John Sayers' Recording Studio Design Forum

As mentioned in a prior post I am building a Room In Room for a home studio.
This is my first time doing such thing and while I've found plenty of info on how to build frames, I am struggling on how to get the Ceiling frames put onto the wall frames, let me explain:
It's a 10 x 11 room, I created wall frames (2x6 with staggered 2x4 studs 16" on center) and there will be 2 layers of 5/8 drywall with greenglue in between on the outside wall, the Roxul Safe n Sound and then another 2 layers of 5/8 drywall with greenglue on the inside wall.
The ceiling, I built two frames 2x4 16" on Center (each with 10 studs) the outside has the 2 layers of Greenglue filled drywall, roxul and then Greenglue Quiet Clips, Hat Channels and 2 layers of Drywall.

Since the Room ceiling is 8' high (with the new ceiling I lose about a foot) I have very little space and the outer Drywall layer needs to be installed prior to lifting the ceiling frames up onto the wall frames... and that's where my problem is: This thing is heavy...really heavy. For the inside Drywall I can rent a drywall lift after the ceiling is up, but I am not sure on how to get the frames lifted up with the outer layer prior to that.
Is there a smart way of doing this? Are there any form of Jacks I can get to help with that?
Worst case scenario I believe I need to cut the ceiling frames in half but I am not sure if that will be stable enough...will it be?

I have found zero videos on how to do a room in room ceiling that does not attach to the existing ceiling (the Room in Room concept means as little as possible contact to the outer room)

Any thoughts? Thanks in advance

Thomas

_________________
Thomas Hornig
Mixer/Producer/Songwriter
Los Angeles, CA

Just checking: Are you building this room inside an already existing room? Because if you are you will very likely not want anything attached to the outside of your frame walls and ceiling.

You should always aim for just 2 leaves if possible. The original walls that you have can be bulked up with plaster board (drywall) etc. Then you have a gap (maybe only 12mm if you need to save space) then a stud wall.

So first thing I would do is take the plasterboard for the outside of your wall and screw it/glue it to your original walls (please make sure the original wall can handle the weight). Unless it's a concrete / brick wall which in that case probably doesn't need any more mass at all. Stand the stud frame up, and fix in place. Fill the void with fiberglass or mineral wool. Then put the plaster board, green glue, osb etc that you want for your inner leaf on the inside only. Bearing in mind that of you're supporting your ceiling on the frame you need the walls to be structurally sound: so that means either at least 9mm OSB3 sheathing as the first layer or noggins between each stud every 300mm or so. Also think carefully about how you attach the walls to the floor, using j-bolts or maybe shot fired nails with angle brackets.

Now onto the ceiling: 2 x 4s at 16 inch centres are not strong enough for 10ft clear span. You need at least 2 x 6s according to my span table and that's on the limit.

Also as with the walls, do you already have a ceiling in the room that you are building the room within?
If so you don't want anything attached to the outside of your ceiling joists. If the original ceiling can support the weight then you need to add your plasterboard green glue combo onto the original ceiling.

Then you can just put your joists on your timber frame and attach your noggins or herringbone bracing. Stuff in the insulation, then screw up the plasterboard and greenglue directly onto the inside of your joists one by one.

Always remember to use backer rod and caulk the joints on each layer.

This is all assuming you have checked that you will get enough isolation with the mass and airgap you have said you are using.

If I've misread and you don't have an origibal room you are building within then let me know and I'll help with the outer plasterboard issue.

Thanks,
Dan

If you try to lift the entire ceiling at once, you'll never manage it! Do it in smaller modules, that are supported by larger joists.

Assuming you are doing inside-out ceilings, the way I normally handle that is by building a "backbone" of large dimensions joists across the tops of the inner-leaf walls, with fairly large spaces in between. I then build "modules" on the floor, with 2x4 framing and the right layers of sheathing on top, and raise those into place between the joists. I set the joist framing sizes and gaps such that the modules are small enough to handle easily, and can be safely lifted either by several people, or by a drywall lifter, or by some other method.

Here's how one of my customers in Australia did his:

"Backbone" framework of sistered joists. Here it looks like the inner-leaf framing is touching the outer-leaf framing, but it isn't: it's just the camera angle. There's a gap of about an inch up there.



