Home audio room design

[Michael]

Would someone recommend a good resource (books, articles, etc.)on
designing a proper space for home audio. We're building a new house and
before the architect tries to tell me what the room for the stereo will
be, I thought I'd check with recording specialists and experts in the
field (that's you folks) on what you recommend would be the right way to go.

We want to design a space for the music from a two channel high-end
stereo system.

Thanks!

[HKC]

This site is absolutely marvelous but it´s a very complicated thing,
understanding the basics, so prepare yourself to spend some time getting
into the stuff.
http://www.johnlsayers.com/

[Don Pearce]

On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 17:32:47 GMT, Michael >
wrote:

>
>Would someone recommend a good resource (books, articles, etc.)on
>designing a proper space for home audio. We're building a new house and
>before the architect tries to tell me what the room for the stereo will
>be, I thought I'd check with recording specialists and experts in the
>field (that's you folks) on what you recommend would be the right way to go.
>
>We want to design a space for the music from a two channel high-end
>stereo system.
>
>Thanks!

First, the bigger the better - obviously within domestic limits. And
equally important, you need to avoid the possibility of standing
waves, which will mean there are regions of the room where certain
notes will be effectively absent. Standing waves occur whenever two
flat surfaces face each other, so avoid parallel walls, and if you can
have the ceiling sloping, do that too. There are after-market
treatments for such things that work tolerably well but are visually
intrusive. I presume you'd rather get the thing right in the building
so you don't need to resort to them.

Determining the reverberation characteristics is something you can
attend to later with soft furnishings and other decor. It is very
unlikely that your architect will make you a room that is already too
dead, and needs brightening.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Abemeister]

For basic acoustics, check out Aurelex at: http://www.auralex.com/

Home audio is not as critical as a recording studio. Bose systems will
satisfy your needs. Not to say they make the best but it is easy for
the average home owner and non-audiophile.



On Jan 25, 12:32 pm, Michael > wrote:
> Would someone recommend a good resource (books, articles, etc.)on
> designing a proper space for home audio. We're building a new house and
> before the architect tries to tell me what the room for the stereo will
> be, I thought I'd check with recording specialists and experts in the
> field (that's you folks) on what you recommend would be the right way to go.
>
> We want to design a space for the music from a two channel high-end
> stereo system.
>
> Thanks!

[Don Pearce]

On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 17:53:25 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

>On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 17:32:47 GMT, Michael >
>wrote:
>
>>
>>Would someone recommend a good resource (books, articles, etc.)on
>>designing a proper space for home audio. We're building a new house and
>>before the architect tries to tell me what the room for the stereo will
>>be, I thought I'd check with recording specialists and experts in the
>>field (that's you folks) on what you recommend would be the right way to go.
>>
>>We want to design a space for the music from a two channel high-end
>>stereo system.
>>
>>Thanks!
>
>First, the bigger the better - obviously within domestic limits. And
>equally important, you need to avoid the possibility of standing
>waves, which will mean there are regions of the room where certain
>notes will be effectively absent. Standing waves occur whenever two
>flat surfaces face each other, so avoid parallel walls, and if you can
>have the ceiling sloping, do that too. There are after-market
>treatments for such things that work tolerably well but are visually
>intrusive. I presume you'd rather get the thing right in the building
>so you don't need to resort to them.
>
>Determining the reverberation characteristics is something you can
>attend to later with soft furnishings and other decor. It is very
>unlikely that your architect will make you a room that is already too
>dead, and needs brightening.
>
>d

As I expected all the after-market fixes and kludges are starting to
appear in the thread. These have nothing to do with what you can get
an architect to do for you by way of designing a good room..

