|
|
|
|
|
|
by bob1029
1349 days ago
|
|
|
> It's fun stuff to mess with, but one difficulty is that you can't really affect time-domain issues by modifying output frequencies. PEQ can take you a surprising distance. Many perceivable issues can be substantially reduced by attenuating signal at problematic resonant frequencies. At no point ever (IMO) should PEQ be used to boost the level of any frequency to make it more audible. FIR filters are where you can fix time-domain issues. The only problem is that, depending on the amount of filtering required, you may add quite a bit of latency to the signal. IIR filters (e.g. for your crossovers and such) are typically much lower latency approach. IIRC FIR filtering will also allow for you to correct for phase issues. At the end of the day, the room and its treatments are the most important part of the equation. The number of LFE radiators and their positions are probably #2. Everything else you can easily fix in software. |
|
|
Pareto's principle indicates that the biggest 20% of work will provide 80% of the expected results, whereas to get the last 20% of expected results will require 80% of the work.
Doing a basic room EQ with the equipment you have on hand would mean that the spot you EQ'ed from would have a listening experience calibrated to the quality of the microphone at that location (but with a margin for error since they were not using any heuristic other than "make line as flat as possible in a single pass")
That's ~20% of the work in making a pristine audio environment but with close to 80% of the end results. Room correction, reverb baffling, bass traps, better speakers, fancier receivers with complex auto balancing algorithms all could definitely improve the end result but will take far more time and effort (and money) to achieve any noticeable improvement.