[Lunatique]

Some of you have seen photos of my studio and know that it has extensive acoustic treatment, and my reference monitors are Klein + Humeel O300D's. I always knew that despite having built my studio from the ground up and having read books on studio design/construction, consulted experts, and really working at achieving the most accurate and neutral sound in my studio, it still had peaks and nulls. So after researching for a while, I finally decided to get the IK Multimedia ARC System, and I'm happy to say it met my expectations. My studio now sounds about as accurate and neutral as I could possibly make it. The awesome thing is that the ARC can be used in any kind of room, and will dramatically improve the sound quality, even if you don't already have any acoustic treatments in place. I won't correct any severe time-domain issues your room might have, but in terms of frequency response and stereo imaging, it really helps, and is especially a blessing for those that can't use acoustic treatment for whatever reasons (spouse approval, limited space, budget). You might think your speakers and your room sounds fine, but until you put it to the test, you're likely wrong (and it always seemed strange that audiophiles spend all that money on gear, but the room is totally untreated and the gears never sound like their real potential). ARC will show you just how skewed your room and speakers actually are and then correct them.
 
There are other products that do similar things like the  KRK Ergo, JBL MSC1, dbx DriverRack, Samson D-1500/D250...etc. I chose the ARC because it's not tied to hardware and it also tests your room in a manner I find most useful. The only caveat is that it is a software plugin, and if you are not running a computer-based audio rig, then you will not be able to use it (unless you want to use a hardware plugin host like the Muse Recpetor or other similar hardware products). For those of you with computer audio rigs, you can host VST plugins in J River Media center (version 14 and up), Media Monkey, Winamp...etc.
 
So anyway, onto my experience with the ARC.

My initial experience with it sucked--the damn thing kept crashing when I tried to save the preset on computer #1. On computer #2, the test tone would just stop making sound for no reason, and I could never get through the whole testing process without it becoming silent at some point. I tried to download updates from IK's website (after registering the product and signing in to my account), and it gave me nothing. I looked in the user's area in downloads, nothing. The download page won't even load. Looked in support area, nothing. And I kept trying until I got fed up and just downloaded a friggin' cracked version, and you know what--it f-cking worked. I hated having to do that, but often I had heard that cracked versions fixed problems with the legit versions, and in this case it was true. Anyway, I paid for my Goddamn copy so I feel no f-cking guilt about this. (And no, you can't just download a cracked version and use it, since it has to use the dedicated testing mic that comes with it, as the software is calibrated to the mic's specific properties.)

So off I went and did some tests. The first couple of presets I saved didn't sound right to me--it was kind of limp and the bass was powerless. I was really disappointed. Then the next day, I did a couple more tests restricting the listening area to just normal head movements my body makes while I'm mixing/monitoring--that means, I didn't tests spots all around the damn chair and where the keyboard and mouse are and just concentrate on the area about the width of my shoulders and about the same front and back of where my head would be. I also adjusted the settings on my monitors (K+H O300D's) to get closer to the test results the ARC showed. This time, it worked really well--the result sounded very neutral and flat.

I had thought my room was already very well treated as I built my studio from the ground up and researched hard on the acoustics, design, treatment, consulted experts, read books...etc. Those of you that have seen photos of my studio know how extensive the treatment is, with superchunk basstraps up the wazoo, all the important reflection points taken care of, good room dimensions, ideal listening position, and so on. But what ARC revealed (and what I had already kind of known when I did my own tests with a sound pressure meter) was that there were spikes and dips and the two speakers did not sound the same (probably due to furniture placement and other factors). I had a big spike at 45Hz, a dip at 60Hz, and a few other smaller spikes and dips in the bass region, which resulted in a bottom heavy but visceral and punchy sound. The problem is, it colored all the material that way. I had a dip at 2Khz, and the treble was hyped, which resulted in a fatiguing and bright sound. Here's ARC's testing results and correction:


After I applied the correction, the bass spike was tamed and the mids filled in and the treble wasn't so hot anymore. I used to think t maybe the "neutral" sound of the O300D's were a bit hotter than what's comfortable to me--that my ears aren't used to hearing really flat frequency range around the area that caused fatigue, but now I know--it was the room making things sound that way, and what I heard wasn't neutral at all. With the correction, all the excessive brightness went away, and everything just sounded smooth and natural. The bass was still authoritative and punchy on material that was mixed that way, and it was smooth and soft on material that was mixed to be smooth and soft. I thinks that's a sign that a sound device is neutral and flat--it reproduced the material faithfully, instead of coloring everything with a similar sonic footprint.

