Amir, I hate to say this but you are so far behind the curve I don't even know where to begin. You need to read my
Bass Trap Myths article and also my
Final Dirac Report including the two earlier test articles linked within. So I'll hit the high points here, and you can read my articles and learn from them.
I read through them just now. Sadly I don't see a single reference to any research to back them. I don't know how you believe in audio science in one domain, but not acoustics. Anyway, here are some points:
1. In your EQ test of Dirac,
you don't report on listening to music. Why? You should have had a loved one test you blind. This is a huge benefit of EQ systems: you can turn their effect on and off almost instantly allowing quick comparisons. No way can you do that with a dozen absorbers you have thrown around the room. By the time you install all of that, you likely will step back and admire your handiwork with the memory of how things sounded before long gone.
I have listened to Dirac especially when limited to below transition frequencies and it is excellent. It not only fixes bass problems but removal of time domain ringing allows much better clarity above bass frequencies.
Equalization of levels and delay between channels has immediate benefit in soundstage as well. Again, this is something you can't fix with acoustic products.
2. Your main beef with Dirac or other EQ systems is that their effect varies with position. Well duh! They do. And there are other tools to deal with that (multiple subs).
What you miss unfortunately in your analysis is psychoacoustics.
You can't trust your single microphone as a replacement for two microphones and a brain interpreting what it hears differentially between the two ears. This is why I post the research in the original article. You continue to trust faulty, single microphone measurements above transition frequencies. This is is just wrong.
While in electronics we have high trust in measurements, in acoustic domain, measurements can easily lie to you and lie big time. As wavelengths get smaller than the distance between your two ears, you cannot trust a single microphone measurements.
You want proof?
Move your head 2 inches while listening to music. Do you hear a big change? Of course not. We all move our heads when listening to music without noticing a single thing changing. Yet you go on about how your measurements change when you move the microphone 2 inches! That should have been proof enough that your analysis is incorrect. You are trusting your lay intuition about acoustics rather than understanding the science of acoustics. Again, this is covered in the OP article.
This is why I asked in #1 if you used your ears to evaluate. Until you do, your reference-free articles don't have much value I am afraid.
3.
If you read the OP and pay attention to ERB section, you will see why worrying about many of the things that worry your eyes in graphs, are not a worry for your ears. This is why it doesn't matter if you fix some trough if it is narrower than your ERB.
4. You fill a room with countless absorbers and then report this graph:
The graph in blue still sucks, pun intended.
The notes around 40 Hz will be a ton louder than the note at 60 Hz. That differential is far bigger than the reduction in peak energy at 40 Hz that you achieved with so many products you hung on the walls.
For this reason, even if one believes in your school of thought of putting tons of absorbers in a room, you still need EQ to fix the remaining (major) problems.
I don't want to write a whole book here. Dr. Toole has done so. I suggest reading his book. If you have an issue with what he says, go to the references, many of which are peer reviewed and high authoritative (not just from him but countless other researchers). If you disagree with those research efforts, then duplicate them with all the rigor of their testing and then report back. Until then you are just repeating myths in room acoustics which have been proven time and time to be wrong. We are not living in 1970s anymore. We know a ton about psychoacoustics of sound in rooms. Try to benefit from that research rather than posting the opposite.