# Please critique my proposed set-up



## Julien43 (Nov 26, 2006)

I am using Gallo Reference 3.0 loudspeakers. The Gallos have a Sub-in that allow the woofers second voice coil to be driven with a low pass signal to achieve flat response to 22Htz

My System 

I plan on using the Behringer DEQ2496 between my transport and DAC. The woofers second voice coil would be driven from an amplifier fed a low pass signal through FBD

All equalization will be used for room correction of the bass frequencies. My reasoning for using the DEQ is that the full range response of the Gallos has sufficient output in the lower registrars that would benefit from room correction I also hope EQing in the digital domain will be transparent in the mid and upper frequencies

Does it sound like I'm taking on more than a novice can handle:huh: 

I understand that I will have to input all filter settings manually into the DEQ. I think the hardest part will be setting up and learning REW and getting the target curves right since both curves will be applied to the same drivers There seems to be an abundance of experienced users here that might be willing to help me over the humps

Please make any suggestions. thought or tips that you feel may help 

Thanks for reading my post
Julien


----------



## brucek (Apr 11, 2006)

So, do you plan to use one channel of the DEQ to equalize the lower end of the Gallos down to their 34Hz and the other channel to equalize and feed a power amp to connect to the second voice coil?

The specs say that the normally used Reference 3 S.A. (subwoofer amplifier) (2 x 240 watt in stereo) incorporates an active crossover/bass EQ option to extend the Nucleus Reference 3.1's bass response by driving the woofers' second voice coil directly. You would have to attempt to match the response of the active crossover of the S.A amp. Any idea of the filter specs?

brucek


----------



## Julien43 (Nov 26, 2006)

I'm sorry Bruce, I should have been more clear in my original post.

I plan to use the DEQ for the full range inputs only 

I will attempt to use a BFD DSP1124P to equalize an already passive lowpassed(50htz) signal for the second voice coil "sub-in" inputs

I don't have any idea what kind of EQ is used in the SA amplifier, but I don't think that will be a big deal using REW. I just hope the learning curve isn't too steep

Thanks for the response!
Julien


----------



## brucek (Apr 11, 2006)

OK, I get the setup now.

Well, that's extremely high end equipment that you will be inserting a device into the chain. Since you will be using the DEQ exclusively in digital, it's hard to comment on the effect. Most degredation problems occur in the ADC/DAC conversion, but you are bypassing that. 

I think it's certainly worth a try. The DEQ and BFD won't break the bank if you find it degrades the sound. I would think no matter what, equalizing the second coil with the BFD will be fine (and necessary). The DEQ can always be sold if it doesn't work out.

Keep us posted on how it goes.

Man, those Gallos are something else.....

brucek


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt (Apr 13, 2006)

> Since you will be using the DEQ exclusively in digital, it's hard to comment on the effect. Most degredation problems occur in the ADC/DAC conversion, but you are bypassing that.
> 
> I think it's certainly worth a try.


  
I’m interested too to see how well it works (hence the do-nothing post to get the e-mail subscription  ). Please keep us posted!

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt (Apr 13, 2006)

According to this guy (see last post) lots of audiophiles are using the DEQ.

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## Julien43 (Nov 26, 2006)

Thanks Guys, for your responses

For the next month or so I plan to just acquaint myself with REW buy using it to optimize speaker placement and room treatments 

I don't plan to purchase any equipment until I have a good handle on the software

I think this is the best approach for me

I will post updates as I make progress on EQing my system 

Thanks Again
Julien

Agan, If you have any suggestions, they are most appreciated


----------



## Julien43 (Nov 26, 2006)

*BTW*

I am familiar with warnerwh as he post quite a bit at Audio Asylum

Some of his post are, in part, responsible for my desire to find out what digital room correction can do for my system

His post are often informative and entertaining 

Wasssssup!! warnerwh??

