Need some experienced REW advice

[mikewellington]

Hi.

I have been trying to improve my home studio acoustics.

I've been using REW on and off for about two years and have a reasonable understanding of how to take measurements and interpret them.

Here I am using a UMIK-1 and my studio audio interface applying 1/12 smoothing to the measurements within v 5.20 Beta 5.

I made some new measurements this morning and I identified some areas that needed attention. So I tried placing a graphic eq between my mixer and my monitors.

I can certainly notice the difference when working but the REW readouts are confusing me slightly. They sort of follow the same troublesome areas only the graphic is at a lower volume (approx -15db)

My questions is:

In general do you think my graphic eq measurement suggests that my current setup is adequate enough as a mixing environment that I can "trust" or should I look to fix the bigger peaks and dips?

Are any other areas that you feel need attention? I included the.mdat file.

I would very much appreciate your input.

Thanks,

M

 

[John Mulcahy]

Looks like the EQ has a 12 dB insertion loss, perhaps to leave headroom for boosts. EQ is typically best applied at low frequencies (below about 200 Hz) and targeted at specific resonances, graphic EQs would not normally have sufficiently narrow filters or enough precision in centre frequency for that purpose, a few parametric filters is the usual approach if you have already tried different positions for the monitors and listening position.

 

[mikewellington]

Thanks John. I was thinking about using a parametric instead with HPF to roll off the lows. I think I will try this next.

Generally, how do you think my readings look for a studio environment?

Anyone else? Your advice/input would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks.

 

[John Mulcahy]

Aside from the few peaks at the bottom end it looks decent to me. Quite a sharp dip at 74 Hz or so, might be worth understanding what is causing that to see if it can be improved.

 

[Wayne A. Pflughaupt]

Your graphs look stellar, but then that’s a function of the vertical scale you used. A 160 dB scale will make the Grand Canyon look like the Nebraska plains. Switch to a 45-105 dB scale for a better analysis.

And - I’ve used that Yamaha EQ before, and it’s nothing to write home about. I don’t know why they still make it. If you want to use a stand-alone rack-mounted EQ, the vintage Yamaha YDP2006 digital parametric is hard to beat.

Regards,
Wayne A. Pflughaupt

 

[mikewellington]

Your graphs look stellar, but then that’s a function of the vertical scale you used. A 160 dB scale will make the Grand Canyon look like the Nebraska plains. Switch to a 45-105 dB scale for a better analysis.

And - I’ve used that Yamaha EQ before, and it’s nothing to write home about. I don’t know why they still make it. If you want to use a stand-alone rack-mounted EQ, the vintage Yamaha YDP2006 digital parametric is hard to beat.

Regards,
Wayne A. Pflughaupt

Hey Wayne. Thanks very much for your input and the Yamaha YDP2006 tip. Searching now. Yeah I am going to return the Q2031B - I was hoping for much more.

I will upload another graph using the scales you suggested.

I am determined to finally make some progress!!

Plus I hope this will help anyone else in a similar position.

More input from others would be very welcome,

Thank you.

 

[mikewellington]

Your graphs look stellar, but then that’s a function of the vertical scale you used. A 160 dB scale will make the Grand Canyon look like the Nebraska plains. Switch to a 45-105 dB scale for a better analysis.

And - I’ve used that Yamaha EQ before, and it’s nothing to write home about. I don’t know why they still make it. If you want to use a stand-alone rack-mounted EQ, the vintage Yamaha YDP2006 digital parametric is hard to beat.

Regards,
Wayne A. Pflughaupt

Hi - I uploaded using the scale you suggested (see above). The only reason I changed was because the non graphic was so loud. I will make some more measurements without the graphic again, at a better volume this time and then they can be compared against the results achieved with the parametric when I get it.

More input from others will be very welcome - thanks.

 

[mikewellington]

Your graphs look stellar, but then that’s a function of the vertical scale you used. A 160 dB scale will make the Grand Canyon look like the Nebraska plains. Switch to a 45-105 dB scale for a better analysis.

And - I’ve used that Yamaha EQ before, and it’s nothing to write home about. I don’t know why they still make it. If you want to use a stand-alone rack-mounted EQ, the vintage Yamaha YDP2006 digital parametric is hard to beat.

Regards,
Wayne A. Pflughaupt

Hi Wayne. I made some new measurements with the Q2031B and captured the results (above) LEFT & RIGHT OFF, LEFT & RIGHT ON, LEFT ON & OFF, RIGHT ON & OFF

This seems to be a better representation of what is actually going on.

It would appear that my left hand side has more issues.

Even though I am getting better results with the Q2031B I still think your suggestion of the YDP2006 seems like the way to go - what do you think?

The main problem is this dip at 75Hz jumping 20/26dB to around 120Hz then falling again until 200Hz where the remaining output generally stays within a 10dB range.

I think I could probably pull down the range from 1K to 2K by approx 5dB as that would help to flatten things out.

If I was only working inside my computer going directly from my audio interface to the speakers I would use a VST parametric. However I am using a mixing desk so my audio interface is acting more like a tape return.

Again any comments on my conclusions would be appreciated.

I would be grateful to hear from others.

Thanks again for your input.