The other ARC thread got me thinking .
 
Has anyone tried to do an eq match of the ARC output (say, using PRO-Q or similar) and then using that EQ instead of ARC.
I was going to try this as the phase issues with ARC are a big problem for me and was hoping the EQ match would remove the phase problems from the equation.
 
Was wondering what signal I should use? White or Pink noise? 

White?

or Pink?

 
Both are pretty good.

but don't count as noise (well, maybe for the generation before us???)

timidi
I was going to try this as the phase issues with ARC are a big problem for me and was hoping the EQ match would remove the phase problems from the equation.
 

the phase issues derive from the steep EQ notching that ARC applies to flatten a room response which is not flat. so I would assume that a different EQ would run into same/similar phase issues ... don't know about a linear phase EQ but that have latency as another drawback.
 
practical solution: forget ARC. take a ton of good CDs and listen to them, in your room, in front of your speakers. very enjoyable. your brain will learn what sounds good right there where you mix (because it comes from incredibly good reference CDs) ... you will grow your own ARC in your head ...

I did something similar to what you are asking but in a bit different way.  I looked at the eq graph of the correction response (not using ARC but a similar program) and I used the global EQ on my interface to match the response the best I could.  I wasn't trying to get perfect just to match those areas that had large differences, especially in the low end. 

Hi Tim - I hope you are well.
I use an external rack mounted eq connected between my daw outputs and speakers that I have calibrated using a few choice well mixed CDs. Mainly I rolled off a bit of bottom end.
Bought the EQ used off Reverb.com and saved myself a few donuts. 

Thanks guys.
Hi Daryl. I'm well. Thanks for asking. Hope all is well with you.
 
I'll give this a go in a couple of days.

Rob[atSound-Rehab]

timidi
I was going to try this as the phase issues with ARC are a big problem for me and was hoping the EQ match would remove the phase problems from the equation.
 

the phase issues derive from the steep EQ notching that ARC applies to flatten a room response which is not flat. so I would assume that a different EQ would run into same/similar phase issues ... don't know about a linear phase EQ but that have latency as another drawback.
 
practical solution: forget ARC. take a ton of good CDs and listen to them, in your room, in front of your speakers. very enjoyable. your brain will learn what sounds good right there where you mix (because it comes from incredibly good reference CDs) ... you will grow your own ARC in your head ...

That's just such a good thing to do. My ability to hear has improved so I need to give that a shot.

What "phase issues" are you talking about?
 
And the way I like to think about this stuff is this:
 
The room is acting as a filter at the listening position, complete with frequency and phase changes and ringing. That's really exactly what's happening, with the speaker's response also factoring in. The trick is to create an inverse filter that doesn't make things worse when you move your listening position a little bit, and that's what ARC , EQ or any other form of digital room correction tries to do. And some things are easier to correct than others. 
 
Acoustic treatment and room design, OTOH, attempts to make the "room filter" less extreme.

I also want to know more about these phase issues.  What are we talking about?