Mesuring a sub in various positions with REW

[Viabcroce]

Hello,

I own an Anthem STR with DRC capacity. I've just received my new sub (2.1, music only), and before re-running ARC I moved the sub around (part of) the room and checked results in REW.
As a side note, I used the method of sending a pink signal window (10-300 Hz) to the sub and using the RTA to have a real time response while I moved/rotated the cab. This way I could save the most meaningful measures only... and saved a good amount of time IMO.

I've collected the best response curves I could get, and I'd appreciate if expert members took a look at them if they feel like, and help me choose the best final position for the sub according to measures.
I thought I'd privilege the measures that read better from 50-60 Hz up, because that will be the most audible range (and the most frequently present in recordings): IMO, better to have a dip @ 25 than @ say 80 Hope this makes sense.

As a side note, I plan to cross satellites and sub at quite a high freq, since cutting the first 1-1.5 octaves of a midwoofer can improve total distortion up to 600-700 Hz. My satellites are spec'ed 50 Hz @ -3 dB, so I think I'll go for a cross around 100 Hz (first octave)/150 Hz (1.5 octave).
This is to say that I care about what/how the sub plays above 80 Hz

Please note the attached file will require REW 5.20 AFAIK (5.19 should not be compatible with the new file format).

Thanks in advance everybody

 

[Viabcroce]

No-one willing to tell me what they think?

 

[John Mulcahy]

1/6 octave RTA is quite coarse for that since the fine detail of the response is obscured, 1/48 octave would give a better view. There doesn't look to be much difference between the 2nd, 3rd and 5th measurements, but the differences may be larger in a higher resolution measurement.

 

[Viabcroce]

1/6 octave RTA is quite coarse for that since the fine detail of the response is obscured, 1/48 octave would give a better view. There doesn't look to be much difference between the 2nd, 3rd and 5th measurements, but the differences may be larger in a higher resolution measurement.

Thanks for chiming in
I thought that in view of a DRC finer details were not critical, and just the main dips and peaks mattered? Would you say otherwise?

 

[skid00]

This forum doesn't seem to have a lot of daily users, and I don't think most of them spend time analyzing other people's results. I'd suggest googling "moving microphone method" REW. I think that's your easiest way to get started.

If you can, place your subwoofer at your seating position, use REW to play various single tones, then walk around the room and note where the tone is loudest. Avoid placing the sub at those locations as their final placement.

 

[Viabcroce]

This forum doesn't seem to have a lot of daily users, and I don't think most of them spend time analyzing other people's results. I'd suggest googling "moving microphone method" REW. I think that's your easiest way to get started.

If you can, place your subwoofer at your seating position, use REW to play various single tones, then walk around the room and note where the tone is loudest. Avoid placing the sub at those locations as their final placement.

Thanks for chiming in skid
I've actually already started: I have taken several measurements all around the room and the ones I've uploaded are the best ones. I was just asking for opinions about which one would perspectively offer the best results once I'd run ARC; IOW, which one seems flatter.

I am aware of the "swapping" method; actually, I've already used it (by ear, not by mic).
I have to say I was surprised by discovering that the places where the sub seemed to sound flatter (i.e., at least with no booms) from were not those at which the sub measured best.
The possible reason for this might be found in how Nick Platsis (one of the developers of ARC) suggests to use the method. He says «measure from possible subwoofer positions. Ones that don't show severe peaks and valleys are usually good candidates for subwoofer positioning in terms of flatter response». Since valleys are harder to perceive than peaks, I believe that trusting one's ears (for this specific method of course) might not be the best approach, since we'd tend to perceive only half of the issues.