streckfus
Max Output Level: -84 dBFS
- Total Posts : 339
- Joined: 2013/11/22 15:29:47
- Location: Minneapolis, MN
- Status: offline
ARC 2 - Minimal Changes after Acoustic Treatment
For any of you ARC 2 users who have less than ideal (i.e. terrible) rooms - With this year's tax return, I decided that instead of buying some cool gadgets, better monitors, software and all the "fun" stuff, I needed to invest in some acoustic treatment for my room. I'm in a 10'x10' room with an 8' ceiling, pretty much the worst setting for a mixing desk. :) Knowing that the room's dimensions and layout would never result in a "perfect" studio, I figured that I'd use ARC 2 to help offset any deficiencies that remained after adding treatment. So I purchased ARC 2 and did an initial measurement with no treatment in place. As expected, ARC 2 reported some pretty significant cuts/boosts. The first order of business was installing GIK Acoustic Soffit Bass Traps (17"x17"x4') in the front corners. I did the old "clap loudly" test to see if flutter echo had decreased (not very noticeably), then took another measurement with ARC 2. There was a slight improvement in the low end frequency response, but not much. Then I built acoustic panels for the side walls. The panels contain Roxul bats three inches thick and are 2'x4'. I have two hanging on each side wall at the monitor reflection points, then two more hung from the ceiling above my mixing position. And holy crap, what a difference those made, at least that's what I thought. Just talking in that room sounds more like a studio environment, and I finally passed the "clap loudly" test with the side/ceiling panels. They sucked up that annoying echo and I was no longer worried about ruining vocal takes because of all the reflections. I was very happy with the way everything sounded. So I figured I'd substantiate my pride by taking one last ARC 2 measurement. The frequency response hardly changed at all. Huh??? I can hear a significant difference in the quality of the room. It's by no means perfect and never will be, but it's unquestionably better than it was. I couldn't tell an audible difference when I installed the bass traps, but I could hear a significant difference once the remaining panels went up. Music played through my monitors felt tighter and more balanced, but maybe that was just my brain tricking it into thinking it sounded better because I'd spent around a thousand bucks to improve the sound of my room! Assuming my brain wasn't playing tricks and the acoustics really have improved, any idea why ARC 2's measurements don't reflect this significant improvement? I know that adding treatment doesn't change the physical dimensions of the room, but you'd think significantly decreasing reflections would yield a noticeable change in frequency response...
post edited by streckfus - 2015/04/06 13:54:00
|
bitflipper
01100010 01101001 01110100 01100110 01101100 01101
- Total Posts : 26036
- Joined: 2006/09/17 11:23:23
- Location: Everett, WA USA
- Status: offline
Re: ARC 2 - Minimal Changes after Acoustic Treatment
2015/04/06 13:58:35
(permalink)
You are simply seeing the fundamental limitations of ARC, which can neither detect nor mitigate the kinds of problems that you've addressed by adding absorption.
 All else is in doubt, so this is the truth I cling to. My Stuff
|
streckfus
Max Output Level: -84 dBFS
- Total Posts : 339
- Joined: 2013/11/22 15:29:47
- Location: Minneapolis, MN
- Status: offline
Re: ARC 2 - Minimal Changes after Acoustic Treatment
2015/04/06 14:06:23
(permalink)
Yep, I know that ARC isn't going to turn my project studio with modest hardware and my own limitations into a professionally tuned room, and I do understand that my own skills have as much to do with my mixes as the software/hardware I'm using. But after seeing how so many people rave about ARC 2 and how it has helped them overcome some limitations in their listening environment, I was really surprised with how little my treatment seemed to effect the measurements.
I assumed that an untreated room with tons of reflections would cause phase cancellations and other anomalies that affect a room's sound, and that ARC would identify where in the frequency spectrum those problems are occurring. It did show significant peaks/dips before I treated the room, so how did it detect those if not from reflections?
|
dmbaer
Max Output Level: -49.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2585
- Joined: 2008/08/04 20:10:22
- Location: Concord CA
- Status: offline
Re: ARC 2 - Minimal Changes after Acoustic Treatment
2015/04/06 14:55:24
(permalink)
☄ Helpfulby dubdisciple 2015/04/06 15:24:59
streckfus
Assuming my brain wasn't playing tricks and the acoustics really have improved, any idea why ARC 2's measurements don't reflect this significant improvement?
