[terry j]

Hi Nate

most people prefer it if the graph limits are the same on all posted graphs, and the standard we use is 45-105 db, 200 hz upper frequency limit.

Of course in your case it might be an exception if you wished to show the effect of the treatment in the higher frequencies in which case use smoothing to avoid the comb filtering. My REW is not open, but from memory you can choose the amount of filtering in the graph adjustment tab or something.

I infer from your post that you use the RS meter, if so then it is of no use at all above a couple of thousand hz, so another reason to bring your graphs 'back to the fold' I suppose. That meter IS fine for bass eqing with at least some sort of cal file, found here of course!!

Not sure why the waterfall graphs are so dense, mine certainly don't look like that!! Have a play, often you will find for comparison purposes it's best to have two (or more) graphs overlayed, you can use the all measured tab (I think it is). For the waterfall, again have a play and you will see it has cool features like one or the other can be 'dimmed' again making for ease of reading.

Please take all I've said with a little grain of salt, there are many experts here (and Brucek is one of the best) and I AINT one of them. I don't think I've led you too far astray though, just a stop gap measure till the real boys come into the game.

EDIT
Gee, I hope that didn't come across as belittling Otto's help!!! Nate, you will find there are many helpful people here and Otto is certainly amongst them.