On Minimal EQ, Target Levels, and a Hard-Knee House Curve (long)

[Wayne A. Pflughaupt]

Minimal EQ, Target Levels, and a Hard-Knee House Curve

It’s time to re-think the way we equalize

Better late to the game than never
It’s been a little over a year since Sonnie dragged me into the 21st century, convincing me to start using REW and the Behringer DSP-1124 digital parametric equalizer (thanks again, Sonnie!). It’s been a peculiar combination of elation and frustration.

Certainly, it was a delight to ditch the time consuming manual method of plotting frequency response for REW’s ultra-slick, near-instant results.

The frustration? Well, things never sounded as good as they looked on the screen. Don't get me wrong, "with EQ" always sounded better than "no EQ." But I was never completely happy.

For instance, my favorite test track for checking bass, Basia’s “Ordinary People” from her London Warsaw New York CD. This track features a bass line that runs up and down two full octaves, so it’s great for determining (a) if a subwoofer has linear response, and (b) if it’s blending well with the mains.

Well, it just wasn’t right. The lowest notes didn’t come through the way I’m used to hearing (and feeling) them, and the upper notes sounded bloated and overemphasized. The subs were clearly “invading” the mains’ lower reaches, but turning them down for a better blend meant the lowest notes were even worse.

Every few months I’d get frustrated and run REW again and re-equalize – and end up with pretty much the same thing, albeit with a different set of filters.

I think REW’s terminal coolness probably had an adverse effect, discouraging me from taking the trouble to get to the root of the problem. After all, I probably told myself subconsciously, response that looks this good has to sound good! You’ve never had these powerful tools at your disposal, so you’re just not used to hearing fabulously good bass!

I may have discontentedly left it at that, except that I recently noticed something rather distressing with the Basia track that had previously escaped my notice: Certain bass notes were coming through noticeably lower in volume than the notes before and after. And elsewhere, a note or two slightly hotter than those adjacent. What was up with that? I’d never had that problem before, when I was using much-less-precise 1/3-octave equalization.

Here is the baseline response I’ve been working with since we moved into this house a couple of years ago:

Baseline Response

I’ve never been able to get anything resembling an appropriate-looking graph with less than 7-8 filters. Here are a couple of equalized graphs, the second being more recent.

Equalized Response with 7 Filters


Equalized Response with 8 Filters and 6 dB House Curve


Filter Panel for Above

Getting to the root of the problem
Certainly, they aren’t bad looking graphs. As the baseline graph shows, my measured response peaked substantially above the 75 dB Target Level. Naturally, I followed the more-or-less standard protocol and equalized towards the Target.

Helping numerous people with their equalizing issues on this Forum, I’ve noticed this is a familiar refrain. The problem is that equalizing towards the Target Level requires more filters than would be necessary if you say, just raised or lowered it to a good mid-way point between the worst peaks and depressions. In some extreme cases we’ve seen people attempting to equalize a fairly easy curve with 9, 10 or even 11 filters, in order to hit the Target Level. In my case, you can see by comparing the baseline graph to the 8-filter panel that the majority of filters used - five of the eight - were “spent” realigning the ~22-42 Hz area down to the Target Level.

“The problem” – is over-equalizing really a problem? Well, at the pro audio forums, where people use equalizers for a living, the prevailing wisdom is “use as little as necessary to get the job done.” Of course, equalizing a subwoofer in a small room is a lot different from what those guys are doing, tuning a full-range system in some big auditorium. So does the “keep it minimal” advice apply to us?

As we shall see - probably so.

For my latest re-equalizing attempt, I tried a new tact – raising the Target Level up between the peaks and valleys before equalizing. Here is the result.

Equalized Response with 81 dB Target and 6 dB Hard-Knee House Curve


Filter Panel

Yes, you’re seeing correctly: four filters.* In my case, I got lucky in that my sagging response above ~45 Hz played right into the hands of the hard-knee house curve I wanted, which enabled me to use fewer filters. Furthermore, I decided to avoid equalizing close to the crossover point (above ~70 Hz or so in my case, with a 90 Hz crossover), since any equalizing up there will probably be blown out by the main speakers once they’re added. (Of course, that needs to be double-checked before locking down your filters, but it was true in my case.)

So - how does it sound? Absolutely fabulous. I’d have to say my bass response has never sounded this good! Most of the improvement I attribute to the hard-knee house curve, which we’ll discuss later. (For the impatient people who want the “how does it sound” details now, scroll down to the Hard-Knee House Curve post, “The Holy Grail of bass?” heading.)

And - remember the problem with the “hot and cold” bass notes in the Basia track? Well, that is totally and completely gone. Each and every note is now at an appropriate and consistent volume from one to the next!

Folks, there’s simply no that way realigning a house curve could have solved that problem. The uneven bass notes could only have been a by-product of poor equalization. Or more precisely, equalization that had no business being there to begin with.


Compelled to excess?
So - where have we gone wrong? In at least a few ways, in my opinion. We’ve already opened the door to the Target Level situation: If you don’t properly realign it after taking your baseline measurement, it may require a lot of unnecessary filters to instead realign your response curve. This is true if you equalize manually, like I do, or if you let REW auto-equalize. Wholesale level adjustment via a multitude of filters is poor use of an equalizer. The REW help files clearly indicate that the Target may need to be shifted before applying filters; I don’t know how we managed to get hung up on the 75 dB Target as a quasi-rigid standard.

To a lesser extent, I think our standard recommendation of not smoothing graphs is another problem stimulating the urge to over-equalize, since an unsmoothed graph exaggerates the peaks and valleys the graph displays.

