+1 on room eq wizard. I have used it for years. It's great and very easy to use.

Danny Danzi
I can't tell you the science of a meter, a transformer, how a room reflects sound, how to build a pre-amp, how to fix electrical problems, what some of these recording techniques people talk about mean, why converters work the way they do, what truncates and why, 32 bit float, 64 bit mix engines...I'm clueless! But ask me how to record something, how to polish a turd or make a mix sound 100% better....I'll tell ya that one every time. :)

There's nothing wrong with that. Everyone can't be interested in everything, and the skills needed to design and repair gear are totally unrelated to the skills needed to use gear. Some people care about one more than the other, and some people care about both equally (like me). But it wouldn't take you five years to learn the science behind audio gear. This is exactly what my book addresses. Of course, it would be wasted on someone who doesn't care to know, and again that's fine. However, it seems to me that people on both sides of the "science" debate want to know the truth about what affects audio fidelity. It's just that beliefs sometimes get in the way.
 
--Ethan

Danny Danzi


Totally understood, Drew. But even if you do the test, and the results are bad, are you getting good results from ARC or do you believe it's just one of those tools that work for some, fail for others? If the flat line was a bit optimistic and you found flaws, does it matter if your sound is still consistent everywhere and it doesn't take you 2 weeks to do a mix? LOL! See, that's my whole point really.

Well, part of it is just curiosity. But really it's that when Ethan mentioned the difficulties in EQing out nulls and ringing, it occurred to me that ARC seemed to imply that it was doing an excellent job for itself, so there's a bit of a contradiction there.

And since there seems to be some disagreement between the "acoustic treatment is the only real solution" and "ARC is more than good enough" camps, I believe in just doing a test to see how good ARC is doing. Though I respect that you personally may get excellent results in your environment just using ARC, I'm not going to buy the argument that (in all cases) ARC alone is just exactly enough - i.e. "Every benefits from some correction, but no more than this is necessary". If you think you're getting better results since you started using ARC, how do you know you wouldn't do even better with acoustic treatment that might conceivably solve problems that ARC can't?

I also get where you're coming from when you mention ears, science art etc. My point there is, is it necessary to know about the science part if something just works and you can go back to using your ears while not worrying or caring what is scientifically happening? Ok, some care about that stuff and want to know every little detail. I get all that. :)

I would use the metaphor of driving a car - you don't need to know much about what's going on under the hood to be a good driver. But not knowing doesn't make you better, either. But if you're just a driver and don't ever need to be a mechanic, there may be little or no benefit in learning more than you already do. And your time might well be better spent just doing what you're doing.

But though I know you personally wouldn't do this, Lord knows there are some who will get into an argument with someone more mechanically inclined, and then start lecturing them about how "The squirrels on a treadmill in the engine compartment make the car go. Everyone knows this!". A lot of technical arguments get started when someone brings up "the squirrels" and one of us feels compelled to point out that there's some misconception about just exactly how things work. And unfortunately, a lot of these arguments go on and on and/or get ugly - because no one is willing to just open the hood and take a look and see what's there, one way or the other.

Drew and Danny on the same thread.  It doesn't get better than this for me anywhere.

How I get what is presented here is there is a reference standard for room correction be it by physical means or to some extent rectification by a software solution such as ARC.  Whatever science will declare as 'correct' may be all well and good, tangible, quantifiable, provable and all the rest but it still requires a person sitting in that corrected space with a great deal of skill to interpret what he/she is hearing in a way that translates to the great majority of listeners.

I've heard much of Danny's work and one thing that strikes me is the consistency it seems to display so it seems fair to assume even if there are some deviations from 'correct' in Danny's or any other skilled mixing engineers environment much of the requirement to achieve a repeatable result that interprets well is going to be down to the skill in interpreting where he is into the sound of the final production in a way that pleases the most.

So I'm thinking again on a car analogy, the engineers can design the greatest race car ever to grace the track, but if another team has a car with a few quirks in it's make up there's nothing to stop a great driver like Danny, who lets say actually thrives on what some might call the lesser cars foibles, winning races in it.

Am I reading that right?  Is this where the art crosses over into the science?

Whatever Danny is doing it seems to work for me every time whereas somebody with a 'correct' listening environment can still be well wide of the mark.   I'm concluding from this that whatever ARC is doing it is suiting Danny's MO to a tee and I doubt if there is any test that is able to work out the how and why of that.  If there is I'd certainly want to hear about it.

