Satellite: The way I have my subs hooked up, I can't even see if I used that or not to be honest. When I set them up originally, I was just messing around with the stuff on the back until it sounded right to me without looking at it. This was with no correction at the time. As for the crossover, there is no set place really. It depends on the room, the monitors, your ears in what you prefer to hear and how you have the sub positioned etc. I'm using 85 Hz here and 70 Hz at my other studio.

Monitor eq controls in the back: All set to flat. I have no idea what is right or wrong to be completely honest with you. When I know something, I'll type you a novel...when I don't, I have no bones about admitting "cluless". LOL! But here's what I did...if it helps any.

I played some what I like to call, really good reference material through my monitors after I measured everything up, kept them away from the wall and then set up the sub which is in between them completely centered. While playing the reference material, I started messing with the sub frequency control (Adam Sub 8) until it sounded right to me...just adding a nice bottom without booming or being rumbly and obnoxious.

From there I messed around with a few switches on the back that I couldn't even see...I just sort of felt for them due to where I have the sub. I COULD get back there, but really didn't feel like it, so I looked at the manual and felt my way around and just experimented until I was happy. From there, I messed around with the monitor eq stuff on the back of each one...then decided to keep them flat because I would be doing the ARC correction and felt they should probably not be adjusted. I liked them better flat anyway as they just sounded great (Adam A-7's) right out of the box. So from there, I did the ARC correction, messed it up the first time, re-did it and never looked back.

My NS-10's don't have any controls on the backs of them, so I just said a prayer and ARC'd them. I did my monitors without the sub first just for my head to see how well ARC would do. It did so well with the A7's I seriously don't need the sub as I can't tell the difference when I use the correction without the sub, then switch to the correction that was done with the sub while engaging it. It really was amazing how well it did on those.

The NS-10's failed with the "without sub" correction horribly. They sounded worse with correction than without it. All my other monitors, Genelec, Tannoy, Tascam, Rokit 8's and an old set of Radio Shack Optimus that I did for the heck of it, passed with flying colors with and without the sub. I didn't use any coloration functions on any of the monitors that had those options. :)

-Danny

OK. The most obvious thing - it will take away early reflections from objects in the room. it's easy to see how EQ can do no such thing. In fact EQ has been determined to be a poor solution for fixing room problems, even in the concert hall setting. Impulse response or 'IR' created acoustic spaces ie. convolution reverb is created by creating a massive document of the reflections times from surfaces within an acoustic space. There is also a reverse process known as DEconvolution whereby the reflections within an acoustic space can be canceled out. The math has been known for ages, but only recently has the computing power to make it happen been available. Notice there is no EQing involved, but just the removal [canceling] of all those reflections and standing waves that mess with frequency response in a closed space... ... As far as i know, the ARC system uses this DEconvolution method to do its magic, instead of any sort of EQ. I have used DEconvolution to suck all the 'reflections' out of a single listening position in my studio before, and it did work according to theory, but you can't move around like you can with IK's ARC. Ok, I'll check out the Audyssey site. Thanks bitflipper.

No, ARC does not "take away early reflections from objects in the room". You're right: EQ can't do that, and ARC is an EQ. You're also correct that EQ is a poor solution for fixing room problems, at least as a sole solution, because the majority of room issues cannot be addressed by equalization.

Here's the basic problem, and it's how this basic problem is addressed that distinguishes ARC from other room EQ strategies. The basic problem is that a room does not have one frequency response, it has thousands of different responses throughout the room. Take a measurement, then move your microphone even an inch or two and your next measurement will be different from the first. What ARC does is take multiple readings and calculate a weighted average to come up with an equalization curve that will have an optimal effect at all locations in the room. 

That's all it does. It does not address ringing, resonance or comb filtering, except to the extent that it sees the effect they have on overall frequency response. But I don't think it would even be possible for software to correct those things. Just as with dealing with early reflections, that would require a time-based dynamic adjustment, with the correction changing over time. The right type and amount of correction would depend on the source material and would change from moment to moment.

Danny and I have had our disagreements over the merits of ARC. He loves it and doesn't want to mix without it. I respect that and would never suggest that ARC is useless or that Danny is experiencing some kind of placebo effect. I only take issue with the hyperbole and pseudo-scientific speculation that usually accompanies ARC testimonials. It's as good as any room EQ scheme, but it ain't magic.

