No room correction algorithym is going to tame a bad room but it can help automate the process a lot. Even the best systems cannot account for subtle changes in the room and only yield one optimal position. If you want to tame your room, by all means use a room correction system but more as a starting point than the final arbiter of what is "right". Half the fun of having a complicated system is the tweaks we make to have it sound as good as it can. Although we refer to these systems as "room correction" they are really just fancy "room measurers" with some built in algorithyms of how someone thinks you will like the sound. In all actuality the only way to "correct the room" is to correct the room.

When i write room correction i mean fine tuning AFTER actually correcting the room and getting good speakers, it doesn't have to be outomatic at all. A transperant eq and powerfull DSP:s is a must if you are serius about the sound, as i have understand this is genirally NOT the case. The equalization is demanding for the speakers and amp so you wont ba able to compensate for poor drivers.

While I agree RC can be a big help it should not be a prime consideration of which processor to obtain. Any newer processor will come with enough advanced RC tools to get your system very close assuming the room is not a nightmare. It is especially helpful with subwoofers and their integration with the mains in a normal room. The type of powerful RC your desire above is not to be had at any price. You would be better off setting up your room with a mind towards balancing the side to side and front to back aspects and then using the RC for final touches. If your room is able to be somewhat symetrical in relation to your system then almost any RC will get you there. You don't have to spend anywhere near $20K to get a great system. Your speakers are the most important part but the most important part is that they are similar in efficiency and performance. You can certainly get high quality speakers systems for seven channels at less than $3K including subwoofer.

Agreed, treating the room with acoustical panels, speaker placement, etc. is important before digital treatment, however some of us don't have the luxury of a dedicated music room. We have to deal with speaker placement & room compromises that the spatial correction that Trinnov promises, seems to offer.

Anjora,

Audyssey MultEQ XT32 isn't good enough for you but it's good enough for Stereophile magazine to award it the "Product of the Year 2011" in the "Accessories" category. I don't know if you realize how MultEQ was developed. In 1996 Chris Kyriakakis Ph.D and Tom Holman (inventor of THX) founded the Immersive Audio Lab at the University of Southern California. It became the technological incubator where MultEQ was developed after several years of R&D by Ph.D students such as Dr. Sunil Bharitkar, a DSP specialist and lead researcher behind MultEQ, over five million dollars of funding through an endowment from the National Science Foundation and more than 100 technical papers published.

How do you establish that at least 20 microphone measurements are required? Most digital room correction systems on the market are single measurement or single listening position based (e.g. Tact Audio, DEQX, Anthem ARC, etc.). Audysssey's MultEQ, Lyngdorf's RoomPerfect and Trinnov are some of the few solutions that support multi-position measurements. Audysssey's MultEQ XT/XT32 support 8 positions or up to 32 when using the optional MultEQ Pro feature/kit, while Lyngdorf's RoomPerfect also supports 8 and Trinnov only 3.

Tweak-ability can be fun but under the wrong hands, it can lead inexperienced users totally on the wrong path and sometimes even more seasoned users.

High quality mikes are great but can be exceedingly expensive. Over the years, I have seen many Tact Audio users spend up to $500 on good quality measurement mikes like the Earthworks mikes for instance and I won't even get into Brüel & Kjær mike pricing. You can't buy the world for a song you know.

You want digital room correction down to 10 Hz resolution only? Tact Audio has been offering 2 Hz resolution for over 10 years already. Audyssey with MultEQ XT32 now offers over 10K filter points. What does that tell you? Considering that the audio bandwidth is like 20 KHz, a little simple math reveals that they also now have about 2 Hz resolution (20KHz / 10K filter points = 2 Hz). Actually Audyssey's probably lower than that in the low end as they report concentrating more filter points in the lower frequencies where they're most needed.

I'm by no means implying that Audyssey's MultEQ XT32 and Trinnov are perfect, nothing in the world is, but they're more adequate than you seem to be giving them credit. But unfortunately since MultEQ XT32 or Trinnov aren't good enough for you, I guess you'll have to continue your search for that holy grail somewhere else, I don't know where though.

Yes there are other interfaces than HDMI like HDBaseT and DisplayPort. Yet no consumer electronics' manufacturers on the market have implemented them on any product. The HDBaseT standard and alliance was formed in mid-2009 by LG, Samsung, Sony and Valens Semiconductor (the original developer) to promote and commercialize this arguably better interface than HDMI. Yet despite some product announcements from Samsung and others more than 2 years ago, those interfaces have not show up on those promised HDTVs or other electronic products. In the CE industry, unlike the computer industry, once a standard is established, it takes a long time for it to be replaced. This usually happens when the existing standard no longer can fulfill a new need. HDMI has already gone through 6 iterations and I wouldn't be surprised if we get to see an HDMI 1.5 that more adequately supports 4K. The irony is that HDMI comes with licensing fees whereas DisplayPort doesn't. This may be unfortunate but that's the way the CE industry works.

On the subject of good DACs, you can can choose the best DAC chip on the market and still manage to mess up the implementation. The design of the analog output stages following the DAC are of the utmost importance. I was reminded of this two years ago by the design engineer from Simaudio, the makers of the high-end Moon electronics line. At the time, they had just come out with their first CD player to use the top of the line ESS Sabre Reference DAC.

Not all CDs are a victim of the loudness war; it's much more prevalent on pop music. You can also record and master vinyl with too much compression you know.

Like others here have said, what you're looking for doesn't exist yet and you'll be waiting a little longer than the 978's release to get what you expect and at the the price point you want, like probably at least 5 years more. In the interim, it may not be a bad idea to pick-up a very affordable 978.

arc is also very awarded, but it's still not what i'm looking for. arc allows up to 25 mic positions and audyssey pro 32, which is more than enough. by correction down 10 10hz i didn't meant 10hz resolution, i meant sub correction in a interval from 10hz(or below) to any upper frequency. audyssey shows correction from 10hz while arc shows from 20hz.

you are correct about the importance of the importance of the components surrounding the dacs, even after considering the impact from surrounding components the effective accuracy should still be higher than cd quality on good circuits. http://www.head-fi.org/t/486598/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths

i am considering a interim solution on the electronics front. i would have the same problem for the sub(nothing good enough) if i wouldn't built it myself(4 lms ultra 5400 18 is).

you are correct that it's hard to replace a established standard. in fact dp 1.2 is has been standard for graphic cards for a while now, apple is using it for their monitors and computers. still most pc monitors uses dvi. since dp 1.2 has been here for a while it's pretty likely it will b standard for 4k monitors. if a better version of hdmi comes out it will take a while for it to become common. after spending years getting hdmi 1.5(or whatever) to work good it will take several months to get the certification.

multiple mic measurements is of course only needed in a automatic system. digital eq tends to add artefacts so you have to make sure these aren't audible, this is the case even when making settings manually. you also need to make sure the filter-resolution is high enough, setting 10000 filters manually will take some time if you have to set then one-by-one. this is one of the reasons why i think the a pc should be used during the correction.