Very interesting post! Thanks....
This illustrate my point that acoustics science dont reduce to room acoustic and room acoustic dont reduce to passive material treatment but may include active mechanical device as resonators and DSP as Choueiri BACCH filters and this illustrate why psycho-acoustics is the ultimate ground of audio ...
The relation between specific brain/specific ears /a specific filters EXCLUDE simplistic recipe as we read often ...
Acoustics applied to Great Hall and to very small room differe very much and it is why as medecine is a curative and preventive ART grounded in science , it cannot be reduced to a technology excluding human thinking ( save for diagnostic by A. I. as a tool )...
This is why it takes me a year to do my room full time ... I learned making errors i corrected all along 7 days a week ... It cost me a great amount of time but there is no price for learni9ng and anyway those who dont pay with time will pay with their money and big ...Or stay frustrated ...
Psycho-acoustics rule audio not the reverse ... Price tags dont matter as much many claim...
I have heard a number of rooms built from the ground up as audio rooms with full blown complete room treatment. Even with such rooms, subjective impression of the rooms vary greatly. Most of such rooms were, to me, disappointing—too dry and analytical sounding with bleached out harmonics.
The best was a $250,000 room designed by an acoustic architect. That room did not look like it was treated because most treatment was hidden behind the wall coverings, including the truly giant bass traps in all four corners. The front wall had a very large convex wood diffusor that looked like room decoration, not treatment. But, even this room, which I liked, got mixed reviews. Two of my friends did not like the sound and both are audio professionals. So much of good sound IS subjective.