If you are tech savvy I can recommend Python Open Room Correction (PORC) to generate the correction filters:
https://github.com/bstegmaier75/porc
Do you use mixed-phase compensation (--mixed) with PORC?
Ron,
Point the mic between the speakers and use the zero degree calibration file. Ceiling pointing is more for surround sound measuring.
Here are some areas to fine tune different things in REW. I think you did it right btw.
First - try a cut only filter - in the 4th or 5th EQ tab set the max gains all to 0 db. This will only make cuts instead of boosts to frequencies.
Second look at your curve pre correction and match the target curve closer to that instead of the default. In my room I have high treble roll off because everything is firing into big plushie theater chairs...REW will try to boost the crap out of this to meet a flat default target curve. Instead I just make a curve that follows it down and it sounds amazing...+8 db boosting from 3k to 20k doesnt not sound amazing lol.
If you have room, try to get the response as flat as possible with positioning, then measure and correct. I like to eliminate SBIR as best I can or at least put it under the crossover frequency of the mains then wall load the subs to deal with it.
Definetly take more than one measurement and make sure the mic is excactly centered between the speakers - ie 100 inches to each tweeter from the mic position or whatvever. (on a boom mic)
It's been a while since I generated the filters, but I think to remember that I did use mixed-phase.
I generated filters from my last impulse response measurement yesterday using the --mixed setting and the B&K target. Sounds pretty good, perhaps more natural than my DRC-FIR filters. I haven't had a chance to measure the result, though. Have you tried DRC-FIR?
No, at the time I tested various systems I hadn't known about DRC-FIR. I tried REW, Dirac Live, Sonarworks 3, IK Mulitmedia Arc, and PORC. With PORC (using REW for the measurements) and Dirac I heard the biggest improvement. For me it's mainly the soundstage that snaps into focus with these PORC filters. The phantom middle and soundstage are more defined. The instruments positions are a bit blurry without them, like a watercolor painting. With the filters the instruments are more clearly separated, and don't blur into each other. Hard to describe, but it's readily audible.
In any case I found it well worth to invest some time and investigate the options. Depending on your room and equipment it can bring a clear improvement.
Strange. I used Sox too, but I don't remember having any problems with sample rates. What didn't work for me at first was the target curve. No matter which I selected, the correction was always flat. I think it was a problem with the code, and the bstegmaier repo I linked to fixed that. I think in the end I went with B&K2.
Don't know if it is of any help, but try to make a few more measurements with REW, and then generate filters with them. For some reason the results were always a bit different for me, even if the curves looked pretty similar. Some worked better than others.
What are the bennefits using filters. With mathaudio room eq you don't need creating/using filters ( i don't know mabey Mathaudio creat them automaticly on the background) it measure everything between 20 an 20.000 hz an let you self adjust the vertical line by a slide bar. Even so you can adjust however you see fit this horzontal line. I'm quite curious if you will hear any difference between rew an mathaudio. The reason i use Mathaudio is because it is way more simpel than REW. An i can adjust my slope however i see fit somthing you probably can't do with REW ( not sure). Have look at the measuring points in mathaudio https://mathaudio.com/images/measurement-points.pngI just did the following measurements with REW: (1) Left channel, (2) Right channel, (3) Left+Right channel. The result of doing Vector Average on (1)&(2) was very close to (3) (excepting some expected vertical shift for the SPL). Very nice.
I keep struggling on how to measure the filters created by REW. I've seen that people use a miniDSP for that, but looks overkill.
Now, with the impulse filter response on foobar the music is less boomy, alghough I don't know if I like it more.
BTW the biggest benefit I've found with REW+umik+laser meter is to place much better my monitors. Now I get similar SPL from left/right speakers in the middle/trebble. Before was not the case.
I'm less than a novice to understand REW (filters how to setup my mic spl etc etc) fully. So when i came across to Mathaudio Room EQ i found the simplicity a relief. I was up an runnig in minutes and the difference was massive an i could adjust the slope to my personal choice don't need specific hardware and or costly software an it is free for Foobar2000. I'm realy wondering if the difference between REW an Mathaudio is worthwill if so i will gather the courage how to master REW.Benefits?. More likely, only wasting me time. I'm just using REW to learn and later use more sophisticated DSP, as rePhase. At this moment, I just want to know what expect from room correction in my setup, and that will probably guide me in future spending.
Ah, I was using a different repo, greenm01. I'll try the other one.
Cloned https://github.com/bstegmaier75/porc , but I'm seeing the issue with 96kHz. One thing I never mentioned is that I had to make several fixes to the code to get it to run with a recent numpy and scipy (most changes related to floats being used for indexes, which is sloppy coding IMO). So maybe my changes caused the problem. In fact, I tried running the original code with an Anaconda distro going as far back as their archive goes, but it still was not old enough. I'll have to try tracking down an numpy/scipy/matplotlib old enough.