There are a number of curtain and blind styles that would be quite sheer and translucent, to preserve the view but would cut down on acoustic reflections off the windows.

Richard, could you please be a little more specific about these curtains. I'd like to educate myself a little bit on these specific materials. I'm a bit confused by your description. I thought "translucent" meant something like waxed paper, which lets light through but does not allow you to see objects on the other side ... to my way of thinking that would not preserve the view of the outside. Perhaps if you could refer me to some specific products I could understand what you're talking about. ... Thanks.

I'm a little puzzled here. They asked you for suggestions to improve the sound, but they are essentially unwilling to make any changes? Where would they put the "decorations" you mention, except on or in front of the walls? Certainly hanging two or three paintings (where, if not on the walls?) would not make a gnats bit of difference.

You've got three pairs of parallel reflective surfaces: a pair of long walls, a pair of short walls, and the floor/ceiling pair. You need to put absorption on at least one surface of a given pair. Again, since the long walls are the most surface area, that's the logical place to start.

Or you might try a triple-diffusion vacuum pump. If you suck all the air out of the room, the acoustical problems would disappear.

I'm meeting with them shortly to find out what the heck they want.

There are some acoustical materials that would still look like a stark white wall ... but perhaps with a slightly different texture. They would probably be adequate as a visual projection surface. They could still end up with a stark white ceiling (a few inches lower than the present height), again with a slightly different texture. It's a question of what "appearance" they are trying to retain, and what they are willing to change, in order to gain intelligibility.

Sorry I'm no longer in New York. I would love to attend that meeting with you. Good luck!

Or you might try a triple-diffusion vacuum pump. If you suck all the air out of the room, the acoustical problems would disappear.She wouldn't get a recording then, sound doesn't travel through a vaccuum! :-)

She wouldn't get a recording then, sound doesn't travel through a vaccuum!
Exactly! That's why the problems would disappear!

The discussion keeps going around room modification and that seems to be very arduous, expensive, and a lot of work. Back in post #43 Greg said:
Ya know, a few of us have mentioned separately-tracked lavs, and of course that's an impractical amount of complexity.

So, question: Why wouldn’t something like this work? Separate lav mic for each person and run into a mixer/recorder or mixer then into a recorder. Instead of having a person running the mixer, just set it up with the pots adjusted based on a test run ahead of time (asking each person to talk more or less like they would during the meeting and assuming the discussion would be cordial) and hide it under the table.

For the mics, on Amazon there is an Audio-Technica ATR3350 for $29 and there are many other lavalier mics out there. This was the first one I came across.

For recording, and this is where (for me) things really go into unknown territory. If mics like this would work (don’t know if phantom powered mics would be required), there are a couple options: an 8-channel mixer/recorder or, say, a 12-channel mixer where the recorder would be separate. There is a Tascam DP-03SD for $299.99 new/$199.89 used on Amazon. Search for “Korg D8 Digital Audio Multi Track Recorder” and there are several other multi-track recorders listed under “Customers who viewed this item also viewed”. There are ads for various Behringer models such as the 1202fx 12-channel mixer starting in the $110 -$120 range.

Would there be a problem with one person’s lav picking up the neighbor person speaking?

With regard to the room, the book shelves appear to be a room divider and not a wall. Looks to me like the divider doesn’t go all the way across the room and there is an extension of this room on the other side.

You're right, this conversation has taken a few twists and turns.

Kathy, the OP, originally said she had only two recording channels; she later increased that and was willing to record at least three separate tracks. At one point she said there would be between 6+1 ppl, and 8+1; at another point she said there would be 13. But she clearly did not have enough capability to mic everyone separately.

That led to discussion of the "best of the worst" solutions (kind of like this year's US Presidential election). I think most of us agreed that boundary mics would be better than other "simple" options.

We then digressed into what effect the room acoustics would have on the result. Many of us felt the room would be "very challenging" at best, but Kathy seems to feel her recent recordings were at least usable for some purpose.

