Jones_r wrote:

Behringer UB802 pre amp ($50)
Behringer ECM8000 mike. ($40)

I need to measure the frequency response in my room in order to apply
room correction. I'd like to get accurate results (otherwise I'll get
a sonic signature from the recording hardware), but don't want to
break the bank.

These will give you the measurement fine but be aware that
what you measure at one point in a room will usually be
substantially different from the measurement at a point
inches or even fractions of an inch away from it unless the
room is pretty anechoic. This position dependance goes up
as frequency does so such measurement can still give you a
pretty good indication of your room's low frequency modes.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Scott, I've tried the Radio Shack SPL meter. If you want, I can give
you the Digital Room Correction filter that I've created with it. It
is horrible!!!. The high frequency is totaly messed and compressed!.

I have a filter that someone did with an ECM8000 and a Behringer SHARK
DSP110 pre amp, and the result (via headphones) is VERY good, light
years ahead of the filter I got with Radio Shack. But, the Behringer
SHARK DSP110 pre amp first convert the signal to the digital domain
and then to the analog domain, using ADC/DAC of 24bit, which I know is
not neutral (I have the Behringer Feedback Destroyer with the same
ADC/DAC, and a sonic signature can be heard at the higher
frequencies).

I am only correcting for one place, the listening spot.


Behringer UB802 pre amp ($50)
Behringer ECM8000 mike. ($40)

I need to measure the frequency response in my room in order to apply
room correction. I'd like to get accurate results (otherwise I'll get
a sonic signature from the recording hardware), but don't want to
break the bank.

First of all, you should know that room response measurements don't really
tell you very much.

I already have a sound card with a very good line in input (M-Audio's
Revolution 7.1). Now I need a mike + a pre amp (since I heard that the
mike input on this sound card isn't as good as the line in).

I really don't need a mic mixer, all I need is a neutral mic pre amp.
I've mentioned the UB802 since some people told me it is very
accurate, for the price. I also know that M-Audio sells the Audio
Budddy for around that price.

What do you think I should do ?, can I get any better products for
around the same price ?.

I think you'll do a lot better with a test CD that has sweep tones, and
the analogue SPL meter from Radio Shack, and the combination will cost half
of what you're proposing. On the other hand, I also don't think it will
do what you think it will.
--scott

Jones_r wrote:
Scott, I've tried the Radio Shack SPL meter. If you want, I can give
you the Digital Room Correction filter that I've created with it. It
is horrible!!!. The high frequency is totaly messed and compressed!.

Yes, that's what happens when you try to use a frequency-domain filter to
fix a time-domain problem in your room. It doesn't work.

I have a filter that someone did with an ECM8000 and a Behringer SHARK
DSP110 pre amp, and the result (via headphones) is VERY good, light
years ahead of the filter I got with Radio Shack. But, the Behringer
SHARK DSP110 pre amp first convert the signal to the digital domain
and then to the analog domain, using ADC/DAC of 24bit, which I know is
not neutral (I have the Behringer Feedback Destroyer with the same
ADC/DAC, and a sonic signature can be heard at the higher
frequencies).

Ummm... how can you check room effects with headphones?

I am only correcting for one place, the listening spot.

Then you had better install a rack that bolts your head into that place,
because a quarter-inch away, the response will be totally different.
--scott


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

In article writes:

Scott, I've tried the Radio Shack SPL meter. If you want, I can give
you the Digital Room Correction filter that I've created with it. It
is horrible!!!. The high frequency is totaly messed and compressed!.

How did you make your measurements? Got a reference source and an
anechoic chamber?

The analog SPL meter is remarkably good, turning in properly measured
results of +/- 2.5 dB between 40 Hz and 20 kHz. My source is a neat
little card that Granite Audio handed out at the CES 2002 show. I
looked on their web site for it and couldn't find it so you'll just
have to trust that I can read and that they can measure.

Perhaps your room is horrible, or maybe just normal. If you measure
frequency response of sine waves at a single point in any room but an
anechoic chamber, you'll get a real horror show.

I am only correcting for one place, the listening spot.

Bad, bad, bad. But I won't elaborate. Go read a book on acoustics and
then think about what you're doing.




--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

Guys, guys, please don't attack me for what I'm doing. I'm well aware
of the limitations and benefits of digital room correction.

The software I have does a similar process (but in a more efficient
and advanced way) to the one being done by the next product:
http://www.soundstage.com/revequip/tact_rcs20_sneak.htm

I am using headphones in order to hear the inverse acoustics of the
room which the filter was created for. This gives me some kind of an
indication of the Mike + Pre amp sonic signature, when I compare it to
other filters made by other recording hardware (only severe mike + pre
amp problems can discovered by this process, of course). In the case
of the Radio Shack SPL meter, I get a pretty good indication that it
is crap for full range measuring.

If you want to test your Radio Shack, just put it at the listening
spot, and let it record something from your sound system, you'll be
horrified by the results. This thing is the most inaccurate mike I've
ever heard. Simply garbage. It is good for measuring the SPL of white
or pink noise. For any other application, beware of it.

My sound system using the digital correction process, can only sound
as good as the mike + pre amp which record the rooms acoustics. This
is why I'm a bit of afraid from the UB802, since it has tone controls
which can not be bypassed. They can screw the frequency repsonse
accuracy of the pre amp, if they will come deviated from the factory.

Jones_r wrote:
Scott, I've tried the Radio Shack SPL meter. If you want, I can give
you the Digital Room Correction filter that I've created with it. It
is horrible!!!. The high frequency is totaly messed and compressed!.

Yes, that's what happens when you try to use a frequency-domain filter to
fix a time-domain problem in your room. It doesn't work.

I have a filter that someone did with an ECM8000 and a Behringer SHARK
DSP110 pre amp, and the result (via headphones) is VERY good, light
years ahead of the filter I got with Radio Shack. But, the Behringer
SHARK DSP110 pre amp first convert the signal to the digital domain
and then to the analog domain, using ADC/DAC of 24bit, which I know is
not neutral (I have the Behringer Feedback Destroyer with the same
ADC/DAC, and a sonic signature can be heard at the higher
frequencies).

Ummm... how can you check room effects with headphones?

I am only correcting for one place, the listening spot.

Then you had better install a rack that bolts your head into that place,
because a quarter-inch away, the response will be totally different.
--scott

On 13 Aug 2003 11:01:38 -0700, (Jones_r) wrote:

In case you only listen from the listening spot (I mainly do this in
my home), once you find the problem frequencies, you CAN fix the
acoustics at the listening spot, using an unlimited band eq, which can
also correct the phase problems which are created by the frequency
correction, and room acoustics.

