# rew and my room



## willis7469 (Jan 31, 2014)

Hi guys, I'm gonna try and attach some mdat files, and graphs and see what anyone thinks. I almost exclusively use my iPhone for hts, so this might go off the tracks lol. The purpose is for those smarter, and hopefully gluttonous enough to help me learn more about my room/system interaction. To me, and many who've listened here, it sounds great, and I hope so considering the time ive spent(not money lol). This is a livingroom system, so treatments would have to be carefully considered and implemented. I'm initially looking for interpretations of the data, to see how it compares to my ears, and what to do about it. I know the upper register will look horrible. My adjacent kitchen which is separated from the livingroom by a bank of floor cabinets,is full of hard surfaces, but the two spaces together (I think) provide a lot of diffusion/diffraction. So, here goes. I look forward to scrutiny. just don't hurt me! lol. Eqipment is JBL Studio2 speakers, Subs are,SVS pcplus, sonosub,diy, and a polk psw505(for now). Onkyo txnr808, ps3. that should help identify how their tagged in the files. I hope this works...


----------



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

I don’t see how anyone could think this response sounds great, so I have to ask – what measurement hardware are you using?







​

Regards, 
Wayne


----------



## willis7469 (Jan 31, 2014)

Well Wayne. When ya put it like that I'd surely agree. I've never seen it look like that. I guess the resolution is off? I'm using a umik-1 to laptop. Under mic/meter in preferences, I had selected c weighted spl meter, and had the cal file for it loaded. I was sure that I switched to the umik file before taking these measurements. Maybe not. Would that make the graph look such as it is? Output/input device are set to default. If that's actually a correct measurement, I think I'll either trade my gear in, or my ears. Yikes... Any ideas?
From 90 on down its almost 20db hot. When I cal my subs their only at 80 vs 75 for the rest.


----------



## Lumen (May 17, 2014)

Congrats for getting your feet wet with REW, Willis! And what's this nonsense I hear about your ears? If you adjust the vertical scale so it ranges from 45 to 125 (I think that's the standard), then some of those hills and valleys will be smoothed out. Or at least they won't look as bad. Do you agree, Wayne?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



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

The “standard” is 45-105, which is a 60 dB spread. I had to re-scale to 65-115 since his bass peak was so high, but it’s still a 60 dB spread. Yes, scaling at 45-125 would make the graph _look_better, but that would be deceptive as there would still be a 12+ dB spread between 800 Hz - 2 kHz, which is huge no matter how the graph is scaled.

Willis, it looks like your hardware is in order, but make sure there is nothing in the sound card that might be altering response, like some kind of stereo enhancer, EQ filtering, etc.

Also if you didn’t before, you should be measuring only one speaker at a time + sub, not both speakers.

If that turns up nothing I’d suggest downloading some filtered pink noise signals. Most pink noise is broadband, but if it’s filtered at specific frequencies it can be useful. You could play signals filtered at 2 kHz and 500 Hz and measure then with a sound level meter. Pink noise would be preferable to sine waves, as they can do some audibly strange things up in the midrange frequencies. Filtered pink noise isn’t easy to find, but you can download some here. It’s not free, but the price is reasonable. Tracks 47-56 cover the entire audio spectrum from 20 Hz - 20 kHz in 1/3-octave increments, with three signals per track. If you want to economize, you might get only #47, #52 and #53, which would give you information for 40 Hz, 800 Hz, and 2 kHz.

Regards, 
Wayne


----------



## willis7469 (Jan 31, 2014)

Wow. 2 day class reunion, homecoming, son on football, son in cross country, daughter in dance, mother in law...uff-da, what a weekend. Lou, It's good I had nothing but distraction, cause I became very disheartened after Wayne rescaled my measurement. After 3 days of beating myself up for loving a room with that curve, I told myself, after all the years I've been involved with this, and music, "No way that's my room". I'm sure something is tweaked in the laptop. I'll start digging when I get a chance. (My life is crazy). 
Wayne, thanks for your tips. I have a couple ideas, and I'll be coming back for help once I can investigate. Thanks.