Julien


----------



## Julien43 (Nov 26, 2006)

*Oh yea... a quick question*

Can you tell me if the Indigo I/O sound card is suitable for use with REW?

Thanks again!
Julien


----------



## brucek (Apr 11, 2006)

> Can you tell me if the Indigo I/O sound card is suitable for use with REW?


Specs say it's good for REW......


----------



## Julien43 (Nov 26, 2006)

*Getting a bit of a rocky start with REW*

Seeing as that I am making no progress I thought I'd leave you all a link to a recent thread where audiophiles are discussing the benefits of using the DEQ 2496 in the digital domain for room correction
I don't have enough posts to leave a link.
I can tell you that after reading the thread I feeling pretty good about my plan

I downloaded the latest driver for my Indigo IO soundcard and tried to set the level. I got the blue screen of death(a first for me since I moved to XP)
I'm not sure what the problem is. Maybe I can make some headway when I have a little more time off

I am going to do this...It just may take me some time!!


----------



## Julien43 (Nov 26, 2006)

Thanks for the privlage! I'll be sure not to abuse it

Ant way, here is the link. You'll find I mentioned Home Theater Shack and REW. I hope you enjoy

audioasylum.com/audio/digital/messages/125034 

Use the appropiate syntax before the text and add .html to the end


----------



## terry j (Jul 31, 2006)

hi julien

I too can recommend the DEQ 2496. I have done a write up of the 'playing' I have done with the DEQ and REW. It is in this forum, should be reasonably obvious which one it is when you scroll through.

I am using the DEQX permanently in my main system, so at the time I was killing two birds by using the DEQ ( and learning about it ) whilst simultaneously learning how to use REW. The point however, the forum you linked to also had an article on using the DEQ. In it, he stated that he only really used the DEQ to correct the room, because as he correctly pointed out in the upper frequencies the slightest movement of the microphone causes huge changes in the measurements, which would lead to wildly varying 'corrections' if you were to use the auto eq function in correcting the speakers.

If you are only going to use the DEQ to correct the room, as the fellow in the article did, then you'd be better off using the cheaper BFD's referenced on this site.

However, to use the DEQ to correct the speakers, this is how I suggest you do it. The theory and procedure follows that of the DEQX,which IS acknowledged as a world class system.

Use the auto eq function individually on the speakers, only down to say 100-150 hz. (it has a target curve function that allows you to set the limits). If you can, do the measurements outdoors, a cleaner signal will be gotten. Only go down to 150 or so, because you are one of the lucky ones who can use REW and you will be integrating the speakers into the room up to those frequencies anyway.

Now, this is the key, DON'T measure your speakers from the listening position, as is so often recommended. Measure them from about a distance of one metre ( or at whatever distance the drivers 'merge'). If you can't do them outdoors, maximixe the distance from any first reflection.

The idea we are trying to achieve is to approximate as best we can an anechoic condition, and the correct the raw or native response of the speaker. Put back into the room, integrate the bass and then we are away.

That method helps correct the speaker whilst avoiding the gross overcorrections that can occur in the higher frequencies as mentioned in the article. It is how the DEQX does it (albeit to much higher levels of accuracy than a 60 band graphic!) and is what seems to be an essential difference to the TacT approach ( NOT that I know much about it.)

Good luck, my earlier post explains a little more on the doingness, but I wanted to add the 'thinking' behind the above approach. In my earlier post I had graphs that were flat from the listening position, they are a bit misleading simply because as I said I was learning REW at the time, hence those measurments were done in the computer room, and so the listening position was coincidentally about one metre, which was the recommended distance above!! In my real room, the listening position is more 3.5-4 metres, so correcting the speakers from the listening position would have yielded vastly different and inferior results!

lots of love

terry


----------



## Julien43 (Nov 26, 2006)

Hey Terry

Everything in your post makes perfect sense. So I hope you won't take this as a slam. I am very happy with the sound I'm getting from my system(incd. bass)

I know that the low frequency response, in my room is a little bumpy :~)... (with generous room treatment)

My main reasoning for using the DEQ is the ability to work in the digital domain and have little or no effect(hopefully) on the rest of the sound
If I can achieve that, I will be a ecstatic

You have taken heroic measures flatten the response of your speakers
I glad to hear that it's working great in your system
Tweak on!! :thumb:

Thanks for your response
Julien


----------



## terry j (Jul 31, 2006)

yeah Julien

no probs. 

