Simplified REW Setup and Use (USB Mic & HDMI Connection) Including Measurement Techniques and How To Interpret Graphs - Page 76 - AVS Forum
First ... 74  75  76 77  78  ... Last
Audio Theory, Setup, and Chat > Simplified REW Setup and Use (USB Mic & HDMI Connection) Including Measurement Techniques and How To Interpret Graphs
LastButNotLeast's Avatar LastButNotLeast 09:48 PM 03-28-2013

Thanks (again). I'm looking forward to seeing the results from the more committed members of the community. Not that they should be committed or anything,...

wink.gif



Pres2play's Avatar Pres2play 10:27 PM 03-28-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post


It is certainly what the manufacturers would like you to believe wink.gif  And what the 'golden eared' subjectivists swear to be the Truth, the Whole Truth and Nothing But The Truth. But the acid test is an ABX test and in those tests people cannot hear the difference between Amp A and Amp B and/or DAC A and DAC B (assuming the test complies with correct procedures of course - eg level matching etc and that neither amp is being forced into clipping). 

The reason that you cannot hear any difference between modern, decently specced DACs that cost a few dollars each is that the human ear/brain has a threshold for distortion below which it is unable to detect that distortion. So once an amp or a DAC achieves that spec, there is no purpose (other than marketing) to push beyond that. DACs (and amps) achieved such specs a long time ago (in AV terms) and their cost has fallen and fallen to the point where DACs are just commodities now. IOW, there is no audible difference between 0.1% distortion and 0.01% distortion, unless you are a manufacturer and you want to use the claim "superior DACs" as a marketing tool. Clearly the DAC with 0,01% distortion is 'superior' (truth in advertising and all that) but if the human ear/brain cannot hear below the 0.1% of the first DAC then the 'superior' DAC gives no meaningful advantage. 

Keith, you made me look it up. Aside from a few who claim they can hear a difference between cheap and contemporary high-end DACs, the consensus is you can’t, because THD is below human hearing which you already stated. There does seem to be some disagreement with respect to amps, however, as amps are affected by speaker impedance and high voltage. Then, again, what do I know.

In any case, the 8801 is not a buy for me anymore. About 90% of the connections on the back would go un-used in my simple setup, and there’s also the issue of the size of the box, which I got to see firsthand at a BestBuy. This monster will not fit in my cabinet and would require a separate audio rack.
amirm's Avatar amirm 11:42 PM 03-28-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pres2play View Post

Keith, you made me look it up. Aside from a few who claim they can hear a difference between cheap and contemporary high-end DACs, the consensus is you can’t, because THD is below human hearing which you already stated. There does seem to be some disagreement with respect to amps, however, as amps are affected by speaker impedance and high voltage. Then, again, what do I know.
THD is not a very interesting measure for DACs. Performance of DACs can be highly data and even interconnect dependent. Such distortion is not harmonic and therefore cannot be characterized as THD. If you want to see objective proof of this, get a copy of the latest issue of Widescreen Review magazine which has an article I wrote on the performance of DACs in a dozen AVRs and processors. There, you see the simple act of changing SPDIF to HDMI resulted in some 20 dB loss in performance with distortion rising up to -80 dBFS (transparency to CD requires at least -96 dBFs)! Sadly, all AVRs I tested had poor performance in this regard although some were better than others.

I suggest we don't derail this thread with incorrect data regarding this technology or some dogmatic belief in audio performance based on reading forum posts. We have enough trouble getting through the topic at hand smile.gif.
kbarnes701's Avatar kbarnes701 07:15 AM 03-29-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

 

 

PS. 3 to go LOL :)

 

Over the top!  Drinks are on Keith!

 

Mine's a large one! ;)


kbarnes701's Avatar kbarnes701 07:18 AM 03-29-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jkasanic View Post

 

So your plots are only to 160ms?!  Yikes...I have a lot of work to do!!

 

congrats on 10k!

 

I believe the guideline that Keith posted is that all frequencies need to be -20dB within the first 150ms.  I haven't figured out how to get 150ms on the scale, so I use 160ms, which is the highest checkbox.  When this discussion first came up, someone posted some decay graphs where the initial response line was mirrored 20dB lower on the scale, making it very easy to identify each frequency where the decay did not meet the -20dB goal.  Unfortunately, I don't know how to create the mirrored line.

