Equalizers- Are they necessary anymore?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

With all of the new technology with surround sound sytems with all the
different programs on them, do you feel like an equalizer is necessary
to enhance your stereo/DVD systems?

Thanks for any help/input.

Craig

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <6830-41550CBF-577@storefull-3234.bay.webtv.net> PermissionToLand@webtv.net writes:

> With all of the new technology with surround sound sytems with all the
> different programs on them, do you feel like an equalizer is necessary
> to enhance your stereo/DVD systems?

Of course not. But what's new? An equalizer was never necessary to
enhance your stereo/DVD system, unless you consider "enhancing" to
mess up its frequency response in ways that you enjoy.

But then where would we be without "enhanced" car stereos with the
bass and treble turned way up so they rattle windows as they drive
down the street?

--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:znr1096111979k@trad...
>
> In article <6830-41550CBF-577@storefull-3234.bay.webtv.net>
PermissionToLand@webtv.net writes:
>
> > With all of the new technology with surround sound sytems with all the
> > different programs on them, do you feel like an equalizer is necessary
> > to enhance your stereo/DVD systems?
>
> Of course not. But what's new? An equalizer was never necessary to
> enhance your stereo/DVD system, unless you consider "enhancing" to
> mess up its frequency response in ways that you enjoy.


So you're saying that an equalizer can't in any way help in correcting your
room's frequency response?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Tommi M. wrote:

> So you're saying that an equalizer can't in any way help in correcting your
> room's frequency response?

Sure it can. It can make it near perfect at exactly one
point or reasonably close over some set of points, but move
your ear (or a chair) just a little bit in a highly modal
room and all bets are off.

What Ethan, and those who have made vain attempts at this
kind of equalization, have come to fully understand is that
the modal nature of the room must first be dealt with by
proper design and treatment.

I disagree with some in believing that once that has been
done properly then FIR type equalization based on
measurement, even a multi-band magnitude thing to a limited
extent, can be very effectively applied for finer tuning
over a broad listening area.

Primary things first. Secondary things second.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Tommi,

> So you're saying that an equalizer can't in any way help in correcting
your room's frequency response? <

The notion of using EQ to fix bad room response is mostly misguided. In some
cases EQ can help *a little* to tame modal peaks at the very lowest
frequencies. But most low frequency response errors are highly position
dependant, and include nulls as deep as 35 dB. So any EQ correction will
help only one very specific place in the room, and will by definition make
other places worse. Even a foot away the response can be very different. And
EQ does nothing for other acoustic problems like first reflections, flutter
echo, modal ringing, and so forth.

The correct solution to acoustic problems is acoustic treatment.

--Ethan

 

[george]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <cj3tcq$n5g$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi>,
"Tommi M." <tomppaaREMOVE@kolumbus.fi> wrote:

> "Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
> news:znr1096111979k@trad...
> >
> > In article <6830-41550CBF-577@storefull-3234.bay.webtv.net>
> PermissionToLand@webtv.net writes:
> >
> > > With all of the new technology with surround sound sytems with all the
> > > different programs on them, do you feel like an equalizer is necessary
> > > to enhance your stereo/DVD systems?
> >
> > Of course not. But what's new? An equalizer was never necessary to
> > enhance your stereo/DVD system, unless you consider "enhancing" to
> > mess up its frequency response in ways that you enjoy.
>
>
> So you're saying that an equalizer can't in any way help in correcting your
> room's frequency response?
>
>

a eq will never chage a rooms frequency response
can't be done
to change a rooms freq response you have to change the room
George

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<< most low frequency response errors are highly position
dependant, and include nulls as deep as 35 dB. So any EQ correction will
help only one very specific place in the room, and will by definition make
other places worse. Even a foot away the response can be very different. And
EQ does nothing for other acoustic problems like first reflections, flutter
echo, modal ringing, and so forth.

The correct solution to acoustic problems is acoustic treatment. >>



AMEN!




Kevin M. Kelly
"There needs to be a 12-step program for us gearheads"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <cj3tcq$n5g$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi> tomppaaREMOVE@kolumbus.fi writes:

> > Of course not. But what's new? An equalizer was never necessary to
> > enhance your stereo/DVD system, unless you consider "enhancing" to
> > mess up its frequency response in ways that you enjoy.

> So you're saying that an equalizer can't in any way help in correcting your
> room's frequency response?

No, I said what I said (above).