----------



## Lumen (May 17, 2014)

Wayne A. Pflughaupt said:


> The “standard” is 45-105, which is a 60 dB spread. I had to re-scale to 65-115 since his bass peak was so high, but it’s still a 60 dB spread. Yes, scaling at 45-125 would make the graph _look_better, but that would be deceptive as there would still be a 12+ dB spread between 800 Hz - 2 kHz, which is huge no matter how the graph is scaled.


Good catch, Wayne. My mistake; I got lazy on my iPhone instead of looking up the standard scale here. And thank you for correcting me about graph _appearance_ vs. constant spread. I now realize I confused that issue with graph _smoothing_. We apply smoothing to eliminate MF/HF comb-filtering "whiskers" on the graph, which helps mimic human hearing, correct?



Wayne A. Pflughaupt said:


> Willis, .... Also if you didn’t before, you should be measuring only one speaker at a time + sub, not both speakers.


Agreed! But I'm sticking-in my annoyingly gnat-like nose for clarification, only because several threads simmer with confusion on this issue: "Do I measure L+sub and R+sub OR do I just measure L+R+sub?" 
The answer is: "both"! 
Reasoning and references are included in this thread.


----------



## Lumen (May 17, 2014)

Wayne A. Pflughaupt said:


> If that turns up nothing I’d suggest downloading some filtered pink noise signals...


Can REW do this instead? It appears custom filters can be applied to its pink noise generator:


----------



## willis7469 (Jan 31, 2014)

ok. let's try this again. Without the children and their busy little fingers. ugh!!!
Here's another mdat file, with only 2 sweeps to look over. I went and re-leveled volume,(gain controls are not lockable. huh?) and rechecked phase. I then ran these 2 sweeps, and used 1/6 and 1/3 just to get and overview. I will split hairs later. It does look more like it should, but it looks like I might need to bust out my BFD1124. The most alarming thing to me is the trough between about 1k, and 6k. I thought Audyssey would have done better here. ??? I have no idea where to begin fixing that. My hunch is i'll need to move my mains. IMO, they image pretty well where they are, but I'm happy to move them.(ok not really lol). Also not sure why the roll off starting around 7khz.


----------



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

Lumen said:


> Can REW do this instead? It appears custom filters can be applied to its pink noise generator:


Curious, was not aware of that. It’s certainly worth a try. :T

Regards, 
Wayne


----------



## jtalden (Mar 12, 2009)

Willis7469,
I suspect there is still something amiss in the measurement. You are correct in questioning the result at 2k and above 9kHz.

I noticed that the info panel indicates:
> You are using REW v5.00. To be safe install REW v5.13. It addresses several minor bugs as well as adding new features. 
> 'Default' is indicated for the input on the right channel. I would have expected it to indicate Umik-1 for that mic. Go to REW/preferences/Soundcard of REW v5.13 and be sure the UMIK-1 is selected as the input. 
> A reasonable mic cal file appears to be loaded now. Confirm that it is still active after REW is upgraded.

Then, I suggest you turn off any EQ as Audyssey and place the mic about 0.5m from the tweeter of either the FL or the FR and take a measurement of just that one speaker. Be sure the other main speakers and SW are not active. That should provide much better assurance that the measuring system and speaker are both operating correctly. When it checks out as expected, the LP measurements can then be trusted.


----------



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

willis7469 said:


> The most alarming thing to me is the trough between about 1k, and 6k. I thought Audyssey would have done better here. ??? I have no idea where to begin fixing that.


 Yes. I’d certainly expect Audyssey to do better. 

Why not try the filtered pink noise using REW like Lumen mentioned? You could say, low cut at 1800 Hz and high cut at 2300 and take a measurement with an SPL meter. Then another measurement filtered at say, 900 Hz and 1200 Hz. If there is a huge discrepancy between the two readings you’d know for sure the graph is accurate.



> Also not sure why the roll off starting around 7khz.


Strange, indeed, those speakers measured out to 20 kHz when Sound and Vision tested them.

