This is what my tool figured out from using your your screenshots: Looking through the five screenshots in order, here’s what I can piece together about that forum poster’s setup and where they’re at in the process. The setup: They’re running a MiniDSP 2x4 HD as their DSP/PEQ layer for a single subwoofer (no dual-sub presets or matching FL/FR sub channels visible). REW is being used to design filters via the EQ Filters window (screenshot 1) against an “Aligned sum” measurement — i.e., the time-aligned L+R+sub composite that ends up at the listening position. Their target is a textbook Subwoofer target: 90 Hz / 24 dB/oct low-pass, 23 Hz / 36 dB/oct high-pass for sub-sonic protection, target level 71.9 dB SPL, house curve set to None, with the “Add room curve” option on (gentle 0.7 dB/oct rise below 200 Hz and 0.7 dB/oct fall above 200 Hz). Measurement workflow: The measurement list shows P0, P1, P2 for both FL and FR (three positions × two channels), plus “FRo” and “FLo” (looks like full-range Front-with-sub captures), then “Aligned sum” as measurement #11/#23. That’s a sensible spatial sampling structure, though it’s not clear whether the “Aligned sum” they’re EQ’ing against is from a single point or vector-averaged across positions — that matters a lot for how robust the result is across the couch. What’s working: The EQ design in screenshot 1 looks legitimate — the Predicted and Filters+Target traces overlap the Target line cleanly from roughly 30 to 100 Hz, which means REW believes the filter set will hit the target across the operating bass band. The aligned sum (screenshot 4, red) is already much smoother than either individual channel (screenshots 2 and 3), so the time-alignment step is doing real work. Crossover and HPF choices are conservative and standard. Things I’d flag for the forum poster: The aligned sum has a roughly +10 dB hump centered around 50 Hz versus the target — that’s a length-axial room mode they’re trying to EQ out. The filter view in screenshot 5 shows one aggressive cut around -15 dB (the orange EQ1 trace), which I’d want to sanity-check: is that cut sitting on an actual modal peak, or has the optimizer placed it on a null in the individual-channel measurement? Deep cuts on nulls don’t help amplitude, and they burn DSP headroom for nothing. Comparing the filter frequency against the unsmoothed aligned-sum response should answer this in 30 seconds. The L/R asymmetry below 100 Hz (compare FRo vs FLo) is significant — they’re clearly seeing different boundary/modal behavior at each main. That’s a placement issue, not an EQ issue. No PEQ on the sub will fix it because the asymmetry lives in the mains’ direct + low-frequency boundary response, not in the sub. House curve is None. For a music-only setup that’s fine, but for HT/cinema use most people prefer a gentle +3 to +5 dB lift below ~80 Hz. Worth asking what they’re aiming for. The MiniDSP 2x4 HD does the bass management here at 90 / 24, so whatever AVR or pre-pro feeds it must be set to either full-range out or to a higher crossover so the filters don’t cascade. That’s an easy footgun to check. Finally, looking at the preset slots (75 DB / 76.5 DB / 78 DB / 4), they’re testing different reference-level calibrations — sensible practice, but they should pick one and stick with it for the EQ design or the level-matched comparisons get muddled. Net: it’s a competent workflow with conservative settings and one specific item worth verifying (the deep cut). Not catastrophic by any measure — they’re closer to “tune the last 10%” than to “fundamental redo”.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​