ARC and Monitors vs. expensive monitors

[Bad Mac]

Some monitors have a "Sound". Meaning they may not be completely accurate. They may have a mid scoop, or enhanced low end. For Example Yamaha HS8 is advertised as being completely flat and accurate. As other monitor may not be completely flat. so here is my question. No matter the monitor, if you use the ARC software, this is basically applying EQ to compensate for the room. Therefore it would also compensate for the any inaccuracies in the monitors correct? would it basically make two different brands or models of monitors sound the same? Does it remove the need or benefit from buying FLAT and accurate monitors?

 

Been looking for opinions, feel free to give yours.  I am thinking about buying a expensive pair of monitors but an reluctant wondering if i will see the benefit of it.

[bitflipper]

All self-respecting monitor makers strive for neutrality and full-spectrum response. That's what qualifies them to be called reference monitors. Expensive models do better at that, but there are diminishing returns as you raise your budget. Spending an enormous amount on monitors is truly a waste of money unless you address the real reason speakers lie to you: acoustics.

The primary reason you can't trust your monitors isn't their fault, it's the room. The influence of room acoustics is easily 100x greater than the effect of limitations in the speakers themselves.  Every room has a distinct signature, which means no matter how hard you try, no one else will hear exactly what you hear. If your space has too strong a personality you are doomed to forever chasing the neutrality that's so important for a universal balance. 

This phenomenon cannot be avoided through room EQ, no matter how sophisticated. At best, you can only partially mitigate it, and only in one small area. That's because acoustical anomalies differ in different parts of the room. A peak you measure in one place may be a deep valley just a few inches away. Systems such as ARC try to calculate corrections based on multiple measurements, not a bad idea in itself. However, what that really accomplishes is to dial back the adjustments so that helping one area doesn't make another area way worse.

My advice: buy whatever well-regarded speakers you can comfortably afford - don't mortgage the house - and reserve half your budget for acoustic treatments.

 

[Bad Mac]

22 minutes ago, bitflipper said:

All self-respecting monitor makers strive for neutrality and full-spectrum response. That's what qualifies them to be called reference monitors. Expensive models do better at that, but there are diminishing returns as you raise your budget. Spending an enormous amount on monitors is truly a waste of money unless you address the real reason speakers lie to you: acoustics.

The primary reason you can't trust your monitors isn't their fault, it's the room. The influence of room acoustics is easily 100x greater than the effect of limitations in the speakers themselves.  Every room has a distinct signature, which means no matter how hard you try, no one else will hear exactly what you hear. If your space has too strong a personality you are doomed to forever chasing the neutrality that's so important for a universal balance. 

This phenomenon cannot be avoided through room EQ, no matter how sophisticated. At best, you can only partially mitigate it, and only in one small area. That's because acoustical anomalies differ in different parts of the room. A peak you measure in one place may be a deep valley just a few inches away. Systems such as ARC try to calculate corrections based on multiple measurements, not a bad idea in itself. However, what that really accomplishes is to dial back the adjustments so that helping one area doesn't make another area way worse.

My advice: buy whatever well-regarded speakers you can comfortably afford - don't mortgage the house - and reserve half your budget for acoustic treatments.

 

i am currently researching room treatment. however, i am struggling to get a plan to treat a 10' x 10' square room. Where do i place the panels, which panels do i need, what type of materials. I already have lots of foam panels and bass traps in the room. Not asking you what panels i needs, just in general trying to find those answers. Of course i am not expecting to get it perfect. but i wanting to get it as good as i can. But i am not an acoustic engineer so there are lots of questions about how to do it and what to use.

[Bad Mac]

My thoughts on expensive monitors. They get used for everything in the studio. they are what you are listening thru. i spent $2k on a guitar to record with. i should be able to spend $1k on monitors. And you do get what you pay for. Not saying $400 monitors are bad. I have them and am happy with them. but my mixes are not translating. so i am now looking at room treatment and monitors. like i said i spend thousands and thousands on the gear and software to make the music. i am ok with spending a couple thousand more to be able to spit and polish my music...

[msmcleod]

Just now, BadMac said:

i am currently researching room treatment. however, i am struggling to get a plan to treat a 10' x 10' square room. Where do i place the panels, which panels do i need, what type of materials. I already have lots of foam panels and bass traps in the room. Not asking you what panels i needs, just in general trying to find those answers. Of course i am not expecting to get it perfect. but i wanting to get it as good as i can. But i am not an acoustic engineer so there are lots of questions about how to do it and what to use.

Square rooms are always a nightmare to treat, but they're not impossible.

Bass traps in the corners would be my first recommendation. You should be able to build those yourself - there's plenty of examples if you google it.

Next would be behind you, and maybe behind the monitors depending on how you've got them mounted. 

In the past, I've found a floor to near ceiling book-case filled with books does an excellent job at the back of the room. Not only are they uneven enough to cope with reflections, they're also great at absorbing frequencies.

Lastly would be above you / your desk (e.g. a cloud), if that's needed. 
 

