Trinnov Nova / IK Multimedia Arc Studio comparison
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 24 ก.ย. 2024
- Should you spend nearly £4,000 on a Trinnov Nova, or will the new IK Multimedia ARC STUDIO do the job for around £300? We explore both calibration systems in detail and find out.
#arcstudio #arc4 #recordingstudio #studiomonitors #roomcorrection #trinnov
Products featured:
IK Multimedia ARC Studio: sxpro.co.uk/pr...
PRICE: £309 inc VAT (UK RRP)
INCLUDES: Measurement mic and clip
CONNECTIVITY:
- 1x Stereo Analogue Input
- 1x Stereo Analogue Output.
REQUIREMENTS: You will need a microphone stand and an audio interface and mic preamp with phantom power to complete calibration measurements.
FEATURES:
- Ability to save and switch between multiple user created and customisable presets.
- Models well-known and useful reference monitors and playback systems
Trinnov Nova & 3D Mic: sxpro.co.uk/pr...
PRICE: £3994 inc VAT (UK RRP)
INCLUDES:
- Trinnov 3D mic
- Ethercon cable to connect the mic directly to the Trinnov Nova for calibration measurements.
CONNECTIVITY:
- 3x Analogue Stereo Inputs
- 3x Analogue Stereo Outputs (Calibrates up to three stereo monitor pairs or a 5.1 system when a 6-channel license is purchased at an additional cost of around £1,800).
- Digital Inputs: SPDIF, ADAT and Dante
- Digital Outputs: AES and Dante
FEATURES:
- Ability to save and switch between multiple user created presets.
- When used with a Trinnov La Remote also functions as a fully-fledged monitor controller
---
Order your studio gear from SX Pro: the professionals choice: sxpro.co.uk/
A note on comparing the graphs - first, the size of the windows of both apps is different with Trinnov's windows being roughly half of the size of ARC - so, this should influence the size of the deviations in the graphs from the straight reference line and work in favor of Trinnov. Also, the scale of the graph is different - ARC's graph ranges from -15 to +15 db, and Trinnov's graph has a scale of -19 to +10 db - so ranges are close around 30 db for both, but still, I wouldn't say which one "clearly" does a better job just looking at these graphs in this way. Sorry for the critique and thanks for the video!
It is briefly mentioned in the video that the scales are slightly different which makes the measurement a little tricky to perfectly compare visually but you can clearly see the frequency curves have similar characteristics. The important thing here is how it actually sounds, which isn't possible to demonstrate in the video but I summarise this information at the end. Thanks for watching!
Ah nobody listens to the graphs :), I think only the trinnov corrects for time domain issues and the purpose/effect of the arc depth measurement (3 levels), isn’t explained.
@@matthewblue7839 Only so much we can do in about ten minutes, and we didn’t want a long video for this. In listening, the Trinnov was a clear winner - the ARC is still absolutely superb though, especially for the money!
Just bought the ARC, really impressed with what it's done in my room. I really wish the analysis software would let you analyse the positions in different order though. Eg do the first position, then 6 inches higher, then 6 inches higher again, then move onto the next position and repeat.
I agree, and in fact i'd like it if it did all the left-side measurements, then the right side - rather than having to switch between sides all the time.
Excellent video. And a very fair summary. It's certainly a huge upgrade to using Sonarworks. For the home studio, or small production studio looking at this I'd give it a go.
Why is it a HUGE! upgrade? Seriously, care to elaborate or are you just bored
@travelthebest2676 Trinnov is the king of room correction. I use it in all my studios and can trust the correction that is applied. Sonarworks in the same studio is so far off it actually makes for a worse listening environment. I know this because I have done the tests myself. It's laughable. Most people remove it after realising it's doing more bad than good. Arc studio looks a lot more accurate and much more similar to Trinnov a trusted industry professional room corrector. May not be the answer you wanted as a Sonarworks fan or user but it's cold hard truth and you asked me to elaborate. You are only as good an engineer as what you can hear. Room correction is one place you shouldn't compromise with the likes of Sonarworks.
I will investigate, thanks. With so much hyperbole online I wanted a true opinion
Would love to see a comparison video between sound id and arc studio would be super interesting. I have sound id references and stopped using it exactly like you said i don’t like what it does.
I've had KRK Ergo running for sometime, but due to technology advances it's no longer compatible with my setup.
I saw trinov and nearly passed out, but further searching took me to the IK multimedia alternative.