Another big problem, I feel, is the window in REW that we use here. Early on we decided that all graphs presented for evaluation should have an amplitude spanning 45-105 dB (i.e. the vertical scale), in the interest of comparing “apples to apples,” as it were, from one Member’s graph to the next. Of course, that was and still is a laudable goal. From time to time people have presented graphs with a larger-amplitude window – say, 20-130 dB, which results in a response line that’s “squeezed” tighter – i.e., less exaggeration between the peaks and valleys. That Member would inevitably get an advisement from our resident experts that the window setting they were using was being generous to their response, making it appear better than it really is.

I submit that the opposite is a more accurate reality, that the narrow 45-105 dB window makes response look worse than it really is. It generates a scary-looking graph that compels people to over-equalize in an effort to make things “look” correct.

Yes, a wider 20-130 dB window will visually flatten out the curve. But in my opinion, it’s a more accurate representation of what the response you’re seeing on-screen truly sounds like. And since the curve “looks” better going in, there’s less of a compulsion to equalize it to death.

For instance, my equalized response in the Hard Knee graph above, shown in a 45-105 dB window, still looks fairly ragged, but in “real life” it sounds as smooth as melted butter. In other words, 45-105 dB window is a poor reflection of what I’m hearing.

This was actually one of my earliest reactions after EQing with REW: Visually, there was a huge improvement in the way my equalized response looked. But switching the equalizer in and out, it was obviously that the audible improvement was much more subtle than it appeared on-screen in the 45-105 dB window.


Continued...

*Note: People revisiting this article will remember that initially I stated I was using three filters. However, I neglected to account for a filter at 25 Hz from the 1/3-octave equalizers I have on my mains. The new filter panel reflects the presence of that filter, which has been moved to the sub equalizer.

[Wayne A. Pflughaupt]

Graphic spin-doctoring?
Okay, it’s show and tell time. Let’s conduct a little virtual experiment to see if I can back any of this up.

First, here is a graph that conforms to Shack standards.

Baseline Response w/ 75 dB Target Level, 45-105 dB Window, No Smoothing

Wow, it’s a mess, isn’t it? I mean, response is all over the place! Let’s apply some virtual filters to clean it up.

Predicted Equalized Response w/ 75 dB Target Level, 45-105 dB Window, No Smoothing


Filter Panel

There we go – six filters, equalizing down to the Target Level. Things look a lot better, right? Once again, I didn’t attempt to do anything above ~70 Hz. Otherwise, I could’ve easily used another 2-3 filters, pushing the total up to eight or nine.

Okay, let’s try again, this time using some alternative REW settings that will hopefully enable less equalizing.

Baseline Response w/ Raised 77 dB Target Level, 20-130 dB Window, 1/6-Octave Smoothing

Things look much better already. With a wider window, 1/6-octave smoothing and the Target Level raised, we can see that the 27-43 Hz range really needs no equalizing at all. So – let’s virtually equalize what’s left.

Predicted Equalized Response w/ Raised 77 dB Target Level, 20-130 dB Window, 1/6-Octave Smoothing


Filter Panel

There ya go – two filters, one to help out the depression at ~50 Hz, the second to address a rise at ~43 Hz that the first filter caused.

I can imagine some readers are having conniption fits right about now, saying there’s no way a contrived, two-filter curve based on “nothing more than graph manipulation” will sound as good as the six-filter. Relax. Take a deep breath. I’m going to show you why most of those six filters are accomplishing absolutely nothing anyway – at least, nothing good. Here’s why.


How to recognize perfectly useless filters
First, take a closer look at the 6-filter panel. Notice that four of the six have only 2-3 dB adjustments. Anyone who has spent any amount of time using professional-grade 1/3-octave or parametric equalizers, and listening to the results, will tell you adjustments that slight are barely audible in the lower frequencies.

Second, look at the filter bandwidth settings – 4, 5 and so on. Behringer uses a peculiar “xx/60” bandwidth designator for the Feedback Destroyer that no other manufacturer uses. If we translate that to the more traditional fractions of an octave designation, we see that a 5/60 filter width equals 1/12-octave, 4/60 translates to 1/15-octave, and 3/60 is 1/20-octave. These are all bandwidth settings that we commonly use when equalizing with the BFD. Indeed, it’s not unusual for REW to recommend a 2/60 filter when auto-equalizing, which is 1/30-octave.

People, I hate to break it to you, but these are notch filters. Notch filters are what they use in live-sound PA systems to eliminate feedback. You’ve probably heard feedback at concerts and other live performances; it’s basically a single ringing frequency that’s runaway in the system. In that situation the sound engineer wants to eliminate the offending frequency with minimal intrusion on adjacent, unaffected frequencies. Ultra-narrow notch filters, typically set at 1/6-octave or tighter, allow them to do this, essentially sucking a single note out of the frequency spectrum (or as close to that as they can possibly get). *

Apply this to our situation at home and what do we have? When you pepper your subwoofer with a menagerie of notch filters, from the perspective of a bass instrument you’re essentially equalizing single notes or perhaps small groups of adjacent notes. If any of those super-tight filters happen to hit dead center on the fundamental of a bass note (there are 12 in an octave), you can literally push or pull them up or down in the mix. While 2-3 dB might not be readily audible with a broad filter, a razor-sharp adjustment hitting single notes can probably make enough of a difference to notice. I believe this why I was getting those uneven notes with the Basia CD track. There’s simply no other explanation I can think of.

Lest you think I’ve taken leave of my senses, I can tell you that I have actually done this with my bass guitar and an analog parametric EQ: Dial in a super-tight filter on the equalizer, cut several dB, and hit a note on the bass. Turn the frequency knob, and when you hit the right frequency it’ll suck the note right out. Move up or down a fret to the next note, volume is restored. Turn the frequency knob a little more, and that note is sucked out.

Make no mistake, folks, a parametric equalizer is a very powerful frequency-altering tool. A device that can excise specific musical notes with surgical precision should not be frivolously utilized.