Does not the other BFD's work in the didgital domain?? If so, they are a lot cheaper.

To be honest I was wondering about your gear, and indeed wondering if it needed too much correction, and I can see that you feel that way too! 


Hence my curiosity regarding your choice of the dEQ, esp as how it looks like you won't be using a tenth of it's capabilities. 

Is it because you aren't using subs therefore it will be in your mains therefore you'd like a cleaner component???

Just re-read your post and looks like I ( finally ) got it!! ha ha.

So don't be offended by my post, but hey, once you've got it and are playing with it just out of sheer curiosity you can test it that way for yourself, and let us know what the results were!!

Good luck and happy journeying down the ( seemingly ) never-ending audio road!!

lots of love

terry


----------



## Julien43 (Nov 26, 2006)

*House curve for fullrange down to 40htz~~How's this look??*










Do you think I may have too much energy below 40htz?

Thanks for looking

Julien


----------



## brucek (Apr 11, 2006)

*Re: House curve for fullrange down to 40htz~~How's this look??*

Are you going to carry on from 40Hz at ~82dB and below with your sub?

Why are you starting your boost at 100Hz? Seems extremely high.

Note1: please post your graphs with a vertical scale of 45dB to 105dB.
Note2: do you mind if I merge this post with your setup post? As this post stands, no one will have a clue what you're trying to accomplish.

brucek


----------



## Julien43 (Nov 26, 2006)

*Re: House curve for fullrange down to 40htz~~How's this look??*

Yes Bruce, Please move this to the original thread

I had set the graph axis but didn't "apply" it :duh: 

Here is a little different one starting a little lower and a steeper rolloff below 40htz

The reason I started so high is because I believe it is still below the Gallos crossover point










Yes I do plan to address everything below 40htz with a FBQ-2496 a little later

I feel sure I will have to adjust the curves when I try to apply both together

Thanks for responding
Julien


----------



## brucek (Apr 11, 2006)

> I feel sure I will have to adjust the curves when I try to apply both together


Yeah, you'll have to do some experimenting to get it to where you like the sound. I don't know if you can anticipate much before you start.

brucek


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt (Apr 13, 2006)

Am I the only one who can’t see the graphs?

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## Julien43 (Nov 26, 2006)

Terry,
Bruce, 
Wayne.

Terry: 


> Does not the other BFD's work in the didgital domain?? If so, they are a lot cheaper.


I don't believe they do. That is why I chose the DEQ2496



> Is it because you aren't using subs therefore it will be in your mains therefore you'd like a cleaner component???


Actually my speakers have a "Sub-In" to the woofers second voice coil that extends the response down to 22 hertz (with EQing)
I plan to use a Behringer unit to smooth out the response down there too. I'm still undecided on which one, the DSP-1124P or FBQ-2496. Since I'll only be using it below 40-50htz, I am not too concerned about not being able to EQ in the digital domain



> So don't be offended by my post, but hey, once you've got it and are playing with it just out of sheer curiosity you can test it that way for yourself, and let us know what the results were!!


No offense taken:~) Once I get everything set up, with the curves correct at the transition point, I"ll try your approach and post the results verses just correcting just the bottom end 

Bruce:


brucek said:


> Yeah, you'll have to do some experimenting to get it to where you like the sound. I don't know if you can anticipate much before you start.


I'm sure your correct. I am so glad that I happened across The Home Theater Shack. I am hoping REW can get me close to where I want to go

Wayne:


> Am I the only one who can’t see the graphs?