Of course, a perfect room is the ideal scenario, followed by Trinov but seeing as KRK Ergo was a good solution for my price point going with IK Multimedia is going to be as good if not slightly better than the Ergo.
In general the IK Multimedia reviews very well and at the same time you need to keep in mind the price point. This comparison video was a really interesting experiment and presented really well and it summarises really well without there being a bias towards one or other product.
YES YES YES - MORE CONTENT LIKE THIS PLEASE!
In the ARC software, click on the EDIT button and change the Correction Type to "Sharp" to get a more detailed (i.e. flatter) correction. Leaving it on "Default" results in a less aggressive correction, which is what you compared to the Trinnov.
Making the correction more aggressive results in more phase issues which is why the ARC doesn’t default to that setting.
You are right to point out this setting as we didn’t mention it in the video and probably should have. However, the “sharp” setting is really only better if you have some large issues in specific narrow Q areas that you aren’t going to be able to live without, and need them at the cost of phase accuracy or increased latency. As such, the Trinnov still outperforms the ARC (as you would expect given the price point) but the ARC remains incredible, incredible value for money.
@@sxproaudioIn your own words, Trinnov has a “very similar” before curve to the ARC and it’s doing a more “brutal” correction. How do you suppose the Trinnov is achieving that level of correction if not through more EQ points? There seems to be quite a few present based on the points you used to roll off the curve below 30 Hz.
It is incredible for me that neither sonarworks or ik multimedia fixes the timing and phase-issues like the trinnov. That is why I still want the trinnov Nova
It's important to note that the ARC Studio does indeed have a linear phase mode! It may not be as accurate as the Trinnov, but it's really good for the money, given there is a £3700 price difference.
@@sxproaudio Yes, Sonarworks has this as well. But it does not work in the same way as Trinnov. Since both IK multimedia and Sonarworks are only using a single capsule calibration mic it is impossible to compensate properly for timing and phase issues in the same way as a Trinnov system does. trinnov uses a special calibration mic with several spaced capsules.
@@sxproaudioThe "linear" mode of the arc studio has a latency of about 50ms which is not acceptable when playing synths live. The "natural" mode has zero latency.
@@theclaverman But that's why the measurement setup is doing the +-6 inches in all locations.
@@alexbreyer6921Hehe….or maybe not😊 In order to accurately measure timing issues and phase in the sweetspot (how it sounds outside the sweetspot is not really interesting) you need to have two stable, fixed reference positions with a known distance from eachother (the software need a known referense to accurately compensate for the problems) and then measure the time difference between them. The Trinnov achieve this by having a mic with spaced capsules measuring in the sweetspot(You don’t move the mic during a Trinnov calibration) I don’t think you achieve the same result by moving a single capsule microphone away from the sweetspot and do a second sine sweep. I think the main reason for taking readings in multiple locations for ARC/Trinnov is to get an average reading of the frequency response in the area around the sweetspot.
Recently bought an ARC studio and currently demoing a Nova in my control room with Unity Audio Boulder MK2s.... I have to say they are both incredible ...Trinnov a little more 3D, a little more accurate but it is quite marginal to me. Id put it at maybe 10-15% better, does it justify the price difference!?. Both sound way better than Sonarworks that I've championed and used for years. Surprised me in all honesty. I'm keeping the ARC for low latency tracking until Trinnov hopefully sort that out!
Impressive stuff for the price. I have a feeling though that the DSP in that wee box is probably capable of a whole lot more than just EQ. I guess we'll have to wait and see where all this goes. Excellent content BTW!
Right. It's likely not too different than the DSP they use in a ToneX pedal.
Niceeee, would be interesting to see how 2 Arc runs if you have a stereo pair and sub , phase aligning the sub/bass management
Usually you'd run stereo audio into a sub, which filters off low frequencies, and in turn feeds the filtered audio through to the individual speakers. You'd only need one arc studio to achieve this.
Now if you measure after-correction with another software (like REW) we'd really be able to see which one is better
When we say the Trinnov is a superior result, you can believe us.
@@sxproaudio ah ah sorry I don't, with all due respect. Show me some REW graphs.
The arc does not deal with phase like the Nova, which is huge.
The Neumann correction system (with the MA1) does correct phase. But it's restricted to Neumann speakers with built in DSP.
You are correct, but it's important to note there is a £3700 price difference. You get what you pay for.
Dirac Live also deals with phase as well as speaker timing alignment for subs or multichannel systems.
