• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Anthem AVM60 Review (AV Processor)

Mike-48

Active Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2020
Messages
163
Likes
224
Location
Portland, Oregon
Could you elaborate on hitting an ARC limit and give me examples of what could be causing that? I've heard so many good things about ARC I'd really like to give it another try if correcting something like this could improve the results for me.

I've never had that problem, so I'm not the best one to answer your question. But I do know that +12dB is the maximum boost, so it you're hitting that, it indicates you're not getting optimal results. So that needs to be fixed first.
  1. If you have one of the new processors, it comes with a new microphone and a new version of ARC, still in beta. In that case, the issue may be caused by bugs in ARC, bugs in the device firmware, or bugs in something affecting the mic, as @DuncanTodd mentioned two posts above. The solution will be patience, reporting, and waiting for Anthem to fix the bugs. Or if the mic, making some change in Windows that you might be able to find out about in my point 3.
  2. If you are using an older processor, it's something else. My understanding is that ARC tries to boost the signal to meet the "System-Wide Level Target" in ARC. Lowering that target might get the gain boost below +12 dB.
  3. In either case, AVSForums has an ongoing thread about ARC Genesis that might provide more information. Look towards the end of the thread for stuff about the new processors especially. It's the best place I've found to post ARC-specific questions.
  4. In either case, it could be useful to write [email protected] with a brief description of the problem. They usually answer, and sometimes they have a solution.
Good luck with it!
 
Last edited:

Mike-48

Active Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2020
Messages
163
Likes
224
Location
Portland, Oregon
In the other systems we have Dirac , ARC odyssey etc can they be made to only work in the bass ?
I know that Dirac and ARC each can be made to work only in the bass. When doing so with any DRC system, it's important to adjust the measurement gain so the measurement curve meets the target at the maximum correction frequency. It can take some experimentation to find the match that sounds best.
 

Mnyb

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 14, 2019
Messages
2,645
Likes
3,627
Location
Sweden, Västerås
I know that Dirac and ARC each can be made to work only in the bass. When doing so with any DRC system, it's important to adjust the measurement gain so the measurement curve meets the target at the maximum correction frequency. It can take some experimentation to find the match that sounds best.

Yes I've noticed that subjectively the level of bass goes down when removing boominess and resonances (naturally )so you have to do two things adjust accordingly so the levels makes sense as you say ,but also taking your time getting used to bass with DRC so you don't crank up the bass to much if you only ever lived with unadjusted bass before.
 

Aerith Gainsborough

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 4, 2020
Messages
853
Likes
1,280
What options are missing?
For myself? None.
I deploy correction full range (in my case 40Hz-20KHz, since I don't use a sub) and am done with it.
I enjoy Dirac's simplicity.

Some other folks might want to tinker with the filters themselves, Dirac does not grant you access.
You can only set the frequency range of the processing and the target curve.
 

peng

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
5,615
Likes
5,168
That was never what I meant to imply. I have assumed the DAC is not the issue. To me, the issue is whether the “well below separates” AVR results are easily avoidable by simply doing the engineering competently (the AVR maker’s fault), or are these results integral to the concept of the AVR with its IC volume control, multiple switched inputs, many power supplies and channels in close proximity, DSP circuitry, etc (not the AVR maker’s fault).

What "well below separates" AVR results are you referring to? Any or the Denon AVR-X3600H (FL/FR only with amps disconnected) and the 2020 models in preamp mode measured well above or slightly above, not below separates such as the AV7705, 8805, and a few other AVPs including an Arcam iirc, and the Anthem AVM60.
 
Last edited:

yanm

Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 10, 2021
Messages
77
Likes
68
Location
Switzerland
Yes I've noticed that subjectively the level of bass goes down when removing boominess and resonances (naturally )so you have to do two things adjust accordingly so the levels makes sense as you say ,but also taking your time getting used to bass with DRC so you don't crank up the bass to much if you only ever lived with unadjusted bass before.

Interesting points regarding ARC. I am only using it for movies. I have the impression that it negatively impacts the dynamics of music (whatever that means) therefore I am not using it in that case - even though bass are clearly better defined.