What are you basing this statement on? Are you reacting to what the EQ plot in the ARC UI looks like? If so, be aware that that only tells half the story. As I understand it, ARC also does things with signal phase across the audible spectrum, and that does not show up on any graphic in the ARC UI.
|
batsbrew
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 10037
- Joined: 2007/06/07 16:02:32
- Location: SL,UT
- Status: offline
Re: ARC 2 - Minimal Changes after Acoustic Treatment
2015/04/06 15:08:01
(permalink)
I THINK you are seeing how little actual room treatment can make,
especially on the low end side..
i mean, i'd have to see your before and after curves,
but i bet the majority of the curving the ARC software is doing,
is in the low end.
and MOST of that curve,
is just for the 'sonic fingerprint' of your particular room.
go ahead, add tons of treatment,
but short of changing the actual dimensions of your room,
and adding 8" deep of rock wool on almost every wall,
your room is, what it is,
and ARC simply shows it.
|
batsbrew
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 10037
- Joined: 2007/06/07 16:02:32
- Location: SL,UT
- Status: offline
Re: ARC 2 - Minimal Changes after Acoustic Treatment
2015/04/06 15:11:02
(permalink)
i use arc 2
and recently,
i simply moved my mix station, from one side of the room (sort of in a corner, and pulled off a false wall) and centered it, perfectly, and pulled it off the wall (1st time) and moved it much closer to the wall (2nd time), and this alone made a large change in my room curve.
no additional treatments other than what i already had.
i basically changed the dimensions of my room from the perspective of what ARC had seen before, and what it is now.
i actually reduced how much work ARC had to do, by simply relocating my monitoring location.
|
bitflipper
01100010 01101001 01110100 01100110 01101100 01101
- Total Posts : 26036
- Joined: 2006/09/17 11:23:23
- Location: Everett, WA USA
- Status: offline
Re: ARC 2 - Minimal Changes after Acoustic Treatment
2015/04/06 15:23:50
(permalink)
☄ Helpfulby joel77 2015/04/09 11:59:30
Here's the crux of the problem...rooms don't really have a "frequency response".
If you could see sound, it would be very lumpy with no two locations in the room having the same frequency response. That's largely the result of constructive and destructive interference caused by reflections, and the location at which each type physically occurs and to what degree depends on the wavelength you're talking about and the distance it has traveled before running back into itself.
Place a microphone and record white noise and you can easily analyze frequency distribution, but any measurements you make are valid for only the exact place you put the microphone. Move the mike just a little and you get a different frequency response. Move it a foot or two and the difference is huge.
This is the fundamental problem when taking such measurements: any measurement is only meaningful for that one spot, and is only going to average the effects of time-based distortion. Any corrections you make at that one spot will not be the right corrections for any other spot, and in fact will make matters worse everywhere else.
ARC takes a clever approach to addressing this problem. With ARC, you take multiple measurements at different spots and then use a patented algorithm to come up with an averaged correction that doesn't screw up any one location too badly. And in fact, it does help. But it's a kludge. It's based on a gross over-simplification of room acoustics that doesn't take the time element into account except as a simple aggregate average.
In truth there is no way to flatten room response with equalization. It's physically impossible.
When you added absorption, you reduced many harmful acoustical effects. Few of them, however, are the types of effects that ARC measures. The perceived frequency response probably does feel flatter now, but ARC won't reflect that because it never saw the reasons for those problems in the first place.