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Ethan Winer]

Michael,

> Would someone recommend a good resource (books, articles, etc.) on
designing a proper space for home audio. <

John Sayers' site already suggested is a good one, as is the Auralex site.
My company's site also has a lot of advice:

www.realtraps.com

My Acoustics FAQ is another solid reference:

www.ethanwiner.com/acoustics.html

--Ethan

[anahata]

HKC wrote:
> This site is absolutely marvelous but it´s a very complicated thing,
> understanding the basics, so prepare yourself to spend some time getting
> into the stuff.
> http://www.johnlsayers.com/

From that site:

"The top end of digital is extremely bright compared with analogue tape
due to the inherent distortion of frequencies above 7kHz created by
the slow sampling frequency of 44.1kHz which in reality produces close
to a square wave above 10kHz"

doesn't inspire me with confidence.

--
Anahata
-+- http://www.treewind.co.uk
Home: 01638 720444 Mob: 07976 263827

[Paul Stamler]

Go to the library and find books by F. Alton Everest. Not the Master
Handbook of Acoustics -- that's too big a mouthful for first bite -- but
some of his more beginner-oriented books. Use inter-library loan if
necessary.

Peace,
Paul

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 17:32:47 GMT, Michael >
wrote:

>We want to design a space for the music from a two channel high-end
>stereo system.

How much freedom of choice do you have? Lots of good suggestions
so far, and all pretty general, because no contraints were
included.

Non-rectangular rooms cost extra; high ceilings cost extra;
like that. OTOH, these good elements reduce costs in room
treatment. How big is the room to be? What other uses will
the room have, etc. ?

In general, given a rectangular room, dimensions should be
proportioned in irrational numbers. (The most irrational of
irrational numbers is about 1.618, the rough dimensions of
a credit card; connection...?) Side walls especially should
be very irregular in shape, lotsa books and music media in
irregular patterns works. The ceiling should be as high and
sometimes as dead as possible, but if really high, not dead.

Left-right symmetry is very important in smaller rooms, less
so in bigger. Don't put furniture, even a coffee table, between
yourself and the the speakers. Place the speakers *first*,
then everything else. You probably know all this stuff
already.

All this baloney is based on my day-gig visiting well-heeled
folks' homes where the media rooms are mostly indifferently
grafted into existing architecture. The exceptions can,
however, be spectacularly better. A little planning goes
a very long ways, like so many things in life.

My personal choice would be to spend the money on a room with
two-story high ceiling, "shoebox" proportions, floor-to-
ceiling media shelving, and on your loudspeakers. But that's
just me.

All good fortune; sounds like a wonderful project,

Chris Hornbeck
"History consists of truths which in the end turn into lies,
while myth consists of lies which finally turn into truths."
- Jean Cocteau

[Daniel Mandic]

Abemeister wrote:

> For basic acoustics, check out Aurelex at: http://www.auralex.com/
>
> Home audio is not as critical as a recording studio. Bose systems
> will satisfy your needs. Not to say they make the best but it is easy
> for the average home owner and non-audiophile.


Yeah, but he said 2 chanel System.

Bose is at least 3.
2 channel and Sub. And better for existing rooms, IMO.


With a room in planning, he can select a size for the Loudspeaker, yet.




Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

[Michael]

Don Pearce wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 17:53:25 GMT, (Don Pearce)
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 17:32:47 GMT, Michael >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Would someone recommend a good resource (books, articles, etc.)on
>>> designing a proper space for home audio. We're building a new house and
>>> before the architect tries to tell me what the room for the stereo will
>>> be, I thought I'd check with recording specialists and experts in the
>>> field (that's you folks) on what you recommend would be the right way to go.
>>>
>>> We want to design a space for the music from a two channel high-end
>>> stereo system.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>> First, the bigger the better - obviously within domestic limits. And
>> equally important, you need to avoid the possibility of standing
>> waves, which will mean there are regions of the room where certain
>> notes will be effectively absent. Standing waves occur whenever two
>> flat surfaces face each other, so avoid parallel walls, and if you can
>> have the ceiling sloping, do that too. There are after-market
>> treatments for such things that work tolerably well but are visually
>> intrusive. I presume you'd rather get the thing right in the building
>> so you don't need to resort to them.
>>
>> Determining the reverberation characteristics is something you can
>> attend to later with soft furnishings and other decor. It is very
>> unlikely that your architect will make you a room that is already too
>> dead, and needs brightening.
>>
>> d
>
> As I expected all the after-market fixes and kludges are starting to
> appear in the thread. These have nothing to do with what you can get
> an architect to do for you by way of designing a good room..
>
> d
>

I want to do as much up front with the Architect and get it right - I
have already followed your advice and mentioned that the room should
have no parallel walls, etc. They like the ideas - it's different.

