Construction work in progress, what about the floor ?

How thick should my walls be, should I float my floors (and if so, how), why is two leaf mass-air-mass design important, etc.

Moderators: Aaronw, sharward

Ivo
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 2:54 am
Location: Czech Republic
Contact:

Construction work in progress, what about the floor ?

Post by Ivo »

The works on my new small studio have begun (see also http://www.johnlsayers.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=3896)

I am attaching the construction scheme.

I am still meditating about the floor surface..What would be acoustically the best surface ? (good for listening and recording). Polished wooden floating floor ? Or just more rough simple wood ? Or wooden parquet ? Or a carpet will be needed anyway ?

Thanks for an advice,

Ivo



Image
Image
Image
knightfly
Senior Member
Posts: 6976
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2003 11:11 am
Location: West Coast, USA

Post by knightfly »

Ivo, I also belong to the Studiotips group and was following your thread there;

http://forum.studiotips.com/viewtopic.php?t=1773

I think you've gotten good advice from both places. In addition to Pauls comments about multiple leaves, he missed yet another leaf in your proposed construction - the fact that your outer walls are HOLLOW block, means that this wall by itself is ALREADY a 2-leaf wall - the definition of a leaf in wall construction theory is "all mass that is not separated by air or open-celled material" - so the hollow parts of your outer block wall count as an air space, making the blocks a 2-leaf wall.

Every time you add an air space between two solids, you create a mass-air-mass system that will have a specific resonant frequency, dependent on each mass and the air depth; if the system isn't sealed around the edges, this will change the resonant frequency by softening the air "spring" a bit, but it will NOT eliminate the resonance.

Each resonant system will be weakest in isolation (TL) at its resonant frequency - and the more mass and wider the air gap, the lower the resonant frequency. In order for you to not be bothered by low frequency sounds like traffic, tractors, airplanes, etc, your entire "containment structure" needs to have a resonant frequency that is at least 1.4 octaves BELOW the lowest frequency your mics can pick up - so with the level of equipment quality you mention in your Studiotips thread, you will be capable of recording the lowest audio frequency humans can hear (20 hZ) - if you were to maintain all audio information that's available from your Shoeps (but NOT any outside interference) then this would mean having a resonant frequency of your outer shell that is below 7-8 hZ -

Realistically, this isn't cost effective in most cases - Paul Woodlock has decided this is necessary to his project, primarily from a sheer VOLUME position (he wants to cause his ear drums to trade places inside, while "woman" sleeps undisturbed nearby :=))

For your example, it sounds like you (for the most part) won't need to retain much audio information below maybe 80 hZ (except for some ethnic percussion "toys" - I've played 18" Djembe's that get pretty insistent below that...) anyway, options might be for you to use a low cut filter on most tracks with little or no loss of useful info - if so, then your structure may only need to have a resonance of around 20-30 hZ, which is less difficult (but still not EASY) to accomplish.

I agree that your "compression room" isn't a good plan; a trapezoid would sound better and be easier to find sweet spots for recording different instruments.

As to splayed walls - John has found that it takes at least 6 degrees of wall splay per side in a room to eliminate flutter; same with ceilings. The upside of splaying, especially in your situation, is that you don't have to completely deaden the room to kill the flutter - this gives you the option of deciding YOUR preference in reverb level within the room, so you can tune it for a more live feel without having to compromise because of flutter control.

A 6 degree splay is accomplished by using a 1:10 slope, so for every 10 units of wall length it should be "out of parallel" by 1 unit. This would mean that a 5 meter long wall should be offset at one end by half a meter. Likewise for the other opposing wall, since EACH wall needs to be 6 degrees.

I also agree that splaying won't get rid of modes or standing waves - it just makes them more difficult to predict. And Paul is right, 6 degrees (or even 12) won't solve reflection problems. Easier to use spot treatments for that in most cases.

To your original floor question - there are only subtle differences in sound between various smooth materials, as long as they are all backed by the same mass - polished cork is one option a few people have used and liked, I've not heard this so can't comment firsthand. Others have simply sealed, polished and stained existing concrete - I've seen some really beautiful floors done this way.

