John Sayers' Recording Studio Design Forum Archive

Hi,

I found this forum several years ago and have lurked from time to time. I really love the architectural acoustics subject matter and read everything I can find on it. My new house has this neat room with inclined high ceiling, I've thought about the best way to turn it into a very neutral project studio for more than one year now. I've brought one contractor in to make a quote on the modest re-structuring I proposed and he's disappeared. Turns out I'll have to put on my Builder hat and do it myself. Ever since thinking about doing it myself I've started to question all my premises. It's causing me moderate but constant stress, it's getting to the point of being unbearable. Please advice me as you see fit.

Goals
Have a neutral sounding single room space, where I can record my own Singer/Songwriter material and mix it. I've had some moderate success doing Mastering work for some local bands and even if it's lofty as a goal, it would be great if the decisions are compatible with a space apt for Mastering (not classical music, local indy productions).

Where am I in the process?
Finally have a budget. Ready to begin building as soon as my conscience is clear that this is the best that can be done with the available structure.

The Room, as is
Is made of cinder blocks, with two coats of paint.
The ceiling is higher on one side. It has a slope, or incline.
The basic shape is a square that has been cut on one of its corners, leaving a non regular pentagon.
There are a lot of windows, currently. They all have a lower edge at 3’.
I’ve included a rough sketch of the room using roomstyler.com one in imperial and one in SI units. (SEE ATTACHMENTS)


The Design
(When describing "to my left" and "to my right" I'm mostly imagining sitting down at the desk mixing position.)
After much thought, I settled on a mix position facing the miami windows on the High ceiling side of the room. If I “fixed” the asymmetry behind the L and R speakers, at least I have solid walls as backing for some absorption treatment for the reflections dead center straight out my ears and also behind me left and right. I have available several batts of UltraTouch (3” thickness iirc) and something similar to Roxul sold locally for home theatre builds under the brand Blacks (2” iirc). And so, the way I’ve tried to meet this design challenge is this.

Premise: I can make a photocopy of the diagonal wall on my right, to my left, but using easy to build materials.
Premise: to make the new diagonal false wall to my left, I’d use cement board, instead of plaster/gypsum, since this way will be closer to the cinder block acoustic properties. I would use wood frame/studs, and sweat out the details regarding any resilent/flex channel, insulation or slats needed to “tune” that wall so that it is an acoustic replica of the cinder block one. Goal would be same STC same NRCs as possible, rrrrriiight? full photocopy.

This means that the new wall needs a Single Glass Pane window smack in the center as well. Since a window into nothing is not useful, I came up with the idea to build an embedded book-shelf in there, right behind the glass. I would have a triangular unused space behind this new diagonal wall; I’d set up an 8’ tall “superchunk” bass trap in there using a tower of stacked Blacks 2’ triangles. The new diagonal wall would be 10’ tall. Since the ceiling is 14’ tall on that end, I’d have space for an additional shelf up there, above the triangular false ceiling (at 10’) for the new false wall.
Premise: 10’ is a good height for the false wall.
Premise: the “superchunk” bass trap behind the false wall will go to work for my room if I cut-out some slats on the wall — or maybe leave the top open?
When doing sensitive listening, I could potentially “cover” those big square glass panes with one large absorber square each.
Premise: The absorber squares would be good value to the acoustics.
I plan to finish both walls by installing some wood paneling available here that includes prime root diffuser style squares.
Premise: assuming the panel is indeed manufactured diffuser-math-correct, covering both walls in the diffuser wood paneling would be good value to the acoustics.
Two 4’ W x 8’ H absorber panels round everything out on the far wall behind me at mix position.
Premise: I can't calculate this room's modes easily.

