[Ethan Winer]

avaserfi wrote:

You are right there would be comb filtering created as a side effect of this methodology

Exactly, and I can't imagine how anyone could consider such a terribly skewed response to be a desirable artifact. Worse, the comb filtering response changes dramatically over tiny distances, like an inch or less. This is why untreated early reflections are so damaging to imaging. You move your head just a little and everything changes. Versus how imaging should be where everything is locked into place, and comes from the same location no matter where you are in the room.

in Floyd Toole's research it was shown that despite this comb filtering the slightly delayed reflections were still found to be more enjoyable than use of an unreflective surface. All relevant articles are cited below.

I've read Floyd's position and I respectfully disagree. I don't know of one other expert who agrees that early reflections in a typical domestic size room are desirable. And by expert I include every professional designer of recording studios I know of.

Do you by any chance have the publication listing so I can read it?

Here ya go:

http://www.realtraps.com/rfz.htm

Figures 1 and 2 tell all. This is in addition to many listening tests.

Do me a favor? Please describe your own listening room and its acoustic treatment. If you can post a photo of the front of the room too all the better. Thanks.

--Ethan