The Audio Expert

I notice that the front cover includes a screenshot of Sonar.

I've always looked forward to Ethan's glowing reviews of ARC. 

I'm worried he's going to evade that subject this go-around.  I hope I'm wrong! 

OTOH, he's always helped my acoustic 'priorities' and has a lot to say about 'expectation bias', iirc.

Philip, you're probably right in that Ethan will likely refrain from attacking any specific product. However, the book would be lacking if it failed to explain why equalization, no matter how sophisticated, cannot compensate for room resonances. That's the crux of his criticism of room equalization: it's oversold and over-hyped. I share that view.

Drew, I have always considered books to be weapons, albeit on a more intellectual level. But now that you mention it, the Master Handbook of Acoustics has enough heft to get the attention of even the most inattentive back-row slacker. Ethan's book could fill the same role, but with the advantage of knowing you're giving money to an author who's still alive to spend it.

bitflipper


Philip, you're probably right in that Ethan will likely refrain from attacking any specific product. However, the book would be lacking if it failed to explain why equalization, no matter how sophisticated, cannot compensate for room resonances. That's the crux of his criticism of room equalization: it's oversold and over-hyped. I share that view. 

 
Two things I've always considered when I've seen him rant about this stuff that I can't get my head around.
 
1. His competition is room equalization stuff.
 
2. He bashes on products he has never tried nor owned. Each time I've gotten into a discussion with him about said products, I ask "but do you own it...have you tried it?" And I never receive an answer. It's like, everyone knows I'm a die hard ARC user. That said, I wouldn't bash on KRK's ERGO if I have never tried it based solely on what I may have read about it. Even if I looked deeper into the stat sheets at what they supposedly do that may not compute to me....the moment I rant while I sell acoustic products is the day I stick my foot in my mouth and make my motives obvious.

You can be an absolute genius in a field and still have something work for you that you think in your mind shouldn't work at all.
 
-Danny

Thanks Dave for the heads up on this thread. Yes, SONAR is not only on the cover, but is used for many examples throughout the book. I can't get post quoting to work, so I'll do it manually:
 
> I'm worried he's going to evade that subject this go-around. I hope I'm wrong!
 
I worked hard at being unbiased, sticking just to the facts. I quoted some lame advice from audio magazine editors to reader questions, but didn't mention the magazines by name. However, I do address the futility of expecting EQ to substitute for bass traps, and I mention specifically my tests of the Audyssey system that ARC is based on. Graphs of actual measurements prove the point better than 5,000 words. Now, whether the publisher and copy editor will let me name names is another matter!
 
> Room equalization is not a substitute for acoustic treatment, and even IKM is quick to point that out. ARC is meant to augment, not replace, acoustics management. If they'd be more up front about that, I don't think anyone would quibble over it.
 
Exactly. I've made the point before, and did again in my book, that I use the one-band cut-only parametric EQ in my subwoofer to reduce a 40 Hz modal peak 2 dB in my living room system. I have plenty of bass traps, but 40 Hz is tough to target with bass traps. This minimal use of EQ is just icing, not the cake itself as some EQ proponents claim.
 
As for the price, the publisher set that based on the size of the book. The printed text will be about 650 pages, and there were two more chapters they couldn't fit in that allotment. So instead of going to 700 pages and charging even more, those chapters will go on a web site for the book. There are also 68 audio example files on the site, and 31 videos totaling more than 3-1/2 hours.
 
Thanks guys.
 
--Ethan

bitflipper

I am not surprised that Ethan doesn't own or use it. Somebody like him simply has no need for ARC. He has a bigger room than most of us, purpose-built with extensive acoustical treatments. A good room does not need equalization. In fact, it could actually be counter-productive in an already good-sounding room. 


Everyone should take the time to study the physics of the problem before deciding to buy any product. Until you understand what the problem is and why it is that way, you're just shooting in the dark. If this book lives up to its promise and really is as complete as it's advertised to be, then I'd say $55 is a real bargain. I know I've certainly spent a whole lot more than that on books!

I don't know bit, I think if he did own it, he'd have a much different take on it. It's obvious the guy is in the know on lots of things and is someone I respect. But some of his comments about ARC were purely opinion based on what the science tells him. It's like "hey, how about just trying the thing and giving an honest take...we know it's not better than having all the right traps etc....but did it make a difference for you or was it a waste?"
 
