Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Taproot]

I've been considering for years, building a tracking space with a medium size Geodesic Dome. Control room attached outside, of course. A friend lived in one for years and I LOVED it. Of course it was a living space, not a tracking space. Anyway, they seem to be super cool for multiple manipulations of ambience with proper (movable/variable) treatments.

I'm sure a wide open (live) dome would be, at best confusing, acoustically, but what are some opinions on this idea?

[franman]

The Dome shape is by far one of the most 'unfriendly' and undesireable shapes acoustically. It caused great amounts of focusing and transmission of sound along the dome. It's a cool, "cooper time cube" like effect, but it's not the basis of a good tracking space IMHO.

We have designed spaces with architecturally domes but these have always been for architectural considerations and typically treated with deadening materials along the dome area.

We also recently worked on a project for MTV: the BAnd In A Bubble TV show. The set which was a dome was designed before we were hired as acoustic consultants and we immediately pointed out several potential problems inherent in the design. We were able to address most of these issues be adding a high amount of rigid fiberglass absorption behind fabric finishes. This combined with the remainder of the 'build-out' inside the dome served to break up and absorb almost all of the detrimental affects of the dome shape.

Long and short, domes are very cool architectural shapes but they are not condusive to good acoustic recording OR playback rooms. If you MUST use dome shapes, expect to have to treat them heavily and/or use enough diffusion that the dome will most likely not even resemble a dome once you're done.

Hope this helps.

[Taproot]

franman wrote on Mon, 03 September 2007 20:28

The Dome shape is by far one of the most 'unfriendly' and undesireable shapes acoustically. It caused great amounts of focusing and transmission of sound along the dome. It's a cool, "cooper time cube" like effect, but it's not the basis of a good tracking space IMHO. We have designed spaces with architecturally domes but these have always been for architectural considerations and typically treated with deadening materials along the dome area. We also recently worked on a project for MTV: the BAnd In A Bubble TV show. The set which was a dome was designed before we were hired as acoustic consultants and we immediately pointed out several potential problems inherent in the design. We were able to address most of these issues be adding a high amount of rigid fiberglass absorption behind fabric finishes. This combined with the remainder of the 'build-out' inside the dome served to break up and absorb almost all of the detrimental affects of the dome shape. Long and short, domes are very cool architectural shapes but they are not condusive to good acoustic recording OR playback rooms. If you MUST use dome shapes, expect to have to treat them heavily and/or use enough diffusion that the dome will most likely not even resemble a dome once you're done. Hope this helps.

Excellent reply! Answered ALL questions. BTW, I would NEVER, EVER consider one for a playback/control room. But, I think you reassurred me that it can be a pretty cool (extremely variable) tracking room with the right treatment. That's kinda what I'm looking for. The architecture is something that's intrigued me for some time. The ability to go from insanely ambient (almost unstable) to dead and back within a few feet is what I assumed it "could" do.

If I do it, there will be regular, non-dome, iso booths. Thanks man!

Quote:

It's a cool, "cooper time cube" like effect.

Although this effect is not desirable. Yikes.

[jimmyjazz]

I don't think a dome is "extremely variable" at all.  It possesses some inherent modal characteristics which are incredibly difficult to mitigate.  In addition to low frequency issues (think "cube", or at least "square"), look into "creep modes".

The odds are very, very good that this is a very, very bad idea.

[Taproot]

Oh well. Maybe on to "Plan B". This is a long range plan anyway.    I want to return the favor to my mentors by finding an aspiring kid to train in recording. It's the right thing to do. I was very fortunate. I wanna stick with mixing and mastering with the occasional tracking session.

I still may build my getaway cabin as  a dome though. Wouldn't care about the acoustics, because the only sound I would wanna hear there would be crickets and birds. And they can keep it down too.

Thanks guys!

[franman]

Yeah, I guess my post wasn't emphatic enough... I do not suggest you use the dome shape for any recording space... Our applications of it have been in ceiling installations ONLY and have always been treated with (expensive) deadening acoustic plaster or equivalently absorptive finish on the actual dome. It's an expensive architectural installation but sometimes, you gotta have what you want (design wise)..

[Scott Helmke (Scodiddly)]

But the original question was for a geodesic dome, which has a lot of flat surfaces.  It's only a "dome" at lower frequencies, I would guess.

Dunno if that makes any real difference - but it's an intriguing question.

[Taproot]

Scott Helmke (Scodiddly) wrote on Sun, 16 September 2007 11:32

But the original question was for a geodesic dome, which has a lot of flat surfaces.  It's only a "dome" at lower frequencies, I would guess. Dunno if that makes any real difference - but it's an intriguing question.

Glad you brought that up. Seems that it would make a BIG difference. Regardless, I'll probably go check out some "Geodesic Dome" shells (wooden inside) and see what I think for myself.

A smooth surface dome would certainly be a nightmare, especially if it were concrete or plaster, which is pretty much all it could be.

[franman]

I have been in plenty of Geodesics that exhibit all the bad qualities we've discussed above. Of course, it does depend on the size of the individual surfaces, but...from small tiles (2" Sqr) to larger surfaces (over a foot).. they all still focus quite a bit. Jeffrey, let us know if you find otherwise...

Taproot wrote on Mon, 17 September 2007 16:00

Scott Helmke (Scodiddly) wrote on Sun, 16 September 2007 11:32 But the original question was for a geodesic dome, which has a lot of flat surfaces.  It's only a "dome" at lower frequencies, I would guess. Dunno if that makes any real difference - but it's an intriguing question. Glad you brought that up. Seems that it would make a BIG difference. Regardless, I'll probably go check out some "Geodesic Dome" shells (wooden inside) and see what I think for myself. A smooth surface dome would certainly be a nightmare, especially if it were concrete or plaster, which is pretty much all it could be.

[Taproot]

franman wrote on Sun, 30 September 2007 15:45

I have been in plenty of Geodesics that exhibit all the bad qualities we've discussed above. Of course, it does depend on the size of the individual surfaces, but...from small tiles (2" Sqr) to larger surfaces (over a foot).. they all still focus quite a bit. Jeffrey, let us know if you find otherwise...

I certainly will. Thanks for all of the kind replies. As I said before, this is more or less my wife and I "thinking out loud" about future business ventures. BTW, I'm also considering raising Quail again and turning it into an actual business. Wonder how they'd do in a Geo Dome?

Again, thanks. Obviously, we're batting around all kinds of ideas.