Hi all,

 Foremost, I want to say that this post is as much a clarification of an earlier post as it is a download of my observations and feelings regarding Audyssey, MCACC, YPAO and the like. Second, I wanted to reitterate what we've all heard countless times but seem to forget in the heat of a spirited forum debate: Audio appreciation is subjective. What I like and what you like could be two totally different things. Neither of us are "wrong" or "right"

To clarify: What I so vehemently object to comes in many flavors. It is called "Auto Room Correction" "Auto EQ" or "Room EQ" Call it what you like, I can't stand it. I've helped hundreds of people set up and/or troubleshoot their systems be it in their home or on the phone. I have a tremendous amount of experience with all manufacturer's versions of Auto Room Correction and I've never once heard (or heard reported to me) the product of it's algorhythm's do anything better than "not mess things up too bad"  It's certainly not made anything better in my experience.

This automated process is much different than having manual EQ adjustments available be they in your receiver or subwoofer. It's also been my  experience that it behaves MUCH differently than similar automated processes designed to help correct bass response from your subwoofer [for example: Velodynes SMS-1 at $599.00] More on manual EQ in a second.

A concession: I see the value in including an auto-setup process in an AVR. If you were a manufacturer who was creating an extremely complex receiver with all sorts of required user input you would/should be concerned about returns. The reason BOSE is so successful has nothing to do with how they sound. It does have everything to do with ease of use (and style and marketing) With manufacturers like BOSE putting out idiot-proof equipment (pardon the term) the folks at Denon, Onkyo et al. HAVE to put some sort of automated system on board otherwise their retailers face ridiculous return rates and the customers will turn elsewhere. Can't have that!

I will also concede that SOME of the processes work quite well. I'm usually impressed with the distance and level settings. They are generally very accurate. The speaker size/crossover settings, though, are invariably wrong and then there is the "Auto EQ" portion that I dislike so intensely. [Thank goodness manufacturers have made it easy to disengage the auto EQ with the click of a button. It used to be you had to go through each frequency band and manually flatten them. Now, you can make a quick A/B comparison and decide for yourself which you prefer.]

I'm in good company, too. In fact, there are so many analogies and articles out there on this topic that if I were to compose something here, it would almost certainly be unintended pagiarism. Instead, I give you one of many links avialable:  http://www.ecoustics.com/secrets/volume_13_2/feature-article-auto-eq-5-2006-part-1.html  Enjoy the read.

Back to manual EQ-  I think it can be slippery slope but there is no doubt that it is useful. First of all, there's your taste in sound- If you can achieve a sound more to your liking with some self employed EQ engaged, YAY. Use it. The problem is, some people just aren't able to pick up Avia or Digital Essentials calibration discs and get to work with an SPL meter and spend hours getting things just right. Also, and I'm still not certain as to why, but every audio engineer I have ever worked with or spoken to will tell you that you NEVER add, you only take away. I wonder how many do-it-yourself EQ's out there have a plus sign next to that digit in the frequency band?

So, now that I've gone on about my experiences I want to know what average users of the Auto-Correction systems experiences were like. Which receiver do you use and in combination with what speakers (Aperion or otherwise) ? I know that there are stories, good and bad, out there. Please share them!