The room is looking to be about 22' X 30' approximate. Bigger if we
need to go that way.

[Michael]

Paul Stamler wrote:
> Go to the library and find books by F. Alton Everest. Not the Master
> Handbook of Acoustics -- that's too big a mouthful for first bite -- but
> some of his more beginner-oriented books. Use inter-library loan if
> necessary.
>
> Peace,
> Paul
>
>

I understand he passed away recently. I'm looking up his books now.

[Michael]

Chris Hornbeck wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 17:32:47 GMT, Michael >
> wrote:
>
>> We want to design a space for the music from a two channel high-end
>> stereo system.
>
> How much freedom of choice do you have? Lots of good suggestions
> so far, and all pretty general, because no contraints were
> included.
>
> Non-rectangular rooms cost extra; high ceilings cost extra;
> like that. OTOH, these good elements reduce costs in room
> treatment. How big is the room to be? What other uses will
> the room have, etc. ?
>
> In general, given a rectangular room, dimensions should be
> proportioned in irrational numbers. (The most irrational of
> irrational numbers is about 1.618, the rough dimensions of
> a credit card; connection...?) Side walls especially should
> be very irregular in shape, lotsa books and music media in
> irregular patterns works. The ceiling should be as high and
> sometimes as dead as possible, but if really high, not dead.
>
> Left-right symmetry is very important in smaller rooms, less
> so in bigger. Don't put furniture, even a coffee table, between
> yourself and the the speakers. Place the speakers *first*,
> then everything else. You probably know all this stuff
> already.
>
> All this baloney is based on my day-gig visiting well-heeled
> folks' homes where the media rooms are mostly indifferently
> grafted into existing architecture. The exceptions can,
> however, be spectacularly better. A little planning goes
> a very long ways, like so many things in life.
>
> My personal choice would be to spend the money on a room with
> two-story high ceiling, "shoebox" proportions, floor-to-
> ceiling media shelving, and on your loudspeakers. But that's
> just me.
>
> All good fortune; sounds like a wonderful project,
>
> Chris Hornbeck
> "History consists of truths which in the end turn into lies,
> while myth consists of lies which finally turn into truths."
> - Jean Cocteau

Thanks everyone for the outstanding advice and references. I am
forwarding these notes onto my Architect to help in the design.

I am building the house around this room first. I want the room to flow
as part of the overall design...a place you are reminded you want to be
in - rather than remembering you want to go to....if you know what I
mean. An audio designed room that is also a living room - useful even
if there is no music playing - which would never likely happen.

[Michael]

Chel van Gennip wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 00:46:55 +0100, Michael wrote:
>
>> The room is looking to be about 22' X 30' approximate. Bigger if we
>> need to go that way.
>
> Height is important!
>

I'll make the room as high as needed - any suggestions?

[Ty Ford]

On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 14:38:29 -0500, Chel van Gennip wrote
(in article >):

> On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 19:45:36 +0100, Michael wrote:
>
>> Chel van Gennip wrote:
>>> On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 00:46:55 +0100, Michael wrote:
>>>
>>>> The room is looking to be about 22' X 30' approximate. Bigger if we
>>>> need to go that way.
>>>
>>> Height is important!
>>>
>>>
>> I'll make the room as high as needed - any suggestions?
>
> Often the height of a room (often 8-9') is a limitation. I would sugest
> at least 11'. A size of 14' H x 22' W x 33' L could give a nice result.
> Remember that a soft floor like carpet normally has bad acoustic
> characteristics, but if you have floor of hard wood, it is better to have
> some absorbtion in the ceiling. If you have acoustic tiles on the
> ceiling, it is better to have room above those tiles. The mentioned 14'
> includes the room above the tiles (1' or more)
>
> The nice thing for you is that extra height is not very expesive during
> the design and construction. If you want extra height later it might be
> very expensive.
>
>

It sort of depends on what you intend to record and at what quality level.
Although the conventional wisdom is to have really big rooms, I have heard a
lot of good live drum kit recordings in smaller rooms with 8' ceilings.