Thanks for your input too Ethan, I'm pretty much a devotee of your work as well.  You've certainly saved me more than the price of your new book over the years...

Jonbouy


Drew and Danny on the same thread.  It doesn't get better than this for me anywhere.

How I get what is presented here is there is a reference standard for room correction be it by physical means or to some extent rectification by a software solution such as ARC.  Whatever science will declare as 'correct' may be all well and good, tangible, quantifiable, provable and all the rest but it still requires a person sitting in that corrected space with a great deal of skill to interpret what he/she is hearing in a way that translates to the great majority of listeners.

I've heard much of Danny's work and one thing that strikes me is the consistency it seems to display so it seems fair to assume even if there are some deviations from 'correct' in Danny's or any other skilled mixing engineers environment much of the requirement to achieve a repeatable result that interprets well is going to be down to the skill in interpreting where he is into the sound of the final production in a way that pleases the most.

So I'm thinking again on a car analogy, the engineers can design the greatest race car ever to grace the track, but if another team has a car with a few quirks in it's make up there's nothing to stop a great driver like Danny, who lets say actually thrives on what some might call the lesser cars foibles, winning races in it.

Am I reading that right?  Is this where the art crosses over into the science?

Whatever Danny is doing it seems to work for me every time whereas somebody with a 'correct' listening environment can still be well wide of the mark.   I'm concluding from this that whatever ARC is doing it is suiting Danny's MO to a tee and I doubt if there is any test that is able to work out the how and why of that.  If there is I'd certainly want to hear about it.

Thanks for your input too Ethan, I'm pretty much a devotee of your work as well.  You've certainly saved me more than the price of your new book over the years...

You rule Jon! That's exactly how I feel about it also. Thanks for that well thought out comment. Yeah it is nice to have Drew with us. I like when he posts even though at times he can intimidate the hell out of me. LOL!!
 
I've heard guys with all the proper room correction fall flat on their faces the same as I'm sure you have. How this thing is helping me, I have no clue. It's true that we need to have some knowledge as to what goes on behind the desk and of course no one will ever love all of our mixes or instrumentation choices.
 
However, for the most part, eveyone should be able to enjoy a mix "for what it is, not what they feel it should be" to where there aren't blatant sub low issues from there being too much bass, or being bass light, mid congested, harsh high end etc. As long as none of that is an issue in a mix, I won't even comment on someone's tune unless it's a friend that wouldn't mind my subjective opinion. A good mix is a good mix...even if I'm not down with the instrument choices. But you can't run from sound misrepresentation, frequency masking or a mix that just doesn't sound like it has all the right stuff due to a person not being able to hear all the right stuff..
 
I figure it like this, ARC worked wonders for me at my house, at both of my studio's and I bring it with me when I go and work in other studio's. It's never let me down. I'm sure it's not perfect but whatever it IS doing, it's making an incredible difference for me to where I never second guess myself. If you can mix a tune in 4-8 hours and come back the next day and may have to just mess with a few levels here and there, that's success in my opinion. It's rare for me to ever have to adjust frequencies in something. It's usually a few levels here and there.
 
Before ARC, I could work on a mix for a month and still not be happy. What I think burns me up the most is when people just cry fowl about it when they have never physically used it. I don't care about what graphs and stuff tell a person...did they use the freakin' software and have it fail on them or not? That's the bottom line. And, if it DID fail on them...I want to know about the procedure in which they did the correction. I'm batting 1000 with this thing and everyone that's used it and set it up like I've told them to have had great results accept for one dude. It may not be perfect, but it sure has been for me. If you or anyone else likes the stuff I do, they can give me half the credit...but the other half definitely has to go to ARC. :) Thanks for the kind words brother.
 
-Danny

Mike are you not missing the point that ARC does actually do something, that isn't a myth, and whatever does it does it consitently and plays right into Danny's arena making it a good match for him.  There is no test for that. Even if it merely makes a few EQ adjustments behind the scenes how do we quantify that this doesn't provide the best environmental basis for a particular operator to make the most informed judgements in his productions.  I venture you can't.

I don't see the nice white line he does so I don't have the same expectation bias of his work.

The proof is in the pudding as they say so how can measurements decide that Danny's is 'wrong'.  He proves to you everytime he puts a piece out that something is working I think the onus should be on you to decide and put forward the actual science of what is actually 'wrong' here.

