Kalman Rubinson wrote:
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 18:47:47 -0500, MD wrote:


Do you mean complimentary for whole room correction or bass/room
interaction resolution?

I meant complementary. ;-)


Where there function does not overlap I see the complimentary part - as
in echo flutter, first order reflection and bass/room correction.

I do not see them being complimentary for bass/room interaction. A
parametric EQ (specifically for nulls) is targeted for specific
frequencies, bandwidths and level. Traps etc are too broad in function
- they operate over too wide of a range to be useful any more. (In the
days before we had parametric/DSP combinations I could see the use -
especially over analog EQs or non-parametric types)

First, traps can be broad in action or they can be tuned/resonant
traps. OTOH, if they are placed at the high pressure zones for the
main room modes, their effect will be primarily on those nodes, even
if they are not tuned specifically.

Second, as you get lower in frequency, you need bigger and more traps
making them less welcome in most domestic setups. Then, electronics
can do great things.

Third, originally, I was not speaking of bass traps, per se, but of
the relative uses of acoustical vs. electronic treatment. At higher
frequencies, I'd prefer acoustics since I'd rather not insert any more
devices than necessary in the signal line. As the volume demands
increase, I lean towards electronics.

Fourth, fixing the room acoustically also benefits all other sounds,
like conversation and ambient noises. This also minimizes any jarring
dichotomy between live and recorded sounds in that room.

Finally, with new DSP techniques, there are great time-domain
manipulations that can be very effective in specific loci.

Kal


Very good
I agree completely. Funny (or sad actually) that so few people even try
to get their room right. I have always treated echo flutter and first
reflection - getting the bass right with DSP is new. Traps are too big,
expensive and a wife killer