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
Your opinion about room correctional software Virtual Instrument Plugins
Old 24th March 2010
  #1
Gear Maniac
 

Your opinion about room correctional software

I been using IK multimedia ARC for about a year or so, and so far been happy with the results.

Just wanted to know what do you gurus think about this software replacing auralex foam or any other type of surface treament.

Thanks
Old 24th March 2010
  #2


It can't replace first reflection absorption or fix modal issues.

But, with a few panels of 4" mineral wool and a multi-sub set-up, it can even things out. Though minor deviations in frequency response aren't a real problem anyway.



-tINY

Old 24th March 2010
  #3
Gear Guru
 
Ethan Winer's Avatar
 

Lightbulb

Room EQ can help to reduce the one or two worst peaks in a room, so the perception will be clearer bass in rooms where peaks are the worst problem. In most rooms nulls are more damaging, and EQ cannot help that. There are many other limitations to EQ as described here:

Audyssey Report

--Ethan
Old 5th April 2010
  #4
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post
Room EQ can help to reduce the one or two worst peaks in a room, so the perception will be clearer bass in rooms where peaks are the worst problem. In most rooms nulls are more damaging, and EQ cannot help that. There are many other limitations to EQ as described here:

Audyssey Report

--Ethan
Thanks for sharing your knowledge Ethan
Old 5th April 2010
  #5
Lives for gear
 
Rod Gervais's Avatar
 

AOS,

Ethan is 110% correct - you can't get there from here......

EQ/PEQ is a last resort to try to minimize an anomaly after properly treating a room - and any of the real players in the market with these products will tell you that.........

Rod
Old 5th April 2010
  #6
Lives for gear
 
Weasel9992's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rod Gervais View Post
AOS,

Ethan is 110% correct - you can't get there from here......

EQ/PEQ is a last resort to try to minimize an anomaly after properly treating a room - and any of the real players in the market with these products will tell you that.........

Rod


Frank
Old 8th April 2010
  #7
Lives for gear
 
boggy's Avatar
There are a very small number of issues that can be (or must be) corrected with external filter/EQ for loudspeaker/room interaction.

One is internal EQ for baffle step compensation, designed with low pass shelving filter, 6dB, dependent of box size. This compensation is needed for free standing speakers if we prefer to have a flat response (anechoic).

It's interesting that Yamaha NS-10M doesn’t have baffle step compensation at all. Then you can see at frequency response graph in http://www2.yamaha.co.jp/manual/pdf/...10MSTUDIOE.pdf (4th page), what anomaly is actually compensated in most modern monitors today.
Nature of this is loudspeaker response transition from omnidirectional to directional characteristic, transition region is from 300Hz to 1000Hz, as you can see on the graph. Compensation is low pass shelving filter included in internal loudspeaker crossover/eq circuit.

This compensation isn't necessary when loudspeakers are mounted in hard (concrete) soffit. But when "soffit" is built mostly with absorptive materials (common today)... there is some "decompensation" between free standing and hard soffit... no one can know for sure what to expect... if he doesn't design that soffit mount too.

Second thing is "room gain" especially in very small rooms where we have an acoustical low shelving filter from lowest room mode and below... it’s better to measure this with calibrated microphone for that low frequencies (be careful, standard calibration data was only from 1kHz and up, if any).

These two things can be corrected with proper measurements, and external custom filters/EQ... and that is all.

Room modes cannot be corrected in nulls as Ethan says, nor first reflections... as tINY said. All this must be corrected with proper acoustic treatment.

regards

Boggy
Old 16th April 2010
  #8
Lives for gear
 

I just thought I'd re-dig-up this thread, as an interesting path which I thought I might explore is the psycho-acoustic effects of room correctional software on amateur mix engineers and producers.

having read books and come on here, and of course read the IK site, most amateur engineers and producers will be aware that their room acoustics massively affect their sound.

So, they get onto IK's site and buy ARC. It tells them that with a bit of measuring and entering values into the software, it'll fix all the areas of their room up and they'll have a perfect monitoring solution as if by magic.

So, they do exactly that. And straight away they hear a difference. Because there is one. They don't know how this difference actually affects their work or if it's accurate, but they saw some fancy graphs and it won some awards so it must be good, right?

