which room is preferable?

PhilNYC · « **on:** 12 Mar 2006, 01:29 pm »

Which would you choose for a listening room?

TomW16 · « **Reply #1 on:** 12 Mar 2006, 03:54 pm »

Hi Phil,

I voted for the 8ft x 17ft x 21ft (system set up along 17ft wall) room. I am assuming that the other bigger room would have more room resonances with 8ft x 40ft x 21ft since 40 is a multiple of 8.

I am not sure if we are to provide an explanation to our choice but I did.

Sorry if we're supposed to keep our rational blinded until after the poll is closed.

Tom

PhilNYC · « **Reply #2 on:** 12 Mar 2006, 04:04 pm »

Tom,

I actually was hoping to see more posts for "why".

A question...since 40 is a multiple of 8, I understand your point. However, isn't it then a question of a 5th harmonic? And because of the size of the room, isn't it really only going to be a factor at extremely loud volumes?

On the other hand, 8ft and 17ft (from option 1) offers some potential issues, too...

TomW16 · « **Reply #3 on:** 12 Mar 2006, 04:20 pm »

Hi Phil,

Quote

A question...since 40 is a multiple of 8, I understand your point. However, isn't it then a question of a 5th harmonic? And because of the size of the room, isn't it really only going to be a factor at extremely loud volumes?

I will defer to more knowledgeable folks around here regarding harmonics and whether a room that is divisible by 5 only affects the 5th harmonic.

Regarding volume (sound pressure level), however, my guess would be that it would not only be a factor at higher volumes. If the room resonates at a certain frequency, it would simply be louder at higher volumes but would also be present at lower volumes as well.

Tom

klh · « **Reply #4 on:** 12 Mar 2006, 07:19 pm »

Beyond the 8' and 40' combo, the larger room also has the 21' and 40' combo. Percentagewise, 21' and 40' are closer to resonating than distances of 8' and 17', so that alone makes the larger room more problematic. When you consider the fact that (all things equal) a smaller room requires less material to treat acoustically... we have a clear winner (in my mind). I agree that when it comes to sound in a room acoustic energy will eventually fill the space regardless of the volume of the music and the volume of the room. So, in this case, size actually doesn't matter

... just the right proportions.

lonewolfny42 · « **Reply #5 on:** 12 Mar 2006, 07:30 pm »

Phil....Your present room is 16x19x8....and it sounds good after the treatments. I voted for the 17ft x 21ft x 8ft. .....it's slightly larger....but should sound good as well after acoustic treatments. I feel the larger room may be too large....but its your room.

bpape · « **Reply #6 on:** 12 Mar 2006, 09:28 pm »

I voted for the 8x17x21 room. It's big enough that there aren't huge issues plus a room that can be contained is always a benefit.

The volume of the other space would certainly be nice but it's a total unknown and potentially has areas that are untreatable due to visual/spouse/other issues.

Bill Baker · « **Reply #7 on:** 12 Mar 2006, 10:39 pm »

Quote

Can I store some equipement in that bigger room ?

I have plenty of room if you need a place to "store" some equipment

I am interested in this thread as I will have a 17' x 30' room to deal with after renovations this summer as well as a 14' x 20' room. I already have some ideas but curious as to what other's think.
I have a chance to have the rooms designed and done up by professional sound engineers but I also want to keep the rooms "real" or more like a consumer's home.

Quote

I agree that when it comes to sound in a room acoustic energy will eventually fill the space regardless of the volume of the music and the volume of the room. So, in this case, size actually doesn't matter ... just the right proportions.

Another key factor would be system (speaker) placement. Positioning at a diagonal would pose less problems to deal with as reflections would be "lost" in time. Placing along any wall always causes problems and more treatment is needed to correct in regard to reflections.

JLM · « **Reply #8 on:** 15 Mar 2006, 08:57 am »

I voted for the 8 x 17 x 21 room, primarily because you can cut it down to a near "ideal" 8 x 13 x 21 (1 x 1.62 x 2.52 room dimension ratios) and use the remaining 4 feet for built-ins, infinite baffle subs, isolating the audio equipment from the room itself, etc.

Besides, then your room would be the same size as mine and I could leach ideas off your dime.

PhilNYC · « **Reply #9 on:** 15 Mar 2006, 12:55 pm »

Thanks for the comments, folks! JLM brings up a good thought...the room I'm working with is the big one (8ft x 21ft x 40ft), but because of the location of some structural poles/pillars, I'm constrained to one specific area in the middle of the 40ft wall as a location for the system. If we enclose the listening room, the minimum width of the room can be 12ft and the maximum width can be 40ft. I had suggested 17ft because aesthetically it would work best...but aesthetix aside, what would be the best width for the room, assuming that the 8ft ceiling and the 21ft room depth were fixed?

8thnerve · « **Reply #10 on:** 15 Mar 2006, 02:37 pm »

13 feet would give you a pretty close golden ratio. 8' x 1.6 = 12.8' x 1.6 = 20.48'

PhilNYC · « **Reply #11 on:** 15 Mar 2006, 03:23 pm »

Quote from: 8thnerve

13 feet would give you a pretty close golden ratio. 8' x 1.6 = 12.8' x 1.6 = 20.48'

Yeah, I noticed that...but I kind of feel like 13ft is somewhat narrow (if the speakers are 8ft apart, they will be less than 3ft from the sidewalls).

One other option would be to build side walls that were not parallel to each other...

8thnerve · « **Reply #12 on:** 17 Mar 2006, 11:13 pm »

You could make it 16 feet, and cut the two corners starting at about 3 feet from the corner making a hexagon that is like a octagon on one side (the new wall) and a square on the other (the old wall). You could even use the angled corners to house your gear with a nice cutout. Getting gear out from between the speakers does wonders for any system. If people could hear the difference, they'd pay for longer speaker cable and put their gear on the side. In your case, it would be ideal.

brj · « **Reply #13 on:** 17 Mar 2006, 11:21 pm »

Nathan, does having your gear in the octagonal end of a room change the speaker placement requirements at all?

PhilNYC · « **Reply #14 on:** 20 Mar 2006, 08:10 pm »

Quote from: 8thnerve

You could make it 16 feet, and cut the two corners starting at about 3 feet from the corner making a hexagon that is like a octagon on one side (the new wall) and a square on the other (the old wall). You could even use the angled corners to house your gear with a nice cutout. Getting gear out from between the speakers does wonders for any system. If people could hear the difference, they'd pay for longer speaker cable and put their gear on the side. In your case, it would be ideal.

I was thinking about this as well (I would assume that I'd fill the inside of the hex corners with fiberglass insulation or something like that). But wouldn't the 16ft still be doubled up on the 8ft ceiling, creating modal issues?

FWIW, I used to have my gear to the side, but found that shorter speaker cables was more beneficial in my case than putting the gear to the side. My speakers are still a couple of feet in front of my rack...

brj · « **Reply #15 on:** 20 Mar 2006, 08:57 pm »

Quote from: PhilNYC

I was thinking about this as well (I would assume that I'd fill the inside of the hex corners with fiberglass insulation or something like that).

Actually, you could - after stuffing with fiberglass - go one step further and surface the corners with that Owens Corning acoustic fabric system or similar instead of normal drywall.

Poll

Which room would you choose?