John Sayers' Design Forum

John Sayers' Recording Studio Design Forum

A World of Experience
Click Here for Information on John's Services
It is currently Wed May 24, 2017 2:15 pm

All times are UTC + 10 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 11:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2004 5:32 am
Posts: 63
Location: Seattle, Washington
I'm back, again!

After using rental spaces for the last 17 years, I finally have something that I'm paying the bank for! I've been studio-less for the last year and a half because I didn't want to build out a space in ANOTHER rental that I'd eventually have to walk away from. I plan on dying in this house, dammit.

All of the garage space is available for studio use. Typical 1934 pacific northwest construction. Cement floors, framed by douglas fir 2X4's and wood outside sheeting. There will be many gaps to caulk and I will be beefing up the outside leaf with sheet rock inserted between the framing. Eventually building a room within a room for the main tracking room.

The previous owner had already done a bit of work in the studio department!!! There is a finished control room and they started on a small iso as well. The iso and sound lock outside of the control room are only framed and insulated.

My first step in this studio build is to get the control room operating so I can start mixing and doing overdubs at least while the tracking area is being built over time and since I have access to other studios to track in. I'll be introducing the HVAC into the already built control room when building out the tracking room and iso booth. I'd like to spend most of my time and money on the tracking room since, well, it doesn't even exist yet! I'd love to be able to use as much of the previous owner's control room as possible to help with that.

The control room walls and ceiling is double 5/8" sheetrock on resilient channel that looks similar to either Auralex RC8 or TSN Primewall Resilent Channel and rigid fiberglass insulation between the framing.

Concerns:

The room is a little smaller than anything I've used for a control room before. It's also not rectangular, which my previous experiences has always been in rectangular rooms, with the speakers firing down the longer dimension. I've alway superchunked the floor to ceiling corners and then hung 4" rigid fiberglass straddling the wall and ceiling corners. And then the usual 2" or 4" panels at the mirror points on the side walls and above mix cloud.

This room is also not symmetrical... and I can't figure out why the previous owner didn't build it symmetrical...

There is a giant window in the "back" wall if I am to put the mix position "facing out" through the smaller window to the rest of the garage which will eventually be the tracking room.

A room this size will need a lot of bass trapping material and I also don't want it to be too "dead"

Monitoring is a pair of KRK 7000's, an older yamaha subwoofer that was usually paired with NS10's. Also a pair of Avatone Mix Cubes and boombox.

Ideas:
1) leave it as is. Move the gear in and superchunk the right angle corners in the "back" of the room along with the usual wall treatment at the mirror points and behind the monitors and mix cloud. Make some rigid fiber glass "plugs" for the large window that can be taken out when I want to reflect on the outside world. Learn the room and get to work.. and spend the time and money on the rest of the garage space, turning it into the tracking room.

2) knock down the wall to the right of the "mix position" (the 6' 5 1/4" wall) and rebuild the space so its symmetrical with the other side of the room. How much "more" or benefit will come from this change? It's a pretty simple enough alteration to the existing structure. And then superchunk and other treatment. Make some rigid fiber glass "plugs" for the large window

3) Same as the above, but instead of rebuilding it in a symmetrical design in the idea of the original design, i'll "square up" that side of the room and change the mix position to be facing the East wall? That would require me to take out and fill in one of the windows in the unfinished garage area, but that's not a problem. Then superchunk, etc. Make some rigid fiber glass "plugs" for the large window

As for the isolation regarding the control room, it's good enough. We live very close to the landing flight path of Seatac Airport. I can still hear the bigger planes slightly when they fly by. That's not going to bother me when mixing. My last studio was actually across the street from the county airport and along a major truck route. Now, it WILL be an issue when I'm building out the tracking room. Using the Radio Shack Realistic sound level meter, slow response, C weighting and on the 60 range, while standing in the unfinished portion of the garage, planes are making the needle raise to nearly plus 4. So i'm hoping to save some time and money with the already constructed control room and use those resources to tackle the challenge of the tracking room. Since we live close to the airport, all the neighbors have been outfitted with a "port package" window benefit, which are three pane, sound insulating windows. Also, my neighbors are both about 200 feet away and one of them is deaf.

