# Quick tip using 'Auto EQ' with RoomEQ(REW)



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

This is usable for those who have a standalone DSP with parametric EQ.

You need some measurement gear (mic, preamp and a computer) and you need to download REW (RoomEQ) from hometheatershack.

Make sure your soundcard is calibrated and that you use a calibration file for the microphone. Those files are available from the same site for various popular microphones like the ECM8000, Dayton mic etc etc...

Anyway, I'll concentrate on how you can use the AutoEQ function to perform L-R EQ (same EQ both sides). I also assume you guys know how the basic functions work in this program (it's pretty straightforward). Use 4-6 points and average the responses before comparing them to eachother. Average button is under the "All SPL" tab btw.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

*1st step*, measure both sides separately. Now it should look something like this. Press the 'controls' button.










*2nd step*, choose 1/6 smoothing. Under 'trace arithmetic' choose the left and right responses as A and B. Choose the (A / B) method and press "generate".

** If the responses are "off" you can offset one of the curves to match better with the other ***










*3rd step*, a new "measurement" is added down to the left. Make sure it's selected.










*4th step*, set the SPL scale to 0dB, otherwise you won't see the new plot. Make sure this measurement is the ONLY one selected, see the arrow. Leave all other boxes unchecked but this one.










I added this picture to see what the (A / B) method does. It simply show how much measurement "A" differs from measurement "B". No difference is 0dB, all other deviations are shown as +/- dB.










*5th step*, press the "EQ" button.










*6th step*, this is the EQ screen. The top three tabs are of interest here. 










*7th step*, choose type of EQ. If you got none of the listed, just choose "generic". Speaker type should be set to "full range" and target level to 0dB, this is important! Press "set target level" after that.

Under "Filter tasks" set the "match range", this is the frequency range you want to EQ. It maxes out at 10kHz for some reason so you'll have to do 10kHz+ by hand =/

"Flatness target" is how accurate you want the EQ algorithm to match zero, i.e match the two response curves. Set it to a low number like 1dB. Maximum boost is what sounds like, the max EQ boost. 3dB is twice the amp power so I usually stay below this point.










*8th step*, press " Match Response to Target "

See how it calculates the EQ points at the red circle ^^

Now press the " EQ Filters " button.










*9th step*, this is the "EQ Filters" screen. Press "by freq" and press the "arrows" button and voila you got all the settings you need to get a "perfect" L-R EQ match. Some number are unrealistic here, like the -21,7dB setting. Just use the maximum setting your DSP have to minimize the difference as far as possible (you could boost the other channel by same Q/center frequency) for the same effect to even out the difference.











*I recommend that you do this at least 2 times, one time before EQ (of course) and one time after EQing. The predicted EQ response ain't always correct and you might have to change/modify some settings. The goal is equal frequency response both sides. So these settings could be mirrored to the frequency plot for the other side. If the the difference at some point is 10dB you could boost the graph AutoEQ compares against with 5dB and you will only have to cut 5dB instead of 10dB... (Omg, this explanation is a mess, hope you get it). After all this is complete, shape the overall EQ response to your liking.*

Btw, always fine tune by ear later on. However, this will give you a great baseline with minimal thinking effort


----------



## mojozoom (Feb 11, 2012)

REW really rules - if people haven't tried it they should. Hard to believe he gives this program away for free.

Letting the program pick the filters is really cool, but it would be nice if they could correspond to a 1/3 octave EQ, so -

I asked John if he'd be willing to add a preconfigured set of 1/3 octave frequency settings to the program so we could directly transfer it to our eq's. He was really receptive, and asked for some more details which I have yet to provide for him.

For the time being I've found that you can set up 20 manual filters and save the set with no gains entered, then every time you eq you can pull those up as a starting point. Then you can add or subtract gain at each frequency and see the resulting impact to the response. It makes tuning really quick and easy, as I've found it's predicted response to be very accurate.

I have one low filter set and one high filter set. Here's the high set as an example:


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

good post, man. this will go well with the tutorial I am posting here:
http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum...44399-rta-walkthrough-usage-thread-video.html


----------



## masswork (Feb 23, 2009)

REW is excellent program.

If i may add some tips on using REW:

1. In car, take several measurements, and average the result. This is doable inside REW.

2. Might need to take a look at the impulse response. Some soundcard has a "spike" around 6ms. If this is the case, click on IR windows, and adjust left-center window so the FR does not count the spike caused by the soundcard.

3. REW also provide matching to a set of house curve.
Set this from preference, and it will shows up in the EQ window. The EQ will then try to match FR to given house curve.

4. Make sure to skip the EQ frequency range where huge dip occur, as REW doesn't seem to know that it can't be fixed (usually).

5. Depends on frequency being EQed, try to adjust the smoothing. IE: high frequency may need 1/3 smoothing, while low frequency can be smaller than that.

As for _"Under "Filter tasks" set the "match range", this is the frequency range you want to EQ. It maxes out at 10kHz for some reason so you'll have to do 10kHz+ by hand =/"_

I requested this feature when REW v4 was only able to EQ in bass region. John finally make the EQ calculation works to 10K. He explained well why 10K in the shack. Just search for it...
IMHO, above 10K, a shelving EQ is really enough.


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

mojozoom said:


> REW really rules - if people haven't tried it they should. Hard to believe he gives this program away for free.
> 
> Letting the program pick the filters is really cool, but it would be nice if they could correspond to a 1/3 octave EQ, so -
> 
> ...


