REW EQ Questions

[Oski1928]

Hi, going to have a lot of different questions here, so I will try my best to keep things concise. I appreciate any and all help in advance.

I recently got a WIIM Ultra and for the first time I have access to PEQ. I have a UMIK 1 which I am using with REW on a MacBook. I have a 2.0 system.

I have tried my best to educate myself on the topic of creating EQ filters in REW. I have already created multiple sets of filters as I learn more and more about what I’m doing right and wrong. I am not currently with my system or computer so everything I’m asking is based off memory of the program, as I’d like to have some answers ready to go for when I’m back home.

I have read about the moving mic method and need to do more research on this before I try it out. In the mean time I’ve also read about multiple mic positions being averaged and this I can try easily. Would it be okay to take measurements at say 3 different positions. The seated position and then maybe 6 inches to the left and 6 inches to the right? If so, I would then average these measurements and create filters based on that? Would I apply smoothing to the measurements before or after averaging? Also I believe i am currently using 1/12 smoothing to create measurements. I’ve seen lots of debate about which smoothing is best, any input?

I’ve read varying opinions on the frequency range in which one should use EQ. I was going to do 20-500 but have a peak at 650 so decided to bring the range up to 700. I’ve read about a feature which controls the max q of filters above a certain frequency. Is this recommended? My current filters were created without this.

Prior to getting the WIIM I used tone controls on my amp to add a +1 or 2 db bass boost when listening to music. To simulate this I’ve used a low shelf of +2db starting at 200hz and I lowered the pre gain in the WIIM to -2 (not sure if this is necessary). Would it be better to have a high shelf of -2db above 200 hz to achieve the same result?

When measuring my speakers there is a minor discrepancy in volume between the two speakers. There is a feature that I cannot remember the name of, but it adjusts the target level of the EQ to the measurement. If this is slightly different between the two speakers is this okay?

I’ve got more questions but this seems like enough for now. Thanks for any help!

 

[Pareto Pragmatic]

I don't have a lot of time right now, so I will just hit one point.

moving mic method

I use a single point measurement for my critical listening spot. MMM is far better for setting things up for a room or an area (like a couch).

If you experiment, you might find a single point that serves as a good proxy of the MMM. I did. If it is good at that spot (other than a nasty room null) it will be pretty close to what I would get from MMM for my couch, and in front and behind the couch. And it's a lot faster when checking EQed output.

Hope that helps, and I am sure you will get a lot of responses on your other questions fairly quickly.

 

[staticV3]

I have read about the moving mic method and need to do more research on this before I try it out. In the mean time I’ve also read about multiple mic positions being averaged and this I can try easily. Would it be okay to take measurements at say 3 different positions. The seated position and then maybe 6 inches to the left and 6 inches to the right? If so, I would then average these measurements and create filters based on that?

Just use MMM. It's a faster, more efficient way of measuring spatially averaged, in-room response.

Here's a presentation that explains this very well (PDF download link):

https://www.ohl.to/audio/downloads/MMM-moving-mic-measurement.pdf

Would I apply smoothing to the measurements before or after averaging?

MMM measurements can be used and read without applying additional smoothing.

Would it be better to have a high shelf of -2db above 200 hz to achieve the same result?

Usually, whether you do boost EQ+pre gain or an inverse cut EQ makes no difference whatsoever.

 

[Pareto Pragmatic]

I have a few minutes and need a break from this stuff I have been working on before going back to it.

I’ve read varying opinions on the frequency range in which one should use EQ. I was going to do 20-500 but have a peak at 650 so decided to bring the range up to 700.

The advice to stick to certain frequencies (often below 200hz) is good general advice, but it does not mean that it is proper for any given room.

My room is very V shaped. HUGE low/sub bass boost, roll off from 160 to 400, then back up by 1khz, then boosted treble if I am not VERY careful with set up. There are multiple reasons for this but I generally consider room issues, in the conventional sense, to end by 1khz in my room. That works for me.

I use this assumption: If I eq below it, and it reduces the problem, then it is a room issue. So does 650 get less bad when you eq to 500? Or does it stay the same?

Also, MMM will generally show such issues to be less of a deviation than some single point measures, so keep that in mind.

Even if it is not a room issue, you can still EQ. I don't try to get such things super flat, I just try to knock them down so they are not annoying to me ( so maybe taking a 6db peak to 3 ). Minimal intervention is the way to go in such situations, at least that is how I approach them.

 

[Oski1928]

I don't have a lot of time right now, so I will just hit one point.



I use a single point measurement for my critical listening spot. MMM is far better for setting things up for a room or an area (like a couch).

If you experiment, you might find a single point that serves as a good proxy of the MMM. I did. If it is good at that spot (other than a nasty room null) it will be pretty close to what I would get from MMM for my couch, and in front and behind the couch. And it's a lot faster when checking EQed output.

Hope that helps, and I am sure you will get a lot of responses on your other questions fairly quickly.

Thank you

 

[Oski1928]

Just use MMM. It's a faster, more efficient way of measuring spatially averaged, in-room response.

Here's a presentation that explains this very well (PDF download link):

https://www.ohl.to/audio/downloads/MMM-moving-mic-measurement.pdf

MMM measurements can be used and read without applying additional smoothing.


Usually, whether you do boost EQ+pre gain or an inverse cut EQ makes no difference whatsoever.

First off thank you, and I will go through the link. The question about when to use smoothing was not in reference to mmm but rather taking multiple measurements and averaging them.

As for the eq boost/cut, if you do use a boost than lowering the pre gain to match that is necessary/useful?

 

[Oski1928]

I have a few minutes and need a break from this stuff I have been working on before going back to it.


The advice to stick to certain frequencies (often below 200hz) is good general advice, but it does not mean that it is proper for any given room.

My room is very V shaped. HUGE low/sub bass boost, roll off from 160 to 400, then back up by 1khz, then boosted treble if I am not VERY careful with set up. There are multiple reasons for this but I generally consider room issues, in the conventional sense, to end by 1khz in my room. That works for me.

I use this assumption: If I eq below it, and it reduces the problem, then it is a room issue. So does 650 get less bad when you eq to 500? Or does it stay the same?

Also, MMM will generally show such issues to be less of a deviation than some single point measures, so keep that in mind.

Even if it is not a room issue, you can still EQ. I don't try to get such things super flat, I just try to knock them down so they are not annoying to me ( so maybe taking a 6db peak to 3 ). Minimal intervention is the way to go in such situations, at least that is how I approach them.

Thanks for the info.