Avatar
Please consider registering
Guest
Search
Forum Scope


Match



Forum Options



Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters
Register Lost password?
sp_Feed sp_TopicIcon
Ideal room dimensions - have I read this wrong?
Avatar
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2
Member Since:
November 19, 2020
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
1
May 9, 2021 - 1:20 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print

hi Dennis et al,
in the research/planning stages of a new listening room build, I’ve got a fair amount of flat ground to use so size won’t really be a problem however I don’t want to go too big, want to keep the building+fitout costs inside what I can afford, and also since I don’t have huge speakers.

I recognise that the final setup/sound management will depend on materials used etc. but on reading up on the “ideal” dimensions as a good place to start I’ve come across the advice about the Bonello graph and ideal room sizes
https://www.acousticfields.com…..llo-graph/
That discussion puts forward an ideal size of 10ftH : 17ftW : 23ftL
These numbers can work fine for me but they’re on the edge of the Bonello graph so I’m assuming they’re suggested as best based on practical experience/results?

But then I found the section on low-frequency absorption
https://www.acousticfields.com…..-materials
which suggests a bunch of ideal ratios that deliver almost square rooms as being the best sizes for minimising issues in low frequencies. But the chart suggests the numbers as best for all frequencies, and the ratios are way outside the Bonello graph advice. Which has me confused as to why they’re put forward.

The question I have is whether I’m reading/interpreting the numbers incorrectly? Am I missing the reason why the Bonello ratios and the absorption page ratios are different?

thanks
Frank

Avatar
Chief Acoustics Engineer
Forum Posts: 486
Member Since:
August 12, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
2
May 9, 2021 - 3:31 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print

Those ratios are 40 years old. They are guidelines but each room usage has its minimum size and volume. What these ratios do not take into account is the 12 – 16″ of treatment space required on at a minimum each wall surface area.

Avatar
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2
Member Since:
November 19, 2020
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
3
May 9, 2021 - 4:32 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory

Ah excellent, thanks Dennis. I’ll stick with your 10-17-23 as a starting point, which I’d pretty much done anyway :) Just wanted to make sure.
Your next point goes to the next question I had.

I would normally draw the room to those internal dimensions eg. 17ft from wall to wall measured internally. Any fit out would then go in. So with 12″ on each wall the usable space would reduce to 15ft. But I think that approach doesn’t accomodate your CAW design.

I’m quite happy to take advantage of the CAW approach, so I’m just looking to confirm what you’d expect to see when I send something through to you.

Should I be drawing the room up with 17ft width being between the leading edges of the stud frame, with the intention of using the stud frame for low-freq mgmt, such that if I allowed 12″ for the stud depth then the internal dimension of the solid walls (which will be hollow concrete blockwork because I’m in a fire hazard area) would in fact push out to 19ft?

thanks
Frank

Avatar
Chief Acoustics Engineer
Forum Posts: 486
Member Since:
August 12, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
4
May 12, 2021 - 7:02 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print

Fill out the information in this link: https://www.acousticfields.com…..-analysis/

Forum Timezone: America/Los_Angeles
Most Users Ever Online: 99
Currently Online:
Guest(s) 9
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Forum Stats:
Groups: 4
Forums: 10
Topics: 483
Posts: 1289

 

Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 26
Members: 16863
Moderators: 0
Admins: 2
Administrators: admin, Dennis Foley