Unlike many on here, classical and symphonic music are not my go to genres, but I believe that musical genres are irrelevant to this discussion as musicality and resolution are agnostic to the type of music being reproduced by an audio system in a home environment. My wife and I share a love of 80’s new wave and post punk music. This past weekend, after I had tuned my Test Bed system  to what I believe is a nice balance between musicality and resolution, I recorded a couple of audio recordings of two of our favorite bands from that time period, please pardon the swaying but it was actually from the involuntary movement of my foot tapping to the music, as you can tell, I clearly liked what I was hearing:

Just Like Heaven

Sheila Take a Bow

What you want is to maximize direct sound. Reverberation is a key component of recording, as a matter of fact it is typically added to create a sense of space or room to studio recordings, but it should not be something you la Gould look for the room to add, it should come from the recordings. Don’t confuse ambience information with reverb.

I am sorry but what you wrote is misleading...

Reverberation is linked to timing control...

It is not a negative parameters nor an always positive one, it is a parameters which need to be under control but is there always dominating and confusing our perception  or not dominating under control and helping our perception ...

It is the same thing for direct sound. It is not always a positive parameter like you suggested...Too much direct sound is negative on timbre perception,spatial cues, listener fatigue, unnatural listening conditions, and if indirect sound comes too quick with direct sound wave : interferences... Etc 

Direct sound /indirect sound must ratio must be controlled... It is associated with  Sound pressure levels of the speakers and the room  and  time ratio controls  which is needed here , not a qualification suggesting direct sound is good and reverberation is bad .

In a word, direct sound, early reflection, reverberations are three factors and ratios  necessary and which must be put under control..."In an excellent sounding listening environment the correct balance of direct sound, early reflections and reverb will contribute to an favourable listening experience"

In a word what we want is optimize the ratio between direct sound and indirect one not increase direct sound "per se"...

Spatial Hearing with Incongruent Visual or Auditory Room Cues

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5112595/

«Here we tested whether a mismatch between playback and recording room reduces perceived distance, azimuthal direction, and compactness of the auditory image, and whether this is mostly due to incongruent auditory cues or to expectations generated from the visual impression of the room. Perceived distance ratings decreased significantly when collected in a more reverberant environment than the recording room, whereas azimuthal direction and compactness remained room independent. Moreover, modifying visual room-related cues had no effect on these three attributes, while incongruent auditory room-related cues between the recording and playback room did affect distance perception. Consequently, the external perception of virtual sounds depends on the degree of congruency between the acoustical features of the environment and the stimuli.

The impression of auditory space occurs on the basis of auditory cues provided by sound waves arriving at each ear, directly from the source, and after bouncing off the surfaces of the environment¹,². Time and intensity differences between the two ear signals determine, in most cases, the azimuthal localization of sounds³,⁴, whereas the perception of elevation is mainly associated with the direction-dependent filtering effect of the outer ear⁵. Distance perception has been shown to rely mostly on intensity, the ratio between the energy of direct and reflected sound, and the frequency content of the signal»

Then it is not true that the spatial cues comes mainly from the direct sound of your speakers mostly, and only  from the recording , they must be translated, and they are, by the room  acoustic signature  for the listener ears/brain...

Out of curiosity, how much of the room do you hear in the audio recordings of my systems?

Your question here made no sense...

Your recording of your speakers capture also the sound of your room ...

It is the case in all  speakers/room recording i ever listened to on youtube...

The speed of sound in a few meters room cross your mic how many times ? We then are able to hear the direct sound/indirect sound  time ratio from your recording as the specific quality of your system/room...

everyone runs to the forums to tell everyone else how great the new component they bought sounds, show beautiful pictures, and expressed how wonderful their systems sounds because it is easy to put it in words and writing about it, but when you ask the proud audiophiles to share some audio recordings of their wonderful systems to showcase what they have accomplished they will give you a ton of excuses why they cannot or will not. The audio recordings are what they are and there is nowhere to hide.

Op, you’re not the first one — and definitely won’t be the last — to hit a wall on this. Several years ago, there was a big shot on this forum claiming he managed to EQ his system flat down to 20 Hz in-room. I mean perfectly flat, with no roll-off past the 20 Hz mark and beyond. He even showed an SPL diagram. But how could that be physically possible with the moderate speaker system he owned? So I asked him to record and demonstrate the sound. Nope — with all kinds of refusal, denial, and defense, he literally told people to “just take his word for it.”

I understand where this kind of resistance comes from — concerns about recording fidelity, YouTube compression, playback through other speakers, and so on. But in my view, none of these should be real obstacles as long as one can produce a high-fidelity recording.

The key is the quality of the recording. If you use a cellphone, you’ll lose spatial cue information. A simple stereo mic (like XY or ORTF) can capture left and right imaging, but to preserve true spatial cues — including depth and envelopment — you need an array-based microphone setup and technique. To avoid all that hassle and expense while still removing the room from the equation and capturing spatial cue information, recording directly from the DAC output is probably the most practical and economical solution.

So, to summarize and offer some hope to passionate individuals like yourself:
I suggest recording directly from your DAC using a portable recorder such as the Tascam Portacapture X8, which supports up to 32-bit/192 kHz resolution — plenty for high-quality work. You don’t need a separate audio interface or computer, nor do you need to process the recording in a DAW. When posting on YouTube, you can also provide downloadable high-resolution WAV files for those who crave lossless evaluation material.

It may sound like a lot of effort — and it is — but that’s what it takes to earn genuine appreciation from fellow forum members.  And in the end how much you gain in return, nothing but the sense of achieving something that you feel passionate about.

Carlos , Skhong78 I think , Agon member did have a YouTube of his system and MikeLavigne system playing.Their system are well balanced.Expensive though. I enjoy listening those system even on my phone only.