Cool video, makes a lot of sense! We're always happy to see people doing their own research, not just blindly going all in on one specific solution. Totally agreed on room treatment. Software solutions for calibrating your room and speakers are not a replacement for room treatment - it is always a good idea to have at least some basic treatment done, although the balance between the software correction and room treatment is probably subjective and very much dependent on your room, budget, and other personal conditions. Also, interesting point about how the different of different sound absorption materials affect different freq. ranges, this is rarely discussed when it comes to room treatment. Great advice regarding headphones and headphone calibration too - a lot of creators will find it to be a quick and legitimate (and consistent) solution with a lot of bang for your buck. With that said, we still find that room correction has a lot to offer even in poorly treated rooms. Yes, software calibration has its limits (standing waves, for example), and applying a significant software correction in an untreated room can indeed have questionable results in some areas due to the severe compensation applied. Despite that, a lot of Sonarworks users report a significant overall improvement in such scenarios too. And then of course, if your room is well-treated, software correction will provide that extra layer of accuracy too. Additionally, channel delay is also corrected for a better sound stage balance, which also adds to the improvement (especially when it comes to poor room properties). In other words, our experience and research show that software correction still has a lot to offer in both scenarios. Also, your point about speaker placement and positioning cannot be overstated. Severe low-end cancellations or buildups can often be significantly improved simply by adjusting the speaker placement, their distance from the back wall, etc. In fact, software calibration is a great analysis tool to use, as you can make educated decisions on adjusting your entire workspace layout (making adjustments based on the measurements). At the end of the day, mix translation is what counts - if you can clearly see that a specific approach improves the mix translation and consistency, then the method used is legitimate.
Wow! I really didn't expect the creators to comment on my video. Thank you for supporting what I said in the video. And I totally agree that if your room is well treated software can add that little touch to it. But that's just it. If you're going to use the software, your room should be well treated. It's meant to be the icing on the cake, not the cake. Anyway, I thought it was really cool that you guys commented. Thank you for supporting my small channel.
Cool video, makes a lot of sense! We're always happy to see people doing their own research, not just blindly going all in on one specific solution.
Totally agreed on room treatment. Software solutions for calibrating your room and speakers are not a replacement for room treatment - it is always a good idea to have at least some basic treatment done, although the balance between the software correction and room treatment is probably subjective and very much dependent on your room, budget, and other personal conditions. Also, interesting point about how the different of different sound absorption materials affect different freq. ranges, this is rarely discussed when it comes to room treatment. Great advice regarding headphones and headphone calibration too - a lot of creators will find it to be a quick and legitimate (and consistent) solution with a lot of bang for your buck.
With that said, we still find that room correction has a lot to offer even in poorly treated rooms. Yes, software calibration has its limits (standing waves, for example), and applying a significant software correction in an untreated room can indeed have questionable results in some areas due to the severe compensation applied. Despite that, a lot of Sonarworks users report a significant overall improvement in such scenarios too. And then of course, if your room is well-treated, software correction will provide that extra layer of accuracy too. Additionally, channel delay is also corrected for a better sound stage balance, which also adds to the improvement (especially when it comes to poor room properties). In other words, our experience and research show that software correction still has a lot to offer in both scenarios.
Also, your point about speaker placement and positioning cannot be overstated. Severe low-end cancellations or buildups can often be significantly improved simply by adjusting the speaker placement, their distance from the back wall, etc. In fact, software calibration is a great analysis tool to use, as you can make educated decisions on adjusting your entire workspace layout (making adjustments based on the measurements). At the end of the day, mix translation is what counts - if you can clearly see that a specific approach improves the mix translation and consistency, then the method used is legitimate.
Wow! I really didn't expect the creators to comment on my video. Thank you for supporting what I said in the video.
And I totally agree that if your room is well treated software can add that little touch to it.
But that's just it. If you're going to use the software, your room should be well treated.
It's meant to be the icing on the cake, not the cake.
Anyway, I thought it was really cool that you guys commented. Thank you for supporting my small channel.