HiI 'm interested to know how you defined where the control room should be in studio B. Why upstairs? How height is the ceiling of he control room? What was the main question before making works for studio B in the building? Thanks

Hi,The ceiling is 30' tall.The control room in studio B is basically stacked on top of the dead room. I think they decided to put it there simply because that's the only place it would fit without eating up cubic footage in the live room.As far as the main question in design, while I think it had to do with how to get the most bang-for-buck, we'll have to see if anyone from the construction phase will chime in...

The ceiling of the live room is 30' tall. Not the control room... And I'm interested to know how tall is the ceiling of the control room, mostly in the case where they had to deal with the most bang for buck before works.I guess the priority was the view between the live and the dead rooms, the cubic footage, so they made the control room upstairs. But a control room upstairs, doesnt it make loose precious time during the recording sessions ?If I ask those questions it's because I have the idea of getting a building that looks like studio B. And I want to find the perfect location for the control room function of all the aspects of a recording studio: the views between the rooms, the time management while recording, the view from the control room on the other rooms, the eight of the ceiling of the control room/

We often point out that Studio A is ergonomically superior to Studio B largely because of some of the things you are pointing to- the lack of great sight lines between the audio people and the musicians, the stairs, the extra time it takes to setup and go back and forth to hear playback.I don't speak for Steve and the folks who designed and built the studio, but I would actually encourage you to try to avoid some of those pitfalls, while retaining some of the great things about Studio B- the high ceilings and reflective walls in the dead room; the great sight lines between the live and dead rooms, the natural lighting. But most people who build studios don't have the luxury of getting to build in everything they want, so it's a matter of compromising sound, ergonomics, cost, etc. etc.

The control room on the second floor was a way to maximize usable studio space in the building. If the control room of studio B were on the ground floor, it would eat into the performing space of both studio A and studio B, and the additional space made available on the second floor would have no appreciable value, in that we already had adequate space for the tech shop, lounge, client rooms, kitchen, laundry and offices. I have worked in other studios with a similar staircase situation, like Abbey Road studio 2 and Zero Return in Atlanta, and I have never felt like the stairs were an obstacle. My regret is that the stairs make studio B handicapped-unfriendly, and when we've had clients in wheelchairs it's involved otherwise unnecessary hassle.If we were building a single studio rather than two, I'd have tried to keep everything on one level, but Electrical audio wouldn't have been viable as a single studio.

The control room on the second floor was a way to maximize usable studio space in the building. If the control room of studio B were on the ground floor, it would eat into the performing space of both studio A and studio B, and the additional space made available on the second floor would have no appreciable value, in that we already had adequate space for the tech shop, lounge, client rooms, kitchen, laundry and offices. I have worked in other studios with a similar staircase situation, like Abbey Road studio 2 and Zero Return in Atlanta, and I have never felt like the stairs were an obstacle. My regret is that the stairs make studio B handicapped-unfriendly, and when we've had clients in wheelchairs it's involved otherwise unnecessary hassle.If we were building a single studio rather than two, I'd have tried to keep everything on one level, but Electrical audio wouldn't have been viable as a single studio.

steve wrote:If we were building a single studio rather than two, I'd have tried to keep everything on one level, but Electrical audio wouldn't have been viable as a single studio.I'm a sucker for a good studio business case study. Would you care to elaborate on the factors that led you to build 2 studios, and how it's played out in practice over the years?Best,- J.

The monthly overhead for a studio business is considerable. If you have two rooms, you can potentially make more in a given month, and having two rates means that some clients who would be priced out of an expensive room can still use the less-expensive room. Thatalso builds a relationship that might mean, when the band has more money to burn, they would opt to book the more expensive room.Our monthly overhead is north of $30,000, and it's inconceivable we could count on enough business from a single room to cover that. Granted we might be able to get by on a slightly smaller scale with less staff, less equipment etc. but the equipment is a sunk cost that doubles as an asset, and having enough staff to accommodate big sessions means we won't ever have to hire temporary help.It's extremely difficult to cover the operating costs of a single studio. With two studios, the operating costs go up, but do not double, so it's a little bit easier than one if the work is there to sustain it. Conceivably, we could scale up and add a third studio with even less marginal cost than the second studio, but there probably isn't enough business in the area to make that worth doing, so that studio would need to specialize into another area -- transfers, mixing, editing, film sound etc -- and I don't think there's enough of any of those sidelines to support a whole additional room.

The monthly overhead for a studio business is considerable. If you have two rooms, you can potentially make more in a given month, and having two rates means that some clients who would be priced out of an expensive room can still use the less-expensive room. Thatalso builds a relationship that might mean, when the band has more money to burn, they would opt to book the more expensive room.Our monthly overhead is north of $30,000, and it's inconceivable we could count on enough business from a single room to cover that. Granted we might be able to get by on a slightly smaller scale with less staff, less equipment etc. but the equipment is a sunk cost that doubles as an asset, and having enough staff to accommodate big sessions means we won't ever have to hire temporary help.It's extremely difficult to cover the operating costs of a single studio. With two studios, the operating costs go up, but do not double, so it's a little bit easier than one if the work is there to sustain it. Conceivably, we could scale up and add a third studio with even less marginal cost than the second studio, but there probably isn't enough business in the area to make that worth doing, so that studio would need to specialize into another area -- transfers, mixing, editing, film sound etc -- and I don't think there's enough of any of those sidelines to support a whole additional room.

The pragmatic point of vue about this particular configuration at elecricalaudio, with 2 studios, whose one is cheaper than the other is very understandable. But, I was wondering: do some bands, and not necessarily the poorest, ask for recording in studio B? A so high ceiling, such a live room, may seduce some bands who has the budget to record in studio A, but finally choose the 16 tracks studio because of this crazy live room. In videos on internet, we mostly see parts of sessions, interviews etc in studio B. Finally, what studio is more asked for recordings in a year at electricalaudio? Is the choice essentially a question of money?