Well, not really. What you could do, if your speakers were
point sources, would be to correct each speaker's radiation
on one axis, by making near-field measurements and applying
correction. With some extra effort, this can be expanded
to multiple radiator speakers.

So first arrivals sounds can be corrected for listeners
on axis. Any further correction attempted will, by
definition, make *this* correction INcorrect.

Room correction by electronics is a fallacy.

Chris Hornbeck
fair and balanced

Chris, Room correction by electronics might be a fallacy for your ears
(or understanding), but to mine, and many, many other people, it's
real.

I'm not new to digital room correction, and if I thought it's a
fallacy, I never would have gotten into it. I really like the way it
change the sound for the better, when done right.

People like you really makes me wonder. What satisfaction do you get
by saying this technology doesn't work, before you even heard what it
could do ?. I advise you to reserve your judgement until you actually
listen with your own ears. You might have to eat your hat.

I suppose dozens of other professional reviewers, from respected audio
magazines (whose reviews can be found with ease all over the
internet), who like me, also heard the benefits of digital room
correction, were all deluded, drugged, blackmailed (pick your favorite
choice) prior to giving their sometimes VERY positive reviews.

Anyway, I didn't start this thread in order to persuade people that
digital room correction works. It works very well for me, and that's
what matters. If you could stick to the original question I'll be more
than happy.

On 13 Aug 2003 11:01:38 -0700, (Jones_r) wrote:

In case you only listen from the listening spot (I mainly do this in
my home), once you find the problem frequencies, you CAN fix the
acoustics at the listening spot, using an unlimited band eq, which can
also correct the phase problems which are created by the frequency
correction, and room acoustics.

Well, not really. What you could do, if your speakers were
point sources, would be to correct each speaker's radiation
on one axis, by making near-field measurements and applying
correction. With some extra effort, this can be expanded
to multiple radiator speakers.

So first arrivals sounds can be corrected for listeners
on axis. Any further correction attempted will, by
definition, make *this* correction INcorrect.

Room correction by electronics is a fallacy.

Chris Hornbeck
fair and balanced

"Then you had better install a rack that bolts your head into that
place,
because a quarter-inch away, the response will be totally different."

It's all up to you to decide how strong you want the correction to be.
I sit very relaxed on the couch, and I can apply a pretty strong
correction, and still be able to move naturaly on the couch without
going out of the sweet spot. YMMV, of course.




Jones_r wrote:
Scott, I've tried the Radio Shack SPL meter. If you want, I can give
you the Digital Room Correction filter that I've created with it. It
is horrible!!!. The high frequency is totaly messed and compressed!.

Yes, that's what happens when you try to use a frequency-domain filter to
fix a time-domain problem in your room. It doesn't work.

I have a filter that someone did with an ECM8000 and a Behringer SHARK
DSP110 pre amp, and the result (via headphones) is VERY good, light
years ahead of the filter I got with Radio Shack. But, the Behringer
SHARK DSP110 pre amp first convert the signal to the digital domain
and then to the analog domain, using ADC/DAC of 24bit, which I know is
not neutral (I have the Behringer Feedback Destroyer with the same
ADC/DAC, and a sonic signature can be heard at the higher
frequencies).

Ummm... how can you check room effects with headphones?

I am only correcting for one place, the listening spot.

Then you had better install a rack that bolts your head into that place,
because a quarter-inch away, the response will be totally different.
--scott

I'd say you'd have to include John Storyk and Francis Manzella and Chris
Pelonis amongst a ton of others who feel (know) that it's the room that
needs the treatment, not the speakers.

FOR Instance, let's just say that you've scoped out what you feel to be room
correction in an average control room, meaning Joe Blow's place. But he
gets a new piece of equipment in and has to reposition his speakers, so now
your correction is incorrect. Or, hope against hope, a somewhat big name
local producer wants to come over and block out the studio for a month to do
pre-production planning on a new group's CD and he brings along his NHT Pros
while you've got room correction set for Tannoy 6.5 PBMs.

The concept of room correction via EQ (filtration) for specific speakers in
a specific place can work. I don't think anyone is saying that it can't.
What everyone is saying is that it's not a real fix of the problem areas,
which lie within the listening environment in the first place. Once you
understand the nodes and locations, fixing the environment allows you to
virtually replace a speaker setup with another, or add another without the
need to reshoot the room and apply your digital correction to yet another
set of environmental circumstances.

Sticking a toothpick into a guitar nut may get the guitar to work for a
song, but it's not really fixing the guitar, now is it.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net. See
how far $25 really goes.




"Jones_r" wrote in message
om...
Chris, Room correction by electronics might be a fallacy for your ears
(or understanding), but to mine, and many, many other people, it's
real.

I'm not new to digital room correction, and if I thought it's a
fallacy, I never would have gotten into it. I really like the way it
change the sound for the better, when done right.

People like you really makes me wonder. What satisfaction do you get
by saying this technology doesn't work, before you even heard what it
could do ?. I advise you to reserve your judgement until you actually
listen with your own ears. You might have to eat your hat.

I suppose dozens of other professional reviewers, from respected audio
magazines (whose reviews can be found with ease all over the
internet), who like me, also heard the benefits of digital room
correction, were all deluded, drugged, blackmailed (pick your favorite
choice) prior to giving their sometimes VERY positive reviews.

Anyway, I didn't start this thread in order to persuade people that
digital room correction works. It works very well for me, and that's
what matters. If you could stick to the original question I'll be more
than happy.

On 13 Aug 2003 11:01:38 -0700, (Jones_r) wrote:

In case you only listen from the listening spot (I mainly do this in
my home), once you find the problem frequencies, you CAN fix the
acoustics at the listening spot, using an unlimited band eq, which can
also correct the phase problems which are created by the frequency
correction, and room acoustics.

Well, not really. What you could do, if your speakers were
point sources, would be to correct each speaker's radiation
on one axis, by making near-field measurements and applying
correction. With some extra effort, this can be expanded
to multiple radiator speakers.

So first arrivals sounds can be corrected for listeners
on axis. Any further correction attempted will, by
definition, make *this* correction INcorrect.

Room correction by electronics is a fallacy.

