Login / Register
 
IK Multimedia ARC System vs Acoustic Treatment???
New Reply
Subscribe
#31
18th November 2007
Old 18th November 2007
  #31
Gear Guru
 
Ethan Winer's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Location: New Milford, CT, USA
Posts: 13,537

Ethan Winer is offline
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by BenLoftis View Post
You are showing the spectral decay. The ringing is less, as expected.
Yes, but those graphs also show the raw response. The ETF data files for those graphs, and many others taken in the same session, are available for download here:

RealTraps - EQ versus Bass Traps

The above article also shows in excruciating detail exactly how ineffective EQ really is compared to bass traps.

Quote:
Electronic correction is not worthless.
Agreed, and I have stated publicly many times that I use the one-band cut-only EQ built into my SVS subwoofer to tame a small peak around 40 Hz in my living room. The EQ really does help at that very low frequency.

Quote:
If you're willing to hold your head in a vise
Yes, this is exactly the problem with EQ and indeed all room "correction" devices.

--Ethan
__________________
Ethan's Audio Expert book
#32
19th November 2007
Old 19th November 2007
  #32
Gear addict
 
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 495

BenLoftis is online now
"Digital room correction" aka "active room correction" aka "electronic room correction" is not EQ. Digest the info at DRC: Digital Room Correction, then we can talk
-Ben

Last edited by BenLoftis; 19th November 2007 at 02:24 PM.. Reason: added drc link
#33
19th November 2007
Old 19th November 2007
  #33
Gear Guru
 
Ethan Winer's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Location: New Milford, CT, USA
Posts: 13,537

Ethan Winer is offline
Lightbulb

Ben,

Quote:
Originally Posted by BenLoftis View Post
"Digital room correction" aka "active room correction" aka "electronic room correction" is not EQ. Digest the info at DRC: Digital Room Correction, then we can talk
Believe me, I've been there and done that. All the theory and white papers in the world are useless if a device cannot actually do what's claimed in practice. That is exactly why I tested the Audyssey and wrote my report linked above. The Audyssey device does not do what is claimed. It does not flatten the response over a usably large area, and it does not reduce modal ringing. So for all their claims of "fuzzy math" it still suffers from all the same problems as EQ.

I took a quick look at that page, and didn't see any waterfall plots showing reduced ringing. This is a key feature of bass traps, and reducing ringing is just as important as flattening the LF response. Another key feature of bass traps is they improve things for all locations in a room, and never make the response or ringing worse anywhere else. If you know of any graphs or other empirical data that proves DRC can reduce ringing by a usable amount, or improve the response over an area larger than a few cubic inches, I'd love to see it.

Also, I asked you a few direct questions earlier about the benefits of extensive bass trapping that you never addressed. So before sending me off to read up on Audyssey type devices, which I already understand fully please let me know your thoughts on this:

Quote:
In your opinion, how skewed a response is acceptable, and how much ringing is acceptable? If we can agree initially that the ideal goal is perfectly flat with no modal ringing - just as we expect from every other piece of "gear" in the playback system - how else would you improve the response and ringing if not with bass traps?
Thanks. I'm convinced we can have a good discussion, and maybe we'll even end up agreeing fully with each other. I won't duck any of your questions and points if you don't duck any of mine.

--Ethan
#34
19th November 2007
Old 19th November 2007
  #34
Lives for gear
 
gainreduction's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 2,647

gainreduction is offline
My 2 cents:

There is no substitute for room treatment, make the room as good as you possibly can.

I have trapped my room like crazy and it's pretty flat except for a 6dB peak at 47Hz.

There's just no way I can fit in more trapping so I was very happy when the room correction DSP (autocal) in my Genelec 8240's took care of that one for me.

That said, after getting the Genelec 8240/GLM kit system I believe that good room correction dsp CAN improve on an already well treated room but only do so much in an untreated space.

Ethan, you should get the Genelecs demoed. It's quite impressive, you might like it.
__________________
http://www.detonamusic.com
#35
19th November 2007
Old 19th November 2007
  #35
Gear Guru
 
Ethan Winer's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Location: New Milford, CT, USA
Posts: 13,537

Ethan Winer is offline
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by gainreduction View Post
My 2 cents:
I don't disagree with any of that. As I said above, I use a cut-only EQ in my living room system for the exact same reason as you.

