The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
IK Multimedia ARC vs. KRK Ergo vs. JBL MSC1? Monitor Controllers
Old 29th February 2012
  #61
Lives for gear
 
Lunatique's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post
You're missing something very important: The low frequency response in a room varies enormously over very short distances. If you EQ for a flat response at your left ear, it will be very wrong and much worse at your right ear. The graph below shows the LF response for two locations only four inches apart in a typical "home size" listening room. How can EQ fix the problem at 71 Hz which is a peak in one place and a null in the other?

--Ethan

In products like the ARC, the two monitors are measured separately from left and right positions, and are EQ'd separately. Even if the "crossfeed" from one to the other ear is affected like you said, at least the dominant ear on each respective side is accurate. In the case of low frequencies, it's not as location sensitive, so it's not a big problem if the left ear isn't getting a perfectly flat response as the right ear from the right speaker (and vice versa).

Quote:
Originally Posted by grimepoch View Post
I spent some time looking around and didn't find anything either. Found a lot of apps that would tell me based on the dimensions what to expect. I think I can definitely see the addition of bass traps in the future to my new studio space.

I know this has probably been asked a million times, but can people recommend good sites that have a variety of level of room construction ideas. For instance, I cannot float my floors, I am on the second story of a garage. I don't want to do double walls. I'd like to see what my best options for insulation in the walls, under the floors, in the ceiling, to both minimize sound transmission but also reflection. I find a lot of information at the extremes, but nothing that goes through like worst -> best for people.

(or point me to a thread I missed)

I'd like to start by doing the best I can do like the OP did, and *then* try other methods.
Buy books. I highly recommend Rod Gervais's book. I used it (and a few other books) extensively when researching and designing my studio. If you find his book via amazon.com, you'll get lots of other recommendations too of even newer books on the subject. He's also quite active in web forums dedicated to studio design/construction. You should check out John Sayer's Recording Studio Design Forum and Recording.org.
Old 29th February 2012
  #62
Gear Guru
 
Ethan Winer's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lunatique View Post
In products like the ARC, the two monitors are measured separately from left and right positions, and are EQ'd separately. Even if the "crossfeed" from one to the other ear is affected like you said, at least the dominant ear on each respective side is accurate.
Crossfeed from one speaker to the other ear is the least of the issues. Further, most/all music has bass content panned to the center. So that's how the LF response needs to be measured too.

Quote:
In the case of low frequencies, it's not as location sensitive
Look at my graph again. There's a 13 dB difference at 71 Hz over a distance of four inches!

Quote:
Buy books. I highly recommend Rod Gervais's book.
Agreed 100 percent.

--Ethan
Old 1st March 2012
  #63
Lives for gear
 
Lunatique's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post
Crossfeed from one speaker to the other ear is the least of the issues. Further, most/all music has bass content panned to the center. So that's how the LF response needs to be measured too.

Look at my graph again. There's a 13 dB difference at 71 Hz over a distance of four inches!
But ARC also measures the center location too.

Have you actually used the ARC? I don't mean whatever other implementation of the technology you said you have used in the past--I'm talking about the ARC from IK Multimedia, where the implementation is different, more advanced, and more user-friendly.
Old 1st March 2012
  #64
Gear Guru
 
Ethan Winer's Avatar
 

No, I haven't tried ARC, but physics is physics. And I did test the same Audyssey technology in a different product. In typical home-sized rooms the low end response varies wildly over distances as small as a few inches. This is the real issue. I'll put it back on you: Have you ever calibrated ARC and then measured how the response and ringing changed in several nearby locations?

--Ethan
Old 2nd March 2012
  #65
Lives for gear
 
Lunatique's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post
No, I haven't tried ARC, but physics is physics. And I did test the same Audyssey technology in a different product. In typical home-sized rooms the low end response varies wildly over distances as small as a few inches. This is the real issue. I'll put it back on you: Have you ever calibrated ARC and then measured how the response and ringing changed in several nearby locations?