Chris Hornbeck
fair and balanced

Well, the RS SPL Meter is, after all, an SPL meter. Expecting it to act
like a high dollar measurement mic is probably a little much for something
that costs $50.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net. See
how far $25 really goes.




"Jones_r" wrote in message
om...
Guys, guys, please don't attack me for what I'm doing. I'm well aware
of the limitations and benefits of digital room correction.

The software I have does a similar process (but in a more efficient
and advanced way) to the one being done by the next product:
http://www.soundstage.com/revequip/tact_rcs20_sneak.htm

I am using headphones in order to hear the inverse acoustics of the
room which the filter was created for. This gives me some kind of an
indication of the Mike + Pre amp sonic signature, when I compare it to
other filters made by other recording hardware (only severe mike + pre
amp problems can discovered by this process, of course). In the case
of the Radio Shack SPL meter, I get a pretty good indication that it
is crap for full range measuring.

If you want to test your Radio Shack, just put it at the listening
spot, and let it record something from your sound system, you'll be
horrified by the results. This thing is the most inaccurate mike I've
ever heard. Simply garbage. It is good for measuring the SPL of white
or pink noise. For any other application, beware of it.

My sound system using the digital correction process, can only sound
as good as the mike + pre amp which record the rooms acoustics. This
is why I'm a bit of afraid from the UB802, since it has tone controls
which can not be bypassed. They can screw the frequency repsonse
accuracy of the pre amp, if they will come deviated from the factory.

Jones_r wrote:
Scott, I've tried the Radio Shack SPL meter. If you want, I can give
you the Digital Room Correction filter that I've created with it. It
is horrible!!!. The high frequency is totaly messed and compressed!.

Yes, that's what happens when you try to use a frequency-domain filter
to
fix a time-domain problem in your room. It doesn't work.

I have a filter that someone did with an ECM8000 and a Behringer SHARK
DSP110 pre amp, and the result (via headphones) is VERY good, light
years ahead of the filter I got with Radio Shack. But, the Behringer
SHARK DSP110 pre amp first convert the signal to the digital domain
and then to the analog domain, using ADC/DAC of 24bit, which I know is
not neutral (I have the Behringer Feedback Destroyer with the same
ADC/DAC, and a sonic signature can be heard at the higher
frequencies).

Ummm... how can you check room effects with headphones?

I am only correcting for one place, the listening spot.

Then you had better install a rack that bolts your head into that place,
because a quarter-inch away, the response will be totally different.
--scott

Jones_r wrote:
Chris, Room correction by electronics might be a fallacy for your ears
(or understanding), but to mine, and many, many other people, it's
real.

It can fudge a couple of specific problems, but mostly it's a disaster.

I'm not new to digital room correction, and if I thought it's a
fallacy, I never would have gotten into it. I really like the way it
change the sound for the better, when done right.

People like you really makes me wonder. What satisfaction do you get
by saying this technology doesn't work, before you even heard what it
could do ?. I advise you to reserve your judgement until you actually
listen with your own ears. You might have to eat your hat.

Basically it has a lot to do with the fact that it doesn't work. Back
in the seventies, everybody and his brother were heavily EQing rooms, and
invariably it caused a lot more damage than good. If you have room problems,
you fix them. You don't try to fake around them. You can't fix time domain
problems with frequency domain solutions.

I suppose dozens of other professional reviewers, from respected audio
magazines (whose reviews can be found with ease all over the
internet), who like me, also heard the benefits of digital room
correction, were all deluded, drugged, blackmailed (pick your favorite
choice) prior to giving their sometimes VERY positive reviews.

Cite some of these people, please.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Jones_r wrote:
"Then you had better install a rack that bolts your head into that
place,
because a quarter-inch away, the response will be totally different."

It's all up to you to decide how strong you want the correction to be.
I sit very relaxed on the couch, and I can apply a pretty strong
correction, and still be able to move naturaly on the couch without
going out of the sweet spot. YMMV, of course.

What does "strength" mean in this context?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Cite some of these people, please":
Here you go:

Quotes from Stereophile, September 2001 Issue


"The longer I lived with the TacT Audio RCS 2.0, the more I was
convinced that it brought me much closer to the sound of live music,
and that room correction should be a mandatory part of any serious
audio system."

"... the Tact's reproduction of an undithered 1kHz sinewave at -90.31
dBFS was effectively perfect..."

"... I was impressed ... by the effect of the RCS 2.0 on imaging
stability and naturalness of tonal quality ..."

" ... the result was my perception of vastly improved resolution of
detail across the spectrum ...the bass was exposed with greater
definition and impact ... With TacT correction, the bass shook my
room, yet was defined and entirely devoid of boom... The RCS also made
the placement of bass instruments in depth and width much more precise
.... I heard what had blown me away at the Show: tight and powerful
sounds occupying a really huge space .. Voices, speaking or singing,
were also devastatingly improved."

"...The walls melted away. I was transported to the performance. The
speakers disappeared. A veil was lifted."

"The RCS brough me into a believable space in which each instrument
had a presence and a place."

You can read the whole review at Stereophile.com

From Soundstage!:

"Let me go so far as to state that after applying a not very
aggressive correction curve to them, they sounded like new speakers.
This should only be taken in the most positive way."

From High Fidelity, Denmark:
"Conclusion: The TACT Audio Room Correction System revolutionizes what
can be done to improve audio in the home. We do not recall having ever
before experienced a single product which draws such a definitive line
between "Before" and "After".

When I'll have some more time, I'll find you much, much more.





Jones_r wrote:
Chris, Room correction by electronics might be a fallacy for your ears
(or understanding), but to mine, and many, many other people, it's
real.

It can fudge a couple of specific problems, but mostly it's a disaster.

I'm not new to digital room correction, and if I thought it's a
fallacy, I never would have gotten into it. I really like the way it
change the sound for the better, when done right.

People like you really makes me wonder. What satisfaction do you get
by saying this technology doesn't work, before you even heard what it
could do ?. I advise you to reserve your judgement until you actually
listen with your own ears. You might have to eat your hat.

Basically it has a lot to do with the fact that it doesn't work. Back
in the seventies, everybody and his brother were heavily EQing rooms, and
invariably it caused a lot more damage than good. If you have room problems,
you fix them. You don't try to fake around them. You can't fix time domain
problems with frequency domain solutions.

I suppose dozens of other professional reviewers, from respected audio
magazines (whose reviews can be found with ease all over the
internet), who like me, also heard the benefits of digital room
correction, were all deluded, drugged, blackmailed (pick your favorite
choice) prior to giving their sometimes VERY positive reviews.