 

I *think* those lines may have been added separately to make the point - don't think REW has the capability of adding them, unfortunately. The blind leading the blind in this thread isn't it.... LOL... but we get there, slowly...


kbarnes701's Avatar kbarnes701 07:19 AM 03-29-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkasanic View Post

Quote:

Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

 

Just tick the first box and the last. You can leave them all ticked if you wish, but it is easier to interpret the results if you just tick the two I suggest, that's all.

 

PS. 3 to go LOL :)

 

So your plots are only to 160ms?!  Yikes...I have a lot of work to do!!

 

congrats on 10k!

 

Yep - to 160Ms for the decay chart...
 
Thanks... here's to the next 10,000.... :)

kbarnes701's Avatar kbarnes701 07:22 AM 03-29-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

^ Nice post.  Maybe last, but certainly not least!  smile.gif

 

 

+1. Refreshingly straightforward approach. 

AustinJerry's Avatar AustinJerry 09:48 AM 03-29-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

 

I *think* those lines may have been added separately to make the point - don't think REW has the capability of adding them, unfortunately. The blind leading the blind in this thread isn't it.... LOL... but we get there, slowly...

 

Yes, I don't think the lines are a capability of REW either, but it would be nice to know what tool generated them.  It makes looking at the entire -20dB a lot easier.

 

Edit:  Here is what I was talking about, from site http://www.hifizine.com/2011/06/bass-integration-guide-part-1/

 


Pres2play's Avatar Pres2play 10:43 AM 03-29-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

THD is not a very interesting measure for DACs. Performance of DACs can be highly data and even interconnect dependent. Such distortion is not harmonic and therefore cannot be characterized as THD. If you want to see objective proof of this, get a copy of the latest issue of Widescreen Review magazine which has an article I wrote on the performance of DACs in a dozen AVRs and processors. There, you see the simple act of changing SPDIF to HDMI resulted in some 20 dB loss in performance with distortion rising up to -80 dBFS (transparency to CD requires at least -96 dBFs)! Sadly, all AVRs I tested had poor performance in this regard although some were better than others.
But
I suggest we don't derail this thread with incorrect data regarding this technology or some dogmatic belief in audio performance based on reading forum posts. We have enough trouble getting through the topic at hand smile.gif.


I'll pick up a copy tonight. I thought DACs are tested with output stages and all, and not as separate components. The point is, will it matter which DAC I use?

Amirm, does this excess phase graph look correct now at 200 Hz?


kbarnes701's Avatar kbarnes701 11:36 AM 03-29-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

 

I *think* those lines may have been added separately to make the point - don't think REW has the capability of adding them, unfortunately. The blind leading the blind in this thread isn't it.... LOL... but we get there, slowly...

 

Yes, I don't think the lines are a capability of REW either, but it would be nice to know what tool generated them.  It makes looking at the entire -20dB a lot easier.

 

Edit:  Here is what I was talking about, from site http://www.hifizine.com/2011/06/bass-integration-guide-part-1/

 

Yes - it does make it much easier to read. I wonder if he just added them with Photoshop or similar to make the point for his article. It was that site that put me on the usefulness of the Decay charts.


kbarnes701's Avatar kbarnes701 11:39 AM 03-29-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pres2play View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

THD is not a very interesting measure for DACs. Performance of DACs can be highly data and even interconnect dependent. Such distortion is not harmonic and therefore cannot be characterized as THD. If you want to see objective proof of this, get a copy of the latest issue of Widescreen Review magazine which has an article I wrote on the performance of DACs in a dozen AVRs and processors. There, you see the simple act of changing SPDIF to HDMI resulted in some 20 dB loss in performance with distortion rising up to -80 dBFS (transparency to CD requires at least -96 dBFs)! Sadly, all AVRs I tested had poor performance in this regard although some were better than others.
But
I suggest we don't derail this thread with incorrect data regarding this technology or some dogmatic belief in audio performance based on reading forum posts. We have enough trouble getting through the topic at hand smile.gif.


I'll pick up a copy tonight. I thought DACs are tested with output stages and all, and not as separate components. The point is, will it matter which DAC I use?

