audimute.
 
http://www.audimutesoundproofing.com/
 
i use the absorption sheets.
http://www.audimutesoundproofing.com/audimute-sound-absorption-sheets-materials-that-absorb-sound-soundproofing-blankets.aspx
 
 
 or
just use arc.

"I'm sorry to be a broken record, but it isn't even a square solution to a round problem... it is an illusion, and the odds of any illusion working for more than a very small subset of cases is infinitesimally small! You can not correct a time based problem in the frequency domain!"
 
 I am curious Bill. Have you used ARC? If not I suggest taking it for a spin.
 
 Secondly, I must disagree with the statement that you can't correct a time based problem in the frequency domain.Why? because time and frequency are related and can be varied by a plug-in. This is one way ARC works...by adjusting the time perimeters of a wave so as to reduce or eliminate a standing wave. This isn't snake oil. It really works.

Starise I am curious Bill. Have you used ARC? If not I suggest taking it for a spin.

 
I have tried ARC and the Genelec system and a couple others that never made it to market... and in every case there were more problems created than solved. That's not to say that they did not provide an illusion of solving some problems, especially frequency dependent problems, but for time dependent problems (e.g. bad reflections) they were unable to solve the issue.
 
This is also not to say that the day won't come where these sorts of solutions won't work, for at least some well defined listening spot within a space. A transfer function is, in fact a transfer function, and one can look at it any number of ways.
 
The other issue that will have to be resolved is the location of the loudspeakers. Two loudspeakers can not generate enough information to correct these time based problems. There is a system available today (LARES) that can, but it uses a TON of loudspeakers, a TON of microphones, and a metric TON of DSP horsepower. It is priced accordingly<G>!
 

Starise Secondly, I must disagree with the statement that you can't correct a time based problem in the frequency domain.Why? because time and frequency are related and can be varied by a plug-in. This is one way ARC works...by adjusting the time perimeters of a wave so as to reduce or eliminate a standing wave. This isn't snake oil. It really works.

 
You are talking about one specific problem - standing waves - which result from a dimensional problem, not a geometrical problem, although even these are closely related. I have no doubt that a dimensional problem can be resolved using DSP voodoo... it isn't as simple as filtering out the offending frequency, since there are lots of offending frequencies, and the problems they create are positional, but yeah, ARC or a similar approach can probably do a decent job of mitigating these problems in a specific location within the space.
 
That is not the same thing as the marketing hyperbole would leave one to believe!

I just wanted to add that if automobiles are ever engineered to travel faster than 30MPH our heads will explode.

Oh yeah, and I'm probably a dolt but IMHO when I test mixes with ARC2 (and make adjustments accordingly) I seem to get better results, for my tastes, than when I skip the process.
 

 I am having some difficulty with that block quote thingy in the software :)
 
"I have tried ARC and the Genelec system and a couple others that never made it to market... and in every case there were more problems created than solved. That's not to say that they did not provide an illusion of solving some problems, especially frequency dependent problems, but for time dependent problems (e.g. bad reflections) they were unable to solve the issue."

 
  If you tried it I and don't like it fair enough. I would be interested to hear what kind of problems you encountered,especially since you say " In every case".
 
  Something must have been off kilter big time.
 
 I can understand that some people might not like it for one reason or another. If you simply don't like it then that settles it. But what I'm hearing you say ( ok not literally) is that ARC is somehow bogus. When you say that ARC only provides an " illusion" this does the plug a big disservice IMO. There's no illusion involved here, it really works.ARC is especially good at solving bad reflection issues.
 
 ARC2 is even better than  ARC was. When ARC came out SOS did an article on it and it was put to the test in both a treated studio and in a plain old boring office with all hard surfaces just to see what would happen. In both cases there was a marked improvement. Another article on ARC2- http://therecordingrevolution.com/2013/07/22/ik-multimedia-arc-2-room-correction-plugin-review/
 
 I set up ARC last night because I moved my studio around. When you take the measurements it sends out chirps 10 left and 10 right  into a microphone which you move around in order to get multiple readings in the same general area of your listening position. The software determines time and frequency corrections needed by timing and measuring the chirps. This is all based on time of arrival to your listening position.
 
 Honestly you would not believe the difference it makes. I am seriously thinking about not needing so much acoustic room treatment. According to the EQ plot it corrected everything except a very small bump in the 1.5 khz range,maybe 1 or 2 db. If you listen to material at my desk and toggle the correction on and off you notice a really big difference in clarity. Everything becomes sharper and more focused. The detail of the mix comes out. You hear what you were missing when you just had monitors.
 
