IK Multimedia ARC System vs Acoustic Treatment???

[therealbigd]

Originally Posted by DeyBwah

You just seem angry and opinionated. More importantly though, it doesn't matter if you say the ARC system works or doesn't because you've never used it.

Did I ever say I hadn't used it?

When I asked for facts, I didn't mean start making sh1t up!

The FACT is, it is nothing more than a graphic EQ and a spectrum analyser. The spectrum analyser looks at every frequency above or below 0, and tells the graphic EQ to do the opposite of whatever the spectrum analyser has.

A human being can do that. ARC just does it for you.

[Nordenstam]

PS: for those who are amused by cable BS and such stuff, check out the reviews of the audiophool grade Denon network cable: Amazon.com: Denon AKDL1 Dedicated Link Cable: Electronics - one of the best reads there is on the subject.

[Jeremy Krull]

Originally Posted by Lupo

These are some of the worst examples of how bad it can be when the ears are the only arbiters of performance:
Machina Dynamica, Audio Sales, Audio Tweaks, Vibration Isolation, room acoustics, audio accessories, audiophile, mind-matter interaction
audio/video

Do you see the flaw in your ear only pursuit?


The infamous expectation bias of the sensory system is an endless source of amusement in all aspects of life. Like wine tasting:

Scientific research has long demonstrated the power of suggestion in perception as well as the strong effects of expectancies. For example, people expect more expensive wine to have more desirable characteristics than less expensive wine. When given wine that they are falsely told is expensive they virtually always report it as tasting better than the very same wine when they are told that it is inexpensive. French researcher Frédéric Brochet "submitted a mid-range Bordeaux in two different bottles, one labeled as a cheap table wine, the other bearing a grand cru etiquette" and obtained predictable results. Tasters described the supposed grand cru as "woody, complex, and round" and the supposed cheap wine as "short, light, and faulty."[4]

Similarly, people have expectations about wines because of their geographic origin, producer, vintage, color, and many other factors. For example, when Brochet served a white wine he received all the usual descriptions: "fresh, dry, honeyed, lively." Later he served the same wine dyed red and received the usual red terms: "intense, spicy, supple, deep."[5]

Wine tasting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Do you really think the world needs less measurements and more blind faith in sensory experiments?

Firstly, don't insult me by comparing me to the hi-fi corksniffer crowd. That makes you look equally bad for even bothering to bring that stuff in here.

I don't think we need less measurements. We need less reliability on measurements. This is an industry based on what you hear and the emotional impact what you hear has on both you and the consumers of your output. You like mixing records based solely on what analyzers show you? I didn't think so. So why would I put what I SEE before what I HEAR in my workspace, when the entirety of what I do down there depends on what I HEAR. I mean sure it's both important information and good to have to measure the room, and to know where the problems are (or aren't)...but you cannot go simply on that. I hope you get what I'm saying with this because I'm having trouble explaining it how I want to. Do you buy a microphone or an instrument based on measurements? It's just a little overboard to be that RELIANT on it.

[Jeremy Krull]

Originally Posted by therealbigd

Did I ever say I hadn't used it?

When I asked for facts, I didn't mean start making sh1t up!

The FACT is, it is nothing more than a graphic EQ and a spectrum analyser. The spectrum analyser looks at every frequency above or below 0, and tells the graphic EQ to do the opposite of whatever the spectrum analyser has.

A human being can do that. ARC just does it for you.

You also didn't say you actually HAD used it, but a semantic argument is silly.

It's not just a graphic EQ, because it's far more points of attenuation than any physical graphic EQ can achieve. It also has delay trimming for the speakers as well, I don't really remember honestly what else, don't really care either. Also if you had used it you'd know based on your precious measurement graphs that it's not 100% counter-balancing all the issues. I just know that it removed some huge, nearly insurmountable acoustical problems in that room (based on the size of the room itself), and that it was the difference between the room being usable to work in and not. Even with all the treatment in place. I've also physically heard that system make changes that DIDN'T sound good and messed with whatever I was listening to due to whether or not I botched the measurements. I periodically re-measure these days depending on how the room is set up as well.

