No worries my man
this new tech is quite confusing and there is no shame in the learning curve, we just didn't understand what was going on! this more thorough explanation is helpful.
The Percocet is a convenient excuse though
a couple of thoughts/clarifications:
(1) Audyessy is mostly for 5.1 systems.
this is false, and a common misconception.
Audyssey designs their products to solve problems -- in the case of MultEQ, it is correcting for room acoustics. In that respect, it is irrelevant how many speakers you have. Each speaker is filtered independently to produce a flat response (well, actually not totally flat with the Audyssey curve but close enough for the sake of argument...). Whether you have five speakers or two speakers, you would still like each speaker to measure flat.
To take your example -- the problem with your room is the multiple severe modes below 150Hz -- what does that have to with the quantity of speakers? If you have a 2.1 setup or a 5.1 setup, your subwoofer (and the room in general) is going to have these problems!
In fact, what you describe is precisely what Audyssey was designed for; namely, correcting for the acoustic issues in your room. And it is why most of the processing resources are devoted to the subwoofer channel, something which differentiates it from other EQ systems (many of which don't even EQ the sub).
Now, whether you are happy with the results is another thing, but the idea that "this isn't what it is designed for" is really not accurate. No EQ can fix an infinite mode of course, but you should (in theory) obtain flatter/cleaner bass response by using MultEQ and then utilizing bass management to redirect those troublesome low freq's to the more powerful filters of the SW channel.
In short, my room has terrible acoustics (though I've tried to remedy this as much as possible) and I'm a huge fan of pure direct audio.
The point of Audyssey is that your statement is inherently contradictory in a sense -- if you admit that your room has terrible acoustics, how could the sound the speakers/room produce be "pure" if it ISN'T eq'd to compensate for those terrible acoustics? I understand there is a lot of stigma from the analog world about introducing too much "processing" or EQ into the signal chain, but these modern DSP's are really powerful and impressively transparent.
Now, of course, all that being said, the only thing that matters is that you are happy with the sound. There is certainly no shame in not liking Audyssey's results. But I encourage you to experiment, for example trying to relocate the sub and then re-running Audyssey to see if you can find a location that minimizes some of those nasty modes and allow MultEQ to create a cleaner, flatter response.
And also, note that "Audyssey" is really multiple layered technologies, not one lump sum. What you may really find objectionable is Dynamic EQ, which does introduce a lot of processing to the sound (as it is constantly shaping the tonal balance to maintain reference as volume drops) and turning it off (while still leaving MultEQ, the actual EQ filters, turned on) might produce more pleasing results.
I have little patience for audio that sounds fake or hyped up for the digital age.
The one thing I will say on this is that this is actually contrary to the goal of Audyssey (and Denon) which is faithful, accurate reproduction, not "hyped up" sound. Unlike some other brands (especially Yamaha and Sony) you don't find a lot of fancy DSP modes like "super cinema theater" or "scifi superspectacular" on Denons. It's actually, in principle at least, intended to be the opposite of "hyped up", as the goal is to solve two problems which actually get in the way of accurate sound: (1) room acoustics (which is what MultEQ is for) and (2) equal loudness curves (the loss of tonal balance as the volume drops, which is what Dyn EQ is for).