wst3
Max Output Level: -55.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1979
- Joined: 2003/11/04 10:28:11
- Location: Pottstown, PA 19464
- Status: offline
Re: Acoustic treatment for a 12X14 room
2013/08/22 09:50:06
(permalink)
Wow... lots of interesting stuff... I guess I'll reply, since flame throwers have not yet been drawn! drewfx1
Mike you are making some arguments from authority here which are generally severely frowned upon where I come from. <snip> arguments from authority are a deductive fallacy and are often used in forums (intentionally or not) as an implicit ad hominem attack. They should never be used. I don't think that was Mike's intention... and in any case, I think all of can agree on this. I certainly tried to avoid saying anything like "I'm an expert... you have to believe me!" drewfx1When you have people making conflicting claims that are not purely subjective, and it's reasonably easy to do some quantitative testing, I find the testing preferable to arguments. <snip> Therein lies the rub... we do not yet know how to objectively measure most facets of audio. If you want to do some interesting reading do some research on Richard Heyser, as his pet peeve was the inability to make measurements that agreed with subjective perception. He is the father of TEF(tm) measurements, and the LEDE(tm) design concept. Even if you don't think much of LEDE(tm), he was a very bright guy, and his papers on perception are worth the read. drewfx1In my travels I have found that when someone says, "It's impossible!", what they sometimes mean is, "I don't know of any way of doing that". Happens all the time... but sometimes it turns out that something is impossible... TODAY. And that last work is an important part of the conversation. It has been proven that if one can capture - and describe - a transfer function accurately and completely one can cancel it out... the challenges are (a) capturing and describing the transfer function accurately and completely, and (b) finding the horsepower to reverse it. Because the transfer functions we are trying to "fix" are not time independent it is a very difficult problem to solve. drewfx1I don't put much weight on any manufacturers claims. I never do! If I had a nickel for every poorly written specification I've read (things like flat from 20Hz to 20kHz, or 0.001% THD - how stupid do marketers think we are??) It is an unfortunate truth that we have allowed marketers in all market spaces to shade the facts... Now I've also had to eat crow more than once! When I was much younger I thought it really stupid that someone would pay more than $100 for a microphone, then a friend picked up a pristine U-67, and my eyes (ears?) were opened, and my bank balance has never been the same<G>! In the middle ground, I was also highly skeptical of "star quad" cable as a solution to noise problems. Once I made the effort to learn about the differences between magnetic and electrical fields (very embarrassing, my degree is in physics), and how different mechanisms can be used to mitigate problems I now know when, and how, to use star quad, or even un-shielded twisted pairs to reduce noise problems. drewfx1Personally, I'm willing to entertain that ARC might be able address certain acoustics problems (at a given listening position) while failing to solve other problems. The fact that it may not be perfect and solve all problems is not materially different to me from the fact that other, more traditional acoustic treatments do not completely solve every problem either. I agree with your first statement, and in fact that was what I was trying to express, although I might have gone a little overboard since I find the marketing hype to be so offensive... but I digress (early and often!) The second statement is, I think, incomplete. If you include things like room dimensions and geometry than I think "more traditional acoustic treatments" can solve, completely, any acoustic problem. The issue is that solving them may cost a LOT of money, making that solution impractical. drewfx1If ARC changes the sound in a way that is considered "helpful" to someone, that is a subjective evaluation and others may have different subjective opinions. And when perfection cannot be achieved, "good enough" is a subjective decision as well. Bingo! If it works for you then use it. My only concern is that a lot of people view it as a panacea, and without understanding the limitations they are spending time and money foolishly. And they are not getting the result they think they are getting. drewfx1Finally, arguing endlessly about whether or not ARC (or any other product) works as claimed (by either the vendor or users) seems silly to me without first establishing exactly what it is actually doing and not doing. Which leads back to my earlier point - we do not yet know how to measure the effectiveness of something like ARC, we have to rely on subjective experiences, and they do differ. I just reviewed this thread, and I can't find anywhere a statement from me that people should not use ARC. I will stick to my guns that it is a very limited solution, and that it can not (yet) correct time domain problems. It can mask them, and if that is what you need to do better work then go for it. My complaint, my only complaint, is that marketers are selling ARC and Auto-Cal as magic when in fact they are not!
-- Bill Audio Enterprise KB3KJF
|
wst3
Max Output Level: -55.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1979
- Joined: 2003/11/04 10:28:11
- Location: Pottstown, PA 19464
- Status: offline
Re: Acoustic treatment for a 12X14 room
2013/08/22 09:51:38
(permalink)
bitflipper
I'm willing to entertain that ARC might be able address certain acoustics problems (at a given listening position) while failing to solve or exacerbating other problems.
Fixed.
Thanks for the correction<G>...
-- Bill Audio Enterprise KB3KJF
|
clintmartin
Max Output Level: -36.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3893
- Joined: 2009/10/11 12:16:43
- Location: Fort Smith, AR
- Status: offline
Re: Acoustic treatment for a 12X14 room
2013/08/22 10:24:57
(permalink)
So...(Very interesting stuff, thanks for all of the input) My room will be 12X14. I plan on having my desk in the middle of the 12' side. How far from the wall should my speakers be? My monitor will be in front of a window. Do I need a panel in front of the window? I plan on building 10 2'X4' panels 2" thick with a 2" air gap...all sides exposed. I'm going to build 4 2'X8' bass traps 6" thick and stagger the corners. Placement will be determined later of course, but basically 2 panels per side with 2 on the ceiling is the plan. Do any of you see a problem with my basic idea? I do realize correct placement will be needed after the desk and speakers are in the correct place.
