Be careful or folks just MAY discover that more early (as well as late!) specular energy is effectively scavenged in the RFZ (where Little if any absolution was used, except possibly as a 'blanket' applied around the in wall mounted speakers, solely for diffraction control) so that it could be effectively returned to the listening position than in any similar 'Harmon room'.
...We wouldn't want to destroy any erroneous assumptions!
You know what is so frustrating about all of this debate over early reflections?
Its that it need not exist!
Even the vaunted Toole acknowledges the use of the 'new tools' to measurement identify anomalous high gain early reflections, allowing us to surgically treat ONLY the problematic indirect source (with either redirection, absorption or diffusion*), thus allowing ALL of the remaining early indirect energy to remain. Not only that, the measurements allow us to evaluate the qualitative characteristics of the early remaining early indirect energy for its degree of sparseness, as well as to evaluate the effectiveness of the treatment in order to determine additional options such as the use of diffusion to further enhance the spatial and temporal quality of the early arriving indirect energy, and/or to use the information in allowing us to explore possible options to control the high gin early arriving indirect energy - as depending upon the geometry of the room and the gain of the high gain indirect energy, alternative to absorption allowing us to reduce the gain while also spatially and temporally diffusing the energy. But to do so without the aid of analytic tools is difficult at best.
So its amazing the solutions and options that a little bit of information can enable.
And amazingly enough, where is the big 'dilemma' here?
Or are the folks here still confused over the acceptability of the non-destructive 'non-high gain' indirect energy????
And if one can, on occasion, utilize a bit of additional information provided by measurements to expand our options, such as may occur if we can use diffusion as an alternative tool to sufficiently reduce the gain of such destructive energy, and thus 'convert' such energy to the realm of constructive behavior, that's all for the better!
But one cannot simply say: "Oh, just swap out the absorption for diffusion" Or "Do this" or "Do that" without more site specific information.
So yeah, its easy to make general statements of potential solutions, but the result will generally be a few turning conditional recommendations into general solutions which then assume a life of their own independent of the specific conditional variables that must be determined and the results verified!
I mean, look at what happened to the 38% RULE that isn't a "rule" at all!
* Note that all are viable options, despite at least one of them not being a simple option, meaning that the actual characteristics must be examined in detail and the 'solution' examined to insure that the results actually solve the problem rather than simply shifting the nature of the problem about.