Amirm, does this excess phase graph look correct now at 200 Hz?

 

I'd be wary of listening too hard to someone who makes a living selling so-called 'high end' 'audiophile' products. Their livelihood depends on you believing that DACs and Amps and even interconnects have a huge bearing on the the final SQ,. They don't. DACs are not 'interconnect dependent' and neither is anything else.


Nerys64's Avatar Nerys64 02:19 PM 03-29-2013
Has anyone gotten 5.1 over s/pdif+dts-connect working? I'm really at a loss on how to take measurements without having to constantly connect/disconnect all of my speakers. My current setup takes a 5.1 source file (in audacity it shows up as 6 total mono tracks, which can be exported with labels that tell a sound card what channel each one is) or a DTS or DOLBY encoded file, and passes it straight to the sound card. NOT asio. For native dts/dolby, s/pdif pass through is used. For regular 5.1 tracks, my sound card compresses them using DTS-connect DSP and then sends it over.

I need REW to output a native 5.1 PCM signal, or a DTS/Dolby bitstream. Either will work as long as it lets me tell it what channel to go to. Right now it only gives me the option of "primary sound output" and s/pdif.
Alan P's Avatar Alan P 02:23 PM 03-29-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nerys64 View Post

Has anyone gotten 5.1 over s/pdif+dts-connect working? I'm really at a loss on how to take measurements without having to constantly connect/disconnect all of my speakers. My current setup takes a 5.1 source file (in audacity it shows up as 6 total mono tracks, which can be exported with labels that tell a sound card what channel each one is) or a DTS or DOLBY encoded file, and passes it straight to the sound card. NOT asio. For native dts/dolby, s/pdif pass through is used. For regular 5.1 tracks, my sound card compresses them using DTS-connect DSP and then sends it over.

I need REW to output a native 5.1 PCM signal, or a DTS/Dolby bitstream. Either will work as long as it lets me tell it what channel to go to. Right now it only gives me the option of "primary sound output" and s/pdif.

Welcome to the world of REW "legacy" connections. Plugging/unplugging speakers is just something those of us without HDMI have to put up with.
AustinJerry's Avatar AustinJerry 02:52 PM 03-29-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nerys64 View Post

Has anyone gotten 5.1 over s/pdif+dts-connect working? I'm really at a loss on how to take measurements without having to constantly connect/disconnect all of my speakers. My current setup takes a 5.1 source file (in audacity it shows up as 6 total mono tracks, which can be exported with labels that tell a sound card what channel each one is) or a DTS or DOLBY encoded file, and passes it straight to the sound card. NOT asio. For native dts/dolby, s/pdif pass through is used. For regular 5.1 tracks, my sound card compresses them using DTS-connect DSP and then sends it over.

I need REW to output a native 5.1 PCM signal, or a DTS/Dolby bitstream. Either will work as long as it lets me tell it what channel to go to. Right now it only gives me the option of "primary sound output" and s/pdif.

 

I have been using REW for a long time, and I don't have a clue what you are trying to do.  Are you using a laptop?  Do you have an AVR?  Are you using a USB mic?

 

If the answer to any of these questions is no, then you are likely to be in the wrong thread, and maybe you should submit your questions on the Home Theater Shack site.


ggsantafe's Avatar ggsantafe 02:57 PM 03-29-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

The waterfall and frequency response graphs really show entirely different characteristics of your bass response.  When a bass note is produced by the speaker, you want the sound to decay as quickly as possible, which results in tight, clearly-defined bass.  If the note takes a long tome to decay (called bass ringing), it can interfere with the next bass note, resulting in an interaction that muddies the bass response.  In the worst case, you get the dreadful "one-note bass", which is everyone's nightmare.

So, what is "quick enough" when it comes to decay times?  Most experts agree that if all notes below 100Hz decay below the noise floor in 300ms, then the bass is pretty darn good.  The 300ms target is more difficult to achieve as the frequency gets lower, especially below 40Hz.  As Keith has noted, a target of 450ms may be more realistic for a typical listening room.  Anything above this really needs to be addressed with bass room treatments.

