Please don’t. REW and measuring rooms requires extensive knowledge in acoustics. If he does create a video you’ll only learn the software itself. You need a type 1 sound measurement microphone to have measurements of any accuracy. There are plenty of existing online tutorials as well. As much as I love my guy in the video, he’s not an acoustician.
It’d be cool to see one of these room correction reviews that includes an eq sweep to see results after correction is applied. It’d also tell you what moves worked and where the room still has problems. More info the better, these companies seem to skip this part. Always need to test after making corrections. Thanks for the videos! ❤
Ye I thought about that too. You can do it in 3rd party software, but you would think if they were confident in their own products results, they would let you see how well it works!
Yes, this was my immediate reaction. A good S/PDIF input would have been easier to implement than the ADC stage. This seems to me to be a pretty significant oversight.
The one thing missing is subwoofer correction, specifically phase aligning the subwoofer with the monitors. I don't know why this overlooked in products like this because proper phase alignment between a sub and the monitors is equally important.
Definitely important. The Trinnov unit I use can do amazingly precise subwoofer alignment, but there's really nothing at the price-point of ARC or Sonarworks that covers subs.
You should check out the Trinnov Nova!! Just got it set up in my studio this week and it’s mind blowing! The thing I love most is that it handles phase. Great review as usual!
@@thomasbroker69 DOES it? Do we have confirmation on that? I know the tech is by no means new and has existed on consumer entertainment system receivers now for a very long time... But, if we got confirmation on that, that would be pretty important to know.
It seems really nice I just don't like the idea of having nice converters on my interface and then bypassing those with the Nova. The Nova's only doing what it's supposed to, but I feel like there's a loss in investment. (Same would be true for ARC.)
I'm still really happy with my good old KRK Ergo - digital input and functions as a monitor controller so that's one less box on the desk. Very similar concept but only operates on the low end (
The only issue with changing the mic from horizontal to vertical is that these type of omni mic have slightly diferant frequemcy responce at 0 deg vs 180 deg, and often come with 2 freq responce charts or two calibration files seperatly for both positions because of it. It's minor, and if you have no way to hold the mic still at higher spots, is probably better than not doing it. However, if someone want really super acurate results, this could throw the measurements off by a few tenths of a DB in places possibly.
This device is great if you have an analog mixer conected directly to your monitors so you can have the same correction you get when using the Daw output for instance.
Your channel is the best. Others who claim they are Pro, even businesses who do this for a living (allegedly), have their bottom-end boosted way too much for male voice, as if everyone out here in LALA Land has 6x9 triax car speakers in no cabinet, and worse, quite often. Thanks !!!
As an visual graphics designer I'm a bit OCD about colors so every time I see Vytse's nails I feel like he should paint them in his studio's colors (white and red) 😂
Good review. I've been saying for a while that someone needs to make a hardware unit at this end of the market for those of us who can't afford a Trinnov or don't want to / can't afford to switch out our speakers for Neumanns, Genelecs or such like. I've been using SoundID Reference in my non-ideal room and it's been a revelation. I'm really tempted by this box as it will allow me to correct for external sources (vinyl, synths etc) without needing to run the DAW or hijack software (another cost). It would be improved with a simple hardware remote to allow for switching speaker profiles without the software and I'd love to see a version with two outputs that can switch profiles when you switch speakers - I do use that feature in Sonarworks.
6 месяцев назад
Have you checked about Neumann KH750 subwoofer + room correction system? Since I have this setup (with Focal ST TWIN as the satellite speakers) I've been really happy about this whole setup.
You know there's monitor FX inserts in Reaper, right? That's where my room correction goes and it's always on by default, independent of the project I'm running. Since it comes after the master buss there's no chance of accidentally rendering down a mix with the room correction applied to it.
I use ARC 3 on Mac and route all system audio via SoundSource with the ARC plugin inserted on that. No risk of baking room-corrected signal into an export plus all system sound is corrected, not just DAW. Also vs this unit there's one less layer of a/d/a.
I would stay on the chair in front of your desk as if you were mixing when you do the measurements. Humans are also absorbers, so that is the real room situation when we are mixing. To be empty space in front of the speakers with only the microphone will miss 1 important factor/absorber. You!
I got a passive monitor switcher for my setup, and just plugged it in reverse. 3 sources in, 1 source out. One is direct out from my interface, the other is from my DIRAC hardware box doing room/monitor correction, and the third can be whatever, like a separate input source. It's nice to be able to choose between raw and corrected signals with a rotary switch!