@@DavidPeck I just recently found out about Dirac live. Do they have a calibration mic with the software to I didn't see it on the website
Accourate deal with phase as well
Most important questions: PHASE and LATENCY?
Natural Phase mode: 1.4 ms
Linear Phase mode: 42 ms
That's important indeed. And it would have been good to see Trinnov's Phase graphs too. :)
The ARC also have high pass filter too to for the extra low end.
So much better than sonarworks which is even more less than the ARC.
I'm more interested in the transparency of the sound quality and loss of detail from going through another stage with these kinds of units. I imagine thats what you are paying for with the Trinnov. I image the EQ curve is much of a muchness, that stuff is cheap to design, where as high quality audio components are not!
@@CurtisGabrielMusic The thing with these is that while the conversion on the Trinnov is obviously excellent, any perceived or possible loss from the conversion should be massively outweighed by the performance benefits you get from the correction.
@@sxproaudio This is a good point! I fear the same may not be true of the Arc though, It really depends how good that is. If it starts becoming grainy or lacks detail then I would lean more towards learning the current curve of my room after lots of treatment
@@CurtisGabrielMusic It’s always best, where possible, to make the room as good as you can without room correction. Room correction is best used either when no other option is available or you have already done as much as you can. It is really good and works well in rooms that are already good.
The Trinnov is far better than the arc in several important ways and also, critically, a more reliable device.
@@sxproaudio Absolutely, I couldn't agree more, this kind of software is not a substitute for acoustic treatment. It can't fix reverberation times. I have a major decay time issue with a resonance at 51hz. I have TONS of expensive absorption in my studio and it's still there 😩
Thank you for making this video. As a fellow user of HEDD Audio speakers (mine are the Type 30 MkI) it was nice to see someone else using these great speakers.
Unfortunately my current situation won't allow for me to delve into the Trinnov system. I've been using SOnarworks and have been relatively pleased with it, but for the price, being able to have this correction happen via hardware is a no brainer. Mine is on order and should arrive Monday. Can't wait!
Good luck installing today! I'm curious to know how the new ARC Studio compares to Sonarworks and if you notice any degrading in audio quality due to extra ADDA conversion
Am also a HEDD user here (Type 20 MK1). Have just ordered the ARC studio. My tiny studio is very bass heavy at the moment so am hoping this tidies things up down there for me. Thank you for the review SX pro
Mine arrived. Very pleased with it. Sonarworks system-wide causes unending audio system crashes for me, glad to boot it out! I'll still use its headphone profiles.
@@jrgroberts I have the same with Systemwide, I de-installed it.. might upgrade as well to ARC Studio.
Amazing!
In arc studio have the option stereo + Sub?
how? there is only 1 stereo out in Arc Studio. Unfortunately no digital outs also (
@@andivax yes 😔
Yes you can use a 2.1 setup with sub it's in the manual!
@@fantaztikbeatz thanks
thanks so much for doing this 👍
agreed 100% regarding your opinion, and truly curious if the phase correction and latency were in anyway a major factor for you ?
all the best & have a great day.
Natural Phase mode: 1.4 ms
Linear Phase mode: 42 ms
The Natural phase mode latency causes zero issues. It takes longer for the sound to travel through the air from the monitors to my ears than 1.4ms...
thank you very much for doing this comparison
Thanks
For this level of head-to-head review, the ARC system deserved the more robust advanced points measurement. But also in it's defense, as you pointed out the Trinov showing a flatter EQ result, you didn't remark on how you could work on the EQ curve on the ARC to improve things. It seems to me the software and mic measurement are really in the same class. I'd wish for some TH-camr coming up with a better means of showing if the DACs in each are comparable.
Superb comment Alex, thank you. This wasn’t meant to be a super-in-detail look at both. We’ve obviously done this, but the video would start to become longer than we wanted at this stage.
You can EQ the ARC, you’re correct, but it does have a fairly restricted number of EQ points to control, lending it more towards “broad-strokes” control than fine tuning. As such it’s great for selecting chunks of a frequency range and moving it to suit your taste, but it isn’t enough to grab a specific frequency at a specific Q and adjust only those.
The DAC in the Trinnov is much, much better than the ARC, which is another reason why it costs more but also why it’s more suitable for those with higher-end speakers; they’re more likely to hear the differences in the DAC.
@@sxproaudio well I've tried to find a component listing for the DAC on both items, but no luck. I think it's subjective and maybe confirmation bias to just state it is better. But do you trust the ARC to correct the speakers or not? If the room is corrected, and we assume our monitors get as flat as possible for most setups, then how much does the DAC have to do? This isn't 1995 era DACs.
