Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Room "Correction"
I'm considering trying out a Behringer Ultracurve (DEQ2496) with
matching ECM8000 mic to see if it can help improve the bass end of my home stereo setup. (I realise that r.a.p is more for pro users, but frankly I trust the opinons of this group more than any other in the rec.audio.* hierarchy). Bear in mind that this is a stereo system in a normal domestic living room. Spousal considerations mean that there is no possibility of adding room treatments, and the speakers (ATC SCM100A) are already positioned pretty much as well as they can be within the constraints of domestic harmony (about 2ft from rear and 3ft from side walls). I understand that EQ, no matter how finely controlled, cannot correct time-domain problems, and therefore is pointless at higher frequencies. But I'm happy with the mid range and treble; it's just the bass that seems a little wayward, with some obvious humps and dips. A sweep tone exhibits obvious loudness ups & downs. I'm guessing that these are "room nodes" (standing waves and suck-outs?). OK, so the point of this question is: can a digital EQ system like the Behringer, working only at low frequencies (say below about 300Hz) be expected to improve matters in a specific room with a specific set of speakers placed in specific locations? I have read opposing views over whether this can work. Back-of-cigarette-packet calculations tell me that the wavlength of a 300Hz signal is nearly 4ft, so I'm hoping that any room correction at the low end will encompass a large enough listening area to be worthwhile. I could just go out and buy an Ultracurve then unload it on eBay if it's a failure, but if people here can convince me that it's a non-starter then I won't bother. For the record, a TacT system is out of the question, budget-wise. |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Room "Correction"
Clive Backham wrote:
I understand that EQ, no matter how finely controlled, cannot correct time-domain problems, and therefore is pointless at higher frequencies. But I'm happy with the mid range and treble; it's just the bass that seems a little wayward, with some obvious humps and dips. A sweep tone exhibits obvious loudness ups & downs. I'm guessing that these are "room nodes" (standing waves and suck-outs?). OK, so the point of this question is: can a digital EQ system like the Behringer, working only at low frequencies (say below about 300Hz) be expected to improve matters in a specific room with a specific set of speakers placed in specific locations? I have read opposing views over whether this can work. Back-of-cigarette-packet calculations tell me that the wavlength of a 300Hz signal is nearly 4ft, so I'm hoping that any room correction at the low end will encompass a large enough listening area to be worthwhile. You can EQ things so that the low end humps disappear at one position in the room. The bass detail still won't be right; there will still be an issue with overhang. But the humps will disappear at one point in the room. You can't do anything about the dips, really. I could just go out and buy an Ultracurve then unload it on eBay if it's a failure, but if people here can convince me that it's a non-starter then I won't bother. For the record, a TacT system is out of the question, budget-wise. It might be better than nothing at all, but I don't see why a couple of well-constructed bass traps can't improve the look of your living room rather than detract from it. Nice fabric panels with hand-rubbed oak trim and all that... --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Room "Correction"
Clive Backham wrote:
I understand that EQ, no matter how finely controlled, cannot correct time-domain problems, and therefore is pointless at higher frequencies. It won't help with the bass end either. Anahata |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Room "Correction"
Clive,
can a digital EQ system like the Behringer, working only at low frequencies (say below about 300Hz) be expected to improve matters In a word, No. The only viable solution is getting bass traps. That will reduce the peaks, broaden their bandwidth (which reduces the effect known as "one-note bass"), raise the nulls, and reduce ringing. And all four of those will be improved everywhere in the room. Unlike EQ that might reduce peaks in one place, but make them worse elsewhere. It's impossible to make any small room perfectly flat, but you can definitely go from "This is terrible" to "Wow, that's great!" with good bass traps. --Ethan |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Room "Correction"
OK, thanks everyone. You've talked me out of it.
By the way: The TacT room correction system seems to be regarded as something that works (damn well needs to at the price!). And as far as I can tell it just fiddles with the signal in DSP before it gets to the speakers. So how does it work? |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Room "Correction"
Clive Backham wrote:
OK, thanks everyone. You've talked me out of it. By the way: The TacT room correction system seems to be regarded as something that works (damn well needs to at the price!). And as far as I can tell it just fiddles with the signal in DSP before it gets to the speakers. So how does it work? My brief experience with it was that it didn't really work. But I think they are actually trying to undo the impulse response of the room. Once again, this will only work at one point in space and it won't fix suckout problems, but it might compensate for hangover, which EQ won't. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Room "Correction"
OK, thanks everyone. You've talked me out of it.
