Psag and Mapman, thanks very much.
Obviously I don't have to finalize any decisions just now, and we'll see how things develop in the coming weeks. But while I certainly value the experience-based inputs from Drewan and Psag, and while it's certainly clear that realizing the full potential of DEQX requires an essentially anechoic measurement, what doesn't seem clear (and probably can't be, given how many application-specific variables are involved), is the degree of compromise that will result in any given situation from doing the measurement indoors.
Obviously Drewan and Psag are strong advocates of outdoor measurement. On the other hand, though, in
this post by Forrestc, who also seems very experienced, indoor measurement is described as "by no means a deal breaker." And in Kal's (Kr4's) review in Stereophile the speakers he calibrated on his own, and I presume also the other pair he used, which were calibrated remotely by DEQX, were done indoors. The pair he did himself, with good results, were done with the impulse response truncated at only 5.5 ms after the direct sound arrival, and with the correction performed down to 200 and 150 Hz in the two profiles he created, with the latter even being slightly preferred!
Perhaps one relevant variable influencing the degree of compromise resulting from indoor measurement, btw, is how much correction is needed by the particular speakers that are involved. In that regard I've noted that the impulse and step responses I've measured on my speakers, during the first few tenths of a millisecond or so and with no panels near them or the mic, seem to me to look pretty good. Relative, that is, to the step response plots I've seen JA present in Stereophile in conjunction with reviews of other floor-standing speakers which do not use first order crossovers.
So we shall see. Thanks again for your inputs.
Best regards,
-- Al