Modules installed between "backbone" framing. Modules have one layer of plywood on the 2x4 framing, plus two layers of drywall above that, with GG in between:



Insulation, black cloth, and finish cloth going in:



Room half done:



Finish fabric going up on pther half of room



Wood trim, to hide staples and joints in fabric:



General view of mostly completed ceiling



Lights and trim in place



Room in use:



Completed room, showing ceiling as well:




So this structure is built out in the middle of am empty piece of land, with no other walls around it? I sure hope so, because if you built that inside another room that has walls around it, then you have created a THREE-leaf system, thus potentially REDUCING your isolation. Yes, you read that correctly. Having that extra leaf in there can give you LOWER isolation. Here's why:



Now I'm confused! How did you build a ceiling with "studs"? It must be a very, very tall ceiling....

Once again, I'm assuming that this structure is out in the open someplace, with no other ceiling above it? Because if there's another ceiling up there, then you have built a 3-leaf system, which will give you LESS isolation than the equivalent 2-leaf system.

Also, why on earth are you building a decoupled ceiling, but that ALSO adding "Quiet Clips and Hat Channel"???

Why did you lose a foot? You say that you used 2x4 "studs" (I assume you mean "joists"), and four layers of drywall. 2x4 joists are 3 1/2" deep, and four layers of 5/8" drywall totals 2 1/2", so you have a total of 6" thickness. How did that become a foot?

---

Yup. Good question! Because the structure described would be fine for a stand-alone building, but not for a room-in-a-room...


Correct! But no glue: just screw it.



Right! Unsafe, and dangerous. And illegal. And it certainly will not pass inspection.

Right. Personally, I would go with 2x8s for that span, as I'm assuming the OP will also need to have other live loads on that ceiling, such as lights, acoustic treatment, a ceiling cloud, etc. For an inside-out ceiling, I would do sistered 2x8s, 24OC.

- Stuart -

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

thank you so much for the feedback... lots of information here I will have to process that. I am glad I have not put these in place yet!

Yes, this is an existing room. (3 walls of it, the front is open so there it makes sense
I was wondering about that before if the existing wall would add another leaf but figured that wasn't the case... I was obviously wrong. I need to think about how I would get the drywall onto the existing wall. This is a rented house, I do not want to do anything permanent. The way I built the frames is in modules so that I could take the whole thing apart in case I decide to move. This now complicates things for the walls.
The reason I mentioned I would lose a foot on the ceiling height is because I was planing on raising the floor as well and that with the added joists (sorry I called them studs but I meant joists) that would end up about a foot.
I am now scared about the ceiling part... I am going to take a picture of the frames and post them to make sure we are on the same page.

_________________
Thomas Hornig
Mixer/Producer/Songwriter
Los Angeles, CA

... and that would probably also be a mistake! Here's why:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8173

I'm not sure if you were planning to float your floor, but the same principle applies as described in that thread. It's the cavity that causes the problem...

Assuming your room has a concrete slab at present, that's all you need. Nothing better!


- Stuart -

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

yep, was planing to do a floating floor with u-boots.
I wish I would have found this forum a few months back before I ordered materials... oh well

I am feeling very uneasy about the ceiling part now. What if I do a different approach like this: build an actual lighter frame for the ceiling, put roxul inside and cover it inside the room with Vinyl loaded mass and caulk it with the walls to seal it. Would that be sufficient since I'll now loose the second layer of double drywall on the outer wall frames anyway? That way I have nothing too heavy above my head.

Also is there a non destructive way I could fasten the outer drywall to the actual house walls of the room? As mentioned I am renting I can't do damage to the house walls...one of the reasons I liked the idea of a non-touching room in room...

thanks

_________________
Thomas Hornig
Mixer/Producer/Songwriter
Los Angeles, CA

You're not going to be able to support any mass sufficiently on 2 x 4s. As 2 x 6s would be needed for a standard 1/2 inch plasterboard ceiling.

Are you building the room within a room to increase sound isolation? If so you have two basic things you need to do. Seal the two leaves and increase mass on them.

You might get adequete isolation by adding the mass onto the inner leaf and sealing up the original room.

But you will probably need to replace the original door anyway and get seals fitted etc.

It's not very safe to not attach your walls to the floor, can you alter your floor in the rented place?

Dan

That's a common mistake, actually, so don't feel bad about it! YouTube is chock full of exuberant "studio" builders, showing this exact thing: 2x4 joists on rubber pucks with a light-weight deck on top... those misguided video makers wax eloquent about what a wonderful thing it is to "float" a floor like that, and how gorgeously fantastic it will be to "soundproof" their studio ... not realizing that, in reality, they actually trashed their isolation for low frequencies, and also trashed their room acoustics, since they now have a boomingly resonant floor system... It's sad, actually.