Cite some of these people, please.
--scott

The ECM8000 does a MUCH better job than the RS SPL meter, and it can
be bought for $39.99. It does need a phantom power supply though.

Well, the RS SPL Meter is, after all, an SPL meter. Expecting it to act
like a high dollar measurement mic is probably a little much for something
that costs $50.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net. See
how far $25 really goes.




"Jones_r" wrote in message
om...
Guys, guys, please don't attack me for what I'm doing. I'm well aware
of the limitations and benefits of digital room correction.

The software I have does a similar process (but in a more efficient
and advanced way) to the one being done by the next product:
http://www.soundstage.com/revequip/tact_rcs20_sneak.htm

I am using headphones in order to hear the inverse acoustics of the
room which the filter was created for. This gives me some kind of an
indication of the Mike + Pre amp sonic signature, when I compare it to
other filters made by other recording hardware (only severe mike + pre
amp problems can discovered by this process, of course). In the case
of the Radio Shack SPL meter, I get a pretty good indication that it
is crap for full range measuring.

If you want to test your Radio Shack, just put it at the listening
spot, and let it record something from your sound system, you'll be
horrified by the results. This thing is the most inaccurate mike I've
ever heard. Simply garbage. It is good for measuring the SPL of white
or pink noise. For any other application, beware of it.

My sound system using the digital correction process, can only sound
as good as the mike + pre amp which record the rooms acoustics. This
is why I'm a bit of afraid from the UB802, since it has tone controls
which can not be bypassed. They can screw the frequency repsonse
accuracy of the pre amp, if they will come deviated from the factory.

Jones_r wrote:
Scott, I've tried the Radio Shack SPL meter. If you want, I can give
you the Digital Room Correction filter that I've created with it. It
is horrible!!!. The high frequency is totaly messed and compressed!.

Yes, that's what happens when you try to use a frequency-domain filter
to
fix a time-domain problem in your room. It doesn't work.

I have a filter that someone did with an ECM8000 and a Behringer SHARK
DSP110 pre amp, and the result (via headphones) is VERY good, light
years ahead of the filter I got with Radio Shack. But, the Behringer
SHARK DSP110 pre amp first convert the signal to the digital domain
and then to the analog domain, using ADC/DAC of 24bit, which I know is
not neutral (I have the Behringer Feedback Destroyer with the same
ADC/DAC, and a sonic signature can be heard at the higher
frequencies).

Ummm... how can you check room effects with headphones?

I am only correcting for one place, the listening spot.

Then you had better install a rack that bolts your head into that place,
because a quarter-inch away, the response will be totally different.
--scott

Jones_r wrote:
"Cite some of these people, please":
Here you go:

Quotes from Stereophile, September 2001 Issue

These are the same folks who liked the CM Labs preamp, with the 741 op
amps in it? And the Tice clock?

How about some actual reviews from legitimate reviewers?

"Let me go so far as to state that after applying a not very
aggressive correction curve to them, they sounded like new speakers.
This should only be taken in the most positive way."

Now, THIS is a different issue. This sort of system CAN fix frequency
domain problems with loudspeakers, even if it can't do anything but make
room problems worse.

From High Fidelity, Denmark:
"Conclusion: The TACT Audio Room Correction System revolutionizes what
can be done to improve audio in the home. We do not recall having ever
before experienced a single product which draws such a definitive line
between "Before" and "After".

When I'll have some more time, I'll find you much, much more.

Dunno the author on this one offhand.
--scott


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

What does "strength" mean in this context?
"Strength" = "level of accuracy", in this context.
applying 30 filter taps for one channel, won't give you the same level
of accuracy as applying 60,000 filter taps. I call the latter "strong"
correction.
Just a figure of speech. Of course when I correct using 60,000 filter
taps,
the sweet spot becomes tiny. So judgement and experimentation should
always be used, for optimum results.


Jones_r wrote:
"Then you had better install a rack that bolts your head into that
place,
because a quarter-inch away, the response will be totally different."

It's all up to you to decide how strong you want the correction to be.
I sit very relaxed on the couch, and I can apply a pretty strong
correction, and still be able to move naturaly on the couch without
going out of the sweet spot. YMMV, of course.

What does "strength" mean in this context?
--scott

I'd say you'd have to include John Storyk and Francis Manzella and
Chris
Pelonis amongst a ton of others who feel (know) that it's the room
that
needs the treatment, not the speakers.

It's always a good practice to start with the room first, but there is
a limitation to how much you can improve the acoustics of a usual
room. Here is where Digital Room Correction enters.

FOR Instance, let's just say that you've scoped out what you feel to be room
correction in an average control room, meaning Joe Blow's place. But he
gets a new piece of equipment in and has to reposition his speakers, so now
your correction is incorrect.

Right, so you'll have to spend another 5 minutes (assuming you have at
least an AMD 2Ghz) in order to obtain the new correction curve. Time
IS money, but let's not push it.

local producer wants to come over and block out the studio for a month to do
pre-production planning on a new group's CD and he brings along his NHT Pros
while you've got room correction set for Tannoy 6.5 PBMs.

Again, 5 minutes and you're all set up to go.


The concept of room correction via EQ (filtration) for specific speakers in
a specific place can work. I don't think anyone is saying that it can't.
What everyone is saying is that it's not a real fix of the problem areas,
which lie within the listening environment in the first place. Once you
understand the nodes and locations, fixing the environment allows you to
virtually replace a speaker setup with another, or add another without the
need to reshoot the room and apply your digital correction to yet another
set of environmental circumstances.

True, but you need to understand the Digital Room Correction is here
to help you, beyond what standard acoustic treatment can do. It's not
a replacement, its an addition.

Sticking a toothpick into a guitar nut may get the guitar to work for a
song, but it's not really fixing the guitar, now is it.

Only problem is, Digital Room Correction isn't going to work for just
one song, but for most songs (situations).


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net. See
how far $25 really goes.




"Jones_r" wrote in message
om...
Chris, Room correction by electronics might be a fallacy for your ears
(or understanding), but to mine, and many, many other people, it's
real.

I'm not new to digital room correction, and if I thought it's a
fallacy, I never would have gotten into it. I really like the way it
change the sound for the better, when done right.

People like you really makes me wonder. What satisfaction do you get
by saying this technology doesn't work, before you even heard what it
could do ?. I advise you to reserve your judgement until you actually
listen with your own ears. You might have to eat your hat.