Budget? well, i'm looking to spend 10-15k and will be doing all the work myself and with people who will work for trade in studio time. I have all the cabling as well as sound treatment from my previous studio.

Attached are some screen shots of my poor sketchup attempts along with some photos. Sketchup File is last.

Attachment:
IMG_1907 (1).JPG

Attachment:
IMG_1906 (1).JPG

Attachment:
Full studiogarage.jpg

Attachment:
Birdseye control room.jpg

Attachment:
NW View.jpg

Attachment:
Property.jpg

Attachment:
House Photo.jpg


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.


Last edited by trodden on Tue Apr 11, 2017 9:15 am, edited 1 time in total.

Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 9:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2004 5:32 am
Posts: 63
Location: Seattle, Washington
trodden wrote:

3) Same as the above, but instead of rebuilding it in a symmetrical design in the idea of the original design, i'll "square up" that side of the room and change the mix position to be facing the East wall? That would require me to take out and fill in one of the windows in the unfinished garage area, but that's not a problem. Then superchunk, etc. Make some rigid fiber glass "plugs" for the large window



The more I think about it, this may be the best idea. The space is so small, gaining a little more by knocking that wall down and making that side "square" will give me a little more space. I'd take out one of the windows in order to make this happen. I'd then move the mix position to face the east wall. Superchunk the "new front corners" (north east and south east), and superchunk the one "new rear" south west corner. I'd also add 4" traps straddling the ceiling and front and back walls as well. It still wouldn't be symmetrical, but I'd gain a little more area.


Attachment:
Control Room Alternate Mix Position.png


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2017 3:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2004 5:32 am
Posts: 63
Location: Seattle, Washington
I'm also keeping the above post in mind that it would set me up with a "more usable" control room quickly, for the time being and allow me a work place while I build out the live room. And then a few years down the road, a complete control room remodel could be a possibility if I keep that in mind while building out the rest of the garage.

I've been making records for nearly 20 years, don't see myself "quitting" and I also don't see myself ever leaving this house considering how incredibly lucky I am to own it in the first place. Basically saying, it's all a long term project, and maybe moving in sections would be best... while it's been way too long to be without a place to work already.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2017 3:23 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 10:17 am
Posts: 9836
Location: Santiago, Chile
Quote:
I plan on dying in this house, dammit.
Hopefully not very soon! :shock: Many, many years from now, at least.... :)

Quote:
Cement floors, framed by douglas fir 2X4's and wood outside sheeting.
Plywood sheeting on the outside? What type of siding beyond that?

Quote:
The control room walls and ceiling is double 5/8" sheetrock on resilient channel that looks similar to either Auralex RC8 or TSN Primewall Resilent Channel and rigid fiberglass insulation between the framing.
So not a true "room in a room", but close.

Quote:
The room is a little smaller than anything I've used for a control room before. It's also not rectangular, ... This room is also not symmetrical...
Hmmmm..... those are all red flags, to me.

Quote:
There is a giant window in the "back" wall if I am to put the mix position "facing out" through the smaller window to the rest of the garage which will eventually be the tracking room.
Not great, but it might still be possible to deal with that.

Quote:
A room this size will need a lot of bass trapping material and I also don't want it to be too "dead"
That's not a problem. You can have both, as long as you build your bass traps suitably, to keep some highs and mids in the room. You'll want to tune that, of course, to keep the frequency response flat, and the decay times roughly constant across the spectrum.


Quote:
3) Same as the above, but instead of rebuilding it in a symmetrical design in the idea of the original design, i'll "square up" that side of the room and change the mix position to be facing the East wall?
That might be your best option. It looks like the room would end up squarish, which could be a problem, but it would likely still be better than what you have now.