Now, does this mean that they settle down and mix better because they're not getting over-worried about their room? Or do they get complacent and fail to check on alternative systems / phones? Or does it have no effect at all?

I personally think that a lot of the techniques, mods, upgrades and kit changes performed by members of this site don't actually affect the sound in the positive way that the user expected or hoped, but they are not trained or experienced to actually spot this, and the effect of owning better equipment is merely psychological - they feel better about their mixes because it was done on better kit, and relax more when mixing thinking that the kit they're using is more accurate or better quality and will not get in their way from making a good mix. This does, of course, create a more relaxed working environment and thus productive.

It's kinda like when you cover a studio in Auralex not because it does it any favours - but simply because when bands come in it looks cool as, and they assume you must be a pro because you have s***** foam everywhere, and not just some fabric covered boxes hung on the wall and some things that look like shallow bookshelves (which may well actually be more effective) - psychologically they feel they are in a better studio and in better hands and are more likely to come back; or when a band insist on using a studio with a 48-channel SSL, yet only record 16 channels at any one time, and insist that you can only mix in the box because they might want to mix it elsewhere later - but the fact that it had 32 spare channels on recording and 46 spare on mixing means they feel well pro compared to the band down the road who went to a studio with a load of racked pres and some 192s. (thus actually achieving the same result).

I intend to write a full journal on this next year, but just wanted to hear your opinions.
Old 16th April 2010
  #9
Lives for gear
 
latestflavor's Avatar
 

wouldn't it be great if EQ could fix nulls? yesssss it would!!!

someday someone "high tech" will come along and figure out how a number times zero will not equal zero. and then time travel will be possible perhaps as well.

really though, you need to address both your peaks and your nulls.

if EQ was a magic bullet (if there is such a thing) we would all be using it.
Old 16th April 2010
  #10
Lives for gear
 
Rod Gervais's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by therealbigd View Post

I intend to write a full journal on this next year, but just wanted to hear your opinions.
My opinion is that it's pretty on paper but a bunch of bull when all is said and done........ you might get a good grade from some psych professor who likes cute ideas - but unless it is backed up with hard cold scientific data you would never get it published at AES or ASA......... You are not talking about a HASS effect here - that was physically measurable data - you could both measure the phenomena and the subjects reaction to it........ but you are talking (if I get this right) about halving something not make a measurable difference that is positive (by any real standard) yet having the belief that something occurred (that didn't) somehow overcome the physical effect, with the end result being that the subject produces better product in spite of it.

You honestly believe that it's possible that the mind can deceive itself into imagining that it hears certain frequencies (at levels that don't exist) and suddenly they will appear properly in the mix?

The physical "fixes" you refer to make a physically measurable difference - if you have a null that is 30 dB deep and you get that to only 6 to 10 dB deep - that is one hell of a physical difference - in fact that (to the human ear) would sound not twice as loud - but twice as loud again - not bad for something you think could actually be inconsequential. This can be measured with scientific equipment and have that data weighted to account for the effect on the human ear and brain.

On the other hand - you have some software that can't make a single difference on that dip - but you believe it's possibly to overcome it due to phychoacoustics ?

The same goes with your analysis of the gear being used - there are physically measurable differences that can be verified as to the quality of the equipment - as to the quality of the sound it produces,,,,,,,, it has nothing to do with the degree of experience - but will certainly make it easier for a novice to produce some more decent product.

The bottom line is that a professional can learn a room and overcome it's acoustical anomalies due to their time and experience spent doing this day in and day out - but a novice will not be able to achieve the same without a lot of back and forth to other sources to determine how their mix works in the real world - making small adjustments along the way and will never magically be able to suddenly over come the effect of a null just because their brain convinced them it shouldn't be there.

We aren't dealing with the phyche when looking at these tihings - we are dealing with physics -

No matter how much you brainwash someone to believe that pigs can fly - no matter how much they believe it - pigs will never fly...........

No matter how much they are convinced that they hagve overcome the room problems - their mixes still will not translate in the real world because it is not physically possible.

Sorry about the rant - but this sort of stuff is quite frustrating.

Sincerely,

Rod
Old 16th April 2010
  #11
SAC
Registered User
 

+10...