--Ethan
I have extensive acoustic treatment in my studio, so I don't have any noticeable ringing problems. But ARC does measure the time-domain too, and I think it applies some kind of delay to one of the channels (I see it on screen during its calculation phase after the measurement--something about the signal being delayed by x milliseconds in one channel).

See, I don't trust ARC 100% either, because it tends to be a bit conservative sometimes in its adjustment. What I do, is after measuring with ARC, I'll do another set of measurements of my own, and then create a custom EQ curve that brings the frequency response as close to neutral as possible. I use pink noise, as well as frequency interval test tones. I don't boost or cut more than 6 dB, and I focus mainly on frequencies below 200Hz, because above that, the location of the mic will start to alter the measurement more and more progressively, the higher you go up in frequency.

I'm only concerned with one listening position, which is at my desk. I have a piece of tape that I have fixed on the edge of my desk that marks the exact center of that fixed listening position. This allows me to make very localized measurements and adjustments only for that exact listening position, so the problems of things sounding different elsewhere in the room is of no concern to me. I don't even bother measuring outside of a couple of inches of the exact position of my left and right ears (the testing mic is set up to be the exact height of my ears when I sit in my studio chair, at my listening spot). I don't walk around or move around when I'm doing critical work, so I only need to create the most neutral response at that exact position.

My situation is unique, but it works perfectly for me. As I have said in the past, my studio was already completely designed with acoustic treatments and the design was with advice from Rod Gervais (both his book as well as himself, via online exchanges) and the engineers at Klein+Hummel, as well as a couple of other books I bought and read and studied, but even with such extensive acoustic treatment, the room's response still wasn't ideal. There was still a lot of room for improvement.

It's a myth that acoustic treatments is a silver bullet--it isn't, unless you have the budget and knowledge to construct the entire space from the ground up with expert knowledge in studio design/construction. When it comes to typical rooms, adding acoustic treatment can only do so much, and you'll still need additional help on top of the acoustic treatments. That's where products like ARC comes in.

And as I said, I don't trust ARC completely either, but it makes a world of difference on top of the acoustic treatment. With my custom EQ curve on top as the third layer (first layer is acoustic treatment, second layer is ARC), my listening spot sounds absolutely amazing--the best I've ever heard, except for high-end commercial studios.

From all the forum debates I've read over the years, what bothers me the most is that the two sides often refuse to acknowledge the fact that neither solutions are 100% effective (especially when we're talking about non-commercial studio that don't have proper budgets for hiring experts to design and construct the studio space, and must use existing rooms and turn them into studios), and the BEST SOLUTION is to COMBINE them, because they each can do things the other can't. I don't know why it's so hard for people to accept that. It never has to be either, or--it can be BOTH, working TOGETHER.
Old 2nd March 2012
  #66
Lives for gear
 
doncaparker's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lunatique View Post
From all the forum debates I've read over the years, what bothers me the most is that the two sides often refuse to acknowledge the fact that neither solutions are 100% effective (especially when we're talking about non-commercial studio that don't have proper budgets for hiring experts to design and construct the studio space, and must use existing rooms and turn them into studios), and the BEST SOLUTION is to COMBINE them, because they each can do things the other can't. I don't know why it's so hard for people to accept that. It never has to be either, or--it can be BOTH, working TOGETHER.
Oh, for me, that's the easiest part to understand. Everyone thinks they themselves are truly objective and open minded, but most folks (even those who we think should be the most objective and open minded) are not, despite their best intentions to be so. It is deep within us to want to pick sides, to pick a side of any contest or debate and cheer for that side inside our heads (and sometimes, but not all the time, out loud). And once we pick a side, it is awfully hard to convince us to switch sides. Not impossible, but very hard. In the absence of a conflict that will allow us to engage in this behavior, we will create one. That's how much we need to do this. Add into the mix the possibility of a financial incentive that some folks might have, and it is no surprise that we have the situation you described.
Old 2nd March 2012
  #67
Old 2nd March 2012
  #68
Gear Guru
 
Ethan Winer's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lunatique View Post
I use pink noise, as well as frequency interval test tones ... I have a piece of tape that I have fixed on the edge of my desk that marks the exact center of that fixed listening position.
Measure using proper room testing software such as Room EQ Wizard or Fuzzmeasure, and do it twice with the microphone three inches on ether side of center to simulate where your left and right ears are. Then post With and Without ARC response graphs and waterfalls for each location.

