I spent a lot of time doing the measurements. About 8 hours in total. I also followed Danny's instructions. I did 3 separate measurement groups, one clustered tightly around my sweet spot, one spread out a bit more, and one spread out around the whole room. 24 measurement positions each for those first two groups and 32 positions for that last one.  I also took before and after measurements with another analysis program to find out what ARC actually did. I should post those at some point.
 
ARC made it sound different. Not better. I couldn't hear anything better with the ARC version.  It's also a bit of a pain to remember to keep turning it off when bouncing. It's certainly no improvement for me.
 
Danny, I know you like ARC and that's great, but you're making some pretty bold statements about people who don't like ARC. I think you're going overboard on that. Sure, maybe some of the people who don't like it didn't set it up correctly. But in my case I took great care in the measurements and have spent weeks listening to the results and trying to hear the improvements. And I suspect that there are others who are in the same situtation--we did it right and found out that it just didn't improve the sound in our room.
 
I'm sorry I can't post any of my mixes. They aren't mine to post, they're done for hire and I don't have permission. It's perfectly fine if you want to discount my opinion of ARC since you can't hear what I've produced. But I do think you've gone over the top on your criticism of those of us who don't like it.
 
And if you notice, in my post above I did try to help someone else get the most out of it. Just because I don't like it doesn't mean I won't try to help.

SCorey

ARC made it sound different. Not better. I couldn't hear anything better with the ARC version.  It's also a bit of a pain to remember to keep turning it off when bouncing. It's certainly no improvement for me.
 

It's not supposed to sound better, just flatter.

SCorey


I spent a lot of time doing the measurements. About 8 hours in total. I also followed Danny's instructions. I did 3 separate measurement groups, one clustered tightly around my sweet spot, one spread out a bit more, and one spread out around the whole room. 24 measurement positions each for those first two groups and 32 positions for that last one.  I also took before and after measurements with another analysis program to find out what ARC actually did. I should post those at some point.
 
ARC made it sound different. Not better. I couldn't hear anything better with the ARC version.  It's also a bit of a pain to remember to keep turning it off when bouncing. It's certainly no improvement for me.
 
Danny, I know you like ARC and that's great, but you're making some pretty bold statements about people who don't like ARC. I think you're going overboard on that. Sure, maybe some of the people who don't like it didn't set it up correctly. But in my case I took great care in the measurements and have spent weeks listening to the results and trying to hear the improvements. And I suspect that there are others who are in the same situtation--we did it right and found out that it just didn't improve the sound in our room.
 
I'm sorry I can't post any of my mixes. They aren't mine to post, they're done for hire and I don't have permission. It's perfectly fine if you want to discount my opinion of ARC since you can't hear what I've produced. But I do think you've gone over the top on your criticism of those of us who don't like it.
 
And if you notice, in my post above I did try to help someone else get the most out of it. Just because I don't like it doesn't mean I won't try to help.

I don't know that my statements are bold, Steve. I think they are quite true. I'm not having a go at people that don't like ARC. I'm talking about those who may have tried it and failed that may not have gone through the motions you and I went through. Or the guys that down it that have never even tried it.
 
If you re-read my post, I said: "If people have tried it and did it right and still failed...what can I say....I'm deeply sorry, you're in the minority." In the minority because *most* of the people that do it right, have great results. You and one other person that I know of did everything right and still were not happy. So to you and to that person, I'm terribly sorry it didn't work for you and you have every right to bash it to where I will not defend it or say "you didn't know what you were doing". My post was NOT directed at you or guys like you who have given it a chance, did everything they could, and it still didn't work well. All I can say is I'm sorry and wish that wasn't the case.
 
-Danny

SCorey


I'm sorry I can't post any of my mixes. They aren't mine to post, they're done for hire and I don't have permission. It's perfectly fine if you want to discount my opinion of ARC since you can't hear what I've produced. But I do think you've gone over the top on your criticism of those of us who don't like it.
 
And if you notice, in my post above I did try to help someone else get the most out of it. Just because I don't like it doesn't mean I won't try to help.

P.S. I quoted this and missed reading it for some reason. Do you think I have something against you, Steve? I absolutely do not man. Again I stress, my post was not directed at you nor do you have to provide mixes to prove your're a good engineer.
 
Let me set up a small scenario. A guy comes on here with a big mouth bashing ARC. He knows everything (so he thinks) and bashes ARC into the ground due to what he reads and how it can't possibly make a difference. The dude never shows us any of his great works and when he does present something, it's nothing special to where anyone should listen to what the dude says because he needs more than room correction and ARC to help him with his mixes. To me it just holds no credibility.
 
I don't think you fit that bill brother and if you thought I implied you did, please accept my apology because that has never crossed my mind and I mean it, I have nothing against you. So if you think that, I'd be willing to discuss any questions you may have in private if it will help any. I also said "+1 Thanks Steve" to start my thread, addressed Herb next and then was just speaking in general...not to anyone or about anyone in particular. Hope this clears things up. If not, please pm me.

