I would say that you need both. You should try to get your room as close as possible (bass traps in the corners and soften up the walls some. Then insert the EQ and run the pink noise and EQ to flatten out the monitors.

Your room would be first, then the EQ. Just me

Don't know about the driverack but I'll be intersted to see what others say about it.

EQ'ing your monitors to make up for inconsistencies in your room is a practice that died quite some time ago. It is really to your benefit to get your room sounding right acoustically/physically, rather than to try to correct for it electronically.

As for the driverack studio, I've never understood the purpose of this product. It is just a re-programmed version of the Driverack PA, which is a PA system processor with EQ, compression, feedback elimination, etc. None of which is anything I would ever want to have in my monitoring chain. I can see the use of having a real-time analyzer, to see where in the spectrum your problems are occurring. But then use treatment to fix the problems, not electronics.

I think the "gimmick" with the Driverack Studio is the "modeling". Likely nothing more than preset EQ's made to very loosely re-create the curves of various standard professional monitors.

I guess Sweetwater just wanted something else to sell? (I think SweetWater developed this concept together with DBX). Seems pretty pointless to me. I guess use as a 1x3 monitor selector is an OK use, but not for $700! :roll:

I'm not in the ranks of the "pros" on this board, but I also agree the room needs the treatment, not the signal. Maybe a 1 or 2 dB contour, but surely nothing more on the EQ side. Otherwise, you are shoting yourself in the foot if you move 12" from the mix position. NTM the damage early reflections can cause is not lessened with corrective EQ.

:cool:

If you do DIY acoustic treatment, you will spend less than the cost of a Drive Rack Studio, plus you will not be mucking up your monitoring chain. You can't make up for deep nulls with EQ anyway.