DecayCore vs Conventional EQ-Based Room Correction

In brief

This comparison uses a magnitude-only parametric EQ workflow as its reference: measure the frequency response, fit PEQ filters, and set the output level. Other EQ tools may offer some of the controls listed here.

Magnitude-only PEQ workflow

PEQ filters change level at selected frequencies. A magnitude plot alone does not show how long bass energy decays or whether a narrow dip moves with microphone position. Those questions need additional measurement and listening checks before adding another filter.

What DecayCore adds

Aspect	Magnitude-only PEQ workflow	DecayCore
Propagation delay (TOF)	No separate phase-analysis step	Removed before excess-phase analysis
Phase strategy	Phase follows the selected PEQ filters	Linear / Minimum / Mixed / Asymmetric + optional 2058-safe mode
Excess-phase safety	No separate excess-phase correction	Mixed-phase fade + excess-delay and pre-ringing guards
Room modes / ringing	PEQ cuts change amplitude	Temporal Decay Control (TDC) with strength + max reduction + slope limit
Reflection handling	Depends on which peaks and dips are selected	Confidence-weighted correction + smoothing + A-FDW
Correction bounds	Set through the chosen PEQ filters	Explicit limits for boost/cut/slope/phase band and low-bass safety
Headroom handling	Set by the operator	Auto-headroom gain model with configurable margin
Stereo consistency	Left and Right settings chosen separately	Stereo-link options with a shared leveling anchor, shared or hybrid windowing, and channel-specific final auto-gain
Reproducible A/B	Requires a consistent comparison method	Optional comparison mode with fixed analysis grid

Listen to the result

Compare at matched playback level. Check whether bass notes decay more evenly and whether voices and transients still sound natural. A flatter magnitude plot alone cannot establish which filter sounds better.

For operating guidance, see Getting Started. For the engineering rationale, see Why DecayCore Works.