Thanks, Ken, that's extremely thoughtful; my 'latest' 64bit ARC version was buggish ... but I got the 1st 64-bit ARC version working, IIRC (after a Window's backup-restore session).

Back on Topic:

Again, I'm glad Ethan chimed; I will always have his opinion nagging my conscience, because what he states is invariably supported by devout evidences and double-blind studies.

Hypothesis

... currently I hypothesize that compulsive attention to room accoustics and bass traps, while ideal for yester-year, do not help pro nor home artists ... to significantly create ... and/or sell records anymore ... today and tomorrow

Case studies:

Some supporting cases in the here and now,

Cian sings in his sister's bedroom with just the window curtain behind his standing mic. 

Reece (the Beagle) sings against a room corner, with a vaulted ceiling.

Yoyo, iirc, claims no elaborate studio ... but is my fav vocalist ... due to creative layering and mixing.

Herb (GuitarHacker) oft holds a condensor mic (angled) in his hand and sings country as well as (or better than) any *pro*, IMHO.

I myself have sung in motel rooms and in my Toyota Prius with an SM58 and a toyish CW UA-4FX in my 2 latest songs: Army of the Lord and Trouble in the Hood.  Both of these have received favorable crits by many. 

Danny... whose vocs and guitars are some of the most exquisite and beautiful on the planet (to my ears) ... masters and produces for artists around the world (they keep him busy every night, every night that he's not performing with his band in a show, iirc).  His universally respected golden ears don't require bass traps.  Neither did the last 4 songs we did (at any level from singing to post-production)
 
Conclusion and Discussion:

Based on this data:  Bass traps, tall rooms, etc. simply do not significantly affect the sweet spot for listening, becoming creative, singing, mixing, and mastering today's music ... ARC is a suitable workaround for many producers, but there are other workarounds (below).  Much depends on target listening areas, target audiences, etc.
 
ARC, compensates sufficiently for bass frequency 'early-reflections' and stereo imbalances (not just EQ) ... to allow THAT cost-effective sweet spot in the most humble of basement studios.  Perhaps Danzi could produce better in his kingly studio than in his modest one ... but I prefer his modest one after all ... for my ears.
 
UA and Abbey Road Studios' accoustics, while quite nice, do not significantly help artists 'become successful' anymore than village schooling is more successful than homeschooling ... results are nearly the same ... with many emotive human factor variables going on.
Interestingly, mixers and MEs are forced to sit in a pretty tight sweet spot with their near-fields anyway ... but they also evaluate in mono, with multi-speakers, with headphones and listen on different stereo systems ... including car systems and radio.  Translation is always tricky, IMHO. 

Room accoustics, by inference, seem much more important in theaters than in studios ... where the sweet spot is much broader. 
 
Ethan OTOH, iirc, has a treated home theater where he also tests, demos, and, perhaps, performs much of his classical instruments (being a multi-talented musician-performer himself, iirc).  I'm certain his elite scenario is ideal for someone as advanced as he, who deals with a great plethora of classical instruments or perhaps records many band performers and/or singers at once (other than drummers).  I wish movie theaters employed all his suggestions.
 
I can appreciate how his acoustic science and book will help our studios and aspiring audiophiles like myself.

Hey, Ethan, maybe you could use another proofreader. I'd be happy to volunteer in exchange for a free copy...

bitflipper
Hey, Ethan, maybe you could use another proofreader. I'd be happy to volunteer in exchange for a free copy...

Ah, thanks, but too late. The book is all done, and the publisher is now doing the copy editing phase of production.

Looking forward to the book Ethan.

You seem, to me, to be a class act.


all the best,
mike

Ethan Winer

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

I was sort of hoping you'd answer that way. I know you're a skeptic, but sometimes skeptics get upset when it's directed towards them.  

But I've always found that two good ways of evaluating someone making claims (especially for claims that may be outside of one's area of expertise) are:

1. Can they answer challenging questions, or do they just repeat what they said or refer you to someone else's writings? People who understand what they're talking about can generally answer questions, whereas people who don't quite understand, but are just repeating what they read somewhere, just repeat themselves or direct you to someone who (they think) really understands.

2. Are they willing to back up what they say with some kind of controlled independent testing, or do they insist that LOUDER AND LOUDER PROCLAMATIONS THAT THEY ARE RIGHT should suffice? 


Along those lines it got me thinking that since I picked up ARC a few months ago (even though my room is treated), I'd never done any before and after testing to see if after ARC I get the nice flat line (above a certain frequency) the SW shows in the picture.  

So I'm thinking running some test signals and recording them with and without ARC enabled (I'll use the mic that comes with ARC).  I can then analyze the results and see what I get. 

