Thanks for that.
 
:-)
 
 
 
BTW, I still have Dad's slide rule. We were the first family on the block with a T.I. hand held (and later a microwave oven too) but Dad used his slide rule til his last day of work.
 
:-)

mike_mccue
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

 
A few thoughts:


Mike you are making some arguments from authority here which are generally severely frowned upon where I come from. When talking about factual matters, someone's credentials don't matter if they are either able to prove something or if they are unable to prove something. Without going on a rant, arguments from authority are a deductive fallacy and are often used in forums (intentionally or not) as an implicit ad hominem attack. They should never be used.
 
 
When you have people making conflicting claims that are not purely subjective, and it's reasonably easy to do some quantitative testing, I find the testing preferable to arguments. And if one is making heated arguments, but is personally unable to provide any proof to support their claims, well, what are they arguing for?
 
 
In my travels I have found that when someone says, "It's impossible!", what they sometimes mean is, "I don't know of any way of doing that". 
 
 
I don't put much weight on any manufacturers claims.
 
 
Personally, I'm willing to entertain that ARC might be able address certain acoustics problems (at a given listening position) while failing to solve other problems. The fact that it may not be perfect and solve all problems is not materially different to me from the fact that other, more traditional acoustic treatments do not completely solve every problem either.
 
 
If ARC changes the sound in a way that is considered "helpful" to someone, that is a subjective evaluation and others may have different subjective opinions. And when perfection cannot be achieved, "good enough" is a subjective decision as well.
 
 
Finally, arguing endlessly about whether or not ARC (or any other product) works as claimed (by either the vendor or users) seems silly to me without first establishing exactly what it is actually doing and not doing.

I'm willing to entertain that ARC might be able address certain acoustics problems (at a given listening position) while failing to solve or exacerbating other problems.

Fixed. 

Hi Drew,
 In this context, Bill has previously attempted to explain the differences between frequency domain and time domain to me personally (I doubt he remembers)... and any misunderstanding on my part is due to my lack of discipline and having not followed through by doing the mathematics exercises that would let me own the knowledge for myself.
 
 With regards to my comments about an optimism that you may make some analysis, I can't help myself. I am tainted by my respect for your thoroughness and your focus on the facts (Don't you have a phD in math or something as well? That's not an ad hominen attack either, but I get and accept your point) and I fully expect that you will present the subject and your explanations of your testing procedures in way that more of us can understand.
 
 With regards to my opinion of ARC. I haven't weighed in this time out. I agree that it's a personal choice to decide if you like it, but I did find the statement:
 
 "I must disagree with the statement that you can't correct a time based problem in the frequency domain."
 
 to be wholly disagreeable.
 
 I would like to remind anyone curious that I often times point out that ARC does indeed attempt to address the time domain... but not in the frequency domain. Audessy says it does the EQ with 100's of EQ filters. 
 ARC is described by it's creator as using an amalgamation of convolution impulses that have been combined through a process of fuzzy logic so as to compensate for phase (did I use the right word here?) in-coherency at the listening position.
 I've imagined that the amalgamated convolution file has, in effect, discreetly segmented frequency dependent delays. I have written to and asked the creators of Audessy about this but never gotten further explanation. I have also imagined that the IR they describe as an amalgamation is a database that is mined dynamically along a duration of time so as to mimic the reactive nature of the waves which aren't really standing but rather fluttering in what seems to be overlapping rhythmic cycles. 
 
 I also like to point out that systems such as this can be even more effective after the crossover where each individual driver may be controlled individually. IIRC that's what the Equinox Audio system is doing. 
 
 I was sincere when I said I would very much appreciate your testing and reporting your results because I know that you would not rely on your reputation but rather the facts that you uncover.
 
 
 With regards to slide rules... my Dad had a tin ear (I think it was from the 105 howitzer) and he always thought my interest in audio was just plain nuts.  :-)
 
 Thanks for sharing.
 
 very best regards,
mike
 
 
 
 

Some great discussions here. Starise, your experience has been of course....VERY similar to mine. Maybe we're lucky? Maybe Jesus loves us? Maybe we did the correction correctly? Maybe we did the correction INCORRECTLY? Whatever the case, guys like you and I could care less what's under the hood as long as it makes a difference in our world for the better. That's how I pretty much do everything. The more I get involved with science, the more it takes me out of my "raw, use your ears" realm. Granted, there are times when the science part needs to be looked at for severe problem areas....but until I get faced with that, illusions, trickery, fake, whatever ya wanna call it.....if it works, I'm a believer. :)
 
Bill: I don't know where to start with my comments in response to you other than, it's quite apparent you know your stuff and I can completely respect the opinion and experience you've shared with us. I would never even attempt to try and sway a guy like you into trying ARC 2 nor will I waste much of your time here reading this (well maybe 8-10 minutes worth lol)....but I would like to say a few things if I may?
 