@@alexbreyer6921Check Julian Krauses Video on the ARC, he has. Gut shot going on. It was an AKM DAC, but not sure which model, but Julian referred to them as high quality.
@@PippPriss yes, I saw that. It's just unfortunate that in this head to head video that will live on TH-cam forever, they didn't make an effort to really make it a fair comparison, but leaned on bias.
Hey there! How's the TYPE 20?! May i know a detailed knowledge of how well it goes for mixing perspective?
Would you suggest any better monitor than this on the same price point.?
PLEASE lemme know about this! Thank you!!
Great question!
The HEDD Type 20 is a supremely flexible monitor that will likely please most who choose to purchase. They are quite tunable, and have plenty of power so work really well with room correction too. Furthermore, i'm aware HEDD are working on some exciting enhancements for owners of Type 20s and 30s which will elevate their functions even further too.
I couldn't really suggest a *better* monitor at this price point, but there are certainly others that compete just as well such as the Eve Audio SC3070, Focal Twin ST6 and Dynaudio Core 47.
Sure...but you never clicked on "EDIT" and clicked on "Sharp" for a much flatter response (which is probably what the Trinnov was using)
I did do this off camera and it hadn’t made a huge difference. The “sharp” correction wasn’t particularly better, just different. Trinnov still corrects for the room and for phase in a superior fashion, as you would expect given the price difference. The ARC Studio remains superb value for money and the more realistic choice for anyone with speakers that are cheaper than the Trinnov itself.
Nothing wrong with good old REW and then exporting the filters and IR with the correction. Also cheaper than any of those :)
Except that wouldn't work on a seperate hardware box living between your interface, nor also for easy swicthing between presets, monitor modelling and gives absolutely no peace of mind if what you've done manually is actually correct. Remember the ARC is aimed at the general studio user, who isn't going to want to spend ages playing with this stuff, and wants a product that does it for them easily and quickly.
@@sxproaudio I switch presets with literally one keystroke to change between monitors and 3 pairs of headphones. This is for the people who want to buy it, not necessarily better than the free alternative. Having a separate box between the interface and speakers with extra cabling and convertion would be a minus for me.
@@iursnitram Excellent, then you can save your money for other products that may be more suitable for your needs.
I use neumann's system which also corrects timing/phase, wonder how it compares to trinnov
Maybe we'll look at this for a video some time!
Trinnov is much better
@@sxproaudioYes please, as a KH310, 750 &MA1 user (I bought the 310’s from SX Pro 😊), this is something I’m interested in. The Neumann software is quite clunky to use and once saved you can’t review the correction. So, I’m looking at picking up a Nova pretty soon.
@@legostudiosify. Have you actually compared the two or is that just an assumption?
@@Truth565 Yes I have and the Trinnov is on another level to the ARC. The comparison should be between ARC and Sonarworks as they are on the same level
I got one but the analysis won’t show any signal. Checked everything - there must be a software compatibility issue for me
Please refer to IK Multimedia support and i'm sure they'll get you up and running.
What if you have something like the Adam a7v? Is the software solution that creates the profiles you can upload comparable with the arc4? Is it worth upgrading?
It can be used with any speaker.
@@alexbreyer6921 I understand that, but will the difference be big enough to use that over uploading a software profile? Is it worth the extra investment? Asking because I do not see myself willing to spend that much on a trinnov if I don't win the lottery. But software and this device are within reach.
@@annebokma4637 Only you can say if you like it better, as your opinion counts most. People were making hit records on shitty NS-10s in terrible rooms. You don't need this, it's just a bandaid for peace of mind. It mainly comes down to you learning your room and speakers. All the correction options can be somewhat helpful (unless you hate what they do). But you still have to learn those. ARC seems to be well thought out for workflow and options. You could switch speakers and still be up and running in no time. (Unlike relying on the Adams.) It's nice to have the hardware option doing the correction. People I know loved Soundworks until they loved Trinnov even more. But it's not getting them better paying clients or more lucrative jobs.
I think i'm inclined to agree with @alexbreyer6921. ARC Studio works great, but it's somwhat convenient to simply load the profile into you speaker so if you have those specific speakers that may be a good choice to do, but without directly comparing how that performs against the ARC Studio, it's hard to say what the *best* choice is.
Does Trinnov do speaker emulation profiles like Arc?
It does not.