Also...not that it matters, but I like to turn knobs (both physically, and with a mouse on screen) without having to look at them.

[Nordenstam]

Originally Posted by Jeremy Krull

Firstly, don't insult me by comparing me to the hi-fi corksniffer crowd. That makes you look equally bad for even bothering to bring that stuff in here.

You laid the trap..

Originally Posted by Jeremy Krull

So why would I put what I SEE before what I HEAR in my workspace, when the entirety of what I do down there depends on what I HEAR.

I get what you mean. I don't think the problem is in the measurements themselves, it's the way they are being used.

Your argument is actually my primary objection towards EQ'ing. It's not based on physics. It's not based on what you see in the room around you. It's not based on what you hear. It's based on what the computer or operator sees in some frequency response graphs. Your argument is a prime reason not to use such systems.

[Jeremy Krull]

Originally Posted by Lupo

]Your argument is a prime reason not to use such systems.

Yes except it works. In my case it works, in DeyBwah's case it works for him, I'm sure others are using it as well. And, I'm sure if I had a fully blueprinted and designed control room, I might even consider running it still because at that point all it would do is fine-tuning (if I used it). BUT, I don't have that, and what I do have is made usable by the presence of the ARC software working. If you were in my room and couldn't hear the difference it made, there's something very wrong. Forgetting whatever ludicrous hills the measurement graph displays, it removes this horrendous low mid mud cloud, which is the difference between things working and not. And also, that measurement mic is hearing test tones through my speakers in my room and using that data alone to make the judgement. Bad to leave it up to the machine? That's still up in the air...but audibly it's making a positive difference.

I see Eppstein is watching this thread now too...I'm sure he'll be happy to smack my young ass down plenty too But I'm just going on my experiences with this (because unlike most of the detractors, I actually have used/been using ARC)

[Jens Eklund]

Originally Posted by Jeremy Krull

Yes except it works.

It’s not that easy unfortunately. You should read up a bit on how these systems work and what their limitations are.

/Jens

[Jeremy Krull]

Originally Posted by Jens Eklund

It’s not that easy unfortunately. You should read up a bit on how these systems work and what their limitations are.

/Jens

Okay let me explain this a little more plainly to you...

the plugin goes on, it audibly removes some major frequency problems in the room (and I have physical treatment reinforcing it).

I then can mix in the room and have FAR SUPERIOR translation of my mixes on basically any place I play them, as opposed to if I wasn't working through ARC.

That usually constitutes that it's doing what it's supposed to be doing, which is correcting parts of the room's acoustical issues.

[Jens Eklund]

Originally Posted by Jeremy Krull

Okay let me explain this a little more plainly to you...

the plugin goes on, it audibly removes some major frequency problems in my room...

I then can mix in the room and have FAR SUPERIOR translation of my mixes to basically anywhere, as opposed to if I wasn't working through ARC.

That usually constitutes that it's doing what it's supposed to be doing.

Hey, I didn’t say that it doesn’t work (to some degree) in your case, but to generally proclaim that these system work can be a bit misleading.

Minimum-Phase Room Response

All I’m asking for is that people are aware of what is possible or not.


/Jens

[DeyBwah]

Seems like the participating peoples' minds are already made up for the most part.

My hope is that others who are doing research on the ARC system will come to this thread and see that there are 2 crowds.

People who use the system, and recommend it.

People who have used the system and don't recommend it.

Everyone's opinions should be taken into proper context. There are many valid scientific points being made. How software can't get rid of reflections, standing waves, etc..

All I can say is, I trust my mixes more. The low-end mud that Jeremy is talking about is gone for me as well. Instead, I can hear every part of the spectrum represented clearly.

