Print

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

[tetrahedron]

Hello everyone. Nubee here. I'm in the Conceptual Design phase for a small control room and am ready to place the monitors on the face of the Soffit plane.
Normally this hasn't been a problem as I've used these type monitors as a default model for conceptual room configuration.






Normally, the soffit face cutouts would look like this.





However, my client is currently Interested in the Griffin G1(thats your company isn't it Francis?). I've drawn these to the specs given on the product page at the Griffin site.  As I started to place them on the monitoring VERTICAL axis, it dawned on me that I really didn't know which Centerline to use...the Enclosure or the Mid Driver centerline(or other if thats the case)
So, my question IS:

Can anyone tell me what the NORM would be here for centering the G1 on the Soffit/engineer monitoring Vertical plane centerline? Heres what I'm dealing with. Please understand these are only conceptual models to assign the planes for the Interior envelope.










Furthermore, I've come across some info that suggests that my current "DEFAULT" model should actually be flush mounted in a soffit VERTICALLY, as the author stated that the sonic image could be smeared by time differences from the 2 woofers when  Horizontally mounted as shown. Is this true? I've seen MANY studios with monitors typical to these in the horizontal plane, so I don't know who to believe....just like splayed walls/ceilings, hangers, flush mount vs free standing monitors, Space couplers and QRD vs Polys , LEDE vs Neutral vs DELE spaces vs...what ever is in vogue today
amongst others.    
Anyway,
Thank you

[Thomas Jouanjean]

tetrahedron wrote on Thu, 27 August 2009 13:47

I've seen MANY studios with monitors typical to these in the horizontal plane, so I don't know who to believe....

AFAIC and from the various discussions I had with speaker specialists while working on projects (the guys that actually design them) it's better and recommended to have them in the vertical plane.

Now, as usual in this field, this is a "different shades of grey" area. Some use DSP correction lately to manage the speaker's behaviour. With various levels of success. My opinion is that I want to avoid these DSP stunts altogether.

A side note: you should also avoid tilting them more than 5

[franman]

tetra,

We should speak about this directly... basic answer is the centerline is the line through the midrange(s) and tweeter. The crossover to the woofer is low enough that it isn't making a significant contribution to directional information. Always mount diapolito configured speakers in the vertical. The lobes between the mids and tweeter cause strange response in the horizontal is mounted on the horizontal. The angle of the wall is determined by several factors but the goal is to keep the midranges equi-distant from the targeted listening position to avoid cancellation and comb filtering in these critical mid range frequencies. Please feel free to contact me directly regarding more specifics and or course, the possible Griffin Sale (Yes, it's my company)..

FM

[franman]

tetra,

We should speak about this directly... basic answer is the centerline is the line through the midrange(s) and tweeter. The crossover to the woofer is low enough that it isn't making a significant contribution to directional information. Always mount diapolito configured speakers in the vertical. The lobes between the mids and tweeter cause strange response in the horizontal is mounted on the horizontal. The angle of the wall is determined by several factors but the goal is to keep the midranges equi-distant from the targeted listening position to avoid cancellation and comb filtering in these critical mid range frequencies. Please feel free to contact me directly regarding more specifics and or course, the possible Griffin Sale (Yes, it's my company)..

FM

[tetrahedron]

Hello gentleman and thank you for your replies. I do have further questions but do not have the time at the moment to post them. I appreciate you taking the time to address my issue and I'm sorry I didn't get right back to acknowledge your posts. I'll be back as soon as I can.

fitZ

[tetrahedron]

Quote:

tetra, We should speak about this directly

Hello Mr. Manzella.
I would, but I don't think the private message supports sending files along with the message. And I don't think I can properly describe what I want to know without these jpgs. Besides, it might interest others in your answers. Unless they are you own "trade secrets", which I don't think you would hand over to a stranger anyway.

So, let me begin by describing the criteria which directs my conceptual model layout up to now.