@@fantaztikbeatz it does basically the same thing as the others on the market. It's a lot more "hardcore" in the way it doesn't provide a target curve, and asks you to define correction parameters. My intensions were to simply have it be a "neutral reference" that I could switch to. I already have a permanent EQ going on in a DSP that does crossover and basic correction for my whole system. It's very subtle, very wide curves just to give the frequency response a better overall shape, and dipping down the worst peak in the lows. I have Sonarworks also, which I mostly use for my headphones.
@@MFKitten ok cool I just recently found out about them like 1 days before ARC came out. I'm trying to see which is the best overall. I'm coming from Sonarworks and I use Slate Digital VSX for my headphone mixes. VsX is the real deal.
@@fantaztikbeatz I don't think you need to overthink the room correction company too much. Look at which solution suits your workflow, rather than stressing out about which one corrects betterer. Before this I was just making measurements myself and making my own custom EQ curves. It's all the same basic idea. I like the idea of having the baseline correction being permanent with hardware, so I can use software solutions to change target curves and atuff
I'm SOO glad there's a competitor to Sound ID! There's a huge flaw with how it handles top end in any other mode than normal in higher resolutions than 44.1k. When I called their support they basically shrugged their shoulders and said so what, you can't hear that high anyway. This is not true as the only reason I noticed is because i heard some differance and went looking for what it was doing with ddmf. The fact there is another option now is great for two reasons. Firstly I can change to using something else, but also it might kick Sonarworks up the butt into fixing their program properly! ❤❤❤
I use ARC 3 in my treated mixing room and I found it rectified a couple of areas which couldn't be fixed with treatment. The real surprise was that my stereo image which was already very good got even better with ARC 3 as it does do some phase alignment. Now I'm hoping that IK M are offering an crossgrade because having the external box is a game changer for me. 😎
@Cr3pit0 I feel you. Especially if it's not gonna make a major difference that would be money wasted. Hopefully someone will do a comparison between the two.
Concerning the AD/DA conversion I will quote someone: "I’m a recording/mastering engineer of 25 years and have studied & teach digital audio processing academically. Processing multiple times with high quality gear isn’t that bad IMO. The first time it’s processed with an AD/DA conversion is where most of the change/degradation is going to occur (assuming sample rates and bit depth are consistent through each additional AD/DA conversion). The sample rate is going to constrain the audio in the first conversion, removing any frequencies above 1/2 of the sample rate (see Nyquist theorem.) With virtually all modern gear, those are going to be out of the range of human hearing. We started out at sample rates of 44.1k, so maximum frequency it could capture was 22.05kHz. These days, a lot of gear is sampling at 96k and higher. You would think that 44.1k is sufficient because human hearing is 20hz to 20k, but the conversion process has to use really steep low pass filters to remove anything above 1/2 sample rate in order to not geek the converters. The steep LPF’s can introduce phase and distortion in frequencies we are capable of hearing, hence the move to higher sample rates in order to get the issues way out of the audible frequency range. The other is the bit depth - virtually everything is 24 bit fixed point these days, which sets the dynamic range. Some processors are operating at 32 or even 48 but floating point internally - which is great from an internal processing standpoint, but it doesn’t make much of a difference from a bypass standpoint. The A to D converter is still operating at 24 bit. I’m of the opinion that several 96k/24 bit AD and DA conversions in a row aren’t going to make much difference based on practical experience. There are definitely some cork sniffers that will tell you otherwise. These are usually the same guys that will try to sell you oxygen free cables for their superior jitter characteristics (or some other voodoo physics based product.) The last 20 years have been a huge change. In 2001, we had just gotten to the first pretty decent 48k/24bit converters and 96k was being used in some situations where processing could support it,but things were very expensive. Since then, things have become miniaturized - which allows them to be used in pedals - and have become much cheaper. Early on, some older digital units were running at 32k. I can’t remember exactly but things like the Spx 90 and Alesia quadraverb were in this era. With that sample rate, 16k would be the highest sampled frequency and you’d have some distortion, but in those cases it imparted a sound that people found pleasing." So basically, your room will never, ever be so good, that it's not worth going through an additional conversion to correct it. I don't care what room you're in.
@@alexbreyer6921My monitors have included room correction. Of course room correction makes sense. My comment points out how AD/DA conversion really isn't a big factor anymore.