Rod, 23 years ago the topic was 'can we EQ room anomalies caused by the superposition of non-minimum phase signals'.

And again the debate begins 'anew' pushed by those who, for the most part, still have no idea as to the basic physics involved, but who now are armed with a fancy repackaged 'automatic' magic box claiming to do the same thing while accompanied with lots of passionate wishful feelings and fancy glossy brochures.

But one still cannot resolve anomalies by EQ that are the result of the superposition of non-minimum phase signals.

...regardless of how fancy the box, how strongly one's belief, or how glossy the brochure.

It sure would be nice if folks spent just half of the energy that is spent on chasing magic quick fixes on learning the fundamentals...and if the general 'group-think' progressed just a bit instead of seemingly being doomed to simply repeat the same nonsense... over and over....

Its hard to believe that we are STILL debating this same OLD issue!
Old 16th April 2010
  #12
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rod Gervais View Post
My opinion is that it's pretty on paper but a bunch of bull when all is said and done........ you might get a good grade from some psych professor who likes cute ideas - but unless it is backed up with hard cold scientific data you would never get it published at AES or ASA......... You are not talking about a HASS effect here - that was physically measurable data - you could both measure the phenomena and the subjects reaction to it........ but you are talking (if I get this right) about halving something not make a measurable difference that is positive (by any real standard) yet having the belief that something occurred (that didn't) somehow overcome the physical effect, with the end result being that the subject produces better product in spite of it.

You honestly believe that it's possible that the mind can deceive itself into imagining that it hears certain frequencies (at levels that don't exist) and suddenly they will appear properly in the mix?

The physical "fixes" you refer to make a physically measurable difference - if you have a null that is 30 dB deep and you get that to only 6 to 10 dB deep - that is one hell of a physical difference - in fact that (to the human ear) would sound not twice as loud - but twice as loud again - not bad for something you think could actually be inconsequential. This can be measured with scientific equipment and have that data weighted to account for the effect on the human ear and brain.

On the other hand - you have some software that can't make a single difference on that dip - but you believe it's possibly to overcome it due to phychoacoustics ?

The same goes with your analysis of the gear being used - there are physically measurable differences that can be verified as to the quality of the equipment - as to the quality of the sound it produces,,,,,,,, it has nothing to do with the degree of experience - but will certainly make it easier for a novice to produce some more decent product.

The bottom line is that a professional can learn a room and overcome it's acoustical anomalies due to their time and experience spent doing this day in and day out - but a novice will not be able to achieve the same without a lot of back and forth to other sources to determine how their mix works in the real world - making small adjustments along the way and will never magically be able to suddenly over come the effect of a null just because their brain convinced them it shouldn't be there.

We aren't dealing with the phyche when looking at these tihings - we are dealing with physics -

No matter how much you brainwash someone to believe that pigs can fly - no matter how much they believe it - pigs will never fly...........

No matter how much they are convinced that they hagve overcome the room problems - their mixes still will not translate in the real world because it is not physically possible.

Sorry about the rant - but this sort of stuff is quite frustrating.

Sincerely,

Rod
Congratulations for NOT READING MY POST.

Your post relates to me suggesting that room correctional software and psycho-acoustics allows you to create something or other.

My post did not question, whatsoever, the effectiveness of room correction software. Not once, not even, a little bit.

My post questioned this...

"Does the amateur user, when buying room correctional software, or in fact, any single 'upgrade' of musical hardware or software, actually benefit from the direct effect of that piece of equipment, or simply benefit psychologically from the knowledge that they have installed something better than they had before? For instance, does a user when buying room correctional software, actually benefit from the effect of the room correction software, or just benefit psychologically from the knowledge that they have bought some all singing all dancing software, which claims to be able to fix all their room acoustics problems; upon hearing a change in the tonal output of their recording system?"

I am sorry, but all you replied to was "Room Correction Software..... .... I will write a journal one day" and not the stuff in between.
Old 16th April 2010
  #13
Gear Maniac
 

Thank you guys for all the replies.