I would like to try ARC for music again but would like a more objective test than just impressions. The goal is to correct up to 200-300 Hz only and ensure that the content above that threshold remains untouched (at least audibly). The question is how to do that? An idea would be to play a track with little to no content below 200-300 Hz - it should sounds exactly the same with and without ARC (assuming level matching). And checking that something sounds the same is certainly better defined than testing that something sounds better... it should also be more objective.

Now, here is my question: do you know of such tracks (that is, without content below 200-300 Hz)?
 
Last edited:

Mike-48

Active Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2020
Messages
163
Likes
224
Location
Portland, Oregon
I would like to try ARC for music again but would like a more objective test than just impressions. The goal is to correct up to 200-300 Hz only and ensure that the content above that threshold remains untouched (at least audibly). The question is how to do that?

The ARC software, when I use it to generate filters for the STR Preamp, allows setting the maximum correction frequency. That option may be missing from the version of ARC that runs on mobile phones -- I've never bothered with that.
 

eycatcher

Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2019
Messages
50
Likes
26
Interesting points regarding ARC. I am only using it for movies. I have the impression that it negatively impacts the dynamics of music (whatever that means) therefore I am not using it in that case - even though bass are clearly better defined.

I would like to try ARC for music again but would like a more objective test than just impressions. The goal is to correct up to 200-300 Hz only and ensure that the content above that threshold remains untouched (at least audibly). The question is how to do that? An idea would be to play a track with little to no content below 200-300 Hz - it should sounds exactly the same with and without ARC (assuming level matching). And checking that something sounds the same is certainly better defined than testing that something sounds better... it should also be more objective.

Now, here is my question: do you know of such tracks (that is, without content below 200-300 Hz)?

You have to use professional mode in Genesis and set the max correction from default of 5K to your desired setting in say profile 1 of 350hz or lower 200hz is the lowest.
You have to deduct about about 6db from each channel in the level setup in a second profile to get the level matched vs room correction on.
Make sure the speaker distances are all set the same in profile 1 and profile 2.
Set your input with profile 1 room correction ON.
Then add a second test input with identicle input source for comparison using the second profile with Room Correction OFF.
Then you can easliy switch between the two inputs without having to change the volume level.

I'm sure you can find some tracks with just vocals or something if you dont want to hear any bass physically turn your sub off and set the crossover on your mains to 200hz crossover frequency in the profiles leaving all the speakers on in the setup.

If you really want to test your audiblity skills. Use Genesis to remove all the room settings or factory default your unit. Set two profiles identically with speaker levels and distances etc. Set two inputs same source with one that has Anthem Room Correction ON and second with Anthem Room Correction OFF. Listen to some high sample rate high resolution recordings. Let me know if you hear a difference.
 

yanm

Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 10, 2021
Messages
77
Likes
68
Location
Switzerland
The ARC software, when I use it to generate filters for the STR Preamp, allows setting the maximum correction frequency. That option may be missing from the version of ARC that runs on mobile phones -- I've never bothered with that.

Thanks, I’m using the mac version and there is indeed the maximal correction frequency.

You have to use professional mode in Genesis and set the max correction from default of 5K to your desired setting in say profile 1 of 350hz or lower 200hz is the lowest.
You have to deduct about about 6db from each channel in the level setup in a second profile to get the level matched vs room correction on.
Make sure the speaker distances are all set the same in profile 1 and profile 2.
Set your input with profile 1 room correction ON.
Then add a second test input with identicle input source for comparison using the second profile with Room Correction OFF.
Then you can easliy switch between the two inputs without having to change the volume level.

Thanks. I’ve been level settings two inputs (one with ARC on and the other off) by measuring the SPL with a phone. Indeed, with ARC off it needs 6dB less. Do you know why?

I'm sure you can find some tracks with just vocals or something if you dont want to hear any bass physically turn your sub off and set the crossover on your mains to 200hz crossover frequency in the profiles leaving all the speakers on in the setup.

I am not using subs so the option of settings the crossover to 200Hz is not good, I guess, as it would change the filter that ARC is using compared to a full-range correction.

If you really want to test your audiblity skills. Use Genesis to remove all the room settings or factory default your unit. Set two profiles identically with speaker levels and distances etc. Set two inputs same source with one that has Anthem Room Correction ON and second with Anthem Room Correction OFF. Listen to some high sample rate high resolution recordings. Let me know if you hear a difference.

