Interesting, they used averaging (as I expected from the data) and their initial score was 67 which is also very close to the 68 I got from
@amirm data.
If you check the initial EQ I published, there is no compensation for the 10k notch.
I sometimes do compensate a bit for it but ONLY when the bandwidth is wider than what I would expect and never to full extend.
The points I was trying to make might have been lost, sorry:
- The data used for the EQ design is (obviously) critical and initial scores 68/88 discrepancy is very significant, so comparing the EQed scores as you did is IMO irrelevant .
- One can practically always find a way to EQ differently and one-up the EQ that is tested regardless of the suitability/sanity of the "score based improvements". So yes, if I did not compensate for the 10k notch, the score would have been about 106 (after re-optimization).
I did not do so in the original EQ because although I knew it would help the score, it might not have yielded the best performance...