Well, thanks, I feel less alone preferring manual work in this automatized room correction soft fashion?
In fact, I don't want an alternative to MC19 until it brings a clear advance in manual correction quality. If not, I'll wait until JRiver offers new filter types. Though, I am not sure if other type of filter is better.
You seems to think there is no added value in others?
I wouldn't say that, there's definitely value in convolution (no matter whether you get there manually or automatically). Convolution doesn't have to be a replacement for JRiver's DSP, they can work easily in tandem. For example, I use both JRiver's built-in EQ and convolution at the same time.
JRiver's built-in filters cannot change phase without also changing frequency response. There is no way in PEQ to, for example, unwrap the phase shift introduced by a crossover filter (without also undoing the crossover filter). I use RePhase to do phase manipulation that I cannot do in JRiver's PEQ, and apply that phase shift on top of the PEQ filters I use in JRiver.
So, for example, I build a RePhase filter to fix my crossover phase shift (so phase is now flat through the crossover region) and to correct some of the phase shift near my port tuning frequency, but that's all. I run that convolution filter in JRiver's convolution module in DSP Studio. Then I copy and route the channels and apply frequency response correction in JRiver's Parametric EQ like normal. So the convolution is just an extra layer that I add on top to correct phase issues.
I do it this way because convolution involves latency, and the more you're trying to accomplish in convolution the more latency is required. By keeping as much as I can in JRiver's low-latency PEQ, I can use a fairly short convolution filter, which allows me to use it with latency sensitive content (video, etc.).