First, I've used some typical paradigm that have been around for a while.

1. Equilateral Triangle Monitoring geometry

2. Distance from front wall to Target plane. I used a "starting point distance" which has become a "defacto" Home Studio paradigm, of "38% of room length", courtesy of Mr. Newell.


Which brings me to my first question.  

How or what do YOU use to determine where the sonic "target point" IS, in relation to the front wall?

4. Engineers EAR plane.
I used the standard 18" in front of Target Plane.

5. Monitor center line Height.
 This brings up another question. To determine this,
I rationalized the monitors should be high enough so both Mid drivers center lines, were above the console. It was kind of arbitrary on my part, but I figured the width of the plane created by a center line from both mids, would create a Plane which would approximately cover the ears on each side.(See jpg above) This resulted in a Soffit vertical angle of 8 degrees.
Which, Mr. Blackwood said above is too much. However, IF, this center line between the two mid drivers is rotated from the Target point as a center rotate point, down to 5 decrees, the G1 lower Mid driver is below the top of the console bridge line. If I simply raise it in the Z direction, now the distance from each Mid to the Target point would be different. Which actually brings up my next question. BTW, I did move the G1's so the Mid drivers are now the center line of the vertical monitoring lanes.

Quote:

The angle of the wall is determined by several factors but the goal is to keep the mids equi-distant from the targeted listening position to avoid cancellation and comb filtering in these critical mid range frequencies.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but if you look at these jpgs, they may illustrate my point.

IF, the center lines from each Mid driver to the target ARE equi-distant(which means the face of the enclosure will be perpendicular to the center line of the enclosure to the Target)
this Plane can be ROTATED in either vertical direction(up or down) and still maintain a equi-distance from the Mid drivers center line to the Target...whew!   Anyway, what am I missing? In other words, to my way of thinking, there is an infinite number of angles that this could determine. So whats wrong with this picture? I don't get it.



And finally, at least for this post, the issue of the width of the wall between soffits and how other designers assign the Target point distance from the front wall, still keep an equilateral triangle, and get enough width for a WINDOW?

 At least when the 38% paradigm  is used, in order to have a wall wide enough to insert a window, the room length must be HUGE! which expands the triangle, which makes the room wider, which THEN allows for a Window. However, I see control rooms all the time with windows and soffits, but the engineering position is so far forward, an equilateral triangle would be impossible. Whats your take on this stuff?

Anyway, thanks for any insight. I'll be back with a few more questions later.

[tetrahedron]

Oh, btw, you might be interested in seeing the conceptual model as it is today.

[Thomas Jouanjean]

38% rule... IMHO, You can safely ignore this one in all shaped rooms, and as a matter of fact in most rooms.

Is the mid part of your front wall absorptive? If so, I'd be careful with that...

[tetrahedron]

Quote:

38% rule... IMHO, You can safely ignore this one in all shaped rooms, and as a matter of fact in most rooms.

Hello
Mr. Jouanjean. Ok, then would you care to offer your methodology for determining this. I've been trying to gain an insight into other designers "point of view" in this regard for a long time. It seems to be one of those "proprietary" secrets. However, if this is indeed an "arbitrary" issue which may differ with each set of circumstances, I'll add it to my list of "phylisophical" idiosyncracys such as I mentioned above.  

Quote:

s the mid part of your front wall absorptive? If so, I'd be careful with that...

Frankly, I was hoping for a comment like yours. You see, I am not an acoustician. Only a designer with an interest in Studio design. However, thats not to say I'm not involved in Pro studio projects. Could you elaborate on your view of this area? I actually was interested in a window. Hence my questions in that regard. Resolving the equilateral triangle/38% conundrum was my purpose in starting this thread, although the G1 issue started it.
Anyway, thank you for your reply.
fitZ

[Constantin]

Looks like this is the project you asking for:

http://www.johnlsayers.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=13 505&start=0

With the above linked thread we can have a look at the whole picture of your plans.
cheers
Constantin

[tetrahedron]

Quote:

Looks like this is the project you asking for:

You are correct...almost. In fact, I am working on another project that I used these models for as a beginning point. And this particular model was one I used of the authors layout he did himself as a contrast to the actual conceptual design
that is different from his plan. As an aside, for those who visit that thread, please excuse a little "difference of opinion" that happens EVERY TIME I post there. Especially with one certain party which you will see. Again, that's not my norm.

