<font color='#000000'>Some quotes from Richard Greene from the Rive's Room Acoustics Forum:
<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>
Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No audiophile I have ever met in 37+ years as an audiophile
has ever claimed to prefer a frequency response that measures flat.
. . . . . .
That's obvious in the Fletcher-Munson curves where 20Hz. is below the threshold of audibility until it reaches 70-75dB.
If the goal is a subjectively flat frequency response heard at the listening position, then there will need to be some bass ramp-up
and some treble roll-off. One bass ramp-up curve that works for me is C-weighting. That curve assumes that the average person will need a gradual bass frequency response ramp-up that leads to a boost of 6.2dB at 20Hz. Unless an audiophile has developed his own "House Curve" as a substitute, C-weighting is the best sound meter weighting curve to use for home listening rooms measurements at the seating position.
There is no logical reason to make an adjustment from C-weighting to
U-weighting unless you want to apply your own "House Curve" to the unweighted data.
Bass frequency response that measured flat with U-weighting (unweighted) would be somewhat difficult to hear below 50Hz.,
and especially difficult to hear below 30Hz. at typical average
home listening room SPL's of 75-85dB.
- Therefore, using the adjustment factors from C-weighting to
U-weighting is counterproductive UNLESS you have a unique
"House Curve" that you can apply to U-Weighted SPL data.
Parametric equalization with the goal of a flat frequency response measured using U-weighting will NOT create a subjectively flat bass frequency response when measured at the listening position in a typical home listening room at typical average SPL's. </td></tr></table></font>