ARC's technology was originally intended for listening rooms - not studios - where you have multiple listeners at different locations, such as a movie theater. In that scenario, you must avoid corrections that would help one location while worsening the problems in other locations. That's why you use averages. I would argue that in a studio control room (which for me means the space in front of my computer), you're only concerned with correcting a very small physical area. In this scenario, I believe plain old equalization can do just as well as ARC.

I do (did have a sub) KRK 10s, a few days ago it died. Sending back to KRK for repair, once I get it back I will be interested to know how to set it up correctly. Sounds like Danny would be a great resource for this.  In the past there have been some lengthy discussions about subs, at that time most who responded were anti-sub. interesting that with ARC, subs are recomended by a few on this thread. I feel better about mine now. :)

Bit, have you tried using something like Ozone's matching EQ function to mimic what ARC does?  Seems like that would be pretty easy ... set up a suitable mic at your listening position, run pink noise out of your monitors, record what the mic hears, and match that freq curve to a flat line.  Should work pretty well, eh?  Would be interesting to see how well the result matches that from ARC.
 
Cheers,
Eddie

Eddie, what I prefer is an outboard hardware parametric equalizer and manual measurements to calibrate it. Using hardware has the advantages of zero CPU overhead, never having to worry about bypassing when exporting, and I can enjoy its benefits with all audio sources, not just my DAW.

Yes, you could use Ozone's matching EQ to get pretty close. ARC's EQ has much finer resolution, up to 128 bands IIRC. However, that's actually much higher resolution than is needed. Useful corrections tend to be broader than, say, a quarter octave. All those narrow peaks and dips you see when you generate a waterfall plot - they look bad but the truth is you can't hear them. So just about any EQ, with a little patience, could do a decent job even if at a lower resolution than ARC.

I have, in fact, used the Sonitus EQ for room correction, back before I acquired the EQ unit I use now. It actually helped a great deal, but I kept forgetting to bypass it! I once generated a set of test tones to burn onto a CD for a friend, and only realized after I'd burned the disk that I'd had the EQ in-circuit when I'd written the file. That was the moment I decided to get the EQ unit.

bitflipper

OK. The most obvious thing - it will take away early reflections from objects in the room. it's easy to see how EQ can do no such thing. In fact EQ has been determined to be a poor solution for fixing room problems, even in the concert hall setting. Impulse response or 'IR' created acoustic spaces ie. convolution reverb is created by creating a massive document of the reflections times from surfaces within an acoustic space. There is also a reverse process known as DEconvolution whereby the reflections within an acoustic space can be canceled out. The math has been known for ages, but only recently has the computing power to make it happen been available. Notice there is no EQing involved, but just the removal [canceling] of all those reflections and standing waves that mess with frequency response in a closed space... ... As far as i know, the ARC system uses this DEconvolution method to do its magic, instead of any sort of EQ. I have used DEconvolution to suck all the 'reflections' out of a single listening position in my studio before, and it did work according to theory, but you can't move around like you can with IK's ARC. Ok, I'll check out the Audyssey site. Thanks bitflipper.

Danny and I have had our disagreements over the merits of ARC. He loves it and doesn't want to mix without it. I respect that and would never suggest that ARC is useless or that Danny is experiencing some kind of placebo effect. I only take issue with the hyperbole and pseudo-scientific speculation that usually accompanies ARC testimonials. It's as good as any room EQ scheme, but it ain't magic.

ARC's technology was originally intended for listening rooms - not studios - where you have multiple listeners at different locations, such as a movie theater. In that scenario, you must avoid corrections that would help one location while worsening the problems in other locations. That's why you use averages. I would argue that in a studio control room (which for me means the space in front of my computer), you're only concerned with correcting a very small physical area. In this scenario, I believe plain old equalization can do just as well as ARC.

You know bit, like religion, I'd never try to sell you on my beliefs as that's just not a cool thing to do. But man, I wish there was a way you could try this thing out and then just return it if it wasn't for you.
 
Obi, if you're reading, make it happen. Bit here is a very respected and talented guy here that has lots of impact in his words. He'd be worth the investment inmy opinion! No better promotion than the possible conversion of someone as intelligent as he. :)
 
That said, last night bit, I experienced loads of crashing with ARC 1 in Sonar X2a. Like, every 2 seconds. Once I removed it, no more crashing. I found the source of what was causing it...but I'll spare you there unless you're interested?
 