 And should you visit, and see the "height" and "angled ceiling" issue my detractor has so vividly described as "reflection city", and the other as "pointless"..let me say this. The first time I viewed the authors extruded control room floor plan, it occurred to me there was more height to be exploited in each bay between steel beams. I only expanded what appears to other people as a "ceiling", when in fact it was used to describe my question to him of the ACTUAL height dimension to the top of the windows. This area in this so called "angled ceiling" could be used for a number of things...ie.."hangers", deep iso insulation, duct work or any number of things. However, my detractor immedietly jumped to the conclusion this was a finish ceiling line, which in reality is ludicrous as there isn't even enough room to the actual roof to build any iso whatsoever.  In other words...it was a drawing to find the limitations of the dimensional space height wise. PERIOD. I even mentioned this fact early on...but noooooo, some people have to jump right in the moment you post ANYTHING and start ripping you apart. Oh well. Thats why I reacted the way I did in that thread. Please try and ignor it. Thank you all.

ps. in regards to "reflection city"...isn't that what all boundaries are capable of? And isn't there this stuff called...ABSORPTION and or DIFFUSION?

fitZ

[Thomas Jouanjean]

tetrahedron wrote on Sun, 06 September 2009 12:15

Mr. Jouanjean. Ok, then would you care to offer your methodology for determining this. I've been trying to gain an insight into other designers "point of view" in this regard for a long time. It seems to be one of those "proprietary" secrets. However, if this is indeed an "arbitrary" issue which may differ with each set of circumstances, I'll add it to my list of "phylisophical" idiosyncracys such as I mentioned above.

It's like everything else in acoustics, it's really tangled up in a LOT of factors that influence each other constantly. The 38% set comes from a calculation done in a very specific set of conditions. Hence it's not a "rule" anymore as soon as these conditions are not met.

Well, it's an "internet" rule. There are a lot of those...

A designer will work the maths so that with regards to the space he works on the Sweet Spot ends up where it needs to be. Sometimes constraints are such that you cannot have it where you want it, and you need to compromise on ergonomics, but this situation is the exception, not the rule.

tetrahedron wrote on Sun, 06 September 2009 12:15

Frankly, I was hoping for a comment like yours. You see, I am not an acoustician. Only a designer with an interest in Studio design. However, thats not to say I'm not involved in Pro studio projects. Could you elaborate on your view of this area? I actually was interested in a window. Hence my questions in that regard. Resolving the equilateral triangle/38% conundrum was my purpose in starting this thread, although the G1 issue started it. Anyway, thank you for your reply. fitZ

The equilateral triangle is important. Just like I said earlier too, the tilt angle in the speakers should not be of more than 5

[Thomas Jouanjean]

Thx for the link Mika...

Constantin wrote on Sun, 06 September 2009 12:52

Looks like this is the project you asking for:  http://www.johnlsayers.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=13 505&start=0 With the above linked thread we can have a look at the whole picture of your plans. cheers Constantin

[tetrahedron]

Hello  Mr. Jouanjean. Thank you for the information. I appreciate sharing your insight.

One other thing for now. I noticed your "partner" below the link to your site. I'm curious why many pro studio designers also own or "partner" with a speaker company? Not to suggest any impropriety, but isn't that somewhat of a "conflict of interest"?
Or is it that your control room designs rely on in house testing of these products and use proprietary understanding of their performance for integration within the overall design strategy? Like I said, I'm just trying to gain an insight into the sphere of pro studio design. Thanks again.
fitZ

[Thomas Jouanjean]

tetrahedron wrote on Mon, 07 September 2009 11:22

I noticed your "partner" below the link to your site. I'm curious why many pro studio designers also own or "partner" with a speaker company? Not to suggest any impropriety, but isn't that somewhat of a "conflict of interest"?

