I'm not affiliatied with TacT but,
Both assymetrical and symetrical rooms have their own problems: lack of balance in one and (more) resonance problems with the latter. I have a really bad, symmetric room with dual subs and balance/reflection problems due to (necessary) furniture and equipment placement.
Rives units are analog purist, but can only handle three bands AND ONLY EQ, not crossover manipulation, phasing, electronic location of speakers and subs to within fractions of an inch of "perfect" location, reflection problems and others. I haven't owned one, so I can't comment on their sound
I'm on my second TacT unit (2.2x with "whole enchilada mods by Maui MOd), as it deals with reflections, resonance and even phase and assymetry issues, not to mention INCREDIBLE crossover angles that simply cannot be done in the analog domain. Yes, I hate the DAC issues, but Mauimods can really put in some pretty good DACs. I've used expensive Levinson DACS, Nixon DACs, oversamplers, non-OS, etc. and these are pretty good.
Okay, guys, I'm a heretic. I have over $30k in analog gear that has to be converted and processed and every time I see a nice passive (like the silver Music Reference for sale right now) or even build a nice passive ($600 cost/parts for silver WBTs and silver wiring, naked Vishays (the good ones) on the shunt to ground attentuator, single input) my system struggles with an amourphous, lumpy sound
Everyone, audiophile and non, who hears the system goes "oh, ah", until I hit bypass. That it doesn't sound good is an understatement. I know, I could mess with speaker location (but I'm extrememly limited in options) crossover points, sub locations, etc) and even more tube traps and Aurex than I already have already tried) but I have to come to terms with audio systems: they are all full of compromise. The Tact DAC conversion requirement is the necessary evil I live with.
I look at it like this: I give up ultimate analogue transparency with horrible sound or get great tonal balance, flexibility and other benefits from the TacT, with a bit less resolution. My point is, I can't get good "music" in the room, due to boom, reflections, and phase issues, without it.
The down side: I only hear pure analog on my STAX phones (and yes, it does sound good) Analog purists must be able to hear though these problems (or else have truly miraculous luck with room shape and size), but I can't.
Something the analogue purists usually don't discuss and most don't even consider are the many and varied EQ curves used over the years by Columbia, DG, Angel, Phillips, RCA, Mercury and so forth. With the TacT you can build EQ to handle the EQ curves already present in your LPs. Without it, you're either using the newer and very few preamps with multiple EQ curves or you're not listening to your LPs the way they were meant to be played, anyway. Do you want DAC conversion prejudice to keep you from hearing the albums the way they are already EQ'd? If so, then you aint listening to your analog "properly" anyway.
Samu is right, esp about the learning curve for the TacT. I recently changed computers and had to reprogram some curves. I haven't done this in a year. I forgot a little bit. It took over 8 hours to get three curves rebuilt. The manual relates to the machine like a fish to a bicycle. HORRIFIC learning curve. It's worth it to me.
I have over $100k in the system now. 30 years ago, I would have thought that would buy me perfection. I know now that systems are compromises and the TacT makes those that I can live with. YMMV/flame away, analog purists.