We are left with some unknowns here. We don't know the actual dimensions of the room. We don't know how many ppl were ultimately involved. And Kathy has never told us (despite being asked more than once) what the end purpose is for these recordings. Apparently the client is now thinking about improving the room; again, we don't know why! Does the client want better conference space? Does the client want to make more recordings? Etc.

Would actual multi-track recording be an option in the future? It would certainly be costly for Kathy. She'd have to buy (or rent) a slew of mics and some sort of multi-track recording machine. It would cost a heck of a lot more than her present outlay. So there's the financial question: it is worth it, in terms of how much she can earn from this client?

Also, does she want to deal with this much complexity, and mixing down a zillion-channel master? Is the added complexity worthwhile, again in terms of potential income?

How does the client feel about having a gazillion wires snaking all over the table? How many participants will be involved the next time? What if there will be 24 ppl? 30 ppl? 36ppl? Etc. etc. It starts to become physically and financially unwieldy.

To answer your specific question: every lav will pick up every sound in the room. A given lav will pick up its respective person the loudest, and everyone else at progressively decreasing levels as the distance increases. But in the final mix, you would use only one lav/track at a time, so that's as good as it gets.

Yes, clearly the book shelves are a partition between the room in question and the rest of the building. That appears to be the only visible walkway to get to the rest of the building interior.

In my opinion, the real problem is the room. If they want to record frequently in that room, I feel they really need to fix the room. Then it will be possible to get a more reasonable recording without one-for-one micing every participant. That will involve, at the least covering a lot of the long wall in some way ... either with permanent panels, change in construction, folding portable panels, etc. That will at least somewhat change the appearance of the room ... either for the duration of the shoot, or permanently. "Ye canna defy the laws of physics."

Perhaps not a viable solution to Ms. Smith's situation, but I remember a discussion in one of the audio forums I frequent (possibly this one, but probably another one). One of the people who produced this documentary on Thorium reactors as a clean and safe power source recounted how he hacked a bunch of little dirt-cheap audio player/recorders to serve as self-contained clip-on mic/recorders. They were apparently cheap enough that he put two on each person (for backup redundancy) and just let them run all day. Then he had a complete dialog recording from each person that could be downloaded and dropped into the timeline of his NLE.

You can see in many shots in this video the little audio gadgets that he hacked. They are clipped on to the shirts/pockets/lapels/collars of the subjects. To my ear, the audio from this very ad-hoc documentary is quite above average in quality despite the "cheap as chips" (BrEnglish) or "dirt-cheap" (AmEnglish) audio solution. Does anybody remember this discussion of how they did audio for this doco?

https://youtu.be/xIDytUCRtTA?list=FLk20-n6cB4X_6kqWtVYE4kQ

I'm sorry that I didn't say but I still don't know what the final purpose of this recording is. I don't think they know themselves. They were 13 people. At first I was told there would be 8 but then they said 13.
None of them have seen or heard the recording. I set their expectations really low. In the end they said as long as they get something that would be good enough!!! So, the fact that they want to improve things is based solely on the fact that I told them that the sound is not good. They just wanted to know if they could make little changes to make things better. They are not hoping to convert this space into a sound recording studio. They will not be holding conferences in that space. It's meant for occasional, intimate conversations over drinks, which will most likely end up on the web.
They are willing to buy a rug, hang stuff on the walls and perhaps hang a curtain on the glass wall but that's pretty much it. In the future, if they find themselves doing more and more events in that space they might rethink things but for now that's it. And yes the bookshelf is a half wall. They will not consider altering the space as it's a historical house.
As for using lavs on every person, it would be hard for me to do by myself. The way things are organized it's not a conference where everyone shows up and they start on time. This is more like people come and go in the middle of the conversation they get up to get drinks etc.
I will try to post a sample of the recording later.

Nobody needs to worry about turning that space into a recording studio! They'd need treatment on all four walls and the ceiling to achieve that goal! Right now the reverberation time is longer than ideal even for conference room use. (By the way, can you give us the approximate dimensions of the room? I'm guessing about 30' x 15' x 10' high.)

