Originally Posted by adrummingdude
I agree. I can only report on my own experience using the gear, which happens to be in lock step with exactly that as a theory. I draw no conclusions outside of that.
My experience is that the Pioneer doesn't emphasize high frequencies at all. In fact, I find the opposite - that it's a very dull sounding receiver. Also, when mics have poor high frequency response, it's not a sharp cutoff, it's simply down a few db and as someone else posted, Pioneer likely corrects for that because they know the frequency response of the mic. So let's say Pioneer knows that their cheap mic is down 3db at 10KHz. And let's say when the test tones are run, you have a lot of curtains in the room and the 10KHz response comes in at -7db. They would EQ it +4db, not +7db. They're not idiots.
The other factor is that it's amazing how good cheap mics are today. 30 years ago, a $50 mic (the equivalent of about $117 today) would you give you something that sounded like the mic used by a taxi dispatcher. I just bought a mic/headset to make software training videos and spent only about $45 (with the mic obviously being only a portion of that) and the frequency response is absolutely great! It might not be flat, but it sounds great with crisp, clean highs. Obviously, a $3200 Neumann mic would sound far better, but for value per dollar, it's really quite amazing. So that "cheap" mic that comes with the Pioneer (or any receiver) might actually be pretty good.
And I'm no Pioneer fanboy. I actually don't like the sound of my receiver (SC-55) very much, but the microphone response has nothing to do with it.
Also, we had decades of audio in which most people didn't EQ the room at all and those systems managed to still sound great - IMO, in many cases far better than these more sophisticated systems sound today. Somehow we got by. The difference of a few db at various frequencies isn't necessarily going to make a room sound worse - in some cases, it will make it sound better.