That's one way to do it. Great tip! 

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy 3 via Tapatalk.


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

masswork said:


> REW is excellent program.
> 
> If i may add some tips on using REW:
> 
> ...


3. Havn't messed with house curves yet but this gave me an interesting idea...

I need to read through the homeschack forums. I'll look into the 10k thing, not that it's a big deal really... 

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy 3 via Tapatalk.


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

bikinpunk said:


> good post, man. this will go well with the tutorial I am posting here:
> http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum...44399-rta-walkthrough-usage-thread-video.html


Nice. Missed that thread

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy 3 via Tapatalk.


----------



## mojozoom (Feb 11, 2012)

I use the fixed eq filters set because with the 3sixty.2 you only have graphic eq, no parametric. Thats why I set the Q to 4.31 for all the filters.

I'd rather do the parametric thing!

John did offer to take a look at the 3sixty.2 data files and possibly import the REW filter set directly in. I didn't really think it fair to ask him to spend time on it if I'm the only guy on the planet using REW with the 3sixty.2 which is mostly why I never followed up with him on tjat topic.


----------



## bertholomey (Dec 27, 2007)

Very timely! I'm going through my learning curve with the software right now.


----------



## Sonus (Jun 28, 2010)

Thank you this should work really well with the peq in the Zapco dsp-z8. 

I'll give it a shot when I've got everything up and running


----------



## Randyman... (Oct 7, 2012)

REW + MiniDSP UMIK-1 USB Mic = Sweet integration! 

I'm still diving into the REW software myself. Hopefully I'll have it mastered by the time my speaker comes back from repair!!! Still haven't TA'd or EQ'd my new install!


----------



## slade1274 (Mar 25, 2008)

Nice tips- thanks!


----------



## avanti1960 (Sep 24, 2011)

Very nice contribution, thanks! 
Sometimes these free programs are just a little light in the user's guide category. Like Holmimpulse.


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

As it previously been mentioned you can actually input your own values for EQ frequencies (if you got a graphic EQ for instance). Instead of pushing "match response to target" you can force the EQ algorithm to calculate the best settings the the fixed EQ frequencies you entered under "Manual optimization controls". 

Tried out the "House curves" function btw. It's awesome. You can just enter how you want the target response shall be shaped by creating an ordinary text file in wordpad with the frequencies and SPL at each point. Created one like this:

20 25
60 22
100 20
160 14
250 10
2000 6
20000 0

First number is frequency and the second number relative SPL at that frequency. Just load the .txt file into REQ from the Meny bar --> Preferences --> Preferences/House curves. Now the AutoEQ will consider this preferred curve. Nice, isn't it?


----------



## Randyman... (Oct 7, 2012)

Sweet!


----------



## mojozoom (Feb 11, 2012)

I've got a bunch of housecurve files made up that may be fun for people to mess with.

Hopefully you can download these if I put them on here as an attachment:

View attachment housecurve_andy.txt


View attachment housecurve_meca.txt


View attachment housecurve_iso70.txt


View attachment housecurve_audiocontrol.txt


View attachment housecurve_iasca2.txt


View attachment housecurve_ms8.txt


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

The curves above would sound significantly different. Specially in the mid range. Where are the MECA and IASCA curves derived from?


----------



## mojozoom (Feb 11, 2012)

sqnut said:


> The curves above would sound significantly different. Specially in the mid range. Where are the MECA and IASCA curves derived from?


I interpreted the IASCA curve from a 1993 Coustic RTA-33 manual. Not sure where the MECA came from, its been a while.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

Mojozoom, thanks for posting those. I have a couple I built and if I still have them (my PC crashed last year and a friend helped me restore it) I'll post them up when I get a chance.


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

Yep. Thanks for the curves 

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy 3 via Tapatalk.


----------



## mojozoom (Feb 11, 2012)

You're welcome - I'm really happy to see some other folks using REW in car audio so there's some people to compare notes with.

I'm always interested in trying different curves as well, and with REW it's quick and easy to re-tune from one to another.


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

View attachment hanatsu-housecurve.txt


This is basically what I'm using in my car. Made a detailed curve, try it out and see if you like it


----------



## mojozoom (Feb 11, 2012)

I like the look of it already.

My low end is similar, but the top end of my curve is mostly flat right now with a roll off at the top end, and there's just too much energy in the upper frequencies. I also need the vocals up front more, which I think that bump at 2-4K should help with.

I'm out of town on business right now, but will give this a whirl this weekend.

Thanks!


----------



## mojozoom (Feb 11, 2012)

Hanatsu -

I forgot to ask two questions:

1) The housecurve you posted is what you use to tune one channel plus the sub, correct?

2) What vehicle do you have? Based on everything I've read we may need to tailor the main slope based on vehicle volume, but if ours are about the same we should be golden.

Thanks!


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

mojozoom said:


> Hanatsu -
> 
> I forgot to ask two questions:
> 
> ...


1. Ehm... yes.
2. A VW Passat b5 wagon (big car) 

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy 3 via Tapatalk.


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

subscribed


----------



## mojozoom (Feb 11, 2012)

Hanatsu said:


> 1. Ehm... yes.
> 2. A VW Passat b5 wagon (big car)


The reason I asked about the single channel thing was because many of the target curves that I see posted are based on testing the entire system at one time. Assuming everything was in perfect phase you'd have summing occurring on the left and right channels, but not on the sub.

So, housecurves developed for one channel + sub should show a much greater difference between the main curve and the shelving point of the sub. 

