Most rooms don’t need acoustical treatment.

I haven't read the whole thread for a long time. but since I'm an acoustic engineer, I can only say one thing to the OP.
how stupid is ignorance

 Sure it was posted by Troll otherwise ^ stupid is as stupid does.

What amazes me is that such a blatantly ignorant and bellicose original post has garnered 4 pages of replies.  Why do people come here and do this?  Seems so pointless.

I love reading this thread.  Its really clear window into the real world of home audio: part misinformation, some hearsay, some reality.   For example, the idea that you can "fix" anything in your playback system about a recording is impossible.  You can change it, for sure, but its like cables, who knows what is "correct"?  I have the unique benefit of walking into the famous LA studios and knowing what the room sounds like and talking to the engineer who built the record and understanding the sound of the pro gear he used to make it.  I walk the hi fi shows and I can tell you its a very rare day when I hear a playback system sound ANYTHING like the recording.  

Of course. Because that is nothing to do with it. In fact, of all the different ideas audiophiles have about what they are trying to do, to recreate the sound the recording engineers heard in the studio has got to be the furthest from it you can get! 

I mean, think about it. Sinatra-Basie was done back in 1962. Are we supposed to have systems that make it sound like it did coming off those 1950's era speakers? With all their colorations? I don't think so! 

Some think the goal is to recreate the sound of the original performance. This is a little closer to the truth. This is also probably a lot closer to what the producer and recording engineers were trying to do. Capture the sound of the performance. 

But still, not quite right. Closer to the truth to say they are trying to capture the spirit of the performance. The feeling. The vibe. Otherwise, why place microphones inside drums, and stuff like that? See? Who ever sat with their head inside a kick drum?   

So why on Earth would anyone talk about recreating the sound heard in the studio? It is nuts. 

What they do instead, they create art. Auditory art. Just like Picasso did not draw a woman to look anything like what you see with your eyes, but he did somehow capture the spirit of woman. Not "a" woman. Woman. That kind of thing.  

What we do with our systems is put our auditory art on display.   

I was in the home one time of a man who was really into Remington. No not the guns, the bronze sculpture artist. He must have had 20 of them, with the best ones in a living room. Wired with lights and a panel he could push a button and the lighting would fade out on one and fade in on another. Or several at one time. Just amazing.  

Probably Remington never had anything like this in his studio. Probably Picasso never saw any of his paintings under MOMA lighting.  

I wonder, are there art snobs who would sniff at how they were there in the loft and they never have seen any of his paintings that looked anything like what they did there? A perfectly good metaphor that shows how silly it is to try and recreate the sound in the studio.