Very clever ! This is the exact technique I used when calibrating Petetherock’s square room 4 years ago…
It’s the only possible way to get amplitude to sound “balanced” in his square room, because of the lack of acoustic treatment in the room.
Here is my take on the above approach:
The caveat here is this approach sacrifices “headroom” in exchange for a linear in room amplitude response, technically you are just calibrating for “Levels”
Most often it will be ok when used in small rooms, ie 3x4m rooms or 5x4 meter rooms and if someone doesn’t blast the system down to reference levels .( I do know some folks who tend to listen at reference levels in small rooms with acoustic treatment in place. ) In bigger HT rooms or 8x 10m rooms and with acoustic treatment in place, headroom counts towards this because of the distance of listener’s listening position from speakers. More levels/ amplitude is required in a bigger room.
Couple this with “Dialnorm” offsets on the dolby file, suddenly one will find themselves needing to increase the volume/ gain settings on the avr or processor
Finally, the approach applies lotsa correction filters to “cut away levels” so as to match that DIP in overall amplitude response. Depending on how much one decides to cut. Remember, too many correction filters often makes the sound worse off. This can be seen in time domain information but cannot be seen on the amplitude graph. This is one big reason audiophiles don’t like to use room correction, because of over equalisation. So one will need to be careful between getting the amplitude right and having over equalisation
In my personal experience, one should generally not apply more than 3 (cut) eq filters in the bass region. As you add on more filters, u start to hear the “EQ” sound. Some can hear this, some can’t . If one can’t hear this “eq” sound… that’s perfectly fine…