I suppose dozens of other professional reviewers, from respected audio
magazines (whose reviews can be found with ease all over the
internet), who like me, also heard the benefits of digital room
correction, were all deluded, drugged, blackmailed (pick your favorite
choice) prior to giving their sometimes VERY positive reviews.

Anyway, I didn't start this thread in order to persuade people that
digital room correction works. It works very well for me, and that's
what matters. If you could stick to the original question I'll be more
than happy.

On 13 Aug 2003 11:01:38 -0700, (Jones_r) wrote:

In case you only listen from the listening spot (I mainly do this in
my home), once you find the problem frequencies, you CAN fix the
acoustics at the listening spot, using an unlimited band eq, which can
also correct the phase problems which are created by the frequency
correction, and room acoustics.

Well, not really. What you could do, if your speakers were
point sources, would be to correct each speaker's radiation
on one axis, by making near-field measurements and applying
correction. With some extra effort, this can be expanded
to multiple radiator speakers.

So first arrivals sounds can be corrected for listeners
on axis. Any further correction attempted will, by
definition, make *this* correction INcorrect.

Room correction by electronics is a fallacy.

Chris Hornbeck
fair and balanced

"Yes, that's what happens when you try to use a frequency-domain
filter to
fix a time-domain problem in your room. It doesn't work."

Scott, why do you say that ?, digital room correction is all about
fixing time-domain problems. It fixes frequency + time domain
problems. Of course, like everything in life, it has its limits.



Jones_r wrote:
Scott, I've tried the Radio Shack SPL meter. If you want, I can give
you the Digital Room Correction filter that I've created with it. It
is horrible!!!. The high frequency is totaly messed and compressed!.

Yes, that's what happens when you try to use a frequency-domain filter to
fix a time-domain problem in your room. It doesn't work.

I have a filter that someone did with an ECM8000 and a Behringer SHARK
DSP110 pre amp, and the result (via headphones) is VERY good, light
years ahead of the filter I got with Radio Shack. But, the Behringer
SHARK DSP110 pre amp first convert the signal to the digital domain
and then to the analog domain, using ADC/DAC of 24bit, which I know is
not neutral (I have the Behringer Feedback Destroyer with the same
ADC/DAC, and a sonic signature can be heard at the higher
frequencies).

Ummm... how can you check room effects with headphones?

I am only correcting for one place, the listening spot.

Then you had better install a rack that bolts your head into that place,
because a quarter-inch away, the response will be totally different.
--scott

It can fudge a couple of specific problems, but mostly it's a disaster

Now I'm certain you haven't heard a digital room correction device in
your life.

Basically it has a lot to do with the fact that it doesn't work. Back
in the seventies, everybody and his brother were heavily EQing rooms, and
invariably it caused a lot more damage than good.

Without AT LEAST an Athlon 800mhz CPU, digital room correction, at the
advance state that I'm talking about, can not be done (at least not in
real time). So, did they have Athlon CPUs back in the 70's ?. Somehow
I don't recall.
What they were doing is to correct the frequency domain (and even in
that case, they didn't have the necessary accuracy or number of
filters. If you need to attenuate a frequency, let's say 435.575, by
-1.75db, then a fixed filter tap of 300hz, isn't going to help at all.
Also, what happens if you need to correct 15,000 individual
frequencies, in order to get to a flatter frequency response time ?,
did they have eq's back then with such a big number of filter taps ?)
and they didn't touch the time domain, at all. Now you tell me, how
can this work ?, right, it can't.


Jones_r wrote:
Chris, Room correction by electronics might be a fallacy for your ears
(or understanding), but to mine, and many, many other people, it's
real.

It can fudge a couple of specific problems, but mostly it's a disaster.

I'm not new to digital room correction, and if I thought it's a
fallacy, I never would have gotten into it. I really like the way it
change the sound for the better, when done right.

People like you really makes me wonder. What satisfaction do you get
by saying this technology doesn't work, before you even heard what it
could do ?. I advise you to reserve your judgement until you actually
listen with your own ears. You might have to eat your hat.

Basically it has a lot to do with the fact that it doesn't work. Back
in the seventies, everybody and his brother were heavily EQing rooms, and
invariably it caused a lot more damage than good. If you have room problems,
you fix them. You don't try to fake around them. You can't fix time domain
problems with frequency domain solutions.

I suppose dozens of other professional reviewers, from respected audio
magazines (whose reviews can be found with ease all over the
internet), who like me, also heard the benefits of digital room
correction, were all deluded, drugged, blackmailed (pick your favorite
choice) prior to giving their sometimes VERY positive reviews.

Cite some of these people, please.
--scott

Jones_r wrote:
"Yes, that's what happens when you try to use a frequency-domain
filter to
fix a time-domain problem in your room. It doesn't work."

Scott, why do you say that ?, digital room correction is all about
fixing time-domain problems.

You cannot fix time-domain problems because they are different in every
location. You can put a test microphone in one place in the room and measure
an impulse response, then move it a few feet and measure a different impulse
response.

This is how the room works, and you cannot use a reverse transform to undo
the impulse response because it is different in every location.

Signals come out of the speakers, and they bounce around the room. Depending
on the frequency (and therefore the wavelength) they bounce around in very
different patterns. They sum in places and they cancel out in places, and
what you hear is the particular sum of different waves which mix together at
the point where your ear is.

In order to compensate effectively for the room response, you would need to
be able to produce a controlled wave front that could be adjusted in pattern
in three dimensions. You can't do this with a speaker, or a pair of speakers.

It fixes frequency + time domain
problems. Of course, like everything in life, it has its limits.

Those limits are very narrow, though and don't include most of the problems
that people encounter in typical home listening situations.

It does include some of the problems that get encountered in large room PA
applications, which is why you'll see things like parametric filters in
common PA use. They are very effective for solving a particular set of
limited problems. But, for example, they can do nothing about flutter echoes
from arched ceilings which are very common problems in PA rigs.
--scott

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

Jones_r wrote:
It can fudge a couple of specific problems, but mostly it's a disaster

Now I'm certain you haven't heard a digital room correction device in
your life.

Sadly, I have heard an awful lot of them.

Basically it has a lot to do with the fact that it doesn't work. Back
in the seventies, everybody and his brother were heavily EQing rooms, and
invariably it caused a lot more damage than good.

