AudioBanter.com - View Single Post

(Nousaine) wrote in message ...

It's remarkable that when you get a problem (too much energy in a given
frequency band) that is treatable with a widely available inexpensive device
the old audiophile 'fear of EQ' strikes.

'Taint fear; simply common sense: an equalizer is the wrong tool for
the job.

In an 11 X 11 X 8 room there will be too much energy at 50-70 Hz in any of the
better listening/woofer positions (there just aren't that many in a room this
size) because the modal peaks stack up there. I know this because I've response
mapped low frequency performance in 2 of these spaces.

Cool. I've analyzed 3 such spaces. Between you & me we probably have
just enough data to get any serious acoustician to raise their head
long enough to snort in disgust.

It's a job, perhaps one
of a few, perfectly suited for a 1/3 octave EQ.

That's a band-aid. You've addressed the symptom, not the problem.
Eliminating the problem passively not only prevents

OTOH I've never seen a case where bass traps have effectively been used to
address such a problem in a room this size.

Talk to John Storyk, or Fran Manzella, or Ethan Winer, or Russ
Berger...between just those four esteemed control room designers they
probably have a file of real-world case studies documenting not just
the benefits, but the mandatory need for bass trapping in small
listening rooms.

And I don't see that a broadband
absorber would address this problem in any way.

By broadband I mean as opposed to a Helmholtz resonator or tuned panel
type absorber, devices which target a specific frequency or narrow
band of frequencies. Broadband absorbers that affect an entire octave
or more would not only tame that excess energy @ 50-70Hz, but would
also address the 102 Hz axial modes that would plague an 11' x 11'
room.

But overall I'd say that the original posters worry that he wouldn't get enough
bass in a small space should certainly have been ameliorated by now.

Absolutely!