Getting back to our six- vs. two-filter graphs, I will again contend that the ultra-narrow filters used in the six-filter graph absolutely will not sound better than the two-filter graph. Now, I’m generally a reasonable fellow, so I’ll concede that it’s possible – perhaps highly so - that the two-filter graph will not sound better than the six-filter. But if that’s the case, that means those extra filters aren’t delivering any audible improvement. So - what’s the point? Why pollute your subwoofer to all that extraneous processing? At what point does surgery become butchery?

In addition, as anyone who’s manually tweaked filters on-screen in REW can attest, the close-spaced filters we commonly use often end up conflicting with each other: For instance, a second filter partially eradicates what the first accomplished, so you have to go back and tweak it some more, or perhaps even add a third filter. This is a situation known as “equalizing the equalizer,” and generally it’s not considered to be a good thing.

Folks, improved subwoofer sound quality is actually pretty simple to achieve. It only requires response smoothing – i.e., minimizing the most serious peaks and valleys, which are typically addressed with wider filters. This will not necessarily result in the best-looking graph, but it will generally give the best results from a sonic perspective. Unfortunately, the tight filters REW typically recommends are not conducive to achieving the best sound quality (see next post for more on this).


Does accuracy matter to you?
Certainly, if your primary interest and use of your system is confined to movies, none of this matters much. But if music listening is important to you, and you’re using more than say, 4-5 filters, you owe it to yourself to go back and see if you can do the job with fewer, utilizing a wider 20-130 dB window in REW, realigning the Target Level after measuring, and using 1/6-octave smoothing (for manual filter adjustments). If you have a lot of ultra-narrow, low-amplitude filters, say less than 4/60 at 2-3 dB, chances are you can lose them, and possibly filters near the crossover point as well. See if you can create a single, broad filter to accomplish what REW auto-EQ recommends with 2 or 3, (see example in the next post). I think you’ll find in the end that the only filters you really need are the “severe” ones that are wider and deeper (say 4-5 dB and 6/60 or more). Fewer filters should also minimize the “equalizing the equalizer” situation, although admittedly a certain amount of that is often inevitable. Plus, I think you’ll find that when it’s all said and done, you’ll find the 20-130 dB window is a much better representation of what your subs actually sound like, than the 45-105 window.

For an even more dramatic improvement in sound quality, stay tuned for the discussion on the hard-knee house curve, following the next post.


* UPDATE: Since writing this piece, I have determined that the BFD’s bandwidth settings are highly inaccurate. In general they are much, much broader than most other parametric EQs – see this thread. For instance, a 4/60 filter should be about 1/15-octave, but in reality 4/60 is more like 1/8-octave on most other equalizers. Likewise, the BFD’s 10/60 setting, which should translate as 1/6-octave, is more accurately about 1/3-octave on other equalizers. So, bandwidth settings down to 4/60 are acceptable, but not smaller. Generally, most sub equalizing will stay in the 4/60 - 10/60 range (1/8-1/3 octave).

[Wayne A. Pflughaupt]

Tips for those who use REW’s auto-equalizing function

I think we can all agree that REW is a fabulous program that has made our lives much easier, and we’re indebted to John Mulcahy for not only creating it, but giving it away for free. But here’s a news flash that a lot of people aren’t aware of: REW is not designed to optimize frequency response for the purpose of improving sound quality. That’s right, folks – REW is designed to address modal resonances, and the filters it recommends are optimized to that end.

The objective of the "modal equalizing" method is not so much to achieve the best-sounding low frequency performance as it is to achieve the best-looking waterfall graph, which is a "3D"-like presentation that shows low frequency ringing, i.e. the time it lakes the low frequencies in your room to fully decay. To that end, REW's auto EQ function ignores depressions in response, even large ones, under the questionable assumption that raising them increases decay times. However, it should be self-evident that leaving sizable holes in your bass response will degrade sound quality.

In addition, "modal equalizing" will often require a plethora of ultra-tight notch filters in order to achieve the desired waterfall graph. Indeed, you will notice that filters of 5/60 or less are often what REW recommends when auto-equalizing. Part of the problem, it appears, is that REW "sees" and treats every peak in response as a room mode, but this isn't the case. A true room mode will exhibit a slower decay time compared to surrounding frequencies; not every response peak will exhibit this phenomenon.

So all things considered, I have my doubts that equalizing for the best waterfall reading will give the best sonic improvement. It seems to me that any improvement you may get by optimizing a waterfall graph could likely and easily be offset by poorer overall performance, due to not addressing holes in response and the use of undesirable notch filters. Not to mention, the waterfall reading will only be valid in the location the measurements were taken at. Move away from there and all those extra filters aren't doing any good. Thus it seems the best tact would be to apply the "modal equalizing" approach to the true room modes, to get their decay times in line with what the rest of the watefall graph displays (which is the best you can hope to accomplish with an equalizer WRT modal ringing), and apply a more general, smoothing approach to the rest of the response curve.

Thankfully, John M tells me he may include an option in his next version of REW that would optimize filters for response-smoothing instead of modal resonances. In the meantime, you really can’t use REW to auto-equalize for response smoothing, but you can manipulate the program in that direction, and then manually tweak the final touches yourself.


Optimize REW filters for response smoothing...
First, REW calibrate for the standard 75 dB Target in the Settings panel. Take your measurement sweep, then adjust your viewing window for a 20-130 dB setting, using the Graph Limits box (top right of screen), so that your response curve doesn’t look so scary. (NOTE: This is mainly for your benefit – REW will recommend its filters irrespective of widow resolution.)

Next, re-adjust the Target Level to a good midway point between your response peaks and depressions - or if your particular curve permits, align the Target to where it most closely tracks the bulk of your response curve.