Keep in mind that I have about 18 bass traps from GIK. BTW - if you're getting traps, go with GIK. They're identical unless Ethan wants to chime in here and explain why his REAL TRAPS are better than GIK traps. I'm curious myself as to why they cost more...

[Jeremy Krull]

Originally Posted by Jens Eklund

Hey, I didn’t say that it doesn’t work (to some degree) in your case, but to generally proclaim that these system work can be a bit misleading.

Minimum-Phase Room Response

All I’m asking for is that people are aware of what is possible or not.


/Jens

You need to know that I feel this is not a best-case scenario that I'm using this. I don't want it to come off as me championing this thing in EVERY ROOM EVERYWHERE, because that's fallacious and unnecessary. But the bass trap pimps are considerably off base in constantly condemning this technology as completely ineffective. I also dearly love my monitors, and while they still work how they're supposed to, I know that they'll sound much much better when it's not the software fixing all the issues. The other rooms that I do work in when I'm not at my own place, are professionally designed, extremely well tuned rooms too, so it's not like I don't know what I'm missing here.

The ARC system is not a dud though.

[DeyBwah]

Originally Posted by Jeremy Krull

If you were in my room and couldn't hear the difference it made, there's something very wrong. Forgetting whatever ludicrous hills the measurement graph displays, it removes this horrendous low mid mud cloud, which is the difference between things working and not.

This was the general reception I got from some colleagues when I did A/B testing with/without ARC engaged.

The difference was plainly obvious. Works for me, and really, I think it'll improve just about anybody's monitoring environment, unless you have a studio that was constructed from the ground-up with proper acoustic scientific principles.

More importantly though, it'll improve your monitoring environment much more per dollar invested than acoustic material. I say if you can, get BOTH ARC and Traps. If you can only get one, it means you're financially challenged, so get the ARC. Better bang for buck. I'd run away from anyone who says that $400 dollars of acoustic treatment will help you mix better than the ARC system. And I wouldn't look back lol. But hey, that's just me! :D

Just so y'all know, I was a bit skeptical with the ARC system as well... at least for my situation as I thought $2k+ worth of traps was enough. I was pleasantly surprised. In fact, one of the colleagues that listened to the A/B tests was a prospective buyer. Too late buddy! I'm keeping it haha!

[DeyBwah]

Originally Posted by Jens Eklund

Hey, I didn’t say that it doesn’t work (to some degree) in your case, but to generally proclaim that these system work can be a bit misleading.

Minimum-Phase Room Response

All I’m asking for is that people are aware of what is possible or not.


/Jens

Hey Jens,

Have you used the ARC system?

[Jeremy Krull]

Originally Posted by DeyBwah

Seems like the participating peoples' minds are already made up for the most part.

My hope is that others who are doing research on the ARC system will come to this thread and see that there are 2 crowds.

People who use the system, and recommend it.

People who have used the system and don't recommend it.

Everyone's opinions should be taken into proper context. There are many valid scientific points being made. How software can't get rid of reflections, standing waves, etc..

All I can say is, I trust my mixes more. The low-end mud that Jeremy is talking about is gone for me as well. Instead, I can hear every part of the spectrum represented clearly.

Keep in mind that I have about 18 bass traps from GIK. BTW - if you're getting traps, go with GIK. They're identical unless Ethan wants to chime in here and explain why his REAL TRAPS are better than GIK traps. I'm curious myself as to why they cost more...

I think people have a right to be stubborn, but that doesn't mean they should be. There's always going to be an ideal way to do things, and then there are always going to be a multitude of real-world scenarios that completely diverge from the ideal way of doing these things. I wish people would not worry about how things 'should' be and what measurements say, and realize that there are similarly workable solutions (even if not optimal) to a single problem, not just ONE solution. Not all of us have physical space for tunable resonators or diffusion clouds in our current control room space, some of us do, either way, there's a lot of ways to audibly remove the issues. If you're making mixes and decisions that are sonically translating and you feel confident and comfortable doing it, then how much does it really matter how you arrived at such an environment?

