Wow... lots of interesting stuff... I guess I'll reply, since flame throwers have not yet been drawn!
 

drewfx1
Mike you are making some arguments from authority here which are generally severely frowned upon where I come from. <snip> 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.

 
I don't think that was Mike's intention... and in any case, I think all of can agree on this. I certainly tried to avoid saying anything like "I'm an expert... you have to believe me!"
 

drewfx1When 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. <snip>

 
Therein lies the rub... we do not yet know how to objectively measure most facets of audio. If you want to do some interesting reading do some research on Richard Heyser, as his pet peeve was the inability to make measurements that agreed with subjective perception. He is the father of TEF(tm) measurements, and the LEDE(tm) design concept. Even if you don't think much of LEDE(tm), he was a very bright guy, and his papers on perception are worth the read.
 

drewfx1In 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". 

 
Happens all the time... but sometimes it turns out that something is impossible... TODAY. And that last work is an important part of the conversation.
 
It has been proven that if one can capture - and describe - a transfer function accurately and completely one can cancel it out... the challenges are (a) capturing and describing the transfer function accurately and completely, and (b) finding the horsepower to reverse it. Because the transfer functions we are trying to "fix" are not time independent it is a very difficult problem to solve.
 

drewfx1I don't put much weight on any manufacturers claims.

 
I never do! If I had a nickel for every poorly written specification I've read (things like flat from 20Hz to 20kHz, or 0.001% THD - how stupid do marketers think we are??) It is an unfortunate truth that we have allowed marketers in all market spaces to shade the facts...
 
Now I've also had to eat crow more than once! When I was much younger I thought it really stupid that someone would pay more than $100 for a microphone, then a friend picked up a pristine U-67, and my eyes (ears?) were opened, and my bank balance has never been the same<G>!
 
In the middle ground, I was also highly skeptical of "star quad" cable as a solution to noise problems. Once I made the effort to learn about the differences between magnetic and electrical fields (very embarrassing, my degree is in physics), and how different mechanisms can be used to mitigate problems I now know when, and how, to use star quad, or even un-shielded twisted pairs to reduce noise problems.
 

drewfx1Personally, 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.

 
I agree with your first statement, and in fact that was what I was trying to express, although I might have gone a little overboard since I find the marketing hype to be so offensive... but I digress (early and often!)
 
The second statement is, I think, incomplete. If you include things like room dimensions and geometry than I think "more traditional acoustic treatments" can solve, completely, any acoustic problem. The issue is that solving them may cost a LOT of money, making that solution impractical.
 

drewfx1If 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.

 
Bingo! If it works for you then use it. My only concern is that a lot of people view it as a panacea, and without understanding the limitations they are spending time and money foolishly. And they are not getting the result they think they are getting. 
 

drewfx1Finally, 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.

 
Which leads back to my earlier point - we do not yet know how to measure the effectiveness of something like ARC, we have to rely on subjective experiences, and they do differ.
 
I just reviewed this thread, and I can't find anywhere a statement from me that people should not use ARC. I will stick to my guns that it is a very limited solution, and that it can not (yet) correct time domain problems. It can mask them, and if that is what you need to do better work then go for it.
 
My complaint, my only complaint, is that marketers are selling ARC and Auto-Cal as magic when in fact they are not!

bitflipper

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. 

Thanks for the correction<G>...

So...(Very interesting stuff, thanks for all of the input) My room will be 12X14. I plan on having my desk in the middle of the 12' side. How far from the wall should my speakers be? My monitor will be in front of a window. Do I need a panel in front of the window? I plan on building 10 2'X4' panels 2" thick with a 2" air gap...all sides exposed. I'm going to build 4 2'X8' bass traps 6" thick and stagger the corners. Placement will be determined later of course, but basically 2 panels per side with 2 on the ceiling is the plan. Do any of you see a problem with my basic idea? I do realize correct placement will be needed after the desk and speakers are in the correct place.

No time wasted... in fact I figured you were too busy making music to weigh in - and that's a good thing! I will endeavor to be brief...
 

Danny Danzi
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.

 
Which is, of course, just fine. We all work differently.
 

