I know I've said this before, but if I keep saying it then logically ONE day it must become true, but think I can wrap this thread up!!!
Thanks Bruce, as you can see the Behringer Mic cal, even tho 'generic' has resulted in very different measurements, but surely in all likelihood vastly superior ones.
This graph shows left and right measured with and without the mic cal file, as you can see the huge hump after ten k has disappeared
mic cal comparison external .jpg
Funny how you can talk yourself into things, I distinctly remember thinking when I first saw the hump after 10k " Gee, didn't think it was that bad" !! but carried on regardless. Just goes to show that we certainly need measurement gear to prevent all manner of 'wishful thinking'.
OK, this time, now armed with accurate measurements, my procedure was to measure in the room with the mic on tweeter level about one meter away, then set a flat target level and let it rip. After completion, a bit of back and forward fine tuning and tweaking to get the response pretty **** flat.
This graph shows left and right, before and after tweaking the response.
left and right before and after, using mic cal, done in room.jpg
It may look a little cluttered, but I think you would agree that it is a pretty flat end response.
Then of course did the sub, it's a roughie but at least it's here and able to be experimented on, no need to show that cause I do think you lot already know all about eq'ing subs ha ha. This thread is about something else!
Anyway, here is the final in room response, both mains driven plus sub. You may recall the sub has some pretty nasty resonances between 120 and 200, so with a bit of judicious back and forth to help clean that up here it is, viola
final in room response, mic cal, done indoors.jpg
The room it's set up in is quite small, the computer room ( funnily enough, cause thats where all this learning has taken place) so no attempt for any room treatment, but if I were to do so I reckon I've got a pretty good place to start from. And indeed, the beauty of this is as I make changes to the room response with treatment, it is no bother to go back and fine tune as I go, an iterative kind of thing. Try that with a passive network!
Thankyou all for your help and interest, it is another card thrown into the pile for consideration in addition to the 'simpler' BFD's. My main system is tri-amped and I will be using the DEQX in that one, so the DEQ has no place for me there. However, if I had a 'normal' system ( branded name with passive network ) then I simply would not hesitate to grab a DEQ over the others, all of the abilities of the BFD's but with much more, as hopefully I've been able to show. Apologies if I've been dense in my explanations.
After all, what speaker with a passive network is actually flat? Not many I'd wager
lots of love
terry