Today's Mad Scientist experiment is to try to use ARC 2 to EQ my headphones.
As you already know, ARC is not designed for this purpose. It is designed to EQ studio monitor speakers.
Sonarworks markets a vst that is specifically designed to EQ headphones. It works well but it isn't in my budget (yet).
 
I'm using the Beyer DT770 Pro, 80 ohm. These phones have a boost at about 8K and a boomy low end.
Since ARC 2 is basically an automatic EQ, why not give it a try?
The IK microphone has a small diameter body. This allows it to be placed in-between the ear-pieces and still allow them to seal, except for the bulge where the mic is inserted.
 
I started up ARC, wore the headphones, and set the test tone level in the headphones to about 83 dB (guestimate by my ears). 
I placed the headphones on a table and put the mic on a stand and positioned the stand to get the mic in-between the ear-pieces.
I did many tests. I tried different volume levels, mic positions, pressing the ear-pieces together with my hand, etc, but the best results were obtained with this setup:
83dB guestimate by ear, mic in the same (center) position for 8 tests, ear-pieces held together using normal spring pressure, ie: not pressed together with hand.
 
Results: It (surprisingly) somewhat works.
It actually makes an improvement to the sound of the headphones. The unwanted 8K buzzy sound is gone and the bass is not as boomy. It is not perfect. I can hear some errors in the frequency response, but overall it is better.
I was able to adjust ARC's user-EQ to improve things a little.
If I listen to my song with ARC on, then with ARC bypassed, it always sounds better with ARC on.
 
 

I love ARC 2, but I hate wearing headphones. I only do it for recording vocals these days. Interesting test though.
I used Bitflipper's settings for Audio-Technica ATH-M50's with Fab Filter Pro-Q to make a preset for my headphones. It helped a ton.

I don't think it's supposed to work like that.  Pointing out the obvious.... it's called Automatic ROOM Correction..... and I'm about 99% sure that means it's correcting for the room you're in. Using headphones takes the room pretty much out of the equation.... correct me if I'm wrong.

If it sounds better with ARC on, that would be kind of a warning sign that it's not exactly doing the job.  In my studio, with ARC on, the music tends to lose some of it's luster as it corrects for the room and speakers....
 
It seems like you're setting it up as any other EQ as opposed to getting the true sound you need. 


 
Of course, this is all my humble opinion.

 

Guitarhacker
1. If it sounds better with ARC on, that would be kind of a warning sign that it's not exactly doing the job. 

2. It seems like you're setting it up as any other EQ as opposed to getting the true sound you need. 

1. When I say it sounds "better" I mean "flatter". Look at the graph above and see the "better" flat frequency response.
The phones have a big bump at 8K and a big bump from 50 to 150Hz. ARC flattens the bumps out. It is the same thing I could do with a stand-alone EQ but since ARC is always in my monitoring buss for speakers it is convenient to have a preset for headphones.
 
I don't recommend this ARC/headphones setup for any critical EQing job. It is merely a convenience to be able to get the headphones a little flatter than they normally are. 
 
2. Well of course I am setting it up as an EQ. That's what ARC is. It is an equalizer controlled by software. It also has delay compensation, but the delay compensation will be zeroed out (not used) for headphones.
 
My post is just a fun idea to try. YMMV. It is not guaranteed to work with your particular setup.
It worked with my setup good enough to become a keeper preset for my Beyer headphones.
I only use headphones to tune vocals with Melodyne and make vocal harmonies. No critical mixing or EQing with headphones.
 
Where would we be today if George Martin, Les Paul or Joe Meek did not try new, different, or weird things?
 
 

so, the thing to do, would be to listen to a LOT of pro mixes thru the headphones, without any correction...
 
get completely used to how a pro mix sounds thru those particular cans.
pay extra special attention to the high end, and the lows....
 
 
then, put the ARC across them, and a/b the same songs again.
 
this should give you some indication as to what exactly the ARC is doing to the sound....
and this should inform you as to what it may be causing you to hear differently when mixing your own material.
 
 

Doesn't ARC do some magical phase-related stuff too? 

I occurs to me that it would be useful if IKM would invest a bit of time and money into setting up a headphone monitoring/measuring facility and test a decent selection of widely-used headphones.  They could then make the settings available to users who could not do such measurements themselves with any degree of success.  With headphones, the room becomes irrelevant.  No two rooms are alike, but one pair of Sennheiser 650s is likely to be very much like another, so a centralized test effort would have some validity.  This would potentially be of considerable value.
 
Also, it has occurred to me that IKM could gain some points by including monitor level calibration in ARC.  You wouldn't have it "on" all the time.  You'd just use it once and mark you levels accordingly.  But the microphone is already available and the rest is software.  Could it be that hard to add a feature like this?  It might take a few potential customers over the threshold to becoming actual customers.

dmbaer
I occurs to me that it would be useful if IKM would invest a bit of time and money into setting up a headphone monitoring/measuring facility and test a decent selection of widely-used headphones.  They could then make the settings available to users who could not do such measurements themselves with any degree of success.  With headphones, the room becomes irrelevant.  No two rooms are alike, but one pair of Sennheiser 650s is likely to be very much like another, so a centralized test effort would have some validity.  This would potentially be of considerable value.
 
Also, it has occurred to me that IKM could gain some points by including monitor level calibration in ARC.  You wouldn't have it "on" all the time.  You'd just use it once and mark you levels accordingly.  But the microphone is already available and the rest is software.  Could it be that hard to add a feature like this?  It might take a few potential customers over the threshold to becoming actual customers.

Great ideas and post, dmbaer.
I was thinking that IK might get an idea like this from my crazy experiment.
Yes to built-in headphone EQ presets.
Yes to monitor level calibration. 83 DB!!!

I would guess that if IK wanted to get into the realm of headphone calibration, they'd probably release it as a separate product rather than tacking it onto ARC. Developing anything like that costs money which you have to recover with the revenue from the product (obviously). So I doubt whether they'd increase the price of ARC knowing that not everyone requires headphone calibration, and that the people who require headphone calibration might not need room calibration. 
 
 

sharke
I would guess that if IK wanted to get into the realm of headphone calibration, they'd probably release it as a separate product rather than tacking it onto ARC. Developing anything like that costs money which you have to recover with the revenue from the product (obviously). So I doubt whether they'd increase the price of ARC knowing that not everyone requires headphone calibration, and that the people who require headphone calibration might not need room calibration. 

I don't know... The upgrade from ARC to ARC 2 added features: user EQ and monitor control, etc.
They could do an ARC 2 to ARC 3 upgrade adding headphone EQ for popular headphones and SPL gauge.
This would allow them to catch up or get one step ahead of their competitor, SonarWorks.