My personal experice with ARC in particular have been OK, I feel that the software has given me a better listing envoriment maybe is not a full solution for all the problems that comes with turning a spare bed room to a control room. I feel that since I started using arc I been making less trips to the car and fewer bounces to iPod to check my mixes. I feel that the software provided better results then the auralex foam I had before.


Again thanks again for all the replies I would take them all into consideration.
Old 16th April 2010
  #14
SAC
Registered User
 

One actually needs to write a post asking if someone, who has already reached a foregone conclusion that justifies investing allot of money into a device, might 'hear' a difference upon installing it????
Sure!

And what if the device simply moves a problem around without actually fixing it. Can they hear the difference? Possibly. Sure. Is it better? I bet many will think so! Heck, I know quite a few folks who after they have had a few too many drinks think they are better in all sorts of activities!

I might suggest that you don't need to write a paper...instead simply go query the myriad in depth studies documenting the placebo effect and the power of expectations to color one's experience - irrespective of objective validation!

And while you are at it, query the very real and serious issue regarding how such preconceived expectations are playing a Very real factor in current pharmaceutical testing. Where such psychological factors such as dosage frequency, color, pill size, and ALL sorts of utterly superfluous factors literally impacts the expectations of patients in clinical trials such that they are as significant as any objective measure - so much so that these factors are now beginning to be used in the administration of said treatments as doctors begin to leverage the power of the mind to create effects that are simply objectively not supported!!!

But regardless of the loony expectations and ir-rationalizations of some where some folks indeed 'hear what they want to hear', that nevertheless does not make the technique any more valid!

Take some time and view Ethan's AES presentation regarding Audio Myths.thumbsup

Just be sure to wear your tin foil hat before you start the viewing. I know it made a significant difference for me! ...And the Led Zeppelin lyrics were speaking directly to me! And no one can convince me that my 1 meter $1500 purple with green stripe directional independent current source power cord placed on cable risers doesn't make a difference! Heck, I even have a plaque from PETA thanking me for being so considerate of the migration paths of the resident dust bunnies. And I have the testimony of my psychic to validate my feelings.
Old 16th April 2010
  #15
Lives for gear
 
jhbrandt's Avatar
AOS,

You should get REW or FuzzMeasure and test your setup with and without the EQ thingie.

When I was in Nashville, I went through countless studios turning off the Whites and the engineers and producers always said, "Wow! that's better!"

and I said, "There you go. Now you have a great EQ for that piano." heh

The term Equalizer was coined when the engineer designed an electrical circuit to correct the signal from the microphone so that it was 'equal' to the original vocal in the room. Nowadays we use EQ more for effects, because our modern circuits and mics are very true or flat.

I do not doubt that the EQ sounded better than the foam on the wall. (the foam must be in the reflection points to be effective) The foam will not help with low frequency issues but the EQ will work on peaks.... if you don't move your head. I would only suggest that something like this as a temporary 'bandaide'.

-- It's like trying to do graphics editing while wearing rose colored glasses...

Please buy or build some decent traps for the room corners and you will be amazed at the difference.

Honestly, any company that markets a fix-all EQ is just a Voo-Doo company. -- you might as well get some of those special oxygen-free copper/ counter-clockwise twisted/7-layer power cords to make your digital audio sound better. - I think they are cheap at $300 each.

It should be against the law... but I guess it's better this way. (You have to be personally responsible to be free.)

This is why I post here. I hope I am helping with this. Please don't be offended - it's just that there is a lot of bull**** out there... especially online. Beware of the psychological control that marketing/marketers use. Acoustics is often counter-intuitive as is sound-proofing.

Cheers,
John

Last edited by jhbrandt; 16th April 2010 at 05:49 PM.. Reason: lack of clarity
Old 16th April 2010
  #16
Gear Addict
 

Related Article

I wrote and article that you (collectively) may find interesting on the topic. Essentually I polled "pros" from various sides of the aisle including Audyssey, Russ Berger, GIK Acoustics, etc...

Bottom line is no mystery: if you put a great speaker in the proper location, maximize every possibility in room geometry and acoustical finishes; then such DRC (digital room corrections) can yield a worthy (even very worthy) benefit.


