AndrewLyles said:
Hi Sleekstack,
This may be more of a philasophical question and I apologize it it leads that way. My understanding is that it is better to accoustically treat the room before implementing correction like this. I'm not trying to knock your arguement in anyway, I'm still learning and am just trying to better understand the arguements for both. I'm getting ready to treat my room with accoustic panels (god willing) and thought that would be the better and less expensive route to start with.
I'm guessing from the initial response curve that your room is untreated before you initiated the correction. (There is a question comming I promise.) I'm assuming that implemtning both is obviously the best method but which is the better place to start. Should I start with panels or implement correction and then move to accoustical treatments? I would guess that at the very least the corrective software/hardware would minimize the amount of panels needed, or is that backwards (The panels would minimize the amount of correction needed?)
I'm still looking for a good starting point for all of this.
Thanks,
Andrew
I think basic room treatments are always the best place to start. You don't want to build your stereo or HT setup in a glass room and apply massive correction in the hopes of achieving "perfect" sound. More than likely, you will end up over-correcting and potentially damage your equipment or end up with strange audible artifacts. Past Hz, I like to apply correction more judiciously, as upper frequencies tend to be more sensitive to over-correction.
If you look at my first set of pictures of my 2.2. setup, you will notice that my room is indeed moderately treated and that my in room uncorrected measurements are actually not all that bad. The large bass hump is simply boosted levels in the corner load subs and could have easily been measured at the same level as the mains.
The second set of pictures is an example of someone who does not have a treated room and is probably applying a bit too much correction.
I really feel that virtually everyone would benefit from both acoustic treatments and DRC, especially in a multi-channel setup. Even in my 2.2. setup, DRC is essential because of my corner load woofer setup. DRC also allows one to work with the space they have without having to turn it into an aesthetic nightmare. In a multi-channel setup the benefits of allowing a DRC program handle freq. response, time alignment, time domain and level corrections are overwhelming and can improve even the most meticulous setups.
In any case, to answer your question, I think acoustic treatments and DRC go hand in hand, but some basic room treatment is the right start. The less work DRC has to do, the better. Nevertheless, they do go hand in hand and proper use of both will only improve one's listening experience. I am a strong supporter of DRC, as I think virtually everyone would benefit from it. It will also allow people to have great sound in real world spaces, while maintaining a pleasing aesthetic environment.