Unless you have serious low frequency rumble coming into the room, I'd normally NOT float the floor; however, in your case you may want a bit more low frequency resonance (rooms for classical music seem to sound better this way) - still, even in this case a wooden floated floor would need to be damped by a complete insulation fill between the support joists. There are numerous threads both here and at Studiotips discussing the pro's and con's of this, you should definitely do more research before deciding. The good news is, you can put in a floated floor AFTER all else is done so if you were to NOT float, and later decided you wanted more low frequency ambience, you could still do it.

One thing to remember - sound PROOF and sound GOOD are often at odds with each other - usually, when accomplishing one the other suffers.

The only way I know of to get BOTH - first, OVER-DO your sound proofing - make all aspects of your "containment shell" even MORE massive than you would normally need to, by maybe 6-10 dB (especially at lower frequencies) - this, because most acoustic treatments you use inside will, in one way or another, WORSEN the isolation.

Example - if you want a more live sound for acoustic instruments, then using soft absorbents to broadband trap the entire room is NOT the way to go - I think you would get better results by having an inner, splayed, lighter wall (with insulation behind) that will act as a panel trap AND flutter control - this would trap quite a bit of the bass that masonry walls normally contain within the room WITHOUT deadening the highs at all.

In the above case, that "trap wall" WILL act as a third leaf, it WILL reduce your isolation below midrange frequencies, BUT - if you've ALREADY OVER-designed your CONTAINMENT structure, the loss in performance won't put you into trouble because you've DESIGNED around the problem with your heavier outer walls.

This way, you can (once the hard surfaces of the room are done) tune the reverb time with other treatments so that YOU are happy with the sound, and at the same time you'll have enough isolation not to worry about your sound treatments INSIDE causing you to record what's OUTSIDE.

I'm out of time for now, hope this helps... Steve
Soooo, when a Musician dies, do they hear the white noise at the end of the tunnel??!? Hmmmm...
Paul Woodlock
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 1:36 pm
Location: Peterborough UK

Post by Paul Woodlock »

knightfly wrote:Ivo, I also belong to the Studiotips group and was following your thread there;

http://forum.studiotips.com/viewtopic.php?t=1773

I think you've gotten good advice from both places. In addition to Pauls comments about multiple leaves, he missed yet another leaf in your proposed construction - the fact that your outer walls are HOLLOW block, means that this wall by itself is ALREADY a 2-leaf wall - the definition of a leaf in wall construction theory is "all mass that is not separated by air or open-celled material" - so the hollow parts of your outer block wall count as an air space, making the blocks a 2-leaf wall.
........ Steve
Greetings Steve

I would respectfully beg to differ.

How can a hollow block ( Unless it was one LARGE BLOCK the size of the whole wall ) be considered as 2 leaves?

A wall made of hollow blocks is stiffly coupled by the sides of the block every few inches. Any resonance between the two sides of the hollow block will be probably in the kHz region. Which of course is already completely stopped for all intents and pruposes by the mass.

An open cell material that isnt' stiff, is of course another matter.

:)


Paul
Ivo
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 2:54 am
Location: Czech Republic
Contact:

Post by Ivo »

Hello Steve,

thank you very much for your generous, valuable and inspiring comments. Following them, may I still ask few very essential practical questions ?

1) Constructing the inner walls from 15cm massive bricks seems to be agreed by all the kind advisors (with 5 cm of rockwool attached toothe outer wall). Is it right ? Would this eliminate most of the outer sounds ? What is exactly meant by "sealing" it ?

2) Splaying the walls. Reaching the recommended 6 degrees angle by the inner walls would be nice, but it would steal almost 2 meters of my room width in the narrowest point, which is somehow not acceptable to me :cry:
Then three options remain. Which one would be the best?

a) keeping the walls simply paralel
b) splaying them just 3 degrees (it will take just 1 meter of the room width). Would it have any positive beneficial anti-flutter effect comparing to the paralel walls ?
c) what about "shark teeth" - i.e starting with splaying two /three times during the wall lengts ?

3) Treating the inner wall. The original plan is to put 1cm plasteboard surface on the inner walls (supported by the usual metal rods) with a bit of rockwoll in between this plasteboard andthe inner wall. Did I understand you well when you mentioned that if more lively sound is desired, this kind of full space soft treatment may not be the best way to go ? Would it act as soft absorbing surface even with the hard plasterboard on the top ? Or it should be OK ?
What did you exactly mean by
" an inner, splayed, lighter wall (with insulation behind) that will act as a panel trap AND flutter control - this would trap quite a bit of the bass that masonry walls normally contain within the room WITHOUT deadening the highs at all. " ?
Did you mean to build a third wall ?? I hope not :) What about if the walls are splayed just a bit (by 3 degrees) ?
What would be then an ideal way in this case - with the inner brick wall ready ?