Are you pointing the mic at the speaker when measuring? If you have a calibration file from miniDSP, it’s only for 0° orientation. If you’re pointing the mic at the ceiling that could account for at least some of the high-end roll out (but not all of it).

Regards, 
Wayne


----------



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

Lumen said:


> We apply smoothing to eliminate MF/HF comb-filtering "whiskers" on the graph, which helps mimic human hearing, correct?


Yes sir! :T




> Agreed! But I'm sticking-in my annoyingly gnat-like nose for clarification, only because several threads simmer with confusion on this issue: "Do I measure L+sub and R+sub OR do I just measure L+R+sub?"
> The answer is: "both"!
> Reasoning and references are included in this thread.


Note that with mains and subs measured together, they are talking about a primary interest in response below 300 Hz. For full range measurements, graphs can show a reduction in the high frequencies (some, not wholesale) if both speakers are measured together. This is caused by cancellation due to the mic not being perfectly centered between the two speakers. Naturally this is more of an issue (not having the mic perfectly between the two speakers) the closer the measurement mic is to the speakers. 

Not to say that measuring both speakers together is not without its uses, though. If you were going to manually equalize them, you want to use matching filters above ~ 300 Hz, so a reduction in the highs that might occur would be ignored, as you’re looking to deal with any peaks and valleys in the response, not address an overall level issue.

Make sense?

Regards, 
Wayne


----------



## Lumen (May 17, 2014)

jtalden said:


> Willis7469 ... That should provide much better assurance that the measuring system and speaker are both operating correctly. When it checks out as expected, the LP measurements can then be trusted.


jtalden, I can't resist saying I like your logistics (and Wayne is certainly no slouch)!



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Lumen (May 17, 2014)

Wayne A. Pflughaupt said:


> ...Naturally this is more of an issue (not having the mic perfectly between the two speakers) the closer the measurement mic is to the speakers.


Can't help but think off-axis response also adversely affects results.



Wayne A. Pflughaupt said:


> Not to say that measuring both speakers together is not without its uses, though. If you were going to manually equalize them, you want to use matching filters above ~ 300 Hz, so a reduction in the highs that might occur would be ignored, as you’re looking to deal with any peaks and valleys in the response, not address an overall level issue.
> 
> Make sense?


Over my head, I'm afraid. Got lost with that last bit about overall level. The rest does ring a bell or two. I'd ask you to elaborate, but the thread has taken a new turn, and I don't want to derail it. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## willis7469 (Jan 31, 2014)

Jtalden, thanks for the ideas. I have now downloaded the new version of rew. I'm glad you noticed that the input device was NOT UMIK-1. I'm not proficient enough with REW to know if that is a problem. That's also why I mentioned it above. just in case. I wonder if by chance the mic in the laptop was in use. I suspect it is responsible for the roll off at 7khz.(if it was actually in use). I will see what I can do about that.

Wayne, I will try the pink noise tests with the cutoffs you suggested. This makes sense to me. The mic is situated at ear height, at the LP, at about a 30deg angle. Should I not use the cal file? I thought the UMIK was only sensitive to angle when doing close proximity testing. Not true? Also fwiw, the speakers i'm using are these, JBL S312II, but they do measure easily to 20k. Just sayin... Not sure any speakers today wouldn't measure to at least 15k. Something is definitely cooky here. thanks for digging in. This JUST hit me. My laptop was sitting on the floor the whole time I was sweeping. last time too. If the laptop mic was active, would this not cause a bunch of room gain since it was basically attached to a room border? Hence the huge bump in the low end? And obviously a distortion of the whole measurement. This makes sense, as the off axis tweeter response would drop quickly. The laptop was 5' away, and the speaker is about 40" tall. Maybe not...

Lou, as usual, thanks for doing what you do. Do the DEW? nope. Do the LOU!!! Thanks to your own experiments, I'm finding it easier to stay humble. 

Thanks again guys, I'm feeling much better about this now.


