Danny Danzi
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?

 
It might mean more to someone who hasn't bought it yet.
 

 
But even if the thing is working by "illusion" like Bill said, does any of it really matter if it works?
 

 
I wouldn't recommend something to someone if it is bogus. And if an alternative solution was better and cheaper...
 

 
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? :)
 

Let's say someone has a particular acoustic problem - Does ARC address that problem or not? Does something else do a better job (for less money?) on that particular problem?
 
But I just find that these discussions seem to go on endlessly without any sort of clarity on what ARC is and is not doing.

mike_mccue
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

Hey, thanks Mike. If my studio monitors are 1' off the wall with a panel behind...will that be ok? The window will be behind my (tv) monitor and between the studio monitors. I'm converting a bedroom so it will never be the perfect solution.
 Can I use the same rigid 703 material for de-couplers under my studio monitors?

Hi Clint,
 
"If my studio monitors are 1' off the wall with a panel behind" 
 
I would just try it and see how it works for you and I'll add that for your room setup you should keep an open mind about ARC but I'd save trying that for last.
 
The thing I feel most strongly about is a focus on developing listening skills, as you build your fitness for it you'll acquire the confidence to choose what is the best for you, your mind, and your room.
 
"Can I use the same rigid 703 material for de-couplers under my studio monitors?"
 
I've never used decoupling pads, and have used independent stands that have very little resonance for so long I can't offer you any insights. A solution that always appealed to me, and that I have used often are the foot-spikes that minimize contact.
 
I don't feel like I have an answer for you, but I encourage you to give the 703 or some of the foam products a try and see what you think.
 
best regards,
mike

Great responses Bill! It's awesome to have you taking part in this stuff too. I did want to comment in brief on 2 things if I may?
 
In the last response you had asked me: Is it possible that you simply didn't have enough cockpit time in those rooms? Just asking...
 
I definitely felt comfortable in the rooms. I think it was the Event monitor system I just wasn't down with those particular times. I don't seem to like ALL their stuff. Most times I've brought my own monitors when I've been hired in a new place...but there are times when I haven't and I think it was more being familiar with the monitors more than the rooms.
 
You mention: But please try to tone down the magic aspects, which all to often become the focus.
 
*raises hand* Totally guilty on that one. However, for way too long I had been in the dark clouds of mixing depression. I knew "I knew my stuff" in this field but never had good results in my own place. So I built a place and that too didn't give me the results I was looking for. At the end of the day, I was left with a nice little man-cave with gear as well as a building loaded with good stuff. I had given up on doing anything with the engineering field on my own properties and was so depressed, I felt like throwing in the towel. Mixing and recording in great rooms helped ease my pain but I just couldn't find out why I would only put out fair sounding stuff at my places. Don't get me wrong, I had good results, but not the results I was hoping for.
 
When ARC came into my life, by the second set of corrections, it totally changed my world and in my opinion, pushed me up the ladder from being a demo studio to a professional demo studio that would sometimes rival big names in sound. If you're me and in such a depression to where the frustration is either enough to make you nearly cry or start demolishing things, you can see how "the magic aspects" have driven me to be such an advocate for this product.
 
The other side of the coin is....I've listened to other engineers really improve drastically by using it. Not to name names, but I like to praise when someone has made an impact on me. Ed (Bapu) on the forum here was a pretty decent engineer all the years he's been here. He and I worked together in the CHB which of course lead to lots of conversations about audio, techniqes and everything else as we bonded as friends. Though Ed had a few rough edges like we all do, I noticed an incredible difference in his mixes after he started using ARC.
 
To me, they were night and day differences to where a few times I remember joking with him and saying "who mixed this? Sounds like someone had a clue". LOL! There are others who have improved drastically and I think it's from two major things.
 
1. They have learned how to listen a bit better for sure....and this is super important.
 
2. I believe whatever ARC did, it allowed them to have a better representation on what was being mixed. Meaning, what they were hearing was no longer *as* false as it may have been before.
 