Without AT LEAST an Athlon 800mhz CPU, digital room correction, at the
advance state that I'm talking about, can not be done (at least not in
real time). So, did they have Athlon CPUs back in the 70's ?. Somehow
I don't recall.

Nope, although there were some attempts to deal with impulse response
differences in rooms back then. There was a demo at some AES show using
a GenRad signal processor that... well, it didn't sound good. This was
a dedicated piece of hardware that did convolutions, rather than trying
to do it with a general purpose computer.

What they were doing is to correct the frequency domain (and even in
that case, they didn't have the necessary accuracy or number of
filters. If you need to attenuate a frequency, let's say 435.575, by
-1.75db, then a fixed filter tap of 300hz, isn't going to help at all.

Right, this is the most common way of handling these problems, and
as I pointed out, frequency domain correction doesn't solve time domain
problems.

Also, what happens if you need to correct 15,000 individual
frequencies, in order to get to a flatter frequency response time ?,
did they have eq's back then with such a big number of filter taps ?)
and they didn't touch the time domain, at all. Now you tell me, how
can this work ?, right, it can't.

You can use as many filters as you want, and the response will still be
different a short distance away. You can flatten the response in one
part of the room out as much as you want, and the response a foot away
will still be totally different. Sorry about that.
--scott

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

In article writes:

"... the Tact's reproduction of an undithered 1kHz sinewave at -90.31
dBFS was effectively perfect..."

Yeah, but can you dance to it? Are you pulling our collective leg here?

From Soundstage!:

"Let me go so far as to state that after applying a not very
aggressive correction curve to them, they sounded like new speakers.

The key here is "not very agressive." You can use EQ to smooth over
the transistion at the crossover between the woofer and tweeter, and
maybe to take out some frequency shaping that the designer put in, or
correct a small irregularity in the response of the speaker. But you
make measurements for these adjustments in the near field because
you're correcting the speaker, not the sound of the speaker in the
room.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

In article writes:

What does "strength" mean in this context?
"Strength" = "level of accuracy", in this context.
applying 30 filter taps for one channel, won't give you the same level
of accuracy as applying 60,000 filter taps. I call the latter "strong"
correction.

I call it resolution.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

In article writes:

Scott, why do you say that ?, digital room correction is all about
fixing time-domain problems. It fixes frequency + time domain
problems.

How does it fix time domain problems? Does it control a movable wall?



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

In Article , (Scott Dorsey)
wrote:
I suppose dozens of other professional reviewers, from respected audio
magazines (whose reviews can be found with ease all over the
internet), who like me, also heard the benefits of digital room
correction, were all deluded, drugged, blackmailed (pick your favorite
choice) prior to giving their sometimes VERY positive reviews.

Cite some of these people, please.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

I've read reviews about gear from other professional reviewers at magazines
with which I absolutely disagreed. The reviews didn't reveal what I was
hearing (or not hearing). To be fair, under the pressure of publishing, one
doesn't always have enough time to really hear what's going on.

On this specific issue, the concept of EQing monitors looks good on paper
because the "science" of digital EQ is supposed to sound better than analog
EQ. I think the problem is a LOT more complex. I hate Yamaha NS10 monitors.
I think Yamaha did a great job marketing them.

Some less-informed folks took the sight of them on meter bridges on magazine
covers to mean that they were being used as primary monitors. They weren't.
However, that started a trend. A lot of people swear by them. I swear at
them. Add some EQ to "make them right" and you have a real **** salad.

The problem is that once a user becomes branded (thinking that a certain
monitor is "the ****") they'll do almost anything to get that monitor to
work for them. When they can't find the right place to put them to make them
sound right, they can't really admit that the speakers suck, so they blame
gremlins, the room, the sun, the moon and gravitational forces.

That leaves them in the position of having to buy more gear (like an
equalizer) to "make things right". Now they're also pecuniarily and
emotionally invested in the EQ the monitors mindset.

Don't get me wrong, EQing monitors and mains is a necessity for a lot of
live sound because of the acoustics of the venues. However, in a studio, the
best procedure is to make a nice space and use the right monitors.

This is less likely to occur now than in the past because you can't swing a
dead cat without hitting a "recording studio." Because most of the operators
of these facilities haven't had the experience of monitoring in a number of
really good rooms, they literally don't know what good can be.

You want to buy another box to "fix" your room? Fine by me. Nobody's here to
keep your fingers out of the fan. You'll get by with that band aid, probably
until you die. Just please don't **** on my leg and try to tell me it's
raining. I know just enough of the science to know you're wrong.

What I'm really a lot more interested in is how the EQ adjustments on
powered monitors fit into this discussion. For example, what's the
difference between the EQ circuits one might add to a line output before a
monitor amp and those in a set of powered Genelecs?

Regards,

Ty Ford





For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford

"Roger W. Norman" wrote:

I'd say you'd have to include John Storyk and Francis Manzella and Chris
Pelonis amongst a ton of others who feel (know) that it's the room that
needs the treatment, not the speakers.

How can you utter John Storyk's name in the same sentence with two really good
designers... I wouldn't let Stroyk design a ****in' dog house for me... well,
if I liked the dog I wouldn't.

FWIW, it's always a combination of how the speakers interact with the room... if
they are coupled well... they'll sound great. If the room sucks, if the
speakers suck... or in the case of wall mounted monitors if the speakers aren't
set into the wall properly... then you're ****ed and that's that.
--
Fletcher
Mercenary Audio
TEL: 508-543-0069
FAX: 508-543-9670
http://www.mercenary.com
"this is not a problem"

Yeah, Fletcher, like I actually KNOW all these guys. Everyone stops by my
basement heaven here to glory in all the acoustic design know how! g

But the best I can say is that reputation precedes, so John's got some
history in some great studios. I mean, if I had the right crew I could MAKE
a studio look good, but I don't believe I could make a studio SOUND good.
My hat's off to anyone that has more knowledge than I, which pretty much
means I don't often wear a hat! g

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net. See
how far $20 really goes.




"Fletcher" wrote in message
...
"Roger W. Norman" wrote:

I'd say you'd have to include John Storyk and Francis Manzella and Chris
Pelonis amongst a ton of others who feel (know) that it's the room that
needs the treatment, not the speakers.

How can you utter John Storyk's name in the same sentence with two really
good
designers... I wouldn't let Stroyk design a ****in' dog house for me...
well,
if I liked the dog I wouldn't.

