With smoothing and chose scale that made it look flatter, in order to compare with those who posted graphs with such tricks applied:
I didn't want to post my ARC results until I have enough time to learn enough to be sure I have done most, if not everything right. After almost a week, I am now confident I am at that point, after reading, re-reading the manuals, watched quite a few videos including a couple of good ones...
www.audiosciencereview.com
Thank you for doing that. I'd like to separate them into full frequency and under 300hz which you've done in the charts. There's only 1 chart that includes the 300hz -20khz range and the link is here. From what I can see and I'm not sure I know what I'm looking at, it seems that over 300hz, the tweaked ArcG and untweaked ArcG were pretty decent.
Just out of curiosity, what is this chart exactly? Is it all the speakers combined or the sub and LR?
It looks like ArcG's predicted response was near perfect in their reports (you mentioned pdfs) which makes sense since the software is thinking that it has applied the correction.
Using my internal visual calculator, I'd say the tweaked ArcG had 30% less variance than the untweaked ArcG in the >300hz range.
Audyssey is slightly better than the tweaked ArcG from 300hz to 5khz but then drops off dramatically and that's a concern.
It's hard to compare to Audyssey as it seems to have been tweaked. I'd be curious to see Audyssey's untweaked measurements. Did you tweak the 300+hz range for Audyssey?
It sounds like you took measurements for 5 and 7 listening positions which would have affected this. Are the positions actual seats or slight adjustments off the primary seating position?
If you actually used different positions, then I'd say the room correction over 300hz is pretty impressive. Is there a chart or measurement without any room correction to gauge the overall impact of the room correction software over 300hz?
Like the vast majority of people, I'd never take measurements so I'm at the mercy of the software.