Quote:
It still wouldn't be symmetrical, but I'd gain a little more area.
Symmetry is much more important in the front half of the room. It would be nice to have it symmetrical in the back too, but it's not critical. The front is, though.

I agree with your plan. That's probably what I'd do, if that were my place.


- Stuart -

_________________
I want this studio to amaze people. "That'll do" doesn't amaze people.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 01, 2017 4:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2004 5:32 am
Posts: 63
Location: Seattle, Washington
Soundman2020 wrote:
Quote:
Cement floors, framed by douglas fir 2X4's and wood outside sheeting.
Plywood sheeting on the outside? What type of siding beyond that?


Here's a photo from inside of the unfinished portion... They're about 9" wide and a 1/2" thick.. with a pretty decent gap between them. So I'll need to caulk all these gaps BEFORE I beef up the outer leaf with 5/8" sheetrock. That will be a chore.
Attachment:
Corner with subpanel.JPG


On the outside is this... Is this what is referred to as "cladding"? or siding I guess. There is two layers adding up to 1/2", for a total of around 1" for the first or outside leaf.
Attachment:
Siding.jpg

Attachment:
Cladding Layers.jpg


Soundman2020 wrote:
Quote:
3) Same as the above, but instead of rebuilding it in a symmetrical design in the idea of the original design, i'll "square up" that side of the room and change the mix position to be facing the East wall?
That might be your best option. It looks like the room would end up squarish, which could be a problem, but it would likely still be better than what you have now.

Quote:
It still wouldn't be symmetrical, but I'd gain a little more area.


Symmetry is much more important in the front half of the room. It would be nice to have it symmetrical in the back too, but it's not critical. The front is, though.

I agree with your plan. That's probably what I'd do, if that were my place.

- Stuart -


I played around with moving the wall facing out to the rest of the garage, to give some more space for the control room, but that just made it even closer to a square shape.... and since I want to keep as much space out in the unfinished garage in order to have somewhat of a tracking room... so.... I think i'm going to work with the above idea some more.. Keeping some of the original build and adding symmetry by "squaring up" the one side of the control room. Since I record loud rock-based music most of the time, I need at least one iso booth for amps. If I keep the previous owner's design, I then have a tiny iso booth and then can also use the sound lock area by the entrance and between that booth and the control room for a second amp if needed. I won't have the isolation like I do in the main room when it's done, but I will just have to keep the neighbors in mind and the hour of the evening if I've got a loud ass amp in the sound lock area by the entrance. Most of my clientele are bands who need to make a record for under $1500 so being able to do it all here at my place is a needed option. I do have a larger facility to work/track out of when the budget allows, but that only happens a couple times a year.

Here's what I've come up with so far.
Attachment:
CR1 LR1.png


Here is the window (above the bicycle) which I'll be taking out and then filling in the outer layer before I can make the control room have a symmetrical side. (see sketchup screen shots in first post) The other window is the one looking out from the control room.
Attachment:
Corner.jpg


And here is the mess of the unfinished garage that will be the tracking room, taken from where the bike is in the above photo.
Attachment:
Garagemess.JPG



Front view of garage door, which is already sealed in place by previous owner. I'll just need to figure out a way to beef it up along with the rest of the outer shell. Also, another window I'd like to keep for the outside appearance and maybe work into the tracking room build and it's second leaf.
Attachment:
Garage Front.jpg



Attachment:
CR1 LR 1.skp


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 8:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2004 5:32 am
Posts: 63
Location: Seattle, Washington
I keep finding contradicting information throughout different place online regarding the front wall and if it should be treated or not be treated with some sort of rigid fiberglass/rockwool.

Due to the size of the room above, and potential SBIR issues, I'm guessing that i'll need my monitors as close to the front wall as possible 2-3" since I will not be soffit mounting them.

