Dimensions and ideas for multi purpose recording studio's

[audiokid]

I'm going to build a multi purpose studio on 5 acres in a location where there is little outside noise to be overly concerned about. I'm in the country, on a very private lake where the sound of nature is actually something I would rather hear as a natural ambience (maybe I am onto something lol)!
Never the less, kidding aside... it's not like we have screaming city ambiance where I am living. Its very quiet here in comparison to a large city. So, isolating the outside from bleeding is far less of a concern for me but I would still like to discuss that as well.

NOTE: I have no idea what I want so I expect to evolve with it all as I gather all sorts of idea's from everyone. Thank you

Here we go...

What would the idea dimensions be to start with?

Thanks!

 

[Kurt Foster]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/publications/rdreport_1993_08

https://courses.physics.illinois.ed...406pom_lecture_notes/p406pom_lect10_part2.pdf

http://tapeop.com/tutorials/83/diy-diffusors/

 

[audiokid]

Thanks Kurt but I don't want to read this on another forum like Tapeop. There must be enough information and great minds on RO after all these years? I'm hoping we start adding this stuff here so we aren't always degrading RO to a link factory.

That being said, thanks from the bottom of my heart, I know you are helping.

 

[Kurt Foster]

the tapeop link is to an article for the best low cost dyi diffuser i have found. no forum, no ads, just the article.

 

[audiokid]

the tapeop link is to an article for the best low cost dyi diffuser i have found. no forum, no ads, just the article.

Thanks, I definitely want to build those.

 

[audiokid]

I'm planning on building a standalone studio on my 5 acre property specifically for me to mix, but it will also second as a tracking facility for vocals, guitars and electronics (no drums or large room projects for now). I am 100% going virtual room emulation using the Bricasti's. I will either try and make the mixing building work while I plan a second building to track in later. This is the plan.

 

[Kurt Foster]

i'm guessing a 20 by 25 room with a 15 foot ceiling would be a good start.

 

[Kurt Foster]

here's [="http://www.salford.ac.uk/computing-science-engineering/research/acoustics/architectural-and-building-acoustics/room-sizing-for-studios"]another one[/] to look at

 

[kmetal]

The top 6 are the most well known ratios for small listening room modal response.

Since they are based on a 10' ceiling height, and aren't scalable, they essentially dictate the rooms length and width as well.

i think the ebu calls for 2,500 cubic feet minimal for critical listening rooms.

Unless it's ground up it's usually a matter of what ideal within the existing boundaries and budget, which untimatley determine the room quality.

Also differning design types for the CR like LEDE can lend themselves better to certain dimensions and shapes as well.

Another thing to consider is the finished dimension inside the room is easily 2ft smaller than the outer shell to allow for treatment, and that's minimal.

Something like Kurt suggested is a good place to start audio (looks real close to the IEC ration on the chart about half way down, although I'm not sure if they call for a 10' ceiling or not). The post rooms I've been looking at for research are often 40x50 or 25x35, usually pretty large with a low fundamental room mode.

 

[Brien Holcombe]

The ideal mixing facility....good question. Thru the years this question has been answered by well educated people. But I have always had a different take on it. Oh nevermind your budget which would have to be as big as the American individual tax burden...and forget the 2500 cubic feet that is spec'ed by the EBU.

What you need is a square exterior building...oh I know from an acoustics perspective this flies in the face of contemporary logic.

A mixing room or facility as this thread suggests is simply a room. It is like a bathroom in a house. Where does that room fit in the structure and what do I need in support of this one room?

Depending on what type of music you are working on the ideal mixing facility could be a barn with much open space to allow low frequency to escape so as not to interfere with the internal mixing environment.

Does the music matter when a mixing environment or facility is being considered...certainly. At what levels will the music be played, how many bodies will be in this mixing facility to explore the sonic experience...if I need to step out...can I?

I have always suggested, no budget known and no restrictions, a square exterior shell beefed up. Even if there ever was a budget, same thing applies with the development of the ideal mixing facility.

So why would a square be considered in an acoustical environment that abhor's multiple pairs of hard boundaries that multiply the damaging effect of vibration? The ideal mixing facility is limited if you build it from the inside out and constrict yourself to ratios for a proper acoustical environment.

 

[audiokid]

Thanks, Kurt, Kyle and Brien,

I do not have a budget but will start by saying... what it costs to accomplish what I need this for is what it will cost.
Defining what I need this for and the size I have in mind to fit where I want to put this goes like this:

Some points

• I would ideally put it on a concrete slab that had radiant heating.
  
• The building may be moved or I may add another building onto it.
• This building is expected to be no more luxurious than a well built work shop. However, I would rather build it for music and later simply say to a home buyer, that is the shop. Or, I may move it onto a basement and end up making it into my last cozy cabin before I pass this life. Which at that time, I would fill it in with a kitchen, bath etc and cut places for windows etc. Good enough for a single old man that did his dream.
  
• It will be used for recording piece work (track by track vocals and guitar work) for global collaboration projects and local demo's. I will use room simulators for the acoustic space. I will be removing and replacing space with technology.
  
• If this building brings me income, I may build a second building that would be specific for tracking.
• Any types of treatment to help me improve this goal (as I evolve) will be part of my budget down the road. The main thing is to get the shell up and heat on.
  
• The mixing aspect of this is what it will always be. If it does fine for the tracking (good enough) I will stop the plan of ever considering a tracking building. In fact, I really doubt I will ever need that as their is an amazing building in my community that I can rent for larger project. Mobile, I am ready.
  
• I do have a max size though, which would be no more than 32 feet long, 28 wide and 16 feet high. I could reduce any of these dimensions.
• Mixing is the focus. During mixing, I will be the only person in the room.
• During tracking, it may well become one big happy party for jamming etc.

