R/E/P Community

R/E/P => R/E/P Archives => Brad Blackwood => Topic started by: Oldfart on April 07, 2005, 06:01:22 AM

Title: Room dimensions (again)
Post by: Oldfart on April 07, 2005, 06:01:22 AM

After dealing with my smallish room for nearly 2 years now (12.5 by 10.5, by 7.5), the hunt for a home with a "proper" size room is on.

Research (here there and everywhere) tell me that the "golden" ratio is 1x1.6x2.3.

Well I've just found a house with an attached garage, converted into a family room. Other then a coat closet in a corner at the entrance, and another utility closet in the opposite corner (both rear corners), it's a rectangular, all pine finished room with a dimension of 28 long by 18 wide by 11 high.

This is giving me a 1x 1.64x 2.55 room ratio.

You can just imagine how hellish my present was to treat acoustically (155 sq ft of resonators, etc).

Am I right in assuming it will be much easier to achieve a decent acoustic, in this possibly new room?

Thank you in advance for your replies,

Oldfart

Title: Re: Room dimensions (again)
Post by: bblackwood on April 07, 2005, 08:01:39 AM

Yes, it will be much easier to treat the new room.

All rooms have resonances and peaks. the reason small rooms sound worse is that those res/peaks are higher int he audible range (and generally closer together, compounding the issue). The larger rooms fundamental peaks will be lower, the dimensions dictate how evenly spread the resonances will be from one another.

To really 'see' how the room will work fundamentally, there are some equations you can do (some online java calculators as well) that tell you the mode for each dimension, which you can then map out. FWIW, the ratios are the easy way to get there, the hard way 9though i think the best) is to literally map out each room mode for the most even spacing across frequency. far more time consuming, but it will give you an accurate 'picture' of your problem areas.

You can make a room with those dimensions sound amazing. I'd give George Augspurger a call and discuss what you are trying to do with him - he's extremely reasonable (dare I say cheap?) and is easily one of the best/most experienced designers ever...

Title: Re: Room dimensions (again)
Post by: Ruairi O'Flaherty on April 07, 2005, 10:28:37 AM

Brad,

does George have a website? I've googled endlessly but have not come up with anything. If not could you possibly post or PM me his contact details. I am thinking of putting together a small mastering suite (not a small room, small gear) in the next year and could do with some professional diection and advice,

cheers,
Ruairi

Title: Re: Room dimensions (again)
Post by: bblackwood on April 07, 2005, 10:33:56 AM

No website, but here is his company info:

George Augspurger
Perception Inc
1537 Cerro Gordo St
Los Angeles, CA 90026-2070
Phone: (323) 660-9351

Title: Re: Room dimensions (again)
Post by: Jerry Tubb on April 07, 2005, 10:44:29 AM

Just to put my 2 cents in... per Alton Everest's book, another great Loudon ratio is
1:1.4:1.9, which is how I had our new room built... approx 12x17x23 which is a much more practical size than the other mentioned ratio. In a recent conversation with Mr. Ludwig, he admitted that his room was also based on that ratio, but with the length being 30'... I didn't have quite that much space!

1 : 1.4 : 1.9

Title: Re: Room dimensions (again)
Post by: Ruairi O'Flaherty on April 07, 2005, 11:11:19 AM

Thanks Brad, I'll get in touch,

cheers,
Ruairi

Title: Re: Room dimensions (again)
Post by: jfrigo on April 07, 2005, 11:48:59 AM

Oldfart wrote on Thu, 07 April 2005 03:01

Those are good raw dimensions in which to build a room. The finished space after you figure in some trapping and isolation can be made to fit one of several favorable ratios. There's plenty of space to fit the trapping, do a little bit of helpful room geometry, and create an ergonimc workflow. You've got the raw space to make a good room. Now it just depends on what you do with it.

Title: Re: Room dimensions (again)
Post by: jimmyjazz on April 07, 2005, 12:00:28 PM

Any thoughts on whether it's better to mix/master facing a "long" side or a "short" side? One gives you shorter sidewall reflections & longer backwall reflections, and the other gives just the opposite. (Both can be controlled to some degree by absorption & diffusion, and both are to some degree swamped by the shorter ceiling reflections, but I digress.)

Title: Re: Room dimensions (again)
Post by: jfrigo on April 07, 2005, 11:53:44 PM

jimmyjazz wrote on Thu, 07 April 2005 09:00

I'm a firm believer in facing a short wall - i.e. room deeper than wide. I also believe in using room geometry to advantage, utilising controlled reflection (or perhaps one might say deflection) along with the trapping, absorption, and diffusion. The ceiling is not exempt just because it is above you. You can and should apply the same principles of absorption, reflection, trapping, and possibly diffusion as well.

Edit: I should make quick mention that with proper design and treatment, the other orientation can certainly work, and some control rooms like this sound good. Also, I've seen John Dunlavy suggest this for consumer setups using his speakers (though in a well-designed room, I wouldn't). Still, the deep orientation is preferable, especially for a mastering room where certain concerns of long consoles, studio glass, and other ergonomic issues with multitrack control rooms are not at issue.

Title: Re: Room dimensions (again)
Post by: jimmyjazz on April 08, 2005, 09:03:42 AM

jfrigo wrote on Thu, 07 April 2005 23:53

I'm a firm believer in facing a short wall - i.e. room deeper than wide.

Can you elaborate? Is this mostly based on anecdotal evidence, or are there compelling acoustic issues you can speak to? I'm not doubting you . . . I'd just love to hear your thoughts on the matter.

Title: Re: Room dimensions (again)
Post by: Ed Littman on April 08, 2005, 06:41:38 PM

This is George's floor plan for me. It was an over sized garage. Just got the three layers of 5/8 dry wall up this week.
more photos to come.
Ed