Xref: utzoo rec.audio:30453 comp.dsp:1508
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!gatech!prism!gt0869a
From: gt0869a@prism.gatech.EDU (WATERS,CLYDE GORDON)
Newsgroups: rec.audio,comp.dsp
Subject: Re: Good speaker + DSP == perfect speaker?
Message-ID: <25601@hydra.gatech.EDU>
Date: 5 Apr 91 01:26:41 GMT
References: <149891@pyramid.pyramid.com> <3783@uc.msc.umn.edu>
Followup-To: rec.audio
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology
Lines: 22

In article <3783@uc.msc.umn.edu> dpm@msc.edu (David P. Mottaz) writes:
>What fun to watch this thing go berserk when a cat runs through the
>room upsetting the "waves", or if the phone rings.  It will need a "I
>
>-Dave/dpm@msc.edu/Minnesota Supercomputer Center :-) 8*> I-](RoboCop smile)

What I meant when I posted earlier on speaker compensation was NOT to 
try to compensate for room effects, just for the speaker itself (measure
once, preferably anechoic, near field) and leave it alone. I do not 
personally believe room compensation should be tried in any electronic
form (except maybe for Nelson Pass' (I think) noise cancellation/ standing 
wave cancellation scheme) Passive room comp (deadening, etc) can have 
good effect, but adaptive room eq is too big a can of worms for me :-)
Any further comments welcomed on speaker compensation.
Thanks
Gordon.
 
-- 
WATERS,CLYDE GORDON
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:	  ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt0869a
Internet: gt0869a@prism.gatech.edu