I will do that over the weekend and let you know.
 

welsh

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2020
Messages
363
Likes
364
Maybe it’s a question of trust? Customers who are lead to believe they get technical excellence feel betrayed even if the measurements match the spec, and the device has no audible flaws. What the tests of AVRs have shown is that these devices struggle to produce measurements that match a $9 dongle, and that doesn’t feel good.
Absent trust, any real or perceived flaw in the sound will make people doubt their purchase. Look at the storm of protests when a Topping headphone amp was suspected of frying a headphone — there were only a few reports, and it wasn’t clear the amp was to blame, but lots of people threatened to get a Schiit amp instead.
I hadn’t heard about a Topping amp damaging ‘phones... hope it wasn’t the A90, as I have that model! Some years ago the ‘can killer’ was supposed to be the Schiit Asgaard, which originally had no power on/off relay. An influential blogger was banned from at least one forum for pointing this out.
 

eycatcher

Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2019
Messages
50
Likes
26
Thanks. I’ve been level settings two inputs (one with ARC on and the other off) by measuring the SPL with a phone. Indeed, with ARC off it needs 6dB less. Do you know why?

I don't know for sure, but I believe they did it for a reason. There are complex mathematics/processing required to take a digital or analog waveform in hardware or software and apply DSP correction to each channel regardless of the manufacture or room correction software. The DSP is also applying different amplitudes and filters at different stages. I assume the engineers are lowering the signal during the digital reconstruction most likely to allow enough headroom for the room gain/boost/eq function to avoid unnecessary clipping distortion and aliasing. Anthem preamp section across their product line is still very clean and allows for good output voltage. Its very poosible the limit is not the DAC but the possibly DSP processing power or the ADC during resample where decisions are make to keep the signal as transparent as possible.

This is why I challenged you to test your audiblity skills in the last part because you may be able to hear how well they implemented the DSP processing and band limit filters by toggling ARC on and OFF with no EQ file uploaded. It isn't bad sounding but it does change the character of sound slightly. These minute differences happen with all AVR's and HT processors as it has to do with the nyquist theorm and dependency on the DAC, ADC and DSP circuits to apply correction. It makes it very difficult to compare a HT procesor or AVR to a 2 channel DAC or ADC that does signifigantly less processing. Much of this is not documented or shown in the measurements. While the measurements did appear to reflect a poor measurment perfomance, Anthem does have a good sounding implementation of their room correction and continues to improve upon it.

I am not using subs so the option of settings the crossover to 200Hz is not good, I guess, as it would change the filter that ARC is using compared to a full-range correction.

An idea would be to play a track with little to no content below 200-300 Hz - it should sounds exactly the same with and without ARC (assuming level matching)

I only suggested this because you asked for an idea, if you tricked the system to thinking you had a sub crossed at 200hz then you can accomplish what your asking for the purpose of a test. You could play any track and you'll get little to no bass content after roll off.
 

Newman

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 6, 2017
Messages
3,454
Likes
4,218
What "well below separates" AVR results are you referring to? Any or the Denon AVR-X3600H (FL/FR only with amps disconnected) and the 2020 models in preamp mode measured well above or slightly above, not below separates such as the AV7705, 8805, and a few other AVPs including an Arcam iirc, and the Anthem AVM60.

Well below hifi separates: individual DACs for instance. Which don't have AV paraphenalia. That's what I mean by separates, the same as Amir means when he keeps lashing expensive AV components that measure worse than a $9 DAC-on-a-dongle.

The question I am asking is, "Are AV pre-out measurements (pre-pro or receiver) measuring well below hifi separates because of below-average engineering, or because of something intrinsic to what they are?"
 

eycatcher

Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2019
Messages
50
Likes
26
Well below hifi separates: individual DACs for instance. Which don't have AV paraphenalia. That's what I mean by separates, the same as Amir means when he keeps lashing expensive AV components that measure worse than a $9 DAC-on-a-dongle.

The question I am asking is, "Are AV pre-out measurements (pre-pro or receiver) measuring well below hifi separates because of below-average engineering, or because of something intrinsic to what they are?"