It's not a conflict of interest at all. It's a Synergy really!

AFAIC, both FOCAL and ATC provide me with speakers that I feel are the best around. Period. Of course, it is also a question of taste, and therefore I remain flexible with my clients. But if you ask me "what do you recommend", you'll hear those 2 names.

These are companies with tons of knowledge, decades of experience and with whom I can safely share a lot of information knowing it is safe.

For example with ATC, when it comes to mains systems I systematically work hand in hand direct with their engineers/designers. ATC can offer me something every designer dies for: high standard custom solutions on a per-project basis. FOCAL has the same kind of mentality. They just won't be satisfied with "good enough". Did you know that they produce everything in-house for example? Not a single part is outsourced. They even developped their own machines to produce their own parts. They both own hundreds of patents.

What amazing partnerships! So many possibilities! And with both these manufacturers, you just know that what you get is top-of-the-notch technology.

I put them in my signature because I want to make sure it is transparent that I work with them...

[franman]

Fitz,

The specifics that you request information about (several posts ago) relating to front wall design, distances, location of focus point, etc.. these (as Thomas has mentioned) are all design specific and vary from room to room and (more) from designer to designer. This front wall design IS one of the few things we do that I feel is quite proprietary. These also vary depending on monitor choice, size of room, console and other design 'goals' for each project.

Having said all that, most of the basic principles have been discussed in this forum before including: very rigid front wall, decoupling for monitors (my preference) and equilateral triangle placement as a 'rule'. I don't necessarily agree with Thomas on the 5% max tilt for flush installations.. but this is just one example of how things vary from designer to designer....

The 38% rule you refer to is really not applicable in flush mounted installations and you will find most if not all flush mounted control room installations have the listening position in the front third of the room. Avoid the mid point!! you are going to be in the middle of the room (side to side) as this is good symmetrical design practice, but avoid the front to rear mid point as well as the height mid point as you will surely have a good amount of LF anomalies at these room center lines.

The acoustic center on the Griffin G1 is the middle of the tweeter. The monitors are intended to be installed with the mid range drivers and the tweeter in a vertical line (see any of the photos on our website) as you show in your latest set of pictures. Yes, we break this rule for Center speakers in a 5.1 installation as there is no better solution other than possibly a very large Center speaker with two 18" woofers (which of course we would be happy to build for you!!).

Finally, with regards to designers and partnerships with speaker manufacturers, this is something that has just naturally evolved with my company. FM Design will work with clients who prefer other monitors and we often design studios with other main monitors. However, I have found that once I get a customer over to one of our studios with large Griffins installed they typically sell themselves. Griffin is a company that was begun as a response to what we believed was a lack of super high quality studio main monitors, and the belief that we could build something 'better'. Of course, this is very subjective, but my partner and I believe we have achieved this goal. We also have the ability to provide custom solutions for multi-channel systems, subwoofer configurations, etc. because we are the manufacturer.

I invite you to contact me via email (my original suggestion) to discuss matters of business and specific answers to your questions regarding installation of our monitors for your client. Designing a control room for large flush mounted in wall monitors is not a simple task, assuming you want to get it right and have it sound great when complete. If this is something you have not successfully done at least a few times before, then I might suggest you consider recruiting the services of an experiences studio design firm to assist. When a customer is going to spend a pile of money on equipment, and construction this is a huge responsibility. That is of course, a entire other subject.

In the continuing spirit of this forum, we will always try to answer general questions and specific ones when possible. Thomas and I have agreed that there is a line, that we really cannot cross when the questions become too project specific. I'm sure everybody understands that this is how we make a living. ... Anyway, nice pictures you've posted!!