Prior to the correction, I also knew that the phantom center was a bit off due to the way I have the furniture and one side of the wall having a window behind the broadband absorbers. Now withe the correction, the center was dead on and the stereo imaging was very clean and even between the two sides. ARC allows you to turn on time-delay correction and when I tried it, it moved the phantom center almost all the way to the left, so that wasn't going to work. But when I turn it off, everything's just fine.

I spend a lot of time later doing comparisons of correction on and off, and I even used the before/after curve ARC provided to further tweak some very minor spikes and dips that ARC couldn't completely smooth out in the bass region, and the extra EQ made the K+H's sound even smoother and tighter controlled (I used Easy-Q, a free high quality EQ for that, but you can use any high quality EQ--preferably a linear phase EQ such as FabFilter Pro-Q, Voxengo CurveEQ, Redline EQ...etc for minimum phasing and distortion). I think I'm finally hearing how the K+H's are supposed to really sound, after owning them for three years and using them in three different home studios.

For a few hundred bucks, I really think the ARC is worth it. It has confirmed my suspicions about the deficiencies of my already well-treated room, and it has redefined for me what neutral and flat and smooth really means. It even changed my opinion about my headphone collection. I used to use the K+H's as some kind of benchmark for accuracy to judge my various headphones, but now I realize I had been unfair to some of them when they were actually much more neutral and accurate than I thought they were (such as the HD650)., and certain ones are actually more skewed than I thought they were (such as the Denon D7000).

I also did a preset for my smaller multimedia speakers/sub, which I often use when I'm not doing critical work--like just watching a movie or something, and it worked really well. All the muddiness was gone, and the sound opened up and become much more clear.

So there you have it. I spent the money and I was ready to be disappointed, since I can be a skeptic just like everyone else here, and I'm glad I wasn't disappointed. You can point and laugh and say "bull" and I really couldn't care less, because I took action and found out for myself if it worked or not, and you just have to either go on saying it's all bull without having actually tested it yourself, or you try it and see how it will transform your room and speakers. If you have tried it and didn't like the result, I highly recommend you do the test again but don't follow the diagrams in the manual. Limit the testing spots to just the area within your body's width and a head front/back of your listening position, because when you are doing critical monitoring, that's the area you'll be restricting yourself to when you're doing critical work anyway--that sweet spot. Don't test a large area all over your big console mixer or the width of a sofa, since the result would be a compromise and won't be very good.

 

[9pintube]

GOOD FOR YOU! I bet it produces some great recorded music and more importantly GREAT TIMES for YOU.........I can't remember your photos completely, but did you end up using any "Tube Traps" or mainly wall acoustic foam (for lack of a better word)... My Room took eight tube traps, 12". 10"and 6"  and some corner Bass Traps added to the acoustic wall foam! You are right,  many A-philes' forget the room, but that's why many use headphones, Right.........Happy Listening.

 

[Lunatique]

I used all broadband absorbers/traps. They're all glassfiber panels with the same rating as Owens Corning 703 and I have them at 4" thick and 6" inches away from the walls. The basstraps are superchunks lining the ceiling/wall and wall/wall corners of the entire studio, plus one giant basstrap as the door of the storage room. The ceiling cloud is mounted on a movable rail system so if I move my listening position it could be adjusted. The left and right first reflection points are mounted on wooden stands so they also can be moved easily. You can see photos here:
http://www.ethereality.info/ethereality_website/about_me/images/workspace/cloud_pagoda/cloud_pagoda-studio.htm
 
I think the fact that my room is of pretty ideal dimensions, with ideal listening position, and extensively treated is actually a powerful testament to how well the ARC works. Some people think acoustic treatment is all they need when in fact, they are NOT enough. ARC will tune up even a very well treated room like mine, and the difference between the before and after correction is NOT subtle.