I’ve included a rough sketch of the design using roomstyler.com, one in imperial and one in SI units (SEE ATTACHMENTS).
For some reason the sketch doesn’t show the absorber material layout, and some framing columns I included for consistency. To see those you can take a look at the 3D rendering preview in the public profile of the design: https://roomstyler.com/rooms/14695980/i ... d2-vintage

If you’ve read everything and want to help me out with some solid advice, you’re a champ.
I am grateful for all the experience and advice you could offer, regarding design, construction materials and especially the stated Premisies I used on my analysis.

Best regards,
-m

Hi there " Mesmer", and Welcome!

Two quick points:

1) Photos of the actual room would help to understand the situation better.

2) It would be far easier to just orient the room to face the other way: Make the "bottom" wall the front of the room, with the angle behind you. You say the ceiling is inclined, but also high, so it would be simple to deal with that with a cloud or two. You didn't say how how the two ends of the ceiling are, or which way it is inclined, but assuming it is somewhat higher than a typical 2.4m (8 foot) ceiling, there should be enough space to deal with that. You did mention wanting to make your superchunks ten feet high, so I'm assuming that the existing ceiling is at least ten feet high: that's plenty. More than enough.

What you propose reduces the room volume considerably, wastes space, and creates surfaces that are angled too much.

Also, there's a number of big issues with some of your premises. Firstly, if you did want to build that wall on the left to match the wall on the right, then it would have to be sealed air-tight with no holes, slats or superchunks inside. Just wasted space. As soon as you cut any type of hole into it, it no longer matches the other wall, acoustically. So you can eliminate anything that needs holes in that wall: no slats, slots, superchunk, or anything similar.

Next, your room is too small to be able to use numerically-based diffusers, and certainly not on the side walls!

You need at least ten feet between the face of any numeric diffuser and your ears, and possibly more, depending on how the diffuser is tuned. Your room is not big enough to achieve that, so you can rule out using diffusion. You are limited to absorption and reflection only.

Also, you do not need to try to match the acoustic properties of the left wall to cinderblock: you'd never be able to do that anyway, for a very simple reason: The only material that matches the characteristics of cinderblock is something that has the same surfaced density and rigidity. You cannot match that with materials that are far less dense and far less rigid. But even if you could match it, you still don't need to. What is important here is that the walls should be roughly the same in terms of reflection, and plain old drywall, or MDF, or glass, or fiber-cement board, or plywood, or OSB, are all sufficiently close anyway, as long as you make them reasonably thick. And since both the left and right angled walls are at your first reflection points, you'll need to treat them with thick absorption anyway, which can be matched and identical. But this is all about your proposed scenario, which is not a good idea at all to start with, and not feasible acoustically anyway.

Finally, I'd really suggest that you should do your room layout in SketchUp, which is 3D. Sound is 3D, people are 3D, treatment is 3D, so there's not much point to trying to design your studio in 2D! SketchUp is free, and very powerful.

My advice would be to flip the room to face "down" the page, and set up your geometry correctly for that orientation. That would also allow you to flush-mount your speakers, and reap all the major benefits of doing that.


- Stuart -

Hi Soundman, thanks for a great reply, I feel welcomed already.

I will get on doing a 3D render asap.
And can provide Pics real soon too.

Regarding the ceiling height question, In the provided drawings the "bottom" as you call it is 9 ft high, while the "top" (where I originally put my mix position) is 14 ft high. It is a straight "ramp" or plane that connects that "back" and "front" (relative original) wall. I tried to indicate this with the blue arrow near the left of the drawing and I see it didn't work my bad. The 3D sketch can take care of that!

So if I read you correctly, it doesn't matter what sort of trickery I come up with to get the STC and NRC matching, the ears would "see" different sounds from left to right and so that mix position would be bad for mastering or anything requiring critical listening through balanced monitoring system. That's terrible news.

Also thanks for your pointers about Diffuser strategies, I didn't know you required a baseline distance but can see how it makes sense.