I've always been in larger rooms and the monitors have always been 2-3 FEET from the back wall as well as a couple 4" thick panels on the wall along with the usual corner bass traps as well as a panel of 4" rigid straddling the corner between the front wall and the ceiling.

I'm using KRK 7000's with a Yamaha sub as well as Avatone Mix Cubes for monitoring.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 12, 2017 3:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2004 5:32 am
Posts: 63
Location: Seattle, Washington
If I were to alter the control room as mentioned in a couple of the above posts, my cubic volume would be 1285.44 cft/36.40 m3 which is still less than 1500 cubic feet/42.48 cubic meters I keep reading for the minimum.

Maybe I wasn't destined to have a control room this time around? I was control room-less for 7 years before, I could do it again, was just hoping to use some of the previous build if possible.

http://www.acousticfields.com/room-size-volume/


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 12, 2017 9:10 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 10:17 am
Posts: 9836
Location: Santiago, Chile
Quote:
I keep finding contradicting information throughout different place online regarding the front wall and if it should be treated or not be treated with some sort of rigid fiberglass/rockwool.
That's probably for two main reasons:

1) There are different design concepts, or design philosophies, that use different methods to achieve the same out come. They are balanced philosophies, and do work, provided that you "go with the full plan". You can't pick and choose, taking the back wall concept from one design philosophy, the ceiling concept from another, and the front wall from yet another. Choose one philosophy, and stick with that completely.

2) There are quite a few ... ummm... shall we say questionable "acoustic" web sites out there, with "information" based on little more than wild guesses, ignorance, half-truths, and invented gobbledygook. You can certainly ignore those! The difficulty is in identifying them. (But you seem to be on the right track of doing that! :) ) When a website spouts about something that nobody else ever heard of, and promotes it incessantly as the best thing ever in the history of mankind, then that should raise red flags. That should nudge you to do some research on the concept, and see if there is any real science behind it or not. If the only "evidence" supporting the claim always traces back to just that one website itself, plus maybe one or two cheerleaders with no credentials, then that REALLY waves the red flags. There's a few places out there like that on the internet. Caveat Emptor! For example, there's one about this "golden cuboid" thing, but there are no papers, no publications, no theory, no research, no laboratory test reports, and no basis in math or physics, ... just someone yelling until he is blue in the face, trying to convince the world that only his magical method works.... I could name a few others, but you seem to be finding them on your own...

Quote:
Due to the size of the room above, and potential SBIR issues, I'm guessing that i'll need my monitors as close to the front wall as possible 2-3" since I will not be soffit mounting them.
Right. Doing that forces the first SBIR null up into the low part of the mid range, where it can actually be treated reasonably well with absorption. If you leave the speakers a foot or so away from the wall, then the artifacts would be down lower, where absorption is not very effective.

One question, though: Why don't you want to soffit-mount your speakers? It's probably the biggest and most effective "treatment" you can do in a room.

Quote:
I've always been in larger rooms and the monitors have always been 2-3 FEET from the back wall as well as a couple 4" thick panels on the wall along with the usual corner bass traps as well as a panel of 4" rigid straddling the corner between the front wall and the ceiling.
2 feet is not a good distance! 3 feet is still very iffy, but OK if you use a sub for the low end. The closest distance that makes sense for full-range speakers, is about 8 feet. The first SBIR dip at 8 feet is around 34 Hz. At 3 feet, it is around 90 Hz. 2 feet is around 140 Hz. Anything in the range 2 feet to 7 feet is problematic. Klein & Hummel (now Neumann) put out a chart a while back, showing the distances. It's surprising. Genelec has some similar guidelines for speaker placement in rooms.

So get your speakers up close to the front wall, just 4" away, and put 4" of OC-703 in that gap.

Quote:
I'm using KRK 7000's
The specs I found for those state the range as 50 Hz - 20 k, +/- dB. I could not find what type of crossover it uses, but even if it is something steep like 24 dB/octave, they'd still be putting out significant energy at 35 Hz, so yes, I'd keep them well away from walls, or very close to walls.