There is a type of wood (or metal) trim called "picture rail." It comes in various contours, one of which is shown in these photos:
http://abeautifulmess.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8358081ff69e201bb081ef490970d-pi
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/07/26/01/072601ea43cff3230fceefa06820459f.jpg

You'll see it in a lot of art museums and galleries. Note the metal hanger shown in that photo, which can be hooked onto the rail at any point. The process is that you install the picture rail permanently on the wall, pretty near the ceiling, and paint it to match the wall. Then you use the hooks to hang things temporarily, without needing to make any further wall penetrations.

If your client mounted picture rail, at least on the long wall, and then got enough 6' x 2' acoustical panels to pretty nearly cover that entire wall, it would help a great deal. They could get custom panels with a color of their choice ... either to blend with the wall, or to complement it. And if they wanted to project an image at some point, they could just take down a few of the panels, to create a "projection screen" area of the wall.

Depending on the weight of the panels, they could be hung from the hooks using nylon monofilament, or braided wire, or paracord. If art museums and art galleries aren't offended by this hanging procedure, surely your client could stand to hang some *temporary* panels. Be sure to stress the "temporary" part ... get them away from their fear of "disfiguring" the room. When you take away the panels (and hooks), all that's left is a very unobtrusive piece of molding that pretty much looks as if it belongs there anyway.

They could also get some matching folding acoustical panels, which you could stand in a zig-zag pattern in front of the short wall behind you when you're shooting. Setup would be quick and easy, and it would look as unobtrusive as possible.

All in all, this might be less than the ideal amount of treatment that this room needs, but it's the best compromise I can think of at the moment.

You can see in many shots in this video the little audio gadgets that he hacked. They are clipped on to the shirts/pockets/lapels/collars of the subjects. To my ear, the audio from this very ad-hoc documentary is quite above average in quality despite the "cheap as chips" (BrEnglish) or "dirt-cheap" (AmEnglish) audio solution.
That's a Sansa Clip. I love them and have used them on and off for several years. I'm pretty sure I've recommended them on this forum, and have recommended them to other folks as well. You can literally clip one on the mic wire of a podium mic, for example. You can clip one inside a shirt or suit-coat pocket, and it will be barely visible; yet the mic is on top, peeking out of the pocket, so you get good audio.

I'm not sure what mod would have been done (or how) unless he installed the Rockbox third-party firmware which does make some improvements. Out of the box, they record mono, WAV, 16bits/sample, 24kHz sampling rate. There's no recording level metering, but they're pretty hard to overload with normal conversational voice levels. You would not want to use one at a sporting event with a shouting crowd.

Unfortunately the original Clip (internal memory only), and the Clip+ (which accepted a microSD card) have been discontinued. I got a handful at great price from the local RatShack when they closed. I wouldn't mind having a few more. Some later versions of the Clip (e.g. the Clip Zip, Clip Sport, etc.) are in current production.

BTW I never saw this video before, and I've followed this forum regularly for several years, so I suspect you originally found it elsewhere, rather than here. It's a great find ... thanks for sharing!

For a temporary relief with a non-permanent installation, reasonably easy to deploy and demob, here are some thoughts for any surfaces that are out of shot:

Glass area: one could use re-useable suction cups with hooks:
Mudder 45mm Bathroom Kitchen Suction Cup Wall Hooks Hangers, 12 Pack for $7.98
Find some used curtains, maybe shears to let some light through if necessary.

Walls: If smooth, one could use more suction cups, if textured then use a backdrop system.
Neewer Pro 10x12 feet/3x3.6 meters Heavy Duty Adjustable Backdrop Support System Photography Studio Video Stand with Carrying Bag for $69.99
A backdrop system is very portable and reasonably easy to set up.

Floors: spread out some old blankets where they don’t walk because they could be slippery. Blankets would be easy to move and take up minimal storage.

For shots that inadvertently get a bit of the sound treatment in view then use the Ken Burns effect.

the room is 40'-20'
I'm interested in hearing more about the curtains Richard mentioned. Richard do you have any specific info?

