Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Clive Backham
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Anahata
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Ethan Winer
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Clive Backham
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
William Sommerwerck
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Fraser
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Lorin David Schultz
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
MD
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
MD
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
MD
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
hank alrich
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Lorin David Schultz
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Lorin David Schultz
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Ty Ford
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Fraser
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Fraser
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Fraser
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
William Sommerwerck
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
William Sommerwerck
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
William Sommerwerck
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Fraser
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Lorin David Schultz
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
hank alrich
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
MD
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
MD
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
MD
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
MD
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
MD
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
MD
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
MD
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
MD
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Fraser
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Steve King
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Ethan Winer
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Dr. Dolittle
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
common mode rejection vs. crosstalk xy Pro Audio 385 December 29th 04 01:00 AM
Topic Police Steve Jorgensen Pro Audio 85 July 9th 04 11:47 PM
Artists cut out the record biz [email protected] Pro Audio 64 July 9th 04 10:02 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:42 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"