And it's interesting that even the very manufacturers of those rubber pucks don't make any real claims about what they do, and don't publish any acoustic data on how they perform.

Here's how it actually works, in real life, with real data from independent acoustic researchers:

First, a graph that explains the problem in simple terms:



That shows how much mass you need on your floor, and how much air gap you need under it, to get the right resonant frequency. What I mean by "right resonant frequency" is simply the one that will allow your floor to actually isolate! Your floor is a resonant system. It will resonate naturally at a certain frequency that is governed by the mass (weight) of the final floor, and the depth of the air cavity under it. At that frequency, and for one octave above it, the floor will NOT isolate. In fact, not only does it not isolate, it can potentially amplify sounds at that frequency. And because this problem extends to one octave higher, obviously you want your floor's resonant frequency to be at least one octave lower than the lowest frequency you need to isolate. So if you need to isolate kick drums, which are often tuned around 80 Hz, then your floor should be tuned no higher than 40 Hz, which is one octave lower. If you want to isolate bass guitar, which easily goes down to 36 Hz (5 string bass), then you'd need to tune your floor no higher than 18 Hz. Let's assume this is the case, and now we can look at the graph.

The graph shows the frequency up the left hand side. You need something at 18 Hz, so draw an imaginary line across the graph a bit less than 20 Hz. You can now see that no matter how deep your air cavity is, the top two dashed lines are no use: you can never get a low enough frequency if your floor only weighs 5 PSF (pound per square foot) or 10 PSF. Not possible. However, at 30 PSF it is possible (the dotted line, third from the top): it looks like you would need to have an air cavity that is at least 4.5 inches deep, so you can't do it with 2x4's, as they are only 3.5" deep. You'll need to use 2x6's (which are 5.5" deep). Your other option is to go with an even heavier floor: the bottom curve on the graph, labeled 60 psf (solid line, not dashed). With that option, you can get a frequency of 18 Hz. with a cavity about 2" deep, so you could use 2x4s there.

So those are your options: you can build up your floating floor on 2x4s with a 60 PSF floor, or 2x6s with a 30 PSF floor.

So that brings up the question: What would you need to do, to get a 60 PSF floor? Well, let's consider OSB: the density of OSB is roughly 610 kg/m3, which works out to about 3.2 PSF for every inch of thickness. So to get 60 PSF using OSB board, you'd need to make it about 19 inches thick! In other words, you'd need to have 31 layers of 5/8" OSB on your floor, to get enough mass. But if you wanted to go with the 30 PSF option, you'd "only" need 16 layers of OSB to get there....

As you can see, it is physically impossible to float a light-weight deck consisting of just a couple of sheets of OSB or plywood on 2x4 studs. If you did that, the resonant frequency would be around 42 Hz, so the floor would amplify kicks, toms, bass guitar, electric guitar, and keyboards! It would only isolate from about 84 Hz upwards.

So how do you get such a high mass? If you can't do it with OSB, then what do you need? Simple: Concrete. The density of concrete is around 2400 kg/m3, which is roughly 12 PSF for each inch of thickness. So a concrete slab just 3 inches thick (36 PSF) would let you do it with a 3.5" cavity, and if you went up to 5" thick concrete slab, you could do it on a 1.5" air cavity.

That's the plain, hard, cold facts. You cannot float a light-weight deck and expect to get good isolation for low frequencies. The laws of physics prevent it.

Now, all of the above assumes that the "deck" is fully isolated from the underlying subfloor, and that the only "spring" in there, is the air in the cavity. In real life, that is not possible: you need some type of resilient mounting to decouple the deck: it might be rubber pads, or metal springs, or something else, but there has to be something that disconnects the deck from the subfloor, mechanically. Which makes things worse! That rubber or metal spring works in parallel with the air spring, and that REDUCES the total "springiness". So you actually need a deeper cavity to get the same frequency...

Now for the kicker that really dooms this whole light-weight deck concept: Whatever it is that you use as the spring to decouple the deck (rubber, metal springs, snake oil), you have to ensure that it will will float! If you put too much weight on a spring, then you flatten it out completely, and it is not "springy" any more: it bottoms out, and does not float. On the other hand, if you don't put enough weight on it, it is also not "springy"! It "tops out" and does not float. So you have to ensure that you put the right amount of weight on each spring, such that it has the optimal amount of compression, and really does float. For each type of spring, there are tables and equations that allow you to do that, but for most springs, you need to compress it about 10 to 25% to make it "float". Less that 10% "tops out" and more than 25% "bottoms out" (the actual numbers vary widely, per product).