Honestly there are a ton of plugins out there that do that as well.... I prefer something to do one critical job extremely well, rather than add on gimmicks.
Question would you or I even need this as I have the A7Vs with built in Sonarworks? As I have 3 room Calibration presets I made Sound iD and they are saved on my Mac as I can via RJ45 Port Export each Calibration into each monitor without the program being run so I'm guessing these Are intended for monitors without that featur.
Yes monitors without that feature but you could disable the sonarworks calibration and still use this product if you wanted to. The question is which one is really better. I have Sonarworks but I am tempted to buy this to see how much of a difference it will be.
@@fantaztikbeatz sonarworks flatten way better the low end that Arc 4/Studio...now overall which one sounds better...do not know.... but if the lowend is flatter in SoundID shoulds ound better...
How you think of focusrite red line? Is it a good company with trinnov nova through Dante?
The Red 16Line is a very nice sounding interface with a brilliant array connectivity (which is why we chose it for our video suite). Using it via Dante with the Nova is effortless and sounds great!
@@sxproaudio Thank you for detailed replying! Really great and helpful video content :)
@@sxproaudio Do you prefer use the DAC of trinnov directly or digitally back to focusrite red’s DAC? Thank you
@@zisuiwang4060 Thank you! We will keep it coming!
@@zisuiwang4060 The Trinnov DAC is very good, don't let anyone tell you otherwise. We've had the Trinnov in front of some world-class engineers and none have suggested anything is wrong with the DAC. Currently in our studio we are coming directly out of the Trinnov DAC to our monitors. If we were seeking perfection (if there is such a thing) then I would be inclined to use a Lynx Hilo 2 or a Prism Sound ADA-128 for it's DAC.
Do you need to have the Arc box plugged into your speakers all the time and how many speakers can you have attached? I have 3 monitors plus mix cubes
Yes, if the ARC Studio is not plugged in, it cannot affect the sound. As shown in the video, it has one stereo path so it can manage one pair of monitors per box.
I am surprised that ATc could not make it flattr in the lowend, even Sonarworks can do it, now how much better Trinnov is over Arc Studio?
Sonarworks says it can give a perfectly flat response, but have you checked the corrected result with an external measurement source like Room EQ Wizard?
The Trinnov is (at the time of writing) performing better in several areas than the ARC Studio; the measurement is much quicker, the fidelity of the audio throughout all frequency ranges is better and the AD/DA converters in the Trinnov are better. All this costs more, though.
Does the ARC deal with the phase?
would love to know that too
yeah, what about the PHASE and LATENCY?
This! Most interesting tbh
The ARC Studio has linear phase correction, resulting in some unavoidable latency.
Natural Phase mode: 1.4 ms
Linear Phase mode: 42 ms
@@sxproaudio It sounds like you are talking about the linear phase version of the EQ used to make the correction. I believe we are all asking about PHASE CORRECTION of the speakers. The Trinnov actually corrects speaker’s timing and phase other than EQ. The phase correction is the big deal in the trinnov. The arc doesn’t seem to have it.
What about latency though?
Arc Studio specs:
Natural Phase mode: 1.4 ms
Linear Phase mode: 42 ms
Just as a heads-up, you should move away from the microphone for each measurement. Having your body in close proximity to the measurement mic can produce substantial inaccuracies in the measurement.
Given that your body does affect the measurement, you actually DO want to be near the mic so that it corrects for that too. When listening to your monitors, you can’t move your body out of the way so this should be accounted for in the measurement.
@@sxproaudio NOT true, for ARC at least.
From the FAQ section on page 74 of the PDF manual:
"Can I stay in the room while the Analysis process is recording each point?
Yes, but try to keep yourself outside the listening spot and not too close to the microphone or the speakers to avoid sound reflections that can compromise the reading."
ARC Studio 4 was a waste of time... IK Multimedia's online registration and activation process is complete rubbish. I returned the product after a week of failed attempts to get it registered and activated... the salesman was not surprised to see the product returned...!!! Seems IK Multimedia has a bad reputation in regards to it's online registration process.
Speaking from my experience, the ARC Studio 4 is an epic fail
Sorry to hear that. We had no trouble setting ours up and registering, but I agree that it's not the smoothest registration process i've seen.
impressive!!🙄
Thanks! 🙏
The trinnov is a terrible value, especially the 5.1 "license" with the remote you're basically at 7 grand and have no upgrade path past 6 channels. As a converter it uses off the shelf chips, not as good as something like a Lynx Aurora with discrete/resistor network and superior sound quality and as an interface it pales in comparison to an RME UFX III or a Focusrite. Especially the latter you can get a great remote controller and up to 12ch speaker setup. The Nova is really only a half decent value for people that want a simple one box 2ch interface/converter/eq and don't need many external I/O.