I'm not opposed to EQ! What I object to are unfounded claims such as Audyssey makes. I object even more to magazine reviewers who gush uncritically over every new product without even caring if the product's claims are true.

--Ethan
jhg
#36
20th November 2007
Old 20th November 2007
  #36
jhg
Gear addict
 
jhg's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2005
Location: nyc
Posts: 492

jhg is offline
Of course room treatment is the first step. But it's not always do-able. For example: has anyone been to any broadcast facilities? I was recently talking to someone who was putting a 5.1 QC station for a VOD service in a server room! There was simply no other real-estate, or BUDGET. I've seen audio "control rooms" shoved wherever possible, glass, wack angles everywhere. Basically no treatment possible without seriously overhauling things, which can't be done because they're up pretty much all the time. In these circumstances, electronic devices can help a lot.
__________________
"Dung beetles with ostentatious horns tend to have smaller testicles" source unknown, as read in Harpers Findings, Dec. 2006.
#37
20th November 2007
Old 20th November 2007
  #37
Gear addict
 
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 495

BenLoftis is online now
Hi Ethan,

Figure 18 clearly shows the reduced ringing in the bass range.

Figures 63 and 65 show a response that is less dominated by room modes. Also note that DRC works to below 50 Hz where the traps don't. This is an example where DRC could be combined with room treatment to get "the best of both worlds".

I agree that a playback system should have no modal ringing in the bass range but this is not necessarily the first problem you should attack for every room and every budget.

-Ben Loftis
ww.studiooutfitters.com
#38
20th November 2007
Old 20th November 2007
  #38
Gear Guru
 
Ethan Winer's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Location: New Milford, CT, USA
Posts: 13,537

Ethan Winer is offline
Lightbulb

Ben,

Quote:
Figures 63 and 65 show a response that is less dominated by room modes.
Unless I'm missing something, that pair of graphs seem to show longer ringing in the "corrected" version.

But the one thing none of those graphs show - and this is a recurring theme with papers such as this - is what happens an inch away, and two inches away, etc. I already said I agree that DRC can reduce ringing at the single point in space the measuring microphone is placed. But the reduction will not be useful in practice unless it's valid for an area at least a few cubic feet in size. And that is where every one of these DSP systems fails.

Quote:
I agree that a playback system should have no modal ringing in the bass range but this is not necessarily the first problem you should attack for every room and every budget.
Okay, let's discuss. Again, I'll go first.

IMO, the most damaging bass problems are between around 80 and 300 Hz. This encompasses the primary "fullness" and "clarity" ranges of bass instruments. This is not to discount problems below 80 Hz, because it's all important. But most music has little energy at those very low frequencies, and most playback systems cannot go much lower than that anyway. Note I said "music" and not "home theater" where LF sound effects are important. But even in that case, if an explosion is a little extra loud, or lingers a little longer, not a lot of damage is done.

I don't know if you agree with the above, but for now I'll assume you do. So now we're down to what's the best way to handle bass problems above 80 Hz. It's clear to me that bass traps are superior to DSP in every single way because they can improve nulls, and ringing, and the improvement is valid over the entire room. None of which DSP can achieve.

As for expense, you can buy very expensive bass traps, medium price bass traps, cheap bass traps, and even DIY your own bass traps for literally a few bucks each. The cheapest bass traps may not be as effective or as nice looking as the more expensive ones, but they will still be highly effective. If you look through the various "How I made my traps" threads in the Low End section here at Gearslutz you will find dozens upon dozens of people who made huge improvements to their rooms for $300 or even less by building their own bass traps.

Now, tell me again, how much does that IK/Multimedia plug-in cost?

--Ethan
#39
20th November 2007
Old 20th November 2007
  #39
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Feb 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 646

jayman is offline
Ethan, I'm not picking sides here, but I read back over Ben's posts in this thread. I don't think he's arguing for one over the other, DSP vs Bass Traps. He's acknowledged that bass traps are a viable solution and he sells them, so he must believe they work. Seems like he's just saying it's not the end all. But, I guess I should let him speak for himself and stay out of this cause I don't know much....

The thing I noticed about your graph is that even with bass traps, it looks like the problems are only minimized, not eliminated, so wouldn't DSP help a little? I'm not saying in place of, but rather to augment what the bass traps are doing. I already have a room full of bass traps and like I said in an earlier post, it would be nice to get it the last 10 - 20%. I'm hopeful that ARC can do this for me.