I think your belief is driving you to think there will be some quantifiable equation here that explains it but you don't know what it is yet.  That sounds like expectation bias to me.

mike_mccue


Hi Danny,
I'm not so much opposed to the idea that you like ARC. You like it. You make great mixes.

I am opposed to the fact that you repeatedly present the claim that your experience with it has led you to make a logical conclusion while you are using completely illogical methods.

The idea that your mixes have gotten better while using ARC doesn't prove anything about ARC.

It doesn't.

Any conclusion you draw from your experience is based on faith and belief rather than logic.

Why not accept the most likely scenario... over the years, you have simply have become a real good mixer.

So, when you present your conclusions as if based on logic... it's a turn off. It's simply not possible to make the conclusions and maintain credibility as a logistician.

When you endorse the notion that other folks should buy a copy based on the logic you present it reminds me that there isn't any logic happening.

The only appropriate thing for you to say is, "I use it and I like it very much and I am pleased with the mixes I make with it.".

If that's all you said then it would be up to the other folks to mis use logic all by them selves.

That's kind of it in a nut shell. That's why guys like me keep bringing the subject up... I like you a whole bunch, but not enough to let you misuse logic as if no one is paying attention.



Some of us have been suggesting that ARC aficionados might want to make accurate RTA assessments of their rooms, before and after applying ARC.

Most of us that are suggesting this are already familiar with the idea that Mr. Winer has already done this and published his findings.

I'm curious to know who, if anybody, out in the "field" is going to do it.

A concern is that ARC may be showing you some idealized little white line which promotes a listening expectation bias that may be greatly effecting reports of marked improvement.

The change produced by ARC is quantifiable. Measure it with an RTA and then you'll know how much improvement was made.

I haven't seen any body do that and then brag about how freaking great ARC is.





An other thing is that you repeatedly insist that people that disagree with you on this subject haven't tried using ARC... but indeed many have. Maybe you could just let that go?


An other thing is that you repeatedly suggest that somehow Mr Winer has a built in bias because he sells bass traps. That may seem like a fair thing to say. How would you feel if I asked why a guy that uses ARC in his mastering business is so adamant in his recommendation of ARC? Aren't there self serving connections between you, your use of ARC, and you commitment to help your clients with the best tools? Isn't there some potential that you are trying justify ARC to justify your business practice?

I don't think that is the case nor do I think Mr Winer is trying to disuade you from something just so he can sell more of what he sells. I think both of you are giving sincere advice. Of course Ethan also goes the extra mile and tells you how to make your bass traps out of your own supplies, while ironically, the ARC guys insist that there EQ is more better than every one else's EQ.

I think you should consider dropping your repeated accusal that Mr Winer has some business interest that motivates him to explain how corrective EQ systems work. It's a Pandora's box. It is unnecessarily unpleasant.





Danny, why not accept that idea that your a darn fine mixer and that each day you get even better. You like the ARC a lot and you make good mixes.

That's all there is too it.



all the very best,
mike

Hi Mike,
 
I can understand where you're coming from and I'll do my best to explain the best that I can. I was at the end of my rope with everything. I knew in my heart (or at least I thought) that I was a pretty fair engineer. But for some reason, I never put out anything that was even remotely "good" in my opinion. Decent, yeah...but good, I've just never been happy.
 
Constantly out in my car trying to write things down that I couldn't hear in my studio once I went back in, constantly second guessing myself, so frustrated I didn't want to do this anymore and was ready to retire my studio as a pre-production idea/man cave for myself. I'm a very passionate man. I do not like to fail at anything and do my best at all times to be the best I can be at anything I try my hand at. I'm just competitive like that with myself. So this was a huge thing for me. Music is and always has been my life. I've been recording stuff and playing in this field since I was in 8th grade using a Fostex 4 track.
 
So this passion and enjoyment was so frustrating, I didn't know what to do. I was told to buy new monitors. So I bought the Adam A-7 rig. My mixes somewhat improved but I still had issues. So I bought the Sub 8. This helped a little more but I was still relying on my AKG K 240 DF's a bit too much. My NS-10's were horrible...I wasn't crazy about my Tannoy's, and I didn't have my Genelec's at the time.
 