Finally, flipping the room will be a fun design exercise and will start working on it.
My main concern with that orientation is that the reflections coming in from the back of my head behind my left and right ears will be so different. Perhaps heavy handed absorption is needed then, on that new back-wall (which was in the original design the front wall). Another concern was that with the 14 ft high ceiling I had planned on not treating my "roof" at the mix position at all, and now at the 9 ft high end, as you mention I probably have to start looking at doing some kind of simple cloud install in there, which at an angle because of the ceiling might become tricky...
On the bright side, re-imagining the design to actually use that space which I was willing to let go, I get a feeling that there is space now to make one of those "Vocal walls" (?, don't know how to actually call those micro amphitheater looking, enveloping walls that work great for tracking a singer-songwriter with guitar and mic).

Ok, pics and 3d sketch coming soon.
Again, very grateful for your mindshare.
Best regards,
-m

Almost forgot,

Soundman2020 wrote:That would also allow you to flush-mount your speakers, and reap all the major benefits of doing that.

I really don't know what you mean by this ... when you get a chance let me know, please.
If it's a well known concept I should have read by now, throw me a link if you want.


best regards,
-h

In the provided drawings the "bottom" as you call it is 9 ft high, while the "top" (where I originally put my mix position) is 14 ft high.

Even more reason why the room should face "down"! The ceiling should be lower over the speakers, rising to maximum height at the back of the room (behind your head).

So if I read you correctly, it doesn't matter what sort of trickery I come up with to get the STC and NRC matching,

STC is just a single-number rating for isolation, and isn't any use for studio design in any case. The method for calculating STC does not take into account the bottom two and a half octaves of the musical spectrum (no bass, drums, low keyboards, low electric guitar, etc.), and neither does it take into account the top two and a half octaves (cymbals, violins, top end of electric guitars, etc.). It only considers the middle part of the spectrum, which is not a lot of use for describing how well a wall isolates music! It's fine if all you want is a rough indication of how well your wall will isolates typical office sounds, such as people talking, phones, photocopiers, HVAC air movement, etc. But useless for studios. Similarly NRC is also not much use, since it too is a single-number rating that only takes into account absorption at four specific frequencies in the mid range, and nothing else. Acousticians don't normally talk about STC and NRC when referring to walls, preferring the terms "Transmission Loss" and "absorption curves".

So even if your hypothetical new wall did have exactly the same STC and NRC as the right wall, it could still sound very, very different. And once again, even if you could get them matching perfectly, there is no need to do that, since what you are interested in is mostly the reflections from the wall, not how well it isolates.

the ears would "see" different sounds from left to right and so that mix position would be bad for mastering or anything requiring critical listening through balanced monitoring system. That's terrible news.

Right!

Also thanks for your pointers about Diffuser strategies, I didn't know you required a baseline distance but can see how it makes sense.

Take a loo at the book by Cox and D'Antonio on diffuser theory: They figured out the math that describes how diffusers work, and therefore how to design them and build them for specific purposes. They also figured out that all numeric-based diffsuers cause "lobes" in the way the diffsue sound: it is not even in all directions. Some directions get more intensity, others get more phase shift/ time delay. There's a certain distance that is needed for those lobes to even out and smooth over. It depends on wavelength: you need to be at least 3 full waves away from the diffuser in order to have reasonably smooth lobes. And that "3 waves" refers to the lowest cut-off frequency. Later they discovered that diffusers can still scatter sound, even though it is not diffused, for a full octave below the cut-off frequency, so they amended the "3-wavelength rule" to a "7 wavelength rule". And added that, regardless of wavelength, you still need to be ten feet away. Which leads one to wonder just how well the designers of some studios understand diffusion, when they put a couch right in front of the back wall Skyline diffusers, just a few inches from the ears of the folks sitting there...

My main concern with that orientation is that the reflections coming in from the back of my head behind my left and right ears will be so different.

