[Captainhemo]

Why doesn't Danny promote the use of REW?

Man,  you never  put that stir stick down do yoiu  ?
He (danny) does promote the use of REWW,  he is saying  not to  use it for the wrong   thing, not a  cure for high frequency  reflections  etc

[jtwrace]

Man,  you never  put that stir stick down do yoiu  ?
He (danny) does promote the use of REWW,  he is saying  not to  use it for the wrong   thing, not a  cure for high frequency  reflections  etc

Based on your comment, I don't think you know what it is either. 

[Danny Richie]

Guys,

Nothing wrong with using REW as cheap measuring software. I just don't recommend that as a solution for room reflections rather than room treatment.

[maty]

Reposted a comment of Floyd Toole

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/some-comments-from-floyd-toole-about-room-curve-targets-room-eq-and-more.10950/

...It is essential to note that this is the room curve that would result from subjectively highly-rated loudspeakers. It is predictable from comprehensive anechoic data (the "early reflections curve in a spinorama). If you measure such a curve in your room, you can take credit for selecting excellent loudspeakers. If not, it is likely that your loudspeakers have frequency response or directivity irregularities. Equalization can address frequency response issues, but cannot fix directivity issues. Consider getting better loudspeakers. Equalizing flawed loudspeakers to match this room curve does not guarantee anything in terms of sound quality.

...An addendum: If you think about it, many/most? suppliers of "room EQ" algorithms do not manufacture loudspeakers. If they did, they might treat them more kindly. This is not a blanket statement, but one with significant truth. The stated or implied sales pitch is: give me any loudspeaker in any room and my process will make it "perfect". A moment of thought tells you that this cannot be true.

...Conclusion: full bandwidth equalization may not be desirable, especially if any significant portion of the target curve is flat. On the other hand, some amount of bass equalization is almost unavoidable, and will be most effective in multiple sub systems (Chapter8). It is useful if the EQ algorithm can be disabled at frequencies above about 400-500 Hz. There should be no difference to equalization for music or movies. Good sound is good sound, and listeners tell us that the most preferred sound is "neutral". Because of the circle of confusion, some tone control tweaking may be necessary to get it at times.

[jtwrace]

Guys,

Nothing wrong with using REW as cheap measuring software. I just don't recommend that as a solution for room reflections rather than room treatment.

There isn't much else for measuring software that's necessarily better.  No idea what you're talking about as a solution for room reflections.  What do you mean? 

[Tyson]

I love how the guys that worshipped at the alter of "flat frequency response" 5 years ago have come around to idea that maybe flat isn't ideal and are babbling on about the house-curve slope now. 

Re: EQ, I've spent a lot of time dealing with bass & have a general approach that works pretty well.  First, deal with the room itself.  Use either OB bass or if you must use boxed bass, then use a swarm approach with boxes.  Either of these approaches will get you bass that's much better than a single sealed sub, or even stereo sealed subs. 

Then, if you can fit a bass trap, use one that's tuned to the worst spike in your room when you measure it. 

Only after all that should you EQ.  But here's the rub.  IME, the more EQ you apply, the worse things sound.  It's a tradeoff, as always.  I used to EQ everything to be as close to flat as possible but my bass started to sound constipated.  A better approach is to ONLY use EQ to reduce a peak and never, ever to fill in a null.  And even with peaks, ONLY do 1 (the worst one) or 2 at most.  This will get you much closer to flat response in room, but will still not smother the bass with too much EQ. 

[maty]

When I was researching which speakers to buy to build a second system, in the near field, I informed myself very well. One of the things I did was read the famous Floyd's book. About seven years ago.

Unfortunately people avoid reading documentation, manuals, specifications ... intellectual laziness surrounds us!

[mlundy57]

When I was researching which speakers to buy to build a second system, in the near field, I informed myself very well. One of the things I did was read the famous Floyd's book. About seven years ago.

Unfortunately people avoid reading documentation, manuals, specifications ... intellectual laziness surrounds us!

Like the old saying, “When all else fails, read the instructions” 

[Jonathon Janusz]

There isn't much else for measuring software that's necessarily better.  No idea what you're talking about as a solution for room reflections.  What do you mean?

I'm not Danny, but I might be able to help on this one.

I agree that REW is now a pretty robust measurement tool, and that it is (still) generously given for free is a great thing for audio hobbyists.  Reading your posts a few further up, I think I understand your confusion.  As best I remember it, way back in the early 2000s when REW was new (and I was reading up on it and very briefly tinkered with an early beta when I was getting back in to the home theater thing for myself), as Anand pointed out in reference to its name - Room Eq Wizard - REW was originally designed as an EQ management solution, primarily for subwoofer management in a home theater setup.  Think of it like a primitive solution like Audyssey or ARC (Anthem Room Correction) that nowadays is baked in to home theater processors.  At the time, this functionality was a pretty big deal because processors didn't just automagically have it built-in.