Danny Danzi
Like you, I've been doing this a long time also. I've worked in some of the crappiest rooms of all time. <snip> 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. :) 

 
Absolutely... sometimes constraints help us. I know I got a lot more music making done when all I had was a 4 track cassette recorder, a synth, and my guitars.
 

Danny Danzi
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... 

 
Yup! Sometimes constraints make us work hard on stuff that is not productive... figuring out the difference is becoming more of a challenge as technology advances... more's the pity!
 

Danny Danzi
<snip> 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. 

 
Agreed again... but I think KNOWING what the SYSTEM is telling you is probably the most important part! I think flat makes it a little easier to adapt your ears to the system...
 

Danny Danzi
I've mixed on incredible systems in great rooms and while sometimes not liking the outcome but the client did. <snip>

Is it possible that you simply didn't have enough cockpit time in those rooms? Just asking...
 

Danny Danzi
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. 

 
Nor should it be easy! Although I don't think that's a big drawback... if it worked well (for me) it would still be easier than building the room<G>!
 

Danny Danzi
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.

 
Funny thing is, I still have to do all those things...
 

Danny Danzi
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 generous offer, but I do not have easy access to ARC at the moment. FWIW, one of the engineers at Genelec checked my work when I tried to get Auto-Cal up and running, I hadn't missed anything, and yet I was hearing artifacts from the correction that were more of a problem - for me - than the problems they were trying to corret.
 

Danny Danzi
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.  

 
I'll sort of agree... I think some folks, folks who have built numerous rooms that are well received, and clearly understand the science behind it all, have a right to dismiss ARC and similar products based on science. But they live in a world where budget is usually not a limitation, they can build the room correctly from the start. That makes a difference, I think.
 
But yeah, everyone else ought to at least give it a try before expressing an opinion... heck, even people like me, who are skeptical, ought to give it a try.
 

Danny Danzi
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.

 
Again, I think there are people that can dismiss it without really trying it... they are few, but they exist.
 

Danny Danzi
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. 

 
Oddly enough, I might agree with this, but a mix is also a very subjective thing. I might hate a mix, but the it might still be the mix the artist wanted. There is a huge degree of personal taste at play here.
 

Danny Danzi
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. 

 
I have not read every ARC thread, but I will postulate that perhaps some of these folks are simply incensed by the hype? It's possible. When I read threads where people complain about ground loops it makes me want to scream. Ground loops are NOT a problem. They can exacerbate design problems in poorly designed gear, but by themselves they are not a problem. And defeating safety ground to rid your system of noise is the single most offensive bit of advice I have ever seen.
 
So maybe folks who find the hype offensive go off the deep end? Just suggesting that everyone approaches these topics with their own perspective. They might well be talentless jerks, or they might just be looking from a different angle.
 
This is why I have never (I hope) told people that ARC and Auto-Cal are rip-offs or junk... I've simply tried to express that they may not be solving the problems you think they are solving - and that if they work for you, that is they let you create a mix that translates well to the outside world, and they let you do so with less effort then that's wonderful. I can't mix without a lava lamp in the room... doesn't mean everyone needs one<G>!
 

Danny Danzi
It's like the guitar teacher 

 
Fascinating analogy!
 
I teach guitar. I have a very specific approach that works for me - I teach theory and physical technique. I use songs as illustrations, but I choose not to teach songs - I think that is a waste of time for the student. I prefer to equip them to teach themselves.
 
My approach will NOT work for every student. But for those who do succeed I like to think I've set them up for a lifetime of learning. Yeah, they eventually quit when I have nothing more to teach them... but that's ok too.
 
Now I did have one teacher who taught songs, and then used them to teach theory and technique. It worked for him, and for me, but I've never been able to replicate it. The man was probably the best all-around musician I've ever met, an absolute genius, and he honed his approach over the years. I've even discussed this with him, and he freely admits he has no idea why it works, but it does, and that's what he is after.
 

Danny DanziI 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. 

 
And you are entitled to your pet peeve... but please allow me the same courtesy if my pet peeve is marketing promises that can not possibly be true.
 

Danny Danzi
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. 

 
As long as it lets you create repeatable mixes that translate well for you, and without a lot of extra effort on your part then you should use it. And you seem to frame it thus, but there are those who do believe it is magic, and I think they are the ones that create the adversarial atmosphere on the topic.
 
