Alas this isn't really possible in a practical way.
The thought is nice though and has crossed my mind long ago as well (and minds of others).
It is the measuring process that is the bottleneck here and IMO also the digital artefacts that will be the result of the 'correction'.
The fear audiophiles even have for similar performing DACs sounding different will keep audiophiles (the intended victims of such expensive gear) away from a circuit with onboard [ AD conversion -> DSP -> DA conversion ] and adding that in their 'purist' chain not knowing what it will f-up and if the benefits outway the downsides for them.
The major practical problem is seen very clearly in Tyll's raw plots and this is done on a real dummy head !
Different positions will yield VERY different correction 'curves'.
The correction obtained from a mic, that most likely won't be in the correct position to begin with, will yield different results when a headphone is moved slightly.
What would be the right procedure, position and the end result ?
The realiser is something that looks at time domain, reflections and FR (but probably in a coarse way) and assumes the supplied STAX SR-207 is used.
Would like to hear it some day but won't buy it as I don't want/need/like to emulate speakers or surround and mostly listen to stereo signals.
Accudio
R and similar programs already do something similar BUT can do so only from the headphone measured (which may differ from another one) on their rig with their correction curve which may or may not be accurate.
I am a FIRM believer in proper EQ and elaborate digital EQ is not amongst them as that introduces pre-ringing and postringing at audible frequencies.