Quote:
what bothers me the most is that the two sides often refuse to acknowledge the fact that neither solutions are 100% effective
I post graphs all the time showing what actually happens in small rooms. I have asked dozens of times (not exaggerating) for graphs from those who believe room EQ products can improve the response for both ears at the same time, and reduce ringing which is also claimed. Maybe you'll be the first? I promise I'll change my opinion as soon as I see hard evidence.

Look, I understand that in rooms where modal peaks are the larger problem, a modest amount of EQ cut can help. I acknowledged that in my Audyssey Report article. But in most small rooms the main problems are deep nulls, which EQ cannot fix, and ringing, which EQ also cannot fix.

--Ethan
Old 2nd March 2012
  #69
Gear Maniac
 
jwnc's Avatar
The only true measurement is does your mixes sound better and translate better using ARC then NOT using ARC. Period.. no other science needed. Mine do and others do too.

YMMV
Jason
Old 3rd March 2012
  #70
Lives for gear
 
Lunatique's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post
Measure using proper room testing software such as Room EQ Wizard or Fuzzmeasure, and do it twice with the microphone three inches on ether side of center to simulate where your left and right ears are. Then post With and Without ARC response graphs and waterfalls for each location.

I post graphs all the time showing what actually happens in small rooms. I have asked dozens of times (not exaggerating) for graphs from those who believe room EQ products can improve the response for both ears at the same time, and reduce ringing which is also claimed. Maybe you'll be the first? I promise I'll change my opinion as soon as I see hard evidence.

Look, I understand that in rooms where modal peaks are the larger problem, a modest amount of EQ cut can help. I acknowledged that in my Audyssey Report article. But in most small rooms the main problems are deep nulls, which EQ cannot fix, and ringing, which EQ also cannot fix.

--Ethan
I'm not going to debate technical stuff, because that's not the point of this entire debate for me. The problem with this debate is attitude.

Why is it that as someone who sells acoustic treatments for a living, you can't be bothered to actually pay the couple hundred dollars and buy ARC and then do your own tests. Wouldn't that be the best thing to do, seeing how you're saying you have asked this for dozens of times? Other people's free time are very valuable; we barely have time to post on here, let alone perform tests on demand, and we're not being paid by any company to do so, nor do we make a living selling products competing against acoustic treatments. We are simply users of products that have greatly helped us, and are sharing this information with others.

We don't owe you anything--you're the one who needs to do the tests and prove to us, because you're the one making money off of your claims. You keep saying you used the same Audeyssey technology in a different product, but IK Multimedia's ARC uses a different implementation of the technology and is not identical to that other product. So you are basing all of your argument on a totally different product. Just buy ARC and test it yourself--we know you can afford it--it's gone down in price now too and won't stress your wallet in any way.

I already stated that my situation is different from most people. I don't have ringing problems because I already have a fully treated room, so I have no need to measure/test for ringing.

I also stated that I don't believe in ARC or its claims 100% either, so I don't owe anyone any tests (I already spent too much time measuring and testing and tweaking my room. I much rather be making music instead of spending more time doing what I've already done). I use ARC because it works in the way that "I" use it. It doesn't do the job 100%, but it does take care of a lot of problems that acoustic treatment alone cannot remedy, such as frequency response issues due to the necessary asymmetrical furniture and gear placement in the studio, as well as general frequency response issues caused by the room itself. The only thing it cannot handle that's relevant to me, is deep nulls, but this is something acoustic treatment can't handle 100% either, unless you go for some pretty drastic solutions or very specialized solutions, which is outside of what most people can afford financially or in real estate (limited room size, spouse approval).

I really don't care if IK Multimedia claims ARC can take care of ringing, because I use acoustic treatment to take care of ringing problems, so I don't count on ARC for that.