At this point, I'm really upset because I just spent some good coin on monitors and I just wasn't getting the results I wanted. So I'm reading my Sweetwater book and I see this ARC thing. I laugh at it, but decide to try it anyway. The night I installed it and made it work right....everything in my world changed. That's the best way I can explain it man. The reason I have been such a supporter is it saved me from myself. It had nothing to do with me getting better. If you gave me a mix and I didn't use ARC, it would turn out mediocre at best and I know I'd be in bad shape with frequency control.
 
When you're on a mission like I was, and tired of going out to the car throwing CDR's in the trash with one song on them to where you feel like wrecking everything in your room, this thing saved me Mike. I'm not trying to over-hype it nor do I have an agreement with IK. This thing changed my life and when I say that, I mean it with every ounce of my being.
 
As for Ethan, I've seen him on a few forums to where he's posted a few negative things about ARC. I've asked him "have you tried it?" His reply is something along the lines of having tested things for the company that partnered with ARC...the company that starts with an A...Audessy or something? I can't remember if he tested stuff they made or whatever the case...but I asked a simple question..."did you try ARC?" I never got an answer. I don't care about the stuff that makes up ARC...I asked "did you try ARC" for what it is.
 
When I hear people bashing it, it is MY right to ask them "have you tried ARC?" That's like saying "Pro Tools is not a good daw" yet you have never tried it yourself. Whatever ARC does, it makes a difference in my world. Am I not allowed to share that with others to the extent in which I have? Is what I've had to say so wrong that you would come on here and pretty much politely ask me to shut up about it?
 
I've asked those who have had it fail to please tell me what they did to make it fail. The reason being, I can't make it fail here and would love to at least allow people to see and hear the difference I have experienced. Is that really so wrong of me Mike? One of the most frustrating things in my life has been me fighting with audio...am I such a bad man for attempting to share with others the great things that have happened to me from this little controversial plug?
 
When I hear stories of people fighting with their mixes taking them out to the car or mixing the same song for a week or longer, it brings me right back to where I was when I was in their position. It's a horrible feeling to spend so much time doing something you absolutely love yet do not get the results you hope for. It was as frustrating and heart-breaking to me as trying to save a relationship with someone you are crazy about...yet you still can't make it work. That's how passionate I am about what I do.
 
I apologize if my persistance about this plug is a "turn off" to you and others. I am so happy to be able to fire up a mix and nail it in 2 hours that I felt it was worth sharing. Why do you think I come on this forum man? Sonar works for me....I could care less about Sonar. I'm here to sincerely try to help people that are in need. I have no motives to be here....I don't make any money from IK, I don't have a boatload of clients due to the Sonar forum and if I spent more time working than I did posting on here trying and hoping to make a difference in someone's world, I'd make even more money. It's ok to see people rant or be all for themselves and start trouble on here though, right? Yet I'm such a bad man for sticking up for something that I believe in that works for me? Wow. I'd normally snap out at a post like this...but I'll be a gentleman.
 
There's nothing in it for me other than being a VERY passionate and thankful man that ARC came my way and made such a difference. I feel that is worth bragging about when it has made such an impact and needs to be shared when we live in a world of over-hyped software and other recording goodies that are just plain duds.
 
As for the little white line, I don't look at it or even care if it's representing correctly or not. What I care about is when I hear something, can I mix it? Can I fix it? Does the mix sound fine on all systems? Are my clients happy with what I'm giving them? Are my ears credible to give advice to others due to the proper representation ARC is giving me? These are the things I care about and these are the things ARC has helped me with.
 
As for dropping accusations, I asked the man if he had ARC. It's a one word answer. I don't care about other testing, I asked "do you have or have you tried ARC. If you don't have the product, never used the product, and sell room correction devices as one of your sources of income, it makes the person not as credible and I have every right to think as I do. I don't care what research shows or what the science behind anything is. You see, while people worry about the science and all that stuff, I'm mixing stuff over here that is sounding good to my ears and the ears of my clients. Eddie Van Halen used a quarter under his tail piece to stay in tune. Who cares what it looked like. That's how I feel. If something works, do you think I care about science or what it looks like? Old beat up guitars look like hell to me...but they sound good.
 
I don't need to know how an engine works to drive a car anymore than I need to know the aesthetics on how ARC works or doesn't work. It works for me and works VERY well in every situation I have ever used it in and had made such a difference for me, I feel it's worth talking about to people that may be in the same position as I was once in. That's really all there is to it.
 
