"Lateralisation type stuff?" This is what you read into I what I was saying? If so, the plot is completely lost. So let me make sure it is clear.It's not uncommon when these technical arguments go over audiophiles heads, like Fitz, that they side with the "personality" they can best relate to.
For example there is no way for Fitz to understand the conflict here:
The lateralisation type stuff is obviously insurmountable for the casual reader as well.
No problem really, this is all just discussion.
Above transition frequencies measurements of room acoustics can lie and lie big time. We have two ears and a brain that interprets a completely different picture than than what you see in a graph from a single microphone. You must, must incorporate science of psychoacoustics in analysis of what is going on in higher frequencies. And that science relies on listening tests. See this article for a taste of it: http://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/perceptual-effects-of-room-reflections.13/
I showed in my post one example of changing the displayed frequency response to better match how we hear. You do not want to "fix" problems that are not there. There are people who fixate on these graphs then a year or two later wake up and realized they have a prettier one but worse sound.
So before saying there is a problem to be fixed, you need to demonstrate that it is indeed a problem in the manner you envision. Mind you, I am not saying there is no problem. I am just saying you can't keep talking about this topic by ignoring psychoacoustics.
Bottom line, I don't think you are understanding my answers to you so to declare someone else confused seems quite wrong.