🚀 go-pugleaf

Kalman Rubinson  <kr4@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 12:10:56 -0500, "David Grant"
><REMOVE_MEjmd_2003@msn.com> wrote:
>
>>They have another feature called MultEq which supposedly corrects for room 
>>acoustics. My studies* to date have led me to believe that there is no 
>>decent electronic solution to the problem of room acoustics that has been 
>>discovered, and that any product which claims to be that solution is bogus. 
>>I'd hesitate to put much faith in a feature designed by the same company 
>>that touts MultEq.
>>
>>*Frequency response varies based on location in the room. If you use EQ to 
>>flatten frequency response at one point in a room, you make it worse in most 
>>other points, and you can also add phase distortion to the signal due to the 
>>EQ filters. 
>
>Spoken by someone unfamiliar with Audyssey MultEQ, as it is not simply
>an amplitude/frequency EQ.  They acknowledge the points in your last
>paragraph but have solutions.  (Yes, I know, no solutions, other than
>correct acoustical design and treatment, are perfect.)

The problem is that everybody and his brother claims to have solutions...
last year's AES show had a dozen or so companies with magic room equalization
devices, from JBL, Genelec, and Equator down to Coneq and IK Multimedia,
and the only thing they all had in common is that they all sounded bad.

It's possible to fudge some low end problems in small rooms a little bit
with EQ, and it's possible to fudge speaker problems that cause frequency
response problems that are position-independant, but beyond that the physics
just don't work.

I don't ask for a system to be perfect, but in the case of most of the 
systems I have seen they sounded substantially worse with the magic box
turned on.  The exceptions were systems like the JBL which worked only
below around 200 Hz and made only mild correction.
--scott
-- 
"C'est un Nagra.  C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."