It has a lot to do with what they are. The devil is in the details. All of the components matter when it comes to audio path. A DAC alone is not simple to implement. Each AV section is not impossbile to implement cleanly on its own. However add a single large power supply, video processing, network/wireless connectivity, streaming capablities, a tuner, room correction, amps, volume controls etc and put them all together in one 19" chassis with a single updateable platform it can be an engineering challenge.
 

JSmith

Master Contributor
Joined
Feb 8, 2021
Messages
5,154
Likes
13,220
Location
Algol Perseus
One thing I've always disliked is room eq. I've never met a system I liked yet. I guess it's why I wanted to try Dirac on the Monolith. Never tried it yet. I always end up turning them off and using a laser ruler and meter and then just eq the subs and do room treatments. I don't know why I don't like the way they make things sound I just do. I wonder if anyone else feels the same way.
RC can't completely compensate for a poorly setup room, so it's a band-aid solution really for those that don't want room treatments.



JSmith
 

nathan

Senior Member
Joined
May 24, 2020
Messages
361
Likes
252
RC can't completely compensate for a poorly setup room, so it's a band-aid solution really for those that don't want room treatments.

It is very true that RC can't fix a poor room ABOVE the transition frequency (and that is where things like room treatments play a key role).

And RC cannot fix all problems with room modes below the transition frequency (proper placement of speakers, subs, and listener are vital).

But if one infers that one can correct everything without EQ, I would suggest that once those two elements above are in place, then RC is actually the only thing that can solve remaining room mode issues, since bass trapping to solve things way down low takes traps that are either several feet in depth, or an array of tuned traps that are so numerous one might as well have used giant traps that are several feet in depth.
 

peng

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
5,615
Likes
5,168
Well below hifi separates: individual DACs for instance. Which don't have AV paraphenalia. That's what I mean by separates, the same as Amir means when he keeps lashing expensive AV components that measure worse than a $9 DAC-on-a-dongle.

The question I am asking is, "Are AV pre-out measurements (pre-pro or receiver) measuring well below hifi separates because of below-average engineering, or because of something intrinsic to what they are?"

Thank you for the clarification. In that case I would consider it "intrinsic" or rather, "inherent" because when Amir measures the so called DAC output SINAD on an AVR, he has to measure it at the preamp output so the signal has to go through more parts such as the HDMI interface, a LSI IC or separate Multiplexor/Switch ICs, volume control IC, and then Multiplexor/Switch IC again, a buffer OPA, or HDAM (Marantz).

Separate DACs would have some of those parts too but much simpler as they have fewer channels so the ICs used would usually have better specs than the LSI and MSI (large scale, medium scale integrated) ICs used in AVRs and AVPs and even the lower priced integrated amps such as Yamaha's A-S701, 801.

As mentioned, if you look at the the THD+N specs of the volume control ICs and the DAC ICs of D+M and Yamaha's such as:

AK4490, 4493, 4497, ES9026Pro, 9028, 9038 used in many of the DACs ASR measured, vs the AK4458, AK4490 (AVR-X8500H, A110 only) ES9006, 9026Pro (RX-A3080 main channels, CX-A5100/5200 only), factor in the degradation due to the volume control, switches and the extra HDAM buffer (Marantz only) used you will see that it is practically impossible to any of those AVRs and AVPs and many integrated amps to have measured SINAD>106 dB based on the limits of the volume control and DAC ICs alone.

Take a look of just one example:

D+M (non flag ship models) and Anthem MRX1120 (flag ship) all use the AK4458 that has SINAD 107 dB (-107 dB THD+N)typical, the volume control IC's typical SINAD for 1 kHz, 1 V is about 108 dB, each of the NJU72750 ICs used for switching again would introduce another 107-108 dB THD+N.

For comparison, the $250 SMSL SU-8 DAC has the ES9038Q2M has SINAD 120 dB, that's an extra 12 dB head start from the AVRs/AVPs mentioned above. Now if you look at the ASR measurements of the SU-8 and the AVR-X3600H, the difference is just about 12 dB!! That doesn't mean if Denon had outfitted the AVR with a 120 dB SINAD DAC it would measure as good as the SU-8, because to achieve that, Denon would have us spend a lot more on upgrading the volume control, and switching ICs, OPA for various functions as well, among many other things.