One last note, this ARC thing supposedly does more than just just measure one point in the room (mix position). I don't get this.... don't frankly understand how it could work but I guess this does some sort of an averaging thing - something different than what's been done in the DBX driverack, or the JBL LSR series and others. I can't defend it till I know it works, or not, but I just thought it was worth noting since we've been saying you have to "have your head in a vice" for something like this to work. Maybe doing an average thing would give one a little bigger sweet spot and take care of the biggest problems in the room? i dunno.

j
#40
21st November 2007
Old 21st November 2007
  #40
Gear Guru
 
Ethan Winer's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Location: New Milford, CT, USA
Posts: 13,537

Ethan Winer is offline
Lightbulb

J,

Quote:
Originally Posted by jayman View Post
I don't think he's arguing for one over the other, DSP vs Bass Traps. He's acknowledged that bass traps are a viable solution and he sells them, so he must believe they work. Seems like he's just saying it's not the end all.
Right, and I don't think bass traps can solve all acoustic problems either.

But IMO the first line of attack should always be as many bass traps as one can possibly manage. Then you can use a touch of EQ to reduce the one or two worst remaining peaks a little, as long as those peaks are at very low frequencies. If they're not at very low frequencies, then adding yet more bass traps is a better choice. Again, I have already stated at least twice that I use cut-only EQ in my own living room HT setup! But that EQ targets a 40 Hz mode, which is very low.

Quote:
this ARC thing supposedly does more than just just measure one point in the room (mix position) ... I guess this does some sort of an averaging thing
Yes, it does some averaging. The problem is it doesn't work, as I believe I proved in my Audyssey critique linked earlier in this thread. The more you average, and the wider a physical area you try to improve, the less improvement you can achieve. By the time you make a meaningful improvement in ringing, the area improved is too small to be useful. The claims made by Audyssey are simply false. That is what I object to. That, and the idea that "a lot of bass traps" is not a good initial approach. In fact, I believe it is the only viable initial approach.

I'll even go farther and say that bass traps could be the be-all end-all if someone is committed to having enough of them and the traps are large enough. This won't happen in a bedroom studio on a $1,000 budget. But it is absolutely possible to make a room flat with no ringing down to 30 Hz using only bass traps. However this requires enough "outer" room size to accommodate three feet thick absorption on all four sides and the ceiling. I have seen this done, and seen waterfall plots, and I promise you EQ was not needed.

--Ethan
#41
21st November 2007
Old 21st November 2007
  #41
Gear maniac
 
jwnc's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2005
Location: NC
Posts: 220

jwnc is online now
No on has used this version so no one can say it does or does not work. The point is that some people cannot apply treatment to there room for various reasons. ARC will probably work great for them and help them along. Is the perfect solution no, but to say something doesnt work that hasnt truely been tested in this form is not fair.

When it comes out and you try it, then we can make a true judgement.

Jason
#42
21st November 2007
Old 21st November 2007
  #42
Lives for gear
 
Slogun's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Posts: 572

Slogun is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by jwnc View Post
No on has used this version so no one can say it does or does not work. The point is that some people cannot apply treatment to there room for various reasons. ARC will probably work great for them and help them along. Is the perfect solution no, but to say something doesnt work that hasnt truely been tested in this form is not fair.

When it comes out and you try it, then we can make a true judgement.

Jason
I've heard it, demonstrated by the IK guys themselves. I'd rather much prefer the 'untreated' version over the processed.
__________________
Recording, mixing and mastering at http://www.servantstudio.com
#43
22nd November 2007
Old 22nd November 2007
  #43
Gear Guru
 
Ethan Winer's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Location: New Milford, CT, USA
Posts: 13,537

Ethan Winer is offline
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slogun View Post
I've heard it, demonstrated by the IK guys themselves. I'd rather much prefer the 'untreated' version over the processed.
I saw IK at last month's AES show, but I was busy at the RealTraps booth and wasn't able to actually hear the demo. But this brings up two good points:

* Even though I haven't tested this particular plug-in implementation of the Audyssey processor, I know what it does and how it works, and I understand well the failings of all such systems. The key point is the more correction you aim for, the smaller the improved physical area becomes.