Anyway, this of course forced me to use ARC 2 which sounds very close to ARC 1 for me, but I just like ARC 1 better because it's a little looser. Someone posted on the first page about ARC 2 sounding better and controlling low end a bit better and tighter. To me, that's the problem with it...it's a bit too tight and would make me mix a bit more bass heavier than I do now.
 
But anyway, I did the correction with ARC 2 on my Adams when it came out. It sounded so much like ARC 1 to me (other than the tighter, controlled bass) that I didn't do any other corrections. So here I am in Sonar X2a, having to use ARC 2 and don't have any corrections for my other monitors.
 
My point in sharing this with you is....I had read from you many times that ARC is just pretty much an eq. I've agreed with that...until now. I fired up X1 where ARC 1 doesn't crash, turned on my NS-10's and tried everything I could in ARC 2's manual eq adjustment to make it sound like they sounded in ARC 1. I couldn't come remotely close.
 
I then tried various eq's that I had here attempting to copy whatever the heck ARC was doing to those NS-10's to make them sound so good. I failed at every attempt and couldn't even get a sound that was acceptable when I compared it to what ARC had done to those monitors. And let me tell you brother, I worked on this for about 4 hours because I was so determined to nail it. So, ARC may be an eq, but it's definitely doing something else that I can't quite explain. You know me bit, I have a pretty decent set of ears. I can cop anything I put my mind to. But this....it was just way out of my league and every eq I tried (even combinations of eq) failed. It's doing something that isn't entirely eq based, that's for sure. What it may be...no clue.
 
I'd even be willing to accept the whole placebo effect bro. In this field, to me it doesn't matter how you get there, as long as you get there. LOL! :)
 
-Danny

Here is a quick nasty that worked for me when deciding where to place the sub. Place the sub as close as you can to the listening position. Crawl around the floor till it sounds "right". You'll know when it's "right". Then where you are is where the sub goes. Tweak the sub till happy and then let ARC2 do the rest. ARC is like Har-bal. Loads of static from the guys who dont use it: dismissal by incredulity. Just know it's the best damn money I've ever spent! David

  Wow, Danny, that is interesting to hear. I also have ADAM-A7s and when i used ARC1 i was able to smooth out the low end out to about 50+~ Hz. with some ripple... ... That's why i was asking you about subs... ... Now with ARC2 i am able to get the response down to 35Hz. almost ruler flat, and it sounds much better, as it probably should... ... In fact, now that the response seems to be flat to 35Hz. and given what you said about your ADAM7s with ARC, i am once again wondering if i should bother getting a sub... ... Regarding what the heck ARC actually does... - It finds the impulse response of the speaker/room system. Then it creates a Time-Domain filter that is Convolved with the signal in each speaker to produce a flat/smooth response. So it is a bit different than EQ... ... - - Incidentally - I once tried ARCing speakers in my living room, where the left speaker was slightly around the corner behind a fish tank, and out of sight from where my lazy-boy listening chair was located. Obviously the sound wasn't even close to symmetrical but there was no other place to put the speaker. So I ARCed the room at my Lazy-Boy position and damn if it didn't pretty much fix the situation, at least at that one sitting location. It also took much of the boxy tone out of the cheap speakers i was using at the same time.

My Home Theater system has Audyssey room correction and it's night and day with the correction.

Rocky

I use ARC2 in my somewhat treated home studio, as well as Audyssey's MultiEQ in my modest home theater setup. They both do a fantastic job when set up correctly, way, way better than any EQ I've ever tried. And yes, I tried Ozone's matching EQ, which did not come anywhere close to what ARC can do.

I don't know how they work, but I know they do work, through personal experience, and that can't be denied by someone else just because they think the Audyssey marketing is a bunch of mumbo jumbo. In my opinion, those who say they know that it is just a fancy EQ are at least as guilty of the mumbo jumbo, since they don't actually know, unless they somehow have been made privy to the actual details of the patented technology.

Sorry for the rant, but I get a little tired of people denigrating other people's experiences just because they can't believe that a company may have developed a technology that is beyond their current level of understanding.

I think that anyone who actually gives it a fair trial has a great chance of becoming a believer too, not because of anything someone else says,  but through their own experience.