thanks Bruce
wasn't too worried about both graphs having the same scale, was more worried about the totally different nature of the responses. Today tho, just for interest and completeness have got both scales with a 60 db range. Also, I am using the ECM cal file.
Unfortunately John, the results haven't changed.
rew measure, c off and c on.jpg
This graph shows the response both with and w/out c weighting. Bugger.
The DEQX graph I redid today looks the same as yesterday, essentially flat thru the graph.
Also, forget the DEQX graph today, although the site accepted it y/day, it won't today. It is too big, and stupid me doesn't know how to re-size it. Can someone give a real quick explanation? Currently I just use print screen and paste into paint. Once there, if I change number of pixels it truncates the picture rather than resize. To overcome that problem in the above graph, I used the little symbol to the left which then allows me to size it, but of course miss out on all the data on the rest of the page.
Strangely enough, I think I can hear the frequency sweep change during the REW measurement. What I mean is, I feel I can hear the rising frequencies actually get louder and the resulting graph is in fact an accurate representation of what it hears, in other words the fault may not lie in the measuring side of things - which was my first thought - but may lie in the output side. Is this possible??
Maybe I need to re load the program?
Is there, to anyones knowledge, any reason why REW can't be used for full range measurement? I sure hope it can cause I reckon it's fabulous.
Interesting Bruce that in future versions of REW the only option will be sweep. Has it indeed been found that the other options are inaccurate? not needed? something else? In the graphs a couple of posts above, the 1/12 step very closely followed the sweep up to whatever frequency it was, but diverged after that. Funnily enough, above that point BOTH measurements produced 'garbage', just diametrically opposed!!
lots of love
terry