* Earlier this year I was invited by Charles Dye to speak about acoustics at the NARAS division of the Grammys, which was held at the Hit Factory / Criteria studios in North Miami. They set up three pairs of speakers in a lounge room typical of the size people use for home studios. The audience auditioned all three speakers with and without acoustic treatment, using the same music repeatedly. (I had brought one of our Standard Room Kits.) We also played the JBLs with and without its RMC (automatic Room Mode Correction) engaged. I forget some of the exact speaker model numbers, but one was a pair of JBL's LSR series, another was a pair of Genelecs, and the third was Yamaha NS-10s. Besides myself and the audience, there were four high-profile engineers there including Charles Dye and Eric Schilling who mixed all of Gloria Estefan's big hits from years past.

At dinner afterward all four professional engineers said they thought the JBL speakers were "okay," but only when the RMC was disabled.

--Ethan
#44
22nd November 2007
Old 22nd November 2007
  #44
Gearslutz.com admin
 
Jules's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2002
Location: A Yank in London, UK
Posts: 19,950
My Recordings/Credits

Jules is offline
I thought the demo was impressive.
#45
22nd November 2007
Old 22nd November 2007
  #45
Gear Guru
 
Ethan Winer's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Location: New Milford, CT, USA
Posts: 13,537

Ethan Winer is offline
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jules View Post
I thought the demo was impressive.
LOL, I'm sure it was. But on the floor of the AES show?

Actually, a huge space like the Javits Center has no room modes, so how did they show before and after in context?

--Ethan
#46
22nd November 2007
Old 22nd November 2007
  #46
Lives for gear
 
andrebrito's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Location: Lisbon, Portugal
Posts: 1,276

andrebrito is offline
Quote:
I agree.... I talked to the guy from IK and he said a very poor room would see a marked difference. A well treated, professional room would see less of a difference, of course. I'm going for that 10% and a fix for the 125 Hz problem. I've listened to so many acousticians and spent so much money having them all tell me something different to do and I'm just sick of it. If this works, it'll be the best $400 I've ever spent. I would never hope that this could be a fix for a room that sounds like ass, but maybe for a room that is 80 - 90% there, it can get it closer to 100% and knock down that 125 hz.
Going to do you a small favour and save part of the money since you can do this (almost for) free...

1 - Grab a free version of SIR (SIR: SIR1 or ConvolverVST)
2 - get a flat omni mic: two cheap yet good choices are Behringer ECM 8000 and Beyer MM1
3 - Grab the software on DRC: Digital Room Correction to create the impulse responses. I'm sure there is other software available to create impulse responses (I remember this one Room EQ Wizard Home Page). You then have to create the FIR filter and place it in the convolution software. You have to do this for both channels separately.

The cost for this is basically the price of the mic, you can even try it with a regular mic just to see how it works and then do it again with a omni flat mic.
__________________
Singer/Songwriter/Producer/Acoustical Engineer

http://www.onlineacoustics.com - Acoustics !

http://www.mel-music.com
- project of mine with a female singer

http://www.sonicflames.com - Indie Label & Audio/Music Services

http://www.spinousmusic.com
- my one man band project
#47
1st December 2007
Old 1st December 2007
  #47
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Location: Amherst, NY
Posts: 696

chrisp2u is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayman View Post
I don't know when it will be here but I'll provide a report when it gets here.

j
So jayman, how's it working out? Any noticeable improvement? Waste of time/money?
---
c
#48
2nd December 2007
Old 2nd December 2007
  #48
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Feb 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 646

jayman is offline
Don't have it yet..... should be here this coming week.
#49
5th December 2007
Old 5th December 2007
  #49
Lives for gear
 
DAWgEAR's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2004
Location: Southern California
Posts: 1,238

DAWgEAR is offline
Setting aside the issue of successfully correcting the room's frequency response, any thoughts on how this product rates in terms of assessing the room's frequency response?

I realize that there are less expensive alternatives (eg EFT), but the apparent ease of use of this product has a certain appeal.
#50
5th December 2007
Old 5th December 2007
  #50
Gear Guru
 
Ethan Winer's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Location: New Milford, CT, USA
Posts: 13,537

Ethan Winer is offline
Lightbulb

That's a great question, and I'll be interested to hear what others have to say. But I have to tell you that measuring a room properly and knowing how to interpret the results is not as simple as it might seem. At least not once you get above the bass range. That is, learning how to use a program that measures rooms is easier than learning what all the data really means.