With Bruce's responses and the fact that I can see the graphs, I'd have to say Yes!

Julien


----------



## Julien43 (Nov 26, 2006)

Wayne A. Pflughaupt said:


> Am I the only one who can’t see the graphs?


_Correction!!_​I just logged on with a computer that doesn't have the actual files on the hard drive, and I don't see them either!
Very Strange


----------



## Julien43 (Nov 26, 2006)

Does anyone have an idea what is going on with the graphs I posted

I used the "insert image" feature and followed the prompt

It would be nice to know before I try to post any more

Thanks 
Julien


----------



## brucek (Apr 11, 2006)

No idea, just try again. Be sure to preview first to see if it took.........


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt (Apr 13, 2006)

You might want to review brucek’s “Posting a graph” sticky, to make sure you’re doing it right.

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## Julien43 (Nov 26, 2006)

Okay Here we go again

This is the revised target curve for the full range signal down to 40htz









I do plan to address everything below 40htz with either a DSP-1124P or FEQ-2496 feeding an amp driving the Gallo's woofers second voice coils

I want to make sure that I am not asking more of the full-range response than is reasonable

I apologize for the mess above but when I previewed the messages the graphs appeared
When I view this thread on the computer that has the files on the hard drive I can still see them
The only thing I can think of is that something happened when that post was moved to this thread????

Thanks for looking!!
Julien


----------



## brucek (Apr 11, 2006)

brucek asks:


> Why are you starting your boost at 100Hz? Seems extremely high


julien answers:


> The reason I started so high is because I believe it is still below the Gallos crossover point


Can you explain this further in the context of the final outcome of the end state with the extra amp and second voice coil being used. I still don't understand what you are trying to accomplish with this house curve starting at 100Hz. I think it will sound bass bloated...

brucek


----------



## Julien43 (Nov 26, 2006)

brucek said:


> Can you explain this further in the context of the final outcome of the end state with the extra amp and second voice coil being used. I still don't understand what you are trying to accomplish with this house curve starting at 100Hz. I think it will sound bass bloated...
> brucek


Actually Bruce I had never heard of a house curve until I came to The Shack. I think I have read in some posts that the curve should start around the crossover point. Based on your statement, I'm begining to understand that this was meant in the context of EQing a sub

It is all new to me. What would you suggest as a good starting point for well integrated bass. I sure don't want any bloat

Your comments and suggestions are much appreciated!!
Julien


----------



## brucek (Apr 11, 2006)

> What would you suggest as a good starting point


Well, I wouldn't start the boost until I got down to about 70Hz to 60Hz. 

A rise from there down to about 30Hz of around 5dB to 8dB, and then flat from 30Hz down to the bottom end.

That would be a good starting point anyway... just my opinion.

brucek


----------



## Julien43 (Nov 26, 2006)

brucek said:


> That would be a good starting point anyway... just my opinion.brucek


Bruce, I very much value your opinion. You seem to be very knowledgeable in this area.
Much Thanks!
Julien


----------



## Julien43 (Nov 26, 2006)

Well, I received my SB Live 24. I'd been having problems trying to use my Echo Indigo. I made my first measurement and can't believe how terrible it is. I hope I am doing something wrong ;~)

This is the bottom end of a full range measurement (1/3 octv smoothing)
Driving my Gallo's main-in the response should extend down to 40htz
It looks like it falling off about 52








]
Take a look at the full range response
I am having a hard time relating what I hear to what I see in the graphs
It this typicial for a decent speaker response(in room)??









Thanks for taking a look!
Julien


----------



## brucek (Apr 11, 2006)

Looks like you are using the older Radio Shack meter, so you can pretty much ignore above 5K. But, I know that's not what you're concerned about.

You definitely have a large null between 100Hz and 200Hz and it does indeed drop off quite quick at about 50Hz.

I don't really know what to think. 

