A living room is not a dedicated small acoustic room ... Toole dont need to experiment with acoustic in his living room, but that does not means that living room are ideal for musical soundfield... Some buy 15,000 costlier electronic piece... Some other experiment with room acoustic at no cost..
But how do you know that my acoustic room was screwed because it was only dedicated to my ears nothing else ? I dont need esthetic... for sure... i need immersiveness a good ratio between sound sources and my listening position..Speakers which disapear for ever and dont exist at all... We can tune a room for any relatively well design speakers of any type by the way and we can optimize them for our ears .. I cannot do that in a living room...😊 For sure we can have a good sound in a living room modulo some wise installation... but there is level of immersiveness...A living room cannot be a dedicated acoustic roomno more than a dedicated acoustic room could be an anechoic chamber..
You may be satisfy by a living room...i was not...my basic system is 600 bucks not 50,000 bucks...
And your claim reflected complete misunderstanding of acoustic : it is the ratio that matter, the ratio of reflected /absorbing /diffusing surfaces and volumes...This ratio exist already in ANY room ,but is different in any room , with or without acoustic tuning; the acoustic controls will only change it for the best and for your own ears filters...it is an INCREMENTAL process that take TIME... it is why a professional acoustician will charge you 100,000 bucks and it will be esthetical and more perfect than mine...but mine was astoundingly better after compared to before... At banana costs..
And this ratio between diffusion/absorbtion/reflection change from one room to another function of geometry, topology acoustic content and dimensions and time and timing and this ratio must be adapted to your ears..
I just go on ASR and read a discussion between a designer speaking about the non linear nature of the ears then he adressed that by the way he used second and third harmonics in his design , and ignorant and arrogant people attacked him immediately because as yourself they think that the ears process sound linearly ... It is incredible to be so ignorant about hearing theory and pretend to be a specialist...Their ears only like NO DISTORTION it seems ... very comical... the psycho-acoustic of their ears is different from us ordinary mortals...they have "golden ears" affected by distortion negatively... Us the great majority of human kind we are affected positively if the design is good... it was comical to read...
The soundfield we listen to for you come from gear with no distortion at all in a room with preferably no ACOUSTIC installation .... It is incredible for me it reflect ignorance about the psycho-acoustic basics, the soundfield is created mainly by the speakers/controlled Room/ ears acoustic TRINITY...And amplifier designer know that the ears listen non linearly then some harmonics matter more than others.. Consult non linear in wikipedia to guess why...
You are completely deluded by the gear design being so called "transparent" with no distortion, hypnotized by a set of linear measures who masked your complete ignorance of what human ears hears and how it decode it non linearly, meaning distortion at some levels are positive reinforcement at other level negative... And the fact that the ears live in a time dependant domain KILL all your pretense to reduce what we hear ONLY AND MAINLY to linear set of Fourier measures on the electronic chips...We need room acoustic too... Or a Choueri dac filtering system based on our personal ears filters measured to eliminate the room acoustic problem ... Guess why Choueri measure EACH PAIR OF EARS ?
i prefer Audiogon... Even if ASR is informative because all participants are not arrogant as many there ...
By the way:
Did i invent the ears non linearity working to win an argument ?
Did i invent the crucial observations about natural sounds qualities from ecological theory of hearings to complement Foourier theory of hearings and the advantage of this ecological theory suggesting different set of experiments in research about hearing impairment for example ?
Did i invent the concept that the laws of acoustic being the same UNIVERSALLY ; in Great Hall, audio studio, living room and small dedicated acoustic room, their APPLICATION differ completely ? They are specialized acoustic research field...Guess why ?
Did i invent that the way the ears process sound in his time dependant way had an impact on what we call "musical qualities" especially if by ignorance we reduce them to some narrow set of measures on some piece of gear ?
Did i invent the concept that there is only one center and one focus for audio design and audio experience : acoustic and psycho-acoustic, not ONLY AND MAINLY the gear market of those who measure it as you, or those who design it ( with wise level of distortion for the benefit of our hearings) ?
I invent nothing of that , they are facts...
Some people want to make it their life project to screw around with their room acoustics. That is not me. I have function and aesthetic needs that they do not have.
Claiming that people should go and absorb reflections as you claimed is simply wrong advice for huge swath of audiophiles. It is misinformation that leads to people agonizing the sound of their room, wasting a ton of money and often arrive at too dead of the room.