Ben,
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenLoftis  "Digital room correction" aka "active room correction" aka "electronic room correction" is not EQ. Digest the info at DRC: Digital Room Correction, then we can talk |
Believe me, I've been there and done that. All the theory and white papers in the world are useless if a device cannot actually do what's claimed
in practice. That is exactly why I tested the Audyssey and wrote my report linked above. The Audyssey device does not do what is claimed. It does not flatten the response over a usably large area, and it does not reduce modal ringing. So for all their claims of "fuzzy math" it still suffers from all the same problems as EQ.
I took a quick look at that page, and didn't see any waterfall plots showing reduced ringing. This is a key feature of bass traps, and reducing ringing is just as important as flattening the LF response. Another key feature of bass traps is they improve things for all locations in a room, and never make the response or ringing worse anywhere else. If you know of any graphs or other
empirical data that proves DRC can reduce ringing by a usable amount, or improve the response over an area larger than a few cubic inches, I'd love to see it.
Also, I asked you a few direct questions earlier about the benefits of extensive bass trapping that you never addressed. So before sending me off to read up on Audyssey type devices, which I already understand fully
please let me know your thoughts on this:
Quote:
|
In your opinion, how skewed a response is acceptable, and how much ringing is acceptable? If we can agree initially that the ideal goal is perfectly flat with no modal ringing - just as we expect from every other piece of "gear" in the playback system - how else would you improve the response and ringing if not with bass traps?
|
Thanks. I'm convinced we can have a good discussion, and maybe we'll even end up agreeing fully with each other. I won't duck any of your questions and points if you don't duck any of mine.
--Ethan