FIR can correct for phase independently of amplitude. Typically EQ cannot (please let's not start on allpass filter banks). That's the major difference. FIR is also always guaranteed to be stable, IIR (EQ) is not. The only drawback with FIR design is the latency, especially when correcting low frequency response. But there are processing techniques that can improve on that (mainly up- and downsampling the filter). 4ms is pretty good for a full range design.
Your point about room response is correct, but it's kind of moot since it applies to any speaker setup. If your room has challenging low end response, you can always high pass your speakers to get them to play only in the non-critical range. It's not a speaker specific issue.
I need to push back on a few points here, because several concepts are being mixed together, and that’s could creates confusion.
First, opposing EQ and FIR doesn’t make sense. FIR filters are simply one of the filter technologies used inside EQs. Yes, a FIR filter can be designed as a phase‑only correction, but in any real crossover you will almost always use steep high‑pass and low‑pass filters plus driver‑specific spectral corrections, because no raw driver is perfectly linear. In other words, you end up doing EQ anyway. So framing FIR vs EQ as if they were opposites is just incorrect.
Where the distinction does make sense is FIR vs IIR, because these are fundamentally different filter designs with different strengths and weaknesses. And while you’re right about FIR latency in the low end, you’re overlooking the fact that IIR filters have real advantages whenever you’re not using extreme slopes. Trying to fully linearize low‑frequency phase with FIR can easily introduce audible pre‑ringing, which in some cases is worse than the minimum‑phase rotation of an IIR filter. So no, FIR is not automatically the better choice, and certainly not “regardless of latency.”
And of course the speaker’s low‑frequency extension affects how it excites room modes. Pretending otherwise is unrealistic. Of course, all full‑range loudspeakers will run into this issue. The difference is that they’re usually very expensive and therefore mostly used in professional setups with proper treatment, not in bedroom studios. That’s exactly why the Palmer Orbit 11 may create challenges that are far less common in typical home environments.
Applying a high‑pass filter is not consequence‑free either—especially if you do it with a FIR high pass filter, because you’re adding significant latency just to remove bass you don’t need. The theoretical minimum is already around 12.5 ms to high‑pass at 40 Hz at 96 kHz, and that’s with minimal margin. You end up with around 20 ms latency wich is too much to monitor when recording any instrument. On top of that, a speaker designed to go very low usually makes trade‑offs elsewhere—heavier moving mass, different motor design, etc.—which inevitably affects how it behaves higher up.
None of this is a deal‑breaker. The speaker still looks extremely compelling in many respects. But it’s simply not obvious that a full‑range monitor will behave well in a domestic room, and buying one without measuring the room first is risky. You may not be able to take advantage of the extended low end at all, or worse, it may create more problems than it solves.
www.palmer-germany.com