Quote:
If I were to alter the control room as mentioned in a couple of the above posts, my cubic volume would be 1285.44 cft/36.40 m3 which is still less than 1500 cubic feet/42.48 cubic meters I keep reading for the minimum.
Well..... take that "minimum" with a pinch of salt! It's the minimum recommended if you want great acoustics without too much hard work in treating the room! It's the minimum room size for people who don't know how to treat small rooms. So instead of learning how, they just claim it cannot be done.

Take a look at these graphs:

Attachment:
mkca-cr--final--fr-low-end-after.jpg


Attachment:
mkca-cr--final--sp-low-end-after.jpg


That's the low-end frequency response and spectrogram for a room I designed, treated, and tweaked several years ago, for a customer in Canada. I think you'd agree that the graphs are pretty darn good by any measure, even for a large room.... Except that this room has a volume of exactly 28.6 m3!!! It's a tiny room, with a low ceiling over part of it, and a floor area of just 14.1m2. But look at the performance. Some people claims things are impossible. Others just go out and do it anyway... :)

So don't be too concerned if you can't get a volume up there at the "recommended" range. With careful design and careful treatment, it is possible to get very, very acceptable results in smaller spaces. 36 m2 is just fine.

Quote:
Maybe I wasn't destined to have a control room this time around?
I don't see a problem here at all! The problem seems to be that you are taking advice from the wrong place.

It looks like you might have found one of "those" places that I mentioned.... the transcript says "So if your room length, width and height is less than 1,500 feet ... find another room. ... It’s just too small for any energy to be managed correctly. " Ummmm.... don't look now, but the room in the graphs above has a volume of 1,000 cubic feet, only 60% of what this guy considers "cannot be managed correctly". Maybe it's just me, but the energy in that room seems to be managed rather correctly! :) And I promise that I did not do any magical incantations to make it behave like that. I just worked hard at treating and tweaking and tuning, until I got it right.

As with many website, there are the folks who talk about what they think they know, and then there are the rest of us who just go out and do it.... "So less than 1,500 cubic feet, absolutely not. Find another room." Ummhmm, yeah, Ok. But I think I'll skip on that advice. "Anything over 4,500 cubic feet is treatable and usable almost in all forms and usages.". Well, gee! If I only ever had to design and treat rooms bigger than 4,500 ft3, I wouldn't have to actually do very much at all! Large rooms like that don't need a lot of treatment (unless they have strange shapes). Anyone with a minimal smattering of basic acoustic understanding could treat rooms that big! The proof of the pudding, as they say, is in the eating. If someone only ever limit himself or herself to treating rooms that hardly even need it, then I'm not surprised that they would think it is "impossible" to treat rooms only 20% of that size! And I'm sure they'd be shocked to see that it actually is possible...
Quote:
4,500 cubic feet and up ... plenty of space to manage a low-frequency
That's a rather strange thing to say, actually, considering that the most respected international specs set an UPPER limit on control room sizes, as well as a lower limit. The upper limit is 60m2 floor area (645 ft2). a 4500 ft2 room with an 8 foot ceiling is approaching that limit already, but this is claimed as being the MINIMUM size for a good room... :shock: :roll:

So, here we have the "pudding" and "eating" situation. Someone says that anything under 1500 ft3 is always impossible, no hope, not a chance, ever, forget it, out of the question... yet right here, just a few lines above in this thread, is the proof that a room with only 60% of that volume, can end up with very enviable results, that even much larger rooms would be hard-pressed to produce.

And since the people who make such silly claims are keen on RT-60, let's look at the RT60 and ETC graphs for the same room (the one where it is claimed that it is impossible to manage the energy....). First RT-60

Attachment:
mkca-RT-60.8k.jpg


The full spectrum RT-60 time for that room is around 185 ms. And do take into account that the volume is just 28 m2!