|
wst3
Max Output Level: -55.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1979
- Joined: 2003/11/04 10:28:11
- Location: Pottstown, PA 19464
- Status: offline
Re: Acoustic treatment for a 12X14 room
2013/08/22 10:46:51
(permalink)
No time wasted... in fact I figured you were too busy making music to weigh in - and that's a good thing! I will endeavor to be brief... Danny Danzi
Whatever the case, guys like you and I could care less what's under the hood as long as it makes a difference in our world for the better. That's how I pretty much do everything. The more I get involved with science, the more it takes me out of my "raw, use your ears" realm. Which is, of course, just fine. We all work differently. Danny Danzi
Like you, I've been doing this a long time also. I've worked in some of the crappiest rooms of all time. <snip> However, as you know from doing stuff like that yourself, it pushes you really hard to get the best out of everything you have at the time, right? I know you can so relate there. :) Absolutely... sometimes constraints help us. I know I got a lot more music making done when all I had was a 4 track cassette recorder, a synth, and my guitars. Danny Danzi
Well, keeping along with that particular subject, just about every time I've been in a position like that, the monitors I've used were not even corrected nor did I have a sub at all times. This put me at such a huge disadvantage, it really ruined the enjoyment factor for me in ways I can't even tell you. That said... Yup! Sometimes constraints make us work hard on stuff that is not productive... figuring out the difference is becoming more of a challenge as technology advances... more's the pity! Danny Danzi
<snip> BUT....huge BUT at that.....one of the most important aspects of this field for me, is having monitors at least tuned as flat as possible. I can mix in any room you want to put me in as long as the monitors are not totally out of whack with what they are giving me. If I can't trust an ounce of what I'm hearing, there's no way I can do a good job. Agreed again... but I think KNOWING what the SYSTEM is telling you is probably the most important part! I think flat makes it a little easier to adapt your ears to the system... Danny Danzi
I've mixed on incredible systems in great rooms and while sometimes not liking the outcome but the client did. <snip> Is it possible that you simply didn't have enough cockpit time in those rooms? Just asking... Danny Danzi
In my humble opinion, I sincerely think the monitors used makes a difference as well as how anal you are with the procedure and if you use a sub. I also do not feel ARC is easy to use at all. I absolutely HATE doing the corrections. There are too many things you can forget...and if you forget just one thing, you've wasted an hour of time. Honest when I tell you, you have to be so precise, it no longer makes it easy. Nor should it be easy! Although I don't think that's a big drawback... if it worked well (for me) it would still be easier than building the room<G>! Danny Danzi
Taping your floor, measuring, use the right mic model number, proper height, mic position at the nose, keeping things totally symmetrical and measured to the numbers, make sure input monitor is turned off, make sure proper levels were achieved, make sure lowest latency possible was used.....forgetting just one of those things changes the entire way it works. Funny thing is, I still have to do all those things... Danny Danzi
Again, I'm honestly not trying to sell you on it. You tried it, you didn't like it, you didn't think your material improved, you have every right to share how you feel. But if by chance there was a possibility that you may have forgotten something....if you still have ARC, I'd be willing to share a pdf that I've written up that will take you through all the steps I use to be successful with it every time. At least you could see if any of it made a difference. A generous offer, but I do not have easy access to ARC at the moment. FWIW, one of the engineers at Genelec checked my work when I tried to get Auto-Cal up and running, I hadn't missed anything, and yet I was hearing artifacts from the correction that were more of a problem - for me - than the problems they were trying to corret. Danny Danzi
Whatever it does, it's been all good for me. I really don't mind people bashing on it at all...as long as they've tried it. What bothers me the most (now I'm going to sound a bit like a jerk, but honest this is not directed at you or anyone....it's just in general but needs to be said) is when people use the science of what they read or hear against the thing and bash it for no reason other than to sound important. And, the fact that they never even tried it. I'll sort of agree... I think some folks, folks who have built numerous rooms that are well received, and clearly understand the science behind it all, have a right to dismiss ARC and similar products based on science. But they live in a world where budget is usually not a limitation, they can build the room correctly from the start. That makes a difference, I think. But yeah, everyone else ought to at least give it a try before expressing an opinion... heck, even people like me, who are skeptical, ought to give it a try. Danny Danzi
My other argument is (and here's where the jerk in me comes out and where this is not directed at you or anyone else) the "scientist" types are always the ones that seem to ruin the arc debate. There is no reason for someone that hasn't tried it to come in to the discussion and bash it if they haven't tried it, seriously. Again, I think there are people that can dismiss it without really trying it... they are few, but they exist. Danny Danzi
And what else gets me is, these dudes that talk this crap can use all the help they can get because their mixes sound terrible! I have either heard some of the worst material by supposed scientists that are the first to share internet links about stuff or share how smart they are with people to intimidate them, or have heard nothing from them at all that would make me want to listen to them. Oddly enough, I might agree with this, but a mix is also a very subjective thing. I might hate a mix, but the it might still be the mix the artist wanted. There is a huge degree of personal taste at play here. Danny Danzi
At the end of the day, you have scientists with crap for audio trying to show people that are trying to improve that ARC is a bunch of horsesh!t and hype. It may be that....but for quite a few people, it has worked wonders. I have not read every ARC thread, but I will postulate that perhaps some of these folks are simply incensed by the hype? It's possible. When I read threads where people complain about ground loops it makes me want to scream. Ground loops are NOT a problem. They can exacerbate design problems in poorly designed gear, but by themselves they are not a problem. And defeating safety ground to rid your system of noise is the single most offensive bit of advice I have ever seen. So maybe folks who find the hype offensive go off the deep end? Just suggesting that everyone approaches these topics with their own perspective. They might well be talentless jerks, or they might just be looking from a different angle. This is why I have never (I hope) told people that ARC and Auto-Cal are rip-offs or junk... I've simply tried to express that they may not be solving the problems you think they are solving - and that if they work for you, that is they let you create a mix that translates well to the outside world, and they let you do so with less effort then that's wonderful. I can't mix without a lava lamp in the room... doesn't mean everyone needs one<G>! Danny Danzi
It's like the guitar teacher Fascinating analogy! I teach guitar. I have a very specific approach that works for me - I teach theory and physical technique. I use songs as illustrations, but I choose not to teach songs - I think that is a waste of time for the student. I prefer to equip them to teach themselves. My approach will NOT work for every student. But for those who do succeed I like to think I've set them up for a lifetime of learning. Yeah, they eventually quit when I have nothing more to teach them... but that's ok too. Now I did have one teacher who taught songs, and then used them to teach theory and technique. It worked for him, and for me, but I've never been able to replicate it. The man was probably the best all-around musician I've ever met, an absolute genius, and he honed his approach over the years. I've even discussed this with him, and he freely admits he has no idea why it works, but it does, and that's what he is after. Danny DanziI can't say the same for the scientist types. They could possibly benefit from ARC if they tried it...or heck, tried something other than running their mouths. Sorry, it's just a pet peeve of mine on forums. They ruin more debates than people that just have differing opinions. And you are entitled to your pet peeve... but please allow me the same courtesy if my pet peeve is marketing promises that can not possibly be true. Danny Danzi
Could it be a fluke that me and many others have had luck with this thing? Most definitely. Is it the be all end all of plugs to help with room problems? Absolutely not...but I'll tell ya, it sure does a wonderful job flattening monitors for me. I don't even need to use a sub on my Events, Adam A-7's or Genelecs. I did the correction with and without sub....no difference at all other than you don't quite feel the lows as much, but you sure do hear them the same as the sub. But I do like to use the sub because it adds that little extra "feeling" to the lows. As long as it lets you create repeatable mixes that translate well for you, and without a lot of extra effort on your part then you should use it. And you seem to frame it thus, but there are those who do believe it is magic, and I think they are the ones that create the adversarial atmosphere on the topic. Me? I simply want to insure that the science is not ignored. This is a highly subjective issue. It is not the same as the ground loop topic I mentioned earlier. That is hard and fast science, and ignoring it is bad. As I said previously, "illusion" is too strong a word, but I can't think of a better one, so I use it, and make sure I have my flame shield handy! Danny Danzi
Anyway, I wasted your time on this and didn't want to, but that's my take on things being a happy ARC customer. I totally respect your opinion and again thank you for sharing what you've shared. Science from someone that has a clue is one thing.....and completely commendable. Science from a link poster that shares crap mixes or no mixes while bashing on something they have never tried....totally unacceptable in my opinion. I am flattered. Thanks. And I agree with your sentiment: "Science from a link poster that shares crap mixes or no mixes while bashing on something they have never tried....totally unacceptable in my opinion" and that applies to any issue.
