get some meters away from the car, the note become more concrete and precise.

I'm really learning here so another input on the matter would not hurt at all :)

Sorry for hijacking Frank's post!

Marco

Re: Dimensions Rehearselroom/Studio

Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2015 2:36 am
by bert Stoltenborg
Thanks Marco.

If these guys were right a headphone with a chamber of a few centimeters would sound pretty lousy, wouldn't it?

These guys remind me of what the boss of the Galaxy Studio told. He wanted a very quiet room so he contacted what was supposed to be the best studio designer in the world. This man came up with some designs, and a friend of the boss who knew some basics about acoustics didn't trust it and presented the designs to Desart and Professor Vermeir. They were able to convince the boss the designs were fundamentally wrong and did some proposals which culminated in what is still one of the best isolated buildings in the world. Nevertheless the studio designer has a reference to that studio on his site :D :D

Re: Dimensions Rehearselroom/Studio

Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2015 3:45 am
by Soundman2020
If these guys were right a headphone with a chamber of a few centimeters would sound pretty lousy, wouldn't it?
Yup! And no car stereo would ever be able to play any bass notes at all. There's no modal support for any low frequencies in a box the size of a typical car interior... Yet my car stereo sounds petty good, even on a six-string bass played open... :) And I know of quite a few mix engineers, and even mastering engineers, who check their final mixes by listening in their cars...

Marco, there's theory and math, and then there's real-life. Lots of things seem to be true from theory, and they actually do work out, mathematically. But in most cases, the actual effect in the real world is not nearly as devastating as the mathematicians suggest. In some case, it is bad. In some cases it is REALLY bad. But much of the time the effect is minimal, and in many cases it just isn't important at all: Which is why we can listen to full-spectrum music on headphones and in cars, even though there is no "modal support" at all for any bass in those cases.

Modes are an issue when several are close together, or when they are very unevenly spaced, and there is no treatment in the room, and they get triggered easily. Modes are not an issue when they are smoothly spaced, the room is well treated, and they don't get triggered. Small rooms sound bad mostly because of the extremely short decay times, and the massive amounts of treatment that are needed, proportionally to the size, and the closeness of early reflections in all dimensions, but not necessarily because they don't support a certain low frequency mode.

Here's a crystal clear example: The control room for Studio 2 at Abbey Road measures 20x18x10, and therefore in theory it should be impossible to successfully mix rock music in there... :)

The first source where I read about the pressure zone is "Recording Studo Design" by Philip Newell
I think Bert will agree with me when I say that there are some things in Newell's book that are a little suspicious, and don't jibe too well with actual acoustic experience...
In the PN book, the pressure zone is described as a range of frequencies where the resonances cannot occur (no modal support),
I've read that too, but I have no idea why a note needs "modal support" or "resonances" in order to sound good, or even be reproducible at all! Since a lot of what we studio designers do is to try to stop modal resonances from happening, it's hard to figure out why someone would say that modal resonances are necessary in order for a room to sound good! We do our best to eliminate them as much as we can, so what would be the point of wanting to have them for other notes? As you mentioned, Newell provides no explanation for that...
The idea I've built by combining these inputs, is that the frequencies in the pressure zone are felt like you feel a very low sub-woofer note
That might be true if you are able to pump enough energy into the room at low enough frequencies to accomplish that, but once again the question is WHY would you want to mix like that, and secondly, how on earth you'd move enough air to create high enough over-pressures to cause the entire room to "pump"? It's one thing to accomplish that inside a car, where you only have a couple of cubic meters of air to deal with, but quite another thing in a control room where there are many dozens of cubic meters of air to deal with.

I'd also ask: in your own experience, how many times have you felt an entire control room "pumping" like that at very low frequencies in small rooms?


---

Nevertheless the studio designer has a reference to that studio on his site
:shock: I didn't know that! Shocking, but not surprising, that someone else would take credit for that...

- Stuart -

Re: Dimensions Rehearselroom/Studio

Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2015 8:31 am
by OttoPus
bert Stoltenborg wrote:Thanks Marco.

If these guys were right a headphone with a chamber of a few centimeters would sound pretty lousy, wouldn't it?
Thank you Bert! It's the second time in few days that you (and Stuart of course) give me the opportunity to re-think about of something that I studied and taken for granted.
bert Stoltenborg wrote: These guys remind me of what the boss of the Galaxy Studio told. He wanted a very quiet room so he contacted what was supposed to be the best studio designer in the world. This man came up with some designs, and a friend of the boss who knew some basics about acoustics didn't trust it and presented the designs to Desart and Professor Vermeir. They were able to convince the boss the designs were fundamentally wrong and did some proposals which culminated in what is still one of the best isolated buildings in the world. Nevertheless the studio designer has a reference to that studio on his site :D :D


Whoa :shock: funny and yet alarming story :?
Soundman2020 wrote: Marco, there's theory and math, and then there's real-life. Lots of things seem to be true from theory, and they actually do work out, mathematically. But in most cases, the actual effect in the real world is not nearly as devastating as the mathematicians suggest. In some case, it is bad. In some cases it is REALLY bad. But much of the time the effect is minimal, and in many cases it just isn't important at all: Which is why we can listen to full-spectrum music on headphones and in cars, even though there is no "modal support" at all for any bass in those cases.
Crystal clear! One less thing to worry about in the extremely long list of something you can do wrong designing a studio... this is good news.
Soundman2020 wrote: Modes are an issue when several are close together, or when they are very unevenly spaced, and there is no treatment in the room, and they get triggered easily. Modes are not an issue when they are smoothly spaced, the room is well treated, and they don't get triggered. Small rooms sound bad mostly because of the extremely short decay times, and the massive amounts of treatment that are needed, proportionally to the size, and the closeness of early reflections in all dimensions, but not necessarily because they don't support a certain low frequency mode.

Here's a crystal clear example: The control room for Studio 2 at Abbey Road measures 20x18x10, and therefore in theory it should be impossible to successfully mix rock music in there... :)
What's Abbey Road? :mrgreen: understood.

Soundman2020 wrote:I think Bert will agree with me when I say that there are some things in Newell's book that are a little suspicious, and don't jibe too well with actual acoustic experience...

I've read that too, but I have no idea why a note needs "modal support" or "resonances" in order to sound good, or even be reproducible at all! Since a lot of what we studio designers do is to try to stop modal resonances from happening, it's hard to figure out why someone would say that modal resonances are necessary in order for a room to sound good! We do our best to eliminate them as much as we can, so what would be the point of wanting to have them for other notes? As you mentioned, Newell provides no explanation for that...
This is the second major concept I get from that book that turns out to be a bit "superficial" and "misleading" (no offense intended for the author). Better for myself to try getting deeper and ask around to have a complete and correct understanding.
Soundman2020 wrote:
The idea I've built by combining these inputs, is that the frequencies in the pressure zone are felt like you feel a very low sub-woofer note
That might be true if you are able to pump enough energy into the room at low enough frequencies to accomplish that, but once again the question is WHY would you want to mix like that, and secondly, how on earth you'd move enough air to create high enough over-pressures to cause the entire room to "pump"? It's one thing to accomplish that inside a car, where you only have a couple of cubic meters of air to deal with, but quite another thing in a control room where there are many dozens of cubic meters of air to deal with.

I'd also ask: in your own experience, how many times have you felt an entire control room "pumping" like that at very low frequencies in small rooms?
I never worked in a room with such powerful mains :)

I was lucky to come across you guys.

Frank, sorry again for the thread hijacking, but I'm sure that at some point this small detour can be useful to you or other members who'll be reading this :)

Marco