Me? I simply want to insure that the science is not ignored. This is a highly subjective issue. It is not the same as the ground loop topic I mentioned earlier. That is hard and fast science, and ignoring it is bad.
 
As I said previously, "illusion" is too strong a word, but I can't think of a better one, so I use it, and make sure I have my flame shield handy!
 

Danny Danzi
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. 

 
I am flattered. Thanks. And I agree with your sentiment:
"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"
 
and that applies to any issue.

Hi Clint,
 I think all your plans will generally give you some great results. In the end you really have to get set up and start listening.
 
 As far as distance between your speakers and walls... the idea is that longer distances between the "point" source and any reflective surface results in lower energy levels of the reflections that get back to the listening position and so the disruption is lessened.
 Additionally the time it takes for a first reflection to return to your listening position is lengthened and so the "precedence" effect of the direct sound is enhanced which helps you focus on it and not the reflections.
 
 The complete consideration is way more complex but those two characteristics are the ones I think are the easiest to appreciate, and they are the ones I think about when setting up a listening spot.
 
  best regards,
mike
 
 
 
 edit spelling

My last word on this for today...

drewfx1
Oh and Danny, it isn't "science" if no one ever does any testing. That's one of my points.

It has been measured! I don't think that any of the measurements are public, and I am not in a position to share them myself, but I can tell you that both ARC and Auto-Cal have been measured by people that knew how to make the measurements. I will ask if these measurements can be shared, but I am not optimistic. First, they did not always reflect well on the subject at hand, and second, you need a fair exposure to the measurement techniques to make sense of them.
 
As an aside, I still use an old Acoustilog Impulser to measure time domain problems because, well, I find it a lot easier to understand than a 3D 'waterfall' plot<G>!
 

drewfx1
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.

 
Yes! It's music folks, and it is subjective, and if it works for you that's great. And if you want to share that it works for you that's great too. But please try to tone down the magic aspects, which all to often become the focus.
 

drewfx1
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".

 
Agreed again... useful is important, but understanding why it's useful, or what problems may not be solved (or worse, what problems might be created) is useful too.
 

wst3
My last word on this for today...

drewfx1
Oh and Danny, it isn't "science" if no one ever does any testing. That's one of my points.

It has been measured! I don't think that any of the measurements are public, and I am not in a position to share them myself, but I can tell you that both ARC and Auto-Cal have been measured by people that knew how to make the measurements. I will ask if these measurements can be shared, but I am not optimistic. First, they did not always reflect well on the subject at hand, and second, you need a fair exposure to the measurement techniques to make sense of them.
 
As an aside, I still use an old Acoustilog Impulser to measure time domain problems because, well, I find it a lot easier to understand than a 3D 'waterfall' plot<G>!

 
Yes of course it's been measured and some people know exactly what's going on under the hood.
 
I sort of meant "measured by the the people in the discussions here", or the measurements not being shared here. Let's just say I've heard rumors that some people take exception to purely theoretical claims or explanations. 
 

I'm reading "Sputnik" again as a refresher. It's fun to be reminded that Newton predicted the possibility of launching something into orbit back in his day and then Konstantin Eduardovich Tsiolkovsky got the rocket math figured out by 1896.
 
 

Mike, just to be clear, it's not that you were making an ad hominem attack, quite the contrary I believe.  
 
The point is that one aspect of a rather long diatribe against arguments from authority is that they often effectively constitute an ad hominem attack, intentionally or not, which is one reason why they should never be used. For instance if we are have a discussion and I attempt to bolster my argument by invoking an authority on the subject, note that in pointing out his/her presumably significant credentials I am also implicitly calling yours into question - and this is not an attack on your argument or your facts, it's an attack on you.
 
One of the reasons an argument from authority is a fallacious argument is that, like most fallacious arguments, it changes the subject from facts and ideas to one of (in this case) credentials and "what someone says" and perhaps why "their saying it makes it true", rather than letting the argument stand on its own merit.

Thank you.
 
I dislike the practice as well, I think I slipped into doing it a bit and so I was willing to accept some responsibility for having done so. I like conversing with people that help you strive to find good ways of communicating. I think your comments were helpful.
 
all the best,
mike