All else is in doubt, so this is the truth I cling to. My Stuff
|
streckfus
Max Output Level: -84 dBFS
- Total Posts : 339
- Joined: 2013/11/22 15:29:47
- Location: Minneapolis, MN
- Status: offline
Re: ARC 2 - Minimal Changes after Acoustic Treatment
2015/04/06 15:30:35
(permalink)
Yeah, I'm basing it on the resulting before/after graph in the ARC 2 UI. I'm assuming that once ARC 2 measures the frequency response of the room, it creates an offset response so that when enabled, what you're hearing is as close to "flat" as possible (assuming the target is a flat response and not a car stereo, TV speaker, etc.). And since the measured frequency response doesn't seem to have changed, then I get the impression that ARC 2 is applying the same correction it did before I installed the absorption and improved my room.
|
mettelus
Max Output Level: -22 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5321
- Joined: 2005/08/05 03:19:25
- Location: Maryland, USA
- Status: offline
Re: ARC 2 - Minimal Changes after Acoustic Treatment
2015/04/06 15:33:09
(permalink)
Sometimes the defeating factor is the need for "symmetry" in things (human nature). Separating direct path from reflections is best at all angles possible being slightly off 45 degrees. Sort of like shooting pool and seeing how many bumper bounces you can get WITHOUT the ball going in the pocket.
ASUS ROG Maximus X Hero (Wi-Fi AC), i7-8700k, 16GB RAM, GTX-1070Ti, Win 10 Pro, Saffire PRO 24 DSP, A-300 PRO, plus numerous gadgets and gizmos that make or manipulate sound in some way.
|
brunovaltho
Max Output Level: -89 dBFS
- Total Posts : 59
- Joined: 2014/12/31 06:50:01
- Status: offline
Re: ARC 2 - Minimal Changes after Acoustic Treatment
2015/04/06 15:50:02
(permalink)
ARC 2 is a nice soft but it doesn't replace accoustic treatment and professional accoustic measurements with a good mic (I own Arc2; it's good but...)
|
drewfx1
Max Output Level: -9.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 6585
- Joined: 2008/08/04 16:19:11
- Status: offline
Re: ARC 2 - Minimal Changes after Acoustic Treatment
2015/04/06 19:20:16
(permalink)
I wouldn't use the picture in ARC to go by.
The proper way to do it is you take the impulse response of the before and after ARC profiles and analyze them to see what changed.
 In order, then, to discover the limit of deepest tones, it is necessary not only to produce very violent agitations in the air but to give these the form of simple pendular vibrations. - Hermann von Helmholtz, predicting the role of the electric bassist in 1877.
|
batsbrew
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 10037
- Joined: 2007/06/07 16:02:32
- Location: SL,UT
- Status: offline
Re: ARC 2 - Minimal Changes after Acoustic Treatment
2015/04/06 19:23:17
(permalink)
☄ Helpfulby bapu 2015/04/06 20:59:17
all i know is,
i'm glad it works for me.
|
drewfx1
Max Output Level: -9.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 6585
- Joined: 2008/08/04 16:19:11
- Status: offline
Re: ARC 2 - Minimal Changes after Acoustic Treatment
2015/04/06 19:34:50
(permalink)
bitflipper
It's based on a gross over-simplification of room acoustics that doesn't take the time element into account except as a simple aggregate average.
Dave, I'm sorry but you keep getting this wrong - the impulse response captures the time information completely for the spot in the room where it is taken. Time response in the time domain and frequency/phase response in the frequency domain are the same thing. Look at the impulse response of a highly resonant filter with a spectrogram and you will see that the IR indeed captures the filter ringing over time. The problem with the IR only applying at one location is of course quite true, which is why ARC is only useful at only one listening position (at a time).
In order, then, to discover the limit of deepest tones, it is necessary not only to produce very violent agitations in the air but to give these the form of simple pendular vibrations. - Hermann von Helmholtz, predicting the role of the electric bassist in 1877.
|
sharke
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 13933
- Joined: 2012/08/03 00:13:00
- Location: NYC
- Status: offline
Re: ARC 2 - Minimal Changes after Acoustic Treatment
2015/04/06 23:20:47
(permalink)
Obviously the measurements are taken from the listening position and that is the "sweet spot," but I have found that ARC2 improves the sound of my monitors wherever I'm standing in the room. I wouldn't like to make EQ decisions from anywhere but my mixing chair, but everything sounds great nonetheless.