Under Trace Adjustments, set the Smoothing option to 1/3-octave, which will help induce REW to focus more on the most serious problems instead of the minor ones. Then under Filter Tasks, limit the Find Peaks range to a bit below your crossover point. The response you’re seeing close to the crossover frequency is most likely duplicated by the mains, so it’s to no effect to equalize up there. (Of course, this needs to be verified by comparing graphs for sub only, mains only, and both together.)

Next run the Find Peaks, Assign Filters, Optimize PK Gain, and Adjust PK Gain functions.


...Then, manually tweak the filter
Click on the EQ Filters box to see the filters REW has recommended. The dotted line in the graph shows the predicted effect the filters will have on your response.

Tweak the Frequency, Gain and BW/60 settings in the EQ Filters panel to alter REW’s recommended settings. I usually first click the Gain control a few times, to pinpoint where the filter is operating. Watch out for broad areas on the graph, as REW usually recommends filters that aren’t wide enough or centered properly to cover them. If REW is recommending two filters for a broad area, see if you can get the same result with a single filter, altering the gain, frequency, and bandwidth settings.

Also look for any useless filters REW may have generated for minor problems. These will be ultra-narrow filters with minimal gain adjustments – say 4/60 or less and only 2-3 dB gain reduction. Typically these can be eliminated as they are providing no audible benefit.

Don’t be afraid to apply some boost to a depression, if needed. This is much preferable from a sound-quality perspective than applying a multitude of filters to bring everything else down to the level of the depression. As I mentioned before, using multiple filters for level adjustment is poor use of an equalizer.


A few examples
Here are a few pictures showing the improvements that can result from tweaking REW’s filters. Note the appropriately shifted Target Levels – down in the first example, up in the second.

Predicted Response, REW Auto-Equalized, w/ 70 dB Target Level, 20-130 dB Window, 1/3-Octave Smoothing


Filter Panel


Predicted Response, Re-Adjusted Filters, w/ 70 dB Target Level, 20-130 dB Window, 1/3-Octave Smoothing


Filter Panel

With the first filter, I shifted the center frequency down from 23 Hz to 22.7, and opened up the bandwidth from 5/60 to 7/60. For the second filter, I shifted the frequency center up from 32.7 Hz to 37.4 Hz, with no change to the bandwidth or gain settings. These adjustments better addressed the response problems in question. The third filter at 57.8 Hz was useless, as it was addressing an insignificant little bump, so I eliminated it. Notice that it was a tiny bandwidth / minimal gain filter.

Here are both filter panels side by side for easy comparison:

Here’s another example.

Predicted Response, REW Auto-Equalized, w/ 76.7 dB Target Level, 20-130 dB Window, 1/3-Octave Smoothing


Filter Panel



Predicted Response, Re-Adjusted Filters, w/ 76.7 dB Target Level, 20-130 dB Window, 1/3-Octave Smoothing


Filter Panel

Here we weren’t able to use fewer filters, but we did accomplish smoother response by using broader filters instead of the notch filters REW recommended. Win, win. Again, both panels for comparison:

Remember, the best way to improve your subwoofer’s sound is to merely smooth response – i.e. eliminate or at least minimize the most serious peaks and valleys. It shouldn’t require more than a few filters. If you find yourself needing too many, go back and start over with a different Target Level alignment.

Remember, if you want to post your graphs on the Forum for questions or comment, be sure and change the window back to the 45-105 dB setting. Ignore any urge to equalize further!

Continued...

[Wayne A. Pflughaupt]

A hard-knee house curve

A better approach
In the opening post I noted how good my subwoofers sound since implementing a new house curve. If you’ve never heard of a hard-knee house curve, don’t feel bad. I invented the term just last week.

It’s been a long time coming, but the realization has dawned that what I’ll call the “REW house curve” most of us utilize produces a woefully inadequate result. (Okay, perhaps labeling it the “REW house curve” is a bit disingenuous since it’s user-created, but I had to call it something! )

To understand what I’m talking about, let’s take a look at a standard 6-dB REW curve and compare it to my hard-knee curve.

90 Hz Cut-Off, No House Curve


90 Hz Cut-Off, 6 dB REW House Curve


90 Hz Cut-Off, 6 dB Hard-Knee House Curve

The stock REW curve is achieved by simply dialing down response at the crossover frequency by a specific value (see this post and following for details on how to create a house curve text file for REW). The “REW House Curve” graph above shows a 6-dB slope between 30-90 Hz, meaning the slope begins its downward tilt at 30 Hz and is reduced 6 dB at 90 Hz, compared to the “No Curve” graph. (I’ve long been a proponent of shelving a house curve at about 30 Hz, as anyone who’s seen my house curve article knows.)

The problem with the stock REW curve is that it gets a lot of “action” at the bottom of the slope (i.e. the crossover frequency), but very little at the top. Note in the REW graph that response at 40 Hz – 1/3-octave above 30 Hz – is reduced only 1 dB. The differential between 40 Hz and 60 Hz – a span of nearly 2/3-octave - is only about 2 dB.

As fully explained in the article linked above, idea of a house curve is to increase the level of lower frequency bass signals so that they will sound subjectively as loud as upper frequency signals, delivering bass response that sounds flat (as opposed to merely measuring flat). The REW curve’s “bulging” slope just doesn’t accomplish that: In most cases, in the small rooms we use, it’s going to take a lot more than a 1-dB difference every 10 Hz to achieve a good-sounding house curve.

Adding to the problem, if your bass response after equalization ends up not tracking the house-curved Target as well as it should, you can easily end up with the situation I discovered when I double-checked mine with 1/12-octave sine waves: I wasn’t getting any significant slope until well above 60 Hz. That’s right – I wasn't shelved at 30 where I wanted to be. Not good.

Here’s a visual example - note that response in the graph below will remain essentially flat to about 45 Hz, despite the house curve target that starts sloping downward at 30 Hz.