 

[KnightK]

Whoah! That is one sweeeet room you got there!

 

[Lunatique]

Thanks!
 
Now it's even sweeter, since ARC corrected the remaining problems in my studio, and I can now be sure I'm getting the most accurate and neutral sound possible. One of the best side-effects of using ARC is you get peace of mind, confident that your rig sounds pristine and giving you exactly what you paid for, instead of the sound of a room messing it up.

 

[SP Wild]

I too have cottoned hard onto the importance of EQ, and it is great to hear that professionals are finding real results with EQ.  As a traditional purist, it surprised me how little EQ degrades the digital signal and the benefits of tonal accuracy or customised tonality far outweighs any signal deterioration, if audible at all.
 
Its also good to know that the HD650 is more tonally accurate than most give them credit for.  I find the whole purpose for my eq'ing was to try to capture the midrange purity (largely determined by upperbass and lower treble integration to midrange) of the HD650s.
 
So, can I ask which can comes closest to your neutral reference?

 

[Lunatique]

Quote:

I too have cottoned hard onto the importance of EQ, and it is great to hear that professionals are finding real results with EQ.  As a traditional purist, it surprised me how little EQ degrades the digital signal and the benefits of tonal accuracy or customised tonality far outweighs any signal deterioration, if audible at all.
 
Its also good to know that the HD650 is more tonally accurate than most give them credit for.  I find the whole purpose for my eq'ing was to try to capture the midrange purity (largely determined by upperbass and lower treble integration to midrange) of the HD650s.
 
So, can I ask which can comes closest to your neutral reference?

If you want totally uncolored and pristine EQ, you must use linear phase EQ. They are professional EQ's guaranteed to be transparent and not f-ck up the sound like normal EQ does. They would cost you a couple hundred dollars or so, but that's the price high-quality pro quality plugin effects usually go for.
 
As for the HD650, I have always been a fan of the classic Sennheiser sound (HD555, 580, 600, 650), which I would describe as smooth and inoffensive, while neutral enough within the limits of its frequency extensions in either direction. They never had enough sub-bass extension though, and the bass is a bit shy of being totally full and punchy. I think "somewhat polite but firm" is a good way to describe the bass presence. It's really the main thing I wish the Sennheisers did better--to be more visceral in the bass region. The mids are quite liquid and smooth, and the treble is never harsh or fatiguing, though just a tiny, tiny tad warmer than neutral.
 
In terms of best neutrality and accuracy, that's a tough one, since if any one of them achieved it, I wouldn't still be looking for my "one headphone to rule them all." The Sennheiser comes closer but because of its bass, it doesn't quite make it. The M50 has substantial bass presence and extension, though it's not as pristine as could be. The mids on the M50 is slightly lush and warm. The treble is a little metallic, and although it is usually very inoffensive and non-fatiguing, on material that is very bright and full of sibilance, the M50 actually renders the sibilance a little sharper than the HD650 (which is not what you'd think since the M50's overall sound is warmer than the HD650). The D7000 has great bass that's punchy and deep and full, but it has recessed mids and the treble is too sharp. It is very smooth and high-resolution though, but it is definitely a flawed beauty. If I could only keep one can out of the three, it would be extremely hard to choose between the HD650 and the M50. For a while I was trying so hard to find a pair of headphones that sounded like the two got married and had a kid--basically  grafting the M50's bass onto the HD650. I had hoped the D7000 would be it, but nope.
 