You shouldn't be too quick to dismiss room EQ. It works. I did a number of room EQs in my day, and -- if the system was properly set up, and the room had decent acoustics to begin with (ie, little or no slap echo, minimal wall reflections, etc), a careful EQ would _drastically_ improve the sound. You're looking at this from an overly narrow theoretical point of view. |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Room "Correction"
I understand that EQ, no matter how finely controlled, cannot correct
time-domain problems, and therefore is pointless at higher frequencies. For the reason you just stated, EQ is similarly pointless at low frequencies. In fact time domain problems exist throughout the frequency spectrum. But I'm happy with the mid range and treble; it's just the bass that seems a little wayward, with some obvious humps and dips. Sure, that's where most room problems lie. OK, so the point of this question is: can a digital EQ system like the Behringer, working only at low frequencies (say below about 300Hz) be expected to improve matters in a specific room with a specific set of speakers placed in specific locations? No. The fact of the EQ being digital is entirely beside the point. You can lower the energy that is causing certain frequencies to ring, but without acoustic treatment you are merely masking the inescapable fact that some frequencies ring longer than others. The EQ will slightly hide the problem areas, but it will do exactly nothing to fix the real problem, which is that your room resonates at certain frequencies, causing those frequencies to sustain considerably longer than other frequencies. I have read opposing views over whether this can work. Back-of-cigarette-packet calculations tell me that the wavlength of a 300Hz signal is nearly 4ft, so I'm hoping that any room correction at the low end will encompass a large enough listening area to be worthwhile. No, it doesn't work that way. Room resonance is not a case simply of some frequencies being louder than others. Those frequencies sustain longer because your room is a tuned acoustic circuit. An EQ can only alter amplitude at those frequencies, but it does nothing to alter the sustain of those frequencies. Scott Fraser |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Room "Correction"
"William Sommerwerck" wrote:
I did a number of room EQs in my day, and -- if the system was properly set up, and the room had decent acoustics to begin with (ie, little or no slap echo, minimal wall reflections, etc), a careful EQ would _drastically_ improve the sound. Uh huh, and such rooms exist _where_? Show me a living room that does NOT have reflections causing enormous standing waves and nulls. -- "It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!" - Lorin David Schultz in the control room making even bad news sound good (Remove spamblock to reply) |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Room "Correction"
Ethan Winer wrote:
Clive, can a digital EQ system like the Behringer, working only at low frequencies (say below about 300Hz) be expected to improve matters In a word, No. The only viable solution is getting bass traps. That will reduce the peaks, broaden their bandwidth (which reduces the effect known as "one-note bass"), raise the nulls, and reduce ringing. And all four of those will be improved everywhere in the room. Unlike EQ that might reduce peaks in one place, but make them worse elsewhere. It's impossible to make any small room perfectly flat, but you can definitely go from "This is terrible" to "Wow, that's great!" with good bass traps. --Ethan I normally stay out of things like this unless the data is way off base and/or someone is pushing an agenda. Ask Ethan what he does for a living. Both methods have their function - neither is perfect. For a single sitting position correction in this range the Behringer works very well - is much cheaper and doesn't impact the physical layout of the room. |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Room "Correction"
Lorin David Schultz wrote:
"William Sommerwerck" wrote: I did a number of room EQs in my day, and -- if the system was properly set up, and the room had decent acoustics to begin with (ie, little or no slap echo, minimal wall reflections, etc), a careful EQ would _drastically_ improve the sound. Uh huh, and such rooms exist _where_? Show me a living room that does NOT have reflections causing enormous standing waves and nulls. You are correct the problems never go away. However the room causes more issues if the dimensions are divisible by the same number. |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Room "Correction"
Scott Fraser wrote:
I understand that EQ, no matter how finely controlled, cannot correct time-domain problems, and therefore is pointless at higher frequencies. For the reason you just stated, EQ is similarly pointless at low frequencies. In fact time domain problems exist throughout the frequency spectrum. But I'm happy with the mid range and treble; it's just the bass that seems a little wayward, with some obvious humps and dips. Sure, that's where most room problems lie. OK, so the point of this question is: can a digital EQ system like the Behringer, working only at low frequencies (say below about 300Hz) be expected to improve matters in a specific room with a specific set of speakers placed in specific locations? No. The fact of the EQ being digital is entirely beside the point. You can lower the energy that is causing certain frequencies to ring, but without acoustic treatment you are merely masking