first attempt at eq-ing

**JBravo** · **12-10-07, 07:54 PM**

ok so I have my sub setup (limited on positioning due to size and weight), REW setup, and fbq2496 setup.
I tweaked my phase control on the sub for the best response with my def tech main's integrated subs
and with 6 eq presets this is what I've come up with
would like any comments/suggestions as I am learning and not too sure what is good/bad
house curve:
20 8.0
60 0.0
receiver crossover @ 60 hz
had to run crossover on sub @ 50 hz as i had a huge peak around 70-90 hz, there's a peak there now but its not nearly as bad as it was
i wasn't able to save a beginning graph so I'll see what type of response I get here and then re-adjust
This is the graph without smoothing
also is there a max amount of gain that you should not exceed to help with severe dips?
and
if you have a choice of one graph with a severe dip as opposed to another graph with less of a dip but a larger spike would it be better to go the route with the spike and use the eq to cut that freq?
Thanks

**brucek** · **12-10-07, 09:12 PM**

Quote:

This is the graph without smoothing

Smoothing really shouldn't be used with sub response graphs. Normally, it's reserved for full range graphs.

Quote:

is there a max amount of gain that you should not exceed to help with severe dips?

I wouldn't go above +5dB gain.

Quote:

would it be better to go the route

Can't really comment without seeing the graph, but generally sharp, narrow dips or peaks aren't a problem and can be left alone.

brucek

**JBravo** · **12-10-07, 10:30 PM**

alrighty, here's what my baseline looks like no eq-ing, phase adjustment

**brucek** · **12-10-07, 11:09 PM**

Quote:

here's what my baseline looks like no eq-ing

It's debatable whether you really need to use an eq on that response................

brucek

**JBravo** · **12-11-07, 12:56 AM**

ok so the 1st curve was bothering me how it looked and how it sounded, think it had to do with how much gain i was adding to adjust things

So after tweaking the Sub's crossover i was able to smooth things out here's the baseline:

Here's with 5 eq presets to smooth things out along with a waterfall:

This shows the equalized settings and the mains running together:

would like some feedback/suggestions, anything that I can improve on or change
IMO I think it sounds really good, but who am I to say, so let me know what you think, Thanks

listened to some Pink Floyd: Dark Side and it sounded great, very clean (i was worried about being too muddy)
then tested with
Master & Commander
Haunting
U-571
Nemo: Darla scene
didn't get a chance to try WoTW: Pod scene will try in the morning

**brucek** · **12-11-07, 08:57 AM**

In all the plots, the 60-90Hz area looks a bit high. It might be interesting for you to lower that a bit and see how the sound changes.

Looks good though.......

brucek

**JBravo** · **12-11-07, 08:55 PM**

ok finally was able to manipulate the 60-90 area. Turns out that because my Towers have subs also, if I play with the volume a little bit it really changed the curve in different areas. The hard part was tweaking each one to get the right change. Here's the final graph with my mains included 5 eq presets:
Let me know your thoughts

**OvalNut** · **12-11-07, 09:41 PM**

That's looking real good. I'd keep tweaking at it to even it out some more, but you definitely got the concept. See in particular how the waterfall really calmed down.

I will offer though that it appears that you're running your sub REALLY hot, looks like about +12db or so hot in comparison to the average level of your mains. That's Cajun style. With the smoother low end now, you'd really appreciate dialing your sub back and let it reveal detail. Trust me, you'll still get plenty of slam at +4 to +6 hot now that the freq response is evened out some.

Looking forward to more results.

Tim

**JBravo** · **12-12-07, 09:30 PM**

here's the full range graph
is there something I should do about the peak on the higher end (3k-9k)?
And if so, what can you do about it?

**clubfoot** · **12-13-07, 04:24 PM**

Unless you're using a measurement mic with calibration file I wouldn't pay too much attention to your upper end.

Personally, I believe you're missing hearing allot of information in the mid range.

Just my .02c

**Wayne A. Pflughaupt** · **12-13-07, 07:41 PM**

Quote:

Buknakyd wrote:

is there something I should do about the peak on the higher end (3k-9k)?
And if so, what can you do about it?

If it’s really as bad as that, the highs should be ripping your head off. I.e., it should be audibly apparent that there’s a problem up there.

As far as what to do about it (assuming it really is a problem), the easiest thing o do is simply adjust your treble control. Many receivers have adjustable center frequencies for the tone controls; if yours does, set it as close to 7kHz as possible and cut several dB.

If there really is a problem in that area, and it doesn’t sound bad to you, it could be that you’ve become accustomed to the way it sounds. So if you cut the treble @7kHz and it doesn’t sound right, try listening to it for a few days before you decide you don’t like it.