No they wont, and it doesn't matter much of they are! First, there will be major bass trapping back there in any case. That goes without saying. That will take care of all but the very lowest frequencies, which will be a problem anyway, as that's where the modal issues and SBIR live, Those are very long wavelengths, so no matter what your rear wall shape is, they will still be there. Secondly, any mid-range issues will be well outside the Haas time, and well attenuated, so your brain will be able to deal with them without any problem. It's only early reflections (arriving sooner than the Haas time) that are a problem.

The room absolutely must be symmetrical in the front half, but that's nowhere near so critical for the rear half.

Perhaps heavy handed absorption is needed then, on that new back-wall

Absolutely. That is, indeed, the way to do it. I normally use superchunks in the corners and thick 703 across the rest of the rear wall, or better still, deep hangers across the entire rear wall. YOu have the space to do some of that, even though it won't be symmetrical.

Another concern was that with the 14 ft high ceiling I had planned on not treating my "roof" at the mix position at all,

You will need at least some treatment there. The general rule is "hard floor, soft ceiling", regardless of height. If not, you won't be able to meet the spec. ITU BS.1116-2 is what you should be aiming for...

and now at the 9 ft high end, as you mention I probably have to start looking at doing some kind of simple cloud install in there, which at an angle because of the ceiling might become tricky...

Your ceiling is already angled fairly steeply. When you do your ray tracing exercise to figure out reflections, you'll know if that is enough or not. Hanging a cloud at an angle is no big deal: it's no different than hanging it straight, actually!

On the bright side, re-imagining the design to actually use that space which I was willing to let go, I get a feeling that there is space now to make one of those "Vocal walls" (?, don't know how to actually call those micro amphitheater looking, enveloping walls that work great for tracking a singer-songwriter with guitar and mic).

Unfortunately not.... that recovered space needs to be used for bass trapping.

That would also allow you to flush-mount your speakers, and reap all the major benefits of doing that.

I really don't know what you mean by this ... when you get a chance let me know, please.
If it's a well known concept I should have read by now, throw me a link if you want.

It's a very well known concept! Also known as "soffit mounting". It totally eliminates all of the artifacts associated with the front wall, from having a speaker emitting sound inside the room. No more front wall SBIR, no more edge diffraction, no more power imbalance, no more comb-filtering or other phaseing issues. Just pure clean sound direct from the speakers to your ears. The speakers in this room ar flush mounted: http://www.johnlsayers.com/phpBB2/viewt ... =2&t=20471 --- as are almost all the speakers in the rooms that John designs, and also the ones that I design. As well as the rooms designed by many other people. If you combine that with the principles of RFZ and the specs from BS.1116-2, that's the best way of getting a clean, tight low end, perfect stereo image, a broad, accurate sound stage, wide sweet spot, and totally neutral room acoustics, just like you see in the graphs on that thread.

That should be your goal.

- Stuart -

- Stuart -

Ok got the SketchUp finally "done"

I'll share it right away and respond right after.
I also got the Pictures, but I'll need to the phone-to-computer song and dance first, so incoming soon.
3 main quick points, though:

1.
BIG SURPRISE!
all this time I had thought the "low" side of the room was 9 ft high floor to ceiling.
I DON'T KNOW HOW I "LEARNED" THAT MEASUREMENT, BUT IT WAS WRONG.
The "low" side of the room is actually 10' 6" which is not too shabby!

2.
So, there' an irregular single glass window pane at the top of the diagonal wall which I just couldn't adjust to correct shape in SketchUp, please forgive me but I really tried exploding and adjusting and it just kept being disfigured. As is, it conveys the basic idea.

3.
The electrical boxes are the correct height (15") but left to right were eye-balled, if this becomes critical I can update it no problem. It'll just take even more time in SketchUp.

Dang, "the file is too big, maximum allowed size is 500 KiB"

but my .SKU is 7MB so...

Is the "no links allowed" rule still enforced?
Let me know guys,
-h

The room absolutely must be symmetrical in the front half, but that's nowhere near so critical for the rear half.