FM

[franman]

[quote title=tetrahedron wrote on Sun, 06 September 2009 01:43]

Quote:

And finally, at least for this post, the issue of the width of the wall between soffits and how other designers assign the Target point distance from the front wall, still keep an equilateral triangle, and get enough width for a WINDOW?  At least when the 38% paradigm  is used, in order to have a wall wide enough to insert a window, the room length must be HUGE! which expands the triangle, which makes the room wider, which THEN allows for a Window. However, I see control rooms all the time with windows and soffits, but the engineering position is so far forward, an equilateral triangle would be impossible. Whats your take on this stuff? Anyway, thanks for any insight. I'll be back with a few more questions later.

Try putting the tweeter/midrange on the center side. (not on the outside).. This will help keep the room size, and focus position under control... I typically end up with this configuration (woofers on the outside) althought it's not required...

FM

[tetrahedron]

Hello again gentleman. Thank you again for addressing my questions. Sharing your insight is really appreciated.

As usual though, I'm left with the distinct feeling that my search for the roots of solid Recording Studio design foundations are in vain. If reviewing many subject related forums in the past and present is any indication, it appears that personal preferences, opinions, design philosophys, and other subjective values determine the larger percentage of overall project design than an actual coherent design strategy based on criteria established by a set of Industry set standards that define the performance any control room design MUST meet. Afterall, one only has to look at different completed studios which suggest this may be true.

For example. Let me ask this last question.

 Is there a TEST, given by some accredited authority, or accepted by the industry, that once administered by said authority, CERTIFIES that any given control room design meets a threshold set of criteria established by said authority? And if there is indeed a test, do you, as a designer, use this testing criteria as a source of parameters which you seek to satisfy?

I understand there ARE standards, however it appears there is nothing(that I know of) that certifies any given design meets them, or even has to.

And from my understanding(Master Handbook of Acoustics), at one time there was a company called Syn-Aud-Con that did this very thing. Although, also from my understanding, this was a short lived endeavor. Why I don't know. Except maybe for statements made by some well known studio design community members regarding QRD's...like "they don't work and I've seen MILES of them torn out"...and other point blank opinions regarding MANY aspects of control room design, which I mentioned in my first post. In fact, in reply to one of my earlier Studio design knowledge seeking questions regarding "diffusion"..I was actually told by a well known Acoustician, that he could hardly believe that the afore mentioned book was actually a book on acoustics. Go figure.


However, since I am not a member of the Pro Studio design community, and have never had the time or resources to pursue this as a career, I haven't kept abreast of the current state of what QUALIFIES a control room design, other than maybe the reputation of the designers, the owners ears, or a music industry award for sales of a recording. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I'm just trying to understand exactly, what  the overriding factors are that justify ACOUSTICAL decisions in control room design...that ALL studio designers agree on.

Anyway, thank you again.

[Thomas Jouanjean]

There are standards, well "benchmarks" is a more adequate word, when it comes to studio design.

When I design, I give a legal guarantee of results. Which can be quantified and measured of course. In the preliminary stages of the design, I will discuss with the client these different benchmarks with regards to the building constraints, and also put these benchmarks in perspective with the available budget. We then agree on numbers.

Like for example level of soundproofing, response at sweet spot (like +/- XY dB) Reverb Time, overall maximum variation in dB in the room, room saturation threshold and so on.

What varies is HOW you achieve such numbers. A good studio is a good COMPROMISE. This paradigm is very important. Each Designer has it's own approach to design and therefore different solutions or slightly different solutions to a problem. It can indeed be a question of taste, and actually often is.

Two rooms can have the same response on a RTA and similar RT and yet 'feel' completely different. A good designer can actually meet the decided benchmarks and will also make his best effort to understand what the client is looking for "taste" wise and offer him that.

