Digital room correction - do you make use of it?

My JBL monitors have it built in. I put the mic in the listen position and they send a tone out and calibrate themselves to the room.

I tried the IK Multimedia ARC thingy and the results were kind of crazy...didn't translate to the real world AT ALL. Of course, it could have been user error... I moved on...

I used IK in the beginning, then I upgrades monitors and just used it to help me place my speakers and treatment in the right place so that I didn't need any corrective eq. That only worked for the mixing position, but that's all I really needed. Experimenting like that is time consuming, but it feels good to know you have everything in the best possible location in your room.

Thanks, LesC, for your input.
Yepp, that night-and-day difference is exactly what striked me. It was just a test in the sleeping room, that i thought is pretty good treated 'as-is' from what i use to know about acoustics in rehearsal and studio rooms.
But there is, of course, more to it...
DRC is not exactly, what should be used to replace room treatment.
It should enhance room treatment, the measurement curves can tell you about where your monitoring has flaws.
And it can help to correct, what can NOT be treated otherwise.
Assuming you have a half-way good measurement with a mic with small diaphragm and a clean micpre, using diffuse field position, measuring the listening place, the measurement can reveal everything that is clearly above the measurement tolerances. And - the chain and room is measured as a whole.
Obviously, the critical parts are the speakers and the mic, both having the hugest impact in beeing inaccurate. Even the cheap electret condensers have a pretty flat frequency response (at least in the mids up to 10k) compared to the speakers+room. just the standard console reflections in the command room can make a pretty hefty comb filter effect that you cannot treat (not even with DRC, because listening position varies too much as does the comb filter), some people therefore prefer the console position sideways to the monitor positions, eliminating this comb filter...
Assuming you have pretty good monitors already, with a huge sweet listening spot and a well treated room, you might still profit from DRC if you make your measurement as good as possible, at the standard volume level you drive them at work. The monitors are by far the weakest point in terms of near flat frequency response in the listening chain, even if you have done everything to the best of your knowledge. Everybody knows the moment, if you bought alot of expensive studio stuff, and then you get a new pair of good speakers, and suddenly you know where you should have put your money in the first place.
You can't mix what you can't hear. No matter, how good your other gear is. Monitoring is the most critical point in your studio...
So i'm absolutely not in a room treatment vs. DRC discussion. Some flaws correction may simply not doable by room treatment, let's say e.g. due to the gear that you have to have in your room...or you simply want your monitoring as flat as possible, so you don't have to calibrate your ears new if you have to listen in different places with different monitors and room acoustics. I think this is the strength of the application of digital room treatment...
Years ago, cpu capacity was an argument against it, plus, the dedicated boxes that were used were not of enough quality or simply too expensive for what they did, or latency was too much of an issue. Modern computers do in fact eliminate most arguments against carefully made DRC, in my opinion...

Best regards,
Martin