# Sticky  Jazzi's tuning companion for room eq wizard



## Justin Zazzi

Note: See the link in my signature to download the latest version of this tool.

This spreadsheet has been a lot of fun to make! My goal is to take as much guesswork out of the tuning and installation process as possible. With this tool, you can calculate a safe high-pass crossover point for your midbass and midrange speakers, then plug those numbers into the next sheet where you choose what frequency response curve you want your overall system to have, and the tool will generate a set of custom house curve files tailored for each of your speakers. Import those directly into Room EQ Wizard and use the EQ module to find the filters for your DSP.

If you use the next sheet to calculate time delay settings for all of your speakers, and you get them to match the house curves exported from earlier, then your tuning is mostly done! I recommend spending some more time with 31-band pink noise tracks to get the center image perfectly centered, and you can download some ones I made from my dropbox at this link:

-----> 31-band pink noise tracks <-----

A bonus feature I included is an interactive chart to help you choose which size power wire and fuse for your amplifiers. The sheet will take into account the efficiency of your amplifier (effecting how much power it will need to be supplied with) as well as the condition of your car (engine on or off) and you can choose how much of a voltage drop is acceptable to you. Lastly, measure about how long the power wire needs to be and then you will see which size wire and fuse you will need. A ton of research went into this particular sheet, and I'm looking forward to everyone's feedback.

There is an included read-me with instructions for each section with some hints and cautions. 

Like I mention in the included read-me, please let me know if this is useful for you and if you would like me to build more features into this spreadsheet.

Here are some screenshots:


----------



## 14642

This is pretty cool. Thanks!


----------



## ErinH

With the crossover curve builder, is that easily adjustable in dB/frequency? I can't open it from work. 

If so, this is exactly the thing I've been looking for. I've resorted to building my own in excel but nothing on this level that allows on the fly adjustments. Much appreciated.


Edit: read your description again. Looks like it's not exactly what I thought but it still will do the job. Kudos!


----------



## subterFUSE

I want to test this out ASAP.

I have been thus far using a house curve in REW and using the native Target Settings for a 24 dB slope crossover. But that crossover in REW is butterworth not LR.

I also tried using RePhase to generate target curves for LR24 slopes but that didn't work either.

Lastly, I tried using the ACD spreadsheets but they are incredibly complicated to use so I didn't get very far.

I'll check your spreadsheets out soon and report back.
Thanks for your efforts thus far!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SQram

Really helpful tool Jazzi, thanks for putting it up here!


----------



## SQram

Can't export the JBL curve, all the others seem to work. Tried on two different computers.


----------



## Justin Zazzi

SQram said:


> Can't export the JBL curve, all the others seem to work. Tried on two different computers.


Found the problem, will update with a fix a little bit later tonight.
Thank you for pointing this out!


----------



## Justin Zazzi

Beta version 2 has been uploaded.

-Fixed the text file export of the JBL/Andy curve
-Added more flexibility:
-Now you can select different crossover frequencies for your highpass and lowpass
-Now you can select between either a 12dB/octave Butterworth or a 24dB/octave Linkwitz-Riley crossover
-Cleaned up the interface a bunch, hid a lot of the background work

Future plans:
-If you can help me find the equations/formulas, I will add more options for crossover types such as Bessel, Chebychev, etc
-I would like to add a sheet to help you with time delay settings
-I would like to add more pictures and better instructions on how to use these text files within REW


----------



## SPLEclipse

Yes!!! I've been creating my own curves by manually creating a text file to align with my specific needs. I can't wait to give it a shot!


----------



## Spud100

Great Idea,
However one small problem. What is the worksheet unprotect code so we can enter our own individual crossover frequencies.
Gerry


----------



## subterFUSE

Feedback:

Just loaded up your spreadsheets. This looks really great! You've done a very good job.

Very simple and intuitive layout. You made this so easy to follow. I have tried using the ACD spreadsheets in the past, and those are so complicated that I could never figure them out. And I always thought I was good with spreadsheets. 

As I mentioned above, you are meeting a need which I have hoped to see met for a long time. REW has crossover settings available but they are only Butterworth 12 or 24 dB slopes. I prefer Linkwitz so I have been trying to find a way to get a downward sloping house curve with LR24 slopes for the crossovers. Your spreadsheet does exactly that. Very cool.


I have not been able to change the Frequency settings because those cells are protected by a password. Can you unprotect those cells for user input? I would like to try this out with my car, but I need to change the Frequency settings first.


----------



## ErinH

Jazzi said:


> -I would like to add a sheet to help you with time delay settings
> -I would like to add more pictures and better instructions on how to use these text files within REW




If you're interested, I can send over the excel file I made that was used to build this site:
http://tracerite.com/calc.html

You can just incorporate that in to your sheet. It would save you a lot of time. I even made one with temperature/humidity considerations.

LMK if you're interested and I'll send it on over.

- Erin


----------



## subterFUSE

ErinH said:


> If you're interested, I can send over the excel file I made that was used to build this site:
> 
> http://tracerite.com/calc.html
> 
> 
> 
> You can just incorporate that in to your sheet. It would save you a lot of time. I even made one with temperature/humidity considerations.
> 
> 
> 
> LMK if you're interested and I'll send it on over.
> 
> 
> 
> - Erin



Need air pressure, too. Erin you slacker. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## piyush7243

Great work. Going to try this tomorrow. It will great help

Sent from my X9076 using Tapatalk


----------



## bbfoto

Awesome, Jazzi! Thanks for all your work putting this together and for making it public. :thumbsup:


----------



## Kevin K

Nice. Thanks.


----------



## Justin Zazzi

Oops! I forgot about the locked cells, that is fixed now. Sorry!

---



ErinH said:


> If you're interested, I can send over the excel file I made that was used to build this site:
> http://tracerite.com/calc.html
> 
> You can just incorporate that in to your sheet. It would save you a lot of time. I even made one with temperature/humidity considerations.
> 
> LMK if you're interested and I'll send it on over.
> 
> - Erin


Erin, that would be great, and save a lot of time indeed. Thank you for your offer.


----------



## SPLEclipse

Crossover point changes are working with the new link. Thanks Jazzi!


----------



## shinjohn

Pretty freakin' cool. Nice work!


----------



## Beckerson1

:bowdown: Dude your a bloody god send....


----------



## subterFUSE

More review:

I used the spreadsheet for a tuning session a few days ago.

It took me a couple of tries to get the export to work. FYI - Mac users, the spreadsheet will open on Office for Mac, but I don't think the export was working. So I opened it with Office on Parallels and it worked fine. No big deal.

I used a custom house curve by entering data on the right side column. It might be a nice addition if the frequencies on the custom column were also adjustable.


Just a note on REW house curves. When you load up these crossover curves, make sure you go into EQ section, then Target Settings and set "Speaker Type" to "None." The reason why is because these curves that the spreadsheet is generating already have crossover slopes applied. You want to disable the additional slopes added by REW.


----------



## Niebur3

This is a awesome tool! Thanks!


----------



## Woosey

Thank you so much!!!! this is exactly what I was looking for!! 

Big up to you!!


----------



## Justin Zazzi

I'm glad you enjoy it, and a *big thank* you to everyone for your feedback.

School has started again so I don't have as much time to put into this project as I wanted to, but perhaps I'll make some more progress again one day.


----------



## SkizeR

i just got rew up and running. im going to have to try this.


----------



## Woosey

SkizeR said:


> i just got rew up and running. im going to have to try this.


First you should get your install ready...


----------



## SkizeR

Woosey said:


> First you should get your install ready...


nope


----------



## Jazz80

Thanks Jazzi, it's very cool..


----------



## 000zero

For anyone else like me just getting into tuning and had no idea what a house curve is, this link helped me get a better understanding

House Curve: What it is, why you need it, how to do it


----------



## oabeieo

Subd . This is very cool . Thank you .


----------



## Hanatsu

Really nice!

Thanks, Jazzi - I'll try this one out


----------



## Babs

Ok Wow just Wow! Slick!!!

Can't wait until this audit's over so I can get back to re-tuning among a few other hundred items. This will go nicely with some tips and explanation, thank you Hanatsu for that, to match the better of two like drivers to the curve, then the more ragged of the two to the better, EQ-matching drivers so that A = B = Curve. Looking forward to trying this.


----------



## Justin Zazzi

I dearly want to make more progress on this project. However, I need some guidance with understanding mathematical relationships with speaker behavior. In particular, if you know how to handle both the real and complex components when doing calculations due to the inclusion of "i" (square root of negative one) in the equations, please let me know!

Specifically, I need to better understand this paper and the related excel spreadsheet he built for it.

http://personalpages.tds.net/~fdeck/bass/speaker.pdf

Thanks,
-Jazzi


----------



## Niick

Jazzi said:


> I dearly want to make more progress on this project. However, I need some guidance with understanding mathematical relationships with speaker behavior. In particular, if you know how to handle both the real and complex components when doing calculations due to the inclusion of "i" (square root of negative one) in the equations, please let me know!
> 
> Specifically, I need to better understand this paper and the related excel spreadsheet he built for it.
> 
> http://personalpages.tds.net/~fdeck/bass/speaker.pdf
> 
> Thanks,
> -Jazzi


Jazzi, I'm not sure, but maybe this is what they're talking about in the SysTune manual:


"Tech-Note:
The process of deriving the transfer function (or impulse response) of a system from the input and output signal is called deconvolution in system theory. It is equivalent to a complex division in the frequency domain.
Measurement platforms based on the deconvolution principle can only derive the transfer function of the system for frequencies that are excited by the input signal. If the stimulus is band limited or contains only singular tones, some frequencies are not included. For these frequencies the deconvolution would correspond to a division by zero which is not defined.
In SysTune this problem is resolved by applying an adapted WIENER algorithm. It basically puts a threshold on the input signal and disregards any data for frequencies too low in level. Of course, this algorithm only overcomes formal problems associated with those undefined frequency bands; it still cannot derive the system transfer function for them."

"Wiener" algorithm, is this maybe what you're thinking of?

It probably isn't, it's just that when I read your post, this came to mind, so I thought, "well, if there's even the slightest chance that this might be of use I should post it, even if it makes me look like an idiot!" 

This was just a TOTAL shot in the dark, I'm sure this is WAYY wrong, my brain just drew a correlation between the two somehow.


----------



## Justin Zazzi

Very nice try Niick, but I am not doing anything related to deconvolution or impulse response processing, as far as I know. That Wiener algorithm sounds like a workound for something very specific relating to this process.

Thank you for your effort though!


----------



## Niick

Yeah, I didn't figure that was what you were after. I make target curves too when tuning systems, here's an example.

Is it the creation of these type things in REW that you're working on? Just pure curiosity here. I think the tuning companion you made for REW is awesome.


----------



## Justin Zazzi

I'm not sure what program you're using to make target curves with, that screen is a bit too small to read.

Right now I'm trying to build a script that will take amplifier power and woofer T/S parameters in, and spit out a high-pass crossover frequency for you that will keep the woofer from going over Xmax. The math behind it is wicked though, and that's what I'm struggling with.


----------



## bigbubba

Thread marked


----------



## Niick

Jazzi said:


> I'm not sure what program you're using to make target curves with, that screen is a bit too small to read.
> 
> Right now I'm trying to build a script that will take amplifier power and woofer T/S parameters in, and spit out a high-pass crossover frequency for you that will keep the woofer from going over Xmax. The math behind it is wicked though, and that's what I'm struggling with.


Ohh....ok, I don't know why I was still stuck on target curves....? Yeah, I don't know why the pic came out so small, might have something to do with iOS 9. This is the first time since the iOS 9 update that I posted a pic, and yeah, it's really little.

The program is SysTune Pro. I can make curves like that on the fly, again, from the manual:

"The command IIR FILTER creates a new filter panel at the bottom, which allows adjusting the following parameters of this filter:
 TYPE switches among LOW-PASS, HIGH-PASS, ALL-PASS, PEAK, PEAK SYM, LOW-SHELF and HIGH-SHELF filters. Note that the other controls to the right change depending on the TYPE.
 SHAPE is available for LOW-PASS, HIGH-PASS and ALL-PASS filter types and defines the fundamental analytical definition of the filter.
 ORDER is available for LOW-PASS, HIGH-PASS and ALL-PASS filter types and sets the order or slope of the filter.
The frequency (FRQ. [HZ]) of the filter can be modified for all filter types. It represents the cut-off for the LOW-PASS, HIGH-PASS, LOW-SHELF, HIGH-SHELF filter types and the center frequency for the PEAK and ALL-PASS filter types.
 The alignment (ALIGN) is only available for BESSEL LOW-PASS and HIGH-PASS filters and sets the filter level or phase at the potential crossover frequency.
 Q is available only for the PEAK and PEAK SYM filter types and defines the bandwidth of the filter.
 The GAIN parameter is available for all parametric filter types, that is, PEAK and PEAK SYM, LOW-SHELF and HIGH-SHELF.
 An additional LABEL can be defined for all filter types.
 The button B can be used to bypass the corresponding filter and the button S can be used
to switch it to solo mode, that is, to bypass all other filters.
 The X button allows you to remove the filter from the list permanently."

It's an incredibly awesome peice of software.


----------



## Niick

Jazzi said:


> Right now I'm trying to build a script that will take amplifier power and woofer T/S parameters in, and spit out a high-pass crossover frequency for you that will keep the woofer from going over Xmax. The math behind it is wicked though, and that's what I'm struggling with.


That's really awesome by the way. I've read about TS parameters being "small signal" parameters, and that they don't necessarily represent the transducer behavior under real world operating conditions, especially high powered woofers. Have you found this to be true?


----------



## Justin Zazzi

Niick said:


> That's really awesome by the way. I've read about TS parameters being "small signal" parameters, and that they don't necessarily represent the transducer behavior under real world operating conditions, especially high powered woofers. Have you found this to be true?


You're right. However my (limited) understanding of high energy speakers is that they produce *less* acoustic output than expected, so if anything that would work as a margin of error in my favor since I'm trying to find out how to protect the driver from over-excursion. But again, I'm at the end of my current knowledge on the subject and can't say for certain.

I need to skip all this B.S. degree nonesense and get into the Masters degree of Acoustics at Penn State as soon as possible ....


----------



## Niick

Jazzi said:


> You're right. However my (limited) understanding of high energy speakers is that they produce *less* acoustic output than expected, so if anything that would work as a margin of error in my favor since I'm trying to find out how to protect the driver from over-excursion. But again, I'm at the end of my current knowledge on the subject and can't say for certain.
> 
> I need to skip all this B.S. degree nonesense and get into the Masters degree of Acoustics at Penn State as soon as possible ....


So, have you ever heard of "Pat Brown's toaster test" (Pat Brown of SynAudCon) it is a way to determine the point at which a speaker is no longer behaving linearly, by using a TF of the driver at nominal levels, then using that measured TF as a normalization file, then slowly applying power to the driver until the resulting measured TF varies from a flat line. 

Of course, you have to have an amplifier powerful enough to drive the speaker cleanly into non-linearity, and a good microphone of course, but I wonder if such a procedure might interest you, seeing as it relates to "at the limit" loudspeaker behavior.


----------



## Justin Zazzi

Niick said:


> So, have you ever heard of "Pat Brown's toaster test" (Pat Brown of SynAudCon) it is a way to determine the point at which a speaker is no longer behaving linearly, by using a TF of the driver at nominal levels, then using that measured TF as a normalization file, then slowly applying power to the driver until the resulting measured TF varies from a flat line.
> 
> Of course, you have to have an amplifier powerful enough to drive the speaker cleanly into non-linearity, and a good microphone of course, but I wonder if such a procedure might interest you, seeing as it relates to "at the limit" loudspeaker behavior.


Yep, totally heard of that technique. I read it somewhere in a magazine the first time. It does interest me, as does literally everything else acoustics-related haha. I have to pick which to concentrate on unfortunately, can't do it all.

Good news though, I made a breakthrough with the mathematics of speaker excursion as a function of frequency and power input. If all goes well, I'll have a pretty amazing additional tool ready for you all soon


----------



## Niick

Jazzi said:


> Good news though, I made a breakthrough with the mathematics of speaker excursion as a function of frequency and power input. If all goes well, I'll have a pretty amazing additional tool ready for you all soon


That's way awesome man! I can also definitely appreciate what you mean about having to kinda focus on one thing at a time.


----------



## bbfoto

You're a beast, Jazzi! Really looking forward to this.  Though, I hope your studies aren't suffering because of all of your work on this, LOL!


----------



## Justin Zazzi

Here's a little tease of what is coming up next.

Input some details about your speaker and how much amplifier power you have available. The program will then find a reasonably safe high pass crossover frequency for you to use to protect the speaker from going past Xmax.

In this example, I have 150 watts feeding a Peerless SLS 6" with an Xmax of 8.2mm. The program recommends a high pass crossover of 50hz, which is *exactly* what I found to work well by experimenting on my own car. *joy*

This is currently being run in Matlab, and I will be porting it into my Excel spreadsheet soon.


----------



## Kevin K

Great. Thanks for the time and effort and willingness to share


----------



## Beckerson1

Jazzi said:


> Here's a little tease of what is coming up next.
> 
> Input some details about your speaker and how much amplifier power you have available. The program will then find a reasonably safe high pass crossover frequency for you to use to protect the speaker from going past Xmax.
> 
> In this example, I have 150 watts feeding a Peerless SLS 6" with an Xmax of 8.2mm. The program recommends a high pass crossover of 50hz, which is *exactly* what I found to work well by experimenting on my own car. *joy*
> 
> This is currently being run in Matlab, and I will be porting it into my Excel spreadsheet soon.
> 
> View attachment 92666
> 
> 
> View attachment 92658


Matlab. I remember those days. Granted it was very basic 
(Only skimed the surface) but a powerful tool it is. I can't wait to see what you come up with next. Amazing things happening atm. Keep it up

Might be getting ahead here but I see where you get the recommended crossover point but at which slope. Or is this something, since you were able to figure out the math side of things, slope can be introduced to.the equation.


----------



## subterFUSE

Would it be difficult to add more rows for EQ bands for the custom house curves so we have more to choose from?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Justin Zazzi

subterFUSE said:


> Would it be difficult to add more rows for EQ bands for the custom house curves so we have more to choose from?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The bands are set at 1/3 octave resolution because I assumed most people would be using EQ with similar capabilities. It would not be too hard to do, but it would make things much more complicated than I think they need to be. I'm curious, why would you need more precision? Maybe you have a really specific need that I'm overlooking?


----------



## truckguy

Thanks for all the work jazzi.


----------



## Justin Zazzi

The Excel programming is done and it works beautifully.

I'm going to add some how-to stuff and edit the read-me page a bunch.

Hopefully I'll have this uploaded for you all in the next few days!


----------



## Justin Zazzi

This project is too fun, I can't put it down.

Beta 3 is released.

New feature: the Crossover Frequency worksheet.

Try it out, let me know if you find any errors or have any feedback.

View attachment Jazzi's tuning companion for REW beta 3.zip
<--- download here


----------



## subterFUSE

Looks great, but you locked the sheets so we can't type in the T/S parameters.


----------



## Justin Zazzi

subterFUSE said:


> Looks great, but you locked the sheets so we can't type in the T/S parameters.


I left those cells unlocked, and just confirmed you can change them. Be sure to also allow the scripts to run, you'll have to do that as your first open the spreadsheet.


----------



## subterFUSE

Jazzi said:


> I left those cells unlocked, and just confirmed you can change them. Be sure to also allow the scripts to run, you'll have to do that as your first open the spreadsheet.


I did enable the Macros.

Must be an Excel for Mac issue.


----------



## Niebur3

Yep, it must be. I have the same issue. ActiveX is not supported.


----------



## subterFUSE

Niebur3 said:


> Yep, it must be. I have the same issue. ActiveX is not supported.


Just opened with Excel 2007 on Windows 7, and I still can't type in the T/S params.


Edit: Ok working now.


----------



## crazhorse

windows 7 office 2010 lets me enter parameters ok...


----------



## Justin Zazzi

Niebur3 said:


> Yep, it must be. I have the same issue. ActiveX is not supported.


Hmm... there must be a workaround of some kind.
I'm sorry my Mac user friends are having so much trouble.
I'll try to find some answers!


----------



## truckguy

Its working on Excel 2013 in Windows 8.1. Thanks!


----------



## ultimatemj

Thanks for sharing your work!

It's working for me with 1 exception, the calculate button keeps growing in size and I can't shrink it or move it. Puzzling!

Oh, and I lreally ike the idea of combining ErinH's time delay calculator


----------



## Kevin K

ultimatemj said:


> .....
> 
> Oh, and I lreally ike the idea of combining ErinH's time delay calculator



Maybe Erin and Robert and Jazzi can all work together and make this happen.


----------



## ErinH

Kevin K said:


> Maybe Erin and Robert and Jazzi can all work together and make this happen.


I sent Jazzi my excel sheet about a month or so ago. He may just not have time. I think, for the most part, going with the site is probably easiest anyway but Jazzi has the sheet we used to build the site to do with what he needs if he wants to and/or gets around to it.


----------



## Justin Zazzi

ErinH said:


> I sent Jazzi my excel sheet about a month or so ago. He may just not have time. I think, for the most part, going with the site is probably easiest anyway but Jazzi has the sheet we used to build the site to do with what he needs if he wants to and/or gets around to it.


Haven't been able to decypher your work yet, but I'm still working on it. I was super excited to get the crossover calculator working and had to set the time alignment aside. I'll get them working together one of these days, I promise.

And Erin, thanks again for sharing you work with me!


----------



## SPLEclipse

I've been using to tweak a few things over the past weeks and it's working great! Thanks again!


----------



## Justin Zazzi

Version BETA 4.1 is now ready

Download here: Jazzi's tuning companion for Room EQ Wizard BETA 4.1 
(click on the X in the upper-right corner of that "sign up for an account" screen)

New in this version:
-One additional house curve will be exported for you, the overall curve
-The new default house curve is the JBL Andy curve
-New worksheet titled "Time Alignment"
-Fixed a mistake in the Time Alignment sheet

Thank you to ErinH for sharing your work with me relating to time alignment. After careful study I've decided to use some of it but all of it. I would like to revisit time alignment again in the future though.

Unfortunately I have not spent any time troubleshooting why features are not working for all my friends that use apple products. If you are able to help, I welcome your assistance.


----------



## thebookfreak58

Dropbox? Google Drive?


----------



## Justin Zazzi

thebookfreak58 said:


> Dropbox? Google Drive?


Got it! Thanks


----------



## thebookfreak58

Quick bug I noticed, if you put 0Hz in subsonic filter (not everyone has ability to use one) then it stuff up the calcs for the sub stage .


----------



## Babs

This cool project is becoming epic. New UMIK-1 will be here Tuesday. Can't wait. 


Sent from iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Justin Zazzi

thebookfreak58 said:


> Quick bug I noticed, if you put 0Hz in subsonic filter (not everyone has ability to use one) then it stuff up the calcs for the sub stage .


Try using a value of 1 instead of zero. That will make the calculations work and not interfere with things too much.


----------



## Justin Zazzi

Fixed an error in the Time Alignment sheet.
Version 4.1 has been updated in my post above.


----------



## Babs

So I finally tested using some faith in REW's auto EQ trims and just plugging in on front drivers to these curves. Amazed how much I had to dial back the low midrange to reach the target curve. But amazed even more at how huge an improvement. 

I used this combined with Hanatsu's explanation of using REW's auto-EQ. Took all night for just the 2-way. 

Measure single driver, hit target, remeasure driver, bring other driver in line with that driver to match. 

I've not measured whole sides yet but I can tell it's a vast improvement closer to curve. Just doing small things afterwards like a tone to verify phase between tweets and mids etc, and re-doing TA afterwards. 

Everything is better.. Stage, image, detail, depth and width. 


Sent from iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Babs

Jazzi said:


> New in this version:
> -One additional house curve will be exported for you, the overall curve
> *-The new default house curve is the JBL Andy curve*
> -New worksheet titled "Time Alignment"
> -Fixed a mistake in the Time Alignment sheet


Because, it's Andy, that's why!


----------



## Weightless

Hey Jazzi, I just downloaded the latest rev and will try to start playing with it in the next week or so when my mic arrives. 

Thanks for all of your efforts. It's brilliant.

Where do I sent my donation to? I would like to pay something for your time. It won't be much, but maybe enough for some good spirits and a hearty meal? 

LMK...

Justin


----------



## Justin Zazzi

Babs said:


> I've not measured whole sides yet but I can tell it's a vast improvement closer to curve. Just doing small things afterwards like a tone to verify phase between tweets and mids etc, and re-doing TA afterwards.
> k


When you say "re-doing TA afterwards", what method are you using? I ask because after spending a TON of time trying various methods I've come full circle back to using a tape measure and my spreadsheet. The worksheet I built (from Erin's example) landed me within 0.06ms of what I could dial in by ear alone.


----------



## subterFUSE

Babs said:


> So I finally tested using some faith in REW's auto EQ trims and just plugging in on front drivers to these curves. Amazed how much I had to dial back the low midrange to reach the target curve. But amazed even more at how huge an improvement.


When you have really good left/right balance on the EQ, the imaging gets so precise.


----------



## Justin Zazzi

Weightless said:


> Hey Jazzi, I just downloaded the latest rev and will try to start playing with it in the next week or so when my mic arrives.
> 
> Thanks for all of your efforts. It's brilliant.
> 
> Where do I sent my donation to? I would like to pay something for your time. It won't be much, but maybe enough for some good spirits and a hearty meal?
> 
> LMK...
> 
> Justin


I didn't start this project with the intent of soliciting donations, and I thank you very warmly for your offer. Really. 

I'm not sure how to respond, but I think I'll respectfully decline your money. Maybe one day I'll have a product worth donating for, but that will take a little while.

Instead, I would rather have your critical feedback from using the tool so I can make it better. I would like suggestions on what other features to include, and also where I should start on a "help me" file to help users overcome common stumbling blocks. These things are very valuable!

Also, your Calvin and Hobbes image is awesome!


----------



## CoLd_FuSiOn

Two thumbs up, thank you!


----------



## Babs

Jazzi said:


> When you say "re-doing TA afterwards", what method are you using? I ask because after spending a TON of time trying various methods I've come full circle back to using a tape measure and my spreadsheet. The worksheet I built (from Erin's example) landed me within 0.06ms of what I could dial in by ear alone.



I ended up last night using pretty much that.. Going back to measurements and fine adjusting by ear, and testing phase between left and right mid and sub. I typically end up the same, within a few clicks or +- .06ms of measured delays. Sub phasing though I notice will change a bit so grouping all the mains, I'll move them all at once to bring the sub up front in phase. 

It strikes me now that we all have the tools to dial into a left/right balanced curve pretty darn close with the right acoustical slopes, the real challenge then becomes finding that curve that fits the car and build. No quick easy formula for that. I guess that's where the guys with a "good ear" put experience to work. 

Listening this morning I liked it, then later at lunch not so much. Not used to such a flat mid-range. So I steepened the curve a bit to go at it again. I remember Hanatsu saying 2-ways seemed to sound more balanced with steeper curves. I can see that, or rather hear that. 


Sent from iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Babs

Just for giggles here's the curve I'm going to try. Interested what you experienced pro's might comment on it. 

20 16
25 16
31 15.5
40 14.5
50 13
63 11.5
80 10
100 8.1
125 6.6
160 5.2
200 4
250 3
315 2
400 1.3
500 0.5
630 0.2
800 0
1000 0
1200 -0.1
1600 -0.25
2000 -0.35
2500 -0.45
3100 -0.7
4000 -1.1
5000 -1.5
6300 -1.9
8000 -2.4
10000 -3.2
12000 -4.2
16000 -5.5
20000 -8



Sent from iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Babs

subterFUSE said:


> When you have really good left/right balance on the EQ, the imaging gets so precise.


Yes it does.. I was and am rather taken aback that it's so center-dash as well when everything is aligned and phased up. Like literally below the rear view mirror. Not so sure I dig that. So I was thinking if I tweaked center image by TA, adding ms to one side, removing from another, it can be moved.. However, keeping the mids in phase with sub at the same time becomes a trick. 

.. Much for the newb here to learn. 

Leveling is right on the money between the LR sides, since they were compared for 0db difference applying REW-recommended filters. So I suppose I could bump that slightly more hot on the left, but not sure if that'd be prudent.

One thing's for sure, when you get both sides FR balanced, you don't get image shift.. When Krall hits a high note all the sudden it doesn't go left or right. Takes care of that little annoyance.

Glad I'm learning all this on a 2-way.. A 3-way would make my brain explode.


----------



## Kevin K

whew, that's a steep slope from 20 to 20K but...the sound to the ear is final judge...let us know how it turns out please sir.



Babs said:


> Just for giggles here's the curve I'm going to try. Interested what you experienced pro's might comment on it.
> 
> 20 16
> 25 16
> 31 15.5
> 40 14.5
> 50 13
> 63 11.5
> 80 10
> 100 8.1
> 125 6.6
> 160 5.2
> 200 4
> 250 3
> 315 2
> 400 1.3
> 500 0.5
> 630 0.2
> 800 0
> 1000 0
> 1200 -0.1
> 1600 -0.25
> 2000 -0.35
> 2500 -0.45
> 3100 -0.7
> 4000 -1.1
> 5000 -1.5
> 6300 -1.9
> 8000 -2.4
> 10000 -3.2
> 12000 -4.2
> 16000 -5.5
> 20000 -8
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## truckguy

Babs said:


> So I finally tested using some faith in REW's auto EQ trims and just plugging in on front drivers to these curves. Amazed how much I had to dial back the low midrange to reach the target curve. But amazed even more at how huge an improvement.
> 
> I used this combined with Hanatsu's explanation of using REW's auto-EQ. Took all night for just the 2-way.


I'm glad to see another 2-way on here mentioning the same struggles I'm having. I've been working on tuning on and off for about a year with the Helix DSP and have yet to end up with a tune I really enjoy. I'm taking a few days off and will try again this weekend. At some point I'll have to find a pro within a few hours and see what they can do with it. Not much around here for SQ car audio shops.

Jazzi, if you're looking for additions I'd ask for tuning files that could be downloaded. I saw a video of a guy on youtube using 31 band pink noise tracks to do his final tuning by ear. I'd love to get my hands on something like that. Everybody ears are different and I think the "last" step of centering each band with pink noise would help me a lot. Explanations on how to use them might be helpful too. I know there are some on diyma already and I've download a few of them.


----------



## Kevin K

Truckguy ,
Message me and I'll send you a link that will help you out.


----------



## Babs

truckguy said:


> I'm glad to see another 2-way on here mentioning the same struggles I'm having. I've been working on tuning on and off for about a year with the Helix DSP and have yet to end up with a tune I really enjoy. I'm taking a few days off and will try again this weekend. At some point I'll have to find a pro within a few hours and see what they can do with it. Not much around here for SQ car audio shops.
> 
> 
> 
> Jazzi, if you're looking for additions I'd ask for tuning files that could be downloaded. I saw a video of a guy on youtube using 31 band pink noise tracks to do his final tuning by ear. I'd love to get my hands on something like that. Everybody ears are different and I think the "last" step of centering each band with pink noise would help me a lot. Explanations on how to use them might be helpful too. I know there are some on diyma already and I've download a few of them.



I'll tell ya.. I had one of those breakthrough moments when I realized the tweets I'm running weren't being utilized for their capability and I dropped the mid/tweet XO point from 2434hz @ 12db down to now a crazy obscene 1907hz @ 24db. These SB's have no problem with it but what it did getting that detail in that range away from of door 6-1/2's and up on the dash was night and day. Sometimes you have to ponder over your drivers and their placement to squeak out what you can from it. Such is a 2-way where every Hz counts for the stage from tweeters. Point being, consider the factors other than the TA and EQ of the tune and consider back to formula.. Basics. XO's and level-matching and treatments. Just an hour "fixing" my door cards was another watershed moment. Huge difference. Just an amp swap also was a biggie, though folks debate that. I'm a believer. 


