MD,

In that email he said digital correction doesn't work at all.

Okay, it can help a little to correct the last 5 percent of *frequency
response* problems in a typical small room, but only after a suitable number
of bass traps are employed. Does that make you happy?

Steve King's post echoes what I explained in the Comments section of my "EQ
versus Traps" article written for the AVS forum:

www.realtraps.com/eq-traps.htm

There I wrote, "professional studios tried - and ultimately rejected - EQ
back in the 1980s. Today, very few professional facilities use monitor EQ."

And as Lorin pointed out, "in another thread you were presented with the
arguments against room EQ and for room treatment, with excellent
explanations of why the former fails and the latter excels, yet you cling to
your argument in favour of room EQ."

Look guy, a lot of professional audio engineers are trying to explain to you
the science behind why EQ for a small room is a losing proposition. How you
can continue to argue for EQ over acoustic treatment is a mystery. Why you
accuse me of having a commercial agenda is even stranger since people here
have explained to you repeatedly that my goal is education not selling
stuff. I'm in the business of acoustic treatment because I believe in it,
not the other way around. Continuing to argue for EQ over treatment shows
that if anyone has an agenda, it is you.

The fact that you won't say who you are tells a lot too, because I suspect
I've heard from you before. This reminds me of the time an EQ advocate
argued for an entire week in favor of EQ over bass traps, then finally
admitted he had never even heard a room with bass traps! :-)

--Ethan