EqualizingTwo Subs

[plundstrom]

I answer to myself. I realized that no need to ask when I can test that myself. (it's so easy to ask and not do it ).

So what I noticed is that inside the area of frequencies covered with calibration file, the C-tick has no effect. It takes effect outside of those frequencies. I edited RS cal file and added topmost line
0.00 -27.00 <------- this one
7.00 -27.00
8.00 -22.55
9.00 -19.37
....
That removes the C-weight box effect completely with low frequencies. Now ticking C box has effect only on frequencies above 3kHz and those should not be measured with RS SPL anyway.
I think this one line addition (0 hz value) should be added to "official" RS cal file.

ps. Thanks for everyone doing this REW software. It's wonderful tool.

[brucek]

I think this one line addition (0 hz value) should be added to "official" RS cal file

Well, then everyone would believe it was an accurate calibration entry, which it is not.

As I said, it will be obviated by the new version of REW which will be released soon.

brucek

[Blaser]

WHEN???

[brucek]

.....NOW.....

[Nordo]

I'm Back !!

Got caught up with work.
But I have done a bit of reading of the REW stickies.
I've also had to make some new patch cables for my BFD.

I've re-read this thread, but I'm not too sure about something.
I can't really co-locate my subs unless I stack them about 39% along the left hand side wall of my "shoebox" HT room (and re-wire my room).
Unless someone thinks this position is a good idea, I will keep the rear one against the rear wall, and the front one somewhere in front of the front seats. (If I stack the two subs in front of the front seats, they will get in the way of the sound coming from the front mains.) BUT, I can possibly fit them in the two front corners, as suggested by Wayne.

My combined un-EQed subs look quite good on the SPL graph (see previous post). The individual SPL graphs are quite different to each other, but when played together, the two subs obviously cancel out much of their individual problems.

My question is, should I EQ each sub individually, then EQ them together. Or should I EQ the combined SPL readings, applying identical filters to each sub, regardless of their individual graphs.

I will be designing a hard knee house curve for my EQing based on Wayne's article. I will be fine tuning the location of the front sub before I add filters. After EQing, I will check the integration of the subs with the mains, and adjust if necessary. Does all this sound logical?

[brucek]

My question is, should I EQ each sub individually, then EQ them together. Or should I EQ the combined SPL readings

Local wisdom claims it's best to equalize two subs together as if they were one...........

I will be designing a hard knee house curve for my EQing based on Wayne's article

Figuring out a 'hard knee' is no longer required. The latest version of REW allows logarithmic interpolation for house curves. A checkbox is provided for that function. Wayne will have to modify his info.

brucek

[Wayne A. Pflughaupt]

brucek wrote:

Figuring out a 'hard knee' is no longer required. The latest version of REW allows logarithmic interpolation for house curves. A checkbox is provided for that function. Wayne will have to modify his info.

I doubt anyone’s going to miss all the trial and error that’s required to come up with the proper .txt file!

Now the only challenge is how to say “logarithmic interpolation” without getting tongue-tied...

Regards,
Wayne

[Nordo]

Thanks Guys
I'm going to have a go this weekend.

BTW, I developed a hard knee house curve (for practice) by printing the default curve. On the print I drew the straight line I wanted. As the vertical scale is linear, I just measured the vertical gap between the curve and my straight line, adjusting the measurement to dB using, say 10dB on the axis as a reference. I had to add more lines to the frequency scale between 30 and 50 Hz. That's a bit more difficult, but not impossible. My resultant txt file gave me a near perfect straight line first up.