Room Correction

It is a myth. Just read up on the Nyquist Shannon theorem. If you can refute this, you are in line for a Nobel prize.

these kinds of statements are not made by real people, explorers, or the people who came up with the nickel theories that are being thrown around the room like so many manhole covers.

When we see this, we are usually dealing with mid level dark age engineering clerics who want their books of dogma to be simple and straight.

Note: the books were never meant to be dogma, they were meant to be theoretical guides for you to start your explorations in finding the new. OK??

Nyquist, if he was still around, might be the first to shout you down and ask you to stop sullying his name with this insanity.

We don’t know everything and we don’t take these theories and paste them over the unknowns and call it solved.

the very ’ raison d’être ’ of the ear is to do the world’s most complex fft analysis that is known to be performed across a wide swath of intermixed harmonic transients and then process them with the most complex device known to humanity: the human brain.

And, it’s not about the gross signals, it is about the super fine micro differences in hundreds of intermixed harmonics, across time, analyzed as a set, over a long, long time.

No hardware or computer can complete this task.

Do you know why we use sniffer dogs at airports?
Because they are better than all the machinery that has existed up to this date.

Do you know why we trust human hearing in complex music signal analysis?
Because it is better than any machinery that has existed up to this date.

Anyway, I’ll stop wasting my breath on this -and turn to fresh air and sunlight, etc. I seriously doubt any text typed on the internet is going to ever convince anyone who find this stuff outside their reach. By definition, it can’t reach them...


Think about it. The worst fear in the mind of someone like Einstein, would be that his theories would hang around too long, as that means people have become dogmatic and stupid, and can't move past where he made it to.

I’m not finding REW hard to use at all. I’m finding it difficult, though, to decide on how to correct my issues..

@willemj - man, I’m asking this out of curiosity, I’m not being purposefully confrontational, but are you possibly on the autism spectrum? Not that it matters to your worth as a human at all, and I'm not poking fun. I just get annoyed with some of your posts because you are so absolute in your belief that everything you think to be true is so and are very condescending to those who don’t automatically accept those truths or manifest them how you think they should be manifest. This adherence to one particular mode of understanding and your lack of tact made me curious. If that is indeed the case, I’d certainly be getting less riled up by your posts.

A person who uses subs for bass can feel free to use digital room correction (like the DSPeaker Anti-Mode) without paying a penalty to higher frequencies. Send only the sub signal through the DSP, and the main signal straight to the speakers' amp.

@bdp24    

+1 Very good point. That would be my preferred way to do it.

That is how I do it is as well. Not because I believe the digitization degrades the sound, but because room equalization above the Schroeder frequency (in my room about 90 Hz) is not feasible. Of course, just equalizing the subs leaves the bottom end of the main speakers below the Schroeder frequency unequalized. This is where a large room is beneficial, and/or some equalization of the main speakers´ bottom end. But equalizing, say, 150 Hz produces a very localized benefit that may not be worth the trouble. Fortunately my Quad stats are dipoles and hence do excite far fewer room modes.