In short, automatic room EQ management functionality - now at the very bottom of the feature list on the REW home page - was actually the bread and butter of REW as a software product; the measurement functionality (which arguably is now possibly more commonly associated with being the "core" functionality of REW as a software product) was simply a vehicle to getting the room EQ functionality to work.

In the end, I think, "know(ing) what it is," when it comes to REW is a function of how long you've been in the game playing with it.  For fun, check out the history link on the REW home page to follow the change log to see how the software has evolved - again as Anand pointed out - to now really having very little to do with what the software is named.  I think Danny's statement regarding a, "solution for room reflections," is likely just saying what was said in the video from the start - although REW (or fill in the blank with whatever your room EQ solution of choice may be) CAN do room EQ, using EQ to try to fix room acoustics (example being managing what happens as a result of room reflections) isn't going to be a great solution.  That sentiment by no means, I think, is meant to suggest that REW as a measurement tool - rather than as a literal Room EQ Wizard - is not a great tool to use to help you figure out how to tackle in-room acoustics using physical means in-room.

[Danny Richie]

I'm not Danny, but I might be able to help on this one.

I agree that REW is now a pretty robust measurement tool, and that it is (still) generously given for free is a great thing for audio hobbyists.  Reading your posts a few further up, I think I understand your confusion.  As best I remember it, way back in the early 2000s when REW was new (and I was reading up on it and very briefly tinkered with an early beta when I was getting back in to the home theater thing for myself), as Anand pointed out in reference to its name - Room Eq Wizard - REW was originally designed as an EQ management solution, primarily for subwoofer management in a home theater setup.  Think of it like a primitive solution like Audyssey or ARC (Anthem Room Correction) that nowadays is baked in to home theater processors.  At the time, this functionality was a pretty big deal because processors didn't just automagically have it built-in.

In short, automatic room EQ management functionality - now at the very bottom of the feature list on the REW home page - was actually the bread and butter of REW as a software product; the measurement functionality (which arguably is now possibly more commonly associated with being the "core" functionality of REW as a software product) was simply a vehicle to getting the room EQ functionality to work.

In the end, I think, "know(ing) what it is," when it comes to REW is a function of how long you've been in the game playing with it.  For fun, check out the history link on the REW home page to follow the change log to see how the software has evolved - again as Anand pointed out - to now really having very little to do with what the software is named.  I think Danny's statement regarding a, "solution for room reflections," is likely just saying what was said in the video from the start - although REW (or fill in the blank with whatever your room EQ solution of choice may be) CAN do room EQ, using EQ to try to fix room acoustics (example being managing what happens as a result of room reflections) isn't going to be a great solution.  That sentiment by no means, I think, is meant to suggest that REW as a measurement tool - rather than as a literal Room EQ Wizard - is not a great tool to use to help you figure out how to tackle in-room acoustics using physical means in-room.

Exactly!

[Zitoun]

@Zitoun - the track you posted doesn't seem to have much really low bass. This is mostly mid-bass which would probably be fine without the subs.

Here's a track (Terje Isungset - Fading Sun) that has really low bass that you will barely hear without the subs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dONSkfbxnao
And here's an example of a track (Jennifer Warnes - Way Down Deep), that will sound ok without the subs, but the subs really add to the power of the performance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_alN-IzNFM
You'll find a lot of jazz with double bass, and electronic music that will really leverage the subs, but a lot of music that sounds like it has a lot of bass really doesn't go that low.
Regarding the Tech Talk video that maty mentioned - I think he was trying to convey that room acoustics are at least as important as the quality of the gear, so doing some treatment in your room can often make a bigger difference in how much you enjoy your system than anything else. With OB speakers, a lot of the sound you will be hearing is reflected off the front wall, so you need to pay some attention to this.
- Jay

Hello Jay,

Thanks for your track I didn't know ''terje Insungset'' I love it it sounds like Bjork stuck in a truck in a middle of a storm in Quebec with Hang massive freezed in the trunk.

So I did find a tool to analyse the files I found that Rusko's track do have low frequencies as well, but the sound is way faster.
see below

Rusko Bassline




''Terje Insugset'' (never ask me to prononce this name) Bassline



I also listen to way down deep, with my headphone, (that goes to 5hz) this is not even the same song than on my speakers... !

In conclusion I will probably select an artist I know that has similar bass than rusko in a much slower pace such as Amon Tobin,  ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiPu-qYBTZU )  I think that should be a good test. And have another track to assess speed, and not both at the same time.

But in a nutshell that answers my question... I will need at least 1 sub. and a super fast one.

Thanks for providing a clear explanation, that helped a lot.

[Zitoun]

Hello Jay,

Thanks for your track I didn't know ''terje Insungset'' I love it it sounds like Bjork stuck in a truck in a middle of a storm in Quebec with Hang massive freezed in the trunk.

