REW Moving Microphone Method Problem

[Ron Texas]

I am trying the moving microphone method for the first time. Pink noise is generated and the result is recorded on the RTA. That's as far as I get. Nothing is saved as a frequency response that I can open in the equalizer. Something is set up wrong or I am missing part of the procedure, help!

 

[RayDunzl]

Try some of these buttons

 

[Ron Texas]

Thanks Ray. I managed to find the solution. I was looking for the word "save" and not an icon for a floppy disk. I can't remember the last time I saw a floppy.

 

[Ron Texas]

I finally got MMM working right. There were a few mistakes in the setup. I find a large difference below 100Hz and between 400Hz 3000Hz. In other words, more different than the same overall. It's definitely faster, more consistent and producing better SQ than I had before.

 

[QMuse]

When combined with psychoacoustic smoothing MMM is also really good in adjusting overall tonal balance with EQ.

 

[vavan]

When combined with psychoacoustic smoothing MMM is also really good in adjusting overall tonal balance with EQ.

Is Psychoacoustic smoothing better than recommended var?

 

[QMuse]

Is Psychoacoustic smoothing better than recommended var?

IMHO, when it comes to adjusting overall tonal balance (preferred curve) it is.

 

[vavan]

Always used variable one according to Rew doc, maybe time to try something different

 

[QMuse]

Always used variable one according to Rew doc, maybe time to try something different

Var smoothing is good for correction of modal region.

 

[Ron Texas]

I have found Psychoacoustic to work better. Also I use an OMB of 1 db, but that's probably system dependent.

 

[thewas]

Differences of MMM var and psy smoothing are usually negligibly small above 500 Hz so I personally use just var which saves me from needing two different "EQ windows":

 

[ernestcarl]

Yep, don't forget to refer to the "peak" RTA as well. I neglected it before but referring to it led me to use more conservative EQ -- carefully noting distortion as well. Since I continuously move forward and backward in my chair a lot, and often lean to either side... and variably sit either in a super straight or slouched position, it really is far more useful than single point measurements even when averaged IMO.

Some recent measurements around my sitting area (a little more linear in my standing desk position):

SUB+KH120
a) RTA+Peak, low cut 26Hz, speaker treble high shelf -1dB

b) RTA+Peak, EQ'd, low cut 26Hz, speaker treble high shelf -1dB

c) RTA overlay, pre-post EQ

d) overlay w DSP curves

e) 1/24 smoothed RTA, EQ'd, low cut 26Hz, treble high shelf -1dB

Unsmoothed and 1/24 graph looks pretty close here.

f) RTA+Peak+Avg EQ'd w psychoacoustic smoothing

*Oh yeah, there is an automatic 'loudness DSP' curve applied (somewhat moderate at this level) depending on volume as I'm using JRiver's 'virtual sound card' and routing all audio there first.

**Flare up in the upper treble looks a bit more severe because of the toe-in overshoot(?) Something I’ve deliberately done as I sometimes sit very close to my NEC screen monitor.

Being obsessive about small inconsequential finer details & the 'visual' difference it makes -- but, I don't think it makes much of an obvious audible difference to be honest:

g) RTA+Peak L&R, EQ 'fine' (3-4 additional PEQs +- 1-2dB range in each speaker), variable smoothing (SITTING POSITION)

h) RTA + Peak L&R, EQ 'fine' (3-4 additional PEQs +- 1-2dB range in each speaker), psychoacoustic smoothing (SITTING POSITION)

*Trying to fix those deep bass room nulls causes problems elsewhere -- in the end, you have to decide reasonable correction that causes the least amount of problems as a whole.


i) Extra image to show all channels measured within one graph as a check for overall eveness in a MCH setup