Yes, I ended up using REW. I found that, when using MMM measurement as a baseline, it works just as well as the best automated DRCs - plus I like having full control of the filters. Also, I like using simple IIR filters as they don't introduce playback latency.
I recently posted a short explanation of the basic approach I use to measure and create filters
here. At some point (and if I find the time) I may put together a more complete guide.
Thanks - much appreciated, and I'm happy you find it useful!
To be honest multi- and single-point measurements can both sound great in practice.
In the end it is just a matter of what you're optimizing for - perfect response in a single position, or a better compromise across multiple positions (but not ideal in any single position). Of the two, I personally prefer the second approach.
I find that once you solve the audibly offending resonances, the remaining small audible differences between most good DRCs are just different flavors of an already good sound.
While I could identify differences in ABX, I wouldn't say any tested option sounded significantly better than others - just slightly different.
There are of course significant differences in DRCs with regard to ease of use, ergonomics, configurability, price, etc... which are all IMHO important as well.
Please note that later in the thread I also tested other DRCs like Audiolense, MathAudio and REW (links to relevant posts are at the end of
first post).
After all the tests I did I like the manual approach with MMM and REW the most. It perhaps takes a bit of time to learn and understand, but IMO works really well and gives you the choice how to implement the filters (DSP boxes like miniDSP, SW like EAPO, FIR...).
Of the automated solutions I still think Dirac was the best one - very good compromise of user-friendliness, configurability and great sound without having to spend too much time first to understand the ins-and-outs of room EQ.