Sent from iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Justin Zazzi

truckguy said:


> Jazzi, if you're looking for additions I'd ask for tuning files that could be downloaded. I saw a video of a guy on youtube using 31 band pink noise tracks to do his final tuning by ear. I'd love to get my hands on something like that. Everybody ears are different and I think the "last" step of centering each band with pink noise would help me a lot. Explanations on how to use them might be helpful too. I know there are some on diyma already and I've download a few of them.


Ask and you shall receive. I just built these using a tool from Pink noise audio waveform generator

Download the wave files here <----------

truckguy, link me that youtube video please.


----------



## pyropoptrt

Jazzi, this might be a solution for us Mac guys to be able to export the text files. Not quite sure, I can change the macro code but still can't click the buttons. If all else fails the windows guys/gals might appreciate being able to specify where they would like to export the files. Apologies in advance if you tried this already, I just did a quick search to see what kind of information I could find out there.

Macro help- Prompt to save as, user to input name and destination


----------



## sqnut

Try your curve and then try the suggested curve. I'm just taking a shot at it, I've never really understood tuning by plugging in numbers, as tuning to me is 30% using RTA to balance L/R etc and dialing in a base curve then 70% is listening and tweaking the eq. But lets see.



Babs said:


> Just for giggles here's the curve I'm going to try. Interested what you experienced pro's might comment on it.
> 
> 20 16 14
> 25 16 15
> 31 15.5 16
> 40 14.5 15
> 50 13 14
> 63 11.5 13
> 80 10 8
> 100 8.1 9
> 125 6.6 7
> 160 5.2 4.5
> 200 4 2.5
> 250 3 2
> 315 2 2.5
> 400 1.3 1.5
> 500 0.5 0.5
> 630 0.2 0.25
> 800 0
> 1000 0
> 1200 -0.1 -0.75
> 1600 -0.25 -1
> 2000 -0.35 -2
> 2500 -0.45 -2.5
> 3100 -0.7 -3
> 4000 -1.1 -4
> 5000 -1.5 -2.5
> 6300 -1.9 -4.5
> 8000 -2.4 -5.5
> 10000 -3.2 -4.25
> 12000 -4.2 -2.75
> 16000 -5.5 -3.5
> 20000 -8 -4.5
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Babs

sqnut said:


> Try your curve and then try the suggested curve. I'm just taking a shot at it, I've never really understood tuning by plugging in numbers, as tuning to me is 30% using RTA to balance L/R etc and dialing in a base curve then 70% is listening and tweaking the eq. But lets see.


Will give it a shot. Thanks


----------



## truckguy

Jazzi said:


> Ask and you shall receive. I just built these using a tool from Pink noise audio waveform generator
> 
> Download the wave files here <----------
> 
> truckguy, link me that youtube video please.


Jazzi! You are awesome. I'll download these tonight. 

Here is the link If I did it right. His 3rd video shows how he takes overall averages of each speaker with pink noise which is what I'm trying this round. Is it okay to do this using the pink noise generator on REW for this. If I can get that all squared away then I'll use the indivudual noise tracks to help get it centered. He has a good rant on the 12 video about pink noise which is food for thought too. 

http://youtu.be/DaaFX0XbkkA


----------



## Beckerson1

I want to thank you for bringing up these videos. It definitely helps clarify some things on my end.


----------



## Salami

Can someone please point me in the correct direction on how properly use the House Curve function of REW? I have been searching for the last couple of hours and my head is now spinning. I have Jazzi's program downloaded and created the file to export to REW but I am lost at this point. 

I am assuming once I understand how to use the feature I can take measurements with REW and with Jazzi's program use REW to tell me what specific changes to make to my EQ to match the targeted response? I have a Rockford Fosgate 360.3 so I am hoping this will tell me what specific frequencies to alter and how much. Is this correct?

If what my brain interpreted is correct I should be able to use this tool to level match the left and right sides so frequency response is reasonably balanced.


----------



## crazhorse

Do a search for quick tip using auto eq for rew... Explains the steps for applying the curve


----------



## Justin Zazzi

Salami said:


> Can someone please point me in the correct direction on how properly use the House Curve function of REW? I have been searching for the last couple of hours and my head is now spinning. I have Jazzi's program downloaded and created the file to export to REW but I am lost at this point.


It's a daunting task, and one that took a while to learn. I will see what I can do to ease the learning curve. Give me a little time to come up with something.



Salami said:


> I am assuming once I understand how to use the feature I can take measurements with REW and with Jazzi's program use REW to tell me what specific changes to make to my EQ to match the targeted response? I have a Rockford Fosgate 360.3 so I am hoping this will tell me what specific frequencies to alter and how much. Is this correct?


The combination of REW and my tuning companion will give you an idea of what you need to change, but they will not give you exact changes to make. If you use the auto-eq feature of REW, then you will give exact changes to put into your 360.3.



Salami said:


> If what my brain interpreted is correct I should be able to use this tool to level match the left and right sides so frequency response is reasonably balanced.


Somewhat yes. The left and right will be balanced at whatever point you have the microphone at, however our two ears are used at the same time and I have not yet figured out how to compensate for that with various microphone palcements and averages. My technique will require the use of bandwidth-limited pink noise tracks (I uploaded some a few posts back) and your ears to dial in a perfectly centered image. I'll hopefully be making a how-to for this process soon.

TL;DR
I plan to help you with this process, but it will take time because I'm not sure how best to present it. Perhaps a PDF document, maybe a YouTube video, maybe something interactive within the spreadsheet, I don't know yet. Hang in there.


----------



## ultimatemj

I think Hanatsu has a thread explaining rew & house curve

Try
http://diymobileaudio.com/forum/showthread.php?t=163234


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Babs

Salami, yes Hanatsu's thread on REW Auto EQ can get you an idea. 

So if you understand how to pull in the curve you want in the preferences (top right of main REW screen) you'll see in EQ the curve show up. Then at the target tab if you want just the unaltered curve make all the slopes = 0 and select full range for speaker to defeat REW's on 12/24db curve filter. So you select your curve from the main screen, go to EQ you should see that curve. If you're that far and see it with your house curve, win! Then adjust level to raise/lower target to match measurement so reasonable cuts will bring measured to equal target. 


Sent from iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## truckguy

Jazzi, would it be possible to add a full target curve when you export the text files?


----------



## Babs

truckguy said:


> Jazzi, would it be possible to add a full target curve when you export the text files?


The version I have does already.. But I was exporting from the 2-way page. YMMV if you're using the 3-way page to generate.


----------



## Justin Zazzi

truckguy said:


> Jazzi, would it be possible to add a full target curve when you export the text files?


The most current version does this. Check the last link in my signature for the latest version.

...unless you are talking about something else?


----------



## truckguy

Jazzi said:


> The most current version does this. Check the last link in my signature for the latest version.
> 
> ...unless you are talking about something else?


That's what I was after! I should've downloaded the latest version before asking. Can you please create beta version 5 for the things I want but don't know about yet. So then, when I ask for it, it'll already be there! As you can tell I work for the government...Thanks


----------



## Babs

^ sounds like my customers! LOL


Sent from iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Beckerson1

truckguy said:


> That's what I was after! I should've downloaded the latest version before asking. Can you please create beta version 5 for the things I want but don't know about yet. So then, when I ask for it, it'll already be there! As you can tell I work for the government...Thanks


Sig worthy lol


----------



## Justin Zazzi

Version 4.2 is updated with the following:

-Fixed an error in the Crossover worksheet so that the enclosure volume is now working as it should. Thank you to Brian Steele's diysubwoofer.org website for the calculations.

---> Download from my dropbox here <---


----------



## Babs

You da man Jazzi! This is great stuff in making folks look at their curve in REW that they're working with. Playing with the slopes etc you can still shape the curve within REW to develop a line to dial your drivers to. Be it with individual crossover points and slopes per side or EQ shaping etc. what an amazing time we live in with car tuning. 


Sent from iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## thebookfreak58

Guys,

Using this tool, am I measuring a driver at a time, or a side at a time (sub off)??

I'm still a little confused how to set everything up exporting the text file, and then the setup required to do the AutoEQ calc?

Any chance of a quick rundown?
I am using a USB mic, and moving from tuning by ear, to using a mic to get a solid base line.


----------



## brumledb

This is a good place to start and if you look in the how to section there are threads that more specific to the basics of REW. 

But yes, initially you are trying to measure each driver against the curve, not each side.

First-timers guide to measuring your system
http://diymobileaudio.com/forum/showthread.php?t=163234


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## brumledb

This is also helpful. http://www.roomeqwizard.com/REWhelp.pdf


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Babs

Essentially what you do is choose your custom curve as house curve in REW.. I actually use Jazzi's file to generate and import to REW, then you can still play with the target crossover points slopes and levels to make it match up to the curve you'd like to bring the driver to. I even play with the slopes in REW a little and deviate a bit as to minimize a bit of the work to EQ a driver down to the curve within a certain bandwidth. 


Sent from iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## thebookfreak58

Babs said:


> Essentially what you do is choose your custom curve as house curve in REW.. I actually use Jazzi's file to generate and import to REW, then you can still play with the target crossover points slopes and levels to make it match up to the curve you'd like to bring the driver to. I even play with the slopes in REW a little and deviate a bit as to minimize a bit of the work to EQ a driver down to the curve within a certain bandwidth.
> 
> 
> Sent from iPhone using Tapatalk


So something like this:

* Rough Crossovers in DSP (levels all set to same for all drivers for now)
* TA using tape measure
* export house curves from tool
* measure each driver on it's own and autoEQ as per curve/driver (defeat REW cross over stuff)
* measure side at a time to sort out driver interaction and autoEQ
* profit?

My only question, when doing initial measurements, how do I ensure that the levels are set correctly between L/R? In the Hanatsu thread, he sets them first? But I figure if everything is matching a baseline reference, it will figure itself out??

Edit: I guess my question is regarding setting the Target Response? Fix headunit volume, DSP channel gain set to 0db initially, fix computer output volume, and then let REW figure out how much to drop each channel?

Or do I use the overall target curve for that (ie. indv driver curve for matching pairs (tweet to tweet), overall system curve to match side by side drivers (tweet to mid))?


----------



## Justin Zazzi

thebookfreak58 said:


> So something like this:
> 
> (1) * Rough Crossovers in DSP (levels all set to same for all drivers for now)
> (2) * TA using tape measure
> (3) * export house curves from tool
> (4) * measure each driver on it's own and autoEQ as per curve/driver (defeat REW cross over stuff)
> (5) * measure side at a time to sort out driver interaction and autoEQ
> (6) * profit?
> 
> My only question, when doing initial measurements, how do I ensure that the levels are set correctly between L/R? In the Hanatsu thread, he sets them first? But I figure if everything is matching a baseline reference, it will figure itself out??
> 
> Edit: I guess my question is regarding setting the Target Response? Fix headunit volume, DSP channel gain set to 0db initially, fix computer output volume, and then let REW figure out how much to drop each channel?
> 
> Or do I use the overall target curve for that (ie. indv driver curve for matching pairs (tweet to tweet), overall system curve to match side by side drivers (tweet to mid))?


Hello bookfreak, and thank you for taking interest in my project.

Your method is pretty good. I would make one change to it. During step (4) when measuring each driver on its own, I would set level before making any EQ changes.

During step (5), everything should line up properly if you've done the previous steps thoroughly. My tool aims to eliminate the necessity of changing something during step (5), though it is worth measuring as a double-check to make sure everything is working correctly.

To answer your question, if you set the REW "target level" (within the EQ module, on the top-right side of the window, under target settings) to the same during each of your measurements, then you will be level-level setting and EQ'ing each speaker to the same reference volume. Then when you play them together for the first time, they should match up nicely. It is up to you to choose what the "target level" will be, but I base it on the quietest speaker in my system and reduce the other speakers to match that level.

I hope this helps?


----------



## sqnut

thebookfreak58 said:


> So something like this:
> 
> * Rough Crossovers in DSP (levels all set to same for all drivers for now)
> * TA using tape measure
> * export house curves from tool
> * measure each driver on it's own and autoEQ as per curve/driver (defeat REW cross over stuff)
> * measure side at a time to sort out driver interaction and autoEQ
> * profit?
> 
> My only question, when doing initial measurements, how do I ensure that the levels are set correctly between L/R? In the Hanatsu thread, he sets them first? But I figure if everything is matching a baseline reference, it will figure itself out??
> 
> Edit: I guess my question is regarding setting the Target Response? Fix headunit volume, DSP channel gain set to 0db initially, fix computer output volume, and then let REW figure out how much to drop each channel?
> 
> Or do I use the overall target curve for that (ie. indv driver curve for matching pairs (tweet to tweet), overall system curve to match side by side drivers (tweet to mid))?


If you're doing TA before EQ then you need to level match the L&R drivers first or you'll get funky TA results.


----------



## Justin Zazzi

sqnut said:


> If you're doing TA before EQ then you need to level match the L&R drivers first or you'll get funky TA results.


It makes absolutely no difference which order time delay or EQ or levels are done in if addressing a single speaker at a time, which is the methodology of this tool. That is the entire point of this tool actually, to take the guesswork out of the equation when tuning a system.

If time alignment is set using a tape measure, and levels are set based on the quietest driver in the system, and crossovers are set to some reasonable value, and the EQ is used to fully enforce the curves that this tool builds, then when you play the drivers together for the first time you should get the desired response *every time*.


----------



## thebookfreak58

Jazzi said:


> Hello bookfreak, and thank you for taking interest in my project.
> 
> Your method is pretty good. I would make one change to it. During step (4) when measuring each driver on its own, I would set level before making any EQ changes.
> 
> During step (5), everything should line up properly if you've done the previous steps thoroughly. My tool aims to eliminate the necessity of changing something during step (5), though it is worth measuring as a double-check to make sure everything is working correctly.
> 
> To answer your question, if you set the REW "target level" (within the EQ module, on the top-right side of the window, under target settings) to the same during each of your measurements, then you will be level-level setting and EQ'ing each speaker to the same reference volume. Then when you play them together for the first time, they should match up nicely. It is up to you to choose what the "target level" will be, but I base it on the quietest speaker in my system and reduce the other speakers to match that level.
> 
> I hope this helps?


Helps heaps! All makes sense. I guess my last question is, once I level match L vs R (tweet vs tweet), when then, do I set the levels of relative drivers in reference to the house curve?

ie. setting the Left side level of Tweet relative to midrange in reference to the house curve? Not sure how to get REW to tell me the difference (or if I can measure it)

Is that something to do with the Target Level I assume?



sqnut said:


> If you're doing TA before EQ then you need to level match the L&R drivers first or you'll get funky TA results.


I'm doing TA with a tape measure so it's set and forget


----------



## Justin Zazzi

thebookfreak58 said:


> Helps heaps! All makes sense. I guess my last question is, once I level match L vs R (tweet vs tweet), when then, do I set the levels of relative drivers in reference to the house curve?
> 
> ie. setting the Left side level of Tweet relative to midrange in reference to the house curve? Not sure how to get REW to tell me the difference (or if I can measure it)
> 
> Is that something to do with the Target Level I assume?


Maybe this step by step will help:

-Measure each speaker, one at a time, with levels set to +-0dB on your processor
-Look at the ALL SPL tab in REW, find the speaker that is most quiet, remember which one that is.
-Export house curves from my tool
-Load the house curve for that particular quiet speaker into REW
-Click on that measurement on the left side of REW so the quiet speaker measurement is selected, then enter the EQ module in REW
-Find "target level" (within the EQ module, on the top-right side of the window, under target settings) and change this value so that the house curve (as much as possible) lines up with the measurement of your quietest speaker. Remember the value you use for "target level"
-Now set crossovers and EQ for that speaker to match the house curve as closely as possible
-Repeat with each other speaker, one at a time, and make sure to use the same "target level" for each one.

Now all of your speakers should be playing at the same loudness relative to that "target level". This means they should also be level matched to each other. You are not using REW to measure the relative loudness of each speaker to eachother, but rather measure the relative loudness of each speaker to that "target level" curve.


----------



## thebookfreak58

Jazzi said:


> Maybe this step by step will help:
> 
> -Measure each speaker, one at a time, with levels set to +-0dB on your processor
> -Look at the ALL SPL tab in REW, find the speaker that is most quiet, remember which one that is.
> -Export house curves from my tool
> -Load the house curve for that particular quiet speaker into REW
> -Click on that measurement on the left side of REW so the quiet speaker measurement is selected, then enter the EQ module in REW
> -Find "target level" (within the EQ module, on the top-right side of the window, under target settings) and change this value so that the house curve (as much as possible) lines up with the measurement of your quietest speaker. Remember the value you use for "target level"
> -Now set crossovers and EQ for that speaker to match the house curve as closely as possible
> -Repeat with each other speaker, one at a time, and make sure to use the same "target level" for each one.
> 
> Now all of your speakers should be playing at the same loudness relative to that "target level". This means they should also be level matched to each other. You are not using REW to measure the relative loudness of each speaker to eachother, but rather measure the relative loudness of each speaker to that "target level" curve.


Perfect! Makes sense. Thanks so much for that!

When setting the EQ for each driver (second last and last steps) I guess a big advantage is using the AutoEQ correct?


----------



## Justin Zazzi

thebookfreak58 said:


> Perfect! Makes sense. Thanks so much for that!
> 
> When setting the EQ for each driver (second last and last steps) I guess a big advantage is using the AutoEQ correct?


Yep, that Auto-EQ function is wonderful! I limit the amount of bands it can use to maybe 5-8 per speaker otherwise it gets a little carried away. The broad (low-Q) adjustments are generally better than the narrow (high-Q) adjustments if you can only have so many of them.


----------



## gumbeelee

Jazzi, I cant believe i have missed out on this thread until now. This baby KICKS SERIOUS AZZ!! I will be using this baby alot, just got into it really yesterday and today. KILLER!! Rhanx man!!


----------



## thebookfreak58

Is there a way in REW to see the target curve overlaid on a measurement live (say using the RTA and infinite averaging) ? 

Would then be able to essentially see changes live to match curve.


----------



## Justin Zazzi

I don't think you can overlay the house curve into the RTA module like that. The EQ module is really really accurate when estimating changes so it's not that big a deal.

Also, if you want to use the RTA function then make sure you have the noise generator's PN Periodic (periodic pink noise) and zero averaging for best results. The FFT length of the generator and the RTA module have to match exactly for this to work, then you can see changes in real time.


----------



## ninetysix

Hi, awesome project Jazzi, can't believe I've been doing it the hard way for so long. The embarrassing part is, I'd never even thought to EQ with a crossover enabled. Please correct me if I've got that wrong.

I was always confused by the speaker settings in REW, and the guide from minidsp said to set it to none and to EQ with crossovers disabled so that's what I always did, trying to get it either as flat as possible or as close to my house curve as I could, then doing my final EQ (using the input EQ on my minidsp 6x8) with all left drivers then all right drivers to match the house curve.

So I'm very keen to have a go at this. Is there any possibility you could include a linkwitz-riley 12dB/oct crossover option? It's my preferred crossover most of the time with drivers that can play well above or below their crossover point.


Cheers


----------



## Justin Zazzi

ninetysix said:


> Hi, awesome project Jazzi, can't believe I've been doing it the hard way for so long. The embarrassing part is, I'd never even thought to EQ with a crossover enabled. Please correct me if I've got that wrong.
> 
> I was always confused by the speaker settings in REW, and the guide from minidsp said to set it to none and to EQ with crossovers disabled so that's what I always did, trying to get it either as flat as possible or as close to my house curve as I could, then doing my final EQ (using the input EQ on my minidsp 6x8) with all left drivers then all right drivers to match the house curve.
> 
> So I'm very keen to have a go at this. Is there any possibility you could include a linkwitz-riley 12dB/oct crossover option? It's my preferred crossover most of the time with drivers that can play well above or below their crossover point.
> 
> 
> Cheers


Thanks for your support.

The only thing that matters is that the acoustic response of the speaker matches the target response of the crossover. I have found the best way to do this is remove all EQ and set a custom electronic crossover (some frequency and some value of Q) that best matches the curve (this is one reason I love the 6to8 processor, I can create whatever crossover I want). Then use EQ to pin the result to the target curve as close as possible.

The other way to do it is to EQ your response to be ruler flat through the crossover range, then apply your electronic crossover of choice. This could be dangerous though because you'll have to sweep the speaker through frequencies below the crossover frequency at power that might damage the speaker (tweeters for example). Thus, I don't like this method.

I don't have the 2nd order L-R crossover as an option because I could not find the math that describes the shape of it. If you find it, I'll add it in.


----------



## eling23

Jazzi said:


> Maybe this step by step will help:
> 
> -Measure each speaker, one at a time, with levels set to +-0dB on your processor
> -Look at the ALL SPL tab in REW, find the speaker that is most quiet, remember which one that is.
> -Export house curves from my tool
> -Load the house curve for that particular quiet speaker into REW
> -Click on that measurement on the left side of REW so the quiet speaker measurement is selected, then enter the EQ module in REW
> -Find "target level" (within the EQ module, on the top-right side of the window, under target settings) and change this value so that the house curve (as much as possible) lines up with the measurement of your quietest speaker. Remember the value you use for "target level"
> -Now set crossovers and EQ for that speaker to match the house curve as closely as possible
> -Repeat with each other speaker, one at a time, and make sure to use the same "target level" for each one.


I would maybe want to set in a low crossover on your tweeters before you measure step #1 to minimize the risk of damaging them or change the range of your sweep so it doesn't sweep the low frequencies for the tweeters (maybe ~500hz depending on how low your tweeter can go)

BUt yes this is a very nice tool!


----------



## sicride

I am having trouble with this. I cannot export. When I open the spreadsheet I get a warning:

"This file was created in a newer version of Microsoft Excel. The file has been converted to a format you can work with, but the following issues were encountered. The file has opened in read-only mode to protect the original file.

-This object will no longer be editable.

-Uninitialized ActiveX controls will not be opened in this version of Excel.

- This version of Excel does not support as many line colors as newer versions of Excel. All line colors in this workbook will be mapped to the closest color supported by this version of Excel, and a chart may display multiple series in the same color."

I have set Macro security to "Low" under Tools>Macro>Security.

Am I missing something or will my "older version" not work? It is Microsoft Office Professional Edition Excel 2003.


----------



## ninetysix

Well after a few tries I managed to get everything absolutely bang on! Settled on whitledge 24db LR 10-80 on an alpine type R sealed, 80-600 on a scan illuminator 7", 600-5000 scan 10f (0.5L sealed on axis A-pillar) and 5000 up on scan D2004 tweets. 

Sounds great so far, I've never been able to get so close to a desired house curve before. 

I'll keep an eye out for the 12dB math, but 24dB ain't so bad  Cheers jazzi


----------



## ninetysix

sicride said:


> I am having trouble with this. I cannot export. When I open the spreadsheet I get a warning:
> 
> "This file was created in a newer version of Microsoft Excel. The file has been converted to a format you can work with, but the following issues were encountered. The file has opened in read-only mode to protect the original file.
> 
> -This object will no longer be editable.
> 
> -Uninitialized ActiveX controls will not be opened in this version of Excel.
> 
> - This version of Excel does not support as many line colors as newer versions of Excel. All line colors in this workbook will be mapped to the closest color supported by this version of Excel, and a chart may display multiple series in the same color."
> 
> I have set Macro security to "Low" under Tools>Macro>Security.
> 
> Am I missing something or will my "older version" not work? It is Microsoft Office Professional Edition Excel 2003.


I think I had a similar issue, had to install the visual basic add-on for excel


----------



## Justin Zazzi

sicride said:


> I am having trouble with this. I cannot export. When I open the spreadsheet I get a warning:
> 
> "This file was created in a newer version of Microsoft Excel. The file has been converted to a format you can work with, but the following issues were encountered. The file has opened in read-only mode to protect the original file.
> 
> -This object will no longer be editable.
> 
> -Uninitialized ActiveX controls will not be opened in this version of Excel.
> 
> - This version of Excel does not support as many line colors as newer versions of Excel. All line colors in this workbook will be mapped to the closest color supported by this version of Excel, and a chart may display multiple series in the same color."
> 
> I have set Macro security to "Low" under Tools>Macro>Security.
> 
> Am I missing something or will my "older version" not work? It is Microsoft Office Professional Edition Excel 2003.


I'm sorry to hear you're having trouble with this. I created the spreadsheet using the 2007 version of Excel. It makes use of the VBA scripting, so make sure you have that available to you. I have no experience troubleshooting older versions of Excel, so I don't think I can help you unfortunately. Sorry!


----------



## Justin Zazzi

Version 5.0 is now ready

New in this version:
-Added a new sheet for selecting power wire and fuse size. A *ton* of research has gone into that sheet. I look forward to your feedback.
-Added "how to use" information for each tab
-Added warnings for non-optimal usage of the house curves sheets
-Added the option for a 2nd order Linkwitz-Riley crossover alignment by request, though it is still not recommended
-Modified the Jazzi house curve and set it to default, for reasons

-----> Download From My Dropbox Here <-----

(be sure to click download on the right side, you cannot use the spreadsheet from within the browser)



Known issues:
-Apple users have trouble exporting house curve files. I'm not sure how to fix this.
-Older versions of Excel might not work properly (I built this using Excel 2007)
-You must enable macros and VBA scripting for some features


----------



## Hugg727

Thanks Jazzi.

I just started using this a few weeks ago and your work is amazing.


----------



## Justin Zazzi

ninetysix said:


> Well after a few tries I managed to get everything absolutely bang on! Settled on whitledge 24db LR 10-80 on an alpine type R sealed, 80-600 on a scan illuminator 7", 600-5000 scan 10f (0.5L sealed on axis A-pillar) and 5000 up on scan D2004 tweets.
> 
> Sounds great so far, I've never been able to get so close to a desired house curve before.
> 
> I'll keep an eye out for the 12dB math, but 24dB ain't so bad  Cheers jazzi


Hey ninetysix!

I found the math for the 12dB Linkwitz-Riley. Actually, a user here helped me with that (thanks eling!). It is now included in the house curve sheets. I still think the 24dB/octave slope is superior, but I won't stop you from experimenting!


----------



## Justin Zazzi

Hugg727 said:


> Thanks Jazzi.
> 
> I just started using this a few weeks ago and your work is amazing.


Oh hey Hugg727,

Thanks for the compliment, and I'm really glad you enjoy using this tool. Please let me know if you want me to change or add anything.


----------



## t0n33

Thanks, Jazzi! I downloaded to try out the new version this weekend!


----------



## subterFUSE

Thanks again Jazzi. Your efforts here are certainly appreciated by many.

I was wondering, since I'm a Mac user predominantly and the export feature doesn't work on Mac.... Would it be possible to see the table with the frequencies and gains so we could manually copy and paste into a txt file? That way Mac users could generate the target curves without having to use Parallels or Boot Camp. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ninetysix

Jazzi said:


> Hey ninetysix!
> 
> I found the math for the 12dB Linkwitz-Riley. Actually, a user here helped me with that (thanks eling!). It is now included in the house curve sheets. I still think the 24dB/octave slope is superior, but I won't stop you from experimenting!


Awesome, thanks fella! Your spread sheet has made it so much faster and easier to get drivers dialed in. Before i found this thread tuning for me was just trial and error, mostly error.

I'll have a play with v5 over the weekend. I built new pods for my mids and was ordered back in the house after only tuning one side, been driving all week with the left side muted :laugh:


Cheers


----------



## Justin Zazzi

Version 5.1 is now ready

New in this version:
-Modified the VBA code in the house curve worksheets. The user is now prompted for a folder to save the text files in. Hopefully this will allow Mac users to enjoy this tool too. Please let me know if it works!
-Update: confirming this works with Excel 2015 on the mac. I hope it does for other versions as well!

-----> Download From My Dropbox Here <-----

(be sure to click download on the right side, you cannot use the spreadsheet from within the browser)



Known issues:
-Older versions of Excel might not work properly (I built this using Excel 2007)
-You must enable macros and VBA scripting for some features


----------



## thebookfreak58

Hmmm...sadly button doesn't want to click for me.

Using Excel 2015 for Mac.

When I open it, I enable Macros, but then it makes me open it 'read only' due to excel version?

Tim


----------



## Justin Zazzi

I made a change and re-uploaded the file in the past few minutes, but used the same file name. I added some mac-specific code. If you could, please give it a try once more.

Opening it in read-only mode shouldn't be an issue since you don't need to save any changes made to the sheets in order for the export function to work. I think.


----------



## ninetysix

Nice, that will be very handy to be able to drop them straight into my current project folder.

Any chance you could make it so if you select one of the included curves then select custom, the (approximate) values for the selected curve can be slightly tweaked? I appreciate that the included curves may be far more complex than the custom curve allows.

Cheers


----------



## thebookfreak58

Jazzi said:


> I made a change and re-uploaded the file in the past few minutes, but used the same file name. I added some mac-specific code. If you could, please give it a try once more.
> 
> Opening it in read-only mode shouldn't be an issue since you don't need to save any changes made to the sheets in order for the export function to work. I think.


Hm. Still no good.

The message says:

This workbook contains content that isn't supported in this version of Excel.

If I look in the Macros section of excel, I can't see any macros...so I'm guessing that's the issue??

EDIT: Wehn I go VBA editor I can see the code.

It must be the macro for the button that isn't firing?

Some screenshots:


----------



## Justin Zazzi

thebookfreak58 said:


> Hm. Still no good.
> 
> The message says:
> 
> This workbook contains content that isn't supported in this version of Excel.
> 
> If I look in the Macros section of excel, I can't see any macros...so I'm guessing that's the issue??


What version of excel are you using? Mac Excel 2008 for example does not support VBA scripting whatsoever.

I'm not using macros so you shouldn't see any. You'll want to look for the VBA code instead.


----------



## thebookfreak58

Jazzi said:


> What version of excel are you using? Mac Excel 2008 for example does not support VBA scripting whatsoever.
> 
> I'm not using macros so you shouldn't see any. You'll want to look for the VBA code instead.


Excel 2015 (v15).

See my edit. have some screenshots


----------



## Justin Zazzi

ninetysix said:


> Nice, that will be very handy to be able to drop them straight into my current project folder.
> 
> Any chance you could make it so if you select one of the included curves then select custom, the (approximate) values for the selected curve can be slightly tweaked? I appreciate that the included curves may be far more complex than the custom curve allows.
> 
> Cheers


That would not be too difficult, but I'm not sure how to do that in a way that is not confusing. Try this instead. Export the curve that you kinda like, and open the text file called "overall". Then type those values into the worksheet as your custom flavor curve. Now you can make small changes as you please.


----------



## Justin Zazzi

thebookfreak58 said:


> Excel 2015 (v15).
> 
> See my edit. have some screenshots


Thanks for the screenshots. I just learned that Mac Excel has no support of activeX controls whatsoever. I use activeX buttons, so what is happening is they are not triggering the VBA code. I'll try changing the buttons to simple form-style buttons instead and see if that works for you. Give me a few minutes....


----------



## thebookfreak58

Jazzi said:


> Thanks for the screenshots. I just learned that Mac Excel has no support of activeX controls whatsoever. I use activeX buttons, so what is happening is they are not triggering the VBA code. I'll try changing the buttons to simple form-style buttons instead and see if that works for you. Give me a few minutes....


Awesome. I was just about to say it seems like the button isn't tied to the code.

If it helps, I just tried running the VBA code in the editor.

Error: 

Compile error:
User-defined type not defined
(Sheet4 29:8)


----------



## ninetysix

Jazzi said:


> That would not be too difficult, but I'm not sure how to do that in a way that is not confusing. Try this instead. Export the curve that you kinda like, and open the text file called "overall". Then type those values into the worksheet as your custom flavor curve. Now you can make small changes as you please.


Wow, embarrassing. I should absolutely have known I could just do that :blush:


----------



## Justin Zazzi

Alright thebookfreak58, give it a try again. I removed the activeX buttons and moved the VBA code into the macros. Crossing my fingers....


----------



## thebookfreak58

Jazzi said:


> Alright thebookfreak58, give it a try again. I removed the activeX buttons and moved the VBA code into the macros. Crossing my fingers....


