The geometry dependence of J-couplings was further examined by calculating NP and AP coupling values using crystal geometries and those found from UDFT and AP geometry optimization protocols described earlier . As a representative case, Table reports the J values calculated by LC-ωPBE. Overall, J-coupling dependence on geometry is very small. Relative to the crystal structure results, UDFT geometries resulted in slightly improved Jcouplings with the NP method but slightly degraded results using the AP method. Using AP geometries, on the other hand, yielded somewhat improved results relative to UDFT geometry by both AP and NP methods, especially when Compound 6, which performs particularly poorly in our tests, is excluded. that range separated approximate functionals are found to be superior to global hybrid functionals in predicting J-couplings. We note that that work suggests the improvement of such results using range separated functionals (relative to global hybrids) is not an effect of range separation. Instead, it appears that the improved agreement with experiment is due to the inclusion of more HF exchange. Our results also show that by using the AP geometry optimization strategy J-coupling values calculated with range separated functionals reduced the MAE by 50-60% (excluding complex 6) with both AP and NP methods, relative to B3LYP results. The three range-corrected functionals behave similarly. Geometry dependence, although small, can be seen clearly where AP and UDFT geometries give better agreement with experiment than crystal structure with the range separated functionals considered.