-- Bill Audio Enterprise KB3KJF
|
The Maillard Reaction
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 31918
- Joined: 2004/07/09 20:02:20
- Status: offline
Re: Acoustic treatment for a 12X14 room
2013/08/22 10:52:48
(permalink)
Hi Clint, I think all your plans will generally give you some great results. In the end you really have to get set up and start listening. As far as distance between your speakers and walls... the idea is that longer distances between the "point" source and any reflective surface results in lower energy levels of the reflections that get back to the listening position and so the disruption is lessened. Additionally the time it takes for a first reflection to return to your listening position is lengthened and so the "precedence" effect of the direct sound is enhanced which helps you focus on it and not the reflections. The complete consideration is way more complex but those two characteristics are the ones I think are the easiest to appreciate, and they are the ones I think about when setting up a listening spot. best regards, mike edit spelling
post edited by mike_mccue - 2013/08/22 10:56:07
|
wst3
Max Output Level: -55.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1979
- Joined: 2003/11/04 10:28:11
- Location: Pottstown, PA 19464
- Status: offline
Re: Acoustic treatment for a 12X14 room
2013/08/22 10:53:20
(permalink)
My last word on this for today... drewfx1
Oh and Danny, it isn't "science" if no one ever does any testing. That's one of my points. It has been measured! I don't think that any of the measurements are public, and I am not in a position to share them myself, but I can tell you that both ARC and Auto-Cal have been measured by people that knew how to make the measurements. I will ask if these measurements can be shared, but I am not optimistic. First, they did not always reflect well on the subject at hand, and second, you need a fair exposure to the measurement techniques to make sense of them. As an aside, I still use an old Acoustilog Impulser to measure time domain problems because, well, I find it a lot easier to understand than a 3D 'waterfall' plot<G>! drewfx1
But the science/testing part can only establish how ARC might be addressing (or exacerbating - I'll save you the work, Bit  ) various specific acoustic problems. The fact that one might find it "useful" or 'helpful" or whatever doesn't necessarily depend on whether it is solving (exacerbating) a given problem effectively. Yes! It's music folks, and it is subjective, and if it works for you that's great. And if you want to share that it works for you that's great too. But please try to tone down the magic aspects, which all to often become the focus. drewfx1
I happen to believe that some of the more heated arguments here have to do with a communications failure where the two sides are addressing different points - "useful" vs. "can successfully address a particular problem". Agreed again... useful is important, but understanding why it's useful, or what problems may not be solved (or worse, what problems might be created) is useful too.
-- Bill Audio Enterprise KB3KJF
|
drewfx1
Max Output Level: -9.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 6585
- Joined: 2008/08/04 16:19:11
- Status: offline
Re: Acoustic treatment for a 12X14 room
2013/08/22 12:00:32
(permalink)
wst3
My last word on this for today...
drewfx1
Oh and Danny, it isn't "science" if no one ever does any testing. That's one of my points.
It has been measured! I don't think that any of the measurements are public, and I am not in a position to share them myself, but I can tell you that both ARC and Auto-Cal have been measured by people that knew how to make the measurements. I will ask if these measurements can be shared, but I am not optimistic. First, they did not always reflect well on the subject at hand, and second, you need a fair exposure to the measurement techniques to make sense of them.
As an aside, I still use an old Acoustilog Impulser to measure time domain problems because, well, I find it a lot easier to understand than a 3D 'waterfall' plot<G>!
Yes of course it's been measured and some people know exactly what's going on under the hood. I sort of meant "measured by the the people in the discussions here", or the measurements not being shared here. Let's just say I've heard rumors that some people take exception to purely theoretical claims or explanations.
 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.
|
The Maillard Reaction
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 31918
- Joined: 2004/07/09 20:02:20
- Status: offline
Re: Acoustic treatment for a 12X14 room
2013/08/22 12:09:52
(permalink)
I'm reading "Sputnik" again as a refresher. It's fun to be reminded that Newton predicted the possibility of launching something into orbit back in his day and then Konstantin Eduardovich Tsiolkovsky got the rocket math figured out by 1896.
|
drewfx1
Max Output Level: -9.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 6585
- Joined: 2008/08/04 16:19:11
- Status: offline
Re: Acoustic treatment for a 12X14 room
2013/08/22 12:15:34
(permalink)
Mike, just to be clear, it's not that you were making an ad hominem attack, quite the contrary I believe. The point is that one aspect of a rather long diatribe against arguments from authority is that they often effectively constitute an ad hominem attack, intentionally or not, which is one reason why they should never be used. For instance if we are have a discussion and I attempt to bolster my argument by invoking an authority on the subject, note that in pointing out his/her presumably significant credentials I am also implicitly calling yours into question - and this is not an attack on your argument or your facts, it's an attack on you. One of the reasons an argument from authority is a fallacious argument is that, like most fallacious arguments, it changes the subject from facts and ideas to one of (in this case) credentials and "what someone says" and perhaps why "their saying it makes it true", rather than letting the argument stand on its own merit.
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.
|
The Maillard Reaction
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 31918
- Joined: 2004/07/09 20:02:20
- Status: offline
Re: Acoustic treatment for a 12X14 room
2013/08/22 12:36:21
(permalink)
Thank you.
I dislike the practice as well, I think I slipped into doing it a bit and so I was willing to accept some responsibility for having done so. I like conversing with people that help you strive to find good ways of communicating. I think your comments were helpful.
all the best,
mike
|
drewfx1
Max Output Level: -9.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 6585
- Joined: 2008/08/04 16:19:11
- Status: offline
Re: Acoustic treatment for a 12X14 room
2013/08/22 12:40:17
(permalink)
Danny Danzi
At the end of the day though....what exactly would the results mean? Like, say you test and you come up with the final line as "with all due respect, this whole plug as well as the concept is bogus" and you have total proof of this....how would something like that come into play for those that have really been successful with it?
It might mean more to someone who hasn't bought it yet.
But even if the thing is working by "illusion" like Bill said, does any of it really matter if it works?
I wouldn't recommend something to someone if it is bogus. And if an alternative solution was better and cheaper...
I would *think* it may show why it may not work for some people...but how can we figure out "it's flawed but still works for a majority" know what I mean? :)
Let's say someone has a particular acoustic problem - Does ARC address that problem or not? Does something else do a better job (for less money?) on that particular problem? But I just find that these discussions seem to go on endlessly without any sort of clarity on what ARC is and is not doing.
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.
|
clintmartin
Max Output Level: -36.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3893
- Joined: 2009/10/11 12:16:43
- Location: Fort Smith, AR
- Status: offline
Re: Acoustic treatment for a 12X14 room
2013/08/22 12:49:31
(permalink)
mike_mccue
Hi Clint,
I think all your plans will generally give you some great results. In the end you really have to get set up and start listening.
As far as distance between your speakers and walls... the idea is that longer distances between the "point" source and any reflective surface results in lower energy levels of the reflections that get back to the listening position and so the disruption is lessened.
Additionally the time it takes for a first reflection to return to your listening position is lengthened and so the "precedence" effect of the direct sound is enhanced which helps you focus on it and not the reflections.
The complete consideration is way more complex but those two characteristics are the ones I think are the easiest to appreciate, and they are the ones I think about when setting up a listening spot.
best regards,
mike
edit spelling
Hey, thanks Mike. If my studio monitors are 1' off the wall with a panel behind...will that be ok? The window will be behind my (tv) monitor and between the studio monitors. I'm converting a bedroom so it will never be the perfect solution. Can I use the same rigid 703 material for de-couplers under my studio monitors?
|
The Maillard Reaction
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 31918
- Joined: 2004/07/09 20:02:20
- Status: offline
Re: Acoustic treatment for a 12X14 room
2013/08/22 13:07:16
(permalink)
Hi Clint,
"If my studio monitors are 1' off the wall with a panel behind"
I would just try it and see how it works for you and I'll add that for your room setup you should keep an open mind about ARC but I'd save trying that for last.
