Auto Room Equalization?

@almarg 

Yes, I did end up murdering what I stated that Al said in his post above about typical systems being rather less efficient to our ears in the bass. Al in fact, of course, was Not saying that at all (although I am). Sorry Al.

But, the quote he made of the DEQX manual I would lump in with what I said above about microphones not hearing things the way we do.

I think Audyssey allows for a cut-only approach if you dial it in, but I'm not really aware if there are many others with that capability. I haven't looked at them all, but I'm not so far aware of others that do.

One thing to keep in mind is that the goals of each ARC are not universally agreed to. That is, different vendors probably use different curves and as a result, they do not produce universally great results.


I agree that doing it myself yields the best results from what I’ve heard, but not everyone can or has the right gear to, not to mention, it’s a PITA.


The curves I’ve seen from JL subs are very close to what I’d use, but wow, talk about expensive.


Right now, based on reviews, I’d seriously listen to Dirac and Anthem.


Again though, room treatment helps EQ work better, and solves issues EQ alone cannot. You can actually greatly reduce bass nulls, a problem impossible to fix with EQ alone.

Best,
E

Yes, I agree with you Erik 100%, EQ is only one tool in the box!

I do know I had a Behringer unit in my system about a decade ago. For many weeks I played around with the Auto Correction function when I got it...and played around...and around... I could only get results that I had to tweak mightily...even when I ignored the bass and tried it from 200 Hz up...in the end I had to walk away from Auto Correction with it.

But, honestly, I think it was just the overall state of my system and room at the time, not really the Behringer's fault. Since that time, my system's overall performance level has grown by leaps and bounds. Every component in my system has changed hands. I bet if I put it back in my system now that I'd likely get a Whole lot closer to a satisfactory result, and comparatively right off the bat, I think.

But, even my manual EQ has gotten far easier to dial in, so I myself don't feel like I'm missing too much with Auto anyway. But, yes Auto can definitely save you about a decade's worth or so of trying to get fully acclimated to using a manual, parametric EQ that has 14 fully adjustable and fully overlapping bands per/ch, I can tell you that!

But, I'd say that the better your system performs and is dialed into the room quite apart from EQ, the better your system will benefit from EQ, whether manual or Auto - and you wouldn't have to twist my arm that that would most definitely include room treatments.

Regards

I did not like Audessey. I eventually ended up with Room Equalizer Wizard or REW  (a free audio analysis program)+ a calibrated mike from UMike and load it all on a laptop and measure. The end result was far better. Audessey did weird things with my music and I never could get it to sound natural. Audessey is as simple as you can get and works OK for enough people that they can claim it as an advantage and it is better than nothing. I had an Integra 50.4 with it and I parked it until I sold it off as I never could get it like I wanted. Currently it is REW for analysis of what I have to work with and a Xilia xp3060 to make it all right.
  Audessey was my attempt to do things the easy way but it did not allow me to know what was wrong. It imposed it's canned idea of what was right on me and I did not happen to like those results. As other posters are saying good sound is far more than room EQ alone. Good sound can happen right out of the box but great sound requires work.