When I hear someone bash on something that works for me and they have never physically used what *I* have, well it's principal man...you just don't do that. Kinda like someone bashing X1 that has never even tried it because we have a forum that can really get crazy at times and make new people think X1 sucks.
 
How could I just let it go Mike? I'm supposed to listen to people disagree with me about ARC because they read some scientific sheet and never tried it? I'm supposed to listen to jokers throwing science at me that can't mix their way out of a wet paper bag or have never shared a thing with us on this forum other than how much they appear to know about this field when this plug has made such a difference in my world, it's helped me with everything? I will not....sorry man.
 
Here's the big question....you don't have ARC either...why would you even involve yourself in this at all and start a confrontation with me over how happy I am about something that works for me? All I'm trying to do is share my happiness and experience with others.
 
Do you know how many others have purchased ARC due to my recommendation and are completely happy with it? Several. I hope they come out of the woodwork and tell you how out of line you were to me with your post here. It was uncalled for, petty, biased because Ethan is your boy, and well...heartless because I shared something that has worked for me in a passionate manner, and am sick of people speaking about science that do not have the thing. That's not fair either...yet, that's acceptable isn't it?
 
I can't believe you would go through this trouble to take a shot at me like this. When I don't think anything can surprise me, you hit me with this. I'm just surprised with myself that I'm taking this so lightly without going berzerk as rightfully, I should. Fortunately for me, the phrase "consider the source" has worked as well as ARC has for me in your regard. That said, I really like you too. :)
 
-Danny

mike_mccue


Hi Danny,
I think the reason you didn't go bezerk is because deep down inside you know we're both on the same side.

At least I hope you do.

Focus on this part: "why not accept that idea that your a darn fine mixer and that each day you get even better. You like the ARC a lot and you make good mixes." and then let the rest sink in at what ever pace seems comfortable.

all the best,
mike

Say it like I wanna hear it?......sheesh.

I like you too Mike but there are behavioural experts that will have equations as to why that wouldn't sit well with me.

You'll have to let the reasons why sink in at whatever pace you find comfortable.

I've listened to what Danny has said regarding this and elsewhere, the only 'facts' I've come across are that A/ ARC actually does do something and B/ Whatever it does he himself claims that it suits Danny down to the ground consistently and in more than one physical space.

Can anyone tell me why that would be the case?  Can anybody tell me why that is not possible or at least offer an explanation without directing the person claiming it to express it in a way that is more pleasing to them?

Mike, Danny has a point here, and I'm only posting to give a bit of moral support to Danny - i normally try and stay out of personal arguements! The amount of time he gives to helping people here is nothing short of inspirational, and perplexing, considering how busy he is. Right now he's probably thinking, "why do I bother?". 

You probably didnt mean any disrespect in your post, although I don't know, I've never met you, but it did come across as kind of an out-of-the-blue stab at Danny. I think everyone knows, including you, that Danny is genuinely interested in helping people, and comes on here for no other reason than to do just that. 

But of course we see your point - bold claims need to backed up with fact. But that's the thing, whereas Danny hasnt provided scientific evidence to support his love of ARC, his experience is good enough for me. Whereas if some other people came on here telling me this and that, without backing it up with anything more than "it just works!" I'd probably take no notice. But we all know Danny. We know he's not an idiot! We know his work is excellent. And although Im certainly not one for getting caught up in the 'Chris Lord Alge said this so it is gospel' way of thinking, Danny's word carries a lot of weight with me. And that's not just because he does good work, or because he talks big - I feel like I know him reasonably well as far as Internet relationships go, and I've found him to be sensible, level headed, honest and trustworthy. 

So for me, Danny HAS provided evidence! Do you think he'd so publicly, enthusiastically and boldly back a product that didn't deliver the goods unless he was absolutely sure? I can say with certainty that he would not!

In fact, I recently bought a UAD card because Danny said i should! Now that sounds mad, but again, it's because I feel I know him well enough to trust him. Do you think I hadn't heard how great UAD's plugins are from other, far more eminent people in the audio industry? Of course I had! But I wouldn't trust their word on a product because I don't know them, therefore would never make a purchase based solely on their opinion. 

Finally, I too am a fan of ARC - I think I said in the thread on here that it was the most significant purchase I've ever made - I still stand by that. I never even check my mixes in other systems anymore. My experience has been similar to Danny's, although not as drastic. 

As Danny says, you should try it!