You can use an equalizer to correct for excessive low end boost
resulting from a speaker being put in a corner that wasn't designed
for that placement, but other than that, an equilzer is pretty
hopeless for correcting a room's frequency response. See about 5,000
posts here about the subject.

The proper device for correcting frequency response anomalies in a
room is a sledge hammer.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Craig James <PermissionToLand@webtv.net> wrote:
>With all of the new technology with surround sound sytems with all the
>different programs on them, do you feel like an equalizer is necessary
>to enhance your stereo/DVD systems?

Of course. Say you got the center channel speaker in the bathroom and you
got the right channel in the bedroom and the surround channels in the
living room. They'll all sound different. You gotta fix this by turning
the MEGA BASS on, and then the loudness contour, and then turning up the
bass and treble. But that's not enough distortion! No, you have to make
it sound even worse. That's when shitty consumer graphic equalizers come in.
With the graphic equalizer, you can set up a smiley filter, and then you
can use a real time analyzer and set your system up for totally mutilated
sound. Don't forget to clip the amplifier and blow the tweeters out, then
turn the top end on the equalizer up even more to compensate!
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Tommi M. <tomppaaREMOVE@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
>
>So you're saying that an equalizer can't in any way help in correcting your
>room's frequency response?

It works great if you put your head at one position of the room, set the
response to be flat there, then don't move it more than an inch or so.

See, room problems aren't frequency domain problems, they are time domain
problems. The frequency response issue is only a symptom, it's not the
real problem. All an equalizer can do is hide it, and it can only do so
in one part of the room. And sometimes it can't even do that, if that part
of the room is a node at any frequency.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> See, room problems aren't frequency domain problems, they are time domain
> problems. The frequency response issue is only a symptom, it's not the
> real problem.

Scott, I often see this stated but take issue with it.
Frequency and time _domain_ are exact duals. One is
entirely determined by the other and both imply a
transformation of both magnitude and group delay as a
function of frequency. Group delay is (approximately)
defined as the time delay in what reaches you from the
source as a function of frequency.

The problem is twofold. First, problems can't be fixed by a
box that only adjusts magnitude response (like a graphic
equalizer) without also fixing the group delay response.
This may be what is meant by saying that "you can't fix time
domain problems with a frequency domain solution" but it
really is a misuse of technical term "domain". It would be
much more accurate to say that you can't fix time problems
with a box that doesn't change the time related aspects of
the frequency respone. You gotta fix both.

But even if you can get the magnitude really flat at a point
with a band type equalizer (which just ain't gonna happen
anyway other than in the broadest sense of averages over
bands that have wild variation within them), the group delay
response at that point will remain totally tweaked by the
room modality and acoustic events will be smeared all around
the time when they should happen.

This can be overcome with a FIR type equalizer which
addresses both magnitude and group delay response issues
simultaneously and with _much_ greater detail resolution.
This leaves the second problem.

That problem is, as several of us have said, that even if
you do use a high resolution magnitude/group-delay type of
equalization you can only fix one spot in the extremely
complicated 3-d acoustic response field present in an
untreated room. The variations of that response field can
be considerably simplifed, broadened and smoothed out with
good room treatment such as is well descibed by Ethan and
Wes in their EQ article.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
news:cj53c7$jjv$1@panix2.panix.com...
> Tommi M. <tomppaaREMOVE@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
>>
>>So you're saying that an equalizer can't in any way help in correcting
>>your
>>room's frequency response?
>
> It works great if you put your head at one position of the room, set the
> response to be flat there, then don't move it more than an inch or so.

I always picture someone wearing one of those metal "halos" like when you
break your neck sitting right in the sweet spot so they can't move out of
it.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> Say you got the center channel speaker in the bathroom and you
> got the right channel in the bedroom and the surround channels in the
> living room. They'll all sound different. You gotta fix this by turning
> the MEGA BASS on, and then the loudness contour, and then turning up the
> bass and treble. But that's not enough distortion! No, you have to make
> it sound even worse. That's when shitty consumer graphic equalizers come in.
> With the graphic equalizer, you can set up a smiley filter, and then you
> can use a real time analyzer and set your system up for totally mutilated
> sound. Don't forget to clip the amplifier and blow the tweeters out, then
> turn the top end on the equalizer up even more to compensate!


So I can use this monitor system for mastering, yeah??

--
ha

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <6830-41550CBF-577@storefull-3234.bay.webtv.net>,
PermissionToLand@webtv.net (Craig James) wrote:
> With all of the new technology with surround sound sytems with all the
> different programs on them, do you feel like an equalizer is necessary
> to enhance your stereo/DVD systems?

