In Reply to: "The problem with this approach is that it doesn't actually address the real problem" = WRONG posted by Richard BassNut Greene on December 27, 2005 at 08:07:33:
So in effect you're saying that its correct to treat too long/short room resonance times by decreasing/increasing the amplitude of specific frequencies in the original signal?But bear in mind that in terms of frequency response, there was nothing wrong with the original signal. The problem only occurs sometime after the signal has been generated.
Its hard for me to see how correcting something that isn't incorrect in the first place is addressing the real problem. If a particular drum beat (for example) is supposed to have a 60dB dynamic, its hard to see how artificially reducing it to 40dB is addressing the real problem, which has to do with its rate of decay.
Clearly adding absorbtion in the form of bass traps is also not the correct way to treat room resonance, which is a function of dimension rather than absorbtion.
So-called room correction is in fact room compensation and is the introduction of tailored errors in order to compensate for other errors. Given that the one error doesn't correct the other error (signal amplitude can't correct a time domain error), the best you can hope for is for signal amplitude to mask an RT anomaly. In theory, the overemphasis of a particular frequency (too high a RT) is compensated for by reduced amplitude. In reality what the listener gets is a reduced dynamic and incorrect decay at the manipulated frequency, which is perceived by the listener as being preferable to the emphasis caused by too long a RT.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Wrong? - SteveB 12/28/0504:44:53 12/28/05 (2)
- Too much theory - SteveB 14:42:04 12/28/05 (0)
- Too much theory ! If the bass from 55-60Hz. is 5dB too loud, it will sound better if cut by 5dB ! - Richard BassNut Greene 10:49:26 12/28/05 (0)