Twenty Questions Toward a Correct Home Theater Room — Reviews and News from Audioholics

Most of these technologies have been developed for other market segments: architectural acoustics, cinema (both production and repro) and residential theater/media. As these devices are "pulled" into studio applications their benefits are more dicey because (and again everyone)...YOU CAN'T EQ A REFLECTION!

Finally, if anyone's interested...the Trinnov system is excellent.
Old 16th April 2010
  #17
Lives for gear
 
Rod Gervais's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by therealbigd View Post
Congratulations for NOT READING MY POST.

Your post relates to me suggesting that room correctional software and psycho-acoustics allows you to create something or other.

My post did not question, whatsoever, the effectiveness of room correction software. Not once, not even, a little bit.
Excuse me - I read every word of your post - 3 times in fact - before responding.

you very clearly said:

Quote:
Now, does this mean that they settle down and mix better because they're not getting over-worried about their room? Or do they get complacent and fail to check on alternative systems / phones? Or does it have no effect at all?

I personally think that a lot of the techniques, mods, upgrades and kit changes performed by members of this site don't actually affect the sound in the positive way that the user expected or hoped, but they are not trained or experienced to actually spot this, and the effect of owning better equipment is merely psychological - they feel better about their mixes because it was done on better kit, and relax more when mixing thinking that the kit they're using is more accurate or better quality and will not get in their way from making a good mix. This does, of course, create a more relaxed working environment and thus productive.
The bold and underlined are mine for clarity - you state first that you are curious whether there is an actual benefit - and then go on to state that you believe there is little to no effect i anything they do - yet there is somehow a tangible benefit in the end - that the relaxing environment created is "thus productive"

It was this I responded to - if they don't deal with the physics involved - it cannot possibly create a more productive outcome to their efforts...... yet you state that you believe this to be true..........

Sincerely,

Rod
Old 16th April 2010
  #18
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rod Gervais View Post
Excuse me - I read every word of your post - 3 times in fact - before responding.

you very clearly said:



The bold and underlined are mine for clarity - you state first that you are curious whether there is an actual benefit - and then go on to state that you believe there is little to no effect i anything they do - yet there is somehow a tangible benefit in the end - that the relaxing environment created is "thus productive"

It was this I responded to - if they don't deal with the physics involved - it cannot possibly create a more productive outcome to their efforts...... yet you state that you believe this to be true..........

Sincerely,

Rod
I said, it was productive because they were relaxed and not sat there mixing and stressing out over a bad sounding room.

For instance, your car is broke. A mechanic opens the bonnet, plays around (yet achieves nothing), but because you know nothing about cars, you assume he must've done a good job. You now drive the car feeling more relaxed, because a mechanic has told you it's OK.

It's the same with the room correction. Even if it does nothing, because you know nothing about acoustics, the fact that some $500 box says that it will make your room acoustically perfect means that you assume you are now working in a better listening environment, and subsequently relax on those grounds - thus creating a more productive environment. Yes, it might not be a better performing acoustic environment, but it's more productive because you are comfortable with your sound and stop worrying about it.

Does that make sense?
Old 16th April 2010
  #19
SAC
Registered User
 

Sure... you believe what you want to believe.
No news there!

"Does it make sense?"

Logically and objectively: No.

Emotionally: That's between you and your therapist.

But I would question the validity of anything that requires someone else to validate your subjective assessment! As objectively, there are still fundamental problems that are being ignored in exchange for one's feelings!!!

And still we are left with the ir-rationalization that someone lost in their fantasy is more "productive" than someone with an actual understanding and awareness of a problem and, heaven forbid, possibly an actual solution!

The 20 ton elephant that remains in the center of the room is: At what point does physics and logic assume a more significant role as we continue to attempt to rationalize the legitimacy of someone's subjective fantasy?

I just wish that some would spend a bit less time and energy trying to justify the symbolism and a bit more time trying to understand the substance. ...As acoustics and audio are overrun with the former!

And lest anyone doubt that, I just confirmed it with my psychic.