Ah, well that's heartening. The first sources of my instruction in these matters stressed the importance of #1 reflections from the normal planes out your ears between the monitors and yourself, and #2 the back wall. In any case that was then, this is now!

If not, you won't be able to meet the spec. ITU BS.1116-2 is what you should be aiming for...

w00t thanks for the reference!

Your ceiling is already angled fairly steeply. When you do your ray tracing exercise to figure out reflections, you'll know if that is enough or not. Hanging a cloud at an angle is no big deal: it's no different than hanging it straight, actually!

I just discovered that the angle is less severe now that it goes from 10.5 feet to 14 feet, instead of 9 feet to 14 feet. But still it's as you say, we'll need to check regardless. And the installation is what it is, not impossible at all. The part I wish to ask about is what you mention about the Ray Tracing exercise. I've seen the sketches for some studio designs and could emulate that, but I wish there was a guide or reference doc to really nail the exercise on the head. Also if there is some sort of tool or plugin to make the process less manual!

On the bright side, re-imagining the design to actually use that space which I was willing to let go, I get a feeling that there is space now to make one of those "Vocal walls" (?, don't know how to actually call those micro amphitheater looking, enveloping walls that work great for tracking a singer-songwriter with guitar and mic).

Unfortunately not.... that recovered space needs to be used for bass trapping.

** Sad Trombones **

Also known as "soffit mounting".

Ah,
so it’s what I know as “soffit” installation.
Well a real knowledgable, old wise guy from the music industry I’m almost friend with online, once told us young ones learning from him how Soffit installs are really difficult to “get right” and super easy to “get wrong”, and so for most project studios the proposition is most of the time not worth the effort. This was some time ago, so maybe there’s been some improvement on shared designs and that kind of thing, but I guess this was in the back of my mind and why the modest studio builds and designs I’ve participated in have not included Soffit installations. I'll try to find that conversation and get back to you. I have two good monitor stands, but I agree if Soffit was achievable then it'd be superior!

Thanks for all your help,
if there is a way to share the SketchUp .SKP file let me know
best regards,
-m

Dang, "the file is too big, maximum allowed size is 500 KiB"

Upload your file to a file sharing service such as Dropbox, then post the link here.


- Stuart -

The first sources of my instruction in these matters stressed the importance of #1 reflections from the normal planes out your ears between the monitors and yourself, and #2 the back wall. In any case that was then, this is now!

That's actually correct... sport of! The early reflections are, indeed, the biggest problem in many rooms, but they can come from ANY surface in the room that is between you and the speakers, if it happens to be in the right location and at the right angle. That's why most modern design concepts use the "Reflection Free Zone" concept, in one of its many incarnations, to eliminate this. With this concept, surfaces at the front of the room are carefully angled such that NO early reflections get to your ears. All of those are sent to the back of the room, bypassing your head, hence the name: this design concept creates a "zone" around your head that is "free" from all early "reflections". RFZ.

With that done, the most important surface in the room then becomes the rear wall, but not because of early reflections! By definition, any reflections coming back to your head from off the rear wall are "late", not "early". They are outside the Haas time (assuming the room is large enough), and therefore not such a problem for your brain to deal with. The biggest problems with the rear wall are SBIR, modal response, and bass build up. The sound energy that arrived there after being deflected around your head by the RFZ-style front end, can mostly be absorbed or diffused (if the room is large enough), since it is mostly mids and highs, but the other issues (SBIR, modes, bass) are all low frequency problems, and need a bit more attention.

So your original instruction was sort of correct, but not for the right reasons in modern studios...

Also if there is some sort of tool or plugin to make the process less manual!

Unfortunately, not. It's a slow, boring, painful, repetitive process: After you do it a few dozen times for a few dozen studios, you start to get a feeling for what will work and which ray will go where, so it's possible to simplify and use fewer rays, but it's still slow, boring...

