^^^ I have no idea why my formatting above is all screwed up. I'm using a current version of Firefox.
 
Edit: I tried again with IE and now it's okay. Sheesh!

bitflipper

I am not surprised that Ethan doesn't own or use it. Somebody like him simply has no need for ARC. He has a bigger room than most of us, purpose-built with extensive acoustical treatments. A good room does not need equalization. In fact, it could actually be counter-productive in an already good-sounding room. 


Everyone should take the time to study the physics of the problem before deciding to buy any product. Until you understand what the problem is and why it is that way, you're just shooting in the dark. If this book lives up to its promise and really is as complete as it's advertised to be, then I'd say $55 is a real bargain. I know I've certainly spent a whole lot more than that on books!

I don't know bit, I think if he did own it, he'd have a much different take on it. It's obvious the guy is in the know on lots of things and is someone I respect. But some of his comments about ARC were purely opinion based on what the science tells him. It's like "hey, how about just trying the thing and giving an honest take...we know it's not better than having all the right traps etc....but did it make a difference for you or was it a waste?"
 
I just think in order for someone (especially like him who has loyal followers that read his words as golden) to really say something negative about something...they need to spend some time with that piece before they rant about it, don't you? You're a pretty credible source of information on these forums here. If you say something sucks, people may think twice before investigating it. That's all I'm trying to say. If we never physically try something and spend some time with it, how can we just discard it as not being something that can be helpful?
 
ARC has made such an incredible difference for me, I can't say enough about it. I also don't have that ugly room tuning stuff messing up my home. I hate the looks of it. If I read what he had to say about it and took his words as gospal, I probably woudn't have ARC and might have a room full of ugly stuff because I HAD to do it that way to fix my particular issues. ARC solved my problems enough to where what I mix is what I hear everywhere. Are there issues in my room? I'm sure there are...but I think ARC has fixed me up enough to where I'm completely happy with the end results and I didn't have to build traps or get into positioning and testing all this other stuff. I had problems with low end....I did the ARC thing, those problems are gone...short, sweet and simple, know what I mean? For others...it may not be that easy but in all my situations, thankfully it has been.
 
I totally agree with everything else you said as far as investigating problems...and I'm sure his book will be everything you think it will be. The guy knows his stuff and has a good way of explaining himself and sharing his knowlegde. He's also proven good results with his music...so that to me holds major credibility. I hope he sells millions....I just wish he'd try some of this software stuff and experience it before he totally shuts it down as un-useful or hype or whatever the case may be. It may not work for everyone, but is sure has worked for me and many others that I've turned it on to.
 
-Danny

Ethan Winer


However, I do address the futility of expecting EQ to substitute for bass traps, and I mention specifically my tests of the Audyssey system that ARC is based on. Graphs of actual measurements prove the point better than 5,000 words. Now, whether the publisher and copy editor will let me name names is another matter! 
 

But Ethan, what if you tried the actual system in spite of what your tests read etc...and the thing actually worked better than you thought? Listen, I know you are way more advanced in this field that I'll ever be. I'd never even attempt to try and have a discussion with you about this because quite honestly, I'm clueless and have no problems admitting to that. But I've read several times how people just don't believe in how something like ARC could work or make a major difference, yet when I and others have tried it, we have been quite successful. Don't you think it wouldn't be a bad idea to really try this thing on your system and really see for yourself?
 
I mean, I'm sure you know enough people in the industry that would love you to try it and give them your honest take, right? It's like...how can I explain this....we know that in digital audio, there are certain math problems that aren't quite right...yet the human ear may never hear these things, right? What if the science behind ARC is all messed up yet when you try the thing, it works way better than you thought it might? That's all I'm saying. I'm not trying to discredit you or anyone else. I just have always felt unless someone can really try something and put it through its paces....how can we just write it off? I know the Audyssey is in ARC, but are there any differences with what you tested vs. the full architecture of ARC and the way it's made? Like...did IKM add anything to it that may have enhanced what Audyssey offers making it no longer the same thing you may have tested? I'm actually curious about this...not trying to give you a hard time. Only because this thing works so well for me and others, it's been an awesome experience.
 
-Danny

Danny Danzi
But Ethan, what if you tried the actual system in spite of what your tests read etc...and the thing actually worked better than you thought?