As many have mentioned, EQs don't help with acoustical / room problems.
But, I'd like to remind everyone that they can help with speakers that
don't have a flat power output over the entire frequency range. It's
common for speakers to have some dips and bumps, and these can be made
less severe with a good parametric EQ. A system that has substantially
flat power output over frequency is still better than one that doesn't
do such a thing, regardless of the room. It's not like solving either
problem is going to fix the other, you have to have both things working
properly: a room with good time response and a speaker with flat power
response.

The big problem however is getting a parametric EQ that can actually
address these issues well, and figuring out where to put the bands.
Graphics are fast and simple, and I use them for live sound all the
time, but they're seldom used well, and they're never an ideal solution
to any sort of problem. Using a mike and a generator is also an error
prone method for finding where to put the corrections, as the room can
influence the measurements. i fid this sort of correction is best done
by ear, but it's error prone and not simple to do.

So, yes, I think EQ is a useful thing, but I've never seen any good EQs
provided with consumer gear, or even many professional systems that use
EQ.


Regards,

Monte McGuire
monte.mcguire@verizon.net

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 03:33:44 GMT, walkinay@thegrid.net (hank alrich)
wrote:

>So I can use this monitor system for mastering, yeah??

That would obviously depend on what brand of wiring you're
using inside the monitor speakers. Details count!

Chris Hornbeck

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 04:50:15 GMT, Monte McGuire
<monte.mcguire@verizon.net> wrote:

> A system that has substantially
>flat power output over frequency is still better than one that doesn't
>do such a thing, regardless of the room. It's not like solving either
>problem is going to fix the other, you have to have both things working
>properly: a room with good time response and a speaker with flat power
>response.

I really hesitate to post this, because I never disagree with anything
you post, but I wonder if you really do mean to say flat "power
response" in the same way that I understand the term.

In certain circles, it's come to mean an averaged whole room response,
like you'd get in a perfectly reverberant room. As contrasted with
a flat "on-axis response".

So, to phrase my question better, do you favor EQ optimizing the
on-axis or the summed-room response, in an otherwise optimized room?

Thanks, as always,

Chris Hornbeck

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Chris Hornbeck wrote:

> (hank alrich) wrote:

> >So I can use this monitor system for mastering, yeah??

> That would obviously depend on what brand of wiring you're
> using inside the monitor speakers. Details count!

I figger to use either Romex or RG59, with some WD40 to smooth their
response. Whacha think?

--
ha

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Bob Cain <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote:
>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> See, room problems aren't frequency domain problems, they are time domain
>> problems. The frequency response issue is only a symptom, it's not the
>> real problem.
>
>Scott, I often see this stated but take issue with it.
>Frequency and time _domain_ are exact duals. One is
>entirely determined by the other and both imply a
>transformation of both magnitude and group delay as a
>function of frequency.

Right, this is why you get those frequency domain symptoms.

>The problem is twofold. First, problems can't be fixed by a
>box that only adjusts magnitude response (like a graphic
>equalizer) without also fixing the group delay response.

This is a minimal issue.

What I mean, is that the room problems are the result of time delay
and summing of delayed reflections. The frequency response issues are
only the result of cancellation from the time delay issues.

>This may be what is meant by saying that "you can't fix time
>domain problems with a frequency domain solution" but it
>really is a misuse of technical term "domain". It would be
>much more accurate to say that you can't fix time problems
>with a box that doesn't change the time related aspects of
>the frequency respone. You gotta fix both.

Well, it's easier to think of the delay in terms of the time domain
and it's easier to think of response issues in terms of the frequency
domain. When you go to explain them, you draw a scope diagram and
a spectrum analyzer diagram respectively.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> Bob Cain <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote:
>
>>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>
>>>See, room problems aren't frequency domain problems, they are time domain
>>>problems. The frequency response issue is only a symptom, it's not the
>>>real problem.
>>
>>Scott, I often see this stated but take issue with it.
>>Frequency and time _domain_ are exact duals. One is
>>entirely determined by the other and both imply a
>>transformation of both magnitude and group delay as a
>>function of frequency.
>
> Right, this is why you get those frequency domain symptoms.

What do you mean by frequency domain symptoms?

>>The problem is twofold. First, problems can't be fixed by a
>>box that only adjusts magnitude response (like a graphic
>>equalizer) without also fixing the group delay response.
>
> This is a minimal issue.