Close. Macro runs now (don't get an error when opening file too)

But the code breaks when you call the FileDialog object.

See: http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/...g/e8cb0bdb-a0d2-4379-842a-d6b9efe9f66f?auth=1


----------



## thebookfreak58

Looking more at your code, you have a different routine for Mac. But for some reason the detection/skipping isn't working and it's running the Windows routine too.

Tim

(I'm no VBA expert)


----------



## Justin Zazzi

thebookfreak58 said:


> Close. Macro runs now (don't get an error when opening file too)
> 
> But the code breaks when you call the FileDialog object.
> 
> See: VBA with Excel for Mac: Calling the File Dialog - Microsoft Community


When you press the export button, do you get the option to choose an output folder?

That portion of the code causing the error (which is windows-specific) should be skipped altogether if you are able to select an output folder.


----------



## thebookfreak58

Got it working.

Had to delete this line?

Dim fd As FileDialog


----------



## thebookfreak58

Jazzi said:


> When you press the export button, do you get the option to choose an output folder?
> 
> That portion of the code causing the error (which is windows-specific) should be skipped altogether if you are able to select an output folder.


Nope.

It's going straight into the Windows Specific section. Not sure how you're detecting Windows/Mac environments?

EDIT: I added a breakpoint at: Line 10 of threewayMacro(), then executed the code. It never made it there, going straight into Windows specific.


----------



## Justin Zazzi

This is hard to communicate. If you're willing to work with me for the next little while, join me in this chatroom thing. Should be really easy to join it.
2bol72 - Tinychat


----------



## ndm

Who Hoo!!. It finally works for me....but...

Any way to do different Xover slopes in the crossover sheet?


----------



## Justin Zazzi

After a little power session working with thebookfreak58 (thank you, seriously!), the spreadsheet is now confirmed working on Excel 2015 for the Mac. It also still works for me in Excel 2007 on the PC. Hopefully I didn't break stuff for other versions of Excel. Let me know if I did!

You can download the most updated version from my signature below. Even though I haven't changed the file name (still 5.1) I have changed the VBA code significantly. The best version is live as of right now. If you have some older copy of 5.1, trash it and grab the new one.


----------



## Justin Zazzi

ndm said:


> Who Hoo!!. It finally works for me....but...
> 
> Any way to do different Xover slopes in the crossover sheet?


It's possible, though I'm not sure how much of an effect it would have. What would you like to do?


----------



## Elgrosso

Jazzi said:


> After a little power session working with thebookfreak58 (thank you, seriously!), the spreadsheet is now confirmed working on Excel 2015 for the Mac. It also still works for me in Excel 2007 on the PC. Hopefully I didn't break stuff for other versions of Excel. Let me know if I did!
> 
> You can download the most updated version from my signature below. Even though I haven't changed the file name (still 5.1) I have changed the VBA code significantly. The best version is live as of right now. If you have some older copy of 5.1, trash it and grab the new one.


Awesome! Thx guys


----------



## Justin Zazzi

I don't want to count my chickens before they hatch, but I've found a skilled dude who said he can help me port the functionality of the tools into a webpage. Hopefully this will help everyone that doesn't have a copy of Excel or is having trouble getting it to work. Don't hold your breath though, it will be done on the side in his spare time. I'll let you all know how it progresses. *crossing fingers*


----------



## Jscoyne2

Jazzi said:


> I don't want to count my chickens before they hatch, but I've found a skilled dude who said he can help me port the functionality of the tools into a webpage. Hopefully this will help everyone that doesn't have a copy of Excel or is having trouble getting it to work. Don't hold your breath though, it will be done on the side in his spare time. I'll let you all know how it progresses. *crossing fingers*


If he falls through. Hit up the web design or programming classes at your local college. Some young guy would love to make a java based program for you.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk


----------



## TwistdInfinity

Aby chance of getting settings for 48dB LR? A lot of dsp's are coming out with processors that go up that high. I know I'd like to put a 48dB LR high pass on my mids. Would let me play them lower in safety 

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk


----------



## Justin Zazzi

I could do that, but I'm not sure where to find the math of a LR48 crossover. If you can find it, I'll try to add it in.


----------



## TwistdInfinity

I'm not sure if this helps, but it's 2 24dB LR filters combined from my understanding 

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk


----------



## ninetysix

Wouldn't that be two cascaded Butterworth 24dB filters? Two LR24 filters would be 12dB down at the crossover point instead of 6dB, if I'm not mistaken.


----------



## TwistdInfinity

Hmm yeah I'm not sure now, I'll have to look into it! 

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk


----------



## Landshark77

Just stumbled on this great tool, going to give it a shot and see how it compares to my latest tune I call "coffee and ocd". I free'd up two config spots on the c-dsp for it.


----------



## Justin Zazzi

Welcome to the party Landshark77!

I would really enjoy hearing your feedback


----------



## Landshark77

Jazzi said:


> Welcome to the party Landshark77!
> 
> I would really enjoy hearing your feedback


Well here is my final REW graph, full system without sub. I have a question about the dips. Using the LR4 crossovers is it normal to have such a big dip between 2khz and 5khz? Also I haven't boosted any gains when eq'ing only cut, on this graph would you suggest boosting any frequencies? i.e. 175hz, 500hz and 1000hz

Thanks.


----------



## Ziggyrama

Instead of boosting those dips, think about cutting the peaks around them. Some of those dips may not respond to EQ. You can experiment using rta to see what effect boosting would have on the area. If you don't see much, leave it alone and cut around it instead to get the desired curve. Your overall levels will be lower in relation to your volume knob but the overall response is what you wanted.

What are your xover points?


----------



## TwistdInfinity

I no longer need ability to do 48dB slopes. Changed out my dsp from the miniDSP C DSP to the helix p six dsp mk2. 


Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk


----------



## Landshark77

Ziggyrama said:


> Instead of boosting those dips, think about cutting the peaks around them. Some of those dips may not respond to EQ. You can experiment using rta to see what effect boosting would have on the area. If you don't see much, leave it alone and cut around it instead to get the desired curve. Your overall levels will be lower in relation to your volume knob but the overall response is what you wanted.
> 
> What are your xover points?


Mids are LR 24db @ 80 and 2500
Tweets are LR 24db @ 2500


----------



## Justin Zazzi

Landshark77 said:


> Well here is my final REW graph, full system without sub. I have a question about the dips. Using the LR4 crossovers is it normal to have such a big dip between 2khz and 5khz? Also I haven't boosted any gains when eq'ing only cut, on this graph would you suggest boosting any frequencies? i.e. 175hz, 500hz and 1000hz
> 
> Thanks.


As Ziggyrama suggested, try a gentle boost of +3dB to each of those valleys and see if the frequency response changes. If it does not respond then the dips are caused by cancellation and cannot be fixed with EQ. I'm guessing the broad dip in the 2-5k region will respond to EQ really well though. The nature of an LR4 filter will not give you a broad dip like that. You have something else going on.

Does your midrange and your tweeter match their individual curves well in that region? Is your time alignment set by tape measure using the other sheet in the workbook? Have you tried swapping the polarity of your tweeter to see what happens? When playing only your left channels, does the frequency response have that same dip? How about the right-only channels?


----------



## Landshark77

Jazzi said:


> As Ziggyrama suggested, try a gentle boost of +3dB to each of those valleys and see if the frequency response changes. If it does not respond then the dips are caused by cancellation and cannot be fixed with EQ. I'm guessing the broad dip in the 2-5k region will respond to EQ really well though. The nature of an LR4 filter will not give you a broad dip like that. You have something else going on.
> 
> Does your midrange and your tweeter match their individual curves well in that region? Is your time alignment set by tape measure using the other sheet in the workbook? Have you tried swapping the polarity of your tweeter to see what happens? When playing only your left channels, does the frequency response have that same dip? How about the right-only channels?



Thanks Jazzi. I've tried a handful of those things but will give the rest a shot and see how it goes.

The tweeters are spot on to your tweeter LR4 curve. The mids are not as good, but in the ballpark. Time alignment set with tape measure and sounds great, right in the middle of dash. I haven't checked left and right channels individually yet.
I also am taking readings while in drivers seat, maybe I'll get out and just leave mic in the headrest this time.


----------



## ninetysix

When you were measuring whilst sitting in the drivers seat, how were you doing it exactly? Hanatsu's tuning guide shows a good method for that


----------



## Landshark77

ninetysix said:


> When you were measuring whilst sitting in the drivers seat, how were you doing it exactly? Hanatsu's tuning guide shows a good method for that


I used the method one of DIYMA members outline in their video tutorial. Held the mic upright and basically "waved" it from one ear to the other.

I just tried all my measurement and eq'ing again with just the mic in the drivers seat at 0 and 90 degrees. It sounded not nearly as good, and I couldn't get rid of those nulls unless I tried some crazy +gain.

My C-DSP only has 6 PEQ per channel and 6 peq for the left and right input channels. Sort of feel like 10 PEQ would be the perfect number.


----------



## Ziggyrama

Landshark77 said:


> I used the method one of DIYMA members outline in their video tutorial. Held the mic upright and basically "waved" it from one ear to the other.
> 
> I just tried all my measurement and eq'ing again with just the mic in the drivers seat at 0 and 90 degrees. It sounded not nearly as good, and I couldn't get rid of those nulls unless I tried some crazy +gain.
> 
> My C-DSP only has 6 PEQ per channel and 6 peq for the left and right input channels. Sort of feel like 10 PEQ would be the perfect number.


The orientation of the mic matters, meaning, whether it is pointing up or straight at the source. I use UMIK1 and it comes with 2 calibration files, one for mic pointing at the source, the other point up, aka, 90degree rotation. Make sure to use the calibration file that matches your mic orientation. I don't think you will get massive changes in your readings but let's aim to be as precise as we can be.

When you say you wave the mic, are you moving it as you are doing the sweep? I believe the idea is to keep the mic stationary during the measurement, reposition, measure again, average the readings. Anthem that has pretty sophisticated room correction software employs this method, which pretty much the same idea as what Hanatsu is recommending.

In the end, I suspect your dips will not go away completely and you do have acoustic problems. I have one of those too and I will try to work with it by lowering down things around it to achieve a better overall response, within reason of course. You could try repositioning the driver, if that is an option. It may change the curve drastically. Also, do you have any door treatment in form of mass loading, CCF and MLV?


----------



## subterFUSE

I have an Anthem AVM-50v processor and you are correct how the ARC software measurements work. Single mic, facing up. Multiple measurement locations. They use sine sweeps, with about 7-10 sweeps per measurement to eliminate background noise.

In my car, I prefer using periodic pink noise because I can adjust the EQ in real time while watching the response change on the computer screen. I am running 5 microphones simultaneously, however. This gives me automatic averaging of 5 mic positions without having to physically move the mics.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Ziggyrama

subterFUSE said:


> I have an Anthem AVM-50v processor and you are correct how the ARC software measurements work. Single mic, facing up. Multiple measurement locations. They use sine sweeps, with about 7-10 sweeps per measurement to eliminate background noise.
> 
> In my car, I prefer using periodic pink noise because I can adjust the EQ in real time while watching the response change on the computer screen. I am running 5 microphones simultaneously, however. This gives me automatic averaging of 5 mic positions without having to physically move the mics.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Cool. I run mrx710 with arc and the results from correction are impressive. This is how I got started with all this audio tuning business. Once I saw what arc does, I stared to go down that rabbit hole. In fact, once I am somewhat done with the car, I will go back and revisit my living room curves again now that I actually know what they mean.


----------



## TwistdInfinity

Landshark77 said:


> I used the method one of DIYMA members outline in their video tutorial. Held the mic upright and basically "waved" it from one ear to the other.
> 
> I just tried all my measurement and eq'ing again with just the mic in the drivers seat at 0 and 90 degrees. It sounded not nearly as good, and I couldn't get rid of those nulls unless I tried some crazy +gain.
> 
> My C-DSP only has 6 PEQ per channel and 6 peq for the left and right input channels. Sort of feel like 10 PEQ would be the perfect number.


6 PEQ per out channel plus the 6 PEQ of the in channels, but don't forget the 'advanced mode' where you upload a file with biquad filters that can achieve about 4000 points of EQ or so. You can get REW to apply an auto EQ to what you desire and have it out put as biquad filters. Save this and upload to c dsp 

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk


----------



## Babs

subterFUSE said:


> I have an Anthem AVM-50v processor and you are correct how the ARC software measurements work. Single mic, facing up. Multiple measurement locations. They use sine sweeps, with about 7-10 sweeps per measurement to eliminate background noise.
> 
> In my car, I prefer using periodic pink noise because I can adjust the EQ in real time while watching the response change on the computer screen. I am running 5 microphones simultaneously, however. This gives me automatic averaging of 5 mic positions without having to physically move the mics.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You graduated from REW to some other program didn't you for this? But if in REW, the RTA function I guess being the place to go for that type of rig? I did actually purchase something.. APLAudio's TDA software.. It's slick. Seeing a 3D visual of your alignment is lovely.

Can't wait to have the system up again for the real fun.. Making it sound killer.


----------



## TwistdInfinity

How many here have tuned to Jazzi's house curve and like it?

I'm gonna be tuning to my first curve ever and I don't wanna spend heaps of time getting the EQ etc right and not liking it haha.

Also, I've taken my first set of measurements and noticed my acoustical crossovers are not quite aligned with my electronic crossovers.

For instance my left mid range LP acoustic crossover looks smack bang on the electric crossover setting but the right midrange LP acoustic crossover is about 600hz out. It looks like if I decrease the LP filter by 600 hz the acoustic crossover curve would match where I wanted it to be perfectly. Is this the usually accepted thing to do, or do I keep the electric LP filter the same and EQ the slope to where I want the acoustic LP response to be?

I've never had mis-matched electronic crossovers before so I just want to make sure it doesn't cause other issues like phase and timing in the pursuit to get the SPL plot right


----------



## Justin Zazzi

Hey there TwistdInfinity,

The "Jazzi curve" has been changed a few times over the life of this spreadsheet, so it might be a little difficult for folks answer your question. To make it a little easier, I'm going to post a screenshot of the most recent version below. Just keep in mind it is always changing 

Regarding the shape of the electronic filter vs the acoustic response, you have just discovered one of the most important things about crossover alignments. The two are almost never the same, but the acoustic frequency response is the one that matters. It is perfectly normal to use different crossover filters and equalizer filters, so long as the acoustic frequency response matches the target curve of the crossover alignment you are aiming for. If this is done correctly, then phase and timing and such will not be a problem. This exactly is what my tool was designed to help with.


----------



## Justin Zazzi

Oh, and to answer a question you had in another thread that went unanswered ....

If you tune each speaker to the individual curves that my tool generates, then when you play all the speakers together they should match the overall curve you chose in my tool. You do not need to take an additional step to EQ the overall balance of the system to match the overall curve of your choice. That functionality is built into the individual target curve files when you are tuning each speaker by itself.

I hope that helps.


----------



## TwistdInfinity

Thanks heaps Jazzi. 

I took all my initial measurements with a guesstimate at level matching on my drivers and when I compared to the house curves for each driver some were quite off so I've looked at how much out they are and will readjist levels and measure again. 

Once I'm happy with the general levels of each driver I'll start doing the EQ work. 

I'm already predicting big problems with my right (driver's side) mid bass based off this first measurement: 



Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk


----------



## piyush7243

TwistdInfinity said:


> How many here have tuned to Jazzi's house curve and like it?
> 
> I'm gonna be tuning to my first curve ever and I don't wanna spend heaps of time getting the EQ etc right and not liking it haha.
> 
> Also, I've taken my first set of measurements and noticed my acoustical crossovers are not quite aligned with my electronic crossovers.
> 
> For instance my left mid range LP acoustic crossover looks smack bang on the electric crossover setting but the right midrange LP acoustic crossover is about 600hz out. It looks like if I decrease the LP filter by 600 hz the acoustic crossover curve would match where I wanted it to be perfectly. Is this the usually accepted thing to do, or do I keep the electric LP filter the same and EQ the slope to where I want the acoustic LP response to be?
> 
> I've never had mis-matched electronic crossovers before so I just want to make sure it doesn't cause other issues like phase and timing in the pursuit to get the SPL plot right


You should definitely match the crossovers for both the drivers acoustically. Once you have same on both sides then start eq

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## alligatorman

Is there a tuning guide to go with this?
I have a DSP I'd like to implement while using this companion.

Thanks!


----------



## Justin Zazzi

alligatorman said:


> Is there a tuning guide to go with this?
> I have a DSP I'd like to implement while using this companion.
> 
> Thanks!


Hello!

There is some pretty good discussion on page #5 starting around post #100. I summarized how to use this tool in post #116, and here is a link to that post. I've made a few assumptions that you know how to use Room EQ Wizard, so if something doesn't make sense right away then please come back and ask questions here.

http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/3435505-post116.html (#116)


----------



## alligatorman

Jazzi said:


> Hello!
> 
> There is some pretty good discussion on page #5 starting around post #100. I summarized how to use this tool in post #116, and here is a link to that post. I've made a few assumptions that you know how to use Room EQ Wizard, so if something doesn't make sense right away then please come back and ask questions here.
> 
> http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/3435505-post116.html (#116)


Excellent! Thank you.

Is there an economical microphone that you'd recommend for this application? I believe the UMIK-1 is supported in my minidsp software..

sent from the toilet


----------



## Justin Zazzi

I would recommend a USB microphone, and I've heard good things about bout the UMIK-1 and the Dayton UMM-6. I would also recommend getting yours from Cross-Spectrum Labs since they are individually calibrated. The Dayton EMM-6 I purchased there has been a real champ and compares very favorably to my laboratory grade microphone that is replacing it.


----------



## ninetysix

Everything you need is in this thread  but also check out Hanatsu's tuning guide, it has some very useful diagrams on mic positioning when taking measurements


----------



## Dumple

thank you a bunch for this!


----------



## Elgrosso

Jazzi, did you continue on the LR/BW 48db slopes? Just curious.
I'd like to try but they look radically different, too much to use the 24db as a template.
And thanks again for this, I use it everytime!


----------



## Justin Zazzi

Hey Dumple, I'm glad you enjoy using this tool!

Elgrosso: I didn't pursue that because I'm not sure such a steep slope would be beneficial, but mostly because I'm not sure about the math for the curves. I do not intend to go any further in that direction since I'm concentrating on other (hopefully useful) things right now too. If you find the math though, I will consider adding it for you.


----------



## Elgrosso

Ok, well I'm just curious too, I'll continue to search online and see with my dev friends about the maths. Thx!

I just thought about something: applying your spreadsheet calculation twice.
I mean using one of the exported slopes as a target, and applying again another crossover, I should get something no? Might not be a typical "LR", but something close enough and usable.


----------



## subterFUSE

A 48 should be 2 cascades 24 filters, no?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Justin Zazzi

You could cascade two filters together, but they might not sum together correctly. The Butterworth6 filter for example is down -3dB at the crossover point, and 90 degrees out of phase at the crossover point. When summed together, you get a flat response.

The LR12 filter is two Butterworth6 filters cascaded together so you get -6dB and 180 degrees apart at the crossover point. Once you flip the polarity of one speaker to get 360 degrees, it will sum flat.

Every time you cascade two filters, the loudness at the crossover point gets lower (from -3dB to -6dB as shown above). So if you were to cascade two LR24 filters to try and make an LR48, you would be -12dB (I think it would be -12, maybe -9 though) and you would no longer sum flat anymore. You can overlap the frequencies some to compensate a little bit. However, the perfect phase relationship between the two drivers will not be maintained as it is with an LR24.

.......unless we can find the equation of the line for an LR48 filter. I'm not sure how to go about deriving that equation, it might be hard to build it from scratch. The main reason I don't think this is worthwhile to pursue though is you will now have 720 degrees of phase difference between your drivers. At 80hz that is 25 milliseconds of difference between the subwoofer and the midbass arrival times. Some people claim that is audible.


----------



## Elgrosso

25ms should be manageable with enough TA no? (I think the mini hd has up to 80)
About audible/non audible delay, you mean in an A/B test?
That's seems a lot!


----------



## Justin Zazzi

If you had 25ms of delay available, then you could align the subwoofer and the midbass drivers at 80hz, sure. But the thing about two speakers being 720 degrees out of phase with each other is that the time delay is *frequency dependent*. So 80hz is 25ms apart, and 400hz will be 5ms apart. No matter what you do with time alignment, the difference between 80hz and 400hz will always be 20ms because they are being produced by the midbass driver. Essentially your treble and midrange will always arrive before your bass.

Unless you use something like an all-pass filter to change this, you're stuck with it. So 360 degrees of phase difference (an LR4 filter) might be more palatable than 720 degrees of phase difference (an LR8 filter).

And yes I mean audible as in demonstrated in a test done by Blauert and Laws. Check the following page around 3/4 of the way down for some details. Also, the below page is just awesome in general.

Phase, Time and Distortion in Loudspeakers


----------



## Elgrosso

Oh I see I forgot that, fixes one thing but messes up another one, including the soundstage.
Edit: But I'm a bit lost here, a lot is not clear I need to re-read some stuff.

About the delay (I’ll read you link) but in fact I was surprised by the big amount, «25ms».
Did you mean 2.5ms? Because that’s what I think I can notice (w/ sub).


Btw, about the double LR24 with your spreadsheet, it worked!
80-800 LR24 & 48db here, based on my target.
Will try one day.








[/URL]


----------



## TwistdInfinity

I definitely preferred the sound of my lr48 over lr24 slopes when I was using my mini dsp c dsp. I fortunately the new dsp only goes to to 36 so sticking with lr24 for now 

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk


----------



## Justin Zazzi

Elgrosso said:


> Oh I see I forgot that, fixes one thing but messes up another one, including the soundstage.
> Edit: But I'm a bit lost here, a lot is not clear I need to re-read some stuff.
> 
> About the delay (I’ll read you link) but in fact I was surprised by the big amount, «25ms».
> Did you mean 2.5ms? Because that’s what I think I can notice (w/ sub).
> 
> 
> Btw, about the double LR24 with your spreadsheet, it worked!
> 80-800 LR24 & 48db here, based on my target.
> Will try one day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/URL]


One full cycle of 80 hz takes 1/80th of a second, or 0.0125 seconds, or 12.5ms. 720 degrees of phase shift is 2 full cycles, and at 80hz that turns into 25ms.

The method you used to create that image is not doing what you want it to do. I assume the high-pass frequency in your graphs is 80hz. The LR4 filter is down by -6dB at 80hz, and the new plot you built is down by -12dB at 80hz. The problem is that two speakers playing together (powered by two amplifiers) will sum together +6dB higher than either one of them playing alone. So the -6dB point on the LR4 filter will sum flat when you add the high-pass and the low-pass sections together.

The LR8 filter you tried to build will sum together and have a big valley that is -6dB deep. Like I mentioned earlier you can try to overlap the crossover frequencies to fill in the valley, but that will ruin the phase relationship between all frequencies and it won't be quite right.


----------



## Elgrosso

Jazzi said:


> One full cycle of 80 hz takes 1/80th of a second, or 0.0125 seconds, or 12.5ms. 720 degrees of phase shift is 2 full cycles, and at 80hz that turns into 25ms.


Ok, I thought you were talking about a broader point on delays here, and 25ms being the audible «claimed» limit.




Jazzi said:


> The method you used to create that image is not doing what you want it to do. I assume the high-pass frequency in your graphs is 80hz. The LR4 filter is down by -6dB at 80hz, and the new plot you built is down by -12dB at 80hz. The problem is that two speakers playing together (powered by two amplifiers) will sum together +6dB higher than either one of them playing alone. So the -6dB point on the LR4 filter will sum flat when you add the high-pass and the low-pass sections together.
> 
> The LR8 filter you tried to build will sum together and have a big valley that is -6dB deep. Like I mentioned earlier you can try to overlap the crossover frequencies to fill in the valley, but that will ruin the phase relationship between all frequencies and it won't be quite right.


Yes that what I expected to do, another one based probably more on 60-1000 or try different ones overlapped to get close to flat.
Well now I see there’s no value then.

So if I understand with such slopes, either we mess up the phases near the XO and keep overhaul acceptable delay between drivers.
Or we keep acceptable delay but live with messy phases relation near the XO?
(like with any classic slope, except that here the effect is much more audible in both cases)
But it’s not like we already have perfect phases relationship to start with.
Before XO applied, after XO, and with EQ on top, so where is the right balance?

Well I may quickly try on the dsp just to hear it, but probably won't spend much time on this now.


----------



## Justin Zazzi

Yeah I was talking more broadly when I said 25ms of delay at 80hz might be audible. The research I alluded to measured a few frequencies but the lowest they published was data for 500hz. I cannot remember where exactly, but there is a rule of thumb that says some number of cycles worth of a wave can be audible when it comes to group delay, which is what we are talking about. This is sometimes a problem with exotic speaker enclosures. I wish I could be more specific but I cannot find where I read that.

The trade-off that you are trying to describe would be better worded as:
If we want minimal phase distortion at a crossover, then we need to use shallow slopes since they introduce less phase shift than steeper slopes. This is one reason why the 1st-order Butterworth filter is considered "best" by some people.

However, shallow slopes mean a speaker that is high-passed such as a tweeter or midrange driver must have excellent performance well beyond the crossover frequency since the distortion while playing lower frequencies will be so much louder than if we used a steeper slope. Also, the shallow high-pass filter will allow the speaker to have much more thermal energy to dissipate than a steeper one, meaning it couldn't play as loud or as long before failing. Also, the excursion of the speaker will remain higher for longer, further reducing how loud and how low you can play the speaker.

There are downsides to a shallow low-pass filter too. The most significant one I can think of is either requiring a driver that performs brilliantly well above the crossover frequency or having to use a lower crossover frequency in order to attenuate the cone breakup modes and nasty frequency response that results from it.

In short, shallow slopes might be more ideal for phase response, but they significantly narrow the usable bandwidth of any given speaker causing you to add more speakers like changing from a 2-way system to a 3-way system ... or shallow slopes require you you buy a more expensive drivers that have a wider bandwidth.


----------



## Elgrosso

It's not exactly this these trade-offs that I had in mind but of course it's related.
The slope vs driver selection now I got it, but let me just give more details.

I have a dip exactly at the xo point between midbass and horn on the right side.
Somsome troubles to EQ right, to not have them playing slightly too much out of their band.
Basically both are still playing a bit too much, each passed 800hz (Bump below for the horn, bump over for the midbass).
Not by much but enough to get a final double bump that concerns me (>midbass/horn/xo/midbass/horn>).

Sure I tried lower and higher but I still prefer at 800hz.
I just thought maybe the 48db slope could help to save maybe one or two peqs to optimize their response around there.


----------



## Justin Zazzi

I don't fully understand the problem you're trying to describe, but from what I think you're saying the difference between an LR4 filter and an LR8 filter set will not be the solution. If the midbass/horn are not summing correctly you have an issue with either a path length difference that is not compensated well enough (time alignment) or a phase difference between the two speakers which can be caused by reflections and/or incorrect acoustic frequency response of the midbass and/or the horn (not tuning each speaker to match the target curve my tool generates closely enough). There might be something else going on, but these are the problems the vast majority of people usually have that result in the symptoms you have. If it is a reflection issue, and it might be, then you will have to deviate from the "perfect" alignments that my tool generates by changing the PEQ filters to compensate for the problem.


----------



## Elgrosso

Jazzi said:


> ...
> (not tuning each speaker to match the target curve my tool generates closely enough)...


That's exactly that, I can't get them to perfectly follow their targets near the xo, because of the dip I guess.
And TA is not optimized yet so it makes things worst. Still working on it, between by ear or summing. In fact I have harder time to TA the horns than the previous cones, changes are more subtile.
I'll take more measurements with summing this week end to illustrate.
Thx!

Edit:
Just this for now, but can’t find the sums. but it was either too much or big dip with one inverted.


----------



## dengland

Finally starting to attempt this...

Thanks the tool Jazzi.

I think I mostly understand. I took my individual measurements without the crossovers enabled in the Helix DSP PRO. I have the full response of the speakers. So, when I try to match to the exported files I need to apply LP/HP filters manually.

Slight issue with that is that if I apply them before running the auto EQ, I have not figured out how to may them "stick." Auto EQ seems to zero out those values. The slots for the manual values are there.

I am not 100% sure with this situation if I should be setting the "Match Range" equal to the crossover range I used to create the export files or something else. When I reapply the crossovers, it seems to undershoot a bit.

My Helix adjustment capabilities are Q from 0.5-15 in 0.1 increments and +6 to -15dB in 0.25dB increments.

Would I be better served to apply the crossovers in the DSP, re-measure and re-export, re-EQ?

Thanks


----------



## Elgrosso

Oh you use helix with manual eq entries? There's no common language with rew? (don't know this guy)
Harder then, I didn't get everything you said, but sure you should measure with LP/HP, then play with the auto eq, apply it and re-measure, and again and again, to the point of satisfaction.


----------



## Justin Zazzi

Hi there dengland,

There are a lot of options in that EQ module that can prevent the auto-eq feature from working the way you want it to. I don't remember all of them off the top of my head since I do not use the auto-eq feature, but I could help you figure it out. Are you willing to do a screen sharing session where I can see what you're doing and talk you through it? 

If so, send me a PM with some days and times you are available.


----------



## dengland

Elgrosso said:


> Oh you use helix with manual eq entries? There's no common language with rew? (don't know this guy)
> Harder then, I didn't get everything you said, but sure you should measure with LP/HP, then play with the auto eq, apply it and re-measure, and again and again, to the point of satisfaction.


Thanks for confirming it would be best to have my DSP LP/HP filters engaged before measuring the individual drivers. A while back I was reading and rereading the Hanatsu posts about tuning and he was starting from the measurements of what the drivers could produce. That is just what I defaulted to.

Not sure I understand "There is no common language with REW?" Are you talking about REW not communicating directly with the Helix to load the filters? If so, I am not aware of that ability.



Jazzi said:


> Hi there dengland,
> 
> There are a lot of options in that EQ module that can prevent the auto-eq feature from working the way you want it to. I don't remember all of them off the top of my head since I do not use the auto-eq feature, but I could help you figure it out. Are you willing to do a screen sharing session where I can see what you're doing and talk you through it?
> 
> If so, send me a PM with some days and times you are available.


Thanks Jazzi, that is a generous offer. Let me struggle a bit longer to feel like I have enough sweat equity in this to give up and take an easy way out. I may end up there. 

Below is the screen shot of what the auto EQ controls look like.


Thanks again.


----------



## Justin Zazzi

The screenshot you posted looks good. The match range should go both above and below the crossover region by at least an octave, sometimes more. There is a small EQ Filters window where you type in all the numbers. Are the filters you want to keep set to "Manual" in the second column? I tried to reproduce your problem and that seemed to do the trick.


----------



## dengland

Jazzi said:


> The screenshot you posted looks good. The match range should go both above and below the crossover region by at least an octave, sometimes more. There is a small EQ Filters window where you type in all the numbers. Are the filters you want to keep set to "Manual" in the second column? I tried to reproduce your problem and that seemed to do the trick.


I appreciate you checking into this.

I don't want to pollute this thread too much, but here is a little bit of info since you took the time to reply. 

Even going an octave below (and about 1.5x of an octave above) I got the same behavior out of REW.

I had set 4 manual filters (2 HP @100 and 2 LP at 1900Hz) before I auto EQed. Once AutoEQ is run, I had the following filters. Note what I have circled in red. My "Manuals" were still there, but type had been overwritten to be "None." It used a pretty big cut (-17dB) since there was a large peak at the 100Hz crossover point.



The corresponding predicted corrections look like this:



The above is kind of academic since I went ahead and re-measured with the crossovers engaged.

I have learned that whatever smoothing you have active will effect how REW will generate the list of filters. Same thing for anything that cannot be corrected if you constrain "Individual Max Boost" value. If you have a big juicy dip of 10dB and max individual boost is 6dB, it will not attempt ANY boost.