Well a real knowledgable, old wise guy from the music industry I’m almost friend with online, once told us young ones learning from him how Soffit installs are really difficult to “get right” and super easy to “get wrong”, and so for most project studios the proposition is most of the time not worth the effort.

I would certainly agree with your friend that soffits are difficult to get right, but I would not agree with him that it's not worth the effort! It is worth it. In my opinion, it's the single most important thing you can do to your entire room, to tame the acoustics. It eliminates all of the artifacts associated with having the speaker inside the room, because in effect it totally removes the speaker from the room! The speaker becomes one with the front wall, so in effect, it is no longer in the room, and cannot affect the room the way it would if it were in it.

Yes, your friend was right that it is not so easy to do it correctly, but if you look around the forum you'll see a LOT of project studio builds where it has been done, very successfully. What matters is being guided correctly while doing it, so you are not doing it alone! That's what the forum is for.

I'd also disagree with him that it's not worth the effort for project studios: On the contrary, that's where it gives the most benefit, and is most worth the effort! In a nice large studio, soffit mounting is not needed so much, but can still produce useful benefits. But in a small studio, that's where it is needed most. The smaller the studio is, the more it needs flush mounting.

Take a look around John's studio build section and notice just how many of his studios are done with soffit-mounting. Virtually all of them. Take a look around industry magazines, and notice that a lot of studios are done with soffit mounting. The larger ones less so, but the small ones very frequently are.

IMHO, it is well worth doing.

- Stuart -

Ah great,

here's the link to the SketchUp file of my pentagonal room with inclined ceiling.
Mesmer Room 2017 6.6MB

best regards,
-h

Great valuable info all around,
thank you so much. Great points about RFZ, ray trace exercise and Soffits.
I see now as you told me in your first response, it was always better to imagine the studio this way around "expanding" towards the back.
I wish I could buy you a good Mendoza wine.

I'm convinced I'll go for Soffits now,
my last concern is my Active monitors...

since they're active it means each one has it's own power amp and electronics inside their own cabinet... wouldn't enclosing them in their own soffit chamber cause overheating issues? I haven't looked at any design schemes for soffits that may be being passed around the web so maybe the design already has some sort of heat-management or venting in it ... I just wonder if I'd be asking for trouble in the temperature department.

cheers,
-m

Soundman2020 wrote:

The first sources of my instruction in these matters stressed the importance of #1 reflections from the normal planes out your ears between the monitors and yourself, and #2 the back wall. In any case that was then, this is now!

That's actually correct... sport of! The early reflections are, indeed, the biggest problem in many rooms, but they can come from ANY surface in the room that is between you and the speakers, if it happens to be in the right location and at the right angle. That's why most modern design concepts use the "Reflection Free Zone" concept, in one of its many incarnations, to eliminate this. With this concept, surfaces at the front of the room are carefully angled such that NO early reflections get to your ears. All of those are sent to the back of the room, bypassing your head, hence the name: this design concept creates a "zone" around your head that is "free" from all early "reflections". RFZ.

With that done, the most important surface in the room then becomes the rear wall, but not because of early reflections! By definition, any reflections coming back to your head from off the rear wall are "late", not "early". They are outside the Haas time (assuming the room is large enough), and therefore not such a problem for your brain to deal with. The biggest problems with the rear wall are SBIR, modal response, and bass build up. The sound energy that arrived there after being deflected around your head by the RFZ-style front end, can mostly be absorbed or diffused (if the room is large enough), since it is mostly mids and highs, but the other issues (SBIR, modes, bass) are all low frequency problems, and need a bit more attention.

So your original instruction was sort of correct, but not for the right reasons in modern studios...

Also if there is some sort of tool or plugin to make the process less manual!

Unfortunately, not. It's a slow, boring, painful, repetitive process: After you do it a few dozen times for a few dozen studios, you start to get a feeling for what will work and which ray will go where, so it's possible to simplify and use fewer rays, but it's still slow, boring...