The thing I feel most strongly about is a focus on developing listening skills, as you build your fitness for it you'll acquire the confidence to choose what is the best for you, your mind, and your room.
"Can I use the same rigid 703 material for de-couplers under my studio monitors?"
I've never used decoupling pads, and have used independent stands that have very little resonance for so long I can't offer you any insights. A solution that always appealed to me, and that I have used often are the foot-spikes that minimize contact.
I don't feel like I have an answer for you, but I encourage you to give the 703 or some of the foam products a try and see what you think.
best regards,
mike
|
Danny Danzi
Moderator
- Total Posts : 5810
- Joined: 2006/10/05 13:42:39
- Location: DanziLand, NJ
- Status: offline
Re: Acoustic treatment for a 12X14 room
2013/08/22 13:10:08
(permalink)
Great responses Bill! It's awesome to have you taking part in this stuff too. I did want to comment in brief on 2 things if I may?
In the last response you had asked me: Is it possible that you simply didn't have enough cockpit time in those rooms? Just asking...
I definitely felt comfortable in the rooms. I think it was the Event monitor system I just wasn't down with those particular times. I don't seem to like ALL their stuff. Most times I've brought my own monitors when I've been hired in a new place...but there are times when I haven't and I think it was more being familiar with the monitors more than the rooms.
You mention: But please try to tone down the magic aspects, which all to often become the focus.
*raises hand* Totally guilty on that one. However, for way too long I had been in the dark clouds of mixing depression. I knew "I knew my stuff" in this field but never had good results in my own place. So I built a place and that too didn't give me the results I was looking for. At the end of the day, I was left with a nice little man-cave with gear as well as a building loaded with good stuff. I had given up on doing anything with the engineering field on my own properties and was so depressed, I felt like throwing in the towel. Mixing and recording in great rooms helped ease my pain but I just couldn't find out why I would only put out fair sounding stuff at my places. Don't get me wrong, I had good results, but not the results I was hoping for.
When ARC came into my life, by the second set of corrections, it totally changed my world and in my opinion, pushed me up the ladder from being a demo studio to a professional demo studio that would sometimes rival big names in sound. If you're me and in such a depression to where the frustration is either enough to make you nearly cry or start demolishing things, you can see how "the magic aspects" have driven me to be such an advocate for this product.
The other side of the coin is....I've listened to other engineers really improve drastically by using it. Not to name names, but I like to praise when someone has made an impact on me. Ed (Bapu) on the forum here was a pretty decent engineer all the years he's been here. He and I worked together in the CHB which of course lead to lots of conversations about audio, techniqes and everything else as we bonded as friends. Though Ed had a few rough edges like we all do, I noticed an incredible difference in his mixes after he started using ARC.
To me, they were night and day differences to where a few times I remember joking with him and saying "who mixed this? Sounds like someone had a clue". LOL! There are others who have improved drastically and I think it's from two major things.
1. They have learned how to listen a bit better for sure....and this is super important.
2. I believe whatever ARC did, it allowed them to have a better representation on what was being mixed. Meaning, what they were hearing was no longer *as* false as it may have been before.
I could tell these things because you know what to listen for. Me as a part-time teacher in the audio field, I hear the same problem area from people time and time again. Most times it's low end mud, too much boom or congestive mids. With ARC, these problems (on Ed's behalf as well as others I know that use it) disappeared to where they were no longer problem areas and the mixes they were putting out were all acceptable. Subjective in spots for sure....but there were no more blatant areas they needed to be concerned about.
So to me, if ARC can at least help to get us that far along, it's a win/win. This is where the "magic" comes in because for some of us, it truly has done amazing things for us. You know that feeling you felt when you woke up one day and said to yourself "wow, I think I'm starting to get this stuff.....mixes no longer take me 2 weeks to do!"?
That's where I think those of us who have been successful with it are. I know that's how I feel. Not that I feel I'm this great engineer that doesn't need help or advice...but I am confident that I can mix in a few hours instead of a few days on one song and be perfectly happy with it to where my clients are too. It sounds great everywhere....it's consistent....there are no blatant errors other than some might make subjective points on how THEY might mix things.
So to me, that is where the magic comes in and why I've been so excited about ARC. It truly has changed my life for the better and as far as mixing goes, it has been plugin of the decade for me. That's a bold statement...but it's honestly how I feel because without it, I'd still be fair...but my consistency would tank. LOL! :)
-Danny
My Site Fractal Audio Endorsed Artist & Beta Tester
|
Danny Danzi
Moderator
- Total Posts : 5810
- Joined: 2006/10/05 13:42:39
- Location: DanziLand, NJ
- Status: offline
Re: Acoustic treatment for a 12X14 room
2013/08/22 13:27:18
(permalink)
drewfx1
Danny Danzi
At the end of the day though....what exactly would the results mean? Like, say you test and you come up with the final line as "with all due respect, this whole plug as well as the concept is bogus" and you have total proof of this....how would something like that come into play for those that have really been successful with it?
It might mean more to someone who hasn't bought it yet.
But even if the thing is working by "illusion" like Bill said, does any of it really matter if it works?
I wouldn't recommend something to someone if it is bogus. And if an alternative solution was better and cheaper...
I would *think* it may show why it may not work for some people...but how can we figure out "it's flawed but still works for a majority" know what I mean? :)
Let's say someone has a particular acoustic problem - Does ARC address that problem or not? Does something else do a better job (for less money?) on that particular problem?
But I just find that these discussions seem to go on endlessly without any sort of clarity on what ARC is and is not doing.
Totally understand where you're coming from Drew. I guess my whole thing with the data is....even if it shows things that are wrong or "by the results, this thing is junk" it still works for some people and fails for others. The biggest problem with it is you can't try it. The price has come down, but for those who think it didn't make a difference for the better...they should be able to return it and then the debate sort of goes away in a sense. It either works for you, or it doesn't and if it doesn't, you get your money back. If there were something better, I'd be up for trying it. I've not been as happy with conventional monitor correction and made sure I had a pro do it because I know nothing about that sort of thing. But I felt my mixes were better when using ARC instead of the permanently adjusted eq I had up for my monitors. Anyway....if you do this testing stuff, I'd be interested in seeing the results. :) -Danny
My Site Fractal Audio Endorsed Artist & Beta Tester
|
Starise
Max Output Level: -0.3 dBFS
- Total Posts : 7563
- Joined: 2007/04/07 17:23:02
- Status: offline
Re: Acoustic treatment for a 12X14 room
2013/08/22 14:48:43
(permalink)
Great comments. Danny I totally agree. I guess the reason I bit the bullet and jumped into this discussion is I can't sit idly by and let someone make *never* and *always* comments when I know I have had a different experience. I feel like this is misleading to someone out there. Maybe the words *never* and *always* weren't specifically used but the implication I picked up on was that ARC is some kind of pseudo science. I can't let a comment like that slide by when I know the truth to be different.
I am not totally clueless when it comes to this kind of thing. I have trained in some acoustical theory. I have worked in Audio Visual. I don't claim to be Mr. expert but I'm no dimbulb when it comes to the science of audio either. I have yet to see any real proof even from a solid scientific approach that ARC is useless, is almost useless or is of little use. Since the concept behind ARC is patented I seriously doubt Mike will ever get the info he is looking for, and furthermore how would you measure a process that you can't get the design for in any detail?
