low ceiling in potential mixing room

[neonaudio]

I'm new to the Tape Op Board but I'm a long time reader of the mag. Figured this would be a better resource than some of the more popular audio boards.

Anyway, I'm doing some house hunting and one of the provisions is space for a mixing room. I found a place with a long bonus room built over the garage. It measures 27" x 11", with a low ceiling about 6'10". I'm wondering how much of a problem this low ceiling would be. I've also heard that the long dimension violates the rule of having the length no more than 2x the width, and no dimension being 3x longer than any other.

My current mixing room also has a low ceiling, as far as professional standards go, at 8'3". This yields a problematic peak around 135 Hz, which I've been able to smooth out a bit with a cloud and other treatment. My current room is also square shaped (13.5"x 13.5").

I've gotten some good information from Bryan at GIK Acoustics (where I bought my current treatment), but I was hoping to get some input from folks who have maybe worked in similar rooms. What issues can I expect, and will I be able to resolve them with treatment? Is working in a room with a 6'10" ceiling much different than having a 8'3" ceiling?

For what it's worth, I work with all genres of music and also do audio post for video.

[Nick Sevilla]

It could be ok, as long as you don't listen at high volume levels.
_________________
The Song. Nothing else really matters.

[dfuruta]

Seems like the lower ceiling would be better than a square shaped room.

Have you looked at the room modes? The new option looks a lot better than your current one.

[neonaudio]

I don't listen at terribly high levels. I try to stay within the Fletcher-Munson recommended 83 decibel range.

I was also thinking that a longer room with a lower ceiling might be better than a square shaped room, but my biggest problem in my current room is around 135 HZ, the exact frequency of an 8'3" wave. In other words, the ceiling is causing the biggest issue. If this lower ceiling means that my big problem frequency gets shifted but I gain some advantages with the rectangular shape, that would be great.

I did compare the modes with another site, but the Bob Gold's calculator makes things a lot simpler. That does seem to reflect that the longer room would be better, despite the low ceiling. I would still be interested to hear from those working under a small ceiling.

[JWL]

Low ceilings like that are a PITA because they need thick absorption, and have the least amount of space for such. Get the thickest absorption up there that you can live with, preferably spaced down from the ceiling a bit (which loses you even more height).
_________________
Making the world sound better, one room at a time

[GIK Acoustics]

You should be fine, as long as you go with the method you have in your current room (a large, thick cloud), As JWL said, it is unfortunate since you will likely need more absorption than you have space for, but I would still certainly do clouds. Another good option too would be to treat the ceiling/wall corners, since no matter how thick they get, they are pretty much out of the way.

[neonaudio]

So it sounds like I'll need a lot over my head. Good thing I'm not tall...

Alexander, treating the corners sounds like a good idea. And I heard the bit about the length being too long from Bryan at your company.

[GIK Acoustics]

[neonaudio]

Well after getting feedback here I'm more confident now that it can be a workable room, perhaps even an improvement over my current space. I'll just have to see what problems I run into once i'm actually in there. Although the house in question was just pulled from the market, pending an ex-husband's signature on the listing agreement. Yikes. Hopefully they get that ironed out...

[JWL]

No room is perfect, and every room can be improved.
_________________
Making the world sound better, one room at a time

[Brian]

I’ve had and conquered this problem.
You can make a cloud with moveable pivoting plywood panels in it with 702 on the backs of the panels. They pivot on the left and right sides to push what would normally bounce off the ceiling back behind you to the back of the room to your broadband absorber on your back wall. You can put them on the sidewalls too if desired.
Using monitors with horns is also good to keep room reflections out of the field initially.
It will improve the imaging of any monitor.
Direct sound in the face and not on the walls, absorb a bit of reflections with the back wall and maybe more if needed.

Make sure you measure the modes and tune the room properly with treatment and after treatment, it can focus problems too. You can over treat. You need bang for buck without trying to price down the market.
_________________
Oh shut up.

[neonaudio]

Bang for your buck is the name of the game, indeed. Can you expand a bit on these pivoting plywood panels? Sounds like a DIY project, so how do you make yours? What is 702?

My monitors (Focal Solo6) don't have horns, though I'm not sure how much difference horns would make in a near-field situation.