droddey


Well, the issue with ARC isn't very complex at all. It's that it can only handle one side of the peaks and cancellations problem. That's not iffy or corner case science, it's fundamental stuff. If you can only handle one side of the problem, then it's only half a solution.  And the half that isn't getting solved (in most of the small, rectangular rooms we folks tend to be in), will be vastly worse than potentially less than perfect bass reproduction due to a port. We would not ever be here debating any speakers that were 10 or 20dB off at certain frequences, because such a product would never make it to market.

Jimbo21


 Just got "Mixing Secrets for the Small Studio" by Mike Senior and right in the first section he talks about unless you have really expensive monitors the low end transients are fairly skewed in that the "porting hinders the monitor's ability to track moment-to-moment changes in the mix signal. Specifically, the port causes any spectral energy at it's resonant frequency to ring on for a short time, and while it's this resonant buildup that generated the port's flattering low-frequency level boost for a constant noise signal, the same quality also adds short resonant tails to fleeting percussive attack noises (transients)". He also points out that "the resonance not only disguises the true decay attributes of the sound itself, but it can also make it difficult to judge the character and level of short duration studio effects (such as modulated delays and reverb), which are useful at mixdown".

Matt I must catch up with you sometime. I might be able to catch up with you at SoundCorp or something, maybe we can have a coffee! I am not that far away from there either. (Kensington) Or I could come over and visit. It's pretty rare to meet someone on the forum who lives in Melbourne.

droddey

Jonbouy

I HAVE to go by learning my system with reference material, I won some good prizes in a mixing contest last week against some pretty well armed gear heads too and judged by a 'proper' engineer in a damn fine environment.

What does your calculator tell me I'm missing as a result?  Mine shows around £20,000 currently.

And hey, guess what, I already get the issues with ARC.  I understand what they are.  I get what it does too and can understand where it would be a help to some.

Mike already put the info up on making an informed speaker choice, without needing to endorse or bash a particular maker.  I like it when he does that.

Stating a fact is not bashing, if that's what you were implying I was doing. Judging by a lot of comments by people who use it, I sort of doubt that they understand the actual issues and what its limitations are.

mattplaysguitar


Does anyone else here think that the KRK Rockits really just sound like consumer speakers and don't really deserve the label of 'monitors'? Especially the 5's. VERY hyped low end. Then the bass on all of them sounds really disjointed and not smooth throughout the whole frequency response. A few people have mentioned them and I just really don't think they are a good monitor. The VXT's on the other hand... Wow. I thought the Yamaha's are much flatter and neutral sounding. The bass doesn't sound as 'good', but that's not what you want in a monitor. I just don't get all the hype over these Rockit's..

Danny Danzi

   
Like for example Drew...say we really did massive experimenting on ARC and we find out it has so many flaws, it makes me wonder how I've gotten so lucky with it. LOL! Now, if those flaws or some scientific print out shows us the truth, yet I can't hear this truth and my mixes are sounding good, clients aren't complaining and everything seems to be in good shape over here, what did the science teach me if there's nothing I can hear?
 
And..what if the reason for me not hearing it is due to this particular problem not affecting me as greatly as it may someone else? See my point? If the science shows me things that are wrong yet I can't hear these things enough to where it's hurting me, how do I learn to hear them without being physically made aware as to what I should be listening for? Does that make sense at all? LOL!
 
Could we then apply that to ported monitors? If we can't hear what Mike Senior is telling us...which for sure he has some credibility to mention, and science shows us flaws with ported monitors that some of us may not hear, how or why would one worry about it? Can you see my point at all? This is where this stuff gets confusing to me to where I just throw my hands up in the air. Shouldn't we hear something wrong...or is it more you fix the something that is wrong that science provides and then you see if you can hear a difference for the better? If you're not having apparent problems to begin with and you just take the science as factual no matter what it pertains to, aren't we sort of searching for the sake of searching to where one could get totally involved with this to where it could actually deter them from getting anything done? LOL!!! These have always been my issues really. It's almost like people pry into this stuff "for the sake of".
 
I can totally see it if someone were having huge issues with ported monitors or any monitors really...or lack of room correction messing up their mixes etc. But if you don't have those problems and get good results, to me it seems a bit like science for the sake of science and just pretty much lab work, no?
 
-Danny

mike_mccue


"Dean, can't that 67 Hz cancellation be cured with an eq?"

LOL