On my recent trip, I listened to a bunch of high-end headphones--DX1000, W1000X, HD800, K701, Alessandro Pro, ES-10, D5000...etc, and none fit the profile. And then I heard the 007MKII, and it literally changed the way I think and feel about audio and music forever. That's not hyperbole, if you consider the fact that live and breath music as a composer, sound designer, musician, and extremely passionate life-long music lover. Music to me is the only real magic that exists in this world. Even in the darkest hours in my lifetime, when it felt like my entire world was about to crash down in a flaming mess, music was my sanctuary and the anchor of my soul. Some of my most vivid memories involves listening to music--whether on my bike as a teenager with a Walkman, or as an adult listening to music while driving. They have distinct imprints in my memory--the song I was listening to, the condition of the weather, the way the scenery looked, the way I felt. In the past, when I heard extremely compelling audio quality, I get similar kind of reactions. The 007MKII is the most recent addition to those treasured memories. It made me realize that my pursuit of the most neutral and accurate sound, as sensible and logical as may be, was perhaps too narrow-minded and utilitarian. The 007MKII was not perfectly neutral, but omigod it is so gorgeous. The treble is darker than neutral, but it's the most detailed, textured, natural, and realistic treble I have ever heard, even considering that it's darker than neutral. The bass was full bodied and rich, able to compete with the D7000, even if it doesn't extend as far, the 007MKII's bass doesn't seem to know its own limits--its full and punchy anyway, matching the D7000 almost pound for pound. The mids are to die for, with detail, separation, and the most natural and textured sound I have ever heard. It's not simply about frequency response, but also the transients, imaging, separation, layers, texture...etc. The 007MKII just destroys every single headphone I have ever heard in my life--totally different league, and rightly so if you consider its hefty price tag (about $4,000 standard with an average amp). It was then I realized total neutrality may not be the most beautiful sound after all, which is what I'm trying to tell you in regards to your pursuit of the most accurate and neutral sound.
 
I'm waiting for my LCD2, and my plan is that even if it's every bit as neutral, accurate, and amazing as everyone say it is, if it does not move me in the same beautifully subjective way that the 007MKII did, I will still get the 007MKII, just for that gorgeous sound.

 

[SP Wild]

Hey, I think you and I are after similar experiences in music! 
 
I am absolutely looking forward to your evaluation of the LCD2s.  When I briefly auditioned the O2s I was not quite aware of the concept of driver agility and transients - this is something owning the D7000s allowed me to understand comprehensively.  RRP of the factory O2 setup is $9990 in Australia - hence I didn't really go too deep into analysis in my brief audition as it was beyond my budget. 
 
Heres to the best in your pursuit of musical enjoyment.

 

[mrspeakers]

First, Lunatique, bravo on your room.  I'm an audio engineer, and a really lame musician (though I have fun), and I have to say I freaking LOVED that room.  I'm totally into LED's right now, and have built out a home theatre, which I've just updated to include a new phone rig.  

When I am done with the acoustics, I'll take a few photos, though you've totally set the art-bar above me.  
 
On the technical side, while you've been looking at frequency domain correction, there is another approach that I think is just to a whole other-level; time domain correction.  The beauty of TDC is that it's really more effective at improving the integrity of the waveform at key points in the room, and through a time-domain digital correction not only flattens the frequency response (way better than analog filters) but also can deal with standing wave and other problems.  While it doesn't solve world hunger, it makes a major difference.
 
You obviously are REALLY into this, so if you're curious, check this article out...
 
http://www.hifizine.com/2010/12/sound-correction-in-the-frequency-and-time-domain/

 

[Lunatique]

That looks very interesting. I always thought that time-domain corrections weren't possible, but I suppose in theory it is if it's just a matter of measuring the impulse response of the room and then use the result to calculate how much delay to apply to the signal across various frequency intervals and channels. I wonder how well Audiolense would perform against the ARC System I use now. I'll have to give the demo a spin when I have time and check it out for myself. Thanks for link!
 
Thank you for the kind words, and definitely post phtos of your room when you're done with it.

 

[googleborg]

damn that room looks like nirvana, great stuff!