I think that may be the case with the Andy curve and MS8 curve that I provided earlier. These were based on his descriptions on various threads in this forum, but if they were based on the entire system operating we'd need to adjust them some for use with one channel + sub testing if we want to come up with the same bass integration.

For example, your target curve has about 20 dB difference between the sub peak and 1K, but the Andy curve only has about 10 dB difference.


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

mojozoom said:


> The reason I asked about the single channel thing was because many of the target curves that I see posted are based on testing the entire system at one time. Assuming everything was in perfect phase you'd have summing occurring on the left and right channels, but not on the sub.
> 
> So, housecurves developed for one channel + sub should show a much greater difference between the main curve and the shelving point of the sub.
> 
> ...


Yes indeed. Couldn't have said it better myself hehe... I always tune 1ch at a time against the sub. That curve is just based on what I like and was derived from one channel + sub. To tell the truth you thought this through more than I did 

Still some might think it's a little bass heavy. Listen to a lot of EBM/EDM and it sounds best to me this way 

For competitions I'd probably lower amplitude below 80Hz some. Idk. In the middle of changing some stuff in my trunk atm so I haven't tried out any EMMA/Easca discs yet. 

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy 3 via Tapatalk.


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

mojozoom said:


> REW really rules - if people haven't tried it they should. Hard to believe he gives this program away for free.
> 
> Letting the program pick the filters is really cool, but it would be nice if they could correspond to a 1/3 octave EQ, so -
> 
> ...



View attachment GEQ filters.zip


Kudos to mojozoom for suggesting this ^^

I made 5 presets based on GEQ bands for those want (extract the .zip file into the RoomEQ folder). Just use the "Manual Optimization Control" and press "optimize Gains" while you have one of these pre-loaded. 

Here's where you load a filter (in the "EQ Filters" tab:


----------



## mojozoom (Feb 11, 2012)

Hanatsu, I loaded in your housecurve quickly and crudely last night. That really fixed some of my problems.

The vocals are cleaner, and it fixed alot of the mess that was going on when I listened to heavy rock or metal. My system sounded great with the Focal discs, but got real jumbled on the heavier stuff, and this really got it on the right track now.

I added some high end back in, either it's my inherent preference or maybe my hearing is somewhat poor up there (too many Metallica concerts back in the day).

I'll tweak it some more to my preferences and system limitations, but your curve should be a good starting point for anyone to try. I had started with the Andy curve as an initial target and it just wasn't working out.

I haven't looked at it below 60 Hz though - you've got alot going on down there!


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

Below 80Hz should probably be lowered for competition playback... my car system is under construction atm so I can't test it now. I pulled that curve from former measurements 

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy 3 via Tapatalk.


----------



## mooch91 (Apr 6, 2008)

Question for you guys who use the auto EQ in REW (I may have to search HTS to see what their best practice is) - 

I've been using this feature for a couple of weeks because it takes all the guesswork out of choosing frequencies and Qs for my EQ, which I love. I find that a couple of "rounds" of adjustment are often required when I'm setting up to "fine tune". Problem I'm having is that it's very hard to adjust the PEQ once it's set the first time, so I end up just adding more filters, ultimately EQ'ing the EQ. 

For example, round 1 of EQ might have me establish a filter at 2125 Hz with a Q of 4 and a magnitude of 2 dB. Round 2, maybe after measuring the response of two combined drivers, will require a cut at 1860 Hz with a Q of 1.5 and a magnitude of 4 dB. It's not so easy to go back and "adjust" the PEQ I already set, so I just create a new filter that essentially overlaps heavily (and reverses part of) the first.

Any issues with this? Or should I just program REW at the standard 1/3-octave frequencies and Q=4.33 bandwith, which I can easily readjust as I re-measure. I kind of like utilizing the PEQ because it can get the final output more accurate with fewer filters. But using standard frequencies seems easier to readjust with successive measurements.

Thanks!


----------



## slade1274 (Mar 25, 2008)

Do you like the way it sounds when you are done? That's the key!

No problem stacking filters- even at the same point with different Q values


----------



## mooch91 (Apr 6, 2008)

slade1274 said:


> Do you like the way it sounds when you are done? That's the key!
> 
> No problem stacking filters- even at the same point with different Q values


Stacking filters - that's a good way to describe it.

Ok then, I will stack away!

Thanks!


----------



## evangojason (Feb 12, 2010)

VERY new to this stuff and you guys are doing a great job explaining but I have a few questions. When you are doing this is it all the left speaker and all the right speakers at the same time? Or just one pair of speakers at a time? And when you get to the "EQ Filters" tab, do you apply those setting to either the left or right side? I did see "A over B", does that mean the settings go to A? Several RTA/REW threads going around right now trying to take it all in without getting overloaded with info. Thanks


----------



## masswork (Feb 23, 2009)

Depends on your processing power, it's muuuuuucccchhhh better to EQ seperately.

If you have a capability to EQ per driver (ie: midbass alone, midrange alone), then i think you can first create a target curve based on your crossover point then EQ each driver from there.
When all drivers are done, then EQ per side with a more global target curve (20-20k).


----------



## masswork (Feb 23, 2009)

Like this:

1. Create acoustic crossover plot for each driver, and use the exported file as target curve for REW. For example: Midrange driver 300 LR4 - 5K LR2










2. Measure each drivers L/R seperately. Load the target curve into REW and EQ.
For example: midrange unit using above crossover plot will look like this:










3. Repeat steps above for each drivers.

4. After each driver has been EQed. Measure them all at one per side, all left alone, all right alone.

5. Load the global 20-20k house curve and EQ it.










HTH.


