[1] Nope on both. Comb filtering exists in ALL rooms and in ALL circumstances! There is nothing to figure out.
[2] Remember, room measurements are done with one microphone. Our hearing system is comprised of two ears and a brain. A very different matter.
[2a] Lay intuition should not substituted for audio science in this regard.
[3] Suggesting? No, I am telling that it is standard practice for acousticians to know what they want to do with lateral reflections by mere fact of looking at a room. And those of us who follow the latest science do the same.
[3a] Without this, we would have no ability to ever design a room from scratch!
[3b] What do you think we do?
[4] So what do you think the "ascertaining" process would involve if it is not measurements???
[5] Flutter echo is usually demonstrated by someone clapping in a room and hearing the "zing" and declaring to the customer that the room needs to be treated.
1. Of course there is! How severe is the comb filtering, the interaction of comb filtering and whether, with a particular room, there is a preference for reducing or removing it!
2. Our hearing system is comprised of two ears and a brain, in this case, the two ears and brain of the OP, of which you know little but have assumed everything!
2a. Better still is to have the experience and understanding of how to interpret and apply that audio science, because misunderstood/misrepresented audio science is just as bad as lay intuition!
3. Except you're NOT doing the same, you haven't looked at the room, have you?!!! You know nothing about the room, except for a roughly drawn floor plan. You don't know the height/volume of the room, the materials the floors, walls or ceiling are made from, you don't know the speakers, their dispersion/axis response, etc., and you know nothing at all of the preferences of the OP.
3a. We're not talking about designing and building a room from scratch, the OP's room is already designed and built! When designing and building a "room from scratch" we actually specify the exact dimensions and the materials used for construction. We therefore have a fair idea of the absorption and reflective characteristics the room will have, which is NOT the case here! Again, you have provided absolute advice WITHOUT ascertaining hardly any of the salient variables!
3b. I don't need to think, assume or rely on my misinterpretations of books on acoustics and scientific papers to guess how it's done, because I've actually done it! I've had acoustician designed and built studio control rooms of my own, 3 of them over the last 27 years (one of which was a Dolby approved room) and I've been involved in several other builds and refurbishments.
4. One could try listening ... you know, using those two ears and a brain! In practise, we should do both, take measurements and listen.
5. And where have I stated to do that? That's just misdirection because presumably your answer to my question is "no", you don't have any papers demonstrating flutter echoes are preferable to a room treated to remove them.
[1] Let's have a list of those accoustions please. I have given you not only names but specific links to writings of those people. Can you do the same?
[1a] It is all "I don't think so" or "we don't know." And dismissive of any research put forward. Sounds like how subjectivists act....
1. What do you mean "can I do the same"? Could I use appeals to authority and then misrepresent their views, their books and scientific papers, the same as you? Sure but I choose not to, in fact, I strongly object to it!
1a. I'm not dismissive of any research put forward, just of your misinterpretation and/or misrepresentation of it!! Which sounds like how shills, marketers and some subjectivists act ...
Acoustics is a complex field, room acoustics are chaotic systems, on top of that we have pyscho-acoustics, which is also complex and only partially understood, on top of that we are dealing with art and preferences, not only science and lastly we have relatively little research of small/consumer rooms to start with! It's very rare that a piece of research proves something categorically, it's usually a case of interpreting "a level of confidence" in the research, of how well it correlates with other research, of how it correlates to professional practice and if it adds up to an interpretation of that science that professional practice should be changed. Even in fields where we have a great deal of published research, it's entirely easy to incorrectly interpret and misrepresent that research, a problem which is currently very much in focus in some of today's societies! It's possible to demonstrate almost anything if we cherry-pick published research and even more so if we misrepresent it; smoking isn't bad for you, there's no climate change and lead in petrol isn't harmful, just to name a few of the most famous examples. For these reasons, in this forum, I prefer to discuss sound in terms of facts (or where appropriate, opinions) as interpreted/informed by my professional experience of the body of science and it's practical/professional/commercial application, as I believe that can provide a better (more usable) understanding, to those who often know relatively little about the specifics of the subject area, rather than quote individual papers/pieces of research. In this case, there are a number of variables at play and we do not know what most of them are. Furthermore, room acoustics is not a simple problem and there is no absolute or single right way to treat a room, even when we know more of the variables than we do in this case. And, you misrepresenting books on acoustics, their authors and other scientific papers does NOT demonstrate otherwise!
G