 

[mrspeakers]

Hahahahah!!!!  Check this out, your ARC *IS* using time-domain correction to smooth the frequency response.  I didn't realize they licensed from Audyssey.  I love Audyssey technology, it's the only EQ I have ever heard that really sounds fantastic...
 
http://www.audyssey.com/solutions/proaudio/studios.html
 

 

[Lunatique]

I always took the time domain part of the ARC product description with a grain of salt because I have a hard time believing anything can be that sophisticated, but maybe I need to be less cynical? Since all the first reflection points in my studio are covered with broadband absorbers, I probably don't have much time-domain problems to begin with. But it's good to know that I probably don't need to spend time trying out the Audiolense demo since what I'm using is already doing its job very well.

 

[wind016]

Quote:

Music to me is the only real magic that exists in this world. Even in the darkest hours in my lifetime, when it felt like my entire world was about to crash down in a flaming mess, music was my sanctuary and the anchor of my soul. Some of my most vivid memories involves listening to music--whether on my bike as a teenager with a Walkman, or as an adult listening to music while driving. They have distinct imprints in my memory--the song I was listening to, the condition of the weather, the way the scenery looked, the way I felt. In the past, when I heard extremely compelling audio quality, I get similar kind of reactions. The 007MKII is the most recent addition to those treasured memories. It made me realize that my pursuit of the most neutral and accurate sound, as sensible and logical as may be, was perhaps too narrow-minded and utilitarian. The 007MKII was not perfectly neutral, but omigod it is so gorgeous. The treble is darker than neutral, but it's the most detailed, textured, natural, and realistic treble I have ever heard, even considering that it's darker than neutral. The bass was full bodied and rich, able to compete with the D7000, even if it doesn't extend as far, the 007MKII's bass doesn't seem to know its own limits--its full and punchy anyway, matching the D7000 almost pound for pound. The mids are to die for, with detail, separation, and the most natural and textured sound I have ever heard. It's not simply about frequency response, but also the transients, imaging, separation, layers, texture...etc. The 007MKII just destroys every single headphone I have ever heard in my life--totally different league, and rightly so if you consider its hefty price tag (about $4,000 standard with an average amp). It was then I realized total neutrality may not be the most beautiful sound after all, which is what I'm trying to tell you in regards to your pursuit of the most accurate and neutral sound.

Best post ever and I empathize with very similar memories. I took a lot of risks in college to try to get my band going, but eventually ended up in business. A part of me still misses music production greatly. That studio you have is probably the most amazing room I have ever seen XD
 
Anyways, you made me seriously consider trying some Stax as I've heard mid range on Stax are wonderful.
 
Btw, what linear phase equalizers do you use?

 

[Lunatique]

Quote:

 
Best post ever and I empathize with very similar memories. I took a lot of risks in college to try to get my band going, but eventually ended up in business. A part of me still misses music production greatly. That studio you have is probably the most amazing room I have ever seen XD
 
Anyways, you made me seriously consider trying some Stax as I've heard mid range on Stax are wonderful.
 
Btw, what linear phase equalizers do you use?

Thank you for the kind words. I used to get a lot of people telling me that I need to get out more often, but once they have been to my place, they totally understand why I prefer to stay in.

 
As much as I enjoy the Stax, I listen to the LCD-2 a lot more. It's just so creamy and fills all the nooks and crannies in the frequency range like no other headphone I've ever heard. It's also got a sense of solid sonic gravity that the Stax doesn't have (which is one of the main characteristics of electrostatic headphones).
 
It doesn't matter what linear phase EQ you use, as long as you like its features. Most EQ's (of the same type--linear phase, parametric, graphic...etc) more or less sound identical until they start to include specific coloring features that makes them sound like specific hardware gear (such as emulations of vintage or famous hardware EQ). When doing audio work I just use the one that comes with Sonar X1 Producer Edition:
http://www.cakewalk.com/Products/SONAR/X1-Producer/about.aspx/Mastering-Music-in-SONAR-X1-Producer
 
For EQ'ing headphones and my monitors, I just use a parametric EQ since linear phase EQ's don't allow very narrow Q bandwidth, and I need them since I get pretty surgical about the exact frequency to cut/boost.