While you are absolutely entitled to your opinion about value for money, you seem to have mistakenly stated some wrong information. Firstly the Trinnov Nova with a 6-channel license and mic included is £5795 (at time of writing) including tax (UK): sxpro.co.uk/product/trinnov-nova-6-channel/. If you're US based this is not much different, especially if you contact your dealer and ask for a deal.
You know what you're getting when you buy the product. If you don't happen to know you're going to need more than 6 channels at the time of purchase, there is nothing stopping you selling off the Nova when you exceed it's specifications and purchasing an alternative, higher channel count Trinnov product. Alternatively, if you know you will need more than 6 channels when in the market for such a product, you'd never consider the Nova rendering the value for money you mentioned irrelevant.
Then you mention off-the-shelf chips in the Trinnov. Almost all converter products on the market use "off-the-shelf" chips (eg AKM, Cirrus, ESS etc) and Lynx Aurora has no discrete resistor network instead of a converter chip, despite the language you may have seen used in some of their online product descriptions. See here for pictures inside the Lynx Aurora, no discrete components in the converter path at all here at all with the exception of possibly a single capacitor, it's all IC and surface mount components otherwise:
support.lynxstudio.com/hc/article_attachments/360025691271/TopCover.Open.SMALL.png
prosound.ixbt.com/interfaces/lynxstudio/pre1608/image04s.jpg
Both Trinnov and Lynx are using converter chips made by external companies, ergo "off-the-shelf" and there is nothing wrong with that. The fact is the vast majority of companies that produce converter-based product do this. It's almost always far more cost effective than developing and producing your own solution.
Notwithstanding, the converter chips used by themselves aren't the whole picture. The supporting circuitry, the clock, the PSU all factor into the end result. We have countless experiences of comparing various products using the same converter chips, but with wildly different sounding results due to the other components used.
In truth, the Trinnov Nova may not feature the best sounding converters on the market, at this price no one would reasonably expect it to, but the correction it can provide to otherwise unfixable or unpractical room issues can massively outweigh the perceived "loss" in quality you'd get against just using a regular converter output to your speakers, certainly for the vast, vast majority of end users. I would even go as far as to say probably only some mastering engineers and total purists would avoid the Trinnov, opting to put money into fixing their room with acoustic panelling; a FAR more costly affair and therefore, arguably much worse value for money as far as bang for buck is concerned.
Haha man let compare a sound or curves measured after correction! Why do you compare initial meastrements and predicted curves? paid advertising. Don't do that man!
Predicted curves? He showed the measurement curves before and after calibration for both systems. I don't think you understood what you were looking at.
@@brianboyer9383 You do not understand. After calibration, you need to repeat the measurements, e.g. using the room eq wizard. What it shows are the predicted results. I know this, I've been doing it for 10 years.
@@maciejmironowicz2501 Umm…what? Perhaps what you’re describing used to be true for older Trinnov systems or may be necessary for other products but it wasn’t true for the ST2 and its not true for the Nova. You do the measurement(s) once, have the unit compute the response, and that’s it - correction complete. The process shown in this video is all that’s needed. There are no predicted curves.
@@brianboyer9383 What I mean is that when comparing trinnov with arc4, you need to take measurements after both corrections. And see who does better. What don't you understand, gentlemen?
@@brianboyer9383 I see you have problems with understanding 😄
Cheap solution for cheap speakers..
This speaker and room modelers are worthless unless the software make a conversion from the capture of your room into the modeler
Question...Is it accurate to say, that with the ARC hardware box plugged in, and all the measurements stored in the ARC Hardware box, that you can have that plugged in with zero software running on your computer, and it will still work? I want to know if I bought this, if I have to run software after it's all measured and setup, or if can just have this plugged in between my speakers and monitor controller, and be done with it? The software side of things always fucks up and is a waste of cpu, time, space, headaches and money for me.
This is exactly what the ARC Studio is for - to take away the need to run a plugin either in your DAW or system. The ARC Studio actually sits in the analogue audio path and performs the correction. It's set and forget. You simply save the measurement / profile to the hardware itself, then you don't need to run the software!
No extra software on the computer required. It's a nice option for many folks.