Great! So let's go back to the light-weight deck (pretending that the above graph does not exist, and imagining that it might be possible to magically get the right frequency with just two layers of OSB). We already know that two layers of OSB weighs about 6 pounds per square foot, so let's say we do some calculations for magical rubber pads, made of purest snake oil mixed with pixie dust, and arrive at the conclusion that we need four pads of two square inches each for every square foot of floor, and with a load of 6 PSF, that will float just fine, with exactly 15% compression. Great! Amazing! The floor floats! ... Until you stand on it.... Assuming you weigh about 180 pounds, and that your weight will be spread across four square feet of floor, just by stepping on that floor you increase the loading from 6 PSF to 51 PSF Gulp! I think you see where this is going.... You just flattened your rubber pads into oblivion! They are now squashed flat, and don't float.

So you think creatively, and decide that you don't need the floor to float when you are not in the room, it only has to float when you ARE in there, so you re-design it to float when the load is 51 PSF. Fantastic! Wonderful! It floats! .... until you bring in your guitar, amp, a couple of pizzas and a crate of beer... now the load is 65 PSF, and the floor doesn't float....

So you wrack your brains, and re-design the rubber pads yet again, so they float at 65 PSF.... But then you invite your buddy over to join you for a jamming session, and he brings his girlfriend, another amp, more pizza, and a suitcase, since he's going to stay the night.... and now you have a load of 90 PSF....

OK, so I'm exaggerating a bit, but I can keep on adding scenarios here, such as the desk, a chair, a couch, your DAW, other gear, etc. etc., ... however, you can see the problem: The load on a light-weight deck varies so enormously that it just is not practical. But with a concrete deck, that has a much, much higher density, this is not a problem. Putting all that extra load on the floor, or taking it off, only changes the total mass by a few percent, and the floor still floats: the springs are still inside their optimal range.

So that's the issue. Floating a light-weight floor is not a viable solution. You need huge mass to float a floor successfully. It is certainly possible to float a floor, and companies like Mason Industries make devices to do that, but it only works with very high mass for the floor deck, such as 3 or 4 inches of solid concrete.

Excuse the rant, but it does annoy me that folks get fooled into buying stuff they don't need and wont work anyway, and build rooms in ways that are doomed to failure, just because some manufacturer wants o make a few bucks from his next-to-useless products...


You can probably return the materials you don't need. Most reputable hardware stores will take back unused materials that are in good condition and give you a refund. They might charge you a re-stocking fee, or give you less money than you paid, but something is better than nothing!

MLV (Mass Loaded Vinyl) is actually more dense than drywall! The density of drywall is about 670 kg/m3, MLV is about 1500 kg/m3. So a thin sheet of MLV weighs just as much as a thick sheet of drywall...

And since sound waves don't really care very much about how much you paid for your mass, they won't be impressed by the huge price tag of the MLV... they'll be attenuated by roughly the same amount, either way. It's the mass that matters, not the thickness or the price tag. The equations for calculating isolation have no variables for adjusting for cost, nor for the thickness of the materials. They only have two basic variables: the "mass" (surface density) of each leaf, and the "spring" (depth of the air cavity between the leaves). That's it. The wall or ceiling is a resonant system, just like a floated floor would be, and the equations are the same. The only two numbers you can plug into those equations are the weight-per-square-foot of the materials on each leaf, and the distance between the leaves.

Here's the actual set of equations, in case you are interested:

First, for a single-leaf barrier you need the Mass Law equation:

TL = 14.5 log (M * 0.205) + 23 dB

Where: M = Surface density in kg/m2

In this case, there is no air gap, so the ONLY factor that matters is the mass (surface density).

For a two-leaf wall, you need to calculate the above for EACH leaf separately (call those results "R1" and "R2"), then you need to know the resonant frequency of the system, using the MSM resonance equation:

f0 = C [ (m1 + m2) / (m1 x m2 x d)]^0.5

Where:
C=constant (60 if the cavity is empty, 43 if you fill it with suitable insulation)
m1=mass of first leaf (kg/m^2)
m2 mass of second leaf (kg/m^2)
d=depth of cavity (m)

Then you use the following three equations to determine the isolation that your wall will provide for each of the three frequency ranges:

R = 20log(f (m1 + m2)) - 47 ...[for the region where f < f0]
R = R1 + R2 + 20log(f x d) - 29 ...[for the region where f0 < f < f1]
R = R1 + R2 + 6 ...[for the region where f > f1]

Where:
f0 is the resonant frequency from the MSM resonant equation,
f1 is 55/d Hz
R1 and R2 are the transmission loss numbers you calculated first, using the mass law equation

And that's it! Nothing complex. Any high school student can do that. It's just simple addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, square roots, and logarithms.