The bottom line is this:

People/companies that sell products often try to make their solutions sound amazing and more than it really is. They gloss over what their products can't do, or make bold claims that can't easily be backed up. This is something we're used to, and if we're smart and wise, we'll figure out for ourselves how to use each product to their full advantage, and what to ignore.

In this particular debate of acoustic treatment vs. room correction products, I have seen faults on both sides. Neither party is guilt-free. Both have been sly about what their products can or can't do. Both have made bold claims that aren't quite what their product's advertising suggests.

Acoustic treatment sellers want us to believe their products will take care of all of our room problems, and that's just not true, yet I have never seen any of you guys be totally candid and upfront about that simple fact. And when you see any threads in forums about room correction products, you jump in and slag these products, but never voluntarily admit to the fact your own method of solution isn't perfect either, nor do you graciously admit to the fact that room correction product CAN improve upon what your acoustic treatment products CANNOT. Your incessant hammering of what you think are dubious claims made by room correction products does NOT change the fact that room correction products WILL improve any typical untreated room, REGARDLESS of whether it does everything it claims to. Even if it only does some of what it claims to, it's still doing SOMETHING GOOD (and often dramatically) for the room, and the room cannot possibly sound worse than it was before using the room correction product.

What you keep doing instead, is to make it sound like room correction products are snake oil, and acoustic treatment products are the only solution worthy of money spent. You can't even seem to admit to the fact that room correction products and acoustic treatment products can work TOGETHER to achieve what each product cannot achieve alone. No, you want people to use acoustic treatment products only, and your general attitude makes it seem like you'd love to see room corrections products wiped off the face of the planet, so that people will turn to acoustic treatments as the sole solution. That sure will bring in more business, wouldn't it?

Just for once, I'd like you to answer these very simple questions:

1) Do you agree that for the people who cannot use acoustic treatment (budget, space, spouse), room correction products will at least help them rather than harm them, because at the most basic level, regardless if room correction products can do everything it claims, they still are good for the room and can improve it by doing the things they are actually good at?

2) Do you admit that acoustic treatments aren't silver bullets, and for many situations, they cannot solve all of a room's problem (limited budget, space, asymmetrical room and furniture/gear placement, spouse approval)?

3) Do you admit that using room correction on top of acoustic treatment can improve things that acoustic treatment cannot handle alone (such as skewed stereo frequency response due to reflective desk, gear placement, asymmetrical furniture arrangement)?

4) Do you ultimately agree that room correction products do have a place in the market, are generally useful for the things they can do, and there's nothing wrong with people buying them (regardless if they are using them with or without acoustic treatment)--and that room correction products can and should co-exist with acoustic treatment products?
Old 3rd March 2012
  #71
Gear Guru
 
Ethan Winer's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lunatique View Post
The problem with this debate is attitude.
I've noticed that.

Quote:
We don't owe you anything--you're the one who needs to do the tests and prove to us
I already did the tests! Look here (yet again):

Audyssey Report

If you want to see "attitudes" about whether EQ can solve room mode problems, ask in the Studio Design section. You'll get lots of opinions from people other than me, and from people who don't sell anything.

Quote:
IK Multimedia's ARC uses a different implementation of the technology and is not identical to that other product.
Physics is physics. I already proved that the LF response changes drastically in small rooms over very small distances. That proof is independent of my Audyssey Report. Here's that proof yet again (source):



Quote:
Acoustic treatment sellers want us to believe their products will take care of all of our room problems, and that's just not true
I certainly never say that, though if someone invests enough into truly treating their room they can get very close.

Quote:
1) Do you agree that for the people who cannot use acoustic treatment (budget, space, spouse), room correction products will at least help them rather than harm them
Maybe in square and cube rooms, but not in most rooms.

Quote:
2) Do you admit that acoustic treatments aren't silver bullets, and for many situations, they cannot solve all of a room's problem (limited budget, space, asymmetrical room and furniture/gear placement, spouse approval)?
Admit is the wrong word. I'm a scientist more than a salesman, and I'm pragmatic about these matters.