I have a completely untreated room which has a low ceiling, and not only that I have my monitors on a shelf about 6" from the wall. Although they're not in a corner, they're quite close to a corner. Additionally, they're positioned on the long side of the room. Basically I have every "bad setup" box ticked. I have a set of Equator Audio D5's, a very sweet sounding monitor with a great reputation. And they sound like crap without ARC2. The bass is flabby and boomy. The highs seem to get sucked into some mystery vortex. Not just in my mixes, but also with great mixes like The Nightfly. As soon as I flip ARC2 on, it's like putting contact lenses on the speakers. Everything is so focused and balanced. The bass sits perfectly on the soundstage and doesn't resonate. It's so clear I can almost "see" it. All the highs come back and I can hear the air in the track again. Every part is located clearly in space. I honestly think it sounds better than most "audiophile" hifi setups I've heard. I've had some pretty sweet hifi setups in the past but nothing beats ARC2 through my D5's.
I don't care how it works....IT JUST DOES!
JamesWindows 10, Sonar SPlat (64-bit), Intel i7-4930K, 32GB RAM, RME Babyface, AKAI MPK Mini, Roland A-800 Pro, Focusrite VRM Box, Komplete 10 Ultimate, 2012 American Telecaster!
|
ston
Max Output Level: -71 dBFS
- Total Posts : 965
- Joined: 2008/03/04 12:28:40
- Status: offline
Re: ARC 2 - Minimal Changes after Acoustic Treatment
2015/04/07 04:42:36
(permalink)
I think that the graph displayed by ARC2 shows you what it is doing in the frequency domain, not in the time domain. The treatment you have applied to your room will affect its time domain response much more than its frequency response, which is why the frequency response graph displayed in ARC2 hasn't changed much.
|
fwrend
Max Output Level: -76 dBFS
- Total Posts : 709
- Joined: 2006/09/19 16:02:52
- Location: Garden City, KS
- Status: offline
Re: ARC 2 - Minimal Changes after Acoustic Treatment
2015/04/07 07:48:53
(permalink)
Arc2 user here and indeed appreciate the difference the software makes in my untreated room. I still have hopes to treat the room.
My questioin to the OP: so, what's the difference "audibly" between Arc ON and Arc OFF post-treatment? Regardless of what the chart shows, perhaps this would speak more about the difference between actual treatment and software based correction.
Just a thought.
|
codamedia
Max Output Level: -67 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1185
- Joined: 2005/01/24 09:58:10
- Location: Winnipeg Canada
- Status: offline
Re: ARC 2 - Minimal Changes after Acoustic Treatment
2015/04/07 09:14:55
(permalink)
From a listening position using near field monitors at proper levels - the room does not play as big of a role as the monitors themselves (or the monitors positions) do. This is likely why ARC is not noticing a huge change... the sound and position of the monitors is still the primary source... and that has not changed.
Since ARC measures from the listening position, their slogan (Advanced Room Correction) seems very misleading. IMO, the slogan should be "Advanced Monitor Correction" or "Advanced EQ Correction", not "Room Correction". Arc adjusts EQ, it cannot absorb reflections.
You did the right thing by adding treatment ... Room treatment is about taming reflections through absorption and diffusion rather than trying to tame frequencies - which is what ARC corrects.
I'm not dissing ARC... it certainly has it's place. I'm just suggesting TREATMENT plus ARC is a better combination than ARC alone. IMHO... if I had to choose one, it would be treatment.
Don't fix it in the mix ... Fix it in the take!