Looks like I have some weird cabin interactions going on that I will take to a different thread.

Thanks again Jazzi!


----------



## Justin Zazzi

Hey dengland,

Don't worry about polluting this thread with questions about how to implement filters in REW. This is an important part of the process and we can all learn something from it.

First, I just figured out why sometimes the auto-EQ feature would not adjust frequencies above or below certain points. It seemed like the extreme high and low frequencies were just being ignored no matter what I did, then I found this in the user manual:



> Note that REW will not apply filters below the frequency at which the measurement first exceeds the target or above the frequency at which the measurement last drops below the target to prevent trying to boost a response beyond its natural roll-offs, if you wish to lift the low or high end response this can be done with manually applied filters but beware of exceeding the excursion limits or headroom of the woofer or power handling limits of the tweeter.


Ok, next. I tried to reproduce having the auto-EQ feature change manual crossover filters to none, and got a slightly different result. It seems when I have two high pass filters (either HP or HPQ) or two or more low pass filters (LP or LPQ) that when I press the "match response to target button" the software will always reduce the crossover filters so there is only one of each type remaining. The second HP filter was set to none, and the second LP filter was also set to none. This is different from yours since all of your crossover filters are set to none. However, since they are set to manual, I would think they would be let alone by the software.

I'm going to post something on the REW help forum and see what happens.

I have not encountered this behavior before since the order I do things is different. I will measure a full-range signal without any processing or crossovers, then apply only crossovers in the EQ module, then enter the crossover info into my DSP and measure again. Then I will start working with the parametric EQ filters. So in my workflow I am not using crossovers and EQ filters at the same time within REW. I also do not use the auto-EQ function since I feel I can be more economical with the number of filters I use by adjusting everything manually.

In the meantime, take a look at this page. The issue this person is trying to solve is different, but there is a ton of great information in the thread about how to make the best use of the EQ module including some tips and tricks.

On Minimal EQ, Target Levels, and a Hard-Knee House Curve (long) - Home Theater Forum and Systems - HomeTheaterShack.com


----------



## Justin Zazzi

Actually, I just updated from using version 5.15 to the latest version, 5.18.

Everything seems to work great now.

What version are you using?


----------



## dengland

Jazzi said:


> Actually, I just updated from using version 5.15 to the latest version, 5.18.
> 
> Everything seems to work great now.
> 
> What version are you using?


I am using 5.19 Beta 4 version of REW.


----------



## dengland

Jazzi said:


> Hey dengland,
> 
> I have not encountered this behavior before since the order I do things is different. I will measure a full-range signal without any processing or crossovers, then apply only crossovers in the EQ module, then enter the crossover info into my DSP and measure again. Then I will start working with the parametric EQ filters. So in my workflow I am not using crossovers and EQ filters at the same time within REW. I also do not use the auto-EQ function since I feel I can be more economical with the number of filters I use by adjusting everything manually.


How do you deal with tweaks after you set the initial EQ filters in in REW and apply them in your DSP? If you need a further adjustment do you take another measurement, or do you note the trouble area and go back to the unEQed signal in REW and add another filter on top of the previous ones?




> In the meantime, take a look at this page. The issue this person is trying to solve is different, but there is a ton of great information in the thread about how to make the best use of the EQ module including some tips and tricks.
> 
> On Minimal EQ, Target Levels, and a Hard-Knee House Curve (long) - Home Theater Forum and Systems - HomeTheaterShack.com


Thanks for pointing it out. I saw that many moons ago. I am sure it will mean a bit more now. 

The thread I started on the left versus right MB is here: http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/technical-advanced-car-audio-discussion/336754-eqing-left-right-midbass.html

Looks like I will be flattening both channels and then knocking down then entire channel of whichever side is the overall loudest. Initially, it looks like 
one channel will need to be attenuated 2.5dB.


----------



## Justin Zazzi

OK, lots to talk about. 

I will make about 3-4 filters inside REW with any particular measurement at a time, then apply those filters in the DSP, and make a fresh measurement before adding more filters. By adding filters in multiple small chunks, it is very easy to make sure what I am doing is working the way I intended and also easy to catch filters that are not making the changes I want. 

If that happens and I need to change a parametric eq filter that is already entered into the DSP, then I will make a fresh measurement and add only two filters to the eq window in REW, with the second one being an exact copy of the first but with negative gain. 

For example if I have a filter in the DSP of +3dB at 100hz and Q=2.0 that I want to adjust, I would make a fresh measurement and then add that same filter into the eq window in REW and a second filter that is exactly the same but with -3dB. The two filters in REW will cancel each other out and the "predicted" curve will show no change. 

While leaving the negative copy of the filter alone, I can freely adjust the normal copy to whatever I want (like change 100hz to 95hz) and then update the filter in the DSP to match. I hope that makes sense. 

For your mid bass thread, pay attention what percy072 is saying since it is all great advice. And yes you will want to lower the level of the louder speaker to match the others. Also, your initial measurements of your left and right mid bass drivers look really good for starting with, and you should be really happy they are not disgusting looking like mine were to begin with


----------



## dengland

It makes total sense. I never would have thought to approach it that way. 

Now I just need to get home early enough from work to work on some of this....

Thanks


----------



## dengland

Have you ever thought about adding an option to apply a 3 dB per octave (or 10dB per decade) falloff to the generated curves so one could use pink noise rather than sweeps?


----------



## Justin Zazzi

If you want to use pink noise with the RTA function, then when you're in the RTA window click on the gear in the top-right corner to access the settings, and change the drop down for Mode to "RTA 1/12 octave". Then you can use pink noise and don't have to compensate for the slope across the entire spectrum. Use any of the Window options except for Rectangular. Usually a Hann window is a good one to start with. Some amount of averaging is needed, and some overlap might be useful.

RTA Window

If you want to use pink noise like a pro (and you totally should), then in the signal generator window change the drop down from "Sine Wave" or what you're most likely using is "Pink" ... change that to "Pink PN" which means periodic pink noise. Note the FFT length which is labeled as "Sequence Length" and it usually defaults to 65,536.

Then in the RTA window, make sure RTA 1/12 octave is selected like before, but now also make sure the FFT Length matches the Sequence Length from the signal generator (usually 65,535). Also change Averages to None, window to Rectangular, Overlap to None.

Signal Generator

If you do that right, then the RTA window will update absolutely perfectly every time, and you don't have to make averages for 30 seconds or more to get all the peaks and valleys to level off. The measurements loop themselves very quickly and you'll see updates to any changes you make within a second or two. Also, the measurement will be perfectly steady too, so if you don't make any changes then the trace should be rock solid and you can capture it at any moment instead of waiting forever and playing a game of chance.

It is still useful to set the Averages option to something high and then slowly wave the microphone around in space approximately where your listening position is though, so you can get a spatial average (average taken over many places in space) which is a million times more useful than sticking the mic on a stand or clipping it to the headrest or something similar and measuring a single tiny point in space.


----------



## dengland

Good stuff. Thanks. I never quite understood those settings.

I want to move away from the laptop being the source. I think I am seeing something weird related to the laptop soundcard output. I found the large versus small speaker setting that was notching out 60Hz. Sound Processing is turned off in the laptop.

I am seeing something different in the sub 100Hz frequencies with sweeps from the computer versus PN from the CD player.

Thanks again.


----------



## Justin Zazzi

Have you tried making a loop-back cable to calibrate your laptop to itself?

You can also use the signal generator inside REW to build a minute or so of periodic pink noise WAV file to burn onto a CD.


----------



## dengland

Jazzi said:


> Have you tried making a loop-back cable to calibrate your laptop to itself?
> 
> You can also use the signal generator inside REW to build a minute or so of periodic pink noise WAV file to burn onto a CD.


I have not tried to calibrate the laptop. I only have a single 3.5mm jack. It is either input or output depending on what I select when it sees something plugged in to the jack.

My measurements are from a calibrated UMIK-1 USB mic. I have had hours of "fun" with that purchase that I made a couple of years ago. :>)

I have several PN sources on CD that I have collected over the years. I predominately have used the Hanatsu Test tones disc. The uncorrelated mono PN. That disc has several tracks. 

I also have some lossless downloads from audiocheck.net on an Fiio X3

High Quality Pink Noise | wav mp3 Audio Files Download

I have plenty of tools, it is a matter of using them correctly!


----------



## Justin Zazzi

Well that's frustrating. Sounds like the best tool you have is a CD and the UMIK.

Also, don't worry too much about "high quality" pink noise. The highest quality you'll ever find is periodic since it just works better than non-periodic, and REW can make as much of it as you want by exporting it to a WAV file at any resolution you want even up to 32-bit (which is so absurdly over-the-top that no equipment can even play it). If you want periodic and uncorrelated, open any sound editor and delay the left channel by a half second or so compared to the right channel, trim a half second off the beginning and end of the track, and save it.


----------



## JayinMI

Just found/read this whole thread. A lot of it is over my head. A lot of it makes perfect sense. I will definitely revisit.



> If you want to use pink noise like a pro (and you totally should), then in the signal generator window change the drop down from "Sine Wave" or what you're most likely using is "Pink" ... change that to "Pink PN" which means periodic pink noise. Note the FFT length which is labeled as "Sequence Length" and it usually defaults to 65,536.
> 
> Then in the RTA window, make sure RTA 1/12 octave is selected like before, but now also make sure the FFT Length matches the Sequence Length from the signal generator (usually 65,535). Also change Averages to None, window to Rectangular, Overlap to None.


Is it 65,535 or 65536? or does it matter if it's off by one? 

Jay


----------



## Justin Zazzi

JayinMI said:


> Is it 65,535 or 65536? or does it matter if it's off by one?
> 
> Jay


Wow, good catch. They should match exactly, and 65,536 is the correct number. I mistyped the other for some reason.

Feel free to ask questions if you feel something is still over your head!


----------



## Weightless

He's alive! Alive!

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk


----------



## JayinMI

Also, has anyone used this on something besides Excel? Like OpenOffice?
I don't use Excel for anything, so $149 seems a little steep.

Jay


----------



## JayinMI

Also, I had always assumed when tuning to basically pointed the mic at the front of the car (like in Erin's Youtube video), but I've since seen several other people tune while holding the mic vertically. 

I would think this would require me to use a different correction file for my mic. IIRC there's a 0 degree file and a 90 degree file on the disc that came with mine. 

Which would I use? I thought I saw someone post earlier about using the 90 degree file, but I can't find it. And I was planning on doing some tuning today...lol

Jay


----------



## Babs

JayinMI said:


> Also, I had always assumed when tuning to basically pointed the mic at the front of the car (like in Erin's Youtube video), but I've since seen several other people tune while holding the mic vertically.
> 
> 
> 
> I would think this would require me to use a different correction file for my mic. IIRC there's a 0 degree file and a 90 degree file on the disc that came with mine.
> 
> 
> 
> Which would I use? I thought I saw someone post earlier about using the 90 degree file, but I can't find it. And I was planning on doing some tuning today...lol
> 
> 
> 
> Jay



That is the challenge. One method moving the mic around the listening spot with infinite averaging in RTA will satisfy spatial averaging, but folks use a stationary position then just check for peaks that occur when the mic is moved around a bit. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## JayinMI

To make sure I understand, do spatial averaging, then to it with the mic in one spot to see which peaks/dips might be cause by the movement of the mic during spatial averaging?

So would you use the 0 degree file or 90 degree file?

Edit: Nevermind, I just went and read the readme file that came with my Cross Spectrum Labs Behringer ECM8000 and I was mistaken about the files.

Guess that answers that question! lol

Jay


----------



## JayinMI

Well, I got a 30 day trial of Excel to try it out.

I typed in my crossover points and included "hz."

Don't do that. It caused a runtime error, after I went back and retyped it without the Hz, it worked fine.

Maybe if the box was only for numbers, and the "Hz" was always set outside the box it would simplify things for dumb people like me? lol

Jay


----------



## subterFUSE

Mic angles in the car are much less critical. You're basically measuring reflections from all sorts of angles. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JayinMI

I did measurements on each speaker individually, and when I go to apply the individual house curves from the spreadsheet, the only thing the EQ window shows is the last measurement I took and the house curve. So I guess you have to do them one at a time, or save them all then delete all the ones you aren't using at that moment.

Jay


----------



## Beckerson1

JayinMI said:


> I did measurements on each speaker individually, and when I go to apply the individual house curves from the spreadsheet, the only thing the EQ window shows is the last measurement I took and the house curve. So I guess you have to do them one at a time, or save them all then delete all the ones you aren't using at that moment.
> 
> Jay


You have to select the measurement prior to going into the EQ tab. Select via the left hand tabs. 

That will allow you to do what you want


----------



## Babs

Hmm.. Tried this tool (latest v 5.1 I suppose is the latest) on the mac (Excel v 15.41 - Office 365).. I can select the output folder but get a runtime error at export.  Computers!! Gotta love 'em.


----------



## Ziggyrama

Babs said:


> Hmm.. Tried this tool (latest v 5.1 I suppose is the latest) on the mac (Excel v 15.41 - Office 365).. I can select the output folder but get a runtime error at export.  Computers!! Gotta love 'em.


Issue with different filesystem notation on Mac? Unix vs. Windows.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## Babs

Ziggyrama said:


> Issue with different filesystem notation on Mac? Unix vs. Windows.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


Might be.. I have no idea.


----------



## Babs

Ziggyrama said:


> Issue with different filesystem notation on Mac? Unix vs. Windows.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk



Actually I confirmed the same error on my PC laptop in windows so it’s possibly either something in the file or it doesn’t like the latest version of Excel maybe?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Durgesh

Babs said:


> Actually I confirmed the same error on my PC laptop in windows so it’s possibly either something in the file or it doesn’t like the latest version of Excel maybe?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


I get runtime error when sub subsonic frequency is entered 0. 

It should be 1 or higher.









Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk


----------



## Babs

Durgesh said:


> I get runtime error when sub subsonic frequency is entered 0.
> 
> It should be 1 or higher.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk



That did the trick. THANKS!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Justin Zazzi

Version 5.2 is now the most recent.

---> download from my dropbox here <---

Updates:
-Changed the house curve generation sheets to not throw a run time error if "0hz" is used for the subwoofer subsonic frequency
-Added warnings to the house curve generation sheets in case non-matching crossover styles are chosen by mistake


----------



## rob feature

in..


----------



## Justin Zazzi

Hey Babs, I made a change that *should* fix that problem. Let me know if version 5.2 does what I'm hoping it will do?

JayinMI,
I'm sorry this tool is exclusive to Excel and I feel your pain for a program being expensive for a single use like this. One day I hope to build this into a webpage so everyone can use it, but that's a bit of a pipe dream for now. Sorry!


----------



## Durgesh

Hi
Is possible to add Butterworth 24db slopes.
My pxa-h800 does not have LR crossover.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk


----------



## nadams5755

Justin Zazzi said:


> JayinMI,
> I'm sorry this tool is exclusive to Excel and I feel your pain for a program being expensive for a single use like this. One day I hope to build this into a webpage so everyone can use it, but that's a bit of a pipe dream for now. Sorry!


I was able to get most of the functionality by uploading it to google docs/sheets. Manipulating data (not functions) worked fine.


----------



## Babs

Justin Zazzi said:


> Hey Babs, I made a change that *should* fix that problem. Let me know if version 5.2 does what I'm hoping it will do?
> 
> JayinMI,
> I'm sorry this tool is exclusive to Excel and I feel your pain for a program being expensive for a single use like this. One day I hope to build this into a webpage so everyone can use it, but that's a bit of a pipe dream for now. Sorry!


Yeah man.. Worked like a champ! 
Thanks Justin! 
Happy New Year! 

Edit 1/1/18: Sorry I spoke to soon.. No frequencies next to the db value in the txt file outputs.. I confirmed both 2 and 3 way do this.


----------



## Babs

I've seen one (only one) other tool that will do anything like this for generating a filtered target curve, but rather than simply creating an importable txt file of response curve, it's a real time tool that'd require a separate input into something like Smaart.. It's called EKIO.. It is pretty darn slick.. Allows real-time adjustment of the filters, and if used with Smaart you can automatically set the house curve.. It basically generates the filtered electrical PN signal post filters. But for most us guys running a simple measurement device such as REW, ARTA or AudioTools, Jazzi's tool here is THE way to go. I've seen no other way. I can dump the txt files up to iCloud and pull them directly into AudioTools for use as a reference curve, like REW.


----------



## subterFUSE

SysTune has the target curve generator built in.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Babs

subterFUSE said:


> SysTune has the target curve generator built in.


Sweet!


----------



## Justin Zazzi

I've heard really good things about EKIO and Systune, especially used together.


----------



## subterFUSE

Not much reason to use EKIO with SysTune because SysTune has a virtual EQ built in. 

Also, SysTune can’t do multiple transfer functions so you can’t really use EKIO anyway. 

EKIO is more helpful with Smaart which does not have its own target generator but does allow multiple transfer functions simultaneously. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Babs

Justin Zazzi said:


> Version 5.2 is now the most recent.
> 
> ---> download from my dropbox here <---
> 
> Updates:
> -Changed the house curve generation sheets to not throw a run time error if "0hz" is used for the subwoofer subsonic frequency
> -Added warnings to the house curve generation sheets in case non-matching crossover styles are chosen by mistake


Hate to report it.. Found a little bug.. The text files export but don't have the frequency next to the db value, just the db value. Sorry. :blush:


----------



## Justin Zazzi

Babs said:


> Hate to report it.. Found a little bug.. The text files export but don't have the frequency next to the db value, just the db value. Sorry. :blush:


What are you, Canadian? No need for you to apologize for my mistake. I forgot that by adding a column in the sheet I need to adjust the VBA script to compensate. I'll fix that now. Thanks for the bug report!

-Justin


----------



## Justin Zazzi

Version 5.3 is now the most recent

---> click here to download from my dropbox <---

Update:
-Fixed the VBA script to make sure text file house curve exports are working again. Thanks to Babs for pointing out that mistake.


----------



## Babs

Justin Zazzi said:


> What are you, Canadian? No need for you to apologize for my mistake. I forgot that by adding a column in the sheet I need to adjust the VBA script to compensate. I'll fix that now. Thanks for the bug report!
> 
> -Justin


Probably had ancestors who ran whiskey from Canada.. That's the extent of my Canadian association. 

5.3 works great! Thanks!


----------



## rton20s

Justin Zazzi said:


> Version 5.3 is now the most recent
> 
> ---> click here to download from my dropbox <---
> 
> Update:
> -Fixed the VBA script to make sure text file house curve exports are working again. Thanks to Babs for pointing out that mistake.


Dangit. And I just downloaded 5.2 yesterday!


----------



## Justin Zazzi

rton20s said:


> Dangit. And I just downloaded 5.2 yesterday!


Well, I totally broke that version so good luck!


----------



## rton20s

Justin Zazzi said:


> Well, I totally broke that version so good luck!


5.3 was downloaded immediately after posting.


----------



## jj8888

Hi there,
I'm newbie in tuning.
May I know where to get the Vbox (liters) and Sd (cm^2)?

I'm using Hertz MPK 163.3 PRO. 
xxx.hertzaudiovideo.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/HERTZ_Mille-PRO_MPK163_Tech_Sheet.pdf[couldn't post link] 

Tweeter and mid range are in A-Pillar, mid bass are in door + an active pioneer sub-woofer.


----------



## Justin Zazzi

jj8888 said:


> Hi there,
> I'm newbie in tuning.
> May I know where to get the Vbox (liters) and Sd (cm^2)?
> 
> I'm using Hertz MPK 163.3 PRO.
> xxx.hertzaudiovideo.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/HERTZ_Mille-PRO_MPK163_Tech_Sheet.pdf[couldn't post link]
> 
> Tweeter and mid range are in A-Pillar, mid bass are in door + an active pioneer sub-woofer.


Hello, and good question. The spec sheet for those woofers does not list Sd, which is the surface area of the cone. But it does list D, which is the diameter of the cone so you can find Sd by using a little math:
Sd = pi * (D / 2) ^2

This will give you Sd in square millimeters, but you need square centimeters, so divide by 100.

For Vbox in liters, choose a number that is close to the size of the enclosure you're putting the speakers into. If you're using the car door, then the enclosure is really really large compared to the Vas of the mid bass woofer (only about 9 liters) so it is more like an infinite baffle than a sealed box and you can pretty safely use a number much larger than the Vas, like 10x as much, so 90 should work.

For the midrange and the subwoofer, try to use a volume close to the size of the boxes they will actually go into. If you're unsure, use a number that is 10x the Vas of the woofer and the calculator will give you a conservative result.


----------



## Elgrosso

I can't thank you enough for this Jazzi, with biquads it’s so easy and fast to simulate.
One question, maybe I just didn't find it, would it be possible to add 3rd order?


----------



## Justin Zazzi

Elgrosso said:


> I can't thank you enough for this Jazzi, with biquads it’s so easy and fast to simulate.
> One question, maybe I just didn't find it, would it be possible to add 3rd order?


I'm not sure what you're simulating with biquads and how it relates to this tool, but I'm really curious? 

I could add third order, or any other kind of filter, if you can help me find the math describing the frequency response of the filter.


----------



## Elgrosso

Oh yes it’s a bit out of context,
Well it’s the classic EQ simulation in REW on targets defined with your tool, before export in my minidsp in biquad forms.

Ok I’ll look around for the math!


----------



## jj8888

Justin Zazzi said:


> Hello, and good question. The spec sheet for those woofers does not list Sd, which is the surface area of the cone. But it does list D, which is the diameter of the cone so you can find Sd by using a little math:
> Sd = pi * (D / 2) ^2
> 
> This will give you Sd in square millimeters, but you need square centimeters, so divide by 100.
> 
> For Vbox in liters, choose a number that is close to the size of the enclosure you're putting the speakers into. If you're using the car door, then the enclosure is really really large compared to the Vas of the mid bass woofer (only about 9 liters) so it is more like an infinite baffle than a sealed box and you can pretty safely use a number much larger than the Vas, like 10x as much, so 90 should work.
> 
> For the midrange and the subwoofer, try to use a volume close to the size of the boxes they will actually go into. If you're unsure, use a number that is 10x the Vas of the woofer and the calculator will give you a conservative result.


Thanks for the reply.
Any alternative if Xmax and VAS value are not given in the data sheet? In my case, both value are given"-"

I'm referring to Tweeter's data sheet. (MP25.3)
http://www.hertzaudiovideo.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/HERTZ_Mille-PRO_MPK163_Tech_Sheet.pdf


----------



## Justin Zazzi

jj8888 said:


> Thanks for the reply.
> Any alternative if Xmax and VAS value are not given in the data sheet? In my case, both value are given"-"<img src="http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/images/smilies/confused.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Confused" class="inlineimg" />
> 
> I'm referring to Tweeter's data sheet. (MP25.3)
> http://www.hertzaudiovideo.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/HERTZ_Mille-PRO_MPK163_Tech_Sheet.pdf


Those specs are not reported for tweeters because they do not need an enclosure built behind them. For tweeters, one rule of thumb is to high-pass them no lower than 2x Fs, or double the resonant frequency.

For a two-way or a three-way system like yours, one of the best starting points for crossovers are the factory-determined frequencies that the included passive crossover comes with. A two-way is usually around 2khz or slightly higher, and a 3-way has a tweeter somewhere around 4-5khz ish. You should be able to find this in the sheet that you have linked.

If you can find factory recommendations, use those instead if whatever my worksheet suggests because they are going to be more reliable.


----------



## Iamsecond

Thank you for your time, energy and dedication to this tool.


----------



## Babs

I wish the reference curve in AudioTools allowed moving the curve up and down. Actually an alternative plan I have is to create the TXT files and then manually create Helix tool RTA custom curves based on the values. Though it’s only 1/3 octave it should give me some visual when measuring single drivers how their acoustic matches the curve electrical crossover responses. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Iamsecond

wait, does the audio tools have a curve option for the rta?


----------



## Iamsecond

Actually, babs you can center the curve and move it up and down. there is a video on youtube about this. In the RTA settings is has Reference Curve in blue. if you click that it takes you to a menu and there is a youtube video link. it shows how to do that in audio tools. Just fyi


----------



## Babs

Iamsecond said:


> Actually, babs you can center the curve and move it up and down. there is a video on youtube about this. In the RTA settings is has Reference Curve in blue. if you click that it takes you to a menu and there is a youtube video link. it shows how to do that in audio tools. Just fyi



Yep. I know you can center it but if you try that with a band-limited curve it gets wonky. Or it did for me anyway. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Iamsecond

What do you mean by band limited. Are you talking about only like 3k and up or 100hz down


----------



## Babs

Iamsecond said:


> What do you mean by band limited. Are you talking about only like 3k and up or 100hz down



Yeah if you use any of the applied-crossover txt files I meant, rather than the full range curve file. It’s not a terribly huge biggie though because a guy could simply add the same amount of db’s in the custom curve column to raise the curve to where a person would be measuring so they just match up in AudioTools. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Iamsecond

Hum. Did you purchase that option in audio tools. I was wondering if it was worth the $15. 

I really need to get over to your side of town and listen to the civic. We’re getting ready to put our house on the market and I would love to hear your car before we head out of Asheville


----------



## Babs

Iamsecond said:


> Hum. Did you purchase that option in audio tools. I was wondering if it was worth the $15.
> 
> 
> 
> I really need to get over to your side of town and listen to the civic. We’re getting ready to put our house on the market and I would love to hear your car before we head out of Asheville



Yeah over time I’ve picked up a few including LARSA, Transfer Function and FFT I think. Still up in the air how I like tuning with them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Marko nis

Hello Justin,

I want to build my House curve with excel table. I put the value in it and have a House curve like this.

Is that good or i am wrong with some input data for speakers?

I put one result for sub and one result for mid

Sub is Dynaudio esotar2 1200, mid is Hertz mille 1650.3

I have MiniDsp Umik 1 mic and REW and want to tune my sound a little bit. Every help is good to start budd.

Sorry for a lot of question.

Best regards,
Marko


----------



## Marko nis

Excel table for sub and mid


----------



## Marko nis

Excel table for sub


----------



## Justin Zazzi

Hi Marko, sorry I haven't replied earlier. I am settling in to my new home right now.

Are you using the passive crossover for the Hertz speakers? Or are you running the Hertz speakers active, with 4 channels from the amplifier?

Try a low-pass crossover on the sub at 80hz, highpass on the woofers at 80hz, low-pass on the woofers at 2.5khz, and high-pass on the tweeters at 2.5khz. These are the factory recommended numbers from Hertz.


----------



## Marko nis

Hello Jezzi,

I am not using passive crosovers with Hertz speakers.
My system is active with Helix dsp pro mk2 and Audison 5.1k amp, and 24 slopes Linkwitz.
80Hz for sub, low pass,
80Hz-2,5kHz mid,
2,5kHz tweeter, high pass

I put in your excel table data from factory for speakers and now i am confused what House curve i use for mid and sub, i need help.
Mic is Umik1 and Audiofrog umi 1


----------



## Justin Zazzi

In the 2-way worksheet, enter the frequencies you just wrote (80 and 2500) for each of the sub, midrange, and tweeter. Press the export button. You will get a few text files, similar to the ones you uploaded here earlier.

Use the one that will be called _"REW_Curve_Jazzi_Sub_HP0_LP80.txt_" for the subwoofer.

Use the one that will be called "_REW_Curve_Jazzi_Midrange_HP80_LP2500.txt_" for the midrange driver.

Use the one that will be called "_REW_Curve_Jazzi_Tweeter_HP2500.txt_" for the tweeter.

If you're going to use the EQ module inside room EQ wizard, change a couple of the settings like the image below. The image below shows settings that are incorrect, so you have to change them the way the green text says.

Also, make your graphs look like the one mine does in the second image below.

I hope this helps?


----------



## Marko nis

Oh that is nice you help me alot, thank you Jezzi ?
For tweeter i use in Speaker type "Bass limited". The same use it also for mid and sub or?
I see somwhere for sub use smootness 1/2.
For LF Rise start (Hz) i must put 80 or?
Sorry for lot of question Jezzy


----------



## Justin Zazzi

Do not apologize for asking questions! We all need to learn.

If you want to tune a system using the house curves that my spreadsheet generates, then you should use the settings I show above. If you have "Full Range", and you set both of the "slope" boxes to zero, then the other settings will not matter. Also, try 1/6th or 1/12th smoothing.

Do all of these things for every speaker including subwoofer, midrange, and tweeter. The tweeter should have a high-pass shape to it from the curve that is exported from my tool.

-Jazzi


----------



## ftmsmohan

Tried to EQ using REW but somehow not so satisfied with the outcome.
COULD someone correct me if i'm doing anything wrong?
I'm using a cheap $10 microphone for measurement.

I'm running 7 channel setup (on 6 Channel DSP)
Focal Performance PS 165F3 (3 Way Active)
Helix Precision P10W (Subwoofer)
HU: Pioneer AVH-5850BT

Amp:
Mosconi 130.4 DSP (for Midbass + Midrange)
Hertz HDP4 (for Subwoofer + Tweeter)

Crossover setup:
80hz LR 24db - Low Pass - Subwoofer

80hz LR 24db - High Pass - Midbass
400hz LR 24db - Low Pass - Midbass

400hz LR 24db - High Pass - Midrange
4000hz *BW* 12db - Low Pass - Midrange

4000hz *BW* 12db - High Pass - Tweeter

Since my DSP has only 6 channel (actually one of the chl is faulty), so I only have 5 channel to use on DSP, I used it for Sub+Midbass+Midrange. TW i control it from my HU.
Below I have attached the measurements and the EQ that i have used but i feel it's not good.
Poor bass respond from subwoofer and midbass.
Midrange is more louder.

Please assist to analyze and give me a solution. Thanks!


----------



## dengland

ftmsmohan said:


> Tried to EQ using REW but somehow not so satisfied with the outcome.
> COULD someone correct me if i'm doing anything wrong?
> Please assist to analyze and give me a solution. Thanks!


The scale on the frequency response is too course to discern anything. The intervals on the vertical scale should be 5dB or 2 dB to provide any meaningful information. I would band limit the display to show the curve in the area of interest.


----------



## Justin Zazzi

Yes. It is impossible to see what is happening with the screenshots you have posted. Please change your axis settings to match my suggestions in the image below:


----------



## RByers

So I've done well over 20 different tunes over the past few weeks trying to get a handle on this, I've definitely gotten better IMO but still feel like something is not just right. I've tried all preloaded curves and have made a few. The current curve I'm using looks like whitledge to around 200hz and a -1 to -2 to -1 dip around 1k-4k like JAZZI's. No matter what I get a huge dip in that region. Going for a 2500hz 24db LR crossover. See attached picture of mid and tweeters together, have switched polarity and it does not change the dip. I know the mid needs work but more on that after...









I can get the tweeters dead on the target line. Pic below is of both mid measured together. Can get even closer but this was on todays tune. Goal is 2500hz crossover, had to cross them at 3750 to not eq the crap out of them.









My big question is on the mids, I've got some crazy dips in my truck and have tuned around the pictured target line, higher, as well as a little lower. No matter what REW does not get it flat but gets it close and I do as much as I can for the peaks. Looks at the below pic where would you set the target? Lower than I have it? Higher? Mid are crossed at 80hz and 2250hz with a goal of 80 and 2500hz.










Getting to the point I feel like adding a 3inch mid by the tweeter would help with the 300hz-5000khz trouble area but I'm well aware of the work that requires I'd like to not have to do....technically.


----------



## dengland

RByers said:


> My big question is on the mids, I've got some crazy dips in my truck and have tuned around the pictured target line, higher, as well as a little lower. No matter what REW does not get it flat but gets it close and I do as much as I can for the peaks. Looks at the below pic where would you set the target? Lower than I have it? Higher? Mid are crossed at 80hz and 2250hz with a goal of 80 and 2500hz.
> Getting to the point I feel like adding a 3inch mid by the tweeter would help with the 300hz-5000khz trouble area but I'm well aware of the work that requires I'd like to not have to do....technically.


Like a truck with a center console between the front to seats?