 The truth is, in the case of a treated room it has to  be balanced with EQ and this still doesn't address all the problems. If a newbee tries it chances are there will still be something lacking. 
 
 We have been around the ARC wagon on this forum here before and some folks just don't like it. I think in some cases the measurements weren't taken correctly, and if you don't do it right nothing will work like it should.In other cases I think the listeners convinced themselves that what they were hearing wasn't a good mix and was the fault of ARC. In reality what they were hearing was the truth and they wanted a lie.

This thread reminds me that way-back-when I put "doing some actual measurements of acoustic behavior both with and without ARC" on my to do list but never got around to it.

Hi Drew,
 
I'm thinking that Bill is a bona fide, slide rule wielding, audio engineer with a couple decades professional experience in the field.
 
I'm always thankful on the occasions that he mentors me.
 
However, I think some RTA results from you, with your well known reputation for a well regarded and thoroughly rigorous thought process would be incredibly credible and very much appreciated by all of us who have a curiosity about this issue.
 
Please do it and let us know how and what you find!!!
 
all the best,
mike
 
 

Starise If you tried it I and don't like it fair enough. I would be interested to hear what kind of problems you encountered,especially since you say " In every case". 
Something must have been off kilter big time.

 
I can understand that some people might not like it for one reason or another. If you simply don't like it then that settles it. But what I'm hearing you say ( ok not literally) is that ARC is somehow bogus. When you say that ARC only provides an " illusion" this does the plug a big disservice IMO. There's no illusion involved here, it really works.ARC is especially good at solving bad reflection issues.

 
Probably not the last time in this post where I'll come off as a bit of a jerk, but I'll risk it...
 
First, no, I do not like the results when using ARC, it sounds artificial to me, and I do not feel like I am hearing what I ought to be, what I'd expect to hear in a better (read well designed) room.
 
Second, I do think that it ls largely an illusion. Much the same way that a 4 inch driver in a 5 inch box can't create energy at 20 Hz, except that's exactly what seems to be happening with various home entertainment loudspeakers. (An exageration... but meant to make a point.) And much the same way that an MP3 does not sound as good as even a "standard CD qualty" track, there are artifacts that simply get in the way. So yes, I think ARC falls into that category of illusion - probably not the best word, but I don't have a better one (wish I did, it is unintentionally inflammatory!)
 

Starise
ARC2 is even better than  ARC was. <snip>

 
In fairness, I've not tried ARC2 - nor do I have any plans to do so... the science behind it does not make me wish to spend the time. (warned you I might come off as a jerk!)
 
I set up ARC last night because I moved my studio around. When you take the measurements it sends out chirps 10 left and 10 right  into a microphone which you move around in order to get multiple readings in the same general area of your listening position. The software determines time and frequency corrections needed by timing and measuring the chirps. This is all based on time of arrival to your listening position.

 
If you have only two loudspeakers it is physically impossible to correct for time errors (e.g. reflections that arrive at inconvenient times) except in a very small space. If I remember correctly, I could easily fool ARC by moving the measurement microphone three or four feet... to me that is a serious limitation.
 
And don't overlook the fact that some errors that appear to be in the frequency domain (too much energy in a given octave) are really the result of constructive or destructive interference caused by energy arriving at that inconvenient time.
 

Starise
Honestly you would not believe the difference it makes.

 
Well at least on this we agree<G>... 
 

Starise
I am seriously thinking about not needing so much acoustic room treatment. According to the EQ plot it corrected everything except a very small bump in the 1.5 khz range,maybe 1 or 2 db.

 
And that's great! Really... if you can create a mix that translates well to lots of other systems using ARC then you have found your solution. I can't do it! I've listened to tracks that I mixed under the influence of ARC and I was not at all happy with the results in other spaces. The frequency balance was noticeably skewed, and there was typically way too much reverb, even though it sounded quite natural in the mix space.
 

Starise
If you listen to material at my desk and toggle the correction on and off you notice a really big difference in clarity. Everything becomes sharper and more focused. The detail of the mix comes out. You hear what you were missing when you just had monitors.

 
The truth is, in the case of a treated room it has to  be balanced with EQ and this still doesn't address all the problems. If a newbee tries it chances are there will still be something lacking. 

 
Well that sort of makes my basic argument for me<G>... ARC is not the panacea that it is sold as.
 
I do not have an objection to someone using ARC and being perfectly happy with the results. I do have a problem with a developer claiming to be able to void basic laws of physics, and solve all my problems for just three easy payments<G>! 
 