----------



## evangojason (Feb 12, 2010)

Ok, I understand all except step 1. How/where do I create acoustic crossover plot?


----------



## masswork (Feb 23, 2009)

evangojason said:


> Ok, I understand all except step 1. How/where do I create acoustic crossover plot?


I have the Excel file for that, and also for calculating time alignment per driver and per side based on ARTA impulse response.

PM me if anyone interested.


----------



## mojozoom (Feb 11, 2012)

masswork,

what are you using to generate the crossover plots and export them? I gotta get me one of those!


----------



## molsonice (Jul 15, 2012)

Thanks for the tips Hanatsu.

You mention matching the left and right speakers before and after applying a target eq.

Is there a specific reason to do it beforehand? I was planning to just eq each speaker to the target curve beforehand, and then do a final left to right balance at the very end.


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

molsonice said:


> Thanks for the tips Hanatsu.
> 
> You mention matching the left and right speakers before and after applying a target eq.
> 
> Is there a specific reason to do it beforehand? I was planning to just eq each speaker to the target curve beforehand, and then do a final left to right balance at the very end.


No specific reason, just like to do it that way


----------



## THEDUKE (Aug 25, 2008)

Been playing with this for a few weeks now, but I need some help. I am having a hard time with two things. First when I set the scale at 0db the new graph does not show up on the 0db line. I tried multiple times and it never shows up on the 0db line. The second is I can never get the "set target level" to 0db. Everytime I set it to 0 and click to match to target level it alwats goes back to the original number. The lowest I was ever able to get it was about 33 db. Any ideas?


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

THEDUKE said:


> Been playing with this for a few weeks now, but I need some help. I am having a hard time with two things. First when I set the scale at 0db the new graph does not show up on the 0db line. I tried multiple times and it never shows up on the 0db line. The second is I can never get the "set target level" to 0db. Everytime I set it to 0 and click to match to target level it alwats goes back to the original number. The lowest I was ever able to get it was about 33 db. Any ideas?


This sound really weird, shouldn't be an issue at all. I can set target level to -x dB. Have you set "Equalizer" to "Generic"? Can you post a screenshot on how it looks?


----------



## fcarpio (Apr 29, 2008)

Subbed.


----------



## therapture (Jan 31, 2013)

How are you guys getting the EQ to display 1/3 octave settings like in your screencap?????? I cannot select "manual optimization controls" 





Hanatsu said:


> View attachment 42797
> 
> 
> Kudos to mojozoom for suggesting this ^^
> ...


----------



## evangojason (Feb 12, 2010)

I have not been able to figure that out yet but would LOVE to have all my "Q"s in the 0-6 range. Hope someone has an answer.


----------



## mojozoom (Feb 11, 2012)

Once you have your filter set pulled up, click Filter Tasks. You can set some limits as to what it will try to do for you - you'll need to experiment a bit to see what those setting do.

Then you can click Optimise Gains under Manual Optimisation Controls, and it'll adjust gains on the set of filters to match the target.

I've asked John to add more filters so we can run a full 31 bands. If you get a chance email him and reinforce how valuable this would be for us car audio folks.


----------



## evangojason (Feb 12, 2010)

That's how you would setup for a graphic eq right? And I could manually set a Q for each band but can't force a range of 0-6?


----------



## mooch91 (Apr 6, 2008)

evangojason said:


> I have not been able to figure that out yet but would LOVE to have all my "Q"s in the 0-6 range. Hope someone has an answer.


I did ask this of John a couple of months back. He said it wasn't in the cards right now. He recommended using one of the specific EQs which would limit the Q to 10 at least. I always check to see how much of an impact the high Q filters have anyway; usually they can just be eliminated, or the Q set to 6, without much change to the overall predicted curve.

At hometheatershack: "you could use the DCX2496 equaliser setting which has an upper limit of 10, a bit closer at least."


----------



## evangojason (Feb 12, 2010)

Thanks, Ill try that today.


----------



## therapture (Jan 31, 2013)

Hanatsu said:


> As it previously been mentioned you can actually input your own values for EQ frequencies (if you got a graphic EQ for instance). Instead of pushing "match response to target" you* can force the EQ algorithm to calculate the best settings the the fixed EQ frequencies you entered under "Manual optimization controls". *
> 
> Nice, isn't it?


What version of REW are you running? I have no way to enter the "manual optimization controls" to set my bands, I can only use the "match response to target".....I have v5.


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

therapture said:


> What version of REW are you running? I have no way to enter the "manual optimization controls" to set my bands, I can only use the "match response to target".....I have v5.


Using the latest beta version. Try update to beta v17;

Home Theater Forum and Systems - HomeTheaterShack.com


----------



## therapture (Jan 31, 2013)

mojozoom said:


> I like the look of it already.
> 
> My low end is similar, but the top end of my curve is mostly flat right now with a roll off at the top end, *and there's just too much energy in the upper frequencies. *I also need the vocals up front more, which I think that bump at 2-4K should help with.
> 
> !


I too have this issue, I need a bit less of it, what did you end up doing to solve that problem?

I'll be trying a couple more curves tomorrow.


----------



## mojozoom (Feb 11, 2012)

For me, strange things were going on at the crossover point. 

