Sound meter + equalizer = problem solved?

I think it’s true. Digital room correction is even better. Are we just spinning our wheels and wasting time trying to solve the room acoustics/Fletcher Munson problem otherwise? Could audiophile dogma ie “don’t mess with the signal, dummy” just be completely wrong in practice? What were we thinking?


I have EQ for my system (a Schiit Loki is there but not hooked up unless something really needs it) and rarely use it as all I generally need to (rarely) do is adjust my large, untreated room sounds great as it has furniture lots of crap in it. I guess I know from decades of experience how to set things up to suit my tastes, so there's no problem to solve.

I would change 'Sound Meter' to 'Personal Preference'. It does not matter how it measures, it matters how it sounds. A flat frequency response not necessarily is the perfect response for everyone, or for every music genre.

Isn’t equalization only as good as the instrument used to measure its impact? Something to think about.

@falconquest thats true but I find all that is needed is for the meter to be close to accurate to make my ears happy.  Decibel app on my iPhone works fine. 

@rudyb, when in doubt,  I consider flat to be the proper initial reference to work from. It need not be perfect and I may well tweak from there if needed. But at minimum it gives you the most useful starting point. Then you go from there, if needed. But in my case any changes I make from pseudo flat will be very minor. My two best systems downstairs are close enough. No EQ or room correction needed