----------



## willis7469 (Jan 31, 2014)

hi guys, finally got to sneak in a few things during lunch. Most notable, I used an HDMI connection. This changed the High end considerably.
Wayne, I tried the HP/LP pink noise as you suggested, but it wouldn't let me go that close in spacing. it kept defaulting to a wider spacing. In any case, I only found 1-2db variance across that range by checking manually.
JT, I measured my tweeters at about 1.5' and it showed strong to about 16k before rolling off. that was with the headphone connection. I did not remeasure with hdmi. 
I'm going try to attach my new mdat and screen shots. I did a variety of measurements with L/sub, R/sub, One main, both mains, direct etc.(I unfortunately don't have time to overlay with the old measurements. Wayne? lol) My gut says the headphone out was causing some of my measurement issues. The hdmi measurements look more like it sounds in the room, but... I used 1/6 for ease of reading(for me mostly). Is that ok? I took my BFD out, but haven't hooked it up yet, since the measurements seemed sketchy. I don't see any sense in EQing the wrong thing. OK. what do you think?
During my upload I got a popup saying something about a security token? I'll try again. sorry if it double posts...


----------



## willis7469 (Jan 31, 2014)

ok. I cant upload the mdat file. missing security token? ive done it before, so not sure what the deal is. trying to winterize my boat("Blue Ray") in the meantime. any ideas???


----------



## jtalden (Mar 12, 2009)

It's not clear what the traces are as they are not labeled and no legend is shown. 
What is clear is that the plots are now much more what we expected. 
You are now making reasonable measurements.


The file is probably too large. Simplify if possible and post the minimum file needed to ask the question you have. If you need to post large files, you will probably have to break them into smaller parts.


----------



## willis7469 (Jan 31, 2014)

That makes sense. The mdat was about 5 measurements.(last time was around 10 iirc). Until I can resize, the jpeg labeled direct should be "direct" mode. L/R separate and both L/R together. The audyssey pic should be the same, but with subs and audyssey in place. That still doesn't tell you which is which but that's what I was up to. I will try to break down the mdat information. Although all I can think of is to re-save them separately. 
Thanks JT!


----------



## willis7469 (Jan 31, 2014)

ok I know its a mess but it's all there at least. lol the legend should help. I need to resave my mdat to make it smaller. until then, I guess im just wondering what a good course of action might be. I really want dirac live but could probably only swing a minidsp right now. I have a bfd but I really want to address that higher freq stuff too.


----------



## jtalden (Mar 12, 2009)

Be sure you have Audyssey Dynamic EQ turned off for any measurement. It can boost the bass too much at these test levels. Audyssey would normally not provide this much bass boost otherwise.


The response looks very good with direct. Probably a little too much HF above 2kHz for my taste, but the house curve is a personal choice. 


Either one of these is within in the range that sound very good.


----------



## willis7469 (Jan 31, 2014)

JT, thanks for your input. I'm usually good about turning Audyssey on/off. I never use dynamicEQ but always make sure it's off. Especially after running Audyssey. I do set my subs at 80 compared to 75 for the rest. It's my "house curve"lol. At least until I do one properly. That's why there is the rise in low end you noticed. I guess the next thing is the BFD. The minidsp is only 110 with plugin though. It seems more streamlined to me, although I think Wayne has argued this in the past iirc. I already have it, and I made cables so why not.


----------



## willis7469 (Jan 31, 2014)

Ok. Having a problem loading so I'm using my phone. The jpegs were emailed and copied. In iOS, I can only post 1 at a time. Hopefully I'll figure it out. Anyway...
This graph is with the BFD in place. I worked on the subs and it's ok-ish. What I'm wondering about here is the trough around 400-800. I don't know what it means. 2nd is, since my avr lets me choose Audyssey, off, or manual. Could I theoretically sweep and eq manually to good results? Or are there time domain and phase characteristics that give Audyssey better results than just EQ? This is Audyssey mic in one spot.


----------



## willis7469 (Jan 31, 2014)

This one is pretty much the same graph in 1/2 smoothing just to show what happens when I trim up the subs +5.(not to misrepresent) From 200hz on down it rises by about 10db. I think that fits the definition. Am I close?


