Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site

In the Forum: Audio Discussions
In the Thread: Romy The Cat's new Listening Room
Post Subject: Two "diseases"Posted by tuga on: 5/15/2010
 Romy the Cat wrote:
 unicon wrote:
el 0l if you could understand the basics about how audio waves especially bass range acts in closed space you wouldnt even bring the name Bass EQ

it just cures the sound pressure in a single spot(listener) and possibly can not do anything about ring of bass, and what we even hear is the constant  of Frequency over time which in playback audio describes as Q (quality factor) the most importance and usually  the most ignored aspect of room audio by DIGI EQ makers ...

good to hear a breif note on audyssey website :

("Does MultEQ eliminate the need for acoustic treatment?"

No. Although MultEQ will improve sound significantly in untreated rooms, a properly treated room calibrated with MultEQ can achieve stunning results throughout the listening area. ")

I'm not ignoring the benefits we may get from it but
actually A well treated room does not need any EQ

Unicon, I agree with what you say and not.

LF the digital EQ will flatten the response for a single listening location. It will do it with no problem. Will it result sonic improvement? This is more complicated question. Let pretend that EQ does not destroy sound by DSP in case it is digital and does not spin phase. Still, flat response is not the objective. I have seen in some rooms very un-flat response that did not affect listening. Some peaks and some dives in the response are fine – it all depends how wide, where, how they related to the rest of the room response and how they masked out. No one advocate running digital IQ to flat bass (it is not complex) but to use digital IQ discreetly, fixing the major problems I think would worth to explore. BTW, what you do is not much different – only you use resonating limp panels. I consider your way of doing the thing is preferable but you endure a lot of acoustic treatment in your room. If it is a dedicated or demo room then it is fine but I do not have an objective to have DEMO room, I am looking for to make it living room.

Frankly I think that my way to do the ROOM is more preferable: do not fine with room and do not treat the room but rather to design the accustom system around the specific room behavior. I admit that so far I do not have in my room success but I just started. I think the final result might use some of your limp methods but the EQ ONLY for LF doe not sound too absurdish as well. My problem not is not with EQ but with absent of ULF channel with which I would model some lower bass behavior. Again, the jury is out but I still would not put the treated room in the epicenter of attention.

You have diagnosed not one but two "diseases":

 Romy the Cat wrote:
Ok, I found my RTA cable and did some very basic measurements of what Macondo does in the room. The results were in the direction that I anticipated but worth in amplitude. 

My right bass channel that that sited right next to the equipment bay has no bass. The left LF channel is sitting in a very good “hot” spot but the right is in bass hole.  I would need 6-8dB of extra gain across the entire bass bandpass to have to work properly but Milq does not have these 6-8dBs. The bass channel have a strong room mode around 63Hz that severally mask any lower response. I need to find a way to deal with it. Also, I do not think my bass channel do a lot of good in this room in sub 30Hz region. I would need, I would need another 6-8dB to handle it…. 

I am curious as to how you'll "integrate" the 63Hz mode into your acoustic system but I can see it possible without any "room treatment".

On the other hand, the bass-sucking equipment cubicle looks far more challenging and the question is whether you can "minimize" it's nefarious influence without closing it.
Looking forward to the upcoming episodes.


Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site