Looking forward to your replies ...

BTW I did not mean exactly the "hollow bricks" of the outer walls . Just a kind of old fashioned big, grey light "dross" "bricks" (don´t know the exact English term)

What about this kind of splaying the walls which would make 6 degrees without stealing much room and without making the "compression" room ?

Image
Paul Woodlock
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 1:36 pm
Location: Peterborough UK

Post by Paul Woodlock »

Greetings Ivo.

Can I respectfully suggest you stick to ONE THREAD in ONE FORUM.

Trying to keep track of your posts to help you is tedious when there's two threads involved. Let alone two Forums.

Note to Steve: Especially as this forum seems to want me to log on eveytime I post. ( and yes I have checked the box :) )

Cheers :)

Paul
knightfly
Senior Member
Posts: 6976
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2003 11:11 am
Location: West Coast, USA

Post by knightfly »

I've responded at Studiotips - let's keep it there from now on. Paul, the logon thing may be cookie related - I know if you have them disabled it will ask you to log on... Steve

On the hollow block thing - not positive, but think I asked Eric about this a couple years ago; you could ask him, I'm pretty swamped with deadlines ATM... (although for this case it's moot, since Ivo's blocks aren't hollow :=)
Soooo, when a Musician dies, do they hear the white noise at the end of the tunnel??!? Hmmmm...
Paul Woodlock
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 1:36 pm
Location: Peterborough UK

Post by Paul Woodlock »

knightfly wrote:I've responded at Studiotips - let's keep it there from now on. Paul, the logon thing may be cookie related - I know if you have them disabled it will ask you to log on... Steve

On the hollow block thing - not positive, but think I asked Eric about this a couple years ago; you could ask him, I'm pretty swamped with deadlines ATM... (although for this case it's moot, since Ivo's blocks aren't hollow :=)
Greetings Steve

Yes I do have cookies enabled. All other forums work fine without constant log ons :)

Paul
Dan Fitzpatrick
Senior Member
Posts: 601
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2005 8:07 am
Location: Bay Area, California
Contact:

Post by Dan Fitzpatrick »

Paul, i had that problem too with the logon ... it turned out that my bookmark was the problem, for some reason the "logged on" url was slightly different than the origninal url i had bookmarked.

i just figured it out this weekend. the problem had been for about a month or so, something must have changed somewhere. i logged on and rebookmarked and that solved the problem. hope that solves it for you too.

dan
Paul Woodlock
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 1:36 pm
Location: Peterborough UK

Post by Paul Woodlock »

Dan Fitzpatrick wrote:Paul, i had that problem too with the logon ... it turned out that my bookmark was the problem, for some reason the "logged on" url was slightly different than the origninal url i had bookmarked.

i just figured it out this weekend. the problem had been for about a month or so, something must have changed somewhere. i logged on and rebookmarked and that solved the problem. hope that solves it for you too.

dan
Well Cool Dan - Cheers for that.


I had a similar, but rare, problem with Cubase.net some weeks ago. I foudn it was a multiple cookie problem. I deleted them all and started again and it worked. but didn't work for this Forum.

I shall change my bookmark forthwith. it HAS to be the problem :)

Cheers


Paul
sharward
Moderator
Posts: 4281
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 4:08 pm
Location: Sacramento, Northern California, USA
Contact:

Post by sharward »

If not, go into your cookies folder and search for all cookies that contain "johnlsayers" in the filename, then delete only those files. That will purge all of the cookies from this forum while leaving all others intact. Then when you arrive at the site again, you'll get a new, fresh, tasty, gooey-in-all-the-right-places cookie.
Paul Woodlock
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 1:36 pm
Location: Peterborough UK

Post by Paul Woodlock »

sharward wrote:If not, go into your cookies folder and search for all cookies that contain "johnlsayers" in the filename, then delete only those files. That will purge all of the cookies from this forum while leaving all others intact. Then when you arrive at the site again, you'll get a new, fresh, tasty, gooey-in-all-the-right-places cookie.
I've just deleted the cookies as the URL was the same whether logged in or not.

Let's see if it works. I did delete them before though, so maybe it won't. we'll see.

:)

Paul
Post Reply