room correction eq based on PFR measurement?

[loco]

hello all,

i'd like to hear what do you guys think of this new and innovative
product:

http://www.realsoundlab.com/index.php?technology=1

best wishes,

andrejs

[Arny Krueger]

"loco" > wrote in message
oups.com
> hello all,
>
> i'd like to hear what do you guys think of this new and
> innovative product:
>
> http://www.realsoundlab.com/index.php?technology=1

Room equalization is a limited tool. No amount of math wizardry can change
that.

"We have worked to fulfil an audio engineer's dream - whatever is the
problem you face of an acoustic system, just measure it and correct it with
a corrector with inverse characteristics."

Major inherent problems:

(1) A room is stimulated by speakers at a finite and small number of points.
Basic math says that you can only correct its response at a similar or fewer
number of points.

(2) The problem of nulls. You can dump virtually unlimited amounts of power
into a cancellation null and never correct it.

[Scott Dorsey]

loco > wrote:
>
>hello all,
>
>i'd like to hear what do you guys think of this new and innovative
>product:
>
>http://www.realsoundlab.com/index.php?technology=1

It's not new. It's not innovative. It's just another boneheaded attempt
to correct time domain problems with frequency domain solutions. If it
is like any of the other identical devices out there, it probably makes
things a little better in one place in the room and much worse everywhere else.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Romeo Rondeau]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> loco > wrote:
>> hello all,
>>
>> i'd like to hear what do you guys think of this new and innovative
>> product:
>>
>> http://www.realsoundlab.com/index.php?technology=1
>
> It's not new. It's not innovative. It's just another boneheaded attempt
> to correct time domain problems with frequency domain solutions. If it
> is like any of the other identical devices out there, it probably makes
> things a little better in one place in the room and much worse everywhere else.
> --scott
>

It doesn't look like they actually have a product... or maybe I missed
something...

[loco]

Romeo Rondeau wrote:

> It doesn't look like they actually have a product... or maybe I missed
> something...

you missed something. they do have a product but they do not seem to
have a good overview of its features and specifications currently on
their web site. you may request details at

bests,

-andrejs

[Romeo Rondeau]

loco wrote:
> Romeo Rondeau wrote:
>
>> It doesn't look like they actually have a product... or maybe I missed
>> something...
>
> you missed something. they do have a product but they do not seem to
> have a good overview of its features and specifications currently on
> their web site. you may request details at
>
> bests,
>
> -andrejs
>

I guess I did miss something, all I saw was mention of prototypes.

[Ethan Winer]

"loco" > wrote
> i'd like to hear what do you guys think of this new and innovative
> product:

I have to agree with the others that active "correction" is futile, at least
in smaller rooms like control rooms and home studios. Maybe it's useful for
correcting loudspeaker deficiencies in an auditorium, but that's about it.
I've written extensively on this subject, and my most recent article
explains all the limitations in great detail:

http://www.realtraps.com/art_audyssey.htm

--Ethan

[RD Jones]

> "loco" > wrote in message

> > i'd like to hear what do you guys think of this new and
> > innovative product:
>
> >http://www.realsoundlab.com/index.php?technology=1

The product doesn't claim to be "room correction" (even if such
a thing can exist).

"Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> Room equalization is a limited tool. No amount of math wizardry can change
> that.
>
> "We have worked to fulfil an audio engineer's dream - whatever is the
> problem you face of an acoustic system, just measure it and correct it with
> a corrector with inverse characteristics."
>
> Major inherent problems:
>
> (1) A room is stimulated by speakers at a finite and small number of points.
> Basic math says that you can only correct its response at a similar or fewer
> number of points.
>
> (2) The problem of nulls. You can dump virtually unlimited amounts of power
> into a cancellation null and never correct it.

What you end up with is an equalized speaker response (better ? ...)
that may be flatter and theoretically better sounding. Even Bose has
EQ to correct for their speaker's characteristic response.

A properly equalized system can sound better than the same
unequalized system no matter where it's being played.

The problem lies in the measurement that might be taken in a room
with it's own response issues (many in the time domain) that can't
be reasonably corrected.


rd

[Laurence Payne]

On 23 Mar 2007 21:02:14 -0700, "RD Jones" > wrote:

>Even Bose has
>EQ to correct for their speaker's characteristic response.

*Even* Bose? Especially Bose :-)