Is Auto Room Correction Right For You? Well, Here You Go...

I'm pretty much that way too...

I've only used the old Behringer DEQ2496 system, which early on was rather crude, and only had any success above like 200 Hz or so...took a helluva long time for me to figure out I needed to try something else... Since there wasn't anything affordable in the meantime, I switched to manual parametric EQ that has memories, but it's entirely manual so it was admittedly a chore to learn to use...as in several years for it to become truly second nature...but at the end of that, I had a very useful skill. In fact it was liberating in that, for me, given enough time dialing in the setup, there is no auto room correction I really need to buy (since I'll also be paying attention to my room passively...and will even have a say in how much room volume it will have). There's none I have to buy because even the best auto systems can only hope to be 'as good' as manual EQ (they are faster, but no better), but again - manual EQ IS a rather steep learning curve - and for anyone looking for the short cut (and someone always will), the auto will likely at least have the more attraction.

But, until I saw the 2 links, I didn't realize that 1) they were still having so much trouble at the frequency extremes and 2) the sheer difficulty and expense in obtaining reliably calibrated measurement microphones.

@heaudio123, 

I say I do that ’manually’, but what I mean to say is that I don’t rely on auto - I can still employ a measurement mike (Omnimic 2.0), if I need to tackle a specific problem. But, as I say is pointed out in the videos - it’s still a matter of being able to fully trust the mike if it’s a different result than what your ears are telling you it should be...in the end, after all is said and done, you can only prefer a result or not - the ears always have the final say...and, while I appreciate your feedback here, and as is pointed out in the videos anyway - a microphone just doesn’t hear sound the way we do, period.

"No, our ears and brain tend to change with our mood"

No kidding. I'd say that's why adjustments are done over several sittings, preferably spaced a few days apart...when using the manual method, the optimization is happening over Time (days), not necessarily just distance - and the optimization is more of Yourself than of the system.  Its only half of the process when you're paying close attention to picking up on audible problem areas in order to focus in on a potential problem. The other half requires you to Not pay attention too hard, so that you can pick up on the things you might have missed otherwise and then attempt to assess the cure - if it does not sound right to you when you're relaxed and able to listen in an Uncritical frame of mind, then it will not sound right to you any other time, either. That's the whole point of taking that kind of time - not because it's a big production to make adjustments, it isn't - it simply requires those sequential steps in order to dial in YOURSELF reliably (both your brain and your ears, during the same session)...that's not so automatic with people. It's the repetition over time gives the excellent results with this method, but it does require being aware of how it works...and that it works well (which it does once you're familiar with it). 

Widely optimized sweet spots have not exactly been a high priority of mine, I'd say. A guest or two can sit in or near the lp when I move their chairs into place...listening from there is virtually the same is in the lp, so it works fine. Phase for me is something I have to take into account the old fashioned way - good driver orientation vs speaker placement, time alignment. Room nodes are never recommended to be handled with EQ until they are within 3 dB - that means a properly designed and treated room relative to system and usage is imperative, unfortunately...and as expensive as that is, that is what I will be getting into shortly - adding on a dedicated listening room onto my house.

But, if you want to use auto anyway, then I would think it's at least possible to get terrific results, too. I'm not here to say that it can't ever work - just that it apparently may not yet be working as dependably or as universally well as the manual method - particularly as that was outlined in the videos.

But, evidently you did not watch either video. Watch them and then tell me what parts you can contradict.

And if that's the case, then are you saying it's never ok to listen to music? The brain being too unreliable then? Is it too late for me to get my money back on my CD's? ;)

But then, that's just my own philosophy: "man is the measure of all things" since music is so basically experiential. 

 But, if you want to place your faith instead in a microphone and an algorithm then be my guest. But, again, from the videos, it looks like that is going to be every bit as unreliable objectively as well...