the inescapable fact that some frequencies ring longer than others. The EQ will slightly hide the problem areas, but it will do exactly nothing to fix the real problem, which is that your room resonates at certain frequencies, causing those frequencies to sustain considerably longer than other frequencies. I have read opposing views over whether this can work. Back-of-cigarette-packet calculations tell me that the wavlength of a 300Hz signal is nearly 4ft, so I'm hoping that any room correction at the low end will encompass a large enough listening area to be worthwhile. No, it doesn't work that way. Room resonance is not a case simply of some frequencies being louder than others. Those frequencies sustain longer because your room is a tuned acoustic circuit. An EQ can only alter amplitude at those frequencies, but it does nothing to alter the sustain of those frequencies. Scott Fraser I agree with this data - however - one has to add some real world realities. Passive room treatment - for this freq range - is expensive and the room decor will be drastically altered. If one is adjusting for multiple listening positions and has the money and desire to put these devices in the room - great. if you don't have a lot of money and you sit in one spot the Behringer (for example) works very well |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Room "Correction"
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
message OK, thanks everyone. You've talked me out of it. You shouldn't be too quick to dismiss room EQ. It works. I did a number of room EQs in my day, and -- if the system was properly set up, and the room had decent acoustics to begin with (ie, little or no slap echo, minimal wall reflections, etc), a careful EQ would _drastically_ improve the sound. You're looking at this from an overly narrow theoretical point of view. Agreed that the theoretical take on room equalization is pretty dreary compared to more generally-accepted practices such as equalizing mics and speakers. Equalizing rooms is a band aid and mission impossible particularly when there are differing needs in different parts of the room. However, a bad room can have a generalized problem, such as sounding cold due to lots of reflections from hard floors and walls. Obviously the equalizer can't make all of the bad effects of the reflections go away, but it can help with the general coldness. Room equalization can be better than a kick in the head if done appropriately and with care and taste. |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Room "Correction"
MD wrote:
I normally stay out of things like this unless the data is way off base and/or someone is pushing an agenda. Ask Ethan what he does for a living. One of the things Ethan does for a living is _give away free plans_ to construct traps that are much like those he sells, except for the proprietary material in the damping membrane in RealTraps. If you had balls even as big as petite green peas you'd step out from behind your nom de plume and stand alongside your scurillious harassment of Ethan. Ethan has contributred a lot of helpful information here, and never have I read that he said to buy his traps. He deals pretty much in facts regarding room treatment, and if his business is successful (it is) that is due to the truth of his statements about room treatments and the benefits of trapping and diffusing, and the excellent value that his own system offers. -- ha |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Room "Correction"
"MD" wrote:
I normally stay out of things like this unless the data is way off base and/or someone is pushing an agenda. Ask Ethan what he does for a living. Okay, let's have it. What's the history with you and Ethan? Why the campaign to discredit his work? I don't understand it. He's always been completely above-board and reasonable, and does not present his product as an essential solution. So why do you take issue with him? I agree that some people use misinformation to sell their wares, but Ethan is NOT one of them. Besides, 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. Why? With due respect, I would suggest that it is perhaps you who is perpetuating popular mythology over practical reality. -- "It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!" - Lorin David Schultz in the control room making even bad news sound good (Remove spamblock to reply) |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Room "Correction"
"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. -- "It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!" - Lorin David Schultz in the control room making even bad news sound good (Remove spamblock to reply) |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Room "Correction"
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 11:50:51 -0500, Lorin David Schultz wrote
(in article LV%Lf.5322$M52.1452@edtnps89): "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. I once wrote an article defaming electronic EQ for studios and got a nasty email from a gent who made his living selling gear. Apparently my article was read by one of his clients to whom he had sold an equalizer. My argument was buy the right speakers and put them in the right place. I think his background was live sound. It made sense that he would think that way. Live sound is an entirely different beast. You have no control over the environment and it can change even in the same venue. Further, of the many control rooms in which I've been, I don't think any of them were flat everywhere. There is always a bump or dip. You get to know where they are and use them to rationalize and check your mix. Regards, Ty Ford -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric stuff are at www.tyford.com |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Room "Correction"