Desktop: Win 7 Pro 64 Bit , ASUS MB w/Intel Chipset, INTEL Q9300 Quad Core, 2.5 GHz, 8 GB RAM, ATI 5450 Video Laptop: Windows 7 Pro, i5, 8 Gig Ram Hardware: Presonus FP10 (Firepod), FaderPort, M-Audio Axiom 49, Mackie 1202 VLZ, POD X3 Live, Variax 600, etc... etc...
|
streckfus
Max Output Level: -84 dBFS
- Total Posts : 339
- Joined: 2013/11/22 15:29:47
- Location: Minneapolis, MN
- Status: offline
Re: ARC 2 - Minimal Changes after Acoustic Treatment
2015/04/07 09:55:38
(permalink)
I appreciate everyone's feedback! Sounds like there are some who've found ARC 2 to be very useful, and some are on the other side of the fence. I should note that I took the largest amount of measurements possible (15, I believe), all of them within my primary listening positing. Some additional info about my setup: My mixing desk is about 1 foot away from the wall and centered between the side walls. The desk is quite large and has a monitor shelf. Due to space limitations, I can't put my monitors on stands so they're sitting on that monitor shelf on top of Primacoustic Recoil Stabilizers. I've got Alesis M1 Active MKII monitors. Yes, you may snicker. They're all I could afford when building the studio, and without a proper room, I don't think it makes sense to dump a bunch of cash into better monitors. That's money better spent on treating the room. :) Others have talked about ignoring the graph/picture and instead looking at ARC 2's impulse response. Where would I find such a thing? Aside from the resulting before/after graph after taking measurements, I don't see any other options for detailed results/analysis. fwrend
My questioin to the OP: so, what's the difference "audibly" between Arc ON and Arc OFF post-treatment? Regardless of what the chart shows, perhaps this would speak more about the difference between actual treatment and software based correction.
Just a thought.
To be honest, audibly ARC 2 sounds bad when the correction is on. Some have stated that turning ARC 2 makes their speakers sound great, I've found the opposite to be true. The speakers sound quite peaky and glassy, but I understand that ARC 2 isn't necessarily going to make the monitors sound better; it's designed to make the mix sound better by accentuating/attenuating frequencies that are problematic in the room. I haven't done a full mix with/without ARC 2, but I have done some quick tests by throwing an EQ on the master bus to tweak the sound of the mix in accordance with what I'm hearing through ARC 2. (Yes, I disable ARC 2 when I bounce.) I've actually found that the mixes sound better without monitoring through ARC 2, then again, I haven't done a start-to-finish mix using it, and throwing an EQ on the master fader isn't the same as tweaking individual instruments as the mix is built up. (Plus, the mix was a work in progress anyway, so it was far from perfect to begin with.) I definitely need to do some more experimenting with ARC 2 and eventually I'll figure out if it helps my mixes or not. If not, at least I got an extra mic out of it. :)
|
sven450
Max Output Level: -72 dBFS
- Total Posts : 945
- Joined: 2004/03/16 08:11:49
- Status: offline
Re: ARC 2 - Minimal Changes after Acoustic Treatment
2015/04/07 21:10:32
(permalink)
sharke
I have a completely untreated room which has a low ceiling, and not only that I have my monitors on a shelf about 6" from the wall. Although they're not in a corner, they're quite close to a corner. Additionally, they're positioned on the long side of the room. Basically I have every "bad setup" box ticked. I have a set of Equator Audio D5's, a very sweet sounding monitor with a great reputation. And they sound like crap without ARC2. The bass is flabby and boomy. The highs seem to get sucked into some mystery vortex. Not just in my mixes, but also with great mixes like The Nightfly. As soon as I flip ARC2 on, it's like putting contact lenses on the speakers. Everything is so focused and balanced. The bass sits perfectly on the soundstage and doesn't resonate. It's so clear I can almost "see" it. All the highs come back and I can hear the air in the track again. Every part is located clearly in space. I honestly think it sounds better than most "audiophile" hifi setups I've heard. I've had some pretty sweet hifi setups in the past but nothing beats ARC2 through my D5's.
I don't care how it works....IT JUST DOES!
