It all sounds so good on paper. If (and it is not so) the difference is so profound, why doesn't anybody ever share an in-room recording of a before and after? It can't be that difficult.
But as I've stated before, one can either deal with the cause or the effects. When dealing with the effects, the resources are most always many times more than dealing with the cause and the results of dealing with the effects are most always a pittance when compared to the results of dealing with the cause.
The causes are a playback system's deficiencies and an inferior attempt to acoustically couple the speakers/subs to its associated room by superior placement and tuning. And the effects are acoustic treatments including bass traps.
Dealing with the effects can never substitute for neglect at the playback system nor neglect at the speaker/room interaction. If that is true, then assuming one already posssesses a reasonable-enough listening room, then it stands to reason that aftermarket acoustic treatments can only serve as a band-aid to make a less than tolerable listening session sound a bit more tolerable.
Wouldn't it seem all too easy to prove me wrong by somebody providing an inferior sounding before recording and a superior musical sounding after recording?
Below is an example that I think can easily substantiate my claims as I have a bit of a smaller room without any aftermarket acoustic treatments including bass traps, etc. All of my resources are spent at the two causes mentioned above and near as I can tell, the volumes of the live performance's ambient info (that most will never hear because they'e neglected their systems) has completely overshadowed perhaps every last room acoustic anomaly which we all have anyway. IOW, my listening room is all but gone supposedly because I focused on the cause rather than the effects of the cause. As a result, my listening perspective is somewhere/anywhere in the recording hall, even if it's by the restrooms. But my listening room is gone.