Digital EQs - how effective are they?

Such as MiniDSP etc, do these gadgets really overcome the room acoustic issues?

I've read that when properly set up, they can be quite effective.
So can proper room treatments.

Neither is very simple.

You might find it easier to buy an Audessy-equipped preamp and let it do the hard work for you.
 
Last edited:
I think you're thinking of digital room correction, commonly referred to as DRC. The MiniDSP digital EQ units you may be speaking of are digital xovers/PEQ's that the DIY cats like to use (and I intend to as well in the very near future). However, MiniDSP has recently teamed with Dirac and developed DRC units which they've branded as their own and you can read more about them here....

http://www.minidsp.com/products/dirac-series#box

I was actually reading up on the MiniDSP DRC units last night and I'm sort of wanting to try one out. Mike T has been seriously looking at DSP and was kinda jazzed about the new McIntosh DRC unit back in the spring at Lone Star Audio Fest. I checked it out, but my parting observation was it's no silver bullet (and for the $$$$ price tag it better not only fix my room, but clean the toilets and do my laundry as well). The one limitation I see with DRC is I see no possible way for it to overcome early reflections. It would have to be able to totally change the dispersion characteristics of the drivers and I'm pretty sure that's not possible. However, I see it as a very effective tool for correcting other issues and if used in conjunction with a solid acoustic treatment scheme could very damn well totally optimize the speaker/room response.
 
Last edited:
Interesting. Combined with DRC, then, room acoustic treatment may further enhance the potential of our gear.
 
I would not suggest DRC as a singular remedy.

I would suggest proper acoustic treatments as a singular remedy, albeit not perfect.

I would suggest the two together is the shit.
 
Last edited:
Read a bit more about the drc. Real interesting. And tempting.

Sent from my X10a using Tapatalk 2
 
I use a DSpeaker Anti-Mode 2.0 Dual-Core, and wouldn't be without it or some other digital room correction system. Transparent, and does a great job of fixing room flaws. I believe there are multiple threads about it on AK.
 
As Michael said, I was jazzed about the McIntosh MEN-220 after hearing it at the Lone Star Audio Fest. The cool thing about it was you could set several listening positions (left/right of center for example) and the circuit would adjust for acoustic reflections and the image would be stable no matter where you were in the room.

After I calmed down and took into account the rest of the system with Revel Studio 2's and other associated MAC equipment, I agree with Michael. You could hire someone to come over and treat your entire listening space with proper acoustic remedies and STILL have lots of money left over.

Acoustic treatments are still of intense interest for me. Just moving a panel a foot or two changes the response of the system, in some cases dramatically.

I've found you have to be careful not to overdo the acoustic treatments or it makes the room dead. I removed a couple of panels from my back wall listening position and the sound signature came much more alive. You need some balance of reflective sound versus direct but its still a matter of trial and error to some degree.
 
It's better to treat your room rather than adding distortion via EQ... whether it be analog or digital.
 
^^^

It's not if it's a quality unit. The technology wouldn't be embraced by a good portion of the audio community if it did. But I do feel basic acoustic treatments to tame the earliest reflections should precede the use of DRC.
 
As Michael said, I was jazzed about the McIntosh MEN-220 after hearing it at the Lone Star Audio Fest. The cool thing about it was you could set several listening positions (left/right of center for example) and the circuit would adjust for acoustic reflections and the image would be stable no matter where you were in the room.

After I calmed down and took into account the rest of the system with Revel Studio 2's and other associated MAC equipment, I agree with Michael. You could hire someone to come over and treat your entire listening space with proper acoustic remedies and STILL have lots of money left over.

Acoustic treatments are still of intense interest for me. Just moving a panel a foot or two changes the response of the system, in some cases dramatically.

I've found you have to be careful not to overdo the acoustic treatments or it makes the room dead. I removed a couple of panels from my back wall listening position and the sound signature came much more alive. You need some balance of reflective sound versus direct but its still a matter of trial and error to some degree.

As I get deeper into the science of acoustics and treating a listening space the more I realize the importance of two things....

1) The listening position has to be in a reflection free zone, or RFZ. To be more specific, free of reflections that have an arrival time less than around 20ms. Sonic energy travels approx 1'/ms, so any reflective boundary layer that creates a vector less than 20' from the speaker to the listening position is creating early reflections and should be addressed with broadband absorption.

2) For proper reproduction of a recording the room should retain some ability to return sonic energy back into and throughout the space without any of that sonic energy reaching the listening position as an early reflection (within the 20ms window). This is best accomplished with diffusion as it returns sonic energy in a predictable and uniform manner in both the time and space domains. Remove the uniformity and specific regions of spectral content can be focused toward the listening position and if their arrival time is early enough can cause comb filtering.

So what I'm coming to understand is that though it's critical to treat the room with broadband absorption to remove early reflections, it's only part of the process. And though it's no doubt important to remove this sonic energy from the room in a controlled fashion, it's just as important to return it into the room in a controlled fashion via diffusion or controlled scattering.

Absorption will create a favorable acoustic response, but absorption and diffusion will create an ideal acoustic response.
 
Last edited:
I can't say for sure, but from what I'm gathering I'd say to some degree yes, but not entirely. I'm still not convinced that DRC has any sort of control over the dispersion characteristics of drivers and response of room boundary layers. It can realign time and phase to a degree, but I just don't see how it could have total control over a room's acoustic characteristics. I'd like to hear what Ken K. has to say about it. His observations would be orders of magnitude more valid than mine.
 
Last edited:
I purchased a unit on a trial . my system has Ohm Walsh 2 speakers & 2 REL
Q 201 E subs running in stereo . I have felt the bass was a little to much .
After installing this unit and running through the setup procedure . I was happy to see I did not have any bass dips . after the cal was done the bass flattened out from 20 hz to 150 hz . When comparing the before and after sound I was quite impressed . Still more tweaking to come . Very promising
 
^^^

So you heard improved balance given to LF response, how about image/sound stage resolution and general tonality of the reproduction...much change there?
 
Are you of opinion that the DRC perhaps does the balancing job between the low and high, but not imaging, Michael?
 
Back
Top Bottom