That's a method, sure, where's the results?
Again, I'll take measurements that show an appreciable gain. But as I've so far seen, these multi point based room corrections should stay below schroeder when they need to be used, and at that rate the end result shows little disparity amongst the group. Claims aren't evidence, and better than needs evidence.
Is there a AVR that uses single point, ala acourate or audiolense? If so, there may be something there.
For context, I can't speak to the Storm, as I don't own one. I do own a JBL SDP-75, the Harman variant of the Trinnov. I've previously owned high-end examples of any number of DACs and processors - Berkeley Alpha DAC, Meridian 861, etc. I also used Acourate for several years. I would never choose to substitute any of those devices back into my system in place of the SDP-75, for the simple reason
@Dimifoot cites: software. Software that allows for the creation of a better, more immersive listening experience than I could get with any of that previous stuff.
A big caveat to that observation: I have a system that has 7 "bed" channels, 4 subs, and 6 height channels for music reproduction. All of these channels are used in playback of formats from 2.0 to 5.1, using up-mixing through the Auro-3D "Auromatic" algorithm. Living with this setup for 3 years now, there is no chance I would ever choose to go back to 2 channel reproduction. Or for that matter, the Trifield processing of the Meridian. I would never again choose a processor that did not have Auro 3D or equivalent/better.
It is hard to tease apart the factors that lead to my strong subjective preference. Certainly the Auro3D processing is important. But I also note that I hadn't been much of a surround sound fan until my current system. The Harman and Trinnov folks talk about the importance of the surround "bubble", where every channel in a system is subjectively matched in timbre at the listening position. Part of that is careful selection, placement, and aiming of surround speakers. But a big part of it is also psychoacoustic correction. In my case, the SDP-75 offers pre-defined PEQ presets to optimize the direct response of the Harman speakers in my system. Beyond that, I can create specific target response curves for any individual or group of speakers, and then link them back to an overall response target. I can examine the measured response of any individual speaker in many ways, with many windows. I can take as many measurements as I want, from as many positions as I want, and then reuse those measurements in any combination of positions with any combination of weights to create different responses (obviously including single point when that makes sense).
And in the case of the Trinnov/SDP-75 at least, I can control the parameters of the Optimizer room correction to a very fine degree. If my Schroeder frequency is higher in a small room, no problem - set the IIR transition to a higher frequency. More resolution on low frequencies vs. high? No problem. Want to control the bandwidth resolution of correction on schoeder vs. high frequency? No problem. Sensitivity to first reflections? Correction of reverberant soundfield? All there. A lot more control than any other acoustic correction system I've previously used - none of which could handle the complexity of my current system in any case. And BTW, when you're dealing with surround speakers that can not be located away from room boundaries, correction above the Schroeder frequency is essential.
So to get back to the point Dimifoot makes - you can't compare these processors to straight 2 channel DACs on some absolute measure of SINAD and then draw conclusions as to subjective value. I absolutely would like to see the highest possible basic objective performance from these devices. But beyond a certain point, objective measurements of basic performance parameters are simply not relevant to subjective outcomes. Under the conditions of actual music listening in more than one channel, how reliably could anyone reliably detect the difference between the performance of this Storm processor and the best Topping DAC? On the other hand, how many listeners would not detect the difference between Dirac room correction and no correction? Or Trinnov Optimizer, etc.
I'm a huge fan and supporter of this site and what Amir is doing to promote an objective, scientific foundation for the audio industry. That said, the things that Amir measures are the things whose correlation to subjective preference are mostly already known. When it comes to some of the things on the boundary of knowledge around subjective preference - room acoustic correction, multi-channel processing - we are perhaps beyond where the like Floyd Toole and his colleagues have gone. Where could Amir go next?