I just think in order for someone (especially like him who has loyal followers that read his words as golden) to really say something negative about something...they need to spend some time with that piece before they rant about it, don't you? You're a pretty credible source of information on these forums here. If you say something sucks, people may think twice before investigating it. That's all I'm trying to say. If we never physically try something and spend some time with it, how can we just discard it as not being something that can be helpful?
 
ARC has made such an incredible difference for me, I can't say enough about it. I also don't have that ugly room tuning stuff messing up my home. I hate the looks of it. If I read what he had to say about it and took his words as gospal, I probably woudn't have ARC and might have a room full of ugly stuff because I HAD to do it that way to fix my particular issues. ARC solved my problems enough to where what I mix is what I hear everywhere. Are there issues in my room? I'm sure there are...but I think ARC has fixed me up enough to where I'm completely happy with the end results and I didn't have to build traps or get into positioning and testing all this other stuff. I had problems with low end....I did the ARC thing, those problems are gone...short, sweet and simple, know what I mean? For others...it may not be that easy but in all my situations, thankfully it has been.
 
I totally agree with everything else you said as far as investigating problems...and I'm sure his book will be everything you think it will be. The guy knows his stuff and has a good way of explaining himself and sharing his knowlegde. He's also proven good results with his music...so that to me holds major credibility. I hope he sells millions....I just wish he'd try some of this software stuff and experience it before he totally shuts it down as un-useful or hype or whatever the case may be. It may not work for everyone, but is sure has worked for me and many others that I've turned it on to.
 
-Danny

Danny Danzi
But Ethan, what if you tried the actual system in spite of what your tests read etc...and the thing actually worked better than you thought?

Yes, of course I tried it and listened. In my Audyssey Report I explained that the test room was audibly improved because the room is mostly a cube and had very pronounced resonances that the Audyssey reduced. But it didn't remove the ringing as claimed, and it didn't improve the response for an area as wide as even two listeners as is also claimed. Nor did it do anything for reflections. In rooms where peaks dominate, EQ can definitely help. But in many / most small rooms nulls are the larger problem, and no EQ can fix that satisfactorily. If  someone is satisfied with an EQ system, I have no problem with that. But it's not a substitute for real acoustic treatment, even if it can augment real treatment.
 
 
--Ethan

drewfx1
Sounds to me like you're arguing that, at 40Hz, EQ is the cake. Maybe the truth is we want/need both.

LOL, not at all. With only bass traps, and no EQ, the response was much flatter than without bass traps, and the ringing was greatly reduced.
 
BTW, I agree that skepticism is always welcome. That's a big part of my book.
 
--Ethan

Sheesh...

I just bought Mixing Secrets from Mike Senior and I thought that was everything I needed to know.... 


How about work on a 45% discount for Sonar users?  Promo code type thing.....

Philip,
 
I'm not sure it you realize that the the 64 bit ARC plug is available.
 
I haven't tried it in X1 as I mostly use sonar for midi editing, not mixing.
 
 
Good luck with your book Ethan.
 
Ken

Hey, Ethan, maybe you could use another proofreader. I'd be happy to volunteer in exchange for a free copy...

Looking forward to the book Ethan.

You seem, to me, to be a class act.


all the best,
mike

LOL Philip....you have such a way with words as well as explaining your thoughts. I love it! :) I'm way off topic here, but I wanted to share a few things with you regarding your response. First off, thank you for the most kind words! :)

Secondly, I have to whole-heartedly agree with everything you've said. The reason being, we have proof of it. One of the reasons I don't get too involved with the science or aesthetics in audio is quite simply, I sincerely feel it misses some of the obvious and that is, using your ears and knowing how to deal with things. I can sit and watch guys have a conversation about metering and the K system that goes on for 4 pages. At the end of the day, most of them having this conversation can't record or mix their way out of a wet paper bag. So where's the credibility? Or I can hear a guy talk all this tech talk about using all this gear to where he fights with other forum members and how he can do this and that and this...and then you hear some of his music...and right away, you cringe.

Conclusion: Science TO ME in the audio field is a waste of time. If you choose to be a scientist, stay out of the audio field with your teachings because all you do is confuse the common folks that just want to learn how to put out good music. At the end of the day, a good end result talks, boolsh!t walks. If you can combine the two while keeping it real and maintaining interest, I want to learn from you. :)

This is also another reason why I hesitate to buy recording books etc. So and so uses this that and this....all well and good, now what happens when you try it? Right...you fail or don't like the results. Why do you fail? Because you didn't have the room, the gear and the know-how that so and so had. You could duplicate his room and his gear and STILL fail. Those books are decent for learning a few things here and there, but nothing does it like trial, error and actual experience with YOUR gear in YOUR realm or someone teaching you that has the same stuff as you do in a similar situation.