I'm not having a go at you at all - I think you're probably a great bloke and I'd love to buy your a beer one day. I'm just saying that, perhaps unintentionally, your post seemed like a personal attack on Danny. I know i would feel hurt if someone directed a post like the toward me. It would be a great shame if we lost Danny on this forum - I know he sometimes feels like he doesn't belong here, and posts like yours don't help much!

I'll post before and after measurements as soon as I'm able!

Well, for starters

A claim that something hasn't been proven is not a denial that some thing or condition doesn't exist.

A claim that something hasn't been proven is just that and nothing more.

If someone can't see that and want's to get bent out of shape... what can someone else do about that?



If some one wants to introduce a cause and effect scenario and present it as evidence in some argument... then the cause and effect scenario should meet the rigors of logical evaluation.

In this particluar instance the well known existence of expectation bias demands that someone actually use some logic if they want to present info as "facts".

In this particular instance we all have access to scientific measuring tools that will inform the claim and illuminate the true circumstance. But there seems to be a great reluctance, on one side of the argument, to use these tools.

If someone points out that the cause and effect scenario may appear logical but isn't using logic... we can get right to the point: Fallacy.

Or, we can try beating around the bush searching for some diplomatic method to describe a fallacy.






Danny has called me a "electronica musician" and then later an "acoustic musician" and then a "camera work" guy and a guy that "has no idea about hi gain guitar", and there was the comment that "he [mike] just can't do it" which was about something or other. I have no idea what he has listened to to arrive at that opinion.

It doesn't matter to me... because I am not basing my opinion about the science of room acoustics on my reputation as an "electronica musician"... I'm sticking with the basic facts.

I haven't really heard much of Danny's work... I don't really know where to find it except on the Danziland album, which I don't have, but the few things I have heard display fine workmanship and it's easy for me to accept Danny as being really good at what he does.



I don't understand why Danny feels it's ok to insult the intentions of Mr Winer, and then consider or mention the possibility of going berserk when I point out that there's a Pandora's box that holds nothing but unpleasantness with that sort of finger pointing.

This was a thread meant to applaud and announce the efforts of Mr Winer, and it got turned in to a low flying strafing run.

There was a claim that Mr Winer has never used ARC/Audessy and therefore speaks from a position of ignorance, but in fact he has... and he has written all about it.

I didn't see much acknowledgement about the fact that the original accusation was made in error. I didn't see an apology. Bummer.



This is basic good for the goose good for the gander type stuff.




For my part I don't think it should be about hero worship... I think it should be about facts.


For my part, I think Danny's a damn fine mixer and I'll bet that the next time he finds himself without he ARC he will learn how much he has grown and how much more experience he has with controlling expectation bias and using his mind to compensate for what ever environment he finds himself in.

Heck, I get the impression that Danny doesn't think he can mix without ARC and I simply disagree... I think he'd surprise himself and find that he has grown beyond what he has described above.

I really don't know how to be more gentle than that.



all the best,
mike

James,
 Once again... I have never denied, (nor has Mr Winer, nor has Drew, etc. etc.) the idea that corrective room EQ improves a few things.

 Why is it that this basic misunderstanding gets thrown in our face each and every time?

 Somebody decides for them selves that someone else is denying something when that is not the case at all.

 From my perspective the disagreement is unnecessary...  the cause effect analysis should be "dropped". If any one wants to harp on it... it's got a big target that says "fallacy" all over it. 

 
 I'd enjoy seeing the results of ARC in your treated room, because after all, the idea many of us have been advocating for is that you should treat the room first and then correct it with EQ. I think it'd great if you demonstrate how to use ARC to arrive at great sounding situation.

 I'd also like to see the process done in an untreated room... I think it will be a real eye opener for folks to learn the limitations of corrective EQ, Nulls and peaks are still flapping all over the place... and then it will be fun to watch people realize that they actually are good mixers with good skills... and that ARC wasn't magically helping nearly as much as they thought


 I have been reviewing info about room correction EQ for a few decades. It's fun stuff. It should be fun. It doesn't have to be crazy tense, ego based, he said, she said posturing.
 
 FWIW, I do hold your skills and taste in high esteem as well as Danny's... so I will very much enjoy any results you may be able to share.

very best regards,
mike

Again I'm just asking.

I've listened to what Danny has said regarding this and elsewhere, the only 'facts' I've come across are that A/ ARC actually does do something and B/ Whatever it does he himself claims that it suits Danny down to the ground consistently and in more than one physical space.

