Originally Posted by Hifisound
To how much extent does room correction software replace a proper room treatment (based on today's best which is i guess audessey multieq xt32) ?
It pretty much doesn't. Room treatment works in a far longer time scale than most electronic equalization. They can complement each other but they overlap not all that much.
Both are needed for sonic excellence unless there is a happy accident.
And how much does such processing go against the purist 2 channel approach ?
In my book purity is overrated and can easily become a stumbling block. There's nothing pure about an audio system, either for recording or playback. The acoustical domain in particular is inherently very messy. If we could make those speakers and rooms go away, things would be easier and they are. It is well known that accuracy and high performance are easier to obtain with headphones and earphones, but even with them purity is very elusive.
Or is this point is irrelevant as most of the recorded music is heavily processed anyways...
Most of the professional recording I do would warm the cockles of a purists heart - minimal coincident microphones, record only 2 channels and all that. That said, I find that environment, while necessary in its context to be very limiting.
I have also recorded many hours of live performances with over 20 microphones and discrete channels, added EFX and hours of editing and mixdown. In its context, that is the way to go.
It is all about the right tool for the job, and setting up artificial philosophical restrictions just stands in the way of excellence.