The ceiling/floor thing is also up for grabs. I'm not quite sure what you
mean by carpet having "bad acoustic characteristics", but again, I have heard
a LOT of recordings done in carpeted studios that sounds quite good. The
trick there is, given that carpet in on the floor, knowing what to do with
the ceiling.

The old, traditional spaces; big rooms, tall ceilings were usually very
tunable. with thick drapes, gobos on wheels, iso booths, rugs when desired,
stone floor, wood floor sections. That was when creating a showplace was more
important. It got you on the cover of MIX magazine (maybe). In those days you
miced the instrument in the space and the space had to sound damn good. At
least that was the theory. More than you might think looked better than they
sounded.

As artist studios began to increase in number, spaces got smaller, micing
became closer and really good reverbs with amazing control provided the
space.

I DO like big spaces for anything that makes a lot of sound; horn sections,
choirs, simply because once acoustical energy overfills a space (becomes too
loud for the volume of air in a space) weird things happen. You might get
lucky with 'weird', but maybe not.

More often than not, the best thing about a big space is that it affords you
the ability NOT to hear much reflected sound. By the time the acoustic energy
comes back to the mic after it leaves the source, passes the mic and goes on
to interact with the larger room, it doesn't have a lot of energy left. You
don't get those early reflections you'd get in a smaller space.

Build what you can. Try to avoid parallel surfaces. Build in movable
partitions, if possible, to tune the room. If you're going for separate
spaces for control room and studio, don't skrimp when it comes to control
room size or you'll never get really good monitoring.

Regards,

Ty Ford


--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU

[Boris Lau]

Ty Ford wrote:
> It sort of depends on what you intend to record and at what quality level.
[...]
> Build what you can. Try to avoid parallel surfaces. Build in movable
> partitions, if possible, to tune the room. If you're going for separate
> spaces for control room and studio, don't skrimp when it comes to control
> room size or you'll never get really good monitoring.

It seems that the OP was asking about a room for a stereo, not for
recording. But the thread sounds more like building a recording studio
to me as well...

Boris


--
http://www.borislau.de - computer science, music, photos

[Boris Lau]

Chel van Gennip wrote:
>> It seems that the OP was asking about a room for a stereo, not for
>> recording. But the thread sounds more like building a recording studio
>> to me as well...
>
> Is it really that different? I like good concert halls for recorings.

If you make a recording in a concert hall, you want to capture the
impression of space that you get from the natural reverberation of the
room.
If you play back such a recording, why would you want to have the effect
of a live room again? I would assume, that having the acoustics of a
control room is more appropritate for listening with a stereo system
those of a concert hall.

Boris

--
http://www.borislau.de - computer science, music, photos

[Boris Lau]

Chel van Gennip wrote:
> A rather dead room is an unnatural and unpleasant place for recreation.
> Listening to a recording with concert hall acoustics in a dead room does
> not make the perception more natural.

Point taken. I've heard about appropriate reverberation times for
recording and control rooms. So you say, a good value for "recreational
listening" would be more on the recording room side? Could be...

Boris


--
http://www.borislau.de - computer science, music, photos

[Ty Ford]

On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 12:58:45 -0500, Boris Lau wrote
(in article >):

> Ty Ford wrote:
>> It sort of depends on what you intend to record and at what quality level.
> [...]
>> Build what you can. Try to avoid parallel surfaces. Build in movable
>> partitions, if possible, to tune the room. If you're going for separate
>> spaces for control room and studio, don't skrimp when it comes to control
>> room size or you'll never get really good monitoring.
>
> It seems that the OP was asking about a room for a stereo, not for
> recording. But the thread sounds more like building a recording studio
> to me as well...
>
> Boris
>
>
>

Thanks Mr. Lau,

Sorry for the intrusion. Please forget everything I just said. :)

Regards,

Ty Ford


--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU

[Boris Lau]

Ty Ford wrote:
>> It seems that the OP was asking about a room for a stereo, not for
>> recording. But the thread sounds more like building a recording studio
>> to me as well...

