REW eq to VST plug-in

jtalden said:

The charts show the main findings. The SPL was effectively smoothed out to a house curve very near what I would target. The phase rotation was only impacted a little by the effect of PEQ EQ filters and shows the minor differences at the extremes that reflect the cal files I added. There is no indication that you applied any FIR phase correction even in the higher frequencies. Several of us are doing that with help of rePhase, but its practical value is questionable.

Click to expand...

In all my tests, over the countless hundreds of times I have done this over the last two years, and with all the different speakers I have done this to, I never actually heard much benefit at all when I tried modifying and correcting the phase. I make the filters based on the procedure I eventually worked out to produce the best sounding results which, as strange as it may seem, does not involve doing any intentional modifications to the phase.

jtalden said:

I think you were wise to address the large SPL issues and not try to correct for all the minor fluctuations.

Click to expand...

I make the filters following the one process (out of hundreds of different variations I cooked up and tried) that produces the best sounding results. Regardless of what I did, whether it seemed like the right thing to do or not, if the filters didn't sound right to me I scrapped them and changed the procedure. I did this countless times over and over again until I nailed it down to what you have there, which is a result of the best sounding procedure I've been able to work out. It's a manual process, and yes, it does involve being selective and knowing what to correct and what to leave alone.

jtalden said:

I will also try to listen to them, but it won't mean much because I will likely assume any differences are just due to the different house curve. This new filter set is bound to be noticeably brighter than I am used to.

Click to expand...

Yes, listening is essential! At the end of the day, the sound itself is the reason we do this.

jtalden said:

This new filter set is bound to be noticeably brighter than I am used to.

Click to expand...

With regard to the setA filter, yes it should sound brighter. I just used the target I normally use myself. Your house curve is very dark, at least to me here in my room (I tried it myself). So here is setB. This time I used a c-weighted linear target with a 6dB/octave slope. This should sound closer to what you're used to. I will make one more set using your house curve as the target.

jtalden said:

I will also try to listen to them, but it won't mean much because I will likely assume any differences are just due to the different house curve.

Click to expand...

This one is literally your house curve...

ddude003 said:

Measurements should be taken in the full range of 0Hz to 24,000Hz (Nyquist one-half the 48kHz sampling rate) for REW's accurate vector math calculations, regardless of the final selectable output filter .wav(s) file(s) sample rate(s)...

Click to expand...

I'm hoping that measuring full range is not really necessary at least from a practical perspective. I would expect filter results to be similar so long as the measurements extend into the measurement noise floor. I also was guessing the REW recent option of limiting the frequency range for A/B calculations was to minimize calculation issues outside the range of interest. Is there still a need to go beyond that? I haven't seen any issues in my confirmation measurements after applying the filters. All REW charts agree well with predicted results.

moedra said:

With regard to the setA filter, yes it should sound brighter. I just used the target I normally use myself. Your house curve is very dark, at least to me here in my room (I tried it myself). So here is setB. This time I used a c-weighted linear target with a 6dB/octave slope. This should sound closer to what you're used to. I will make one more set using your house curve as the target.

Click to expand...

Thanks, I will try out all 3 sets and provide my thoughts. I may take a little while depending...

jtalden said:

I'm hoping that measuring full range is not really necessary at least from a practical perspective. I would expect filter results to be similar so long as the measurements extend into the measurement noise floor. I also was guessing the REW recent option of limiting the frequency range for A/B calculations was to minimize calculation issues outside the range of interest. Is there still a need to go beyond that? I haven't seen any issues in my confirmation measurements after applying the filters. All REW charts agree well with predicted results.

Click to expand...

I believe that the newest additions to the trace arithmetic regarding the limiting of frequency range will ensure accurate vmath... With some speakers and kit the boundaries above and below the typical human hearing range, 20Hz to 20kHz, have been exceeded, and with content creation and delivery processes also... Where you draw the line in filter design is up to the individual...

An interesting paper on the subject... https://www.tnt-audio.com/casse/life_above_20khz.pdf

moedra said:

Yes, listening is essential! At the end of the day, the sound itself is the reason we do this.

Click to expand...

I listened a couple of hours now with filter Set A and found no issues at all. It was very pleasant sound and the high end seemed very balanced. While it measures a couple dB or so higher, It was not easily to recognize that without being able to A/B switch and level match to my current PEQ filters. My hearing is also diminished above 3kHz so that doesn't help either. Thanks again for the opportunity to compare your EQ approach to my current method.