Both methods have their function - neither is perfect. For a single
sitting position correction in this range the Behringer works very well - is much cheaper and doesn't impact the physical layout of the room. No, even in the one sweet spot that you pick for EQing correctly, you will never be able to fix the real problem, which is the ringing of some frequencies. A spectrum analyzer will give you the false reading that the room is flat at that location, but it deals only with amplitude & ignores the fact that some frequencies sustain over time after the initial energy is removed from the circuit, i.e. sound stops coming out of the speakers yet continues to resonate in the room due to its acoustic defects. EQ simply cannot ever correct the time domain issues in a room. Scott Fraser |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Room "Correction"
I once wrote an article defaming electronic EQ for studios and got a
nasty email from a gent who made his living selling gear. I think his background was live sound. It made sense that he would think that way. Live sound is an entirely different beast. You have no control over the environment and it can change even in the same venue. Live sound is definitely a different beast. First & foremost is the fact that the mix does not leave the venue & need to translate well to other systems. Additionally, as Ty points out, there is generally nothing the live engineer can do to alter the room's acoustic behaviour anyway, so a bandaid is better than no bandaid. In the few concert halls which provide variable decay times with arrayable curtains or banners, I deploy these as determined by the program material; strings only calls for longer RTs. If we have a guest vocalist, pianist, percussionist or prerecorded text parts, I'll bring in more of the curtains to damp the RT somewhat. Then there is the fact that the room acts differently during sound check than it does with the audinece in. So, yes, we use system EQ for live sound, understanding it to be a necessary bandaid which addresses a completely different set of circumstances than exist in a recording studio control room. Scott Fraser |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Room "Correction"
I agree with this data - however - one has to add some real world
realities. I believe the real world reality you need to state in this case is that you have already invested in purchasing a Behringer EQ. Passive room treatment - for this freq range - is expensive and the room decor will be drastically altered. If one is adjusting for multiple listening positions and has the money and desire to put these devices in the room - great. if you don't have a lot of money and you sit in one spot the Behringer (for example) works very well To be logically consistent as well as intellectually honest, given the inherent conflicts in your stated defense, I believe you need to state that the Behringer works very well only if one construes the resulting masking of the acoustic room problems as less important than an actual improvement in the acoustic properties of the room. In other words, the EQ becomes a feelgood emotional solution, while remaining an aural non-solution. That's OK, as long as you're not kidding yourself about what's really going on acoustically. Scott Fraser |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Room "Correction"
I did a number of room EQs in my day, and -- if the system was
properly set up, and the room had decent acoustics to begin with (ie, little or no slap echo, minimal wall reflections, etc), a careful EQ would _drastically_ improve the sound. Uh huh, and such rooms exist _where_? Show me a living room that does NOT have reflections causing enormous standing waves and nulls. I overstated the case. However, if a room is reasonably well-damped (which is not hard to do; some rooms are already that way), even conventional multi-band analog EQ works extremely well. Such rooms do not have "enormous" peaks and nulls. You are right in saying that EQ basically corrects the room's steady-state problems. It doesn't do much for "temporal" errors. But if the room isn't too live to begin with, the steady-state correction results in a major gain. I speak from experience, not just theory. |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Room "Correction"
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. If I had to choose between the two, I'd go with the room treatment (in the broadest sense of "treatment). But a properly treated room is a prime candidate for EQ. EQ is never "worse than nothing". But if the room has bad acoustics, the improvements EQ effects are minor and not worth the trouble. (Yes, I've applied EQ in bad rooms, both in homes and businesses, and it pointless.) By the way, detailed digital EQ can also correct errors in the speaker. |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Room "Correction"
Room equalization can be better than a kick in the head
if done appropriately and with care and taste. Well, I did mine with good test equipment -- NOT "by ear". The reduced coloration, more-transparent and natural sound, and better imaging are plainluy audible. Anybody got a BADAP in working order they want to sell? |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Room "Correction"
EQ is never "worse than nothing".