An analogy, if you'll spare me... I have an AKG C1000 in my locker. This is, without a doubt, the worst microphone I own. I have yet to put anything in front of it and get any kind of acceptable result. My locker is not extravagant, but I can ALWAYS find a better choice for a microphone. And yet I have friends that love the thing, and create great recordings with it. Unless you are recording a solo instrument in mono there is no way that a single microphone is going to destroy your project! I think the monitoring system is a lot like a given microphone... it may make you work harder to get a great result, but it is unlikely that it will prevent same. Me? I don't like to work harder<G>
 
We have been around the ARC wagon on this forum here before and some folks just don't like it.

 
Yup, which is why I hesitated to post at all...
 
I think in some cases the measurements weren't taken correctly, and if you don't do it right nothing will work like it should.

 
Absolutely. Give someone a TEF rig or something similar and they'll almost certainly make a mess if you do not also provide training. TEF, and SMAART, and EASE and all the other high end tools are very complex, and require a lot of training. ARC is supposed to be so simple even I can use it, and use it well... and thus far that has not been the case.
 
In other cases I think the listeners convinced themselves that what they were hearing wasn't a good mix and was the fault of ARC.

 
Absolutely... we can fool ourselves quite easily. I bought this really awful microphone preamplifier years ago. It sounded pretty good in the music store (I did say years ago<G>) but when I got it home it sounded awful. I really wanted the darned thing to sound good because I really needed it for a session. Sadly it didn't work out. Happily the store took it back. (Again, it was a long time ago<G>!)
 
In reality what they were hearing was the truth and they wanted a lie.



This is where we will have to agree to disagree... I don't believe that ARC can deliver the truth except in a very small set of circumstances, and only for a very small sweet spot.
 
So if I haven't demonstrated my jerk nature yet here goes...
 
I've been at this sort of thing since the mid 1970s. I've worked in some really remarkably bad rooms, many of which were designed long before we'd given any thought to how a critical listening space ought to behave. Then I worked in some really great rooms, where I could hear every little detail, and where the balance of the mix translated beautifully to a really nice listening room, but not so much in a car. This was not the fault of the room, it was the fault of the engineer (that would be me) not understanding the space I was working in, and how it translated to the real world.
 
I've mentioned before that I once mixed a demo reel for a friend in my office, on a pair of Polk Model 5s driven by an old Heathkit tube amp. The office was tiny, not at all symmetrical about any axis, and cluttered with junk. It was also relatively noisy. I only did this project because he was a really good friend, and he needed something, anything, in a hurry.
 
The result was really quite good. Better than I had any reason to expect. And I could not understand how. Luck? A guardian angel? Then I realized that I had spent hours a day in that office, and I always had music playing while I worked. So I knew that system better than I knew the back of my hand... I just didn't know what I knew.
 
Some truly amazing records were made in places that were just acoustically awful. And some really bad recordings have been made in well designed facilities. It is not all about the room or the monitoring environment.
 
BUT, one person's opinion only, if the room is well behaved and you can hear things accurately then tracking and mixing are a lot easier. I like easier!
 
I also think that my good fortune to have worked in some really good rooms prepared me to be a bit pickier about my monitoring environment. That does not mean I always succeed... we moved several years ago, and a variety of events have prevented me from building the studio I wanted to build. So right now I work in a real nightmare of a space... it is embarrassing how bad... and I would not try to mix a real project here! It is good enough for composition, that's it. And yes, this was one of the places where I tried both ARC and Auto-Cal, and this room ate their lunches<G>!
 
Hopefully I've explained myself... in any case, I'll shut up now...

mike_mccue
I'm thinking that Bill is a bona fide, slide rule wielding, audio engineer with a couple decades professional experience in the field.

 
Slide Rule Wielding????? Man, that's cold... but yes, I do keep a slide rule in my toolbox for quick dB calculations... although in my defense, ever since I got the HP-41 emulation for my iPhone I haven't used it. Wonder if I still can???
 

mike_mccue
I'm always thankful on the occasions that he mentors me.

 
I am flattered!
 

mike_mccue
However, I think some RTA results from you, with your well known reputation for a well regarded and thoroughly rigorous thought process would be incredibly credible and very much appreciated by all of us who have a curiosity about this issue.

Back into jerk mode<G>... RTA is only part of the question, you also need energy vs time, or the infamous waterfall display (energy vs frequency vs time - and yes, energy, not level). BUT, and this is a big part of what I was trying to say previously, even if you had a perfect measurement (whatever the heck that is) that doesn't mean it would sound good or be easy to use.
 
Just sayin...