On top of that, it is easy to understand with so many more channels, video, tuner, I/Os, DSP related parts, more, and larger power supply parts etc. etc., all jammed in the one box, AVRs/AVPs/integrated amp with build in DACs bound to have more noise inherently.

It would be easier for integrated amps to catch up with the separate DACs though, by simply using better spec DAC ICs such as the the ES90X8 series or AKM's AK4497, 4499, but sadly, they wouldn't do it. The $4,000 Anthem STR has a build in DAC, but guess which IC that use, the AK4456 that has about the same specs as the Denon AVR-X3400H!! Of course they don't tell you, but thanks to bench test/reviews, they know, and they tell you:

Anthem STR Preamplifier and Power Amplifier Review - HomeTheaterHifi.com

Parasound did better, for less than half the price, you do get the ES9018K2M, that's at least better than the AK4490 used in D+M's top model AVR/AVP.

Bottom line, audible or not, if you want the best possible chance of getting the highest possible SINAD as measured, start with separates, not AVR/AVP/Integrated amps. All those can perform great and their lower measured performance will not likely be audibly worse than the best measured separates, just don't expect them to top ASR's ranking chart for separate DACs.:D
 
Last edited:

Spocko

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Sep 27, 2019
Messages
1,621
Likes
2,999
Location
Southern California
@Jim - where is The Abyss although his use of the word “identical” was akin to painting a bulls-eye on his own forehead, if we read it as “very similar result” then I tend to think it is possible. And, if “very similar” is possible, then making the brand of EQ system a key purchase requirement becomes unnecessary.

Your wire analogy was very poor however, since that is an area where, unless the wire is deliberately broken by design to introduce colouration, or has the wrong LCR parameters for the way it is being used, or otherwise broken during construction or ownership or decay, then its contribution to sonic results will only ever happen during sighted listening ‘tests’ that allow the imagination to run riot and dominate perceptions. There would be no disagreement on audibility of properly-used, not-broken wires if listening tests were controlled to eliminate non-sonic factors.

cheers
LOL you're right I should not have said "identical" considering all the different hardware linked to each room correction software! What I meant to say was, all things being equal, if the only difference is the room correction software, the user can manually tune the curves to fit their preferences equally well with any of these room correction systems. The biggest difference I think is the automation for those who don't want to get their hands dirty with manual tuning.
 

yanm

Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 10, 2021
Messages
77
Likes
68
Location
Switzerland
I don't know for sure, but I believe they did it for a reason. There are complex mathematics/processing required to take a digital or analog waveform in hardware or software and apply DSP correction to each channel regardless of the manufacture or room correction software. The DSP is also applying different amplitudes and filters at different stages. I assume the engineers are lowering the signal during the digital reconstruction most likely to allow enough headroom for the room gain/boost/eq function to avoid unnecessary clipping distortion and aliasing. Anthem preamp section across their product line is still very clean and allows for good output voltage. Its very poosible the limit is not the DAC but the possibly DSP processing power or the ADC during resample where decisions are make to keep the signal as transparent as possible.

Thanks for the explanation, it makes sense. I still find Anthem's approach awkward here. For the user, it would be easier if one would not need to do this -6dB adjustment to match ARC-off with ARC-on inputs (it can be still be done in the background depending if ARC is needed or not). By the way, I found that with the -6dB shift, the test wide-band noise generated by the MRX (in the input level menu of the device) does indeed measure 6dB lower - I guess that ARC is not turned on in that case. On the other hand, with music ARC-on and ARC-off (with the -6dB shift) sounds equally loud - I would need to take the SPL with REW as a source to be sure (too lazy to do so but paste experiences point in that direction).

So, I've updated to the latest version of ARC Genesis (beta 1.3.19). I've used old measurements (too lazy to redo them). I've limited the correction to 350Hz and adjusted the target to follow as close as possible my room (room gain of 2.25dB, deep bass boost of 2dB centered at 50Hz). The idea is to have similar bass level with ARC-on and -off. For reference, I've attached the averaged ARC-on and ARC-off curves (the left speaker has lower bass response because the right spekaer is sitting closer to a wall). I was personally hearing little difference between ARC-on and -off. I thus drafted the wife for a blind A/B test with ARC-on and -off with randomized order. In those conditions, out of 8 tracks she preferred ARC-on for 6 tracks and ARC-off for only 1 track. Except for one track, she mentioned to always hear the difference between ARC-on and -off (but the test was not really designed for that and it may only be a psychological fluke as she was expecting to hear a difference). Two test tracks had relatively high-frequency vocal (e.g., Anna Kendrick's Cups and Peter Auty's Walking in the air) - in both cases the preference was again toward ARC-on.

