ARC Genesis results

[Dj7675]

You can get good results, but in my experience, what typically would take hours to tweak for decent results would take days with ARC Genesis. In terms of that, it really is a frustrating RC software to use. The interface looks beautiful, and the mic stand too, but for results, not so easy to get good results, at least not for REW users. On forums you can see that people just run it, look at the predicted curves, created the pdf file and consider it done. Good for them, but not to people like you and I who are too curious to check the actual results. The sad thing is, it does do a very decent job the first time on the range above say 500 Hz, it is in the critical bass range that it really struggles, I suppose there are people who get better results because of their rooms, but I bet in more rooms than not, if people follow up with REW, they will be disappointed lots of times, even horrified lol..

I agree with everything here… unlike Dirac DLBC users or Audyssey users (there are tons of verifying measurements showing they work) many ArcG users (for example on AVS) do no verification measurements, relying on the predicted results. It is really odd. As with all of the EQ systems (including ARCG), good results can be achieved with some amount of work.

 

[peng]

Interesting. 16-60hz is definitely better. Is the 60-120hz just a run over run variation or do you think there is something that needs to be adjusted there?

I doubt it is run over run variation, as I said such variations are expected but it should not be so significant. I did everything the same way, same mic patterns and positions.

To me, it has to do with the firmware versions. Run to run variations may account for 1/4 to 1/3, but I am not really sure.

Just make sure you save your original file so you can compare after updating to ver.80 and do a re-run.

 

[WillBrink]

My recent ARC results. I don't have the knowledge to get inside ARC Genesis and tweak it. I have been just using the auto correction function. My issues are I can't move audio nor listening positions as it's a shared space with SAF part of the deal. So, ARC helps smooth out things, could be better no doubt. Subjectively, not unhappy with it at least.

 

[peng]

I don't have much for seat-to-seat comparison, but put together the following, just the left channel for now:

Obviously DLBC has the better looking curves, but it was with subwoofer 1 only, ARCG's is for both subwoofers.

or sure.

 

[peng]

My recent ARC results. I don't have the knowledge to get inside ARC Genesis and tweak it. I have been just using the auto correction function. My issues are I can't move audio nor listening positions as it's a shared space with SAF part of the deal. So, ARC helps smooth out things, could be better no doubt. Subjectively, not unhappy with it at least.

As long as it sounds balanced and clean that's great. Not everyone likes to tweak for audio-visual (meaning pretty FR graphs) perfection. Some felt ARCG took away their bass (or giving too much), those should spend time tweaking for better and probably should learn how to use REW as well as tweaking by ears is not a good way.

 

[peng]

Equalizer APO for both the filters and the -5dB preamp

I don't have such luxury so I am going continue my investigation on why ARCG would put a suck out in the bass range that looks a lot worse than with ARCG disabled.
For example, below is the left channel with both subwoofers:

It did a decent job overall, but between the important 55 to 110 Hz (that's one full octave), it actually made things worse!!
I thought may be ARCG tried too hard balancing different mic positions, but that does not seem to be the case either, at least it did not improve 18 inches to the left and right according to REW/Umik-1.

I ran calibration many times, following the recommended X patterns Anthem recommended, also tried 7 positions, 9 positions and concluded that 5 positions is completely fine in my set up, just that it couldn't do better in the 55 to 110 Hz range. Also, it seems incapable of eliminating or even reducing the peak in the 25 to 33 Hz range. The only way I could smooth that part is to use my subwoofer's PEQ aggressively, like applying 6 dB cuts. Logically, if that peak can be tamed by the subwoofer's own PEQ, surely ARCG could have done the same. Again, time permitting, I may continue to try different things, but after one fully year, I really think the ARCG, probably the auto phase part of the algorithm is not really ready for prime time. Unfortunately, Anthem users seem loyal to a fault and I bet very few people has provided such feedback to Anthem. If that's the case, then Anthem has on incentives to work on future ARCG updates on a priority basis. Still, I hope an update will come soon enough, before my AVM 70 becomes outdated again.

 

[Beershaun]

Yep. You are right that suckout is right in the crossover region. Man that is frustrating since you can see on screen as they run the phase measurements the various differences the phase makes across the peaks and valleys. I wonder if they need to run distance, then phase, then run room correction last. So they are able to compensate for the peaks and valleys the system ultimately compromises on in the phase alignment region.