[bitflipper]

1 hour ago, BadMac said:

i am currently researching room treatment. however, i am struggling to get a plan to treat a 10' x 10' square room. Where do i place the panels, which panels do i need, what type of materials. I already have lots of foam panels and bass traps in the room. Not asking you what panels i needs, just in general trying to find those answers. Of course i am not expecting to get it perfect. but i wanting to get it as good as i can. But i am not an acoustic engineer so there are lots of questions about how to do it and what to use.

Sadly, a square room can never be acoustically flattened, only deadened. That's your best strategy: absorption, lots of it, and then artificially un-dampen it with reverb.

But before you trap yourself in a fiberglass coffin, arm yourself with knowledge. There is a lot of free information available online, starting with Ethan Winer's RealTraps website. Ethan sells acoustic treatments, but he's such a great guy that he freely tells you how they work, why they work, and even how to build your own if you can't afford to buy his products.

If that whets your curiosity, grab a copy of the Master Handbook of Acoustics by F. Alton Everest. It's an intimidating tome, but written very clearly so it's quite accessible. Another good one that's actually more targeted to your own situation is Floyd Toole's Sound Reproduction, especially if you're considering adding a subwoofer to your rig.

[Glenn Stanton]

the ARC products use a variety of EQ and timing functions to try to flatten the response for a very specific location in the room. some include options to switch positions, reduce flattening for larger listening, etc. at the end of the day as @bitflipper pointed out the modal response will influence your listening and depending on the modes, may not be achieved solely with an ARC setting. presumably your room has an 8' ceiling and is 10'x10'. so as @msmcleod noted a square (or worse a cube) is hard to treat. that said, low volume listening, speakers with poor LF responses, etc somewhat enjoy the LF boost from such a room. so treating your corners (these are the vertical corners as well as wall-ceiling corners and sometimes wall-floor). foam treatments are generally not going to handle significant mode shifting as well as deep traps, and sometimes, tuned traps as well.

[Glenn Stanton]

you can treat the room with the absorption but also plan on adding some panels on the faces so you're not lost in the anechoic space ? also, scattered absorption equals diffusive so some exposure of walls and ceiling can improve the listening space. angling clouds can help with adjusting response as well.

badmac studio.skp

[Bad Mac]

2 minutes ago, Glenn Stanton said:

you can treat the room with the absorption but also plan on adding some panels on the faces so you're not lost in the anechoic space ? also, scattered absorption equals diffusive so some exposure of walls and ceiling can improve the listening space. angling clouds can help with adjusting response as well.

badmac studio.skp 2.51 MB · 0 downloads

So i do have foam on the walls now. And i am thinking of replacing or adding some better panels. I will post a video of my room, since its hard to describe. Would appreciate any opinion of what to do with it. Again, i understand i can't pefect it. I am looking for improvement and i can afford a few bucks to improve it. Not gonna mortgage the house.

[Bad Mac]

I have even thought about hanging heavy curtains. Like in movie theaters, however I am not sure what the impact would be. I am still trying to learn more about it

 

[Tezza]

Don't forget good headphones and reference tracks. If your in a bad acoustic space or using cheapo monitors (or both!) , having decent headphones and using well mixed, professionally produced commercial reference tracks similar to your own song can really help. Ultimately, you have to get to "know" what your monitoring sound is like.

I had a reasonable studio but now am in a bad acoustic space using KRK Rokit 5's, not ideal. Thankfully, I will be returning to a dedicated room for my studio soon. However, I have 3 sets of headphones to check various things and some good reference tracks so at least what I do sounds ok in the car and the hifi etc. I think of it simplistically as 4 main areas:

BASS

Bass and Kick drums are the most important to get right regardless of what genre your in. You've got to have the groove that can stand on it's own without anything else. To properly hear the bass for mixing purposes, you need big speakers and a well acoustically treated room. If you don't have that, then high quality headphones can suffice. Your better off using these for mixing bass than small speakers or a bad room. If you can't reliably hear it to begin with, then you can't take the boom and flabbiness out of the bass area, it will jump out at you in different ways depending on what you play it back on. Also, listen to the sound quality of the bass on commercial recordings, similar to your song, copy it if you have to. You won't get exactly the same sound but it will put you in the ballpark, you can then tweak it to suit your tastes better. Boom usually sits around 100 to 160hz area, and flabbiness can be dealt with using an envelope shaper, upping the attack and dragging in the release.  Setting a high pass filter to taper off really low stuff if you want...done!

MIDDLE

This is like the "color" of the sound. You might set up a great sound for your piano or guitar on your monitoring system but when played back on other system's, the same tone isn't there any more or it's suddenly more tinny and harsh and prominent or hard to hear, the solution if your in a bad space is again, high quality headphones  until you can get a better space. Boosting the  EQ with a narrow Q and running that across the spectrum will reveal the culprit(s).

TREBLE

This is the high frequencies which might sound great on your monitoring system but leap out at you or disappear when you play back on other systems. Again, the solution, if you are in a bad space is.....good quality headphones. Same as for middle.