When it comes to IK multimedia I will be the first to say that I'm not super content with their marketing approach, when the company constantly bugs you to upgrade to their latest software by annoying little pop ups etc. Just annoying. I think they have come out with some good ideas, some decent ideas and some not so great ideas, I'm not necessarily an IK fanboy but I like a lot of their product line. In the case of ARC2 I think they hit on a great thing and so far no one has really topped it for what it can do. To be fair I think IK bought the technology to ARC from someone else and helped to push it along. Whatever the case, if the technology was some kind of a sham the company could be held liable and sued. Someone somewhere sat down and made sure they tested this and determined that it indeed works like they say it does. Probably had extensive testing. No company wants to be held liable for false advertising.
If it didn't work I would take it back and demand my money. Simple.
I'm sure not against room treatments either, just throwing another option out there. Good discussion.
Intel 5820K O.C. 4.4ghz, ASRock Extreme 4 LGA 2011-v3, 16 gig DDR4, , 3 x Samsung SATA III 500gb SSD, 2X 1 Samsung 1tb 7200rpm outboard, Win 10 64bit, Laptop HP Omen i7 16gb 2/sdd with Focusrite interface. CbB, Studio One 4 Pro, Mixcraft 8, Ableton Live 10 www.soundcloud.com/starise Twitter @Rodein
|
The Maillard Reaction
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 31918
- Joined: 2004/07/09 20:02:20
- Status: offline
Re: Acoustic treatment for a 12X14 room
2013/08/22 15:46:54
(permalink)
I think there are two ways to look at it. One idea might be to scrutinize for differences between claims of HOW it works and how it works, but the idea that seems more attractive to me as a listener is to simply test the installation and see WHAT changes have been made after turning it on. For starters you could use a hi resolution RTA and see if claims like " it corrected everything except a very small bump in the 1.5 khz range,maybe 1 or 2 db." Are based on an actuality or if it is simply what the low resolution graphical representation seen in ARC's gui is saying is happening. That would be a rough and tumble way to see what it is changing in the Frequency Domain. The last time I recall someone doing this and reporting their findings the results made me even more curious. Then you could move on and try to see if there were significant changes in the Time Domain anomalies in the room, which is something I've been hoping someone that actually knows how to do that sort of stuff would do. As has been mentioned above, the results would only describe one circumstances so it couldn't prove all that much but if you compared the results of any particular installation with some person's perception of what they think had happened in that installation you might find all kinds of things to think about. The last time I saw a person report on his findings at his installation he seemed to enjoy having had the opportunity to compare his perception with some detailed data. If anyone is curious ARC as marketed by IK uses technology invented by Audyssey at the USC sound labs. best regards, mike edit spelling
post edited by mike_mccue - 2013/08/23 08:14:53
|
Jeff Evans
Max Output Level: -24 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5139
- Joined: 2009/04/13 18:20:16
- Location: Ballarat, Australia
- Status: offline
Re: Acoustic treatment for a 12X14 room
2013/08/22 16:52:05
(permalink)
There are other monitor correction systems out there I am sure of it. For me I have a combination of a software and hardware setup and I would much prefer a hardware version of ARC. KRK ERGO I have found it here: http://www.krksys.com/krk-ergo.html It is around $900 here so the question is does it work as well. The SOS review was pretty positive overall I think. http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/mar09/articles/krkergo.htm has anyone had experience with ERGO? I am still a fan of using reference mixes and listening to known well known mixed and mastered music in your own environment. I find I learn what everything sounds like in this mode and you can cleverly apply it to your own work and I am achieving the same results. Everything translates perfectly for me that way as well. Using your brain to do something else. You can do it at anytime during mixing and especially in mastering. If you are about to install a speaker system and you have an empty room you must try this. Feed a mono mix of a quality CD into a single speaker. Attach it to a long cable. Get a friend to move around the room holding the speaker while you listen to in front of it. Check the areas you were thinking about first. Try other areas. I can guarantee it will sound better somewhere else. There will be a place where the mix will sound robust and the bottom end just nice and tight and perfect. This point should be the centre point for your monitor system location. No one does this. Bill. I studied a Bachelor of Jazz on drums and they made us learn 50 tunes a year. They said after three years you will have 150 tunes under your belt. (It menat all of us could go out and do gigs immediately after finishing that course and start earning money, smart!) It is a very good way to do it. By analysing the harmony and melodies of the tunes you learn a lot about great writing. You start writing that way yourself. I was taught that way too your friend and I teach (music) that way too. Great musicians know a lot of tunes either standards/classics/covers or their own original tunes. And for the original guys it is usually both.
post edited by Jeff Evans - 2013/08/22 17:19:37
Specs i5-2500K 3.5 Ghz - 8 Gb RAM - Win 7 64 bit - ATI Radeon HD6900 Series - RME PCI HDSP9632 - Steinberg Midex 8 Midi interface - Faderport 8- Studio One V4 - iMac 2.5Ghz Core i5 - Sierra 10.12.6 - Focusrite Clarett thunderbolt interface Poor minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas -Eleanor Roosevelt
|
batsbrew
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 10037
- Joined: 2007/06/07 16:02:32
- Location: SL,UT
- Status: offline
Re: Acoustic treatment for a 12X14 room
2013/08/22 17:07:27
(permalink)
OP = acoustic treatment
??
|
The Maillard Reaction
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 31918
- Joined: 2004/07/09 20:02:20
- Status: offline
Re: Acoustic treatment for a 12X14 room
2013/08/22 17:14:18
(permalink)
Jeff Evans
There are other monitor correction systems out there I am sure of it. For me I have a combination of a software and hardware setup and I would much prefer a hardware version of ARC. Does anyone know if it exists. That would be the best way for me to use it between mixer and monitor speakers.
Absolutely, This specific technology is marketed as Audyssey MultEQ and it is available as a feature in many hi end home theater receivers. best regards, mike
|
Jeff Evans
Max Output Level: -24 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5139
- Joined: 2009/04/13 18:20:16
- Location: Ballarat, Australia
- Status: offline
Re: Acoustic treatment for a 12X14 room
2013/08/22 17:25:47
(permalink)
Thanks Mike I will look into it too. bats we are trying to avoid all acoustic treatment now and do it all another way! I don't think there is any harm in looking at options. I get the idea that a combination of a great sounding room and some form of monitor correction could be a good thing. But if you use the reference approach it sort of takes the correction, the monitors and the room out of the equation to some extent.
