"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 09:34:00 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 22:31:10 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

When you apply eq via electronics in the signal path to the speaker, you
change the sound everyplace in the room. When you use acoustical
treatments
the effects tend to be more localized to problems in the part of the
room
where you apply the treatment.

That's not true. Both affect the sound throughout the room but
differently.

Yes, both statements were over-simplifications. However the pervasiveness
of
electrical changes is far greater for pretty obvious reasons. One usually
only has to experiment with acoustical treatments for a little while
before
one finds that there are parts of the room where the effects are global,
and
other places where they are frustratingly local.

Yes, and the same goes for electronic EQ. For example, if you boost a
null (which is due to the interaction of peaks), you get more peaks
elsewhere.

Well it still affected the whole room, right?

Each tool, electronic and acoustical, has its uses.

Aggreed. But, acoustical enhancments seem to be the more perfectionistic and
idealistic way to go. In my book, electronic eq's major charm is that on a
good day its expedient.