Skip to main content

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

audiokid Mon, 02/27/2017 - 13:20
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.

audiokid Mon, 02/27/2017 - 13:35
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.

kmetal Mon, 02/27/2017 - 17:30




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.

OBrien Mon, 02/27/2017 - 20:09
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 Mon, 02/27/2017 - 21:20
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.

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.

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.

OBrien 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?

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?

OBrien 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.

OBrien 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.

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.

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.

OBrien 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.

kmetal Wed, 03/01/2017 - 09:30
Brien Holcombe, post: 447990, member: 48996 wrote: 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.

Just asking you to explain further about what your saying. I keep asking you for your facts and explainations about your statements but your seemingly unwilling or unable to.

Considering I'm well rounded and experienced enough in acoustics to comfortably approach each project without having to have one pre determined approach or another. Often the project will dictate what it needs, and the acousticians job is to solve the puzzle of making the best. The fundamentals do apply in all cases.

kmetal Wed, 03/01/2017 - 09:50
Kurt Foster, post: 447997, member: 7836 wrote: 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.

Right on Kurt, placing that cloud like that also benefits from having the triangular cavity behind it which can really absorb some substantial low end in a room that size.

Trapping in the ceiling helps preserve floor space. Also the cloud allows you to hide your conduits ect.

I've posted this sketch before but this is my own personal rough draft for a studio in a gararage or on the second floor. In this one the bar represents a kitchen area and the other rooms bedrooms.

I drew this a while back but it looks on the same idea as the studio barn. The exterior shot I found on google.

What's nice about a (properly designed) truss system is the clear span ie, lack of support columns from floor to ceiling. engineered joists can also be a viable option for supporting heavy loads with long spans. Around New England it's a very economical way to build. Check it FYI if your interested. I attached a pic of what I'm talking about. Around here there cheaper than typical 2x joists and the spans are much better.

https://www.apawood.org/i-joist
Attached files

OBrien Wed, 03/01/2017 - 10:16
What is going on is based on no information what so ever on your part excepting you are wanting an ideal mix room...which is high budget imo...I offered an alternative to what I knew you would get from the others.

I gave you an opportunity to view your project with a pair of fresh eyes. I am often confined to existing structures but every now and then I get the chance to see a project that does not even exist and take that oportunity to develop an environment that takes every key concern into the development of the project.

But rather take that opportunity you denigrated me...called me names and accused me of being on drugs.

I could have said all the things that others said...cookie cutter building block stuff that is always part of a great project but should not define the project... understand?

So if I have offended your sensibilities. ..tough.

With your very personal and very public childish display...I will consider this subject closed....your mix room a pipe dream and good luck. ..because you will need it...

kmetal Wed, 03/01/2017 - 11:19
Brien Holcombe, post: 448015, member: 48996 wrote: What is going on is based on no information what so ever on your part excepting you are wanting an ideal mix room...which is high budget imo...I offered an alternative to what I knew you would get from the others.

I gave you an opportunity to view your project with a pair of fresh eyes. I am often confined to existing structures but every now and then I get the chance to see a project that does not even exist and take that oportunity to develop an environment that takes every key concern into the development of the project.

But rather take that opportunity you denigrated me...called me names and accused me of being on drugs.

I could have said all the things that others said...cookie cutter building block stuff that is always part of a great project but should not define the project... understand?

So if I have offended your sensibilities. ..tough.

With your very personal and very public childish display...I will consider this subject closed....your mix room a pipe dream and good luck. ..because you will need it...


Another response void of anything acoustically relevant.

audiokid Wed, 03/01/2017 - 11:32
There is something about you brien that just starts anger with people. I'm not perfect either.
You've been reported to me many times over the years.
Your comments this time sound weird, almost as if you are on meds that make you reactive. Just saying.
I'm personally not good with how you come across.
I've found you very rude right off the get go here.
You are assuming I am a lot more savvy with acoustics.
I personally don't care if this studio I want to build ever reached your level.
The luck I need has long passed my career. What I need is a place to have fun and mix for the hell of it.

The barn studio Kurt posted looks cool to me (thanks Kurt).
And I would expect they need luck as well, right?

kmetal Wed, 03/01/2017 - 11:33
It's perfectly feasible to 'dial in' on what your looking for and exploring options in order to develop a budget or ball park. some people have a specific number ahead of time and the design must fit that.

The foundation type, heating, general size, and multiroom vs single room studio type, have been established, at least for conversation sake. Those are some major indicators of basic cost and construction type. Air conditioning, electric, and plumbing, would be other important areas for dictating costs.

A nice comfy room the size chris is talking on a slab is a great start to good sound and adequate creature comfort. The bass response has room enough to be excellent by nature in something like that.

audiokid Wed, 03/01/2017 - 11:48
@Brien Holcombe For giggles, I don't have a budget because I don't need a budget.
It will cost what it cost and that was established in post #11 .

Money is not a problem because I am not building a palace ;). I know how to build and it will never cost more than what is required to make an open building like this.

All I am looking for is dimensions that fall into what is advised but I now see that really doesn't matter right? :) Shockingly it sounds like I could use any box accordingly to you?

That being said, it doesn't sound like you are able to get past your attitude so I'm just fine not hearing anything you have to say.
Do please, just sit back and laugh at the idiot you think I am then.

To the rest of our warm hearted group, I don't need AC or plumbing help. It's northern Canada here and AC is only something I would use for a very sort time in a year. We are just fine sweating from the odd amp and open windows will suffice.

This is a building that will also become a workshop when I die. Which was also mentioned in the #11 post.

Thanks for baring with any stupidity I am humbling and innocently showing.
x

Register