So, how bad is your bass ringing?  We can't tell from your waterfall.  As the guide says, you should gradually increase the time parameter until you see all the frequencies above 40Hz disappear into the noise floor.  Depending on the value of the time parameter, you will know how bad the ringing really is.  Try adjusting the time parameter, and re-post a waterfall that shows us better information.  And will improving the frequency response graph improve the ringing?  Not necessarily--only measurements will tell.

One thing that I am still unsure about is the limitation of the USB mics, specifically the UMM-6.  As discussed earlier in this thread, most of us are seeing a noise floor measurement with the USB mic of ~50dB.  With my EMM-6, I measure a noise floor of ~40dB in the same room, under similar conditions.  So, should we use 50dB as the lower limit for the waterfall graph, or 40dB?  confused.gif

It makes a big difference in the graph appearance.  Here are two examples:

50dB lower limit




40dB lower limit




However, the decay graph seems to avoid this confusion.  Take this graph as an example:




At 58.7Hz, the initial tone is at 78.75dB, and the loudness of this tine 160ms later is 64.95dB, a difference of approximately 14dB.  This is less than the -20dB that should be the objective at 150-160ms.  This difference is the same, whether the lower limit is set to 40dB or 50dB, so perhaps the Decay graph is more useful than the waterfall in showing decay performance?  In other words, the Decay graph ignores the actual noise floor and focuses only on how far the decay progresses in the first 150ms.  Any thoughts?

OK - thanks for the input from Keith & Austin Jerry - I reran some measurements. When I took my original measurements - I realized that I had not pulled my window shades down over a large (80" x 70") window, and French Door along one of the long sides of my room. For the attached measurements I also bypassed AntiMode so these graphs reflect only Audyssey XT32. First grpah is SPL for L/R & Subs. Second is new Decay graph and last is Waterfall with 950ms where most of the noise floor starts to appear. The Decay graph looks like it represents an improvement but indicates more work to be done. Any one else care to offer an observation?




Nerys64's Avatar Nerys64 02:58 PM 03-29-2013
I am using a desktop computer with an Asus Xonar DSX soundcard. I am using a USB mic (umm6).

The way 5.1 works on my computer is, you send the sound card a 5.1 PCM or w/e signal. the sound card packages it with DTS on the fly (this is the DSP part) and then sends it over optical s/pdif to my AVR.

My problem is, REW sends a pure 2.0 or mono signal. I cant specify what channel to send audio to. I cant use the HDMi ASIO drivers, or any asio drivers for that matter, because that would bypass the DTS encoder on my soundcard. This results in sound coming out for front left/right but no sound for any other channel.

So far I have seen that I have 2 options: 1 is to get a new AVR with HDMI input (which im working on but i'd like to measure my current setup for before/after purposes) and the other is to hook everything up analog from the sound card. There is a final option: to constantly switch the wiring from speaker to speaker, re-level match, and then take the measurement. This is something I will not do.

In short, I need to send a 5.1 signal to my sound card. Full 5.1. IE one channel carries the signal, other 5 channels carry a blank audio file. This is the way games do it, this is what VLC does when you set audio device to "5.1" instead of "a/52 over s/pdif" and this is what I need to accomplish with REW.

Alternatively, I would need to download a pre-configured DTS or dolby test disk, play the tones on it, and measure that response using REW. This is not ideal.

EDIT: also, i already did make a post on the hometheatershack website but to no avail. No one has answered me regarding this issue. I've made 2 seperate posts, one of them being on someone else's thread.
AustinJerry's Avatar AustinJerry 03:32 PM 03-29-2013

@ ggsantafe:

 

The decay graph shows an obvious problem at 40Hz, which I am sure you recognize.  Above 70Hz it looks reasonable.

 

The waterfall needs to be redone.  It extends all the way to 20,000Hz, when it should only extend to 200Hz, like the decay graph.  Can you repost it?


AustinJerry's Avatar AustinJerry 03:44 PM 03-29-2013

@ Nerys64:

 

What you have is no different from the "legacy" REW setup I was using previously.  Plug an audio cable into either the left or right RCA output on the sound card.  On the other end, use an RCA Y-cable, and split the signal from the sound card and plug it into an AUX input on the AVR.  REW outputs a mono signal.  With both sides of the Y-cable connected, and the AVR in stereo mode, you will get sound from both the left and right speakers, plus the subs, of course.  If you want to measure the left channel or right channel only, unplug one side of the Y-cable at the AVR.  If you want to measure the center channel, leave both sides of the Y-cable connected, and switch the AVR to PLII Cinema mode.  If you don't want the subs included, turn them off.  The only thing you can't easily measure is the surround channel, but who cares about that.

