|
|
Post by demircan on Jan 23, 2020 18:05:53 GMT
Hi everybody. I am very happy to discover this forum (and this topic in particular), lots of wonderful and interesting information here. I am lucky enough to move to a new house, which already has a dedicated listening room. Though it is untreated and has poor equipment ,I love this because I can rebuild everything from scratch. Consider everything seen in the pictures will be gone, and I will have just four walls to begin with. The listening room is 6.10m (20 ft) by 5.25 m (17 ft) , height is 2.46 m (8 ft) which I think is not small at all. All walls are brick, floor and ceiling is cement. There is also another room adjacent to that, currently used for nothing , which is separated by a wall that can be removed. I can also abandon the door no 1. Doing this will give me one large room, 6.10m by 8.90 m (29 ft), in a regular rectangle shape. The downside is that a column will remain somewhere in the middle. (Pls see the pictures, excuse the mess). This can’t be removed, and I am afraid it may adversely effect acoustics. What I can do is build a second column, in total symmetry with the first one (alternative B in the plan picture) Here is what I would love to hear your opinions on: 1- Is it worth removing the wall and the door to get a larger room in terms of acoustics (assuming in both cases proper acoustic treatment will be applied) 2- If I enlarge the room, is it worth building a second column in order to keep symmetry, to help improve acoustics 3- If I build the second column, considering that my listening position will be fairly close, would it be better to fill the gap in-between and apply diffusion/absorption or to just leave it as it is? Oh, by the way, I am only into 2 channel, audio listening. No recording and/or mixing. Eagerly awaiting to hear expert and non expert views..    |
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Jan 23, 2020 21:24:36 GMT
Hi, demircan. Welcome. Glad you found us. Here's my semi-pro opinion:
EDIT: Ok. Had to delete entire post. I misread your info.
EDIT 2: Misunderstood again - DAMN IT! Regardless, the info below should be able to help you as a related example.
---
Turns out, the person who was there before might have known about 'golden ratios'. A bisected configuration, as in Alternative 1 has mathematical merit.
The ratios, from your dimensions of 8'h, 17'w, 20'l are:
1:2.125:2.5
There are two resources which state that this is very close to an ideal:
Louden C: 1:1.5:2.5, if your room was 12' wide.
Salford Acoustics: 1:2.13:2.9, if your room was 23.2' long.
The later is most reasonable since you already have a wall there. Since it can be removed, then I assume it can be moved back. The trick is that it must be sufficiently dense to act as a boundary so a fabric wall or similar won't count.
If you go with that layout, your room's volume will be 3155.2ft3 or 89.35m3 - within the range for that ratio to work. Usually 10' ceilings are considered minimal but, in this case, I found that increasing your ceiling height wouldn't help you attain a more ideal distribution.
There you go. Maintain symmetry and you should be, ahem, golden.
|
|
|
|
Post by rock on Jan 24, 2020 15:22:59 GMT
I'm just throwing this out mostly as questions so just chew on this and maybe/hopefully others here can answer with some authority: I don't know if there is "one" best answer for room dimensions. I wonder, if we all could choose our "ideal" room dimensions, would we all come up with the same thing? Add to that, the fact that here, we are limited by the 8' ceiling, we're already at some disadvantage. Avoiding room modes that coincide is one basic objective but will a larger room size that lowers the modal frequency(ies) so it's below the band of most program material be an advantage of any significance? Here's a tool amcoustics.com/tools/amroc?l=29&w=20&h=8&ft=true&r60=0.6https://amcoustics.com/tools/amroc?l=29&w=20&h=8&ft=true&r60=0.6 You can use this to calculate and visualize room modes and other data. You'll see I entered the your max room size of 29x20x8 but you can of course enter any dims you want. Not to minimize the idea of selecting the "best" ratio, but another idea is that room treatment will need to compensate for some modal problems in any case. Having well distributed modes though may/should allow treatment to be more effective and uniform, but treatment will be required. I think I can answer your question about the post or column. To quote or paraphrase Ethan: "small things don't matter (much)" A post in the middle of the room is a visual and physical annoyance but will reflect only some small amount of HF and most LF will just go around it. If you like, you can cover it with treatment to make it acoustically "invisible" but I don't think building another post for symmetry will help acoustically, but on the other hand, it shouldn't hurt much either if you'd like to do it for visual effect. My 2 cents. Cheers |
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Jan 25, 2020 0:26:46 GMT
Well, all I can say is that I definitely got confused with these dimensions. Regarding AMROC, the Bonello graph should be 'strictly ascending'. You can see that the dimensions rock put in are not whereas the 'golden ratio' that I posted does. Even the line graph looks more even. There is mathematical basis for 'golden ratios' when it comes to acoustics - it's not BS. After all, aren't we all on the same page with cube rooms? In any case, I don't know how OP wants to lay out his room. That .xls I posted has dozens of potential ratios to choose from. Also, in my golden ratios video, I show some other widely-known ones. If you want the best acoustics, you need to touch on every point. I'm under the impression that demircan has the ability to modify his room's dimensions. Demircan, if you can, and want the most even bass, then you should; I would.
|
|
|
|
Post by rock on Jan 25, 2020 0:50:22 GMT
Sorry Hex if you are under the impression that I'm suggesting 8x20x29. I just plugged it in because that is the largest his room can be and I wanted to see what amroc did with it. I see a ratio in the excel file that's 1:2.46:3.3. What do you think of that one. I don't know but it's the ratio that can use the largest area/volume the OP has available; 8' x 19.68' x 26.4'.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Jan 25, 2020 20:43:14 GMT
Ya, I don't know. I'm under the impression that if you don't have sufficient volume, and the exact ratios, then you simply don't have a 'golden ratio' space. Close may count but then it's all just relative as to how close is 'good enough' like any other space. But, agreed, every space needs absorption regardless of ratios or volume.
I think demircan, at this point, has enough material to sort through to determine on his own how he'd like to proceed.
|
|
|
|
Post by demircan on Jan 26, 2020 20:32:47 GMT
Thank you Hexspa and Rock, this was certainly helpful. Considering all things, and after reading Hexspa's threads OOO, along with many others, I think I will opt for the largest room. Main reasons being:
- Room treatment is at least as important as the ratios, as emphasized in so many articles and posts,
- It will be easier to get the listening position at 38%,
- Moving the wall to 23.2 ft mark, will leave me with a very narrow and long non-functional room (5.3 ft by 20 ft) alongside the listening room which is not desirable.
I will not be able to inform you about the outcome in a short time unfortunately, because it will take 8-10 weeks before I move in and start any construction.
Thanks again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Jan 27, 2020 3:53:58 GMT
Glad we can help. Treatment and dimensions are roughly of equal importance but, I'm sure you understand, different nonetheless.
Keep in mind that I mistook your measurements so, even if you move the rear wall to 23.2', you probably wouldn't have 'golden ratios' anyway. That's in addition to the fact that, generally, such rooms have a minimum ceiling height of 10' - as rock stated.
Take your time. I spend about 3 months on this room - in an apartment, much less a house - and I already had some experience. Expect to improve as you go and overcome obstacles and surprises.
Let us know how it progresses!
|
|
