I am not trying to dissuade you, Mike. Given your circumstance - not being able to install acoustical treatments - I would have no reservations about using ARC myself.

Bingo.

Why not any of the other 763 (ok, maybe more) equalizers any one can choose to try on a playback system?

Could be fun.


best regards,
mike

mike_mccue


Why not any of the other 763 (ok, maybe more) equalizers any one can choose to try on a playback system?

Could be fun.


best regards,
mike

Or you could just pick one that works for you and stick with it because you like it, especially if it were to consistently make some informed decisions for you to make it even simpler.

Would that cause you a problem if somebody were to do that instead?

Oh, they might have to spend a few $$$ on a mic too if they didn't have a suitable one lying around, not that much but it might make a difference.

All this discussion about the ARC system has piqued my interest.  I wonder if there are any retailers out there that would let you try the system and let you keep it if it works for you or return it for a refund if it does not.

Why not any of the other 763 (ok, maybe more) equalizers any one can choose to try on a playback system? Could be fun.

With careful measurement, you can actually do it with the Sonitus EQ. I've done it, and measured and confirmed the benefits. As long you're not working in a drain pipe, and as long as you do only cuts, it works. As with all room EQ, it works at the mix position only - other points in the room may sound noticeably worse.

However, I don't like the idea of using a plugin for this. It's extra overhead, something you have to remember to include in every project, something you have to remember to bypass before exporting, and doesn't work with all your audio software. 

So instead I use an inexpensive hardware parametric between interface and speakers. It's on all the time, doesn't interfere with exports, applies to all audio software, and imposes no overhead on the computer.

mmmm...if someone was to use a hardware EQ and their budget is not very large here...say, around $200 to $400..what would you suggest?

The one I use is a Behringer FBQ2496. Don't let the "Feedback Destroyer" name mislead you. Although it's marketed as an automatic feedback suppressor for live sound, it can also be used as a 20-band parametric EQ. I got mine for around $120 including shipping.

Here's some trivia from the guys that make ARC;

"You are right that there is no way to control the sound after it leaves the speaker.  However, we can measure the effects of the reflections that arrive after the direct sound by looking at the time domain response.  It has a certain pattern to it that will depend on the time of arrival of those reflections.  Based on that pattern and the similarity of patterns across multiple measured locations we can identify the problems caused by reflections.  Then, a filter is created to invert those problems as best as possible.
The key is to not think of the filtering in the time domain.  It's not like a graphic equalizer that can only raise or lower the amplitude at certain frequencies.  Our filters are in the form of impulse responses that operate on the audio signal through an operation called convolution.  As such, they are affecting the signal in each channel in the time domain--hence the name.  An additional benefit of such filters (also called FIR) is that they operate in the time-frequency domain as well.  That means they can be used effectively to lower the ring down time of room modes in the low frequency range."



"The technology is a result of a multi-year university research effort to understand the key factors that influence sound reproduction.  From this research came two key findings:

1. Acoustical problems in the room are more accurately measured in the time domain.  This type of analysis provides information about the direct sound and the effects of reflections from room surfaces.  This was a departure from traditional EQ methods that only looked at data in the frequency domain.
2. Measuring in a single location does not capture sufficient information and often results in equalization artifacts.  Multiple measurements are required to capture the spatial distribution of acoustical problems, particularly in the low frequencies where the problems are more serious.

MultEQ captures multiple measurements in the time domain and then groups them in clusters based on similarities in the data.  Using Fuzzy Logic mathematics, the clusters are allowed to overlap so that each measured response belongs to each cluster with a certain probability.  In each cluster a representative response is then created that is weighted by the acoustical problems in that cluster, but also by those in the other clusters.  MultEQ then re-combines these representative responses to create a final room representation and then inverts that to create the correction filter for each loudspeaker.  The type of filter used by MultEQ simultaneously corrects the time and frequency domain problems to produce a smooth response.

MultEQ also measures the time it takes for the signal to arrive from each speaker to the first microphone position.  Delays are then applied to the speakers that are closer to match the timing of the signals coming from the speakers that are farther away.  Finally, the sound pressure level produced by each speaker is adjusted with the trim controls so that they match each other."







Hint: that's good news for ARC users. :-)

Hint: that's good news for ARC users. :-)

Why use a hint when a peer to peer techniques forum would surely benefit from you expounding a few basic facts about your views?

You have an audience of at least one, then go right ahead why don't ya?

I promise not to LOL in yer face!  So be brave, share your views, who knows we all may benefit from them.

Does it mean you are wrong about it being a bog standard Eq?  Does it mean your apparent desire to deride Danny at any opportunity has even less merit than I first thought?

I'm using my ears!  So what does it all mean in less than cryptic terms to McQ my esteemed friend?

Back to topic: the book was released today, and you can now read portions of it on Amazon. The introduction states that the book is "not for beginners", and that it's aimed at intermediate-to-advanced audiences. 

After reading through the table of contents, I would characterize it as being for "ambitious beginners". It looks like a good grand tour of the subject that doesn't dip into too much detail. 

And really, how could it, even in 600 pages? It's just too big a subject. But if you read this book early on in your learning process you'd be able to avoid a lot of misconceptions, mistakes and myths later on.