I found alot of benefit from extending the LP crossover point on the mid to 10,000, and then EQing the mid to the target curve, and then applying the actual 3250 hz crossover to the mid. I did the same with the tweet - drop the crossover point to about Fs and EQ the tweet to the target curve, then apply the HP crossover to the tweet. Once that was done I ran rainbow sweeps on the mid/tweet combo at 2" TA intervals to find the best summation.

After that the Andy curve sounded much, much better, even though the curve looked exactly the same. I still would like just a tad more upper vocals though.


----------



## SPLEclipse (Aug 17, 2012)

therapture said:


> What version of REW are you running? I have no way to enter the "manual optimization controls" to set my bands, I can only use the "match response to target".....I have v5.


I've been working on this on and off all day and I can't click on "manual optimization controls" either. I just let it run for a couple minutes like explained in the first post, then under the filters window click on the folder and load whatever GEQ preset frequencies you want. There will be a pop-up warning you it will delete the information it just calculated; that's OK, go ahead with it. Now click on "optimize pk gain and q" UNDER "manual optimization controls" and it will re-calculate using the set GEQ frequencies you loaded in. It won't be exact, but it get's really close. The only thing it changes is the Q value for each frequency, I can't get it to "stick" to a preset Q.

To address something that was asked earlier: This is for people with mono EQ abilities only, right? If I have separate L/R EQ I shouldn't have to do a/b or anything like that...just match my each channel to the house curve?

Another thing I noticed is that I've been WAY over-EQing, lol.


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

Not sure if I mentioned this before. 

Make sure that that all results are averaged, one point measuring works pretty good below the schroeder frequency ,(200-300Hz) normally, above that FR will vary if you move the mic just a little. If speakers measure "flat" around Xovers but sound weird, try changing phase 180deg, also you should use steeper slopes. There's less interaction that might might cause phase problems, especially if the driver are mounted far away from eachother, but that's just my opinon... 

And... be careful to use high Q filters in the HF area, might do more harm than good. If it still doesn't sound as expected, try sit in the car and hold the mic close to your ears and measure, see if there's a change.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy 3 via Tapatalk.


----------



## therapture (Jan 31, 2013)

SPLEclipse said:


> I've been working on this on and off all day and I can't click on "manual optimization controls" either. I just let it run for a couple minutes like explained in the first post, then under the filters window click on the folder and load whatever GEQ preset frequencies you want. There will be a pop-up warning you it will delete the information it just calculated; that's OK, go ahead with it. Now click on "optimize pk gain and q" UNDER "manual optimization controls" and it will re-calculate using the set GEQ frequencies you loaded in. It won't be exact, but it get's really close. The only thing it changes is the Q value for each frequency, I can't get it to "stick" to a preset Q.
> 
> To address something that was asked earlier: This is for people with mono EQ abilities only, right? If I have separate L/R EQ I shouldn't have to do a/b or anything like that...just match my each channel to the house curve?
> 
> Another thing I noticed is that I've been WAY over-EQing, lol.


Yep, that had me stumped yesterday, until they showed me that I needed to EQ each channel seperately, no A/B method. My noobness is showing lol.


edit: I took some good measurements last night, so I could create some eq plots today. And I used a totally flat eq as a starting point.


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

Made a new housecurve, based on the EMMA 2012 disc. Found this to sound best. Fixed some tonality issues I had. Old one was to hot in the bass area. This is for all channels + sub active. For everyday listening it might sound thin, idk. It adds some sparkle to the highs (compared to the other one), less hollow sounding in the low midrange and increased perceived depth slightly to the male vocalist on track 11?



Here's my v2, try it out and see if you like it. It's an "optimal" competition curve;


----------



## mojozoom (Feb 11, 2012)

Hanatsu,

I'm assuming that this is measured with you out of the car as well?

It looks like the housecurve you have there looks kinda similar to theraptures test data at the top end, specifically a pretty large rolloff when compared the the MS8 or Andy curve. Do you think that's related to mic location? I know the MS 8 uses binaural mics.

We really need to run some tests to see the effect of our heads in the soundfield.


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

mojozoom said:


> Hanatsu,
> 
> I'm assuming that this is measured with you out of the car as well?
> 
> ...


Yes. There should be a less steep tilt of the curve when using binaural mics IIRC. There's actually pretty much energy in the highs with this curve. 

I've noticed that the reflections cause lots of percieved loudness. My 3" drivers are doing all the highs atm. They are extremely directional above 6-7kHz, not much reflections from the windows, if I put a pair of small tweeters with great dispersion beside them and let them do the highs instead I need to turn down the level even if they measure the same SPL - it really sounds like it's louder... ^^ 

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy 3 via Tapatalk.


----------



## mojozoom (Feb 11, 2012)

Here's something you guys will like -

Today I though "How accurate is the REW predicted EQ result?". So, I set my right mid EQ to flat, ran a sweep, let REW pick gains for the 1/3 octave bands, plugged them in the 3sixty.2, and swept it again.

Here's what I got:









The red line is the initial sweep with flat EQ, the purple line is the predicted result based on the EQ filters, and the blue line is the actual tested result.

Amazing! The REW prediction and the actual result are right on top of each other.


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

Indeed. Nice.

I'll run some tests on how much the 'headspace' affects the results later this week 

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy 3 via Tapatalk.


----------



## therapture (Jan 31, 2013)

I will post up a set of response plots this evening using the "old" hanatsu curve. Indeed, it's fairly bass heavy.

