Originally Posted by Tonmeister2008
However, there is another huge factor which I didn't talk about in the paper, and that has to do with how much work was required to coax some of these room correction products to even work this well. ... The usability of some of these products has a lot to be desired, and the manuals are often vague and misleading. To make these products work even this well, takes patience and someone who knows what they are doing.
Thanks much for your reply. That sheds very new light on the matter. Here I was thinking, wow, isn't it amazing that all their respective mics and procedures gave such high uniformity >300 Hz, since your slides merely mentioned that each was set up per their instructions. That this was not the case is important information.
In my view, a room correction process should be nearly 100% automated, and not require the user to dial in a target curve or select one from 25 choices (that just tells me the manufacturer doesn't really know what the real target should be). The user shouldn't have to choose a subwoofer crossover or know what the LF limits are for their system. The more manual and labor-intensive room correction becomes the more likely users will abuse it, or not use it at all. That gets us further away from the goal of having good sound everywhere.
Lofty goals, and I totally agree with them in principle.
Having never heard a perfectly tuned room, I'm not sure what that actually sounds like, nor if it would it satisfy me over the long haul at my usual playback volume, with my usual content as afflicted by "circle of confusion" EQ design.
If I listen 20 dB below ref, as is common, I need some extra bass lift, for example. Maybe one of the newangled Dolby, THX, or Audyssey auto-loudness gizmos would handle that, but maybe not--or introduce other unwanted side effects. So I like having some manual EQ not only for the loudness offset, but also to compensate for certain recordings where bass is all over the shop relative to others. No one setting seems right thus far.
To me, a final consumer AV processor, with comprehensive facilities, needs a hands-off RC as you advocate, but also some manual means to select or alter the house curve to the tastes of the master of the house. Purists may leave it off, of course. But there's no accounting for taste in the game of making consumers happy. The Reference vs Preference debate is not over, nor is the need to play at other than reference level (whatever that is for music recordings).
I also like the idea that the user has a button that can switch between sweet spot and several seat optimizations. No other RC has that--and it's a major oversight IMHO. Marry this up with BassQ (which has done miracles in my room) and the world is yours!