There are so many things wrong with this article... it's in the weeds in the first sentence.
This article is meant mainly as a rebuttal to those who believe that early reflections enhance sound quality in a typical home-sized listening room. (emphasis added)
Belief has no place in science.
You are free to accept or reject a researcher's results and conclusions, no one is asking you to believe anything. However if you choose to reject their results, you can only do so by presenting contrary data, or an alternate analysis supporting a different conclusion. I taught Astronomy at a local Christian college, which had its fair share of young-earth Creationists. There is no data supporting Creationist theories, so we had a short discussion.
I bring up Creationism because this piece shares a lot with Creationist publications. First, you trivialize the reality of what you're discussing, replace it with your preferred fabrication, then use a bunch of specious arguments to support the fabrication. Anything can be proven beyond reasonable doubt... if the reader's gullible.
One proponent of early reflections is loudspeaker expert Dr. Floyd Toole, whose latest book "Sound Reproduction" has been deservedly well received....
Having trivialized the research, you now trivialize the researcher.
Dr. Toole is an audio researcher. Calling him a loudspeaker expert ignores decades of his career. "His book" is neither "his" nor a "book" in the conventional sense. Most books with 17 pages of references are called "text books" and used for teaching... which is what this work does. And like most text books, the unique content is sparse. Toole is describing the research of others for the most part; only 17 of the references list him in the authors. This work is a synthesis of a lifetime of research, far more than a "book."
Shall I continue with the second paragraph? No, there are bigger issues with this piece.
Let's compare some rooms. Your room is sub-optimal; you have too many surfaces, and an odd number to boot. The arched ceiling is the problem, and your only option is to heavily treat to get rid of the odd room reflections. No one would intentionally start here, and those who have started with non-parallel walls had to fix that first, before they could get good sound.
Floyd's room is a far superior layout. The only skewed wall (ceiling) is tilted slightly, beneficial for smearing room modes. An opening to the rest of the house smears modes as well, splitting that wall's modal resonance energy into 1/2 wave and 1/4 wave resonaces.The room is well lit, with large windows (rear wall is in his book), so you know it's above grade and likely will leak bass. Those windows have draperies, and the floor is carpeted, so there's a lot more absorption than Ethan notes. In fact, that looks like leather upholstered furniture, so you know the room has enough high-end absorption (or he'd have cloth upholstery). He has passive acoustic features you don't point out (bookcase, lower front wall) and I've read where he used Sound Field Management to set up the room's bass response, using 4 subwoofers, sized, placed and phased for optimum listening area response. Given he's a cutting edge researcher at a large firm, I expect his room set-up was far beyond what professionals were capable of at that time.
So while it's puzzling that Dr. Toole's own listening room doesn't meet even minimal home theater standards, it seems relevant in assessing what he considers good sound.
Again, if the research is unassailable, tear down the researcher. Your statement is false on the initial presumption that Dr. Toole's room doesn't meet minimal standards, and your personal methods are revealed when you then extend this falsehood to criticism of his professional judgment. ALL BY EYE ALONE!!! Sight bias would appear to be your SOP, and as to your rampant confirmation bias...
The Facebook quote seals it; Facebook is your authority!
Facebook? And you want to be taken seriously????
Next you tear into Audioholics room.
... the Audioholics home theater demo room below is another example of an inferior listening environment built by someone who advises others what to do.
THIS IS A PROFESSIONALLY TREATED ROOM. You failed to recognize professional acoustic treatments. Audioholics did exactly as they advise. At least the acoustic impact of their room's construction challenges are easily addressed.
There's one person you didn't mention, a well known audio professional whose internet presence includes several residences, all of which feature optimized loudspeaker installations.
Linkwitz' site on surround sound shows a full set of room photos. I see a lot more in common with Dr. Toole's room that with yours. Walls are square, ceiling's flat, lots of glass and book cases... given his work with dipole speakers, one would not expect a reflection-free environment, and all he's trying to do is replicate the live listening experience in his home!
From a technical standpoint, your credentials pale against actual industry researchers, so what makes you think they're the ones that are wrong?
From a discourse standpoint, I expect disreputable behavior from politicians... shysters among the many reputable lawyers... and snake oil salesmen. You are what you do, and you should be ashamed of this piece. That you are not, tells the tale.
Have fun,
Frank