Placement and acoustic treatment over EQ

[olds1959special]

While EQ can sometimes help with gross acoustic problems I am finding that I prefer my setups without EQ provided there is some attention paid to placement and acoustic treatment, if possible. This is because while I sometimes try to cut peaky frequencies, I find this makes the sound thinner and in my case doesn't really improve anything. There is so much variability in how EQ can be applied, I just think it's better just to stick with a good performing speaker and place it (and/or treat the room) so it can function as intended. Small irregularities in the frequency response of a setup can be adjusted to and I think this is better than fussing with EQ, or at least this has been my experience so far.

 

[Keith_W]

Your speaker will NEVER perform as intended without some work on your behalf. The designer produces a design they think will work, but there is no way they can predict how well it would work in your room.

You have tools to get it to work. You can take measurements to see how far it deviates from ideal, and then you have to decide on an intervention. Your tools include: repositioning speakers, buying new speakers, deploying room treatment, DSP equalisation, adding more subwoofers to even out the bass response, etc. ALL of these interventions WILL sound bad if wrong choices are made. And the more powerful the tool, the more likely you are to create a dramatic change ... for better or for worse. The fact that you can hear bad results tells you how powerful DSP is. Don't blame the tool, blame yourself. Forgoing such a powerful tool is totally your decision, of course. But to me that would be like trying to cut wood with a butter knife because you injured yourself with a saw once.

 

[olds1959special]

Your speaker will NEVER perform as intended without some work on your behalf. The designer produces a design they think will work, but there is no way they can predict how well it would work in your room.

You have tools to get it to work. You can take measurements to see how far it deviates from ideal, and then you have to decide on an intervention. Your tools include: repositioning speakers, buying new speakers, deploying room treatment, DSP equalisation, adding more subwoofers to even out the bass response, etc. ALL of these interventions WILL sound bad if wrong choices are made. And the more powerful the tool, the more likely you are to create a dramatic change ... for better or for worse. The fact that you can hear bad results tells you how powerful DSP is. Don't blame the tool, blame yourself. Forgoing such a powerful tool is totally your decision, of course. But to me that would be like trying to cut wood with a butter knife because you injured yourself with a saw once.

Maybe I just need to get better at using/understanding EQ and also measuring.

 

[Arindal]

I agree that in many cases, solving room-induced problems solely via EQ, does not get you anywhere but might reveal some problems with are simply not EQ-able (such as booming, bass, combfiltering, cancellation, localization issues, too much of reverb and alike). Can confirm your experience that countering resonance frequencies, like room modes leading to narrow-banded booming, via EQ, can lead to all sorts of problems including subjectively ´thin´ bass, when bass impulses in the music are more transient or level is lowered.

I just think it's better just to stick with a good performing speaker and place it (and/or treat the room) so it can function as intended.

In most of rooms, this is unrealistic. While you can in many cases optimize the position to a degree that major flaws are avoided, there will be a certain influence of the room and there might be a necessity to further EQ something.

My personal method is to first optimize positioning and room acoustics (including room treatment if necessary) to a degree that you have

- no signs of overly dominant booming/cancellation issues in the lower regions
- stable localization
- no overly dominant reverb in the room

Once these three things are settled and massive flaws avoided, remaining issues in most of cases can be countered surprisingly well with the help of EQ. Just my personal experience.

 

[Bjorn]

It all comes down to what's minimum phase behavior. Most of room response isn't minimum phase and part of the speaker response isn't either.

So auto correction system that doesn't address this, will end up introducing audible artifacts.

 

[Cote Dazur]

I would place speaker placement and room acoustic improvement before EQ, not over.
They all are part of the arsenal, but to me EQ is the finishing touch, if needed, not the main tool.
Only relying on EQ, as in any other tool, is equally misdirected.