Yikes, that's bigger (therefore worse) than I had guessed. I'll bet the reverb time in there is several seconds.

It is quite literally a trade-off between what the owners of the space will allow (aesthetically), what the decorator can provide, and how much acoustic absorbance you can squeeze out of it.

I had in mind something like this "Austrian balloon curtain". In a sheer colorless fabric, it would still let in a lot of light and not "block" the open feeling of the window wall. But all that semi transparent fabric is also semi-transparent to sound, and the spaces created by the folds would absorb some of the ambient sounds both traveling on their way to bounce against the glass, and as they reflect off the glass and back into the room (and your microphones). The rounded, uneven patterns would make an interesting contrast to the stark design/decor of the rest of the room. I am not a decorator, nor do I play one on TV, but I know what I like. :-)

And I would lobby hard for hanging some kind of fabric feature (even if it is all white) anywhere on the opposite wall that isn't being use for protection. And for some of those big thick shaggy faux-fir carpets.

Richard, that's a very interesting curtain. I've never seen anything like that. Of course I don't get out much. ;-) It does appear fairly transparent, especially at the top where it's just one layer. Actually a rather nice effect: it lets you see the sky, yet somewhat blocks out the view of "man-made stuff" at the lower part of the curtain, especially if it hangs all the way to the floor.

I doubt that it would do much at the low end of the spectrum (which makes the room boomy), but it might help a tiny bit with the higher frequencies, and those are the ones that affect intelligibility. Still, the fabric looks very light in weight. Do you have any published acoustical specs for that kind of hanging?

Richard,
These Austrian sheers are very nice and an nearly every home uses them. The help to reduce the amount of stark daylight while still allowing for a view out the window.
I had in mind something like this "Austrian balloon curtain". In a sheer colorless fabric, it would still let in a lot of light and not "block" the open feeling of the window wall. But all that semi transparent fabric is also semi-transparent to sound, and the spaces created by the folds would absorb some of the ambient sounds both traveling on their way to bounce against the glass, and as they reflect off the glass and back into the room (and your microphones). The rounded, uneven patterns would make an interesting contrast to the stark design/decor of the rest of the room. I am not a decorator, nor do I play one on TV, but I know what I like. :-)

I don't know why homes in the US don't use them more. Here is a listing of shears on an Austrian web site similar to Craigs List in the US: https://www.willhaben.at/iad/kaufen-und-verkaufen/marktplatz/heimtextilien/vorhaenge-5592?rows=100&keyword=Gardine+wei%DFer%2C

Don't know if just clicking on the URL will or if it has to be cut-'n'-paste.

Thanks Richard for showing the curtain. Unfortunately this design doesn't go with the original design of the house.
What a bout something like this?
curtain (http://www.vescom.com/curtain)

Kathy, those are very nice looking, and would certainly look appropriate in that room. Based on the graphs shown in the .pdf file, they are surprisingly good acoustically, especially the Formoza fabric. If your client would be willing to cover the entire window area with Formoza, that would certainly be an improvement over bare glass.

Of course they could cover the long wall with the same fabric, and get twice the improvement. The look would then be consistent. And if they needed some projection area, they could just open the wall drapery in the middle.

That would likely help the lighting as well by defusing the harsh outside light. Though I'm not a lighting or camera person but I usually work with some really good folks.

Is this just one of those situations where the solution is a lav mic on everybody, and multitrack the audio to edit later? I can't see even that expensive solution being more than treating the room and using distant techniques. Close in or nothing, I guess?

I agree that the absolute best sounding solution is probably separate lav on separate tracks. But the OP has explained in detail (last paragraph in post #59) why that is not an option in this situation.

Besides, it would come down to a choice between the client spending some money to improve their own problematic room, vs. the recordist spending money to solve the problems created by the client's room. The client has asked the OP (post #45) for suggestions on improving the room. If the client is willing to improve their room, by all means take that approach first!

So yes, "in the best of all possible worlds" (as Candide would say) go with separate lavs on separate tracks ... but in reality, from what the OP has said, that ain't gonna happen.