Like you, I've been doing this a long time also. I've worked in some of the crappiest rooms of all time. I've even worked in studio's worth millions that had over-booked clients to where they threw me in a storage room, warehouse, closet or whatever else they had available. I hated working under those conditions. However, as you know from doing stuff like that yourself, it pushes you really hard to get the best out of everything you have at the time, right? I know you can so relate there. :)
 
Well, keeping along with that particular subject, just about every time I've been in a position like that, the monitors I've used were not even corrected nor did I have a sub at all times. This put me at such a huge disadvantage, it really ruined the enjoyment factor for me in ways I can't even tell you. That said...
 
One day, that ARC thing came into my world. I know it doesn't line up with science....I know some of the hype people have read doesn't make sense and we can go on and on about how it may not be a total fix for everything and everyone. BUT....huge BUT at that.....one of the most important aspects of this field for me, is having monitors at least tuned as flat as possible. I can mix in any room you want to put me in as long as the monitors are not totally out of whack with what they are giving me. If I can't trust an ounce of what I'm hearing, there's no way I can do a good job.
 
I've mixed on incredible systems in great rooms and while sometimes not liking the outcome but the client did. I've mixed on scaled down systems in bad rooms with ARC and have come out in great shape every time. It's truly amazing as to how this thing has worked for me in so many different rooms, I'd bore you if I told about the experiences.
 
In my humble opinion, I sincerely think the monitors used makes a difference as well as how anal you are with the procedure and if you use a sub. I also do not feel ARC is easy to use at all. I absolutely HATE doing the corrections. There are too many things you can forget...and if you forget just one thing, you've wasted an hour of time. Honest when I tell you, you have to be so precise, it no longer makes it easy.
 
Taping your floor, measuring, use the right mic model number, proper height, mic position at the nose, keeping things totally symmetrical and measured to the numbers, make sure input monitor is turned off, make sure proper levels were achieved, make sure lowest latency possible was used.....forgetting just one of those things changes the entire way it works.
 
Again, I'm honestly not trying to sell you on it. You tried it, you didn't like it, you didn't think your material improved, you have every right to share how you feel. But if by chance there was a possibility that you may have forgotten something....if you still have ARC, I'd be willing to share a pdf that I've written up that will take you through all the steps I use to be successful with it every time. At least you could see if any of it made a difference.
 
A friend of mine tried ARC. He's one of my mentors. He laughed at it and called me and told me it was junk. I went to his studio and re-did the corrections MY way. Needless to say, the outcome was better than the Rane eq he had which was set by a professional that tuned his monitors. He missed a few steps at the time. He still uses it today and loves it.
 
Whatever it does, it's been all good for me. I really don't mind people bashing on it at all...as long as they've tried it. What bothers me the most (now I'm going to sound a bit like a jerk, but honest this is not directed at you or anyone....it's just in general but needs to be said) is when people use the science of what they read or hear against the thing and bash it for no reason other than to sound important. And, the fact that they never even tried it. 
 
It's like the mechanic that went to school that really knows a lot about cars saying "the new Camaro is not what you think. We studied that system and it doesn't do this that and this" then you ask the guy "yes, but did you drive the car?" He answers "well no, but I don't have to because the science in my school tells me what it's about."
 
I don't think that's fair. It's an opinion and until you can drive the car, it's pointless to make a stink about something if you've never experienced it. What if the thing in the car isn't all that, but when you drive that Camaro, it makes it an incredible driving experience even if by chance some of it may have been an illusion or maybe it helped you to enjoy the car by 15%? To totally discount it is just ludicrous in my opinion.
 
My other argument is (and here's where the jerk in me comes out and where this is not directed at you or anyone else) the "scientist" types are always the ones that seem to ruin the arc debate. There is no reason for someone that hasn't tried it to come in to the discussion and bash it if they haven't tried it, seriously. And what else gets me is, these dudes that talk this crap can use all the help they can get because their mixes sound terrible! I have either heard some of the worst material by supposed scientists that are the first to share internet links about stuff or share how smart they are with people to intimidate them, or have heard nothing from them at all that would make me want to listen to them.
 
