Well, Sorry Ban, but you are off the mark.

It didn't worsen the sound. Improved it considerably.
And the result was pretty darn flat. Just not amplifier
response flat.

I simplified my description of the entire process. I
also measured near field before measuring in the room.
To figure out what was in the speaker, and correctable
versus what was in the room, and not correctable.
So some dips filled in pretty well. Two which fortunately
weren't real deep were left alone.

So flattening all peaks, filling in some speaker response
dips, how do you figure what I did would make the sound
worse? That is what I don't get in your response.

Dennis

"Ban" wrote in message ...
Dennis Moore wrote:
I have experimented some with EQ, and find it very helpful.
What I have done was take 1/6th octave warble tone
measurements with a RS SLM. Then use CoolEdit 2000
to flatten the results at the listening seat. The speakers
in use were pretty darn flat above 400 hz, so I confined
my EQ to 500hz and below.


So that is where the room influence comes in.


Now when doing this, you couldn't get a quite perfect result.
You couldn't boost deep dips enough to fully compensate.
You would be clipping the amp if you did. But you could fill
them some, bring up smaller dips, and flatten all peaks.


You can take out the peaks, and they are the disturbing part, but it is
not
wise to fill out dips. You already realized that without room treatment it
is impossible to get an even response. But your approach seems widely
popular. That is why people say: "Do not use EQs". In the hand of
experienced sound specialists an EQ can be very beneficial, but what you
describe usually worsens the sound.


The other useful thing was slightly tilting the entire 20-20k hz
band for best subjective result. Fairly small amounts were
quite useful.

Dennis


--
ciao Ban
Bordighera, Italy