Another ceiling question

Michael Jones · Post by **Michael Jones** » Sat Aug 02, 2003 8:52 am

Regarding the ceiling in my studio, I had thought of doing a coffered or stepped ceiling. Actually, it would be a reverse coffered ceiling. (Box like squares comming down, rather than going up into the ceiling.

I asked around at a few other BBS's, and no one seemed to want to recommend it. What I did get though was a recommendation from another studio designer (who shall remain nameless) to do an unusual ceiling design.

His idea was to have a ridgebeam run from front to back. it would be about 12' high at the front, and 8' high at the rear. Then, run rafters from the side walls to the ridge beam.
(Still with me?)

The oddity here is that the rear rafters would pitch down, ,then, as you move forward, at some point the rafters would be "level", and moving forward more, the rafters would take on a more "normal" pitch.

This would certianly eliminate any parallel-ism from floor to ceiling, but the control room ceiling would start high at the front, and slope down towards the back. That in itself seems to defy adhered to practices in control room design.

Could it be that the "inverted" pitch at the rear, and normal pitch at the front, provide such beneficial diffusion that those practices normally adhered to in CR design are irrelevant?

I have attached a model of the CR. I didn't model in all the rafters yet, but you can see the ridge beam, and get an idea of what I speak of.

knightfly · Post by **knightfly** » Sat Aug 02, 2003 9:14 am

Michael, I'm not saying that Rod is necessarily steering you wrong (small world, check the list of Mods at RO

) but I'd have to think long and hard before building a ceiling like that for a CR - it seems to me that you would totally destroy any RFZ you might have had by reversing the ceiling slope, even with the variable pitch rafters.

I know how difficult it is to ray trace in 3d (I don't have the capability myself) but intuitively it just seems like you could get into trouble, especially if using both soffited mains and nearfields. I would think that one or the other, possibly both, could end up almost at a "parabolic" mode with the ceiling.

Rod has 'way more practical experience than I do, even though I've caught other recommendations I disagree with, but it's your studio and you're the one that has to live with it. At the very least, I'd get some c-clamps and 2x4's and do a "simulation" - masking tape where the console goes, duct tape "windows" where the soffits go, 2x's clamped where the "barrel roll" ceiling would be, and a little "polish ray-tracing" would be the LEAST I'd want to do before committing to something that different.

Bottom line is obviously up to you, but I'd be VERY careful here... Steve

Michael Jones · Post by **Michael Jones** » Sat Aug 02, 2003 9:24 am

Yeah. I hear ya!
I'm not convinced on building it like that; talk about a big wooden pretzel!
His idea sounds plausable to me for a recording room, but I'd like some thoughts from others before committing to something this.... unusual... for a control room.

I still think a coffered (or reversed coffered) ceiling, following the walls would be both dramatic and acoustically sound.
But, you know.... 2 years ago I didn't understand the room within a room principle either.

So what do I know?

Post by **John Sayers** » Sat Aug 02, 2003 9:26 am

yeah - I agree with Steve, Michael;) What's wrong with a straight pitched roof with the high spot across the middle of the room sloping down to the front and rear??

cheers
john

Michael Jones · Post by **Michael Jones** » Sat Aug 02, 2003 10:26 am

Nothing's wrong with that John, but doing that, there'll be an interference at the control room left wall, and the inside vaulted roof trusses.

What's wrong with doing the reversed coffered ceiling, and making the coffers bass traps and helmholtz resonators?

Michael Jones · Post by **Michael Jones** » Sat Aug 02, 2003 11:06 am

OK.
This is a stepped ceiling. (attached)

Imagine that so that the "steps" come down instead of going up as depicted.
The first "bench" could be an absorptive bass trap. the second "bench" could be a helmholtz resonator.

Think that would work?

knightfly · Post by **knightfly** » Sun Aug 03, 2003 12:35 am

Michael, I don't think it would work, even though it would look cool - even if "terraced" the other way, so that it presents a "convex" profile, you would still have those flat terraces reflecting right back into the mix position. Not a good idea from my viewpoint... Steve

Post by **John Sayers** » Sun Aug 03, 2003 11:11 am

Not a good idea from my viewpoint... Steve

or mine michael

cheers
john

Michael Jones · Post by **Michael Jones** » Mon Aug 04, 2003 2:41 am

OK.
Scratch that idea.
Time to go out there and play around with some boards I guess....
I suppose I could cantilever out the sides a bit then have it rise to the rear.