Poorly Tracked House Curve Target

With a hard-knee house curve, REW’s “bulging” curve is traded for a straight-line drop (see “Hard Knee” graph above). Response ramps down rapidly below the 30 Hz “hinge” and (in the case of the 6-dB slope depicted) is reduced 3 dB by 40 Hz, and fully 6 dB by 60 Hz, which is the mid-way point between the (30-90 Hz) beginning and ending boundaries. The result is more accurate-sounding bass once the mid-bass “bloom” you get with the rounded slope is eliminated.


The Holy Grail of bass?
Okay, enough techno-babble. How does my new minimal-filter, hard-knee response sound?

Absolutely fabulous!

With music, I can turn off the sub when a bass line gets up to the high notes (a benefit of my remote-controlled Chase RLC-1) and hear very little change (depending on how the bass instrument is EQ’d in the CD, of course). That means the subs have seamlessly transitioned to the main speakers - a big change from before, when the subs were swamping the mains’ lower reaches and over-emphasizing the high bass notes. The mid-bass “bloat” the REW house curve generates is gone. And unlike before, now I can feel the lowest notes as well as hear them. Taming the mid- bass bloom has also brought better detail to the lower notes, detail that was previously obscured. It’s subtle, but noticeable.

And as mentioned in the first post, minimal EQ filtering has eliminated the uneven levels of the bass notes that I was experiencing in the Basia track.

Overall, bass sounds more taut, substantial and authoritative. Finally, across the board, my subs are doing what they should: seamlessly handing off the high notes to the mains, underpinning the mid-bass with lower harmonics, and transitioning to full dominance of the lowest notes that are well below the range of the main speakers. This is the way it should be.

With movies, the depth-charge scene in U-571 hits me in the chest and vibrates the couch. That’s the effect I was getting in our previous home, using only my 1/3-octave equalizers, but it’s something I’ve never been able to achieve here at the home we moved into a year or so ago. I had attributed it to the fact that the total volume of our family room and adjacent areas increased from an already-huge 6000 cu. ft. to an absolutely cavernous 9000 cu. ft, and my marginal DIY throw-down subs were barely cutting the mustard in the old place. Nope – turns out it was all in the equalizing.

I may go back and tweak the slope a little, but overall I think I’m knocking at the door of the “Holy Grail” of bass response – no exaggeration there, folks. It sounds so-o-o fine! All I need now is a bit more extension, detail and dynamics – a bass lover’s work is never done – but as far as response goes, I think I’ve nailed it. It’s as smooth as syrup.

Bottom line, I think you’ll find a hard-knee house curve will make a world of difference if you’ve been using the REW curve, and minimizing equalizer filters will possibly make audible improvements as well. It’s easy enough to set up another memory in the BFD for the sake of comparison. I suggest getting a couple of 1/4” – 1/4” couplers and cheap guitar cables so you can move the BFD with you to the listening position. This will allow you to make instant A/B comparisons between the two sets of filters.

The only caveat, it may be disconcerting at first hearing a hard-knee house curve if you’re used to hearing the REW curve. The upper notes may sound a bit “thin” once the “bloom” gone, since they will be supported less by the subwoofer, but overall things should sound tighter and more refined. Give it a chance.

By the way, if you don’t have a copy of that Basia London Warsaw New York CD, or something like it, you’d be doing yourself a tremendous favor to get it. If nothing else, she’s easy on the eyes.

How to create a hard-knee house curve in REW
So - you may be wondering, how do you create a hard-knee house curve? Well, it is more difficult than the REW curve, as it requires more entries in the text file and some trial and error to maintain the straight-line slope.

The first step, naturally, is to determine how much of a slope your room needs. As I outlined in my house curve article, this is best established by playing pure sine wave tones at the crossover frequency and the point you want response to shelve, typically ~30 Hz. The idea is for the lower frequency (30 Hz) to sound as loud as the upper frequency (90 Hz, or whatever your crossover setting is).

I usually start with the upper frequency tone, and make a note of its SPL reading. Then play the lower-frequency tone and adjust the receiver’s volume so that it sounds as loud as the first tone did. This will be a higher SPL reading than the first; the difference between the two readings is your house curve slope. This is best done with the two front speakers and the sub playing in tandem, as that is the way you listen to your system. (Don’t add the rear speakers or any other digital soundfield processing, as that can result in inaccurate readings.) Naturally, make sure neither your upper or lower frequency is smack in the middle of a room mode or null – run REW to see.

After your slope differential is determined, the next step is to create a plain text file that you can load into the House Curve tab of REW’s Settings panel. This is the tricky part, as the file will require multiple entries to establish the straight-line slope we’re looking for, instead of the usual two entries for the standard REW curve.

Here are the values I used to achieve my 6-dB hard-knee slope (again, see this post and following if you’re unsure of the meaning of these values):

30 6.0
35 4.4
40 3.1
45 2.0
50 1.1
60 -0.1
70 -0.6
80 -0.5
90 0.0

Here are values for a 6-dB negative curve, if you prefer (i.e., drops from 30 Hz on the 75 dB target instead of rising from 90 Hz). However, the positive curve above is the preferred method.

30 0.0
35 -1.6
40 -2.9
45 -4.0
50 -4.9
60 -6.1
70 -6.6
80 -6.5
90 -6.0

From whichever starting point you prefer, after designating the maximum boost or cut value, the next value you’ll probably want to add is at the midway point of the slope, 60 Hz in my case. From there I added values at each 10-Hz increment, except for additional markers at 35 and 45 Hz, since the “distance” between 30 and 50 Hz is visually large on the graph I (compared to above 50 Hz). I found it best to hold a piece of paper up to the screen to make sure I was keeping the line straight as I experimented with different value settings, loading each of them into REW one at a time to see what they had accomplished.

