Originally Posted by markus767
Again no offense meant but if you would really understand what I'm saying then you would value other factors more than simple delay or level alignment. A EQ can't do anything against non-minimum phase locations and large seat-to-seat differences. It's like cleaning the windshield of your car and putting air in the tires while the tank is still empty.
My cars windshield is clean, there is air in the tires, gas in the tank, oil, brake fluid, transmission fluid, an alignment, the lights work... it's even got all the valid stickers.
As I stated, other factors are more influential such as the room (including contents, configuration, and treatments), sub placement, the sub itself (including its capabilities and its configuration)... But if you think you can get a optimal frequency response with poor distance settings than you are simply wrong. If the SPL at main listening position of one sub is 80 and the SPL of the other sub is 40, than the benefits to frequency response of employing multiple subs will not be achieved.
I did read the paper you linked to which also acknowledges the benefit to achieving proper phase relationships, which the distance setting provides.
This discussion was about Sub EQ HT IMO and not the other factors.
But, if we are back to the relative value of phase, then it's well established, acknowledged and re-acknowledged, other factors are more import. However there is value in setting it properly. I understand why you are de-emphasizing it but please do not say there is no value in doing it or any of the other phrases you used before. Does fuel in the tank help you drive to your destination safely across town if you can't see out of the windows or eliminate them? Each of the values are important to an optimal system, some have more influential effects than others. Achieving optimal rarely if ever happens... but it is what I and most people on such a forum strives for and gradually approaches.
I understand you are very knowledgeable in many aspects of HT.