----------



## willis7469 (Jan 31, 2014)

Ok. This is the same +5 graph just from 10-200. I've eq'd up to 48 where I have a narrow -12db cut. Also at 79 a narrow deep filter. No matter what I do, I can't move the 50-62hz range. Not sure if that's phase, or placement. ??? Im thinking about running Audyssey again per Wayne's mic pattern guide. Also adding a couple feet to the sub distance. Seems I did that before to good effect. This is 2 subs in the rear of the room, and 1 in front. I was thinking of eq'ing the front sub separately but it's tricky enough when they're on the same signal. lol 
Must sleep now...
Thanks for any input guys.


----------



## jtalden (Mar 12, 2009)

willis7469 said:


> This graph is with the BFD in place. I worked on the subs and it's ok-ish. What I'm wondering about here is the trough around 400-800. I don't know what it means.


I'm not expert in identifying the source of a dip like this. It is surely a room effect though. Moving the main speakers or the LP may have an impact if that is an option. If not then there is not much that can be done other than identifying the cause and applying appropriate room treatments. You can use a *floor/ceiling bounce calculator* to the see if that is the source. 



> 2nd is, since my avr lets me choose Audyssey, off, or manual. Could I theoretically sweep and eq manually to good results? Or are there time domain and phase characteristics that give Audyssey better results than just EQ? This is Audyssey mic in one spot.


There is nothing magic about Audyssey EQ so it is not a major advantage over a good manual setup. It is just a lot easier and requires less equipment. Audyssey usually does better than this so I would try again. Use all 8 mic positions near your LP. It's possible to do just as well manually with enough experience and a good PEQ unit. REW can be helpful with calculating the filter selections.


----------



## willis7469 (Jan 31, 2014)

Thanks JT. I think the dip in question is from the couch. I looked at Wayne's Audyssey mic guide (again) and I saw he experienced one just like it, and he attributed it to the couch saying it wouldn't be there with a body. I'm going to try the triangle method this week Wednesday. 
Wondering also about eq'ing 3 subs. Two in the rear are very capable. One in front not as much. What's a good way to do it? I've set by phase and level, and it worked ok, but I have a long ways to go. Ideas? Or do I just experiment? I have some ideas but not sure how sound they are.(no pun lol) Or if they'll even work. The more I learn, the less I know! Lol
Thanks again.


----------



## jtalden (Mar 12, 2009)

willis7469 said:


> Wondering also about eq'ing 3 subs. Two in the rear are very capable. One in front not as much. What's a good way to do it? I've set by phase and level, and it worked ok, but I have a long ways to go. Ideas? Or do I just experiment? I have some ideas but not sure how sound they are.


I have no practical experience with a situation like yours. With a UMIK mic the method I use for SW setup does not work. Using Audyssey also complicates the situation.

The current settings look reasonably good. Rerunning Audyssey with different mic locations may be helpful.

If you want to start over, I would just set the delays for the nearer SW per the difference in the measured distances. Then sweep each SW separately and then all together so that's 4 measurements. The overlay of the 4 traces should give some indication how well they are working together. If you post the .mdat I will see if I can find any timing improvements, but it will not be easy in this case. If the cooperation between doesn't look good and I can't determine new settings then trial and error testing may be the only way to improve it. If you then run Audyssey again it changes the overall SW distance and EQ settings so any manual setup you have made may well be changed.


----------



## willis7469 (Jan 31, 2014)

That would be very helpful for you to evaluate the mdat. I'll keep the file small because of the trouble I had before. Can't do anything till Wednesday but I'm excited to really get the subs dialed in. Timing and IR are something I've recently become interested in too although I'm not sure what I'll be to do about them. I also flattened out my subs a bunch and then let Audyssey do its thing since it should be easier for it. The big surprise was it turned out horrible. So I defeated the BFD and added it later, after another round of Audyssey. Thanks again.