I could tell these things because you know what to listen for. Me as a part-time teacher in the audio field, I hear the same problem area from people time and time again. Most times it's low end mud, too much boom or congestive mids. With ARC, these problems (on Ed's behalf as well as others I know that use it) disappeared to where they were no longer problem areas and the mixes they were putting out were all acceptable. Subjective in spots for sure....but there were no more blatant areas they needed to be concerned about.
 
So to me, if ARC can at least help to get us that far along, it's a win/win. This is where the "magic" comes in because for some of us, it truly has done amazing things for us. You know that feeling you felt when you woke up one day and said to yourself "wow, I think I'm starting to get this stuff.....mixes no longer take me 2 weeks to do!"?
 
That's where I think those of us who have been successful with it are. I know that's how I feel. Not that I feel I'm this great engineer that doesn't need help or advice...but I am confident that I can mix in a few hours instead of a few days on one song and be perfectly happy with it to where my clients are too. It sounds great everywhere....it's consistent....there are no blatant errors other than some might make subjective points on how THEY might mix things.
 
So to me, that is where the magic comes in and why I've been so excited about ARC. It truly has changed my life for the better and as far as mixing goes, it has been plugin of the decade for me. That's a bold statement...but it's honestly how I feel because without it, I'd still be fair...but my consistency would tank. LOL! :)
 
-Danny

drewfx1

Danny Danzi
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?

 
It might mean more to someone who hasn't bought it yet.
 

 
But even if the thing is working by "illusion" like Bill said, does any of it really matter if it works?
 

 
I wouldn't recommend something to someone if it is bogus. And if an alternative solution was better and cheaper...
 

 
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? :)
 

Let's say someone has a particular acoustic problem - Does ARC address that problem or not? Does something else do a better job (for less money?) on that particular problem?
 
But I just find that these discussions seem to go on endlessly without any sort of clarity on what ARC is and is not doing.

Totally understand where you're coming from Drew. I guess my whole thing with the data is....even if it shows things that are wrong or "by the results, this thing is junk" it still works for some people and fails for others. The biggest problem with it is you can't try it. The price has come down, but for those who think it didn't make a difference for the better...they should be able to return it and then the debate sort of goes away in a sense. It either works for you, or it doesn't and if it doesn't, you get your money back.
 
If there were something better, I'd be up for trying it. I've not been as happy with conventional monitor correction and made sure I had a pro do it because I know nothing about that sort of thing. But I felt my mixes were better when using ARC instead of the permanently adjusted eq I had up for my monitors. Anyway....if you do this testing stuff, I'd be interested in seeing the results. :)
 
-Danny

 Great comments.  Danny I totally agree. I guess the reason I bit the bullet and jumped into this discussion is I can't sit idly by and let someone make *never* and *always* comments when I know I have had a different experience. I feel like this is misleading to someone out there.  Maybe the words *never* and *always* weren't specifically used but the implication I picked up on was that ARC is some kind of pseudo science. I can't let a comment like that slide by when I know the truth to be different. 
 
 I am not totally clueless when it comes to this kind of thing. I have trained in some acoustical theory. I have worked in Audio Visual. I don't claim to be Mr. expert but I'm no dimbulb when it comes to the science of audio either. I have yet to see any real proof even from a solid scientific approach that ARC is useless, is almost useless or is of little use. Since the concept behind ARC is patented I seriously doubt Mike will ever get the info he is looking for, and furthermore how would you measure a process that you can't get the design for in any detail?
 
 When it comes to IK multimedia I will be the first to say that I'm not super content with their marketing approach, when the company constantly bugs you to upgrade to their latest software by annoying little pop ups etc. Just annoying. I think they have come out with some good ideas, some decent ideas and some not so great ideas, I'm not necessarily an IK fanboy but I like a lot of their product line. In the case of ARC2 I think they hit on a great thing and so far no one has really topped it for what it can do. To be fair I think IK bought the technology to ARC from someone else and helped to push it along. Whatever the case, if the technology was some kind of a sham the company could be held liable and sued. Someone somewhere sat down and made sure they tested this and determined that it indeed works like they say it does. Probably had extensive testing. No company wants to be held liable for false advertising.
 