 

[Beershaun]

I finally got around to running my setup with ARCG and REW (with just fronts and subs together). Posting my results for people to peruse. I used 1/24 smoothing on REW. I'm attaching the ARCG results file with my settings. And here are the 3 pictures of L+sub, R+sub, and both Fronts+subs. In good news those weird dips are gone so I feel better about my measurement abilities. In bad news, I'm not sure what to think about those 3 dips from 40-100 or what might cause them. It doesn't seem like a single harmonic or room mode.

Setup:
2 SVS SB-2000's in front corners of my room.
2 Monitor Audio CP-IW460x as front left and right.

I don't seem to have the same crossover phasing problem (unless you count that big dip ~95hz as a potential phase issue).

 

[HarmonicTHD]

I finally got around to running my setup with ARCG and REW (with just fronts and subs together). Posting my results for people to peruse. I used 1/24 smoothing on REW. I'm attaching the ARCG results file with my settings. And here are the 3 pictures of L+sub, R+sub, and both Fronts+subs. In good news those weird dips are gone so I feel better about my measurement abilities. In bad news, I'm not sure what to think about those 3 dips from 40-100 or what might cause them. It doesn't seem like a single harmonic or room mode.

Setup:
2 SVS SB-2000's in front corners of my room.
2 Monitor Audio CP-IW460x as front left and right.

I don't seem to have the same crossover phasing problem (unless you count that big dip ~95hz as a potential phase issue).

View attachment 338384
View attachment 338385
View attachment 338386

Those dips are room modes they occur in every room and their frequency depend on the size of the room and the listener position therein.

As those are cancellations you can’t pump in more power to get rid of them, but as you have two subs you can experiment with their placement (don’t have to be symmetrical), their phase alignment and crossover to the mains to reduce the dips (but will never get totally rid of them).

 

[Beershaun]

Those dips are room modes they occur in every room and their frequency depend on the size of the room and the listener position therein.

As those are cancellations you can’t pump in more power to get rid of them, but as you have two subs you can experiment with their placement (don’t have to be symmetrical), their phase alignment and crossover to the mains to reduce the dips (but will never get totally rid of them).

Interesting that I have three. I would have figured on one. I will have to play with the subwoofer position.

 

[Alice of Old Vincennes]

That is my frustration, that it has such a great looking HMI (human machine interface), informative and very colorful, plus rave reviews by many users, yet it seems to me over 90% are happy with the results based on the predicted graphs. Very few questioned the accuracy, or relevancy of the predicted graphs.

Some do expressed doubts, based on their ears/brains, as they typically reported that there is something lacking in bass without tweaking. Many thanks to @Beershaun , and @SeanAtx , for sharing their REW graphs and you can see that Beershaun's graphs also show he has to do a lot of tweaking to get the deep bass smoothed out.

Over at AVSF, they have probably over 1,000 pages now lol, but try searching for REW graphs, good luck for that! They do have quite a few posters who were not happy with their ARCG runs because of the bass performance, but I would say 90% of them would just send the files to the Anthem loyal user who apparently have been using Anthem AVPs for years and is now AVSF's resident expert who volunteered to tweak the files for those who are willing to send him the file. They all were happy with the result so I think the expert user does know ARCG very well, to the point he could just tweak the files without relying on REW (he never posted any such graphs unless I missed something) and without being in the rooms.

I have contacted Anthem on my issues and send them my files, and their response was very neutral, seemed to be okay with my results and my approach in just tweaking with the deep bass and room gain.

The good news is, for those who seemed happy with the results and never bother checking with REW, either their rooms are easy to deal with by ARCG effectively, or they just don't realize what they missed, or both so that is good for them. For those like me, as long as they are willing to spend from a couple of hours to days, to tweak with the help of REW, they all can eventually get very good results. I would say never as good as what could be achieved by DLBC or Audyssey (only if they tweak with Ratbuddyssey or the $200 Mult EQ X), but the end results will still be excellent sound quality.

As for Youtubers, I could only find one, known as Spec of Tech, who did show one REW graph, in his Trinnov vs AVM 90 video, that one graph didn't look any better than mine. He didn't show Trinnov's but did say the Trinnov one wasn't perfect but was a little bit flatter. I watched his stuff so I know he is very much someone like Robinson who is not shy to say one sounds better than another even when comparing units that should not have such audible differences. He also, as expected, typically would praise the better SQ on units that are more expensive, well we get the drift don't we? At least he seemed to do level matching before comparing, though never blind test as far as I know. If I have ways to talk to him, I will challenge him to do his future YT video comparison in at least level matched single blind.