Here are 2 audio samples from the recorded conversation. The first one is someone who was sitting a bit closer to the mic than the person in the second recording.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/t1gfiwb0ocpice6/Audio%201.wav?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/jlt55ew5wf0d9eu/Audio%202.wav?dl=0

Also, I came across interesting looking acoustic panels, what's your take on these:
Snowsound USA Acoustic Panels | (http://www.snowsoundusa.com)

Also, I came across interesting looking acoustic panels, what's your take on these:
The "Oversize" product looks most appropriate for soaking up sound and minimizing reflections in your echo-chamber room. The other products that BLOCK sound from one cubicle or area to another are not really as effective in your space.

Many people have made simple "shadow box" open frames, covered them with one of dozens of colors of double-knit polyester (solids, patterns, etc.) and put loose-fill absorbent material (fiberglass, polyester, etc.) inside. By choosing a fabric color the matches the wall color, the visual impact is minimized and only adds a subtle geometric feature to the otherwise big blank wall.

But it could make a huge difference in acoustics. Note that it will not only improve acoustics for recording, but it will also increase the intelligibility of speech in the room for all the participants.

Thanks Richard. Yes, I didn't think any of the cubicle things would be effective in this case. I'm wondering about those ceiling panels. Would they be better than nothing on the ceiling?

The two recordings sound exactly like they are - distant mics in a room with hard surfaces. Are either acceptable to you? If they are not, then you have to spend money. On equipment, treatment, people to work the kit etc.

We seem to be looking at a magic bullet to solve the problem, in any place the people are in the room.

If you treat the room, and turn it into an anechoic dead room - then you still have level changes to deal with if you have multiple sounds sources, each with different speaking voice levels.

Are we talking hundreds or thousands?

Hi,

I've been asked to record a round table discussion and I'm wondering what would be the best way to handle audio recording. The people participating do not want to have to pass a microphone around form person to person and I'm not capable of micing everyone. The only mic I have is a shotgun mic (other than a lav) and I was thinking of putting the mic on a boom pole and a stand and having it be sort of suspended in the middle over the table. The microphone I have is Sennheiser K6. It will be like 6-8 people at the table. What do you think of this set up? Is there a better way of handling this?

Thank you
Kathy

A boundary mic 1/4 of the way along each table ( so 4 mics or one between 2 participants ) and fed into an Audio Technica Smart Mixer which will automatically open and close individual mics as required .

http://www.audio-technica.com/cms/mixers/3c8e0f0833b22a45/

These 4 channel units can be daisy chained if more microphones need to be added . Any good hire company will have them for modest daily charge - I used to use them to record conferences and they work really well .

Edit - they can be picked up used

http://m.ebay.com/itm/112166413659?_mwBanner=1

I have a couple of Shure Fp-410's which can do an Automix. They have been replaced by this model .

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=188356&gclid=CjwKEAjw-abABRDquOTJi8qdojwSJABt1S1O3KSKQShejH9AhVdUCIMk8G2nEzoa90zIwwJFsEZ89BoCP1jw_wcB&is=REG&ap=y&m=Y&c3api=1876%2C92051678882%2C&A=details&Q=

I have used matching Lavs, booms, and table mics depending on whether you can mic individuals or just need general coverage.

That looks almost like a clone of the Smart Mixer !

you still have level changes to deal with if you have multiple sounds sources, each with different speaking voice levels.

A gain adjustment in final mix is a lot simpler than magically removing room resonance and reverberation from a marginal recording.

I still say: let the client fix the room, then see if you can get an "acceptable" recording. If you can't, then it might be time to throw some money at the recording set-up. If I were Kathy, I'd be disinclined to spend any of my money to compensate for a room that the client knows is terrible ... unless the client is willing to pay for my new equipment.

