The best I can tell, you and Amir believe that Mitch's approach to room reflections is "old school" and that modern acoustic science demonstrates that room reflections are subjectively preferred in listener evaluations. Therefore, the proper recommendation for rooms should be to use very few room treatments and utilize speakers with excellent polar response.
You have misread. It's the opposite. Studiophiles tend to speak in absolutes, even when all the evidence points the other way. I don't know, or pretend to know, what you will prefer. I can only say, that the science suggests, if you are in the majority, you will not prefer studiophile iso-ward "treatments" recommendations for "accurate" reproduction. Under non-sighted conditions, i.e, trust ears only. You may, but that would put you in the statistical minority.
I can say that
I prefer (sighted) normally furnished/reflective etc living rooms for acoustic reproduction environments.
As such, I do recommend as you say, 'fixing" at the source, i.e., utilize speakers with excellent polar response (among other things) and that we can, to a large extent, listen "through" the normal room.
I make no claim this is "accurate to the recording" or any such studiophile belief.
It is simply what I prefer..and statistically, most other listeners.
How you could have read all my posts including the HTS linked thread and not discerned this distinction...
So assuming you believe Mitch's listening space fits well with modern acoustic science, what is your complaint about Mitch's setup?
I give up, what is my complaint abut Mitch's setup???
I take exception to the "accuracy" claims, misunderstanding of impulses, time domain, etc, etc. measurements electrically vs acoustically, everything having "sonic" signature, etc, etc...but his setup?? Can you quote?
Did you read the HTS thread past my linked post?
So has Mitch not demonstrated that he's accomplished that goal?
He has demonstrated EQing his system to his preference, then conflated this with some imagined "accuracy to the recording", wavering between measured "accuracy" and perceptual "accuracy", without any proof of correlation.
From an outsider, it looks like you guys are arguing over the unimportant stuff and ignoring the similarities in your approaches to accurate reproduction.
Sorry Michael, I don't speak in such terms. I'm no studiophile.
If you want to imagine your EQ'd, "time aligned", etc, system is "accurate" to an arbitrary stereo media construct, or some imagined "intent", by all means do so.
Enjoy!
cheers,
AJ