Simplified REW Setup and Use (USB Mic & HDMI Connection) Including Measurement Techniques and How To Interpret Graphs - Page 412 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 272Likes
Reply
Thread Tools
post #12331 of 12881 Old 11-28-2014, 06:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
LastButNotLeast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: 08077
Posts: 4,890
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 316 Post(s)
Liked: 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post
I add passengers to deaden the sound.
As long as they don't need to be dead passengers.

Downloadable FREE demo discs:
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1475769/de...ently-authored 

Did you really need to quote that entire post in your reply?
LastButNotLeast is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #12332 of 12881 Old 11-28-2014, 06:18 PM
AVS Special Member
 
AustinJerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 8,072
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1180 Post(s)
Liked: 932
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ratamacue View Post
Thanks again for the follow up.

Yes the two measurements have some significant differences and is where I'm a bit confused. In the attached figure, It shows my two measurement from the earlier post => one is at 80db and the other is approaching 90 (very close to clipping during the measurement and I had to adjust). The latter shows a lot going on from 20-50hz v.s. not much ringing in the other one.

So the louder you perform the sweeps at, the more you excite the room and thus more ringing? If so, then what determines a proper sweep volume since the first graph "looks" better then the last one. IOW, you stated to perform another measurement at 90db since the previous measurement was too low, what does one look for that shows too low of a level?

Yep the room dims are 11x24x7. Shooting down the long wall. Mains are 8ft from front wall, 44" in between - from inside edge. MLP is about 70" from center line of the 44". Toed in so as to converge about 1ft behind MLP. I have tried a lot positions and this is, so far, the best. This configuration is also in the spot least likely to excite room modes.


I can change the xover point (not necessarily to small or large) on the mains and sub, but so far have preferred to play the mains full range with the subs in a support role crossed at 50hz (subs are 2 PSA XS15's).

The bass/lower frequencies are very important to me, my preference for sure. I'm pretty pleased with how much (for the better) I have improved the room with the treatments I have in place. Sounding very good right now. However, I would like to, if need be, to make proper trapping tuned to what REW indicates the problems are. e.g. Helmholtz, tuned traps etc.. Whatever it takes!! At least to experiment with. Although I wouldn't want it to get too dead etc,,
The difference in the two waterfalls is caused by the shorter 450ms window, not the level of the measurement. The guideline for levels is to have ~40dB above the room's noise floor. Did you measure the noise floor? Many of us are seeing a 50dB noise floor with USB mics.

The reason I ask about the speaker settings is once again to encourage you to experiment and measure. That's why we are in this thread--to throw our preconceived notions out the window and try different things. After all, you can always go back to what you had. Running capable tower speakers as full range is an emotional thing, I know.

Here are your room modes:



BTW, if I understand the speaker and MLP placement, you have approximately a 17.4 degrees angle with the MLP. Isn't this pretty close? If the speakers were 80" apart, you would have a 30 degree angle, which is closer to the "classic" angle recommended by many. Just curious.
AustinJerry is online now  
post #12333 of 12881 Old 11-28-2014, 09:42 PM
Member
 
Ratamacue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: MN
Posts: 69
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post
The difference in the two waterfalls is caused by the shorter 450ms window, not the level of the measurement. The guideline for levels is to have ~40dB above the room's noise floor. Did you measure the noise floor? Many of us are seeing a 50dB noise floor with USB mics.

No, I will go back and get the noise floor documented, sorry.

However, now I'm confused regarding your statement "The difference in the two waterfalls is caused by the shorter 450ms window, not the level of the measurement". In my 80db vs 90db waterfall pic, I went back and adjusted the 600ms (blue one at 80db) waterfall to 450ms and it doesn't show the ringing the 90db waterfall shows? Meaning the only difference between the two was the much higher level sweep (90db), which to me indicates the higher SPL sweep influenced what the waterfall is showing?


The reason I ask about the speaker settings is once again to encourage you to experiment and measure. That's why we are in this thread--to throw our preconceived notions out the window and try different things. After all, you can always go back to what you had. Running capable tower speakers as full range is an emotional thing, I know.