??!! Never? I beg to differ. I would say EQ is almost always worse than nothing, & maybe rarely slightly better than nothing in cases where the room has been sorted out acoustically already. But if the room has bad acoustics, the improvements EQ effects are minor and not worth the trouble. (Yes, I've applied EQ in bad rooms, both in homes and businesses, and it pointless.) Agreed. By the way, detailed digital EQ can also correct errors in the speaker. Yes, where the speaker is demonstrably deficient in anechoic tests, EQ can correct this such that the output into the room in question at least starts out flat. After it gets into the room, though, the EQ is no longer a useful part of the equation. Scott Fraser |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Room "Correction"
"William Sommerwerck" wrote:
Anybody got a BADAP in working order they want to sell? Yes, Microsoft Office. Or does "BADAP" mean something else in this context? -- "It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!" - Lorin David Schultz in the control room making even bad news sound good (Remove spamblock to reply) |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Room "Correction"
William Sommerwerck wrote:
EQ is never "worse than nothing". Depends where it's being employed. In a live setting or a living room listening situation, maybe. In a control room it can easily lead to mixes that do not translate. -- ha |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Room "Correction"
hank alrich wrote:
William Sommerwerck wrote: EQ is never "worse than nothing". Depends where it's being employed. In a live setting or a living room listening situation, maybe. In a control room it can easily lead to mixes that do not translate. I have worked in a lot of facilities where the mains were equalized. In pretty much every case, I was happier with them with the equalizer bypassed. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Room "Correction"
"Lorin David Schultz" wrote in
message news:Eu2Mf.4810$Cp4.255@edtnps90 "William Sommerwerck" wrote: Anybody got a BADAP in working order they want to sell? Yes, Microsoft Office. Or does "BADAP" mean something else in this context? I think William speaks of a protable digital audio signal analyzer sold by Crown in the mid-1990s. |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Room "Correction"
hank alrich wrote:
MD wrote: I normally stay out of things like this unless the data is way off base and/or someone is pushing an agenda. Ask Ethan what he does for a living. One of the things Ethan does for a living is _give away free plans_ to construct traps that are much like those he sells, except for the proprietary material in the damping membrane in RealTraps. If you had balls even as big as petite green peas you'd step out from behind your nom de plume and stand alongside your scurillious harassment of Ethan. Ethan has contributred a lot of helpful information here, and never have I read that he said to buy his traps. He deals pretty much in facts regarding room treatment, and if his business is successful (it is) that is due to the truth of his statements about room treatments and the benefits of trapping and diffusing, and the excellent value that his own system offers. -- ha Never said Ethan doesn't contribute anything worthwhile - because I believe he does Don't know what the lack of balls comment means. This is a written forum. What would I be doing if I "stood alingside"? There are times when Ethan puts the facts forward What is the deal with me and Ethan? Not sure there is one. Never said the DSP solves everything. Never said it solves the decay issues. Here's the deal. Ethan posted an answer to a novice who was asking for help. In that email he said digital correction doesn't work at all. Quote - can a digital EQ system like the Behringer, working only at low frequencies (say below about 300Hz) be expected to improve matters - In a word, No. This is wrong, misleading and he knows better (his own experiments and plots have shown this and he has said differently on other forums.) I am not saying either DSP is a panacea. To be honest I haven't seen enough data or done enough personnal A/B tests to come to a conclusion on whether traps or DSP are "better". For a single listening position DSP can be quite effective and is much cheaper than traps. My ears and plots tell me that (as do others ears and their plots) I have a problem with someone who knows better saying something - especially to a novice - that they know is patently wrong. Especially if one has an agenda. If Ethan didn't know better and wasn't so well informed I would have cut him some slack and replied on my own with a more tempered rebuttal. I am not in the business and have nothing to gain or lose by posting in this thread. |
#30
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Room "Correction"
Lorin David Schultz wrote:
