digital eq/room correction trade-offs


I am very confused about digital room correction.

For many years, it seemed the common wisdom was to have as clean a signal path as possible, with as little processing and as few conversions as possible: use a high quality DAC to get the signal to analog and then a pure pre-amp/amp to speakers.

But it now seems that many would argue that the benefits of digital eq are such that even an extra analog-digital-analog step is worth it for the benefits of digital room eq.

So, for example, I enjoy listening to CDs and SACDs using my Bel Canto PL-1A. I go analog out to my pre-amp. Is it worth it to contemplate the extra step of analog to digital for room EQ and then back to analog to the pre? I find it hard to believe that any benefits of the room EQ won't be substantially offset by the additional conversions.

Your thoughts most appreciated. Let's assume for the sake of this discussion that my room is imperfect but not horribly so (which I think is accurate).
dgaylin
Well, I asked, I should be prepared to suffer the consequences! Thanks to all for the info and suggestions. Now I guess I get to go on one of these escapades that we all do in this hobby to try out the new thing!
I'm also interested in this.

Richards/Rodman: how do you have your TacTs connected? Are you taking a digital signal straight into the TacT and using its DAC (effectively using it as a preamp too), and from the TacT in analog to the amp? Or using an external DAC after the Tact?

I measured my room's response and seems to be rather good, and this has me wondering how big a gain I might get from RCS.

Thanks!
My BAT VK-D5 has a tubed output stage(fully differential) that I've stuffed with six pre '68, NOS Siemens CCa's(wonderful, lifelike reproduction). It's digital out is a BNC connector. I've not tried the BNC to my TacT for lack of a suitable interconnect. I'm not disposed to spend the kind of money for a test cable to equal the Kimber KS-1130's I'm using(for a valid comparison). Yes- I am using the TacT as a preamp and active bi-amp crossover, feeding analog signal to my amps. That's the intended purpose of the RCS 2.2X with DACs at all the outputs. TacT does offer a unit without bi-amp capability(http://www.tactlab.com/Products/RCS20/index.html) That will still do time domain correction, parametric EQ, etc. As mentioned by Richards: Experiencing it in your own system is the only way to gauge your benefit. I do believe you'd find it enlightening. If you were able to audition one with a MauiMod power supply, you might find it a revelation. One might call me a VERY satisfied customer of both companies. =8^)
"I'm not convinced that I wouldn't just be winging it with these new systems. Not to mention the problems introduced with additional jitter as the signal gets switched back and forth from digital to analog to digital to analog."
I wish I could say that the automatic equalization (Tact) was the end of it, but it is rather the beginning of several rounds of trial and error, probably over several months. However, what's new! It's a hobby after all, and we are in it because we can hear and appreciate changes that others ignore. The good news is that one can hear the improvements (and errors) immediately and at no additional cost.
As to the jitter. No additional jitter is added in the digital realm. I do have the balanced digital signal running to an internal DA in the Tact, but I had a Wadia DA originally and both work well.
Finally, the analog source AD/DA conversions. I use a SOTA table with a Souther arm, an AT magnetic cart and a CJ EF1 preamp. I run the TT to the CJ and the to the Tact. I had a Quicksilver tube full function preamp with Mullards etc. and compared the pure analog with the AD/DA. To my ear the gains of the Tact system far outweighed the "loss" of the AD/DA conversion.
My experience and evaluation is much like Richard's.
Thanks again everyone! any thoughts on TacT versus Lyngdorf versus some of the RCS systems built in on the newer pre/pros (Anthem D2, Integra 9.9, Classe)?