--Ethan
#51
12th January 2008
Old 12th January 2008
  #51
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Nov 2003
Location: nashville
Posts: 732

bdunard is offline
Jayman,

So how did the ARC software work for you. I have the same problem around 125hz. Interested to see how this works for you. I already have about 22 panels in my room and I don't want to reduce the decay anymore but I want to clean up the 125'ish area.
#52
12th January 2008
Old 12th January 2008
  #52
Lives for gear
 
TheSweetener's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2004
Location: Germany / Frankfurt
Posts: 1,230

TheSweetener is offline
I just read a raving review in the German Professional Audio magazine. It's one of the more critical ones and they did everything to make this software fail but weren't able to.

So please post your results (especially for everyone in the 125Hz club)
#53
19th January 2008
Old 19th January 2008
  #53
Gear maniac
 
papawhitehead's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2005
Location: Austin
Posts: 240

papawhitehead is offline
Bump for Jayman's results
#54
19th January 2008
Old 19th January 2008
  #54
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Feb 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 646

jayman is offline
So sorry guys.... I promise I'll report within the next day or two. It's been an interesting journey for me.

I'll give more details later, but here's the brief synopsis. Hooked ARC up and it exposed how totally jacked my room is. I liked what it was doing for the most part, but it sort of just seemed like it was working way to hard to do it. Sounded unnatural.

So, I went to work and tore out all my treatment and built and installed 27 DIY bass traps. Sounds MUCH better now... but the renovation put me a week behind on projects so I've had to play catch up and haven't had a chance to rerun ARC. I will try to do it tomorrow and I'll give all the details of how it sounded the first time (before the new bass traps) and what I think now. I'm sorry I haven't reported back sooner.

The only concern I have right now with ARC is that it sounded phasy to me on the high end. It also seemed to thin out the low mids quite a bit, but this might just be because I was so used to the boxyness of the 100 - 200 problem in my room. A fellow gearslut PM'd me with a similar experience as far as the phasyness. IK sent a free update that addressed some phase issues, but I think it only addressed low end phase issues. So, I dunno. There are a few other reasons I may have been having phasyness, so I'll reserve judgement till I hook this thing back up tomorrow. Again sorry to keep anyone who cares waiting.

One last thing, even after 27 bass traps, I've moved my Barefoot MM27s to every possible spot in the front half of my 14 x 20 room, and I STILL have the 150hz bump. Pisses me off. Overall, it's MUCH better, but I guess with 27 bass traps I expected the pesky f-er to go away. Oh well, maybe ARC will do the trick. I am happy about one thing already though.... I thought my room was pretty decent (except for the bump) but when listening to the difference with and without ARC, it was pretty eye-opening. Everything really cleared up... almost too much. I have really great monitors and I really would've expected it to not be so drastic. So, it really inspired me and helped me believe these guys that say you could have the best speakers in the world and still not really be hearing them. I just hope ARC doesn't overdo it. To me, now that my room is much better, I really need it to just fix those little low end issues cause I like the high end just fine now. I'm rambling... sorry.... More to come......

j
#55
21st January 2008
Old 21st January 2008
  #55
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Feb 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 646

jayman is offline
UPDATE: Okay, I remeasured with ARC and I'm able to draw some conclusions, although I still have issues.

I've never attached anything in a GS post, so I'm not sure how this is going to look, but I've attempted to attach a picture with an ARC measurement before and after all the bass traps. Hopefully the picture will attach and be big enough to see. Sorry for my ignorance.

On the picture, before the bass traps, I had a mountain bump that started about 125 and peaked around 175. I also had a significant dip that bottomed out at 6k. After bass traps, I've lost that huge mountain, and I can definitely tell in the room, but I have a null at about 80HZ. I still have the weird drop at 6k.

This thread is about ARC. I have theories about why I have the big null and the dip at 6k, but I won't get into that cause that's not what this thread is about. So, I'm going to post over in the acoustics forum and try to sort that out.

So, now that my treatment has been overhauled and I've taken another ARC measurement, the conclusion is that because there's such a drastic difference in sound with and without ARC engaged, I can conclude that my room is still VERY jacked up. ARC is working a little less hard and definitely sounds more natural now with better treatment. Especially in the lows. Here are all my observations:

1. ARC really exposed my room for the fraud that it was and still is. I don't know how to fix it honestly. I did DIY basstraps and although it really helped and the room sounds a lot better, I need to further tweak with some help from the experts to figure out why I'm not getting 100% results. It's nice to be able to try things and then remeasure, but I know that there are other far less expensive tools that will do the same thing and do it better. So, this is just a side benefit.

