# OK, I know, I know :)



## EastWest Lurker (Dec 30, 2013)

It is no substitute for proper room treatment, but does it help? I have a lot of students who want to know.

http://www.ikmultimedia.com/products/arc/


----------



## Mike Marino (Dec 30, 2013)

Curious about this as well.


----------



## sluggo (Dec 30, 2013)

I used this product for a while but ultimately just got new monitors. It's a great tool but not something to rely on 100% with mixes. 
Learn your room if it is not tuned precisely. Walk around during mixes and find the spots where bass gets wonky. Also try SampleMagic's Magic AB plug in and reference professional soundtracks etc. Using all of those tools together AND then trying your mixes on other speakers in other rooms will start to yield results.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Dec 30, 2013)

sluggo @ Mon Dec 30 said:


> I used this product for a while but ultimately just got new monitors. It's a great tool but not something to rely on 100% with mixes.
> Learn your room if it is not tuned precisely. Walk around during mixes and find the spots where bass gets wonky. Also try SampleMagic's Magic AB plug in and reference professional soundtracks etc. Using all of those tools together AND then trying your mixes on other speakers in other rooms will start to yield results.



Sluggo, understood, but a lot of these people are pretty new and not really capable of discerning "the spots where bass gets wonky."

So overall, if you say "It's a great tool " then I can safely recommend it to them as something to help them get started with learning how to mix on their monitors in less than ideal rooms?


----------



## EwigWanderer (Dec 30, 2013)

If it is similar and as good as Genelec's DSP metering system, then it's a fantastic. But I think that Genelec might be better. I've used 8250 a few years ago and dsp calibration did wonders. But the Genelec dsp is calibrated to Genelec speakers so IK's system can't be so accurate because it can be used with all monitors out there.


----------



## wst3 (Dec 30, 2013)

I hate sounding like a grump, but I don't recommend either ARC or the Genelec tool to beginners.

The first problem is that most room problems are rooted firmly in the time domain, constructive or destructive interference caused by "inappropriate" arrival times of "bad" reflections. Room dimension problems also fall into this category?

And we do not - yet - have the technology to correct these sorts of problems using filters. We are on the cusp, I think, of being able to predicatively add delayed signals to the mix to try to correct these problems, but we are not there yet.

So what does this mean for a person using ARC?

It means you have to have a really deep understanding of what problems you can correct, and what you can't correct. That seems to me to be a bit beyond the typical new studio owner.

A far better investment of time and energy, it seems to me, would be to get the best monitors you can afford, experiment with placement, and then learn how your room behaves... or more to the point, misbehaves.

There are some folks who really like ARC, but I'd be willing to guess that their rooms are already in pretty good shape.

OK, that's my downer message of the day<G>!


----------



## sluggo (Dec 30, 2013)

Jay, let me clarify because what I meant about wonky bass is really the easiest part and something I wish someone pointed out to me when I was a wee lad cutting my teeth. 

What I meant is simply walk around your room while a track with bass is playing. One will quickly hear the difference in the corners of the room where the bass will explode in volume. Once you can process that, it ill be easier to hear differences in bass in other parts of the room, then with and without the ARC. 
Adjust accordingly and compare to pro recordings.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Dec 30, 2013)

sluggo @ Mon Dec 30 said:


> Jay, let me clarify because what I meant about wonky bass is really the easiest part and something I wish someone pointed out to me when I was a wee lad cutting my teeth.
> 
> What I meant is simply walk around your room while a track with bass is playing. One will quickly hear the difference in the corners of the room where the bass will explode in volume. Once you can process that, it ill be easier to hear differences in bass in other parts of the room, then with and without the ARC.
> Adjust accordingly and compare to pro recordings.



Got it, but it is a simple question. Does this relatively inexpensive purchase help them a fair amount or not?


