Skip to main content
Community forums, blogs, song critique, press & more...

Dimensions and ideas for multi purpose recording studio's

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!

Comments

Profile picture for user audiokid

audiokid Wed, 06/13/2018 - 07:26

kmetal, post: 457686, member: 37533 wrote: Tin roofs are ok in the way your describing. Otherwise they are noisy when it rains, and there’s a lot more care and attention to sealing it up well. I’m not sure what the mass of a tin sheet vs a 3/4” plywood, but it might weigh less, which isn’t ideal.

So as a finish surface, their fine. Something like an asphalt shingle roof adds some mass, while being a resilient roof covering.

My reference for the no-no would be like putting a studio in one of those steel garden sheds and not making any other provisions.

I know how noisy an open Quonset and tin type like that would be. Charming to sleep in on a rainy night but wow..
I’ve played in them during summer country festivals and omg... insane

Profile picture for user kmetal

kmetal Tue, 02/28/2017 - 15:51

Brien Holcombe, post: 447939, member: 48996 wrote: 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.

Brien Holcombe, post: 447939, member: 48996 wrote: 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.

Profile picture for user kmetal

kmetal Tue, 02/28/2017 - 16:01

audiokid, post: 447940, member: 1 wrote: 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.
class="xf-ul"> 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.

Profile picture for user Brien Holcombe

Brien Holcombe Tue, 02/28/2017 - 16:35

kmetal, post: 447975, member: 37533 wrote: 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?

Profile picture for user kmetal

kmetal Tue, 02/28/2017 - 18:08

Brien Holcombe, post: 447979, member: 48996 wrote: 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?

Profile picture for user Brien Holcombe

Brien Holcombe Tue, 02/28/2017 - 19:16

kmetal, post: 447982, member: 37533 wrote: 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.

Profile picture for user Brien Holcombe

Brien Holcombe Tue, 02/28/2017 - 19:19

kmetal, post: 447982, member: 37533 wrote: 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.

Profile picture for user audiokid

audiokid Tue, 02/28/2017 - 20:50

Brien Holcombe, post: 447995, member: 48996 wrote: I need boundries. When I have boundaries I can stay focused...when I am given free reign...I will not limit myself to conventional thinking.

You gave no budget...you of all people knows this is prerequisite.

I don't know WTF you are talking about and I don't know anything about any prerequisite. Your entire tone and interpretation is very disturbing and disrespectful. You sound like you are on bad drugs dude. You think this is some game?

I don't have a budget. I have a reason and a size and some basic questions as this evolves and ... its just fun sharing what I am finally planning to do after years of trying to get to a point in my life to do something like this. :love:

I don't need your help either.

And now back to the last pics Kurt posted. Yeah, that's what I am thinking about (all open like that) . That looks pretty nice though, my building will be much more raw I think. I love those beams.

Would the ceiling be better peaked like that or flat? I've played in building that were peaked and they produced some weird freq's.

Profile picture for user Kurt Foster

Kurt Foster Tue, 02/28/2017 - 21:02

he started with an old hay barn! i'm sure you could do just as well with a little effort and a lot of cash. lol!

here is the article that the pictures came from. i would imagine cathedral ceilings could make for some weird reflections in spots. my guess is the trick would be to place absorbers in the correct places, perhaps a flat cloud across the peak. you will still have the benefit of the height while you would get better control of the random reflections. imo a peaked ceiling like that would be better than a lower flat ceiling. he doesn't seem to have any issues with it.

Profile picture for user Brien Holcombe

Brien Holcombe Wed, 03/01/2017 - 05:37

audiokid, post: 447996, member: 1 wrote: Your entire tone and interpretation is very disturbing and disrespectful. You sound like you are on bad drugs dude. You think this is some game?

I don't have a budget. I have a reason and a size and some basic questions as this evolves and ... its just fun sharing what I am finally planning to do after years of trying to get to a point in my life to do something like this. :love:

I don't need your help .

If you want better answers ask better questions.

x