Correct Me if I’m Wrong
Posted on | January 28, 2009 | 4 Comments
“Paul,
I was thumbing through the latest music catalog and stumbled
across a control room fixer plug-in/magic box.
It looks like they generally include a reference mic and software/EQ/faze reversal gizmos to make your monitoring more accurate.
Obviously, a properly tuned room would be best. Barring that, are these things worth their salt? “
__________
In a word, no. Here’s why…
Room correction solutions aim to fix bad-sounding listening environments (rooms) by applying EQ to what’s coming out of the speakers. They work by placing a mic in the listening spot and analyzing as the listener would hear it, then creating an EQ curve to “balance” the sound you hear.
But what if you move an inch from where the mic was placed…or slouch in your chair? See what I’m getting at? No one stays as still as a microphone when they listen to music. So some use more than one mic…or sum a variety of sources. Maybe that’s better…but if you put the mic in a spot with a lot of bass build-up, it’s going to create a steep counter-curve.
In general, these systems all have a few fatal flaws:
- The equalizers aren’t perfect, so they impart phase shift and coloration to the signal coming out of the speakers.
- Speakers aren’t perfect (none are…no matter how expensive), and applying equalization doesn’t help make them any more transparent. The more you use, the worse the sound gets.
- The microphone(s) used to analyze the room isn’t the same as your ear.
There are a few instances where I think this type of fix can succeed. Namely, in good sounding rooms (that have 80-90% of the sound nailed down) where an “active” system can be used to band-aid minimal problems (e.g, if a high-quality system was installed in my mastering room and professionally setup, it would probably help). In these instances, it’s possible to be very judicious with the EQ and keep the detriments listed above to a minimum.
There’s a great saying regarding sound reproduction: “then physics kicked in.” Accurate sound reproduction is based on excellent amplifiers and speakers properly setup in a good listening environment. There’s really no way around this by electronically “rigging” the system.
Comments
4 Responses to “Correct Me if I’m Wrong”
Leave a Reply
About This Blog
From Ohm to Om reflects the opinions of mastering engineer Paul Abbott, owner of San Diego's ZenMastering.
We welcome comments from readers...pro or con!
January 28th, 2009 @ 1:25 am
. . .but the ad said it would make my mixes cleaner/better/louder/cooler and get me a record deal and a Ferarri.
January 28th, 2009 @ 10:16 am
Dear Mr. Abbott!
I’ve purchased such a room correction system and installed it on my system. I knew that it is not the remedy against bad sounding rooms before I bought it and they didn’t claimed that. I read the user manual before buying. They say what you say. It optimize and works best in already corrected rooms.
I followed the instructions for the measurements (I made over 20 in my listening area) and saved the result of the measurements for use in the stereo output channel.
Without the correction there are a lot of deep frequencies in my room. It’s thick and a little unclear. With activated correction the recording sounds thinner, but cleaner or clearer.
I’m not a pro, I’m not a mix engineer and so I’m not really a jugde of the efficiency of this correction system.
Maybe the buying and the use of the correction system was an expensive experiment that failed, but I think it can show me how my room (my listening area) sounds and I can consider that when I try to mix my recordings.
But as I said, I’m not a pro.
With kind regards
Robin
January 28th, 2009 @ 12:48 pm
Robin,
Hi, and thanks for the note. It’s great to get feedback from someone who actually owns a room correction system. I will respond to your post with a few qualifications.
First, keep in mind that a lot of what I talk about when I critique comes from an “ideal” perspective. I’ve considered using electronic room correction in the past — and have consulted professional acousticians in the matter. Some thought it was viable, others didn’t. In the end, I decided against it for just the reasons I laid out above.
I think that for end-listeners (who aren’t making EQ decisions on a mix), they’re fine. If you’re going to be an audio engineer using one, it’s a mixed bag…and I think spending the money on a professional acoustician a better use of funds.
But, again…my opinion.
There is a danger to thinking that anything is a silver bullet…whether it’s a “finalizer” for mastering or room correction for acoustics.
January 30th, 2009 @ 2:25 am
[...] the heels of yesterday’s post, I’ll add a little p.s. here that sometimes the real skill in life lies in not screwing [...]