I'm intrigued by the mismatch between measurement and experience here. I've seen the same thing with other speaker systems too.
The impulse response is a complete measurement of some dimensions of the sound. It's constrained to a single point in the room; and it almost completely excludes nonlinearities (noise, harmonic and intermodulation distortion) that can be very important. But in the linear realm, it's pretty much complete and accurate. With a linear impulse response there's also an absolute measure of correctness. A single Dirac pulse represents the ideal. Deviation from the ideal means a less good sound. Room correction filters move from the measured toward the ideal by some amount (in some dimensions). But we can see measured impulse responses with objectively large defects, and yet they "sound good" in some way, and correcting for those defects (in this case by flattening the frequency response and adjusting the early part of the time/phase response to be closer to ideal) makes it "sound worse" in some ways. Weird. Here's a suggestion for one way to listen to the changes. Listen through headphones, to some non-EQd music. Then select the *measured impulse response* as room-correction filter, and again listen through headphones. Third, select the "test convolution" response (the measured impulse response, after processing with one of the correction filters) as a correction filter, and again listen through headphones. If #3 is an improvement over #2, the room correction is doing something good. If #2 is an improvement over #1, get a second opinion :-) -- inguz ------------------------------------------------------------------------ inguz's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1139 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=35615 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