Specs i5-2500K 3.5 Ghz - 8 Gb RAM - Win 7 64 bit - ATI Radeon HD6900 Series - RME PCI HDSP9632 - Steinberg Midex 8 Midi interface - Faderport 8- Studio One V4 - iMac 2.5Ghz Core i5 - Sierra 10.12.6 - Focusrite Clarett thunderbolt interface Poor minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas -Eleanor Roosevelt
|
wst3
Max Output Level: -55.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1979
- Joined: 2003/11/04 10:28:11
- Location: Pottstown, PA 19464
- Status: offline
Re: Acoustic treatment for a 12X14 room
2013/08/22 19:19:01
(permalink)
Jeff Evans
Bill. I studied a Bachelor of Jazz on drums and they made us learn 50 tunes a year. They said after three years you will have 150 tunes under your belt. (It menat all of us could go out and do gigs immediately after finishing that course and start earning money, smart!) It is a very good way to do it. By analysing the harmony and melodies of the tunes you learn a lot about great writing. You start writing that way yourself. I was taught that way too your friend and I teach (music) that way too. Great musicians know a lot of tunes either standards/classics/covers or their own original tunes. And for the original guys it is usually both. This is veering off topic, a little anyway, but I think your point sort of supports my premise, so I'll wander in, at least to my knees... IF a teacher can keep their student focused on the real goals and still teach the theory and the technique then it's a wonderful approach. And I think it is probably a lot more applicable at a more advanced stage - say a college program, than at the beginner stage. Or more effective anyway. (btw, do I get points for not leaping on the drummer jokes???) It's a fine line, and one of the challenges of teaching - how do you spark the interest and how do you maintain the interest/focus? My absolute beginners get songs because, well, if they can't make music at some level they are going to drop the lessons. My advanced students get almost all theory and techniques, with songs to illustrate specific points, but I also expect them to be transcribing tunes on their own. In the end they'll end up with a large catalog of music they can play (a song a week is probably a bit much for private lessons, but I like to move on to a new tune every third or maybe fourth week.) and they are already analyzing the music as they transcribe. My intermediate students tend to just make me crazy!!!! So how does this relate to the question of acoustical treatment vs a DSP solution? It does, I just need to think a bit about how to put it into words. What this does not relate to is my underlying concern that these companies are selling a 'magic' solution that won't actually bring about world peace or even a perfect mix in any room. It's not unlike the dust-up over "balanced power"... another solution to some very specific problems sold as a cure-all. If you are going to bring a product to market please be honest, and complete, when describing it. That's my big gripe. And at the risk of really being flamed - it's not unlike these "instant mastering" tools - I'm sorry, but mastering is NOT about the tools, it is about the ears, the experience, and the ears... it doesn't hurt to have a room set up for critical listening. And it especially doesn't hurt to have an objective 'second' set of ears give a listen.
-- Bill Audio Enterprise KB3KJF
|
Starise
Max Output Level: -0.3 dBFS
- Total Posts : 7563
- Joined: 2007/04/07 17:23:02
- Status: offline
Re: Acoustic treatment for a 12X14 room
2013/08/23 12:07:21
(permalink)
Jeff- Interesting take on this. The thing that strikes me with any correction system is that they are all different ideas based on similar concepts . I can't answer for any other approach at this point as I haven't tried them. The Audyssey MultiEQ approach uses multiple samples in closely gathered sample positions in close proximity to your listening position. This is an improvement over some systems which indicate only one POR in the room, and gives the listener some leeway to move within their space and still hear well.
Most hardware now is simply a small software program running inside a metal box. The hardware of today isn't the hardware of yesteryear. Once again a matter of preference with many people. Nothing wrong with either. I could go either way on that, to me it's all very similar.
In addition, something that to my knowledge is only available in ARC2 is the ability to reference a given environment such as a car stereo,computer multimedia speakers and mono etc. effectively giving the mixer a cross section of what the same mix will translate to in these environments. I have seen this in other devices but never in a monitor correction program that I'm aware of. And the car stereo selection is true to the setting as the mix sounds exactly like it does my car stereo.The laptop setting sounds exactly like the mix through my laptop speakers.No more need to burn a CD and take it to different places to test the mix.
Mike, There may be a way to measure how ARC works but any scientific experiment needs a good sample to test . What would constitute a good sample? We don't know the code they used or what the exact parameters were. We only know that it is time and frequency based correction using algorithms that are not readily available.
Sure, if you know how to use a high resolution RTA I say go for it. As I understand you to say, the graphic isn't high resolution in ARC and maybe this is because there were corrections within a small range of frequencies and as such it is representative if a larger cross section, very specific areas within the range were corrected.. I would venture to guess that this is the case. ARC isn't so much cutting/boosting large sections of frequency as it is touching places that no regular EQ can touch and this can't always be defined graphically, or if it were it would easily eat up half your cpu in doing so.
"What this does not relate to is my underlying concern that these companies are selling a 'magic' solution that won't actually bring about world peace or even a perfect mix in any room. It's not unlike the dust-up over "balanced power"... another solution to some very specific problems sold as a cure-all."
Bill is anything ever really a 100% perfect fix? If I add bass traps to my room will the mix be 100% perfect? What if I add a whole treatment kit? Will my room be perfectly flat? Done correctly it can make things better but I don't think we can say that it is a perfect solution in every case, or as you say, *magic*. Most home studio owners aren't going to go out and hire an expensive contractor to set up their room and there can be nits with that process.JMHO.
There isn't any real magic in any of this but I think ARC comes really close to it. I was faced with the same dilemma that so many others have faced. Fighting bad acoustics. I know we have been round about monitoring in small spaces numerous times on the boards. You can monitor with just about anything if you know it well and can compensate. For instance, my room has the typical low end mud and some really big peaks in the mid ranges. Lets say that I know this and so I mix with dips in the mids in those ranges and I mix my bass heavier in certain ranges. My question is, why do that if I don't need to? Maybe I have acoustically treated my room and there are still some bad places in the freq. spectrum.Why not attempt to monitor the material in the way that it really sounds? Who wants to continually be fighting something that is only a process that stands in the way of the accuracy of the mix and takes more time? Anything that makes the job easier should be considered.
"If you are going to bring a product to market please be honest, and complete, when describing it. That's my big gripe. And at the risk of really being flamed - it's not unlike these "instant mastering" tools - I'm sorry, but mastering is NOT about the tools, it is about the ears, the experience, and the ears... it doesn't hurt to have a room set up for critical listening. And it especially doesn't hurt to have an objective 'second' set of ears give a listen."
I also dislike the hype of some products that don't quite deliver what they were supposed to deliver.I can't quite make the jump in comparing a preset mastering plug- in to a monitor correction solution though. I don't see the similarities there exactly to something like ARC.
Are you saying technology that makes something that was once more of a thought process easier takes the value out of the end result? I don't see the harm in having a preset to get close to a setting that you want to achieve.Looking at the signal chains in a lot of my presets has been very educational for me. I think the danger lies in not understanding the process. I guess if I simply used presets and never cared how it was done that wouldn't be considered being on top of ones game. I don't see monitor correction as anything but a way to make monitoring more accurate. Are you saying that companies selling monitor correction software are misrepresenting their products? Maybe some are but that catches up with you eventually. If the product doesn't work it will go the way of the dodo bird. Interestingly what we seem to be seeing are different approaches to the same old problems. Some of the new approaches are so much better the old ways are going away.
At one point someone probably thought the automatic transmission was a bad idea. I can hear em arguing over it now. " You need a human being to change gears". Man will never fly, the world is flat etc. etc.