This is me too. The result of ARC in an untreated room is remarkable. I have the D5s also, and ARC makes them sound the way I imagined they would when first read about them. The "contact lenses" analogy is perfect. Everything becomes focused and sharp. Its quite amazing. I'm sure room treatment would do even more wonderful things, and I understand the limits of the software, but I can only say great things about ARC and how it has improved the sound in my crappy untreated room.
|
bluzdog
Max Output Level: -56 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1928
- Joined: 2007/10/06 17:15:14
- Location: Lakewood, Colorado
- Status: offline
Re: ARC 2 - Minimal Changes after Acoustic Treatment
2015/04/07 21:39:28
(permalink)
streckfus
I appreciate everyone's feedback! Sounds like there are some who've found ARC 2 to be very useful, and some are on the other side of the fence.
I should note that I took the largest amount of measurements possible (15, I believe), all of them within my primary listening positing. Some additional info about my setup:
My mixing desk is about 1 foot away from the wall and centered between the side walls. The desk is quite large and has a monitor shelf. Due to space limitations, I can't put my monitors on stands so they're sitting on that monitor shelf on top of Primacoustic Recoil Stabilizers. I've got Alesis M1 Active MKII monitors. Yes, you may snicker. They're all I could afford when building the studio, and without a proper room, I don't think it makes sense to dump a bunch of cash into better monitors. That's money better spent on treating the room. :)
Others have talked about ignoring the graph/picture and instead looking at ARC 2's impulse response. Where would I find such a thing? Aside from the resulting before/after graph after taking measurements, I don't see any other options for detailed results/analysis.
fwrend
My questioin to the OP: so, what's the difference "audibly" between Arc ON and Arc OFF post-treatment? Regardless of what the chart shows, perhaps this would speak more about the difference between actual treatment and software based correction.
Just a thought.
To be honest, audibly ARC 2 sounds bad when the correction is on. Some have stated that turning ARC 2 makes their speakers sound great, I've found the opposite to be true. The speakers sound quite peaky and glassy, but I understand that ARC 2 isn't necessarily going to make the monitors sound better; it's designed to make the mix sound better by accentuating/attenuating frequencies that are problematic in the room. I haven't done a full mix with/without ARC 2, but I have done some quick tests by throwing an EQ on the master bus to tweak the sound of the mix in accordance with what I'm hearing through ARC 2. (Yes, I disable ARC 2 when I bounce.) I've actually found that the mixes sound better without monitoring through ARC 2, then again, I haven't done a start-to-finish mix using it, and throwing an EQ on the master fader isn't the same as tweaking individual instruments as the mix is built up. (Plus, the mix was a work in progress anyway, so it was far from perfect to begin with.)
I definitely need to do some more experimenting with ARC 2 and eventually I'll figure out if it helps my mixes or not. If not, at least I got an extra mic out of it. :)
Actually it's designed to make the mix sound accurate not better or worse. I don't doubt ARC can make a mix sound worse. How does reference material sound through ARC? Is there a chance you have your old measurements loaded? Rocky
|
streckfus
Max Output Level: -84 dBFS
- Total Posts : 339
- Joined: 2013/11/22 15:29:47
- Location: Minneapolis, MN
- Status: offline
Re: ARC 2 - Minimal Changes after Acoustic Treatment
2015/04/07 23:03:11
(permalink)
Wow, you know what? The last time I ran a reference track through ARC 2 was before I put up my side/ceiling panels AND before I replaced the MoPads with Recoil Stabilizers. I'd listened to some tracks through iTunes after installing those things, and of course it sounded better, but the only music I'd played through ARC 2 were my own mixes in Sonar.
So, I just ran some reference tracks through ARC 2 in Sonar and I must concur that it sounds much better with ARC 2 than without. Tight bass, clarity across the sound field, better stereo imaging, no more mud or upper-mid honk. This tells me two things: 1) I'd gotten used to the way my monitors/room used to sound, and 2) my mixes sound like ****. :)
Oh well, I knew that already, which is why I installed treatment and bought ARC 2 in the first place!
So, I stand corrected. Thanks for the feedback, everyone, and I'll say this: ALL of you were right! ARC 2 is not a replacement for acoustic treatment (nor is it intended to be), but it can certainly help.
|
ston
Max Output Level: -71 dBFS
- Total Posts : 965
- Joined: 2008/03/04 12:28:40
- Status: offline
Re: ARC 2 - Minimal Changes after Acoustic Treatment
2015/04/08 08:14:22
(permalink)
codamedia
Arc adjusts EQ, it cannot absorb reflections.