Also, I came across interesting looking acoustic panels, what's your take on these:
Snowsound USA Acoustic Panels | (http://www.snowsoundusa.com)

For a long time people have used panels made of Owens-Corning 703 high-density fiberglass, in various thicknesses (typically 1" to 2") and covered with various decorative fabrics. That would be a good and safe starting point for your panel search. There are plenty of published graphs and tables showing measured acoustical performance. To me, that's a lot more meaningful than a pretty brochure that says "Acoustic Comfort Inspired by Nature."

I'm pretty sure that in an earlier post I also suggested the products by Tectum. They have a very wide range of highly effective acoustically absorbent panels, in various materials and finishes. Again, they have extensive published specs and a long history of successful use going back at least 30 years that I'm aware of.

Regardless of your panel material, I don't see any advantage to having the panels hang down on cables, like the illustrations in the brochure. Your room has a low ceiling already. I would get panels that can be mounted directly to the ceiling. They will be much less visually obtrusive (which allegedly is important to your client). And probably much easier to install.

Don't forget that NYC has exceedingly stringent fire and safety regs. I strongly suggest you get a qualified architect to approve any final decision, just to CYA in case of regulatory headaches down the road. In your position, I would say "Here's a product with good acoustical properties; check it out," but I would not say "I recommend that you use this product." Maybe it's just me, but I try to avoid legal liability and lawsuits.

Finally, I'm a little curious because you are now talking about ceiling panels. Have you abandoned window curtains? Have you abandoned wall panels? What's the latest progress report?

Hi Greg,

The ceiling panels are in addition to the window curtain, wall panels and a carpet. I thought hanging ceiling panels would be less intrusive to the original ceiling and if they didn't want to mount panels in the ceiling directly, perhaps I could recommend the hanging ones if they would make any noticeable difference.

Hi Kathy,

Well, I'm glad to hear that they're considering that much treatment! That will be a big improvement.

The mounting I'm thinking of would be to attach the panels directly to the ceiling using some type of screws (depending on the present ceiling construction). Of course if they remove them later, that would leave a lot of small holes (probably less than 1/4" diameter) to patch. With the cable-hung panels, you would still need to attach the cables to the ceiling, so presumably you would end up with a similar number of similar holes. I don't see any advantage in terms of mounting, and little or no difference in acoustical performance if the panel performance is the same.

I'd think thin panels mounted directly on the ceiling would have less visual impact. They could essentially just appear to be one continuous ceiling, just an inch or two lower, and slightly different surface texture, compared to the present ceiling.

And, by the way, what's the source of artificial lighting in the room? And what about ventilation? Would ceiling panels interfere with either of those functions?

When you evaluate panels, try to find a graph that shows absorption in different frequency bands. It's relatively easy to absorb high frequencies, harder to absorb as you get lower. That room is big enough to have some resonance at relatively low frequencies, so you want to be sure your panels have good LF performance. When you see an NC figure, that's an average of many frequency bands, but it doesn't tell you about specific frequency performance. To get rid of the LF resonance (and very long reverberation time) in that room, LF performance is really important.

I will note that some panels provide different LF performance if they are mounted an inch or so away from the hard surface behind them. You will find this data in amongst the acoustical specifications. In that case, you might end up mounting something like 3/4" furring strips to the ceiling, then mounting the panels directly to the furring strips. (I doubt that you could achieve a spacing this close with cable-hung mounting.)

Anyway, good luck with all of this! It's great that they're willing to consider rather extensive treatment (which is what they really need). It will be interesting to follow the progress of the project.

Before hanging anything on the ceiling one should find out what is holding it up and how much additional load it will accept, if any.

Based on the pictures, there are only two choices for holding up the ceiling:
(1) with very long beams that go from one end of the room to the other and that is a 40-foot span, or,
(2), cantilever beams in the 20-foot direction to provide a clear span with all glass at one end.
The glass windows are not a structural support and cannot provide any sideways shear bracing, either.

Option (1): To have beams that will span 40 feet they will have to be quite large, even with a very light loading such as a sloped roof. If there the space above is occupied then the loading would be even greater. Also, the bookshelf “wall” would have to be a structural wall with a short cantilever beam over the opening between the two rooms in order to support the 40-foot beam trusses. That darker-brown thing at the end of the book shelves could be covering a structural column support but then what is that black circle thing?

