Yes, but if say listening spot 1 needs a bump in a certain frequency in order to be "ideal" and listening spot 2 is right on the mark, and listening spot 3 needs a drop in that same frequency, how can it boost (or drop) the output at that frequency without impacting the other listening spots. Sort of like the Goldilocks problem. Too hot, too cold, just right. Very simplified for only 1 aspect, but substitute delays and echos in for frequency levels and it seems somewhat the same. Their website even states that it "creates clusters" of similar point measurements and then adjusts based off of these 3-5 "clusters" of information. If you are clustering, you are doing some level of averaging or "best case we can manage" for each cluster.
Now don't get me wrong, I think that Audyssey is a good step up in complex room analysis for room acoustics and management via electronic controls over the other products out there. I was just playing devil's advocate that it doesn't mean that it is the end all/be all for everything, just a very complex way to try to get the best for a wider audience, but as soon as you "cluster" you are making some sort of compromise somewhere.
Again, I could also argue the MCACC is designed for single hermits that have no friends, or that the friends they do have aren't worth getting a good acoustical adjustment since MCACC is a single sweet spot only method.
Again, I can play it both ways, and the best part is that I am learning a lot myself. In fact, I am liking the idea of Audyssey for my next receiver more and more.