The whole ideal is that the room affects the SQ and going unprocessed is not the best thing IMO. Even studios process the SQ to achieve the intended goal in commercial playback. I don't use the pure or direct function. The main difference is the volume which can be adjusted.
Most studios that I'm aware of start with the architecture of the room and then use EQ to further flatten the room, but I'm not aware of any that use digital processing to try to eliminate reflections as the receivers do. Most large studios will have areas of the room that are live (for let's say recording acoustic guitar) and areas of the room that are dead. In many cases, the instruments are recorded with a direct box in which case the acoustics are more so the musicians can hear each other than for the recording.
For many years, it was very popular to design the control/mixing rooms with "LEDE" (Live End, Dead End) where the front of the room where the monitors reside is dead and the rear wall is live. The idea is to create a time gap between the first signal reaching the ears and the first reflection. Not all rooms are LEDE today, but many are. Obviously, this wouldn't lend itself to mutlichannel mixing.
Personally, I frequently think that what MCACC and other such systems do is a cure that's worse than the disease. My old non-EQd 2-channel stereo system sounded far better for music than my receiver with MCACC.