Now given that I'm too cheap/can't justify the ETF SW Ethan used in his Audyssey tests, I'm thinking some white noise & (slowly) swept sine waves will work for frequency response testing, but what about ringing? What's a good test signal people could use to excite ringing in their room and see whether something like ARC tames it much or not? A simple impulse might work, but I'm thinking a series of band limited noise bursts would be better. Anyone have thoughts on this?

LOL Philip....you have such a way with words as well as explaining your thoughts. I love it! :) I'm way off topic here, but I wanted to share a few things with you regarding your response. First off, thank you for the most kind words! :)

Secondly, I have to whole-heartedly agree with everything you've said. The reason being, we have proof of it. One of the reasons I don't get too involved with the science or aesthetics in audio is quite simply, I sincerely feel it misses some of the obvious and that is, using your ears and knowing how to deal with things. I can sit and watch guys have a conversation about metering and the K system that goes on for 4 pages. At the end of the day, most of them having this conversation can't record or mix their way out of a wet paper bag. So where's the credibility? Or I can hear a guy talk all this tech talk about using all this gear to where he fights with other forum members and how he can do this and that and this...and then you hear some of his music...and right away, you cringe.

Conclusion: Science TO ME in the audio field is a waste of time. If you choose to be a scientist, stay out of the audio field with your teachings because all you do is confuse the common folks that just want to learn how to put out good music. At the end of the day, a good end result talks, boolsh!t walks. If you can combine the two while keeping it real and maintaining interest, I want to learn from you. :)

This is also another reason why I hesitate to buy recording books etc. So and so uses this that and this....all well and good, now what happens when you try it? Right...you fail or don't like the results. Why do you fail? Because you didn't have the room, the gear and the know-how that so and so had. You could duplicate his room and his gear and STILL fail. Those books are decent for learning a few things here and there, but nothing does it like trial, error and actual experience with YOUR gear in YOUR realm or someone teaching you that has the same stuff as you do in a similar situation.

When I teach my video lessons to students, one of the things that makes what I teach different than everyone else is, I teach people how to handle these situations using the gear THEY have as much as possible. There may be times when I have to use a UAD piece to get my point across and they may not have that, but it depends on why I chose that piece. If I'm mixing someone's project and running video through the whole thing, I do them a diservice if I don't use the best tools I have. Some will ask me to use Sonar specific tools...which is fine too. But the point is...when someone learns from me, they learn using what they have.

Here's the biggest problem I see with everything. Some joker with a degree in something will always have to jump in and start talking in a language that normal people may not understand, may not desire to understand and this can lose them. I have both of Bob Katz' books...on some things, he totally loses me. Is it because I'm a dummy or is it because Bob is the wrong teacher for me because he involves more science than actual "how to's"? He's a brilliant guy and a great ME, but the wrong teacher for me.

This is why I stay away from technical discussions. If you notice, most of the people that get involved in them either have NEVER posted any music to show we should listen to them, and *some* of the ones that have sure don't sound much like anything I'd want to sound like to where I need to listen to their advice. In life, we lead by examples...not scientific talk that stirs the pot so bad people get so confused they buy more into hype than actually making a difference in sound for the better. That's just how I feel. Whether it be about room correction, recording, mixing, mastering....there is so much hype involved, people just fail to realize it or accept it. I'll put out a decent sounding piece of music using a stock Dell with a Realtek using ASIO4ALL and Sonar in my 12x12 room in my house without using either of my full blown studios that will hang right with anything a scientist puts out. I *might* fall short, but rest assured, the difference won't be so drastic that a person would not settle for what I have when you compare what my little home rig costs verses something much more grand.

I've sang in corners, I've sang upside down bending over backwards to simulate air strain, I've recorded guitar cabs off their wheels laying on their backs (with enough room off the floor to plug in a speaker cable) shooting straight up to the ceiling, recorded drums in horrible rooms with 57's, EV Endyme's and 58's, the list goes on and on. When you know what you're doing...you compensate and learn how to get good sound. I have never felt a room restricted me from doing my job in all the situations I've been in through the years other than when a set of monitors is just poor. I actually welcome the more challenging rooms...gates and compressors do wonders when used correctly. :)

Here's another thing to keep in mind. When we hear an artist that comes out that is acceptable to the masses, the reason for this is that artist delivered something in a language the majority could understand. Frank Gambale will never have the success or popularity that Eddie Van Halen will, yet Frank can technically rip EVH to shreds. Why? Simple...EVH delivered in a language that people could understand and relate to while if you aren't into jazz/fusion, Frank will totally turn you off. It's the same with audio and anything else in life really. It's not about being simplistic, it's about being able to have a happy medium. Some science is a necessity along with the cold hard facts of speaking in terms people can understand and showing proof by good examples. We can have one without the other though. I can teach someone how to get results without talking like I just got out of college. If I strictly talked science....my following becomes a cult following which rest assured, will yield far less good engineers than those that learned the facts and how to's in a language they could clearly understand.

