#Fuzzmeasure vs rew software

You should not simply assume Dirac is wrong and REW is right. Trying to reconcile REW measurements with Dirac is a confusing waste of time usually.

#Fuzzmeasure vs rew software

However, I think if there were a software corruption issue, you would see a more drastic problem, like an error message or a crash.īottom line, I think Dirac is giving you the more accurate measurements and EQ. But, sure, if you are worried about it, reload Dirac. Probably, that explains the difference you see. I do think single point measurements are of very limited use for doing room EQ. I think that Dirac's averaged multi-mike method is a more accurate indicator of what you hear. There may also be other measurement differences between tools, like time windowing, 1/X octave smoothing, etc., which might falsely give the appearance of a different result. Since room response varies by mike position, often by quite a bit, it is very difficult to get identical measurements in looking at room acoustics. Also, the mike positions are probably not the same between the two separate sets of measurements. Dirac uses a sophisticated average of multiple mike positions, and probably your REW curve is just one position. Is it the signal into the right channel path that is different?Ĭhances are you will get different raw measured frequency response curves from Dirac and any other tool, like REW. I should have added that I switched speakers (right to left position and vis-versa) to see if it was a speaker problem and I got the same readings. Also, I ask to myself if I have a software problem and should uninstall and reinstal dirac ? I am afraid that the calibration of the right channel by Dirac will not be good because of this difference. (all variables other than software remain constant: mic position, speaker set-up etc)24368įor me untrained eye there is no such a difference with the left speakerĢ436924370 There's an additional gain of 6dB when a second near field subwoofer is added.I would like to know if I must to worry about the following differences between Dirac curves and Rew curves of my right front channel response.įor my untrained eye, the right speaker response in the lower frequencies around the roll-off (45hz) with Dirac24367 The efficiency of a subwoofer is increased by about 10dB when placed in the near field. Virtually no equalization was needed for the dipoles (see blue curves in frequency plots). Two subwoofers in the near field ( 5 & 6) remove level differences between the 3 mic locations while improving frequency response and maintaining very low modal ringing. There's still some room interaction visible in the frequency response of the monopole subwoofer whereas the dipole subwoofer response is remarkably smooth and doesn't show much room effects at all. Spectrograms show virtually no modal ringing. When placing a single subwoofer in the near field ( 3 & 4), the direct sound field dominates and detrimental contributions from the room are greatly reduced. The behavior in the time domain is slightly worse than the single subwoofer case suggesting that the locations for the subwoofers are not optimal.

Nevertheless this is a rather good result and shows how adding low frequency sources reduces overall seat-to-seat differences. The spectrogram shows a considerable amount of modal ringing.Īdding a second monopole subwoofer ( 2) eliminates the large swings at 30–40Hz and 100–120Hz at the expense of making the frequency response worse in between. Once again this shows that every room is different and only measurements will reveal its specific characteristics. The area from 50–100Hz is surprisingly smooth though. This is typical for such a configuration. The frequency response of the single monopole subwoofer ( 1) in the far field shows rather large differences between seats (here 30–40Hz and 100–120Hz). FloorplanĪ = Single monopole subwoofer configurationī = Dual monopole subwoofer configuration, optimized for low seat-to-seat differencesĬ = Location of single near field subwooferĭ = Location of dual near field subwoofer Spectrograms were generated in REW V5.00. Underlying data in frequency plots has 1Hz resolution. Measurements were taken with FuzzMeasure 3.2.4. Then the in-room response was measured at the main listening position and 60cm to the left and the right. The Audyssey mic was left at location 1 (main listening position - see floorplan) for all 3 runs. The in-room response was equalized using Audyssey MultEQ XT32 with the mandatory 3 runs. near field) and subwoofer types (monople vs. The behavior of different subwoofer configurations (far field vs.