----------



## jtalden (Mar 12, 2009)

Starting over, the overall sequence that makes most sense to me is:
1. Set XO freq in AVR
2. Set BFD delay on the closest SW to account for the measured difference in distance to the others.
3. Measure each sub individually and 'SWs' (all 3 together, so 4 total measurements, Audyssey off)
4. Confirm the delay and SW polarities set are acceptable for good cooperation between the 3 subs, adjust if needed.
---
5. Run Audyssey and turn Dynamic EQ off.
6. Measure in stereo mode 3 conditions (SWs, FL+FR, SWs+FL+FR) to Confirm the XO support is correct in the XO range, adjust if needed. [If this can't be done using HDMI then either use line outputs or test left and right channels separately, i.e., SWs, FL, SWs+FL and similarly for the FR channel.]
7. Use BFD to EQ the SW range to achieve your personal house curve, listen using your preferred program material in stereo mode and adjust the EQ/house curve to your preference.
8. Measure 3 conditions (SWs, CC, SWs+CC) to confirm the XO support (CC distance setting) is correct in the XO range, adjust as needed (can also do the same for each surround channel if you like).

[For step 3 I would suggest sweep range be at least to 500Hz so there is visibility of the full SW roll-off. For steps #6, #8 I would make sweeps full-range as it is helpful to judge the levels and EQ balance.] 

[All SW measurements should be using redirected bass from the channel under test not using the LFE channel because the channel XO is not active on LFE and the LFE level is +10dB.]

Others may approach the setup sequence differently, possibly with equal or better results. I am just sharing my thinking.

The first 4 steps are the ones we discussed. They are reasonably independent of your choice of the following process steps.


----------



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

willis7469 said:


> Wondering also about eq'ing 3 subs. Two in the rear are very capable. One in front not as much. What's a good way to do it?


The best way to equalize multiple subs is to treat them as a single entity and EQ the group with a single set of filters, as if there were only one sub. After all, that’s the way you hear them – you don’t hear them individually. People who try to EQ each independently usually find that they’ll get a nice curve for each one, but then when they take a combined measurement response is whacked.

That said, you should probably ditch the lesser sub. What ultimately happens when you have mismatched subs is that overall performance is defined by the weakest one. You can see a case study here, complete with graphs to back it up.

Regards, 
Wayne


----------



## willis7469 (Jan 31, 2014)

ok. for some reason, I'm having trouble with the screenshot, so here's the mdat. 
Wayne, I took your advice, and took the Polk sub offline for a few days. I evaluated the two PC's performance and took some measurements before and after EQ. Maybe due to my bullheadedness, I tried to reintegrate the polk back in. At first I thought about high level inputs, and having it as an extension of the mains. Then I tried the R channel in and used the built in crossover. This worked ok, but I wanted to try full integration. Since I can't save/post the screenshot, i'll have to await your perusal of my mdat. My one big question is in reference to the link you attached. What I'm not seeing(to my NOT expert eye) is the extension crippling that the polk sub should provide. It is tuned to around 28hz, while my PC's are both tuned at 19hz. Individually, the Polk, and PC2(diy) are hampered by placement.(pc2 has on one side, only a 2' long wall then opens to the rest of the house. It is what is for now). But collectively still are useful down to 19hz, as far as I can tell. What am I missing. I have moved Phase/distance,measured/remeasured etc. and the measurement with all subs/mains looks to be(marginally) the best. I do know that when pushed to the edge, the polk will give up long before the PC's do, but I usually watch movies in the -10 to -20 range. All three are leveled at 73db, for a combined output of 80db per the avr's test tone. Also, no matter what I do, I can't seem to help the dip around 100hz. I think if I could raise that, it would be a little smoother coming down from the subs region(80hz) All channels at 80hz. OK, I'm ready...


----------



## willis7469 (Jan 31, 2014)

Oh yeah. Just by chance found this turned on too. It was on with the headphone Jack measurements but not anymore.


----------



## willis7469 (Jan 31, 2014)

And why PC2's solo measurements are sketchy...


----------



## jtalden (Mar 12, 2009)

I just start to look at the data.
I notice that PC2 and Polk are similar for SPL and Phase response and have similar levels set. 
PC1 is the odd man out. It has very different SPL and Phase response and is also at a different level. It also appears to be set to the opposite polarity to the other two.