FWIW, it's always a combination of how the speakers interact with the
room... if
they are coupled well... they'll sound great. If the room sucks, if the
speakers suck... or in the case of wall mounted monitors if the speakers
aren't
set into the wall properly... then you're ****ed and that's that.
--
Fletcher
Mercenary Audio
TEL: 508-543-0069
FAX: 508-543-9670
http://www.mercenary.com
"this is not a problem"

"Ty Ford" wrote in message
...
I've read reviews about gear from other professional reviewers at
magazines
with which I absolutely disagreed. The reviews didn't reveal what I was
hearing (or not hearing). To be fair, under the pressure of publishing,
one
doesn't always have enough time to really hear what's going on.

I don't trust magazine reviews. When's the last time you ever a magazine
truly slag something? I don't even really recall seeing what I would call a
negative review in any gear magazines in recent years.

Ty Ford wrote:

What I'm really a lot more interested in is how the EQ adjustments on
powered monitors fit into this discussion. For example, what's the
difference between the EQ circuits one might add to a line output before a
monitor amp and those in a set of powered Genelecs?

I would speculate that when well done (which could be rare) such
embedded EQ might be matched more precisely to the characteristics of
the speaker than a general EQ, much as the amps in a powered speaker can
be designed to mate with the characteristics of the cabinet and drivers.

--
hank alrich * secret mountain
audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement
"If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"

Ford,
You've written a really intelligent post. It is well written and well
thought. You seem to have a really down-to-earth ideology about this
subjet.

The reason why your ideology doesn't work with the notion of digital
room correction for the PC, is simple: it is free. 100% free. You
don't need to pay anyone a dime. You download it, learn how to use it,
and if you don't like what you hear, no loss.

I, for one, was really surprised to find out just how well DRC works
for several rooms that I've tried it in (when correcting for one spot,
of course). It simply removed any noticeable room effct from the sound
reaching my ears. I kept looking at the walls of the room, then at the
speakers, and just couldn't believe my ears that there was no apparent
interaction between the two. The illusion is THAT good.

I'm not trying to sell, promote or defend anything. It cost nothing.
No one can gain anything by the fact that you will use DRC. This is
probably why you never thought of it before, since no one has an
interest to push it. especially not me.

To tell the truth, I didn't even want to discuss this subject when I
started this thread, since I knew what kind of opinions I will get
from people who haven't heard the software in work. I've been
unwillingly dragged into a debate I willl never be able to win. I'm
giving my opinions here just out of respect for DRC's creator, who
have been developing it for the last several years at his free time,
as a hobby.


In Article , (Scott Dorsey)
wrote:
I suppose dozens of other professional reviewers, from respected audio
magazines (whose reviews can be found with ease all over the
internet), who like me, also heard the benefits of digital room
correction, were all deluded, drugged, blackmailed (pick your favorite
choice) prior to giving their sometimes VERY positive reviews.

Cite some of these people, please.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

I've read reviews about gear from other professional reviewers at magazines
with which I absolutely disagreed. The reviews didn't reveal what I was
hearing (or not hearing). To be fair, under the pressure of publishing, one
doesn't always have enough time to really hear what's going on.

On this specific issue, the concept of EQing monitors looks good on paper
because the "science" of digital EQ is supposed to sound better than analog
EQ. I think the problem is a LOT more complex. I hate Yamaha NS10 monitors.
I think Yamaha did a great job marketing them.

Some less-informed folks took the sight of them on meter bridges on magazine
covers to mean that they were being used as primary monitors. They weren't.
However, that started a trend. A lot of people swear by them. I swear at
them. Add some EQ to "make them right" and you have a real **** salad.

The problem is that once a user becomes branded (thinking that a certain
monitor is "the ****") they'll do almost anything to get that monitor to
work for them. When they can't find the right place to put them to make them
sound right, they can't really admit that the speakers suck, so they blame
gremlins, the room, the sun, the moon and gravitational forces.

That leaves them in the position of having to buy more gear (like an
equalizer) to "make things right". Now they're also pecuniarily and
emotionally invested in the EQ the monitors mindset.

Don't get me wrong, EQing monitors and mains is a necessity for a lot of
live sound because of the acoustics of the venues. However, in a studio, the
best procedure is to make a nice space and use the right monitors.

This is less likely to occur now than in the past because you can't swing a
dead cat without hitting a "recording studio." Because most of the operators
of these facilities haven't had the experience of monitoring in a number of
really good rooms, they literally don't know what good can be.

You want to buy another box to "fix" your room? Fine by me. Nobody's here to
keep your fingers out of the fan. You'll get by with that band aid, probably
until you die. Just please don't **** on my leg and try to tell me it's
raining. I know just enough of the science to know you're wrong.

What I'm really a lot more interested in is how the EQ adjustments on
powered monitors fit into this discussion. For example, what's the
difference between the EQ circuits one might add to a line output before a
monitor amp and those in a set of powered Genelecs?

Regards,

Ty Ford





For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford

In article writes:

How does it fix time domain problems? Does it control a movable wall?

People want to believe they can chrome a ball of **** and use it as a
trailer hitch.

I think one like that came installed on my remote recording truck. It
kind of mushed over and died when I tried to tow a generator once.
Good thing it was in my driveway and not on the highway.




--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

On Fri, 15 Aug 03 10:38:14 GMT, (Ty Ford) wrote:

What I'm really a lot more interested in is how the EQ adjustments on
powered monitors fit into this discussion. For example, what's the
difference between the EQ circuits one might add to a line output before a
monitor amp and those in a set of powered Genelecs?

One cool thing that's only really practical if built-in, or
at least dedicated to a particular model, is the ability to
completely specify the monitor's low frequency response,
independent of box size, driver Q, etc. Smaller boxes are
better boxes, and cheaper too.

Then, for a little more effort, some more gains can come from
delaying signal to some drivers to get them to blend best with
others. Only really practical by low-level electronics.

Both these advantages could be approximated by the OP's
proposed system IF the right information could be input
to the processing black-box. A microphone at listening
position in a reflective room could even do it with gating,
etc. Not ideal, but doable.

What's not doable is any change to the monitor's radiation
patterns or any change to the room (and everything else's)
reflections. As you and others have been at pains to try
to point out.

Chris Hornbeck
http://www.votetoimpeach.org/

How does it fix time domain problems? Does it control a movable wall?
No, it controls a movable cone, which (and I'm simplifying) sends a
timely delayed, specific calculated signal, in order to cancel the
time domain artifacts, when they happen. It can do it for one place
only, of course.