Here are your room modes:



BTW, if I understand the speaker and MLP placement, you have approximately a 17.4 degrees angle with the MLP. Isn't this pretty close? If the speakers were 80" apart, you would have a 30 degree angle, which is closer to the "classic" angle recommended by many. Just curious.
If I'm understanding your comment on the 17.4 angle at the MLP => it's based on 1/3 rule (24 / 3 = 8 and 11 / 3 = 44in) which is to get into the ballpark to avoid room modes etc.. Its close I suppose, but with only 11ft, there isn't a lot space width wise. By design, it leaves room behind and to the sides of the speaker. They aren't buried in the corner or next to a wall / boundaries. As you pointed out, there are many options for placement and I'll try some at the 30deg (closer to side walls) and see how things correlate.

Also, the subs in the current spot offer great integration so far (corner loading/reinforcement). I can't tell where they are. If I move them closer to the back of the mains (say 1ft behind), they seem to be in a null and don't produce much low end at all.

Attached is my layout, thanks again for your time.

Last edited by Ratamacue; 11-30-2014 at 05:13 AM.
Ratamacue is online now  
post #12334 of 12881 Old 11-29-2014, 09:40 AM
Senior Member
 
gskinusa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Downingtown, PA
Posts: 248
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Need some direction

As now I am able to generate the proper REW measurements and I am able to place the subs as optimized as possible, I am looking to see how to introduce miniDSP.

I have Sub1 (front) and Sub2 (rear), both are SVS PB13 Ultras. Based on the measurements I ended with a sealed Sub2 (all ports closed) and got a really good curve and once I applied audyssey for sub 2, it improved it further. Then I introduced Sub1 (which is not sealed, all ports open) and as it is behind the screen and not much room is available there I left it as is. I took REW measurements with both Subs in the picture and audyssey applied. The resulting curve was not as good as Sub2's response but better than what it was. Now the question I have is:

1. Use MiniDSP before Audyssey: This will allow me to apply some EQ for individual subs and make it as flat as possible and then apply Audyssey.
2. Use MiniDSP after Audyssey: The question I have here is as Audyssey is applied to both subs, and the Marantz 8801 has 2 sub outputs, how do I get the EQ settings through REW for the individual subs :
2a- Do I need to run each sub individually with audyssey applied and then use those graphs to generate the PEQ filters?
2b- just use the single dual sub with audyssey measurements to generate the PEQ filters and apply the same filters for both subs in miniDSP.
I am leaning towards 2a as that seems little more logical for me and avoids the need to run Audyssey every time I change miniDSP settings. Anyway, if you can provide some thoughts on this based on your experience I would really appreciate it.

FYI: I have 2x4 Balanced with 2.1 plugin from miniDSP.
Thank you
-Sen

Last edited by gskinusa; 11-29-2014 at 09:45 AM.
gskinusa is online now  
post #12335 of 12881 Old 11-29-2014, 11:31 AM
Advanced Member
 
3ll3d00d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: London, UK
Posts: 729
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 332 Post(s)
Liked: 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by gskinusa View Post
Need some direction

As now I am able to generate the proper REW measurements and I am able to place the subs as optimized as possible, I am looking to see how to introduce miniDSP.

I have Sub1 (front) and Sub2 (rear), both are SVS PB13 Ultras. Based on the measurements I ended with a sealed Sub2 (all ports closed) and got a really good curve and once I applied audyssey for sub 2, it improved it further. Then I introduced Sub1 (which is not sealed, all ports open) and as it is behind the screen and not much room is available there I left it as is. I took REW measurements with both Subs in the picture and audyssey applied. The resulting curve was not as good as Sub2's response but better than what it was. Now the question I have is:

1. Use MiniDSP before Audyssey: This will allow me to apply some EQ for individual subs and make it as flat as possible and then apply Audyssey.
2. Use MiniDSP after Audyssey: The question I have here is as Audyssey is applied to both subs, and the Marantz 8801 has 2 sub outputs, how do I get the EQ settings through REW for the individual subs :
2a- Do I need to run each sub individually with audyssey applied and then use those graphs to generate the PEQ filters?
2b- just use the single dual sub with audyssey measurements to generate the PEQ filters and apply the same filters for both subs in miniDSP.
I am leaning towards 2a as that seems little more logical for me and avoids the need to run Audyssey every time I change miniDSP settings. Anyway, if you can provide some thoughts on this based on your experience I would really appreciate it.