How this for starters? And thank you for anyone chiming in with ideas.

 

[audiokid]

PS, the music will not be continuous loud when mixing. I will be within the Fletcher-Munson curves though. I use small speakers and prefer to mix at lower levels most of the time.

 

[kmetal]

and forget the 2500 cubic feet that is spec'ed by the EBU.

Why does it matter who spec'd it, it's based on physics, and tests.

So why would a square be considered in an acoustical environment that abhor's multiple pairs of hard boundaries that multiply the damaging effect of vibration? The ideal mixing facility is limited if you build it from the inside out and constrict yourself to ratios for a proper acoustical environment.

Sticking with proven dimensions that have documented tests done allows you have a good starting point for conversation or build something with specs that are known and accepted in the world of acoustics for good modal distribution in small rooms, or to meet criteria for things like Dolby or Thx certifications.


Can you explain your reasoning behind your disagreement with communally accepted notions in acoustics? By all means there is no established ideal, but certainly does basic guidelines and starting points.

 

[kmetal]

Thanks, Kurt, Kyle and Brien,

I do not have a budget but will start by saying... what it costs to accomplish what I need this for is what it will cost.
Defining what I need this for and the size I have in mind to fit where I want to put this goes like this:

Some points

• I would ideally put it on a concrete slab that had radiant heating.
  
• The building may be moved or I may add another building onto it.
• This building is expected to be no more luxurious than a well built work shop. However, I would rather build it for music and later simply say to a home buyer, that is the shop. Or, I may move it onto a basement and end up making it into my last cozy cabin before I pass this life. Which at that time, I would fill it in with a kitchen, bath etc and cut places for windows etc. Good enough for a single old man that did his dream.
  
• It will be used for recording piece work (track by track vocals and guitar work) for global collaboration projects and local demo's. I will use room simulators for the acoustic space. I will be removing and replacing space with technology.
  
• If this building brings me income, I may build a second building that would be specific for tracking.
• Any types of treatment to help me improve this goal (as I evolve) will be part of my budget down the road. The main thing is to get the shell up and heat on.
  
• The mixing aspect of this is what it will always be. If it does fine for the tracking (good enough) I will stop the plan of ever considering a tracking building. In fact, I really doubt I will ever need that as their is an amazing building in my community that I can rent for larger project. Mobile, I am ready.
  
• I do have a max size though, which would be no more than 32 feet long, 28 wide and 16 feet high. I could reduce any of these dimensions.
• Mixing is the focus. During mixing, I will be the only person in the room.
• During tracking, it may well become one big happy party for jamming etc.

How this for starters? And thank you for anyone chiming in with ideas.

Those dimensions are a great starting point. Plenty of size for naturally good low end response with less treatment, and plenty of room for a set a baffles to track a vocalist or set a drum kit up.

With a room that size set up as a control room, there's plenty of room in front of the sweet spot. So the mixing setup won't be in the way of the live area. Like a psudeo FOH situation. Just brainstorming here.

 

[Kurt Foster]

this guy has a nice set up in a barn in his back yard. kind of what you are thinking of.

 

[Brien Holcombe]

Why does it matter who spec'd it, it's based on physics, and tests.



Sticking with proven dimensions that have documented tests done allows you have a good starting point for conversation or build something with specs that are known and accepted in the world of acoustics for good modal distribution in small rooms, or to meet criteria for things like Dolby or Thx certifications.


Can you explain your reasoning behind your disagreement with communally accepted notions in acoustics? By all means there is no established ideal, but certainly does basic guidelines and starting points.

Why do you think I suggested a square beefed up exterior?

 

[kmetal]

Why do you think I suggested a square beefed up exterior?

I think you suggested a beefed up square exterior to provide more isolation than an otherwise non-beefed up square exterior would.

I honestly can't guess what your thinking, which is why I asked if you'd explain your ideas more. Particularly your suggestion that a baseline reccomendation by the EBU be 'forgotten'. If your going to oppose the EBU standards it should be with good reason. Written documents, test results, stories from your own experience, maybe a paper you've written?

 

[Brien Holcombe]

I think you suggested a beefed up square exterior to provide more isolation than an otherwise non-beefed up square exterior would.

I honestly can't guess what your thinking, which is why I asked if you'd explain your ideas more. Particularly your suggestion that a baseline reccomendation by the EBU be 'forgotten'. If your going to oppose the EBU standards it should be with good reason. Written documents, test results, stories from your own experience, maybe a paper you've written?

The problem my friend is that like many I meet...few want to hear what I say because they are stuck inside a mixing room.

The problem with looking from the inside out is you miss all the opportunity to develop an environment that suits the user...goes beyond a data driven quest for excellence in a sonic environment.

In this square you will see the rooms...the halls and the closets. The doors that lead in and the electrical panel that is on the outside.

It is a recommendation for all who think from this point of view to get outside of the box....understand your structure
understand your goals and break the small mindedness that comes from simply taking building blocks like 2500 cubic feet and mass air mass...and to make something beyond the cut and paste cookie cutter mixing room jargon that has become the puddles of mud that so many are still getting thier feet wet in.

 

[kmetal]

Again, why,how? Your just throwing blanket design philosophy statements that contradict everything basic acoustics and physics says.

Disagreeing with the EBU recommendations with no evidence to back it sounds like trolling to me. Or maybe just bad advice.

 

[Brien Holcombe]

Forgive me if this seems harse...but you and I will not have an argument based on what you think I do not know.

I have disagreed with only one thing.

And that is to look from the outside in rather than the opposite.