@@akagerhard I see. Yhe comments from the cork sniffers seem to shoot this down as possibly good DA. I say if you like your speakers and you trust room correction, how bad would the conversion have to be for you to be making terrible mixes? But something this affordable they can't imagine being as good as a high end converter.
@@alexbreyer6921Top class AD/DA conversion doesn't need to be expensive. In fact, in terms of DACs specifically the very budgetfriendly Topping hardware is smoking the competition for quite some while now. But also in terms of ADCs the price is not determining quality. For example the Topping E2x2 Audio Interface was tested in a review from Amir, Founder of Audio Science Review. The Topping interface's ADC performed better than RMEs Babyface Pro FS while only costing a fourth of the price. Still, my interface is from RME (it's older). However, in the current situation the only rational reason to invest in big expensive brands is for support, updates and possibly longevity, not for performance. This time, I will save my comment. If it gets deleted again, I will simply copy and paste it.
@@alexbreyer6921 Top class AD/DA conversion doesn't need to be expensive. In fact, in terms of DACs specifically the very budgetfriendly Topping hardware is smoking the competition for quite some while now. But also in terms of ADCs the price is not determining quality. For example the Topping E2x2 Audio Interface was tested in a review from Amir, Founder of Audio Science Review. The Topping interface's ADC performed better than RMEs Babyface Pro FS.
Waited on your review you are the only RU-vidr I trust,I spent 10k on plugins and I only used 4 $400 worth I wished I would have found your channel in the beginning
@fantaztikbeatz Nah, be careful with everyone recommending products. No influencer can ever know that "You need this product!!!" unless they literally know your use case. Make sure you understand your own needs, then you can make your own informed decision on whether or not you need something instead of letting hype fool you.
Its nearly the Same routine like you do with the Neumann DSP Monitors. Even the software has some similarities. Neumann said for the reason that this Mic is an omnidirectional you have to point it upwards everytime an not to point it to the speakers. Looks like Frauenhofer work not only with neumann. Thats great. 🙂
OMG an ikMultimedia review!!!?!?!?!? I still can't believe they haven't sent you some MTM monitors. I actually just purchased a second set for my new studio!
I'm a huge fan of mtm ! Just amazing for the price tag and performances ! Of course I kinda like my bigger Adams (s3h) or focal (love those sm9 to death) but those mtm are blowin' me away anytime I use them.
I'm using Sonarworks' Reference for years but this hardware thing is what I actually need. No systemwide software to install or plugins that you forget to disable for exporting your final project and start again. Only thing I miss: In version 2 it should have a headphone output that is calibrated with a second profile but I think that's harder to to because it's not that easy to measure a headphone.
I'm finding that product a bit critical to be honest... First of I'm a fan of ARC and am using ARC3 at the moment. But the need for a hardware unit just to hear the correction outside of the DAW is just stupid. That would be easily and cheaper solved with proper software development. If ARC wouldn't only be a plugin but also a Standalone Software to be inserted before the System Output the problem that IK created themselves would not be a problem at all. There is a program for Mac users called SoundSource (which costs around 40-50 bucks) that will simply let you put plugins before your output or input devices (also great for getting nerdy insights while listening to music). So no need to turn the plugin of unless you're switching to headphones. But that is also just one click with SoundSource. And Windows will also have a lot of options for this. Also pretty much all modern interfaces, also the cheap ones have almost no coloration and are super clean. This just sounds like IK trying to make more money and letting the customer pay more for their development errors.
There is one thing I don't understand. This microphone measures the frequencies of the room but does it take into account the fact that the engineer is in the room?
The best preamp to use for room correction mics is the Slate VMS-1. The VMS-1 is a linear preamp meaning it has zero co,lor. Its the most transparent mic preamp made. This way ARC does its job with no color from the pre-amp.
Wytse, I'm really curious what your big speakers look like on the ARC analysis graph. It'd be fun just to see. You could just do the 7-point measurement and measure both with and without your usual room correction and see what ARC comes up with. I've been using this software for years and recently I had my setup in a very odd place that had some extreme nodes. The ARC analysis told me a lot.
