To me the situation is similar to that of a gramophone and suggests that the presence effect is completely independent of the frequency response.Fascinating ideas and thread...
I am sure that Anton is on the right track...
Just a word about my own experience and listenings experiments in acoustic...
We dont listen first to frequency like a mic does with a tested frequency response...
We have 2 ears which are very different fom one anther , and i used this in my last acoustical device....
We listen not first to some frequency like assume those who use an electronic equalizer and a mic with a tested response frequency for a PRECISE ARTIFICIAL location...
We listen to some multi dimensional complex different wavefronts, a bunch of frequencies with a "relatively" large bandwidth,( like the voice timbre of a singer) coming from the tweeter, the bass drivers, and from early and late reflections in a PRECISE NATURAL time frame...
Human ears evoluted to locate real sound like voices in space and human timbre recognition is key to social relation...
I used this fact creating my H.M.E. (Helmoltz mechanical equalizer): imagine a snake with head and tail...
The HEAD begins a few centimeters from the tweeter of one of my speakers with 2 pipes near the tweeter and 2 bottles near the port hole; then going to my left on the first reflection point with 6 pipes; then to my rear with the MAIN BODY of the snake, 8 pipes ,one 8 feet high; and then goes to the second reflection point to my right, with 6 pipes and finally ends at the TAIL, with 3 pipes near the bass driver of this speaker, with one bottle near the port hole....Asymmetric distribution of pipes and bottles and differences between them are very important at the head and tail....
Then asymetrical "DIRECTIVITY" of the wavefronts coming from each speakers and their reflections in the room is paramount factor to recreate 3 dimensionality of the music with my H.M.E. ....All this is related to the serious studies about thresholds in timing perceptions experiments of some complementary acoustical factors like LEV and ASW....
Audio is acoustic experience first....
I think that analog is more resistant to negative impact of a lack in acoustic control.... This is the reason why analog appear superior to digital....Time is the most important factor in acoustic, and timing of bits is mathematically equivalent but not acoustically equal to the real timing of frontwaves for the 2 ears... We need good concrete acoustical settings to recreate the original acoustic live event where choices made by recording engineer are trade-off choices altering the timbre original experience for example.... The information "cues" in the recorded cd or vinyl need to be activated in a room or in space... If good acoustical controls are not there in our room the analog sound is more resistant in a destructive acoustical environment or in an not enough controlled one...