Studio Design is as much about hard maths and physics as it is an art... It isn't just a series of models and equations. Numbers, although a big part of it, are not the only variable in Design. There is a definite human variable.

[franman]

Thomas Jouanjean wrote on Thu, 10 September 2009 16:20

There are standards, well "benchmarks" is a more adequate word, when it comes to studio design. When I design, I give a legal guarantee of results. Which can be quantified and measured of course. In the preliminary stages of the design, I will discuss with the client these different benchmarks with regards to the building constraints, and also put these benchmarks in perspective with the available budget. We then agree on numbers. Like for example level of soundproofing, response at sweet spot (like +/- XY dB) Reverb Time, overall maximum variation in dB in the room, room saturation threshold and so on. What varies is HOW you achieve such numbers. A good studio is a good COMPROMISE. This paradigm is very important. Each Designer has it's own approach to design and therefore different solutions or slightly different solutions to a problem. It can indeed be a question of taste, and actually often is. Two rooms can have the same response on a RTA and similar RT and yet 'feel' completely different. A good designer can actually meet the decided benchmarks and will also make his best effort to understand what the client is looking for "taste" wise and offer him that. Studio Design is as much about hard maths and physics as it is an art... It isn't just a series of models and equations. Numbers, although a big part of it, are not the only variable in Design. There is a definite human variable.

As usual, Thomas has put this very well. Fitz, if trying to find a set of RULES for control room design, you won't find them. There are factors that can be measured and quantified, but as Thomas and many others have pointed out, our ears can define much that is difficult to quantify with measurements. I would like to think that we are working at a level that is beyond some nebulous "Industry Standard" and trying to achieve a higher result than just, flat response and even decay time above 100Hz.... having said that, there are plenty of very successful and popular rooms that I have worked in, visited or possibly even designed, that do NOT measure 'flat' in the typical vision of what this means. They do however, sound really musical and produce consistent results that translate very well. This is the key IMHO for control rooms and playback environments: that they translate consistently to other pro and non-pro environments (like your car, the club, your daughters boom box, etc...). You can calculate, measure and design for a target sound isolation specification without too much difficulty. Trying to quantify what makes some the critical listening rooms we've done sound so much better than other rooms that the same mastering engineers have worked in for years is really difficult.... but, when one of the worlds top known mastering engineer calls me after his first week working in a brand new room and tells me he's nailed his first three projects with zero call backs, and that this never happens... this is the best compliment we can possibly get.

I am absolutely NOT trying to make this into any black art, or voodoo. I DO NOT subscribe to this approach taken by some designers. For me, it's years of experience working in and on studios, listening to hundreds of rooms and speaker/amp combinations and taking all this experience and applying it to my customers' needs on a PER PROJECT BASIS. EVERY PROJECT IS DIFFERENT. Otherwise, we could design three control rooms (small, medium and large for example) and just use them over and over on projects. We DO NOT do this either. Every customer and every project gets a fresh evaluation and a solution based on the unique requirements. Do we do the same things in many aspects of the design the same in various projects??? Or course. If it works (over and over again), don't break it!

As Thomas said, the integration of a great acoustic design solution with the aesthetic and ergonomic needs of the clients particular project are what make the art part of what we do. It's not just math and numbers, although understanding the science and having experience applying it are absolute requirements...

So... you can't just read the Master Handbook (A Great Book, BTW and I highly recommend) and make some drawings after calculating Modal response, SBIR, Reflection control, etc.. (although this is all the stuff we do when we start a new design)... you need to be able to see and hear into what you're designing based on experience... THIS is why we get paid to do what we do. This is what we cannot impart to others on this or other forums.. It's the experience and the intangible creative solutions applied to each project that make our projects (hopefully) a success. When potential customers ask me if we can work on a new room with a design architect and just "do the acoustics", typically I will pass. Many people just don't get it that everything from room size, geometry, finish selection, placement of speakers and other equipment, air conditioning solutions, electrical installation... EVERYTHING is what makes a great design! and it is an ongoing study in COMPROMISE... every time. I sometimes describe my job as an never stopping exercise in artistic and scientific compromise...