On the contrary, it is essential.

> What I mean, is that the room problems are the result of time delay
> and summing of delayed reflections. The frequency response issues are
> only the result of cancellation from the time delay issues.

Yes, the frequency response issues are caused by the time
delay and summing of delayed reflections, among other things
like frequency dependant absorption. You seem to be trying
to distinguish among, room problems, time delay and summing
and frequency response. They are all the same thing at the
point where your ear is located.

When you say "frequency response" do you really mean
frequency magnitude response? If so then we aren't on the
same page and that could account for our cross
communication. When I say "frequency response" I mean
everything that varies as a function of frequency.

> Well, it's easier to think of the delay in terms of the time domain
> and it's easier to think of response issues in terms of the frequency
> domain. When you go to explain them, you draw a scope diagram and
> a spectrum analyzer diagram respectively.

Yeah, we are saying similar things using opposing terms.
Technically, frequency response is composed of a group delay
response (phase for purposes of calculating interference
results) and a magnitude response. In the audio world, as
opposed to the physics, EE or DSP world, frequency response
seems to mean just magnitude response and that gets
problematic in discussions with engineers.

I think we would agree that you can't fix a room generally
by anything that even treats both components of the
frequency response, other than at a point, much less a thing
that only treats one of the components.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <8oncl0h85so3dfavi9dqqdvvrpm0b1cnn3@4ax.com>,
Chris Hornbeck <chrishornbeckremovethis@att.net> wrote:

> On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 04:50:15 GMT, Monte McGuire
> <monte.mcguire@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > A system that has substantially
> >flat power output over frequency is still better than one that doesn't
> >do such a thing, regardless of the room. It's not like solving either
> >problem is going to fix the other, you have to have both things working
> >properly: a room with good time response and a speaker with flat power
> >response.
>
> I really hesitate to post this, because I never disagree with anything
> you post, but I wonder if you really do mean to say flat "power
> response" in the same way that I understand the term.
>
> In certain circles, it's come to mean an averaged whole room response,
> like you'd get in a perfectly reverberant room. As contrasted with
> a flat "on-axis response".

I think we agree on the definition of 'flat power response'...

I'd like to think that the two (overall power and on axis response) are
hopefully quite similar, since the speaker doesn't beam or do any odd
tricks with directionality. A good example are the Quad ESL-63 I use
for monitoring. By and large, they put out basically flat power into
the room and solve the beaming problem more or less using some clever
delay line tricks.

Yes, they beam slightly at high frequencies, and it'd be nice if they
didn't, but in many ways, if a speaker beams, I think I'd rather have a
flat power response than a flat on axis response. Overall, i think this
leads to better monitoring in most situations.

Sure, heavy beaming is always gonna stink, but given a choice, I prefer
flat power.

> So, to phrase my question better, do you favor EQ optimizing the
> on-axis or the summed-room response, in an otherwise optimized room?

I guess I'd favor the summed room response, given an ideal room. it
seems to me that in a control room, only one person gets the on axis
response, but everyone else gets the result of the power response. It'd
be nice if both were nice and accurate, but I think it's better overall
to have flat power in most situations.

Of course, I'd love to hear some reasons why this might not be the best
approach!!! I'm coming at this from working with a speaker that has
little/no crossover anomalies and no significant beaming, so perhaps
this viewpoint is not applicable in the real world of multi-way cone
speakers.


Regards,

Monte McGuire
monte.mcguire@verizon.net

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 04:24:29 GMT, Monte McGuire
<monte.mcguire@verizon.net> wrote:

>I guess I'd favor the summed room response, given an ideal room. it
>seems to me that in a control room, only one person gets the on axis
>response, but everyone else gets the result of the power response. It'd
>be nice if both were nice and accurate, but I think it's better overall
>to have flat power in most situations.

Thanks, makes good sense. I had hesitated to trust my intuition
based on more ordinary speakers in more ordinary rooms, where I
have still only drawn some murky conclusions.


>Of course, I'd love to hear some reasons why this might not be the best
>approach!!! I'm coming at this from working with a speaker that has
>little/no crossover anomalies and no significant beaming, so perhaps
>this viewpoint is not applicable in the real world of multi-way cone
>speakers.

Yeah, rub it in. Arf.

For anybody interested, the argument for flat on-axis response in
multi-way speakers is that the direct sound from the speaker arrives
first, and so is given a significance by our hearing. (It's also the
loudest, which can't hurt.)

