No need to, you can adjust what you want, where you want it, with either Audyssey or Dirac through their respective applications - and you get infinite control over the frequency of the adjustment... along with an effectively unlimited number of bands...
So both these tools provide true parametric eq.... you just have to make a paradigm shift in terms of the interface involved.
Very well said.....Sometimes I wonder if people need to worry so much about that last dB or two of smoothness in the bass, when we already know most people are much less sensitive to distortion in the low bass range in terms of both distortions and a few dB of fluctuations.
Here's one of my REW graph that shows no major issues with the L/R towers and 2 dissimilar subs integrating reasonably smooth. From 20-150 Hz, there's less than +/- 1 dB variations with 1/24 smoothing. Using Psy, it was almost a flat line up to 140 Hz, there is no way I could hear a difference between such flat/smooth response between that, and potentially DLBC, ART, ARC G, or even Trinnov.
All achieved after hours of tweaking with the $20 app and the help of Ratbuddyssey, but it saved me spending $200 on the Mult EQ X. DLBC would be able to do better, but again, I am not sure if I could hear a difference, though in terms of just run it and forget it, then there would be major differences between the two, and I do believe DLBC would offer audible differences (better imo but ommv...).
Anthem ARC G fans can say all they want, and I do like it's performance as well, but in terms of effectiveness in achieving best response on paper, I have not seen any evidence posted that shows the claimed superiority of ARC G, tweaked or untweaked. In summary, I would say they are all good, in one wants pretty curves, tweaked it, if not just enjoy it and forget about any curves. To say one is so much better than the other audibly, that would be so subjective, that there may not be much point in making one's decision based on such hearsay reported by their users.