@amir_asr so room treatments do nothing? All of the producers and sound engineers who record with them to create less issues and surrounding booths with it so the vocals are clean don’t know what they are doing?? You can hear the difference. It’s night a day.
No, room treatments do something. Just not what you think. This idea of copying what "pros" do in the process of creating music is why we are in such a mess. They forget the fallacy of appealing to authority and jump right in both feet.
You are taking it even a step further. What a single microphone picks up in a tiny vocal booth has absolutely nothing with you sitting back to listen to music in a much larger space with two ears and a brain. I am not a recording engineer but I imagine they want a dry recording of that vocal as to then embellish it with as much reverb in post as they need. That has nothing to do with what we do in our listening spaces.
There is this assumption also that if pros do something, it must be right. A pro creating music has expertise in that field, not in science of acoustics. They haven't gone to school to learn acoustics, not have they read massive body of literature on effects of reflections in room. They hire joe acoustician which does what the poster said above: "we need to treat the room" or at least the front if in the form of LEDE or "Environmental Room." Acoustic products are put all of the walls making the room look special. This impresses the client resulting in higher billing per hour.
To be sure, at high level, an empty room is too live to be usable for enjoyable of a lot of music. In that case, if you have a dedicated room like that, you do need to "treat" it. That can be with acoustic products or in my case, ordinary furnishings that perform a similar job, are not ugly and often are much cheaper.
The research I post above shows that even when it comes to getting work done (recording/mixing), the notion that an absorptive room is right was shown to be false. People in that space would do well to rethink what they are doing.
All of this was extensively discussed in the thread I linked to. There is no point you can bring up that was not addressed there with volumes of research, not opinion based on stuff you have read online. This is what we do at ASR. We discuss the science contrary to people who think we only "measure."
BTW, if you were listening to that singer, there is a good chance you would want no absorption in that booth. This hits on the proverbial person's voice sounding best in a shower!
You literally use a tool that mimics an anechoic chamber. You really have your head up your rear end.
The tool is designed to characterize a speaker independent of the space it is placed in. Otherwise, its measurements will be specific to that location so not transportable to others. Research shows that we can use the anechoic measurements of frequency response in 3-D space, combine that with statistical mean of reflections in a number of listening rooms, and predict, with high accuracy, what happens in such a room (above transition frequencies). I post this already:
See the title? "Estimated in-room response" which we formally call PIR (Predicted In-Room Response). This can even be used to predict listener preference although the formula can misfire.
Bottom line, don't go slapping mattresses all of your everyday room. It is not necessary and will uglify your room and likely not have the effect you think it will have. Your "aunt's" furniture will do just fine in providing some diffusion and carpets and such (if thick) provide good bit of absorption. Just get it to the point where talking in there is comfortable and you are golden (if you like, you can measure using RT60 and get in the range of 0.25 to 0.6 second for typical small room).