FYI: I have 2x4 Balanced with 2.1 plugin from miniDSP.
Thank you
-Sen
does your audyssey have subeq ht? i.e. the ability to time align 2 subs

I would typically do the following

- use the minidsp to align the 2 subs
- if you have any big peaks below the target XO frequency (typically the 1st axial mode) then add EQ to bring it down (not to flat, just to within a few db of the target)
- run audyssey
- do sub distance tweak if required
- add further tweaks via the minidsp if a house curve is preferred

The 1st two steps may not be necessary if you have subeq ht though I would do it anyway if you have large peaks in the response (so that audyssey can concentrate on fine tuning rather than tackling modes)
3ll3d00d is online now  
post #12336 of 12881 Old 11-29-2014, 12:10 PM
Senior Member
 
gskinusa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Downingtown, PA
Posts: 248
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Liked: 21
^^ Yes the Marantz does have Sub EQ to time align the subs individually. Regarding the last step of introducing miniDSP for the house curve, should the REW based PEQ be generated based on the combined sub measurement or based on individual subs measurement. This is where I am confused as with REW I cannot store the PEQ applied measurement like any other measurement to compare and see what it would be.
gskinusa is online now  
post #12337 of 12881 Old 11-29-2014, 12:15 PM
Advanced Member
 
3ll3d00d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: London, UK
Posts: 729
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 332 Post(s)
Liked: 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by gskinusa View Post
^^ Yes the Marantz does have Sub EQ to time align the subs individually. Regarding the last step of introducing miniDSP for the house curve, should the REW based PEQ be generated based on the combined sub measurement or based on individual subs measurement. This is where I am confused as with REW I cannot store the PEQ applied measurement like any other measurement to compare and see what it would be.
all EQ would be against the combined sub measurement, the only use for the individual sub measurements is to align them to each other

i.e. you always deal with the sub as a mono channel
3ll3d00d is online now  
post #12338 of 12881 Old 11-29-2014, 12:24 PM
Senior Member
 
gskinusa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Downingtown, PA
Posts: 248
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3ll3d00d View Post
all EQ would be against the combined sub measurement, the only use for the individual sub measurements is to align them to each other

i.e. you always deal with the sub as a mono channel
So how do I connect the sub out to 2x4 miniDSP. I was planning on doing, sub1 to input 1 of miniDSP and sub 2 to inout 2 of miniDSP. For output, sub1 gets the output from miniDSP out 1 and sub2 from miniDSP out 3. I am not sure how to use the combined measurement. FYI, I do understand in using REW but just applying the PEQ in miniDSP I am not sure. Any thoughts ?
-Sen
gskinusa is online now  
post #12339 of 12881 Old 11-29-2014, 12:33 PM
Advanced Member
 
3ll3d00d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: London, UK
Posts: 729
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 332 Post(s)
Liked: 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by gskinusa View Post
So how do I connect the sub out to 2x4 miniDSP. I was planning on doing, sub1 to input 1 of miniDSP and sub 2 to inout 2 of miniDSP. For output, sub1 gets the output from miniDSP out 1 and sub2 from miniDSP out 3. I am not sure how to use the combined measurement. FYI, I do understand in using REW but just applying the PEQ in miniDSP I am not sure. Any thoughts ?
-Sen
I don't think I understand. The combined measurement is just with both subs playing.
3ll3d00d is online now  
post #12340 of 12881 Old 11-29-2014, 12:39 PM
Senior Member
 
gskinusa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Downingtown, PA
Posts: 248
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3ll3d00d View Post
I don't think I understand. The combined measurement is just with both subs playing.
I apologize, it could be my terminology that could be causing the confusion. Let me see whether I can explain it differently.

The marantz has Sub1 and Sub 2 outputs. I took the REW combined measurement with both subs playing and audyssey applied. Now for me to introduce miniDSP in the chain, I was planning on connecting the subs independently to their own distinct inputs and have PEQ applied to each signal distinctly. This where I am unsure on how the PEQ filters based on the combined measurements can be used on the subs independently in miniDSP.

I hope this makes it little better. May be I need to ask in a miniDSP thread?

-Sen
gskinusa is online now  
post #12341 of 12881 Old 11-29-2014, 12:49 PM
AVS Special Member
 
AustinJerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 8,072
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1180 Post(s)
Liked: 932
Quote:
Originally Posted by gskinusa View Post
Need some direction

As now I am able to generate the proper REW measurements and I am able to place the subs as optimized as possible, I am looking to see how to introduce miniDSP.
You should be starting to see that combining a MiniDSP with a dual-sub Audyssey-calibrated system is not very straight-forward. I am in exactly the same place as you are. I found that applying the Mini-DSP correction before running Audyssey produced results that were not as good as using Audyssey by itself.