----------



## Walra48 (Dec 30, 2013)

In a word - yes. If your room is already fairly tuned and treated, ARC will pull things more into focus and get you that last 15-20%. It does not substitute for room treatment and odd/bad room shapes and reflections. I have used it for about 2 years and I can tell you it works. My only complaint is that it must be used as a insert at the end of the master out inserts. When exporting mixes it must be disabled or bypassed. I wish IK Multimedia would find a way to provide auto bypass when exporting. Apart from that, it works very well.


----------



## wst3 (Dec 30, 2013)

EastWest Lurker @ Mon Dec 30 said:


> Got it, but it is a simple question. Does this relatively inexpensive purchase help them a fair amount or not?



My simple answer - probably not. 

If the room is not well behaved - or if the listener does not have reasonably well trained ears and a basic understanding of small space acoustics - it has been my limited experience that it creates more audible anomalies than it resolves.

These tools will get better, but I don't think they are a good fit for someone just starting out.

Ultimately you'll need to talk to your students and help them evaluate whether or not it will be helpful. Wish I could be more helpful!


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Dec 30, 2013)

wst3 @ Mon Dec 30 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Mon Dec 30 said:
> 
> 
> > Got it, but it is a simple question. Does this relatively inexpensive purchase help them a fair amount or not?
> ...



Actually, the comments are very helpful. The consensus seems to be that for newbies with untreated rooms, it is probably not that helpful.


----------



## wst3 (Dec 30, 2013)

always happy to lend you a hand Jay!

I really hate to say anything negative, because much of what we do is subjective.

Defeating safety ground will always get me riled up.

Trying to re-write the laws of physics will sometimes get me too<G>!


----------



## reddognoyz (Dec 30, 2013)

You can go down the rabbits whole with sound treatment, but I would highly recommend looking into doing some treatment to your room before you resort to trying to correct a bad room with software. I can't see how this will correct basic audio nastiness. 

I worked with Aurelex directly when I set up our rooms.i think we spent between 6-8k to set up 4 professional studios. Not perfectly or super schmancy estethically, but very effective.

BUT I also worked with a very experienced chief tech at a large studio in NYC, when there were large studios in NYC, and he had some very practical solutions for sound treating rooms that were inexpensive and pragmatic. I spent a bunch of money on defusiors, but a bookshelf or two full of unequal size books works equally we'll. a well placed couch or oversized chair can go a long way to taming unruly low end. These are the sorts of solutions I would recommend before trying to tune a room with software. Unfortunately I can't point you in the direction of someone who can help you with this, but I'll bet there's someone out there who can help you get a good way towards a better, if not perfect, sounding room.


----------



## EwigWanderer (Dec 30, 2013)

I'm pretty sure you guys know this, but someone who don't the "Mirror"-trick is an easy way to find places to put diffusers on.

Here is a short video about it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9u7k2V4YPw


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Dec 30, 2013)

reddognoyz @ Mon Dec 30 said:


> but a bookshelf or two full of unequal size books works equally we'll. a well placed couch or oversized chair can go a long way to taming unruly low end. .



Well, that is pretty much my room treatment you are describing and I have said that to students. Just was hoping this was helpful too but nobody seems to be thinking it, so later for it..


----------



## Resoded (Dec 31, 2013)

Well, if the options are:

1. Do nothing and work in a completely untreated room with all the problems associated with it.

2. Treat the room, but not good enough, still having problems.

3. Treat the room perfectly.

4. Use the Arc.

Isn't the whole point to begin with that it's impossible for some people to do step 3, and so have the choice between 1, 2 and 4?

I'm just curious, isn't the Arc better than nothing? SOS reviewed Arc 1 and said that the difference was quite big in an untreated room.


----------



## rayinstirling (Dec 31, 2013)

For what it's worth here is what I do.
No room treatment and using the equilateral triangle approach where the satellites are pointing towards my seated position angled slightly upwards as to have the HF drivers directed towards my ears. We're all around 4 feet apart with the speakers far enough forward on my desk to reduce (for my ears anyway) wall and furniture proximity effect.
My sub unit under the desk has had it's output attenuated or adjusted according to playback of many different CD tracks and genre to get a good balance across the frequency range.
Perfect? Of course not but it works for me and I can't see any way to improve other than having a fully treated room. That just isn't going to happen any time soon.


