Recent content by Dmanstarr

Hmm. Maybe a glitch. When I reopened the measurements (the sub still had the -6db offset I “permanently “added), now they sum as expected. For now I will just avoid offsets and get things recorded at the desired level before attempting summing. And only bother with summing when I have phase data...

Got it. But I’m still wondering what went wrong for when I attempt this with sweeps. When I had the sub at original measured level, the sum looked normal (granted with the sub portion at higher level), after I saved -6db offset to sub’s data, it did the above. You indicate it’s not the offset...

Would the trace summing tool incorporate alignment if measured with multiple RTA measurements averaged? Also, there was a negative offset added to the sub data only. Would that cause this behavior? I thought once the offset was “added to data” it was the same as if the measurement was recorded...

When I add a trace of midrange to a trace of tweeter that are crossed, I get exactly what I would expect in the summing relative to how well the curves match (LR4). About 3db up at the xvr pt with the remainder about an octave away staying the same as they were. Same with a MB LP combined with...

Very well explained. Thank you. The second way is what I wanted to do, but I don’t have the input mapping options to use global eq, only individual drivers (10 PEQ per plus crossover) annoyingly. So I guess I am forced to duplicate per side near crossovers. IF I understand correctly, it seems...

I should have been more clear. The intention is to match the measured acoustic slopes at the listening position. with eq after electronic crossover is applied to get things close in the measured response. If the shift in the target slope in the EQ caused by the house curve input coincides with...

Also, if there’s no reason to have a house curve adjust the targeted crossover, why even have the feature in EQ at all? If the answer is something other than maintaining the complementary nature of adjacent crossover slopes, I’d like to know what it is.

But changing relative, adjacent crossover slopes does affect phase when the adjacent drivers play together. If the measured curves match the classical curve chosen (as represented with the crossover targets in the EQ section with no house curve applied), they will sum predictably. When a house...

That’s not what I’d doing. I’m using eq to more closely match the measured acoustic slopes to the classical electrical crossover slopes. All I need to know if if the represented target slope when modeling crossovers in in this way in the EQ section with a house curve applied considers the...

I’ve noticed when a house curve is used, when adjusting the target crossover slope in EQ, it changes the slope from the classical shape it would be if the target curve were set to flat. Does this preserve the summing and phase relationship between the HP and LP’ed, adjacent drivers using the...

I see the only difference in the incorrect cal vs the correct one I just downloaded was the sense factor. It appears the only thing that changes in the measurements with this is the overall SPL level, while relative frequencies in a single measurement remain the same. Is that the case, or do I...

Donated.

Thanks SO MUCH for the help. Maybe I can begin to regain my sanity, now. <3

I should sue them for giving me an anxiety disorder, nightmares and a twitchy eye.