When I teach my video lessons to students, one of the things that makes what I teach different than everyone else is, I teach people how to handle these situations using the gear THEY have as much as possible. There may be times when I have to use a UAD piece to get my point across and they may not have that, but it depends on why I chose that piece. If I'm mixing someone's project and running video through the whole thing, I do them a diservice if I don't use the best tools I have. Some will ask me to use Sonar specific tools...which is fine too. But the point is...when someone learns from me, they learn using what they have.

Here's the biggest problem I see with everything. Some joker with a degree in something will always have to jump in and start talking in a language that normal people may not understand, may not desire to understand and this can lose them. I have both of Bob Katz' books...on some things, he totally loses me. Is it because I'm a dummy or is it because Bob is the wrong teacher for me because he involves more science than actual "how to's"? He's a brilliant guy and a great ME, but the wrong teacher for me.

This is why I stay away from technical discussions. If you notice, most of the people that get involved in them either have NEVER posted any music to show we should listen to them, and *some* of the ones that have sure don't sound much like anything I'd want to sound like to where I need to listen to their advice. In life, we lead by examples...not scientific talk that stirs the pot so bad people get so confused they buy more into hype than actually making a difference in sound for the better. That's just how I feel. Whether it be about room correction, recording, mixing, mastering....there is so much hype involved, people just fail to realize it or accept it. I'll put out a decent sounding piece of music using a stock Dell with a Realtek using ASIO4ALL and Sonar in my 12x12 room in my house without using either of my full blown studios that will hang right with anything a scientist puts out. I *might* fall short, but rest assured, the difference won't be so drastic that a person would not settle for what I have when you compare what my little home rig costs verses something much more grand.

I've sang in corners, I've sang upside down bending over backwards to simulate air strain, I've recorded guitar cabs off their wheels laying on their backs (with enough room off the floor to plug in a speaker cable) shooting straight up to the ceiling, recorded drums in horrible rooms with 57's, EV Endyme's and 58's, the list goes on and on. When you know what you're doing...you compensate and learn how to get good sound. I have never felt a room restricted me from doing my job in all the situations I've been in through the years other than when a set of monitors is just poor. I actually welcome the more challenging rooms...gates and compressors do wonders when used correctly. :)

Here's another thing to keep in mind. When we hear an artist that comes out that is acceptable to the masses, the reason for this is that artist delivered something in a language the majority could understand. Frank Gambale will never have the success or popularity that Eddie Van Halen will, yet Frank can technically rip EVH to shreds. Why? Simple...EVH delivered in a language that people could understand and relate to while if you aren't into jazz/fusion, Frank will totally turn you off. It's the same with audio and anything else in life really. It's not about being simplistic, it's about being able to have a happy medium. Some science is a necessity along with the cold hard facts of speaking in terms people can understand and showing proof by good examples. We can have one without the other though. I can teach someone how to get results without talking like I just got out of college. If I strictly talked science....my following becomes a cult following which rest assured, will yield far less good engineers than those that learned the facts and how to's in a language they could clearly understand.

-Danny

drewfx1
1. Can they answer challenging questions, or do they just repeat what they said or refer you to someone else's writings?
 

I never duck questions, and I can always back up what I say. When Audyssey claims to reduce ringing, and improve the response for all seats, I run tests and publish the results. I never rely on opinion alone. I always explain how and why, and avoid blanket statements with nothing to back them up.

drewfx1
Now given that I'm too cheap/can't justify the ETF SW Ethan used in his Audyssey tests, I'm thinking some white noise & (slowly) swept sine waves will work for frequency response testing, but what about ringing?

I now use Room EQ Wizard, which is better than ETF and is also free. Google will find it for you, and this article explains much more than my previous articles that used ETF for the examples:
 
Room Measuring Primer
 
--Ethan
 

drewfx1
Ethan also did some actual tests regarding one of these products. Some have raised some questions about his fairness and/or conclusions.

Besides showing Before and After data, I also showed exactly how I did my tests. I do this so others can run their own tests, and see if they get the same results. This is a big part of the scientific method. If there was a problem with my methodology, I'll be glad for someone else to show what I did wrong.
 
--Ethan