ARC works both in the frequency and time domain, so it does more than adjust EQ. It attempts to compensate for reflections, ringing, standing waves etc. but any help you can give it with suitable room treatment makes its job that much easier. I was using my headphones recently (late at night) and had forgotten to turn ARC off. I was wondering what was causing all the strange echoing I noticed until I realised that ARC was enabled on the master bus. That's its attempt to correct the room's behaviour in the time domain.
|
batsbrew
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 10037
- Joined: 2007/06/07 16:02:32
- Location: SL,UT
- Status: offline
Re: ARC 2 - Minimal Changes after Acoustic Treatment
2015/04/08 10:17:09
(permalink)
streckfus
...and I'll say this: ALL of you were right! ARC 2 is not a replacement for acoustic treatment (nor is it intended to be), but it can certainly help. No one ever said it was to replace treatment. but the truth is, most rooms cannot be helped with ONLY treatment. even if you had all the money in the world and threw everything available at it.
|
bluzdog
Max Output Level: -56 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1928
- Joined: 2007/10/06 17:15:14
- Location: Lakewood, Colorado
- Status: offline
Re: ARC 2 - Minimal Changes after Acoustic Treatment
2015/04/08 10:22:42
(permalink)
streckfus
Wow, you know what? The last time I ran a reference track through ARC 2 was before I put up my side/ceiling panels AND before I replaced the MoPads with Recoil Stabilizers. I'd listened to some tracks through iTunes after installing those things, and of course it sounded better, but the only music I'd played through ARC 2 were my own mixes in Sonar.
So, I just ran some reference tracks through ARC 2 in Sonar and I must concur that it sounds much better with ARC 2 than without. Tight bass, clarity across the sound field, better stereo imaging, no more mud or upper-mid honk. This tells me two things: 1) I'd gotten used to the way my monitors/room used to sound, and 2) my mixes sound like ****. :)
Oh well, I knew that already, which is why I installed treatment and bought ARC 2 in the first place!
So, I stand corrected. Thanks for the feedback, everyone, and I'll say this: ALL of you were right! ARC 2 is not a replacement for acoustic treatment (nor is it intended to be), but it can certainly help.
Now that's bitter sweet but definitely a step in the right direction. Rocku
|
IK_Multimedia
Max Output Level: -76 dBFS
- Total Posts : 723
- Joined: 2009/12/04 19:31:19
- Location: Worldwide
- Status: offline
Re: ARC 2 - Minimal Changes after Acoustic Treatment
2015/04/08 12:31:21
(permalink)
This is a great thread, even with the ups and downs. We've always been happy to recommend people use treatment along with ARC and had even bundled with some treatment years ago. I kind of wish we still did that, I should probably kick that conversation up the chain. I will also recommend that we talk to potential ARC users more specifically about what kind of treatment would help most in conjunction with ARC so you can all get more out of it while planning accordingly. Basically, what you might do best with first then you can treat your room over time while still having the ability to create mixes that translate much better than they had in the past. Here is the section from http://www.ikmultimedia.com/arc about ARC's use in treated or semi-treated rooms: Do you need ARC 2
if your room is already treated?ARC 2 can improve the acoustics of ANY room. An untreated room will experience a dramatic improvement – but also treated rooms will sound better depending on the quality of the existing treatment. Many of ARC 2 improvements make it more effective in a wide spectrum of applications — from amateur bedroom studios to the most high-end professionally treated studios.
|
drewfx1
Max Output Level: -9.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 6585
- Joined: 2008/08/04 16:19:11
- Status: offline
Re: ARC 2 - Minimal Changes after Acoustic Treatment
2015/04/08 12:40:28
(permalink)
Some technical information, because this stuff is (understandably) poorly understood by people unfamiliar with DSP:
1. "Time domain" and "frequency domain" are two different ways of looking at the same thing. Don't think of it as two different things. I use the analogy of decimals vs. fractions: 1.75 and 1 3/4 are different ways of expressing the same thing, but each has different advantages and disadvantages depending on how they are being used. With some caveats you can convert back and forth between the time and frequency (and other) domains.