Then I tried using the MiniDSP after running the Audyssey calibration. I measured the combined sub output using REW (Audyssey on, of course), then used REW to generate filters based on the combined output. I then applied the same DSP filter to each of the two sub channels coming from the AVR. In principle, I think this is the best approach, and is also what d00d is recommending.

One thing you failed to mention is why you even need the MiniDSP at all. Is the Audyssey calibration not doing a good job? Or are you trying to apply a house curve? Actually seeing some measurements would be useful.
AustinJerry is online now  
post #12342 of 12881 Old 11-29-2014, 01:03 PM
Senior Member
 
gskinusa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Downingtown, PA
Posts: 248
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Liked: 21
^^ Here are some measurements:
Sub1 with Audyssey:


Sub2 with Audyssey:


Both Subs with Audyssey:


Using REW to PEQ combined sub measurement after Audyssey: (not measured but played with REW EQ on combined measurement)


My thought is that miniDSP would be able to improve the response as I have already optimized the position of the subs.

-Sen
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	sub1 with aud.png
Views:	131
Size:	69.6 KB
ID:	391866   Click image for larger version

Name:	sub2 with aud.png
Views:	130
Size:	58.7 KB
ID:	391874   Click image for larger version

Name:	both subs with aud.png
Views:	130
Size:	60.3 KB
ID:	391882   Click image for larger version

Name:	both subs with aud and peq applied.png
Views:	129
Size:	34.7 KB
ID:	391890  

Last edited by gskinusa; 11-29-2014 at 01:13 PM.
gskinusa is online now  
post #12343 of 12881 Old 11-29-2014, 01:04 PM
Advanced Member
 
3ll3d00d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: London, UK
Posts: 729
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 332 Post(s)
Liked: 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by gskinusa View Post
I apologize, it could be my terminology that could be causing the confusion. Let me see whether I can explain it differently.

The marantz has Sub1 and Sub 2 outputs. I took the REW combined measurement with both subs playing and audyssey applied. Now for me to introduce miniDSP in the chain, I was planning on connecting the subs independently to their own distinct inputs and have PEQ applied to each signal distinctly. This where I am unsure on how the PEQ filters based on the combined measurements can be used on the subs independently in miniDSP.

I hope this makes it little better. May be I need to ask in a miniDSP thread?

-Sen
Right I see now. You need to take it a step at a time. First turn audyssey off and get the subs playing nicely together. Next run audyssey and verify what it has done. Finally fine tune with the minidsp.

The connection choice will be driven by whether you want to use subeq ht or not. If you do then use both sub outputs, if not just use one and split it in the minidsp.

Jerry makes a good point though regarding *why* you need a minidsp at all. It is easier to talk and concrete problems rather than abstract ones after all
3ll3d00d is online now  
post #12344 of 12881 Old 11-29-2014, 01:12 PM
Senior Member
 
gskinusa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Downingtown, PA
Posts: 248
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Liked: 21
^^

I provided the measurements above. Hope that helps.
-Sen
gskinusa is online now  
post #12345 of 12881 Old 11-29-2014, 01:17 PM
Advanced Member
 
3ll3d00d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: London, UK
Posts: 729
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 332 Post(s)
Liked: 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by gskinusa View Post
^^

I provided the measurements above. Hope that helps.
-Sen
It is difficult to be sure as the scales are different (and I am on a 5" screen!) but the post eq measurement is not obviously better than the audyssey only one. It even has a nice upward tilt towards the bottom end. Not an obvious case for a minidsp it has to be said.
3ll3d00d is online now  
post #12346 of 12881 Old 11-29-2014, 01:18 PM
Senior Member
 
gskinusa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Downingtown, PA
Posts: 248
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post
You should be starting to see that combining a MiniDSP with a dual-sub Audyssey-calibrated system is not very straight-forward. I am in exactly the same place as you are. I found that applying the Mini-DSP correction before running Audyssey produced results that were not as good as using Audyssey by itself.

Then I tried using the MiniDSP after running the Audyssey calibration. I measured the combined sub output using REW (Audyssey on, of course), then used REW to generate filters based on the combined output. I then applied the same DSP filter to each of the two sub channels coming from the AVR. In principle, I think this is the best approach, and is also what d00d is recommending.