----------



## wst3 (Dec 31, 2013)

I'd truly love to give away all my secrets<G>... but alas I still get the rare studio design gig, and just like a composer, I do need to value what I do.

The problem with your list, Erik, is that there is a step between #2 and #3.

If you read the posts here (and elsewhere) you can treat a room to mitigate all but the trickiest problems (#2 above) and while not perfect it is quite often good enough. And this can be done on a pretty small budget, and without an advanced degree in physics!

You asked:
"Isn't the whole point to begin with that it's impossible for some people to do step 3, and so have the choice between 1, 2 and 4?

I'm just curious, isn't the Arc better than nothing? SOS reviewed Arc 1 and said that the difference was quite big in an untreated room."

ARC might be better than nothing... or it might not. We know nothing about the room that SOS used to test it. And, while I'm sure they tried, you have to figure that the folks at SOS know quite a bit about rooms and how to use them. so they likely helped the process along (e.g. placed the speakers well) without even thinking about it.

A real beginner won't be able to do that, they'll be relying entirely on ARC, and that might work out, but it is just as likely that it won't.

Hence my caution about recommending ARC or similar tools to beginners.

Contrary to popular belief, a perfectly treated room is not a requirement for a great mix. It makes it a LOT easier, but there aren't a lot of rooms where a great mix is not possible.

Similarly, neither a large room nor a high ceiling are required. Some of the early control rooms were horrible by today's standards, and yet great recordings came out of them.

The real trick is to learn how your rooms behaves. Ray's post above is about perfect. Do what you can do, and then learn the room.

If all you can do is optimize loudspeaker and listener placement then do that. If you can add a little absorption, reflection, and diffusion then do that.

And once you have done what you can do with your specific space and budget then learn the room.

Besides saving money, this will give you an opportunity to spend some time listening to the music you love!


----------



## Resoded (Dec 31, 2013)

Thanks for the answer Bill.

Actually, they do describe the room a bit: http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/mar08/a ... diaarc.htm



> Moving to the office — which is a completely untreated acoustic environment with poor speaker placement and more reflective surfaces than a mirror ball — the results were rather more dramatic. As I mentioned earlier, this setup has a tendency to be bass heavy and noticeably lopsided because of the bookshelf at the side of the desk forming a corner, and the imaging isn't too hot because of all the reflections.
> 
> After running the measurement software, the plots revealed the peaks I was hearing, with a much larger peak on the right-hand channel, just as I'd expected. There was also clear evidence of desktop reflections causing response dips in the mid-range, and although the displays are heavily smoothed and not very precise, they certainly hinted at the problems I knew to be present.
> 
> The 'After' curve looked impressively flat by comparison, and listening to the results I have to say I was astonished at what I heard. The boominess had virtually gone, as had the lopsidedness. The mid-range sang with improved clarity and the stereo imaging was noticeably better too. The ARC software hadn't turned these cheap and tired stereo speakers into state-of-the-art mastering monitors, but the results were far beyond what I would have thought possible for those speakers in those positions! It was as if the rear and side walls and table top had been removed (or covered in foam!). To check that this wasn't a fluke, I measured the room again, using different pairs of test positions over a wider listening area. The response charts came out virtually indistinguishable from the first test, and the improvements in monitoring quality were the same.


----------



## wst3 (Dec 31, 2013)

I over-stated... my bad. But from my perspective, that description doesn't tell me a lot. It is a bad room, but how bad really, how big is it, where are the loudspeakers, where is the listener, where are the reflections, etc. ad nauseum.

But that's not fair really - those details would only be of interest to a geek like me.

And I still can't be certain that their knowledge and experience didn't somehow sneak in there - even unbeknownst to them<G>!

I am sorry to sound so skeptical... I just hate to see folks spend their money on something that may not help them.