ETC stands for "Energy Time Curve". It shows how the energy behaves over time. The ETC graph for that room:

Attachment:
mkca-IR-ETC.jpg

That energy seems to be rather well managed, I'd say.... :) There's an initial fast dip below -20 dB to minimize the Haas effect, followed by a slight rise at around 15ms as the diffuse field kicks in, then a nice clean, smooth, natural decay out to the end...

And all of that comes from a room that is much smaller than what you are talking about for yours. So if your room is designed properly, and treated properly, and tuned properly, you can expect to get at least the same results, and very likely something better.

Quote:
Maybe I wasn't destined to have a control room this time around? I was control room-less for 7 years before, I could do it again, was just hoping to use some of the previous build if possible.
You certainly CAN have a control room! And it CAN be great. Don't believe everything you read on the internet, from questionable sources. Instead, look at real results in real rooms. Look at all of John's rooms, and consider all of the glowing praise from his customers. Not all of his rooms are 4500 cubic feet! In fact, there's this one, built inside a shipping container! (including both a control room AND a booth big enough to record drums in!!!!) http://johnlsayers.com/Studio/Mainpage/MP-Mark.htm and http://johnlsayers.com/Pages/Spark_1.htm

So forget places and people on the web that try to bring you down, and tell you that it is "impossible" to have a great studio in a small space. Instead, look at the places and people that have actually done it. "Talkers" and "doers". Take a look at what the doers do, rather than listening to what the talkers talk.... :)

- Stuart -


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

_________________
I want this studio to amaze people. "That'll do" doesn't amaze people.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 12, 2017 10:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2004 5:32 am
Posts: 63
Location: Seattle, Washington
Thank you for the wealth of info Stuart. I'll sit down with it tonight and do some homework. But yes, you are correct, there is a sea of bullshit out there and wading through it all can get exhausting. It seems there's a lot of people over at "this other board" that just kind of spout stuff off, and don't even read the fine details of my posts. I've learned so much here at John's, I have been using the other space to help bounce some ideas around. So again, thank you and thank you to all other people who've posted here over the years.

This build is very inspiring.
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=15430&start=105#p130850

Similar size and in the same city. I've sent a PM to Mark and hopefully he'll stumble upon it sooner than later and I can have him over for beverages and his ideas.

I've been throwing things around constantly, and luckily have had some somewhat "nicer" weather on the weekends which allows me to work in the garden and step away from the whirlwind of information and questions I have regarding this build. But I need to start coming up with a final plan in the next month. I've come to the idea that having a previous build out in this location is maybe causing more problems that pluses. If I had a clean slate, then that's that... There is as plus though, if I can't use the structures that have already been built, I can definitely use the materials used to build it.

If I do alter the current control room like posted above, in regards to isolation, it would only work as a control room. That space would not be isolated enough from the planes flying above to use as a large iso booth nor would it keep loud ass amps (which is what I normally record) isolated from the neighbors. I'm willing to take an isolation risk in other areas of the structure (like the previous built sound lock, entry way), but I can't in that corner since my closest neighbor is in that SE corner. So I'm at the point of "making" that room work as a control room with some changes to it. The benefits, it gets me a couple steps ahead to having a mix space while working on the live room.
Or...
Just tearing it out completely and just starting from scratch and even going with the "one room (with a smaller room/iso booth)" idea which I had at my last space. It worked. and this place is a little smaller than that place.

I threw this together on my lunch break. Its pretty much a similar idea of my last space. Yes there is ONE LEAF between the iso booth and the rest of the studio. I made that decision last time due to the budget and the fact that I was renting and couldn't do as much as needed to isolate the whole structure. I couldn't afford two sliding glass doors at the time as well. It isolated amps from the drums and vice versa. That's mostly what I need with spaces this small.. Drums and guitar/bass amps isolated enough.

But yeah... ideas... And again, Thank you.