Option (2): The other way to support the ceiling is with trusses or cantilever beams, and the only way that can work is if there is a large room opposite the glass wall side. Ergo, this room would be part of a much larger building on the other side of the wall.

The dark vertical frames around the glass windows don’t appear to be substantial enough to provide significant load support.

Even just plain old fluffy Fiberglass® batt material weighs enough that it’s load has to be taken into account.

The ceiling support is a mystery and I’m very curious about what is holding it up.

More curiosity, are the black and white tables for hosting debate teams?

John,

That sounds like very well-reasoned structural analysis. It must be an interesting building. And I agree about any added load, even if the total is only a few hundred pounds. I've advised Kathy more than once to get an architect involved, so she can avoid being responsible for any structural and safety issues. I think she has sense enough to follow that advice.

Thinking about this some more, there can be a third option which would be a combination of the first two.

Option (3): The darker-brown thing is really a column and it supports a beam above the book shelves, that’s why there are shelves there so they can ‘hide’ the thickness of the beam above. That beam cantilevers out and over the opening between the two walls. The outside end of that beam provides the support for the 40-foot beam that runs above the windows, in both this room and the one on the other side of the bookshelf partition/wall.

The outside 40-foot beam supports the ceiling joists (big ones for the 20-foot span) and/or beams on 10-foot centers with 2 x 12 joists @ 16-inch on center between the beams.

I’m beginning to think this option is the most likely scenario.

Question: Besides the question about heat and cooling outlets, where are the electrical outlets?
Guess they could wear heavy wool coats during the New York winter. Don’t think that fireplace could provide enough heat and there is no way to distribute it. Since this is at ground level, probably radiant heat via a heated concrete floor.

In any event, those glass windows would make it drafty as the heavier cold air swoops down and across the floor nearest the windows.

I think the brown posts are load-bearing, so the beam has some support along its 40-foot span. I can envision steel bar joists on 24" centers, running from the 40-foot beam to the opposite wall. Twenty feet would be unexceptional for bar joists.

The photos show what appear to metal registers in the floor just in front of the window wall. That would be the logical place for heat, to counteract the natural convective draft in cold weather.

Maybe the fireplace is a facade, and it's actually an HVAC air return (or supply), with the other end of the system being beyond the bookshelves. Either way, there would be a heck of a breeze between the shelf end and fireplace end of the room.

I wonder what era this represents.

Greg - Over here we’re in earthquake country so many of our structures are made of wood whereas back east there is a lot of masonry, like the building on the other side of the fence.

Looking at Post #31 on my laptop I didn’t see any floor registers but if there are then the floor is probably a wood floor with a small crawl space underneath. Trying to get a floor vs outside grade comparison it does look like the floor might be slightly higher than the outside so with the floor registers and the hight difference that might indicate this is a wood frame building.

The brown poles are interesting because they’re inset from the outside wall. I was thinking they might be utility poles like what are used in an office to run phone and computer lines inside. If they’re structural, then they’re almost for sure supporting a beam above and it is cantilevered about a foot or so to the outside wall where to support the beam above the glass, so that idea works.

If there is a regular roof above then there should be some downspouts visible but I don’t see any. The east coast weather can generate some real downpours. (They wouldn’t put a downspout inside that support, would they?)

What era does this represent? That’s a tough one. In the late ‘30s early ‘40s there was some minimalist architecture, then again in the late ‘50s (at least in California), and again around the early ’70s (after the avacado/dark brown/orange-yellow period). Given the large glass panels (single pane???), I’ll take a guess that it’s late ‘60s to early ‘70s.

I’d like to know what Kathy has to say about this.

John, click the thumbnail of the photo showing the bookshelf. The full-size photo clearly shows several floor registers, very skinny ones, pretty close to the window wall.