I like it over Andy's curve, that one was FAR too bright and energetic on in the top end.


----------



## mojozoom (Feb 11, 2012)

Here's the results of my HRTF testing with REW.

Basically I'm illustrating the difference between taking measurements with your body in the car versus outside the car, so it's more than HRTF as your body block some of the other reflections flying around the interior of the car.

These are sweeps of my right side mid. The red line sweep was taken with me in the car, and the mic next to my right ear. The blue line sweep was taken with me out of the car, with the mic in the same position.










I used a coathanger wound around the headrest posts to hold the mic. It took some piddling around with it get get it bent just right, but worked pretty well.

To me it looks like if I were to apply the Andy curve via tuning without me in the car, the end result would end up hotter in the 1250-5000 hz range by about 5 db then I would get if I tuned to the same curve while sitting in the car (the recorded results would have been lower, like the blue curve, so I'd have pushed those bands up). I'd expect that the Andy/MS8 curves are going to be optimal when measured with a person in the car, as the MS8 uses a binaural mic for calibration.


----------



## therapture (Jan 31, 2013)

Very interesting. Looks like that may explain why the eq that REW figures is too hot when I listen to it in car. For instance, I just ran another fine tune from my measurements, and as soon as I listened, the right...too hot. I took everything on the right side from 500-12,000 and cut each band by 1.5db. Wow, much better. I need to listen to it for a day or two before I change anything. But I'll post up my measurements with me in the car, vs. out of car, sometime in the next day or so.

Question for my noobness:

When I run a sweep initially from a flat eq...and then adjust the eq...when I run a second sweep to fine tune, I work off of the first eq correct? That way the process gets closer (hopefully) to the target curve?

Also, my sub filter gives me some weird boosts in the 140-150 range. I entered them, but did not like, put those bands back to zero and its better. I think I should just ignore anything over 100-ish? Or set my filter lower....


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

Beat me to it. Thanks for posting mojo!

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy 3 via Tapatalk.


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

Interesting results btw. Wonder how much it differs if a fullrange driver is placed onaxis in dash level. Does left/right side show any differences...? I'll post a few tests tomorrow.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy 3 via Tapatalk.


----------



## sbaumbaugh (May 21, 2013)

Hanatsu said:


> View attachment 42743
> 
> 
> This is basically what I'm using in my car. Made a detailed curve, try it out and see if you like it


Han,

one question popped into my head, as you know your helping me with my curve and auto eq, but how does having your house curve relate to a particular system?

do i just input your values? or does the system have to be fairly flat to begin with?

as you know im very new to REW and just wondering what trading house curves is all about??

thank Han,


----------



## Hanatsu (Nov 9, 2010)

sbaumbaugh said:


> Han,
> 
> one question popped into my head, as you know your helping me with my curve and auto eq, but how does having your house curve relate to a particular system?
> 
> ...


No the values you get are based on your measurements - the FR don't have to be flat when you begin.

A housecurve won't necessarily sound the same in every car and install. Rather see them as a baseline to work with.

Smaller cars might need a little bit more attenuation in the highs.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy 3 via Tapatalk.


----------



## subterFUSE (Sep 21, 2009)

Sub'd


----------



## richi548 (Jun 8, 2015)

masswork said:


> Like this:
> 
> 1. Create acoustic crossover plot for each driver, and use the exported file as target curve for REW. For example: Midrange driver 300 LR4 - 5K LR2
> 
> ...


Hello,

i found the excel crossover plot sheed very good.

Can somebody share it with me, please?
Thanks!

Best regards,

Richard


----------



## subterFUSE (Sep 21, 2009)

Small tip to add: I'm pretty sure that John M, author of REW, suggests using Variable Smoothing for the best Auto EQ results. Have seen that mentioned at HTS a few times.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## TheAlchemist9 (Apr 29, 2015)

Good stuff here. Should be very useful once I start tuning.


----------



## subterFUSE (Sep 21, 2009)

Here's another small tip which I wanted to add:


This has to do with types of EQ and the consequences of using them.


If you use parametric EQ on a DSP like the Helix Pro, Mosconi or others, then you typically are going to lose the ability to do an "EQ link" properly. An "EQ Link" is when you tell the DSP to link 2 or more channels together for simultaneous adjustment. Some DSPs, like the Helix Pro and Mosconi, allow the channels to be linked in "relative" mode, where the adjustments to the linked channels preserve the relative positions of their corresponding EQ bands.

In other words, if band 1 (usually 20Hz) was at -1dB for Left Channel, and -2dB for the right channel, and they were linked in relative mode... then when you lower the linked EQ by 1dB the result would be -2 on left and -3 on right.


But if you are using parametric EQ then you will be potentially changing the frequency and Q of the adjustment band. This will make that band asymmetrical with the corresponding band on other channels. Now if you link channels for EQ adjustments, you won't necessarily be adjusting them the same way.


If you plan to use a tool like Auto EQ as a starting point but want to fine tune by ear afterward, then it is important to avoid using parametric EQ on bands which you might want to EQ Link later on. For example, on a tweeter you're not likely to need the first few octaves of graphic EQ bands. Therefore, if you want to have some parametric EQ on that tweeter, use those lower bands that otherwise would not get used if you didn't have parametric available. Likewise with a subwoofer. No need for those upper octaves of EQ bands there, so keep the parametric on those bands. This way you can still "Link" those bands you leave in standard graphical EQ format.

