Sound meter + equalizer = problem solved?

@rudyb, when in doubt,  I consider flat to be the proper initial reference to work from. It need not be perfect and I may well tweak from there if needed. But at minimum it gives you the most useful starting point. Then you go from there, if needed. But in my case any changes I make from pseudo flat will be very minor. My two best systems downstairs are close enough. No EQ or room correction needed

@mapman True, you could of course perform a measurement and then use the Equalizer to reverse the speaker + room acoustics curve to first get it as flat as possible, and then fine tune to your preference from there.

You could also skip the first measurement and, with your eyes closed to rule out any bias you could give yourself from seeing what you are doing, tweak your Equalizer until you like it best. Would be fun to see if and how much the final settings differ.

Old news, but just showing my age....*creak* ;)

Was doing all this analog back in the ’80s’ with an Audio Control C-101 (series one, since that’s what appears to be what I ran...). Yes, ’room treatments’ would and could affect what one dealt with, but the whole sounded so much better after an afternoons’ worth of tweaking....

The modern digital versions and units ’spoil’ you....makes it just too easy.... *L*
Now I can take multiple readings from various locations and ’average’ them with a poke or three...tweak from there. And have some afternoon left over...

Most annoying thing about the 101 was the calibrated mic included. About the size of the average thumb, hard to make ’stay put’ in a mike stand....but had a long cord attached....

The ’pink noise’ had a ’burbuling’ quality that reminded me of a pot of roiling boiling water on the stove, but didn’t change the overall readings. The all LED display may not have given one the most finite take on the space, but would get you as close to ’flat’ without a major (for the era) expense for a ’pro’ unit.