Well a real knowledgable, old wise guy from the music industry I’m almost friend with online, once told us young ones learning from him how Soffit installs are really difficult to “get right” and super easy to “get wrong”, and so for most project studios the proposition is most of the time not worth the effort.

I would certainly agree with your friend that soffits are difficult to get right, but I would not agree with him that it's not worth the effort! It is worth it. In my opinion, it's the single most important thing you can do to your entire room, to tame the acoustics. It eliminates all of the artifacts associated with having the speaker inside the room, because in effect it totally removes the speaker from the room! The speaker becomes one with the front wall, so in effect, it is no longer in the room, and cannot affect the room the way it would if it were in it.

Yes, your friend was right that it is not so easy to do it correctly, but if you look around the forum you'll see a LOT of project studio builds where it has been done, very successfully. What matters is being guided correctly while doing it, so you are not doing it alone! That's what the forum is for.

I'd also disagree with him that it's not worth the effort for project studios: On the contrary, that's where it gives the most benefit, and is most worth the effort! In a nice large studio, soffit mounting is not needed so much, but can still produce useful benefits. But in a small studio, that's where it is needed most. The smaller the studio is, the more it needs flush mounting.

Take a look around John's studio build section and notice just how many of his studios are done with soffit-mounting. Virtually all of them. Take a look around industry magazines, and notice that a lot of studios are done with soffit mounting. The larger ones less so, but the small ones very frequently are.

IMHO, it is well worth doing.

- Stuart -

since they're active it means each one has it's own power amp and electronics inside their own cabinet... wouldn't enclosing them in their own soffit chamber cause overheating issues?

Vents are always needed in soffits, even for passive monitors. The speakers are surrounded by huge volumes of insulation, so if there were no vents, they would get very hot, quickly. There is always an air path up past the back of the speaker to provide cooling airflow. It is a broad, wide path, and draws in cool air from below, up through the shelf system that the speaker sits on, then up through the insulation (you make a wire cage out of chicken wire or something similar, to hold the insulation out of that path), then out through either the top of the soffit, or the front of the soffit, through a wide slot. You can sometimes see those slots in photos of control rooms, but in other cases they are hidden. But they are still there! Normally, air flows through that "chimney" just by convection, but for very large speakers, or speakers that are run at very high levels all the time, it might be necessary to have a small, very quiet fan to help move the air.

Take a look at the soffits in this room: http://www.johnlsayers.com/phpBB2/viewt ... =2&t=20471 Those are Eve Audio SC-407's. 600 watts each. Imagine how hot those would get if there were no cooling. But there is: as I described above, there's a path up behind each speaker, and it exits the soffit above the cloud, out of sight. The air coming out of the slot is only slightly warm, even when the speakers are run at high power for a long time. And that's considering that those speakers are not designed to be soffit mounted, as they are rear ported, but we plugged the ports in order to mount them. They are also designed to be used horizontally, but we used them vertically here. And all of that was done with the blessing of the chief engineer at Eve-Audio. I checked with him for his recommendations for that, and he gave me the OK to do it that way. And those speakers work just fine, no overheating at all. Not even close. (Great guys at Eve, by the way. Very helpful.).

As long as the air path is built properly, there will be plenty of cooling flow.


- Stuart -

Great!

I look forward to the challenge!
That Missouri studio looks amazing, was ogling at all that on the Construction thread #wow, bravo sir.
That lead down a rabbit hole regarding enveloping the fiberglass in thin plastic and looking at the health studies available
hours fly by.

best regards,
-h

Mesmer wrote:Ah great,

here's the link to the SketchUp file of my pentagonal room with inclined ceiling.
Mesmer Room 2017 6.6MB

best regards,
-h

... And here's the link to the same model, cleaned up, organized in layers, and with the speakers and mix position geometry situated correctly for that room ...

http://spartanew.digistar.cl/SayersForu ... 3d-S05.skp


- Stuart -