firedog;672931 Wrote: > > Having a good system and equalizing aren't opposed. Your room adds its > own sound signature, and can boost or reduce some frequencies. Many who > want the most accurate sound think that they come closer to accuracy by > measuring their room response, and then ensuring that the output they > hear is flat when room interactions are taken into account. This has > nothing to do with whether the sound reproducing equipment itself is > accurate. In fact a strong argument could be made that any listening > area in which room interaction isn't accounted for in some way is > necessarily inaccurate in terms of what the listener hears. > I agree an argument could be made that way. I'm not convinced though. I have used full EQ and then bass EQ over years and now I'm back to no EQ.
A few points for you to consider: 1. Can the reverberant field be considered equal to the sound produced by the loudspeakers? Is correcting for both as if they are one a mistake? We are talking psycho-acoustics here, where there is a lot yet to be made clear - hence phrasing this point as questions! 2. Sucked-out bass frequencies due to cancellation points in standing waves (AKA room modes) cannot be corrected by boosting the bass using EQ at those frequencies. (Gross distortions are caused away from the cancellation point and the boost tends to defeat itself at the cancellation point!) 3. Because of the problem discussed in (2) the overall effect of EQ could be a loss of overall bass energy for the listener, requiring a boost of the entire bass frequency region relative to the rest of the spectrum. This will reduce effective loudness capability of the system because, for almost all loudspeakers, bass distortion products are what limit loudness capability. (Plus, if you ignore the practical advice in (2) and try to boost suck-outs, this particular issue is made EVEN worse...you get EXTRA distortions caused by the fundamental that still you can't hear very much of!) 4. Steep EQ curves (like steep crossovers) can cause ringing. Unfortunately, rather steep filters are exactly what one needs for treating room modes. This one I would like to learn more about - but AFAIK this criticism is valid. I would be happy for someone with more knowledge to step forward. For this reason, I see EQ as the last port of call - not the first. I have purchased room treatments which mitigate the problems above and I will post about them when I can get all the measurements done and screenshot nicely. Although I have lived with and without EQ for years, this is of course just a personal opinion and it isn't even shared by some other members here who I respect! So really it's intended as a thought-provoking point of view and nothing more...! Darren -- darrenyeats http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/richpub/listmania/byauthor/A3H57URKQB8AQO/ref=cm_pdp_content_listmania/203-7606506-5721503. SB Touch ------------------------------------------------------------------------ darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91692 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