Is it a RAM? If so, you may want to lake a look at my thread. I currently have 3" in the dash locations and 6.5s on the doors. (My signature is NOT up to date with my install.)


----------



## RByers

dengland said:


> Like a truck with a center console between the front to seats?
> 
> Is it a RAM? If so, you may want to lake a look at my thread. I currently have 3" in the dash locations and 6.5s on the doors. (My signature is NOT up to date with my install.)


F150 with center seat/HUGE console arm. Comes up close to my almost to my chest when sitting. Will take a look.


----------



## Justin Zazzi

RByers,

Looks like your Target Level is pretty good in each of the images, but the levels are not the same in all three. I see one with 69.5dB, one with 67.8dB, and one with 70.0dB. When tuning to the curves, the Target Level in the EQ module of REW needs to be exactly the same every time, for every speaker.

Also, I don't see any smoothing applied to your traces, which is one reason you are continuing to chase your tail. Are you using the RTA module and measuring with pink noise? That technique works, but you need to change a few settings to make it work well. You need to use periodic pink noise with the settings I am quoting below, and you need to set the averaging to infinite, and you need to move the microphone around in random pattern where your head usually occupies while you are listening to get a spatial average. If you want to use the RTA module, add some smoothing to the curves of at least 1/12th octave, or sometimes 1/6th octave too.

Also, you said you don't have anyone near Indianapolis to help you with this. I'm only two hours south near Louisville with plenty of free time on my hands right now. If you want to meet up on a Friday or a weekend I can help you out.



Justin Zazzi said:


> Download Room EQ Wizard. It's free. Open it up, click on the "Generator" button in the top toolbar. Choose "Pink PN" from the drop down menu, "full range" from the buttons underneath, set an RMS level of zero, and make a note of the sequence length (I think it's 65,536 by default. Click that WAV button and save the file anywhere on your computer.
> 
> Boom. Done. 60 seconds of proper pink noise for anyone to use. You could stop here, but it gets better.
> 
> In REW, open the RTA window and then click on the gear in the top-right corner to access some settings. Make sure Mode is set to one of the RTA options like 1/48 Octave. Smoothing should be greyed out when you're done here. FFT Length needs to match the sequence length of the periodic pink noise you generated earlier (if you forgot it's the first number of the file name). Averages should be none. Window needs to be rectangular. The last two options Overlap and Interval and your choice.
> 
> Play that periodic pink noise and turn on that RTA module. The graph will update *perfectly* every time without any need to average tons of samples over time. You can still use spatial averaging to average many samples over a 3D space near your head if you like though, just change the Averages from None to Infinite and do as much as you like.
> 
> If you have some spare time and want to know why this "periodic" thing is so cool, you can watch the video below to see how it works. It's not super technical and should be easy to understand, but it is a little on the long side.


----------



## RByers

I’ve been using the pink noise track from my DD1 disc since I have it on a SD card. I was using the RTA with infinite averages and 1/12 octave. Will change my setting and smooth afterwards and use REW to make the periodic noise and retry using the same target level. I appreciate the offer, might take you up on a Saturday.


----------



## ftmsmohan

Thanks dengland,

I can feel the difference now after selecting 5db axis but have not tune it yet.
Will give a try coming weekend.

The outside measurement, i used 5db axis gap and for the inside one (EQ), i used 10db axis gap, is that fine? if i use 5db axis, too difficult to see (picture is attached).


----------



## Justin Zazzi

ftmsmohan said:


> Thanks dengland,
> 
> I can feel the difference now after selecting 5db axis but have not tune it yet.
> Will give a try coming weekend.
> 
> The outside measurement, i used 5db axis gap and for the inside one (EQ), i used 10db axis gap, is that fine? if i use 5db axis, too difficult to see (picture is attached).


Whatever you do, I find it's important to do the same on every graph. To give you more space to work with in the EQ module, click the tiny black down arrow on the left side of the window about halfway down. Then you can do 5dB divisions easily.

Also, smoothing! You must add smoothing or you will keep frustrating yourself. Please add at least 1/12th octave (or 1/6th octave) smoothing to all your curves.


----------



## RByers

So I had a afternoon off and started working on this again. I have a tune with Jazzi's Curve that I actually like a lot, but still have room to improve. So I started fresh today and a little over an hour later found out I had not really made any improvements from my last tune. Even more is it possible for REW to make unequal left and right pink noise? The picture attached is of both mids with no EQ. The big dip of the left mid(red) from 200hz down shows every time I RTA with the periodic pink noise from REW, I even made a new file to try and got the same results. After going through and getting everything tuned close to the house curve I play a song and the left mid has an INSANE amount of mid bass drowning everything else out and I can't even hear the mid bass from the right mid. I turn off the negative filters on the right mid from 200 down and they both come to life in that range. I did not try to use different pink noise but can at another time. Also, is it really possible the right mid is 4+db louder than my left? Measurement below is with the right mid set to -4db, just feels like the pink noise I made from new is not even in output..


----------



## Justin Zazzi

RByers said:


> Even more is it possible for REW to make unequal left and right pink noise?


I doubt REW is capable of this, but your sound card settings or any other piece of equipment in the signal chain could do that. Try switching the left and right RCA connectors somewhere between the computer and the DSP inputs to see if your problem also swaps left/right, or stays the same.




RByers said:


> I turn off the negative filters on the right mid from 200 down and they both come to life in that range.


You change the filters on one channel, and both channels sound different? That's odd.



RByers said:


> I did not try to use different pink noise but can at another time.


I hope you're using the periodic pink noise I suggested above? That's the only way I would accept using any RTA since non-periodic noise takes forever to average out the low frequencies properly. Also, PLEASE SET YOUR VERTICAL AXIS TO HAVE 5dB DIVISIONS. Please?



RByers said:


> Also, is it really possible the right mid is 4+db louder than my left?


In a car anything is possible, especially things that don't make sense.

There are lots of steps and connections and techniques to make good measurements, far too many to troubleshoot over the internet while looking at one graph one day at a time. I'm happy to help you, and the best way is a screen share from your laptop so I can see what you're doing in real time and offer ideas to try. You're welcome to PM me and setup a time this weekend, or any Friday, Saturday, or Sunday in the near future.

-JZ


----------



## ftmsmohan

I'm planning to get USB Soundcard & XLR Measurement Microphone to be used with REW.
Also plan to utilize soundcard/mixer for Time Alignment purpose.
What models do you guys recommend?

This is what i have in mind, please give suggestion.
Superlux - Microphone
Focusrite Scarlett 2i2
TASCAM US-2x2
M-Audio ProFire 610 | M-audio Mobilepre USB sound card
BEHRINGER U-PHORIA UMC202HD | U-PHORIA UMC22

Thanks!


----------



## Justin Zazzi

ftmsmohan said:


> I'm planning to get USB Soundcard & XLR Measurement Microphone to be used with REW.
> Also plan to utilize soundcard/mixer for Time Alignment purpose.
> What models do you guys recommend?
> 
> This is what i have in mind, please give suggestion.
> Superlux - Microphone
> Focusrite Scarlett 2i2
> TASCAM US-2x2
> M-Audio ProFire 610 | M-audio Mobilepre USB sound card
> BEHRINGER U-PHORIA UMC202HD | U-PHORIA UMC22
> 
> Thanks!


I'm not familiar with a Superlux microphone. Try to get one that is as flat as possible and specifically not a music or instrument or vocal mic.

If I were going to buy a new 2 channel pre-amp, I really like the look of the Scarlett Focusrite line. I would shy away from the M-Audio products not because they are bad but because the brand has been split in half and support and updated drivers can be difficult to get depending on the model. I have really enjoyed the Tascam UH-7000 I have and other gear I've used from them in the past so the US-2x2 is likely a good choice. Behringer makes pretty good stuff, but I think the Scarlett and the Tascam would be a better choice.

Whatever you chose, make sure you can easily make a loop-back cable for the 2nd channel so you can make use of the timing references within REW.

Actually, I have an M-Audio Fast Track Pro that I do not use anymore and they released drivers for it that work on Windows 7 and 10 finally. You're more than welcome to buy it from me for pretty cheap, and I'll also give you the adapter cables I made for it for use with REW. If you like, send me a PM and we can talk it over.

-JZ


----------



## ftmsmohan

Thanks jazzi for your input.
Will PM you


----------



## ckirocz28

Justin Zazzi said:


> Note: See the link in my signature to download the latest version of this tool.
> 
> This spreadsheet has been a lot of fun to make! My goal is to take as much guesswork out of the tuning and installation process as possible. With this tool, you can calculate a safe high-pass crossover point for your midbass and midrange speakers, then plug those numbers into the next sheet where you choose what frequency response curve you want your overall system to have, and the tool will generate a set of custom house curve files tailored for each of your speakers. Import those directly into Room EQ Wizard and use the EQ module to find the filters for your DSP.
> 
> If you use the next sheet to calculate time delay settings for all of your speakers, and you get them to match the house curves exported from earlier, then your tuning is mostly done! I recommend spending some more time with 31-band pink noise tracks to get the center image perfectly centered, and you can download some ones I made from my dropbox at this link:
> 
> -----> 31-band pink noise tracks <-----
> 
> A bonus feature I included is an interactive chart to help you choose which size power wire and fuse for your amplifiers. The sheet will take into account the efficiency of your amplifier (effecting how much power it will need to be supplied with) as well as the condition of your car (engine on or off) and you can choose how much of a voltage drop is acceptable to you. Lastly, measure about how long the power wire needs to be and then you will see which size wire and fuse you will need. A ton of research went into this particular sheet, and I'm looking forward to everyone's feedback.
> 
> There is an included read-me with instructions for each section with some hints and cautions.
> 
> Like I mention in the included read-me, please let me know if this is useful for you and if you would like me to build more features into this spreadsheet.
> 
> Here are some screenshots:


Justin Zazzi, do you (or anyone else) have a version of your "Tuning Companion" that works with LibreOffice. It seems that almost everything works except file handling (opening, saving). I can't justify buying MS Office for a spreadsheet that I can replicate manually, but I do recognize the convenience that your good work allows. Maybe someone has already ported it to LibreOffice?

Sent from my SM-G935U using Tapatalk


----------



## Justin Zazzi

ckirocz28 said:


> Justin Zazzi, do you (or anyone else) have a version of your "Tuning Companion" that works with LibreOffice. It seems that almost everything works except file handling (opening, saving). I can't justify buying MS Office for a spreadsheet that I can replicate manually, but I do recognize the convenience that your good work allows. Maybe someone has already ported it to LibreOffice?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935U using Tapatalk


Other than some Matlab code I used to prototype some features (more expensive than excel haha) I do not have any other versions of this tool, nor do I know of any. I have too many projects to port this to OpenOffice or any of the Excel replacement programs.

If you want to pursue a port I can offer some help, and you might find this page to be useful (maybe):
https://ask.libreoffice.org/en/question/6621/import-ms-word-macros/?answer=6982#post-id-6982

I feel your pain, I truly do. I don't enjoy having to purchase Excel and Word by default, but thankfully they are more affordable than ever and they still have perpetual licences available instead of the "pay forever" model that is absolute ********. The VBA scripting that Excel offers, the limitless ways it can hook into literally anything, and the absurd amount of support available from other folks using VBA code is impossible to beat. For example I'm also using VBA code to automate a massive script to run the Klippel Distortion Analyzer stand-alone which is really darn cool.

However, I do have a website I could host a port of my tools on. The last time I programmed website stuff was a long time ago so I could eventually get it done in a year or two at my own pace as I struggle through it. *I would welcome ANY help to port these tools to php/javascript/html/java etc to run on a website.* I have a dedicated server with just about anything needed, I just don't have the time myself to dig into this.

The VBA scripting portion of my spreadsheet is dirt simple. I would specifically need help with the graphing and displaying of the information, along with the calculations done in the background preferably with something like php that runs on the server side, or whatever the equivalent is these days.


----------



## disposition

Justin Zazzi said:


> ...
> 
> However, I do have a website I could host a port of my tools on. The last time I programmed website stuff was a long time ago so I could eventually get it done in a year or two at my own pace as I struggle through it. *I would welcome ANY help to port these tools to php/javascript/html/java etc to run on a website.* I have a dedicated server with just about anything needed, I just don't have the time myself to dig into this.
> 
> The VBA scripting portion of my spreadsheet is dirt simple. I would specifically need help with the graphing and displaying of the information, along with the calculations done in the background preferably with something like php that runs on the server side, or whatever the equivalent is these days.


I'm always looking for side projects to work on. If you'd be willing to let the source be available on a public github, I'd be down to work on it. Been looking for an excuse to do an all js site using node for server side and maybe Angular for the client. Working with Canvasjs would also be cool.

PM me if you're interested. Only one partially complete project up there, but youre more than welcome to take a look - github: ddpdoj.

-Nathan

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk


----------



## Justin Zazzi

disposition said:


> I'm always looking for side projects to work on. If you'd be willing to let the source be available on a public github, I'd be down to work on it. Been looking for an excuse to do an all js site using node for server side and maybe Angular for the client. Working with Canvasjs would also be cool.
> 
> PM me if you're interested. Only one partially complete project up there, but youre more than welcome to take a look - github: ddpdoj.
> 
> -Nathan
> 
> Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk


I know enough about github to know that I don't know how it works. Maybe you can teach me? Lets talk some more over PM.

-JZ


----------



## ckirocz28

Justin Zazzi said:


> Other than some Matlab code I used to prototype some features (more expensive than excel haha) I do not have any other versions of this tool, nor do I know of any. I have too many projects to port this to OpenOffice or any of the Excel replacement programs.
> 
> If you want to pursue a port I can offer some help, and you might find this page to be useful (maybe):
> https://ask.libreoffice.org/en/question/6621/import-ms-word-macros/?answer=6982#post-id-6982
> 
> I feel your pain, I truly do. I don't enjoy having to purchase Excel and Word by default, but thankfully they are more affordable than ever and they still have perpetual licences available instead of the "pay forever" model that is absolute ********. The VBA scripting that Excel offers, the limitless ways it can hook into literally anything, and the absurd amount of support available from other folks using VBA code is impossible to beat. For example I'm also using VBA code to automate a massive script to run the Klippel Distortion Analyzer stand-alone which is really darn cool.
> 
> However, I do have a website I could host a port of my tools on. The last time I programmed website stuff was a long time ago so I could eventually get it done in a year or two at my own pace as I struggle through it. *I would welcome ANY help to port these tools to php/javascript/html/java etc to run on a website.* I have a dedicated server with just about anything needed, I just don't have the time myself to dig into this.
> 
> The VBA scripting portion of my spreadsheet is dirt simple. I would specifically need help with the graphing and displaying of the information, along with the calculations done in the background preferably with something like php that runs on the server side, or whatever the equivalent is these days.


VBA scripting, however simple, is over my head, for now.
I am not requesting that you port it, I just had to ask if someone had already done so. I might look into trying it at some point, as I said everything works perfectly except external file handling.
Again, thanks for the good work.

Sent from my SM-G935U using Tapatalk


----------



## Bridgehl4

My system is "semi" active (?) using a sub and a passive component pair with a miniDSP2x4. TA is adjusted for the LR components using the mid-bass distance.

After REW EQ, it seems cancellation is at crossover point between Sub and mid-bass. In addition, a big dip @400 Hz-500Hz can not be EQed.

Could anyone tell me how to solve the problems.

Many thanks!


----------



## Bridgehl4

For the above post:


----------



## ckirocz28

Bridgehl4 said:


> My system is "semi" active (?) using a sub and a passive component pair with a miniDSP2x4. TA is adjusted for the LR components using the mid-bass distance.
> 
> After REW EQ, it seems cancellation is at crossover point between Sub and mid-bass. In addition, a big dip @400 Hz-500Hz can not be EQed.
> 
> Could anyone tell me how to solve the problems.
> 
> Many thanks!


I suggest switching polarity on either your sub or midbass to fix your crossover dip, or use linkwitz-riley crossovers if your minidsp 2x4 has that option and you're not using it. Your dip at 400hz should be ignored if you can't hear it, it is likely a phase issue that would require moving speaker mounting locations.

Sent from my SM-G935U using Tapatalk


----------



## Justin Zazzi

Yep, trying flipping the polarity of the subwoofer. If that doesn't help, try searching for the technique called nulling to help you adjust time alignment in real-time with the RTA module within REW.


----------



## Justin Zazzi

Version 5.3 is actually in this post now. I somehow broke the link earlier.

---> *download version 5.3 from my dropbox right here* <---

Updates:
none, same as before, just fixing the download link


----------



## killeraxemannic

Still new to the forums! I think I have only posted once before. Got logged back in because I wanted to post to thank Jazzi for the great tool created and show my REW graphs and see what everyone thinks. I know there is some room for improvement but I am happy with the results from this for now. Seems like there are a few issues in the low end section. The Subwoofer I have isn't very powerful so it seems like I would have to run it super hot and do a lot of cutting from 45-80hz to get it to properly flow the curve or do what I have done now, running it not so hot and cutting a bit less. Also no idea what is causing my dip around 140hz. I have played with phasing with the sub and mids and can't get it to go away.

Car: 2013 Chevy Volt, Stock Head unit with Bose option
Gear:. 
Morel Maximo Ultra 6.5
Kenwood KSC-SW11 under seat subwoofer
Alpine MVR-F300 Amp
MiniDSP C 6x8
MiniDSP umik-1


----------



## Justin Zazzi

Hey there killeraxemannic, you're welcome! I'm glad you find this tool useful.

Most subwoofers in a car cannot play "flat" and still sound good according to the house curves that most people like, so you're right that you would need to boost it hard in the lowest frequencies and then cut in the 45-80hz region. This is not uncommon!

To learn more about the dip around 140hz, you can try playing one speaker at a time. If the dip is present when only one speaker is playing, then you have a problem with your installation, likely caused by a standing wave due to the dimensions of the interior and where the speaker is mounted. If you only have a dip when more than one speaker is playing, then you have an interference problem that can be addressed with manipulating the phase of one or more of the speakers.


----------



## falcon

Justin Zazzi said:


> If you only have a dip when more than one speaker is playing, then you have an interference problem that can be addressed with manipulating the phase of one or more of the speakers.


Could this be fixed by better time alignment, or electronically switching phase only?


----------



## ErinH

*Assuming your arrival times and your polarity between the drivers are set correctly*, adjusting delay to "fill" in a hole in response is a bad idea. You'll just wind up with more combing (peaks/dips) because you've taken what was two signals and put them in-phase via time and now knocked them out of phase some amount. 

I have more I can add regarding the phase/time relationship but I don't have the time (no pun intended) at this moment. And I'm not sure it's necessary. 



Otherwise, like Jazzi said, look at the response of each driver by itself. Then look at the combination. You'll most likely find that one driver has a bad dip in response on its own and you can't fix it.


----------



## killeraxemannic

The dip at 140 Hz is in the speakers. Here's all of the individual measurements overlayed together before EQ. Not much else to do on the install. My doors are sound deadened and I used butyl rubber to seal the adapter plates to the doors and put sound deadener around the adapter rings. Also used fast rings on the front side where the speakers meet the door panel


----------



## Holmz

ErinH said:


> *Assuming your arrival times and your polarity between the drivers are set correctly*, adjusting delay to "fill" in a hole in response is a bad idea. You'll just wind up with more combing (peaks/dips) because you've taken what was two signals and put them in-phase via time and now knocked them out of phase some amount.
> ...


To be pedantic...
It would be possible to use a group delay type of FIR to alter just a narrow frequency band and shift only that band over in time.

Personally I would not do it, but that is about the only way to accomplish it without moving the speaker's whole frequency band in time.


----------



## ErinH

Are you talking about using an all-pass filter? if so, that will also effect other frequencies as well and while it may fix the 140hz null, it will cause issues elsewhere. The all pass is designed to adjust phase over a band of frequencies. In which case, this is not the optimal solution for his issue. Not unless he has access to a very high order all-pass filter; and I couldn't tell you how high it would need to be other than well over anything I've ever used (which is no higher than 2nd order). 

The only way the all pass filter would work is if the mixture of speakers is the cause, but in this case the issue is most likely rooted in the environment (i.e., a hard reflection from the center console, or the PLD between the listener-speaker-ceiling, etc) and an all pass filter won't reconcile that and provide him with a smoother response in this region.


----------



## Holmz

ErinH said:


> Are you talking about using an all-pass filter? if so, that will also effect other frequencies as well and while it may fix the 140hz null, it will cause issues elsewhere. The all pass is designed to adjust phase over a band of frequencies. In which case, this is not the optimal solution for his issue. Not unless he has access to a very high order all-pass filter; and I couldn't tell you how high it would need to be other than well over anything I've ever used (which is no higher than 2nd order).
> 
> The only way the all pass filter would work is if the mixture of speakers is the cause, but in this case the issue is most likely rooted in the environment (i.e., a hard reflection from the center console, or the PLD between the listener-speaker-ceiling, etc) and an all pass filter won't reconcile that and provide him with a smoother response in this region.


Not an all pass filter Erin...
Almost every 8.11 modem known to man has a channel calibration that tries to recover an impulse response, and this decolors group delay in the channel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_delay_and_phase_delay

https://www.mathworks.com/help/sign...lay-and-distortion-introduced-by-filters.html

And the group delay is 'always' minimized.
However one could, in theory, intentionally go for a group delay that was not minimized over some band.

Of course I have never heard of anyone doing that... Usually the group delay is off and one calibrates the channel to improve it, not make it worse.

So I do not know why one would do that, unless in this special case it made sense... It seems easier selecting a different driver (or placement) as well as those being quicker to achieve... unless one was already a DSP guru and had 'mad-skillz'.

And they would need a FIR based DSP.


----------



## Justin Zazzi

Holmz said:


> Almost every 8.11 modem known to man has a channel calibration that tries to recover an impulse response, and this decolors group delay in the channel.


Cool discussion, keep it going, but what is an 8.11 modem?


----------



## Holmz

Justin Zazzi said:


> Cool discussion, keep it going, but what is an 8.11 modem?


Sorry 802.11 (A through whatever)...

fred harris literally wrote the book on FFT windowing, DSP and multirate processing (as did Rabinier, Rader, Schaffer, and others).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fredric_J._Harris

fred harris specifically mentioned to me in a course on DSP how his methods are used in the modems for decolouring a channel's transfer function by minimizing group delay.

While he is much smarter than I am, I know enough to understand the theory and how it could be done in the case mentioned.
(But again no one would actually do that, so it is a bit of a pedantic-wank... but knowing it is actually theoretically possible - seemed worth a mention... even if it )


----------



## killeraxemannic

Hi guys,

I did some re tuning the other night and I think I got my response curve to look a little bit better. I ended up adding a bit of boost (+5DB around 20 and 40 hz) to the sub on the lower end to flatten out that curve. I also moved my crossover down from LR24 3000hz to LR24 at 2900hz. Seems like the crossover point matches the Jazzi curve a little bit better. I also dropped my input filters completely and thats kind of where my question lies

The miniDSP allows you to EQ each input channel and each output channel and get 6 filters per speaker on the output side and per side on the input side. I have been doing my output EQ's first and then doing my Input EQ's after and have just been doing an overall curve that is the same for both input channels. I would assume that's probably not the best way to do it. It was giving me pretty good overall curves (I think) but I would guess you want to EQ both sides of the input individually after you EQ all of your outputs to each individual speaker? Or maybe EQing the input is a bad idea all together... Not sure

Before with the 3000hz crossover my responses still looked pretty ugly. Last night I was able to get a pretty good response tuned in without any input EQ curve at all. The photo I have attached is my curve from last night. 

Would it be beneficial to tune the inputs for each side now? Like run them through REW Auto EQ with the full Jazzi house curve set? I would assume I would just want to cut the peaks between 200-300hz, 1k-2k, and 3k-6k? Or should I just try to tune those out by further adjusting my output EQ's? Also am I doing this backwards? Should I be tuning the inputs first? I guess I also really don't know how tight of a curve I should be trying for and where you would be hitting the point where you are just wasting time.


----------



## Justin Zazzi

Good questions! There are many ways to use filters on a DSP, and no "bad" way if it works.

After tuning multiple cars, I like to use the filters on the individual channels for *tuning* (to make the individual speakers play nicely with each other), and using any input or global filters for *toning* (to adjust the overall tone curve or flavor curve as I call it in the tool, actually tone curve makes much more sense). This lets me completely separate the technical aspects per-speaker which can only be setup one correct way (so all the speakers sum together correctly), from the subjective tone curve which can vary widely person to person, even day to day. Then when I inevitably decide I want a little more of this or a little less of that, I can tweak the input EQ a little and all the technical tuning stays correct. Actually I tweak the EQ on my head unit since it's easy to do while I'm driving and doesn't require a laptop, and it accomplishes the exact same thing.

Side note, this is exactly what the JBL MS8 did. All the technical tuning was done automatically for folks who didn't know how, and the subjective toning was available to play with using the 31-band EQ that was available. The user-adjustable EQ was effectively the same as an input EQ since it was global. I believe this wasn't very popular since people didn't understand it and also since the auto-tune algorithm was pretty darn good, but not as good as a really talented tuner could do manually, and there was no way to bridge the gap since the auto-tune settings were hidden from the user and not adjustable.

Whatever technique you decide to use, I find being economical with each and every filter is a really important skill to have. No matter what you do, you'll always wish you had one or two more filters available somewhere. So if you can learn how to combine the effects of four filters into just three, or four filters into three while also changing the crossover a little bit, then you free up that one spare filter for later and sometimes it makes all the difference 

edit: oops, forgot about your graph. Peaks are easier to hear than dips, and broad peaks/dips are easier to hear than narrow ones. So you might try some super broad EQ filters (very small Q<1) to boost at around 25hz, and cut around 95hz, 290hz, 1.8khz, and 4.2khz. Your results may vary.


----------



## killeraxemannic

I saw some people saying earlier in the thread that they didn't want to pay for Office to use the tool. You can actually buy a legit copy of office off of ebay for around $10. I have bought quite a few Windows 10 and Office 2016 licenses off of ebay and haven't had any issues with them so far. They basically just send you the keycode in the email and then a download link to the installer.


----------



## ErinH

killeraxemannic said:


> I saw some people saying earlier in the thread that they didn't want to pay for Office to use the tool. You can actually buy a legit copy of office off of ebay for around $10. I have bought quite a few Windows 10 and Office 2016 licenses off of ebay and haven't had any issues with them so far. They basically just send you the keycode in the email and then a download link to the installer.


If that's indeed legit, that's a no brainer.



Also, it's a good idea to check with your employer. In many cases they have deals worked out with MS to where you can purchase Office for dirt cheap through your work affiliation. 

Or if you're a government worker/contractor you might be able to get a discounted copy that way. For me it's $10 for Office Professional. Can't beat that.
https://enterprise.microsoft.com/en...litary-discount-through-the-home-use-program/



I just wanted to add that since it was brought up and relevant to the thread. I'll back out again.


----------



## Justin Zazzi

Students can sometimes get reasonable deals on Office software, but if that eBay thing or employer thing is legit that would be the best!

Whatever you do, don't buy that subscription-forever ********. I'm looking at you Adobe.


----------



## rton20s

Justin Zazzi said:


> Students can sometimes get reasonable deals on Office software, but if that eBay thing or employer thing is legit that would be the best!
> 
> Whatever you do, don't buy that subscription-forever ********. I'm looking at you Adobe.


Adobe leads, and everyone else follows. At my office, we're currently looking down the barrel of that gun with our design software from Autodesk. Upgrade subscriptions are one thing, perpetual leasing software is completely different. It is only a matter of time until owning software is a thing of the past.


----------



## Ziggyrama

rton20s said:


> Adobe leads, and everyone else follows. At my office, we're currently looking down the barrel of that gun with our design software from Autodesk. Upgrade subscriptions are one thing, perpetual leasing software is completely different. It is only a matter of time until owning software is a thing of the past.


Part of that is that companies are moving more of their deployments to the cloud, which requires big back end investments. You as a consumer are buying a light front end that leverages cloud services for most of the heavy lifting. Companies need to change their operating model to remain profitable. Other part of this is that it is far easier to manage the revenue stream if you have guidance on recurring revenues. Notice none of this is actually better for us. Well, I lied a bit on that one. Cloud based software does have advantages. It just sucks because we've been trained to "own" software, and now we are paying rent. Oh well.

Google docs cannot handle the macros?

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## Justin Zazzi

I could complain about the rent-forever licensing thing so.....

The macro stuffs are not that complicated so Google Docs might be able to run the scripting. However, I have no interest in learning a new programming thing since I'm so darn comfortable with Excel (and it's crazy easy to find support with vba code), and I would rather put the tool on a website anyhow.

I have a website already and it's mostly done, it just needs some content. One of the members here is really graciously trying to help put this tool on the website. But don't hold your breath, this might take a little while since it's a side project. I am still outrageously thankful for the help though, no joke, and when there is something cool to share I'll post all about it.


----------



## Babs

Justin,
I imagine the calculation for the various crossover filters is rather complex. At one point I googled extensively to see if there’s any other such tool out there with no success. So I’d say congratulations.. I think this tool is about it on the planet to my knowledge for converting a curve or flat response to text with LR or any crossover electrical filter applied. 

Ya know, if looking for a different tool other than excel, you might consider a browser-based HTML solution similar to Erin’s Tracerite tool. 

One cool idea.. Might hook up with Julian at Audiotec-Fischer and see about a tool that could spit the output into the file format used for the Helix DSP platform for their RTA curves. That’s how I’m using your tool.. I create the text files, then manually enter those values into 1/3 octave values in the Helix RTA settings screen, saving them as custom curve files. Works well but it’s rather manually intensive anytime you change anything.. You have to totally redo a set within the Helix tool after generating new text files in the spreadsheet. 

On that, I will say your tool combined with Helix RTA has allowed me to have the most repeatable, consistent and predictable tune outcome ever, tune after tune. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Justin Zazzi

Babs,

I'm really glad you enjoy using this tool! You're right the equations for crossover filters are difficult to find. I'm sure there are more equations in the AES library but that's all behind a pay-wall which I find counter-productive. There are other tools that can also do similar things using programs like Matlab, but also, expensive.

See the post I made, directly above yours, about html-porting this tool. Sadly, I am not interested in focusing on a single use case for the Helix software like you're asking. It is far too narrow in scope compared to the amount of work I can put into something like that.


----------



## tjk_bail

Justin, When you're "taking a measurement"... what method are you using ?>

Which "Measure Method' would be the best when using "Jazzi's tuning companion for REW 5.3"?

1. Using full Frequency PN-Pink noise CD, thats playing on your Head Unit? (Which means using RTA module in REW to record the measurement, then onto the EQ module)

2. Your PC is connected to the AUX-IN on your Head Unit, and you're using REW's 'Generator' to push 'PN-Pink noise' through the speakers. Which means your using RTA module in REW to record the measurement, then onto the EQ module. 

3. Your PC is connected to the AUX-IN on your Head Unit and you're using the 'Generator' in REW and using the 'Sine Waves', which would mean your're using the RTA module to recored the measurement, then onto the EQ module.

4. Your PC is connected to the AUX-IN on your Head Unit, and you're using REWs 'Measure' Module. Which means your using Sine Waves, and not using the RTA module, and going straight to the EQ module after measurement.


If your using REW's 'Generator' to create Sine Waves, which Sine option are your using? I.e. Log Sweep, Linear Sweep or Meas. Sweep? Are you using Full Range Sweeps (20-20k) or limiting your Frequency range to the EQ Module's "Match Range" under the "Filter Tasks" tab that would match which-ever speaker your tuning.(sub, mid-bass, mid-range, tweet) Example, So, if your measuring your mid-bass, and your XO is 70/400, would you choose a Frequency Range Sine Sweep to be 35/1000hz or would you use a full range sweep (20-20k)? Same question when using Pink Noise, .. do I always use full range, or should I use band limited pink noise?

Please Please explain which method to use to take a measurement so we can take full advantage of the Tuning Companion.