Thankyou for another great video! I just ordered the arc studio, i have sonarworks but i seem to have issues with it, i also use vsx headphones and use both for my mixing/checking. 👍🏻
This is gonna be a bit of a random comment, but maybe someone will find it useful. But OHMage mismatches, etc are also kinda significant. Also, ground loop and interference issues (with say, bad wiring, "current dense" equipment, etc). Like I recently got me some 32bit 384khz DACs with some IEMs, and while they technically are super good (though cheap), they have some serious issues depending on configurations. So the one I got for my brother, infuriated him, coz he has one of those really hi spec laptops (super dense components, but not necessarily the best designed), and there are some wiring issues regarding the electricity in the building. What he did then (pro tip), is take a cheap ADSL splitter with two transformers, did some basic modification, like soldering some wires, and now that ADSL splitter acts as a sort of signal cleaner (and probably added impedance, i dunno) and the 32bit 384khz sounds really really good now. It had serious popping, crackling, etc noise issues. Though that can also be affected by buffering, OS power management, etc issues. And it applies to microphones and such too. Anyway, so that's like a $9 DAC/ADC and a $15 ADSL splitter (that wasn't being used, and/or broken, sort of)...for, well, a massive, almost unbelievable audio upgrade, while also addressing some potentially serious obscure issues (depending on your setups). And have a good day.
Please show some of your room treatment and the reasons behind it, now that you have multiple camera angles. ;). I guess that's where it goes wrong for most people in the first place.
BTW you don’t need to use the external box, it’s optional, you can use the software correction or the hardware box correction with the same analysis file.
Well you certainly will have some diffrences comparing horizontal and vertical messurment placements even for omnidirectional. I think especially in the high end (where mics anyways are not all that super precise) like from 4khz oneards ofren. Low end does not matter so much. Thats why you often have verticla and horizontal correction files. You are also able to messure in an angle soemtines thays beneficial but overall the best way is to just keep your microphone position constant. In your case anyways at the end i am not sure if it rly has thay much influence anyways becayse you dont do that all that super rigerous but year vertical and horizontal can sometimes have 2+ db diffrence so it adds ontop of the error. (Purely objectivly again practically its arguably not that important afterall)
Nice video. I was thinking buying Sonarworks, but what you said, it’s a plugin. I’m using Studio One 6.5 Pro, so I have to enable the listen bus., to prevent printing the correction to the mix. So with this kit, I don’t have to worry about it.
Those measurement mics are omni directional, but not really. Read up on free-field vs diffuse-field measurements. There is quite a bit difference in the hi freq measurement results between the two approaches.
I'm pretty sure you can actually run Sonarworks on the Neuman interface, which might be an even more interesting option. How about doing a video on that?
I've used Sonarworks for a long time, and I am super happy with that (Cubase user, so can plonk it on the controll-room and never have troubles bouncing with plugin on) - however, a solution that has no latency feels interesting to me. You've done a Sonarworks video back in the day, how do you feel this compares? And thanks for all the informative and entertaining videos. Much love
Who told you that this has no latency? I think it doesn't matter if it is between your audio interface and monitors, or inside the computer itself, processing time is the same, it may be the opposite is true because now you have extra cables and device which lengthen the way of the signal to go from one place to another + the processing time. But feel free to fix me if I'm wrong.
LOL, electricity travels at 3 000 000 meters per second through the cable. You'd need cables that are so long that signal loss would destroy your signal way before latency becomes an issue. The box doesn't do anything complicated, it's extremely unlikely that it adds more than a couple of ms in latency (This is usually marketed as is "no latency" because if you can't confidently tell how much of the measured latency is caused by the device and the measurement tools/method itself because of margins of error, then marketers will interpret that as the product being perfect. :) ) Edit: Fixed speed of electricity missed a zero.
I always though that by default a mic is an 8 figure (?), just because the capsule has 2 sides. Anyway expect some degree of coloration when tilting the mic.
Don't know why you're going on about forgetting to insert or un-insert a room correction plugin, you're using Reaper dude, just put it on the monitoring buss! If you have an interface with multiple outs and different sets of monitors you could even use multiple instances of room correction for each set and use the plugin pin connectors in reaper to only route the correction to the appropriate monitors.
There's an important problem not mentioned. If there's separate correction on each side, then the placement of the mic is crucial. If your room is symmetrical, but the measurements aren't you'll be getting some very weird differences between L&R, especially if there's any kind of time correction like Sonar Works. If your room isn't, you may not hear the problem clearly, but it will still be there. I think correcting headphones with EQ is viable, but rooms can only be corrected physically. In my experience correcting with EQ is either different but equal or worse, never better. There can be some small "icing" added, but it needs to be done by someone experienced who knows they can only make a few minimal changes, rather than try to fix anything fundamental.