 

I don't see what the problem is.  


Alan P's Avatar Alan P 03:46 PM 03-29-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nerys64 View Post

I am using a desktop computer with an Asus Xonar DSX soundcard. I am using a USB mic (umm6).

The way 5.1 works on my computer is, you send the sound card a 5.1 PCM or w/e signal. the sound card packages it with DTS on the fly (this is the DSP part) and then sends it over optical s/pdif to my AVR.

My problem is, REW sends a pure 2.0 or mono signal. I cant specify what channel to send audio to. I cant use the HDMi ASIO drivers, or any asio drivers for that matter, because that would bypass the DTS encoder on my soundcard. This results in sound coming out for front left/right but no sound for any other channel.

So far I have seen that I have 2 options: 1 is to get a new AVR with HDMI input (which im working on but i'd like to measure my current setup for before/after purposes) and the other is to hook everything up analog from the sound card. There is a final option: to constantly switch the wiring from speaker to speaker, re-level match, and then take the measurement. This is something I will not do.

In short, I need to send a 5.1 signal to my sound card. Full 5.1. IE one channel carries the signal, other 5 channels carry a blank audio file. This is the way games do it, this is what VLC does when you set audio device to "5.1" instead of "a/52 over s/pdif" and this is what I need to accomplish with REW.

Alternatively, I would need to download a pre-configured DTS or dolby test disk, play the tones on it, and measure that response using REW. This is not ideal.

EDIT: also, i already did make a post on the hometheatershack website but to no avail. No one has answered me regarding this issue. I've made 2 seperate posts, one of them being on someone else's thread.

AFAIK, REW will only output discrete channels over HDMI, not optical.
ggsantafe's Avatar ggsantafe 03:46 PM 03-29-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

@ ggsantafe:

The decay graph shows an obvious problem at 40Hz, which I am sure you recognize.  Above 70Hz it looks reasonable.

The waterfall needs to be redone.  It extends all the way to 20,000Hz, when it should only extend to 200Hz, like the decay graph.  Can you repost it?

Thanks for the reminder - here's Waterfall with 200hz limit/950 ms.

Nerys64's Avatar Nerys64 03:48 PM 03-29-2013
Its just annoying to get behind my receiver. I do want to measure my surrounds too but I have preamp I puts for everything. If there's no other way thn I guess I'll either do the analog I pit method (and lose all channel level adjustments or have to redo them) or I'll just say screw it and not bother measuring anything until I get a proper receiver.
AustinJerry's Avatar AustinJerry 03:52 PM 03-29-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by ggsantafe View Post


Thanks for the reminder - here's Waterfall with 200hz limit/950 ms.

 

 

Sorry, but that is really ugly.  eek.gif  Time for some treatments!  Is there a WAF obstacle?


amirm's Avatar amirm 03:56 PM 03-29-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pres2play View Post

I wouldn't be able to tell if IR offset is performed but assuming so, yes, it looks right. You can for example see what happens on dips. The sudden change in excess phases says they are not correctable by eq.
AustinJerry's Avatar AustinJerry 03:56 PM 03-29-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nerys64 View Post

Its just annoying to get behind my receiver. I do want to measure my surrounds too but I have preamp I puts for everything. If there's no other way thn I guess I'll either do the analog I pit method (and lose all channel level adjustments or have to redo them) or I'll just say screw it and not bother measuring anything until I get a proper receiver.

 

No AUX inputs on the front of the AVR?  Too bad.  And I really don't understand the value of measuring the surrounds.  Browse through this thread--how many surround measurements do you see?


Dwightlf's Avatar Dwightlf 04:40 PM 03-29-2013
"I realized that my subs were about 10dB hot relative to my mains, and reduced them accordingly at the receiver"

I just saw the same comment on another system in the HTS forum. You might find them too laid back now. I almost always end up with a +6db to +8db boost on the subs. Unfortunately it is too easy to “get used” to the added bass. ;-) Will you be house curving at all?
ggsantafe's Avatar ggsantafe 05:30 PM 03-29-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post


Sorry, but that is really ugly.  eek.gif   Time for some treatments!  Is there a WAF obstacle?