Edit: And what's REALLY absurd is that I am wasting my time trying to justify why employing logic is better than simply relying upon fantasy!!!! Why did I waste my time studying when I could instead simply be feeding the need for some to believe in expensive nonsense and hokum simply because it makes them feel better?
Old 16th April 2010
  #20
Lives for gear
 
avare's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by therealbigd View Post
It's the same with the room correction. Even if it does nothing, because you know nothing about acoustics, the fact that some $500 box says that it will make your room acoustically perfect means that you assume you are now working in a better listening environment, and subsequently relax on those grounds - thus creating a more productive environment. Yes, it might not be a better performing acoustic environment, but it's more productive because you are comfortable with your sound and stop worrying about it.
P.T. Barnum purportedly once said...

If people want to be deceived, they will be deceived.

Andre
Old 16th April 2010
  #21
Lives for gear
 
Weasel9992's Avatar
 

Fox Mulder once said, "I want to believe".

There. That's as cerebral as I'm getting today, and all I did was quote someone from TV. My work here is done. heh

Frank
Old 16th April 2010
  #22
Lives for gear
 
Rod Gervais's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by therealbigd View Post
I said, it was productive because they were relaxed and not sat there mixing and stressing out over a bad sounding room.

For instance, your car is broke. A mechanic opens the bonnet, plays around (yet achieves nothing), but because you know nothing about cars, you assume he must've done a good job. You now drive the car feeling more relaxed, because a mechanic has told you it's OK.
Try using another analogy - i bring my car to a mechanic because it is broken - he does nothing but lies to me and says he did - and yet you think that I won't notice that it's still broken - whatever i noticed the first time will still be there - i will not miss it.

Quote:
It's the same with the room correction. Even if it does nothing, because you know nothing about acoustics, the fact that some $500 box says that it will make your room acoustically perfect means that you assume you are now working in a better listening environment, and subsequently relax on those grounds - thus creating a more productive environment. Yes, it might not be a better performing acoustic environment, but it's more productive because you are comfortable with your sound and stop worrying about it.

Does that make sense?
Nope - doesn't make sense at all - if it does not make a difference in what I can and cannot hear - then i will simply be more comfortable in a bad environment, but it will not be more productive (IN ANY REAL SUBJECTIVE TERMS) regardless of what you wish to believe. The mixes will still not translate in the real world, therefore there is no increase in physical measurable productivity - it is this belief of yours that I challenge.

Sincerely,

Rod

You cannot
Old 16th April 2010
  #23
Lives for gear
 
Rod Gervais's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jhbrandt View Post
The foam will not help with low frequency issues but the EQ will....
John,

a small correction here - although you can (to a small degree) tame a peak with PEQ - you cannot make a difference to a null - and therefor you really cannot deal with low frequency issues using PEQ.

Sincerely,

Rod
Old 16th April 2010
  #24
Lives for gear
 
Nordenstam's Avatar
 

There seems to be a lack of balanced info on how to apply such systems to best benefit. There are pros and there are cons. How to weight them and make an informed decision?

Are well enough versed in EQ'ing to be deeply sceptical to applying such an effect across the two buss. The push pull effect in the soundstage from the frequency selective phase lead/lag of EQ'ing isn't that subtle. Transient smearing isn't fun either. Linear phase filters are less and less used the more familiar I grow with the preringing. But I don't doubt that they can do good in many circumstances. What I'm fishing for is some clues to evaluate the options.

There's always the option of running technical tests on the ARC and check the resulting impulse time and phase response. Haven't tried.. But if I did, if that even is a good way to measure these things to start with, how much phase lead/lag to expect to be tolerable? How much impulse response smear is tolerable? How does one evaluate these tradeoffs? Feel totally blank and would love any hints and tips in the right directions!


Cheers,

Andreas Nordenstam
Old 16th April 2010
  #25
SAC
Registered User
 

Andreas, for anyone interested, I hope our objections are not interpreted by some to mean that there is no legitimate use for EQ. There are indeed uses -just not where and how far too many are trying to use it!

And if anyone is interested in information regarding how EQ can be legitimately used, we can certainly provide plenty of info on procedures for correctly EQing what can be legitimately EQ'ed.

I don't think anyone is debating that.

What we are objecting to is trying to use the EQ for that which FAR TOO MANY attempt to use it - and that is simply beyond the scope of what it is capable.

Simply put, you can EQ the direct sound from a speaker (and at many points within the signal chain of the direct signal).