I personally think the pimps are afraid of losing money...so they fear-monger the shit out of this stuff (even though I've expressed my opinion/experience NUMEROUS times that the ARC works better in conjunction with physical treatment).

[Jens Eklund]

Originally Posted by DeyBwah

Hey Jens,

Have you used the ARC system?

Not the ARC but similar systems.

[DeyBwah]

Originally Posted by Jeremy Krull

I think people have a right to be stubborn, but that doesn't mean they should be. There's always going to be an ideal way to do things, and then there are always going to be a multitude of real-world scenarios that completely diverge from the ideal way of doing these things. I wish people would not worry about how things 'should' be and what measurements say, and realize that there are similarly workable solutions (even if not optimal) to a single problem, not just ONE solution. Not all of us have physical space for tunable resonators or diffusion clouds in our current control room space, some of us do, either way, there's a lot of ways to audibly remove the issues. If you're making mixes and decisions that are sonically translating and you feel confident and comfortable doing it, then how much does it really matter how you arrived at such an environment?

I personally think the pimps are afraid of losing money...so they fear-monger the shit out of this stuff (even though I've expressed my opinion/experience NUMEROUS times that the ARC works better in conjunction with physical treatment).

Let the buyer decide which side has more valid points for their context.

To me, it's a no-brainer.. if I had $400 bucks, I'd definitely go with the ARC over 2 traps. Only in hindsight could I make that decision though...

[DeyBwah]

Originally Posted by Jens Eklund

Not the ARC but similar systems.

Thanks for clarifying Jens.

[SAC]

Originally Posted by Jeremy Krull

well here's a question for you...why do you need to see measurements so much if you're going to be listening in the room? I mean couldn't your ears tell you if something was different or wrong or improved or what have you?

You don't see any flaw in such a pursuit?

If you haven't used it, and your interest in using it hinges upon measurements, which are in a room that most certainly won't sound exactly like whatever room you use it in, and you want the measurements before even listening to the effects of the software....you get where I'm going with this?

I see a lot of PRINCIPLE and not enough PRACTICAL here.

You've got nothing.

But I'm sure that you must be great fun at a David Copperfield show. And for the record, the Muppets are 'real' too...

Thanks for avoiding any explanation of valid acoustical applied theory based upon physics.

Next you'll be selling us on solipsism.

You want to see some real acoustical magic, come on over and let me demonstrate the Fanssen effect for you. And then you can tell all your friends how I made sound come out of a speaker that is disconnected. ...provided, that is, that we are using magical interconnects...

[Jeremy Krull]

Originally Posted by SAC

You've got nothing.

But I'm sure that you must be great fun at a David Copperfield show.

Thanks for avoiding any explanation of valid acoustical applied theory based upon physics.

Next you'll be selling us on solipsism.

You want to see some real acoustical magic, come on over and let me demonstrate the Fanssen effect for you. And then you can tell all your friends how I made sound come out of a speaker that is disconnected.

LOL

you're still going huh?

it's probably beneficial that you read the posts that have been made, from both sides, since that was written.

I love how adversarial and protective you're getting...I don't even know you dude/lady...btw Muppet Vision 3D at what was formerly Disney/MGM Studios is effing ace.

[SAC]

Then you might want to try to understand the references!

I can modify things to make all sorts of things seem different, and in some cases you might even believe them to be 'better'. And while you may believe it is better, their objective quality is not.

And while you can sit there and insist that sound is coming out of the disconnected speaker, that doesn't make it so.

But we believe what we want to believe, don't we.

But then again some of us do understand acoustical physics (and also are aware of what we do not know! And you don't see us dropping 2 large on such a device...)

Sorry, I didn't mean to upset you with the Muppets reference. Just disregard it...
(Shhhhh! everyone! No one tell him they are not 'real'!)