Another good idea has been mentioned earlier in this thread, which is to create your own EQ template in REW with manual EQ settings that mimic your graphic EQ in the DSP. i.e. standard 31 band frequencies, and Q = 4.3
Then when you use Auto EQ in REW, just use the Optimize Gains button instead of the MatchResponse to Target. This will offer EQ suggestions while avoiding the use of parametric.


----------



## crackinhedz (May 5, 2013)

Can anyone give me some pointers?

I think I followed directions correctly, but when I use the GEQ filters provided by Hanatsu, using the "midbass" file, it doesn't seem to give me any geq changes for 50-200Hz?

Also, how do I actually implement this? I measured left side first...so A (left) to B (right) am I changing the left side EQ only, to match side B (right)?? 



Also, I noticed if I upload a house curve it seems to try to follow the curve when doing the GEQ changes, but since Im just trying to do left and right to equal each other I shouldn't be concerned with the house curve just yet correct? I should only upload the house curve when Im ready? for overall Eq adjustment?


Thanks!


----------



## subterFUSE (Sep 21, 2009)

crackinhedz said:


> Can anyone give me some pointers?
> 
> I think I followed directions correctly, but when I use the GEQ filters provided by Hanatsu, using the "midbass" file, it doesn't seem to give me any geq changes for 50-200Hz?


You need to check the Match Range. The Auto EQ only works on areas within the Match Range.

Once you have set the range, you click the link to Optimize Gains.




> Also, how do I actually implement this? I measured left side first...so A (left) to B (right) am I changing the left side EQ only, to match side B (right)??


I suggest you start by loading the house curve, setting the desired crossover shape, and then matching each speaker to the house curve. If left and right sides are "on the curve" then they should be equalized to each other properly. After you EQ each driver individually to the house curve, you can link channels in the DSP and adjust for overall tonality by ear.


----------



## crackinhedz (May 5, 2013)

My match range is 60 to 3K?

Thanks for the tip on the house curve...so in other words I dont even need to do the A/B step?

Just take my Right or Left and filter it to the curve.


----------



## subterFUSE (Sep 21, 2009)

crackinhedz said:


> My match range is 60 to 3K?
> 
> Thanks for the tip on the house curve...so in other words I dont even need to do the A/B step?
> 
> Just take my Right or Left and filter it to the curve.


Yup. Just think about it.... If left side matches the curve, and right side matches the curve, then left side should match right side.

After that, you'll need to adjust for tonality by ear because the speakers playing together will add or detract from one another. But aligning to the curve is a great place to start.


----------



## lizardking (Nov 8, 2008)

I agree, once I match my left and right to a target curve and then measure together it does change. This requires adjustments for the overall curve. Both sides playing.


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

The goal is left = right = target. So using the comparative method to match one driver to another is one way. You could take your driver that's closest to the target, match it to target well, then work on the more "ragged" driver to match it. Sweeps being better for this I'm finding which makes the process quite long and drawn out unfortunately doing multiple sweep measurements then averaging. Brutal long process compared to pink noise averaging in RTA while moving the mic from ear to ear. 


Sent from iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fcarpio (Apr 29, 2008)

Subbed.


----------



## Rivers (May 11, 2006)

Can someone tell me why I am not getting recommendations above 122hz despite my filters going up to 20Khz?


----------



## Elgrosso (Jun 15, 2013)

You’re just asking too much I guess, too broader band and it makes compromise, focuses on the worst part. You could select 20Hz -1Khz and get the same result since the highs are pretty flat already.
Can you show the predicted response?

But before EQ I would suggest to use levels to get much closer to target here, you’re asking for 20db swings!


----------



## Rivers (May 11, 2006)

Here's the predicted response.










I am really new to the REW software but what do you exactly mean by using levels to get my target? Wouldnt the entire curve go down and retain its shape if I were to cut gain?


----------



## Elgrosso (Jun 15, 2013)

Rivers said:


> Here's the predicted response.


You’re sure it’s the predicted reponse for the same filter? looks really different.





> I am really new to the REW software but what do you exactly mean by using levels to get my target? Wouldnt the entire curve go down and retain its shape if I were to cut gain?


Well it all depends of your system, nb of drivers, amps, type of dsp etc
But yes the idea is to use levels, Xo and eq in combination to optimize all driver response to the needs.
By using independent targets per driver if you can (http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum...1-jazzis-tuning-companion-room-eq-wizard.html)
Output EQ usually being used for each driver, and input EQ for the global house target refinements.

What system do you have exactly?


----------



## Rivers (May 11, 2006)

Sorry, my bad this should be the correct predicted response to my initial post.










I am actually testing and learning REW using my PC speakers before I move on to the car. It's just 2 studio monitor speakers which I am using EqualizerAPO as the 'DSP' to do Parametric EQ. Taking microphone recording with my MobilePre + ECM8000. I think it should pretty much work the same for test purposes?


----------



## Elgrosso (Jun 15, 2013)

I see, I went too far.
Well it seems to work pretty well then.
You can try to use a smaller bandwidth to see if it helps to optimize the filter.
(or deactivate some kind of bass boost if there is)
And play with all the settings in filter task, all these will impact the filter.
Good to test and get an idea.

So yes it will work the same, except that in car you’ll probably tune each driver instead of 2 speakers. Same concept but applied to independant targets.


----------



## Rivers (May 11, 2006)

Can someone tell me if the area below 3.5 Khz to 5 Khz is need of a fix? I have my crossovers set at 3 Khz @ 24 db slope.