But you simply cannot effectively use EQ to remediate anomalies (e.g.: spatial polar lobing/ frequency response comb filtering) introduced by the the summation (superposition) of multiple direct and/or reflected (non-minimum phase) signals.

In other words, you cannot "EQ a room".

But if anyone wants papers and instructions on how to effectively use EQ when and where it is appropriate, PM me, as these are certainly available. And I would certainly not discourage its legitimate (and more limited) use!
Old 16th April 2010
  #26
Lives for gear
 
avare's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAC View Post
What we are objecting to is trying to use the EQ for that which FAR TOO MANY attempt to use it - and that is simply beyond the scope of what it is capable.
+1

Andre
Old 16th April 2010
  #27
Gear Addict
 
Mulmany's Avatar
Room Correction

Okay,

So my livelihood for the past 6 years is in Home Theater installation, and that is what Audyssey was designed for (well actually commercial theaters). I do have to say that it is just not EQ it also addresses phase/timing components.

Now will it make a poor room design sound great? NO!
Will it give a good room that little bit of icing on the cake? Yes!

I've tested one room before and after calibration with Smaart and it was an improvement in both phase and magnitude correlation.

The benefit of running Audyssey is very apparent to the end user - who knows nothing about what a good room should sound like, and is also usually not willing to pay for a truly acoustically sound room. I know the customer reactions when upgrading a system or actually calibrating the exsisting system with Audyssey is quite unlooked for. It usually goes something like "it sounds much clearer and balanced", and I did not tell them that I did anything to the audio system.

Now I will say, in a surround sound system for video you are constrained by the video requirements - audio/video sync to the location on the screen. So in these cases you can't say well we need to move the speakers around to find the optimum placement, the speakers go here behind the screen and thats that.

I think the big difference is the treatment of an array of speakers (surround sound, live sound) and the treatment of a pair of speakers without constraints on placement or room alterations to fix the response. The last is where all the happens when you start talking about fixing it with EQ, cause that should be the last resort.

Would you agree, that if you had a commercial studio that had different engineers coming in all the time and you had exhausted your ability to completely fix the problem with treatment, that you would use EQ to get that extra bit of translation out of the room. Meaning that any engineer could come in mix and leave knowing that it was going to translate great to the outside world without working in the room for 3 months before they "got the sound" of the room.

Submitted humbly.

patrick
Old 17th April 2010
  #28
Lives for gear
 
Rod Gervais's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulmany View Post
Would you agree, that if you had a commercial studio that had different engineers coming in all the time and you had exhausted your ability to completely fix the problem with treatment, that you would use EQ to get that extra bit of translation out of the room. Meaning that any engineer could come in mix and leave knowing that it was going to translate great to the outside world without working in the room for 3 months before they "got the sound" of the room.
Patrick -

none of us have taken the position that PEQ (and let's be clear that we are talking PEQ here - not EQ -EQ will not get the job done) has no value - rather that PEQ is potentially the icing on the cake - after a room is properly treated - and can be used for exactly what you refer to - minor tweaks to clean up the last of what anomalies might exist after room treatments.

However - even in a treated room - one has to handle destructive modal issues with further treatment -PEQ can not deal with a Null.

Respectfully,

Rod
Old 17th April 2010
  #29
Lives for gear
 
jhbrandt's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rod Gervais View Post
none of us have taken the position that PEQ (and let's be clear that we are talking PEQ here - not EQ -EQ will not get the job done) has no value - rather that PEQ is potentially the icing on the cake - after a room is properly treated - and can be used for exactly what you refer to - minor tweaks to clean up the last of what anomalies might exist after room treatments.

However - even in a treated room - one has to handle destructive modal issues with further treatment -PEQ can not deal with a Null.

Respectfully,

Rod
+10

- John
Old 17th April 2010
  #30
Gear Addict
 
Mulmany's Avatar
Ok,

That is what I knew you all were saying.

I think at times it can seem like everyone here bashes Audyssey by lumping it in with ARC. I know that it is what Audyssey calls it, but it is "Speaker Correction"/ "final tweaking" in its actual design and intended use.

I just don't want people to get the impression that Audyssey is just snake oil. It truly is a time saver in calibrating a surround system, since that was the impetus for its creation.

Patrick
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump
Forum Jump