Below is what he showed in the video, he said that was without tweaking:

View attachment 336525

If anyone know of other reviewers who posted REW graphs, I would appreciate it if they post some links. Thank you!

Very informative. I was an ARC fan boy until reading this thread. Bass was so bad turned off sub. I was burned out by Audyssey in early years. I think next purchase will be Denon. If I still don't like Audyssey, I can upgrade to Dirac.

 

[Alice of Old Vincennes]

Those dips are room modes they occur in every room and their frequency depend on the size of the room and the listener position therein.

As those are cancellations you can’t pump in more power to get rid of them, but as you have two subs you can experiment with their placement (don’t have to be symmetrical), their phase alignment and crossover to the mains to reduce the dips (but will never get totally rid of them).

Bravo. None of room correction software can replace the crawl.

 

[HarmonicTHD]

Interesting that I have three. I would have figured on one. I will have to play with the subwoofer position.

Length, width, height?

There is also research by Toole, Welti etc. which shows possible favorable starting points for sub placement.

Plus REW has a room simulation built in which very roughly can give you ideas about placement (provided you have a rectangular room).

 

[hmt]

Interesting that I have three. I would have figured on one. I will have to play with the subwoofer position.

I would try MSO. It should be possible to align them better. Interestingly ARC fails at the things that are advertised heavily by some youtubers: Aligning multiple subs and aligning them to the other speakers.

 

[peng]

I finally got around to running my setup with ARCG and REW (with just fronts and subs together). Posting my results for people to peruse. I used 1/24 smoothing on REW. I'm attaching the ARCG results file with my settings. And here are the 3 pictures of L+sub, R+sub, and both Fronts+subs. In good news those weird dips are gone so I feel better about my measurement abilities. In bad news, I'm not sure what to think about those 3 dips from 40-100 or what might cause them. It doesn't seem like a single harmonic or room mode.

Setup:
2 SVS SB-2000's in front corners of my room.
2 Monitor Audio CP-IW460x as front left and right.

I don't seem to have the same crossover phasing problem (unless you count that big dip ~95hz as a potential phase issue).

The one you posted in post#86:

Compared to the last one you posted in post#86, it has made a huge improvement in the 20-60 Hz range, congrats!
Are you still using the Anthem mic or the Umik-1, and have you updated to FW version 80?

I am still interested in seeing a comparison with ARCG off. The last time you posted it, I doubt it was actually off, when you changed it to off via the app or on the web UI, it won't always work, in fact most of the time it won't change, you have to cycle power the unit for the change to take effect. Even then, I found that the odd times I have to cycle power and change inputs back and off in order for it to switch between ARCG on/off, strange, but true. Bob Pariseau told me the trick of switching between inputs on AVSF, but again, I found that it still wouldn't work every time, but the majority of the time. I hope future FW updates will fix this issue for good, but then again, Anthem fans don't complain much, and are loyal to a fault, so based on the squeaky wheel theory, I am not too hopeful.

Back to your current results, all you have to do now is, if you like a warmer sound, try tweaking the deep bass a little to add some sort of a Harman tilt. Probably should do it by steps, check with REW after making each change/step. Something like start from deep bass setting of 0.75 or 1, center frequency 50 Hz. It may take you an hour to achieve a smooth looking curve.

In my case, the best I could do after spending a few hours tweaking, is a not too smooth tilt as shown below, at 1/24 smoothing. Using the Psychoacoustic smoothing it looks good enough, for now, until I have more time to play.

 

[peng]

Bravo. None of room correction software can replace the crawl.

That is true to a large extent, but Audyssey and Dirac Live do manage to improve on most of such dips to some extents, as shown on some of my posted REW graphs. Audyssey is most effective but very time consuming to tweak, Dirac probably is easier to tweak, but not as aggressive in terms of reducing the dips, but I think they did it the right away by typically turning such dips to narrow ones. That's just based on my own experience on my HT and two stereo setups so ommv for sure...

