Room Size

[FrantzM]

Hi

After many years of mostly listening to headphones, I am at a point where I have to resign myself with a smaller room than I anticipated. To make a long story short, Life has a way to derail the best plans. I anticipated building a room at least 6 x 4 x 3 meters... Time is passing thus ... I will have my systems in a decent if not great room at least I will have my room.
Vocation is Music , I wouldn't mind combining the HT in there too ...

Concrete room in both cases.
Option 1 , dimensions in meter:
4.80 x 3.30 x 2.80

Option 2:
4.8 x 4.4 x 2.8

Screen is 120 inches diagonal 16:9

Speakers ? ?? In the running:
Neumann KH 310A, JBL 708, Genelec 8341 in this order. I would like however to re-purpose my current JBL LSR 308 and 2 LSR 305 for the HT.. thus the 708 could have been the more sensible choice but I am attracted, sight unseen and unheard to the sealed enclosure and 3-way nature of the KH 310
Subs? At least 2. either those I currently have in my HT, the wildly satisfying Parts Express Sub1500 ($230 each) or sealed subs from SVS or Rythmik (SVS 2000 , Rythmik L12). Intellectually prefer sealed but ...
Receiver
Denon AVR X-3400H for HT, this one is not leaving anytime soon or
above Denon for HT and miniDSP SHD Studio + Dirac for music only but combined in some ways with the Denon for HT

At this point in time, I like my music to be 2-channel, thus even if I were to have the HT and 2-channel in the same room , I would listen to 2-channel plus subs of course ...

Questions: This is an interim solution ( again, the "interim" could be much longer than I anticipate) so it better be good... Which of the 2 options should I choose? Constructions/remodeling to begin as soon as I would have made a decision based on what YOU (yes! I am asking the collective ) would have advised...

FWIIW, I prefer big rooms and was about to get a 4.4 x 6 x 2.80 meters room from the remodeling but structural Engineer (a so-called "friend" ... ) advises on smaller room because of paraseismic (Earthquake proofing ) and structural/cost issues. The larger room would have me incurred construction cost of more than 20 grand as compared to <$2500 for the smaller options...

Looking forward to hear from you.

 

[pozz]

https://www.hunecke.de/en/calculators/room-eigenmodes.html

If the walls are going to be concrete the above provides a reliable simulation. If not, things will be somewhat different.

I can't imagine any reason why an extra 1m wouldn't be preferred. I'd like it for the space alone.

 

[dasdoing]

you want to avoid doubles and divisibles, since the modes and nulls would add each other (option two is close to a dubble).
for a more cientific answer there are calculators in the internet

 

[pozz]

you want to avoid doubles and divisibles, since the modes and nulls would add each other (option two is close to a dubble).
for a more cientific answer there are calculators in the internet

You're assuming completely solid boundaries. The final acoustic effect will be determined by the materials of the walls, floor and ceiling. Some sound is reflected, some absorbed, some passes through.

 

[dasdoing]

You're assuming completely solid boundaries. The final acoustic effect will be determined by the materials of the walls, floor and ceiling. Some sound is reflected, some absorbed, some passes through.

sure, and even more effect you can expect from doors and windows. this is just a basic recomendation

 

[MetalDaze]

Ideal room ratios I found from resources I've researched suggested one of 1 x 1.6 x 2.56 WRT H x W x L. Like you I prefer bigger rooms. Before I moved to my current residence, my listening space was 8.5ft H x 11ft W x 20ft L. This happened to be by chance and was not exactly in line with the mentioned ratio. However the acoustics in that room were great. & the resonant frequency somewhere around 25Hz. The preferred set up would be along one of the short walls.

With your initial dimensions run through that ratio I come up with (converted to Ft) 9.18 x 14.68 x 23.50. Again this is more of a ratio to be aiming for in order to achieve a relatively smooth room response curve. I know these figures are bigger than what can fairly be accounted for in your construction after the cost of adherence to Para seismic structural code.

I would agree that more space offered in "option 2" at first looks better. But those ratios put you closer to a square room which will cause more modal problems. Especially if the majority of the construction will consist of dense reflective materials.

"Option 1" squeezes the dimensions but puts you closer to the shape of a rectangle, for simplicity sake. Which hopefully gets you closer to the preferred ratio.

If the room will be used exclusively for music/entertainment. And predominately will be 2 channel with subs, I personally would go with Option 1.

*Ducks for cover* Lol

Some acoustic treatment and DSP will more than likely be needed but properly placed dual subs will help a lot with low frequency response. I use a single Rythmik L12 with my floor standing speakers, and like it very much. It measured well in my space and helped boost my low end up to reference level all the way out to below 20Hz.

 

[Senior NEET Engineer]

Room ratios only matter if the room volume is fixed. Bigger is better.

 

[MetalDaze]

Room ratios only matter if the room volume is fixed. Bigger is better.

I have to respectfully disagree. Being that it is a ratio, it has no units. And therefore no tether to a physical measure of dimension.

A blanket statement of 'bigger is better' washes over any of the specific room use the OP may have. I agree a larger space is usually preferable to a smaller one. But If all someone needs is a medium/small space to mix and master music, or set up a smaller personal desktop/bookshelf Hi-Fi system. Then telling them bigger is better doesn't really apply.

Again with two rooms of a fixed volume. Disregarding the ratios (which are just a guideline towards the general geometry of the room one should be aiming for)- the shape of the room & the materials it's constructed of will predicate the acoustics of said room. It's not my opinion. It's physics. The OP has control over where he/she places the speakers, the listening position etc. To offset any negative room interactions and attain the most even FR response.

A square room which is larger may seem better given the added space, but standing waves and phase cancellations at numerous harmonics wreak havoc while assessing acoustics.

A rectangular room with the same volume (albeit different surface area) will have a more even and predicable FR.

Above all of this still stands system and listener placement, room treatments and more than likely some form of DSP or EQ. Getting the sound you want is a combination of all these things, and better starts with a non-square listening space.

 

[FrantzM]

Hi

Room is finalized and in use. It had to be
Option 1 , dimensions in meter:
4.80 x 3.30 x 2.80 .

Thanks all.