2. When I first pop ARC on, I'm thinking "holy crap, this is just too weird and can't be right." Then, I listen for a while and start realizing how well I'm hearing the bass and kick and how nice it sounds. Also, the clarity of instruments is drastically improved. BUT....

3. I guess I'm so used to hearing that 125 to 175 Hz crap that when the ARC pulls it all out, a lot of body in the mix seems to go away. I think this is possibly just an issue of me having to unlearn the bad acoustics I've been dealing with....??? I really think this is the case because I only get this feeling if I start listening without ARC and then engage it. Every time I sit down to listen with ARC engaed right away, I feel like everything is there.

4. High end weirdness. I think what I'm dealing with here is that ARC is compensating for that 6k dip and it's too much for it to have to do and thus sounds weird on the high end. This is the "phasy" thing I talked about in the previous post. It's still there and I really need to figure out what in my room is causing it. I think once I remedy this issue acoustically, ARC won't sound weird on top.

5. ARC sounds excellent at normal and low listening levels. In my room, if I crank it with ARC on, it really starts to sound brittle and thin. The main thing I hear though is that high end weirdness... just gets too brittle. So, I'm inclined to think that if I fix the 6k thing, this won't be as much of an issue.

6. I really wish that after I took a measurement, I could go in and tweak the measurement. For instance, I would love to have the ability to go in and flatten out the high end. The highs in my room have never bothered me, so, I feel I could get very close if I could just manually tweak certain things. IK must feel confident enough in what ARC does that they don't think this would every be necessary. For me, it would be helpful.

7. One last issue, it would be so very helpful if I was able to strap this think on the core audio output so that EVERYTHING would just be funneled through it. Does anyone know of a way to do this? Right now, I can only strap it on to the 2 buss of Digital Performer. So, itunes and anything else I run outside of DP doesn't run through ARC. To reference any mixes, I have to import them into DP which is stupid.

Conclusion: The jury is still out, I want to fix the 6k thing and then I have 2 projects to mix over the next two weeks. This will be the true test. It FEELS like the bass and kick sound much more natural now than I've ever heard in my studio. And it seems like because of that, dialing in bass and kick will be sooooo much easier. But, time will tell.

I'm inspired to further fix my room even though sometimes I feel like I'm chasing my tail. But, I know I've been able to make improvements and it seems like if I can just fix a few more things, I'll be there. A guy from IK told me that they hooked ARC up in some really great rooms and when they engaged it, the diference was subtle, but very real and very pleasing.... so, I believe that getting closer with my room is the best way to utilize ARC.

As it is right now, I'm going to do everything with ARC engaged and give it a full shot. I'd rather really hear the kick/bass so effortlessly (with ARC) than turn ARC off and have low end mush. -- It's sort of humbling to have thought I had really nailed my room (cause it really sounded a lot better to me after the traps) - only to have ARC expose it. I guess sometimes it's hard to know what's better or worse until you have something to compare to.

Hope this helps anyone considering. I will be posting updates.
Attached Thumbnails
IK Multimedia ARC System vs Acoustic Treatment???-arc-before-after-bass-traps.jpg  
#56
21st January 2008
Old 21st January 2008
  #56
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Feb 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 646

jayman is offline
Here's a bigger picture
Attached Thumbnails
IK Multimedia ARC System vs Acoustic Treatment???-arc-my-room.jpg  
#57
29th January 2008
Old 29th January 2008
  #57
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Feb 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 646

jayman is offline
UPDATE: I figured out the 6k dip that shows up in the ARC measurement... It was my preamp! They suggest you use as clean of preamp as you have. No tubes, no color. So, I thought a presonus MP20 was a good candidate, but it turns out that the MP20 has a dip going on at 6k. So, after measuring again with the presonus and my desk out of the way (thought that might be the problem) and still experiencing the problem, I decided to try it through my germanium preamp and wah lah, 6k peak is gone and I'm almost flat from 200 up.