Regards,
Wayne

**JBravo** · **12-13-07, 08:49 PM**

i'm using a radio shack meter for my mic with cal file and its been mentioned that these mics aren't very accurate especially at the higher freq. So I was looking at getting a Behringer Ecm and pre-amp to use. Would it be alright to go with a general cal file for the ecm mic or does it really need to be sent off and calibrated?
In regards to the sound, I guess I never really paid attention to it before and just became accustomed to it. But now thinking back on scenes I've watched and music I've listened to it does seem to be over the top. When listening at reference levels it actually kind of hurts as the sound is shrill so to speak. I guess that is why I have the bass as high as I have it so that it kind of matches.
The mains that I am using are Def Tech BP7001sc that are being driven by a Carver TFM55x with an HK AVR 325 as a prepro. I only have bass and treble knobs on the front and have set the receiver to allow me to use tone control. With turning the treble all the way down you can see the difference in the following graph.

**Wayne A. Pflughaupt** · **12-13-07, 09:12 PM**

Hmm, looks like only about a 6-dB difference with the treble knob.

Quote:

When listening at reference levels it actually kind of hurts as the sound is shrill so to speak. I guess that is why I have the bass as high as I have it so that it kind of matches.

Ever see a graphic EQ with the “smiley-face” arrangement of the sliders? That’s essentially what you have there..

Regards,
Wayne

**JBravo** · **12-14-07, 01:18 AM**

I've contacted Def Tech to verify this. Maybe they can provide a FR graph of these speakers for comparison.
I think I'm going to try a 1m measurement from one of my mains to verify this is what the speaker is producing. I guess the best method is to place my speaker in the middle of the room away from all walls. Don't really feel like dragging the speaker outside since they are quite heavy. This will have to suffice for now. I will look into purchasing a Behringer mic for a more accurate reading.

**JohnM** · **12-14-07, 03:59 AM**

That peak is a characteristic of the RS meter, and is much worse in the newer meters than it was in the older ones. There used to be a graph of the response in the manual for the meter, but it doesn't appear in the latest ones (wonder why

) but while searching for it I did come across this article which looks in detail at the response of the RS meter: http://www.audioxpress.com/magsdirx/...a/koya2811.pdf

**JBravo** · **12-14-07, 09:46 AM**

Quote:

JohnM wrote:

That peak is a characteristic of the RS meter, and is much worse in the newer meters than it was in the older ones. There used to be a graph of the response in the manual for the meter, but it doesn't appear in the latest ones (wonder why

) but while searching for it I did come across this article which looks in detail at the response of the RS meter: http://www.audioxpress.com/magsdirx/...a/koya2811.pdf

**** Rat Shack meter!!!

Well, I think I'll definitely be looking at getting a behringer mic now.
Nice find JohnM

Thanks
That graph looks just like what I'm seeing. The meter I'm using is the Digital meter which looks to be the absolute worst. Well they weren't kidding when they said that the RS meters aren't that accurate. I didn't think it would be that far off. That article needs to be stickied in the "Mic section".
After turning the treble all the way down yesterday and listening to movies and tv it just doesn't seem right so maybe it was pretty flat before. Maybe just listening at 85db reference is a little louder than I should which could explain the shrill effects.

**OvalNut** · **12-14-07, 10:28 AM**

Put in some correctly placed acoustic panels at the first reflection points, and that shrillness you're hearing will pretty much be replaced by expanded, more realistic, sound imaging. Really.

Tim

**brucek** · **12-14-07, 11:48 AM**

Quote:

Well they weren't kidding when they said that the RS meters aren't that accurate. I didn't think it would be that far off. That article needs to be stickied in the "Mic section".

We continually tell people over and over and over again that the Radio Shack meter is not suitable for full range measurements.... (in fact, both myself and Ethan Winer informed you of that when you asked the same question in the Home Audio Acoustics section

)

Sonnie and I didn't even consider trying to provide calibration data for Radio Shack meters above subwoofer range. They simply aren't consistent or accurate enough.

In fact, I question the results of the pdf file about the RS meters since the tests were using 'measurement data' to derive corrections at frequencies above subwoofer bandwidths. Doesn't seem accurate enough to even attempt. Even the smallest mic element positional differences where the response is changing rapidly would produce large error results. The capsules inside the tips of the meter would have to be placed exactly for each test. At higher frequencies it would be real tough to get accurate results.

brucek

**JBravo** · **12-14-07, 01:05 PM**

Quote:

OvalNut wrote:

Put in some correctly placed acoustic panels at the first reflection points, and that shrillness you're hearing will pretty much be replaced by expanded, more realistic, sound imaging. Really.
Tim

Yeah, I need to do that. I just need to find a way to slip some in without the wife going crazy. She had a coniption when I put 2 bass traps in and I still want to add 2-4 more. Its all about little changes over time.

Quote:

brucek wrote:

We continually tell people over and over and over again that the Radio Shack meter is not suitable for full range measurements.... (in fact, both myself and Ethan Winer informed you of that when you asked the same question in the Home Audio Acoustics section

)

Sonnie and I didn't even consider trying to provide calibration data for Radio Shack meters above subwoofer range. They simply aren't consistent or accurate enough.
brucek

Yeah, i wish i would've gone with a behringer mic from the start. But I just started out with the RS meter to level match speakers, then it moved up to measuring the sub for placement, then eq-ing the sub, now I'm wanting to measure the mains also. This hobby is like a weed that continues to grow on you untill it consumes you and your $.

Thank goodness for great sites like this and especially the great people here that contribute and help others.
Thanks

Advertisement