I don't get any EQ recommendations there unfortunately as I set individual max boost at 6 db.


----------



## drop1 (Jul 26, 2015)

Setting max boost low is a good thing. To much boost in a freq band can give artificial resonance.


----------



## Elgrosso (Jun 15, 2013)

Rivers said:


> Can someone tell me if the area below 3.5 Khz to 5 Khz is need of a fix? I have my crossovers set at 3 Khz @ 24 db slope.
> 
> I don't get any EQ recommendations there unfortunately as I set individual max boost at 6 db.


What’s the db scale here?
I think I would try to fix it myself, but here it seems it’s the end of the woofer response. So instead of boosting where it’s beaming I would try to cross it lower, near 2 or 2.5Khz if you can.
And maybe fix the 40-80Hz if you still have some peqs, or use the input EQ.


----------



## Flyhogz (Nov 8, 2012)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## AyOne (Sep 24, 2016)

A question that s probably obvious I just missed it. When I get the eq filters for "a&b" do I put the gains values for both or just L or R?


----------



## aholland1198 (Oct 7, 2009)

One or the other. You are finding how B differs from A


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## stixzerjan (Feb 6, 2010)

Hi Guys,
I feel like moving backwards from c-dsp 6x8 to H701. The parametric EQ although they have Q 1-5, but Band 1 to band 5 is limited frequency selection any good tips to use the auto EQ function in REW?

Thanks,
Alex


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

stixzerjan said:


> Hi Guys,
> I feel like moving backwards from c-dsp 6x8 to H701. The parametric EQ although they have Q 1-5, but Band 1 to band 5 is limited frequency selection any good tips to use the auto EQ function in REW?
> 
> Thanks,
> Alex


To tell you the truth, if it's quite a complicated setup there meaning not a straight parametric or straight graphic, I personally would just pull autopilot and EQ it myself manually based on what the DSP can do.

But when you say "limited frequency selection" hmm.. That mean you have full parametric with Q 1-5 on five bands but those bands have to stay in a particular range respectively? If so, then you have 5 bands to work with, just pick "generic", and uncheck all but 1-5 bands on the EQ Filters screen.. Then run the auto EQ.. It should set the auto EQ based on a restriction of those five bands.


----------



## Truthunter (Jun 15, 2015)

I think I have the same issue with the PEQ in an Alpine headunit; only can choose 1/3oct centers... makes it difficult to tame humps between them without taking everything else around it below the target.


----------



## edouble101 (Dec 9, 2010)

----


----------



## JamesRC (Sep 18, 2017)

Hanatsu said:


> *4th step*, set the SPL scale to 0dB, otherwise you won't see the new plot. Make sure this measurement is the ONLY one selected, see the arrow. Leave all other boxes unchecked but this one.


How do I set the scale to 0dB per Step 4?


----------



## fmedrano1977 (Aug 18, 2017)

Hanatsu said:


> This is usable for those who have a standalone DSP with parametric EQ.
> 
> You need some measurement gear (mic, preamp and a computer) and you need to download REW (RoomEQ) from hometheatershack.
> 
> ...


Does one apply the EQ filters outputed on the A/B measurement to both left and right channel?


----------



## Jscoyne2 (Oct 29, 2014)

fmedrano1977 said:


> Does one apply the EQ filters outputed on the A/B measurement to both left and right channel?


No. So its meant to match one side to another. A/B finds the Difference between the left side and right side. 

The A/B "measurement" will only show the difference between the left and right driver. So when you set your target curve to 0 and a flat line. What you're actually doing is Eq'ing the volume between drivers to have 0db of difference. You're only eqing one driver so it matches the other. So the Eq file would only go to one driver. Preferably the one that needs the most cuts.

The 5th picture blue line is the A/B measurement. Its the key picture in that tutorial.Just play with it in Rew and you'll quickly understand what you're actually eqing.

If you're really confused. Follow these steps.

Do a measurement of your left driver. Then do a measurement of your right driver. Save those files as Left driver and Right driver 

Do the A/B. Do it twice. One with the left driver being A. And one with the left driver being B. Whichever one has the most peaks over the 0db line is the one you want to use.

Now eq that one to be a perfectly flat line. Bring down all the peaks. 

Save that Eq file. Now apply it to the left driver and the right driver. Remeasure the left side and the right side then load the previous two. 

Compare all four. What you'll see should explain everything. You'll see either left driver or right driver way funky looking and the opposite driver being perfectly matched. Whichever one is funky from the original measurement is the one you don't want to be eqing.


Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## MrHyde (Aug 31, 2019)

After reading through this whole thread today a couple questions came to mind. When EQing to match to one of the popular target/house curves (JBL, Audiofrog) is the first goal to match each speaker to the target curve, then to match each L or R channel (left Tweeter, left woofer, Sub) playing together matched to the curve as opposed to eventually matching overall system with all speakers playing? I know from tuning that I can match each individual speaker pretty close to the target but once played together (right & left) it is then way off target. Or are the target curves designed for all speakers playing together?

Also is it best to use the output EQ on a DSP to EQ each speaker individually and then to use the input EQ to tune pairs of speakers? It seems like just linking L & R EQ bands would work as well. I saw it mentioned to use input EQ for this purpose here in the thread.


----------



## BartStephens (Apr 28, 2021)

mojozoom said:


> View attachment housecurve_iso70.txt



What is up with these values in the ISO 70 curve? Is 70 supposed to equal 0dB?


----------