There are many plugins to shape the sound, have to research the net but learning how to use the plugins on you tube or other is more important than actually buying them.. I think it is better to prioritize learning over buying.

SPACE

This is the stereo or 5.1 space, where all the instruments are placed, you can get part the way there with headphones but you really need to set this using appropriately spaced monitors in a real room. It doesn't matter so much if the room isn't ideal or the monitors are cheapo but they must be spaced appropriately.

So the solution that might be good for those who do not yet have a dedicated room set up acoustically with decent large speakers is, try to get 6 inch speakers minimum. Make sure they are spaced according to manufacturers directions and you are in the right place to listen to them. Use a bedroom or room with soft furnishings to combat the harshness of the walls, anything is better than nothing. Get 2 sets of headphones, 1 closed back for tracking while recording instruments and vocals  (these don't need to be expensive). The Sennheiser HD 280's and 380's will do the job nicely. Even top quality studio's use these for tracking. Then invest is some decent open back headphones. There are plenty of options out there depending on your budget but these will be instrumental in you being able to monitor check the bass, middle and treble and they will really be shaping your sound.

Then, you are done! Now go for it! 

Use the monitors while creating and then check with the headphones, chuck it on a USB stick and play it back on the Hifi and in the car.

You should be able to get a sound that transfers well while you dream of or make your super studio.   

 

 

 

[msmcleod]

With regard to choice of monitors. if you can, listen to the monitors for a while before choosing them.  I know this is difficult in these times, but if you can get to demo them its worth it.

Also read reviews - I know they're all subjective, but there may be some issues common to all reviewers for a particular product, e.g.:

• What are they like with regard to ear fatigue? ( Yamaha NS10's were notorious for tiring your ears out really quickly )
• Are the monitors more fussy about their placement with regard to the back wall?

[craigb]

10 hours ago, bitflipper said:

All self-respecting monitor makers strive for neutrality and full-spectrum response. That's what qualifies them to be called reference monitors. Expensive models do better at that, but there are diminishing returns as you raise your budget. Spending an enormous amount on monitors is truly a waste of money unless you address the real reason speakers lie to you: acoustics.

The primary reason you can't trust your monitors isn't their fault, it's the room. The influence of room acoustics is easily 100x greater than the effect of limitations in the speakers themselves.  Every room has a distinct signature, which means no matter how hard you try, no one else will hear exactly what you hear. If your space has too strong a personality you are doomed to forever chasing the neutrality that's so important for a universal balance. 

This phenomenon cannot be avoided through room EQ, no matter how sophisticated. At best, you can only partially mitigate it, and only in one small area. That's because acoustical anomalies differ in different parts of the room. A peak you measure in one place may be a deep valley just a few inches away. Systems such as ARC try to calculate corrections based on multiple measurements, not a bad idea in itself. However, what that really accomplishes is to dial back the adjustments so that helping one area doesn't make another area way worse.

My advice: buy whatever well-regarded speakers you can comfortably afford - don't mortgage the house - and reserve half your budget for acoustic treatments.

 

Of course, even if you could get a perfectly flat response, it will always end up being played by others in multitudes of non-flat rooms...

[Bad Mac]

Here is my room. Thought on the foam?

[craigb]

Not bad, but I can still see patches of ceiling and walls... ?

?

[RobertWS]

Somebody's been studying Feng Shui....and then going the opposite way!

[Bruno de Souza Lino]

Your listening position has to be treated symmetrically, otherwise you risk introducing different problems rather than solving them.

As per foam, it's good if your space is only intended for voice over.  They do nothing for low mid and lower frequencies, which are the problem in small rooms 99.9% of the time. If you are a crafty individual, you can make your own bass traps and they will perform about the same as most commercial offerings out there.

You should pay extra attention to the room, as that is the only effect in your toolbox you can't bypass.

[Byron Dickens]

1) the desk needs to be centered and the speakers need to be NOT in the corner. Move it to another wall if you have too.

2) the speakers need to form an equilateral triangle with your head.

3) absorbtion needs to be placed symmetrically, focusing on the first reflection areas.

4) those foam corner "bass traps" are less than completely effective. Even so, they would be better employed filling whole corners floor to ceiling.

 

As others have pointed out, all the money thrown at expensive monitors and room correction software is  wasted  in an untreated or poorly treated room

Things like ARC really only work well in a room that is fairly decent to begin with.

I have OK monitors and ARC myself. The software really does make a difference but the #1 improvement I have made in my mixes is building real bass traps.

[garybrun]

i’ve just ordered the Slate Digital headphones which does away with all of this. :  )

only joking...  but i do look forward to trying them.

 

[Bruno de Souza Lino]

I'd go so far to say that I've never seen any of those people that talk about ARC, Sonarworks and such demonstrate the product in a completely untreated room. I wonder why? Is it because it wouldn't solve the problem? I remember when KRK came up with a similar product and was heavily criticized for it. Maybe because they were honest about it.

Here's the best video that demonstrates the difference acoustic treatment can make.