Attachment:
CR2 LR2.jpg


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2017 4:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2004 5:32 am
Posts: 63
Location: Seattle, Washington
Three scenarios:

1. Square up the control room that is part of the previous build. Use the sound lock and iso closet from the previous build. Build out the larger space as a room in the garage. Control room from previous build is not isolated enough to use other than as a control/mix room.

Pros:
    -It gives me a jump time and budget with using something that has already been mostly constructed.
    -I'll have a control room again.
    -I'll have access to natural light through the large window.
    -I can work in sections, giving me a working mix area to use while constructing the live room

Cons:
    -Its small, but squaring up that one side will add some space.
    -Isolation is not the best in previous control room build but good enough for a mix room. It is not isolated enough to use previous built control room as drum/amp tracking room due to neighbors/airplanes.
    -I've got to work with figuring out venting and AC for three rooms.
    -Potential issues of interfacing one build technique with another build technique

Attachment:
CR1LR1 .png




2. Tear out all of previous build. Rebuild as a large room within the garage along with an iso booth in the back for guitar amps while drums are tracked in the same large room alongside mix area.

Pros:
    -Larger work space instead of smaller spaces which is potentially better sounding
    -AC for one room and venting for two (main room and iso venting)
    -Easier communication between people.
    -Better isolation from the outside world all around
Cons:
    -Time spent tearing out old work in order to get to "blank slate"
    -More demolition waste created unless I can recycle materials
    -Four windows to remove and fill in the space they took instead of two
    -Tracking all day in the same room with drums again
Attachment:
CR2 LR2.jpg



3. Tear out all of previous build and rebuild a control room, tracking room and iso booth.

Pros:
    -Isolations and room size done to specific needs

Cons:
    -More time and money all around. (not necessarily a "bad" thing in regards to the desired results and needs)


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 7:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2004 5:32 am
Posts: 63
Location: Seattle, Washington
trodden wrote:


2. Tear out all of previous build. Rebuild as a large room within the garage along with an iso booth in the back for guitar amps while drums are tracked in the same large room alongside mix area.

Pros:
    -Larger work space instead of smaller spaces which is potentially better sounding
    -AC for one room and venting for two (main room and iso venting)
    -Easier communication between people.
    -Better isolation from the outside world all around
Cons:
    -Time spent tearing out old work in order to get to "blank slate"
    -More demolition waste created unless I can recycle materials
    -Four windows to remove and fill in the space they took instead of two
    -Tracking all day in the same room with drums again
Attachment:
CR2 LR2.jpg




After thinking about it for a week... I think Option 2 is what I'm going to go with. It just seems to make more sense with the (small) amount of space I have to work with. Also, interfacing a new build with different techniques with the previous build just seems to be making more stress and questions than I really want to deal with. Sucks to have to tear something down, but it's going to be built in a way that works for me. Also, keeping it one larger room with an iso booth makes it a far more flexible space for other types of uses that involve a group of people.

With Option 2 I am now looking into researching, figuring out, and planning with the following issues and ideas.

-Possible truss replacement for more ceiling height. Like in this build
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=15430
I also have to look into what roof venting needs/problems (3-leaf?) as well much like this build linked here.

-What to do with the 6 windows installed in the outer leaf? I planned on removing 4 of them and filling in the holes with the same materials as the rest of the leaf. I'd like to keep the one on the front (see April 1st post with photo) for outside aesthetics only and the possibility of maybe, MAYBE having to turn this back into a garage decades down the road. It doesn't have to be functional so can I "beef" it up with a layer of 5/8" rock behind it much like I'll be doing all over the rest of the outside leaf? Then theres the giant one (see first post) which is where my mix position will be facing. Is there a way to incorporate it into the build so I also have a window on the second leaf and actually get some daylight coming in? I worry about the issues of 3-leaf/4-leaf systems when it comes to the layers of glass in the actual window(s). Also looks like those "solid" glass blocks that are often used aren't actually "solid". I was thinking about using them in the build of the 2 leaf but it seems they are not suited for iso.