I've searched the threats for an answer... seems like everybody will say "take a measurement" and then do this, do that.. ect,ect, but I can not find after hours of searching the method of measurement the "People who Know" are using....and YOU are absolutely truely one of the "People Who Know'

BTW, I love your "Jazzi's tuning companion for REW 5.3"...its an amazingly brilliant piece of work!


----------



## Justin Zazzi

When making measurements in the car, I use two main methods. One is periodic pink noise while moving the microphone around to get a spatial average. The other is using the sweep method holding the microphone steady, if I'm interested in time domain stuff like phase or decay times etc. I do not use pure sine waves in REW because I don't find them useful that way. I will sometimes play sine wave on my phone and sweep and up down manually to narrow in on a problem, but that's about it for sine waves.

For you, try the RTA method. Take a look at the two posts I made below. They are pretty close to answering your question. If you need more clarification, please ask and I'll help.

https://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/3934826-post11.html

https://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/5378306-post280.html

In general, I will sweep a woofer full range from 20-20khz, and a midrange or a tweeter from about half of Fs through 20khz. For example a tweeter with an Fs of 900hz I would sweep from 450hz and up. If using pink noise, I usually use full-range noise on woofers. I am much more careful on midranges and tweeters, and I will usually add a high-pass crossover before playing full-range pink noise through them. It is also a good idea to play midrange/tweeter at a lower volume when testing just in case you send low frequency content to them by mistake.


----------



## tjk_bail

I'm having Problems getting my system tuned correctly... I've used Jazzi's tuning companion, and I like it, but I have a difficult time getting the Frequency's to follow the downslopes of the speaker-curve(house-curve) when EQ'ing,. for most of the speakers. I believe it's because I'm not choosing the correct crossover points. Most of the time my results (and I've perform dozens and dozens that "start from the beginning") tunes, the mid-range sounds pushed and thin, lacking bass notes... like its a tweeter not a mid-range.

The whole system with be very centered, like I have just one small speaker in the middle of the dash with not much of an image, just some symbols on the left and right.

My question is.... based on the Graph I posted, what would be the best crossover points I should aim for?


----------



## Justin Zazzi

tjk_bail said:


> I'm having Problems getting my system tuned correctly... I've used Jazzi's tuning companion, and I like it, but I have a difficult time getting the Frequency's to follow the downslopes of the speaker-curve(house-curve) when EQ'ing,. for most of the speakers. I believe it's because I'm not choosing the correct crossover points. Most of the time my results (and I've perform dozens and dozens that "start from the beginning") tunes, the mid-range sounds pushed and thin, lacking bass notes... like its a tweeter not a mid-range.
> 
> The whole system with be very centered, like I have just one small speaker in the middle of the dash with not much of an image, just some symbols on the left and right.
> 
> My question is.... based on the Graph I posted, what would be the best crossover points I should aim for?


One of the best places to start with crossover frequencies is what the manufacturer recommends. Try looking in the manual for the GB-10 tweeter for example and you'll see ≥2.5khz and ≥12dB/octave. The dB/octave means electrical filter though, so your acoustic crossover slope might end up being steeper like 24dB/octave. So for the crossover between midrange and tweeter, try 3.0khz with 24dB/octave slope (which is a 4th-order Linkwitz-Riley).

Can you find the crossover points for the sub/mid-bass, and the mid-bass/midrange like I just did?


----------



## tjk_bail

Jazzi,

Thank you very much for responding! I've been reading your posts in various threads for a long time, and you really rock the house! I enjoy your post's throughout the threads that span years because you are so knowledgeable and truely know what the hell you are talkin about on a deep level.... but some of your posts are just plain 'ol over my head. I've been trying to get a good tune without any help or success, by reading the forums and attempting to apply the things i've read...

Over and over I would tune each speaker using RTA to mostly flat, trying a vast multitude of crossover combos, never really getting past the RTA portion of the tune, because I didn't like the overall tone of the system. (Harsh tone) So, I would start-over and re-tune with different crossover settings.....I performed so may tunes without success that I burned out on tuning, and just lived with a crappy sounding $4000 dollar system for a long time. Then a few months ago, I discovered your 'Tuning Companion", applied it (over and over trying a multitude of crossover combos, and "flavor curves"), and my system had a HUGE improvement, but still don't like the overall tone of my system. 

I think, I've narrowed down the major problem of my bad system tone to my mid-range speakers that are installed in the factory dash location. I have a closet full of high-end mid-range speakers(and other high-end) that I've tried with my system, always thinking that a different expensive mid-range speaker was the answer (Illusion C3CX, AudioFrog GB25,Perfect 300M)... but now I'm thinking its really a problem of the dash speaker locations and my tuning abilities.

Just today (I dont know why I didnt try this before today), I muted my mid-range dash speakers(350/2800hz),... so my A-pillar tweets, front door 6x9's and Subs (under back seat) are playing.. and the system sounds 1000 percent better without the midrange. (changed the door 6x9 speakers LowPass crossover up to 2700 from 350 to closer match tweets XO) The harshness is gone, the stage is different, its like wider and more defined but thinner in tone, if you know what I mean. I have all speakers T/A via tape measure, crossovers all set at LR24, and zero (no) EQ, on all channels at this time. I have a 5 point stage without the mid-range playing.. ((a 7 point stage is my goal)) When the mid-range speakers are playing, I have a 3 point stage. By 3 point stage I mean "left, center, right" is distinguished. When mid-range is not playing, I have a 5 point stage, meaning, left, left center, center, right center, right, is distinguished, and its working with just T/A & Crossovers, no EQ or leveling. (yep, I've started a new re-tune)

I'm thinking the mid-range are really a big problem because I can not RTA EQ them to fit the 'speaker curve' from the Tuning Companion. I can EQ the Freqs from mid-point of the curve on the lower Freqs, but I can not EQ any of the Freqs from just past mid-point on the higher Freqs because those higher Freqs just dont show up high enough in the RTA measurement.....so the result is the lower half of the speaker curve is EQ'ed, the upper half is not. I've tried to boost the mid-range gain on the amp to bring up the RTA measurement to a level that can be EQ'ed, the lower Freqs are boosted, so I adjust those Freqs by decreasing the HP crossover. The problem is I can't get the upper Freqs on the mid-range high enough to be EQ'ed. So, I believe the system sounds to harsh with the mid-range playing due to the fact I can not EQ the upper Freqs of the speaker curve. 

Jazzi, I trust your opinion, would you advise me to drop the 3-way, and focus on tuning the 2-way... I am somewhat confident I could tune a 2-way system to the Tuning Companion's curves, or is a 3-way worth the time to figure out how to tune? .... or... maybe use the mid-range as a 'fill'....



I've attached a pic of my mid-range and A-pillar tweets. My tweets are on-axis, and as you can see the factory dash mid-range are kinda pointed inward, but they and not on axis.....


----------



## dengland

tjk_bail said:


> Jazzi,
> 
> Thank you very much for responding! I've been reading your posts in various threads for a long time, and you really rock the house! I enjoy your post's throughout the threads that span years because you are so knowledgeable and truely know what the hell you are talkin about on a deep level.... but some of your posts are just plain 'ol over my head. I've been trying to get a good tune without any help or success, by reading the forums and attempting to apply the things i've read...
> 
> I performed so may tunes without success that I burned out on tuning, and just lived with a crappy sounding $XXXX dollar system for a long time. Then a few months ago, I discovered your 'Tuning Companion", applied it (over and over trying a multitude of crossover combos, and "flavor curves"), and my system had a HUGE improvement, but still don't like the overall tone of my system.


I feel pretty much the same. Especially the props for Jazzi! I am in much better shape with Jazzi's guide, but not happy yet. I have compemplated 3 way, but am still struggling with a 2 way. My last change was 3.5s in the dash and ditching the tweeters (my signature is a bit out of date, the HL70s are in the dash locations). I have had the best sucess yet, but still unfullfilled. I am watching with interest....

Maybe modern, full-sizeTrucks are just a hard environment.


----------



## Ziggyrama

Feeling your pain as I have been frustrated in the past but got over the tuning hump by breaking down the process to carefully controlled steps.

- I found RTA based tuning a wild goose chase. Too inconsistent and prone to error. I use sweeps, smoothing and a log book to dial in a curve. 

- Level match your drivers first as much as possible.

- TA should be next IMO as that will shape how you perceive the sound especially in lower and mid range frequencies. Tape measure method did not work well for me as the values did not account for the sub latency and other factors. Once I used the impulse response method, my TA fell into place and it sounded MUCH better.

- after TA and rough levels are done, focus on each pair only and log your changes. Dial in the sub first, which is the easiest. Then move to mid base or mids, rev each change in a log book, record what you changed and write down your observations. I cannot stress this enough. This will allow you to review and potentially go back if you think you regressed and tie your changes to how you perceive them.

This process will incrementally get you to a happy place. Ping me if you have more questions.


tjk_bail said:


> Jazzi,
> 
> Thank you very much for responding! I've been reading your posts in various threads for a long time, and you really rock the house! I enjoy your post's throughout the threads that span years because you are so knowledgeable and truely know what the hell you are talkin about on a deep level.... but some of your posts are just plain 'ol over my head. I've been trying to get a good tune without any help or success, by reading the forums and attempting to apply the things i've read...
> 
> Over and over I would tune each speaker using RTA to mostly flat, trying a vast multitude of crossover combos, never really getting past the RTA portion of the tune, because I didn't like the overall tone of the system. (Harsh tone) So, I would start-over and re-tune with different crossover settings.....I performed so may tunes without success that I burned out on tuning, and just lived with a crappy sounding $4000 dollar system for a long time. Then a few months ago, I discovered your 'Tuning Companion", applied it (over and over trying a multitude of crossover combos, and "flavor curves"), and my system had a HUGE improvement, but still don't like the overall tone of my system.
> 
> I think, I've narrowed down the major problem of my bad system tone to my mid-range speakers that are installed in the factory dash location. I have a closet full of high-end mid-range speakers(and other high-end) that I've tried with my system, always thinking that a different expensive mid-range speaker was the answer (Illusion C3CX, AudioFrog GB25,Perfect 300M)... but now I'm thinking its really a problem of the dash speaker locations and my tuning abilities.
> 
> Just today (I dont know why I didnt try this before today), I muted my mid-range dash speakers(350/2800hz),... so my A-pillar tweets, front door 6x9's and Subs (under back seat) are playing.. and the system sounds 1000 percent better without the midrange. (changed the door 6x9 speakers LowPass crossover up to 2700 from 350 to closer match tweets XO) The harshness is gone, the stage is different, its like wider and more defined but thinner in tone, if you know what I mean. I have all speakers T/A via tape measure, crossovers all set at LR24, and zero (no) EQ, on all channels at this time. I have a 5 point stage without the mid-range playing.. ((a 7 point stage is my goal)) When the mid-range speakers are playing, I have a 3 point stage. By 3 point stage I mean "left, center, right" is distinguished. When mid-range is not playing, I have a 5 point stage, meaning, left, left center, center, right center, right, is distinguished, and its working with just T/A & Crossovers, no EQ or leveling. (yep, I've started a new re-tune)
> 
> I'm thinking the mid-range are really a big problem because I can not RTA EQ them to fit the 'speaker curve' from the Tuning Companion. I can EQ the Freqs from mid-point of the curve on the lower Freqs, but I can not EQ any of the Freqs from just past mid-point on the higher Freqs because those higher Freqs just dont show up high enough in the RTA measurement.....so the result is the lower half of the speaker curve is EQ'ed, the upper half is not. I've tried to boost the mid-range gain on the amp to bring up the RTA measurement to a level that can be EQ'ed, the lower Freqs are boosted, so I adjust those Freqs by decreasing the HP crossover. The problem is I can't get the upper Freqs on the mid-range high enough to be EQ'ed. So, I believe the system sounds to harsh with the mid-range playing due to the fact I can not EQ the upper Freqs of the speaker curve.
> 
> Jazzi, I trust your opinion, would you advise me to drop the 3-way, and focus on tuning the 2-way... I am somewhat confident I could tune a 2-way system to the Tuning Companion's curves, or is a 3-way worth the time to figure out how to tune? .... or... maybe use the mid-range as a 'fill'....
> 
> 
> 
> I've attached a pic of my mid-range and A-pillar tweets. My tweets are on-axis, and as you can see the factory dash mid-range are kinda pointed inward, but they and not on axis.....


Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## tjk_bail

Ziggy,

My eyes perked up when you suggested a new approach to tuning, an approach other than RTA & Pink Noise sounds interesting. I don't have knowlege how to implement the method you discribed, .. Your idea of document and logging changes made is a good point. I have seen threads in regards to Impulse response, so I can research and teach myself how to do that, but in regards to using "sweeps", I dont know how to do that.... Perhaps you could review my post #328, and let me know your answer, as that would help me get started using a new tuning method.

I dont want to pollute Justin's thread with unrealeted topics anymore than I already have, ... would you be interested in starting a new thread describing your method of tuning ?? .. or point out existing threads that have already covered it....


----------



## Justin Zazzi

Talking about this tool is just as important as talking about how to use this tool. You're not polluting this thread at all, and I love hearing about this kind of thing. Keep at it!


----------



## Ziggyrama

tjk_bail said:


> Ziggy,
> 
> My eyes perked up when you suggested a new approach to tuning, an approach other than RTA & Pink Noise sounds interesting. I don't have knowlege how to implement the method you discribed, .. Your idea of document and logging changes made is a good point. I have seen threads in regards to Impulse response, so I can research and teach myself how to do that, but in regards to using "sweeps", I dont know how to do that.... Perhaps you could review my post #328, and let me know your answer, as that would help me get started using a new tuning method.
> 
> I dont want to pollute Justin's thread with unrealeted topics anymore than I already have, ... would you be interested in starting a new thread describing your method of tuning ?? .. or point out existing threads that have already covered it....


Don't worry, there is a good write up by Hanatsu how to get started with REW and perform a sweep measurement. This is a great thread to read, if you haven't see it yet:

https://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/how-articles-provided-our-members/163234-first-timers-guide-measuring-your-system.html

The general idea is position your mic near your left and right ear, take several measurements at each side, average them together and apply smoothing so that you don't end up chasing in-audible narrow peak or dips. The thread has some suggestions on the smoothing values based on the type of speaker you're measuring. In general, the lower the frequency, the less smoothing you need and the measurements are very consistent, regardless of the mic position. So, for a subwoofer, I take a single sweep in front of my nose and that is good enough. For tweeters, I take 7 for each ear, I average them together and I apply 1/6 or 1/3 smoothing. Then, I overlay that avearged curve over my house curve, which I generate using Jazzi's tool to see where I need to tweak.

For TA measurement using impulse response, this thread provides a good writeup:

https://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/technical-advanced-car-audio-discussion/317537-measuring-impulse-response-ta-using-rew-umik-1-a.html

Word of caution about doing TA using USB based mic, it lacks a reference channel as means of accounting for device latency so results may vary. I am using a high end laptop with lots of CPU and my results were very consistent. Some people reported trouble with this. But, read the thread so you can get an idea how it is done. Basically, REW generates a ping through a speaker and measures the impulse response latency. So, you start with your farthest speaker (subwoofer for me), capture its impulse response and than align each mid to it, and then align the tweeters to the mids. I found this technique to be very effective. It fixed my 'base in the back' problem and my imaging is spot on.

As far as how I track my work, I start with rev0 entry, I make notes about the changes and I save my DSP settings to a file named rev0 which I keep in the same folder. Once I make another change, I save the new version to rev1, I write down what I changed, I listen to it, I record my observations, and I keep going. This way I can always go back to a given rev if I want to re-evaluate and I can match my notes to that file so I know what I changed. To give you an idea, this is an actual excerpt from my tuning log book. Each line mentioned the driver, +1 or -2 means how much I cut or added in my DSP setting to a given EQ filter, and then I add my general observations. I am up to rev104 right now 



Code:


*** rev80

- mid left,
- mid right,
- high left, +1 9200, -1 2700
- high right, -1 2700

- adding +1 9200 added presence to left side, still a little too harsh

*** rev79

- gained over 5db around mid range between rev76 and rev78, need to cut that down a bit

- mid left, -1 105, 3600 -> 3900
- mid right
- high left, -2 2700, -2 9200
- high right, -2 2700, -1 10000

- sounds better, less harshness but it is still a little there, stage pulling slightly to the right

This way I can methodically narrow in on a fix or backtrack if I feel I went in a wrong direction. 

I cannot stress the importance of doing this. Tuning is not a sprint, it's more like a marathon and so it is impossible to hack your way through it without tracking what you're doing.


----------



## Justin Zazzi

Ziggyrama said:


> Tuning is not a sprint, it's more like a marathon and so it is impossible to hack your way through it without tracking what you're doing.


Yes!


----------



## dengland

Ziggyrama said:


> As far as how I track my work, I start with rev0 entry, I make notes about the changes and I save my DSP settings to a file named rev0 which I keep in the same folder. Once I make another change, I save the new version to rev1, I write down what I changed, I listen to it, I record my observations, and I keep going. This way I can always go back to a given rev if I want to re-evaluate and I can match my notes to that file so I know what I changed. To give you an idea, this is an actual excerpt from my tuning log book. Each line mentioned the driver, +1 or -2 means how much I cut or added in my DSP setting to a given EQ filter, and then I add my general observations. I am up to rev104 right now
> <SNIP> and so it is impossible to hack your way through it without tracking what you're doing.


Thanks. Not sure why I did not think to do it this way. Dates and cryptic and titels like 1500CX80 has not worked so well....


----------



## ftmsmohan

After 2-3 weeks playing with the tools, I'm still not satisfied. 
I have done lot of readings but feel i'm still doing it wrong.

I'm using Dayton Audio EMM-6 (XLR Mic) + Focusrite 2i2.

Please assist to clear my doubts, I'm starting from beginning:

1. The EMM-6 MIC is calibrated with the given file. Does the Focusrite 2i2 requires calibration? 
2. Which volume level should i trust? The one SPL Meter shows different db thru Pink PN, the Log Sweep shows different level before i start the full sweep measurement. What is the moderate level we should use and is it should be same for all drivers? In my soundcard also i do have level and it will display it's clipping or going to loud, so which one to use as baseline for all?
3. Could someone please analysis my measurement and tell me if i'm doing anything wrong? I have done EQ as well, i believe something is not right too.
4. Please analyst the picture below and let me know the appropriate value for Level Matching and Crossover. I ran FS for all drivers except TW. Is ok if i upload the mdat file here for detailed analysis by experts in this forum?

From my understanding of the acoustic output, i set the crossover as follow:
Sub: 20hz~55hz LR
Left MB: 50hz~6000hz LR
Right MB: 55hz~7500hz LR
Left TW: 6000hz LR
Right TW: 6000kz LR

Please share your valuable inputs, i can only proceed with the next steps after completing this. Thanks in advance!


----------



## Hanatsu

ftmsmohan said:


> After 2-3 weeks playing with the tools, I'm still not satisfied.
> 
> I have done lot of readings but feel i'm still doing it wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm using Dayton Audio EMM-6 (XLR Mic) + Focusrite 2i2.
> 
> 
> 
> Please assist to clear my doubts, I'm starting from beginning:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The EMM-6 MIC is calibrated with the given file. Does the Focusrite 2i2 requires calibration?
> 
> 2. Which volume level should i trust? The one SPL Meter shows different db thru Pink PN, the Log Sweep shows different level before i start the full sweep measurement. What is the moderate level we should use and is it should be same for all drivers? In my soundcard also i do have level and it will display it's clipping or going to loud, so which one to use as baseline for all?
> 
> 3. Could someone please analysis my measurement and tell me if i'm doing anything wrong? I have done EQ as well, i believe something is not right too.
> 
> 4. Please analyst the picture below and let me know the appropriate value for Level Matching and Crossover. I ran FS for all drivers except TW. Is ok if i upload the mdat file here for detailed analysis by experts in this forum?
> 
> 
> 
> From my understanding of the acoustic output, i set the crossover as follow:
> 
> Sub: 20hz~55hz LR
> 
> Left MB: 50hz~6000hz LR
> 
> Right MB: 55hz~7500hz LR
> 
> Left TW: 6000hz LR
> 
> Right TW: 6000kz LR
> 
> 
> 
> Please share your valuable inputs, i can only proceed with the next steps after completing this. Thanks in advance!




Crossovers are way off. I woudn’t even cross a 3” midrange driver at 7,5kHz.

Dunno how large your drivers are but lower them to 3k or so to begin with


----------



## Babs

Hanatsu said:


> Crossovers are way off. I woudn’t even cross a 3” midrange driver at 7,5kHz.
> 
> Dunno how large your drivers are but lower them to 3k or so to begin with



Agreed.. I’d also state there’s a huge discrepancy in the left vs right tweeters. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Justin Zazzi

Agreed on the crossover point, try lower.

For levels, first set everything on the computer to 100%, and set the sweep level within REW to -10dB. In REW, open preferences and test speaker level using full range speakers (near the bottom). Adjust the volume on your stereo to average listening volume, then finally adjust the microphone gain on the Focusrite so the level indicator is mostly glowing green, never red. If you're using a loopback cable in channel 2 for timing reference, adjust the output gain to 100% and the input gain in the Focusrite so the indicator is glowing green too. This should give you useful volumes for all your equipment.

Never play tweeters full range, even during measurements. I like to have a crossover on them one or two octaves below what I intend to cross them over at, while making measurements. So if you think you want to use a 3khz crossover, use a ~800hz crossover during measurements.

Smoothing your graphs to 1/1 octave is a bit too smooth and you'll miss out on some details. Try smoothing at 1/3rd or 1/6th octave if you can.

Last, what is your target curve, or your house curve? Can you overlay that on top of your measurements to see how close you are?


----------



## Justin Zazzi

tjk_bail, did you find what you needed?


----------



## dengland

Justin Zazzi said:


> tjk_bail, did you find what you needed?


Seems like a post has disappeared. I got a 4am email on 8/17 with notification of a long post from tjk. I feel like I read it on DIY and not just in the email, but I am not 100% sure.


----------



## tjk_bail

I found the answers I was looking for, (by reading other threads), So, I removed (deleted) the post.......


----------



## ftmsmohan

Hanatsu said:


> Crossovers are way off. I woudn’t even cross a 3” midrange driver at 7,5kHz.
> 
> Dunno how large your drivers are but lower them to 3k or so to begin with


Thanks for your input.
I’m trying with 2.5khz for TW now as Virtus 602 supports 1.8Khz was onwards


----------



## ftmsmohan

Babs said:


> Agreed.. I’d also state there’s a huge discrepancy in the left vs right tweeters.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Yeah, I agree with that.
Will try level match it and post it over here.
Thanks for your time.


----------



## ftmsmohan

Justin Zazzi said:


> Agreed on the crossover point, try lower.
> 
> For levels, first set everything on the computer to 100%, and set the sweep level within REW to -10dB. In REW, open preferences and test speaker level using full range speakers (near the bottom). Adjust the volume on your stereo to average listening volume, then finally adjust the microphone gain on the Focusrite so the level indicator is mostly glowing green, never red. If you're using a loopback cable in channel 2 for timing reference, adjust the output gain to 100% and the input gain in the Focusrite so the indicator is glowing green too. This should give you useful volumes for all your equipment.
> 
> Never play tweeters full range, even during measurements. I like to have a crossover on them one or two octaves below what I intend to cross them over at, while making measurements. So if you think you want to use a 3khz crossover, use a ~800hz crossover during measurements.
> 
> Smoothing your graphs to 1/1 octave is a bit too smooth and you'll miss out on some details. Try smoothing at 1/3rd or 1/6th octave if you can.
> 
> Last, what is your target curve, or your house curve? Can you overlay that on top of your measurements to see how close you are?


1. I have just check and realised the level in *computer* for output (speaker) is: 100%. And for Input (mic) is just 1%. I believe I need to change this to 100%.

2. Sweep Level at REW is currently set at -3. Will change it accordingly.

3. Will Test the speaker using rew option there. Will try out the remaining too.

My current house curve is: Andy JBL and (yours) Jazzi Curve. 
I have 4 presets to save, gonna try more curve or different crossover setups.

Just a reconfirmation, when doing measurements, input 2 (loopback cable is unplugged), so correct right? Will only connect loopback cable when dong time alignment. 

Thanks and appreciated your valuable inputs!


----------



## Justin Zazzi

ftmsmohan said:


> 1. I have just check and realised the level in *computer* for output (speaker) is: 100%. And for Input (mic) is just 1%. I believe I need to change this to 100%.
> 
> 2. Sweep Level at REW is currently set at -3. Will change it accordingly.
> 
> 3. Will Test the speaker using rew option there. Will try out the remaining too.
> 
> My current house curve is: Andy JBL and (yours) Jazzi Curve.
> I have 4 presets to save, gonna try more curve or different crossover setups.
> 
> Just a reconfirmation, when doing measurements, input 2 (loopback cable is unplugged), so correct right? Will only connect loopback cable when dong time alignment.
> 
> Thanks and appreciated your valuable inputs!


1. You're using the Focusrite and an XLR microphone, right? If so, then all sound card settings in Windows should be at 100% for both inputs and outputs. Use the knobs on the Scarlet to change the levels.

2. This level is not as important if you have knobs on the Scarlet to adjust it with. Just make sure you dial it in, and it's always the same so it's easy to setup. I like to adjust the output level on the Scarlet to something pretty high so the stereo you plug it into works well, then adjust the input of channel 2 so the loopback channel has a good level within REW when you do the "check levels" thing in the preferences window.

3. You can leave output channel 2 connected to input channel 2 at all times, it doesn't hurt anything. If you use the "measure" button in REW and it does a sweep, you want to have the loopback in use even if you're not doing time alignment because it will collect extra time-related information that you might find useful later on. If you use the function generator and the RTA window, the loopback doesn't do anything but you don't need to disconnect it.


----------



## ftmsmohan

Thanks Jazzi, I have followed exactly what has been told.
Here is my results, before and after.
I took 8 FS for each drivers and average it. Re-measurement were taken with just the RTA (to verify the results). I'm trying with JBL Curve first.

*Before EQ - Full Sweep*
Refer attached file

*After EQ - Remeasured via RTA*
Refer attached file

1. Please review, is there anything wrong here?
2. The fault that i have identified so far, is the Left & Right Midbass drivers having *dips*. Any idea how to fix this? Right MB Driver a bit off against curve towards the sub. I was thinking to apply different crossover point for RMB driver. I also read somewhere, if apply TA, these dips will be slightly removed, i havent TA yet. Any idea what has caused this dips? Should i try different crossover points for both MB Drivers?
3. Current Target Level is *120db*, can i go lower to 118db or 115db? I'm afraid, I will put heavy loads on the amp.
4. I feel, I'm more comfortable to work with RTA instead of FS. As with RTA, I can see the results immediately but not sure it's really accurate. Most of people recommending to go for FS. 

Thanks in advance people 

Image link adjusted, sorry for that


----------



## Justin Zazzi

Looks like your graphs are not showing?


----------



## ftmsmohan

Image uploaded as attachment, please review and share your inputs


----------



## SilentWrath

Looks like the midbass dip is due to car environment... you're in Malaysia so is it right hand drive I'm guessing. I have a similar dip in my left speaker in my left hand drive car. I would be very interested to see the full system rta to better understand how left and right are blending and how the crossovers between drivers is blending.


----------



## Babs

ftmsmohan said:


> Thanks Jazzi, I have followed exactly what has been told.
> Here is my results, before and after.
> I took 8 FS for each drivers and average it. Re-measurement were taken with just the RTA (to verify the results). I'm trying with JBL Curve first.
> 
> *Before EQ - Full Sweep*
> Refer attached file
> 
> *After EQ - Remeasured via RTA*
> Refer attached file
> 
> 1. Please review, is there anything wrong here?
> 2. The fault that i have identified so far, is the Left & Right Midbass drivers having *dips*. Any idea how to fix this? Right MB Driver a bit off against curve towards the sub. I was thinking to apply different crossover point for RMB driver. I also read somewhere, if apply TA, these dips will be slightly removed, i havent TA yet. Any idea what has caused this dips? Should i try different crossover points for both MB Drivers?
> 3. Current Target Level is *120db*, can i go lower to 118db or 115db? I'm afraid, I will put heavy loads on the amp.
> 4. I feel, I'm more comfortable to work with RTA instead of FS. As with RTA, I can see the results immediately but not sure it's really accurate. Most of people recommending to go for FS.
> 
> Thanks in advance people
> 
> Image link adjusted, sorry for that


I would raise the levels (or lower the target) so their raw plots will at least play within the desired bandwidth, within reason.

Some sharp dips in midbass region will be possibly modal issues that are a product of the car.. If they're rather narrow, they may be somewhat inaudible so some sharp dips under the target just work around them, or rather ignore them and concentrate on what's above the curve.

Then I would work with crossover points so the drivers both plot at or above the crossover slopes, then begin EQ work from there to bring the drivers to the curve.


----------



## Justin Zazzi

ftmsmohan said:


> 1. Please review, is there anything wrong here?
> 2. The fault that i have identified so far, is the Left & Right Midbass drivers having *dips*. Any idea how to fix this? Right MB Driver a bit off against curve towards the sub. I was thinking to apply different crossover point for RMB driver. I also read somewhere, if apply TA, these dips will be slightly removed, i havent TA yet. Any idea what has caused this dips? Should i try different crossover points for both MB Drivers?
> 3. Current Target Level is *120db*, can i go lower to 118db or 115db? I'm afraid, I will put heavy loads on the amp.
> 4. I feel, I'm more comfortable to work with RTA instead of FS. As with RTA, I can see the results immediately but not sure it's really accurate. Most of people recommending to go for FS.


1. I do not see anything particularly wrong.
2. The right midbass driver has dips, but the dips are when the speaker is playing by itself. Time alignment only affects the measurement when more than one speaker is playing, so that is not your problem shown in the graph. As SilentWrath mentions, there is likely some interference caused by the car interior. You can test this by measuring the opposite midbass speaker while sitting in the opposite seat. For you, I think that would be left midbass in left seat.
3. You can set any target level you want. I very seriously doubt you are calibrating at 120dB and I suspect your vertical axis is not calibrated absolutely. This is common, I would not worry about it.
4. If you want to use the RTA, then look in this thread for my suggestions on how to match the sequence length of the pink noise to the fft length of the analyzer, use rectangular window, and set averages to infinite as you move the microphone around near where your head is to get an average of the entire space where your head is at. There is nothing wrong with this method for what you are trying to do, so use any method you are happy with that gets the results you want.

I hope this helps.


----------



## Durgesh

Hi Jazzi

Is it possible to add mp1 curve in your tuning companion?

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk


----------



## Justin Zazzi

Durgesh said:


> Hi Jazzi
> 
> Is it possible to add mp1 curve in your tuning companion?


Maybe? I am not sure what that is.


----------



## Durgesh

Justin Zazzi said:


> Maybe? I am not sure what that is.


Here it is..

https://drive.google.com/file/d/11-7qy9QK4usvQHr9t7bCvvvxDXG2LS_-/view?usp=drivesdk

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk


----------



## LumbermanSVO

Justin Zazzi said:


> Maybe? I am not sure what that is.


It's a curve(a good one!) Raimonds Skurals ships with his APL Workshop software.


----------



## Durgesh

Yes it's a good one as per the users of APL.

I want to use this to evaluate APL-1012's corrections in REW for each way in my setup.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk


----------



## LumbermanSVO

I am one of those APL users and have had no problem importing the original mp1 into REW.

Also, you can import the .DAT files that Workshop generates directly into REW. This is useful so you can have a consistent measuring technique regardless of what program you are using to tune with.

If you have TDA, you can save the .wav files from each measurement and import them into REW, but they will ONLY tell you time in REW.

For an example, see the REW project file from my Miata: http://lumbermansvo.com/APL/Miata/Miata.mdat

I started with TDA, then used Workshop and EQ'ed each speaker with the parametric in the amp, then did each side, then used the APL1. The last measurements are of the final tune from that day.


