ANYTHING to avoid addressing ACOUSTICS!
And for you acoustics is based upon "opinion"???????
And OBVIOUSLY you know ALL about acoustic measurement platforms.....
Get a clue.
The fact is that folks can spend significantly less and get significantly greater capability. But even after doing that, they, unfortunately are still limited by their knowledge of both acoustics and as to how measurements are applicable to the actual behavior. And simply having a button that can be pressed that says it will generate a result in the hands of someone who lacks any appreciable understanding of acoustics is the recipe for error - as is the case with applying statistical RTxx calculations in a small acoustical space.
And Arny talking about being banned - well few have the experience he does! http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/browse_thread/thread/43ec27377a679fed/adff443eb4435d25
It is also interesting to note that XTZ maintains, incorrectly, that "The spectrogram is a 2D waterfall diagram which shows the room reverberation time to easily find problematic areas in the low frequency band."
Modal activity is NOT "reverberation"! It is a resonance
reinforced by the dimensions of the space. Funny how this 'exhaustive' tool shows the same frequency response in multiple displays which appears to some to be an increase in fundamental capability. But a spectrograph is essentially identical to a waterfall, the primary difference being that one is vied from the side and the other from above and intensity/gain is displayed in terms of color rather than by relative elevation on a Y intensity scale..
And then it goes on to address modes as being somehow indicative of a reverberant sound field and them jumps to the use of statistically based calculations that are dependent upon the ACTUAL existence of a statistically reverberant sound field about which folks from Schroeder to Shultz to Davis and many more have established does not exist to any appreciable level in a small acoustical space! But there is a dearth of tools that specifically allow one to examine the precise behavior of specular energy in a bounded space that are basically ignored, some of whose capabilities are present in the alternative free, or less expensive, downloadable tools, and which are totally eschewed in XTZ.
But hey, it has a button marked "RT60", which when pressed displays a result which therefore MUST be accurate! Even if a statistically reverberant soundfield does not exist in the space. Now THAT'S sophistication! And the debate moves to one of how to attribute the error - to mechanical ignorance on the part of the machine for not verifying a few pre-requisite conditions, or to operator error for not being aware of what a reverberant soundfield entails and how to know if it even exists in a space - in other words - acoustics. You can buy a set of tools, however extensive or limited, but that does not make one a competent mechanic.
But if all you are interested in is a tool that will display room modes and help determine filters for use in the EQ for modes, its an expensive option limited to that application. And then when you decide to evaluate large acoustical spaces where reverberant sound fields may actually exist (but where modes are typically not an issue), and where an RT60 calculation may prove beneficial, you will be ready. ...Kinda...
Folks would do well to download and read the ARTA and EASERA (and even SysTune) user guides in order to get a better grasp on what some of the measurements actually indicate and to a degree, how they are obtained and generated.