Are you sure you labeled the SW correctly? I would have guessed the one marked PC1 is the dissimilar SW, i.e., the Polk. It may just be because of the different locations, but it looks very suspicious.

I will continue to investigate to see what would result the 3 were optimally timed.


----------



## jtalden (Mar 12, 2009)

I looked at several different timings. I also tried using reverse polarity on pc1. I did not find any settings in delay timing that resulted in any better summed response. Your current settings seem to provide the smoothest overall SPL and all 3 SW are cooperating reasonably well.

The smoothness of the 'all 3 subs' measurement suggests you left your previous EQ settings active. That is probably why this result looks so good.


----------



## willis7469 (Jan 31, 2014)

JT, thanks for looking. PC1 is the SVS. PC2 is my DIY cylinder modeled after it. In the picture, you can see the kitchen almost immediately next to PC2. I am certain this is why its singular response is so poor. It has a TC epic12 driver which is(afaik) very similar. The PC's are phased at 0, since during my testing showed the best response. The Polk is at 180. I've played the white noise and 80hz tone to find the best combination of phase and that seems to be it. Open to suggestions if I'm all wet. You are correct about the EQ settings being in place. By the time I got to the point where you see, I was done for and out of time. I can take more measurements if it helps. My gut says with a little fine tuning in the BFD, I should be able to get the 3 to play nicely together. What's interesting to me is, I set the level of each sub to 73db. But when I sweep, as you can see, the output is lower, but combined is good. The SVS has the best spot of the three. The next best place(maybe) is in the front left. I thought about putting pc2 there, but there's a big sliding glass door 2' out from the corner. That makes me think it would respond similarly to wher it is now. Maybe not. But WAF...


----------



## willis7469 (Jan 31, 2014)

This is where the Polk lives. That is the back of a bank of kitchen drawers above it. The paneling is very thin compared to drywall and 2x4's and I think it's partly responsible for its strange contribution.


----------



## willis7469 (Jan 31, 2014)

As you can see, placement options are slim.


----------



## willis7469 (Jan 31, 2014)

Rear


----------



## jtalden (Mar 12, 2009)

Nice Room.
I think the current SW settings are pretty good and am a little surprised that you want to try to do better. There is no guarantee that you will find a better solution. If you have used large EQ filter gains to achieve this situation then it may be worthwhile to start from scratch again, but if the EQ gains are reasonable then you may want to leave well enough alone. It's your call.

If you want to start over then the first 4 steps in Post 31 resulting the 4 measurements is recommended. At least those are the only ones that would indicate to me whether the timing/cooperation can be improved. It requires all EQ to turned off. The responses may look pretty bad that way, but it is those raw responses that should be balanced as well as possible before EQ is applied. Once the timing is established and levels balanced for the raw response then the other steps In Post 31 can be done to apply the EQ and finish the setup. 

If you decide to leave the SWs as is then you could start at Step 6 in Post 31 to confirm the XO handoff timing that Audyssey applied to assure the SPL is supported in the XO range. If you provide those measurements I can help determine the XO timing. Instead, you can just adjust the SW distance in the AVR up and down a little to see if the SPL is improved in the XO range. That can be done using either sweeps or RTA mode.


----------



## willis7469 (Jan 31, 2014)

Thanks so much jtalden. 
Perhaps the reason I'm still splitting hairs is twofold. 1)I may be ignorantly chasing the white whale razor flat line I occasionally see, 2) I don't know when to say when. I currently only have 2 filters in place, and only 5db each.(1+ and 1-) Well enough alone might just be, well enough. Not sure I could tell the difference even if I could improve the line. Between my last 2 posted mdat files, I took at least 50 sweeps, starting with the BFD off, and making adjustments and reading my spl and graphs, and adjusting accordingly. That's how I ended up here. I even EQ'd once before running Audyssey to try and make that easier. It was worse! I also changed the distance both ways in the avr, and moving it from 8.5' to 10' gave the best curve,but none made a drastic difference. I've tried this before with better results but...Fwiw, it does sound good so I may "call it" for now. I do know, I much prefer a house curve.


----------