Intel 5820K O.C. 4.4ghz, ASRock Extreme 4 LGA 2011-v3, 16 gig DDR4, , 3 x Samsung SATA III 500gb SSD, 2X 1 Samsung 1tb 7200rpm outboard, Win 10 64bit, Laptop HP Omen i7 16gb 2/sdd with Focusrite interface. CbB, Studio One 4 Pro, Mixcraft 8, Ableton Live 10 www.soundcloud.com/starise Twitter @Rodein
|
wst3
Max Output Level: -55.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1979
- Joined: 2003/11/04 10:28:11
- Location: Pottstown, PA 19464
- Status: offline
Re: Acoustic treatment for a 12X14 room
2013/08/23 12:54:12
(permalink)
a couple random thoughts... out of order even<G>... StariseAt one point someone probably thought the automatic transmission was a bad idea. I can hear em arguing over it now. " You need a human being to change gears". Man will never fly, the world is flat etc. etc. That's not a bad analogy, I'm pretty sure those belts and gears appeared almost magical at one point. And there are time (getting fewer with each new generation) when my automatic will shift at a time that I think inappropriate. However, it is shooting for best gas mileage, and sometimes I want best performance (something some manufacturers have addressed.) Ultimately I do not think the analogy holds... ARC and Auto-Cal are claiming to be able to fix time based anomalies, but that's not physically possible with only two loudspeakers. It is possible with lots of loudspeakers, but that's not what they do. If they instead claimed to fix our perception of time based anomalies I'd be much less critical. Starise
Bill is anything ever really a 100% perfect fix? If I add bass traps to my room will the mix be 100% perfect? What if I add a whole treatment kit? Will my room be perfectly flat? Done correctly it can make things better but I don't think we can say that it is a perfect solution in every case, or as you say, *magic*. No magic required! I'm not sure that such a fix can be described as perfect, but it is a step ahead because it solves the problems at the source. Fewer band-aids means fewer artifacts. I think that's a better solution. You are right that there may not be a perfect, or even great solution for every room... but keep in mind that perfectly flat is not the objective, anymore than anechoic is. An anechoic, perfectly flat room would be downright unpleasant. The only way to build, first time every time, a room that is suitable for critical listening is to build from scratch. That's impractical/impossible for the majority of cases we are discussing. That leaves taking an existing space and adapting it to critical listening. And that is possible, and it has been done, done regularly, and done well, for about 40 years now. It was done before that, but it was even more of a special case. StariseMost home studio owners aren't going to go out and hire an expensive contractor to set up their room and there can be nits with that process.JMHO. With an experienced designer there are seldom any nits... provided the client listens to the designer. But no, most home studio owners lack the financial resources to hire a reputable design firm. From my somewhat limited perspective they also lack the desire to do so, or even an understanding of the value an experienced designer provides. This brings us back to the point where you can not know what you do not know. Several folks here have worked in well designed rooms (albeit sometimes with crappy monitors... ugh!) But I'll wager that the majority have not. So they are not aware of what such a design can do for them. All of which avoids the bigger question... if you are doing this as a hobby, or just starting out on the career path does it makes sense to spend that kind of money on room design? In the former case I think it is an unqualified "no" - even if you are a trust fund baby<G>! In the later I'm not so sure... I think one of the things that sometimes bothers me is that it really is not all that difficult to master the math and physics necessary to understand small room acoustics. There is an obstacle... there is a LOT of just plain bad information out there on the web. But it can be done if one returns to the basic texts. Starise I also dislike the hype of some products that don't quite deliver what they were supposed to deliver.I can't quite make the jump in comparing a preset mastering plug- in to a monitor correction solution though. I don't see the similarities there exactly to something like ARC. OK, I think they are similar. In both cases someone (a developer) is promising you that a simple (or complex?) software tool will remove any need to actually learn to listen. That's a crock! I LOVE Izotope's plug-ins, I think they are some of the most musically useful tools available. I'm astounded at how easy they are to use every time. There's a lot of genius under the hood. BUT... just owning these tools does not make me a mastering engineer. I do not have the rest of the stuff one needs to do proper mastering... the ears, the experience, the cockpit time with a mentor, the room, the loudspeakers, etc. I will pre-master my mixes - or I did when I had a reasonable listening space (I really need to figure out a way to get that back!) I think the Ozone suite would probably be a wonderful tool, if I had all the rest. But expecting Ozone or T-Racks or any other "mastering suite" to turn you into a mastering engineer is folly. And assuming that you can not master a track without them is even worse. StariseAre you saying technology that makes something that was once more of a thought process easier takes the value out of the end result? Not at all. I have a Conn Strobe Tuner... I can tune my guitars without it, and I can even get really close to proper intonation on the bridge without it, but why bother. I can do it faster, and more accurately, with the strobe tuner! StariseI don't see the harm in having a preset to get close to a setting that you want to achieve. I'm curious... have you ever actually found a preset that worked 'out of the box?' I haven't - and yes, I seldom use preset patches for synths either<G>. Maybe I am a curmudgeon? StariseLooking at the signal chains in a lot of my presets has been very educational for me. That's a brilliant use of presets. I find that the presets that come with the UAD plug-ins to be really educational, same goes for the Izoptope presets, and some of the PSP Audio presets... learned quite a few Lexicon 42 tricks that way. Oddly enough, I do not find the same to be true of presets in hardware (pseudo-hardware?) devices. I have a PCM-90 that sounds awesome, but the presets have always left me cold, and it has take me some time to figure out how to use it. StariseI think the danger lies in not understanding the process. I guess if I simply used presets and never cared how it was done that wouldn't be considered being on top of ones game. Agreed! StariseI don't see monitor correction as anything but a way to make monitoring more accurate. StariseAre you saying that companies selling monitor correction software are misrepresenting their products? No, because that might cause me to require the services of a good attorney... I am saying that it is my opinion that they'd be in better shape if they talked about perception, which they can control, as opposed to really correcting time domain problems. I'd really love to be proven wrong, or I'd love to see a new system/approach that could take my ridiculously horrible little listening space to at least usable. But I haven't heard it yet. I've also stipulated, several times, that this is born of having worked in a variety of rooms since the mid 1970s... I am certain that has shaped my perceptions.
-- Bill Audio Enterprise KB3KJF
|
The Maillard Reaction
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 31918
- Joined: 2004/07/09 20:02:20
- Status: offline
Re: Acoustic treatment for a 12X14 room
2013/08/23 12:59:30
(permalink)
"Mike, There may be a way to measure how ARC works but any scientific experiment needs a good sample to test . What would constitute a good sample?" Pink Noise. You crank up a RTA and run Pink Noise through your system. You observe the flapping and the flutter and try to see the rhythmic patterns which lets you identify some areas that seem to persist as peaks and nulls. Then you turn on your Room Correction (or drag in your absorbers, or adjust speaker placement etc. etc.) and you run the RTA test again. That's how you figure out if " it corrected everything except a very small bump in the 1.5 khz range,maybe 1 or 2 db." Is actually happening or if you still see a lot of flapping and fluttering, and, or significant peaks or nulls. I use a mic and an associated calibration file, but if you are really just focusing on the change, before and after, then you can get away with using a decent omni mic. It's my impression that the graph that ARC displays shows you what it did in the electronic domain. I think, if I understand it correctly that the graph ends up serving as suggestion of what you should be hearing. It's my impression that this serves as a very powerful suggestion.
