Oh man.... I tried loading the pcm file, but this looks strange. The wav file that I use for the convolver looks like this. The resolution is much higher in your plot.Why don't you just drag the files into REW?
View attachment 209693
Doesn't this sound muffled?Both the configurations files and the target curves affect how it will sound in the end. It's definitely worth it to tune both. I would start with the target curve because it is much easier.
Note that due to frequency dependend windowing the correction strength is also related to the window length so it makes little sense to compare target curves without knowing the other parameters. Still I will attach mine so you can try it.
The easiest way remove content below a certain frequency is with the target curve. Here you can see I've set a subsonic filter at 30hz.
0 -40.0 28 -20.0 29 2.49 35 2.49 41 2.47 47 2.46 53 2.43 59 2.4 64 2.35 70 2.29 76 2.23 82 2.14 88 2.05 94 1.95 100 1.84 105 1.72 111 1.6 117 1.48 123 1.37 129 1.25 135 1.14 141 1.04 147 0.94 152 0.85 158 0.77 164 0.69 170 0.63 176 0.56 182 0.51 188 0.46 193 0.42 199 0.38 205 0.34 211 0.31 217 0.28 223 0.26 229 0.23 234 0.21 240 0.19 480 0.0 20000 -7.5 22000 -40.0 24000 -100.0
This is for 48khz, adjust accordingly. Also, take a look at the peak limiting settings especially PLStartFreq and and PLMaxGain to influence how much boost you will get in the bass.
The simplest way to make a target curve yourself is to start thinking in db/oct and adjusting the tilt in 0.1db increments - this is easily audible over the whole frequency range. I would wager you will end up with a tilt between 0.67-1.1db/oct.
My curve is a bit more elaborate with a configurable bass boost and as you can see I use a knee at 480hz for the high frequency tilt.
If you want less correction for the high frequencies, instead of simply making a hard cut by changing the *EndFreq parameters, you can make MPUpperWindow and RTUpperWindow smaller. Be aware that you might have to turn down EPUpperWindow as well. I like to use much less excess phase correction than the rest because too much will collapse the soundstage depth (I use 5 cycles).
Or you can play with the window exponents as layed out in the manual.
View attachment 180138
Not for me. Note that this is not a steady state curve, but it has to be taken into account together with the settings and you can see from my measurements that the corrected curve in the high frequencies is nowhere near -7dB.Doesn't this sound muffled?
DRC is using frequency dependend windowing just like and good room correction.I do not use DRC, but I agree that less correction should be applied to monitors the higher in frequency one goes — esp. if they already are calibrated and designed to be “flat”. I am wary of the idea of having to compensate for those comb filter like waviness above 1 kHz, for example — both magnitude and phase. In Genelec’s room calibration guides, they also do not recommend detailed “room correction” higher up (including the midrange — a little bit is fine, sure, but the expectation is very limited correction should be applied to their “flat” studio monitors). Rather adjustments should be more generally about tone control.
DRC is using frequency dependend windowing just like and good room correction.
I think it's not possible to only correct up to 1000 Hz, right? I didn't find something in the manual of drc-firWhile I’m aware of that, even intelligent windowing does nor replace understanding of the actual acoustics reasoning behind the existence of those comb filter like undulations in the graphs and whether they should be even “corrected”.
I think it's not possible to only correct up to 1000 Hz, right? I didn't find something in the manual of drc-fir
the correction windows are totaly editable. So you can define them to go to 1000Hz only by changing the (xx)EndFreq variables. Now the software was not designed for this. you shorten the window it's geometry will be shortened instead of cut off. meaning the software will treat 1000Hz like a treble, and so on. adjusting WindowExponents and UpperWindows will be necessary
Thank you. Can you just clarify what it would do with the 2 kHz LR4 xo of the monitors if adjusted the way you mentioned? Would it also leave that transition area "un-linearized"?
If you only make MPEndFreq lower the phase will still be corrected full range in the EP step iianm.
It is also possible to correct phase only by manipulating PLMaxGain, though I am not sure anymore what value that would be. The software is so complex, you don't use it for 6 months you have to realearn it every time lol
Eh, I think I'd rather just use the Neumann's MA-1 or do manual corrections with rePhase and REW. I can work with scripts, but find it way easier to use (and remember how to use) certain software with more developed GUI.