-Besides being a flanking path, as well it being a single leaf, having the iso booth share the same second leaf components. I got enough iso between the big room and the booth last place where I did this. I'm mostly concerned with iso from the outside world over anything.

- As shown in my mockup, I plan on building all of the second leaf with "inside out" walls except the ceiling. In order to not make the room too "dead" I'll add facing or wood paneling to the fronts of the "inside out" walls, careful to not make an additional leaf. Mostly inspired by the Gervais rooms I've seen.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 29, 2017 9:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2004 5:32 am
Posts: 63
Location: Seattle, Washington
Due to the shape and how long the room will be if I go with option #2, it doesn't fit any any "good" ratios really and I'm not able to plug in precise numbers, so...

Using these
http://www.bobgolds.com/Mode/RoomModes.htm
FAIL

and this one
http://amroc.andymel.eu/amroc_andymel_e ... ue&r60=0.6
OUT OF BOLT AREA

So... build room out as planned and then deal with real data once I get the pieces in place and treat from there is what I'm guessing would be best?


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 02, 2017 4:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2004 5:32 am
Posts: 63
Location: Seattle, Washington
And now, doing some research, I run across this...
Soundman2020 wrote:
Quote:
Ideally, the room will have both both good acoustics for mixing and good/fun acoustics for tracking.
This is another discussion you might have seen me have several times! :) The acoustic response that you need for a control room is laid out clearly in documents such as ITU BS.1116-2 and EBU Tech-3276, among others. When you have a room that meets those specs, this is what the acoustic response looks like http://www.johnlsayers.com/phpBB2/viewt ... =2&t=20471 . That's a great room for mixing and mastering: it meets or beats all the specs. But I would not want to record many types of instruments in there. The acoustics just aren't meant for that. The perfect, low decay times and dead flat response that you need for a good control room are too dry and "lifeless" for most instruments. Tracking vocals and maybe acoustic guitar in there would be OK, but drums or electric guitar would sound pretty lousy. Drums need space, air, life, to sound good, but the decay time in that room is only 270 ms, IIRC. Excellent for a control room, but drums would sound dull in there.

On the other hand, if you treated your single-room such that it was lively enough for most instruments, then it would be terrible for mixing and mastering. You would lose all the subtle clues that are so very necessary for being able to mix well, and absolutely essential for mastering.

Third option: compromise. Treat the room so that it is a bit liver than it should be for a control room, but a bit deader than it should be for instruments. And then you'd have a room that is lousy for both! :)

There's one other option: variable acoustics. It is possible to design treatment devices that can be open/closed/flipped/rotated/slid/covered/uncovered/etc., to expose different acoustic materials to the room, for different treatment options. It should be possible to design a set of devices that, when oriented in one manner, provide the perfect environment for mixing and mastering, but when moved to other configurations give you a broad range of variability, to meet any need for pretty much any instrument. I'm not talking about a couple of gobo's on wheels here! I'm talking about something rather more sophisticated: specifically designed modules, attached to the walls and ceiling, in specific locations, with specific tunings, to produce the correct acoustic response for a control room in once configuration, and a broad range of other responses in other configurations. I have designed a few such devices for some of my customers. They work, if designed properly and built carefully.


From this thread.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=20919


Which also makes a lot of sense.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 02, 2017 11:00 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 10:17 am
Posts: 9836
Location: Santiago, Chile
Quote:
Which also makes a lot of sense.
I think so too! :thu: :)


- Stuart -

_________________
I want this studio to amaze people. "That'll do" doesn't amaze people.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 03, 2017 2:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2004 5:32 am
Posts: 63
Location: Seattle, Washington
Soundman2020 wrote:
Quote:
Which also makes a lot of sense.
I think so too! :thu: :)


- Stuart -



With all of this in mind, maybe Option 1 or Option 3 from above may be better... back and forth, back and forth in my head.. making me crazy.. :blah: :blah: :blah: :horse: :horse:


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 

All times are UTC + 10 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 15 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group