OK.. getting off my soap box now.. Whew. Sorry if I rant now and then... thanks for listening.

[Greg Reierson]

It's interesting to hear acousticians having similar discussion to the ones mastering engineers (and lawyers) have been having for years. You can DIY, but you'll get what you pay for.


GR

[tetrahedron]

Quote:

OK.. getting off my soap box now.. Whew. Sorry if I rant now and then... thanks for listening.

Mr Manzella, It is I who thanks you and Mr. Jouanjean for sharing your valuable insights with me.  If I understand you correctly though, the only thing that "qualifies" your final design are the owners trust and approval(and check:), but you will perform field tests if the owner desires them.  Interesting.   I can only assume the design specifications must include the acoustical/TL targets as agreed upon.  I think these technical specs are really what I don't understand. But I do understand this is where your experience and judgement prevail, and no one can illustrate this on a forum.

Mr. Manzella, I also assume, that you had to start somewhere, with NO experience, and you must have made mistakes along the way that you learned from.  After all, no one starts out with a full book of experience. But I'm left wondering what initially gave you credibility as a studio designer? Did you work for another design firm, or did your career evolve from some kind of education?

Since I'm not aware of any specialized STUDIO DESIGN education curriculum(outside of Acoustical/Architectural education) I would guess that it took a long time by experience alone had you no specialized education. Possession of a degree in Acoustics doesn't mean you are a competent designer. Nor does an Architectural/Interior design degree make you an acoustician or Studio savy.   Hence I understand your remark about "passing" on accepting "acoustical consulting" vs complete artistic/technical control of your projects.   From my own experience, I've seen "credentialed" professionals in the design/construction world who didn't have a clue to certain aspects of Studio Design and others. Not that I posses professional "credentials" myself.  However, I've been interested in Studio design for a long time so DO understand most aspects to some extent.  My professional weakness is in the Acoustical science arena, if not electronic theory. Mostly, I'm just a Pro Detailer with an interest in Studios, which evolved from my past as a musician. Thats not to say I'm not familiar with many other aspects.

Anyway, again, thank you for sharing.
fitZ

[tetrahedron]

Oh, btw, the "client" I referred to, and I, recently surveyed a potential site/building for his proposed Studio project. Unfortunately, I live in a small city on the West Coast of the USA where he wanted to build said project, which is a Port, and as such, most of the downtown has evolved over time on a highway adjacent to the port. Most of this area is a LANDFILL, with the major hiway, which is split for the length of the city so each traffic direction occupies a street seperated by a block wide swath of buildings the length of the city. Also, because this cities main industry is Lumber mills, these streets are used by a continuous stream of Logging trucks.

Not to mention, the building is BETWEEN these two streets.  GAK!!!

My client was unaware of these potential TL disasters, (not to mention he wanted to put the studio on a SECOND FLOOR!!). He also invited a local Building Inspection official to give us his insight and opinions on this particular building and its potential Code implications. Holy moly. Because this landfill area is a FLOOD PLAIN , any investment into building improvements that are 50% of the market value of the building, places the jurisdiction of the CODES under Federal Law, as FEMA(Federal Emergency Management Authority) has jurisdiction over Flood Plains anywhere in the USA. Frankly, I'm glad this happened as my client had already made an offer on the building before contacting me. Talk about...WHEW!!!

 What we were told is...basically, the whole first floor would have to be raised 24", as this building is over a hundred years old. YIKES!!  Needless to say(this would cost more than building from the ground up as the building is a block deep and 60 wide with 3 floors)....my client now has decided to seek another building, and or property to build from the ground up(still a shakey proposition downtown). So, for the moment this project is in limbo.   . However, should the time come to focus our attention on equipment, I've let my client know your invitation to discuss your product with him and or I.  Till then, thank you again.
fitZ