Don't waste your time with digital room "correction" that must be inserted into the signal path. RealTraps products are all-natural and 100 percent analog! Just like your ears.
Raining a bit today, can't get all done that I need to so I might just waste a bit of time on the net, or not. Time will tell.
Anyway, rather than trawl thru this thread again..oh the agony!
..I just decided to go to ethans website.
First page, did not even get into any reports or other articles.
That not a rigid anti stance? ok then, I freely admit I did not spend much time writing my response, I perhaps did not spend as much time as normal making sure I had dotted the i's and crossed the t's. I accept that I could have worded it poorly, and apologies if I did so (esp to ethan if I misrepresented you).
[Wow, just noticed these too on the front page, veery nice!
Hmm, that did not work. Anyway, those panels look wonderful
How about this then, for all of you who use eq in the bassJUST SAY NO TO ROOM EQ
Trying to use an equalizer to fix room acoustics problems does not work very well. Every location in a room has a different response, so no single EQ curve can help everywhere. Even if your goal is to correct the response only where you sit, it's impossible to counter nulls. If you have a 25 dB dip at 60 Hz, adding that much boost with EQ will increase low frequency distortion in the loudspeakers. And at other places where 60 Hz is too loud, EQ makes the problem worse. EQ can reduce peaks a little, but it does not reduce the extended decay time that accompanies most peaks. Our Audyssey Report article explains why EQ is not a suitable substitute for bass traps and other treatment.
The title is a bit of a giveaway, but I agree mostly with the other bolded part (ie the word substitute
. That implies that treatment can do things that perhaps eq cannot. However, it pushes in one direction, treatment first. I'd tend to eq first and always, you can go a lot further with eq than treatment (I feel), but for ultimate results you'd need both) More applicable perhaps to HT than straight stereo, I'm with jin (was it?) on this one. For me it is stereo so only for my seat thanks very much. Go get your own stereo for the other seats
Quick poll...which path would be your FIRST expense? Quality eq and multiple subs, or treatment? Which WAS the first direction you took??
Reduce peaks a little?? WTF? Who here agrees with that?
Turns out I did misrepresent ethan (my 'rigid anti dsp stance'), a bit more digging found the followingTo be clear, I am not opposed to the use of EQ to reduce the one or two lowest modal peaks in a room.
That certainly could not be construed by the 'rigid anti' label. So my sloppiness in that post has come back to bite me on the bum.
In any case, I hope we can actually get back to the question that has been raised regarding the way we look at time and ringing. My gut feel IS that even with my eq some frequencies still ring, so I am (for now) with ethan and not amir on this question. I am more with amir and not ethan on the value of eq. The technical
aspects of this question are what I am interested in, not this back and forth bickering that seems to have it's roots back in time and maybe other places.
The fighting seems to be constantly between the same small group of protagonists. That's fine, we all love a good stoush
but equally it is very refreshing when someone not involved in that (eg markus lately) can disspassionately contribute.
How DO we look at time in the bass? How do we reconcile the two mutually exclusive ways of looking at time resolution vs frequency resolution? What does that mean in practical terms?