Quote:
3) Do you admit that using room correction on top of acoustic treatment can improve things that acoustic treatment cannot handle alone (such as skewed stereo frequency response due to reflective desk, gear placement, asymmetrical furniture arrangement)?
No, symmetry is handled by placement, though symmetrically placed absorbers can help offset an asymmetrical setup.

Quote:
4) Do you ultimately agree that room correction products do have a place in the market, are generally useful for the things they can do, and there's nothing wrong with people buying them (regardless if they are using them with or without acoustic treatment)--and that room correction products can and should co-exist with acoustic treatment products?
Meh. If I had a situation where EQ could help, I'd just use EQ rather than something like ARC that has to be inserted into a bus. What if you just want to play a CD, or play a synthesizer live through your speakers? And (again for the 14th time) I do use one band of cut-only EQ in my living room system.

Look, we can go round and round on this for another year if you'd like. If you can't be bothered to post graphs showing EQ at each ear location, I can't force you. But I've done that twice now, so the burden is not on me.

BTW, I don't see room EQ products as competition for my company's products any more than I see preamps and converters as competition. Do I think some people are unwise in how to allocate their budget generally? You bet. But whether they buy a $2,000 preamp or a room EQ product instead of acoustic treatment, it seems the same to me.

--Ethan
Old 3rd March 2012
  #72
Gear Guru
 
Ethan Winer's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post
If you want to see "attitudes" about whether EQ can solve room mode problems, ask in the Studio Design section. You'll get lots of opinions from people other than me, and from people who don't sell anything.
I decided to save you the bother, so I started it myself:

Room EQ versus acoustic treatment - yes, again

I'll mostly stay out of it. Maybe others can convince you of what EQ can and cannot do.

--Ethan
Old 4th March 2012
  #73
Lives for gear
 
Lunatique's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post
if someone invests enough into truly treating their room they can get very close.
Are you serious? Are you even aware of the typical budget average bedroom musicians have? To treat their room to the point of what the ARC System can achieve in terms of frequency response and stereo imaging, would take more than what most people can afford.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post
Maybe in square and cube rooms, but not in most rooms.
Sorry, but that's complete BS. You're saying that room correction products cannot help non-square/cube shaped rooms AT ALL, in ANY WAY, that's worthy of a place in the market for these products. I can't even believe how biased you are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post
No, symmetry is handled by placement, though symmetrically placed absorbers can help offset an asymmetrical setup.
No, not in many situations. Just the desk alone presents problems that can't be solved by acoustic treatment easily, such as having hardware units, MIDI controllers, desk lamp, and other reflective surfaces on the desk in non-symmetrical placements that will skewed the stereo imaging/frequency response. Remember, most people in audio forums are hobbyists and semi-pros, and they don't have esoteric studio furniture with ideal designs, nor do they have the space necessary for ideal furniture/gear arrangement. Many cobble together whatever they have around the house, and set up work spaces that are not ideally symmetrical. Room correction products can at the very least, restore proper stereo imaging and flatten out the frequency response to a much more acceptable range of accuracy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post
Meh. If I had a situation where EQ could help, I'd just use EQ rather than something like ARC that has to be inserted into a bus. What if you just want to play a CD, or play a synthesizer live through your speakers? And (again for the 14th time) I do use one band of cut-only EQ in my living room system.
There are hardware room correction units too discussed in this thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post
Look, we can go round and round on this for another year if you'd like. If you can't be bothered to post graphs showing EQ at each ear location, I can't force you. But I've done that twice now, so the burden is not on me.

BTW, I don't see room EQ products as competition for my company's products any more than I see preamps and converters as competition. Do I think some people are unwise in how to allocate their budget generally? You bet. But whether they buy a $2,000 preamp or a room EQ product instead of acoustic treatment, it seems the same to me.
Room correction products cost far, far less than the amount it would take to achieve a similar result with acoustic treatments, and there's also no problem with amount of room space, furniture arrangement, or spouse approval. They have a place in the market, and they do most of what the advertising claims--enough so that a great number of people have benefited from these products. No amount of your disapproval will change that.