----------



## ceemusic (Dec 31, 2013)

I split my time in 2 places over the course of a year & don't have or can afford 2 separate studios.
I just load the measurements for each location. Not a replacement for a well treated room but it does help my mixes, without a doubt.

There should be a demo, it's obviously not going to have the same effect in every environment or situation.
As long as one is aware of it's shortcomings it can be a useful tool for many bedroom producers.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Dec 31, 2013)

ceemusic @ Tue Dec 31 said:


> I split my time in 2 places over the course of a year & don't have or can afford 2 separate studios.
> I just load the measurements for each location. Not a replacement for a well treated room but it does help my mixes, without a doubt.
> 
> There should be a demo, it's obviously not going to have the same effect in every environment or situation.
> As long as one is aware of it's shortcomings it can be a useful tool for many bedroom producers.



See, now this is what my guess would have been, but Bill knows his stuff, so now the seed of doubt has been planted in my mind


----------



## ceemusic (Dec 31, 2013)

EastWest Lurker @ Tue Dec 31 said:


> ceemusic @ Tue Dec 31 said:
> 
> 
> > I split my time in 2 places over the course of a year & don't have or can afford 2 separate studios.
> ...



Bottom line are results. I get better mixes using it than without.
YMMV


----------



## chimuelo (Dec 31, 2013)

I prefer saving the thousands and taking dry mono, untreated tracks to the Mastering facility here. 
Using incredible hardware digitally connected, like the AES/EBU Manley stuff makes my crappy SD2 tracks pretty powerful.
Besides you get your choice of 3 x Tape Sat machines, real ones, and the benefits of a huge SSL console in a properly treated room.
A man has to know his limitations.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Dec 31, 2013)

chimuelo @ Tue Dec 31 said:


> I prefer saving the thousands and taking dry mono, untreated tracks to the Mastering facility here.
> Using incredible hardware digitally connected, like the AES/EBU Manley stuff makes my crappy SD2 tracks pretty powerful.
> Besides you get your choice of 3 x Tape Sat machines, real ones, and the benefits of a huge SSL console in a properly treated room.
> A man has to know his limitations.



Jim my friend, what the heck does that have to do with a talented songwriter taking my Logic Pro for Songwriters Level 1 class who just has a Mac, a decent audio interface, a decent mic, and some decent speakers in an untreated room trying to turn out some decent sounding demos that translate well from listening environment to listening environment?


----------



## Diffusor (Dec 31, 2013)

Better use of that money buying ARC is just use it towards some bass traps, and expand as you get more money.


----------



## chimuelo (Jan 1, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Tue Dec 31 said:


> chimuelo @ Tue Dec 31 said:
> 
> 
> > I prefer saving the thousands and taking dry mono, untreated tracks to the Mastering facility here.
> ...



Well, I see things tend to roll over in software and hardware puchasing, and while it might not distract some folks, it does take time away from music, further getting into engineering, room tratments, etc.
My wife has an expensive high maintenance vehicle, she performs and records, and when she needs that 5 gallon Oil Change done, she let's someone who is well focused on that for a living (mechanic) handle that chore.

You can read in many threads here where folks are having great luck doing everything themselves, and their mixes proove that.
Plus the added costs, etc. 
There's guys making millions using Headphones, Logic on a MacBook and an Akai MPK.
That tracking gives them an idea of what they want, but then take the tracks/stems to a mastering facility.
Big Red who scores for Lady GaGa has a really limited rig for his workflow as the content seems to be the focus, and headphones/IEMs for levels are more than sufficient.
Once you get a few large from getting paid and you are getting more successful, upgrading makes ,more sense, but it seems too many guys turn to spend more money if rejected for jobs/bids, and blame thermselves for not having the right room, or hardware/software.
Didn't mean to discourage anyone who is set on spending more money, but at the end of the day, I would never just bring a "rough mix" for someone to judge me by.
Besides, it's easier to blame the Engineer in case of rejection.....

Happy New Year... 0oD


----------