  If it didn't work I would take it back and demand my money. Simple.
 
 I'm sure not against room treatments either, just throwing another option out there. Good discussion.
 
  

I think there are two ways to look at it. One idea might be to scrutinize for differences between claims of HOW it works and how it works, but the idea that seems more attractive to me as a listener is to simply test the installation and see WHAT changes have been made after turning it on.
 
 
For starters you could use a hi resolution RTA and see if claims like
 
" it corrected everything except a very small bump in the 1.5 khz range,maybe 1 or 2 db."
 
Are based on an actuality or if it is simply what the low resolution graphical representation seen in ARC's gui is saying is happening.
 
That would be a rough and tumble way to see what it is changing in the Frequency Domain.
 
The last time I recall someone doing this and reporting their findings the results made me even more curious.
 
Then you could move on and try to see if there were significant changes in the Time Domain anomalies in the room, which is something I've been hoping someone that actually knows how to do that sort of stuff would do.
 
As has been mentioned above, the results would only describe one circumstances so it couldn't prove all that much but if you compared the results of any particular installation with some person's perception of what they think had happened in that installation you might find all kinds of things to think about.
 
The last time I saw a person report on his findings at his installation he seemed to enjoy having had the opportunity to compare his perception with some detailed data.
 
 
 
If anyone is curious ARC as marketed by IK uses technology invented by Audyssey at the USC sound labs.
 
 
best regards,
mike
 
 
 
edit spelling

There are other monitor correction systems out there I am sure of it. For me I have a combination of a software and hardware setup and I would much prefer a hardware version of ARC.
 
KRK ERGO I have found it here:
 
http://www.krksys.com/krk-ergo.html
 
It is around $900 here so the question is does it work as well. The SOS review was pretty positive overall I think.
 
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/mar09/articles/krkergo.htm
 
has anyone had experience with ERGO?
 
I am still a fan of using reference mixes and listening to known well known mixed and mastered music in your own environment. I find I learn what everything sounds like in this mode and you can cleverly apply it to your own work and I am achieving the same results. Everything translates perfectly for me that way as well. Using your brain to do something else. You can do it at anytime during mixing and especially in mastering.
 
If you are about to install a speaker system and you have an empty room you must try this. Feed a mono mix of a quality CD into a single speaker. Attach it to a long cable. Get a friend to move around the room holding the speaker while you listen to in front of it. Check the areas you were thinking about first. Try other areas. I can guarantee it will sound better somewhere else. There will be a place where the mix will sound robust and the bottom end just nice and tight and perfect. This point should be the centre point for your monitor system location. No one does this.
 
Bill. I studied a Bachelor of Jazz on drums and they made us learn 50 tunes a year. They said after three years you will have 150 tunes under your belt. (It menat all of us could go out and do gigs immediately after finishing that course and start earning money, smart!) It is a very good way to do it. By analysing the harmony and melodies of the tunes you learn a lot about great writing. You start writing that way yourself. I was taught that way too your friend and I teach (music) that way too. Great musicians know a lot of tunes either standards/classics/covers or their own original tunes. And for the original guys it is usually both.
 
 
 
 
 
 

OP = acoustic treatment
 
??

Jeff Evans
There are other monitor correction systems out there I am sure of it. For me I have a combination of a software and hardware setup and I would much prefer a hardware version of ARC. Does anyone know if it exists. That would be the best way for me to use it between mixer and monitor speakers.

 
 
Absolutely, This specific technology is marketed as Audyssey MultEQ and it is available as a feature in many hi end home theater receivers.
 
best regards,
mike