[Jeremy Krull]

Originally Posted by SAC

Then you might want to try to understand the references!

I can modify things to make all sorts of things seem different, and in some cases you might even believe them to be 'better'. And while you may believe it is better, their objective quality is not.

And while you can sit there and insist that sound is coming out of the disconnected speaker, that doesn't make it so.

But we believe what we want to believe, don't we.

Okay, while I haven't felt the need to condescend QUITE as much or be as pedantic...you need to read the posts. And I mean actually read them, from everyone. I also have at no point asserted that the ARC correction is 'better' than physical treatment (which you'd know if you were reading), and I've gone on record now numerous times saying I think it is best to have both solutions working (physical and electronic) if you're using it (AGAIN, which you'd have seen if you were reading). I can't stress enough to re-read, because we're going around in circles at this point.


OH and furthermore since you've condescended even further and attempted to further insult me....if you bothered READING and actually knowing the product which we're arguing about (the very product which DeyBwah typed out the price of MULTIPLE TIMES), you'd know we're not talking about something costing "2-large" as you put it. I mean are you really THAT dense and THAT stubborn that you're just ignoring the fact that I've said multiple times that this isn't the end-all answer to acoustic room problems? Like I mean do I have to go back and Mixerman myself and pull up ALL the previous times that I have said this? Seriously it's getting a tad silly. I would love to build a room from the ground up, I would love to geek the hell out on spec'ing my materials and doing the work myself (physically)....right now my current situation doesn't allow that (AS I HAVE PREVIOUSLY STATED IN CASE YOU WERE NOT READING), so I had to make a mid-way compromise (by running treatment and the ARC, which you'd again have known if you were reading previous posts).

Please don't drag this any lower than it is.

[SAC]

Nope, I'm sorry, but it's you who are going in circles.

And you are a bit new to the debate.

I know, I know. You believe it. And that's fine. Shhhh. Sit down and relax.

I have heard the same rationalization after demonstrating the Franssen effect - and I must say its a much more impressive show than what ARC provides. And we didn't even have to make references to the time domain in a brochure...

[Jeremy Krull]

Originally Posted by SAC

Nope, I'm sorry, but it's you who are going in circles.

And you are a bit new to the debate.

I know, I know. You believe it. And that's fine. Shhhh. Sit down and relax.

I have heard the same rationalization after demonstrating the Franssen effect - and I must say its a much more impressive show than what ARC provides.

Let me ask you an honest question here, because I'm not going to out and out call you a prick (which let's face it, I should at this point since you're insulting my intelligence so openly), have you actually used this thing, and done any kind of actual work through it aside from just turning it on and off and listening? Because I could care less about how 'impressive' it is. I care about it removing things getting in the way of me working.

Because I'm really not interested in debating this anymore, and up until you had to show back up sticking your oar in, I though we had arrived at somewhat of an lull point in this.

You can stand by what you choose to stand by, and I'll respect that (there's a new word right?), but I'm not making such juvenile assumptions about your person when it comes to this. I feel that no matter what I say it is going to be met with such rhetoric from you, so there's really no point in me further explaining to you my personal experiences and opinions on this subject. You must really think I'm some kind of idiot to constantly keep assuming and passing this off as me swearing by this over all acoustical treatment and scientific acoustical principles. I'm sorry you fail to see otherwise, but I've been more than open on the subject.

[DeyBwah]

Originally Posted by SAC

You've got nothing.

But I'm sure that you must be great fun at a David Copperfield show. And for the record, the Muppets are 'real' too...

Thanks for avoiding any explanation of valid acoustical applied theory based upon physics.

Next you'll be selling us on solipsism.

You want to see some real acoustical magic, come on over and let me demonstrate the Fanssen effect for you. And then you can tell all your friends how I made sound come out of a speaker that is disconnected. ...provided, that is, that we are using magical interconnects...

What's with the nasty attitude?