I have what I believe is a rhetorical question; Can you run the ARC correction functionality while you are making your chirp tests? In other words, after you have applied ARC and it's active in your room, can you also make further tests using the ARC testing procedure to test the results of the active application of ARC? Or do you just do your very best job (I'll defer to Danni here) of running the tests and then hit the switch and call it done? Maybe that is an ARC 2 feature? The systems I am familiar with that are used on multi amped arrays are active in that they can re evaluate the results of the adjustments and continue to attempt improvements and you have an independent RTA feature so that you may evaluate the results as a bystander. With regards to time domain, I don't know how to measure for time domain (but I do know how to interpret a waterfall graph) but it seems obvious that anyone that knows how to measure acoustical environments for the time domain could suggest the test sample as easily as I blurted out "pink noise" for the RTA. RTA's also work very well with sweeps (that's what some folks call chirps) Pink Noise measures an *energized* room, Chirps measure a near *instantaneous* response so as to avoid the distraction of all the energy bouncing around the room. Chirps can also be evaluated for timing information, so I imagine that is why ARC uses them instead of pink noise. Spoken word is often times butchered by timing issues in large installations so chirps can be very helpful when timing large multi amped arrays. Pink Noise mimics the condition of musical material being played back so people that are concerned about music payback find it to be a practical and useful approach to testing. None of this analyzes how ARC is doing what it doing but it will tell you a lot about what ARC is doing. It's super easy to do the RTA tests (if you have a RTA setup), yet only a few people seem to do it. best regards, mike
post edited by mike_mccue - 2013/08/23 13:10:18
|
batsbrew
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 10037
- Joined: 2007/06/07 16:02:32
- Location: SL,UT
- Status: offline
Re: Acoustic treatment for a 12X14 room
2013/08/23 13:18:32
(permalink)
|
Danny Danzi
Moderator
- Total Posts : 5810
- Joined: 2006/10/05 13:42:39
- Location: DanziLand, NJ
- Status: offline
Re: Acoustic treatment for a 12X14 room
2013/08/23 14:06:18
(permalink)
mike_mccue
I have what I believe is a rhetorical question; Can you run the ARC correction functionality while you are making your chirp tests? In other words, after you have applied ARC and it's active in your room, can you also make further tests using the ARC testing procedure to test the results of the active application of ARC?
Or do you just do your very best job (I'll defer to Danni here) of running the tests and then hit the switch and call it done?
Maybe that is an ARC 2 feature?
best regards,
mike
No, you can't run the VST while you're in correction mode....however, one could literally record the "chirps" and run them through the VST correction either by using Winamp (allows for VST plugin use) or by importing the chirps into the DAW of your choice. A few things to add to the discussion that maybe I can provide or at least give us all something to think about.... As some of you know, I beta test for an amp sim company. We of course do lots of IR work as well as use tube schematic formulas and all sorts of math to create our sims. That said, I am a complete dope on what those numbers mean but it piqued my interest enough to where I started looking into what makes up a sound and how frequencies are adjusted etc. To make a long story short, this lead me to check out an ARC correction file using "open with" and it's quite scary once it opens up and you see all the stuff it messes with. I don't think it would be against any policy to share that correction file with everyone....unless of course Obi were to sign on and tell me it was some sort of violation? I wouldn't think it would be since this would be a correction file of my room.....but when you see all the stuff it takes into account, it's a pretty good "look" at what this thing is at least trying to do. Another thing I noticed was, in my early dealings with ARC, I used a latency setting of 4096 due to me using mixing consoles in my studio. Of course there is no need for input monitoring via soundcard and there is no need to go for low ASIO buffers unless a softsynth is used in real time. Anyway, when ARC corrected my room, something sounded weird....like not quite right...not as tight as I had hoped? I wish I could remember what it was...but I just knew it couldn't be right...however, the sound of the core eq tone....was great. When I did the correction again, I dropped my buffers to 64 via ASIO. There was a difference. If so, is there a chance it DID compensate for reflection and that was the sound I heard? For example....if the difference in the measurement between when the chirp starts (I'm guessing there is a timer in there somewhere) has a little latency....that would affect the outcome, yes? Also, that was an earlier version of the software when that happened. But I did the exact correction again with lower latency and the core sound remained...but things were tighter and it felt right to me. So maybe there was a compensation and it does mess with some time/delay stuff? I have no clue...but I will definitely share one of my correction files if anyone thinks it may be helpful. This has been a great conversation so far....I'm hoping no one comes in and wrecks it. :) -Danny
My Site Fractal Audio Endorsed Artist & Beta Tester
|
bitflipper
01100010 01101001 01110100 01100110 01101100 01101
- Total Posts : 26036
- Joined: 2006/09/17 11:23:23
- Location: Everett, WA USA
- Status: offline
Re: Acoustic treatment for a 12X14 room
2013/08/24 10:15:19
(permalink)
I wouldn't expect latency to be an issue at all, no matter how long. However, I would not be surprised if you got different results every time you set it up.
 All else is in doubt, so this is the truth I cling to. My Stuff
|
Danny Danzi
Moderator
- Total Posts : 5810
- Joined: 2006/10/05 13:42:39
- Location: DanziLand, NJ
- Status: offline
Re: Acoustic treatment for a 12X14 room
2013/08/24 14:32:49
(permalink)
Honest bit, it's been nearly identical for me everytime I've done it in my studio as far as what the curve reads as well as the core sound. As a matter of fact, ARC 2 sounds nearly the same as ARC 1 and gave almost the same results. The difference between the two was ARC 2 seems to favor a slight bit more high end and when you look at the curve, you can see it. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/4909348/ARC%201%262.JPG See that little bump in the highs on ARC 2? We can manually adjust that with ARC 2 so once I lower that a bit, it sounds the same as ARC 1 to me and as you can see, the curves really are similar. The sound is spot on too. The latency thing.....I could be out of my tree on that part. But I figure...if this thing is timing things....if the burst it shoots out is 4096 samples late as opposed to 64 samples....it could be over-compensating for anything that *may* be time related. I have no clue...I just know that something weird happened when I had my latency set that high and dropping it removed whatever weirdness I was hearing. I did the procedure exactly the same way to the numbers. Each time I have done it after that time, has been perfect for me in every room. I know the whole thing sounds like a load of crap....but man, it definitely works for me so it's doing something to fool me into thinking I'm doing a good job. LOL! :) -Danny
My Site Fractal Audio Endorsed Artist & Beta Tester
|
Jeff Evans
Max Output Level: -24 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5139
- Joined: 2009/04/13 18:20:16
- Location: Ballarat, Australia
- Status: offline
Re: Acoustic treatment for a 12X14 room
2013/08/24 18:15:09
(permalink)
Looking at those curves Danny has posted up are rather interesting. Look at the 'Before' plot. There is some wild variation there Danny. (especially down the low end) What I find interesting is when I do a RTA analysis with pink noise and either a quality measurement mic or an expensive condenser (and this might obviously not be the best test) I get a near flat line with my Mackie HR824's on concrete stands well out from the walls etc. I am not seeing + or - 6 db variation that you are there, nowhere near it.
If Danny is getting such variations ('before' and the 'after' looks great for him) maybe then ARC is good for him. I could certainly see why Danny likes it.
On the other hand it may do nothing for me. I have always had a gut feeling I am hearing everything near perfectly now without any form of correction. This is where referencing is great. I know my reference CD backwards. (Steely Dan 'Everything Must Go') When I do get the opportunity to go into a nice room and hear a very nice speaker system in a very nice acoustic environment I usually hear the same thing in there from the ref CD. So I know I must be damn close.
Specs i5-2500K 3.5 Ghz - 8 Gb RAM - Win 7 64 bit - ATI Radeon HD6900 Series - RME PCI HDSP9632 - Steinberg Midex 8 Midi interface - Faderport 8- Studio One V4 - iMac 2.5Ghz Core i5 - Sierra 10.12.6 - Focusrite Clarett thunderbolt interface Poor minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas -Eleanor Roosevelt
|