Mike, although it may not seem like it after my last post, I'm the last person in the world to get caught up in 'hero worship'. My point was, although the argument that something works because one perceives an improvement is generally a weak one, Danny, me, and many other credible people swear by ARC. The key word here is credible. Trust me, if ARC didn't improve things for me, I would have no hesitation in getting rid of it. 

But I know there are those who need hard scientific facts, and to be honest, I'm kind of one of those people - short of trying something for yourself, it's the only way of deciding if a product is for you. So, tomorrow I will post hard scientific facts. I'll describe exactly how I conduct the test, you can point out any flaws in my methodology, and we'll get some evidence. Although I should say my mix room is very well treated already and has a surprisingly flat curve at the mix position, so don't expect a huge difference, because the room is already very good. But I'm certain an improvement will be plain to see. Maybe I should ARC an untreated room too so the results are more radical. We'll see, all this stuff takes time and I've got a lot on at the moment, but I'll try and do both rooms...
A

James,
 Once again... I have never denied, (nor has Mr Winer, nor has Drew, etc. etc.) the idea that corrective room EQ improves a few things.

 Why is it that this basic misunderstanding gets thrown in our face each and every time?

 Somebody decides for them selves that someone else is denying something when that is not the case at all.

 From my perspective the disagreement is unnecessary...  the cause effect analysis should be "dropped". If any one wants to harp on it... it's got a big target that says "fallacy" all over it. 

 
 I'd enjoy seeing the results of ARC in your treated room, because after all, the idea many of us have been advocating for is that you should treat the room first and then correct it with EQ. I think it'd great if you demonstrate how to use ARC to arrive at great sounding situation.

 I'd also like to see the process done in an untreated room... I think it will be a real eye opener for folks to learn the limitations of corrective EQ, Nulls and peaks are still flapping all over the place... and then it will be fun to watch people realize that they actually are good mixers with good skills... and that ARC wasn't magically helping nearly as much as they thought


 I have been reviewing info about room correction EQ for a few decades. It's fun stuff. It should be fun. It doesn't have to be crazy tense, ego based, he said, she said posturing.
 
 FWIW, I do hold your skills and taste in high esteem as well as Danny's... so I will very much enjoy any results you may be able to share.

very best regards,
mike

James, I look forward to your test.  I also look forward to reading this book and I thank Mike for this post.  I am sorry to see how it has digressed.  The main point of this thread was for Mike introducing a book by someone he respects.  I also appreciate Danny's comments since he is an active user of the ARC system.  However, when the threads turn personal and no longer is the subject a new book to consider reading, it makes it hard for anyone to really jump in without it appearing we are taking sides.  

I truly wish that the defensive posturing on many threads I read could be curtailed somewhat.  It is natural for each one of us to express our opinion but we should try to get it without personal innuendos.  

I also believe that for most in this world that study and actively produce music, the likelihood of actual owning a great sounding room is very small and therefore electronic systems now and in the future will play a huge part.  However, understand that good rooms can make a huge difference in the quality of recordings is something I totally agree with after working as a studio drummer in L.A. for so many years. 

With that said, Mike let's us know of a new book out.  Danny gives his comments.  We ask questions and look forward to some home testing.  Everyone is OK and we learn and move on. 
That's how I wish this was going.  I respect both Mike and Danny very much as I have stated openly in other threads.

Best to all.

Rimshot

Again I'm just asking.

I've listened to what Danny has said regarding this and elsewhere, the only 'facts' I've come across are that A/ ARC actually does do something and B/ Whatever it does he himself claims that it suits Danny down to the ground consistently and in more than one physical space.

Can anyone tell me why or why not?

No hero worship involved. Mike, you more than anyone should know that I don't take anyone's word because of who they are.  I'm just as likely to call you out if what is being presented to me is crap. Have you noticed that yet?

You haven't taken note of the respect I've shown to Danny, Ethan or Drew here you've just decided;

This was a thread meant to applaud and announce the efforts of Mr Winer, and it got turned in to a low flying strafing run.

When it is you that is clearly going as low as you can and firing bullets.

I've been asking for clarity all along and giving due respect to all those involved.

Is it not your nose that is out of joint here Mr Electronica man?

The question is not whether ARC does anything useful.

It's whether ARC can effectively correct for all types of acoustic problems or only certain types. And if, as some have asserted, there are types it can't correct for (that traditional acoustic treatment can), does that "matter"?

And if you don't know the answer to these questions regarding YOUR ROOM (not Danny's), how do you expect to make a rational judgment that ARC is "good enough" and traditional acoustic treatment isn't important?


Sadly, though I downloaded the RTA SW Ethan recommended earlier, I haven't gotten around to testing my (treated) room with and without ARC to see what effect it does and doesn't have on the problems in my room. It's still definitely on my list of things to do, and one of these days maybe I'll get around to it.