"MD" wrote: I normally stay out of things like this unless the data is way off base and/or someone is pushing an agenda. Ask Ethan what he does for a living. Okay, let's have it. What's the history with you and Ethan? Why the campaign to discredit his work? I don't understand it. He's always been completely above-board and reasonable, and does not present his product as an essential solution. So why do you take issue with him? I agree that some people use misinformation to sell their wares, but Ethan is NOT one of them. Besides, 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. Why? With due respect, I would suggest that it is perhaps you who is perpetuating popular mythology over practical reality. Never said Ethan doesn't contribute anything worthwhile - because I believe he does Don't know what the lack of balls comment means. This is a written forum. What would I be doing if I "stood alongside"? There are times when Ethan puts the facts forward What is the deal with me and Ethan? Not sure there is one. Never said the DSP solves everything. Never said it solves the decay issues. Here's the deal. Ethan posted an answer to a novice who was asking for help. In that email he said digital correction doesn't work at all. Quote - can a digital EQ system like the Behringer, working only at low frequencies (say below about 300Hz) be expected to improve matters - In a word, No. This is wrong, misleading and he knows better (his own experiments and plots have shown this and he has said differently on other forums.) I am not saying either DSP is a panacea. To be honest I haven't seen enough data or done enough personal A/B tests to come to a conclusion on whether traps or DSP are "better". For a single listening position DSP can be quite effective and is much cheaper than traps. My ears and plots tell me that (as do others ears and their plots) I have a problem with someone who knows better saying something - especially to a novice - that they know is patently wrong. Especially if one has an agenda. If Ethan didn't know better and wasn't so well informed I would have cut him some slack and replied on my own with a more tempered rebuttal. I am not in the business and have nothing to gain or lose by posting in this thread. |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Room "Correction"
Scott Fraser wrote:
Both methods have their function - neither is perfect. For a single sitting position correction in this range the Behringer works very well - is much cheaper and doesn't impact the physical layout of the room. No, even in the one sweet spot that you pick for EQing correctly, you will never be able to fix the real problem, which is the ringing of some frequencies. A spectrum analyzer will give you the false reading that the room is flat at that location, but it deals only with amplitude & ignores the fact that some frequencies sustain over time after the initial energy is removed from the circuit, i.e. sound stops coming out of the speakers yet continues to resonate in the room due to its acoustic defects. EQ simply cannot ever correct the time domain issues in a room. Scott Fraser Never said Ethan doesn't contribute anything worthwhile - because I believe he does Don't know what the lack of balls comment means. This is a written forum. What would I be doing if I "stood alongside"? There are times when Ethan puts the facts forward What is the deal with me and Ethan? Not sure there is one. Never said the DSP solves everything. Never said it solves the decay issues. Here's the deal. Ethan posted an answer to a novice who was asking for help. In that email he said digital correction doesn't work at all. Quote - can a digital EQ system like the Behringer, working only at low frequencies (say below about 300Hz) be expected to improve matters - In a word, No. This is wrong, misleading and he knows better (his own experiments and plots have shown this and he has said differently on other forums.) I am not saying either DSP is a panacea. To be honest I haven't seen enough data or done enough personal A/B tests to come to a conclusion on whether traps or DSP are "better". For a single listening position DSP can be quite effective and is much cheaper than traps. My ears and plots tell me that (as do others ears and their plots) I have a problem with someone who knows better saying something - especially to a novice - that they know is patently wrong. Especially if one has an agenda. If Ethan didn't know better and wasn't so well informed I would have cut him some slack and replied on my own with a more tempered rebuttal. I am not in the business and have nothing to gain or lose by posting in this thread. |
#32
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Room "Correction"
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) |
#33
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Room "Correction"
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) |
#34
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Room "Correction"
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) |
#35
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Room "Correction"
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) |
#36
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Room "Correction"
Scott Fraser wrote:
I agree with this data - however - one has to add some real world realities. I believe the real world reality you need to state in this case is that you have already invested in purchasing a Behringer EQ. Passive room treatment - for this freq range - is expensive and the room decor will be drastically altered. If one is adjusting for multiple listening positions and has the money and desire to put these devices in the room - great. if you don't have a lot of money and you sit in one spot the Behringer (for example) works very well To be logically consistent as well as intellectually honest, given the inherent conflicts in your stated defense, I believe you need to state that the Behringer works very well only if one construes the resulting masking of the acoustic room problems as less important than an actual improvement in the acoustic properties of the room. In other words, the EQ becomes a feelgood emotional solution, while remaining an aural non-solution. That's OK, as long as you're not kidding yourself about what's really going on acoustically. Scott Fraser I have plots that show the difference with a DSP. It's not simply feel good. It may be a secondary and therefore not technically preferred but it works well and is affordable. Again - for a single listening position. |