I agree - I seem to have the dubious distinction of submitting the worst looking waterfall in recent history. But who knew? I'm trying to look at this positively and using this data to make improvements. It's funny because friends have commented on how good the sound is in the room, and I always thought it sounded pretty good - but compared to what?
I may experiment with some additional sub woofer placement to see if that makes any difference, and certainly try to figure out the 40 Hz problem - but for now I'm taking the next week off to visit the grand kids.
IceTBC's Avatar IceTBC 06:01 PM 03-29-2013
I've been quietly reading and assimilating here since this thread began even tho I haven't been posting. I finally got things together and think I did some proper measurements on my fronts and sub in my system. Here are first the frequency response and then waterfall of my FR and sub. I'm currently mainly interested in the bass region. My fronts are Wharfedale Opus 2 v.1's and my sub is an SVS PB13 Ultra. All my speakers are crossed over at 60Hz. I measured with REW using an 80Hz crossover and the 60Hz is slightly better.





I am pretty well satisfied with the frequency response and I think also with the waterfall, altho I can see obvious problems at 30Hz and below as well as bumps in the 40Hz-50Hz region. However my system is in my living room so doing much of any sort of acoustic treatments is mostly out. I guess I should be glad it looks at least as good as it does. Or am I missing/misinterpreting something? Comments welcome.
AustinJerry's Avatar AustinJerry 06:30 PM 03-29-2013

Welcome, Ice!  I agree, the frequency response looks pretty darn good.   The bass resonance in the waterfall looks reasonable, although you might try 450ms to see how it looks.  You might also try the Decay graph to see what frequencies have not decayed by 20dB by 160ms.

 

 

If you can't add any treatments, I think you should be proud with the audio as is.


LastButNotLeast's Avatar LastButNotLeast 06:59 PM 03-29-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwightlf View Post

"I realized that my subs were about 10dB hot relative to my mains, and reduced them accordingly at the receiver"

I just saw the same comment on another system in the HTS forum. You might find them too laid back now. I almost always end up with a +6db to +8db boost on the subs. Unfortunately it is too easy to “get used” to the added bass. ;-) Will you be house curving at all?

Yeah, it's back up a little, but it was too much (though the scene in Finding Nemo where she taps on the aquarium shook the walls. That was fun!). I do listen to some music, so the bass line was drowning out everything else. I found a happy medium.

Though, as I said, all the test equipment is packed up and put away (again), so no new graphs.

I may spend some time in Photoshop to see if I can get that 20dB overlay figured out.

But for now, Downton Abbey.

smile.gif

Michael


LastButNotLeast's Avatar LastButNotLeast 10:06 PM 03-29-2013

How's this?

 

 

 

Start, obviously, with your graph in REW at the limits you want. Click on "Decay," deselect all but the first and 160ms boxes. If necessary, go to "Controls" and select "Fill slices" (default is red and blue). Close "Controls," capture image, save as "decay."

 

Click "Overlays." "Controls" icon on top right, "Offset" -20, click on "Add offset to data." Close "Controls" box, capture image, save as "overlay."

 

I used Photoshop Elements 8. Open decay and overlay files. Check to make sure they are the same size (sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't; go figure). On the overlay file, select the magic wand tool. I found tolerance = 12 works well; deselect antialias and contiguous. Click on the line that makes up your graph. If too much other stuff is selected, lower the tolerance. Edit -> Copy.

 

Switch to the decay graph. Select -> All. Edit -> Paste Into Selection. Move it ("nudge" in PS parlance) so the left and right endpoints of your graph are where they belong. Edit -> Stroke (Outline) Selection: 2 px is fine. Double click on the color box, change R, G and B to 255. OK.

 

Save your masterpiece. Post it here for general admiration, then get to work on the areas where the decay isn't below the 20dB line.

 

Piece of cake, right?

Is this still the "Simplified REW" thread?

 

biggrin.gif

 

Michael


Tags: Dayton , Dayton Audio , Room Equilizer Wizard Rew
First ... 74  75  76 77  78  ... Last

Up
Mobile  Desktop