So kinda like ARC, but more advanced, and expensive. Same idea: Measure sound, make FIR filter, profit :D. They use a different algorithm, their own of course (ARC is Audyssey's MultEQ XT32). However the bigger difference is this is universal and surround compatible. It runs as a program that makes a virtual sound card on your system. So you have programs feed in to that, and it feeds to your actual output. Hence correction for all things, not just something you stick a VST on. Also the full version (the more expensive one) is 8 channel and so works with surround setups no problem. Supposedly does frequency and time domain corrections, customizable curves, all that jazz.
 
More infos on their site.
 
I wish I had heard of this, because it just like just the sort of thing I want. I use a home theater receiver since I want room correction on 8 channels and want it in all programs. Thing is, that precludes using most pro audio interfaces which is a pain.
 
I very much has a interest. Wish I had known about it back when I was buying my receiver. :P
 
Worth checking out (they have a free trial) if you are looking for room correction. Rather pricey, like $900, but then I don't know of anything that can do what it says it does without getting hardware.
 
Speaking of hardware, supposedly the Emotiva XMC-1 uses it Dirac RCS.

It appears they've circumvented the biggest problems with ARC, save one: the need for separate corrections for different sets of speakers and for headphones. As they say "the software optimizes all sound that leaves your computer, regardless of application". That means the "optimization" is being applied to your headphones and secondary speakers, too.
 
They also fall into the same trap that IKM did when they first began marketing ARC, which is over-selling the capabilities of room correction with impossible claims such as "removes resonances".
 
They are going to have to rethink their pricing if they want to be competitive with existing products, though.

I haven't tried or know anyone who has, can't comment either way.
I don't think they're trying to compete with anyone. These prices have been the same for several years now.

It looks like something that was initially developed for home theater yet works well for audio production. I like that it is more flexible. You can put ARC into something like winamp as a vst and hear audio outside your DAW software. 
 
I would think that you would still want an audio interface when mixing surround because your interface is taking care of the channel recording..so why not use it as a post monitor as well? Maybe it would be ok for simply monitoring something already mixed as a way to monitor multiple channels.  It must be some intensive software if it can compute your location and adjust 8 channels.
 
I think the biggest obstacle is the cost unless this is something you do and need it for business.Looks interesting though.
 
Since ARC is a vst I wonder if a person could load multiple instances of it and use different settings for different channels? Probably not, as they would interfere with one another.
 
 

Ya the cost is the biggest issue for sure. I still think I might go for it, because it replaces a receiver for me. On the other hand I might look at getting an Emotiva XMC-1 since it works as a preamp/controller, room correction, and soundcard.
 
I dunno.

For that price you could add a nice parametric equalizer to your equipment rack and insert it between your audio interface and powered monitors. Solves all the limitations of both this system and ARC. Not as convenient to set up, but you only have to do it once.

The thing is I've been dissatisfied with parametric EQs when I've tried them. I think the issue is more time domain than frequency domain and EQs don't deal with time domain issues, for the most part.
 
Right now I don't have powered monitors either, though I'm debating changing that.

Sycraft
The thing is I've been dissatisfied with parametric EQs when I've tried them. I think the issue is more time domain than frequency domain and EQs don't deal with time domain issues, for the most part.
 

That's the problem with ARC, too. It won't help with ringing, for example. Just one of several acoustic issues ARC can't address, and one of several reasons absorption trumps ARCing.
 
The one thing that ARC can do is lower the amount of energy feeding a resonant node that happens to be constructively reinforced (peaking) at the mix position. This also happens to be the one thing a well-tuned parametric equalizer can do, too.
 
 

Ya, maybe a good PEQ could do as good as an FIR filter, but in my experience I've never seen it :/. I've tried EQ based room correction technology and never liked it. However MultEQ (which is a FIR filter) I like very much.

I've never tried it with a non-FIR, e.g. completely analog, EQ. But I have done it with a 20-band digital parametric equalizer and it worked fine. I've since disconnected it because it was a cheap unit that added some low-level hiss that I found distracting. That, at least, is one problem a virtual equalizer doesn't suffer from.
 
But I see no reason why a many-band hardware equalizer can't do as good a job as ARC, which ultimately is just a parametric equalizer, albeit with some fancy software to set it up for you. Take the compensation curve that ARC creates and smooth it to remove the dips and peaks that are too narrow to be significant, and you're left with a handful of broad corrections that can be easily recreated with any equalizer.
 
That's assuming you put any stock in "room correction" to begin with, which I do not.