[Jeremy Krull]

Originally Posted by DeyBwah

What's with the nasty attitude?

I know right? Kinda frustrating because we were dare I say bordering on civilized debate.

Oh well, keyboard warriors

I can't wait to go down to my studio later tonight to edit tracks from a record I'm producing...you know, where I have to LISTEN.

[SAC]

Yes I have heard a space 'treated' with one.

And the effect is little different than a room 'treated' with EQ. The polars are shifted and tonal quality changes relative to a particular spot.

But an ETC fails to show an improvement in destructive reflections that are the cause of loss of intelligibility and imaging anomalies.

We used to hear the same belief expressed by those new to the Bose direct reflecting system that intentionally introduced lots of early reflections into what might otherwise be an ISD interval - with the result being a "significantly widened sweet spot" - only what they accomplished was anything but! Sure the difference between an optimal spot and a bad spot was reduced, but the reality was an increased region of chaotic comb filtering that made the 'sweet(sic) spot' appear larger simply by virtue that the differentiation between good and bad was no longer discernible as the response was blurred into a region of mediocre response spread over a significantly larger distributed area.

But then at least Bose made the feeble attempt to justify their approach by trotting out an utterly invalid method of computation for the RT60 completely eliminating early decay EDT by beginning their calculation starting at 100ms after the direct sound!

Likewise, apparently you are not familiar with the previous reference to the a demonstration of the Fanssen effect, where I have listened to an equally impassioned participant insist on the source of sound from a speaker an assistant walked up and physically disconnected the speaker and walked over and handed the terminating end of the interconnect to me - only to have the participant still insist that that speaker was the source of the apparent signal. It was real to them as well.

So much for objective substantiation.

Oh, and for the record, the Fransen effect is a much more dramatic demonstration than the ARC demo.

ARC and the other similar systems don't present anything except for vague terms tossed incoherently about in a glossy brochure and testimonials of folks who "like" the sound. For good reason.

[Jeremy Krull]

Originally Posted by SAC

Yes I have heard a space 'treated' with one.

And the effect is little different than a room 'treated' with EQ. The polars are shifted and tonal quality changes relative to a particular spot.

But an ETC fails to show an improvement in destructive reflections that are the cause of loss of intelligibility and imaging anomalies.

We used to hear the same belief expressed by those new to the Bose direct reflecting system that intentionally introduced lots of early reflections into what might otherwise be an ISD interval - with the result being a "significantly widened sweet spot" - only what they accomplished was anything but! Sure the difference between an optimal spot and a bad spot was reduced, but the reality was an increased region of chaotic comb filtering that made the 'sweet(sic) spot' appear larger simply by virtue that the differentiation between good and bad was no longer discernible as the response was blurred into a region of mediocre response spread over a significantly larger distributed area.

But then at least Bose made the feeble attempt to justify their approach by trotting out an utterly invalid method of computation for the RT60 completely eliminating early decay EDT by beginning their calculation starting at 100ms after the direct sound!

ARC and the other similar systems don't present anything except for vague terms tossed incoherently about in a glossy brochure and testimonials of folks who "like" the sound. For good reason.

Much more civil that time, thank you.

I don't LIKE anything about it other than that it allows me to work in there. That's it. There's actually quite a few things I DON'T like about it (like the fact that the 'flat' setting hypes the high end in strange way and the 'HF Rolloff' setting sounds much truer to what my speakers' high-end sounds like without ARC turned on. I also don't like the volume difference it imparts when it's on (because the few times I turn it off to A/B, it's pretty noticeable). But it's allowed me to make the best of a bad situation, and that's really the most I can ask for from such a product. I think the only people who have ever tried to sell this thing as a one-stop-shop for room problems were IK and people who try to constantly dismiss it in arguments similar to this one.

-Jeremy

[SAC]

I am glad you like it.

Unfortunately it offers little to nothing for a critical application like mixing. Just as while the fidelity of the sound emanating from the speaker used in a demonstration of the Franssen effect matters little relative to the fundamental locational cues of which we are critically concerned.

