Yes but that was my point, it is complicated to set up, like a TT, so an EQ experience in one room or system cannot be generalized.
Dirfferent EQ packages vary in terms of how complex they are. I do not consider Dirac, for example, anywhere remotely as difficult to learn and set up as a turntable. A 7.1 calibration takes me about 20 minutes, though I admit I have had years of experience with Room EQ. Stereo would take less than half that time. Audyssey (I do not recommend it) is also out there in probably hundreds of thousands of HT AVR's for many first time users. Yes, of course, some of those are befuddled by it and never set it up properly, but many others have and like what it does.
Others, like Acourate for example, have many more features and parameters you can adjust, and are therefore inevitably more complex, more difficult to learn initially and to use. But, dallasjustice has reported great success with Acourate and Audiolense in achieving his very sophisticated EQ, also employing independent mike measurements to further refine the EQ adjustments in a very detailed and precise fashion. Nonetheless, tools like these likely are not good places for a first timer to start. It all depends on what you want to try to achieve, how much tweaking and fine tuning you want to do, etc. I am not personally interested in that more sophisticated approach. What I have with a simpler approach is quite satisfying, and leaves me wanting to kick back and listen to music rather than tweak my system.
I think that the basic concept of substantial improvement via correction of bass room mode issues can be generalized to any room using any decent EQ package properly applied. But, of course, not all rooms are going to sound identical after correction due to factors beyond EQ's correction abilities.
Aside from more control features and tweak-ability, are there big, audiophile-type differences between the better EQ software packages, much as there are between speakers, etc.? I doubt it, except when using full range EQ, the target curve chosen can have a major impact on the sonic result - voicing. Most decent packages allow you to tweak that or turn EQ off for selected frequency ranges. This is where things start to get complex and time consuming. You cannot just listen to one recording, as though they all sounded the same, and decide from that to adjust the target. You really have to get a sense from many different recordings just what EQ adjustments you might want to try. It is not a tone control which is easily adjusted from recording to recording. You would not buy a speaker based on one listen with one recording either. However, some tools allow quick and easy selection between target curves, including your own experimental ones, on the fly. Dirac does with up to four.
I have not found even that necessary, though. The stock, full range Dirac target curve (a.) sounds really terrific compared to no EQ on all my recordings, and (b.) is based on considerable research into listener preference assessments using good science. Dirac's curve is consistent with one empirically determined by B&K and it is also consistent with a famous comparative listener study of EQ target curves from years ago by Sean Olive, et. al., at Harman. There is generally good, consistent agreement across much of the industry on wide listener preference for a smooth, gently downward sloping target curve with increasing frequency.
Yes, it is quite easy for an inexperienced user to screw up an EQ mike calibration out of ignorance. Sonic results might be inferior as a consequence. Things like proper mike orientation, using a mike tripod on the floor or eliminating extraneous noise like HVAC systems all might not occur to a neophyte. But, it is not rocket science and these simple, logical basic things can be easily learned. I do not know of a good "EQ for Dummies" textbook on basic techniques. Pretty much all the basics can be covered by an experienced user in about a 5 minute initial verbal walk-through with someone else who has zero experience. Manufacturers seem not to provide that in any detail themselves. But, best practices for EQ can be found with a little digging.
So, applying EQ need not be as daunting as many seem to believe, given that you start with a user friendly tool. I am no youngster, no technophile. If I can learn it in my, ahem, senior years and teach it quickly to my senior friends, I think most anybody can master it. As Rodney said, we all would never be without it.