Acousticfrontiers.com has an article on this, and he quoted Dr. Toole's:

Hard proof that equalization kills room modes

In recent years there has been much debate about how effective equalization is in reducing the negative impact of room modes. Room modes are characterized by a peak in the frequency response and extended ringing in the time domain. They create low frequency coloration and lack of articulation...

acousticfrontiers.com

The theory behind correction of room mode resonances is described clearly by Floyd Toole:

“Room resonances at low frequencies behave as “minimum phase” phenomena, and so, if the amplitude vs. frequency characteristic is corrected, so also will the phase vs. frequency characteristic. If both amplitude and phase responses are fixed, then it must be true that the transient response must be fixed – i.e. the ringing, or overhang, must be eliminated” (Toole, The Acoustical Design Of Home Theaters, 1999)

 

[hmt]

My point is that the alignment of multiple subs and the blend with the other speakers is the main improvement touted from going ARC => ARC genesis. There is also much talk about phase alignment and all pass filters and how well it works. But that just does not work. Potential users would be better off buying an AVR with Dirac Live at the moment. It is also a bit of a shame that audioholics is still praising ARV genesis despite it produces very whacky results.

 

[peng]

I would try MSO. It should be possible to align them better. Interestingly ARC fails at the things that are advertised heavily by some youtubers: Aligning multiple subs and aligning them to the other speakers.

Aside from feeling bad for those early adopters who couldn't even use the software for month after paying the big $ for the AVM70, and the MRX740/1140 at around launch time, I wouldn't be so harsh to say it fails, other than maybe fails to meet advanced users expectations. It actually does work, just somewhat hit and miss, so I suspect many users may not know what they missed, if they only get curious, and then tweak for the better... On Anthem's side, if they would be more open to manual tweaks by experienced users, it could be more competitive as it is now, without improvement the actual internal engine, but they choose to put in so much restrictions, perhaps thinking that it will be fool proof this way. That's what "failed", if anything, in my opinion. Evidently such a strategy works well for them because it would seem that, based on their popular >1,000 pages AVRF owner's thread Anthem ARCG users rarely check results with actual measurements, and most if not all of them think Anthem's AVPs/AVRs sounded the best.

It is like until Amir/ASR, and also Gene/Audioholics, revealed their bench measurement on the poor performance of AVR's preamp/dac outputs, there wasn't much improvement between generations. The same is happening with ARCG, aside from what's advertised on their website and marketing info, there don't seem to be much improvement, whereas, poor Audyssey who had been beaten to submission by brutal forum members all over the website, they now have an excellent MultEQ X, or even the $20 app by D+M works quite well. DL now even have the much anticipated ART.

Just think about how many of the Anthem users who bought the units on preordering at or near launch time, couldn't even use ARCG out of the box and apparently had to wait a long time (iirc) for the more or less bug free version, if it were Denon/Marantz, Onkyo/Integra/Pioneer users suffering from that, there will be tons of "B"/Refurbished units on fire sale by now. It really is amazing how loyal Anthem AVRs/AVPs owners are lol... At this point though, I could count myself (almost) as one of such owner, as my unit is probably 99% bug free, and I know how to tweak well enough to get decently looking FR curves now, sort of...

I am still hopeful, as at least now on ASR, a few of us are posting the measured results, so hopefully those PhD in the Anthem ARCG team might take notice, and do something about the deficiencies that should be fixable or at least much improved via future updates.

It does have a beautiful interface, and have all the bells and whistles, I think it just need to tweak their algorithm, improve on resolutions of the filters in the deep bass range, and remove some of the manual tweak restrictions. To me, it has the potential to compete very well with the best.

 

[peng]

My point is that the alignment of multiple subs and the blend with the other speakers is the main improvement touted from going ARC => ARC genesis. There is also much talk about phase alignment and all pass filters and how well it works. But that just does not work. Potential users would be better off buying an AVR with Dirac Live at the moment. It is also a bit of a shame that audioholics is still praising ARV genesis despite it produces very whacky results.

Agreed, hence my lengthy, edited post on how I feel about ARCG. Again, it has potential, but I believe Anthem need more feedbacks from their users, if they were to make improvements successfully. Or they don't need any more feedback to help on future improvements, as long as most users are happy enough, as it seems to be the case. Probably >95% of any feedback they are getting now, are positive. Most of the 5% are probably right here on ASR lol..

 

[Descartes]

Agreed, hence my lengthy, edited post on how I feel about ARCG. Again, it has potential, but I believe Anthem need more feedbacks from their users, if they were to make improvements successfully. Or they don't need any more feedback to help on future improvements, as long as most users are happy enough, as it seems to be the case. Probably >95% of any feedback they are getting now, are positive. Most of the 5% are probably right here on ASR lol..

So please provide them with feedback!