The rooms are different and the placements are different. Why would you question the accuracy of ARC? The performance difference might “make no sense,” but I’m sure there’s an explanation that doesn’t require ineffective ARC.I am starting to wonder about the accuracy of the Anthem ARC Genesis system. I have attached my measurement of my ML 800X subwoofer. Mind you my room is different and the sub is different and my placement is different; however, compare the 210 to my 800X. Our rooms are showing the same 200Hz mode and I am showing better performance than the 210 which makes no sense.
See the post on Page 1 for the ARC generated report.I assume this is an REW run comparison. How does this graph compare to the ARC Genesis generated graph. While it appears that the ARC correction is doing some correction, it appears to me to be minimal and does nothing for the major suck outs at 58Hz, 95Hz, 118Hz, 170Hz and 210Hz. Is this a measure of your sub woofers or the left 13A main speaker woofer?
The Trinnov can deal with it thanks to the specialized 3D Mic and of course, their advanced DRC. See this quote from a Maggie user: Trinnov AltitudeI do wonder if with some of the more advanced systems you can make accommodations for the dipolar nature of the panel. Anybody have any thoughts or information on that?
That looks about as good as it gets considering the nulls are all due to room modes.Here's what Dirac did with ARC enabled the Left 13A. Most of the nulls were improved upon if only a little bit, mostly by making them narrower.
Yep, that's the order, and you'll be surprised at just how many bass traps might be required.I have always been told that, in order of effectiveness, given a reasonable quality sub:
1. Sub placement and perhaps adding subs
2. Room treatment (bass traps)
9. Upgrade the sub
Also from what I’ve been told, since nulls are created through destructive interference, EQing them away is almost impossible.