Hi Wytse, have you ever heard of the KRK Ergo system? It was basically exactly this, but then with some extra features that were really well thought out, like an SPDIF input to bypass abother stage of conversion. Sadly they stopped selling these units after a rather short period. Never understood why, because it seems like a lot of people have interest in a hardware system like this and it always seemed MUCH superior to the soundID software route....
Great video. Yes would love to see Room EQ Wizard video. I tried sonarwork. Something with the phase drove me nuts. This would be much better Correct!! As its just a curve. Thanks Man! Be safe......
At 14:22 you describe every issue I have had with Windows-based SonarWorks Systemwide failures....after many years of back and forth with their dev team, they just can't get a systemwide ASIO system to function correctly.....
Really solves the issue of getting used to how your studio sounds. Can just stream music on my pc without having to drag it into my DAW. Also considering getting one for the HiFi in the lounge 🤔
The ARC Studio suffers from the same issue as most hardware based correction solutions. It can only be used on a SINGLE monitor set! There is no way to, conveniently, switch between different monitors. On software based solutions, you can load different profiles for your monitors and easily switch between them. Cubase Pro/Nuendo (and the latest WaveLab) users need not worry about this at all. Just insert different instances of the plugins (wirh different profiles) in the Control Room, and you'll have the correct profile applied when you switch monitors, automatically. This is why I find hardware correction solutions (and hardware monitor controllers) useless. They cause more problems for my workflow, than they solve. What I'd love to see is a dedicated hardware controller for the Control Room. But I guess that's for another video. 😉
please I wanted to ask could you provide the Frequency Response calibration file for The Arc Mic so I could use it with Sonarworks Reference ID software
14:09 Having room correction applied on a mix will not be a thing to REAPER thanks to MonitorFX (an FX chain which works at REAPER level, for all projects, higher level than the master, so not in the render chain).
And yup, you're wrong about measurement mics. They are mostly omnidirectional but the shape of the microphone still affects the highs. A measure pointing toward the speaker is a direct field measurement. A measure pointing up is a diffuse field measurement. You need to check the docs of the mic to know if it is optimized for one or another. Any manufacturer knowing what they are doing will supply two calibration files with the mic, one for 0° of incidence and one for 90°.
uhhh, u got the grandchild!!! love to see your opinion on this. i m stucked in my buying decision between the grandchild, dictator and tegler vari tube. the 670 sounds so great in the H audio demos, not sure if u get this sound out of the others. cheers mate 🎉
Like Andrew (maker of Super Cubes) said, these speakers aren’t actually suitable room correction. Tested my pair with Sonarworks. The box has DSP processing and it messes with the transient response of these specific speakers. FYI to anyone else who has these “specific” speakers.
My environment has 3 pairs of monitors. With Arcserve 3 I load the corresponding correction in the monitor channel and done. This appliance I would need 3 times.
Thanks for all the great information you share on your channel! I get the idea of correction software, but it seems to me it's still missing a key element-- 6:44 our hearing. Our hearing may not be flat. As we age we lose low and high-end, so even with a flat system, we may be making mixes brighter or with too much bass
There actually is a mechanism for that built into the software… you start with getting the signal as flat as possible and then you apply a general set of “curves” that please your ear. @ 15:50 “fine tuning the preset” section you see him mess with the function. No matter what you gotta “fix” all the weird peaks and valleys first, then you “sweeten” the flat signal to your personal hearing. 👍
I purchased this exact system and I’m having one issue. After I’m done analyzing, saving and then quitting; I then go to the arc 4 software and it remains neutral with no data from my analysis. It says my results are not being saved to my device. Can u please help me?
Perhaps you could do updated in depth sample rate video? It is quite the change to go from 192 to 48 to 96 over the years, if I remember correctly. I'm sure you have lot to talk about on this subject.
One note: i didn't check the mic specs but i'm guessing it has natively free field response, so normally when you point it 90 degrees up you'd need to apply a diffuse field correction file so that you don't lose any hi frequency information off axis (don't know if it's possible to load mic correction files with this system, i highly doudbt it)
01:35 Aren't you curious to know what your already calibrated loudspeaker (chain) looks like according to the ARC? Because it would reveal the "goodness" of the room, what can't be fixed. Or you already did it, just not share? 16:07 I don't even understand why, if it detects that your speaker can't deliver your bass or high, the system is trying to force it. Why not measure back the problem frequencies corrected and then you would know not to correct unnecessarily there? Or you could enter the driver data fs,qt, vs, etc:-) or read from database if it a Adam, Genelec, etc. 17:00 The system could also detect standing waves and not try to correct them. It seems like a DSP mini I would like to see the inside:-). And what is the delay?