----------



## Justin Zazzi

If you would like to use a curve that is not in the spreadsheet, you can use the "custom" column, which is column J. Just type in the values at the frequencies listed and then chose "custom" from the drop-down list. You can save the spreadsheet with those values so you don't have to type them in every time.

I hope this helps?


----------



## Durgesh

LumbermanSVO said:


> I am one of those APL users and have had no problem importing the original mp1 into REW.
> 
> Also, you can import the .DAT files that Workshop generates directly into REW. This is useful so you can have a consistent measuring technique regardless of what program you are using to tune with.
> 
> If you have TDA, you can save the .wav files from each measurement and import them into REW, but they will ONLY tell you time in REW.
> 
> For an example, see the REW project file from my Miata: http://lumbermansvo.com/APL/Miata/Miata.mdat
> 
> I started with TDA, then used Workshop and EQ'ed each speaker with the parametric in the amp, then did each side, then used the APL1. The last measurements are of the final tune from that day.


Yes I have been following your build theard) so I know mp1 and apl corrections can be imported in REW.

You are using Apl-1. It does not have the ability to equalize each way in your system. So you are comparing the overall response of each side with overall mp1 curve in rew.

APL-1012 will equalize each way first and then match the overall response to the target curve. So it will give us the opportunity to check each way/speaker and compare it to target curve of that particular speaker as per desired crossovers.

Pls see image....purple is the initial power response of my left mid bass, red is the corrected power response and green is target curve from Jazzi's tool ( crossover 80-450/ 24 db LR & flavour curve flat).









Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk


----------



## Durgesh

Justin Zazzi said:


> If you would like to use a curve that is not in the spreadsheet, you can use the "custom" column, which is column J. Just type in the values at the frequencies listed and then chose "custom" from the drop-down list. You can save the spreadsheet with those values so you don't have to type them in every time.
> 
> I hope this helps?


I checked that too. I am not able to type any values in the frequency column. The db column can take values. 

Also when I check mp1 text files in notepad it shows lot of frequencies which in any case will not fit in the 31 band cutom curve.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk


----------



## Justin Zazzi

Durgesh said:


> I checked that too. I am not able to type any values in the frequency column. The db column can take values.
> 
> Also when I check mp1 text files in notepad it shows lot of frequencies which in any case will not fit in the 31 band cutom curve.


Yes, the dB column can take custom numbers. These are highlighted with a green background (all the cells in the spreadsheet with a green background can be changed).

The text file that you linked has many many frequencies, so just chose the ones that are closest to the frequencies on the spreadsheet and type in the amplitudes. You do not need to be ultra-precise and you can guess a little bit in between frequencies if they do not line up perfectly. As an example, here are the first few:

20 6.6
25 6.5
31 6.4
40 6.2
50 6.0
63 5.6
80 5.2
100 4.7
..... and so on


----------



## piyush7243

1 request,any chances of implementing 24db Butterworth and 12db bessel for the house curves section

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Justin Zazzi

If you can find the math equation that describes those crossover shapes, I can add them for you.


----------



## piyush7243

Justin Zazzi said:


> If you can find the math equation that describes those crossover shapes, I can add them for you.


I will PM the info

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Durgesh

Justin Zazzi said:


> Yes, the dB column can take custom numbers. These are highlighted with a green background (all the cells in the spreadsheet with a green background can be changed).
> 
> The text file that you linked has many many frequencies, so just chose the ones that are closest to the frequencies on the spreadsheet and type in the amplitudes. You do not need to be ultra-precise and you can guess a little bit in between frequencies if they do not line up perfectly. As an example, here are the first few:
> 
> 20 6.6
> 25 6.5
> 31 6.4
> 40 6.2
> 50 6.0
> 63 5.6
> 80 5.2
> 100 4.7
> ..... and so on


Thanks. I will try this.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk


----------



## LumbermanSVO

Durgesh said:


> Yes I have been following your build theard) so I know mp1 and apl corrections can be imported in REW.
> 
> You are using Apl-1. It does not have the ability to equalize each way in your system. So you are comparing the overall response of each side with overall mp1 curve in rew.
> 
> APL-1012 will equalize each way first and then match the overall response to the target curve. So it will give us the opportunity to check each way/speaker and compare it to target curve of that particular speaker as per desired crossovers.
> 
> Pls see image....purple is the initial power response of my left mid bass, red is the corrected power response and green is target curve from Jazzi's tool ( crossover 80-450/ 24 db LR & flavour curve flat).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk


I'm familiar with the APL1012 

Are you using the speadsheet to make a custom house curve for each channel? C5 will do that for you when you input your housecurse, and setup the crossovers. I don't know if there is a way to import those curves into REW.


----------



## Durgesh

LumbermanSVO said:


> I'm familiar with the APL1012
> 
> Are you using the speadsheet to make a custom house curve for each channel? C5 will do that for you when you input your housecurse, and setup the crossovers. I don't know if there is a way to import those curves into REW.


Based on mp1 curve I want to make 4 curves for each tweeter/midrange/midbass/subwoofer. 

Then in REW I will overlay final /corrected measurement of each speaker and it is target curve. 

This will help in checking the final auto corrections done by the APL unit. For example in the image I shared, the auto corrected response doesn't match the target curve before 200 hz. This can only be checked in REW. This allows us to make necessary adjustments in the workshop or C5 while creating filters. 

I didn't find a way to compare/overlay this in C5 or workshop. Or maybe I am missing something.

Anyways I will ask this in Apl1012 thread.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk


----------



## Holmz

Durgesh said:


> Yes I have been following your build theard) so I know mp1 and apl corrections can be imported in REW.
> 
> You are using Apl-1. It does not have the ability to equalize each way in your system. So you are comparing the overall response of each side with overall mp1 curve in rew.
> 
> APL-1012 will equalize each way first and then match the overall response to the target curve. So it will give us the opportunity to check each way/speaker and compare it to target curve of that particular speaker as per desired crossovers.
> 
> Pls see image....purple is the initial power response of my left mid bass, red is the corrected power response and green is target curve from Jazzi's tool ( crossover 80-450/ 24 db LR & flavour curve flat).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk


The curve looks pretty close to what you asked for.

However, what leads you choose LR24 curve?
Instead of, for instance... a brick wall? Or something else?.


----------



## Durgesh

Holmz said:


> The curve looks pretty close to what you asked for.
> 
> However, what leads you choose LR24 curve?
> Instead of, for instance... a brick wall? Or something else?.


In APL-1012 LR24 and LR48 are the only available crossovers slopes.

Have no idea what brick wall curve is.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk


----------



## Hanatsu

Can’t compare REW/RoomEQ with the APL’s way of measuring. Works in completely ways and the graph in Workshop display ”equal energy/frequency” similar to how white noise is displayed in RoomEQ. 

Brickwall filters is a FIR filter that has a really really steep slope sort of, ends like a brickwall


----------



## Holmz

Durgesh said:


> In APL-1012 LR24 and LR48 are the only available crossovers slopes.
> 
> Have no idea what brick wall curve is.


I suppose a brick wall would look like LR1000... where there is no 3dB point, just a cliff that drops off vertically.

The concept may apply better to a sub where one may want to not send it much in the ways of signals higher than the intended pass-band. But that assumes that the next speaker up had a similar take-over frequency rising out of nothing..

In any case - how does the LR24 sound compared to the LR48?
Or what makes one choose an LR24 over the LR48?


----------



## Hanatsu

Steeper filters = higher phase shift, more delay

Not an issue with APL, it compensates for it. 48dB/oct is great for sub/mids transition.


----------



## Truthunter

Hanatsu said:


> Steeper filters = higher phase shift, more delay
> 
> Not an issue with APL, it compensates for it. 48dB/oct is great for sub/mids transition.


If one were to use LR48 slopes between Sub/MBass using a standard IIR DSP; Is there a way to compensate for this delay using time alignment adjustments?


----------



## Holmz

Truthunter said:


> If one were to use LR48 slopes between Sub/MBass using a standard IIR DSP; Is there a way to compensate for this delay using time alignment adjustments?


Not really. One can shift a bit of time delay to match the phase, but it is more like group delay. So can only do it properly with a FIR.

However the steeper slopes make for less of of an affected zone where one can get cancelations... i.e. a narrower frequency band.

Hanatzu - Are you using LR48?


----------



## ftmsmohan

Thanks Babs, SilentWrath, Jazzi, for your inputs.

Actually im not satisfied with the result that i'm getting.
The Sub and mid bass is lacking, and can say overall not quite satisfied.

And when i compare with the standard system that comes in Honda Accord, i feel that sounds more better compared to mine. This is where i got really upset. Normally i will try to convince myself that sound is ok but not until i compare with the standard audio in accord.

Yesterday i went mad a bit, spend 3 hours to remeasure and retune but still the same. To make the situation worst, the car battery had KO 

If anyone can assist me to review my raw measurement and suggest me the overall setup, set level, crossover and the final EQ part, will be really grateful.
I have uploaded the full measurement with few different crossovers setup. Please assist to adjust at least 2 of the drivers, so i can use it as reference.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/xexd38id32qlm4i/12092018.mdat?dl=0


----------



## Justin Zazzi

ftmsmohan said:


> If anyone can assist me to review my raw measurement and suggest me the overall setup, set level, crossover and the final EQ part, will be really grateful.


I usually enjoy helping with this, but I do not have time right now.

I hope someone else can help you.


----------



## LumbermanSVO

ftmsmohan said:


> If anyone can assist me to review my raw measurement and suggest me the overall setup, set level, crossover and the final EQ part, will be really grateful.
> I have uploaded the full measurement with few different crossovers setup. Please assist to adjust at least 2 of the drivers, so i can use it as reference.
> 
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/xexd38id32qlm4i/12092018.mdat?dl=0


I'm downloading it right now and will take a look later today.


----------



## LumbermanSVO

What is your target curve? Nothing stands out as way off, but maybe the tweeters are a touch hot. Do you have measurements of each side as a whole so we can get an idea of how the speakers on each side are interacting with each other? And a measurement of the whole system at once?

Do you have a build thread?


----------



## ftmsmohan

LumbermanSVO said:


> What is your target curve? Nothing stands out as way off, but maybe the tweeters are a touch hot. *Do you have measurements of each side as a whole* so we can get an idea of how the speakers on each side are interacting with each other? And a measurement of the whole system at once?
> 
> Do you have a build thread?


Thanks for looking and sorry for late reply.
House Curve at the moment is: JBL

The bolded part, are you asking whether i have measured: 
Sub+LM+LT & Sub+RM+RT? I have not done this. Will capture and provide this along with the system as whole.

No personal build thread. I just keep reading and posting in this and the other hanatsu thread. Keep reading it like sitting for exam


----------



## mattkim1337

I've been mainly using the JBL curve for tuning, but the Jazzi curve looks interesting as well. Does anyone know what the dip around 2.8k is for? Is there some kind of hearing phenomenon at that frequency that needs to be accounted for?


----------



## Justin Zazzi

mattkim1337 said:


> I've been mainly using the JBL curve for tuning, but the Jazzi curve looks interesting as well. Does anyone know what the dip around 2.8k is for? Is there some kind of hearing phenomenon at that frequency that needs to be accounted for?


I find that region usually needs a _wide_ and _shallow_ cut with *my* setups, and I've tried using that trick with other cars and it seems to help when someone talks about a tweeter being harsh or needing a "high frequency roll-off" and so on. It was mostly an experiment that became part of my toolbox and it's often useful.

I don't have any special explanation for it other than trial and error


----------



## Ifixtheinternet

I remember reading somewhere that our ears are more sensetive in that area, so a wide cut there actually makes it sound more flat to the ear.

The reason is we have evolved to be more sensitive to an infant crying, which is centered around 3k-3.5khz.



mattkim1337 said:


> I've been mainly using the JBL curve for tuning, but the Jazzi curve looks interesting as well. Does anyone know what the dip around 2.8k is for? Is there some kind of hearing phenomenon at that frequency that needs to be accounted for?


Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


----------



## ckirocz28

Ifixtheinternet said:


> I remember reading somewhere that our ears are more sensetive in that area, so a wide cut there actually makes it sound more flat to the ear.
> 
> The reason is we have evolved to be more sensitive to an infant crying, which is centered around 3k-3.5khz.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


The most annoying sound in the world. Hearing and sound evolved to force you to make it stop.


----------



## ckirocz28

Off topic but funny,
My 81 year old Dad's hearing was tested a few years ago, he had lost some hearing in the exact frequency range of my Mother's voice.


----------



## Ifixtheinternet

ckirocz28 said:


> Off topic but funny,
> My 81 year old Dad's hearing was tested a few years ago, he had lost some hearing in the exact frequency range of my Mother's voice.




Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Ziggyrama

Human hearing varies as far as sensitivity, depending on the frequency. Our ears are most sensitive between 2khz-4khz. It just so happens that a lot of human speech falls in that range. This is why cutting in that area a little gets rid of harshness in the sound and makes you think it is tonally balanced. Also, that area is where many 2 way system cross over. Many tweeters tend to sound harsh towards their bottom range so this helps with that as well. It is definitely the case in my 2way Focal setup.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## ckirocz28

Ziggyrama said:


> Human hearing varies as far as sensitivity, depending on the frequency. Our ears are most sensitive between 2khz-4khz. It just so happens that a lot of human speech falls in that range. This is why cutting in that area a little gets rid of harshness in the sound and makes you think it is tonally balanced. Also, that area is where many 2 way system cross over. Many tweeters tend to sound harsh towards their bottom range so this helps with that as well. It is definitely the case in my 2way Focal setup.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


Yeah, I noticed that harshness when playing with a lower tweeter crossover.


----------



## dengland

Have I missed a way to export and import the predicted curve from the EQ section of REW? I tried googling, but perhaps I was not asking correctly.

I would like to be able to see original measured, predicted, and the measured curve after EQ filters were applied to more easily evaluate if I am getting the response changes I expect.

Thanks


----------



## Justin Zazzi

I haven't tried to do that, I'm not sure. Seems like a good idea though. 

I do know all of the eq stuff you do is saved with each measurement sweep so you can always see what you were thinking on previous measurements.


----------



## GEM592

lol on the avatar ... ahem ok back on topic


----------



## Justin Zazzi

GEM592 said:


> lol on the avatar ... ahem ok back on topic


I love how a self-titled "cynical pessimist" is laughing at my avatar
we should start a club. I charge you with coming up with a slogan for the club.


----------



## GEM592

Justin Zazzi said:


> I love how a self-titled "cynical pessimist" is laughing at my avatar
> we should start a club. I charge you with coming up with a slogan for the club.


I will carefully consider that, and get back to you only after some inappropriately large amount of time, and even then provide only a marginally satisfactory response


----------



## Holmz

Justin Zazzi said:


> I love how a self-titled "cynical pessimist" is laughing at my avatar
> we should start a club. I charge you with coming up with a slogan for the club.


The realists club...


----------



## rton20s

This derailment is taking me back to my misspent days on all of the custom truck forums. My "sig" back then was... "Founder, President and Sole Member of the Dakota School of Cynicism"


----------



## Ifixtheinternet

GEM592 said:


> I will carefully consider that, and get back to you only after some inappropriately large amount of time, and even then provide only a marginally satisfactory response


Damn dude, that was uncalled for.
I've used some of the tools that Justin has provided here and I'm nothing but thankful for his contributions. 

Maybe I will find something you contributed eventually, so I can be thankful for it.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


----------



## ckirocz28

Ifixtheinternet said:


> Damn dude, that was uncalled for.
> I've used some of the tools that Justin has provided here and I'm nothing but thankful for his contributions.
> 
> Maybe I will find something you contributed eventually, so I can be thankful for it.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


Notice the punctuation right after "response", he was joking


----------



## ftmsmohan

I'm still stuck. 
I hope someone can help clarify my doubts.
Thanks in advance.

1. Which is the final measurement after EQ should i use as reference? *Individual* or *Overall* or *Left & Right*? all these 3 gives me different reading and i'm not sure which one to trust. I have attached picture below which shows individual vs overall. It looks ok when i measure it individually but it produces dip when measure as whole.

2. And to counter this dip, i have applied *High Shelf Filter* on my DSP at 60hz with 6db, not sure if this safe to apply. Anyone here tried this filter? I read in one of the forum, this shelf filter is applied to smooth between drivers (Ex. Sub > Midbass). I do understand as per my crossover selection, i should expect some dip between crossover points but in my case it look to obvious and it doesn't sounds too satisfying. The one that i have applied shelf filter.. can feel the midbass impact. The measurement results look ok with this filter being applied. Any idea, whether i should use this? I also worried it will create unnecessary phase.


----------



## SilentWrath

Are you sure there are no phase issues?

I had a similar dip and switching the phase 180* on the right midbass fixed it.


----------



## ftmsmohan

SilentWrath said:


> Are you sure there are no phase issues?
> 
> I had a similar dip and switching the phase 180* on the right midbass fixed it.


I'm using Linkwitz-Riley 24dB filters, is it advisable to switching the phase?
Because i was told, this type of filters, doesnt require phase switching. 
But i will still give a try. Will update here the outcome. Thanks!


----------



## Bridgehl4

My subwoofer amp crossover 12db and cannot to be turned off. 

Can I set both amp and dsp to cross at the same 80Hz, 12db to get 80Hz, 24db crossover point?

My dsp time delay is only 8ms, therefore, I can not time alignment for 1/2 wave length of 80Hz.

Many thanks.

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk


----------



## mattkim1337

Bridgehl4 said:


> My subwoofer amp crossover 12db and cannot to be turned off.
> 
> Can I set both amp and dsp to cross at the same 80Hz, 12db to get 80Hz, 24db crossover point?
> 
> My dsp time delay is only 8ms, therefore, I can not time alignment for 1/2 wave length of 80Hz.
> 
> Many thanks.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk


Flip polarity?

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## ftmsmohan

@SilentWrath, thanks i tried switching the phase and it fixed the issue.
I had to reduce the Sub gain level as the bass sounds very loud.

First i tried, just switching Left Midbass, problem remains, then i tried switching the phase on Right Midbass, still the same too. Then i switch the phase for both Left & Right Midbass, then it fixes the issue. I also switch the phase only for sub and without switching phase both Midbass and it works too.

Is that mean, the sub i wired it wrongly?
I did check polarity of all drivers when starting this project and they all are correct. Not sure where it went wrong.

Now i can feel the integration of Sub + Midbass, I'm thinking to re-eq back sub and midbass as i have previously intentionally leave midbass db on high.


----------



## ckirocz28

ftmsmohan said:


> @SilentWrath, thanks i tried switching the phase and it fixed the issue.
> I had to reduce the Sub gain level as the bass sounds very loud.
> 
> First i tried, just switching Left Midbass, problem remains, then i tried switching the phase on Right Midbass, still the same too. Then i switch the phase for both Left & Right Midbass, then it fixes the issue. I also switch the phase only for sub and without switching phase both Midbass and it works too.
> 
> Is that mean, the sub i wired it wrongly?
> I did check polarity of all drivers when starting this project and they all are correct. Not sure where it went wrong.
> 
> Now i can feel the integration of Sub + Midbass, I'm thinking to re-eq back sub and midbass as i have previously intentionally leave midbass db on high.


That's a common problem in car audio, you didn't do anything wrong.


----------



## Bridgehl4

mattkim1337 said:


> Flip polarity?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


Oh, let me try. Thank you.

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk


----------



## ftmsmohan

I was doing some experiment and messed up the system.
I had it retuned, now i have dip, could someone please.

Time Alignment is making it even worst, i used tape measurement method.
Phase shift MB and Sub, not helping too.

Please refer attached picture. Thank you in advance.


----------



## Justin Zazzi

I'm sorry but I do not have time to help with this right now.
I hope some of the other folks can help you again.

-JZ


----------



## Ifixtheinternet

Your time alignment is off. 
You need to time align the sub to the midbass. 

If you have both crossed over at 80hz, play a 80 hz mono sine wave with the sub amp set at 180 degrees polarity. Adjust the time alignment on the sub until the tone sounds the weakest, then flip the polarity back to normal.

So use polarity flip as a rough adjustment, then t/a as a finer adjustment. 

You just have to get the closest you can with the time alignment you have to work with. 

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


----------



## ftmsmohan

Ifixtheinternet said:


> Your time alignment is off.
> You need to time align the sub to the midbass.
> 
> If you have both crossed over at 80hz, play a 80 hz mono sine wave with the sub amp set at 180 degrees polarity. Adjust the time alignment on the sub until the tone sounds the weakest, then flip the polarity back to normal.
> 
> So use polarity flip as a rough adjustment, then t/a as a finer adjustment.
> 
> You just have to get the closest you can with the time alignment you have to work with.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


thanks, i will try this out and update here how it goes


----------



## tonynca

Where's the link to download this?


----------



## rton20s

tonynca said:


> Where's the link to download this?


The link is in Justin's signature. 

https://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/5480978-post307.html


----------



## ftmsmohan

Ifixtheinternet said:


> Your time alignment is off.
> You need to time align the sub to the midbass.
> 
> If you have both crossed over at 80hz, play a 80 hz mono sine wave with the sub amp set at 180 degrees polarity. Adjust the time alignment on the sub until the tone sounds the weakest, then flip the polarity back to normal.
> 
> So use polarity flip as a rough adjustment, then t/a as a finer adjustment.
> 
> You just have to get the closest you can with the time alignment you have to work with.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


I tried this method but it seems my ears not able to detect weak 80hz sine wave from the sub. I keep delay it while listening to it, steps by steps.

I tried retune again, but this time, i measured and EQ both Midbass together as earlier one being measured and EQ'ed individually.

Now without TA, it looks fine but if i apply TA based on distance measurement, it goes haywire. It has introduced dip at 200hz and a heavy peak around 300hz. 

Could someone please assist, not sure what and where it went wrong.
Thanks in advance.


----------



## Ifixtheinternet

ftmsmohan said:


> I tried this method but it seems my ears not able to detect weak 80hz sine wave from the sub. I keep delay it while listening to it, steps by steps.
> 
> 
> 
> I tried retune again, but this time, i measured and EQ both Midbass together as earlier one being measured and EQ'ed individually.
> 
> 
> 
> Now without TA, it looks fine but if i apply TA based on distance measurement, it goes haywire. It has introduced dip at 200hz and a heavy peak around 300hz.
> 
> 
> 
> Could someone please assist, not sure what and where it went wrong.
> 
> Thanks in advance.


This is with/ without T/A on anything, or just the sub?

The sub should not be playing as high as 300hz.
If this is just the sub with/without T/A, then your LPF on the sub is way too high, or off.

If this is all drivers, then you need to focus on one driver at a time. 

This is a good method:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.di...etter-technique-ear-time-alignment.html?amp=1

Once you get tweeters and mids dialed in, work on only one mid and the sub, with the sub in reverse phase.

Make sure the mid and sub are playing 80hz at very close to the same level, otherwise you will not hear the weak point. Probably need to turn down the sub.

Measured length from the sub means precisely nothing, due to all the heavy reflections.

The sweet spot for me was at least way off from measured distance and Auto-T/A, like several feet.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


----------



## stuartb

Hope this is not an obvious question addressed in the thread - I have spent a long time trying to find the answer reading through anything I can find and feeling a little stupid at this point.

I believe I understand how to use Jazzi's tool to output a set of house curves for my drivers. Now I want to set my DSP (Bit Ten D) crossovers to achieve the desired acoustic crossover. I know how to see the generated house curve in REW in the Auto-EQ module, but have no idea how I determine crossovers from this. 

Can someone give me a clue please? I'm many years into a learning curve having started using REW to try to tune (badly) a long time back. Feel like I understand quite a bit more now and want to start afresh but this first has me stuck.

Also - can I just check what other setting changes I need to make in REW EQ Target Settings for this? I believe when I EQ (manually in my case) I need to set the rise and fall slopes to 0 (and use same target level for all speakers and do one driver at a time) - anything else?

Thanks
Stuart


----------



## dhmcfadin

You need to import each portion of the house curve into REW by clicking file, import, freq response. Then you set the target level of each house curve (tw, mr, mb, sub) compared to the target level of your initial measurements or your desired target level. You target level of each speaker should match the overall jazzi house curve. Then click overlays. You will then see your measurements of each speaker overlaying the house curves you imported. The difference in the crossover point on the house curves vs the acoustical response of each driver is what you are trying to eliminate. Electrical crossovers vs acoustical. Make your acoustical match your electrical.


----------



## stuartb

Thanks very much - I was doing something different before.

OK - so I used an offset on the full range curve to try and get it about matched to my full range measurement. Then I uploaded the 3 individual house curves and applied the same offset. Slightly confused by the db figures that REW adds to the names of each overlay, but seems to look OK. 

Does this look about right then as a starting point to figure out what changes I need to make to my DSP crossover settings?

BTW - My measurements were using the REW pink noise PN generator averaging around my head. May try other more time-consuming approaches later, but want to just do a first pass to see if I'm understanding things. 

Also - there is TA applied already based on just entering measurements to drivers into my Bit Ten.

If I'm reading this right it looks like my sub crossover is about right. Looks like I need to move the mid-range low pass higher and tweeter high pass lower?

Should I do this with no TA also?

Thanks


----------



## dhmcfadin

stuartb said:


> Thanks very much - I was doing something different before.
> 
> 
> 
> OK - so I used an offset on the full range curve to try and get it about matched to my full range measurement. Then I uploaded the 3 individual house curves and applied the same offset. Slightly confused by the db figures that REW adds to the names of each overlay, but seems to look OK.
> 
> 
> 
> Does this look about right then as a starting point to figure out what changes I need to make to my DSP crossover settings?
> 
> 
> 
> BTW - My measurements were using the REW pink noise PN generator averaging around my head. May try other more time-consuming approaches later, but want to just do a first pass to see if I'm understanding things.
> 
> 
> 
> Also - there is TA applied already based on just entering measurements to drivers into my Bit Ten.
> 
> 
> 
> If I'm reading this right it looks like my sub crossover is about right. Looks like I need to move the mid-range low pass higher and tweeter high pass lower?
> 
> 
> 
> Should I do this with no TA also?
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks



Are you using 12 and 24 dB slopes on your midbass?

Spatial averaging measurements are fine. Keep doing that.

Measure post time alignment.


----------



## Justin Zazzi

Looks like a good start. All measurements with my tool can be done before or after time alignment ... it will make no difference since you are listening to each speaker one at a time. When you do time alignment, use a tape measure and the other sheet in my tool to help you set the delay times. The combination of filters you use to bend the acoustic response toward the target response does not matter either ... use whatever combination you have the most success with. Most systems will need a combination of non-standard crossover filters in addition to parametric EQ filters. It is, however, best to avoid boosting with EQ filters unless you are really familiar with the trade-offs.


----------



## dhmcfadin

Justin Zazzi said:


> Looks like a good start. All measurements with my tool can be done before or after time alignment ... it will make no difference since you are listening to each speaker one at a time. When you do time alignment, use a tape measure and the other sheet in my tool to help you set the delay times. The combination of filters you use to bend the acoustic response toward the target response does not matter either ... use whatever combination you have the most success with. Most systems will need a combination of non-standard crossover filters in addition to parametric EQ filters. It is, however, best to avoid boosting with EQ filters unless you are really familiar with the trade-offs.




I didn’t know you could use 12 and 24 dB crossovers. That’s good to know! I’ve never seen that but I guess it makes sense in certain situations. Thanks Jazzi!


----------



## stuartb

dhmcfadin said:


> Are you using 12 and 24 dB slopes on your midbass?


I have 24db Linkwitz-Riley on everything for now apart from the sub which has a Butterworth 24db (that's an error). I don't know enough to know if that's what the response looks like - presumably you're seeing something?



Justin Zazzi said:


> The combination of filters you use to bend the acoustic response toward the target response does not matter either ... use whatever combination you have the most success with. Most systems will need a combination of non-standard crossover filters in addition to parametric EQ filters.


This is the part I'm struggling to understand - think I'm getting there. In my case I can apply High, Low and Bandpass filters (12 or 24 LR and 6, 12, 18 and 24 Butterwoth) to each driver and I have 30 band graphic equalisation (no parametric).

So for example, on the measurements I have so far, would I be right in thinking that I need to raise the DSP crossover Low Pass on the mids from the current 2.5kHz up a bit because the acoustic crossover is slightly lower than the house curve crossover currently?

Do I do as much as I can to shape the response like that and then move on to using the graphic EQ I have to tune further? E.g. cutting near the desired crossover frequencies if needed?

And then I'd move on to EQing the parts of the response inbetween the crossover points (e.g. peaks on the mid bass at ~250Hz and 1.25kHz)?

I was planning to try using REW auto-EQ with Q of 4.31 to see what it suggests and then use whichever frequencies I have closest to those as a start.

And of course, later on looking at side to side differences (which seem quite large currently).

I understand I need to be careful with adding any gain during EQ. I have brought down DSP output gains to -7dB (-10dB on the sub) currently to give some headroom for using gain in EQ if needed. The system is stupid loud anyway (it's for use not any kind of competition and SQ is everything for me). I seem to get a noise floor issue anyway if the DSP output gains are all the way up.

Greatly appreciate all the work and advice you've put in on the tool and in replies throughout this thread and others.

Thanks to you both for your help with this.

Stuart


----------



## Justin Zazzi

stuartb said:


> So for example, on the measurements I have so far, would I be right in thinking that I need to raise the DSP crossover Low Pass on the mids from the current 2.5kHz up a bit because the acoustic crossover is slightly lower than the house curve crossover currently?
> 
> Do I do as much as I can to shape the response like that and then move on to using the graphic EQ I have to tune further? E.g. cutting near the desired crossover frequencies if needed?
> 
> And then I'd move on to EQing the parts of the response inbetween the crossover points (e.g. peaks on the mid bass at ~250Hz and 1.25kHz)?


Stuart,

Yep, that all sounds good. Thankfully The exact order you do adjust the filters and the exact kinds of filters you use is not important. If you find a method that works for you, that's great. I find the crossover filters all by themselves to be incredibly powerful and if you can get set them just right, they can reduce the number of graphic or parametric eq filters you need.



stuartb said:


> I was planning to try using REW auto-EQ with Q of 4.31 to see what it suggests and then use whichever frequencies I have closest to those as a start.


I once saw you can set both the center frequencies and the Q within the REW Auto-EQ feature. You might try to lock it down a bunch if you intend to use the auto feature.

Honestly since you have a 31 band graphic eq the only sliders you CAN adjust are gains. It might look overwhelming at first, but I promise if you experiment in the EQ module of REW that adjusting the gain sliders will become intuitive pretty quick. It's a really solid skill to develop if you have a little patience.



stuartb said:


> I understand I need to be careful with adding any gain during EQ. I have brought down DSP output gains to -7dB (-10dB on the sub) currently to give some headroom for using gain in EQ if needed. The system is stupid loud anyway (it's for use not any kind of competition and SQ is everything for me). I seem to get a noise floor issue anyway if the DSP output gains are all the way up.


That's a good way to think about it. Another method would be to make a measurement of each speaker with all filters set flat/disabled and then save those as your "base" that you start with. You can add any combination of filters, including boosting, and you'll be pretty safe so long as your "end" tune for each speaker is not much louder than the base that you started with. The boosting that folks are afraid of is boosting above and beyond what they *started with*. For example you can boost +3dB at 40hz and have a crossover filter at 80hz and you'll be just fine, which shows that not every boost is a bad boost.

I'm happy you find this thread helpful and I'm glad you are here asking good questions too. Keep them coming!


----------



## stuartb

Thanks very much. Car in the shop today for a service, but I'm playing with REW and the Bit Ten software offline in the meantime 

I realise I shouldn't have said auto-EQ because if you leave the filters as auto, REW will change freq, gain and Q.

But as you say, you can set up the filters as manual (20 at a time) for the graphic EQ frequencies with Q of 4.3. Then play with those and see REWs prediction on what it does to the curves. As you say, that looks pretty powerful.

For others new to this like me, it's possible to save a set of filters so you can set up your manual filters with frequencies and Q of 4.31 and then call them up for each tune. I'll have a set for each of the individual drivers.

Will focus on maximising use of crossovers first however. Thanks for the help again. 