Can anyone tell me why or why not?

No hero worship involved. Mike, you more than anyone should know that I don't take anyone's word because of who they are.  I'm just as likely to call you out if what is being presented to me is crap. Have you noticed that yet?

You haven't taken note of the respect I've shown to Danny, Ethan or Drew here you've just decided;

This was a thread meant to applaud and announce the efforts of Mr Winer, and it got turned in to a low flying strafing run.

When it is you that is clearly going as low as you can and firing bullets.

I've been asking for clarity all along and giving due respect to all those involved.

Is it not your nose that is out of joint here Mr Electronica man?

Theaters in ancient Greece used large amphora as acoustic treatments. A 16th-century church has Helmholtz resonators integrated into its walls, built 3 centuries before Helmholtz was born. 

It's entirely possible to achieve desirable results without knowing the science behind them. But to assume that there is something inherently superior to trial-and-error versus science and engineering is simply rationalizing ignorance. 
 
Case in point: Danny Danzi is a very good mixer. Danny says "science in the audio field is a waste of time". Should one therefore conclude that ignoring science is a prerequisite for becoming as good a mixer as Danny? Of course not.

"Can anyone tell me why or why not?"

Yes, if there's too much bass and you turn it down... that's a good thing.

If there's too much 4027Hz and you turn it down... that's a good thing.





Now having said that, if you take a further step and look at an RTA and see that the peaks and nulls are flapping around like an animated party light the idea may sink in; "How does a specific number like 4027Hz relate to all this flapping?"

I'll give you a hint too... you want to use the RTA on high detail and fast response so you actually see it flapping around.

A lot of folks leave the RTA on sluggish response and are gratified to see the animation suggest that every thing is smooth and stable. That's not helpful.

After you have that going you might realize... "hey the reason I take so many ARC measurements is that it sort of averages out the measured peaks and nulls".

Which is good.

But, when you are done averaging, and you get to that average number, the peaks and nulls are still flapping all over the place... so the stuff I said was good up at the top... it's less good once you figure out it's only helping part of the issue and only part of the time.

Then you might ask, "hey is ARC dynamic? Is it chasing down the peaks and nulls in real time or is it just predictive?"

At this point you'll have enough info to appreciate why some people say things like "corrective EQ can only help in the frequency domain... it is useless in the time domain."

ARC literature, However, suggests that it has some time domain adjustments, so perhaps it has. I can comment that what ever they may be are constrained by a basic inability to act on individual drivers. Does Arc provide true biamp control over woofers and tweeters? That can be an effective way to introduce timing adjustments in an attempt to nullify positive and negative peaks so as to stabilize the room response. I think ARC may have some features like that but it doesn't really have enough acoustical control of the drivers to really work the idea. You get the 2.1 speakers and maybe so timing adjustments on some part of each one's signal.

The only practical way to control the time based peaks and nulls is to suck up any of the extra energy bouncing around the room.

The way to do that is well known, but most people do it other ways.

The idea of using pre cut, inexpensive industrial supply high density rock wool panels for easy to make DIY bass traps was popularized by Mr Winer in his do it yourself pages. All the other guys that sell the bass traps these days learned from him or someone who learned from him, Mr. Winer will tell you that all the similarly built bass traps are all pretty much the same.

With all that in mind I find it difficult to consider that post #8 was never reconciled with something like a sincere "whoops, I guess I shouldn't accuse people of ranting, self serving their bass trap store's special interest, or being ignorant of what they are talking about." type of mea culpa.


best regards,
mike

Aw, come on Bit, was that an actual quote?! 'acoustic treatment is a waste of time'? I find it hard to believe that Danny said that, unless it was taken out of context!

I personally love to use both acoustic treatment and ARC. My room sounds good wherever you stand, and consequently, it doesn't require ARC to do anything radical, which I like - as with most audio tools, it's probably best to just use a little. 

But having said that, there are clearly those who have experienced radical improvements with just ARC. I believe them. 

I look forward to posting some measurements - ill definitely do an untreated room too, this has got me interested!

By the way, I'm buying Ethan's book too - in my first mix room, I did experience a radical improvement in acoustics - but that wasn't from ARC! I hadn't discovered it yet - it was from making bass traps, much of which I learnt about from Ethan. I say go both, but we'll have a look at some measurements when I have time to tonight - ill find the worst sounding room I can too!