Lorin David Schultz wrote:

"MD" wrote:

I agree with this data


Given what you just wrote there, how can you then go on to write:


if you don't have a lot of money and you sit in one spot
the Behringer (for example) works very well


The data with which you say you agree explains why an EQ will NOT work
well. You're clinging to this position in spite of evidence to the
contrary, even when you say you accept that evidence. You're
contradicting yourself.

Are you maybe trying to say that EQ is better than nothing? If so, I
*might* agree under certain, very specific circumstances (since EQ is
often *worse* than nothing). I do NOT agree that EQ is a "reasonable
alternative" to room treatment. Room treatment actually addresses the
problem. EQ just tries to mask it.

EQ is a reasonable alternative if you sit in one position and have cost
constraints. Regardless of why it occurs - effects at the listener
position culminate in one hearing more or less of what they should. The
DSP simply (and i will use your word) "masks" the problem by allowing
one to decrease (in the case of bumps) a single freq at the source so
the in phase addition you hear is lessened. It works.

Now for all of you pushing room treatment. Passive units (unless you
want a bunch of Helmholtz resonators in your room) are not frequency
specific so they aren't perfect either. You can't choose what frequency
not to absorb, exactly how much you absorb and you need a whole lot of
them in the room. For one to treat the room properly one needs to spend
a lot of money. (Especially if you want your dimensions right)

For the average person, in a single listening position, DSP s offer a
reasonably priced way to significantly improve the listening experience
(an improvement that can be heard and measured)