So I did find a tool to analyse the files I found that Rusko's track do have low frequencies as well, but the sound is way faster.
see below

I also listen to way down deep, with my headphone, (that goes to 5hz) this is not even the same song than on my speakers... !

In conclusion I will probably select an artist I know that has similar bass than rusko in a much slower pace such as Amon Tobin,  ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiPu-qYBTZU )  I think that should be a good test. And have another track to assess speed, and not both at the same time.

But in a nutshell that answers my question... I will need at least 1 sub.  and a super fast one.

Thanks for providing a clear explanation, that helped a lot.

Edit

I did some test with APO digital EQ and activate loudness then pushed a little bit the volume ... .
I think with thew new setup I have I pushed  my system to it's liumits, the kevlar dome is very rersistant on this BW they handle frequency down to 35 hz  (instead of 40)and still have a decent mid and high, pretty sttunning for these little speakers.

Of course it sounds boxy, and the bass sounds a bit muffled, but I am already surprised I can handle these basslines with this little kid.

So questions:
I use spectroid on phone to measure frequencies, is that accurate enough ?
If I add loudness in digital EQ with an open baffle like NX-O wil this force te speakers to go down to 35 hz as the B&W does ? 

Thanks

[Jaytor]

If you are really into bass, then trying to push the NX-Oticas down low enough is probably not your best option. They are really designed to be used with subwoofers.  The OB servo subs integrate extremely well and the combination produces an exceptional full range speaker system.

[Tyson]

You're gonna need a sub dude.  Preferably OB, and 2 if you can fit them.

[poseidonsvoice]

You're gonna need a sub dude.  Preferably OB, and 2 if you can fit them.

Having heard the NX Otica's myself on numerous occasions, I have to concur, they MUST have subs. Without them, from a psychoacoustic standpoint they sound threadbare (ie forward upper midrange), and as we all know, if the tonality is off, then nothing else matters! But I'm a bass freak so YMMV.

Best,
Anand.

[Zitoun]

Having heard the NX Otica's myself on numerous occasions, I have to concur, they MUST have subs. Without them, from a psychoacoustic standpoint they sound threadbare (ie forward upper midrange), and as we all know, if the tonality is off, then nothing else matters!

Best,
Anand.

And can only 1 sub offload the 2 towers ? Or you really need 2 to have a complete setup ?

[poseidonsvoice]

And can only 1 sub offload the 2 towers ? Or you really need 2 to have a complete setup ?

I'm probably the wrong person to ask.

I am a multisub convert and see a bare minimum of two subs in any system to be honest. 4 preferably, with 3 being the middle ground. I have heard the NX Otica's with (2) Triple 12 inch OB's and the bass sounds fine, although, after the owner came and listened to my system, he then added 2 more sealed subs to his OB collection...which pretty much made it a multisub system overall.

I think what you will realize is that there is an upfront cost to having excellent bass and that investment needs to be made along with some measurements or else the results can be less than optimum.

Best,
Anand.

[Tyson]

Best solution is to use NX-Ottica towers with dual OB sub.  But that costs a fair bit of money and takes up a lot of floor space.  If that's the issue, then next best solution is to get the NX-Ottical MTM top portion only with dual OB subs and use the subs as stands for the MTM speakers. 

Something like this:



Third best would be the NX-Ottica towers mated to a multiple sealed subs.

Fourth best would be the NX-Ottica towers mated to a single sealed sub. 

[Early B.]

I am a multisub convert and see a bare minimum of two subs in any system to be honest. 4 preferably, with 3 being the middle ground. I have heard the NX Otica's with (2) Triple 12 inch OB's and the bass sounds fine, although, after the owner came and listened to my system, he then added 2 more sealed subs to his OB collection...which pretty much made it a multisub system overall.

I recently went from two dual subs to three, and I can attest to the benefits of having more than two. A single sub is an appetizer. Two subs is like Chinese food -- you're hungry two hours later. Three subs is sirloin steak & roasted potatoes, and four is a big, belly-busting buffet. If I had the space to add a fourth sub, I'd most certainly do it. 

[Zitoun]

Best solution is to use NX-Ottica towers with dual OB sub.  But that costs a fair bit of money and takes up a lot of floor space.  If that's the issue, then next best solution is to get the NX-Ottical MTM top portion only with dual OB subs and use the subs as stands for the MTM speakers. 

Something like this:



Third best would be the NX-Ottica towers mated to a multiple sealed subs.

Fourth best would be the NX-Ottica towers mated to a single sealed sub.

Indeed added 2 subs will double the price (if you add flat packs) it's a sgnificant surge.
Wher does the 2 NX + 1 OB Subs fits in your palmares ? or is it even in there ?
That's personnal, but I don,t feel like the MTM speakers will fit in a living room, they have kind of an akward shape, you can tell it's a DIY. whereas the NxO if well done looks like a regular speaker. Ahestetically the Super7 seems to be the best, but I guess you won't sell it .