Yes, of course I tried it and listened. In my Audyssey Report I explained that the test room was audibly improved because the room is mostly a cube and had very pronounced resonances that the Audyssey reduced. But it didn't remove the ringing as claimed, and it didn't improve the response for an area as wide as even two listeners as is also claimed. Nor did it do anything for reflections. In rooms where peaks dominate, EQ can definitely help. But in many / most small rooms nulls are the larger problem, and no EQ can fix that satisfactorily. If  someone is satisfied with an EQ system, I have no problem with that. But it's not a substitute for real acoustic treatment, even if it can augment real treatment.
 
 
--Ethan

Ethan Winer
 
> I'm worried he's going to evade that subject this go-around. I hope I'm wrong!
 
I worked hard at being unbiased, sticking just to the facts. I quoted some lame advice from audio magazine editors to reader questions, but didn't mention the magazines by name. However, I do address the futility of expecting EQ to substitute for bass traps, and I mention specifically my tests of the Audyssey system that ARC is based on. Graphs of actual measurements prove the point better than 5,000 words. Now, whether the publisher and copy editor will let me name names is another matter!
 

Actually, given that it could be argued that you have a conflict of interest regarding this subject, I think you should be careful here Ethan - I think people should look at your claims on this subject with extreme skepticism. And not because you're not correct, or dishonest, or anything like that, but rather because skepticism is a good thing in such a situation. And of course if someone does their due diligence, investigates your claims independently and arrives at the same conclusions, all the better for everyone involved.

> Room equalization is not a substitute for acoustic treatment, and even IKM is quick to point that out. ARC is meant to augment, not replace, acoustics management. If they'd be more up front about that, I don't think anyone would quibble over it.
 
Exactly. I've made the point before, and did again in my book, that I use the one-band cut-only parametric EQ in my subwoofer to reduce a 40 Hz modal peak 2 dB in my living room system. I have plenty of bass traps, but 40 Hz is tough to target with bass traps. This minimal use of EQ is just icing, not the cake itself as some EQ proponents claim.
     

Sounds to me like you're arguing that, at 40Hz, EQ is the cake. Maybe the truth is we want/need both.

drewfx1
Sounds to me like you're arguing that, at 40Hz, EQ is the cake. Maybe the truth is we want/need both.

LOL, not at all. With only bass traps, and no EQ, the response was much flatter than without bass traps, and the ringing was greatly reduced.
 
BTW, I agree that skepticism is always welcome. That's a big part of my book.
 
--Ethan

Yum. I want. $55? Meh. Hopefully you get what you pay for.

Sheesh...

I just bought Mixing Secrets from Mike Senior and I thought that was everything I needed to know.... 


How about work on a 45% discount for Sonar users?  Promo code type thing.....

Ethan, I've listened to your most excellent discourses on 'expectation bias' and  how doing ones own unbiased homework is important ... to prove-disprove all the mayhem out-there.  Your excellent logic has stuck with me.

I've bought your portable vocal booth ($300) which I eventually ditched ... by your own logic.

Perhaps it works for some singers, but the bulk and hazardness makes it unfeasible for serious singing.

That logic would also preclude bass traps when something simpler and easier comes along, like ARC ... not just an EQ adjuster!!!.  ARC adjusts stereo for resonances and early reflections.  And, TBH, IK-M is NOT a credible supplier for many Sonarites, due to its poor 64-bit support, currently.

The days of 12' ceilings and bass-traps are obsolete for me.  They'd be OK for a home theater, perhaps.

I'd trust Danziland (Danny above) mastering house over Katz and Abbey Road only because the human factor rules over the psycho-acoustic factors. 

Btw, Danny would probably win as the greatest artist, producer, and ME, that has ever graced the Sonar forums.  Anyone care to differ?

I learned this from you, Ethan.  Bit is also extremely respected here, but few of us artists and producers would justify excessive room treatments ... when avoidable ... for artistic reasons as stated.

Philip,
 
I'm not sure it you realize that the the 64 bit ARC plug is available.
 
I haven't tried it in X1 as I mostly use sonar for midi editing, not mixing.
 
 
Good luck with your book Ethan.
 
Ken