Yes, the ceiling extends out past the window wall a couple of feet. So something up there is clearly cantilevered over that long beam. (But the foundation probably stops at the window wall.) I'm still gonna guess it's steel frame. A 20-foot span supporting perpendicular 20-foot spans would call for some extremely tall beams. I think steel, and bar joists, are much more likely. No shortage of steel in the NE (at least before we started importing it from Asia).

The east coast weather can generate some real downpours.
You don't get much rain in Seattle, do you? ;-)

Downspouts are sometimes interior. In fact on some flat membrane roofs, the drains and plumbing can be many feet back from the exterior edge. Although other "flat" roofs use scupper drains at the exterior edge ... clearly that's not the case here. I've been in one building (a meteorology building) where the roof drains come down through the office space, and are made of clear PVC, so the occupants can observe the precipitation coming down the drains. But no, I doubt that those brown poles are wasted for drainage. I think it's much more likely they are support columns. Of course the column could be an I-beam with a wire trough between the flanges.

I hope that glass isn't single-pane, or that place would be a nightmare to heat. But unless the windows are fairly new, it's likely that they are.

Kathy has been pretty mum about the details. Maybe she's afraid we will be tempted to go up to visit the place, stand in the room, clap our hands, and laugh at the long reverb time. Maybe we can post the photo online somewhere and ask the world, "Do you recognize this room?" If it's a really noteworthy building, some architect might know it. There can't be too many buildings in New York, right? ;-)

John, click the thumbnail of the photo showing the bookshelf. The full-size photo clearly shows several floor registers, very skinny ones, pretty close to the window wall.
Now that you mention it, yes, long skinny registers for sure. My laptop screen resolution isn't the greatest.

I hope that glass isn't single-pane, or that place would be a nightmare to heat. But unless the windows are fairly new, it's likely that they are.
Think you got it - single-pane or, newer thermalpane because there's no blind spots yet. The black glass frames are most likely extruded aluminum so that could put this in the early '60s and after.

You don't get much rain in Seattle, do you? ;-)
Ahhh ... actually, .... it's not really rain, it's called Oregon mist.

Oregon mist, as in, missed Oregon and hit Washington. ;-)

There has been a lot of climate change, though, and the forest fires have been one indicator. Back in '86 the local airport weather station had measurable precip every single day of July and the asphalt parking lot of the office where I worked was actually green. Moss. In recent years the summers have become noticeably drier and homeowners have been asked not to water our lawns. This year July precip was next to zero.

I feel like part of an astronomer group analyzing some distant universe feature here.

Maybe Kathy hasn't come by because she doesn't want to divulge any more information.

So true. In Portland, we get about 40 inches of rain per year. Seattle gets 30 inches of mist.

If you want big rain, try Mt. Waialeale on Kauai in Hawaii. Average rainfall: 460 inches per year. If you prefer the Continental US, try Forks, WA with 120 inches - just watch out for vampires, werewolves, and young readers.

Maybe I'll start another thread on how to record rain - and mist.

Sorry, I was away and just got back.
The house was built in 1941 but don't look for any clues about its design in the era it was built as it was one of a kind, unusual house, that did not draw any inspiration from the other designs from that era. I can not reveal the name of the house though.

It looks surprisingly modern and stark for that era, at least IMHO. Certainly an uncompromising appearance.

How are you coming with the acoustical treatment? Have any decisions been made yet? There are products that would treat the long wall and ceiling and still retain the flat stark appearance. If they then add the drapery you found, on the entire window, I think they will find an amazing improvement. I think they could safely leave the fireplace wall untouched, to preserve the appearance of the wood. If there is still a long echo in the room (sound bouncing between the fireplace wall and the shelving, then they could put some books (or, better yet, fake books made from acoustical materials) on the shelves, and that should surely solve it.

I'd love to hear another recording, made with the same mics, after the treatment has been done.

Nothing has been decided. They will have time to think about it in December/January. We will discuss it then. I'll certainly report back when that happens.

Thanks for all your help.

Thanks, Kathy! I'll keep my fingers crossed, and will hope for a successful outcome for them (and you).

Cheers!
Greg


(PS: This was posted at 11:52 AM EDT, just to compare with server time that appears on the forum.)