Is the response you show for a single main speaker, or were you playing them at the same time in stereo?

Did you place your microphone at your listening position?

I take it that your processor is set to large for the mains?

brucek


----------



## Julien43 (Nov 26, 2006)

> Bruce Says: Is the response you show for a single main speaker, or were you playing them at the same time in stereo?


The response is for the right main only



> Bruce Says: Did you place your microphone at your listening position?


Yes. I placed the tripod on my listening seat with the microphone near ear level



> Bruce Says: I take it that your processor is set to large for the mains?


Bruce, I am using a simple pre-amp and amplifier (no bass management capabilities)
It looks like I need to experiment with placement before I try any equalization

Julien


----------



## brucek (Apr 11, 2006)

> It looks like I need to experiment with placement before I try any equalization


Yep, I would say that's a good idea. The response as shown isn't too good. Try some experimenting with moving the speakers around and also try measuring the left to see if you have the same problem.

You might want to do a few measurements at slightly different listening positions also to see if you happen to be in a bad spot.

brucek


----------



## terry j (Jul 31, 2006)

would it be of any use to do a close mic sweep of the bass to see what the native response of the speakers are??? That may help in giving a pointer to whether or not the 'hole' in the response is room related.


----------



## Julien43 (Nov 26, 2006)

Bruce:


> The response as shown isn't too good. Try some experimenting with moving the speakers around and also try measuring the left to see if you have the same problem.


Since my speakers have side-firing woofers I tried swapping them to change the way the woofers energized the room
The measured results look worse with the null going deeper. Subjectively, the bass was bloated with less definition. Strange 

Woofers Facing out










The original graph (for easier comparison)











Bruce:


> You might want to do a few measurements at slightly different listening positions also to see if you happen to be in a bad spot.


Unfortunately, My tiny 11'X12' room with two openings does not allow me to change listening positions. I'm right up against the back wall. 

terry:


> would it be of any use to do a close mic sweep of the bass to see what the native response of the speakers are??? That may help in giving a pointer to whether or not the 'hole' in the response is room
> related.


Woofer near field response










Terry, it looks like the null is room related. This measurement was taken in the same room at a 12" distance. I think there is still some contribution from the room in the graph. The response still falls off sooner than I expected though. I should be able to cure that when I drive the woofers second voice coils. Thanks for the suggestion

Most appreciated Guys! It looks like I'm in a tough spot. I do have a little leeway regarding speaker placement, so that is what I'll work on.

Julien


----------



## brucek (Apr 11, 2006)

Interesting stuff Julien....

I think the nearfield gives a good showing that the low end response is not too bad at all. I also think you have a room peak showing up around 70Hz that is exacerbating the situation. 

Again, if you had a set of speakers that were crossed as small and a separate sub that you could control its level, phase, positioning and EQ, then all this would be quite easy to solve. This is the problem with speakers that integrate the woofers into them... they're very hard to control and it's a **** shoot if the room will be kind or not.....

The second coil driven will be very interesting to see...... keep us posted on it..

brucek


----------



## Julien43 (Nov 26, 2006)

*Looking a little better*

Driving both speakers
I moved my 12"X4' tube traps inboard with the woofers facing out. (they were along the sidewalls) 
You can see the same room modes at work but they are not quite as bad.

Some thing else that seemed to make the response look better was choosing the "Sub" option instead of speaker when setting up to take the measurement.
Why would that be??

When I apply the four filters REW gives me to the graph, the humps disappear and the bottom end response is a little more extended

Anyway...Here's the graph









Here is the first one again








At least there is something to work with here or am I deluding myself?

Julien


----------



## Julien43 (Nov 26, 2006)

*What Happened Bruce???*

I tried to read your response to my above post and it wasn't there. It was showing in the forum.. even the post counter registered it

Then I noticed all my graphs were missing

Did you post then delete or was there something else going on??