Look, I already spent way too much time on this topic. I really don't have time to continue with this debate, because honestly, it's no skin off my back. I benefited greatly from using ARC in conjunction with acoustic treatment, and plenty of respected/reputable people in the pro audio world have also benefited greatly from it: ARC System - Testimonials

5 pages of testimonials, and many from well-known producers and engineers. Are you going to say they're all delusional and ignorant, and that you know better than all of them, or that despite whatever criticism you have of the technology, there's no place for products like the ARC System in the market? You really do want to see all room correction products wiped off the face of the planet, don't you? Why don't you at least admit that?

Anyway, I've contacted IK Multimedia and Audyssey and pointed them to this thread, so they can defend their own product/technology. I aint getting paid for spending my time defending the viability of their products. I have much better things to do with my time. My involvement in this thread ends here (unless something else comes up that I feel I must answer to). If their engineers do join in the debate, you can discuss each and every technical point with them.

EDIT: I just got a reply from the founder/engineer of Audyssey, and this is what he had to say:

"Thanks for writing. I am well aware of Ethan's rants, but have trouble understanding the motivation. For some reason he seems to believe that our technology is a competitor to his products. Nothing could be further from the truth and we have always said the the combination of proper room treatment and software for correction will produce the best results.

Engaging in discussion with people that have a personal agenda is not something that I find fruitful. We wish Mr. Winer the best of luck with his theories."

That pretty much mirrors what I've always said--that combining acoustic treatment and room correction and having them work together is the best solution. I don't know why you can't at least concede to that point.

Anyway, I'm done.
Old 4th March 2012
  #74
Lives for gear
 
andy3's Avatar
 

When you come into these quarrels I really "hate" you guys.

Can we just share experiences and thoughts?

@Lunatique, @everyone wants to share:
can you just explain me (in few lines) why did you came with ARC over Ergo and JBL Msc1?

Thanks
Old 4th March 2012
  #75
Lives for gear
 
Lunatique's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by andy3 View Post
When you come into these quarrels I really "hate" you guys.

Can we just share experiences and thoughts?

@Lunatique, @everyone wants to share:
can you just explain me (in few lines) why did you came with ARC over Ergo and JBL Msc1?

Thanks
Sorry about that, but I feel it's beneficial to the community if I speak up against what I feel is an unjustified bias/criticism of room correction products. I wouldn't want to see fellow musicians, producers, engineers, composers, sound designer miss out on solutions that could really help them with their productions, just because of severely biased views of room correction technologies.

As for my decision to go with ARC, I'm pretty sure I have mentioned my reasons on the first page of this thread? In general, on paper, it seemed to me ARC's technology is more sophisticated, and I didn't have to be tied to a hardware unit, thus can install ARC on more than one computer and use them simultaneously if I wanted to. My audio sources for both making music and leisure listening are the computer, so I don't have the problem of "What if I'm using something else other than the computer?"
Old 4th March 2012
  #76
Gear Guru
 
Ethan Winer's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lunatique View Post
Room correction products cost far, far less than the amount it would take to achieve a similar result with acoustic treatments
But the results are not similar, so that's an empty argument. EQ can't fix nulls or ringing, only peaks. 1 out of 3 is not similar.

Quote:
I just got a reply from the founder/engineer of Audyssey, and this is what he had to say:
LOL, years ago I asked them a few simple questions about the theory and "proof of performance" data on their site. I was polite, and I was genuinely curious at the time. This was before I actually tested their product and measured a room with and without it. They never replied, and that was my first clue that their claims to improve the response for multiple seats around a room, and reduce ringing, are bogus.

Not that they should give a crap about me. I'm sure they make millions in sales every year, and I bet his car is a lot nicer than mine.

See you over in the other thread where maybe others who don't sell acoustic products can explain the facts.