Theaters in ancient Greece used large amphora as acoustic treatments. A 16th-century church has Helmholtz resonators integrated into its walls, built 3 centuries before Helmholtz was born. 

It's entirely possible to achieve desirable results without knowing the science behind them. But to assume that there is something inherently superior to trial-and-error versus science and engineering is simply rationalizing ignorance. 
 
Case in point: Danny Danzi is a very good mixer. Danny says "science in the audio field is a waste of time". Should one therefore conclude that ignoring science is a prerequisite for becoming as good a mixer as Danny? Of course not.

I've been curious as to how close ARC is to the Audessy system that you get with those various home theater systems. (since ARC is based on Audessy...) I have ARC, I didn't like it. And yes, I followed the instructions to a T, and took lots and lots of measurements. When Harman compared various room correction systems, Audessy came out on bottom as sounding the worst. And sorry, I don't have a reference so by all means throw this post out.

"Can anyone tell me why or why not?"

Yes, if there's too much bass and you turn it down... that's a good thing.

If there's too much 4027Hz and you turn it down... that's a good thing.





Now having said that, if you take a further step and look at an RTA and see that the peaks and nulls are flapping around like an animated party light the idea may sink in; "How does a specific number like 4027Hz relate to all this flapping?"

I'll give you a hint too... you want to use the RTA on high detail and fast response so you actually see it flapping around.

A lot of folks leave the RTA on sluggish response and are gratified to see the animation suggest that every thing is smooth and stable. That's not helpful.

After you have that going you might realize... "hey the reason I take so many ARC measurements is that it sort of averages out the measured peaks and nulls".

Which is good.

But, when you are done averaging, and you get to that average number, the peaks and nulls are still flapping all over the place... so the stuff I said was good up at the top... it's less good once you figure out it's only helping part of the issue and only part of the time.

Then you might ask, "hey is ARC dynamic? Is it chasing down the peaks and nulls in real time or is it just predictive?"

At this point you'll have enough info to appreciate why some people say things like "corrective EQ can only help in the frequency domain... it is useless in the time domain."

ARC literature, However, suggests that it has some time domain adjustments, so perhaps it has. I can comment that what ever they may be are constrained by a basic inability to act on individual drivers. Does Arc provide true biamp control over woofers and tweeters? That can be an effective way to introduce timing adjustments in an attempt to nullify positive and negative peaks so as to stabilize the room response. I think ARC may have some features like that but it doesn't really have enough acoustical control of the drivers to really work the idea. You get the 2.1 speakers and maybe so timing adjustments on some part of each one's signal.

The only practical way to control the time based peaks and nulls is to suck up any of the extra energy bouncing around the room.

The way to do that is well known, but most people do it other ways.

The idea of using pre cut, inexpensive industrial supply high density rock wool panels for easy to make DIY bass traps was popularized by Mr Winer in his do it yourself pages. All the other guys that sell the bass traps these days learned from him or someone who learned from him, Mr. Winer will tell you that all the similarly built bass traps are all pretty much the same.

With all that in mind I find it difficult to consider that post #8 was never reconciled with something like a sincere "whoops, I guess I shouldn't accuse people of ranting, self serving their bass trap store's special interest, or being ignorant of what they are talking about." type of mea culpa.


best regards,
mike

The NS10 was in no way scientifically perfect, but it worked (if only back then)

Dwell on that for a moment.

I have not tried decent bass traps in a well designed studio, or ARC. But I have dabbled a little in corrective eq. I don't know if it would ultimately lead to better mixes on my part, but I did notice the bass was MUCH smoother once I applied it. That's as far as I really got with it. I was in a VERY small room with solid brick walls. HUGE room modes. I liked the sound of the result at least.

I personally think they both have their place. It all depends on an individual's constraints. Some people don't have the space for serious bass trapping or may be renting to can't really build custom traps for their room. At the end of the day, we've seen both can work. So I'm happy with that.

Aw, come on Bit, was that an actual quote?! 'acoustic treatment is a waste of time'? I find it hard to believe that Danny said that, unless it was taken out of context!

I personally love to use both acoustic treatment and ARC. My room sounds good wherever you stand, and consequently, it doesn't require ARC to do anything radical, which I like - as with most audio tools, it's probably best to just use a little. 

But having said that, there are clearly those who have experienced radical improvements with just ARC. I believe them. 

I look forward to posting some measurements - ill definitely do an untreated room too, this has got me interested!

By the way, I'm buying Ethan's book too - in my first mix room, I did experience a radical improvement in acoustics - but that wasn't from ARC! I hadn't discovered it yet - it was from making bass traps, much of which I learnt about from Ethan. I say go both, but we'll have a look at some measurements when I have time to tonight - ill find the worst sounding room I can too!