Some pics of what I'm using and not using right now.

Tuneable speakers is the way to go mate.

How did you measure/identify the areas that require boosts/cuts?

Well, not quite. Only the lower mids - LF is getting any treatment/processing, whereas everything that you hear goes through PEQ.

Well I prefer my speakers with, so I'd not be surprised to be honest.

PEQ throughout the FR range does change the sound though, in my experience anyway.

I use it now from 200hz and below as it's not quite as obvious in the LF.

Each time I've used PEQ to combat room issues/imbalances in the past, it has worked, no doubt, but each time I've taken it out of the chain and returned things to 'normal', it sounds more natural and musical. At least to me.

I guess your PEQ may be better than mine (I have used a Behringer 2496PEQ among others in the past) but ultimately I didn't find it 'transparent', or I would have kept it in for it's virtues.

I should add that if you're trying to correct above Schroeder based on in room measurements you're probably on a hiding to nothing. In room measurements don't reliably correlate to what we actually hear above that frequency. You got to tune based on the anechoic measurement and good old 'listening to music.'

You never see them measuring anything at the soundcheck for a gig (except maybe SPL for noise level rules), all done by ear.

The problem is, does it sound better with everything?

That was the issue I had last time, some stuff sounded better, some worse. This time round I'm a bit more clued up on what I'm doing with it but there's only so many records you can listen to in a day. So far so good but we'll see.

Small change - big difference? Yes - I think that the key is to use it like a scalpel not a club

"You never see them measuring anything at the soundcheck for a gig (except maybe SPL for noise level rules), all done by ear."

Also, a friend sets up sound rigs at gigs/events for a job (he does this all over Europe and is very experienced) and WILL always measure through the entire FR. He will use the measurements to get the sound balanced over as much of the audience as possible. These measurements will be used to angle and arrange the HF, mid and low frequency speaker arrays. All crossovers are active and the listening position measurements are used the balance the FR.

Perhaps he shouldn't be using the measurements either?

www.amazon.co.uk/Sound-Reproduction-Psychoacoustics-Loudspeakers-Engineering/dp/113892136X

You will need to buy the book but I'd highly recommend it. Unless you have membership of the AES it's the best reference available. Based on decades of serious research, not enthusiasts like us just having a listen and jumping to a conclusion.

It's not dryly written but it is an academic textbook so it's fairly heavy going.

Cheers Martin. Really appreciate that.

I always find it worthwhile and informative to gather as much data and varying experiences as possible.

I often setup by listening in all positions and measure, but don't look at the measurememts until I have listened without prejudice. Interestingly, and reassuringly, my preferred solution (when blind on measurements) has been backed up by the measurements. It does show that our ears can be incredibly good at telling us when it's right.

Really worth getting if only as a reference. especially as you are in the business. 

As for the last bit I think our brains tell us when it's right. It's just something instinctive. You can't define it but you know it when it is there - or when it isn't.

The hard part is being honest with ourselves when it isn't. Especially if we just spent a ton of money on something!

I shall try and get round to buying it soon.

"I should add that if you're trying to correct above Schroeder based on in room measurements you're probably on a hiding to nothing. In room measurements don't reliably correlate to what we actually hear above that frequency. You got to tune based on the anechoic measurement and good old 'listening to music."

It's this assertion that I'd like a detailed scientific reasoning for. So far it is not my experience. Tuning above and below the Schroeder frequency by measuring in room is exactly what I do. So far, it has worked reliably for me - in room measurements have correlated with what I and others have actually heard.

When I get time, I'll write a thread and share all the measurements of speakers in different rooms. It shows that when tuned well (and sounding 'right') the measurements have always correlated.

If I can find the data/reason that backs up your assertion, we can explore that too.

It is not really very hard to realise why we all hear differently . Our hearing route in the brain which is a very early established pathway is different for each individual and fro some reason very different for men and women . This means that any sound going to the brain will travel through very different sectors of the brain all of which will change the sound for want of a better word flavour of the sound . Once this pathway is set and fixed then it stays that way till you die .

I don't think we do all hear differently but people do have different priorities in the presentation they like. And those preferences probably form at a quite early age.

B&W stopped aiming for a flat response years ago now. They won't publish their research as to why they made that decision for commercial reasons, but they sell a lot of speakers.