> Thanks Mr. Lau,
> Sorry for the intrusion. Please forget everything I just said. :)

By all means, don't run away. I have no idea if the perfect living room
acoustics should be more like a control or a recording room, but I'm
very interested in this discussion.
I'd assume one would want to have the symmetry of a control room, and
according to Chel not too dry acoustics...

Boris

--
http://www.borislau.de - computer science, music, photos

[Steve King]

"Ty Ford" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 12:58:45 -0500, Boris Lau wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> Ty Ford wrote:
>>> It sort of depends on what you intend to record and at what quality
>>> level.
>> [...]
>>> Build what you can. Try to avoid parallel surfaces. Build in movable
>>> partitions, if possible, to tune the room. If you're going for separate
>>> spaces for control room and studio, don't skrimp when it comes to
>>> control
>>> room size or you'll never get really good monitoring.
>>
>> It seems that the OP was asking about a room for a stereo, not for
>> recording. But the thread sounds more like building a recording studio
>> to me as well...
>>
>> Boris
>>
>>
>>
>
> Thanks Mr. Lau,
>
> Sorry for the intrusion. Please forget everything I just said. :)
>
> Regards,
>
> Ty Ford

But, what you said would have been absolutely correct if the OP had asked
the question you answered;-)

Steve King

[Scott Dorsey]

Boris Lau > wrote:
>Chel van Gennip wrote:
>> A rather dead room is an unnatural and unpleasant place for recreation.
>> Listening to a recording with concert hall acoustics in a dead room does
>> not make the perception more natural.
>
>Point taken. I've heard about appropriate reverberation times for
>recording and control rooms. So you say, a good value for "recreational
>listening" would be more on the recording room side? Could be...

First point: talking about reverberation times in small rooms turns out
not to be very useful.

Secondly: you need a dead space behind the speakers, so that you don't
have lots of short-time reflections obscuring the ambient sounds off
the recording. But, if you are playing back stereo, you need a live
space _behind_ the listener because a real concert hall has a similar
liveness. (If you are doing surround, the whole LEDE thing doesn't work
so well and you need a substantially drier room.)
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Ty Ford]

On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 15:11:32 -0500, Steve King wrote
(in article >):

> "Ty Ford" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 12:58:45 -0500, Boris Lau wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>> Ty Ford wrote:
>>>> It sort of depends on what you intend to record and at what quality
>>>> level.
>>> [...]
>>>> Build what you can. Try to avoid parallel surfaces. Build in movable
>>>> partitions, if possible, to tune the room. If you're going for separate
>>>> spaces for control room and studio, don't skrimp when it comes to
>>>> control
>>>> room size or you'll never get really good monitoring.
>>>
>>> It seems that the OP was asking about a room for a stereo, not for
>>> recording. But the thread sounds more like building a recording studio
>>> to me as well...
>>>
>>> Boris
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Thanks Mr. Lau,
>>
>> Sorry for the intrusion. Please forget everything I just said. :)
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Ty Ford
>
> But, what you said would have been absolutely correct if the OP had asked
> the question you answered;-)
>
> Steve King
>
>

Funny, the first time I read your response I thought you said "absurdly
correct." I almost like that better.

Thanks Steve,

Ty

--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU

[Paul]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

>Secondly: you need a dead space behind the speakers, so that you don't
>have lots of short-time reflections obscuring the ambient sounds off
>the recording.
>
I don't necessarily agree with this. While having a dead space will
provide increased definition I've found that having a reflective wall
behind
my speakers gives a recording much more 'air'. For instance I
find a choir will sound better. My mother-in-law has a pair of
Magnasphere speakers that have spherical dipole tweeters and midranges
that are designed to bounce half of the sound off the rear wall.
They sound fantastic. I haven't heard anything else sound as good.

Paul