Great content, grat little box! I was using Sonarworks SoundID on a separate computer with a Lynx Hilo connected via Thunderbolt. The systems worked independently from my DAW (on another Mac-Studio), so no plugins were used in my DAW or system-wide. The latency is virtually nonexistent. Essentially, I am achieving the same functionality as with this small box. I initially desired the Trinnov system, but it was too expensive once I factored in the cost of having a separate "recorder"(Hilo) for the printing process (I am using a summing device). Therefore, by implementing a second computer (mac mini m1), I have saved a significant amount of money. Now, with this ARC device, I can switch to it and discontinue using the second Mac Mini that I currently use for SoundID. The question is: Will be better, or should I wait to get the Trinnov Nova? Keep it up with the great content!!
Interesting, have you ever measured the latency? Can you get it low enough to track with? I have a slightly unorthodox setup where i loop back to an instance of sonarworks so that i can monitor the analogue output of my desk and daw all corrected... then switch to another monitor source to bypass it when tracking in the control room. Works really well but I'm so used to the corrected sound i hate having to bypass it if im tracking guitars in the control room for example.
Yes, I am able to track with it with no issues. The latency depends on how you monitor it. I use direct monitoring from my Motu interface (not with DAW/Logic Pro X). So, I track while listening with the Sound ID corrections and experience almost no latency(about 1.2ms). One important note is that when I contacted a professional from SweetW, they told me that what I wanted to do wouldn't work. However, when I reached out to Lynx directly, they pointed out that if I do this, I should use an interface for the computer with Sound ID exclusively through Thunderbolt. Thunderbolt connects directly to the processor as if it were a PCI Express (very fast). In contrast, USB needs to go through its own controller unless it is a USB on the motherboard natively. Therefore, I have been using it like this for almost 2 years and I am really happy with it, mostly because I can track, mix and master with room corrections all the time.
I know about a REW tutorial from Groove3 by doing the 7 point measure, but I want to see more people using it for measurements and for calibration practice. I wasn't totally convinced about using an ir file in a convolution plugin, but perhaps i find it too "simple" ? Please take your time to do REW one day :D
Audible defference (Here, on YT, while playing through A/B of currently sounding track) OFF: hollow in mids, roomy...(it's most noticeable for my small headphones, street type JBL😅, with micro "lazy" magnets😂, but they're ok) ON: flat at lows, flat distributed sound (somehow correction is affecting on my stereo image perception, it's feels wider😅)
I’m wondering how the converters in that little box will impact sound quality. Why spend several thousand dollars on high end converters only to route it through that device at the end?
I'm not going to bypass my burl or prism converters for a box, that costs 239 € for a mic, an interface with converters and a software ! I once believed that 100 bucks piece of gear could compete with 1000 bucks ones. But I dunnot anymore after comparing. I don't talk about the software here. Just about the hardware stuff like converters, psu etc...
@@kadiummusic Mixbus may say it’s transparent but David is using Trinov, if you use Burl or Dangerous conversion you wouldn’t put this between your speakers. At least I wouldn’t
Hey! I am thinking of buying this. A friend of mine is sure however that the same can be done with a condenser mic and match eq using white noise. Any thoughts on this? Is there a workaround with stock plugins that can mimic this? Thanks
hi i listened to this on a high end system and the correction took out all the mid low from the snare...(probably the desk modal you were talking about)...is this desireble? because the original sounds more full and better to me. So when you would have used the corection with the same mix you would have ended up with too much mid low, right? Or is this just something you have to get used to over time? Maybe this system is more for people with problems (studio with too many reflexions, no good absorbtion, lot of bass problems, hard to get a mix right etc)
I'm not sure if it's the same whether you measure with the microphone pointing up or facing towards the speakers, at least with the UMIK-1 you get two different calibration files to use depending on whether you have the measurement microphone pointing at the ceiling or not, and the values are different in those two files. I don't know the theory behind it to be honest though, your explanation makes sense to me, but then I would also expect both files to be the same?
Thanks for this snd sll your other content. I'm subscribed since maaasny years and watched and liked almost all of them! I'm curious about the differences between your RME converter which I also use and the MT48 - could you share your findings and conclusions so far? Thanks alot!