--Ethan
Old 4th March 2012
  #77
Lives for gear
 
Peter - IK's Avatar
 

If any direct tests are to be made, they should probably be made with ARC 2...
Old 4th March 2012
  #78
Gear Guru
 
Ethan Winer's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter - IK View Post
If any direct tests are to be made, they should probably be made with ARC 2...
Thanks for chiming in Peter. Do you have any Before / After waterfalls showing how the "with ARC" response and ringing vary over various distances around the mix position? I'd be glad to do a series of tests if you'd like. You can contact me by email from my web site:

Ethan Winer - Home Page

--Ethan
Old 4th March 2012
  #79
Gear Guru
 
Glenn Kuras's Avatar
Warning I sell acoustic treatment also.

Lunatique,
Have we had customers treat there room then use EQ after? Sure.. Do I recommend it? No... Do I think you are wrong to use it? No it is your room and if it works for you then fine. The one thing I do want to point out is decay time (ringing) on the low end (think of this as low end reverb if you would like) is, IMO more damaging then a peak here and there. Having the decay times in line is what is going to give you the tightness and clarity in the mix and no amount of EQ can fix that. I really would strongly recommend testing the room with something like Room EQ before using any kind of EQ. Not sure how your room is treated but you may be pretty surprised how out of whack it is.

Here is a empty room



As you can see there is ringing.

Now with it treated


I guess at this point you could pull 38hz down a little if you wanted too, but keep in mind that will mess with other locations in the room.
Old 5th March 2012
  #80
Lives for gear
 
loopy's Avatar
 

ARC 2 ?

Is there a new version out?
Old 5th March 2012
  #81
Lives for gear
 
musikmaschine's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by loopy View Post
ARC 2 ?

Is there a new version out?
Hmmm, someone from IK told be there was there was an update coming but i didn't think they meant a new version...
Old 5th March 2012
  #82
Lives for gear
 
Lunatique's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn Kuras View Post
Not sure how your room is treated but you may be pretty surprised how out of whack it is.
This is what my room looks like:








The entire design/construction process is documented here: Cloud Pagoda - Construction

I've done pretty much all I could in treating my room. I read three books on acoustic treatment/studio design/construction, and consulted with Rod Gervais and the engineers at Klein+Hummel regularly throughout the process, showing them my design plans, sketches, diagrams, blueprints, photos, mock-ups, and after the studio was done, spent a lot of time fine-tuning the room (moving furniture around, measuring, testing, etc).

The front of the room is very controlled, but I made the back a bit more live, so the room will sound more natural. Is it perfect? No. I had to work with what I had, could afford, and I did the best I could. There were certainly compromises (such as picking ergonomics and comfort over symmetry in some furniture/gear placement), and eventually, I decided to focus only on my fixed listening position, instead of trying to make the entire room flat. By targeting only that one listening position, it was much easier to tune to room to my ideal neutrality/accuracy, and ARC has been incredibly helpful in that task. Whatever asymmetrical issues due to furniture/gear that's altering the stereo imaging and uneven frequency response between the two speakers, ARC took care of it--and this is something room correction is very good at, IMO.

At this point, it's about as good as it's going to sound, and I'm quite happy with the result. I also use high-end headphones with HRTF/crossfeed plugins (such as the Audez'e LCD-2 and Stax 007mk2 with TB Isone and Redline Monitor) in conjunction with my Klein+Hummel 300D's when I mix/master. I never fully trust just one solution--I always double-check and triple check with multiple solutions (including using TB Isone's various speaker and room simulations to hear how my music would sound on in a variety of different environments/speakers).

If I could do it all over again, I'd do some things differently, but what I have now is already better than anything else I've ever had before. I could continue to pine after the high-end, ultra-expensive type of studio/setup, but that's really not good for me overall well-being. I try to just enjoy what I do have. Besides, I'm mostly focused on writing novels these days, so my music is taking a backseat to my writing for now.
Old 5th March 2012
  #83
Gear Guru
 
Glenn Kuras's Avatar
Lunatique

If those traps in the corners where made right (I don't doubt it) then sure I could see a bit of eq here and there. There is a lot of gray when it comes to this stuff and you sir really did take the time to treat the low end the best you could (hats off). Where I get worried is when someone does 10% of what you did (happens a lot) or worse yet none at all and straps on the EQ. That is where you can get yourself into a lot of trouble (back to the decay).
Old 5th March 2012
  #84
Lives for gear
 