#37
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Room "Correction"
I have plots that show the difference with a DSP. It's not simply
feel good. It may be a secondary and therefore not technically preferred but it works well and is affordable. Again - for a single listening position. What sort of plots? If it's a spectral analysis, it's meaningless for the issue I've raised of time domain problems. A waterfall plot will show you why your solution is misguided. I agree with the assertion that using an equalizer is affordable. In this case you can have cheap or you can have good. You don't get both. Scott Fraser |
#38
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Room "Correction"
"MD" wrote in message
... hank alrich wrote: MD wrote: I normally stay out of things like this unless the data is way off base and/or someone is pushing an agenda. Ask Ethan what he does for a living. One of the things Ethan does for a living is _give away free plans_ to construct traps that are much like those he sells, except for the proprietary material in the damping membrane in RealTraps. If you had balls even as big as petite green peas you'd step out from behind your nom de plume and stand alongside your scurillious harassment of Ethan. Ethan has contributred a lot of helpful information here, and never have I read that he said to buy his traps. He deals pretty much in facts regarding room treatment, and if his business is successful (it is) that is due to the truth of his statements about room treatments and the benefits of trapping and diffusing, and the excellent value that his own system offers. -- ha Never said Ethan doesn't contribute anything worthwhile - because I believe he does Don't know what the lack of balls comment means. This is a written forum. What would I be doing if I "stood alingside"? There are times when Ethan puts the facts forward What is the deal with me and Ethan? Not sure there is one. Never said the DSP solves everything. Never said it solves the decay issues. Here's the deal. Ethan posted an answer to a novice who was asking for help. In that email he said digital correction doesn't work at all. Quote - can a digital EQ system like the Behringer, working only at low frequencies (say below about 300Hz) be expected to improve matters - In a word, No. This is wrong, misleading and he knows better (his own experiments and plots have shown this and he has said differently on other forums.) I am not saying either DSP is a panacea. To be honest I haven't seen enough data or done enough personnal A/B tests to come to a conclusion on whether traps or DSP are "better". For a single listening position DSP can be quite effective and is much cheaper than traps. My ears and plots tell me that (as do others ears and their plots) I have a problem with someone who knows better saying something - especially to a novice - that they know is patently wrong. Especially if one has an agenda. If Ethan didn't know better and wasn't so well informed I would have cut him some slack and replied on my own with a more tempered rebuttal. I am not in the business and have nothing to gain or lose by posting in this thread. Having been intrigued by the prospect of "tuning" a control-room back in the 70s and having spent a bunch of money on 'experts' and equipment, I found that for every improvement at a "single listening position" (meaning ears within inches of the position of the calibration mic used in the 'tuning' process) the sound was worse most everywhere else. The net effect was that even if some improvement was accomplished for the engineer, clients, artists, producers, everyone else in the collaboration had their judgement affected by the 'tuning' in a very non-helpful way. Even the engineer had to work differently. The mixing board was about seven feet wide. That meant that the engineer was almost always out of the sweet spot, when making EQ decisions, which slowed down sessions and tried the patience of the people footing the bill. We shortly pitched the mess, set about the accoustic treatment the room needed in the first place, and lived happily ever after. Tuning, digital or otherwise, is a very bad idea in my opinion. Steve King |
#39
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Room "Correction"
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 |
#40
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Digital Room "Correction"
Ethan Winer wrote: 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? Yup, fix your room a bit, move the speakers, etc. Don't try to force it into submission with massive eq. It'll sound squeezed. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
common mode rejection vs. crosstalk | Pro Audio | |||
Topic Police | Pro Audio | |||
Artists cut out the record biz | Pro Audio |