I have a friend who has taken much time to treat his listening room, which also doubles as a home recording studio. After all his research and DIY building of bass traps, diffusers and other contraptions, he's come to the conclusion his room is too dead for music listening. He likes it for live recording though.
I agree with him, but the problem is not evenly distributed over the acoustic spectrum. This is where the real science and art comes in for treating a room. One would like it to have a consistent acoustic characteristic. A lively room may be enjoyable if the reflected sound is controlled. I think the problem with rooms that aren't obviously too live is that they are still "too live" at some frequencies and "too dead" at others.
As I said in the earlier thread, I've experienced an anechoic chamber, and in my opinion, it is not suitable for music reproduction. It is a very, very alien environment for listening. One does hear one's heartbeat, blood rushing through one's head etc. Even one's own breathing is a distraction. Sounds from other locations are muted. Even if one decided one liked this reproduced audio quality, the perceived efficiency of one's speakers would be substantially lower than in a conventional room. I don't know about bass reinforcement, the anechoic chamber at the McIntosh plant wasn't large enough for deep bass evaluation, but there was no reinforcement of mid-bass in the chamber I was in.
The closest one can get to experiencing this kind of "dead sound" (like an anechoic chamber) would be to take the audio reproduction system outdoors to an open area with no close surfaces to reflect the sound. At any distance beyond five feet or so, one gets sound level losses that degrade the quality of reproduced music. That's why outdoor sound reinforcement systems are designed the way they are, to focus the sound toward the listeners. This is often derided for audiophile reproduction, but then, a good outdoor speaker system will be overkill in a normal room.