Those are all for Metric units, not imperial, but it's simple to convert.

So, getting back to the point: you would gain nothing by using MLV instead of drywall. It's still the same principle, and the mass is the same, so the result would be the same.

Even worse, since MLV is very flexible, there's a chance that it would also like a diaphragmatic absorber (also called a "membrane trap"), which is a resonant acoustic treatment device used inside rooms, often in the form of a bass trap. That might or might not be a good thing for your room acoustics, depending on how it works out (what frequency it is tuned to), but it certainly would not be good for isolation!

OK, so you have a potential three-leaf wall problem, and a potential three-leaf ceiling problem. The reason why a three-leaf system is worse than a two-leaf system goes back to the same issue I've mentioned several times: resonance. All walls are resonant systems, and you need to get the fundamental resonant frequency as low as possible, at least an octave below the lowest tone that you want to isolate. A two-leaf wall is the best way of doing that, as it allows for the lowest frequency in the least total wall thickness, with the least amount of mass. In other words, it the cheapest way of getting good isolation, and also the one that uses the least materials, and the least space. If you have a three-leaf system, then you can compensate for the lost isolation by using more mass, and increasing the overall wall thickness. It's more expensive, but you can get the same result by doubling-up your mass, or your air gaps inside the wall, or both. So it's not the end of the world: It just means that it will cost you more money, it will cost you more space, and it will be heavier.

Even worse would be a FOUR leaf system, such as a pair of stud walls next to each other, where each wall has sheathing on both sides (eg. drywall, OSB, siding, MDF, plywood, MLV, etc.). A four-leaf wall has even worse low-frequency isolation than a three-leaf wall.

Your options right now are:

1) Remove the "middle" leaf, in order to make it back into a two-leaf system.
2) Add more mass (more layers of drywall) to the leaves.
3) Make the air gaps between leaves bigger.
4) Do nothing, and live with the problem of reduced isolation.

Number 1 above might actually be an option, depending on how your existing walls and ceiling are built. For example, if the walls around you and ceiling above you are ordinary stud framed house walls with drywall on the studs, then just take off that drywall, and leave bare studs. That removes one of the leaves. In fact, if you really want a good improvement in isolation, then use the drywall that you take off to "beef up" the sheathing on the other side of those same studs: cut the drywall into strips that hit between the studs, press it up tightly against the sheathing on the far side, caulk around the edges to get an airtight seal, then nail some small cleats sideways into the studs, to hold the drywall in place. That way, you don't even have to throw away your old drywall, and you get greatly improved isolation. The same applies to the ceiling: take off the current drywall, cut it into strips that just fit between the joists, press it up tightly against the surface above, caulk, cleats. Done!

But the basic question here is: how much isolation do you need, in decibels? Those equations that predict the performance of your walls / ceiling, all give answers in decibels, so you need to know how many decibels you NEED, in order to see if the result will be enough!

So your first order of business is to determine that number: how many dB of isolation do you need?

If you have nothing heavy up there, then you have no isolation! As you can see in the above equations, the key to it all is mass. Mass is what stops sound. If you have no mass, you have no isolation...

If your existing walls are normal house walls (stud frames with some type of sheathing on both sides), then that's already a two-leaf wall, so adding anything at all in front of it makes it into at least a 3-leaf, and possibly a 4-leaf! Actually, the existing walls are really "sort-of" two-leaf: considering that the sheathing layers on either side are mechanically connected by the studs, that acts something like a single-leaf wall, and something like a two-leaf wall: Technically, its a "coupled two leaf system", which means that it does not isolate anywhere near as well as a true two-leaf system, but it still has detrimental characteristics if you add another leaf (or two) in front of it.

If you absolutely cannot touch the walls around you, then your only real option is to build a three-leaf system in such a way that it compensates for the lost isolation, and to be very careful about avoiding a four-leaf system!