One thing you failed to mention is why you even need the MiniDSP at all. Is the Audyssey calibration not doing a good job? Or are you trying to apply a house curve? Actually seeing some measurements would be useful.
When you applied the same REW generated filters for both sub channels did the eventual result matched the REW predicted graph with filters or it was considerably different? I think if it is close to what REW is predicting then I should be good.

-Sen
gskinusa is online now  
post #12347 of 12881 Old 11-29-2014, 01:24 PM
Senior Member
 
gskinusa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Downingtown, PA
Posts: 248
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3ll3d00d View Post
It is difficult to be sure as the scales are different (and I am on a 5" screen!) but the post eq measurement is not obviously better than the audyssey only one. It even has a nice upward tilt towards the bottom end. Not an obvious case for a minidsp it has to be said.
Yeah, I tried to scale it but couldn't match the REW EQ graph. I am attaching the another image with source and target in the same graph. The top one is the source and the light color bottom one is the predicted.
Hope this helps in viewing them in same scale.
-Sen
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	both subs with aud and peq applied_1.png
Views:	32
Size:	45.7 KB
ID:	392050  
gskinusa is online now  
post #12348 of 12881 Old 11-29-2014, 01:46 PM
AVS Special Member
 
AustinJerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 8,072
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1180 Post(s)
Liked: 932
So, is the final measurement you posted the predicted response as displayed by REW, and not the measured in-room response after applying the filters? If yes, why didn't you take the last step?
AustinJerry is online now  
post #12349 of 12881 Old 11-29-2014, 02:16 PM
Senior Member
 
gskinusa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Downingtown, PA
Posts: 248
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post
So, is the final measurement you posted the predicted response as displayed by REW, and not the measured in-room response after applying the filters? If yes, why didn't you take the last step?
Yes, it is the predicted one. The reason is I just got the miniDSP and in order to use it I would need to do some preliminary things like cutting some XLR cables etc. In the mean time I wanted to get some thoughts on how to get it in the chain .
-Sen
gskinusa is online now  
post #12350 of 12881 Old 11-29-2014, 02:18 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 0
Thanks for all the information!
Acaseortwo is offline  
post #12351 of 12881 Old 11-29-2014, 02:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
LastButNotLeast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: 08077
Posts: 4,890
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 316 Post(s)
Liked: 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by gskinusa View Post
Yes, it is the predicted one.
It looks like all it's doing is bringing your severe house curve under control, which you can probably do with the volume knob on the subs.
Your subs are flat from below 20 to over 80, so I don't think you need the DSP.

Downloadable FREE demo discs:
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1475769/de...ently-authored 

Did you really need to quote that entire post in your reply?
LastButNotLeast is offline  
post #12352 of 12881 Old 11-29-2014, 03:20 PM
AVS Special Member
 
AustinJerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 8,072
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1180 Post(s)
Liked: 932
I agree. What is gained by adding another layer of complexity? You can be like me--my MiniDSP is a box on the shelf.
AustinJerry is online now  
post #12353 of 12881 Old 11-29-2014, 03:57 PM
Senior Member
 
gskinusa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Downingtown, PA
Posts: 248
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by LastButNotLeast View Post
It looks like all it's doing is bringing your severe house curve under control, which you can probably do with the volume knob on the subs.
Your subs are flat from below 20 to over 80, so I don't think you need the DSP.
I thought of smoothing out the dip between 48 and 65. The predicted was just a sample based on the target curve I put in.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post
I agree. What is gained by adding another layer of complexity? You can be like me--my MiniDSP is a box on the shelf.
. The current set up does sound really good and I like the extension below 20hz as well. The reason I wanted to try miniDSP was to see how I can tweak better like the one I mentioned above to smooth the dip and also if needed add a house curve. I guess if it is too complicated then will need to sell it
gskinusa is online now  
post #12354 of 12881 Old 11-29-2014, 05:10 PM
AVS Special Member
 
aaranddeeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lover's State
Posts: 1,480
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 169 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post
I think option 4 looks reasonable. I forget, do you have an AVR that has room correction? That would be the logical next step. And the next set of measurements should be left+subs, right+subs and center+subs, 15-20,000Hz, 1/6 smoothing. Let's see what the full range looks like.
I took the comparison measurements today. (I also did some more relocation of the sub for a more convenient location).
Please note that all measurements are using RS-SPL (Mic is on the way. almost )
The response contains Audyssey Off, Audyssey Movie and Audyssey Music each for Sub, Left+Sub, Right+Sub, Left+Right+Sub and Center+Sub
I can not think if Audyssey is really doing something or is the room so bad, Audyssey gave up..
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	sub_only.jpg
Views:	41
Size:	347.7 KB
ID:	392506   Click image for larger version