Once you’ve finished your hard-knee file, load it into REW and re-equalize your subwoofer accordingly.



Credits:
Thanks to fellow Shack Moderator Ayreonaut, whose house curve example on our REW Quick Links | FAQ | Tips thread pointed me in the right direction for creating the necessary values to facilitate a hard-knee house curve.

[huff]

Wow, just wow. Wayne, thanks for taking the time to share such a tremendous amount of experience and knowledge with REW ... and for presenting it in such an easy to follow format. Brilliant!

Having just picked up my 1124P last weekend, I'm looking forward to my first run at equalising tomorrow. This thread will be a tremendous help and I'm glad I stumbled across it tonight.

I know I've read in other threads that the BFD should be used mainly for cuts and sparingly for gains - and that gains should be kept to only 3-4 db or less. I noticed that your examples have used gains as high as 8 db. Is there a simple rule you follow for when it is OK to use a gain > 5 db?

Thanks, again. And Basia can thank you too for 1 more CD sale!

Mark

[clubfoot]

Very well done Wayne.

Following your train of thought it should be stressed the importance of proper sub location because without proper sub location you will be doing more equalizing than necessary as well! As an example, REW generated just two filters for my setup!!! And I can tell you honestly from day one I didn't believe I even needed those as I know with further level matching/fine tuning I can achieve a very flat response without EQ.

I'm very curious now after reading your post, what my plots will look like,...maybe today I may try your graph display suggestions.

[terry j]

Thanks Wayne, a lot of good stuff...will know more after I read it, I dunno, another six times! ha ha.

Yes, when we first get eq and REW, there is very much a temptation to get as perfect a graph as possible. Most people though would soon get past playing with their 'new toy' and realise that sonically the perfectly flat response doesn't sound too much different from one that is a bit rough as long as the major peaks and dips are handled.

A request please, could you post a shot of the mains you are integrating the sub with, and the completed graph??

Now, this is where perhaps my own limitations on understanding may come in, as I'm confused (?) on some of your points.

If we accept that it is better to use as few eq points as possible, then I can see setting the target curve to 'bisect' the peaks and dips as a good starting point (the line of best fit as it where), but would not the best way to go is set the sub output level to bisect the target curve rather than leave the level and offset the target curve?? The way I see it, and do it (so if I've got it wrong I'm very interested!) is that at the end of the day (for this argument let's ignore a house curve) we want the sub to blend in with the mains seamlessly. So, if our mains output is set at 75 db then of course that is the level we want the sub to be at.

If we take as an example a case where (using your method) we offset the target curve by five db -for exageration - so we get the peaks and dips bisected, then are we not then running the subs five db hot??

Out of curiousity, when you set your house curve, do you take into account the relative listening level?? ie the Fletcher-Munson curves. Setting say 20 hz the same level as 80 hz at 60 db would be different than at 90 db???

I can perfectly understand your example with the bass guitar and being able to 'notch' out rather exactly a note in the scale. But that is not how it works in our normal situation is it?? What I mean by that is that IF my room had a peak that exactly fell on one of those notes, and boosted it by 5 db say, then that is equally bad as your example where we have notched it out. However, by applying the correct filter then have we not brought the relative level of that note back down correctly??

The very interesting question you raise is whether or not changing the LHS scale may or may not be more in tune with how we actually hear and perceive music, that is certainly worth some further thought, experimentation and feedback.

I also understand what you mean regarding smoothing on the bass, I too have at times gotten perfectly reasonable and acceptable results even when smoothing (say 1/6 oct) has been applied. At times it could very well be worthwhile to switch off smoothing to make sure we have exactly the correct frequency to eq, and then switch back to a smoothed graph for the filter size.

Once again, not only an informative post Wayne, but as usual an enjoyable one.

EDIT

Your post contained so much I keep thinking of other questions!

Regarding the 'lessening' of mid bass with your method-attributed to the 'excess' energy in the standard sub rolloff vs the sharp knee-, would we not see any excess energy in the resultant FR we run full range??

If there is in actual fact less energy in some part of the spectrum, we would see that difference in the FR, yet if we have a 'flat' response, via either method, then we have a flat response no? So either there was a 'hump' in the old method, or a 'dip' in the new method, or am I missing something completely?

[brucek]

Good stuff Wayne.

Certainly the readjustment of the target level in REW after a measurement is something we've recommended before. The pink noise that REW uses to set the target is band limited from 30Hz to 80Hz and results in an average over that range. So, it's quite difficult for the software to find a representative target. I always manually adjust the target level after the sub measure to include the peaks that I think will work best for me.

I'm afraid we'll have to continue to agree to disagree on the smoothing of low frequency responses. I completely buy into Johns argument that he has repeated many times, that filters optimised against a smoothed response will have settings that don't accurately match the room's modes.

I can't say I agree with your recommendation for a vertical scaling use of 20dB to 130dB. Wow, a 110dB swing is being very kind to those with poor responses, and I realize that's your intent. It doesn't seem realisitic when we know 20dB is completely in the noise and that 130dB is not going to occur with a 75dB target. Our present 60dB recommendation for a vertical scale swing is fairly common. This allows +/- 30dB around our target. I agree that a lot of users get crazy and try and track too aggressively about the target, but I suppose they would do the same with a larger swing. I'd rather keep the standard we've been using and simply inform the users of REW not to be too silly about their filters.

brucek

[Sonnie]

This is definitely good info to have in one thread for guidance, but I do agree with brucek about the vertical scaling. I would not recommend using such a wide scale, but rather keep to the 45db-105db we've been using. Of course if anyone wants to use it to make their response look better for their own peace of mind, I see no problem, but for comparison and recommendations here in the forum, I would stick with the current recommendation.

[Wayne A. Pflughaupt]

I meant to make mention that people should change the scaling back before posting – I’ll get it added.