So, what I would do is to build a stud walls a few inches away from the existing walls, and put drywall on only ONE side of those studs. In fact, I would put a layer of thick OSB on the studs first, then at least one layer of thick drywall, perhaps two layers. I would also consider using Green Glue in between the layers. Green Glue is not actually glue (despite the name): it's an acoustic damping compound that greatly increases isolation for low frequencies, which is where your problems will be, so it's worthwhile in your case. It's expensive, but really good. I would do the same for your ceiling: put suitably dimensioned joists across the tops of your new walls, with a layer of OSB on the joists, then one or two layers of drywall, the same as the walls, possibly with Green Glue. And of course, the air gaps would all have to be filled with suitable insulation (either fiberglass or mineral wool).

I realize that you already built some things, but to be honest, I'd suggest that you take that down and start again. It's not going to do what you are hoping it will do, and you can re-use the same materials in the correct configuration to get far greater isolation, probably ten to one hundred times better (10 to 20 decibels more isolation).

- Stuart -

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

@ Dan, sadly no, I constructed the frames so that they should support each other and have double plating on top. However, that was one of the reasons I was hoping I would not have to put 2x6 ceiling joists on there, I was not planing for a really heavy ceiling.

@Stuart, thanks for all the info.
The floor makes sense, I was wondering if the rubber u boats would be able to support actual equipment weight... so with that at least I regain my ceiling height.
The walls, I will follow your advise and not put on the outer Drywall layer, only on the inside. With that I have more Greenglue, I can use an additional tube per inner double layer that should help a bit... Yes, I built the stud walls already but I can just leave the outer studs on there, it will help hold the Roxul in place.
Worth a try.
As to the db, I need to track drums in the room, so it'll be loud, I am assuming around 100 db? I have not measured that, but that's a good guess I believe.
One of the walls I can do the actual planned build, the one that will have the door since there is no connecting wall... of course the doors have been thus far my biggest nightmare...but let's deal with the ceiling first.

Back to the ceiling: Since 2x6 are too heavy to build a frame for and lift onto the wall frames what is the safest way to attach them onto the Wall frames, Edit: I just found about Joist Hangers, so that solves on how to attach joists; However how do I attach the Ledger to the frame safely? Since it's not going into an actual wall and it's standing up on the frame.

Also how many do I need across the 10 x 11? My 2x6 frames added to 10 joists 16 on center as mentioned before, Do I need the same?
Also, the osb would go on top of the joists? And how could I fasten that since there is no room to above to do work due to the existing ceiling? I am not sure how I could fasten that from below?

Thanks

_________________
Thomas Hornig
Mixer/Producer/Songwriter
Los Angeles, CA

I think you might struggle to get good enough isolation for drums at 100db. Unless you can take off the original wall plasterboard to get two leaves only and then add 3 or 4 layers of 5/8 plasterboard to each leaf, or maybe swap to concrete fibreboard.

You may need to increase your cavity depth too. I think you need to do the calculations that Stuart gave above to see what you need for 40-50db at the frequency range of drums.

For the ceiling I would just lift the 2 x 6s individually on to the walls and fix them by nailing them with 2 nails angled so they go through the side of the joists into the wall header plate one each side. Then fix a row of struts at the centre of the joists to stop them twisting. Now screw your plasterboard etc onto them alternating the joints with each layer.

Dan

Just a note. My trada span table gives a max clear span of 3.08m (10ft 1inch) at 600mm centres (24inch) for up to 0.5N/m2 dead load which is around 48kg/m2 (10lb/ft2). If you need more than 10lb/ft2 then bring the joists to 16inch centres and you can have up to 0.75N/m2 dead load or 15lb/ft2.

In other words check how heavy your ceiling will be before deciding on your joists

Dan

GG is only meant for a maximum of three tubes per sheet of drywall, so don't do more than that! If you were planning to do one tube or two tubes per sheet, then certainly, increasing by one tube per sheet would be good. But not if you were already planning three tubes.



Drums are louder than that. 110 dBC at least, 115 dBC more likely, and perhaps even 120 dBC, if you have this guy playing them:



But seriously, allow for 115 dBC on drums. It's not that hard to get that level.

That's where you should be consulting a structural engineer. There's a lot of unknowns that should be taken into account when making that decision.

Do it like this guy is going to do it:
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=21238

- Stuart -

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

He He

yes, I had planned for 2 tubes, now I can do 3

Thanks, I'll check the link out.

And yes, I will contact a structural engineer before going any further with the ceiling, I'll focus on the walls first

_________________
Thomas Hornig
Mixer/Producer/Songwriter
Los Angeles, CA