The penalty in conventional multi-way speakers is non-flat summed
room ("power") response. FWIW, the D'Appolito geometric removes
this penalty.

Chris Hornbeck

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Chris Hornbeck wrote:

> For anybody interested, the argument for flat on-axis response in
> multi-way speakers is that the direct sound from the speaker arrives
> first, and so is given a significance by our hearing. (It's also the
> loudest, which can't hurt.)

Both of which are much more prominent at the sweet region of
a well treated room. This would lead me toward the on axis
criterion for that situation and probably the room average
for a more generic listening environment.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <cj7jo003b8@enews3.newsguy.com>,
Bob Cain <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote:
>
>
>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> Bob Cain <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>>
>>>>See, room problems aren't frequency domain problems, they are time domain
>>>>problems. The frequency response issue is only a symptom, it's not the
>>>>real problem.
>>>
>>>Scott, I often see this stated but take issue with it.
>>>Frequency and time _domain_ are exact duals. One is
>>>entirely determined by the other and both imply a
>>>transformation of both magnitude and group delay as a
>>>function of frequency.
>>
>> Right, this is why you get those frequency domain symptoms.
>
>What do you mean by frequency domain symptoms?

I mean frequency response issues, which are easiest to see in the
frequency domain.

>>>The problem is twofold. First, problems can't be fixed by a
>>>box that only adjusts magnitude response (like a graphic
>>>equalizer) without also fixing the group delay response.
>>
>> This is a minimal issue.
>
>On the contrary, it is essential.

Yes, but if the room is minimum phase, and the equalizer is also, then
if the equalizer actually does fix the frequency response, it will also
fix the group delay. The fact that the room resonances don't have the same
Q as the filters on the graphics equalizer just makes the graphic EQ the
wrong tool for the job. But the graphic EQ does have phase shift to it, and
if the filter on the graphic just happened to match an actual room resonance
(or if a parametric was used), the group delay would be a non-issue since
the filter group delay would cancel out the room group delay error.

>> What I mean, is that the room problems are the result of time delay
>> and summing of delayed reflections. The frequency response issues are
>> only the result of cancellation from the time delay issues.
>
>Yes, the frequency response issues are caused by the time
>delay and summing of delayed reflections, among other things
>like frequency dependant absorption. You seem to be trying
>to distinguish among, room problems, time delay and summing
>and frequency response. They are all the same thing at the
>point where your ear is located.

No, I am saying that because the frequency response issues are caused
by the time delay and summing of delayed reflections, that fixing the
frequency response issues is not solving the problem. Only by dealing
with the original reflections is the problem actually solved.

>When you say "frequency response" do you really mean
>frequency magnitude response? If so then we aren't on the
>same page and that could account for our cross
>communication. When I say "frequency response" I mean
>everything that varies as a function of frequency.

I mean frequency magnitude response. You can include phase response in along
with it, if you can make the good assumption that it's a minimum-phase system.

>I think we would agree that you can't fix a room generally
>by anything that even treats both components of the
>frequency response, other than at a point, much less a thing
>that only treats one of the components.

Right.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Scott Dorsey wrote:


>>>>The problem is twofold. First, problems can't be fixed by a
>>>>box that only adjusts magnitude response (like a graphic
>>>>equalizer) without also fixing the group delay response.
>>>
>>>
>>>This is a minimal issue.
>>
>>On the contrary, it is essential.
>
>
> Yes, but if the room is minimum phase, and the equalizer is also, then
> if the equalizer actually does fix the frequency response, it will also
> fix the group delay.

Rooms are anything but minimum phase. A better example of
mixed phase could hardly be found. The reflections and
interference effects yield highly reactive fields with
considerable variance from point to point. I don't think,
either, that a multi-band equalizeer is minimum phase (less
sure about that.)


>>When you say "frequency response" do you really mean
>>frequency magnitude response? If so then we aren't on the
>>same page and that could account for our cross
>>communication. When I say "frequency response" I mean
>>everything that varies as a function of frequency.
>
>
> I mean frequency magnitude response. You can include phase response in along
> with it, if you can make the good assumption that it's a minimum-phase system.

On the contrary, if you can assume it's minimum phase then
there is no need. There is only one minimum phase response
for any given magnitude response and it is easy to calculate.

It's when the response is mixed phase that a full
characterization requires both the phase and magnitude
components.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> See, room problems aren't frequency domain problems, they are time domain
> problems. The frequency response issue is only a symptom, it's not the
> real problem.

Yes!




Skler