-Danny

drewfx1

Ethan Winer

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

I was sort of hoping you'd answer that way. I know you're a skeptic, but sometimes skeptics get upset when it's directed towards them.  

But I've always found that two good ways of evaluating someone making claims (especially for claims that may be outside of one's area of expertise) are:

1. Can they answer challenging questions, or do they just repeat what they said or refer you to someone else's writings? People who understand what they're talking about can generally answer questions, whereas people who don't quite understand, but are just repeating what they read somewhere, just repeat themselves or direct you to someone who (they think) really understands.

2. Are they willing to back up what they say with some kind of controlled independent testing, or do they insist that LOUDER AND LOUDER PROCLAMATIONS THAT THEY ARE RIGHT should suffice? 


Along those lines it got me thinking that since I picked up ARC a few months ago (even though my room is treated), I'd never done any before and after testing to see if after ARC I get the nice flat line (above a certain frequency) the SW shows in the picture.  

So I'm thinking running some test signals and recording them with and without ARC enabled (I'll use the mic that comes with ARC).  I can then analyze the results and see what I get. 

Now given that I'm too cheap/can't justify the ETF SW Ethan used in his Audyssey tests, I'm thinking some white noise & (slowly) swept sine waves will work for frequency response testing, but what about ringing? What's a good test signal people could use to excite ringing in their room and see whether something like ARC tames it much or not? A simple impulse might work, but I'm thinking a series of band limited noise bursts would be better. Anyone have thoughts on this?

Drew, I have no idea on how you would test for that as it's not my field. My question to you is...do you really feel a test is needed if you are getting good results? (Are you by the way since you picked up ARC?)
 
Does it really matter what the line looks like if what you mix sounds like what you mixed everywhere? See man, this is my dilema. If some pro acoustics guy came into my little studio in my house and analyzed it, he'd probably say "ok, this that this this and that are all completely wrong!" So then I'd take him out in his car using his stereo and say "ok, but listen to this...does this sound to you like all that stuff is wrong?" Sure, a mix will always be subjective, but one thing I like to think is that there are no apparent errors in my mixes that would show I'm in need of stuff and my room is complete garbage because of it.
 
So, how do your mixes translate on other systems? If the answer is "fine" does it really matter what the test results would show and is it really worth the time and effort to find out when you could be doing other things? See my point? Granted, if this is just a curiosity thing, then I completely understand.
 
For example, here is what ARC did in my little 12x12 room on my NS 10's and my Adam A7's. These corrections are done with and without a sub. 


 
  
 
Right, wrong or otherwise...what I mix and work with here, sounds great everywhere. Whether it be in my car, a boom box or in one of my two pro studio's that have all the bells and whistles built to specs. If something works for us and gives us good results, isn't that enough? What are your thoughts?
 
-Danny

drewfx1
1. Can they answer challenging questions, or do they just repeat what they said or refer you to someone else's writings?
 

I never duck questions, and I can always back up what I say. When Audyssey claims to reduce ringing, and improve the response for all seats, I run tests and publish the results. I never rely on opinion alone. I always explain how and why, and avoid blanket statements with nothing to back them up.

drewfx1
Now given that I'm too cheap/can't justify the ETF SW Ethan used in his Audyssey tests, I'm thinking some white noise & (slowly) swept sine waves will work for frequency response testing, but what about ringing?

I now use Room EQ Wizard, which is better than ETF and is also free. Google will find it for you, and this article explains much more than my previous articles that used ETF for the examples:
 
Room Measuring Primer
 
--Ethan
 

Danny, my thoughts are if you use a product like ARC on the premise that it's doing some sort of scientifically determined correction, rather than just randomly EQing things to give you a different sound, then you don't get to use the "use your ears" and "science vs. art" arguments. Because it means you indirectly embrace the science and theory, or else you'd eschew all these modern tools based on them. 


But part of my curiosity is this - Ethan made some claims about the ability of EQ-based correction methods regarding nulls and ringing. You and some others have been endorsing those products and arguing against the need to bother with acoustic treatment. Ethan also did some actual tests regarding one of these products. Some have raised some questions about his fairness and/or conclusions.  

And it also occurred to me that the nice flat "after" line ARC is showing me might or might not be, shall we say, a tad optimistic, but I don't really know. 

From my perspective it doesn't make any sense to argue and speculate endlessly about these things when we have the tools to just do a test and see what the results are.

drewfx1
Ethan also did some actual tests regarding one of these products. Some have raised some questions about his fairness and/or conclusions.

Besides showing Before and After data, I also showed exactly how I did my tests. I do this so others can run their own tests, and see if they get the same results. This is a big part of the scientific method. If there was a problem with my methodology, I'll be glad for someone else to show what I did wrong.
 
--Ethan