I'm loving this thing. The difference with and without ARC is a lot more subtle which makes me feel alot better that it isn't having to make drastic changes to the sound. I also noticed that ARC doesn't mess much with the stuff below 100. It smooths it out a little, but when you go above 100 hz, that's where it really does its thing. I think they've done a good job at determining what makes speakers sound bad and they're focusing on that. At least that's what it appears from my measurements.

I know there are many who think this stuff is snake oil, but man for me, it's REALLY helping a lot. It inspires me to further tweak my room when I get a chance and I love it for that too. But, I doubt I can ever achieve what I want in my rectangle room and so I'm very glad to have this.

I'm going to double post this in my other ARC thread.
#58
1st February 2008
Old 1st February 2008
  #58
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Jun 2004
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 613

AndreH is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayman View Post
UPDATE: I figured out the 6k dip that shows up in the ARC measurement... It was my preamp! They suggest you use as clean of preamp as you have. No tubes, no color. So, I thought a presonus MP20 was a good candidate, but it turns out that the MP20 has a dip going on at 6k. So, after measuring again with the presonus and my desk out of the way (thought that might be the problem) and still experiencing the problem, I decided to try it through my germanium preamp and wah lah, 6k peak is gone and I'm almost flat from 200 up.
jayman-

It's actually possible (but not very likely) that your room DOES have a 6k dip in it that's being offset by a 6k peak in your Germanium's response curve, and that the MP20 is flat enough to have revealed the truth.

Without knowing the actual response curve of the pre-amp being used, it's impossible to know for sure that you're correcting your room to "flat" with the ARC system. The ARC mic also has a 1.5dB +/- variability across the spectrum, so it really is important to use as flat a pre as possible with this setup.


André
#59
11th February 2008
Old 11th February 2008
  #59
Lives for gear
 
zacheus83's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2008
Location: San Jose - CA
Posts: 524

zacheus83 is offline
I know no one has posted to this thread in over a week, but I wanted to thank all of you for *once again* helping me by testing it out and bringing your wealth of knowledge in this subject.

Combined with my own testing I will be looking for the same pitfalls/benefits of acoustical treatment combined with digital adjustments.

Thanks!
#60
20th February 2008
Old 20th February 2008
  #60
Lives for gear
 
duvalle's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2005
Location: H City
Posts: 1,276

duvalle is offline
Anyone else got the ARC?
Please let us know how it's doing ...

i have the feeling that most of the haters are ether selling foam and bass traps
or just troll about a product they never heard ...
(if you mind to follow some of the links to other threads you will find out
that some people seem to be everywhere and allways say the same. go figger ...)

since arc is considered software and can't be returned to the store
it's hard to test it. so it would be cool to hear more voices of people
who actually own the arc system.

rounding up some infos i found:

Reviews:
audioMIDI.com : ProTools Corner By Brian White
Title: Review: IK Multimedia ARC (list $699)
Article Preview - IK Multimedia ARC
[Show #95] Simple Drum Miking & ARC From IK Multimedia - watch the video, vlog, or video podcast on mefeedia
(German) Test ARC System: Professional Audio Magazin

Reports from users:
Forum Cakewalk: IK Multimedia ARC
Forum Digidesign: DUC: Has Anyone Tried The IK Multimedia ARC System?

Audyssey / ARC threads:
"Official" Audyssey thread. - AVS Forum
IK Multimedia's ARC plugin... - The Womb
KVR: ARC- I just find it hard to believe- fix your room?
Studio-Central Community :: View topic - Treatments.. We don't need no Treatments
(German) Forum - Newbie Kaufberatung - ARC von IK Multimedia - homerecording.de

by the way - here are some videos:

Sonic State - News (Video Item) AESNYC07: ARC Room Correction Plug from IK, Compensates for the room, sounds pretty hot
YouTube - IK Multimedia ARC Advanced Room Correction
YouTube - ARC System Microphone Set-up
YouTube - More about ARC System Plug-In
YouTube - ARC System Overview

...

Last edited by duvalle; 20th February 2008 at 09:19 PM.. Reason: added more info links ...
New Reply Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+ 
 
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
semtek / Product Alerts older than 2 months
27
vacantsonar / Bass traps, acoustic panels, foam etc
4
Dave12345 / Bass traps, acoustic panels, foam etc
13
gnarls / Bass traps, acoustic panels, foam etc
4
Junkie / Bass traps, acoustic panels, foam etc
1

Forum Jump

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.