You can’t have it both ways. My statement was clearly true as written by your above admission.
No, you need a math lesson. <100%≠0%. Your statement was 0%. That is false.
Unless the software keeps each channel together (I.e. the target curve for each channel encompasses the whole channel, not just a limited bandwidth of it with the rest of it stuck elsewhere.
The end result is the same after a level adjustment. Yes, it annoys me they set the levels based on a frequencies other than the crossover frequency. This has been known ever since the app came out and the various guides and tip sheets (many using my contributions) point out that if a bass boost is used for the sub, the level needs to be increased after calibration.
For a target curve using a 5 dB bass boost--the same curve (at least at low frequencies) for sub and main channels should be used--you need to increase the trim on the sub 5 dB afterward. Any high end user of the app has known this for years. Afterward, the end result is no different than doing the whole channel as you describe.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but MultEQ X doesn’t even allow you to shape the target curve directly. You have to use the dumbass abstraction of faux PEQ bands. Therefore, it’s actually a step backwards from the $20 iOS app, which admittedly does need a “copy curve” button.
Again, if you had actually ever used it, you'd know how laughable the "step backward" from the app is. You can make a target in REW in about 10 minutes. Here's a generic 5 dB target that uses 5 PEQs:
Once you have that done, you can import it and apply it to all the speakers you want to use it for in about 10 seconds. Changing the level of boost on the bottom end requires only adjusting the value of one of the PEQs.
For different reasons though. The utility of PEQ on HTP-1 (along with Storm, Datasat, etc) is to “precondition” prior to running room correction. One use case is in place of a separate DSP for assisted speakers.
I agree that's a fantastically useful feature. But it's a feature of the HTP-1--not Dirac. There are a lot of processors out there with Dirac that don't have it. You can get to the same end results with Audyssey (even on a machine with no PEQs), but it is more work.
Another use case is to take down a a big peak that’s throwing off level/volume calibration before EQ.
Not an issue with Audyssey. It sets the levels based upon the predicted response after correction.
Note that I’m writing about actual utility, not what excites people on the internet.
The snark isn't helping your case. The idea that adding PEQs after calibration has no actual utility is quite laughable. This capability of MQX even allow the user not to bother with making a target curve at all. People very comfortable with REW may prefer to do
all their corrections in REW with their preferred mic and simply import them into MQX. Just a few short years ago, the idea of a generic EQ system that gives you an infinite number of PEQs on 16 channels for $200 would have been considered fantasy.
Well, ask all those people with Auydssey or Dirac who do multiple calibrations and get different answers each time. There are plenty of comparisons in the various MMM and spatial average threads. In my experience, MMM is by far the most consistent and repeatable way to do it for anybody who doesn't have permanent mic fixtures all around his listening chair. MQX gets much closer to this than the 8 measurement of the app.
If you want to take 32 different measurements of 15 different speakers for one calibration good for you I guess.
Even I don't do all 32. You don't have to, but the capability to do so is a feature that can't be dismissed. I do about 28. The measuring procedure for MQX is much better than the app (you'd know that if you had tried it) so it's not bad at all. Especially when you refer to my earlier point--for most of your speakers you're only going to do that once. Make a change to a speaker and you can remeasure that speaker only. That goes really fast.