Terry, Huff, I’ll send PMs for your questions. I’m looking at a pretty busy week, so give me a day or two.

Regards,
Wayne

[Sonnie]

PM's??? What, you don't want anyone else to know the answers...

[Wayne A. Pflughaupt]

Um, I figured after scorching so many sacred cows that I’d better lie low for a while. But if you’re fine with it, I’ll go ahead and respond here.

Regards,
Wayne

[Sonnie]

They are legit questions... no problem here.

I'm not aware of any sacred cows you scorched... Did you maybe misinterpret our recommendations?

[terry j]

you're kiddin aren't you Wayne??

There are a regular bunch of people who's views/comments I very much look forward to.

And you are most definitely one of them!

Keep em comin.

[Sonnie]

Ditto! I imagine ditto from many members!

[huff]

I second (3rd?, 4th?) that! Wayne, your in depth posts are very helpful and I look forward to many more! And what would these forums be without some lively discussions!?! Here's 1 more question I had. You posted these values as your hard-knee house curve:

30 0.0
35 -1.6
40 -2.9
45 -4.0
50 -4.9
60 -6.1
70 -6.6
80 -6.5
90 -6.0


Why is the value for 70 (-6.6) and 80 (6.5) outside the range of 0 to -6.0? I thought the curve values got progressively lower from the low-end (30) down to the Xover frequency (90).

[Wayne A. Pflughaupt]

Wow, thanks for the kind words, guys.

I had some time to work on the replies today, but didn’t get finished. I should have something for you tomorrow night.

Regards,
Wayne

[Ayreonaut]

I'm so glad that you've tried it!
We definitely agree about a house curve that's flat on the logarithmic scale.
Minimizing the EQ to fewer wider filters does sound better.

Have you tried EQing for the average response of a few seats?
I highly recommend it!

House Curve Options

[Wayne A. Pflughaupt]

Wow, Naut, I’d forgotten all about that fabulous thread! I wasn’t plagiarizing your stuff, really I wasn’t! That one should have been made a sticky.

You said there:

As Wayne has long since pointed out, all of this is based on preference, interaction with my room, interaction with my mains, and the behavior of my subwoofer. The “rules” that I broke were self imposed. Wayne's write up has always encouraged experimentation with all of these parameters. I've proven to myself that such experimentation pays off.

Pretty embarrassing that it took me this long to take my own advice! I also said back then that I was happy with virtually flat response. That got pretty stale after a while!

Thanks again for pointing me in the right direction!

Regards,
Wayne

[Wayne A. Pflughaupt]

huff wrote:

I know I've read in other threads that the BFD should be used mainly for cuts and sparingly for gains - and that gains should be kept to only 3-4 db or less. I noticed that your examples have used gains as high as 8 db. Is there a simple rule you follow for when it is OK to use a gain > 5 db?

Assuming you’re not especially concerned about the prospects of increasing modal ringing with boosting filters, it’s pretty simple: Can your sub/amp handle the increased demands? It’s generally not hard to tell, as you’ll hear rude noises from the sub if it’s stressed.

What you probably didn’t pick up on those threads: Virtually any equalization places additional demands on the sub.

A basic example: Before equalizing you probably have a peaking frequency somewhere that louder than everything else, due to a room mode. That peak in response is what’s determining your subwoofer level setting in relation to the mains.

Tame that "hot spot" with a cutting filter from the equalizer and you’ll find that now your sub isn’t loud enough, so you have to turn it up. Naturally, you’re driving your sub harder than you were before, and all you did was use a single cutting filter.

So, even using cut-only filters can ultimately have increased demands on the sub/amp, just as when you boost. There’s no free lunch.

Here's 1 more question I had. You posted these values as your hard-knee house curve:

30 0.0
35 -1.6
40 -2.9
45 -4.0
50 -4.9
60 -6.1
70 -6.6
80 -6.5
90 -6.0

Why is the value for 70 (-6.6) and 80 (6.5) outside the range of 0 to -6.0? I thought the curve values got progressively lower from the low-end (30) down to the Xover frequency (90).

I know it seems strange, but that’s what it took to pull the line down to flat. If I used a lesser value - 6.4, 6.2, 6.0 – the line would “bulge” between 60-90 Hz.

brucek wrote:

I can't say I agree with your recommendation for a vertical scaling use of 20dB to 130dB. Wow, a 110dB swing is being very kind to those with poor responses, and I realize that's your intent. Our present 60dB recommendation for a vertical scale swing is fairly common.

Poking around on the web for speaker reviews, typically the only place to find in-room measurements like we use with REW, I can’t find any evidence of a 60 dB standard.

Sound and Vision Magazine
Paradigm Millenia Home Theater System



Home Theater Magazine
Monitor Audio Gold Signature GS 20 Speaker System



Secrets of Home Theater and High Fidelity
Earthquake PN-2515 Speakers



Audio Ideas Guide
Swans T200A Active Speaker System

Regards,
Wayne

[Wayne A. Pflughaupt]

terry j wrote:

A request please, could you post a shot of the mains you are integrating the sub with, and the completed graph??

I’ll post them below with the hard knee vs. regular house curve frequency response discussion.

If we accept that it is better to use as few eq points as possible, then I can see setting the target curve to 'bisect' the peaks and dips as a good starting point (the line of best fit as it where), but would not the best way to go is set the sub output level to bisect the target curve rather than leave the level and offset the target curve?? The way I see it, and do it (so if I've got it wrong I'm very interested!) is that at the end of the day (for this argument let's ignore a house curve) we want the sub to blend in with the mains seamlessly. So, if our mains output is set at 75 db then of course that is the level we want the sub to be at.

