Sound meter + equalizer = problem solved?


I think it’s true. Digital room correction is even better. Are we just spinning our wheels and wasting time trying to solve the room acoustics/Fletcher Munson problem otherwise? Could audiophile dogma ie “don’t mess with the signal, dummy” just be completely wrong in practice? What were we thinking?

128x128mapman

Showing 1 response by erik_squires

room acoustics/Fletcher Munson problem

I’m not even sure what this means. My advice is consistent here. A good sounding room and modest to no EQ is ideal, especially with subwoofers and trying to plumb the depths (16-40Hz) of output.

EQ is a lot better than nothing in rooms with tremendous bass peaks.

Room acoustics and EQ are not 100% equivalent, they do generally, both affect tonal balance. A very bright, reflective room can be made to sound tolerable by a basic tone control.

Treating the room to reduce mid-hi level reflections will make the bass appear, like a capsized ship coming out of the ocean at low tide.

There's also things you can't do with EQ.  Diffusion in between and the sides of speakers is very important for filling in and improving imaging.  A controlled resonance time makes your brain work less and ears to see more.  Bad room modes can only be fixed with a combination of EQ and bass traps.  EQ alone can't fix it.

(Lets the swarm crowd jump in here and take over the thread).  Swarmers, I'm talking in context of the OP's post.

Best,

 

Erik