Julien


----------



## brucek (Apr 11, 2006)

> Did you post then delete or was there something else going on??


Nope, I never posted in this thread today. I did in a lot of others though......
Anyway, I don't know what else you can do with your response since you have no real control over your woofers. You will have to hope that driving the second coils will bring some relief..

brucek


----------



## Julien43 (Nov 26, 2006)

Well... It seems obvious that I need to experiment with room placement some more. I'm also consulting with a couple of manufacturers of acoustic panels so I can get the most bang for the buck. I will start out with five 2' X 4' X 4" panels across the ceiling/wall corners

I have an EMC8000 and UB802 on the way so I can do this right. In a couple of weeks I'll have my BFD (already have the DEQ2496) and panels installed so I should be good to go.

I am most appreciative of the help and guidance all of you have given me.:T I'm sure I'll be needing some more when I start combining corrections for both voice coils(probably sooner):bigsmile:

Kudos to John Mulcahy for the fine work he has done creating and refining REW and for making it free to everyone :hail: :clap: 

Julien


----------



## Julien43 (Nov 26, 2006)

Well.... I finally have all my panels installed(for two weeks now)
I have been pouring through my collection. I was enjoying myself so much that I didn't want to take the time to set up the ECM8000 and get started again! 
But I did

I don't know what to make of the results
Here is a couple of graphs without the second voice coil being driven

The first graph was created with the ECM8000 and all five panels in place. The second is my first measurement using an old RS SPL meter before the panels.
Both were calibrated at 80db











Here is my first measurement









I still have a problem hump but look at the extension without driving the woofers! I don't know if I have anything in my music collection that can really show off that kind of extension
Is it possible I have done something wrong when I moved to the UB802 and ECM8000


----------



## brucek (Apr 11, 2006)

> Is it possible I have done something wrong when I moved to the UB802 and ECM8000


Hopefully you have the ECM8000 calibration file from our site and also be sure the three Equalizer HI/MID/LO dials are in their middle detent positions on the UB802..

Looks fine to me. We have never trusted the Radio Shack meters that much, since there appears to be quite a discrepancy between units. We now recommend the ECM8000 or the Galaxy 140.

So why aren't you running the second voice coil yet?

You still have the peak at 60Hz that you need to eliminate with EQ though..

brucek


----------



## Julien43 (Nov 26, 2006)

*"Hopefully you have the ECM8000 calibration file from our site and also be sure the three Equalizer HI/MID/LO dials are in their middle detent positions on the UB802..
"*

Yes I made sure The cal file was applied and the 802's EQ settings were centered

*"So why aren't you running the second voice coil yet?"*

I am trying to get my room as good as possible before I do any EQing

Here are waterfalls before and after my last addition of panels

Before









And After


----------



## brucek (Apr 11, 2006)

> Here are waterfalls before and after my last addition of panels


Best to view waterfall plots with a log view rather than linear. Click the Freq Axis ICON at the top right area of REW to change to LOG format. 

Looks like most of the gains came above 100Hz, which I guess is what everyone says about the effectiveness of treatments. They sure did a nice job above 100Hz though....

Note that there is a new calibration file for the ECM8000 on our download page. This is from Sonnie sending his ECM away for a professional calibration. It would be considered very accurate (for his mic anyway). I'll be using it from now on.

You don't need to redo any measurements because of the new mic calibration file though, because the soundcard and meter calibration data isn't included in the impulse response. The mic/meter and soundcard calibrations are only applied when calculating the frequency response.
REW Tip: To apply or remove a mic/meter or soundcard calibration for an REW measurement after it has been taken, simply load or clear the cal data as required and press the Apply Windows button (invoked when you click the IR Windows ICON) to recalculate the frequency response with a new calibration file. 


brucek


----------



## Julien43 (Nov 26, 2006)

Thanks the great info for, Bruce 

I'll take a look at the graphs with the log. scale and the updated mic cal file

Much appreciated


----------

