Honestly I don't have any point of view. I'm here to uderstand my point of view, how in fact is honestly. Because, really I don't know
Isn't this a contradiction? You have preference on using different room (thus, you confirm you are shaping in some ways) but you confirm you are not editing the tone control/artist intentions?
If you got a difference between two rooms, you are aware you are listening two different stuff. Thus, there's a changing in content. Else you will hear the same.
Tone control is the most evident, that's why I talked about timbre.
Sorry if I misconstrued your Devil's advocate statement earlier.
If you are referring to the smooth, downward sloping target curve (around 1dB per octave). as shaping, I do not see it that way. As I explained, it is an adjustment for known characteristics of omni mic measurements in reflective rooms based on good science in order to bring response to perceptually flat. Think for a moment about the irregular shape of the human ears, each on one side of the head, canted forward with a pinna and other irregularities. They do not respond to sound frequency in perfect omnidirectional fashion as a result, somewhat masking sound from some directions, unlike an omni mike which does "hear" all energy from all directions largely equally.
Using a truly flat target curve results in perceptually too much energy, most noticeably in the highs. It does not sound flat to our ears. Toole explains this quite well in his latest book, and numerous other researchers confirm this. Measurably flat response is usually a good thing, but not when measuring a room with an omni mic for the purpose of achieving perceptably flat response.
And, by the way, for ultimate refinement, the target curve may require adjustment for room cubic volume, with slightly more HF attenuation as room size increases due to more HF pickup from increased reflected energy as heard by the mic, but not as much by the ears. Typically, though, this is not a major concern, until we get to very large rooms, like auditoria, and the effect is totally accepted by acousticians and sound engineers.
So, the concept is informed by very thorough psychoacoustic experiments, and my own anecdotal comparative testing gives me all the confirmation I need. But, by all means, check out the research.
The key questions are, ideally, do we want measurably flat response at the speakers regardless of how the room may alter that response at our ears? Or, do we just need perceptably flat at our ears? Which will deliver a more faithful rendering to what was heard in the mastering studio? And, is there any value at all to psychoacoustic experiments?
Yes, life would be nice and simple if we could just install equipment that was all measurably flat in frequency, including the speakers. But, our ears and complex room acoustics are very much an integral part of the playback system, affecting what enters our ear canals and what we hear perceptually. And, the effects of the room are measurable, though they require informed adjustment to deal with the fact that the measurement equipment - the omni mic - does not respond exactly the way that our ears do.
Tone controls are someting else entirely, though they might, typically on a broadband basis, achieve some limited aspects of room correction that helps ameliorate some, limited negative room effects. But, typically, tone control adjustments are not mic calibrated, unlike competent EQ systems. EQ can also counteract narrow band bass modal issues, unlike broadband tone controls.
Is this helpful?