Lunatique's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn Kuras View Post
Lunatique

If those traps in the corners where made right (I don't doubt it) then sure I could see a bit of eq here and there. There is a lot of gray when it comes to this stuff and you sir really did take the time to treat the low end the best you could (hats off). Where I get worried is when someone does 10% of what you did (happens a lot) or worse yet none at all and straps on the EQ. That is where you can get yourself into a lot of trouble (back to the decay).
The corner traps are superchunks (Owens Corning 703's cut into triangles, and stacked/filled from one end to the other, creating a solid filling of the corners), not just flat panels mounted at an angle. The wall panels are 4" thick, with skeletal frames (unsealed on the sides for maximum efficiency), and mounted 6" from the wall. There's also a storage closet with its entire door made as a acoustic panel, so it also acts like one giant bass trap when the closet door is closed.
Old 5th March 2012
  #85
Gear Guru
 
Glenn Kuras's Avatar
nicely done!!
Old 5th March 2012
  #86
Lives for gear
 
Lunatique's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn Kuras View Post
nicely done!!
Thanks! :D
Old 5th March 2012
  #87
Gear interested
 
jools100's Avatar
 

If anyone is interested -
I bought the Behringer Feedback destroyer (FBQ2496) - (contains 20 parametric filters) and using Room EQ Wizard downloaded EQ filters via Midi to the device and re-measured using REW and tweaked a bit more.
I only applied filters up to about 300Hz and as the left and right were slightly different measured both speakers at the same time (as pointed out earlier most low bass is centred) and I was careful not to boost the Nulls too high - I am very pleased with the results. I thought I just had Nulls at approx 80Hz but I realised afterwards that I also had peaks either side at about 60 and 125Hz which were causing booming I didn't know I had! - I didn't realise REW could work out the filters for you but it can and is very useful bit of software.
Even though it is not ideal (I also have GIK Acoustics room treatmant which is very good but I was looking to treat this low problem which still remained and couldn't afford to spend hundreds of pounds more) it has made a massive difference and certainly IMHO much better than using the JBL MSC1 which I hated...
Old 9th March 2012
  #88
Lives for gear
 
andy3's Avatar
 

@Lunatic: looking at you pic I would have tried :

- Add another cloud trap (close to the drum)
- Made the cloud trap above the "mixer": hard-backed and angeled
- shaping the room with slats in orther to make it less symmetrical

BS?
Old 9th March 2012
  #89
Lives for gear
 
Lunatique's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by andy3 View Post
@Lunatic: looking at you pic I would have tried :

- Add another cloud trap (close to the drum)
- Made the cloud trap above the "mixer": hard-backed and angeled
- shaping the room with slats in orther to make it less symmetrical
-The drums are electronic, not acoustic, so no need for further treatment near it.

-Maybe. I don't think the relevant highs/mids reflect enough off of the cloud to be of any concern. The sound in my listening spot is remarkably clean. I clap my hands and I hear a very clean and crisp sound--the cleanest sounding spot I've ever been in outside of high-end commercial studios.

-I already had limited space to work with. I couldn't afford to lose more space. As it is, I already think it's a bit too cramped in terms of width. I wanted another 3 feet in width, but that would have cut into our planned space for the master bathroom.
Old 9th March 2012
  #90
Gear Maniac
 
Dizzi45Z's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post
You're missing something very important: The low frequency response in a room varies enormously over very short distances. If you EQ for a flat response at your left ear, it will be very wrong and much worse at your right ear. The graph below shows the LF response for two locations only four inches apart in a typical "home size" listening room. How can EQ fix the problem at 71 Hz which is a peak in one place and a null in the other?

--Ethan

Ethan,

Wouldn't low frequency wave forms wrap around the head causing different results then simply placing a microphone in two spots 4 inches apart? Just curious.
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
praashekh / Low End Theory
37
vaka / So much gear, so little time
10
John N / Low End Theory
0
Temposelect / Gearslutz Secondhand Gear Classifieds
4
1ManBand / Low End Theory
2

Forum Jump
Forum Jump