Well, changing the sub level to bisect the peaks and dips will be a challenge, because you have to set your sub level during REW’s calibration process, before you measure and see where it’s going to fall on the target line. You could re-adjust the sub level after the first reading, but it would be easier just to move the target level precisely where you need it, rather than playing "hit and miss" with the sub’s level control. Yes, at the end of the day we want the sub to blend with the mains, but that’s that a separate issue from equalizing.

If we take as an example a case where (using your method) we offset the target curve by five db -for exageration - so we get the peaks and dips bisected, then are we not then running the subs five db hot??

Technically yes. But as mentioned, after equalizing you need to re-adjust the level – that’s generally a given, no matter what.

Out of curiousity, when you set your house curve, do you take into account the relative listening level?? ie the Fletcher-Munson curves. Setting say 20 hz the same level as 80 hz at 60 db would be different than at 90 db???

I haven’t found it to be a problem – I just set the house curve for an average listening level. If you happen to engage in extremely low-level listening, you could set up a separate house curve in the BFD as a separate program.

I can perfectly understand your example with the bass guitar and being able to 'notch' out rather exactly a note in the scale. But that is not how it works in our normal situation is it?? What I mean by that is that IF my room had a peak that exactly fell on one of those notes, and boosted it by 5 db say, then that is equally bad as your example where we have notched it out. However, by applying the correct filter then have we not brought the relative level of that note back down correctly??

Theoretically, that is correct.

My complaint as laid out in the "Useless Filters" section was that REW was applying notch filters where there really wasn’t a need for any equalization at all (this was easily apparent after switching to the "too kind" 20-130 dB window). That’s what’s screwing things up, IMO, not equalization where it’s needed.

Regarding the 'lessening' of mid bass with your method-attributed to the 'excess' energy in the standard sub rolloff vs the sharp knee-, would we not see any excess energy in the resultant FR we run full range??

If there is in actual fact less energy in some part of the spectrum, we would see that difference in the FR, yet if we have a 'flat' response, via either method, then we have a flat response no? So either there was a 'hump' in the old method, or a 'dip' in the new method, or am I missing something completely?

A house curve, of any kind, and "flat" response are mutually exclusive.

Yes, the difference between the hard-knee and regular house curve should show up in full-range FR measurements, although it might appear to be a subtle difference.

Here’s a comparison between the two house curves’ electrical response, beyond the sub range up to 200 Hz, which I really hadn’t looked at until you posed your question. It appears that when included in the "bigger picture," the hard-knee curve looks more like a 30-60 Hz curve than a 30-90 one. I have no idea why the hard-knee curve looks like a “reverse bulge” when seen full-range.

Electrical Response
Regular House Curve w/ Extended Range


Electrical Response
Hard-Knee House Curve w/ Extended Range

Here's my measured response up to 200 Hz with the mains added, with both regular and hard knee curves. I cropped them so they'd both show up on the same screen without scrolling, for easy comparison.

Measured Low Frequency Response w/ Mains
Regular House Curve


Measured Frequency Low Response w/ Mains
Hard-Knee House Curve

The horizontal red lines on each graph show the sub’s highest peaking frequency (~28 Hz) in relation to the sub w/ main’s highest peak (~100 Hz). We can see in the Hard Knee graph that the red line has much more of a tilt, which means the subs are at a higher overall level compared to the mains. Also notice that the 100 Hz peak in the Hard Knee graph, and everything above that point, is several dB lower than the Regular graph. Further evidence that the subs are now at a higher level compared to the mains.

Keep in mind this is due to the hard knee house curve’s better sonics. The regular curve’s higher mains level (resulting in flatter measured response) was the result of the sub having to be reduced, because its upper reaches were overpowering when set so that the lowest frequencies sounded correct.

Furthermore, note the vertical lines at ~40 and 55 Hz, which show those frequencies in relation to the straight line. They are further from the straight line in the Hard Knee Curve graph, which shows that the frequencies between the two peaks are further down then they were before – the result of the hard-knee curve.

So yes, the differences between a hard-knee and regular house curve can be seen with measurements - at least in my case.

Regards,
Wayne

[JohnM]

I'll add an option in the next release for the house curve interpolation to be either linear (as it is now) or logarithmic (so that you see a straight line between points when the frequency axis is on a log scale).

[Ayreonaut]

Wayne A. Pflughaupt wrote:

I know it seems strange, but that’s what it took to pull the line down to flat. If I used a lesser value - 6.4, 6.2, 6.0 – the line would “bulge” between 60-90 Hz.

Wayne A. Pflughaupt wrote:

I have no idea why the hard-knee curve looks like a “reverse bulge” when seen full-range.

Your house curve is getting into the crossover slope.

In order to make the sum of your house curve and crossover flat, you are making your house curve concave.

Here's what a ruler flat house curve looks like when added to an 80 Hz crossover.

31.5 8
36 7
40 6
45 5
50 4
56 3
63 2
71 1
80 0




My house curve is lower in frequency and pretty much stays out of my 80 Hz crossover.

20 10
22 9
25 8
28 7
31.5 6
36 5
40 4
45 3
50 2
56 1
63 0

[Wayne A. Pflughaupt]

Keep in mind that I was equalizing solely from a graph with a subwoofer-only target, which was pretty much a straight line down from the shelving frequency to the crossover frequency (see graphs in the article). The plain text figures I used were what was required to keep the line appearing flat for the purposes of equalizing, even if some of the values were greater than the desired 6 dB slope.

Adding the full-range data to the target, it’s apparent that different figures are needed to maintain the straight line. However, when equalizing either method should get the same results. The straight-line (i.e., non -bulging) target is the key.

Regards,
Wayne

Hi Wayne

I'm a new REW user and notice I'm looking at this post over a year after it was written. As a new user to the forum, and the first post I've actually read, I found it really useful and written in plain language. Some great tips for me, as I'm just tuning my studio for the first time using REW. A big thanks.