2. FIR filters, for instance linear phase EQ's, are mathematically the same as a pure convolution reverb. The only difference is the IR. Does a reverb IR contain timing information?
In order, then, to discover the limit of deepest tones, it is necessary not only to produce very violent agitations in the air but to give these the form of simple pendular vibrations. - Hermann von Helmholtz, predicting the role of the electric bassist in 1877.
|
sharke
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 13933
- Joined: 2012/08/03 00:13:00
- Location: NYC
- Status: offline
Re: ARC 2 - Minimal Changes after Acoustic Treatment
2015/04/08 16:48:51
(permalink)
IK_Multimedia
This is a great thread, even with the ups and downs. We've always been happy to recommend people use treatment along with ARC and had even bundled with some treatment years ago. I kind of wish we still did that, I should probably kick that conversation up the chain. I will also recommend that we talk to potential ARC users more specifically about what kind of treatment would help most in conjunction with ARC so you can all get more out of it while planning accordingly. Basically, what you might do best with first then you can treat your room over time while still having the ability to create mixes that translate much better than they had in the past.
Here is the section from http://www.ikmultimedia.com/arc about ARC's use in treated or semi-treated rooms:Do you need ARC 2
if your room is already treated?ARC 2 can improve the acoustics of ANY room. An untreated room will experience a dramatic improvement – but also treated rooms will sound better depending on the quality of the existing treatment. Many of ARC 2 improvements make it more effective in a wide spectrum of applications — from amateur bedroom studios to the most high-end professionally treated studios.
Slightly OT but you know what would be great? If ARC came bundled with a folded piece of card or paper which is marked with the ideal measuring positions around the listening position. You could just tape it to the floor and get measuring straight away. I think one one of the most time consuming and fiddly aspects of doing the measurements is marking out the spots in a symmetrical pattern as illustrated in the manual. I ended up marking them out with tape, but I've since taken the tape up and I'm looking to do another set of measurements quite soon. Not looking forward to marking it all out again....I guess this time I may mark it out on a sheet of construction paper and keep it rolled up in a tube or something.
JamesWindows 10, Sonar SPlat (64-bit), Intel i7-4930K, 32GB RAM, RME Babyface, AKAI MPK Mini, Roland A-800 Pro, Focusrite VRM Box, Komplete 10 Ultimate, 2012 American Telecaster!
|
Elffin
Max Output Level: -67 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1196
- Joined: 2007/02/11 16:49:19
- Location: Wales
- Status: offline
Re: ARC 2 - Minimal Changes after Acoustic Treatment
2015/04/08 17:08:53
(permalink)
saw a video once of a guy using a laser to pinpoint the locations needed for Arc..
|
sharke
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 13933
- Joined: 2012/08/03 00:13:00
- Location: NYC
- Status: offline
Re: ARC 2 - Minimal Changes after Acoustic Treatment
2015/04/08 19:13:23
(permalink)
Elffin
saw a video once of a guy using a laser to pinpoint the locations needed for Arc..
Now that's just showing off.
JamesWindows 10, Sonar SPlat (64-bit), Intel i7-4930K, 32GB RAM, RME Babyface, AKAI MPK Mini, Roland A-800 Pro, Focusrite VRM Box, Komplete 10 Ultimate, 2012 American Telecaster!
|
bluzdog
Max Output Level: -56 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1928
- Joined: 2007/10/06 17:15:14
- Location: Lakewood, Colorado
- Status: offline
Re: ARC 2 - Minimal Changes after Acoustic Treatment
2015/04/08 20:42:50
(permalink)
Elffin
saw a video once of a guy using a laser to pinpoint the locations needed for Arc..
That's a great idea. Laser levels are inexpensive these days. Set it on top of a monitor, line it up and voila first wall reflection spot. Rocky
|