Not one has made my "I would love to pick your brain and am willing to pay for it" list. This bothers me immensely! If a person can't lead and teach by and with example, it's harder for me to see them as credible. That said, I'm not saying every person that posts an opinion needs to share a great mix to be valid. I'm saying it's the same ones bashing it all the time...and they have no real credibility to be so "voice for the sake of a voice". At the end of the day, you have scientists with crap for audio trying to show people that are trying to improve that ARC is a bunch of horsesh!t and hype. It may be that....but for quite a few people, it has worked wonders.
 
It's like the guitar teacher I had that went to Berklee that was a theory guru.....yet was NOT a great player. He could show me theory, but he couldn't show me how to use the stuff nor could he lead as a "playing" example. My idea of a good theory teacher is one that shows you theory and then 5 examples on how to use what you just learned so you have a clue as to what it means as well as how it can be used.
 
The guy 2 towns away from me knew a little more than basic theory, but could play like a lunatic showcasing the styles I liked plus some other really cool styles. Who do you take lessons from? See my point? So that's my problem with science. The majority of those who use it in the audio field haven't shown me anything other than words. I'm not an excellent engineer by any means and learn every day. But I've also done my best to post up examples of things when I've been called on stuff as well as offering things freely to bring a point home. Even though I have no awards, I have a pretty good track record as someone you can trust and at least have enough credibility to where advice I'd offer or speak about it worth investigating. I can't say the same for the scientist types. They could possibly benefit from ARC if they tried it...or heck, tried something other than running their mouths. Sorry, it's just a pet peeve of mine on forums. They ruin more debates than people that just have differing opinions.
 
Could it be a fluke that me and many others have had luck with this thing? Most definitely. Is it the be all end all of plugs to help with room problems? Absolutely not...but I'll tell ya, it sure does a wonderful job flattening monitors for me. I don't even need to use a sub on my Events, Adam A-7's or Genelecs. I did the correction with and without sub....no difference at all other than you don't quite feel the lows as much, but you sure do hear them the same as the sub. But I do like to use the sub because it adds that little extra "feeling" to the lows.
 
Anyway, I wasted your time on this and didn't want to, but that's my take on things being a happy ARC customer. I totally respect your opinion and again thank you for sharing what you've shared. Science from someone that has a clue is one thing.....and completely commendable. Science from a link poster that shares crap mixes or no mixes while bashing on something they have never tried....totally unacceptable in my opinion. 
 
-Danny 

 
My listening position strategy is that my speakers are 36" from the side walls, 8'+/- from the rear wall, and 36" from the ceiling.
 
When I really want to hear whats going on I roll my small desk out of the way too. the big display monitor is a regret I endure.
 
I'd like to have a bit more space for the speakers, but it's a small room. I would very much like a taller ceiling but it's not going to happen. :-)
 
I listen at 83dBSPL most of the time so the room doesn't get saturated with energy and it seems to work out ok.
 
 
I do have a predisposition to the idea that the most important thing is too learn how to listen. I listened to a wonderful speech by Barry Blesser (just some guy) where he spoke about listening skills. At one point he says "I was once one of the most aware listeners of reverb on the planet... I'm not now because I haven't kept in practice" The point being that listening is a skill and there is a fitness aspect to the craft of listening. Myself, being an optimist, believe that anyone can achieve fitness as a great listener so when I heard him say this I thought "yeah man".
 
I think, in my opinion, based on and limited to my personal experience, that as you bring more listening fitness to the event of listening that the need for ideal monitoring diminishes.
 
That's how I deal with the compromise I have at my place.
 
 
all the best,
mike
 
 
 
 

I think you hit the nail on the head, Mike.  It is how we listen as much as what we listen to.  Like Bill, if you've listened to a million songs in one room, you are likely to know the room and system well enough for how it translates.  Mixing is no problem in that case - you know what a good mix sounds like in that room.
 
Sure is nice to have a tuned room (even more for the tracking!) and full range speakers and all the other eminities.  As Bill sez, it makes everything easier.  It doesn't mean you can't get a good mix in a bad room on 5-inch woofers (well, maybe check your bass for problems on bigger speakers).  But if a mix sounds good on these computer speakers right here facing me, I can be sure I have a decent mix.  It might not sound as deep and some of the detail is missing that I hear on my mains, but if the separation holds and the vocal floats ...
 
Interesting thread and glad to see a grown up conversation about music production and how we work.  Makes me remember why I like coming here.
 