Its manipulation of phase does nothing to increase the accuracy of the locational and imaging cue that are so critical to a mix.If anything, it simply moves an already existent problem around.

Obviously your criteria and mine are much different, as accuracy of reproduction with accurate locational and imaging cues combined with maximal intelligibility is critical. And neither ARC nor the other common systems provide anything of the sort.

Nothing is made more optimal in the time domain. And the frequency domain offers nothing of reference for critical applications if the variable in the time domain are 'off'.

You see, this is where acoustical physics trumps belief and convenience. And it is also why so many go to such great effort to learn and also to subsequently optimize the acoustics of a listening environment where the speaker-room interface forms the most critical element in the signal chain over which we have control.

So, by all means enjoy it. Its a decent FX generator, although I think much to expensive when compared to (mis)using an equalizer in an attempt to correct for time based 'room issues'. It still doesn't pass muster from an objectively verifiable acoustics perspective.

[Jeremy Krull]

Originally Posted by SAC

I am glad you like it.

unfortunately it offers little to nothing for a critical application like mixing.


Its manipulation of phase does nothing to increase the accuracy of the locational and imaging cue that are so critical to a mix.If anything, it simply moves an already existent problem around.

Obviously your criteria and mine are much different, as accuracy of reproduction with accurate locational and imaging cues combined with maximal intelligibility is critical. And neither ARC nor the other common systems provide anything of the sort.

Nothing is made more optimal in the time domain. And the frequency domain offers nothing of reference for critical applications if the variable in the time domain are 'off'.

You see, this is where acoustical physics trumps belief and convenience. And it is also why so many go to such great effort to learn and also to subsequently optimize the acoustics of a listening environment where the speaker-room interface forms the most critical element in the signal chain over which we have control.

So, by all means enjoy it. It still doesn't pass muster from an objectively verifiable acoustics POV.

And we're back to talking down.

I've said everything I need to say multiple times previous.

Thanks for your time.

[SAC]

I'm sorry if citing fact and acoustic principles bothers you. But then any time we satart referring to objectively verifiable fact and science, the fact that you are clueless as to what we are talking about means that we are talking down to you. Well then, take a few minutes to learn what acoustic principles it claims to modify and what the actual limitations are. Instead you wave your ignorance of science and acoustics like a flag and claim victimhood by virtue of your ignorance of things acoustic. But hey, you do claim to be in touch with your feelings.

In the realm of objective standards, unlike that of subjective preference, there are some distinctions that when evaluated in relation to a standard are more correct than the alternative.

As I said, you can believe or like anything you like.

But belief is not sufficient for critical mixing environments where errant locational cues are of critical concern.

One can go and completely enjoy a magic/illusion show. In fact, I take great delight if someone can successfully fool me by virtue of a collage of errant cues misdirecting my attention in a strategic manner in order to create the illusion.

As a spectator watching a movie, I might say great.

But there is a critical difference between being the one directing the cues and causing the audience to experience an effect, and the one being lead astray by erroneous manufactured cues.

Being part of the audience and allowing the source to lead me is one thing. but mixing a source where one is supposedly in control of the cues used to create the effect in others is another! And in this latter role, one needs absolute certainty on the validity of he source material.

At some point one if one is serious about acoustics and mixing one recognizes the fundamental differences and makes a hard distinction between one role and the other.

Like with the Franssen effect, I never cease to be amazed at the utter ability to be so utterly convinced and at the same time so utterly wrong regarding one's ascertainment of the actual source.

As entertainment, this 'error' is amazing. As substantial fact, the 'error' is a tragedy.

The majority here are, or would like to be, in the latter group utilizing an environment that most optimally reinforces accurate acoustic cues and thus facilitates ones role, rather than to be persuaded by apparent effects.

We have simply chosen different points of reference.
Enjoy.