-Danny

Guitarhacker


I noticed that it lightens the bass in my system/room considerably. So... in the process of tracking and mixing I simply go for the sound that I want to hear. In the mix down stages, I do what I need to do with EQ and compression and other plugs to get the sound I am hearing to be what I expect it to sound like. When I finish, having added the plugs and Ozoned it to perfection (according to me) I turn ARC off and have a listen and it's like a butterfly emerging from it's cocoon and 99% of the time there is nothing that needs to be done to the mix at this point except to export it to a wave. 

Indeed, ARC seems to me to essentially be a bass-trap ... in small rooms that have no bass-traps.
 
But SCorey seems to imply ARC is over-rated.  It works well for Danny ... and I've trusted more tracks and masters to Danny with my nearly 'golden ears' gleefully validating dozens of excellent tracks and masters that Danny has performed-produced.
 
Just how did Philip validate so many ARC tracks and masters?  Why, by playing them on multiple systems and multiple environments of course!  ARC translates our monitors well for maybe 60% of real-life listens.  (not 99%).
 
So, I think I agree with Scorey's (pre-)cautions ... but for other reasons.
 
I'm pondering that ARC probably fails for the following translations: Theater, auditorium, church, dance-skate halls, and perhaps the great outdoors ... where bass frequencies extend more without conflicting reflections. 
 
I'm pretty certain the DJ has difficulties adjusting the subs (while I'm roller-skating) as many pro (hip-hop) songs are poorly mixed - mastered (to my ears).
 
ARC does not help widen dynamics either ... and bass-trapping may still be 'hit-or-miss' for translating the subs.
 
Dozens of my mixes (all done with ARC), while sounding 'pristine-perfect' at the studio, home, cans, and in the car ... sound 'saturated' excessively in large areas, church, etc. ...
 
Here's why:
 
The 'ARC sweet spot' doesn't even seem to exist in large listening areas.  Stereo behaves 'differently' (detrimentally I'm observing) in large areas.  In large areas, my simple mixes seem to win over my busy ones. 

gustabo
It's not supposed to sound better, just flatter.

 
What I mean by "better" is "ARC adjusts the sound so I can hear things better so I can be more effective in my production." To me, flatter and better are mostly synonymous.
 

Danny Danzi
Do you think I have something against you, Steve? I absolutely do not man. Again I stress, my post was not directed at you nor do you have to provide mixes to prove your're a good engineer.
 

No, I don't think you have something against me.  It's my failing for truly derailing the thread. So, my apologies for that.
 

I don't know that my statements are bold, Steve. I think they are quite true.
 

But even if you think they're true, they are your opinion. That's mainly what I was getting at. And I still think they're bold.  That's my opinion, of course. 
 
And it's not like I want you to tone it down. There's nothing wrong with being bold or over the top. Keep on doin' what you're doin'. And I'll do the same. No worries.

SCorey

gustabo
It's not supposed to sound better, just flatter.

 
What I mean by "better" is "ARC adjusts the sound so I can hear things better so I can be more effective in my production." To me, flatter and better are mostly synonymous.
 

Danny Danzi
Do you think I have something against you, Steve? I absolutely do not man. Again I stress, my post was not directed at you nor do you have to provide mixes to prove your're a good engineer.
 

No, I don't think you have something against me.  It's my failing for truly derailing the thread. So, my apologies for that.
 

I don't know that my statements are bold, Steve. I think they are quite true.
 

But even if you think they're true, they are your opinion. That's mainly what I was getting at. And I still think they're bold.  That's my opinion, of course. 
 
And it's not like I want you to tone it down. There's nothing wrong with being bold or over the top. Keep on doin' what you're doin'. And I'll do the same. No worries.

Ok cool, no problems here. :) As for my opinions, well they are more factual opinions that I've actually lived. Most guys that bag on ARC, do mess up somewhere that they either never find out about, or they do as SOS did and did a 10 minute correction and wrote their review. I'm simply stating that it can't be done in 10 minutes to yield the proper results.
 
I've also seen people bag on it that haven't tried it. How do you respond to that when this little gem has worked so well and you're me? I get tired of reading stuff like that as much as people get tired of hearing me praise the thing. :) So I'm not trying to be bold, I'm just sharing the experiences I've lived myself as well as those who have sent me numerous messages asking about what they may have done wrong when ARC hasn't performed correctly...that's all man.
 
Again, for those that have tried it and it failed, I'm sorry that's the case and I'd never defend the product when someone has mentioned it failed. I'd try to help them make it work right like I did when you made a mention of it not helping that much. You tried it, it wasn't as good as it was for me. I salute you for trying and thank you for checking out my method. I'm really sorry it didn't work out. I'd never bash your opinion on it, and I'd never say a word if you came on and said it totally sucked. :)
 
-Danny