@

mike_mccue
Hi Drew,
  With regards to my comments about an optimism that you may make some analysis, I can't help myself. I am tainted by my respect for your thoroughness and your focus on the facts (Don't you have a phD in math or something as well? That's not an ad hominen attack either, but I get and accept your point) and I fully expect that you will present the subject and your explanations of your testing procedures in way that more of us can understand.
 

 
The idea is one takes careful measurements and they show what they show. Who takes them is irrelevant as long as the testing procedure is sufficiently controlled. And in this case, I'd only be testing in one room that already has some acoustic treatment, so it's not clear whether any kind of broad conclusions can be drawn outside of this particular case.
 
Oh and it isn't important, but I don't have a degree in math. My degree is in astrology of course. 
 
 
 

 "I must disagree with the statement that you can't correct a time based problem in the frequency domain."
 
 to be wholly disagreeable.

 
I don't remember who made that statement, but as an aside I don't not think that there's too many negations in your quoting of it and your response to make it not clear. No?
 

I was sincere when I said I would very much appreciate your testing and reporting your results because I know that you would not rely on your reputation but rather the facts that you uncover.

I try somewhat unsuccessfully not to have a reputation one way or the other. I have found that sometimes folks who aren't supposed to know stuff don't know that they aren't, and those who are supposed to know stuff sometimes don't know either.
 
 
 
Oh and Danny, it isn't "science" if no one ever does any testing. That's one of my points.
 
But the science/testing part can only establish how ARC might be addressing (or exacerbating - I'll save you the work, Bit ) various specific acoustic problems. The fact that one might find it "useful" or 'helpful" or whatever doesn't necessarily depend on whether it is solving (exacerbating) a given problem effectively.
 
I happen to believe that some of the more heated arguments here have to do with a communications failure where the two sides are addressing different points - "useful" vs. "can successfully address a particular problem".

Well said Drew...as always. :) I'm interested in seeing how the testing goes if you decide to take it on. At the end of the day though....what exactly would the results mean? Like, say you test and you come up with the final line as "with all due respect, this whole plug as well as the concept is bogus" and you have total proof of this....how would something like that come into play for those that have really been successful with it?
 
I can totally see where the testing would be beneficial to all of us....at least the "in the know" part. But even if the thing is working by "illusion" like Bill said, does any of it really matter if it works? I would *think* it may show why it may not work for some people...but how can we figure out "it's flawed but still works for a majority" know what I mean? :)
 
I like when you hang out with us in techniques man....try to stop by more often.
 
-Danny

Hi Drew,
 
 First, let me apologize for my Ad Hominem attack on you and Bill.
 
 Both were meant as compliments but I acknowledge your point on the matter and thank you for taking me to task on the subject.  Personally, I look up to you guys who have had the discipline to sit down and work through equations in your fields of study. 
 
 With regards to my quote that I didn't provide attribution for... that is, ironically a habit of mine when I wish to speak about an abstracted idea with out focusing on who introduced the idea. 
 
 In my feeble mind I see that statement as an idea that was floated out there and I thought the idea should be discussed further, yet I have no desire to make it seem like a person to person disagreement. Before I seem childish on the subject... the statement is up above for anyone to read... but I still don't feel comfortable holding anyone to it as if there is a score being kept. I think I kept it in context but I'm open to any correction on that count.
 
 It's just an abstract idea that can be discussed as such.
 
 The little I know about Frequency and Time domain is that they are by definition different domains.
 
 I've done my best to learn more about how ARC works and I've shared the info I have found by reading Audessey's white papers. The part I speculated about I have identified as speculation and I am eager to learn what part of that speculation is crazy talk on my part. I've written to Audessey and I've even asked my pal IKObi to get us some info but nothing came of it.
 
 I don't think anyone has noticed but in the past I have consistently hinted at the idea that I acknowledge the idea that electronic room correction does have beneficial effects. I have also stated clearly that I don't think anyone actually needs any room correction if they do a few simple things like put the speakers where they sound their best. That idea seems to really upset people. Why? I don't know. 
 
 My record on the subject is that I comment when I see people making technical explanations that I feel are inaccurate or perhaps fantastical. For having done so I have been identified as a ARC hater on numerous occasions when in fact I seem to be the only one who keeps trying to introduce the technical info that actually supports the ARC concept to the discussions. It hasn't surprised me that people have such vivid memories of things I have never said, and I just decline to hold myself responsible for those ideas.
 
 Thanks again for keeping it real. It's refreshing and inspirational.
 
 all the best,
mike
 
 
 
edit spelling