Name:	left_sub.jpg
Views:	29
Size:	301.5 KB
ID:	392514   Click image for larger version

Name:	right_sub.jpg
Views:	29
Size:	298.7 KB
ID:	392522   Click image for larger version

Name:	left_right_sub.jpg
Views:	26
Size:	300.9 KB
ID:	392530   Click image for larger version

Name:	center_sub.jpg
Views:	29
Size:	302.0 KB
ID:	392538  

aaranddeeman is online now  
post #12355 of 12881 Old 11-29-2014, 06:26 PM
AVS Special Member
 
AustinJerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 8,072
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1180 Post(s)
Liked: 932
Not too bad. The calibrated mic will measure the high end more accurately. Save yourself the time by forgetting about the separate measurements for Audyssey movie and music--not much difference there.
AustinJerry is online now  
post #12356 of 12881 Old 11-29-2014, 06:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
aaranddeeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lover's State
Posts: 1,480
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 169 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post
Not too bad. The calibrated mic will measure the high end more accurately. Save yourself the time by forgetting about the separate measurements for Audyssey movie and music--not much difference there.
Okay.
Once the mic arrives, I will re-do this (skipping Audyssey-Music) and post the measurements.
Thanks for all the help..
aaranddeeman is online now  
post #12357 of 12881 Old 11-29-2014, 08:55 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tvuong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,914
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 293 Post(s)
Liked: 133
When I measured my 2 subs FR at reference volume, I got 108db reading from REW as opposed to 115db. I ran 8 positions with my XT32 subeq HT avr using subs gain match. I have the umik-1 from cross spectrum without calibrating it with a spl meter. What causes? The umik-1 which was supposed to be calibrated? Thanks.

Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	image.jpg
Views:	121
Size:	160.1 KB
ID:	392706  
tvuong is offline  
post #12358 of 12881 Old 11-29-2014, 11:13 PM
Senior Member
 
Audionut11's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 379
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 90 Post(s)
Liked: 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by gskinusa View Post
My thought is that miniDSP would be able to improve the response as I have already optimized the position of the subs.
With the mini-dsp, you have 12 bands of EQ (6 inputs/6 outputs) for each sub, with 100% control.
If you were to look at the waterfalls of each sub, some of those peaks will be inline with room modes, and these would be easy to tackle with the mini-dsp.

Last edited by Audionut11; 11-29-2014 at 11:16 PM.
Audionut11 is offline  
post #12359 of 12881 Old 11-30-2014, 12:51 AM
AVS Special Member
 
RayDunzl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 1,478
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 502 Post(s)
Liked: 721
UMIK-1 Calibration for SPL

REW tells me that my UMIK-1 is found, my calibration file is found, and I don't need to calibrate.

But, the reported SPL levels don't match an SPL meter very closely.

Changing the 'Levels' slider in the Microphone Properties dialog in Win7 changes the SPL readings in REW. So, I could manually 'calibrate' REW and UMIK to an external reading.

REW doesn't set the level in that window. I used to think it did, and somewhere I got the idea that 25 was the correct level.

What's the real deal here?

I'll be back later...


links::: 1.5RQ > digits > 1177a > OpenDRC-DI > DEQ2496 > DAC2 > KCT > FPB 350mcx > reQuest > Sweetspot
RayDunzl is offline  
post #12360 of 12881 Old 11-30-2014, 03:24 AM
Advanced Member
 
3ll3d00d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: London, UK
Posts: 729
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 332 Post(s)
Liked: 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by gskinusa View Post
Yeah, I tried to scale it but couldn't match the REW EQ graph. I am attaching the another image with source and target in the same graph. The top one is the source and the light color bottom one is the predicted.
Hope this helps in viewing them in same scale.
-Sen
I think it looks good as is tbh, possibly a few dB too hot at the bottom for me but that's preference for you.

What do you crossover at? If it's a normal sort of XO (say somewhere like 70-100Hz) then I wouldn't try to fix that 70Hz bump without considering how it looks with the mains playing. They will be contributing at that point so the combined response may look quite different.
3ll3d00d is online now  
Reply Audio Theory, Setup, and Chat

Tags
Dayton , Dayton Audio , Room Equilizer Wizard Rew

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off