In a similar (albeit less systematic) test we did a few months ago, she clearly preferred ARC-off. The differences are the manual matching of the bass response, the ARC Genesis version, a slightly lower correction frequency (was up to 500Hz as far as I remember). I suspect that the matching of the bass response is major factor. Another possibility is that the two inputs were level matched differently and that the one with a slightly higher SPL was always preferred (even though she often mentioned that there was less boominess when ARC was on).

Anyhow, for the moment we will keep ARC-on as the default setting for music as well. All in all, I found that it was tricky to do a well controlled test and I've still my doubt about the SPL matching.

This is why I challenged you to test your audiblity skills in the last part because you may be able to hear how well they implemented the DSP processing and band limit filters by toggling ARC on and OFF with no EQ file uploaded. It isn't bad sounding but it does change the character of sound slightly. These minute differences happen with all AVR's and HT processors as it has to do with the nyquist theorm and dependency on the DAC, ADC and DSP circuits to apply correction. It makes it very difficult to compare a HT procesor or AVR to a 2 channel DAC or ADC that does signifigantly less processing. Much of this is not documented or shown in the measurements. While the measurements did appear to reflect a poor measurment perfomance, Anthem does have a good sounding implementation of their room correction and continues to improve upon it.

I've not yet done that and I am reluctant to do the factory reset as I will need to reprogram the inputs (I don't know with the STR, but I don't think that there is a way to store the settings on the MRX). On the other hand, I've seen that ARC Genesis has a "Remove ARC Settings From a Device" function, maybe this it sufficient. In addition, I am unsure that I can stream high-resolution file to the device with Play-Fi and Tidal on iOS (my other source, an Apple TV 4K cannot do it for sure).
 

Attachments

  • ARC_fronts.png
    ARC_fronts.png
    129.3 KB · Views: 166
Last edited:

Robbo99999

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
6,878
Likes
6,674
Location
UK
One thing I've always disliked is room eq. I've never met a system I liked yet. I guess it's why I wanted to try Dirac on the Monolith. Never tried it yet. I always end up turning them off and using a laser ruler and meter and then just eq the subs and do room treatments. I don't know why I don't like the way they make things sound I just do. I wonder if anyone else feels the same way.
(EDIT: I'm talking 2 channel stereo experience here).

I feel somewhat similar. I am a recent audiophile this past year having bought various headphones and my first proper speakers in March last year - JBL 308p Mkii. I used REW & UMIK to create an EQ profile to iron out the bass peaks & troughs at the listening position when I first had my speakers and came up with some good results, however when Amir measured the 308p I then decided to switch RoomEQ off and instead applied an Anechoic Listening Window EQ to make the speaker perfectly flat from an Anechoic point of view - I liked this latter approach a lot more. I've found the speaker sounds a lot more natural throughout the room using just an Anechoic Listening Window EQ, but I have measured at my listening positions after the Anechoic Listening Window EQ and it generally happens to follow the Harman Curve. I've also tried just EQ'ing down the bass peaks (rather than also boosting the bass troughs), and I've found that just reduces bass impact.......my speakers sound best just Anechoic EQ'd and letting them run free in my room! I'm a bit disenchanted by room EQ, but I don't regret trying it, and I also don't regret having the UMIK microphone which I can use to validate what I'm hearing. I have a slight intuition that successful roomEQ might mean getting involved with choosing the right millisecond window to analyse in the measuring, because I'm not totally convinced that what the microphone captures is what I hear.......but I do for sure know that the bass from my speakers in my room is in no way as clear as my Harman EQ'd headphones, so I know my room is negatively affecting my overall bass clarity, but on balance I prefer Anechoic Listening Window EQ vs my REW-based RoomEQ attempts.
 
Top Bottom