Hi David,
 Now I understand the nature of your question. There are a couple of possibilities I can think of but it seems like it would just be speculation without getting to hear your system first hand.
 The only thing I can think of is that the testing process is listening to more than just your speaker so my thought is that the microphone placement when testing may be hearing your room from its "listening position" differently than you perceive it sounds at your favorite listening position. In any event, it's an interesting observation and I'll be curious to see what you learn about it.
 
 best regards,
mike

clintmartin
The white line should be close to flat either way. The white line is the result, not the correction. ARC 2 doesn't show us what it's done to achieve the white (after) line.

The white line isn't the actual result it is an illustration of the intended result. You have to run further tests to actually know what the result is.
 
best regards,
mike
 
 
edit spelling

Really? I thought the orange was the measurement, the green was the goal and the white was the result. What other test need to be ran? Serious question...and thanks for the info.

Think of this way:
 
1) You run a serious of tests for ARC.
 
2) ARC does it's thing.
 
3) Then it draws a white line to suggest to you what it has done.
 
There is no actual ARC testing step where ARC determines if it actually did what the white line suggests it did. The white line is just a suggestion that can help you believe that the white line is a white line. It is probably also a very powerful method of encouraging expectation bias and ensuring satisfaction.
 
best regards,
mike
 
 

Mike
I think you make a very interesting point and one that I had not thought about before. Why is there no testing AFTER the correction has been applied to actually TEST what the correction is doing / has done? 
The more I think about it, surely this can be the only accurate way of deciding if the changes that have been applied are actually working??
Interesting and also begs the question as to why such a step is not mandatory? Perhaps the white line, as you say, gives the perception that all is now perfect, where as if you did a further set of measurements, this may not be the case!
Nigel

Ethan Winer has a test project for low end; 15 to 300hz, IIRC.
Run it with and without ARC on, that will give you a good look at your low and low-mids.
 
Tom

Cool - but then why doesn't IK have such a test cd / program as a third step. So the process would be
Measure
Apply first settings
Remeasure to see how the first application went
If OK leave alone, if not have a second setting procedure then remeasure again.
 
The more I think about this, I cannot see how one measure then just apply some settings that are at best an educated (admittedly very educated) guess as to what will happen.
I am not technical enough to understand the subject fully, but I know all monitors (sometimes of the same make and model) can sound different.
So one measure then a suggested set of adjustments must surely have the potential to sound different on different systems??
Love to hear other peoples thoughts
Nigel
 
 
 
 
 

Bajan Blue
 
The more I think about this, I cannot see how one measure then just apply some settings that are at best an educated (admittedly very educated) guess as to what will happen.
 
So one measure then a suggested set of adjustments must surely have the potential to sound different on different systems??

I'm not sure I understand your question.  For every room and set of monitors in that room, you need a custom measurement.  However, if Audyssey have done their job right, a follow-up measurement to check the accuracy of the initial measurement should not be necessary.  This is something they would have worked out in the testing phase, where I would presume they did indeed to some following measurements do insure their stuff was working.  It they did get it right, there'd be no need to make the customer's measurement job more involved (although it might make for improved customer assurance they were getting their money's worth).
 
As to all the others who responded, thanks.  But I still didn't get a single response that gave me a sense of whether what I'm seeing is a misunderstanding on my part or a bug in UI.  And it could well be a bug, since this is the sort of thing that most people probably wouldn't notice or worry about if they did, or report the bug if they thought it truly was there.  Most folks will probably have largely similar corrections applied in any case, so they wouldn't notice this behavior in the first place.
 
However, if there are any ARC 2 users out there who have noticeably different corrections applied to two channels, just take a look at the response graphs in the interface and see if it looks like the graphs are correct or that the right and left images are switched.  I probably should have asked the question that way in the first place.

I'm not sure I understand your question.  For every room and set of monitors in that room, you need a custom measurement.  However, if Audyssey have done their job right, a follow-up measurement to check the accuracy of the initial measurement should not be necessary. 
 
OK what I'm trying to say is that you do the initial measurement, then using that you apply changes, that Audyssey have calculated will resolve the issue, I suppose they based this on known facts etc about various responses of different makes of monitors. / research etc
All I was trying to say is what if the changes did not do what was expected, and that could be for any number of reasons.
If that can happen, then surely a second check to make sure what they thought happened actually did, would be a sensible"double check" step?
As I said I'm not that technical, certainly far less than many on this forum, I'm just using what I think is common sense.
I could well be (and have been MANY MANY times before) quite Totally wrong
 

You are right that if they wanted to report what had actually been done, they'd need to do another check. You see monitor calibration software do this. Your calibration puck will take readings, the LUTs get updated, then it takes another set to see how close the calibration is.
 
Audyssey doesn't do that, in part because the precise results you'd see would vary based on microphone location, with even small changes making a difference.