In article writes:

Scott, why do you say that ?, digital room correction is all about
fixing time-domain problems. It fixes frequency + time domain
problems.

How does it fix time domain problems? Does it control a movable wall?

In Article ,
(LeBaron & Alrich) wrote:
Ty Ford wrote:

What I'm really a lot more interested in is how the EQ adjustments on
powered monitors fit into this discussion. For example, what's the
difference between the EQ circuits one might add to a line output before a
monitor amp and those in a set of powered Genelecs?

I would speculate that when well done (which could be rare) such
embedded EQ might be matched more precisely to the characteristics of
the speaker than a general EQ, much as the amps in a powered speaker can
be designed to mate with the characteristics of the cabinet and drivers.

--
hank alrich * secret mountain


Aha! Then what about cheap-ass powered monitors and their on-board EQs?

Regards,

Ty Ford

For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford

In Article ,
(Jones_r) wrote:
Ford,
You've written a really intelligent post. It is well written and well
thought. You seem to have a really down-to-earth ideology about this
subjet.

The reason why your ideology doesn't work with the notion of digital
room correction for the PC, is simple: it is free. 100% free. You
don't need to pay anyone a dime. You download it, learn how to use it,
and if you don't like what you hear, no loss.

I, for one, was really surprised to find out just how well DRC works
for several rooms that I've tried it in (when correcting for one spot,
of course). It simply removed any noticeable room effct from the sound
reaching my ears. I kept looking at the walls of the room, then at the
speakers, and just couldn't believe my ears that there was no apparent
interaction between the two. The illusion is THAT good.

I'm not trying to sell, promote or defend anything. It cost nothing.
No one can gain anything by the fact that you will use DRC. This is
probably why you never thought of it before, since no one has an
interest to push it. especially not me.

To tell the truth, I didn't even want to discuss this subject when I
started this thread, since I knew what kind of opinions I will get
from people who haven't heard the software in work. I've been
unwillingly dragged into a debate I willl never be able to win. I'm
giving my opinions here just out of respect for DRC's creator, who
have been developing it for the last several years at his free time,
as a hobby.

Well thanks Jones,

I'm of the sort that believes that one gets what one pays for, if one is
lucky. So red lights light and bells go off when I hear about something
free. I'm also careful to avoid that reaction from taking over my existence.

You're talking about spot fixing with DRC. That still puts into question
whether what you're hearing at any given spot in a monitor field is
accurate, or just the way you like to hear the sound.

As many do, I'm sure, I use the "walk around" method of checking mixes. I
know what to expect from various parts of the room. The EQ varies a lot in
that meandering.

It's not the concept I question. I've just never seen a "silver bullet" EQ
fix for a mismatch of monitors and acoustics that doesn't have a price of
its own.

Hey, I'm open to new stuff. You say it works. Make me a believer. Let me
know when It works on a Mac and I'll put my ears on it.

Regards,

Ty Ford



For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford

Ty Ford wrote:

(LeBaron & Alrich) wrote:
Ty Ford wrote:

What I'm really a lot more interested in is how the EQ adjustments on
powered monitors fit into this discussion. For example, what's the
difference between the EQ circuits one might add to a line output before a
monitor amp and those in a set of powered Genelecs?

I would speculate that when well done (which could be rare) such
embedded EQ might be matched more precisely to the characteristics of
the speaker than a general EQ, much as the amps in a powered speaker can
be designed to mate with the characteristics of the cabinet and drivers.

Aha! Then what about cheap-ass powered monitors and their on-board EQs?

There I might specualte that I would buy something else...

--
ha

(Jones_r) wrote:

The reason why your ideology doesn't work with the notion of digital
room correction for the PC, is simple: it is free. 100% free. You
don't need to pay anyone a dime. You download it, learn how to use it,
and if you don't like what you hear, no loss.

My time is not free. I am not going to screw around with stuff that
purports to do what my personal experience already tells me cannot be
done worth a darn by the type of stuff in question. If I want to screw
around I'll play with my wife or play an instrument. If I want to
improve my room-to-speaker interface I'll work on the room.

Ideology eschews science and experience. I don't think Ty's wiggling his
ideology around.

--
hank alrich * secret mountain
audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement
"If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"

In article writes:

I'm of the sort that believes that one gets what one pays for, if one is
lucky. So red lights light and bells go off when I hear about something
free. I'm also careful to avoid that reaction from taking over my existence.

You're talking about spot fixing with DRC. That still puts into question
whether what you're hearing at any given spot in a monitor field is
accurate, or just the way you like to hear the sound.

Actually, he was asking if the combination of the mic and preamp in
question was a good deal for the price, given his application. I'm
quite certain that it is just fine. Where we all got off track was
with his application and why it doesn't make sense to those of us who
know a little about acoustics.

I have heard the effect of "automatic" room equalization and it sort
of works if it's applied gently and over fairly wide frequency bands.
With bands narrow enough so that you can fit several thousand of them
into the normal audio spectrum is a completely different thing. It's a
different approach, and no doubt provides better accuracy at a single
point in space by essentially correcting every point that can be
measured. How useful this is in practice is something about which I
have reservations, but I know that this technogly is sold (along with
$500 power cords and Tice clocks) to the fringe audiophiles.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

Jones_r wrote:
The reason why your ideology doesn't work with the notion of digital
room correction for the PC, is simple: it is free. 100% free. You
don't need to pay anyone a dime. You download it, learn how to use it,
and if you don't like what you hear, no loss.

What does that have to do with it? It doesn't matter how much it costs.
Either it fixes things or it doesn't.

I, for one, was really surprised to find out just how well DRC works
for several rooms that I've tried it in (when correcting for one spot,
of course). It simply removed any noticeable room effct from the sound
reaching my ears. I kept looking at the walls of the room, then at the
speakers, and just couldn't believe my ears that there was no apparent
interaction between the two. The illusion is THAT good.

That's normal. That's not a place where you should be shooting for, that
should be your starting point. You should expect a clean, solid, and
enveloping stereo image from any decent system.

started this thread, since I knew what kind of opinions I will get
from people who haven't heard the software in work. I've been
unwillingly dragged into a debate I willl never be able to win. I'm
giving my opinions here just out of respect for DRC's creator, who
have been developing it for the last several years at his free time,
as a hobby.

That's nice, but what does that have to do with anything either?
--scott

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

In article , Roger W. Norman
wrote:

so John's got some
history in some great studios.

that's for sure...