Excited to give this another try. I know I'll need to do a bunch of tuning by ear possibly as well as every tune I've done so far has sounded very harsh in the upper ranges (some female vocals, strings, piano notes, rimshots) and I I've usually ended up just dropping the gain on the tweeters to make it bearable - hope I can do a more subtle job with these methods.

FYI - the Bit Ten agrees with your calculation of delays from distances 

Will post up pics of curves as I progress in case it's helpful for anyone else learning.


----------



## Justin Zazzi

Donanon, I suppose you found the download link afterall?


----------



## Donanon

Thanks for replying. Yes, after I engaged my brain I found it.

Great tool and thanks for all the work you've done on it.


D.


----------



## Justin Zazzi

Justin Zazzi said:


> You're right. However my (limited) understanding of high energy speakers is that they produce *less* acoustic output than expected, so if anything that would work as a margin of error in my favor since I'm trying to find out how to protect the driver from over-excursion. But again, I'm at the end of my current knowledge on the subject and can't say for certain.
> 
> I need to skip all this B.S. degree nonesense and get into the Masters degree of Acoustics at Penn State as soon as possible ....


It feels strange to quote myself, but I love this message from four years ago. I am now in the master's degree program at Penn State and learning a ton of interesting things such as this problem I struggled with earlier and my other post about real and complex number math. What a journey!


----------



## dgage

Justin Zazzi said:


> It feels strange to quote myself, but I love this message from four years ago. I am now in the master's degree program at Penn State and learning a ton of interesting things such as this problem I struggled with earlier and my other post about real and complex number math. What a journey!


I’ve been thinking of PMing you about the Masters degree program you’re taking. But if there is a lot of complex math, that might bring up too many bad memories of my bachelors and masters degree in Industrial Engineering (with a couple years in Electrical Engr).


----------



## Justin Zazzi

dgage said:


> I’ve been thinking of PMing you about the Masters degree program you’re taking. But if there is a lot of complex math, that might bring up too many bad memories of my bachelors and masters degree in Industrial Engineering (with a couple years in Electrical Engr).


I have never solved an integral by hand outside of a math department class. I don't need to remember what Stoke's Therorem is or how to find a Curl or see if an infinite sequence is convergent, and I can't do any of that off the top of my head anyways. I have also never needed to cite my sources using MLA format or respond to a company email about which countries were at war in the 1700s in Europe.

There is certainly math in a technical degree like this however the teachers are more interested in testing your knowledge of the new subject so all math solving tools are encouraged from WolframAlpha to Matlab and Mathematica and whatever "cheating" graphing calculator you want to use. There is certainly complicated math in the classes but it's usually the part where the teacher derives stuff on the white board and then simplifies it with some assumptions so you can work with the simpler formulas a little easier.

I've needed to read partial differential equations but never had to solve one. I've been manipulating sums and complex numbers (imaginary) with basic trig functions and super basic integrals at the worst. Logarithms are really important and I'm using plenty from algebra, with a little bit of geometry and trigonometry. The most challenging for me is matrix operations since I've never had to use it for anything, however Matlab does all the hard work for me so long as I remember how it's supposed to work.

I would bet folks with a technical degree who once did math classes would not struggle too much with an acoustics degree since the math involved is very focused and very repetitive. I think the more challenging part for some people would be learning Matlab and using it for almost every homework assignment. It's like learning a programming language at the same time so it could be hard if you haven't used it or haven't done programming before.

tl;dr if you're even a tiny bit interested you should give it a go, and I'm happy to share more


----------



## GEM592

Justin Zazzi said:


> I have never solved an integral by hand outside of a math department class. I don't need to remember what Stoke's Therorem is or how to find a Curl or see if an infinite sequence is convergent, and I can't do any of that off the top of my head anyways. I have also never needed to cite my sources using MLA format or respond to a company email about which countries were at war in the 1700s in Europe.
> 
> There is certainly math in a technical degree like this however the teachers are more interested in testing your knowledge of the new subject so all math solving tools are encouraged from WolframAlpha to Matlab and Mathematica and whatever "cheating" graphing calculator you want to use. There is certainly complicated math in the classes but it's usually the part where the teacher derives stuff on the white board and then simplifies it with some assumptions so you can work with the simpler formulas a little easier.
> 
> I've needed to read partial differential equations but never had to solve one. I've been manipulating sums and complex numbers (imaginary) with basic trig functions and super basic integrals at the worst. Logarithms are really important and I'm using plenty from algebra, with a little bit of geometry and trigonometry. The most challenging for me is matrix operations since I've never had to use it for anything, however Matlab does all the hard work for me so long as I remember how it's supposed to work.
> 
> I would bet folks with a technical degree who once did math classes would not struggle too much with an acoustics degree since the math involved is very focused and very repetitive. I think the more challenging part for some people would be learning Matlab and using it for almost every homework assignment. It's like learning a programming language at the same time so it could be hard if you haven't used it or haven't done programming before.
> 
> tl;dr if you're even a tiny bit interested you should give it a go, and I'm happy to share more


I have a PhD in Math and over 7 years of experience teaching mathematics to engineers and scientists. I will tell you do not be afraid of the intellectual challenges or technicalities you may face - while these may require your best efforts at times, most possess the abilities required to make the effort more than worthwhile. The key is to formulate your long-term goals, and keep them in mind always during the process.


----------



## saltyone

GEM592 said:


> The key is to formulate your long-term goals, and keep them in mind always during the process.


I teach part-time at the University of Houston. The above is very good advice. Learning is/should be a life long endeavor.


----------



## dcfis

saltyone said:


> GEM592 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The key is to formulate your long-term goals, and keep them in mind always during the process.
> 
> 
> 
> I teach part-time at the University of Houston. The above is very good advice. Learning is/should be a life long endeavor.
Click to expand...

GD I'm sorry! That some rough shaite. 3rd Ward ! Holla


----------



## dgage

Thanks so much for the thorough response Justin. I will give it some more thought and may reach out for us to talk. Thanks again!


----------



## saltyone

dcfis said:


> saltyone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GEM592 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The key is to formulate your long-term goals, and keep them in mind always during the process.
> 
> 
> 
> I teach part-time at the University of Houston. The above is very good advice. Learning is/should be a life long endeavor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> GD I'm sorry! That some rough shaite. 3rd Ward ! Holla
Click to expand...

LOL! ?

और बुरा हो सकता था


----------



## Truthunter

Justin, would it be possible to add 48db/oct slope option to the spreadsheet?


----------



## Justin Zazzi

Truthunter said:


> Justin, would it be possible to add 48db/oct slope option to the spreadsheet?


Thank you for asking and making me look at the math again. I finally made sense of it. School is good for something! I also figured out how to work with complex numbers in Excel so now I can do stuff with phase too yay! I have the low-pass filter working, and I'll tackle the high-pass filter later this week. We will have Butterworth and Linkwitz-Riley to choose from, up to 8th-order slopes.


----------



## Truthunter

Justin Zazzi said:


> Thank you for asking and making me look at the math again. I finally made sense of it. School is good for something! I also figured out how to work with complex numbers in Excel so now I can do stuff with phase too yay! I have the low-pass filter working, and I'll tackle the high-pass filter later this week. We will have Butterworth and Linkwitz-Riley to choose from, up to 8th-order slopes.


Wow, now that is customer service! Ask and you shall receive! 

Seriously, Thank YOU for doing what you do Justin :thumbsup:


----------



## Justin Zazzi

Version 5.4 is now available.

---> *download version 5.4 from my dropbox right here* <---

Updates:
Rebuilt the 2-way and 3-way crossover sheets with more advanced formulas. You can now choose up to 8th-order Butterworth and Linkwitz-Riley crossovers.

Update update:
The midbass curve on the 3-way sheet was not cooperating and should export properly now.


----------



## Truthunter

Justin Zazzi said:


> Version 5.4 is now available.
> 
> Updates:
> Rebuilt the 2-way and 3-way crossover sheets with more advanced formulas. You can now choose up to 8th-order Butterworth and Linkwitz-Riley crossovers.


Justin, Thank you again for this.

Using it now and for some reason it is not generating a text file for the mid-bass on the 3-way?


----------



## Justin Zazzi

Shoot I didn't adjust that part. Thanks for the reminder.

In the meantime you can cheat it by exporting twice and changing the midrange frequencies to be your midbass driver for one of the exports.


----------



## jdunk54nl

Thanks Justin! Now when you help me tune my truck this fall we have even more tools to work with


----------



## tjk_bail

Justin Zazzi said:


> Version 5.4 is now available.
> 
> ---> *download version 5.4 from my dropbox right here* <---
> 
> Updates:
> Rebuilt the 2-way and 3-way crossover sheets with more advanced formulas. You can now choose up to 8th-order Butterworth and Linkwitz-Riley crossovers.



I had an issue when exporting the curves..... I used White-Ledge, entered my crossover points, then exported to my hard-drive. The Mid-base-xxx-xxx.txt file is missing. Also, I got an error when using "House-Curve" ... error on line 94, and gave me an option to go into edit mode...


----------



## Truthunter

tjk_bail said:


> I had an issue when exporting the curves..... I used White-Ledge, entered my crossover points, then exported to my hard-drive. The Mid-base-xxx-xxx.txt file is missing.  Also, I got an error when using "House-Curve" ... error on line 94, and gave me an option to go into edit mode...


There is a work-around to get the midbass target text file while Justin updates the spreadsheet:
Set up the midrange on the 3way tab with the freqs/slopes of your planned midbass, export the files - find the midrange one and rename it as the midbass.


----------



## Justin Zazzi

tjk_bail said:


> I had an issue when exporting the curves..... I used White-Ledge, entered my crossover points, then exported to my hard-drive. The Mid-base-xxx-xxx.txt file is missing. Also, I got an error when using "House-Curve" ... error on line 94, and gave me an option to go into edit mode...


I fixed the Midbass file not being created on the 3-way sheet. Please download version 5.4 again.

For the error on line 94, try using the updated version 5.4 and if you get an error again please take a screenshot of the error message and then follow any prompt you get to debug or edit and take a screenshot of the code that is highlighted or that the program points you to.

~JZ


----------



## dgage

Justin, have a hopefully quick question that I was wondering if you ran across in your acoustic studies. I’m trying to figure out the name of the phenomena of a bigger driver having more impact. I’ve tried this with various sized midbass drivers and larger drivers have more impact (feel in chest) than smaller drivers playing at he same output level. I’ve attributed this to larger drivers not having to move as far and snap the air more while smaller drivers have to use more excursion and push the air more. I’ve known about this for years and it has always bugged me that I don’t know the physics behind it and what it is called. And if you’d rather I start a new thread,I will do that. Thank you.


----------



## tjk_bail

Its saving the Mid-base file now.. but I am still getting an error when using the Custom dropdown, well now called the House Curve.


----------



## Justin Zazzi

Yikes, who made this thing? Must have been me trying to get it done fast instead of good. I see the problem and I'll fix it next. Thank you for the screenshots, they are perfect.


----------



## Justin Zazzi

While I'm at it, does anyone have a feature request? It's been a while since I've worked on this project and now that I'm on a roll this would be a good time to make this tool a little better. It could be something like "I want two custom curves to play with" or "the time alignment sheet is clunky and challenging to read" or something. I feel capable of a lot more after taking some acoustics classes so it might maybe be fun to try something I felt was too hard in the past.


----------



## jdunk54nl

Justin Zazzi said:


> While I'm at it, does anyone have a feature request? It's been a while since I've worked on this project and now that I'm on a roll this would be a good time to make this tool a little better. It could be something like "I want two custom curves to play with" or "the time alignment sheet is clunky and challenging to read" or something. I feel capable of a lot more after taking some acoustics classes so it might maybe be fun to try something I felt was too hard in the past.


Feature request 1: Allow microphone input
Feature request 2: Tie that into RTA and a DSP
Feature request 3: 6x120 amplifier
Feature request 4: Auto tune all of it for us like dirac live....

Not too hard to implement right


----------



## jdunk54nl

Could you implement the BCAE wire calculators for size based on length and wattage stuff? I don't know how hard that would be, but it would be cool.

WIRE


----------



## rton20s

Just wanted to pop in to add my "thanks" for all the work Justin has done on this spreadsheet. Such a cool and helpful tool. 

Also for Justin or anyone else in the area, MECA West Coast Regional Finals is this weekend in Riverside. I know it is a long drive, but it would be a good opportunity to hang out with a lot of car audio nerds and hear some great cars. If you aren't otherwise occupied, consider making the drive.


----------



## ckirocz28

Justin Zazzi said:


> While I'm at it, does anyone have a feature request? It's been a while since I've worked on this project and now that I'm on a roll this would be a good time to make this tool a little better. It could be something like "I want two custom curves to play with" or "the time alignment sheet is clunky and challenging to read" or something. I feel capable of a lot more after taking some acoustics classes so it might maybe be fun to try something I felt was too hard in the past.


I've got a reasonable feature request:
Add the AudioFrog house curve as a built-in selectable curve, with some smoothing so it's not stair stepped like the original.


----------



## jdunk54nl

ckirocz28 said:


> I've got a reasonable feature request:
> Add the AudioFrog house curve as a built-in selectable curve, with some smoothing so it's not stair stepped like the original.


Were mine unreasonable????  

I just know Justin and I both dream of an amp that can do that and be super easy on the end user part. Kind of like the kicker key combined with dirac live and a beautiful 6 channel amp......only better!


----------



## ckirocz28

jdunk54nl said:


> Were mine unreasonable????
> 
> 
> 
> I just know Justin and I both dream of an amp that can do that and be super easy on the end user part. Kind of like the kicker key combined with dirac live and a beautiful 6 channel amp......only better!


Not really, I just thought mine would be quicker to implement.


----------



## Justin Zazzi

Version 5.5 is now available.

---> *download version 5.5 from my dropbox right here* <---

Updates:
-Rebuilt the 2-way and 3-way crossover sheets with more advanced formulas. You can now choose up to 8th-order Butterworth and Linkwitz-Riley crossovers.
-Rewrote VBA code for the house curve crossover sheets to make it easier to maintain
-Added feature to Power Wire and Fuses sheet to highlight the recommended row to make it easier to read.


----------



## Justin Zazzi

dgage said:


> Justin, have a hopefully quick question that I was wondering if you ran across in your acoustic studies. I’m trying to figure out the name of the phenomena of a bigger driver having more impact. I’ve tried this with various sized midbass drivers and larger drivers have more impact (feel in chest) than smaller drivers playing at he same output level. I’ve attributed this to larger drivers not having to move as far and snap the air more while smaller drivers have to use more excursion and push the air more. I’ve known about this for years and it has always bugged me that I don’t know the physics behind it and what it is called. And if you’d rather I start a new thread,I will do that. Thank you.


Sorry dgage, I do not know a name for what you are describing. If you figure it out, please tell me


----------



## Justin Zazzi

ckirocz28 said:


> I've got a reasonable feature request:
> Add the AudioFrog house curve as a built-in selectable curve, with some smoothing so it's not stair stepped like the original.


Have you tried using the custom column to to make this?



jdunk54nl said:


> Feature request 1: Allow microphone input
> Feature request 2: Tie that into RTA and a DSP
> Feature request 3: 6x120 amplifier
> Feature request 4: Auto tune all of it for us like dirac live....
> Not too hard to implement right


Doesn't sound too bad. I'll see what I can do.



jdunk54nl said:


> Could you implement the BCAE wire calculators for size based on length and wattage stuff? I don't know how hard that would be, but it would be cool.
> WIRE


I added a new worksheet called Power Wire and Fuses just for you. It's the last one in the workbook. Take a look!

:shifty:


----------



## el_bob-o

I'm sure I'm missing something but I keep getting the following error when trying to export.










I'm going back through the thread to see if I missed something.


----------



## Justin Zazzi

I don't think you missed anything. I don't get that error when I try to export. I changed a little thing in the VBA code to try and fix it. Try downloading again and see if it's better.


----------



## ckirocz28

Justin Zazzi said:


> Have you tried using the custom column to to make this?


Yes, of course, it works just fine. I just thought it might be nicer if it were one of the selectable curves. No big deal if you don't want to include it, as I said I've already used it through the custom curve column, and saved the sheet that way.


----------



## Babs

ckirocz28 said:


> Yes, of course, it works just fine. I just thought it might be nicer if it were one of the selectable curves. No big deal if you don't want to include it, as I said I've already used it through the custom curve column, and saved the sheet that way.


At one point I had an accumulation of some curves from various folks that I wanted to save. What I did was just add a tab, and add the curves there with titles over their columns. Worked like a champ. I'd pick one, copy/paste over into the output screen custom column.


----------



## Justin Zazzi

Babs said:


> At one point I had an accumulation of some curves from various folks that I wanted to save. What I did was just add a tab, and add the curves there with titles over their columns. Worked like a champ. I'd pick one, copy/paste over into the output screen custom column.


That is a fantastic idea.


----------



## Truthunter

Justin Zazzi said:


> I don't think you missed anything. I don't get that error when I try to export. I changed a little thing in the VBA code to try and fix it. Try downloading again and see if it's better.


I downloaded 5.5 yesterday (10/2). I'm getting the export error too.


----------



## Justin Zazzi

Version 5.6 is now available.

---> *download version 5.6 from my dropbox right here* <---

Updates:
-Addressed the error where ii, xx, and yy variables were not defined.


----------



## Kjekz

i get a compilation error with variable not defined, in the debugger Xmax is marked, any clue why that might happen?
It has a value in the sheet.


----------



## Ziggyrama

Jazzi, since you are publishing releases, have you considered moving your project to GitHub? It will give you rev control and others can become contributors, with your oversight. Public repo is free.

Also, it would give you a place to bundle a tutorial and people can open defects that you can track and fix, or just use it for your own project purposes. Odds are it would make your tool better.


----------



## nadams5755

good idea except the excel format is a binary format. binaries aren't usually git/diff'able


----------



## Ziggyrama

nadams5755 said:


> good idea except the excel format is a binary format. binaries aren't usually git/diff'able


Can it be refactored such that VB code is in source files loaded into xlsx? That way it can be rev controlled? Not trying to force the issue, just asking for the good of this project. 

Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk


----------



## Justin Zazzi

Kjekz said:


> i get a compilation error with variable not defined, in the debugger Xmax is marked, any clue why that might happen?
> It has a value in the sheet.


Please post a screenshot of what you are trying to do so I can replicate it?



Ziggyrama said:


> Jazzi, since you are publishing releases, have you considered moving your project to GitHub?


My experience with GitHub is that the outrageously awesome features it is supposed to provide are needlessly complicated to the point of utter confusion. I wish Git stuff was easier to use because it seems fantastically powerful, but mostly I stumble along in the dark not sure when the next time I'm going to stub my toe.

I've tried a couple times to translate the spreadsheet into a webpage and realized webpage development changes too damn fast and I can't keep up with it.

I'm taking a different approach now. See my efforts in this other thread where I'm asking for help:





__





I want to observe your workflow when designing an enclosure, choosing a woofer...


In the past I have asked for help with projects and the results have been stellar. I asked for help to measure some popular speakers and wrote a report that was very informative. I asked for donations of materials to test a common rule of thumb with sound treatments and the result was...



www.caraudiojunkies.com


----------



## Justin Zazzi

Version 5.7 is now available.

---> *download version 5.7 from my dropbox right here* <---

Updates:
-Addressed the error where more variables were not defined in the Crossover Frequency worksheet.


----------



## Justin Zazzi

There's a fix for the Xmax variable not being defined.

I cannot update my signature to have the right post in it because the morons who bought this place only allow one link in a signature now.


----------



## Kjekz

works now, thank you!


----------



## Ziggyrama

Justin, sorry you had a bad experience. In interest of not clogging up this thread, I will DM you. I read your other thread and there is no doubt that you are committed to this. Perhaps I can help you in this area.

Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk


----------



## nadams5755

Justin Zazzi said:


> My experience with GitHub is that the outrageously awesome features it is supposed to provide are needlessly complicated to the point of utter confusion. I wish Git stuff was easier to use because it seems fantastically powerful, but mostly I stumble along in the dark not sure when the next time I'm going to stub my toe


i've been using git daily for five years. it's easy to make a mess, especially starting out.


----------



## tjk_bail

Jazzi,

I'm using LR/12 Crossovers in my Helix DSP,... BUT I used LR/24 in the Excel sheet when I created the House Speaker Curves. I tuned to the LR/24 House Curve using REW. So, the Electrical XO's are at LR/12, but the Acoustical XO's are line up really nice to LR/24 in REW. So, my question is... should I use the Phase Invert on Tweets & Mid-Base like your Excel sheet suggest, or should I not Invert because the Acoustical are lined up at LR/24? (front 3-way + Sub)


----------



## jrwalte

This exact point was discussed in linked thread. No. You should not flip your phase if acoustical phase is matching.





__





Electrical Crossover and Acoustical Response


I used LR/24 in Jazzi's tuning companion for REW when I created my House Speaker Curves. I have LR/12 Crossovers set in my Helix DSP,... I tuned to the LR/24 House Curve using REW. So, the Electrical XO's are at LR/12 in the DSP, but the Acoustical Speaker curve and XO's are line up really nice...



www.caraudiojunkies.com


----------



## marcus1033

Since we are disabling slopes in REW, how much target range should I extend past crossover to match target curve. Example, if my tweeter is crossed at 3500, does it matter if my range is set to 800-20,000 or should I use something a little tighter like 2000-20,000? And so on for other drivers in my 3-way. I noticed I'm getting different values for EQ settings between tight ranges and extended ranges as it matches the target curve. I feel like with the extended range, the EQ suggestions tend to not be as bunched up and sometimes less adjustments.


----------



## preston

Is there any way to see the numerical values for the house curves included in your spreadsheet ? What I mean is, I can enter my custom values and choose them and see them on the graph. But if I choose one of your included curves (Whitledge, Audio Frog, Jazzis) I can see the values on the graph change but not the numerical values driving the graph. I looked all through the sheet and the macros and couldn't figure out where you store these numbers, must be protected ? Do you allow the password so we can inspect this data ? I know its not a big deal, easy enough to guess the numbers from looking at the graph but it would be helpful to me if its easy enough to find those numbers.


----------



## Truthunter

preston said:


> Is there any way to see the numerical values for the house curves included in your spreadsheet ? What I mean is, I can enter my custom values and choose them and see them on the graph. But if I choose one of your included curves (Whitledge, Audio Frog, Jazzis) I can see the values on the graph change but not the numerical values driving the graph. I looked all through the sheet and the macros and couldn't figure out where you store these numbers, must be protected ? Do you allow the password so we can inspect this data ? I know its not a big deal, easy enough to guess the numbers from looking at the graph but it would be helpful to me if its easy enough to find those numbers.


Choose the curve you need the values for and hit "export text files" - one of those files is the overall curve which has the numerical values your looking for. I think this is what your looking for?


----------



## preston

Thank you - I guess I've only done the export once and just grabbed the target files, I didn't realize it was producing an output of the house curve data as well.


----------



## Babs

preston said:


> Thank you - I guess I've only done the export once and just grabbed the target files, I didn't realize it was producing an output of the house curve data as well.


Yep, that's how I've been grabbing the different values for tweet/mid/midbass/sub to manually input into the Helix RTA tool for custom Helix curves.. Has been working pretty well.


----------



## Roughneck

so 1st time using this tool, and when doing a export i get many files subs, mids,tweets etc etc, just taking a guess i can load each curve one by one and work on that one set of speakers? is the overall a house curve for all speakers in one file so i can work on all of them at once? Im very new to REW and trying to teach myself with some help from youtube, going to test this out on motorcycle audio since thats all i do and compete in DBdrag with my bike and some other shows that are for bikes only.

on a side question, sometimes we use meter to break ties and also have meter shows whats a good way to tune for a meter run only? we play songs no burps

thanks for the help


----------



## mariah1902

Justin Zazzi said:


> Note: See the link in my signature to download the latest version of this tool.
> 
> This spreadsheet has been a lot of fun to make! My goal is to take as much guesswork out of the tuning and installation process as possible. With this tool, you can calculate a safe high-pass crossover point for your midbass and midrange speakers, then plug those numbers into the next sheet where you choose what frequency response curve you want your overall system to have, and the tool will generate a set of custom house curve files tailored for each of your speakers. Import those directly into Room EQ Wizard and use the EQ module to find the filters for your DSP.
> 
> If you use the next sheet to calculate time delay settings for all of your speakers, and you get them to match the house curves exported from earlier, then your tuning is mostly done! I recommend spending some more time with 31-band pink noise tracks to get the center image perfectly centered, and you can download some ones I made from my dropbox at this link:
> 
> -----> 31-band pink noise tracks <-----
> 
> A bonus feature I included is an interactive chart to help you choose which size power wire and fuse for your amplifiers. The sheet will take into account the efficiency of your amplifier (effecting how much power it will need to be supplied with) as well as the condition of your car (engine on or off) and you can choose how much of a voltage drop is acceptable to you. Lastly, measure about how long the power wire needs to be and then you will see which size wire and fuse you will need. A ton of research went into this particular sheet, and I'm looking forward to everyone's feedback.
> 
> There is an included read-me with instructions for each section with some hints and cautions.
> 
> Like I mention in the included read-me, please let me know if this is useful for you and if you would like me to build more features into this spreadsheet.
> 
> Here are some screenshots:


Brilliant job. How did you even came up with this amazing idea. Must take taken lots of your time to make this. Great work.


----------



## gg48gg

Roughneck said:


> so 1st time using this tool, and when doing a export i get many files subs, mids,tweets etc etc, just taking a guess i can load each curve one by one and work on that one set of speakers? is the overall a house curve for all speakers in one file so i can work on all of them at once? Im very new to REW and trying to teach myself with some help from youtube, going to test this out on motorcycle audio since thats all i do and compete in DBdrag with my bike and some other shows that are for bikes only.
> 
> on a side question, sometimes we use meter to break ties and also have meter shows whats a good way to tune for a meter run only? we play songs no burps
> 
> thanks for the help


Sorry no one had responded to you sooner. You are correct about the house curve export files and are explained in the spreadsheet. There are 2 ways to use them in REW: 1) import as a response (from file menu) or 2) select one to use as a house curve (in preferences) as a target for the EQ panel. #1 is handy in overlays while #2 is handy when EQ'ing a response.

Regarding your tuning for SPL question, you may want to see one of the other threads.


----------



## Justin Zazzi

I have moved and so support for this tool is moving too.
I welcome all discussion at this thread below:






Report: is closed cell foam the right material to decouple mass loaded vinyl?


This was originally posted on DIYMA forum on December 16, 2018: Back in the summer of 2017 I wanted to test a common rule of thumb: mass loaded vinyl should always be decoupled from nearby surfaces, and closed cell foam is the right material to do it. Many of you kindly donated...



www.caraudiojunkies.com


----------



## justgotone

gg48gg said:


> Sorry no one had responded to you sooner. You are correct about the house curve export files and are explained in the spreadsheet. There are 2 ways to use them in REW: 1) import as a response (from file menu) or 2) select one to use as a house curve (in preferences) as a target for the EQ panel. #1 is handy in overlays while #2 is handy when EQ'ing a response.
> 
> Regarding your tuning for SPL question, you may want to see one of the other threads.


HELP, I've tried both ways to import the Audiofrog house curve and I get an error, what's wrong or what am I not doing right? See attached pic.

Thanks









Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk


----------



## Truthunter

justgotone said:


> HELP, I've tried both ways to import the Audiofrog house curve and I get an error, what's wrong or what am I not doing right? See attached pic.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk


Rob, looks like the file type your trying to load is a .csv file. You'll need a .txt file.

Did you generate the file with Jazzi's spreadsheet or get it somewhere else?

Also, the window reads "Import Impulse Response File"... You'll need to click on "frequency response" under "Import" instead.


----------



## justgotone

Truthunter said:


> Rob, looks like the file type your trying to load is a .csv file. You'll need a .txt file.
> 
> Did you generate the file with Jazzi's spreadsheet or get it somewhere else?
> 
> Also, the window reads "Import Impulse Response File"... You'll need to click on "frequency response" under "Import" instead.


Thanks

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk


----------



## justgotone

Downloaded it from the Audiofrog website.. sorry

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk


----------



## justgotone

justgotone said:


> Thanks
> 
> Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk


the file


justgotone said:


> Thanks
> 
> Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk


seems to be ok, would you happen to have a link to another curve i could try? thanks


----------



## Truthunter

justgotone said:


> the file
> 
> seems to be ok, would you happen to have a link to another curve i could try? thanks


PM coming your way


----------



## Loud Residence

Can you please send me that curve also?


----------



## Loud Residence

What do you guys think of these Omi mic RTA graphs and the hz? One is a tweeter and 1 is a mid. Something doesn't seem right


----------



## Loud Residence

Here are the pics


----------



## Cutaway

Loud Residence said:


> Here are the pics


Looking at your 3rd EQ pick, it looks like there is a lot of boost in your bands. How is that working for you, are there any negative side effects? Im asking because i have always been cautioned from boosting by more than 3 db. But honestly, i have been told a lot of miss information through out the years


----------



## MrHyde

Has anyone been able to run Jazzi's tuning companion in Libreoffice? Tried enabling macros but not sure if I'm doing it right. No button is showing up for exporting crossover setting files


----------



## ckirocz28

MrHyde said:


> Has anyone been able to run Jazzi's tuning companion in Libreoffice? Tried enabling macros but not sure if I'm doing it right. No button is showing up for exporting crossover setting files


No, only really works in MS Office. I've already tried every alternative available, then gave up and bought MS Office.


----------



## falcon

You can buy MS Office for $27. I just did it last week.


----------



## MrHyde

Yea, I guess buying it beats driving across town to use my brothers computer every time I want to change crossovers, Thanks


----------



## Justin Zazzi

Big news!

Erica (AudioGal) will be taking the lead on this project.
This is really, really exciting.

Huge thank you to AudioGal for taking the lead and making it happen!
I am thrilled to continue supporting in the background and helping where I can.

Thank you to everyone who enjoyed the tool so far, all the feedback, and encouragement.
I hope you all can show Erica the same love and support that you gave to me!

Version 7 is now available here:








Updated Justin tuning sheet ( Justin and Erica tuning...


All I have been working away on creating a version of Justin's tuning companion sheet to support SMAART target curves as well as REW target curves. The sheet is a great idea and i wanted to have the same functionality for SMAART. I talked about the sheet with Justin and he is very supportive of...




www.diymobileaudio.com


----------



## dgage

Justin Zazzi said:


> I hope you all can show Erica the same love and support that you gave to me!


Thanks for your many, many contributions over the years Justin! And it will be super easy to support someone as immensely talented and ambitious as Erica. Thanks for taking this project to the next level Erica!


----------



## AudioGal

dgage said:


> Thanks for your many, many contributions over the years Justin! And it will be super easy to support someone as immensely talented and ambitious as Erica. Thanks for taking this project to the next level Erica!


thanks dpage for the show of support, it is very much appreciated. Justin created a wonderful foundation to build upon and with the new RTA tools available I wanted to be able to use it there as well, and a few features where added in the process 




Justin Zazzi said:


> Big news!
> 
> Erica (AudioGal) will be taking the lead on this project.
> This is really, really exciting.
> 
> Huge thank you to AudioGal for taking the lead and making it happen!
> I am thrilled to continue supporting in the background and helping where I can.
> 
> Thank you to everyone who enjoyed the tool so far, all the feedback, and encouragement.
> I hope you all can show Erica the same love and support that you gave to me!
> 
> Version 7 is now available here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Updated Justin tuning sheet ( Justin and Erica tuning...
> 
> 
> All I have been working away on creating a version of Justin's tuning companion sheet to support SMAART target curves as well as REW target curves. The sheet is a great idea and i wanted to have the same functionality for SMAART. I talked about the sheet with Justin and he is very supportive of...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.diymobileaudio.com


Thanks a bunch Justin for your efforts to create the original work product that helped so many. With some new features and new RTA analyzer support your original work can reach out to, and help even more people learn and experiment with this wonderful hobby !!


----------

